From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:43 From: airjet@Alaska.NET Subject: Re: Is "Lights Out" FAA Reg? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: http://www.alaska.net/~airjet Dave Benjamin wrote: > >From observation, it would appear that the FAA (or A/C manufactures) > require dimming of cabin lights for take-off and landing. Is cabin > light dimming a requirement? And if it is, why? It is a requirement. It is done all the time as to become routine and not left up to the consideration of each individual. It is done for safety reasons, ie: if there were an incident it would not be like coming in from the sunlight to a movie theater. From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:44 From: "Jeffrey S. Aronsky" <4penpals@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: 2nd Officer on a 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services The only reason that 767's have only one first officer and a captain is to cut back on the crew and save the airlines some money. If you watched "Falling From the Sky! Flight 174", you may have heard that quote. Rory Aronsky From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:44 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 2nd Officer on a 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The only reason that 767's have only one first officer and a captain is >to cut back on the crew and save the airlines some money. Put another way, the reason to have a flight engineer on some 767s is solely to meet union contracts and provide employment, thus wasting money for the airlines which could otherwise be devoted to productive expenses. On some early 737 operations there was also an FE, riding jumpseat since there is no FE panel or other provision for a third working body. The nominal reason for this was that the union felt a third set of eyes was necessary for safety reasons. After a time, all involved agreed this was a waste and the FEs were probably so bored they would have been too dazed to contribute much anyway. They came up with contract terms which maintained the number of pilots, but found something useful for them to do. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:45 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Leading Edge fences 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 28 Sep 97 00:53:44 , howard@perth.dialix.com.au (Howard Jones) wrote: >an english aerodynamicist, dieter keusner(sp?) used something like this >nicknamed Keusner's Carrots (seriously) to squeeze and invigorate the airflow >to overcome a problem on an english jet. they may be doing more than just >housing the tracks. >(sorry to be vague, I read his book back in the 80's) Make that Kuechemann, Kuechemann Bodies and the Convair CV990 Coronado. For a photo, see NASA Ames Dryden Photo Server... Burkhard From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:45 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Leading Edge fences References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , howard@perth.dialix.com.au (Howard Jones) wrote: >k_ish (kenish@ix.netcom.com) wrote: >: rosevax wrote: >: > Regarding wing fences: >: > Do the rather wide "pontoons" (sorry, don't know the correct name) located >: > on the lower surface of the wings of A320s & 757s serve the same purpose? >: >: These are called "flap track fairings", and house the tracks and some of >: the drive mechanisms that the flaps slide on. Since they are on the >: trailing edge of the wing, I doubt they have much benefit in stopping >: spanwise airflow. > >an english aerodynamicist, dieter keusner(sp?) used something like this >nicknamed Keusner's Carrots (seriously) to squeeze and invigorate the airflow >to overcome a problem on an english jet. they may be doing more than just >housing the tracks. >(sorry to be vague, I read his book back in the 80's) Hmm. I think you're referring to "Kuechemann Carrots" (spelling?), which were also installed on the trailing edge of the Covair 990. They were installed to help with the area-rule distribution on the C990, which had a problem with wave drag. In an aircraft with a high mach cruise speed (like the C990 ~ .90), the wave drag (which is caused by compressibility of the air and the geometry of the vehicle) can build up to be unacceptable for fuel economy if the body is not shaped appropriately. The optimum wave-drag shape profile is a javelin-like body with a specific mathematical shape (actually, it looks more like two bullets placed back-to-back). The describing formula relates cross-sectional area to the longitudinal coordinate of the body. (If the body coordinates are x, y, z, with the longitudinal axis formed by x, the formula relates: Area in the y-z plane = f(x).) It turns out that you can get nearly the same wave drag performance out of an arbitrarily shaped body as long as you keep to a cross-sectional area of the fuselage and any appendages (wings, tails, etc.) similar to the optimum distribution. This is called the "area rule". In the C990's case, the total cross sectional area distribution through the body stations near the wing was insufficient to adhere to the area rule. The solution was to mount these "carrots" on the trailing edge, which made up for the deficit in total cross-sectional area - this was definitely a "tack-on" fix, and was not part of the original design. Other aircraft of the time period (such as the F102) had the reverse problem - the cross sectional area through the wing had more area than optimum, and thus required the famous "coke bottle" shaping of the fuselage to bring the cross-section area distribution back into line (the revised F102 became the F106). With regards to modern jets, the area rule distribution is taken into account in the design of the aircraft: while the B757's flap fairings are part of the overall cross-sectional distribution, they are not tack-on fixes like the original Kuechemann Carrots. ed (PS. The above is a hazy recollection of this subject from my undergraduate days. I invite corrections to the above.) >>>> 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 Oct 1 14:08:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:45 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Leading Edge fences References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Howard Jones wrote: > an english aerodynamicist, dieter keusner(sp?) used something like this > nicknamed Keusner's Carrots (seriously) to squeeze and invigorate the airflow > to overcome a problem on an english jet. they may be doing more than just > housing the tracks. Its Kuchemann, and he was actually a German who was brought to the UK after WWII and stayed on until he died in 1976. The Kuchemann Carrots were used on the Convair 990. He idea was to fill out the area distribution and reduce the wave drag. However, their skin friction drag balanced out the wave drag reduction and they ended up having no effect. Additionally, they were too far aft to carry fuel, so they never had anything in them. Dieter Kuchemann is generally regarded as one of the GREAT aerodynamicists, along with Ludwig Prandtl, R.T. Jones, Teddy Theodorsen, Theodore von Karman, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:45 From: wdockery@mindspring.com (Ragamuffin) Subject: Cabin Depressurization Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises In the movies and on TV, when there's a sudden cabin decompression from gunshot, explosion, etc., why does the plane become so unstable and dive? Is this just all "make believe" for the effect? Also, wouldn't cabin depressurization be a way that could be used during a hijacking situation to render the hijackers unconcious? The flight-deck crew would be on oxygen masks and could therefore regain control. Mind you the passengers would all become unconsious also, but I'd rather have that happen to me than to have the plane blow up or end up in some undesired location. -- just a thought... From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:46 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Andrew Cruickshank wrote: > A few years ago a flew BA from KUL to LHR and the pilot's > commentary over the PA stated cruise would be at 26,000 ft. > I though this a bit low and stowed it away for future > reference. > > Last week I did LHR to KUL with MAS and the pilot said > we would be at 29,000 ft initially until we were lighter. > > This raises the question - is the cruise level of a 747-400 > with full load of passengers and cargo limited until fuel > burn off occurs. > > Given that no specific climb was obvious (increase in > engine noise or change in cabin pressure) then this also > raises the question as to whether some of cruise-climb > phase is used as fuel burns off. At least in the case of the KUL-LHR flight, 26,000 ft was probably assigned by ATC. Indian ATC is particulary notorious for keeping airplanes at low altitudes in their airspace. The first flights out generally get the highest altitudes. The flight out of LHR was again probably limited by ATC rather than airplane performance. BA's 747-400s are capable of at least 31,000 ft initial altitude capability at maximum certified takeoff weights Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:46 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Andrew Cruickshank wrote: > is the cruise level of a 747-400 > with full load of passengers and cargo limited until fuel > burn off occurs. Yes. > Given that no specific climb was obvious (increase in > engine noise or change in cabin pressure) then this also > raises the question as to whether some of cruise-climb > phase is used as fuel burns off. On most flights I have been on, the step climb is very noticeable; usually 2000-4000 foot increments every few hours throughout the flight. The Airshow system, if present, makes it even more obvious. Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:46 From: k_ish Subject: Re: DC10 / MD11 Gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom john r. wrote: > I think a number of DC10s have been lost on catastrophic gear failures > on t/off, the Continental one for instance, when the captain was on > his last trip. IIRC, the CO accident at LAX was caused by an overrun after an aborted takeoff. The plane went through a concrete(?) wall and into a rental car parking area. I believe this is when the gear failed; hardly a design flaw in this particular instance. A friend showed me some of the parts from the aircraft in storage in a hangar at LAX. The postcrash fire was caused by the landing gear rupturing a fuel tank as it tore loose; CO was contending that this was a MD design flaw, and was saving the parts as evidence in any potential litigation. Last weekend, I saw a book that listed about 20,000 commercial aircraft accidents. I did note an AA DC-10 had a gear collapse during taxi at DFW with a full pax load. It was either N136AA or 139AA. The book implied the aircraft was written off; I'm not sure of this. It surprised me to see three AA DC-10s on the list; I was only aware of N110AA. Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:46 From: joan Subject: Phase III Engine Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SEEDNET InterNetNews News System What is the difference between phase II and phase III engine? Any answer will be highly appretiated. Vincent From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:47 From: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch (Dimitrios Tombros) Subject: Re: EMB-135 Launched References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Zurich In article , "Stefano P. Pagiola" writes: > I haven't seen this reported much, but last week EMBRAER officially > launched the 37-seat EMB-135 derivative of its 50-seat EMB-145 regional > jet. From the press release: What kind of markets (except corporate jet) could such an aircraft serve? I would imagine it is too uneconomical compared to a turbo- prop. -- Dimitrios Tombros Database Technology Research Group e-mail: tombros@ifi.unizh.ch Computer Science Department http://www.ifi.unizh.ch/staff/tombros.html University of Zurich phone: +411 635 6751 fax: +411 635 6809 From kls Wed Oct 1 14:08:47 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 14:08:47 From: Ed Mellinger Subject: Jet vs Prop (eg EMB135) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MBARI Reply-To: meed@mbari.org Why has it been so hard for jets to economically penetrate the small end (20-50 seats) of the market? I've heard it said they are efficient when cruising fast and high, but thirsty and expensive everywhere else... which is where regionals spend most of their time... but why, technically, thermodynamically, is this so? And why are turboprops better in this regime? just curious, Ed Mellinger From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:48 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: 747 hump References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) writes: >Right, except the fuselage lift is one order of magnitude lower than the >wings lift. Your reply makes it sound like that lift is unimportant... but it is actually extremely important from a design point of view. First of all, a 10% reduction in lift would make a large dent in payload (>20%). Second, the fuselage lift is virtually stall-proof and needs to be considered in recovery from unusual attitudes (particularly on something like an MD80 with all that fuselage in front of the CG). From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:48 From: BobB Subject: Re: 747 hump References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Occasional Reply-To: bblondel@3rddoor.com Mark Drela wrote: > A straight fuselage will naturally carry some lift since the pressure > difference above/below the wing gets partially carried over onto the > fuselage. The wing's pressure field cannot stop dead at the wing root! > > The lift carried by the fuselage is considerable. For a mid wing > it is comparable to the lift you would have on a carry-through > section of the wing. For this reason, the reference wing area > defined for a jetliner often includes this imaginary "interior" > wing area. Could I ask the readers to think back - far back in aviation history? Giuseppe Bellanca hated to see a fuselage wasting its time just holding the tailfeathers on. Practically every one of his designs had an airfoil section to make some contribution to lift. It might be interesting to take some models and fly them in a wind tunnel to see how much of a contribution his designs actually contributed. -= bob =- From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:48 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 28 Sep 97 00:53:39 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) caused to appear as if it was written: >An earlier rumor of a catastrophic failure of a Rolls-Royce Trent 800 >engine during an Emirates' B777 take-off was confirmed by this week's >Flight International (9/24-9/30). [ Snip ] > However, the Trent 800 seems to have experienced many >more woes than either the PW4000 or GE90. (Were I a Delta executive, I >certainly would seriously reconsider the B777 engine selection before >excercising Delta's B777 options.) Flight Internation 10 - 16 September states: "Pratt & Whitney says that an upgrade effort to counter reliability problems on more than 1,600 PW4000 engines is showing results, with a 'dramatic reduction' to in-flight shutdown rates. The upgrade effort, known as the Number 1 reliability programme, involves around 100 service bulletins. More than 70 PW4000 customer airlines have incorporated around 80% of the improvements into their engines, says P&W. It adds that the 12-month rolling average in-flight shutdown rate for the fleet has dropped from 0.014% in January 1997 to 0.008% in August as a results". Specific to the 777, "P&W confirms that it is replacing the low-pressure turbine (LPT) stage-five vanes from PW4077 engines in service on Boeing 777. 'We saw this in validation tests for ETOPS, and we saw some areas in the LPT vane that needed improvement." So perhaps Delta's selection of RR is as good as P&W? Particularly since the Trent's problems seem to be self-identifying (i.e. oil temperature climbs through the roof), while some of the PW4000 problems involved modifications to the leading edges of the fans due to cracking after foreign object impacts... Malc. From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:48 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Is "Lights Out" FAA Reg? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Dave Benjamin wrote: > >From observation, it would appear that the FAA (or A/C manufactures) > require dimming of cabin lights for take-off and landing. Is cabin > light dimming a requirement? And if it is, why? I am not sure about regulatory requirements, but some possible reasons: - Minimize electrical load on takeoff. - Reduce chance of sparking / ignition in case of a takeoff or landing accident - Increase passenger visibility outside to help evacuate the aircraft. BTW, I have also noticed that TW and UA ask passengers to leave their window shades up for takeoff and landing. Maybe more of the visibility outside issue. Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: user340037@aol.com (User340037) Subject: Re: Is "Lights Out" FAA Reg? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Airlines dim cabin lights during take-off & landing so that in case the cockpit door opens inadvertently during these crucial moments of the flight the concentration of the pilots is not disturbed due to sudden intrusion of bright light from the cabin.This could also affect the visibility of the instrument panel. From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Is "Lights Out" FAA Reg? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca airjet@Alaska.NET wrote: > > Dave Benjamin wrote: > > >From observation, it would appear that the FAA (or A/C manufactures) > > require dimming of cabin lights for take-off and landing. Is cabin > > light dimming a requirement? And if it is, why? FYI, upon departure from Honolulu on a SYD bound QF 747-300 last march, they did not dim the lights during takeoff at night. Would FAA regulations apply in this case ? From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: GLenssen@t-online.de (Gerhard Lenssen) Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telekom Online Internet Gateway > Sorry, but the RAF surely doesn't want it's a/c to be seen. The > interests for civil and military a/c painting jobs are certainly totally > different. I remember that in WW2 the 'Luftwaffe' had one of it's > Heinkel (?) a/c painted blue under the wings and grey/brown on the other > parts. They just didn't want to be seen. Of course this is especially > valid if you are in a conflict ... Not only the Heinkel (He 111), but the most, as I remember as a member of the former Luftwaffe. Tschuess, Gerhard From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: James Blackmore Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? - Concorde temporary paintscheme References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lucent Technologies, GSM Swindon I have seen a picture of a 'Pepsi' Concorde, painted all blue with the Pepsi logo on the tail (I think to promote the new colour scheme back in the 80's). However I heard that they could not fly supersonic in this paintscheme as the plane would overheat ?? It occurred to me that painting, then repainting (back to white) a Concorde must be an extremely expensive undertaking ? Is it possible they would use some 'washable' paint ? Presumably not water based in case of rain, but some mild solvent perhaps ???? From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? - Concorde temporary paintscheme References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I have seen a picture of a 'Pepsi' Concorde, painted all blue >with the Pepsi logo on the tail (I think to promote the new colour >scheme back in the 80's). You're off by about a decade -- it was just last year. >However I heard that they could not fly supersonic in this >paintscheme as the plane would overheat ?? That was a common rumor but it doesn't appear to be based in fact -- I've seen reports that it did indeed fly at supersonic speeds while wearing Pepsi Blue. Perhaps not for very long though. >It occurred to me that painting, then repainting (back to white) >a Concorde must be an extremely expensive undertaking ? Is it possible >they would use some 'washable' paint ? Presumably not water based >in case of rain, but some mild solvent perhaps ???? It may be possible, but the Pepsi Concorde was a full repaint (and then back to Air France colors). The Pepsi paint required 2,000 man hours and 300 liters of paint, and reportedly cost $300,000. That may sound like a lot, but it's probably less than wet-leasing and operating costs for the ten day tour. Furthermore, it was part of a $500 million marketing and advertising campaign -- representing less than 0.1% of the total cost of the campaign. (For details, see http://www.pepsico.com/web_pages/pcnews5.html.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: BobB Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Occasional Reply-To: bblondel@3rddoor.com Hedley Rainnie wrote: > > Bill Chivers wrote: > > Recent research suggests that darker paint schemes are easier to see. > > Since the human eye spots things by shape and contrast, trying to > > contrast with a (usually) bright background (the sky) by having a bright > > paint scheme is pretty much a waste of time. > > Last night 9/16/97 at SJC (San Jose Intl) over at the cargo loading end > of the airport (near where Fedex loads up its nightly DC10/MD11) was a > second DC10 but it had no markings at all, all grey body, black tail and > a cargo door open on the left, no windows. I did not get a good look at > the left side but the right looked as I described it. I have never seen > a plane painted this way, even Military Airlift Command adds the US emblem > and or black numerals in places. Ever heard of Air America? Oh - and why didn't you tell us that the cargo was lots of little bitty black helicopters? -= bob =- From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: bizfixer@aol.com (Bizfixer) Subject: Re: Why are ailiners white? Old vs. New References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com <> As some posters have hinted, airliner paint has to do with heat issues. Originally, jet airliners were painted white - or unpainted (second choice, but saving weight/fuel) - because of GROUND considerations. Early jets did not have APUs and relied on ground airconditioning-heating units for passenger compartment comfort levels. A transport aircraft sitting in high Northern hemisphere (e.g., FRA) at 70 degrees F could reach cabin temperatures of over 100 F in a little over an hour. (Imagine what would happen in Rio, Dakar or Bombay!) Early air-duct systems did not allow enough airflow from ground units to overcome this; fuel was cheap, and white paint was a big help. Early APU's were also inadequate for anything over 45 minutes on the ground, and ground units continued to be used to supplement them for longer ground stays (overnights, long turn-arounds, etc.). Even today, ground units are sometimes used to supplement APU's for widebody support when long stays in the sun are necessary. It is a lot less important today, however, and paint jobs are now much more in the domain of marketing that engineering. Any paint is expensive and extracts a weight penalty. There is ongoing argument over the relative maintenance costs of painted vs. unpainted aircraft (some of which are simply dependent on incumbent maintenance facilities). >From the flight safety standpoint, there is no question but what darker colors are more visible than light colors, of which white is the worst (even true in automobile accident statistics!). Military considerations are entirely different, and have nothing to do with commercial A/L considerations. For what it's worth. From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: bizfixer@aol.com (Bizfixer) Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >This is a major part of why the >SR-71 is black- to radiate as much heat as possible. etc. True, but not relevant to subsonic aircraft. From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: bizfixer@aol.com (Bizfixer) Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >White is common because its a common paint. Nonsense! From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:49 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: 2nd Officer on a 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >On some early 737 operations there was also an FE, riding jumpseat >since there is no FE panel or other provision for a third working >body. The nominal reason for this was that the union felt a third >set of eyes was necessary for safety reasons. After a time, all >involved agreed this was a waste and the FEs were probably so bored >they would have been too dazed to contribute much anyway. They came >up with contract terms which maintained the number of pilots, but >found something useful for them to do. It gets worse -- when the DC-9 went into production, it was two-pilot; when the 737 was built to compete with it, ALPA decided that there should be a flight engineer, even though there wasn't anything much for the FE to do, and despite the fact the aircraft hauled about the same number of pax. The result was that the 737 sold rather badly in the US, although it sold pretty well outside the US where the pilots unions were a bit more pragmatic. (The other reason the DC-9 outsold the 737 was because Douglas badly underpriced the aircraft, which pretty much led to the failure of the company and subsequent takeover by McDonnell.) -- Don Stokes, Network Consultant, Daedalus Consulting Services +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Engine questions..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Mark Johnston on Sun Sep 28 12:09:00 1997, gave a very neat short explanation of "compressor stall". Mark: Would you please comment on the effect that the angle of attack of the aircraft (which defines the angle of the oncoming air to the line through the axis of the engine) has on the occurrence of compressor stall? I am curious, since compressor stall was at one time being touted as a contributory factor in the inability of the pilot to gain sufficient power to raise the aircraft (A320) above the trees at Habsheim. It hit the trees at an AOA of around 15 degrees. (The compressor stall hypothesis has since been refuted, although there was some prima facie evidence in the form of a report of characteristic noises from an eye-witness on the ground.) Following the crash, it was reported that modifications were made to the settings of the variable stator vanes with a view to improving engine performance at low speeds. (Airbus denied that any modifications were safety-related, and stated that they had nothing to do with the accident.) I would be similarly interested in anything you could tell me about the effect of the VSV settings on engine performance and propensity to compressor stall. Thanks. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 From: y106fmnospam@iamerica.net (Scott (Davis) Strang) Subject: Re: Engine questions..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: iAmerica, Inc. >A good example of both these conditions occurring in on old 727s. When they >first came out in 1962-3, the center engine was prone to compressor stall as >it was accelerated for takeoff Did the L-1011 also have this problem? I thought it might since it seems to have a simular type #2 engine. Scott From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Ragamuffin wrote: > Also, wouldn't cabin depressurization be a way that could be used > during a hijacking situation to render the hijackers unconcious? Even at 40k feet, you would not loose consciousness or fall asleep immediatly. I cannot remember the exact figure, but the highjackers would have a few minutes to get to the cockpit and force the plane to go down. Question: can the pilots easily disable the automatic deployment of airbags or is this truly "hardcoded" into the cabin ? From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Ragamuffin wrote: >Also, wouldn't cabin depressurization be a way that could be used >during a hijacking situation to render the hijackers unconcious? >The flight-deck crew would be on oxygen masks and could therefore >regain control. Mind you the passengers would all become unconsious >also, but I'd rather have that happen to me than to have the plane >blow up or end up in some undesired location. -- just a thought... Several reasons that I can think of: - I don't think you can depressurise an aircraft quickly enough to overcome someone by surprise, short of smashing a window. - The oxygen masks drop automatically. - It takes a couple of minutes to lose conciousness from anoxia, plenty of time for the hijackers to realise what's going on, panic, and kill someone (or everyone). - The risk of someone innocent dying as a result of anoxia on an already frail system would be too high. -- Don Stokes, Network Consultant, Daedalus Consulting Services +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 From: Dwight Hall Subject: Rolling a very large aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Plain English Communication Can anyone provide documented proof of an intentional and controlled barrel-roll in level flight of a 747, DC-10 or similarly large aircraft? I have contacted Boeing and the editors of most major flying magazines and all claim no knowledge of such a feat. I am well aware of the Tex Johnston roll of a 707-prototype over Seattle back in the fifties. That was filmed and has been shown of "Wings." I'm no pilot, but my understanding is that a perfect 1-G barrel roll could "theoretically" be performed in any aircraft. (??) I am a first-time visitor to this group, so please forgive me if this thread has been explored and exhausted already. Apparently some airline pilot called into Rush Limbaugh and claimed this had been done, but no dates, times, and names were given, which makes me wonder if it's more of an urban legend. From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 From: mdubin@msn.com (M. L. Dubin) Subject: Re: Engine questions..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM David A. Stuart, Sr. wrote in article ... > Could someone explain a 'compressor stall' ? Probably not exactly what you're looking for ( some aero guy can provide the technical details) but perhaps the following will help. In simple terms: Stall occurs basically when there is a stoppage of air through the compressor. The big bang one hears when an engine stalls is the air flowing forward from the back (high pressure) stages of the compressor right out the inlet. Many things can cause a stall: The Variable Inlet geometry not per schedule, hot gas ingestion, inlet air distortion, FOD, a dirty compressor which erodes stall margin, Over-fueling during a transient accel, even during a decel especially if the engine has a variable nozzle. I've seen the result of a massive stall on an Navy F/A 18A due to fuel ingestion. This was an extremely interesting case,, fuel vapors from the center line fuel tank via a loose gas cap was sucked into the engine inlets. Both engines, at Max afterburner at the time, stalled within 0.5 sec of each other. When torn down during the crash investigation the front fans were OK but both compressors were corn-cobbed. The conclusion about the fuel was made from data analysis of the "black box" . Then about 2 weeks after the accident board was closed an 8x10 picture was received, anomonously, showing the aircraft (it was taking off and only about 20 ft off the ground) with the fuel vapor trails clearly visible going into the engine inlets and flowing over the wing feeding a fireball at the exhaust. I"ve got a copy of that picture. Then there is the more subtle stagnation stall (AKA, hung stall, rotating stall) The engine keeps running with very little air flow, speed rollback occurs usually all the way to sub-Idle, Turbine temp gets hot (900-1000C). A very bad scene, usually unrecoverable and unless the engine is shutdown in a hurry there can be a lot of hot section damage. I didn't answer the technical part of your ques but hope that this helps MLD From kls Wed Oct 1 19:57:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 From: GWilson404@aol.com Subject: Re: 777 Engine RPM References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , alan@gate.net (Alan Andersen) writes: >Rotor speed at 100% for the PW4077/4084 >N1 2,900 rpm >N2 10,800 rpm > >At cruise speed, at altitude, these speeds are not much different >although the EPR is lower. The higher the altitude, the faster the >speeds for the same EPR. (less air density) Very simply EPR is a function of actual rotor speed divided by the square root of the inlet total temperature. This would make the rotor speed some 5%-10% lower at altitude to achieve the same EPR. On the other hand you need a higher EPR to achieve the same thrust due to reduced air density. Gerald Wilson From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:30 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emirates Internet Malcolm Weir wrote: > >An earlier rumor of a catastrophic failure of a Rolls-Royce Trent 800 > >engine during an Emirates' B777 take-off was confirmed by this week's > >Flight International (9/24-9/30). > So perhaps Delta's selection of RR is as good as P&W? Particularly since > the Trent's problems seem to be self-identifying (i.e. oil temperature > climbs through the roof), while some of the PW4000 problems involved > modifications to the leading edges of the fans due to cracking after foreign object impacts... I work on the Trent 800 at Emirates and despite a few teething problems as a whole I find the Trent Engine to be the best engine I have ever attended to. It's built like a brick Shit House and as access to components is far easier than on the GE90 and PW4000 it offers very quick turn time. At least it hasn't needed 100 service buletins to bring it up to speed ( but that is typical for PW, Just look at how many mods were made to the JT9D to bring it up to it's reliability ). The recent failure of our RR Trent is so far believed to have been induced by foreign object damage wich is difficult to fault the engine for. As far as oil temps going through the roof, I know of no such failure in our fleet of 14 operating engines. Incidently, a pilot told me that UAL wasn't happy with the way the PW4000 is guzzling far more fuel than it should be for their present service age. From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:31 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Malcolm Weir wrote: > >Flight Internation 10 - 16 September states: > >"Pratt & Whitney says that an upgrade effort to counter reliability problems >on more than 1,600 PW4000 engines is showing results, with a 'dramatic >reduction' to in-flight shutdown rates. > The upgrade effort, known as the Number 1 reliability programme, involves >around 100 service bulletins. More than 70 PW4000 customer airlines have >incorporated around 80% of the improvements into their engines, says P&W. >It adds that the 12-month rolling average in-flight shutdown rate for the >fleet has dropped from 0.014% in January 1997 to 0.008% in August as a >results". The 94-inch PW4000 (which powers the A300/310/B767/B747/MD-11) has had a poor reliability record relative to the RB.211 and CF6 engines, especially the latter. Thus, the Reliability 1 program was established to address the issue. However, both the 100-inch PW4000 (for the A330) and the 112-inch PW4000 (for the B777) have very respectable record, definitely much better than the Trent 700 and 800. >Specific to the 777, "P&W confirms that it is replacing the low-pressure >turbine (LPT) stage-five vanes from PW4077 engines in service on Boeing 777. >'We saw this in validation tests for ETOPS, and we saw some areas in the LPT >vane that needed improvement." All engine companies constantly provide performance imporvement packages just like the airframers. Durability is important but reliability is perhaps more important. Maintenance associated with durability issues is usually predicatable and schedulable. However, the same cannot be said about incidences associated with reliability issues. >So perhaps Delta's selection of RR is as good as P&W? It's only my opinion. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. >Particularly since >the Trent's problems seem to be self-identifying (i.e. oil temperature >climbs through the roof), while some of the PW4000 problems involved >modifications to the leading edges of the fans due to cracking after foreign >object impacts... The Trent 700/800 is supposedly a derivative engine, hence, it should be a more mature engine in the field and a less risky choice for airline customers. However, the Trent 700/800 seems to have encountered even more field problems than the GE90, a brand new engine which was expected to have more teething problems. Most airlines love the economics of flying twins. However, Cathay Pacific seems to hate twins. Perhaps, the fact that CX only has Trent-powered twins (the A330 and the B777) is not a coincidnece. From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:32 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: DC10 / MD11 Gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 01 Oct 97 14:08:46 , k_ish caused to appear as if it was written: >Last weekend, I saw a book that listed about 20,000 commercial aircraft >accidents. I did note an AA DC-10 had a gear collapse during taxi at >DFW with a full pax load. It was either N136AA or 139AA. The book >implied the aircraft was written off; I'm not sure of this. It >surprised me to see three AA DC-10s on the list; I was only aware of >N110AA. I suspect the book you saw was Terry Denham's World Directory of Airliner Crashes, especially if you saw it at SNA's pilot shop... but it only lists 11,000 accidents! If so, the the criteria for inclusion includes the fact that the aircraft was written off. The entry for N136AA shows that, on 21 May 88, the DC-10-30 suffered a nosewheel collapse after aborting take-off at Dallas, with no fatalities and 254 survivors. N139AA, another DC-10-30, was damaged on 14 Apr 93 when the undercarriage collapsed on landing, also at Dallas, with no fatalities and 202 survivors. N110AA was, of course, the DC-10-10 that crashed at Chicago. Malc. From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:32 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Is "Lights Out" FAA Reg? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Is "Lights Out" FAA Reg? Summary: Expires: References: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: world Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) Keywords: In article airjet@Alaska.NET writes: >Dave Benjamin wrote: >> >From observation, it would appear that the FAA (or A/C manufactures) >> require dimming of cabin lights for take-off and landing. Is cabin >> light dimming a requirement? And if it is, why? > >It is a requirement. Whose requirement? What section of the FARs? I just did a search and can't find anything mandating it. >It is done all the time as to become routine and >not left up to the consideration of each individual. It is done for >safety reasons, ie: if there were an incident it would not be like >coming in from the sunlight to a movie theater. Considering that it takes 20+ minutes for the eyes to night-adapt, and that the cabin lights are usually snapped off within a few seconds of the takeoff roll, I kind of doubt it. And if there were an accident, the emergency lighting would tend to destroy whatever adaptation might have occurred. I remember distinctly when it become common, in the mid-late 70s. Cabin staff invariably said it was a courtesy to allow passengers to enjoy the view. A Southwest F/A on a flight I was on recently used it as an opportunity to practice a rather sinister laugh over the PA. I think we're dealing with the exciting birth of an urban legend. Let's see if any two responses in this thread are the same. :-) -- 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 Oct 3 01:18:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:32 From: delete_to_here-garyn@pacifier.com (Gary Neff) Subject: Re: Is "Lights Out" FAA Reg? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , user340037@aol.com (User340037) wrote: >Airlines dim cabin lights during take-off & landing so that in case > the cockpit door opens inadvertently during these crucial moments of the >flight the concentration of the pilots is not disturbed due to sudden >intrusion of bright light from the cabin.This could also affect the >visibility of the instrument panel. It's not a reg. It's not to reduce electrical load. It's certainly not to keep from bugging the pilots. It's to adapt the passengers eyes for an evacuation at night. It's done during the day only for consistacy for the flight attendents, so that they do the same thing every leg. Gary From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:32 From: "John Mackesy" Subject: Re: Rolling a very large aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Melbourne PC User Group, Australia Dwight Hall wrote in article ... > Can anyone provide documented proof of an intentional and controlled > barrel-roll in level flight of a 747, DC-10 or similarly large aircraft? In "Sigh For A Merlin" (Alex Henshaw), in which the author describes his wartime work as a factory test pilot testing Spitfires and Lancasters, p155/Chapter 12 is titled "Rolling the Lanc". He did this quite regularly, barrel roll a la Tex Johnston. Even at this distance, the Lancaster still qualifies as a large aircraft - try standing under one, if you ever get the chance. The book's a good read - I recommend it highly. John Mackesy mack@melbpc.org.au From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:32 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 2nd Officer on a 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Karl Swartz wrote: > The nominal reason for this was that the union felt a third > set of eyes was necessary for safety reasons. After a time, all > involved agreed this was a waste and the FEs were probably so bored > they would have been too dazed to contribute much anyway. Reminds me of the PSA 727 / Cessna (172?) midair at SAN in 1978. The aircraft were talking to different ATC facilities, who were not fully coordinating traffic. The Cessna was mistakenly vectored in front of the 727. There was the 3-man flight crew plus 2-3 off-duty flight crew members on the flight deck. Five or six sets of eyes failed to see the Cessna on a CAVU day. Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:32 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Leading Edge fences 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 01 Oct 97 14:08:45 , David Lednicer wrote: > Its Kuchemann, and he was actually a German who was brought to the >UK after WWII and stayed on until he died in 1976. The Kuchemann Carrots >were used on the Convair 990. He idea was to fill out the area >distribution and reduce the wave drag. However, their skin friction >drag balanced out the wave drag reduction and they ended up having no >effect. Additionally, they were too far aft to carry fuel, so they never >had anything in them. Thanks for the info, always wondered whether those CV990 Kuechemanns where "wet". Maybe OKB Tupolev considered a reduction in wave drag when the main landing gear arrangement of the Tu-134, the Tu-154 and the Tu-95/142 was conceived, with bogies retracting up and backwards into bulbuous trailing-edge pods very similar to Kuechemanns... Burkhard From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: Dennis Howard Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: dennis the menace In article , Graham Glen writes >Getting back to the fatigue failures, could anybody confirm what I think >I read some years ago that as part of the redesign undertaken after the >failures the alloy used for the skin was changed to one with a higher >copper content, making it more malleable and less prone to cracking? The problem was the high stress concentration generated at the cut outs in the fuselage shell due to the cut-out shape. The fatigue life of the structure in the area of these stress concentrations where riveting was present was considerably reduced and any badly riveted holes (interference fit not tight or burrs on the holes) could have further exacerbated this. Mansfield at the R.A.E.(I think) had done research work on neutral holes (i.e.cut-outs) in pressurised cylinders and this work was an influence on the fuselage redesign work. As for material, I don't think the crack prone high strength zinc based alloys were in much use then and the fuselage was probably made from a DTD546 type Cu. based alloy which is fairly forgiving. Dennis. -- Dennis Howard From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: Ed Mellinger Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MBARI Reply-To: meed@mbari.org Karl Swartz wrote: > In the original design, employed on the 727, 737, and 747, fuselage > lap joints were "cold bonded" with epoxy-impregnated cloth, cured at > room temperature, augmented by three rows of rivets countersunk in a > fairly thin skin. The bonding and not the rivets was intended to > carry the primary pressurization loads. > > Unfortunately, this bonding process was found to have problems which > in many cases resulted in a poor bond; poor bonds were susceptible to > corrosion which further weakened the joint and caused transfer of the > stresses to the rivets. This raised my eyebrows when I read about it ten years ago, and raised 'em again today. I was suprised that glue would be considered acceptable for carrying a primary structural load, particularly in that era (nowadays, I know, we have composite airplanes that are nothing but glue and yarn). Does anyone know of other aircraft, or primary structure on them, that rely on "bonding" (c'mon, guys... it's glue!) to carry loads between two metal components? Ed Mellinger From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Ed Mellinger wrote: >Karl Swartz wrote: >> In the original design, employed on the 727, 737, and 747, fuselage >> lap joints were "cold bonded" with epoxy-impregnated cloth, cured at >> room temperature, augmented by three rows of rivets countersunk in a >> fairly thin skin. The bonding and not the rivets was intended to >> carry the primary pressurization loads. >Does anyone know of other aircraft, or primary structure on them, that >rely on "bonding" (c'mon, guys... it's glue!) to carry loads between two >metal components? Yes, the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar. "According to James B. Beach, Chief Engineer, L-1011 Production Design -- 'The extensive use of structural adhesive bonding of doublers, triplers and lapped skin panels into large panel assemblies (up to 15 feet by 38 feet) is an important new development offering improved fatigue life, corrosion resistance and durability." (Douglas J. Ingells, "L-1011 TriStar and The Lockheed Story," pp. 196-200, Aero Publishers, 1973.) I've heard that Lockheed developed alpha cyanoacrylate (ACC) adhesives, more commonly known as Krazy Glue, for the project. I find that a bit surprising since the version you can buy at the grocery store tends to cure into a hard and britle form, but perhaps in higher quality form or with different curing (the book referenced above mentions using an autoclave) it behaves differently. -- 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 Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: P3/Electra (was Questions about the DH Comet) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Filip De Vos wrote: > I think all E-3s are newbuilt, while there was an EC-135 that > prototyped the antenna. > : though I may be getting confused with the E-8A J-STARS, all of which > : use converted commercial 707-320 airframes. The prototype E-3s, one with a Westinghouse radar and one with a Hughes radar, were EC-137s, as they were based upon commercial Boeing 707-320s, not 717/C-135s. All J-STARS are built upon used commercial 707-320 airframes. There was one new 707-320 with CFM56s built for the J-STARS program, but it has since been sold off, as it was a one-of-a-kind airframe. As a side note - there are a lot of differences between the Electra and P-3. The Electra was designed for cruising along at high altitudes, while the P-3 is set up for loitering over sonobuoys at low alititude. The fatigue spectrum is far different between the two missions. Additionally, the P-3 and Electra have prop blades that are very different in design - I have worked with both. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: P3/Electra (was Questions about the DH Comet) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >All J-STARS are built upon used commercial 707-320 airframes. There was >one new 707-320 with CFM56s built for the J-STARS program, but it has >since been sold off, as it was a one-of-a-kind airframe. The one built with CFM56 engines (msn 21956 / ln 941) was actually called a 707-700. It first flew on November 27, 1979. Boeing's plans to market it were squashed by the launch of the 757. It wasn't really a one-of-a-kind airframe -- other than the engines and associated systems, it was a fairly standard 707-320. It was converted into a 707-3W6C (yes, they replaced the CFM56s with JT3Ds!) and sold to the Moroccan Government on March 10, 1982. As far as I can tell, they still have it, registered as CN-ANR. -- 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 Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: domk1031@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise 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 01 Oct 97 14:08:46 , "Michael F. Lechnar" wrote: >At least in the case of the KUL-LHR flight, 26,000 ft was probably >assigned by ATC. Indian ATC is particulary notorious for keeping >airplanes at low altitudes in their airspace. The first flights out >generally get the highest altitudes. > >The flight out of LHR was again probably limited by ATC rather than >airplane performance. BA's 747-400s are capable of at least 31,000 ft >initial altitude capability at maximum certified takeoff weights Does this apply also to, say, ISA+10 conditions? An early LHA A340-200 AOM quoted an ICA of merely FL270 at MTOW under those circumstances. FWIW, four-engined airliners usually feature both a higher thrust and wing loading than twins, provided their design is balanced regarding, amongst others, the take-off (one engine inoperative), climb and cruise thrust requirements. Hence quads (have to) cruise at lower altitudes than twins by nature. IIRC, Airbus set up a FL350 ICA requirement for the A3XX though... Burkhard From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM ae562@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eric Thomas) asked on Mon Sep 29 07:14:05 1997:- > Speaking of which, would a FBW Airbus (say an A320) have been able to > manage a "Gimli Glider" situation? With difficulty! With a complete loss of all computers in the Electrical Flight Control System (EFCS), the A320 (or A330, A340, etc.) has a limited "manual backup" control, which consists of rudder control by pedals, and pitch control by moving the trimmable horizontal stabiliser using the trim wheels. (Both rudder pedals and trim wheels are connected to the flight surface actuators via mechanical cables.) If the EFCS were lost, but engine power were still present, differential throttle control could be used to assist. If both engines were out, but there was still fuel on board, the APU could be fired up. Given loss of both engines and the APU (e.g., when the aircraft is completely out of fuel), presumably the pilots would deploy the RAT. This should generate enough power to keep the EFCS going. The main question then is whether there would be sufficient power to operate at least one of the three hydraulic circuits. I don't have time right now to research this last question. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Random at best Karl Swartz wrote: > >Speaking of which, would a FBW Airbus (say an A320) have been able to > >manage a "Gimli Glider" situation? Do Airbuses have some sort of > >battery back-up or air ram generator so that the computers driving > >the control surfaces would be able to effectively work in a glide/no power > >situation? > > The FBW Airbuses (probably the A300 and A310, too, though I'm not > sure) have a ram air turbine (RAT) which can be deployed into the > airflow to generate electrical power, same as the 767. You also > need hydraulic power, which is provided by having an electrically > driven hydraulic pump on at least one of the systems. Minor error in your post. A300, A310, B757, B767, B747, L1011 aircraft have RAT's which directly drive a hydraulic pump, providing pressure to one system. The DC10 and MD11 use a slightly different approach, they have an ADG or air driven generator, which provides AC power to aux hydralic pump #1. Which pressurizes system 3. I do not know how the systems are arranged on The 777 or later Airbus models. -Seth From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question 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: OzEmail Ltd. >The FBW Airbuses (probably the A300 and A310, too, though I'm not >sure) have a ram air turbine (RAT) which can be deployed into the >airflow to generate electrical power, same as the 767. You also >need hydraulic power, which is provided by having an electrically >driven hydraulic pump on at least one of the systems. I know it's a bit pedantic, or possibly a misunderstanding, but the 767 RAT drives a small hydraulic pump only. Other methods must be used to generate electrical power. I have no idea how the Airbus system works. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emirates Internet C. Marin Faure wrote: > > On modern jetliners, if one engine fails during cruise, is the remaining > > engine really used to the max ? > Unlike a turbofan engine, the > chance of failure in a piston engine increases steeply with power. As > long as you don't overtemp it, a turbine could care less what power > setting you run it at or for how long. Sorry But this statement is not entirely correct, as turbine disks and blades are sensitive to higher than normal rotational speeds that can cause blade creep resulting in blade tip rubbing on the outer case seal, Blade root cracking and just generaly trashing itself as the speed increases above its design point. This failure is more likely the higher the Exhaust Gas Temperature ( EGT ) but a catastrophic failure can result nonetheless at a very low egt if the rotor RPM is too high. All turbine engine fuel control units that I have ever worked with have built in fuel schedules to prevent overspeeds and the Rolls Royce RB211 series had engine shutdown protections built in to prevent the turbine from flying apart if its shaft should break As does the new Trent series. Regards, Hans Lutsch From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 28 Sep 97 20:59:07 , ae562@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eric Thomas) caused to appear as if it was written: >Speaking of which, would a FBW Airbus (say an A320) have been able to >manage a "Gimli Glider" situation? Do Airbuses have some sort of >battery back-up or air ram generator so that the computers driving >the control surfaces would be able to effectively work in a glide/no power >situation? Yes. Electrical power for the FBW computers is a minor problem: the big problem is hydraulic power, and that's the primary role of the RAT device: to provide hydraulic pressure. The computers can be driven by batteries if necessary, as are the radios, etc. Look at the situation when BA's G-BDXH lost all four engines in Indonesia: even without engine power, the crew were able to communicate with ATC (actually, with a relay aircraft that could receive the dust-attenuated radio signal). Malc. From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Eric Thomas wrote: > >> Now, if the remaining engine fails, is it not rather pointless to > >> require the true backup electrical systems (battery and prop-turbine) to > >> operate for 180 minutes ? > > > > Yes, but you want your critical systems to continue operating so you can > > control the plane on the way down (like Air Canada's Gimli Glider). When flying at 42k feet which seems about the ceiling for commercial passenger aircraft (except for Concorde), how long (max) would it take for an engine-less plane to drop back to sea level an become a boat ? In other words, how long would the backup electrical and hydraulic system really be needed for in the worse case scenario with a lightly loaded plane ? Are we talking 10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour before the plane gets to sea level ? If that time were to be lets say 10 minutes, why would 180 minute ETOPS certification require such truly backup system (when both engines fail) to operate for 180 minutes ? From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: Robin Peel Subject: Vickers VC-10 - V speeds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises I am trying to refine a flight simulator model of the British Aerospace / Vickers Super VC-10, and am looking for definitive V speeds for the aeroplane. Any help would be appreciated! - Robin. -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The Blackbird spy-plane had to be black, since that was the only way of radiating away enough of the heat generated by air-friction to avoid the pilot being able to "bake a cake in his lap". Source: Ben R. Rich, Leo Janos: "Skunk Works", Warner Books (1994) ISBN 0 7515 1503 5 Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Why are ailiners white? Old vs. New References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Bizfixer wrote: >>This is a major part of why the >>SR-71 is black- to radiate as much heat as possible. etc. >True, but not relevant to subsonic aircraft. True, but we were talking about the Concorde at the time :-) > <> > > As some posters have hinted, airliner paint has to do with heat issues. > Early APU's were also inadequate for anything over 45 minutes on the > ground, and ground units continued to be used to supplement them for longer > ground stays (overnights, long turn-arounds, etc.). I came across an interesting claim the other day. I've always assumed that from the very beginning, jet aircraft airconditioning systems have operated on the same principle they do today. Ie, take hot bleed air, cool it while still highly pressurized in a heat exchanger, pass it through an expander valve so that it expands and gets cold. However, I was snooping around Carrier's web site (the air conditioning company) and they claimed the following as one of their "firsts": 1955: With the advent of jet passenger service, Carrier develops an air-turbine-driven centrifugal refrigeration machine to cool the Douglas Aircraft Company's DC 8. Although small enough to fit inside a small piece of carry-on luggage, it was powerful enough to air condition seven average sized homes. Technically, a "centrifugal refrigeration machine" is basically a chiller, using refrigerant, a centrifugal compressor, and appropriate heat exchangers (evaporator and condenser). This seems ridiculously complex for an aircraft, when the bleed air is nearly free (although I realize that JT3's couldn't spare nearly as much bleed air as today's engines). So I wonder if this is incorrectly described on Carrier's web page or if it was used briefly then supplanted by the "pack" system we know today. Anyone familiar with this? -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: D.P.Rhodes@lboro.ac.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: COST ESTIMATION RELATIONSHIP References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Loughborough University, UK. On 16 Sep 97 02:37:12 , lich@inter.net.il (Shmuel Friedlich) wrote: >I am in a middle of a cost estimation effort, mainly of avionics >packages. I am looking for a relevant data that may answer the >following questions: >a) Is there such a concept as "the Cost of a 1Lb or 1 Liter of >electronic package", and >b) Can I receive some numbers in return? >I know the data is dependent on the production volumes involved, the >application (industrial or aerospace etc) and the technolgy used >my Email is lich@inter.net.il >Shmulick Friedlich There is an excellent cost estimation procedure for civil and mililary aircraft by J.W.Burns of the Vought Aircraft Company. In it he quotes the avionics cost as $3950 per pound (weight) for 1983 dollars. He the gives a CPI chart to show the cost for future year dollars. For 1994 the CPI factor is about 1.5. The full reference is: Burns, J. Wayne (1994). "Aircraft Cost Estimation Methodology and Value Of A Pound Derivation For Preliminary Design Development Applications", SAWE Paper No. 2229, 53rd Conference of Society of Allied Weight Engineers, Long Beach CA, 23-25 May 1994. Hope this helps. From kls Fri Oct 3 01:18:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Garuda A300 crash, volcanic ash, and morons of the media Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California The investigation into the cause of the Garuda A300 crash in Sumatra a week ago seems to be focusing on miscommunication between the pilots and air traffic controllers. However, early speculation revolved around the smoke and haze from many fires in the area. In its report on the crash last Saturday, the San Jose Mercury News (aka the Murky Snooze) included the following bit of brilliance: An accumulation of ash has been known to clog the engines of aircraft flying close to volcanic eruptions, but it was not clear whether ash from the forest fires could have been aloft in sufficient concentrations to have been a factor. Sheesh. I guess it's too much to ask a reported to do a microscopic bit of research before writing such drivel. For those who may not be familiar with volcanic ash, it consists of very fine rock fragments, initially at temperatures of nearly 2000 F as they are emitted by the volcano. With a high silica content, it is an excellent abrasive, and when reheated in the combusion chamber of a jet engine, the already hot material can remelt and form glassy, ceramic-like deposits on the turbine blades. To my knowledge, combustion of wood does not produce fine particles of rock, at any temperature. The ash that is produced is more likely to damage light-colored carpets than the metal used in aircraft 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 Oct 6 02:14:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:19 From: "Walter E. Shepherd" Subject: Footnote on the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corp. If my hazy memory serves me right, there was another factor beyond metal fatigue which was contributory to the series of Comet disasters which I have not seen mentioned in the recent thread in this newsgroup. Maintenance... ground crews used to unpressurised propeller driven (i.e., low altitude) aircraft with not much of a future (i.e., the short life expectancies typical of combat aircraft) would drill holes at the end of fatigue cracks to keep them from propagating further rather than to take the time to replace a skin panel. This was SOP for workers (and a whole industry) who had gained prior experience and training during the hectic pace of the war years. If my memory is correct, the early Comet fleet reached a point where it was riddled with small cracks terminated with little round holes. Most were along the window line at the high stress points of the fuselage... so there was in effect a perforated line waiting for the right moment to unzip the upper half of the fuselage from the lower half. That moment came for several of the early Comets at a most inconvienient time and place. I mention this recollection because I believe that the current generation of aviation industry workers, trained under totally different circumstances, might not have the perspective to understand how such disasters can arise. I have seen sentiments here in this newsgroup laying the blame at the feet of the designers, at the feet of the UK aviation industry... etc, etc. I think no one need be chastised... the disaster was simply a lingering after effect of a disaster filled war... a war that also brought about the huge growth of the aircraft industry. In the seeds of miracle, also lie the seeds of disaster. --Walt Shepherd From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:20 From: J&J@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Us at home with our cat On 03 Oct 97 01:18:33 , in , Karl Swartz wrote: >Yes, the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar. "According to James B. Beach, Chief >Engineer, L-1011 Production Design -- 'The extensive use of structural >adhesive bonding of doublers, triplers and lapped skin panels into >large panel assemblies (up to 15 feet by 38 feet) is an important new >development offering improved fatigue life, corrosion resistance and >durability." (Douglas J. Ingells, "L-1011 TriStar and The Lockheed >Story," pp. 196-200, Aero Publishers, 1973.) > >I've heard that Lockheed developed alpha cyanoacrylate (ACC) adhesives, >more commonly known as Krazy Glue, for the project. Lockheed may have done a lot of work on these adhesives, but I remember in 1969-1971 when I worked for Philips (the Dutch electronics group) we were trialling these adhesives (from the Loctite company) for bonding metal trimmers to ferrite ceramic c/-core transformers, looking at the failure modes of different grades in shear and tension with a view to using them on production items, these were both room temperature cured and autoclaved. This would be coincident with L-1011 development I would guess. >... I find that a bit >surprising since the version you can buy at the grocery store tends to >cure into a hard and britle form, but perhaps in higher quality form >or with different curing (the book referenced above mentions using an >autoclave) it behaves differently. There are many grades - the stuff I use at work (Perma Bond C2) is an industrial grade which is *far* superior to the stuff you can buy in the shops, which I suspect use a cellulose material or something to as a thinner, possibly to make it safer to use in that it won't stick quite so hard quite so fast! -- John Wright From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:20 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : I've heard that Lockheed developed alpha cyanoacrylate (ACC) adhesives, : more commonly known as Krazy Glue, for the project. I find that a bit : surprising since the version you can buy at the grocery store tends to : cure into a hard and britle form, but perhaps in higher quality form : or with different curing (the book referenced above mentions using an : autoclave) it behaves differently. The strength of adhesive joints is much affected by the thickness of the adhesive and the composition and surface condition of the metals being bonded. -- Gerry From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:21 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Ed Mellinger (meed@mbari.org) wrote: : This raised my eyebrows when I read about it ten years ago, and raised : 'em again today. I was suprised that glue would be considered : acceptable for carrying a primary structural load, particularly in that : era (nowadays, I know, we have composite airplanes that are nothing but ^^^^^^^^^^^ : glue and yarn). Does anyone know of other aircraft, or primary ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I like this phrase! : structure on them, that rely on "bonding" (c'mon, guys... it's glue!) to : carry loads between two metal components? Yes, the Fokker Friendship was partially glued from the beginning, and the proportion of bonds grew as confidence in the technique grew. The work was carried over into the Fellowship, and later the F50 and F100. The Lockheed Tristar has honeycomb structures, and I remember a picture of a sizable autoclave at Lockheed's Burbank facility being fed with a large fuselage part in a book about airliners. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:21 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Ed Mellinger wrote: > This raised my eyebrows when I read about it ten years ago, and raised > 'em again today. I was suprised that glue would be considered > acceptable for carrying a primary structural load, particularly in that > era (nowadays, I know, we have composite airplanes that are nothing but > glue and yarn). Does anyone know of other aircraft, or primary > structure on them, that rely on "bonding" (c'mon, guys... it's glue!) > to carry loads between two metal components? Grumman light aircraft such as the Tiger (and perhaps the Gulfstreams) use bonded fuselage construction; so do Grumman canoes. Also, one single-engine Beechcraft (IIRC the Skipper) uses a tubular spar, constucted by rolling an aluminum sheet into a tube and bonding the layers as it is rolled up. (Look at a paper towel core and you will get the idea). Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:21 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >I've heard that Lockheed developed alpha cyanoacrylate (ACC) adhesives, >more commonly known as Krazy Glue, for the project. I find that a bit >surprising since the version you can buy at the grocery store tends to >cure into a hard and britle form, but perhaps in higher quality form >or with different curing (the book referenced above mentions using an >autoclave) it behaves differently. It's possible, but I'd note that cyanoacrylate does give a very good metal-metal bond, as long as the surfaces are clean. From memory it works by polymerising in the presence of the usual surface water. I'm not sure what the effect of heating is apart from maybe incinerating any surface impurities. It should be ok when the forces are mainly tensile across the bond, eg pressurised skin trying to pull away from fuselage members. I thought Eastman developed cyanoacrylate. -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:21 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: Re: 747 hump References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER Reply-To: luisma@spainmail.com El día 01 Oct 97 19:57:48, tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) dijo: >>Right, except the fuselage lift is one order of magnitude lower than the >>wings lift. > >Your reply makes it sound like that lift is unimportant No, I didn't mean lift is not important. But wing lift is one order of magnitude higher than fuselage lift. From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:22 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 03 Oct 97 01:18:30 , Exiled Expat caused to appear as if it was written: >Malcolm Weir wrote: >> So perhaps Delta's selection of RR is as good as P&W? Particularly since >> the Trent's problems seem to be self-identifying (i.e. oil temperature >> climbs through the roof), while some of the PW4000 problems involved >> modifications to the leading edges of the fans due to cracking after >> foreign object impacts... >As far as oil temps going through the roof, I know of no such failure in >our fleet of 14 operating engines. Sorry, I should have been more clear: That was a reference to the A330 Dragonair failure of a Trent 700, blamed on faulty lubrication systems which resulted in insufficient oil getting where it should be, hence the temperature rise. The point was, while all in-flight shutdowns are serious, possibly the most serious type of event involves fan blade failures... It's bad enough to lose an engine without bits of the engine whizzing around the rest of the airframe (c.f. Sioux City...) Malc. From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:22 From: Art Intemann Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: ajintemann@earthlink.net > Incidently, a pilot told me that UAL wasn't happy with the way the PW4000 > is guzzling far more fuel than it should be for their present service age. Funny---I work for UAL and haven't heard anything like that..... Regards, Art From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:22 From: bu940@torfree.net (Dick Fish) Subject: Re: EMB-135 Launched References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Toronto Free-Net Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Dimitrios Tombros (tombros@ifi.unizh.ch) wrote: : In article , : "Stefano P. Pagiola" writes: : > I haven't seen this reported much, but last week EMBRAER officially : > launched the 37-seat EMB-135 derivative of its 50-seat EMB-145 regional : > jet. From the press release: : What kind of markets (except corporate jet) could such an aircraft : serve? I would imagine it is too uneconomical compared to a turbo- : prop. THere is a rosy future for the 35 seat jet if the costs are right, EMB can look at replacing at least half of the 120's operating in the USA. But as it is a EMB product it will be a cheap, low quality airplane, for cheap low quality airlines. Richard From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:22 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: EMB-135 Launched References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr tombros@ifi.unizh.ch (Dimitrios Tombros) wrote: >In article , > "Stefano P. Pagiola" writes: >> I haven't seen this reported much, but last week EMBRAER officially >> launched the 37-seat EMB-135 derivative of its 50-seat EMB-145 regional >> jet. Dornier 328-jet is on the same market ! From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:22 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emirates Internet joan wrote: > > What is the difference between phase II and phase III engine? > Any answer will be highly appretiated. Phase three engines are designed to be quieter than phase 1 and 2 thereby allowing it into airports that have restrictions against noisy aircrafts. All of the new engines are built to this requirements and some of the older versions have been modified to suit. From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:23 From: ua747-422@juno.com (Michael W Kopanski) Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 01 Oct 97 14:08:46 joan writes: >What is the difference between phase II and phase III engine? >Any answer will be highly appretiated. Well I'm not exactly sure what the difference is all I know is that it allows us at United to operate ORD-HKG non-stop with a Phase III powered 747-400 and not be able to with a Phase II 747-400. Mickey Kopanski UA747-422@juno.com From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:23 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Do you mean Stage 2 vs. Stage 3 aircraft? Those refer to noise levels produced during takeoffs and landings, with Stage 3 limits being stricter. Stage 1 means no limits, Stage 2 is basically 1960's-era jets, and Stage 3 covers pretty much anything made since the 1970's. The difference matters because many airports located near populated areas limit, or even ban, Stage 1 or 2 operations at night or even entirely. For flexibility, and good neighborliness, as well as economics (the older planes are less efficient), the airlines are retiring non-Stage 3 aircraft as soon as they can. Noise levels are a result of a lot of things besides the engines, like the weight and overall dragginess of the aircraft, especially during approach. For regulatory purposes, the FAA has a complex formula based on measured decibel levels at prescribed locations on an aircraft submitted for certification. Brian Clouse From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:23 From: Ken Rose Subject: Re: Passenger cabin pressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services michael piersdorff wrote: > > Robert J. Montgomery wrote: > > Gerard Foley wrote: > > > There was usually a little bump upward in cabin pressure when > > > the doors were closed. > > > > Kind of a related question. I almost remember hearing, from some > > flight crew friend of mine, that most airlines actually decrease > > pressure prior to take-off. This way, they have to accelerate less > > mass during the takeoff process. Is this ever true? I've felt pressure > > changes in planes on the tarmac prior to takeoff (ear pop), but > > this may be caused by Gerry's pressure bump. > > 1. The total mass of air inside a 747 cannot amount to more than a few > kilograms - probably less than that of the airpump it would take to > remove it. On the contrary, the mass of air inside a 747 is substantial. If the fuselage is a cylinder 20 feet in diameter and 200 feet long (very rough, but in the ballpark), then it has a volume of (20/2)**2 * 3.14 * 200 = 62800 cubic feet. A cubic foot of air weighs roughly 1 ounce, so 62800cf of air weighs 3925 pounds, or about 1785kg. I think you probably could pump a lot of it out with a pump that weighs a lot less than that, but your other reasons for not doing it still apply. From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:23 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: Passenger cabin pressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net Larry Stone wrote: > Aircraft pressurization systems hold a high pressure inside the plane than > outside. Since the actual control mechanism is an outflow valve (allowing > air out of the cabin to outside), there's no way to make the plane's > pressure inside less than the outside. Aircraft designs do allow for the possibility, however. For example, suppose a flight departed Denver bound for DFW and the pressurization system had a fault after takeoff and merely kept the pressurization in the cabin at the field elevation for Denver for the entire flight. During the descent into Dallas, the outside air pressure would exceed the inside air pressure. To allow for the possibility, most transport category jets have negative pressure relief panels somewhere on the fuselage (on the B-727 and B-737, these panels are in the rear of the aircraft) that will open inwards and allow the pressure to equalize should the need arise. Chris Dahler dahler@iglobal.net From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:23 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: Re: Passenger cabin pressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER Reply-To: luisma@spainmail.com El día 17 Sep 97 02:49:16 , en el grupo sci.aeronautics.airliners dijiste: The highest prority is aircraft structure (the maximum diff pressure for this A/C should not be achieved). The second priority is passenger comfort, which means: 1) The cabin equivalent altitude should not be greater than 8000 ft (this condition, together with the structural condition stated above, imposes a limit to the aircraft flight level, limit which is known as SERVICE CEILING). 2) The cabin pressure rate of climb (which is controlled by the crew) should not be greater than, say, 300 fpm. 3) If the aircraft is flying at a lower altitude than the service ceiling, the cabin pressure is higher (the altitude is lower) than the 8000 ft equivalence. 4) In order to avoid bumps when in flight, the max differential pressure is NOT exactly achieved. A 500 ft margin is left (so that the outflow valve does not open and no bump is created if the pressure-altitude inadvertidely increaes (for example, flying through a hotter air mass). 5) For the same reason, the pressure is slightly INCREASED during take-off (this is called pre-presurisation). The amount is not a lot, 150 to 200 ft. A typical max differential pressure is 8.5 PSI for DC-9 family. An emergency relief valve is open if the normal outflow valve locks and the diff pressure exceeds the maximum allowable. Another relief valve open if this blockage occurs and the differential pressure gets negative values of 1.0 PSI. Hope this helps From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:24 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emirates Internet jf mezei wrote > Question: can the pilots easily disable the automatic deployment of > airbags > or is this truly "hardcoded" into the cabin ? Auto deployment of the slide rafts ( which I think you must mean ) Can not be overridden by the pilots. Each one is a stand alone system and is self activating. The slide is attached to the fllor at the door opening when the doors are closed at departure and when the door swings open, the slide falls out of its box. This action causes it to inflate. Should the inflation not take place automaticaly an extra handle is present which when pulled will also cause the slide ti inflate. Remember feet first! From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:24 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote in article ... > Question: can the pilots easily disable the automatic deployment of > airbags > or is this truly "hardcoded" into the cabin ? A "Rubber Jungle" can be over-ridden on most commercial aircraft, utilising gaseous oxygen systems, by selecting manual control on the Pax bottle regulator, however you raise an interesting point, as I don't know if this is possible on aircraft with chemical oxy generating units. A barometric switch deploys the masks at a cabin altitude of 15000 ft on many airliners, but the switch can be disarmed by the crew in many installations. Certainly Douglas, not sure about Boeings. -- >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:24 From: GLenssen@t-online.de (Gerhard Lenssen) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telekom Online Internet Gateway On 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 , don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) wrote: >In article , >Ragamuffin wrote: >>Also, wouldn't cabin depressurization be a way that could be used >>during a hijacking situation to render the hijackers unconcious? >>The flight-deck crew would be on oxygen masks and could therefore >>regain control. Mind you the passengers would all become unconsious >>also, but I'd rather have that happen to me than to have the plane >>blow up or end up in some undesired location. -- just a thought... > >Several reasons that I can think of: > >- I don't think you can depressurise an aircraft quickly enough to > overcome someone by surprise, short of smashing a window. > >- The oxygen masks drop automatically. > >- It takes a couple of minutes to lose conciousness from anoxia, plenty > of time for the hijackers to realise what's going on, panic, and kill > someone (or everyone). > >- The risk of someone innocent dying as a result of anoxia on an already > frail system would be too high. I may fully confirm this remarks. Long ago, during WW2 in the German Luftwaffe, I had to make two times tests, under medical surveying, suited with a mask, to breath in a mixture as it is in a height of 7500 m. This tests had the intention to become acknowledged with our own bodies in case of oxygendelivery-failures. During the tests we had to write the figures from 1000 downwards on a paper, and we had to make an arrow, if we think our condition is so, that the pilot had to dive immediatly in lower regions (under 4000 m) Depending from the personal conditions, about 40 to 70 seconds after the beginning of the test everyone lost any control. I remember, I could worte until 980, but couldn't more find 979, but did repeat 982, 981, 980, and the scripture became more and more unreadable. Finally the doctor switched to oxygen. The danger of oxygen-loss is, that the personal feeling is always very good, really euphoric, but fast ending in unconsciousness and damaging the brain, with following death. But we all have been convinced, the death by oxygen-shortness must be a special agreable one. Only for the person, who is suffering it! For the spectators it looks dramatically, the breath becomes deeper and deeper, the face becomes blue and bluer, and on sees, the end is coming. But nothing feels the one, who undergos the test. Tschuess, Gerhard From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:25 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER Reply-To: luisma@spainmail.com El dma 01 Oct 97 19:57:50, jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> dijo: >Question: can the pilots easily disable the automatic deployment of airbags >or is this truly "hardcoded" into the cabin ? I think you are asking about oxygen masks. Well, it is not possible for the pilots to inhibit the masks deployment. The opposite is not true, that is, the crew can force the masks to drop (provided the oxygen masks in the bottle exceeds a minimun). From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:25 From: Jan-Olov Newborg Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Algonet/Tninet Andrew Cruickshank wrote: > A few years ago a flew BA from KUL to LHR and the pilot's > commentary over the PA stated cruise would be at 26,000 ft. > I though this a bit low and stowed it away for future > reference. > > Last week I did LHR to KUL with MAS and the pilot said > we would be at 29,000 ft initially until we were lighter. > > This raises the question - is the cruise level of a 747-400 > with full load of passengers and cargo limited until fuel > burn off occurs. Many aircraft has initial climb restrictions due to weight. Ask Spanair who stalled an MD80 some years ago over Gotenburg,Sweden,falling thrugh 10 flightlevel. They ignored the performance tabells and climbed higher than the wings could carry them. Boeing 747-400 has much better performance than the -100-300 models. Boeing 767 flying from Bangkok to Europe, many the times get final level 270 inbound New Dehli, a common level for Beach 200, all because B767 cruises to slow compared to B747-400 and MD11 and traffic control keeps 767 down at low alt. After India over Afganistan and Russia higher level is given to the slow B767. Jan-Olov Newborg Sweden From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:25 From: "Administrator (Lorenzo Fabris)" Subject: Air Travel Safety Initiative 1997 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley CA Air Travel Safety Initiative 1997 ( http://www.aeroave.com ) In the wake of the several air disasters and the concerns of air travel safety, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, San Francisco Section with participation from Jeppesen, NASA, San Francisco Airport, Failure Analysis Associates and other interested agencies/companies would like to host the "Air Travel Safety Initiative 1997" program. This program provides the opportunity for the public to identify air travel safety concerns, expert panelists to clarify the issues, and agencies and officials to direct responses to these concerns. Cost: Free and open to the public Date: Monday, October 20, 1997 6:00 pm - 9:30 pm Venue: Spangenberg Theatre 780 Arastradero Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 415-354-8220 Major Topics of Discussion by the Panel: 1) Aircraft Condition. This will include the issues on aircraft maintenance and aircraft reliability. 2) Flight Conditions. This will include such issues as: human factors, flight crew, weather, icing, and wind shear. 3) Traffic Volume. This will include issues on air traffic control, increased traffic flow, air space procedures. 4) Security. This will include airport and aircraft security issues. Confirmed Panelists: * Mr. Ron Wilson, SFO Director of Public Affairs * Mr. David Picasso, Level 1 Agency Aviation Capacity Program Manager at NASA Ames Research Center * Dr. Lemoine (Lee) Dickinson, Jr., Principal Engineer and Director, Washington, D.C. Office, Failure Analysis Associates, Inc. * Mr. Vincent Mellone, ASRS Operations Manager, NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System * Captain James Fitzgerald, Aviation Safety Analyst, NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System Introductory Speaker: * Ms. Jeanne McElhatton, co-founder of the Fear of Flying Clinic in San Mateo,CA Government Official: * Mr. Charles Huettner, Director of Aviation Safety Research at NASA Contact: Glen Carl by phone: 408-866-7611 ext. 267, Fax: 408-866-5364 or preferably by Email: aero@aeroave.com From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:25 From: Chuck Till Subject: Re: DC10 / MD11 Gear References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Malcolm Weir wrote: > The entry for N136AA shows that, on 21 May 88, the DC-10-30 suffered a > nosewheel collapse after aborting take-off at Dallas, with no fatalities and > 254 survivors. This is documented at http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/FTW/88A106.htm > N139AA, another DC-10-30, was damaged on 14 Apr 93 when the undercarriage > collapsed on landing, also at Dallas, with no fatalities and 202 survivors. This is documented at http://www.ntsb.gov/Aviation/DCA/93A040.htm (the NTSB quotes tail number 39AA but obviously that's incorrect). From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:26 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: 777 rejected takeoff test 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) I watched the PBS series on the 777. Of special interest was the full-load rejected takeoff test. I missed the figures for the weight [and ISTM they were for load, vice emptyweight+load] but they said it was 9.7 million ft-lbs of hot brakes. Err... I was always an SI type, but is that a viable unit for the test? I was looking for energy, not torque. After all it's a straight kinetic energy->heat conversion; anyone know the m and v^2? BTW, it is an impressive test. They stopped the bird, then released and confirmed all wheels were still rolling. You could SEE the rotors through the wheels, glowing BRIGHT orange. Then the smoke started as the tires started charring. Then the visible flames. BTW, new tires rims etc. cost $750,000 afterwards. Not sure if that counts repacking the wheel bearings.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:26 From: John Weiss Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group jf mezei wrote: > > When flying at 42k feet which seems about the ceiling for commercial > passenger aircraft (except for Concorde), how long (max) would it take > for an engine-less plane to drop back to sea level an become a boat ? > > In other words, how long would the backup electrical and hydraulic system > really be needed for in the worse case scenario with a lightly loaded > plane ? Are we talking 10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour before the plane > gets to sea level ? In round numbers (which may or may not be representative of any particular aircraft), assume: Glide speed of 200 Kts Glide ratio of 10:1 That gives a vertical speed of 20 Kts. From an altitude of 42,000' (7 miles), there is about 20 minutes of glide time available. From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:26 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 , jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> caused to appear as if it was written: >When flying at 42k feet which seems about the ceiling for commercial >passenger aircraft (except for Concorde), how long (max) would it take >for an engine-less plane to drop back to sea level an become a boat ? > >In other words, how long would the backup electrical and hydraulic system >really be needed for in the worse case scenario with a lightly loaded >plane ? Are we talking 10 minutes, 30 minutes, an hour before the plane >gets to sea level ? As I recall, G-BDXH (BA's 747 glider) flew for nearly 30 minutes before they got the engines back, and I think they started at 37,000ft. The engines were restarted at about 10,000ft, as I recall. They even put the aircaft into a dive (and so INCREASED the sink rate) at one stage due to loss of pressurization and an inop. First Officer's oxygen mask. Happily, G-BDXH never became a boat! In fact, in May 1996 it returned to the limelight when a lightning strike caused chunks to the fin to fall off! Of course, this aircraft had an APU running during the Jakarta Volcanic ash emergency, but the point is that there is a LOT of time to discuss the problem and prepare for ditching. >If that time were to be lets say 10 minutes, why would 180 minute ETOPS >certification require such truly backup system (when both engines fail) >to operate for 180 minutes ? There is a lot of interconnection between the primary systems. I suspect that there are several systems that could, in theory, be affected by failure of one engine. In this case, it is A Good Thing to have a backup system capable of doing the work for as long as you need, while the primary system is off-line. Actually, the Gimli Glider itself illustrates this: one of the two fuel computers was faulty, and when operating the defective computer prevented the good one from providing fuel data. But when the circuit breaker was popped on the faulty one, the remaining unit worked fine. But some "obliging" character reset the CB to the faulty unit on the ground in Montreal, so the aircraft had no fuel indication. Oops... Malc. From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >As I recall, G-BDXH (BA's 747 glider) flew for nearly 30 minutes before they >got the engines back, and I think they started at 37,000ft. The engines >were restarted at about 10,000ft, as I recall. They were only a glider for 12 minutes -- they lost #4 at 9:42 local time and the other three a minute later, all at FL370. They relit #4 at about FL135 at 9:55, then brought back the others over the next several minutes. >They even put the aircaft into a dive (and so INCREASED the sink >rate) at one stage due to loss of pressurization and an inop. First >Officer's oxygen mask. Right, so the descent rate implied by the above numbers is not meaningful for computing the 747's ability as a glider. >Of course, this aircraft had an APU running during the Jakarta Volcanic >ash emergency ... Are you sure? Nothing I've read about the accident mentions the pilots starting the APU, and it would not have been running at cruise. -- 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 Oct 6 02:14:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:26 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , ae562@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eric Thomas) wrote: > Speaking of which, would a FBW Airbus (say an A320) have been able to > manage a "Gimli Glider" situation? Do Airbuses have some sort of > battery back-up or air ram generator so that the computers driving > the control surfaces would be able to effectively work in a glide/no power > situation? Yes, I believe all the Airbus models including the A340 (although I don't know about the A300) have a RAT. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Exiled Expat wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > > On modern jetliners, if one engine fails during cruise, is the remaining > > > engine really used to the max ? > > > Unlike a turbofan engine, the > > chance of failure in a piston engine increases steeply with power. As > > long as you don't overtemp it, a turbine could care less what power > > setting you run it at or for how long. > > Sorry But this statement is not entirely correct, as turbine disks and blades > are sensitive to higher than normal rotational speeds ... My statement was probably a little too flip. I meant that turbines don't care what power setting you run it at within its normal operational parameters which include rotational speeds. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:27 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: Engine questions..... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Why? Network Dial-Up Customer David A. Stuart, Sr. wrote in article ... > 1- Today, I took a relative to to National (DC). While waiting for her > plane to arrive a 757 was waiting at the adjacent gate to off load / on > load pax. The 757 had its on board ground power unit operating (evident > from the hot exhaust gases) and was possibly connected to electrical > power from the gate. > > The entire time the aircraft was on the ground the right engine was > slowly (60-100 rpm) turning. I assume it was bleed air from the gpu. The > questions is.....why? Is it for lubrication purposes ? Was a bleed air > valve left open or was it a faulty valve allowing blow-by? 1. Do you remember if it was very windy that day? When the wind is strong enough (as little as 10mph) it can turn those fan blades on most all jet airliners (not sure about military fighters). And of course, the aircraft's orientation can explain why only one of the engine's blades where turning. It has nothing to do with the APU. Bleed air? Let me quote the 757 OM: "The valves [bleed air] are spring-loaded closed and electrically opened based on pneumatic demand. System logic prevents valves from opening until the engine is running and closes them when the engine shuts down." "The APU drives a generator to supply electrical power and provides bleed air for the pneumatic system." From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:27 From: Jan-Olov Newborg Subject: NTSB recommend FAA to require installation of AOA system in all transport category aircraft 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: Algonet/Tninet NTSB recommended FAA in July 15, 1997 to require AOA Indicators in all transport category aircraft : In addition, the NTSB reiterated a safety recommendation it made in 1996 following the crash of an American Airlines 757 near Cali, Colombia. "It again urged the FAA to require that all transport-category aircraft give pilots angle of attack information in a visual format, and train pilots to use the information to obtain maximum possible climb performance". The NTSB's complete report, PB97-910405, may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22162, (703) 487-4650. Media contact: Pat Cariseo This press release and other NTSB information are available on the World wide Web: http://www.ntsb.gov So at least NTSB now starts to understand what Wright Bros and Otto Lilienthal understod already 100 years ago,flight due to angle of attack and wing causing net downwash (wake turbulence) and not flight due to wings upper curvature as pilots are told today. When will ICAO and FAA understand and take action? Jan-Olov Newborg Stockholm Sweden From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:27 From: AirJet@Alaska.NET Subject: Re: Garuda A300 crash, volcanic ash, and morons of the media References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: http://www.alaska.net/~airjet Karl Swartz wrote: > To my knowledge, combustion of wood does not produce fine particles of > rock, at any temperature. The ash that is produced is more likely to > damage light-colored carpets than the metal used in aircraft engines. Karl you are right. Ash and smoke from wood burning is totally different from volcanic ash. Living in Alaska and witnessing the KLM 747-400 that flew through the cloud up here and made an emergency landing in Anchorage I know that this would NOT be a factor for the A-300 crash. The KLM 747-400 was essentially sand blasted from the volcanic ash. The pilots windows were almost totally obscure. The leading edges were also sand blasted. The ash got into the air packs and engines. This aircraft was here for months being repaired. I understand it cost $80 million dollars to repair and required replacement of all 4 engines. Thanks. http://www.alaska.net/~airjet From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:28 From: Syiad.Al-Duri@t-online.de (Syiad T. Al-Duri) Subject: Re: Garuda A300 crash, volcanic ash, and morons of the media 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: Telekom Online Internet Gateway Karl Swartz wrote in sci.aeronautics.airliners: > [...] > To my knowledge, combustion of wood does not produce fine particles of > rock, at any temperature. The ash that is produced is more likely to > damage light-colored carpets than the metal used in aircraft engines. Couldn't it be, that the oxygen concentration in the air was significantly reduced due to the extensive wood fires and thus causing a flameout on all engines? -- Syiad mailto:Syiad.Al-Duri@t-online.de Hit any user to continue. From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:28 From: "John Mazor" Subject: Re: 2nd Officer on a 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services k_ish wrote in article ... > Karl Swartz wrote: > > The nominal reason for this was that the union felt a third > > set of eyes was necessary for safety reasons. > Reminds me of the PSA 727 / Cessna (172?) midair at SAN in 1978. The > aircraft were talking to different ATC facilities, who were not fully > coordinating traffic. The Cessna was mistakenly vectored in front of > the 727. > > There was the 3-man flight crew plus 2-3 off-duty flight crew members on > the flight deck. Five or six sets of eyes failed to see the Cessna on a > CAVU day. Yes, but ATC had advised of traffic at a heading. They did spot traffic at approximately that location and stopped looking. Unfortunately, it wasn't the one that ATC was advising them of. Of course, if "see and avoid" was all that effective, we wouldn't need TCAS anyway, right? ;-) From kls Mon Oct 6 02:14:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 06 Oct 97 02:14:28 From: David Summergreene Subject: Re: 2nd Officer on a 767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Summergreene Enterprises Reply-To: dsummerg@hutch.com.au Simon Craig wrote: > >It would seem that a second officer would be useful for passing the > >snacks from the flight attendant ... > Air France 747-400s that used to fly to Australia had a Flight > Engineer. > Even more pointless than an Ansett 767 F/E. The other advantage of having a second officer is that they will learn a hell of lot whilst awaiting promotion. Hence the promotion course becomes a lot easier. David Summergreene Second Officer B767 Qantas Airways Ltd. From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:17 From: Bryan Shrode Subject: 2707 customers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------CAE7D40E4361CEC0C52AFCB1" Organization: - Can anyone here aid me in finding out who the launch customer and which airlines ordered the ill fated Boeing SST(Super-Sonic-Transport) 2707-100 before the project was canceled? To reply, remove "nospam" from my e-mail address -- Bryan Shrode bshrode@home.net From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:17 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 06 Oct 97 02:14:26 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >>As I recall, G-BDXH (BA's 747 glider) flew for nearly 30 minutes before they >>got the engines back, and I think they started at 37,000ft. The engines >>were restarted at about 10,000ft, as I recall. > >They were only a glider for 12 minutes -- they lost #4 at 9:42 local >time and the other three a minute later, all at FL370. They relit #4 >at about FL135 at 9:55, then brought back the others over the next >several minutes. You're right (although I believe the glide lasted 13 minutes, which is otherwise lost in the rounding of the seconds). I was (incorrectly) thinking of the duration of the emergency... which was 28 minutes (they touched down at Jakarta at 10:10 local). [ Snip ] >>Of course, this aircraft had an APU running during the Jakarta Volcanic >>ash emergency ... > >Are you sure? Nothing I've read about the accident mentions the >pilots starting the APU, and it would not have been running at >cruise. Again, you are correct (in essence), although the APU was started (by Barry Townley-Freeman, the FE) once they were on the ground 8-) I was thinking that the aircraft was not relying wholly on batteries, and that recollection was correct: the generator in #3 remained on-line and providing power even though the engine was only windmilling. Getting back to the topic of sink rates: immediately after the engines failed, the aircraft had a 500fpm sink, which increased as it slowed, stabilizing at about 2000fpm when the oxygen problem appeared, which lead to an emergency dive at around 6000fpm. Given that the aircraft was at FL370 when the emergency occurred, one can estimate that the total glide time would have been of the order of something over 20 minutes, (which was the original question). Malc. From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:17 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:17 From: BWMR55B@prodigy.com (Mr. Daniel H. O'neill) Subject: Re: Jet vs Prop (eg EMB135) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY It helps if you remember that a turboprop is an ultra high bypass unducted fan. The reason for ducting the fan is that props get wasteful when the tips hit supersonic velocities, and you must paddle faster than Mach 1 to approach Mach 1. Turbofan C-1 disk blade sections are biconvex at their outer spans and the duct keeps the shock waves from propagating all over the place. (all the noise is energy that isn't propelling the airplane). Propellers do a fine job of subsonic propulsion, and the difference between .5 Mach and .8 Mach doesn't mean much on a short flight, most of your travel time is spent in the car and walking around the airport anyway! From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: EMB-135 Launched References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE > > THere is a rosy future for the 35 seat jet if the costs are right, EMB > can look at replacing at least half of the 120's operating in the USA. > But as it is a EMB product it will be a cheap, low quality airplane, for > cheap low quality airlines. What is, in your opinion, a low quality airplane or a cheap low quality airline? Do you mean best-sellers are always low quality planes? Please check in: http://www.embraer.com/ing/press.htm Stephan Stephany - system manager mailto:stephan@lac.inpe.br http://www.lac.inpe.br/~stephan LAC - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory INPE - Brazilian Institute for Space Research From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Exiled Expat wrote: [snip] >( but that is typical for PW, Just look at how many mods were >made to the JT9D to bring it up to it's reliability ). Your example reinforces what I'm trying to say: reliability is very important. The only application the JT9D did well was the early B747 market, in which the JT9D initially had the sole source. After Boeing started to offer the CF6 and the RB.211, P&W share of the B747 market drastically fell. P&W practically lost every major European B747 customer, such as, Lufthansa, KLM, Alitalia, BA, Air France, etc. >The recent failure >of our RR Trent is so far believed to have been induced by foreign object >damage wich is difficult to fault the engine for. The Trent 800, as well as its competitors, went through rigorous birdstrike tests, including one with a 4-kg bird. The purpose of the test is to make sure engines can maintain certain level of thrust even in an event of birdstrike. (Furthermore, R-R has long claimed one of the many advantages of wide-chord fans is foreign objects seldom get into the core flow.) Thus, even if the damage was due to a birdstrike, the engine should not have had a catastrophic failure. If there is any truth to Flight's speculation (that metal chips from the bearing were found), then I think R-R has a much more serious problem at hand. R-R claimed to have solved the Trent 700 bearing problem by putting the Trent 800 bearing in the Trent 700. Perhaps, R-R has not solved the problem, yet. From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Malcolm Weir wrote: [snip] >The point was, while all in-flight shutdowns are serious, possibly the most >serious type of event involves fan blade failures... It's bad enough to >lose an engine without bits of the engine whizzing around the rest of the >airframe (c.f. Sioux City...) Malcolm, I think you know that the Sioux City accident was not due to a fan-blade failure. It was due to a rotor-disk failure. All engines do have to go through a fan-blade-failure test just like they have to go through birdstrike tests (but not a rotor-disk-failure test). In most cases, a fan-blade failure should not cause a catastrophic failure of the engine. From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: 777 rejected takeoff test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: > I watched the PBS series on the 777. Of special interest was the > full-load rejected takeoff test. I missed the figures for the > weight [and ISTM they were for load, vice emptyweight+load] > but they said it was 9.7 million ft-lbs of hot brakes. > > Err... I was always an SI type, but is that a viable unit for the > test? I was looking for energy, not torque. Absolutely. Pounds-feet is torque; foot-pounds is energy. Energy is equivalent to work: a given force exerted over a given distance. Hence foot-pounds. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: 777 rejected takeoff test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. On 06 Oct 97 02:14:26 , wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: >I watched the PBS series on the 777. Of special interest was the >full-load rejected takeoff test. I missed the figures for the >weight [and ISTM they were for load, vice emptyweight+load] >but they said it was 9.7 million ft-lbs of hot brakes. > >Err... I was always an SI type, but is that a viable unit for the >test? I was looking for energy, not torque. After all it's a >straight kinetic energy->heat conversion; anyone know the m and >v^2? If energy is 1/2*m*V^2 and m=f/g (force/accel, gravity) the units you end up with is ft-lbs ( or ft-lbf). From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: NTSB recommend FAA to require installation of AOA system in all transport category aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. On 06 Oct 97 02:14:27 , Jan-Olov Newborg wrote: >NTSB recommended FAA in July 15, 1997 to require AOA Indicators in all >transport category aircraft : > >"It again urged the FAA to require that all transport-category aircraft >give pilots angle of attack information in a visual format, and train >pilots to use the information to obtain maximum possible climb >performance". Why, is it any easier to fly angle of attack instead of airspeed? >So at least NTSB now starts to understand what Wright Bros and Otto >Lilienthal understod already 100 years ago,flight due to angle of attack >and wing causing net downwash (wake turbulence) and not flight due to >wings upper curvature as pilots are told today. > >When will ICAO and FAA understand and take action? When will someone show that having an angle of attack indicator will increase the level of safety of the various aircraft in service today? Also, will the increase in level of safety (if there is any) be enough to offset the cost of implementing such a system in all aircraft? Both of the question are required (by law) to be answered by the FAA prior to doing anything. From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: GLenssen@t-online.de (Gerhard Lenssen) Subject: What's that? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telekom Online Internet Gateway I saw a PIA-747 after starting from Frankfurt having something similar to condens-stripes outgoing from the outer edge of the right wing; only from this point. What may this have been? Gerhard Lenssen From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:18 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Ed Mellinger wrote: >Does anyone know of other aircraft, or primary >structure on them, that rely on "bonding" (c'mon, guys... it's glue!) to >carry loads between two metal components? (maybe an Urban legend, but you never know...) Every English schoolboy of the Fifties 'knew' that Araldite (a 2-part epoxy adhesive) was used to glue WWII aircraft together - though maybe it was only wooden Mosquitoes. 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 Tue Oct 7 14:10:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:19 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Footnote on the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Walter E. Shepherd wrote: > If my hazy memory serves me right, there was another factor beyond metal > fatigue which was contributory to the series of Comet disasters which I have > not seen mentioned in the recent thread in this newsgroup. Maintenance... > ground crews used to unpressurised propeller driven (i.e., low altitude) > aircraft with not much of a future (i.e., the short life expectancies typical > of combat aircraft) would drill holes at the end of fatigue cracks to keep > them from propagating further rather than to take the time to replace a skin > panel. This is exact. This procedure is well described in the accident report of YP. However COHEN states in his report that this procedure was approved by DH and authorities and could not be blamed for the crashes. Since this report was issued in 1955 it reflects the experience and know-how of this deacde, of course today we are smarter. 40 years of experience count, especially in an area which growed that fast in the last 40 years ... > This was SOP for workers (and a whole industry) who had gained prior > experience and training during the hectic pace of the war years. > > If my memory is correct, the early Comet fleet reached a point where it was > riddled with small cracks terminated with little round holes. Most were along > the window line at the high stress points of the fuselage... so there was in > effect a perforated line waiting for the right moment to unzip the upper half > of the fuselage from the lower half. That moment came for several of the early > Comets at a most inconvienient time and place. There is no mention of this in the COHEN report. So I doubt that this was the case. Don't forget that the YP accident investigation was the most conscientious which was done ... until TWA800. At the time W. Churchill told investigators to clarify the Comet crashes at ANY costs. The reputation of the UK a/c constructors was in jeopardy. > I mention this recollection because I believe that the current generation of > aviation industry workers, trained under totally different circumstances, > might not have the perspective to understand how such disasters can arise. I > have seen sentiments here in this newsgroup laying the blame at the feet of > the designers, at the feet of the UK aviation industry... etc, etc. I think no > one need be chastised... the disaster was simply a lingering after effect of a > disaster filled war... a war that also brought about the huge growth of the > aircraft industry. In the seeds of miracle, also lie the seeds of disaster. I fully agree. The guys at DH were pioneers with all known advantages and disadvantages. Note that the sections of the COHEN report which I mention in this post are not yet on the web, they will follow ... Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> De Havilland COMET homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:19 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: > I thought Eastman developed cyanoacrylate. I think you're right. I remember my Dad telling of Eastman 910 adhesive back in the mid-'60s; he apparently was familiar with it at work at AC Spark Plug. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Tue Oct 7 14:10:19 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 07 Oct 97 14:10:19 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Questions about the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 3 Oct 1997, Ed Mellinger wrote: > This raised my eyebrows when I read about it ten years ago, and raised > 'em again today. I was suprised that glue would be considered > acceptable for carrying a primary structural load, particularly in that > era (nowadays, I know, we have composite airplanes that are nothing but > glue and yarn). Does anyone know of other aircraft, or primary > structure on them, that rely on "bonding" (c'mon, guys... it's glue!) to > carry loads between two metal components? The Convair B-58 supersonic bomber used bonded metal in its structure. This was in the late 1950's. This was a very high performance aircraft in its time, and unlike fighters would cruise at supersonic speed for extended periods, so the ability to withstand heat soaking was needed. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:10 From: David Asher Subject: 777 Engine Startup Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gonzaga University Reply-To: David Asher Does the Boeing 777 have a Autostart capability (a single switch that will perform all of the functions related to engine start)? I had read somewhere that one of the airlines involved with the design had requested this feature. Thanks, Dave From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:11 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Radioactive material on CV990 ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I heard that the rudders of the Convair 990 had counterweights made out of uranium. - Is this correct ? - If correct, how much urianium do we speak of ? - What type of uranium was this ? - Did CV990 fly during their whole (and short) life with these counterweights or were they quikly replaced ? - Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in civil a/c ? Just curious, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:11 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I heard that the rudders of the Convair 990 had counterweights made out >of uranium. I don't know about the 990, but I've heard that the 747-100 has some uranium in the outer wings to dampen flutter that was identified in flight testing. This may just be an unsubstantiated rumor, though. >- What type of uranium was this ? It almost certainly was 238U with only minor "impurities" of other, more radioactive isotopes. According to the WWW periodic table of the elements (see http://cst.lanl.gov/CST/imagemap/periodic/92.html) at Los Alamos -- folks who ought to know about this stuff! -- nearly 99.3% of natually occuring uranium consists of this isotope. While still radioactive, it has a half-life of 4.51e9, making it far less active than the rarer isotopes. In fact, it was probably depleted uranium (a waste product from producing enriched uranium fuels or weapons-grade uranium), with an even higher percentage of 238U. >- Did CV990 fly during their whole (and short) life with these >counterweights or were they quikly replaced ? Why would they have been replaced? >- Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in >civil a/c ? Most elements have radioactive isotopes or contain trace amounts of radioactive elements, so just about everything in an airliner is slightly radioactive. 238U might not be much worse than more common materials given its long half-life. The only thing I can think of that is *chosen* for its radioactivity is the radioisotope commonly used in smoke detectors. I assume the ones in lavatories on airliners are based on the same design. -- 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 Oct 16 00:44:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:11 From: me@myhouse.com Subject: 757 flight management Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I fly an aircraft with the Honeywell SPZ 2000 flight management system. Does anyone know how similiar or dissimiliar the 2000 is to whatever Honeywell systems are standard in the B-757? From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:11 From: alan@gate.net (Alan Andersen) Subject: Re: 777 Engine RPM References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. On 01 Oct 97 19:57:50 , GWilson404@aol.com wrote: >In article , alan@gate.net (Alan Andersen) writes: >Very simply EPR is a function of actual rotor speed divided by the square >root of the inlet total temperature. This would make the rotor speed some >5%-10% lower at altitude to achieve the same EPR. On the other hand you need >a higher EPR to achieve the same thrust due to reduced air density. So, what do you calculate to be the max EPR at max N1 on a standard day? From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:11 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: What ? In article , H Andrew Chuang writes >In article , >Malcolm Weir wrote: >>The point was, while all in-flight shutdowns are serious, possibly the most >>serious type of event involves fan blade failures... > All engines >do have to go through a fan-blade-failure test just like they have to >go through birdstrike tests (but not a rotor-disk-failure test). In >most cases, a fan-blade failure should not cause a catastrophic failure >of the engine. Let's get technical. FAN BLADE FAILURE All engine marks need to show that a single blade release will be contained. This needs to be shown for any stage of compressor / turbine, and for failure at the worst possible position on the blade (ie not just the tip being released). Damage to other blades must also not cause hazardous effects. This can be demonstrated by full running engine test, and suitable rig test, or by analysis. The cost of the engine test is massive, and thus rarely done. The analysis method is cheaper, but usually requires reading across data from engine tests. (NB I believe that the GE90 engine test involved blade failure at the "most likely" failure position (not the worst), and the FAA agreed !) However, multiple blade release or disc burst are not required to be contained. (Think about the energies involved...it's not practical.) The risk of such failures must be shown to be acceptable low, and this is why discs have declared service lives and inspection schedules. This does rely on the professionalism of the engine operator, and several failures I know of cannot be blamed on the engine design. Now....BIRD INGESTION etc. Similar rules cover bird ingestion, hail ingestion etc. There are bird ingestion rules for small birds, medium birds and large birds, and the numbers to be swallowed vary with engine size. Again, compliance can be demonstrated by engine test and/or analysis. The current requirements are that bird ingestion causes no hazardous effects, and that the engine continues producing at least 75% thrust for 15 minutes without throttle tweak. And, yes... the widechord fan blades do CF out the debris / nuggets away from the core, and the core suffers less damage. Ask the airlines, they'll confirm this. ----------- Iain Stuart They're my opinions ! From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:11 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 07 Oct 97 14:10:18 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) caused to appear as if it was written: >In article , >Malcolm Weir wrote: >>The point was, while all in-flight shutdowns are serious, possibly the most >>serious type of event involves fan blade failures... It's bad enough to >>lose an engine without bits of the engine whizzing around the rest of the >>airframe (c.f. Sioux City...) >Malcolm, I think you know that the Sioux City accident was not due to >a fan-blade failure. It was due to a rotor-disk failure. All engines >do have to go through a fan-blade-failure test just like they have to >go through birdstrike tests (but not a rotor-disk-failure test). In >most cases, a fan-blade failure should not cause a catastrophic failure >of the engine. Yes, I am aware that UA232's accident was caused by a rotor-disk failure. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear that the point was that having bits of engine part company with the rest of it is more significantly more serious than lubrication problems. An extreme example of that point was Sioux City.... compared with the Eastern L1011 that lost all lubrication on all engines... It is obvious that uncontained failures are more serious than contained failures, and that *neither* should happen. But both do. Didn't P&W have "concerns" about fan containment with those engines, anyway? Malc. From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: "D Eunson" Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: N/A H Andrew Chuang wrote in article ... > Malcolm, I think you know that the Sioux City accident was not due to > a fan-blade failure. It was due to a rotor-disk failure. All engines > do have to go through a fan-blade-failure test just like they have to > go through birdstrike tests (but not a rotor-disk-failure test). In > most cases, a fan-blade failure should not cause a catastrophic failure > of the engine. You seem to use the word catastrophic somewhat loosely. You are quite right that tests are carried out to demonstrate that a fan blade can be released and contained without hazarding the aircraft by releasing high energy debris. As you say, this is not catastrophic. Tests are also carried out on both rigs and engines to demonstrate the engines ability to withstand birdstrike of a number of 1.5 pound birds and (rig test, fan only) one 8 pound bird (well a block of gelatin). after the engine test, the engine must be able to continue running for a period of time with no intervention from the driver (which of course the Trent 800 can do). This then is not catastrophic. While it is true that the Wide chord Fan will centrifuge a high proportion of debris down the bypass, anything impacting near the spinner does stand a chance of being ingested by the core (bear in mind that one of the 1.5 pound birds is fired at the spinner). If a bird / foreign object of sufficient size were ingested by the core, then damage could result to the core compressor blades and it would not be unreasonable to assume that there is a risk of failing a damaged compressor blade at some time in the future if the engine continues to run on in service. As with the above situations, there is nothing catastrophic, nor any risk of release of high energy debris associated with a core compressor blade failure (the casings being designed for containment). Many engines have run on with sections of compressor blade missing, the damage only being found on borescope inspection. Essentially, the T800 failure was definitely not catastrophic! By the way, who says Cathay hate twins? From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: wenkes@mindspring.com (SHW) Subject: Re: 777 rejected takeoff test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: wenkes@mindspring.com wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: >I watched the PBS series on the 777. Of special interest was the >full-load rejected takeoff test. I missed the figures for the >weight [and ISTM they were for load, vice emptyweight+load] >but they said it was 9.7 million ft-lbs of hot brakes. I also saw the special and had a question, not about the units but the order of magnitude. The 707 has a limiting brake energy of 40 Million foot-lbs per brake. What doesn't make sense here is that the Trip-7 is roughly twice the weight of the 70. With modern carbon-fiber brake rotors and an extra set of wheels per truck how could the failure limit on the 777 be so low ? From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: Syiad.Al-Duri@t-online.de (Syiad T. Al-Duri) Subject: Re: 777 rejected takeoff test 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: T-Online Stephen H. Westin wrote in sci.aeronautics.airliners: > wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: >> Err... I was always an SI type, but is that a viable unit for the >> test? I was looking for energy, not torque. > Absolutely. Pounds-feet is torque; foot-pounds is energy. > Energy is equivalent to work: a given force exerted over a given > distance. Hence foot-pounds. There's no difference between Torque and Energy. That's why they have the same dimension, force multiplied by distance. Syiad mailto:Syiad.Al-Duri@t-online.de -- It's like a jungle, sometimes it makes me wonder how I keep from going under! From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: AirJet@Alaska.NET Subject: Re: Garuda A300 crash, volcanic ash, and morons of the media References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: http://www.alaska.net/~airjet Syiad T. Al-Duri wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote in sci.aeronautics.airliners: > > To my knowledge, combustion of wood does not produce fine particles of > > rock, at any temperature. The ash that is produced is more likely to > > damage light-colored carpets than the metal used in aircraft engines. > > Couldn't it be, that the oxygen concentration in the air was significantly > reduced due to the extensive wood fires and thus causing a flameout on all > engines? One word------ NO.......!!!!! From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Garuda A300 crash, volcanic ash, and morons of the media References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Syiad T. Al-Duri wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote in sci.aeronautics.airliners: > > To my knowledge, combustion of wood does not produce fine particles of > > rock, at any temperature. The ash that is produced is more likely to > > damage light-colored carpets than the metal used in aircraft engines. > > Couldn't it be, that the oxygen concentration in the air was significantly > reduced due to the extensive wood fires and thus causing a flameout on all > engines? I suppose that it is *possible*, but I find it highly unlikely. A region of air so depleted of oxygen that the engines would be unable to run would only be possible *very* close to the fire itself. Besides, "water bombers" fly into far worse conditions fighting forest fires in the US and Canada regularly. Many of these are piston engined planes (notably A-26 Invaders, and 15 years ago B-17s were still being used regularly!) but there are more and more turbine-engined craft involved, including C-130s and converted Electras (see http://www.airspray.com for a typical fleet composition and deployment procedure). From what I've been told, the movie "Always" with Richard Dreyfuss was a fairly accurate account of these operations, barring the obvious artistic license of dousing another plane with retardant to put out an engine fire, running out of fuel, gliding home, etc... :-) -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: NTSB recommend FAA to require installation of AOA system in all transport category aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign s_odle@earthlink.net writes: >Why, is it any easier to fly angle of attack instead of airspeed? Because the important AOA's (best glide, stall, etc) do not vary with gross weight. Finding best glide using airspeed requires knowing your weight at that time and then using a table/computer. Stall is even worse because you are very concerned about the effect of turns on stall speed. You need to know actual gross weight and then compute the force in the turn and *then* look it up in a table to find the stall speed. With an AOA meter you just *look* at it; it will tell you exactly how much lift you can extract before a stall. Any error in calculating your weight at that moment will result in blowing both computations when flying by airspeed. >Also, will the increase in level of safety (if there is any) be enough >to offset the cost of implementing such a system in all aircraft? The cost? Let's see... one piece of yarn attached to the outside of a window, a grease pencil mark on the inside for best L/D, another mark for stall. (Just kidding there... I am just sure that the AOA gauge will need to be electronic, triple-redundant, and integrated into the FMC.) From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: wenkes@mindspring.com (SHW) Subject: Re: NTSB recommend FAA to require installation of AOA system in all transport category aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: wenkes@mindspring.com s_odle@earthlink.net wrote: >On 06 Oct 97 02:14:27 , Jan-Olov Newborg wrote: >>NTSB recommended FAA in July 15, 1997 to require AOA Indicators in all >>transport category aircraft : > >Why, is it any easier to fly angle of attack instead of airspeed? AOA works instantly, regardless of weight or load factor. Flying off one gauge, the pilot can max-perforn any type of aircraft. This is a lot easier than trying to fly "in and out" of stick-shaker. Most pilots who have flown both systems, instead of prefering one over the other see the benefit of having both. AOA to fly out of a bad situation and stick-shaker as a back-up. AOA also serves as great insurance against posting the wrong approach or climbout speed. Stick shakers simply tell you you're going to die if you don't accelerate -- but not how much to accelerate. Speed-up too much and you might not clear the trees in a windshear escape scenario. Normally I'm not one for government mandates, but I think it's appropriate in this case. If the AA crew in Cali had an AOA gage and a speed brake - thrust lever miscompare warning system they would have lived. That's pretty clear evidence. From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 From: Jan-Olov Newborg Subject: Re: NTSB recommend FAA to require installation of AOA system in all transport category aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Algonet/Tninet In article , s_odle@earthlink.net wrote: > > On 06 Oct 97 02:14:27 , Jan-Olov Newborg wrote: > > >NTSB recommended FAA in July 15, 1997 to require AOA Indicators in all > >transport category aircraft : > > > >"It again urged the FAA to require that all transport-category aircraft > >give pilots angle of attack information in a visual format, and train > >pilots to use the information to obtain maximum possible climb > >performance". > > Why, is it any easier to fly angle of attack instead of airspeed? NTSB has found that in a number of accidents involving stall recovery and airspeed indicator malfunction, AOA indicators could have saved the lives in fatal crashes with DC8 and Boeing 757 mentioned.AOA indicators should bee a fail safe backup in airliners, in modern fighters they are used in every high G-turn. > >So at least NTSB now starts to understand what Wright Bros and Otto > >Lilienthal understod already 100 years ago,flight due to angle of attack > >and wing causing net downwash (wake turbulence) and not flight due to > >wings upper curvature as pilots are told today. > > > >When will ICAO and FAA understand and take action? > > When will someone show that having an angle of attack indicator will > increase the level of safety of the various aircraft in service today? > Also, will the increase in level of safety (if there is any) be enough > to offset the cost of implementing such a system in all aircraft? All modern aircraft have AOA sensors already,but all information is given to cockpit computers and not shown in clear form to the crew. Delta Airlines has ordered 431 new Boeing 737 and is now pushing Boeing to install AOA indicators and headup display in cockpit. Delta work together with American Airlines,which also ordered some new Boeng 737-700. Jan-Olov Newborg Stockholm Sweden From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 From: Andre Brandao Subject: Horizontal minimum separation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Instituto Superior Tecnico Hi Does anyone know what is the minimum separation of aircrafts in North Atlantic Airspace? Is this separation different from aircrafts under radar controlled airspace? Thank you very much, Andre Brandao, Andre Brandao E-mail: l42303@alfa.ist.utl.pt From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Footnote on the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Marc Schaeffer (marcmsc@geocities.com) wrote: : Note that the sections of the COHEN report which I mention in this post : are not yet on the web, they will follow ... The sections of the report which are on the web are very interesting. Marc should be complimented, and encouraged to post the rest! -- Gerry From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Service Ceiling (was Re: Passenger cabin pressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , luisma@spainmail.com wrote: >1) The cabin equivalent altitude should not be greater than 8000 ft (this >condition, together with the structural condition stated above, imposes >a limit to the aircraft flight level, limit which is known as SERVICE >CEILING). To nitpick (this being usenet and all), the Service Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the airline can no longer climb at 500 fpm. Absolute Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft can no longer climb at all. (Unfortunately, I can't find a written reference at this at the moment, but I am certain that the Service Ceiling is not defined in terms of cabin pressure, as many unpressurized aircraft have service ceilings in excess of 12,500 ft.) 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 Oct 16 00:44:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 From: tassio.nojunkmail@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: EMB-135 Launched References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center >But as it is an EMB product, it will be a cheap, low quality airplane, for >cheap low quality airlines Did you ever hear of an Embraer project called CBA-123? It was exactly the opposite of the qualities you mentioned: expensive, high quality 19-seater for high quality airlines. Besides that, it had a bold pusher design. It didn't sell and almost broke Embraer. The commuter market calls for affordable planes with low paid crews. Otherwise it can't break even in a competitive market. While the EMB120 is very similar in most aspects to the competition (e.g., Saab340), the EMB145 is a lot different from what is presently the benchmark for regional jets, the CRJ. Obviously, due to its origins, the CRJ feels a lot more like a big jet. But as the American Eagle order showed, the CRJ is no match for the 145 in value. Apparently, it even pays to have 145s and 70-seater CRJs when compared to the commonality benefits of a 50- and 70-seater all-CRJ fleet. So' meus dois centavos - Tassio From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Sorry if this is very basic: Correct me if assumptions as wrong: -A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. -The force of the lift should always equal the weight of the aircraft otherwise the plane would either climb or drop. -The weight of an aircraft changes as fuel is exhausted during cruise. QUESTION: Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? Is this change so trivial that it is not an issue, or do pilots take this into consideration (reducing speed to reduce lift or what ?) ???? If speed is adjusted to match the lift with the weight of the aircraft, how does this affect airline schedules where cargo loads may influence the time it takes for the airctaft to get to destination ? Would a fully loaded plane not travel faster then a same plane but lightly loaded ? From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: THY Boeing order Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com The Turkish Airlines order for 26 B737-800 (plus 23 options) was reported in the news. This order is interesting regarding several aspects : - The official '97 list price for a 738 is from 48M$ to 54M$, the official deal would thus be for 1.25B$ to 1.4B$. The Seattle times reports the THY order with the following heading: 'Boeing wins $1.3 billion Turkey deal '. According to another report the chairman of the board of Turkish Airlines, Cem Kozlu, said his company had agreed to buy the planes for $830M. This means a discount between 33 and 41%, pretty normal discounts for such a big deal. - Some of the parts for the aircraft will be manufactured by Turkish Aircraft Industries. Does anybody have more details ? - Kozlu said the decision between the two competing companies (Airbus and Boeing) had been made on the basis of price, guarantees and delivery dates. Interesting items are price and delivery dates. Airbus got the US Air(ways) deal by discounting the 320 for even less than in the THY deal, so I assume they could have sold the 320 if price was that important. Concerning the delivery dates i'm surprised that Boeing could offer something better than Airbus. With all the delivery problems Boeing has currently, how could they offer better positions than Airbus. Maybe the reserved US Air(ways) slots (which still have to be confirmed) have played a major role. Note that the expected THY widebody order has still to be announced. It is said that AI will sell 15 A332/333. TAM has confirmed it's LOI signed at the Paris Air Show and confirmed the deal for 5 A332 (plus 5 options). Finnair has confirmed a similar deal, but LOI for 10 A320 and 2 A321 have been modified to 5 A319, 3 A320 and 4 A321. All these recent orders have been included in my '97 commercial aircraft orders which can be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/orders97.htm Note that Boeing has so far 369 orders and Airbus 324 firm orders. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Oct 16 00:44:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 From: jak1959@aol.com (JAK1959) Subject: A/C Body Station Designations Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Could someone please inform me as to where the reference point is that body stations are measured from on commercial aircraft? Is it the forward pressure bulkhead? Is it the mounting structure for the weather radar? Please let me know. Also, are there any publications that have aircraft diagrams that would include both body stations and stringers? And a final question. How does Airbus designate the body stations? Please let me know. Thanks in advance James Keane JAK1959@AOL.COM From kls Thu Oct 16 11:59:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:49 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University Marc Schaeffer writes: > - Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in > civil a/c ? The latest issue of Air and Space magazine shows a photo of an XP-84 instrument panel on display at the National Air and Space Museum. It specifically mentions the radium used in the luminescent instrument dials. I suspect that old airliners have similar dials. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Thu Oct 16 11:59:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:50 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >I don't know about the 990, but I've heard that the 747-100 has some >uranium in the outer wings to dampen flutter that was identified in >flight testing. This may just be an unsubstantiated rumor, though. Clive Irving (Wide Body: The Making of the Boeing 747) says there was (and still is) depleted uranium in the outboard engine pylons of early 747s to provide extra damping of oscillations in the aeroelastic wing. The oscillations were tailored out of the wing on later 747s -- presumably more for performance reasons than risks due to radioactivity. (The uranium is *not* paying for its ride!) -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Thu Oct 16 11:59:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:50 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: 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: > >I heard that the rudders of the Convair 990 had counterweights made out > >of uranium. > > I don't know about the 990, but I've heard that the 747-100 has some > uranium in the outer wings to dampen flutter that was identified in > flight testing. This may just be an unsubstantiated rumor, though. Depleted uranium was commonly used in combatting flutter, and as balance weights. It was chosen for its high density (mass/volume). Applications include the B747 elevator, as earlier mentioned. Required some special handling; I believe it was treated as hazardous waste, if removed from the aircraft (as when scrapping/parting-out). Also commonly used in high caliber military ammunition, for its ability to deliver maximum kinetic energy in the smallest possible round.... - Bob Mann -- 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 Thu Oct 16 11:59:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:50 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >I don't know about the 990, but I've heard that the 747-100 has some >uranium in the outer wings to dampen flutter that was identified in >flight testing. This may just be an unsubstantiated rumor, though. ... >>- Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in >>civil a/c ? > >Most elements have radioactive isotopes or contain trace amounts of >radioactive elements, so just about everything in an airliner is >slightly radioactive. 238U might not be much worse than more common >materials given its long half-life. Actually 737-300/400/500 use tungsten weights in the wingtips. Tungsten is nearly as dense as uranium, but is much more difficult to fabricate. My recollection is 10kg per wingtip. Let me put the radioactivity issue into perspective. The risk for pure Uranium is as a toxic heavy metal. In that regard it is every bit as dangerous as other heavy metals. The radioacivity risk is trivial by comnparison.I have personally handled fuel pellets (uranium oxide) for a reactor prior to use with my bare hands. The bullets used in the GAU-8 cannon on the A10 are U238, and require no radiation protection or precautions. It is considered safe to do so as a radioactive material before it has been in a reactor. (once it has been in a reactor, you get fission products that have much shorter half lives, so are much much more serious radiation hazards. U238 has a half life comparable to Potassium 40. I think you would find most people horrified to discover that a very sizeable portion of the potassium in their body (Close to half) is in fact K-40. In my University days I was involved in a project where we tried to image people using the K40 in their body. Turns out to be just about impossible, the quantities involved are modest, and with a 4 billion year half life, it doesn't decay very fast. At best what we were looking far was only marginally above background, and even trace contamination (which was a real problem for us, since it was done in the nuclear medicine department at a large University Hospital) was enough to completely hide the K40 decay we were looking for. (Moral of the story is don't make you lead shielding for the floor out of pigs used to transport radio-isotopes!!) From kls Thu Oct 16 11:59:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:50 From: "john r." Subject: Re: What's that? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Gerhard Lenssen writes >I saw a PIA-747 after starting from Frankfurt having something similar >to condens-stripes outgoing from the outer edge of the right wing; >only from this point. >What may this have been? Its venting fuel from the wing tip surge tanks. These are small reservior tanks that catch overfuels and shuts down the refuel process, when on the ground. Normaly this fuel slowly drains back into the tanks. In flight, if the aircraft is tanked up to the limits and not flown level it tends to slosh out into the surge tanks and then overboard and thats what you see. I have watched a PIA leaving a trail over a mile long out of Heathrow. They seem to make a habit of it ! Maybe they tanker fuel to Pakistan. -- john r. From kls Thu Oct 16 11:59:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:50 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: A340 in China Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In early 1990's, China Aviation Supplies Corp (CASC) ordered six A340-300s for China Southern Airlines (CZ). However, CZ, which currently has six B777s in operation, refused to accept the A340-300s. Last year, CASC was able to assign three of the A340s to Air China and the rest to China Eastern (MU), which had ordered five A340s on its own. MU started operating the A340-300s in 1996 and was reported to be unhappy with the performance of the aircraft. In fact, MU pulled the A340-300 out of the trans-Pacific routes and redeployed the MD-11 on these routes. MU put the A340-300 on less demanding routes between China and Europe. (Someone in this newsgroup previously suggested the switch was due to higher yield on the European routes, but I don't think that's the case.) MU has also decided not to take the additional three A340-300s from CASC. Now, China Southwestern (SZ) will take the three A340s that both CZ and MU don't want. SZ's A340-300 will probably be the first high-density A340-300 with 370 seats. Oddly, SZ will use the long-range aircraft for domestic operations. Perhaps, SZ thinks the four-engine plane is appropriate for high-altitude operations out of Lhasa, Tibet. From kls Thu Oct 16 11:59:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:51 From: alan@gate.net (Alan Andersen) Subject: Re: 777 Engine Startup References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. On 16 Oct 97 00:44:10 , David Asher wrote: >Does the Boeing 777 have a Autostart capability (a single switch that will >perform all of the functions related to engine start)? I had read >somewhere that one of the airlines involved with the design had requested >this feature. Yes, the 777 does have an autostart system, but not a single switch. All the crew has to do is have the Autostart switch ON, the Fuel Switch to RUN and the Start/ignition Switch to START. Then sit back and watch the show. The EEC controls the start sequence. It turns on the fuel and ignition at about 20%, monitors engine perameters and disengages the starter at about 50%. It will abort the start if a fault occurs and then attempt a restart. From kls Thu Oct 16 11:59:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Oct 97 11:59:51 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , D Eunson wrote: > > Essentially, the T800 failure was definitely not catastrophic! I don't know for a fact that it was catastrophic. I was merely repeating what I had heard from two different sources that it was a catastrophic failure. For the second time, Flight International reported the incidence as catastrophic and cited the failure was due to a high compressor blade fatigue. If you have evidence that the FI report was inaccurate, perhaps you should say so to FI. > By the way, who says Cathay hate twins? Hate may be a strong word, but I'm seriously doubt they are very pleased with either the A330 or the B777. Don't tell me that after four well-publicized inflight shutdowns in five months, three-week grounding and other lesser-known incidences that Cathay still love the A330. Cathay has been very conservative. For nearly 15 years, (between 1980 and early 1990's), Cathay had introduced only one new aircraft type (a major new derivative, the B747-400; there was the B747-300, but it's practically the same as the B747-200). Recently, in a period of two years, Cathay had introduced three new aircraft types (the A330, A340, and B777). IMHO, Cathay's "inexperience" in introducing new fleet as well as too many new types in a very short period of time further compounded teething problems that were expected for new aircraft types. The problematic Trent 700 certainly made it worse. Cathay was one of the few which were very pleased with the A330 initially. However, I don't think they are as pleased as they used to be. Cathay must be very thankful that it has only one A330 route (to Colombo, Sri Lanka) that rely on the ETOPS certification of the A330. If Cathay had more ETOPS routes, the suspension of Trent 700-powered A330 ETOPS rating would be a disaster for its operation. Of course, Cathay has no plans to abandon twins, because the airline has made too much investment in them. It does not mean that CX likes the planes. It has just been announced that China Southwestern is going to take three A340s for domestic operations (see another post). Singapore Airlines also uses the A340 on quite a number of short-haul flights. Thus, I won't be surprised if Cathay will rely more on the A340 in the future. Airlines in that region are known to "misuse" planes. Currently, CX does use the A340 on regional routes, but these flights are mostly "fill-ins" between long-haul flights to Europe and North America. From news Sat Oct 11 14:49:11 1997 Newsgroups: sci.engr.marine.hydrodynamics,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: steamer@west.net (Edward Haas) Subject: Re: Recirculating water tunnel Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: West.Net Communications References: Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:36:25 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu --There were plans for a model boat test tunnel of around 3" dia. in the UK publication Model Boats a few years back... Always meant to build the durned thing, but... -- "Steamboat Ed" Haas : The Great Delta Steamboat Meet See 3MB of crummy photos at: : was GREAT!! http://www.west.net/~steamer : ---Decks a-wash in a sea of words--- From news Sun Oct 19 11:39:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.engr.marine.hydrodynamics,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: "A.F. AboulAzm" Subject: Re: Recirculating water tunnel Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland References: Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:50:32 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Olin K. McDaniel, III wrote: > > Good day. I am designing a recirculating water tunnel with a > test section 10 inches high (free surface) by 14 inches wide by about 20 > inches long. Flow visualization will be by hydrogen bubble streamers and > lift/drag by beam balance with load cell and manometer readout. A 24 > pound thrust electric trolling motor with a 9 inch diameter prop is > available to pump the water. Before I completely reinvent the thing, > does anyone have plans for such a device about this size. > > Thanks in advance, Olin. Hello Olin; The company Armfield designs and builds circulating water channels for teaching and research, you may contact them for information at; Armfield Ltd Bridge House, West Street Ringwood, Hamshire England Cheers A. F. Aboulazm, Marine Institute, Memorial University From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:12 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:12 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >And, yes... the widechord fan blades do CF out the debris / nuggets away >from the core, and the core suffers less damage. Ask the airlines, >they'll confirm this. I think you'll find that the shape and size of the 'spinner' of the engine also has a lot to do with it's ability/tendancy to keep rain, hail, etc. out of the engine core. TheFNG From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:13 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Trent 800 woes [Reposted due to Enlow UCE cancel] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 16 Oct 97 11:59:51 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) caused to appear as if it was written: >> Essentially, the T800 failure was definitely not catastrophic! > >I don't know for a fact that it was catastrophic. I was merely repeating >what I had heard from two different sources that it was a catastrophic >failure. For the second time, Flight International reported the >incidence as catastrophic and cited the failure was due to a high >compressor blade fatigue. If you have evidence that the FI report was >inaccurate, perhaps you should say so to FI. Here's the relevant stuff from Flight International, 24-30 Sep (Pg. 7) EMIRATE 777 Trent engine fails during take-off A Trent 800 engine from an Emirates Airlines Boeing 777, which suffered a catastrophic engine failure during take-off is being examined by Rolls-Royce. The take-off was continued and the crew shut down the engine and returned to Dubai, where the aircraft was landed safely. Emirates declines to comment, beyond saying that there was an incident involving the flight to Male in the Maldives and that the aircraft returned to Dubai. Unconfirmed reports from pilots in Dubai say that a failure and subsequent engine fire occurred after V1 (take-off decision speed), but before rotation speed. The shutdown on 16 September is reported to have resulted in a failure in the high-pressure compressor. It is possible that the incident was prompted by a birdstrike, although one source says that metal debris in the mass chip-detector is believed to have come from the front-bearing cage. R-R says only that "...there was an in-flight shutdown on an Emirates aircraft. The engine is being stripped down and we are investigating." Preliminary indications were that the aircraft's thrust-asymmetry compensation (TAC) function also failed to operate. The TAX automatically applies up to 10degress rudder when one engine produces greater than 10% more power than the other, but only under set conditions. When the engine failed, the Emirates' 777 engine-indication and crew-alerting system displayed the advice "THRUST ASYM COMP". The 777's operations manual explains this as: "Thrust asymmetry compensation is inoperative". Boeing says: "It looks as if the TAC operated as it should have. Certain failures will not activate the TAC function, to ensure that there is no [rudder] input in the wrong direction.". Malc. From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:13 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services John Weiss wrote: Various followups have given data about the BA 747 glider. I believe there were similar SQ and KL incidents - were the glide times similar? From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:13 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: What ? In article , Karl Swartz writes >>Of course, this aircraft had an APU running during the Jakarta Volcanic >>ash emergency ... > >Are you sure? Nothing I've read about the accident mentions the >pilots starting the APU, and it would not have been running at >cruise. The only reports I've read showed that the crew were attempting Windmill Engine Starts, and once one engine lit, they also tried Starter Assists. Suggests thet the APU was non-op. In case you're wondering where the electrical / hydraulic power came from, even when unlit, the engines rotate. Usually, fast enuff to provide some power if required. ----------- Iain Stuart Derby Dead Pool 1997 http://www.big-iain.demon.co.uk/DeadPool/index.htm From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:13 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: 757 flight management References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I fly an aircraft with the Honeywell SPZ 2000 flight management >system. Does anyone know how similiar or dissimiliar the 2000 is to >whatever Honeywell systems are standard in the B-757? Let's see... They both have glass in the cockpit...I'd say that just about wraps up the similarities. The SPZ is a darned good system for smaller aircraft that don't have to go from sea to shining sea. They usually have an IRS system, an RNAV, GPS, and/or some combination of the above. The systems are very different, but the 'knowledge transfer' of any FMS based system to another is much easier and quicker than that from a purely round-dial (aka steam-guage) to an FMS. TheFNG From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:13 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:13 From: rma@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) Subject: Re: Service Ceiling (was Re: Passenger cabin pressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Who needs it? Edward Hahn (ehahn@mitre.org) spilled onto his/her news spool: : To nitpick (this being usenet and all), the Service Ceiling is defined as the : altitude at which the airline can no longer climb at 500 fpm. Then prepare to be nitpicked yourself. :-) Since when do airlines climb? Assuming you mean aircraft, I was taught service ceiling was defined by a 100 fpm climb rate. 500 fpm would give some underpowered GA aircraft a service ceiling at or below sea level, I suspect. -- Rich Ahrens rma@visi.com http://www.visi.com/~rma/ "In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: banks.85@spamersgotohell.osu.edu (Dan Banks) Subject: Re: Service Ceiling (was Re: Passenger cabin pressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Ohio State University In article ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) writes: >To nitpick (this being usenet and all), the Service Ceiling is defined as the >altitude at which the airline can no longer climb at 500 fpm. Absolute >Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft can no longer climb >at all. >(Unfortunately, I can't find a written reference at this at the moment, but I >am certain that the Service Ceiling is not defined in terms of cabin pressure, >as many unpressurized aircraft have service ceilings in excess of 12,500 ft.) Service ceiling is the altitude at which the maximum rate of climb = 100 ft/min. Source: Anderson, John D, Jr.; _Introduction to Flight_; Third Edition; McGraw-Hill, Inc; 1989; p 298 Dan Banks Unsolicited email advertisements sent to the above address will be proofread and billed a fee of $50. From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: "Dave Alden" Subject: Re: Service Ceiling (was Re: Passenger cabin pressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Legal Recourse Edward Hahn wrote in message ... >In article , luisma@spainmail.com wrote: > ... the Service Ceiling is defined as the >altitude at which the airline can no longer climb at 500 fpm. Absolute >Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft can no longer climb >at all. I seem to recall service celing as being the altitude where climb rate degrades to 100 fpm. Are there two certification specs -- one for turbines and the other for pistons? -- Dave Alden http://www.legal.com From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Garuda A300 crash, volcanic ash, and morons of the media References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Steve Lacker wrote: > Syiad T. Al-Duri wrote: > > Couldn't it be, that the oxygen concentration in the air was significantly > > reduced due to the extensive wood fires and thus causing a flameout on all > > engines? > > I suppose that it is *possible*, but I find it highly unlikely. A region > of air so depleted of oxygen that the engines would be unable to run > would only be possible *very* close to the fire itself. Besides, "water > bombers" fly into far worse conditions fighting forest fires in the US > and Canada regularly. Many of these are piston engined planes (notably > A-26 Invaders, and 15 years ago B-17s were still being used > regularly!) but there are more and more turbine-engined craft involved, > including C-130s and converted Electras (see http://www.airspray.com for > a typical fleet composition and deployment procedure). From what I've > been told, the movie "Always" with Richard Dreyfuss was a fairly > accurate account of these operations, barring the obvious artistic > license of dousing another plane with retardant to put out an engine > fire, running out of fuel, gliding home, etc... :-) Actually, I have talked to (and read articles by) fire bomber pilots who used to fly piston bombers like the B-17. On occasion, these pilots said, all four engines would quit simultaneously due to oxygen starvation during a low pass directly over a particularly explosive firestorm in the trees. The incredibly strong air currents and the voracious appetite for oxygen by the firestorm sometimes created an oxygen-depleted updraft that could not sustain a reciprocating engine. These updrafts were not very wide, however, and the pilots I talked to all stated that the engines resumed running within seconds of losing power. Still a heart-stopper, though... C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: >Sorry if this is very basic: > >Correct me if assumptions as wrong: > >-A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. This assumption is wrong, or at least incomplete. It should contain the qualification "at a given angle of attack". This is important because... >Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights >when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings >exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? ... the angle of attack is adjusted as the plane lightens. When heavy, the plane flies a bit more nose-up than when light; by dropping the nose, less lift is generated. This is (part of) the "trim" of the aircraft. -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: John Weiss Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group jf mezei wrote: > -A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. > > -The force of the lift should always equal the weight of the aircraft > otherwise the plane would either climb or drop. > > -The weight of an aircraft changes as fuel is exhausted during cruise. > > QUESTION: > > Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights > when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings > exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? The lift produced by the wing is proportional to both airspeed and angle of attack. > Is this change so trivial that it is not an issue, or do pilots take > this into consideration (reducing speed to reduce lift or what ?) ???? The pilot (or autopilot) trims the aircraft to maintain level flight. If the engine thrust is not reduced, the AOA will decrease and the airspeed will increase. If the AOA is not reduced, the thrust and airspeed are reduced. > If speed is adjusted to match the lift with the weight of the aircraft, > how does this affect airline schedules where cargo loads may influence > the time it takes for the airctaft to get to destination ? The tradeoff is made in fuel burn. To make the schedule, the cruise airspeed may be somewhat faster or slower than the optimum cruise speed for the given conditions. At any gross weight, there is a wide range of airspeeds over which the airplane _can_ fly, and a narrower range over which it is _usually_ flown for performance and economy reasons. > Would a fully loaded plane not travel faster then a same plane but > lightly loaded ? No. It would require a higher AOA (with higher drag) to push it at the same airspeed. -- john.r.weiss@boeing.com (Notice: *NOSPAM*. in reply address) Scientific Computing Development Boeing Commercial Airplane Group From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. On 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 , jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: >Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights >when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings >exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? > >Is this change so trivial that it is not an issue, or do pilots take >this into consideration (reducing speed to reduce lift or what ?) ???? > >If speed is adjusted to match the lift with the weight of the aircraft, >how does this affect airline schedules where cargo loads may influence >the time it takes for the airctaft to get to destination ? > >Would a fully loaded plane not travel faster then a same plane but >lightly loaded ? The lighter aircraft flys at a lower angle of attack which reduces the lift coeffcient. Speed is not adjusted for weight when it comes to airline schedules/ From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: David Guyer Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplanes Group Reply-To: david.a.guyer@boeing.com jf mezei wrote: > -A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. > > -The force of the lift should always equal the weight of the aircraft > otherwise the plane would either climb or drop. > > -The weight of an aircraft changes as fuel is exhausted during cruise. > > QUESTION: > > Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights > when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings > exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? If no adjustments during the flight were made, this would be true, but minor adjustments are constantly being made. > Is this change so trivial that it is not an issue, or do pilots take > this into consideration (reducing speed to reduce lift or what ?) ???? > > If speed is adjusted to match the lift with the weight of the aircraft, > how does this affect airline schedules where cargo loads may influence > the time it takes for the airctaft to get to destination ? > > Would a fully loaded plane not travel faster then a same plane but > lightly loaded ? Typically, a plane has both an autopilot and an autothrottle, but even without these pilots would be making the same adjustments. During the flight, as fuel is exhausted, and the aircraft becomes lighter, the throttles are reduced to maintain a constant airspeed (Mach number). Since the same airspeed is maintained, if the wing's angle of attack is not changed, there would be excess lift, but the standard practice of maintaining altitude, naturally causes a reduction in angle of attack, which maintains the lift=weight balance. From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:14 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 From: "Edward Lee" Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote in article ... > Sorry if this is very basic: > > Correct me if assumptions as wrong: > > -A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. Lift is proportional to square value of the airspeed. > -The force of the lift should always equal the weight of the aircraft > otherwise the plane would either climb or drop. > > -The weight of an aircraft changes as fuel is exhausted during cruise. > > QUESTION: > > Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights > when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings > exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? > > Is this change so trivial that it is not an issue, or do pilots take > this into consideration (reducing speed to reduce lift or what ?) ???? You can either be flying at a lower speed or climb higher to an altitude where air density is less, since lift is also proportional to air density. If you are flying at the same speed, the pitch angle of the airplane will reduce, the lift coefficiency will also be reduced, thence the lift will stay the same to maintain altitude. > If speed is adjusted to match the lift with the weight of the aircraft, > how does this affect airline schedules where cargo loads may influence > the time it takes for the airctaft to get to destination ? > > Would a fully loaded plane not travel faster then a same plane but > lightly loaded ? Reducing airspeed will affect the trip time, but will not be so significant .... Reducing speed to 0.82 mach (speed of sound at that altitude) compare to flying at 0.86 mach means 10 minutes more flight time for a ten hour flight. Since airplane will climb higher as the weight reduced, same mach number of flying at higher altitude will reduce true airspeed of the airplane, because the speed of sound is normally lower at higher altitude due to temperature is lower at higher altitude and the speed of sound is proportional to temperature. Chances are lighter airplane flying at the same mach number may not be faster than heavier airplane flying at same mach number, but definitely will cost less fuel to fly the trip. -- =========== Gravity, it's the law! =========== Mr. Dar-Ping Lee B747 Pilot, China Airlines Base: Taipei, Taiwan ROC [TPE/RCTP] Email: dplee@uuserv.net.tw, dplee@fmail.gcn.net.tw From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: capndavey@aol.com (Capndavey) Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Sorry if this is very basic: > >Correct me if assumptions as wrong: > >-A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. > >-The force of the lift should always equal the weight of the aircraft > otherwise the plane would either climb or drop. Close. Lift ALWAYS equals weight, or the airplane will ACCELERATE vertically, until it stabilizes at a new constant rate. In an elevator you feel the extra "lift" only when you start going up, not the whole way. Same thing going down. Once you are no longer ACCELERATING, lift equals weight. Most students, and even some more advanced pilots have a hard time with that one. >-The weight of an aircraft changes as fuel is exhausted during cruise. > >QUESTION: > >Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights >when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings >exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? Assume ANY flight: the answer is no. See above. >Is this change so trivial that it is not an issue, or do pilots take >this into consideration (reducing speed to reduce lift or what ?) ???? If your car suddenly got lighter (say, your mother-in-law fell out) it would begin to go faster unless you let off the gas a bit. As the fuel burns down, the airplane is lighter; it needs less lift, meaning less drag; it will then go faster, or will climb, unless power is reduced, or pitch lowered, or some of each. This is so gradual, mind you, that you don't see it happening. You control the flight path of the airplane, the wing makes the amount of lift it needs to. Example, if you pick up a bucket, you don't have to "adjust" the amount of pull on the handle. The pull on the handle is enough to hold up the bucket. If you ACCELERATE the bucket, it's a different story. >If speed is adjusted to match the lift with the weight of the aircraft, >how does this affect airline schedules where cargo loads may influence >the time it takes for the airctaft to get to destination ? The time stays the same (pretty much). The amount of fuel needed is what varies. >Would a fully loaded plane not travel faster then a same plane but lightly loaded ? The lighter airplane would go faster for the same power setting, because it needs less lift, and the wing is therefore making less drag. My examples may be a bit lame, and it's a complex subject. I hope this helps even a little. Dave Simpson dsimpson@dbsis.com From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: Brian Bishop Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > -A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. Lift (and drag) is proportional to velocity squared. L=(1/2)(density)(velocity)^2(lift coefficient)(wing area) > -The weight of an aircraft changes as fuel is exhausted during cruise. Yes, quite a bit. For example, single-stage-to-orbit craft are roughly 85% by mass fuel. Not sure about planes. > QUESTION: > > Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights > when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings > exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? > > Is this change so trivial that it is not an issue, or do pilots take > this into consideration (reducing speed to reduce lift or what ?) ???? It is a simple matter of trimming the plane. In essence, you lower the coefficient of lift in the above equation. Note that it's not linear. > Would a fully loaded plane not travel faster then a same plane but > lightly loaded ? In fact, a fully loaded plane would max out a slower speed. Passenger aircraft usually fly close to the speed of sound (.8-.9 Mach) and are bounded on the upper speed not by a shock wave forming off the nose, but instead by a shock wave that forms over the wing. Shocks are killers of efficiency, so you don't want them. Besides, you get nasty vibrations out of them that aluminum structures (without an endurance limit) don't like (crack propagation). To make lift, you must create circulation around the wing which creates lower pressure (lift!) from increased air velocity. Somewhere near the top of the wing, the air is moving fastest and may be faster than the speed of sound. Here you get a shock. You also get a shock in the adverse pressure gradient further back. The result is a roughly triangular shape between sub- to supersonic shock and the super- to subsonic shock and the wing skin. (You can sometimes see this since the shocks the divider between discontinuous indices of refraction.) So, back to your original question. To create more lift for the heavier plane, you need a lower pressure on top of the wing. That means faster air velocity. That means the shock comes sooner. From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: bd362@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (R. Adam Fogo) Subject: flashing landing lights? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Reply-To: bd362@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (R. Adam Fogo) Twice in the past 2 days I have observed a business jet flying with its landing lights flashing on and off in a continuous rhythm. The first aircraft was a Hawker 125 on approach. The flashing became a steady on when the aircraft was on short final. The second instance was a Falcon 50, with its lights flashing on and off immediately after takeoff. I did not see if they continued flashing. Could anyone tell me what the flashing signifies, if anything? Thanks, Adam -- Adam Fogo * Fogo Enterprises bd362@freenet.carleton.ca www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bd362/ From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: Robert Reed Subject: Boeing chief says FAA doing inspection job Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ASPECT One Reply-To: aspect@wcinet.net The following abstract references a Reuters article that can be accessed using the URL http://biz.yahoo.com/finance/97/10/21/ba_ge_y00_1.html ---------------------------------- Boeing chief says FAA doing inspection job: Boeing Co Chairman Phil Condit said Tuesday the Federal Aviation Administration was doing its job by intensifying its scrutiny of company aircraft factories because of heightened potential for assembly errors. - Oct 21 10:01PM EDT ---------------------------------- COMMENT: One wonders what the results of the current production pressures at Boeing will be during the infant-stage of the life span of the planes now being produced. Infant mortality problems and longer term failure modes with components and systems often rear their heads when production pressures rise in these kinds of circumstances. It will be interesting to observe over the next ten years. Robert Reed http://www.wcinet.net/~aspect From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: s_odle@earthlink.net Subject: Re: NTSB recommend FAA to require installation of AOA system in all transport category aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. On 16 Oct 97 00:44:12 , tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote: >s_odle@earthlink.net writes: > >>Why, is it any easier to fly angle of attack instead of airspeed? > >Because the important AOA's (best glide, stall, etc) do not vary with >gross weight. Finding best glide using airspeed requires knowing >your weight at that time and then using a table/computer. Stall is >even worse because you are very concerned about the effect of turns on >stall speed. You need to know actual gross weight and then compute the >force in the turn and *then* look it up in a table to find the stall >speed. With an AOA meter you just *look* at it; it will tell you >exactly how much lift you can extract before a stall. Any error in >calculating your weight at that moment will result in blowing both >computations when flying by airspeed. It is not nearly as simple (and inexpensive) as everyone would like to believe. 1) The pilot would need to know the aircraft configuration (flaps) and look at a table to know what AOA to fly to (sound alot like having to know the weight and looking at a table to know what speed to fly). Or you would have to have a much more sophisticated (and expensive) electronic system that keeps track of such things and displays the correct AOA target to the pilot. 2) Some speeds the pilot flys are not mearly a function of being a certain percentage above stall speed. 3) What about when tthe wing is contaminated from ice. Since there are aircraft that do not have full-time anti-ice/deice systems under some conditions, the resulting ice contamination will reduce the AOA for stall. Under conditions such as this the AOA system is no better than airspeed. There are many things that must be considered. People make comments implying that the FAA, ICAO, or whatever, agency they care to talk about needs to act. What makes everyone believe they are not? Simply because the do no react instantly to the NTSB recommendation? In this country there are laws that specify what the rule-making process is. Many people feel the the process takes to long (including the time to review any NTSB recommendation). Whats amazes me is that many people like to complain that the FAA does not follow its own regulations while others complain when they do. If you don't like the process, than get the laws changed, but don't complain when they follow them. From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: Michael W McGovern Subject: Re: NTSB recommend FAA to require installation of AOA system in all transport category aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None. (via NETCOM Internet Ltd. USENET service). Terry Schell wrote: > s_odle@earthlink.net writes: > > >Why, is it any easier to fly angle of attack instead of airspeed? > > Because the important AOA's (best glide, stall, etc) do not vary with > gross weight. Finding best glide using airspeed requires knowing > your weight at that time and then using a table/computer. Stall is > even worse because you are very concerned about the effect of turns on > stall speed. You need to know actual gross weight and then compute the > force in the turn and *then* look it up in a table to find the stall > speed. With an AOA meter you just *look* at it; it will tell you > exactly how much lift you can extract before a stall. Any error in > calculating your weight at that moment will result in blowing both > computations when flying by airspeed. > > > >Also, will the increase in level of safety (if there is any) be enough > >to offset the cost of implementing such a system in all aircraft? > > The cost? Let's see... one piece of yarn attached to the outside of a > window, a grease pencil mark on the inside for best L/D, another mark > for stall. (Just kidding there... I am just sure that the AOA gauge > will need to be electronic, triple-redundant, and integrated into the > FMC.) I think that's why aircraft can be trimmed in flight. Small adjustments are made to control position to correct for such variations in lift. Any variation in schedules is minimal and can be absorbed by allowing a few minuted extra in published arrival times, in addition most aircraft (Concorde is an exception) do not travel at their maximum speed. Headwinds and ATC delays contribute much more to late flights. Hope this helps. Mike From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: "Ken Bywater" Subject: Re: A340 in China References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unconfigured H Andrew Chuang wrote in message ... >SZ's A340-300 will probably be the first high-density A340-300 with >370 seats. Oddly, SZ will use the long-range aircraft for domestic >operations. Perhaps, SZ thinks the four-engine plane is appropriate >for high-altitude operations out of Lhasa, Tibet. Having been there for a considerable time I can confirm that China Southwest (Not "Southwestern") prefer more than two engines for their Lhasa route. This is somewhat irrespective of single engine take-off performance of a twin. More psychological than based on aircraft performance? From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:15 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:15 From: Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: 777 Engine Startup References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England On 16 Oct 1997, David Asher wrote: > Does the Boeing 777 have a Autostart capability (a single switch that will > perform all of the functions related to engine start)? I had read > somewhere that one of the airlines involved with the design had requested > this feature. Yes. This is the normal way of starting the engines. Basically, you turn the engine operation switch to start. The airframe sends a message to the Electronic Engine Control System (EECS) telling it to start. EECS controls all functions. These are something like: 1) Starter Motor On (starter runs on compressed air) 2) Wait for shaft speeds to reach a preset level. 3) Fuel on, ignition on. 4) Check for evidence of start (there will be logic for dealing with false starts). 5) Cut starter when engine is going fast enough to self-sustain. 6) Control to idle. 7) Send a message to the airframe to release the switch from the start position. I think you will find that autostart is fitted to most relatively new aircraft/engine combinations. I would suspect that airlines wouldn't bother requesting it, as they would just expect it to be there. -- Matthew Willshee E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Fri Oct 24 04:33:16 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Oct 97 04:33:16 From: "Ken Bywater" Subject: Re: 777 Engine Startup References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unconfigured >Yes, the 777 does have an autostart system, but not a single switch. >All the crew has to do is have the Autostart switch ON, the Fuel >Switch to RUN and the Start/ignition Switch to START. Then sit back >and watch the show. The EEC controls the start sequence. It turns on >the fuel and ignition at about 20%, monitors engine perameters and >disengages the starter at about 50%. It will abort the start if a >fault occurs and then attempt a restart. The fuel switch is also the ignition switch. Thus it takes two separate actions. The same is true for B747-400's. It was felt prudent that two separate actions are required to start engines; otherwise a cleaner could inadvertently start the engines with a single operation! From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:50 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Strange buzzing sound on DC-9 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca On saterday afternoon, (Nov 1), at about 16:15 EST, I was riding my bike through the community of Hudson, some 25km west of Dorval airport. (Montreal - YUL). I started to hear a buzz above/behind me and thought it was an ultra-light plane coming behind me. Obviously I had misjudged its distance because it didn't overtake me. Then, some folks on the sidewalk stopped walking and looked up. I stopped cycling and looked up. Well, I had definitely misjudged the flying object. It was in fact (most probably) a DC-9 on approach to YUL. (Easterly winds means that planes made direct approaches from the west instead of the most usual "go to east end of Montreal, u-turn and land at Dorval"). There wasn't anything special in the appearance of the plane (as viewed from the ground) but the sound was definitely VERY different than that of a jet and also louder than other planes that followed in that approach path. Was this just a weather anomaly which caused the sounds to be so different ? Is this a normal sound for DC-9s that have been huskitted ? (sounds like a ultra-light buzz instead of a jet whirl). Or did I witness a plane with engines that were having problems ? Is this common? From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:51 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Ultimate B777 Weight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa What would reasonably be the highest gross weight of any future version of the Boeing 777 airliner? The 767 has been around much longer, and looking in the latest edition of "Jane's All the World's Aircraft" in our library, it seems like the heaviest 767 and 777 aircraft have about the same wing loading, but perhaps both still have growth potential. Would projected increases in engine power suggest that there will eventually be twin engine planes significantly larger than the 777? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:51 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Exiled Expat wrote: > Phase three engines are designed to be quieter than phase 1 and 2 > thereby allowing it into airports that have restrictions against noisy > aircrafts. All of the new engines are built to this requirements and > some of the older versions have been modified to suit. A good example of conversions of older a/c is the DC8-Super70 series which are converted series Super 60. The original JT3D07 engines were replaced with quieter and more fuel-efficient CFM56's. I wonder if there is a hushkit which converts the original JT3D's to stage 3. I am pretty sure that there is none but the Cargo Lion DC8's (LX-TLA and B) have a stage 3 writing on their JT3D engines. The noise however doesn't seem that low, so is this just marketing ? Just curious, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:51 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Brian Clouse wrote: >(SNIP) For regulatory purposes, the FAA has a complex formula based > on measured decibel levels at prescribed locations on an aircraft > submitted for certification. I would guess that this FAA formula is valid for every country, or are there different formulas for EU and US ?? Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:51 From: ua747-422@juno.com (Michael W Kopanski) Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 06 Oct 97 02:14:23 GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) writes: >Do you mean Stage 2 vs. Stage 3 aircraft? Those refer to noise levels >produced during takeoffs and landings, with Stage 3 limits being >stricter. > Stage 1 means no limits, Stage 2 is basically 1960's-era jets, and >Stage 3 covers pretty much anything made since the 1970's. I don't think he means reference to the noise factor. As I posted before, United Airlines uses P & W Phase III engines on our newer 747-400's and just announced that all the 747-400 fleet will be converted to Phase III over the next three years. It doesn't have anything to do with the noise abatement. It just allows us to operate longer routes, because the engines are more efficient and have more power. Mickey Kopanski UA747-422@juno.com From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:51 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Exiled Expat wrote: > > joan wrote: > > > > What is the difference between phase II and phase III engine? > > Any answer will be highly appretiated. > > Phase three engines are designed to be quieter than phase 1 and 2 > thereby allowing it into airports that have restrictions against noisy > aircrafts. All of the new engines are built to this requirements and > some of the older versions have been modified to suit. You are thinking of "stage II and stage III" noise requirements. The original poster was refering to phase III which is a modification of PW4000 engines and nacels for better fuel efficiency and increased range. I believe it involves the fan case struts, exit guide vanes, thrust reverser halves as well as some changes internally to the engine. -Seth From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:52 From: "Frank Tong" Subject: B744 Thrust Reduction Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd Recently B744 with RB211 engines has a problem of thrust reduction after takeoff. An uncommand thrust change from takeoff to climb just after lift off (400 ft). This happen after Vnav taking over control of aircraft. Temporary solution is to cycle FMC (left and right) CBs every transit. I belive is the software problem in FMC, need to reset all the flags in FMC. Therefore, this problem should has been encounted long time ago. Does anybody have detail on this ? From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:52 From: "Rob Wells (WLL)" Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Iain Stuart wrote: > In article , Karl Swartz > writes > >>Of course, this aircraft had an APU running during the Jakarta Volcanic > >>ash emergency ... > > > >Are you sure? Nothing I've read about the accident mentions the > >pilots starting the APU, and it would not have been running at > >cruise. > > The only reports I've read showed that the crew were attempting Windmill > Engine Starts, and once one engine lit, they also tried Starter Assists. > Suggests thet the APU was non-op. > > In case you're wondering where the electrical / hydraulic power came > from, even when unlit, the engines rotate. Usually, fast enuff to > provide some power if required. In Oz it was reported that the APU was definitely non-op. I seem to remember that there was only enough compressed air left for one more attempt to turn over an engine. But perhaps that was an embelishment added by the local tabloids. What was it the Captain said over the intercom, a few seconds after everyone on board had heard the last engine die? Something about "Ladies and gentlemen, we have a slight problem." Is the ?? Gliding Club still going? It is/was a club formed by the passengers of the BA flight and was named after the volcano that was erupting at the time. Was it the Galangagul Gliding Club? Rob W. -- Rob Wells "The hardest part about making a movie... is cutting all those tiny holes in the edges of the film. After that, everything's easy." - Mel Brooks @ INTERNET: robert.wells@eurocontrol.fr CompuServe: 100272,3004 From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:52 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Service Ceiling (was Re: Passenger cabin pressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 24 Oct 97 04:33:13 , rma@visi.com (Rich Ahrens) caused to appear as if it was written: >Edward Hahn (ehahn@mitre.org) spilled onto his/her news spool: >: To nitpick (this being usenet and all), the Service Ceiling is defined as the >: altitude at which the airline can no longer climb at 500 fpm. > >Then prepare to be nitpicked yourself. :-) Since when do airlines climb? [ Sorry, I'm weak and cannot resist... ] I think United Airlines started Rising about 6 months ago... Malc. From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:52 From: hunneweb@qnet.com (Brad Hunnewell) Subject: Re: Service Ceiling (was Re: Passenger cabin pressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: bhunnewell@aol.com On 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 , banks.85@spamersgotohell.osu.edu (Dan Banks) wrote: >In article ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) writes: >>To nitpick (this being usenet and all), the Service Ceiling is defined as the >>altitude at which the airline can no longer climb at 500 fpm. Absolute >>Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft can no longer climb >>at all. >Service ceiling is the altitude at which the maximum rate of climb = 100 >ft/min. True. 500 fpm is listed in my C-135 manual as "Combat Ceiling." From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:52 From: mba340@club-internet.fr Subject: Re: A340 in China References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr >Having been there for a considerable time I can confirm that China >Southwest (Not "Southwestern") prefer more than two engines for their >Lhasa route. This is somewhat irrespective of single engine take-off >performance of a twin. More psychological than based on aircraft >performance? It's prifirable to sy that chinese government choose airplane without any strategy in term of fleet communalty. From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: GLenssen@t-online.de (Gerhard Lenssen) Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: T-Online On 24 Oct 97 04:33:14 , John Weiss wrote: >The lift produced by the wing is proportional to both airspeed and angle >of attack. more correct: ... is proportional to both the square of the airspeed and ... (at least Bernouilli thought so), tschuess, Gerhard Lenssen From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Boeing chief says FAA doing inspection job References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Robert Reed wrote: > Boeing Co Chairman Phil Condit said Tuesday the Federal Aviation > Administration was doing its job by intensifying its scrutiny of > company > aircraft factories because of heightened potential for assembly > errors. My first reaction was "What a great way for Boeing to defer deliveries and save face (and penalties)?" Just blame the current and future schedule slips on increased FAA scrutiny! Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: Robert Reed Subject: Airbus calls for more state support Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ASPECT One Reply-To: aspect@wcinet.net Airbus calls for more state support PARIS, Oct 28 (Reuters) - The managing director of European consortium Airbus Industrie 1/8ARBU.CN on Tuesday asked European states to supply it with more, better structured financial support to fight U.S. rival Boeing(BA - news). Full text of this story may be found by going to http://www.wcinet.net/~aspect Robert Reed Webmaster From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: 187 Subject: 747-400 brakes 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 i read from a book and there was a pix of the cockpit layout. at the place where the pilots rest their feet, they have what they called the brake pedals there. now, is this the same brakes used to stop the plane upon touchdown? -- Send reply to: lowwol@pacific.net.sg Agreements welcomed. Constructive criticism considered. Flames ignored. From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: "N KAWAI" Subject: aero engine marketshare! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: EBARA corporation Im researching on aero engine and gas turbine market. Could anyone tell me aero engine marketshare? i.e. GE,P&W,RollsRoyce I would like to know about abovementioned subuject. If you can do, tell me also about gas turbine marketshare. PLEASE!! From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: Bryan Shrode Subject: Boeing Blended Wing body Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Does anyone know of a BWB page that has info for the public? There is a lot of stuff on education institute web sites, but most of it is locked up. If anyone knows anything concerning this, please reply to this post. I also think that Boeing's Web site should contain some info about this project. Thank You, -- Bryan Shrode bshrode@home.net If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: "Andre" Subject: crosswind landings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUnet Portugal As I only got one response and would like to hear further, if possible, here goes a repost: I've been a flightsimmer for quite a while now and I find that the most challenging task for a pilot is by far landing with strong and gusty crosswinds. I find it quite demanding to push the drift off so that the aircraft lands perfectly aligned with the runway, I find a 2 or 3 degree error common when winds are severe and gusty having to correct the remaining sometimes already on the ground. I would like to know from a real jet pilot out there if possible about this drift thing, like: How many degrees of drift can an aircraft sustain when landing before any severe jerking occurs or danger of drifting off runway happens, for heavy commercial aircraft like any boeing... I've read that no rudder is imperative at crosswinds up to 10 knots for a 747, although that can mean 2-3 degrees of drift; isn't it to much? Is it correct to make such corrections after all the wheels are on the ground ? Isn't it disconfortable or even dangerous? Doesn't the aircraft react immediatly to a, say, 2 degree drift and start going sideways? Can it be steered quickly back to the center? Any inputs, again, are wellcome thanks for your answers, A.N. From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: stevec00@juno.com (Joel S Cole) Subject: Bent Rims Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I need some help. We recently found 2 bent rims on a wide-body aircraft. The main tire, size 52 X 20.5, had blown tires with shreaded bead area. The rim edge of the outboard wheel half(side) was curled outward over a 12-inch section. On another occasion, an aircraft experienced a bent rim on a 40 X 15.5 Nose Wheel. Has anyone experienced a similar occurrence? Has anyone at a manufacture/test facility or an overhaul facility seen a wheel with this condition? What caused this bent rim? Could this be caused by FOD on the runway? Taxiing with deflated tire? With the tire properly inflated, can a rim be bent at landing without fracturing? Steve Cole jscole@fedex.com Copy me direct on any reply, since my server does not always post latest Newsgroup mail. Please *NO* junk mail. From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: 777 rejected takeoff test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology In article , Syiad.Al-Duri@t-online.de (Syiad T. Al-Duri) writes: > Stephen H. Westin wrote in sci.aeronautics.airliners: > > wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: > >> Err... I was always an SI type, but is that a viable unit for the > >> test? I was looking for energy, not torque. > > > Absolutely. Pounds-feet is torque; foot-pounds is energy. > > > Energy is equivalent to work: a given force exerted over a given > > distance. Hence foot-pounds. > > There's no difference between Torque and Energy. That's why they have the > same dimension, force multiplied by distance. Units alone to not constitute a physical concept. Energy is a dot product and Torque is a cross product. They are not the same thing. I would even argue that they have different units conceptually, since Torque has the units of Energy/radian, not just Energy. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: "Udayan V. Bhapkar" Subject: Re: 777 rejected takeoff test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: ubhapkar@erols.com SHW wrote: > > wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: > >I watched the PBS series on the 777. Of special interest was the > >full-load rejected takeoff test. I missed the figures for the > >weight [and ISTM they were for load, vice emptyweight+load] > >but they said it was 9.7 million ft-lbs of hot brakes. > > I also saw the special and had a question, not about the units but the > order of magnitude. The 707 has a limiting brake energy of 40 Million > foot-lbs per brake. What doesn't make sense here is that the Trip-7 > is roughly twice the weight of the 70. With modern carbon-fiber brake > rotors and an extra set of wheels per truck how could the failure > limit on the 777 be so low ? I noticed that also, and believe it's a typo. For the 777, taking mass = 288,000 kg and V2 = 210 mph = 94 m/s, the amount of kinetic energy that must be dissipated is E = m/2 * v^2 = 1.27 billion Joules = 940 million foot-lbs. total energy. The actual energy dissipated in the brakes may be a bit less than this, due to assistance from aerodynamic drag. Compare to the 707, which would dissipate 320 million foot-lbs. with two four-wheel main landing gear and brakes. Udayan From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:53 From: navion4217@aol.com (Navion4217) Subject: Re: 2707 customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Can anyone here aid me in finding out who the launch customer and which >airlines ordered the ill fated Boeing SST(Super-Sonic-Transport) >2707-100 before the project was canceled? This info is from Interavia, the IATA's magazine, October 1966: Air France: 6 US SST, 8 Concorde BOAC: 6 US SST, 8 Concorde Lufthansa: 3 US SST Iberia: 3 US SST American: 6 US SST, 6 Concorde Braniff: 2 US SST Continental: 3 Concorde Canadian Pacific: 3 US SST Delta: 3 US SST Eastern: 2 US SST, 2 Concorde Pan Am: 15 US SST, 6 Concorde TWA: 10 US SST, 6 Concorde United: 6 US SST, 6 Concorde I don't have information for Latin American or Asia/Pacific airlines. From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:54 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 2707 customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Bryan Shrode wrote: > Can anyone here aid me in finding out who the launch customer and which > airlines ordered the ill fated Boeing SST(Super-Sonic-Transport) > 2707-100 before the project was canceled? I suspect that Pan Am was a major factor in getting the Boeing SST program rolling. After all, Juan Tripp's vision was that the 747 would be Pan Am's interim long-range passenger plane until the SSTs came on line, at which point the 747s would be converted to freighters. This is why the 747 was designed with the upper deck; to facilitate cargo loading through the nose and to carry a full load on the main deck. (The 747s design bears no resemblance to Boeing's C-5A design, by the way, which was a high-wing, four-engine, no-hump airplane.) C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:54 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: B 767-300 Exit configuration Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:03 08/09/97, Chris Elberfeld wrote: >As many readers of this NG might know, Boeing offers several >exit layouts on the 767-300. AA and UA's -300's have the same exit >configuration as the -200 with an additional overwing hatch. >Several European carriers have chosen to have another full size cabin >door in front of the wing, I think with this option there is either >one overwing hatch on each side _or_ a smaller floor-level exit just >behind the wing (a la most B757's). BA's -300's are of this type. > >It would seem that the additional main door offers better evacuation >potential than just another overwing hatch (at least for the >high yield passengers in the front :-) ) This layout also enables >faster loading/unloading at dual jetway gates. ... >Are the aircraft with the extra door certificated for more passengers >than those with two overwing hatches? There are some ironies to this. The extra doors allow the aircraft to be certified to carry extra passengers, but the doors take up more space and with the same "rule" for seating layout, the number of seats which can be fitted by a scheduled airline is generally less when extra doors are fitted! On some types, a charter airline's seating rule/spec will allow so many passengers to be carried that the doors become worthwhile as the aircraft will not otherwise be certificated by the FAA, CAA, etc, to carry all of them. This is particularly the case with the B767 where scheduled airlines may operate three-class with seven-abreast in economy, while some charter airlines have less galley, tighter seat pitch and eight abreast seating throughout. Brgds Antoin Daltun From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:54 From: gp810@aol.com (Gp810) Subject: escape/exit doors Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Why are the emergency exit doors of airliners located amid ship? Since the main cabin entry/exit door is front left, why can't the emergency doors be staggered along the plane? First could be at row 10-right, then row 15 left; row 20-right; 25 left, etc. Would this not provide for a more orderly and safe exit. In addition to each door having to accommodate few passengers, they would provide differeing positions whereever the problem (fire) was. From kls Sat Nov 1 18:55:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Nov 97 18:55:54 From: zirkball@aol.com (Zirkball) Subject: Flight characteristics for F100 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I am looking for typical v speeds for the F100. Please e-mail me or direct me to the appropriate NG. Thanks, Zirkball@aol.com From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:52 From: thyuen@poboxes.com (Tommy H YUEN) Subject: Re: A/C Body Station Designations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Global Link Information Services Ltd. Reply-To: thyuen@poboxes.com On 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 , jak1959@aol.com (JAK1959) wrote: >Could someone please inform me as to where the reference point >is that body stations are measured from on commercial aircraft? >Is it the forward pressure bulkhead? Is it the mounting >structure for the weather radar? Please let me know. > >Also, are there any publications that have aircraft diagrams >that would include both body stations and stringers? > >And a final question. How does Airbus designate the body >stations? Please let me know. The reference point or datum varies between aircraft types. The Fwd B/H is normally BS4XX, not 0. The maintenance manual or structure repar manual would normally have the BS and Str details. Unlike Boeing, Airbus uses Frame Station instead. BR Tommy -- Tommy H YUEN | thyuen@poboxes.com | ICQ: 3812145 From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:52 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: A/C Body Station Designations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , jak1959@aol.com (JAK1959) wrote: >Could someone please inform me as to where the reference point >is that body stations are measured from on commercial aircraft? >Is it the forward pressure bulkhead? Is it the mounting >structure for the weather radar? Please let me know. It depends on the aircraft. Some aircraft even have the reference point in front of the radome by several inches. 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 Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: "Richard L. Grubb" Subject: Re: A/C Body Station Designations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 3-7DSL JAK1959 wrote: > > Could someone please inform me as to where the reference point > is that body stations are measured from on commercial aircraft? > Is it the forward pressure bulkhead? Is it the mounting > structure for the weather radar? Please let me know. > > Also, are there any publications that have aircraft diagrams > that would include both body stations and stringers? > > And a final question. How does Airbus designate the body > stations? Please let me know. I have been told by a coworker who had this same discussion at another aerospace company, that once, a long long time ago (in a place far far away), Body Station 0.0 was placed at the tip of the nose and waterline 0 may have been placed at the point of contact between the main gear and ground. But when the first 'stretch' or derivative was designed, 'they' vowed never to do that again. Today (i.e. in my experience over the last 23 years), the origin is placed far enough in front of and below the airplane so as to never require the use of negative values for any reasonable stretched derivative. Of course, Butt Line 0 is placed on the centerline of symmetry. I have also been told that McD planes had waterline 100 placed at a prominent 'horizontal' feature and some other vertical feature such as a bulkhead would be given an arbitrary value such as BS 112.0. In this explanation, I have been using nomenclature for Boeing fuselages. Other components such as wings and tails or even control surfaces have their own reference systems. I believe Wing Stations are perpendicular to the rear spar. All of these coordinate systems are tied together on an airplane centerline drawing. All drawings are company proprietary data, but you may be able to write to the public relations department and request the information for particular models. On a side note, the loads engineers require that an 'all numeric' coordinate system be used in their calculations. Why would a coordinate system never be 'all numeric' you might ask? Well remember those derivative models with stretched fuselages? The fuselages are generally stretched by adding body plugs just in front of the wing and/or just behind the wing. For instance, on the 737 family of airplanes, forward plugs are placed between BS 500 and BS 520. The designers do not want to relabel all of the frame drawings aft of the plug, so the first frame aft of BS 500 is given the 'coordinate' 500A, and so on to BS 500I for the 737-800. This system is impractical to use in engineering numerical analysis. The loads group therefore define a coordinate system (referred to by the terms balance arm or panel station) that has the same numerical value for various derivative models at some point in the center section of the body. A point near the tip of the 737-800 nose then is at BS 130.0 or balance arm -68.0 -- Richard Grubb BCAG, 737NG Stress, Wichita rlg0301@sgmail.ks.boeing.com #include "std_disclaimers.h" From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: k_ish Subject: Re: A/C Body Station Designations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom JAK1959 wrote: > Could someone please inform me as to where the reference point > is that body stations are measured from on commercial aircraft? > Is it the forward pressure bulkhead? Is it the mounting > structure for the weather radar? Please let me know. > > Also, are there any publications that have aircraft diagrams > that would include both body stations and stringers? > > And a final question. How does Airbus designate the body > stations? Please let me know. On Boeing aircraft, FS0 is the nose of the aircraft, BL0 is the aircraft centerline, and WL0 is basically a datum on the belly. Don't recall where Airbus places their datums, MD was a little confusing IIRC as there are + and - FS and WL locations. The point is, there is no "standard" datum. I have not seen any publicly available diagrams showing FS numbers. Sorry I couldn't provide more info; Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: stevec00@juno.com (Joel S Cole) Subject: A/C Body Station Designations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Could someone please inform me as to where the reference point >is that body stations are measured from on commercial aircraft? >Is it the forward pressure bulkhead? Is it the mounting >structure for the weather radar? Please let me know. >And a final question. How does Airbus designate the body >stations? Please let me know. The Origin of the axis for the Fuselage Stations(FS) is generally located at some point forward of the aircraft. I assume this is done to allow for any changes in the fuselage lenght due to design or later post-production modifications, as I will illustrate below. For the Airbus A300, the FS origin is 638 cm forward of the aircraft nose. This equates to a whopping 20feet-11.2inches ! This means the radome bulkhead is at FS 766 cm. I tried to find the exact drawing reference to give you, but did not have time. My reference is the A300 Structural Repair Manual. An aircraft such as the Bell AH-1T helicopter gunship has its origin 12.36 inches ahead of the nose, which puts the mast eaxactly at FS 200 and, you might say, makes the forward arc of the rotor blade tip at FS= -88. For some reason they liked the mast center to be at FS 200. As stated above, when an aircraft undergoes a mod to stretch the fuselage, this makes life interesting. The B727-200, which has a FS origin at 130 inches ahead of the nose, has designated stations as FS- A, B, C, D for the inserted fuselage sections. The DC10 has nose beginning at FS 239. Then when the MD11 came along, the drawings adjusts the forward fuselage by -100 and the aft fuselage by +123. Therefore, a forward fuselage station may be referenced by FS 455/555. They wanted to keep the DC10 station ID so all drawings would not have to changed. Hope this helps. There is no set rule that I know about. STeve Cole~ From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: >Marc Schaeffer writes: >> - Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in >> civil a/c ? > >The latest issue of Air and Space magazine shows a photo of an XP-84 >instrument panel on display at the National Air and Space Museum. It >specifically mentions the radium used in the luminescent instrument >dials. I suspect that old airliners have similar dials. On CURRENT PRODUCTION aircraft, there are STILL radio-luminescent exit signs. Presumably so that they will be visible during a night crash, without needing time exposed to light to "charge up" the typical phosphorescent- type glow-in-the-dark paints. Don't know whether they use radium or another element (such as H3 (Tritium), which is more commonly used in radio-luminescent paints today). However, the aircraft maintenance manuals had specific disposal procedures to be used when they were no longer serviceable or needed to be replaced, which accounted for the radioisotopes. 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 Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: John Weiss Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group James Matthew Weber wrote: > Actually 737-300/400/500 use tungsten weights in the wingtips. > Tungsten is nearly as dense as uranium, but is much more difficult to > fabricate. My recollection is 10kg per wingtip. IIRC, tungsten is actually a bit _denser_ than uranium. I don't have my CRC handbook handy right now, though... -- john.r.weiss@boeing.com (Notice: *NOSPAM*. in reply address) Scientific Computing Development Boeing Commercial Airplane Group From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: saccani@pc.jaring.my Subject: Re: Radioactive material (off-topic) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unconfigured mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) wrote: >U238 has a half life comparable to Potassium 40. I think you would >find most people horrified to discover that a very sizeable portion of >the potassium in their body (Close to half) is in fact K-40. In my In most countries, the natural radioactivity of a human is above the level that would classify them as a registerable source. Legislation usually specifically excludes such natural sources, thankfully. >contamination (which was a real problem for us, since it was done in >the nuclear medicine department at a large University Hospital) was >enough to completely hide the K40 decay we were looking for. (Moral of >the story is don't make you lead shielding for the floor out of pigs >used to transport radio-isotopes!!) Best thing to use is old battleship steel. The UK has made some quite rooms from steel retrieved from the german fleet scuttled at Scapa Flow. AFAIK, these are the quitest rooms in existance, 20 inch steel walls, with very little activity. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia >- Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in >civil a/c ? It dawns on me there is indeed, and it is on most aircraft. The Exit signs that glow in the dark, use Tritium, the radioactive isotope of Hydrogren to light them. It is essentially a luminous dial, but a lot less hazardous than using radium. Tritium is a low energy Beta emitter, with a fairly short half life (about 5 years I think). The Beta energy is sufficiently low that the radiation is probably undetectable outside the sign. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:53 From: Ian McAndrew Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , Marc Schaeffer writes >Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in >civil a/c ? Quite a few I believe, but the point I wish to make it is that the uranium used is depleted uranium. As natural uranium is not highly radioactive to start with, it follows that depleted uranium is even less so. Relative to the radiation one receives during a flight from cosmic sources, the amount from this uranium is virtually nil. -- Ian McAndrew From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: tgg@hplb.hpl.hp.com () Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, England Reply-To: tggNoSpam@hpl.hp.com (Tom Gardner) Marc Schaeffer (marcmsc@geocities.com) wrote: |I heard that the rudders of the Convair 990 had counterweights made out |of uranium. |- Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in |civil a/c ? In your local supermarket you can probably buy "low sodium" salt (similar to egg-free omlettes, but that's another story!). It is low soduim because it's potassium chloride. If you put a geiger counter up against a carton of such "Lo-Salt" you will find that it is noticably radioactive. In fact, if it was three times more radioactive then, in the UK, it would have to be treated a low-level nuclear waste. So, I'm not too worried about the radioactivity in (presumably) depleted uranium weights. I have no knowledge of how poisionous uranium is, but I suspect I ought to be more worried about the combustion prodcuts resulting from a crash. -- 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 Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz (Woodhams) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Auckland mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) writes: >Actually 737-300/400/500 use tungsten weights in the wingtips. >Tungsten is nearly as dense as uranium, but is much more difficult to >fabricate. My recollection is 10kg per wingtip. 10 kg of Uranium (or Tungsten) would be a bit over half a litre at a guess - a quite trivial volume compared to the size of a 737 wing. Why is density so important? Why is a 10kg (half litre) of Tungsten so much better than (say) 10kg (2 litre) of rock? Michael W. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services >I heard that the rudders of the Convair 990 had counterweights made out >of uranium. I seem to remember that in the recip days some aircraft had special storage for radioactive cargo, out on the wingtips. This would have been small quantities of radioisotopes (short half-life) for hospitals and research establishments. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: aero engine marketshare! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , N KAWAI wrote: >Im researching on aero engine and gas turbine market. > >Could anyone tell me aero engine marketshare? >i.e. GE,P&W,RollsRoyce I don't have the excat breakdowns. For the past few years, GE along with CFMI have been dominating the market due to the success of the B737/CFM56 combo. I can give you *approximate* marketshares for each aircraft type that are still in production: B737 - CFMI 100% (~2,200 -3/4/500 ordered ~700 -6/7/800 ordered) B747-400 - GE 40%+ P&W 40%- R-R 20% ( ~500 ordered) B757 - P&W 45%- R-R 55%+ ( ~900 ordered) B767 - GE 50%+ P&W 45%- R-R 5%- ( ~750 ordered) B777 - GE 30%+ P&W 40%- R-R 30%- ( ~350 ordered) A300/310 - GE 60%+ P&W 40%- ( ~800 ordered) A320 family - CFMI 60%+ IAE 40%- (~1,300 ordered) A330 - GE 15%- P&W 45%+ R-R 40%- ( ~200 ordered) A340 - CFMI 100% ( ~200 ordered) MD-11 - GE 60% P&W 40% ( ~150 ordered) MD-80 - P&W 100% (~1,200 ordered) MD-90 - IAE 100% ( ~150 ordered) MD-95 - BMW/R-R 100% ( 50 ordered) Obviously, P&W's 100% marketshare in the MD-80 market, and IAE's 100% marketshare in the MD-90 market are not very meaningful numbers. Nevertheless, the JT8D spare sales still provide P&W a lot of revenue. GE certainly has the financial backing to make it even stronger. For example, some of the A320 delivery slots for USAirways, who has made the largest CFM56 order in history, were from GECAS. More than 700 of the Next-Generation B737s have been ordered since it was launched in 1993 by Southwest. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: Brian Bishop Subject: Re: 777 rejected takeoff test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > I would even argue that they have different units conceptually, > since Torque has the units of Energy/radian, not just Energy. So, logically, Energy/radian can also be expressed as Energy/degree. Ummm, this never flew in my aero classes. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 747-400 brakes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom 187 wrote: > where the pilots rest their feet, they have what they called the > brake pedals there. now, is this the same brakes used to stop the plane > upon touchdown? Yes, it is. The pilot's feet rest on the rudder pedals (function obvious from the name). Usually, the co-pilot has a redundant set of rudder pedals as well. On the ground, in addition to controlling the rudder, the pedals also steer the nosewheel. A challenge to student pilots is getting out of car mode and learning to "steer" with the feet instead of turning the control yoke. (BTW, large transports have a nosewheel steering knob that is used for sharp turns; the rudder pedals only provide a small amount of nosewheel steering). If the top portion of the rudder pedals are pressed, this actuates the wheel brakes. The left pedal controls the left brake the right controls the right brake. Differential braking can be used to assist in tight turns; some aircraft have a freely castering nosewheel and the _only_ means of steering is differential braking. The above comments are not universally true, but do apply to most aircraft (including the Cessna 150 and the 747-400). Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: libove@felines.org (Jay Vassos-Libove) Subject: Concorde's other customers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA A recent post here about orders placed for Boeing's '2707' SST (prior to the program's cancellation) got a reply which indicated a laundry list of airlines, US and foreign, which had also placed orders for the Concorde. This raised the question in my mind: Why did no airlines other than BA and AF ever actually get any Concordes, since there were a dozen or more orders for it from other airlines? -- Jay Vassos-Libove libove@felines.org +1 770 552 0543 home +1 404 705 2867 work Roswell, GA 30075 U.S.A. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Service Ceiling (was Re: Passenger cabin pressurization) 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 16 Oct 97 00:44:13 , ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >To nitpick (this being usenet and all), the Service Ceiling is defined as the >altitude at which the airline can no longer climb at 500 fpm. Absolute >Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft can no longer climb >at all. > >(Unfortunately, I can't find a written reference at this at the moment, but I >am certain that the Service Ceiling is not defined in terms of cabin pressure, >as many unpressurized aircraft have service ceilings in excess of 12,500 ft.) IIRC, service ceiling is restricted by any specified, arbitrary residual climb rate. With airliners, usual values are 300-500 ft/min. Burkhard From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: mayerp1@nevada.edu (PAUL G MAYER) Subject: Re: flashing landing lights? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services R. Adam Fogo (bd362@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote: : Twice in the past 2 days I have observed a business jet flying with its : landing lights flashing on and off in a continuous rhythm. The first : aircraft was a Hawker 125 on approach. The flashing became a steady on : when the aircraft was on short final. The second instance was a Falcon : 50, with its lights flashing on and off immediately after takeoff. I did : not see if they continued flashing. Could anyone tell me what the : flashing signifies, if anything? Looks like those planes had flashers installed to increase their visibility to other aircraft. I used to fly Twin Otters for Scenic (YR) and those flashers became standard equipment on all of Scenic's aircraft after the merger with Grand Canyon Air and Lake Powell Air. Tailwinds, Paul Mayer mayerp1@nevada.edu UNLV, Las Vegas, NV ATP, AGI, IGI; former YR F/O (DHC-6-300) and now Just a Japanese 221 student at UNLV. From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 From: dc8ray@hairmail.net (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: flashing landing lights? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Reply-To: dc8ray@hairmail.net The flashing landing lights are just a way of making the airplane more visible in flight. They can be switched on steady for night landings. BTW, a buddy of mine is a first officer at Continental on the B737 and he says one of their 737's has the flashing landing light system. He doesn't know where the aircraft came from, but as far as I know, its the only transport category ac to use the flashing landing lights. Ray Clawson From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:55 From: Normand Perron Subject: Re: flashing landing lights? 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 Organization: VTL Reply-To: nperron@videotron.ca R. Adam Fogo wrote: > Twice in the past 2 days I have observed a business jet flying with its > landing lights flashing on and off in a continuous rhythm. The first > aircraft was a Hawker 125 on approach. The flashing became a steady on > when the aircraft was on short final. The second instance was a Falcon > 50, with its lights flashing on and off immediately after takeoff. I did > not see if they continued flashing. Could anyone tell me what the > flashing signifies, if anything? I have also seen this recently on an aircraft on approach to 24L in Montr=E9al/Dorval (YUL). I can't remember what type of aircraft it was but it also changed to a steady ON on short final; it was in daytime. I would guess that it is done to make the aircraft more visible to other traffic as flasing lights tend to be more conspicuous, everything else being equal. Normand From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:55 From: k_ish Subject: Re: flashing landing lights? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom R. Adam Fogo wrote: > Could anyone tell me what the flashing signifies, if anything? It is simply done for better collision avoidance. There is a school of thought that a modulated light is more "eye-catching" than a steady one. You can also buy landing light modulators for most light aircraft and headlight modulators for motorcycles. An added bonus is longer lamp life. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:55 From: Arthur Utay Subject: Re: flashing landing lights? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T R. Adam Fogo wrote: > Twice in the past 2 days I have observed a business jet flying with its > landing lights flashing on and off in a continuous rhythm. The first > aircraft was a Hawker 125 on approach. The flashing became a steady on > when the aircraft was on short final. The second instance was a Falcon > 50, with its lights flashing on and off immediately after takeoff. I did > not see if they continued flashing. Could anyone tell me what the > flashing signifies, if anything? It might be Pulselite's landing light system which pulses the landing lights to a) increase situational awareness for other aircraft and b) increases bulb life (according to their literature) This system has been around for a few years on general aviation aircraft, and probably STC's exist for larger biz jets by now. -- A. W. Utay awutay@worldnet.att.net C180 N180Y From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:55 From: walkerjs@worldnet.att.net (Walker J. Seestedt) Subject: Re: flashing landing lights? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Handled by a US Robotics Pilot 1000 upgraded to a PPPro In article , bd362@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (R. Adam Fogo) wrote: >Twice in the past 2 days I have observed a business jet flying with its >landing lights flashing on and off in a continuous rhythm. The first >aircraft was a Hawker 125 on approach. The flashing became a steady on >when the aircraft was on short final. The second instance was a Falcon >50, with its lights flashing on and off immediately after takeoff. I did >not see if they continued flashing. Could anyone tell me what the >flashing signifies, if anything? Well, don't know what flashing lights would singnify as such, but the Piper Archer which I fly has a function called "Sky Flasher" for the landing lights. When the landing lights are on without the function they burn steady (one on each wingtip.) But with the Sky Flashers they alternate flashing in the manner you describe for the Bizjets. I am told (and it seems reasonable) that they are used when you want to really be seen, as they catch the attention of other pilots. I would imagine the pilots of the jets you saw were using them for the same reason. At some of the uncontrolled airports I fly to, they have lots of business jet traffic that just announces arrival on the CTAF, so I would think that in those circumstances they would want to make themselves more visible, lest they mow down some poor Aeronica with no radio! I always thought the wingtip landing lights (plus the door on one side) made my Archer more "airliner like." Now I can say that with the Sky Flashers it makes it more "Business Jet like"! :-) :-) Regards, Walker -- Walker J. Seestedt Student Pilot, DoD #81 walkerjs@worldnet.att.net I'm learning to fly because where else can you safely blaze through a residential area at 130 MPH without getting a ticket? ;-) From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:55 From: Eric Cowan Subject: Re: flashing landing lights? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Reply-To: Eric Cowan On 24 Oct 1997, R. Adam Fogo wrote: > Twice in the past 2 days I have observed a business jet flying with its > landing lights flashing on and off in a continuous rhythm. The first > aircraft was a Hawker 125 on approach. The flashing became a steady on > when the aircraft was on short final. The second instance was a Falcon > 50, with its lights flashing on and off immediately after takeoff. I did > not see if they continued flashing. Could anyone tell me what the > flashing signifies, if anything? These types of lights are called sequence lights. I believe their main purpose (other than looking cool) are to increase visibility on approach and departure. If I read your post correctly, the lights should be alternating left-wing, right-wing, left-wing, and so on. Sequence lights are most often found on bizjets, although you can find some light GA aircraft with them. Here at the University of Illinois, we have one Beech Sundowner (four place prop single) in the fleet with those lights. It's fun to come in at night with the sequencers on--people on the ground think you're a Hawker or Falcon--at least until short final. ;) -Eric Cowan PPL-ASEL, IA From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:55 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 747-400 brakes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , lowwol@pacific.net.sg wrote: > i read from a book and there was a pix of the cockpit layout. at the > place where the pilots rest their feet, they have what they called the > brake pedals there. now, is this the same brakes used to stop the plane > upon touchdown? The rudder pedals also operate the wheel brakes. Moving the pedals fore and aft (when you push the left pedal down the right pedal comes up and vice versa) activates the air rudder. Rocking the pedals forward (pushing on the tops of the pedals) activates the wheel brakes. The left pedal controls the wheel brakes on the left main gear and the right pedal controls the wheel brakes on the right main gear. There are no brakes on the nosewheels. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Nov 3 02:18:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 02:18:55 From: Normand Perron Subject: Re: Strange buzzing sound on DC-9 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: nperron@videotron.ca jf mezei wrote: > I started to hear a buzz above/behind me and thought it was an > ultra-light plane coming behind me. Obviously I had misjudged its > distance > because it didn't overtake me. Then, some folks on the sidewalk stopped > walking and looked up. I stopped cycling and looked up. > > Well, I had definitely misjudged the flying object. It was in fact > (most probably) a DC-9 on approach to YUL. (Easterly winds means that > planes made direct approaches from the west instead of the most usual > "go to east end of Montreal, u-turn and land at Dorval"). Bombardier has one of their major plants in Dorval. When I told a friend of hearing a strange noise coming from a landing Challenger, he told me that it was probably the ram-air turbine being tested during the production test flight. The RAT is a propeller-driven generator which is extended into the airstream on the side of the nose in case of a double generator failure. In hudson, any aircraft landing in Dorval would still be quite high above ground; a Challenger (or RJ) could be mistaken for a DC-9 when there is no possibility to judge the size of the a/c. Normand From kls Mon Nov 3 19:20:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 19:20:03 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Boeing decisions on Douglas products Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Well, Boeing has announced the results of its review of Douglas products, and the results are: MD-11: Boeing will continue to offer the MD-11 trijet in both freighter and passenger versions, although it expects that the largest market for the airplane is as a freighter. As a freighter the MD-11F is well-placed between the 767-300F and the 747-400F. As of Sept. 30, 1997, there were 19 unfilled announced orders for the MD-11, which is being produced at the rate of one per month. MD-80/MD-90: Boeing will continue to produce the MD-80 and MD-90 twinjets until approximately mid-1999, when current production commitments end. Currently, the MD-80 and MD-90 are being produced at a rate of four per month. There are 13 unfilled announced orders for the MD-80 and 91 for the MD-90. MD-95: Boeing is committed to build the 50 MD-95s ordered by launch customer ValuJet/AirTran, with first delivery, but has not made a decision about the long-term future of the airplane. Boeing Commercial Airplane Group president Ron Woodard said: "Production beyond the launch order of 50 airplanes -- as well as any development of MD-95 derivatives -- will depend on reducing the cost of producing the airplane. Over the next several weeks, we'll be discussing this issue with our partners and suppliers on the MD-95 program. We'll make a final decision on the program's future once we conclude those discussions." So basically, production of the MD-80/90 is being wound down, as expected. Production of the MD-11 continues. And no decision has yet been made about the MD-95. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA Check out my web site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html From kls Mon Nov 3 19:20:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 19:20:03 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Rob Wells (WLL) wrote: > In Oz it was reported that the APU was definitely non-op. I seem to > remember that there was only enough compressed air left for one more > attempt to turn over an engine. But perhaps that was an embelishment > added by the local tabloids. I would say "embellishment." As far as I know, there is NO storage of compressed air on board a commercial aircraft- certainly not enough for engine starts. The compressed air is fed from a *running* APU straight to the engine starter. The intended reference was probably to "air-starting" the engine, wherein the ram air flow from the planes forward speed spins the turbines up enough to start the engine, provided the combustors are sufficiently clear of debris, fuel and igniter systems are working, etc. As you run out of altitude and airspeed, this becomes impossible. As I recall, one of the engines was *finally* successfully air-started, and provided enough compressed air for normal starts of the remaining engines. - Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Mon Nov 3 19:20:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 19:20:03 From: Ken or Jason Hancock Subject: Re: Boeing chief says FAA doing inspection job References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: hancokj@home.ifx.net k_ish wrote: > Robert Reed wrote: > > Boeing Co Chairman Phil Condit said Tuesday the Federal Aviation > > Administration was doing its job by intensifying its scrutiny of > > company aircraft factories because of heightened potential for > > assembley rrors. > > My first reaction was "What a great way for Boeing to defer deliveries > and save face (and penalties)?" Just blame the current and future > schedule slips on increased FAA scrutiny! At least Boeing isn't crying to the government like Airbus...what's with them, every time Boeing does something (anything) Airbus complains. They should just accept the fact that this is business and start winning by salesmanship and building good aircraft, not running to the governments and asking for more money. From kls Mon Nov 3 19:20:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 19:20:03 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat at home in our little cottage On 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 , in , Robin Johnson wrote: >>I heard that the rudders of the Convair 990 had counterweights made out >>of uranium. > >I seem to remember that in the recip days some aircraft had special >storage for radioactive cargo, out on the wingtips. This would have >been small quantities of radioisotopes (short half-life) for hospitals >and research establishments. I have a picture in an old (c. 1948) book about UKAEA Harwell which shows an SAA DC-4 with a man wearing a long raincoat (on a rainy day) standing on steps placing a canister of isotopes in a wingtip holder using long handled grippers. As they say in radiation protection practice, there are three methods of keeping your dose down, time distance and shielding. Minimise the first and maximise the last two... -- John Wright From kls Mon Nov 3 19:20:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 19:20:04 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat at home in our little cottage On 03 Nov 97 02:18:54 , in , Woodhams wrote: >mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) writes: >>Actually 737-300/400/500 use tungsten weights in the wingtips. >>Tungsten is nearly as dense as uranium, but is much more difficult to >>fabricate. My recollection is 10kg per wingtip. > >10 kg of Uranium (or Tungsten) would be a bit over half a litre at a >guess - a quite trivial volume compared to the size of a 737 wing. Why is >density so important? Why is a 10kg (half litre) of Tungsten so much >better than (say) 10kg (2 litre) of rock? Frequently the masses are used as mass balances on the aerodynamic surfaces, ailerons and elevators for example, to help balance the air load with a physical load, so the mass would be placed in front of the pivot for such a surface. This helps to increase the flutter speed of the surface AIUI. You don't want to make the balance weight as small as possible to keep within the aerodynamic profile of the surface. -- John Wright From kls Mon Nov 3 19:20:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 19:20:04 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University libove@felines.org (Jay Vassos-Libove) writes: > A recent post here about orders placed for Boeing's '2707' SST > (prior to the program's cancellation) got a reply which indicated > a laundry list of airlines, US and foreign, which had also placed > orders for the Concorde. > > This raised the question in my mind: Why did no airlines other than > BA and AF ever actually get any Concordes, since there were a dozen > or more orders for it from other airlines? Because by the time it was ready for delivery (in 1974?) the airline industry was in a nasty slump, there had been an oil crisis, and everyone canceled orders. Remember that Pan Am was the third launch customer; they had already started their long slide into bankruptcy by '74. Oh, and U.S. airports were refusing landing rights due to noise considerations, so the transatlantic routes for which the plane was designed weren't available. By the time these restrictions were lifted, in '76, it was, regrettably, all over for Concorde. I suspect that paying whatever penalties were involved was deemed cheaper than taking delivery and actually trying to fly the things. BA and AF were, of course, government-owned airlines, and carrying through was a way of saving face. I believe they lost money in service for some years. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Mon Nov 3 19:20:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 03 Nov 97 19:20:04 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: >A recent post here about orders placed for Boeing's '2707' SST >(prior to the program's cancellation) got a reply which indicated >a laundry list of airlines, US and foreign, which had also placed >orders for the Concorde. Because the orders were options. The options expired around 1973, at which time Concorde was still three years away from entering commercial service. In the early 70s, airlines were in a recession and fuel prices were skyrocketing. On top of that, the concerns about noise and polution from SSTs had become much more of an issue than when the options had been first taken. -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From news Thu Oct 30 18:54:13 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!Supernews60!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.244.0.3!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!news-master!Chuanga From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: China's US$3b Boeing order Date: 30 Oct 1997 23:18:02 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <63b4ja$g1b@examiner.concentric.net> China has officially announced a US$3 billion order for a total of 50 Boeing planes. The order consists of 36 B737s (I believe most, if not all, will be the next-generation B737), a B747-400, 5 B757s, and 8 B777s. In 1994, it was reported China would order up to US$6 billion of Boeing planes before China's aviation authority imposed a two-year restriction on aircraft orders to improve China's aviation safety standard. Since then, the Sino-US relation has more downs than ups, and China has made two major Airbus orders for 40 A320s, 20 A321s and 6 A340s. China also opted Airbus as its Western partner for the 100-seat regional jet project. During the same period, Boeing got three token orders for 4 B747-400s (which Air China desperately needed) and 5 B777s. Today's order is not only important to Boeing in terms of Boeing's Chinese market share in the future, but it's also very significant for the next-generation B737. Although, the B737NG is doing extremely well (with more than 700 sold even before it has entered into revenue service), the A320 family overwhelms the B737 in the Asia-Pacific market. Taiwan's China Airlines, India's Jet Airways and Fiji's Air Pacific are the only three airline operators that have ordered the B737NG in the region. From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:55 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Douglas DC-5 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University I just happened across a book in the library: a history of airlines. WHile leafing through, I found a photo of a Douglas DC-5. This was a 2-engine, high-wing, tricycle-gear monoplane. Apparently the first one was delivered to KLM's West Indies division in the spring of 1940; these planes were transferred to the Far East as WW II advanced. At that point, KLM had bought at least one of every airliner Douglas had produced. I always wondered about the gap in the series DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, ... -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:55 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com Marc Schaeffer wrote: > I wonder if there is a hushkit which converts the original JT3D's to > stage 3. I am pretty sure that there is none but the Cargo Lion DC8's > (LX-TLA and B) have a stage 3 writing on their JT3D engines. The noise > however doesn't seem that low, so is this just marketing ? There are several hushkits available that take JT3D powered aircraft from Stage I to Stage III. There is a 707 hushkit certified (by QNC) that will make a 707 Stage III compliant. Several companies have work is underway on certifying hushkits to make 707s and DC-8s Stage III compliant. Hushkits can take many forms. Most involve inlet treatment, bypass duct treatment and a exhaust mixer. Some involve changes to the aircraft operating procedures that place the aircraft higher over the microphones during approach or departure, along with changing the thrust in use at these times. Some hushkits, such as the Valsan/Rohr 727 package and the 7Q7 program, involve wholesale reengining with modern, quieter engines. Just because an aircraft is Stage III compliant doesn't mean that it will necessarily sound quiet. The means by which noise is measured doesn't necessarily match your ear's perception of the noise. This is because noise is produced at many different frequencies. The weighting of the frequencies to produce a Effective Percieved Noise (EPNdB) rating attempts to match human perception, but is not foolproof. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:55 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY >I would guess that this FAA formula is valid for every country, or are >there different formulas for EU and US ?? When I worked on a hush-kit project a few years ago, the JAR (Joint Airworthiness Requirements -- basically European Union) procedure and requirements were the same as in FAR 36. The 2 authorities also generally accepted each other's certifications, with some basically- nationalistic exceptions. - BRIAN CLOUSE GWLF17A@prodigy.com From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:55 From: 11jbusen@gallux.gallaudet.edu (Jackson D. Busenbark) Subject: TWA's jet fleet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gallaudet University I've noticed that on just about all of TWA's DC-9s/MD-80s, 727s and now even their 757s, there exists a black stripe about a foot wide running along the top of each wing from the leading to the trailing edge at about halfway down the wing from the fuselage. Can any of you identify those and their function? And why does TWA seem to be the only airline that has those whatchamacallits installed on its jet fleet? Regards, Jack Busenbark Gallaudet University 11jbusen@gallaudet.edu www.gallaudet.edu/~11jbusen From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:56 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: A/C Body Station Designations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) writes: >In article , jak1959@aol.com (JAK1959) wrote: >>Could someone please inform me as to where the reference point >>is that body stations are measured from on commercial aircraft? > >It depends on the aircraft. Some aircraft even have the reference >point in front of the radome by several inches. If I recall correctly, the datum point for the Lockheed L1649 was 30 inches forweard of the nose of the radome. Lou. From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:56 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: A/C Body Station Designations References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com k_ish wrote: > On Boeing aircraft, FS0 is the nose of the aircraft, BL0 is the aircraft > centerline, and WL0 is basically a datum on the belly. Don't recall > where Airbus places their datums, MD was a little confusing IIRC as > there are + and - FS and WL locations. No, on the 727-100, the nose is at FS130, the 737-200's nose is at FS130, the 747-100's nose is at FS90 and the 767-200's nose is at FS92.5. For the interested, the DC-8-61/63's nose is at FS-200, the DC-9-30's nose is at FS7, the DC-10-10's nose is at FS239. The Fokker 70's nose is at FS0. Almost all aircraft have Buttline 0 on the centerline, except unsymmetrical aircraft like the Rutan Ares and Boomerang. Waterline 0 can fall almost anywhere. Additionally, most manufacturers have separate coordinate systems for the wing, nacelles, pylons, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:56 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Boeing decisions on Douglas products References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe "Stefano P. Pagiola" shaped the electrons to say: >MD-11: Boeing will continue to offer the MD-11 trijet in both freighter and >passenger versions, although it expects that the largest market for the >airplane is as a freighter. As a freighter the MD-11F is well-placed >between the 767-300F and the 747-400F. As of Sept. 30, 1997, there were Any chance of a 777F which would seem to be about the same size? It seems like the passenger MD-11 and version of the 777 would be in competetion, or is there enough difference to sustain both? -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-737-2100 FAX: 510-737-2110 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Wed Nov 5 23:41:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Nov 97 23:41:56 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Flight International, in the current issue, reports that Boeing is evaluating airline interest in an ultra-long range 747 based on the 747-400F and seating 355-380 passengers in typical configurations. Range would be 9,200 statute miles (14,800 km) compared to 8,380 mi (13,480 km) for the 747-400. The 747-200X moniker suggests that the proposal would use the small upper deck of the 747-400F (same size as the 747-100/200) with the airframe weight reduction allowing the increased range. (According to www.boeing.com, the MGTOW and fuel capacity of the 747-400F is the same as the passenger version, so the freighter airframe doesn't seem to offer any benefit in that regard. What happened to the freighter having a stronger wing that boosted it from 875,000 lbs to 920,000 lbs MGTOW?) Cathay Pacific, EVA Air (Taiwan), and Qantas are mentioned as potential customers for the aircraft, which could be launched as early as next May if there is sufficient interest. Cathay in particular wants an aircraft which can fly HKG-JFK non-stop, year 'round. The 747-200X, which apparently is being considered as an alternative to a longer range 777, is in response to the increased competitive threat posed by the A340-600. The smaller A340-500 still boasts the greatest range. model pax (3-class) range (mi/km) ----- ------------- ------------- 747-400 420 8,380 / 13,480 747-200X 355-380 9,200 / 14,800 777-200IGW 305-328 8,600 / 13,845 A340-600 378 8,390 / 13,500 A340-500 313 9,570 / 15,400 -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From news Sat Nov 8 22:14:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners From: hei@pop.nlci.com (Hunckler Engineering, Inc.) Subject: finite element analysis FEA web site Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom5.netcom.com Organization: NetLink Communications, Inc. Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 04:27:31 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Path: ditka!news2.mv.net!mv!newsfeed.wizvax.net!ulowell.uml.edu!cam-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!ix.netcom.com!rdd please visit our finite element analysis FEA web site at http://www.nlci.com/hei/ From news Tue Nov 11 03:05:19 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!newshub1.home.com!news.home.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!207.244.0.3!cdc2.cdc.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. Date: 10 Nov 1997 17:25:16 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Airbus signed up another launch customer for the A340-500/600---Taiwan's EVA Airways. I believe Boeing's original intent was to market the B777 to EVA Airways. However, EVA Air's relunctance to operate ultra-long- range twins has prompted Boeing's new B747-200X offer, and EVA Air was mentioned as a possible customer. EVA Air's A340 selection may also sway Taiwan's other airline, China Airlines, to the Airbus camp. ETOPS may be viewed as extremely risky for China Airlines because of its poor safety record. However, the Taiwan government may exert some influence in the aircraft selection because of Taiwan's big trade surplus with the US. ************************************** Boeing is also anxiously waiting to get enough customers to launch its B777-200X. American and Malaysia are probably the only two that Boeing can get for sure at this time. On a related note, American has selected Rolls-Royce for its B777 order. I am not too sure why GE and P&W both are abandoning the ultra-long-range market (i.e., the A340-500/600 and B777-200X/300X). Let's see if the A340-500/600 and/or the B777-200X/-300X will be officially launched at the Dubai Air Show. From news Tue Nov 11 06:48:17 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.idt.net!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: The B737-900 is launched by Alaska's order Date: 11 Nov 1997 13:09:55 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <649lf3$49f@examiner.concentric.net> Alaska has placed an order of 10 B737-900s and became the launch customer of the longest B737. For details, see Boeing's news release: From news Tue Nov 11 14:28:32 1997 Path: ditka!daver!netnews.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Joseph Edward Nemec Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: The B737-900 is launched by Alaska's order Date: 11 Nov 1997 13:45:27 -0500 Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: <649lf3$49f@examiner.concentric.net> H Andrew Chuang wrote: > Alaska has placed an order of 10 B737-900s and became the launch > customer of the longest B737. For details, see Boeing's news > release: > I noticed that the B737-900 is the largest of the 737s, but Boeing reports that the passenger capacity for the planes that Alaska Airways has ordered is 177 pax, as opposed to the 180+ for the B737-800. What's going on? Is the -900 a particularly long-range aircraft, or is Alaska Airways going for some sort of premium seating? From news Wed Nov 12 04:25:48 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.0.154.56!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: The B737-900 is launched by Alaska's order Date: 11 Nov 1997 23:16:59 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <64ap1b$ffs@examiner.concentric.net> References: <649lf3$49f@examiner.concentric.net> In article , Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: > >> Alaska has placed an order of 10 B737-900s and became the launch >> customer of the longest B737. For details, see Boeing's news >> release: > >> > >I noticed that the B737-900 is the largest of the 737s, but Boeing >reports that the passenger capacity for the planes >that Alaska Airways has ordered is 177 pax, as opposed to the >180+ for the B737-800. What's going on? Is the -900 a particularly >long-range aircraft, or is Alaska Airways going for some sort of >premium seating? > The max seating capacity for the B737-800 is 189, IIRC, but that's in one-class, high-density configuration. Many European inclusive operators are interested in the B737-800. I believe the max seating capacity of the B737-900 will remain at 189 which is limited by the emergency exit requirement. The B737-800 is about the size of the A320. The B737-900, I think, is a tad smaller than the A321 (and the B757-200). From news Wed Nov 12 18:49:57 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in2.uu.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: The B737-900 is launched by Alaska's order Date: 12 Nov 1997 16:31:03 -0500 Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: <649lf3$49f@examiner.concentric.net> <64ap1b$ffs@examiner.concentric.net> On 11 Nov 1997 23:16:59 GMT, Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >In article , >Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: >>H Andrew Chuang wrote: >>> Alaska has placed an order of 10 B737-900s and became the launch >>> customer of the longest B737. For details, see Boeing's news >>> release: >>> >>I noticed that the B737-900 is the largest of the 737s, but Boeing >>reports that the passenger capacity for the planes >>that Alaska Airways has ordered is 177 pax, as opposed to the >>180+ for the B737-800. What's going on? Is the -900 a particularly >>long-range aircraft, or is Alaska Airways going for some sort of >>premium seating? The -800 has been sold to low cost european operators and tour operators, who generally operate single class (sardine class) service. Alaska operates two classes. I suspect the high figures for the -800 are based upon 30-31 inch seat pitch. Alaska has a 40 inch seat pitch up front, and probably about 33 inches down the back. Add space for a bulkhead between the two cabins, and you have eaten up the entire stretch of the airframe. (4 rows x 9 inches in front, 36 inches + 25 rows x 3 inches = 114 inches 9+ feet) Another poster has pointed out the current regulations involving emergency exits prevent you from getting a lot more seats anyway. From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:40 From: m.stone@dial.pipex.com (M.STONE) Subject: Dubai Air Show '97 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Dubai Air Show Site now available at: http://defence-data.com/shows/dubai/ All the news and photographs from the Dubai Air Show 97 16th - 20th November 1997 Mike Stone From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:40 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The first flight of the DC-5 was February 20, 1939. A total of 12 were produced - don't know if KLM took delivery of all 12 or not. Colleen.M.Wabiszewski@Boeing.com From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:41 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Stephen H. Westin wrote: > I always wondered about the gap in the series DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, ... Then of course there was the one-off DC-4E... which bore no resemblance to the DC-4 :-) -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:41 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Stephen H. Westin wrote: > At that point, KLM had bought at least one > of every airliner Douglas had produced. > > I always wondered about the gap in the series DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, > ... Question...KL also has operated DC8, 9, 10, and MD-11. So are there any (M)D aircraft KL has not operated? Just curious! Thanks; Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:41 From: "Walter E. Shepherd, K2ZPA" Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corp. Reply-To: walter.e.shepherd@news2.aero.org, at@news2.aero.org, aero@news2.aero.org, dot@news2.aero.org, org@news2.aero.org Stephen H. Westin wrote: > I just happened across a book in the library: a history of > airlines. WHile leafing through, I found a photo of a Douglas > DC-5. This was a 2-engine, high-wing, tricycle-gear > monoplane. Apparently the first one was delivered to KLM's West Indies > division in the spring of 1940; these planes were transferred to the > Far East as WW II advanced. At that point, KLM had bought at least one > of every airliner Douglas had produced. > > I always wondered about the gap in the series DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, ... I'll just hazard a guess that there was more than a family resemblance of the DC-5 with the A-20 Havoc, a twin trike-gear bomber Douglas was building for the UK at the time. I think the USAAF bought some A-20's at the time, but these probably got taken out in the early days of the Pacific war. The DC-5 probably never made the big time because Douglas was pretty busy satisfying wartime customers at the time. I would also guess that the A-26 Invader grew out of the A-20 later in the war. (I have always thought that the A-26 was one of the most graceful and genuinely "pretty" aircraft to ever grace our skys... the Consolidated Vultee PBY Catalina would rank as one of the most graceful and genuinely "ugly" aircraft... but equally admireable). --Walt Shepherd From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:41 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University Stephen H. Westin wrote: > I just happened across a book in the library: a history of > airlines. WHile leafing through, I found a photo of a Douglas > DC-5. This was a 2-engine, high-wing, tricycle-gear > monoplane. Apparently the first one was delivered to KLM's West Indies > division in the spring of 1940; these planes were transferred to the > Far East as WW II advanced. At that point, KLM had bought at least one > of every airliner Douglas had produced. There is a somewhat extensive treatment of the DC-5 in the book "Douglas Airliners (Propliners?), DC-1 to DC-7 by Arthur Pearcy. A very interesting story - it basically didn't have a chance, since Douglas' military requirements at the time forced them to drop the project. Also, it was the only DC series to be produced at the El Segundo plant (also in Southern California). > I always wondered about the gap in the series DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, ... KLM also went on to buy the DC-6B, DC-7C, DC-8, and DC-10 (I don't know if they had the 9). A very loyal customer! (did they own any Boeing planes of that era?). Remove the first t to reply. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ IWA Classic Hub http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/iwa/ From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:41 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Stephen H. Westin wrote: >Far East as WW II advanced. At that point, KLM had bought at least one >of every airliner Douglas had produced. Erm, not exactly. TWA operated the one and only DC-1. The -1 was essentially the prototype for the DC-2 and DC-3 -- it's the same basic shape but about 2/3rds the size, built in response to the Boeing 247, because due to to Boeing's commitments to United (then part of the same conglomerate, along with Pratt & Whitney & Hamilton Standard Propellors), TWA couldn't get 247s. Faced with a need to replace their Fokker trimotors in a hurry after one had crashed due to a rotten wooden wing spar and killing a famous football coach, TWA went to Douglas, who had, perhaps, more data on the 247 than they should have due to lack of any kind of security around von Karman's wind tunnel at Caltech where the 247 design was tested. Douglas delivered the DC-1 to TWA, then under pressure from TWA for an even better aircraft (the -1 was already largely better and faster than the 247), scaled up the design to build the DC-2. The rest, as they say, is history. >I always wondered about the gap in the series DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, ... And you didn't notice the gap in the beginning of the series? 8-) -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:41 From: Jan-Erik Andelin Subject: Delta MD88 stalls ? 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: Clinet, Espoo, Finland I got a fragmented info that on 27OCT Delta FLT 159, likely an MD88, location n/a, should have stalled on climb-out at 3000 AGL, but have been recovered without harm to pax or plane. Details, anybody ? Erkki MD80 INTERNATIONAL FORUM - http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm -- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 Agatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borga, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:41 From: Robert Tremonti Subject: America West - Scary Take-Off Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Organization Of Anarchists Reply-To: robert_tremonti@bc.sympatico.ca I took America West's flight 819 from Pheonix to Vancouver on Wednesday November 12th and it was a bit scary on take-off. Wonder if anyone has heard any details on this? The a/c was a 737 (not sure of model). Just as we lifted off (main gear), we took a sharp roll to the right. It almost seemed as if the pilot had started a right turn too early. (I was on the port side, sitting right behind the wing emergency exit. Passengers on the right side commented that the wing tip came VERY close to the ground.) The pilots recovered quickly (obviously) and there was no other turbulance or sudden movements during the remainder of the climb out. I've been on flights caught by crosswind gusts before, but this felt very different. There was no side buffetting during the take-off roll or when the nose gear came off the runway. Can anyone shed more light on this incident? Thanks! Bob ------------------------------------------------------------ R.A. (Bob) Tremonti North Vancouver, BC Canada From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Cripple 7 ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Even if I don't believe it myself I picked this news (?) and want your opinion/comments : Apparently the Boeing 777 has been having touble lately. The next three excerpts are from the Planespotting homepage message board http://members.aol.com/planespot/index.htm: On Nov. 6,1997 Peter Olding wrote: Subj: Triple 7 or Cripple 7 "This story was told to me by a British Airways stewardess. A British Airways have had a few proplems with their 777's. The worst incident occured when one was flying from London to the Middle East. Over Germany the wing started bending and twisting into all different ways. The passengers started to get a bit worried and informed the cabin crew who in turn informed the flight crew. It was decided that the aircraft should return to London. Many people on board the aircraft thought that it was not going to make it. There was one stewardess on board the aircraft who was normally the calmest person in any situation by she was in floods of tears by the time the aircraft reached London. British Airways cabin crew have now renamed the aircraft from the Triple 7 to the Cripple 7. Whilst I was following up this story I have been in contact from someone who was on an Emerites 777 which had a similar proplem with its wing. Is there a problem with this aircraft?" He was answered on Nov. 13, 1997 by Ming Lee: Subj: RE: Triple 7 or Cripple 7 ? "'the wing started bending and twisting into all different ways'". I cannot accept the statement that was made by the passenger on the BA flight. There is just no way that any airplane can sustain and this kind of aerodynamic deformation. Furthermore, why would Boeing or any aircraft manufacturer willing to risk their reputation and profit for an unsafe plane. B-777 is safe and reliable. there is just no question about it. Also on the 13th, Paul Shindelus replied: "I don't know about the story about the British Airways 777 wing twisting, but a mechanic at United told me that the 777 has turned out to be quite the problem plane. He says that they break down both easily and frequently. He called them 'pieces of sh*t.' Whether or not the wings bend I do not know, but according to this guy, the 777 has so far been a headache for UA mechanics." -- Any comments from insiders are welcome. On my last trip with the 777 (Lauda Air) there was no incident. During my cockpit visit I was told that NG was so far happy with the a/c. The point is they are only operating it since 1st Oct 97. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: "tom.molamphy" Subject: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet MCI Hi, I flew JFK-Shannon (Ireland) a few weeks ago on an Aer Lingus A330. The pilot indicated that the flight time would be longer than usual because it would have to be a "non-ETOPS" flight - so we had to fly over Greenland. Any ideas on what the issue is here? I don't believe that the Aer Lingus fleet has Trent engines so I don't think that's the issue. In any case the A330 is certainly comfortable and all in all Aer Lingus does a decent job. Tom Molamphy From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: Jun Eu Tang Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chalmers University of Technology I thought the A340-500/600 has already been launched by Virgin and Air Canada. Maybe it is not official yet? I recall that both EVA and CAL signed LoI's for the B777, and the former was interested in the combi version. What does it mean in terms of level of commitment when airlines sign Letters of Intent (LoI)? A340's are probably great aircraft (many believe it has superior cabin noise levels), although I have only flown in the A330 among new generation airbuses. However, the cabin width is significantly less than that of the MD-11 and the B777. It will be interesting to see how EVA intends to configure those new airbuses, especially in Evergreen Deluxe since they had 2-3-2 in the MD11s. Well... regarding the B777-200X. The currency crisis affecting South East Asian nations might really hurt the Malaysia Airlines order (for 15 units, AFAIK), don't you think? I don't know if they signed any LoI or MoU or whatever. Best Regards. From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: alwahoo@aol.com (ALWahoo) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > I am not too sure why GE and P&W both >are abandoning the ultra-long-range market (i.e., the A340-500/600 and >B777-200X/300X). P&W is not abandoning the ultra-long-range market - at least not on the 777. However, the competitive pressures between the three manufacturers on the 777 ensures that no-one will be making any money on these engines any time soon. Since P&W and GE have shareholders that require higher returns than RR, both U.S. manufacturers are a little gun shy about throwing more money at a losing proposition. The A340 story is a long and sordid one but is not yet over... From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 05 Nov 97 23:41:56 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >The 747-200X moniker suggests that the proposal would use the small >upper deck of the 747-400F (same size as the 747-100/200) with the >airframe weight reduction allowing the increased range. (According >to www.boeing.com, the MGTOW and fuel capacity of the 747-400F is the >same as the passenger version, so the freighter airframe doesn't seem >to offer any benefit in that regard. What happened to the freighter >having a stronger wing that boosted it from 875,000 lbs to 920,000 lbs >MGTOW?) The Flight International Article quotes the MGTOW as 397,000 Kg, which is 875,000 pounds. This is the standard for passenger and Combi -400's. Aviation Week's 1997 Aerospace Source book quotes the MGTOW on the 747-400F as 811,000 pounds however, but MLW on the 400F is 660,000 pounds versus 630,000 pounds on the standard -400. The proposal (according to Flight International) involves an increase in MGTOW, from as little as 399,500kg (which is a whole 5500 pounds) up to 413,100kg, which is about 920,000 pounds. The 400F has an empty weight advtange over a passenger -400 of about 35,000 pounds. Couple that with the max imum increase in MGTOW, you have a choice between up to about 3.5 hours extra endurance or 2 hours more endurance with 30,000 pounds more payload. This would put ultimate endurance at 17-18.5 hours with reasonable loads. >the increased competitive threat posed by the A340-600. The smaller >A340-500 still boasts the greatest range. > > model pax (3-class) range (mi/km) > ----- ------------- ------------- > 747-400 420 8,380 / 13,480 > 747-200X 355-380 9,200 / 14,800 > 777-200IGW 305-328 8,600 / 13,845 > A340-600 378 8,390 / 13,500 > A340-500 313 9,570 / 15,400 I am compelled to point that early examples of aircraft almost never meet performance guarantees. There are enough differences in how the loads and ranges are calculated that it hard to be sure if the 747-200X really has shorter range than the A340-500. It may well be academic, because I can't think of any routes that are longer than 14,800km and shorter than 15,400km. I'd add that Flight International says : 'The new 747 will offer range inthe order 14,800km ... ' That sounds to me to be not very definitive, and probably won't be until the MGTOW issue is settled. Depending upon what happens there, my thumbnail caculation says the range could be as little as 9000miles/14,400km to as much as 10,300miles/16,500km. Depends upon how much the MGTOW is increased, and how much you use of that for payload and how much for fuel. In any event the aircraft is clearly not adequately defined at this stage to make such a comparison very meaningful. The 413,100kg upper limit is apparently derived from the need to alter the tail assembly if you exceed that level (again according to Flight International). My views anyway From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The Flight International Article quotes the MGTOW as 397,000 Kg, which >is 875,000 pounds. This is the standard for passenger and Combi >-400's. Aviation Week's 1997 Aerospace Source book quotes the MGTOW on >the 747-400F as 811,000 pounds however While generally a good reference, I've found a number of errors in AvLeak's Aerospace Source Book. 811,000 lbs MGTOW for the 747-400F is certainly one example. (The 875,000 lbs figure I cited came from Boeing's web site.) >but MLW on the 400F is 660,000 pounds versus 630,000 pounds on the >standard -400. This is interesting if you want to trade fuel (hence range) for greater payload. Quite useful for freighters, but of no value for a longer-range passenger aircraft. >The 400F has an empty weight advtange over a passenger -400 of about >35,000 pounds. Most of which is due to the lack of seats, galleys, lavatories, and windows, plus the shorter upper deck. (The reinforced floor and cargo handling equipment adds a bit back.) A more meaningful estimate of the -200X empty weight can be had by comparing the 747-200B and -300. Going back to the Source Book, the empty weight differential of these two aircraft is only 8,900 lbs. Add in some structural reinforcements from the 747-400F and any empty weight advantage the 747-200X might have over the passenger -400 is minimal. >I am compelled to point that early examples of aircraft almost never >meet performance guarantees. There are enough differences in how the >loads and ranges are calculated that it hard to be sure if the >747-200X really has shorter range than the A340-500. Quite true. Also, the "maximum range" figures are "best case" and in practice the useful range which an airline can plan on routinely using is significantly less. >It may well be academic, because I can't think of any routes that are >longer than 14,800km and shorter than 15,400km. JFK-SIN (15,362 km), which is frequently cited as an interesting route for a very long range transport. However, it's not entirely clear that the market on this route is large enough for a plane as large as the 747-200X or A340-500. The slightly smaller 777-200X might be a better choice for the route. -- 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 Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: spiel@dolphin.upenn.edu (Stephan Piel) Subject: Re: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Pennsylvania Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Flight International, in the current issue, reports that Boeing is : evaluating airline interest in an ultra-long range 747 based on the : 747-400F and seating 355-380 passengers in typical configurations. : Range would be 9,200 statute miles (14,800 km) compared to 8,380 mi : (13,480 km) for the 747-400. How many routes are there where a range of 13,480km is not enough, but a range of 14,800km is? Can anybody name some of them? Stephan Piel From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >: Range would be 9,200 statute miles (14,800 km) compared to 8,380 mi >: (13,480 km) for the 747-400. >How many routes are there where a range of 13,480km is not enough, but a >range of 14,800km is? Can anybody name some of them? Probably not all that many, but here are a few examples: LHR-PER (14,428 km) ORD-JNB (14,002 km) SFO-BOM (13,542 km) SFO-PER (14,749 km) Note, though, that even a flight that's within the published range specs may not be by operable in practice. UA's ORD-HKG (12,549 km) flight is summer only because the 747-400 can't do it against winter headwinds, though the Phase III engine mods are supposed to change this. JNB-JFK (12,811 km) cannot by flown non-stop by a 747-400 (though the reverse can) due to the aircraft's "hot and high" performance operating out of JNB. The extra range may turn a marginal or difficult operation into one which can be operated consistently and profitably. -- 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 Nov 15 16:24:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:42 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" On 5 Nov 1997, Karl Swartz wrote: > Flight International, in the current issue, reports that Boeing is > evaluating airline interest in an ultra-long range 747 based on the > 747-400F and seating 355-380 passengers in typical configurations. > Range would be 9,200 statute miles (14,800 km) compared to 8,380 mi > (13,480 km) for the 747-400. > > The 747-200X moniker suggests that the proposal would use the small > upper deck of the 747-400F (same size as the 747-100/200) with the > airframe weight reduction allowing the increased range. (According > to www.boeing.com, the MGTOW and fuel capacity of the 747-400F is the > same as the passenger version, so the freighter airframe doesn't seem > to offer any benefit in that regard. What happened to the freighter > having a stronger wing that boosted it from 875,000 lbs to 920,000 lbs > MGTOW?) This seems practical. According to "Jane's All the World's Aircraft", the 747-400F has a maximum unfueled weight of 610,000 lb., which is with 250,000 lb. payload. With this payload, the range at maximum gross takeoff weight (875,000 lb.) is 5,063 miles. Assuming that it would reach this distance with 45 minutes of fuel, say 15,000 lb., the weight at the end of the flight if 625,000 lb., for a ratio of initial mass to final mass of 875/625 or 1.40. Using Breguet's equation for range, which states that, other things being equal, range is proportional to the natural logarithm of the mass ratio, to fly 9,200 miles would require a mass ratio of about 1.84. Taking off with 875,000 lb., the weight at 9,200 miles would be about 475,000 lb. Subtracting 360,000 lb. for the empty weight of the plane, and 15,000 lb. for a 45 minute fuel reserve, this leaves 100,000 lb. payload, which should be enough for 380 passengers, although this would also have to include the seats, overhead baggage racks, cabin attendants, service carts, and anything else needed which is not part of the empty weight of a freighter. It has been claimed that the 747-400 has less aerodynamic drag than the 747-400F, as the longer upper deck gives the 747-400 better area ruling. If this is correct, they might get slightly better performance by shortening the 747-400 at both ends to accommodate the reduced number of passengers. Compared with putting seats in the 747-400F this would obviously be a lot more expensive, but the work would be essentially the same as they did earlier in developing the 747SP. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: here@there.somewhere (Dave v1.0) Subject: Re: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Alaska Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > Flight International, in the current issue, reports that Boeing is > evaluating airline interest in an ultra-long range 747 based on the > 747-400F and seating 355-380 passengers in typical configurations. > Range would be 9,200 statute miles (14,800 km) compared to 8,380 mi > (13,480 km) for the 747-400. ... > Cathay Pacific, EVA Air (Taiwan), and Qantas are mentioned as potential > customers for the aircraft, which could be launched as early as next > May if there is sufficient interest. How would Boeing be able to produce this 200x given their current production is so overbooked? The value of my Boeing stock has taken it in the shorts due to production delays, and I fail to see how a new derivitive could be delivered in May 98. Can you elaborate on how they could pull this off? Dave -- "If you wish to drown, do not torture yourself with shallow water" -- Bulgarian proverb. Or was it the mission statement for the Windows95 team?? From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing considering ultra-long range 747-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Cathay Pacific, EVA Air (Taiwan), and Qantas are mentioned as potential >> customers for the aircraft, which could be launched as early as next >> May if there is sufficient interest. >How would Boeing be able to produce this 200x given their current >production is so overbooked? ... I fail to see how a new >derivitive could be delivered in May 98. The claim was that the new derivative could be *launched* next May, not delivered. One of the shorter derivative gestations I can recall is the 757-300: Launch: 2 Sep 1996 Roll-out: Jun 1998 Delivery: Jan 1999 A May 1998 launch of the 747-200X suggests a first delivery no earlier than late 2000. If Boeing hasn't gotten their production problems in order by then, they'll be in serious trouble. -- 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 Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Cabin noise Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I wonder if someone could help me with cabin-noise levels in the different a/c. I would be interested in the dB values at normal cruise speed and altitude for todays a/c in the following locations : - cockpit - first row window - first row center (aisle) - last row window - last row center (aisle) Airbus always says that the 340 is the quitest cabin in the sky after now having flown the 777 I would confirm this, but I would really like to see some offical values. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Trip costs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com When it comes to trip costs there are three major parameters : - total trip costs - trip costs per mile - trip costs per passenger mile Especially the two last parameters are interesting. According to Boeing they have the a/c with the lowest trip cost per seat (the 753), Airbus claims the same for their A333 in high density config). First of all you can calculate the costs in different manners. Either you consider a trip of -say- 2000nm or you consider a trip with the full load range of the a/c. I seems logical that the costs get better the closer you are to the max. range of your a/c. Are there any standards or do the manufacturers manipulate the charts (by changing the trip lenght) until they have the desired result? Does somebody have *real* trip costs values for some of todays a/c ? Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: Michael Zawacki Subject: NASA's pmarc panel method fluid flow program Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing Hi. I'm working with NASA's pmarc program to solve for flow around some objects. I've been trying to solve for some basic cylinders and spheres to assure myself that the code is working and that my datafiles are correct. The on body velocity vectors that are computed don't seem to be right. They have normal components to them!??? Has anyone had experience working with this code that could give me some pointers or ideas as to what I'm doing wrong. Thanks for your help, Michael Zawacki From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 01 Nov 97 18:55:51 , Marc Schaeffer caused to appear as if it was written: >Brian Clouse wrote: >>(SNIP) For regulatory purposes, the FAA has a complex formula based >> on measured decibel levels at prescribed locations on an aircraft >> submitted for certification. > >I would guess that this FAA formula is valid for every country, or are >there different formulas for EU and US ?? The formulae are the same, however the interpretation varies! If I recall correctly, the US permits "averaging" of some of the values, while the EU does not. Thus if the noise is a touch too high at one point, but lower than the limit at another, the FAA will accept the certification while the EU's JAA won't. Malc. From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium Jan-Olov Newborg (newborg@algonet.se) wrote: : Boeing 767 flying from Bangkok to Europe, many the times get final level : 270 inbound New Dehli, a common level for Beach 200, all because B767 : cruises to slow compared to B747-400 and MD11 and traffic control keeps : 767 down at low alt. After India over Afganistan and Russia higher level : is given to the slow B767. So much for Boeing's marketing claims that the big wing of the 767 allowed the aircraft to climb to high altitude quicker, giving an advantage over the small-winged A310. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services Jan-Olov Newborg wrote: >Boeing 767 flying from Bangkok to Europe, many the times get final level >270 inbound New Dehli, a common level for Beach 200, all because B767 >cruises to slow compared to B747-400 and MD11 and traffic control keeps >767 down at low alt. After India over Afganistan and Russia higher level >is given to the slow B767. The well-known "Thousand Bomber Raid" (which simply means that most SEAsia-Europe flights seem to want clearance over the extremely restricted airspace over India & Pakistan at the same times) has the effect that it is hard to get ideal cruising altitudes. I wonder if this will start to improve now that B777s are starting to be used on these flights. I don't suppose it will really improve until the ATC improves, and there are more routes, such as via China, to choose from. BTW, can someone post "normal" cruising altitudes and speeds for the main types used today? From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:43 From: Tony Subject: direct operating cost software for airlines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: XS4ALL, networking for the masses Reply-To: cumulus@dds.nl Is anybody familiar with standard software for airlines to calculate the direct operating costs. I know SABRE in the US is building this kind of software but it is very expensive. Does anybody know a different standard software kit. greetings ton te sligte From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Strange buzzing sound on DC-9 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net jf mezei wrote: > On saterday afternoon, (Nov 1), at about 16:15 EST, I was riding my bike > ... > I started to hear a buzz above/behind me and thought it was an > ultra-light plane... It was in fact > (most probably) a DC-9 on approach to YUL. ... > the sound was definitely VERY different than that > of a jet and also louder ... Was this just a weather anomaly which caused > the sounds to be so > different ? Is this a normal sound for DC-9s that have been huskitted ? Sure it wasn't a CRJ? The fan section on that aircraft has a pronounced "buzz" at low power settings, such as on approach, just like the A-10 which uses the engine from which the CRJ's is derived. - Bob Mann -- - 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 Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Strange buzzing sound on DC-9 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Normand Perron wrote: > Bombardier has one of their major plants in Dorval. When I told a friend > of hearing a strange noise coming from a landing Challenger, he told me > that it was probably the ram-air turbine being tested during the > production test flight. The RAT is a propeller-driven generator which is > extended into the airstream on the side of the nose in case of a double > generator failure. > > In hudson, any aircraft landing in Dorval would still be quite high > above ground; a Challenger (or RJ) could be mistaken for a DC-9 when > there is no possibility to judge the size of the a/c. That day, there were south-easterly winds which means that planes were landing "direct" from the west so at Hudson, (about 25 km west of Dorval), it was a straight line. During more common south-west winds, airplanes follow the northern shore of Montreal to almost its eastern end before making a U-turn to head back to Dorval on the western side of the island. In other words, the planes were fairly low at Hudson that day because they were already lined to to land in a direct line. Being about 15 miles from YUL should give you an idea of their altitude. The plane seemed too big to be a CRJ, but I guess it would be possible although it had fairly large wings whereas the CRJ seems to have much smaller wings. Considering that this was a fairly busy lane (saw a few other planes follow that noisy one), would Canadair have been conducting tests of its planes in that corridor ? Interesting though, I had never thought that a RAT would make so much noise. From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: Bill Hensley Subject: Re: Strange buzzing sound on DC-9 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 jf mezei wrote: > > [...]I started to hear a buzz [...]. You very well might have heard a vibrating antenna on the aircraft. I have been on three aircraft with external antenna vibrations: an EC-135 with a vibrating HF longwire antenna pylon (this was a 10-hour flight Somewhere Over The American Midwest, the noise drove us crazy), an AE/AA ATR-72 with a vibrating VHF blade antenna (ORD-DAY,over Lake Michigan), and an AA F100 (OKC-DFW) with a vibrating UHF blade antenna. In all cases, the noise was very, very loud in the cabin, and in all three cases, maintenance gripes were written against the aircraft by the AC/Captain. Cheers, Bill Bill_Hensley@smtp.rc.trw.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Bill_Hensley/ From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Benoît) Subject: Re: Boeing decisions on Douglas products References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: mail.club-internet.fr Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr BOEING CONSIDERS ALSO THE LAUNCH OF THE MD-12 ! From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: Julian Fitzherbert Subject: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Is there any word yet as to why the port main failed to come down? (A Virgin Atlantic A340 made a successful semi-belly landing at Heathrow last week [from Los Angeles] when the port main jammed in the mid-up/down position. Everybody got off [some injuries during the shute egress] and the plane looked ok apart from some damage to the belly and port inner engine nacelle.) Will the plane fly again? My guess is yes eventually. From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is there any word yet as to why the port main failed to come down? Aviation Week (November 10, 1997, p. 59) says a "preliminary inspection points to a fastener coming loose on a brake rod, which possibly impeded the movement of the landing gear as it was trying to extend." >(A Virgin Atlantic A340 made a successful semi-belly landing at Heathrow >last week [from Los Angeles] when the port main jammed in the mid-up/down >position. Everybody got off [some injuries during the shute egress] G-VSKY (an A340-311, name China Girl) was operating VS 024 LAX-LHR with 98 passengers and 16 crew. On approach, the left main landing gear failed to extend. The center and right mains as well as the nose gear deployed normally. Several attempts were made to jar the gear loose, to no avail. With fuel running low, the aircraft finally landed on the foamed south runway (27L, I assume) with only about 15 minutes of fuel remaining, tipping onto one of its engines (probably #1) during the rollout. Nine people (including at least two crew) were treated for minor injuries received during the evacuation. >Will the plane fly again? My guess is yes eventually. It's not uncommon for airliners to land with one or more landing gear unextended and, except for very old aircraft that were near the end of their life anyway, they're fixed up and put back in service. No reason this one should be different. -- 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 Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: "Ralf Woersdoerfer" Subject: A320 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: 1 & 1 Internet Anwender Hi all, Does anybody know if the flightstick on A320, 330 and 340 aircraft produces feedback about the rudder forces to the pilots? Thanks in advance, Ralf Ralf Woersdoerfer COMMERICIAL 1ST OFFICER 606 Northwest Virtuell Airlines From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: Andrew Weir Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers 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 > This raised the question in my mind: Why did no airlines other than > BA and AF ever actually get any Concordes, since there were a dozen > or more orders for it from other airlines? Surely the main reason was very simple, and is the heart of why all civil supersonic transports are fundamentally unsound (quite apart from take-off noise, pollution and the ozone layer depletion)? Nobody will tolerate sonic bangs over land. To the uninitiated, describing a sonic bang ("boom" is a complete misnomer) is simple: it is simply the loudest noise you ever heard in your life. Without its extra speed, the only thing giving it an edge, it was useless (with the exception of some Atlantic and maybe polar routes). The great mystery to me is why the sonic bang problem was not addressed before the prototype flew. And as for its normal noise, ever heard one of them take-off? Ouch. From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 From: David Ecale Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cray Research a division of Silicon Graphics, Inc. Jay Vassos-Libove wrote: > A recent post here about orders placed for Boeing's '2707' SST > (prior to the program's cancellation) got a reply which indicated > a laundry list of airlines, US and foreign, which had also placed > orders for the Concorde. > > This raised the question in my mind: Why did no airlines other than > BA and AF ever actually get any Concordes, since there were a dozen > or more orders for it from other airlines? I suspect that it's not so much "Why didn't other airlines purchase the Concorde?", as it was "Why did BOAC & AF purchase the Concorde after everybody else dropped out?" Please remember the tenor of the times. The US, Europeans, and Russians were all racing to build a working SST by the end of the (1960s) decade. Remember JFK's famous speach, (to paraphrase) "I pledge to put a man on the moon & build an SST before the end of the decade. ..." It was a great idea, until the commercial side was considered. All 3 groups started working apace. The Boeing project was cancelled when Boeing figured out that it would *never* recoup the development costs. This wasn't all bad. Boeing went on to design and sell B747s instead. It takes 'em linger to get there, but it's a lot cheeper per seat. The B747 is one of commercial aviation's greatest commercial success stories. The Russians went on to design (well some of the specs *were* smuggled out of France in toothpaste tubes) the Tu144. This was a contender until the spectacular crash at the 1968 Paris Air Show. After that, only Aeroflot purchased *that* bird. The Concorde also lost it's customer base & the only airlines to purchase it were (the percursor to) BA & AF. Both owned by the governments which spent so much money creating it. The purchases were effectively a political solution to a commercial disaster. (Besides, remember the Concorde joke: "It takes 3 hours to cross the Atlantic from London to New York on the Concorde and 4 hours to get to Manhatten Island from JFK Airport in a New York taxi cab!") So, in retrospect, the Concorde & Tu144 were terrible financial disasters to those who produced them. The only customers who bellied up to the bar in the end to purchase them were captive carriers of the respective governments who produced them. The next try by the Europeans was the A300 Airbus. This followed the lead of the B747 & created a (medium haul) cattle car. It was a (still subsidised, but who isn't these days,) commercial success. -- David Ecale ecale@cray.com "The difference between a wolf pup and a German Shepard pup is that a wolf pup is quite happy teething on the leg of a stag that it's parents brought down in a hunt while the German Shepard pup prefers to teeth on remote controls and high end graphing calculators...." From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:45 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Stephen H. Westin wrote: >BA and AF were, of course, government-owned airlines, and carrying >through was a way of saving face. I believe they lost money in service >for some years. I don't believe the airlines lost money on Concorde any more than an airline "loses" money on any new aircraft while waiting for the thing to turn enough profit to pay its purchase price -- especially when the promotional value of the aircraft is taken into account. However, they did only pay the original projected price for them (based on a *lot* more aircraft sold), leaving the French & British Governments wearing the development costs. -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Sat Nov 15 16:24:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 15 Nov 97 16:24:45 From: "Dan Khimasia" Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM Canada Jay Vassos-Libove wrote in message ... >A recent post here about orders placed for Boeing's '2707' SST >(prior to the program's cancellation) got a reply which indicated >a laundry list of airlines, US and foreign, which had also placed >orders for the Concorde. > >This raised the question in my mind: Why did no airlines other than >BA and AF ever actually get any Concordes, since there were a dozen >or more orders for it from other airlines? There are a number of reasons why airlines other than AF/BA never flew the Concorde. 1)The increase in fuel prices in the mid 70s made the Concorde a very expensive aircraft to operate. 2)Tied to this is the low capacity of the aircraft (114 pass?) 3)Environmental concerns tied to noise and emissions. 4)The cost of individual aircraft due to the immense development cost. Most of the airlines such as Quantas, Air Canada etc.. had options on the aircraft which they never exercised. Dan Khimasia dkhimasi@wwonline.com From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:43 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Ralf Woersdoerfer" asked on Sun Nov 16 05:16:20 1997: > Does anybody know if the flightstick on A320, 330 and 340 aircraft produces > feedback about the rudder forces to the pilots? The side-stick conveys no "artificial feel" and the resistance to the pilot's attempts to move it is provided solely by a set of springs. The rudder in any case is controlled by pedals, although during a turn, the EFCS would coordinate the rudder movements with those of the other flight control surfaces. 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, Web: http://www@csr.city.ac.uk/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:44 From: "J P McLaughlin" Subject: Re: A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indra's Net, Inc. -- Public Access Internet. >Does anybody know if the flightstick on A320, 330 and 340 aircraft produces >feedback about the rudder forces to the pilots? It does not provide any aerodynamic feedback. Depending who you ask, they either love that feature or hate it. Airbus opted for the simpler mechanicals of not providing feedback. The autothrottles do not move the thrust levers either. -- J P McLaughlin The Gecko Group jp@thegeckogroup http://www.thegeckogroup.com From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:44 From: "C.P." Subject: Re: A320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: papaya@worldnet.att.net Ralf Woersdoerfer wrote: > Does anybody know if the flightstick on A320, 330 and 340 aircraft produces > feedback about the rudder forces to the pilots? The rudder is controlled by foot pedals, which is not fly-by-wire, and has cables connecting them like in a conventional aircraft (the horiz. stabilizer trim is also hard wired.) From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:44 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:44 From: "J P McLaughlin" Subject: Re: America West - Scary Take-Off References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indra's Net, Inc. -- Public Access Internet. There are many situations where pilots are asked to perform 'an immediate left (right) turn on departure.' This is usually to keep clear of other traffic. It's up to the crew to perform this manuever in a safe manner and it may seem a bit odd if you haven't been through it before. I can think of a number of departures (usually ORD) where we've begun a turn 3-4 seconds past liftoff. Then again, it may have been weather-realted. Aircraft are at the whim of mother nature at times and that's why you have skilled pilots up front. -- J P McLaughlin The Gecko Group jp@thegeckogroup http://www.thegeckogroup.com Robert Tremonti wrote in message ... >I took America West's flight 819 from Pheonix to Vancouver on Wednesday >November 12th and it was a bit scary on take-off. Wonder if anyone has >heard any details on this? From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:45 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Jun Eu Tang wrote: > I thought the A340-500/600 has already been launched by Virgin and Air > Canada. Maybe it is not official yet? Both Virgin (VS) and Air Canada (AC) signed LOI, thus no firm orders. According to AW&ST the target for industrial launch of the -500/600 program is 25 orders. VS has LOI for 16 -600. AC for 2 -500 and 3 -600. With the new LOI of Eva for 6 -500/600, Airbus is now over the fixed target of 25 a/c (16+5+6=27). Note that the LH management has agreed to purchase 10 -600. This should be announced in the next days. > I recall that both EVA and CAL signed LoI's for the B777, and the former > was interested in the combi version. What does it mean in terms of level > of commitment when airlines sign Letters of Intent (LoI)? It all depends on how good your lawyers are :-) > A340's are probably great aircraft (many believe it has superior cabin > noise levels), although I have only flown in the A330 among new > generation airbuses. However, the cabin width is significantly less than > that of the MD-11 and the B777. It will be interesting to see how EVA > intends to configure those new airbuses, especially in Evergreen Deluxe > since they had 2-3-2 in the MD11s. Concerning the cabin noise (after having flown both birds) I think that the 340 is quiter, but I would like to see some values to confirm this. (see other thread) > Well... regarding the B777-200X. The currency crisis affecting South > East Asian nations might really hurt the Malaysia Airlines order (for 15 > units, AFAIK), don't you think? I don't know if they signed any LoI or > MoU or whatever. According to a Reuters report CX will not introduce a new derivative of the 340 or 777 due to the current economy problems. This report was published in several places. Another reason was the problems CX had with the Trents of the 330 and smaller problems on the 777. This may also explain the recent CX order for B744/A343/A333. Concerning the MOU for the 777C signed by Malaysia you make a good point. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:45 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , ALWahoo wrote: >> I am not too sure why GE and P&W both >>are abandoning the ultra-long-range market (i.e., the A340-500/600 and >>B777-200X/300X). > >P&W is not abandoning the ultra-long-range market - at least not on the 777. >However, the competitive pressures between the three manufacturers on the 777 >ensures that no-one will be making any money on these engines any time soon. >Since P&W and GE have shareholders that require higher returns than RR, both >U.S. manufacturers are a little gun shy about throwing more money at a losing >proposition. The A340 story is a long and sordid one but is not yet over... Both GE and P&W are unwilling to commit to ~105K-lb-thrust engine necessary for the B777-200X/300X program. The argument is the projected market size does not justify the development costs. I can understand that the B777-200X to be very small (which, I belive, Boeing estimated at around 200 units for the next 20 years), but the B777-300X should be a winner. There are about 1,200 B747s ordered. Most of them can be replaced by the B777-300/-300X. From a marketing perspective, GE and P&W are allowing R-R to have a monopoly in this market (i.e., B777-200X/300X and A340-500/600). Had GE committed to a higher thrust engine, I strongly believe American would go with GE instead of R-R. IMHO, AA is too important a customer to the GE90 program; without AA, the GE90 is pretty much destined to be the big loser in the B777 competition. From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:45 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Jun Eu Tang wrote: >I thought the A340-500/600 has already been launched by Virgin and Air >Canada. Maybe it is not official yet? It will be official in a few weeks' time, perhaps at this week's Dubai Air Show. >I recall that both EVA and CAL signed LoI's for the B777, and the former >was interested in the combi version. What does it mean in terms of level >of commitment when airlines sign Letters of Intent (LoI)? Well, I believe Virgin had even paid deposits to Boeing to secure some B777 delivery slots. Obviously, it only counts when the final contract is signed; LoI/MoU doesn't mean much. [snip] >Well... regarding the B777-200X. The currency crisis affecting South >East Asian nations might really hurt the Malaysia Airlines order (for 15 >units, AFAIK), don't you think? I don't know if they signed any LoI or >MoU or whatever. Malaysia is still relatively healthy. The 15 units previously announced in an MoU consisted of only 6 "firm" orders. I don't think Malaysia will have any problem committing to 6 planes. Perhaps, the B777-200X program is jinxed by Malaysia's order. ;-) (Remember that Malaysia was also the first potential customer for the B747-500X/-600X program.) From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:45 From: Andrew Weir Subject: Re: Cripple 7 ??? 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 >"This story was told to me by a British Airways stewardess. A British >Airways have had a few proplems with their 777's. The worst incident >occured when one was flying from London to the Middle East. Over Germany >the wing started bending and twisting into all different ways. The >passengers started to get a bit worried and informed the cabin crew who >in turn informed the flight crew. It was decided that the aircraft should >return to London. Many people on board the aircraft thought that it was >not going to make it. There was one stewardess on board the aircraft who >was normally the calmest person in any situation by she was in floods of >tears by the time the aircraft reached London. British Airways cabin crew >have now renamed the aircraft from the Triple 7 to the Cripple 7. I guess even seasoned cabin staff can react like this, particularly under accumulated stress that may even have little to do with believing that your number is up. What the spotter may have picked up was reference to an incident in October 1996, which befell a BA 777-200A bound for Jeddah from London, according to Flight Int'l in Feb 1997. The mag reported that the UK Air Accident Investigation Branch was looking into "uncommanded movement of rudder and rudder pedals during climb and cruise at random intervals," adding that when they diverted back to LHR "large rudder input" was required on landing. The report said intermittent fault in the two autopilot flight-director computers was suspected. I have not checked the AAIB web-site lately to see whether they have reported on this or not. It would be interesting to know if they have. They've had plenty of time. >ing up this story I have been in contact from someone who was >on an Emerites 777 which had a similar proplem with its wing. Is there a >problem with this aircraft?" On September 16 an Emirates 777 lost an engine just after V1. The crew continued take off and brought her back with no problem. In other words plane and crew coped as they were supposed too. Engine out on take-off is, obviously, a big problem, but crews rehearse dealing with it so often they get pretty good at it, as in this case. >Then came >"I don't know about the story about the British Airways 777 wing twisting, >but a mechanic at United told me that the 777 has turned out to be quite >the problem plane. He says that they break down both easily and frequently. >He called them 'pieces of sh*t.' Whether or not the wings bend I do not >know, but according to this guy, the 777 has so far been a headache for >UA mechanics." (I thought wings always twisted a bit. I can never forget the 707 wing flapping about like it was imitating a wounded goose. ) UA complained in writing to Boeing in February 1996 and the letter was leaked, making a story in the National Business Review a month later, which included the following: <<"In the letter, whose contents were confirmed by both companies, United used stinging language to describe its frustration with the performance of the 10 777s that the carrier has received so far. Mr O'Gorman wrote that he was "very concerned" about the problems he described as "significant" He also characterised as "intolerable" the number of flights cancellations. The "airplane out of service time" and the volumes of reports of problems from pilots.>> None of these problems, however, were safety-related, the story went on, and what was really bugging UA was poor dispatch reliability. So, if the 777 is having problems, it seems that most of them relate either to the profitable operation of planes, not safety, or to teething troubles, but nothing, I think, has yet happened to put crew and pax in any unanticipated danger. The software/computer problems, in particular, are reminiscent of the kind of trouble Airbus had when the A320 was young. The Aviation Safety Institute, and Mary Schiavo in her book Flying Blind Flying Safe, were critical of exemptions in the certification process that Boeing managed to obtain from the FAA for the 777. That, however, is a different issue, and nobody has shown there is a problem with the plane that threatens anyone's safety. A Weir From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:45 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Cripple 7 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What the spotter may have picked up was reference to an incident in >October 1996, which befell a BA 777-200A bound for Jeddah from London ... >I have not checked the AAIB web-site lately to see whether they have >reported on this or not. It would be interesting to know if they have. >They've had plenty of time. I just checked (http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/aaibhome.htm) and the only 777 report is about a UA 777 which tangled wings with an AC 747-400 at Heathrow. The AAIB has a very nice site, BTW, with considerably more detail than the NTSB site (http://www.ntsb.gov/) and, in a few interesting cases, complete accident reports. The only problem is that the bulletins are ordered by publication date, unlike the NTSB which organizes accidents by accident date. >UA complained in writing to Boeing in February 1996 and the letter was >leaked, making a story in the National Business Review a month later ... True, but subsequently United indicated that the problems weren't significantly different than for any other new type. Part of the problem appeared to be expectations -- Boeing made a big deal about the 777 being "service ready" from day one, and while they did very well, there were still some bugs to be worked out. >None of these problems, however, were safety-related, the story went on, >and what was really bugging UA was poor dispatch reliability. So, if the >777 is having problems, it seems that most of them relate either to the >profitable operation of planes, not safety, or to teething troubles ... Given the tremendous improvement in United's Atlantic Division over the last year or two, which the airline attributes primarily to the 777, it doesn't seem that any 777 problems have been hurting them too badly. -- 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 Nov 16 19:58:45 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:45 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl wrote on Sun Nov 16 05:16:17 1997: > Several attempts were made to jar the > gear loose, to no avail. With fuel running low, the aircraft finally > landed on the foamed south runway (27L, I assume) with only about 15 > minutes of fuel remaining, ... All of the news reports I have seen stated that (in addition to trying to force the gear down with positive g), the pilots circled for 40 minutes to burn off excess fuel before attempting the crash landing. (Since the A340 has the capability to dump fuel, unlike the A320, this puzzled me a bit.) 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, Web: http://www@csr.city.ac.uk/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:46 From: arsenal@caribbean.prestel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: [not set] On 15 Nov 97 16:24:44 , Julian Fitzherbert wrote: >(A Virgin Atlantic A340 made a successful semi-belly landing at Heathrow >last week [from Los Angeles] when the port main jammed in the mid-up/down >position. Everybody got off [some injuries during the shute egress] >and the plane looked ok apart from some damage to the belly and port inner >engine nacelle.) > >Will the plane fly again? My guess is yes eventually. The A340 does not appear to have been very badly damaged. It is being repaied by BA at its LHR East Base. Number 1 & 2 engines have been removed and what appears to be a large tripod is supporting the port wing whilst work on the undercarriage proceeds. From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:46 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net tom.molamphy wrote: > I flew JFK-Shannon (Ireland) a few weeks ago on an Aer Lingus A330. The > pilot indicated that the flight time would be longer than usual because it > would have to be a "non-ETOPS" flight - so we had to fly over Greenland. > Any ideas on what the issue is here? I don't believe that the Aer Lingus > fleet has Trent engines so I don't think that's the issue. In any case the > A330 is certainly comfortable and all in all Aer Lingus does a decent job. One possibility is that the ETOPs alternate airports normally used may not have been available due to one reason or another. This could force an ETOPS aircraf to change routing. ...Rick From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:46 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises tom.molamphy wrote: > I flew JFK-Shannon (Ireland) a few weeks ago on an Aer Lingus A330. The > pilot indicated that the flight time would be longer than usual because it > would have to be a "non-ETOPS" flight - so we had to fly over Greenland. > Any ideas on what the issue is here? I don't believe that the Aer Lingus > fleet has Trent engines so I don't think that's the issue. In any case the > A330 is certainly comfortable and all in all Aer Lingus does a decent job. As you may know, each aircraft has what is called a Minimum Equipment List. This is a document approved by the national airworthiness authority of the carriers country of origen and it lists what may components may be inoperative, how long before they must be fixed, and what special restrictions apply. There is a myriad of things that could cause an aircraft to be downgrared to non-ETOPS, usually a failure in one of the redundent systems required for ETOPS operation is the cause. It is in the carriers best interest to repair the aircraft as soon as possible as non-ETOPS routing adds considerable time and expense to the trip. -Seth From kls Sun Nov 16 19:58:46 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 16 Nov 97 19:58:46 From: "Ricky" Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Don Stokes wrote in message ... >In article , >jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: >>Sorry if this is very basic: >> >>Correct me if assumptions as wrong: >> >>-A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed. > >This assumption is wrong, or at least incomplete. It should contain the >qualification "at a given angle of attack". This is important because... > >>Assuming a LAX-SYD flight with no winds. Towards the end of the flights >>when the plane is much lighter, doesn't the lift provided by the wings >>exceed by quite a bit the lighter weight of the aircraft ? > >... the angle of attack is adjusted as the plane lightens. When heavy, >the plane flies a bit more nose-up than when light; by dropping the nose, >less lift is generated. This is (part of) the "trim" of the aircraft. The statement "A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the air speed" is completely right. since: L=1/2*pho*V^2*S*CL_alpha * alpha L is lift, pho is density, V is speed, S is area, CL_alpha is lift curve slope, and alpha is angle of attack Therefore, L is proportional to air speed is a completely right statement L is also proportional to density, wing area, and lift curve slope When you said the "Assumption is wrong", you are completely wrong. "or at least incomplete", then your statement also incomplete, since lift also relate to density, and area of the wing. Ricky Wai, Aerospace Engineer From news Mon Nov 17 15:04:07 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Sean Liao Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. Date: 17 Nov 1997 16:06:02 -0500 Organization: DCI HiNet Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> > Airbus signed up another launch customer for the A340-500/600---Taiwan's > EVA Airways. I believe Boeing's original intent was to market the B777 > to EVA Airways. However, EVA Air's relunctance to operate ultra-long- > range twins has prompted Boeing's new B747-200X offer, and EVA Air was > mentioned as a possible customer. EVA Air's A340 selection may also > sway Taiwan's other airline, China Airlines, to the Airbus camp. ETOPS > may be viewed as extremely risky for China Airlines because of its poor > safety record. However, the Taiwan government may exert some influence > in the aircraft selection because of Taiwan's big trade surplus with the > US. > ************************************** > Boeing is also anxiously waiting to get enough customers to launch its > B777-200X. American and Malaysia are probably the only two that Boeing > can get for sure at this time. On a related note, American has selected > Rolls-Royce for its B777 order. I am not too sure why GE and P&W both > are abandoning the ultra-long-range market (i.e., the A340-500/600 and > B777-200X/300X). > Let's see if the A340-500/600 and/or the B777-200X/-300X will be > officially launched at the Dubai Air Show. One major reason why EVA chose A340 instead of Boeing 777 was that MD no longer exsists.They have to pick another manufacturer to balance their fleet.Even though the new coming European system would make maintenance complicate,they don't want Boeing to be the only provider of their jetliners.ETOPS also played an important role in the decision,I think. From news Tue Nov 18 00:14:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.simulation,sci.aeronautics.airliners From: Cathy Radakrishun Subject: CFP: SSCC98 Conference Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Centre for Engineering Research, Technikon Natal Date: Tue, 18 Nov 1997 06:06:55 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Path: ditka!news2.mv.net!mv!newsfeed.wizvax.net!ulowell.uml.edu!cam-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd ___________________________________________________ FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT & CALL FOR PAPERS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMS, SIGNALS, CONTROL, COMPUTERS (SSCC'98) 22-24 September 1998, Durban, SOUTH AFRICA __________________________________________________ ORGANIZED BY International Association for the Advancement of Methods for System Analysis and Design (IAAMSAD) and Academy of Nonlinear Sciences ________________________________________________________________ HOST ORGANIZATION: Centre for Engineering Research (CER) of Technikon Natal, Durban South Africa ________________________________________________________________ SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS: SAICSIT - South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists IEEE South Africa Section SAIMC - South African Institute of Measurement and Control SANBI - South African National Institute for Bioinformatics M L Sultan Technikon (South Africa) CER - Centre for Engineering Research, Technikon Natal (South Africa) ________________________________________________________________ HONORARY CHAIRMAN: Academician V.M.Matrosov (Russia) CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN: V.B.Bajic (South Africa) ________________________________________________________________ ADVISORY BOARD: V.B.Bajic (South Africa), J.Brzobohaty (Czech Republic), P.Daoutidis (USA), W.Hide (South Africa), C.Morabito (Italy), V.V.Kozlov (Russia), P.Leach (South Africa), P.C.Müller (Germany), L.Shaikhet (Ukraine), E.Rogers (UK), H.Szu (USA) ________________________________________________________________ INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME COMMITTEE: V.Apanasovich (Belarus), V.B.Bajic (South Africa), C.Berger-Vachon (France), J.Brzobohaty (Czech Republic), M.Campolo (Italy), P.Daoutidis (USA), T.Fukuda (Japan), Z.Gajic (USA), M.Gams (Slovenia), J.Gil Aluja (Spain), L.T.Gruyitch (France), H.Hahn (Germany), M.Hajek (South Africa), R.Harley (South Africa), W.Hide (South Africa), M.Jamshidi (USA), V.Kecman (New Zealand), B.Kovacevic (Yugoslavia), V.Krasnoproshin (Belarus), V.V.Kozlov (Russia), P.Leach (South Africa), L.K.Kuzmina (Russia), V.Milutinovic (Yugoslavia), C.Morabito (Italy), P.C.Müller (Germany), H.Nijmeijer (The Netherlands), D.H.Owens (UK), D.Petkov (South Africa), K.M.Przyluski (Poland), E.S.Pyatnitskii (Russia), E.Rogers (UK), L.Shaikhet (Ukraine), A.V.Savkin (Australia), H.Szu (USA), E.I.Verriest (USA), R.Vrba (Czech Republic), J.Ziska (Czech Republic) ________________________________________________________________ LOCAL ORGANIZING COMMITTEE: V.B.Bajic, P.Govender, R.Hacking, M.Hajek, M.McLeod, K.S.Moodley, R.Papa, C.Radhakishun, A.Singh ________________________________________________________________ PLENARY SPEAKERS: T.Fukuda (Japan) L.T.Gruyitch (France) R.Harley (South Africa) M.Jamshidi (USA) V.M.Matrosov (Russia) P.C.Müller (Germany) D.H.Owens (UK) H.Szu (USA) _______________________________________________________________________ GENERAL INFORMATION 1998 is the year of Science and Technology in South Africa. The intention of the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology of SA is to make South Africans more aware of how Science and Technology affects them in every-day life. Such a national initiative is a very good environment for a conference like this: one that has a broad scope and spans many different fields. At the same time an opportunity is given to the research community of South Africa to interact more directly with overseas peers. _______________________________________________________________________ AIMS AND SCOPE The Conference is broad in scope and will provide a forum for the exchange of the latest research results as applied to different branches of science and technology. The areas of interest include concepts, techniques and paradigms associated with systems, signals, control and/or computers. Domains of application include informatics, bio- medical technology, economics, management, diverse engineering and science fields and applied mathematics. Artificial intelligence techniques are of particular interest, as well as reports on industrial applications. The conference will include several plenary and invited lectures from world renowned scientists, regular papers and posters. A number of special and invited sessions will also be organized, dealing with focused areas of interest. The proposals for these special sessions should be submitted at the same time as the abstracts. A special session cannot have less than three papers or more than six. The official language of the conference is English. ________________________________________________________________________ MANUSCRIPT SUBMISSION - REVIEW PROCESS Three copies of the extended abstract having about two pages, should be sent to the Conference Office at the address provided. Alternatively they may be faxed (one copy). Full papers are preferred. Abstracts (papers) in Microsoft Word can be sent by e-mail. All submissions will be reviewed by members of the International Programme Committee; additional reviewers will be consulted if necessary. The submissions will be reviewed as soon as they arrive; the average review time is about four weeks. Authors of accepted papers will thereafter be informed (by e-mail if available) of the required format for camera-ready paper submissions. In order for reviewers to be able to assess the submissions, the extended abstract has to provide sufficient information about the background to the problem, the novelty of the obtained results and the results achieved, the conclusions drawn and some references. Up to five keywords should be provided. All submitted papers have to be original, unpublished and not submitted for publication elsewhere. ______________________________________________________________________ PROCEEDINGS All accepted papers will be published in the Conference Proceedings, which will be issued by a renowned international publisher. ______________________________________________________________________ IMPORTANT NOTICE Although we expect that the authors of accepted papers will present the papers at this Conference, we recognize that circumstances may prevent authors from participation at the Conference. In such cases the accepted papers will be published if the authors inform organizers of their non-attendance at the Conference by 15th May 1998. However, conference fees according to established rules have to be pre-paid in order that papers appear in the Proceedings. ________________________________________________________________________ CONFERENCE FEES The conference fee for one participant covers the publication of paper(s) (each with a maximum of five A4 pages in length) according to the required format; one volume of the Proceedings in which the paper(s) appear(s); refreshment during the conference and a banquet. Additional volumes of the Proceedings can be purchased for US$ 55.00. A social programme and tourist visits will be provided at extra cost. Members of SAIMC are entitled to 10% conference fee discount. Reduced registration fee of US$ 250.00 (South Africans R 1000.00) is applicable for early received, reviewed and accepted papers provided this fee is paid by the end of February, 1998 - prospective authors are encouraged to take advantage of this convenience; otherwise the following rates apply: Early registration fee: US$ 300.00 (South Africans R 1200.00) Late and on-site registration fee: US$ 350.00 (South Africans R 1400.00) Student fee: US$ 200.00 (South Africans R 800.00). The student scale of fees applies when all authors mentioned on the paper are current students; written proof has to be provided at the time of payment. Payment in South African rands is possible only when all authors of the papers are South African residents; written proof has to be provided at the time of payment. ________________________________________________________________________ DEADLINES Extended Abstracts and Special Session Proposals: - submission by mail or fax (15th March, 1998) - submissions by e-mail (end of February, 1998) Notification of acceptance (15th April, 1998) Submission of papers in camera ready form (15th May, 1998) Early payment of conference fees (15th May, 1998) Late payment of conference fees (end of June, 1998) ________________________________________________________________________ CONFERENCE VENUE Library complex, Technikon Natal, Berea Campus, Durban ________________________________________________________________________ ADDRESS OF THE CONFERENCE OFFICE: SACAN, P.O.Box 1428, Link Hills 3652, South Africa Tel.: (+27 31) 204-2560, (+27 31) 204-2736 Fax: (+27 31) 204-2560, (+27 31) 204-2063 e-mail: sscc98@umfolozi.ntech.ac.za alternative e-mail: bajic.v@umfolozi.ntech.ac.za ________________________________________________________________________ CONFERENCE HOME PAGE http://nsys.ntech.ac.za/iaamsad/SSCC98.html ________________________________________________________________________ PRELIMINARY REGISTRATION In order to provide you with the up-to-date information, we ask you to make a preliminary registration for the conference. This preliminary registration is not binding - it is to help us to organize the conference better. The preliminary registration form can be accessed >From the conference Home Page or directly at http://nsys.ntech.ac.za/iaamsad/SSCC98reg.htm (this form of preliminary registration is preferred one); alternatively, send us the information required by e-mail or fax, using the form provided below SSCC'98 BASIC INFORMATION (FAX OR E-MAIL) _______________________________________________ First Name(s): _______________________________________________ Surname: _______________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________________ Position: _______________________________________________ Institution: _______________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________ City: _______________________________________________ Zip: _______________________________________________ Country: _______________________________________________ Tel.: _______________________________________________ Fax: _______________________________________________ e-mail: _______________________________________________ Web Home Page: _______________________________________________ I intend to submit the paper(s) - Title of paper(s): _______________________________________________ I am interested in organizing a special session (title of the session): _______________________________________________ I intend to participate at the conference (Yes/No): _______________________________________________ Mail conference information also to (give address or e-mail address): _______________________________________________ -- **************** SSCC98 CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT ************* Tel: (+2731) 204-2560, (+2731) 204-2736, Fax:(+2731) 204-2560, (+2731) 204-2063 E-mail: sscc98@umfolozi.ntech.ac.za Alternative e-mail: bajic.v@umfolozi.ntech.ac.za WWW Home Page: http://nsys.ntech.ac.za/iaamsad/SSCC98.html From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@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 H Andrew Chuang (Chuanga@cris.com) wrote: : Both GE and P&W are unwilling to commit to ~105K-lb-thrust engine : necessary for the B777-200X/300X program. The argument is the projected : market size does not justify the development costs. I can This argument does not play for the engine makers. These engines could be useful for a future 777-400. A small, long-distance derivate increases the market for the engine. : understand that the B777-200X to be very small (which, I belive, Boeing : estimated at around 200 units for the next 20 years), but the B777-300X ...while Boeing has to support the cost of delivering the derivate with a small production run. : should be a winner. There are about 1,200 B747s ordered. Most of : them can be replaced by the B777-300/-300X. From a marketing Let alone a 777-400. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 From: veryjr@aol.com (VeryJR) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In a memo to it's employees, American said it picked the RR Trent 892 for it's 777-200's because it was very happy with it's other RR engines on the 757 and F100. GE powers the 767 and word is that AA was pretty unhappy with that combination. Enough to even consider re-engining the 767 fleet with RR, but that idea was dropped as being too expensive. From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services Marc Schaeffer wrote: >Both Virgin (VS) and Air Canada (AC) signed LOI, thus no firm orders. >According to AW&ST the target for industrial launch of the -500/600 >program is 25 orders. VS has LOI for 16 -600. (snip) I believe the Virgin deal was for 8 firm, 8 option From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:39 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 16 Nov 97 19:58:45 , Pete Mellor caused to appear as if it was written: >Karl wrote on Sun Nov 16 05:16:17 1997: >> Several attempts were made to jar the >> gear loose, to no avail. With fuel running low, the aircraft finally >> landed on the foamed south runway (27L, I assume) with only about 15 >> minutes of fuel remaining, ... > >All of the news reports I have seen stated that (in addition >to trying to force the gear down with positive g), the pilots >circled for 40 minutes to burn off excess fuel before attempting >the crash landing. (Since the A340 has the capability to dump >fuel, unlike the A320, this puzzled me a bit.) Why? If you have trouble lowering the gear, surely there is no reason to rush into an emergency landing while you've still got fuel? The gods might smile at you, someone on the ground may come up with an manoevre to shake the gear down, etc. Of course, the trick is not to take it too far the other direction, as a United DC-8 did at Portland many years ago... (they had gear problems, and then ran out of fuel, and so crashed short of the runway...) Malc. From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Reply-To: andrew@openkast.demon.co.uk Pete Mellor wrote: > > Karl wrote on Sun Nov 16 05:16:17 1997: > > Several attempts were made to jar the > > gear loose, to no avail. With fuel running low, the aircraft finally > > landed on the foamed south runway (27L, I assume) with only about 15 > > minutes of fuel remaining, ... > > All of the news reports I have seen stated that (in addition > to trying to force the gear down with positive g), the pilots > circled for 40 minutes to burn off excess fuel before attempting > the crash landing. (Since the A340 has the capability to dump > fuel, unlike the A320, this puzzled me a bit.) There would be a lot of ATC work involved in sorting out air traffic - they would have to presumably allow for closure of both runways. Dumping fuel takes a while anyway. The crew might want the time to consult with their airline's technical staff and also prepare themselves. Why rush? There seemed to be a huge delay in getting the runway cleared afterwards - about 24 hours before the aircraft was finally moved. The impact on schedules - especially European and domestic was terrible. I was surprised that the A340 wasn't moved off the runway and everything cleared up before the next morning. --------------------- Andrew. From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: trevfenn Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Pete Mellor wrote: > Karl wrote on Sun Nov 16 05:16:17 1997: > > Several attempts were made to jar the > > gear loose, to no avail. With fuel running low, the aircraft finally > > landed on the foamed south runway (27L, I assume) with only about 15 > > minutes of fuel remaining, ... > > All of the news reports I have seen stated that (in addition > to trying to force the gear down with positive g), the pilots > circled for 40 minutes to burn off excess fuel before attempting > the crash landing. (Since the A340 has the capability to dump > fuel, unlike the A320, this puzzled me a bit.) Not all that puzzling really, If they dumped fuel there would have been an outcry from the uninformed public about the plane pouring fuel all over their houses or whatever. Burning it instead of dumping it achieves the same result without feeding a media frenzy. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Virgin's A340 with bedrooms Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca There talk that Virgin will outfit some of its upcoming A340s with some bedrooms and showers and a small restaurant in the lower deck of the plane. With cargo space up front taken up by relatively light passenger amenities, how would this affect the airline's ability to balance the weight of the aircraft with heavy cargo in the back only ? From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Question...KL also has operated DC8, 9, 10, and MD-11. So are there any >(M)D aircraft KL has not operated? Just curious! KLM does not have any MD-80s or MD-90s, and has not ordered any MD-95s. From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium k_ish (kenish@ix.netcom.com) wrote: : Stephen H. Westin wrote: : > At that point, KLM had bought at least one : > of every airliner Douglas had produced. : > : > I always wondered about the gap in the series DC-2, DC-3, DC-4, DC-6, : > ... : Question...KL also has operated DC8, 9, 10, and MD-11. So are there any : (M)D aircraft KL has not operated? Just curious! Yes. They snubbed the DC-9 Super 80 or MD-80, and bought 737-300 instead. Even though SAS and Swissair, who were in the same consortium for DC-products maintenance did buy them. The KUSS consortium grouped KLM, Swissiar, SAS and UTA, ... I think. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Walter E. Shepherd, K2ZPA wrote: > I'll just hazard a guess that there was more than a family resemblance of the > DC-5 with the A-20 Havoc, a twin trike-gear bomber Douglas was building for > the UK at the time. I think the USAAF bought some A-20's at the time, but > these probably got taken out in the early days of the Pacific war. The DC-5 > probably never made the big time because Douglas was pretty busy satisfying > wartime customers at the time. I would also guess that the A-26 Invader grew > out of the A-20 later in the war. (I have always thought that the A-26 was one > of the most graceful and genuinely "pretty" aircraft to ever grace our skys... Yes, the A-20 is a direct ancestor of the A-26 Invader, but I'd never thought about the resemblance to the DC5. You're right, its definitely similar. The Invader is one of my all-time favorite aircraft- one of those rare instances where *everything* about the design and implementation came together very well. There are almost no "weak spots," and for evidence of this one needs only to look at the relatively number of A-26's still flying, and its incredibly long tenure of service in the US military. Many are still, in effect, flying "combat" type missions as forest service water bombers. The B-25 very nearly falls in this category too, but was hampered by far less reliable engines (Wright R-2600) than the A-26 had (Pratt & Whitney R-2800). In addition to being excellent in a practical sense, the A-26 also just happens to be very graceful in apperance too. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: Jack Cullen Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 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 There was, indeed, a Douglas DC-5. I'm going off the top of my head right now so I can't recall a few things -- like how many were built, engine details, etc. The DC-5 was a high wing, twin engine aircraft that was a flop only because by the time Douglas could free up the space on the production lines (due to the War Effort and the need for C-47s, C-54s and C-118s, et al.), nobody was interested in a twin engine airliner anymore -- especially when DC-3s/C-47s were, almost literally, a dime a dozen. There were a few sold and, I believe, KLM was one of the buyers. I believe it was about the same size as the DC-3, had tricycle gear, and had a lot of the same general areodynamic shapes and lines, although the wing was quite different. -- Jack Cullen West Chatham, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA Please reply to: DougDriver "at" aol "dot" com From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:40 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:40 From: trevfenn Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Walter E. Shepherd, K2ZPA wrote: > (I have always thought that the A-26 was one > of the most graceful and genuinely "pretty" aircraft to ever grace our skys... > the Consolidated Vultee PBY Catalina would rank as one of the most graceful > and genuinely "ugly" aircraft... but equally admireable). I agree with your thoughts on the A-26 but I think the ugliest ever built would have to be the A300ST that Airbus is currently building to fly large aircraft components around. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: Jan Willem de Wijn Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PaiR Communicatie Tom Gibson wrote: > > division in the spring of 1940; these planes were transferred to the > > Far East as WWII advanced. At that point,KLM had bought at least one > > of every airliner Douglas had produced. The airline ordered four DC-5's in 1939 for use on its European routes. When WWII broke out two of these aircraft were delivered to the East Indies Branch (KNILM) and two to the West Indies Branch of KLM at Curacao. The latter two were sent to the former Dutch East Indies in 1941. 1. Initially ordered for KLM as PH-AXA (to be named Valk/ Falcon). As PJ-AIW, named 'Wakago', delivered may 1940 to West Indies. Forwarded to East Indies (KNILM) as PK-ADD in june 1941 2. Initially ordered for KLM as PH-AXB (to be named Houtduif/ Wood Pigeon). As PJ-AIZ, named 'Zonvogel (sunbird)', delivered to West Indies. Forwarded to East Indies (KNILM) as PK-ADC in may 1941 3. Initially ordered by KLM as PH-AXE (to be named Eend/ Duck). As PK-ADB delivered to East Indies (KNILM) in october 1940 4. Initially ordered by KLM as PH-AXG (to be named Grutto/ Godwit), this aircraft was also delivered to the Dutch East Indies in october 1940. The first three aircraft escaped from Java to Australia in March 1942 and were later sold to the USAAC. Number 4. was captured by the Japanese on March 8th, 1942. > KLM also went on to buy the DC-6B, DC-7C, DC-8,and DC-10 (I don't know > if they had the 9). A very loyal customer! (did they own any Boeing > planes of that era?). KLM operated a fleet of 6 DC-9-15's and 19 DC-9-30's between March 1966 and March 4th, 1989. From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: simonlc@ozemail.com.au (Simon Craig) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question 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: OzEmail Ltd. >In Oz it was reported that the APU was definitely non-op. I seem to >remember that there was only enough compressed air left for one more >attempt to turn over an engine. But perhaps that was an embelishment >added by the local tabloids. It certainly was an embelishment, but what else can we expect from the press? I believe that the APU was inop, as many early 747s did not have the capability to start the APU inflight. As for compressed air, there is no provision on the 747 for "storage" of "compressed air" (and no use for it in starting engines - except in a test facility). My understanding was that they went to a lower altitude (and quickly) and attempted the "standard" windmill start on any engine until they got one going. Once they had one going they could use bleed air to attempt starts on the other 3. Regards, -- Simon Craig --- If it's not Boeing, then I'm not going! From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: "John Mackesy" Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Melbourne PC User Group, Australia There's a book about this event, titled "All Four Engines Have Failed", by Betty Toottell, published 1985 by Andre Deutsch Ltd. - I have it before me. There is no mention of APU, but it does say (p52) that the windmilling engines continued to provide electrical and hydraulic power. It's a good read and has some excellent pix of ash damage to engines. John Mackesy mack@melbpc.org From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: "Dennis L. Murphy" Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NeoSoft, Inc. This comment is attributed to the Captain of the Pan Am 707, departing SFO for HNL in the early 60's, that lost (engine left the airframe) the right outermost engine and approximately 8 feet of the right wing. A fire started, but was extinguished with onboard fire suppresant material and the aircraft landed, sucessfully, at a large military airfield on the north side of the SFO bay. I was sitting in a window seat on the right side of the aircraft when it happened and very vividly remember the Captain's words...... > What was it the Captain said over the intercom, a few seconds after > everyone on board had heard the last engine die? Something about "Ladies > and gentlemen, we have a slight problem." From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: D Snow Subject: Re: ETOPS Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > I would say "embellishment." As far as I know, there is NO storage of > compressed air on board a commercial aircraft- certainly not enough for > engine starts. The compressed air is fed from a *running* APU straight > to the engine starter. hate to nit pick, but the B727 has the pneumatic air bottle to power the pneumatic brakes, which is a compressed air cylinder. It's that big red-orange handle on the PICs instrument panel that says "PNEUMATIC BRAKES" ----- Douglas Snow dougie@mama.indstate.edu http://mama.indstate.edu/users/dougie (SBNOOU2) FAA Approved UAL Ground Security Coordinator (GSC) From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Steve Lacker wrote: > Rob Wells (WLL) wrote: > > In Oz it was reported that the APU was definitely non-op. I seem to > > remember that there was only enough compressed air left for one more > > attempt to turn over an engine. But perhaps that was an embelishment > > added by the local tabloids. > > I would say "embellishment." As far as I know, there is NO storage of > compressed air on board a commercial aircraft- certainly not enough for > engine starts. The compressed air is fed from a *running* APU straight > to the engine starter. One other point. The APU cannot be operated in the air on the B747-100/200 series...of running during takeoff, the APU on the B747-400 can be used upto approx 15-20,000 ft. Its doubtful it can be started in the air. From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >One other point. The APU cannot be operated in the air on the >B747-100/200 series...of running during takeoff, the APU on the B747-400 >can be used upto approx 15-20,000 ft. The first part of the definitely is not true. From the NTSB report on the February 24, 1989, UA 811 accident, which involved a 747-122: The auxiliary power unit (APU), which was used during the takeoff, was shutdown shortly after making the initial power reduction to climb thrust. Obviously the APU can be used in the air if running during takeoff even on a 747-100. The limitations may be similar to those you note for the 747-400. >Its doubtful it can be started in the air. I'm pretty sure none of the Boeing airliners have APUs certified for re-start once cruising altitude has been reached, primarily because of problems getting it lit after an extended cold-soak. That doesn't imply that it *can't* be started in the air, and perhaps at lower altitudes it might work if you had to try 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 Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: showie@uoguelph.ca Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Biled heids 'r us Seth Dillon wrote: >As you may know, each aircraft has what is called a Minimum Equipment >List ... It is in the carriers best interest to repair the aircraft as soon >as possible as non-ETOPS routing adds considerable time and expense to the >trip. Just curious - what are the new requirements if a flight is downgraded to NON-ETOPS? Must they be less than 60 minute flying time from an airport throughout the flight? Scotty -- Steve Howie Netnews and Listserv Admin University of Guelph From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:41 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 From: dwl@watson.ibm.com () Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center Reply-To: dwl@watson.ibm.com In article , "tom.molamphy" writes: > I flew JFK-Shannon (Ireland) a few weeks ago on an Aer Lingus A330. The > pilot indicated that the flight time would be longer than usual because it > would have to be a "non-ETOPS" flight - so we had to fly over Greenland. > Any ideas on what the issue is here? I don't believe that the Aer Lingus > fleet has Trent engines so I don't think that's the issue. In any case the > A330 is certainly comfortable and all in all Aer Lingus does a decent job. Most likely the plane had something broken which is on the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) for ETOPS operation, but not for normal flight. So you end up taking a path north, over greenland to keep within non-ETOPS rules for the flight. Takes a little longer, but probably better than waiting for whatever it was to get fixed. - David -- David W. Levine -- dwl@watson.ibm.com -- IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center -- My Opinions, IBM's hardware. -- "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim" - George Santayana From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: jamesr@u.washington.edu (J. Rymsza) Subject: Re: Phase III Engine References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Washington, Seattle >If I recall correctly, the US permits "averaging" of some of the values, >while the EU does not. Thus if the noise is a touch too high at one point, >but lower than the limit at another, the FAA will accept the certification >while the EU's JAA won't. In regards to airport noise mitigation at ground level, aircraft dB output is also averaged, in most cases, over an entire year. Serious noise mitigation in the US is, quite frankly, a joke. -- James A. Rymsza (jamesr@u.washington.edu) Architect - UW Design Services .......... Box 352215 (work) 221-4325 (fax) 543-4117 .......... From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: Andrew Weir Subject: Re: Cripple7 ??? 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 Regarding the incident to a BA 777 in October 1996, it cannot have been too serious, since the Air Accident Investigation Branch decided not to investigate, I just found out. They left it to the CAA to decide on. A Mandatory Occurence Report (compulsory reporting system for incidents) was filed and that seems to have been it. A Weir From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Overhead Bins Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa There have been several newspaper articles about the danger and inconvenience of excess carry on baggage recently. The "Wall Street Journal" even mentioned people stowing bowling balls, which I hope is unusual. From their looks, overhead bins seem to be intended to hold blankets, pillows, jackets and coats, and perhaps small soft-sided luggage. They do not seem to be designed to contain dangerous missiles in a crash; many of the complaints are about things falling out and hitting people during normal flight or while stowing or unstowing things. The latches seem to pop open easily with a slight jolt. Is there a standard for how much weight an overhead bin must be able to contain in what would be a survivable crash? If the doors were no longer such a weak point, say by using full length piano type hinges and three or four cross-bolt latches, would this improve things or would the whole bin just tear loose instead? Is the danger more apparent than real? Are people ever injured or killed by objects from overhead bins in what would otherwise be a survivable crash, or do the objects tend to end up in the aisle instead? If there is sufficient warning before a forced landing, do cabin attendants attempt to remove the most dangerous items from overhead? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Trip costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Marc Schaeffer wrote: > When it comes to trip costs there are three major parameters : > - total trip costs > - trip costs per mile > - trip costs per passenger mile > ... > First of all you can calculate the costs in different manners. Either > you consider a trip of -say- 2000nm or you consider a trip with the full > load range of the a/c. I seems logical that the costs get better the Actually, ASM costs decline up to the full pax/bags payload (and ATM costs up to the full payload) cusp in the payload/range curve, then escalate as payload in traded off against fuel burn required to extend range. Standardization of test mission profile (full range of missions, not a single point-average stage length), gets you to the closest head-to-head comparability. - Bob 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 Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: No. of wheels and runways Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER Reply-To: luisma@spainmail.com Does anybody know if there is any regulation stating that the weight-per-wheel is limited in aircrafts due to runways care? In other words, the reason for the modern aircrafts wear more wheels than older ones is the danger of wheel explosion or the runway strength? From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Aircraft orders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Following the recent flood of aircraft orders I updated the '97 summary which may be found under http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/orders97.htm. Counting LOI and MOU it is 528 vs. 506 for Airbus. Counting only firm orders it is 497 vs. 473 for Boeing. However total value of the Boeing orders are higher since they sold much more widebodys than Airbus. Brgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: "Mihir Shah" Subject: Re: Boeing decisions on Douglas products References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Benoît wrote in message ... >BOEING CONSIDERS ALSO THE LAUNCH OF THE MD-12 ! Excuse me? McDonnell-Douglas had pretty much pulled the plug on all future wide-body developments, or at the very least, there were very weak arguements for those developments. The MD-11 has apparently survived, at least for a few years, but the MD-12?! Could you please back up your comment with a source, article, news release, announcement, etc.? (Moderator(s): How did this message get though?...seems very uncharacteristic for a m.t.a-i posting (i.e.: no substantiation, etc.)) _____________ Mihir Shah mishah@vt.edu From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing decisions on Douglas products References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>BOEING CONSIDERS ALSO THE LAUNCH OF THE MD-12 ! >Excuse me? McDonnell-Douglas had pretty much pulled the plug on all future >wide-body developments ... True, but one of the options Boeing recently considered as a counter to a possible A3XX was resurrecting the MD-12 -- the 500-600 seater with four 777-class engines, not the re-winged MD-11. This option would allow Boeing to offer a new aircraft, in lieu of a further 747 derivative, but with a quicker time-to-market since much of the groundwork has already been done. I can't recall where I read it but it was probably in AvLeak. I'm pretty sure the idea has been shelved. >(Moderator(s): How did this message get though?...seems very >uncharacteristic for a m.t.a-i posting (i.e.: no substantiation, etc.)) I approved it because, even if not well presented, it did have some basis in fact, and seemed like it could lead to an interesting discussion. -- 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 Nov 20 02:53:42 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 From: Graeme Cant Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Filip De Vos wrote: > > Jan-Olov Newborg (newborg@algonet.se) wrote: > : Boeing 767 flying from Bangkok to Europe, many the times get final level > : 270 inbound New Dehli, a common level for Beach 200, all because B767 > : cruises to slow compared to B747-400 and MD11 and traffic control keeps > : 767 down at low alt... > > ... So much for Boeing's marketing claims that the big wing of > the 767 > allowed the aircraft to climb to high altitude quicker, giving an > advantage over the small-winged A310. Don't turn everything into a marketing battle, filip - and don't believe everything you read on the internet. NOBODY gets FL270 westbound to Delhi - he would hit the eastbound traffic. 767s (Lauda and SAS mainly) often get FLs280 and 260 - but then so do 747s and MD-11s and A340s. It all depends on the traffic density. In a 747, I've been held down to Fls 220/240 from Calcutta to the Iranian border on a couple of occasions. FLs 260 and 280 are common. 767s are usually not too bad because they can often accept 350 by half way across the Bay of Bengal and usually by Calcutta (just as you claim Boeing claimed, although I never heard it myself). Only loss-making (= few passengers) 747s can make it quite that early so the 767s CAN get out of the road of the faster traffic. Unfortunately, with radar only at Calcutta and Delhi, aeroplanes are often held down by traffic, even when they have the performance to climb because they can't get past the traffic at the intervening levels. The worst problems are A340s - Virgin, Turkish, on my last trip Brunei - who I DID read Airbus claim would cruise at comparable speeds to 747s. They may be able to but only if they want to refuel half way. If they are trying to make Europe direct, or are simply operated in such a way as will allow the owner to make a profit, they cruise some .04-.06 Mach slower than the other traffic - 747s and MD-11s - and, unlike 767s, at the same altitudes. At any given point in the journey, 767 optimum altitudes are about 4000ft higher than 747 and A340. > : After India over Afganistan and Russia higher level > : is given to the slow B767. And, due to some unusual topographical features (The Hindu Kush and the Karakorams) in that area, higher levels are given to fast 747s and slow A340s. In fact, the lowest safe altitude is 290 or 310 depending on how you work it. At Delhi, the airway splits to Iran and Turkey or north over Afghanistan and the CIS. This gives more capacity in the airway system. Also, on the northern route, the CIS has continuous radar cover with much reduced longitudinal separation requirements than the 10 minutes over India. So everyone gets their level - well, nearly everyone. Graeme Cant From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:43 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Filip De Vos wrote: > > Jan-Olov Newborg (newborg@algonet.se) wrote: > : Boeing 767 flying from Bangkok to Europe, many the times get final level > : 270 inbound New Dehli, a common level for Beach 200, all because B767 > : cruises to slow compared to B747-400 and MD11 and traffic control keeps > : 767 down at low alt. After India over Afganistan and Russia higher level > : is given to the slow B767. > > So much for Boeing's marketing claims that the big wing of the 767 > allowed the aircraft to climb to high altitude quicker, giving an > advantage over the small-winged A310. You are as wrong as you can be. Cruising altitudes over India have more to do with the woefull state of Indian ATC than of the cruise altitude capability of the 767. 747-400's are regularly put at 27,000 ft. It all depends on what appears to be whimsy on the part of ATC as well as timing. [Moderator's Note: I took Filip's note to be a reflection on the ATC problems you mention. He's right, in that a technical advantage is of little value if you aren't allowed to use it. Of course, the advantage *does* hold on many other routes, especially some major ones like the North Atlantic where the 767 is far more likely to be competing against the A310. -- Karl] BTW: How many A310s are in use on long hauls from SE Asia to Europe vs. the number of 767s? Mike Lechnar From kls Thu Nov 20 02:53:43 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 20 Nov 97 02:53:43 From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bodge It & Co. Ltd. >The statement "A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the >air speed" is completely right. since: > > L=1/2*pho*V^2*S*CL_alpha * alpha > > L is lift, pho is density, V is speed, S is area, CL_alpha is > lift curve slope, and alpha is angle of attack > >Therefore, > L is proportional to air speed is a completely right statement > L is also proportional to density, wing area, and lift curve slope Since when has a "squared" relationship been proportional ? I'm suprised an aerospace engineer fell into that hole. Perhaps it's language here. Simon Ellwood From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:51 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Robin Johnson wrote: > > Marc Schaeffer wrote: > >Both Virgin (VS) and Air Canada (AC) signed LOI, thus no firm orders. > >According to AW&ST the target for industrial launch of the -500/600 > >program is 25 orders. VS has LOI for 16 -600. (snip) > > I believe the Virgin deal was for 8 firm, 8 option According to multiple sources on the net and magazines the order is for 16 A346. The well informed Seattle times reported "Of 18 aircraft that Virgin plans to order, 16 are Airbus A340-600s". But as always in the a/c order business, the only to know for sure are the manufacturer and the customer, all the others depend on the info which the media are told ... Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:51 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 , fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) caused to appear as if it was written: >H Andrew Chuang (Chuanga@cris.com) wrote: >: Both GE and P&W are unwilling to commit to ~105K-lb-thrust engine >: necessary for the B777-200X/300X program. The argument is the projected >: market size does not justify the development costs. I can >This argument does not play for the engine makers. These engines could be >useful for a future 777-400. A small, long-distance derivate increases the >market for the engine. Sorry? I don't understand this point! The claim appears to be that GE and P&W are being disingenuous when they claim that there is an insufficient market for a engine in the 105K-lb range, although RR think otherwise (or more accurately, RR feel that the cost of producing theirs is worth the risk, and the others don't GIVEN the fact that RR is producing one anyway). This engine would be required for the 777-200X, which doesn't exist AT ALL at the moment, yet Filip tries to justify it based on another product that is even less of an aircraft? Has anyone (in the industry) even *talked* about a 777-400? >: understand that the B777-200X to be very small (which, I belive, Boeing >: estimated at around 200 units for the next 20 years), but the B777-300X > >...while Boeing has to support the cost of delivering the derivate with a >small production run. ... which they are currently conspicuosly NOT doing... Given that Boeing has yet to finalize the plans for a 777-200X, and as far as I know is absolutely NOT talking about a 777-400, it would seem pretty dumb to build an engine just in case Boeing wakes up one morning and decides to build one. Anyway, what would a 777-400 be? A stretched -300? That would be useful... provided you stretched a few airports while you're at it... >: should be a winner. There are about 1,200 B747s ordered. Most of >: them can be replaced by the B777-300/-300X. From a marketing > >Let alone a 777-400. So, lemme see, you are suggesting that, while the average 747 classic can be replaced with a 777-300, airlines would rush out and buy these mythical 777-400's instead? Or are you suggesting that a 747-400 would be replaced by B777-400, which is rather against Boeing's best interests.... Why build a B747-400 replacement when you're (frantically trying to sort out) building B747-400s? 8-) Malc. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:51 From: les visiteurs du Web Bar Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ImagiNET Filip De Vos wrote: > Let alone a 777-400. AFAIK, Boeing hasn't discussed a 777-400, if you mean a stretch of the 777-300. The length difference between the 777-200 and the 777-300 is 10 meters. Adding another 10 meters to the 777-300 (let's call it a 777-400X) is something Karl Swartz and I discussed early this year. Basically, we concluded that the wings are up to the task without modification, but that higher thrust engines would be required. Range would not be particularly impressive, and a fifth door would almost certainly be required. A 777-400X would be well suited to the Japanese domestic market e.g. NRT-KIX. Another problem is that Boeing's 777 assembly building couldn't handle such a plane. I can't imagine it coming up for consideration at Boeing unless Boeing needs to increase 777 production beyond the seven/month that the existing building can handle. M Carling mATbangDOTorg From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:51 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Adding another 10 meters to the 777-300 (let's call it a >777-400X) is something Karl Swartz and I discussed early this year. Hi M! :-) >Basically, we concluded that the wings are up to the task without >modification, but that higher thrust engines would be required. Both of these depend on the MGTOW, of course. The 777-200IGW goes up to 632,500 lbs, with 90,000 lbs thrust engines. The 777-300 can go as high as 660,000 lbs max, using 90-98k thrust engines. I would guess the -300 wing is beefed up a little bit from that of the -200IGW, but I don't really know. A stretched version (a "747-400X") at the same weight would be ok if you didn't mind giving up some range. No reason it could use the same engines as well. Higher thrust engines wouldn't accomplish much if the wing can't handle a higher MGTOW. Trouble is, the range would not be very impressive, probably less than that of the A-market 777 and thus not a very good replacement for the 747-100, much less the -200. Higher range needs a higher MGTOW and that means both a beefed-up wing and higher-thrust engines. At one point, the proposed 777-200X could go up to 720,000 lbs, with 105k+ engines. That wing/engine pair would also give a -400X range that would make it a more direct replacement for the rope-start 747s. >Range would not be particularly impressive Right. >a fifth door would almost certainly be required. That's a real good bet given that the 777-300 already has one. Maybe a sixth door would be required? It probably depends on whether Boeing views the plane as being viable for the charter and Japanese domestic markets. >A 777-400X would be well suited to the Japanese domestic market e.g. >NRT-KIX. I think that's more likely than charter work. BTW, it's HND, not NRT, and at the other end it may still be OSA. -- 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 Nov 21 01:59:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:51 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Sean Liao wrote: > >One major reason why EVA chose A340 instead of Boeing 777 was that MD no >longer exsists.They have to pick another manufacturer to balance their >fleet.Even though the new coming European system would make maintenance >complicate,they don't want Boeing to be the only provider of their >jetliners. Since the Boeing/MD merge, this argument has been brought up quite often. IMHO, for an airline of EVA Air's size, splitting its relatively small requirements between multiple suppliers is not very smart. Not only does the airline lose an opportunity for volume discount, the airline will also face additional training and maintenance costs. There are enough airlines around to keep both Boeing and Airbus honest. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Air Lines showie@uoguelph.ca wrote: > Just curious - what are the new requirements if a flight is downgraded to > NON-ETOPS? Must they be less than 60 minute flying time from an airport > throughout the flight? Absolutly correct. -Seth From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , showie@uoguelph.ca wrote: > Seth Dillon wrote: > >As you may know, each aircraft has what is called a Minimum Equipment > >List ... It is in the carriers best interest to repair the aircraft as soon > >as possible as non-ETOPS routing adds considerable time and expense to the > >trip. > > Just curious - what are the new requirements if a flight is downgraded to > NON-ETOPS? Must they be less than 60 minute flying time from an airport > throughout the flight? Not necessarily. Depending on the airline, airplane, route, and weather conditions at the alternates, they may drop from 180 minute ETOPS to 120 minute ETOPS or even 90 minute ETOPS. This may significantly affect their route, or their ability to fly non-stop to their destination, but it does not automatically revert them to the 60-minute rule. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Karl Swartz wrote: {Snip-Snip) > I'm pretty sure none of the Boeing airliners have APUs certified for > re-start once cruising altitude has been reached, primarily because > of problems getting it lit after an extended cold-soak. That doesn't > imply that it *can't* be started in the air, and perhaps at lower > altitudes it might work if you had to try it. Nope, In order to do ETOPS, you must have a working APU. The Ops manuals for the 767s that I just took a quick look at all say that the APU can be started in the air, and indeed must in some circumsances. The 757 and 777 APUs can as well. You are right about the 747-400. The APU is not approved for air starts, but may be kept running to 20,000 ft. The APU on the classic 747 may or may not be started in the air. It actually depends on the decal pasted to the engineer's panel. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Air Lines Karl Swartz wrote: ... > Obviously the APU can be used in the air if running during takeoff > even on a 747-100. The limitations may be similar to those you note > for the 747-400. > > >Its doubtful it can be started in the air. > > I'm pretty sure none of the Boeing airliners have APUs certified for > re-start once cruising altitude has been reached, primarily because > of problems getting it lit after an extended cold-soak. That doesn't > imply that it *can't* be started in the air, and perhaps at lower > altitudes it might work if you had to try it. The Garrett GTCP 331-200ER is rated to supply pneumatic pressure up to 19,000 feet, and electrical power up to the aircrafts service ceiling. The APU is can be started up to 43,100 feet in a cold soaked condition. This is from the 767-300ER maintenance training manual. On of the systems required for ETOPS is a fully operational APU, both elec and air capability. Our airline routinly performs in flight APU starts after a few hours at cruise to verify the integrity of the APU. It should be noted that this is done only on west bound legs, as we our a US based carrier. If the APU fails to start, the aircraft is then downgraded to non-ETOPS until repair or replacement of the APU. -Seth From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 , "Dennis L. Murphy" caused to appear as if it was written: >> What was it the Captain said over the intercom, a few seconds after >> everyone on board had heard the last engine die? Something about "Ladies >> and gentlemen, we have a slight problem." >This comment is attributed to the Captain of the Pan Am 707, departing >SFO for HNL in the early 60's, that lost (engine left the airframe) the >right outermost engine and approximately 8 feet of the right wing. A fire >started, but was extinguished with onboard fire suppresant material and >the aircraft landed, sucessfully, at a large military airfield on the >north side of the SFO bay. While the Pan Am incident may have had a similar announcement, the Captain of BA's glider made an announcement that must be one of the great's of in-flight commentary, which included the words "we are doing are damnedest to get them going again" (or something to that effect). It was not, however, a few seconds after the engines shut down. The folks in the cockpit were rather busy at that point. As we've just discussed, the glide lasted 13 minutes, long enough for the cabin crew to perform ditching briefings, etc, and somewhere in there was the celebrated announcement. Malc. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 20 Nov 97 02:53:41 , "John Mackesy" wrote: >There's a book about this event, titled "All Four Engines Have Failed", by >Betty Toottell, published 1985 by Andre Deutsch Ltd. - I have it before me. >There is no mention of APU, but it does say (p52) that the windmilling >engines continued to provide electrical and hydraulic power. > >It's a good read and has some excellent pix of ash damage to engines. Actually I think the landing was probably almost as exciting for the crew. The ash had sanded the windscreen, which was virtually opaque! Av-week published photos of the windscreens afterword.... From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Karl Swartz wrote: > >One other point. The APU cannot be operated in the air on the > >B747-100/200 series...of running during takeoff, the APU on the B747-400 > >can be used upto approx 15-20,000 ft. > > The first part of the definitely is not true. From the NTSB report on > the February 24, 1989, UA 811 accident, which involved a 747-122: > > The auxiliary power unit (APU), which was used during the takeoff, > was shutdown shortly after making the initial power reduction to > climb thrust. ... > I'm pretty sure none of the Boeing airliners have APUs certified for > re-start once cruising altitude has been reached, primarily because > of problems getting it lit after an extended cold-soak. That doesn't > imply that it *can't* be started in the air, and perhaps at lower > altitudes it might work if you had to try it. Let's understand some about almost any aircraft. There are certain components on an aircraft, such as an APU, which are not normally certified for use in the air. However, this does not prevent a carrier from modifying the component and getting it certified for use when airborne. The main reason I made the earlier statement about the B747-100/200 is that the intake of the APU would not allow an adequate air supply in order to start an engine while airborne. In some cases APU's are certified for use in the air, but for electric only. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > I'm pretty sure none of the Boeing airliners have APUs certified for > re-start once cruising altitude has been reached, primarily because > of problems getting it lit after an extended cold-soak. That doesn't > imply that it *can't* be started in the air, and perhaps at lower > altitudes it might work if you had to try it. All ETOPS twins must be able to immediately start their APUs at cruising altitude even after hours of cold-soaking. This requirement was addressed very early in the development of the 777, and was one of the first program "milestones" that was achieved. I just returned from Auckland where we filmed a story on Air New Zealand's 767 ETOPS capabilities. They were heavily involved in working with the vendor(s) to modify the 767's APU back in the 1980s so it could be started on demand in flight and so meet the very strict ETOPS operating requirements. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:52 From: Marilu + Bjarne Jensen Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > I'm pretty sure none of the Boeing airliners have APUs certified for > re-start once cruising altitude has been reached, primarily because > of problems getting it lit after an extended cold-soak. That doesn't > imply that it *can't* be started in the air, and perhaps at lower > altitudes it might work if you had to try it. Sorry, except the 727 (APU in the belly), all Boing APU's are certified for restart in-flight. Some are not guarantied to restart above a certain level - but once started it will - and may be - operated continuosly. For a engine inflight restart you could run into a EGT problem at altitude. Anyway, about 250-270 KIAS is all it takes to do a windmill restart and if you got one engine running there is also the posibility of cross-bleeding. Regards Bjarne in CPH From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: "David Fielding" Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home I don't know of specific regulations of weight-per-wheel, or any published data about specific airports. The engineers must have all sorts of data about the runways which the plane is designed to fly from. AFAIK, the advantages of multi-wheel bogeys over one big wheel are for both plane and runway. For the plane, it means a larger contact patch, more braking area, and redundancy. I'm not sure what penalty is incurred in weight or stowage, if any. For the runway, of course, multi-wheels spread the weight over a larger area. I read about the first B-36 bomber in the 1940's, which had two HUGE main wheels - 100 inches, I think. It was limited to the thickest concrete runways in existence - even taxiing on regular ramps would crack the pavement. The production version of the plane switched to a 4-wheel bogey on each main gear. Anyone know of any weight-per-area regs? - David Fielding From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , luisma@spainmail.com wrote: > Does anybody know if there is any regulation stating that the > weight-per-wheel is limited in aircrafts due to runways care? In other > words, the reason for the modern aircrafts wear more wheels than older > ones is the danger of wheel explosion or the runway strength? The primary reason for the multiple-wheel trucks on the 777, the four main gearsets on the 747, and the extra center gear on the A340 are to safely distribute the weight of the planes on the world's existing taxiways and runways without damaging the tarmac or concrete. Using multiple wheels is better than using a few really big wheels, as the smaller wheelsets are easier to stow, plus there is some redundancy should a tire blow out on takeoff, landing, or taxi. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: "Bart & Sylvia Peters" Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Online >BTW, can someone post "normal" cruising altitudes and speeds for the >main types used today? For a Boeing 747-400 initial cruise altitude at max t/o weight ( most of the time ex- far-east ) is FL 310 mach 0.85 depending on actual wind at the time. After Delhi a climb to FL 350 and mach 0.86 are possible. Regards Bart Peters From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Michael F. Lechnar wrote: [snip] >BTW: How many A310s are in use on long hauls from SE Asia to Europe vs. >the number of 767s? Other than ARIA (Aeroflot), I can't recall any airlines using A310s between SE Asia and Europe (South Asia and Middle East, yes, but not SE Asia). A few airlines that use the B767 between SE Asia and Europe include Lauda, SAS, Royal Brunei, Vietnam, and, perhaps, Condor. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: Jan-Olov Newborg Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Filip De Vos wrote: > Jan-Olov Newborg (newborg@algonet.se) wrote: > : Boeing 767 flying from Bangkok to Europe, many the times get final level > : 270 inbound New Dehli, a common level for Beach 200, all because B767 > : cruises to slow compared to B747-400 and MD11 and traffic control keeps > : 767 down at low alt. After India over Afganistan and Russia higher level > : is given to the slow B767. > > So much for Boeing's marketing claims that the big wing of the 767 > allowed the aircraft to climb to high altitude quicker, giving an > advantage over the small-winged A310. If modern nav-ATC equippment for freer flight (lateral airways) like the Swedish proposed ADS-B system, the problem not letting aircraft up high enough initially would be solved. http://www.lfv.se/ans/card/news.htm US Airforce use the GNSS-transponder today for C5b Galaxy formation flying and Navy F18 Hornet is testing it. Jan-Olov Newborg Stockholm From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: "Dave Pullan" Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NBTel Internet >> Karl wrote on Sun Nov 16 05:16:17 1997: >>> the aircraft finally >>> landed on the foamed south runway (27L, I assume) with only about 15 >>> minutes of fuel remaining, ... > There seemed to be a huge delay in getting the runway cleared > afterwards - about 24 hours before the aircraft was finally > moved. The impact on schedules - especially European and > domestic was terrible. I was surprised that the A340 wasn't moved > off the runway and everything cleared up before the next morning. > Andrew. Which leads me to wonder, do the authorities not have other airports to "suggest" to the capt to land at rather than close Heathrow, of all airports. While I have not explored the availability of crash rescue services at, for example Stansted, about 30 miles NE of Heathrow, and of 7000 feet runway length or more, if my memory is correct, it seems to me that there should be a plan to keep UK's premiere airport from being closed in most potential accidents. Of course, lives are the number one priority, but I doubt a business jet with the same problem would have been allowed to so easily disrupt aviation. Dave Pullan From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia >There seemed to be a huge delay in getting the runway cleared >afterwards - about 24 hours before the aircraft was finally >moved. The impact on schedules - especially European and >domestic was terrible. I was surprised that the A340 wasn't moved >off the runway and everything cleared up before the next morning. Don't expect a lot of rationality from airport management. Everybody and his brother probably wants to investigate to make sure they are not at fault, and no incriminating evidence is accidentally altered. Fixing blame and avoid blame is far more important that the disruption to only 70,000 passengers or so... a few years ago I was on my way up to Langkawi for the first LIMA show. We were delayed leaving KUL for an hour, and then parked at Penang for another hour.. Turned we were waiting for a Mig-29 to get a new tire. The Mig-29 after getting in the days practice had popped a tire on landing. Just left it in the middle of the runway for 3 hours while they replaced the tire!!! Only 1 runway (albeit a long one) at Langkawi. Such is life these days.. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: jkrocker@magic.mb.ca (Jon Krocker) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. In article , trevfenn wrote: >Not all that puzzling really, If they dumped fuel there would have been >an outcry from the uninformed public about the plane pouring fuel all over >their houses or whatever. Burning it instead of dumping it achieves the >same result without feeding a media frenzy. The fuel is vaporized as it leaves the dump tube and by the time it hits the ground it is spread out over such a vast area that it is virtually undetectable. -- Jon Krocker jkrocker@magic.mb.ca Aus des Weltalls Ferne, Funken Radiosterne, Quasare und Pulsare -Kraftwerk From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 From: tedlandy@ozemail.com.au (Ted Landy) Subject: Descent Calculator Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Ltd. I am trying work out how to create a small program to calculate descent profiles for aircraft to load into a handheld computer. I want to be able to enter height, speed, wind component and weight to come up with a distance. Originally I thought I could just enter a L/D ratio and presto come with an answer. Unfortunately for me it is not so easy. For a given IAS on descent the L/D seems to constantly change (increase). Does anyone know of any useful formulas, available programs or have suggestions that may be of use to me? Ted From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) shaped the electrons to say: >Let alone a 777-400. With the numbers flying around I went and got confused... If I recall we have 777-200 (A market), 777-200IGW (B market), and 777-300 (A market). I'm unclear as to the development of the 777-100X and 777-300IGW. Now I see 777-400. Someone help put my head on straight? Thanks. -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-737-2100 FAX: 510-737-2110 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >With the numbers flying around I went and got confused... That's easy enough! >If I recall we have 777-200 (A market), 777-200IGW (B market) Right. There were also some references to an A+ market version, which was the A market plane pushed somewhat, but not nearly up to the IGW weights and range. >777-300 (A market) I thought that the stretch (what became the -300) was originally the C market, though the one document I could find seems to indicate that the C market plane is the really long range one, and that the -300 is part of the A market. >I'm unclear as to the development of the 777-100X and 777-300IGW. The 777-100X proposal was a shortened 777-200IGW, roughly, with very, very long range. Boeing found that none of their customers, except Singapore Airlines, were very interested in a super long-range plane smaller than the 777-100X. Meanwhile, engine performance was improving more quickly than Boeing had expected, so they abandoned the idea of a shorter 777 and instead focused on an even higher weight 777-200 for this market. One proposal was a 777-300 with a fuselage shortened by 33'3" (i.e., the same length as the -200, but with the stronger structure of the larger aircraft), another was for a 720,000 lbs MGTOW (compared to "only" 660,000 lbs for the -300). Many refer to these proposals as the 777-200X, although recently I think I read that Boeing is now calling it the 777-400X. >From http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/777.html: Boeing is studying a derivative of the 777-200 that could fly nearly 10,000 miles, as well as a longer-range derivative of the 777-300. These are the 777-200X and 777-300IGW proposals. >Now I see 777-400. The "777-400" mentioned in several recent posts here refers to a possible further stretch. My recollection is that Boeing has not talked about such a beast except to say that it wouldn't fit in the current factory, and thus is unlikely for the foreseeable future. I suspect that's another way of saying they don't want to kill the 747 because it's their cash cow. ;-) Boeing's only use of 747-400 that I'm aware of is in the context of a much different aircraft, the very long-range 747-400X mentioned above. >Someone help put my head on straight? I'm not sure whether I helped or not! :-) -- 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 Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: Jan Klier Subject: Re: Overhead Bins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company There also was an article in the Denver Post. It talked about an even bigger concern with people trying to take their luggage with them in case of emergency evacuations. They were talking about people jumping of the wing during an evacuation with a bag in each hand, and evacuations taking much longer because of people trying to grab as many bags as possible. It was also stated that occasionally glass bottles contained in that luggage brake when falling of the emergency slides creating an additional hazard. The article stated that several airlines were asking for a new FAA rule regarding limits on size and weigth and number of bags to get consistent rules across carriers. Actually that might be more driven by United who now is playing with a one bag rule to improve on-time departure and probably wants to avoid having a competitive disadvantage against carriers without that limitation. As a passenger, I'm sometimes surprised on what people are trying to bring on board. But even worse, on how often they ignore the fasten seatbelt sign during turbulence and go ahead and open overhead bins just to get something from their bags. Jan -- Hewlett Packard, Storage Systems Division e-mail : jklier@gr.hp.com Current Product Engineering: HP-UX & ISV cc-mail: jan_klier@hp.com 700 71st Avenue, Greeley CO 80634, USA voice : (970) 350 5479 From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: Andrew Weir Subject: Overhead Bins 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 > Is the danger more apparent than real? Are people ever injured or >killed by objects from overhead bins in what would otherwise be a >survivable crash, or do the objects tend to end up in the aisle instead?= >If there is sufficient warning before a forced landing, do cabin >attendants attempt to remove the most dangerous items from overhead? Very real. In the January 1989 crash of a British Midland 737-400 (you know, the one where they shut down the wrong engine) people were killed like this. The trauma surgeons, unusually for an air crash, were able to get funding to carry out extensive studies into all the injuries on board (47 of the 126 on board died, the rest were seriously injured). They concluded that several passengers were killed by heavy objects flying out of the bins and striking them in the back of the head, or by bits of the bins themselves. Every overhead bin but one was ripped from its mountings. The bin debris also greatly impeded the efforts of the rescuers. In the official report, the investigators recommended: Quote <> End quote. An NTSB report following the MD-81 crash near Stockholm in 1991 (no deaths but the bins came down too) also criticised static loading in the certification of the bins. I believe no regulatory action followed. BTW, passengers in RAF transport aircraft are not allowed to put anything other than jackets, coats and hats in the overhead bins. A Weir From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Overhead Bins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com P. Wezeman wrote: > There have been several newspaper articles about the danger and > inconvenience of excess carry on baggage recently. The "Wall Street > Journal" even mentioned people stowing bowling balls, which I hope > is unusual. I saw thinks like scateboards, wine-sixpacks, metallic trolleys stored in the bins ... > From their looks, overhead bins seem to be intended to hold blankets, > pillows, jackets and coats, and perhaps small soft-sided luggage. They > do not seem to be designed to contain dangerous missiles in a crash; > many of the complaints are about things falling out and hitting people > during normal flight or while stowing or unstowing things. Don't forget in-flight turbulences >(SNIP) > Is the danger more apparent than real? Are people ever injured or > killed by objects from overhead bins in what would otherwise be a > survivable crash, or do the objects tend to end up in the aisle instead? Either in the aisle or in the head of C, D, G or H passengers > If there is sufficient warning before a forced landing, do cabin > attendants attempt to remove the most dangerous items from overhead? All depends on the situation and the cabin crew itself, even if instructions tell you to do something specific. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: marguet@MIT.EDU Subject: Re: Boeing decisions on Douglas products References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > True, but one of the options Boeing recently considered as a counter > to a possible A3XX was resurrecting the MD-12 -- the 500-600 seater > with four 777-class engines, not the re-winged MD-11. This option > would allow Boeing to offer a new aircraft, in lieu of a further 747 > derivative, but with a quicker time-to-market since much of the > groundwork has already been done. What about the Blended-Wing-Body project of MD ? I attended few week ago a conference by Dr Liebeck Boeing's program manager for the project. Liebeck said clearly that the BWB is a rival to the A3XX. -- Benoit Marguet Research Assistant MIT Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development marguet@mit.edu From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Boeing decisions on Douglas products 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: Little to None On 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 , "Mihir Shah" caused to appear as if it was written: >Benont wrote in message ... >>BOEING CONSIDERS ALSO THE LAUNCH OF THE MD-12 ! > >Excuse me? McDonnell-Douglas had pretty much pulled the plug on all future >wide-body developments, or at the very least, there were very weak >arguements for those developments. The MD-11 has apparently survived, at >least for a few years, but the MD-12?! Could you please back up your >comment with a source, article, news release, announcement, etc.? > >(Moderator(s): How did this message get though?...seems very >uncharacteristic for a m.t.a-i posting (i.e.: no substantiation, etc.)) You may find it strange, but it is true! As has been mentioned before, Boeing bought more than a bunch of military work and some assembly lines. They also bought some pretty smart people. Now, the MD-12 design has been floating around for some years, but McDD could never justify the development. It was formally rejected as a development project in 1993, but that was a business decision based on McDD's situation, and the economy, at the time. Following the acquisition, Boeing acquired the MD-12 as a potential starting point for a competitor to the A3XX (if it decides that it needs one), and one which the airlines might like more than the original 747-500X and -600X that were proposed and then canceled at the beginning of this year. Mihir, you may want to retract your note to the moderators, since there is a half-page article on the subject, including an artist's impression of the MD-12, in the 10 -16 September issue of Flight International (page 7). The article goes on to say: "The favoured target (of a Boeing NLA study group) appears to be an aircraft slightly larger than the MD-12, which was offered in two main versions: a 14,800km range aircraft with 430 seats and a 13,320km range aircraft with 511 seats". Malc. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: tyler@plk.af.mil (David Tyler) Subject: Re: Aircraft speed and weight at cruise. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab. Simon Ellwood writes: >>The statement "A wing generates a lift value which is proportional to the >>air speed" is completely right. since: >> >> L=1/2*pho*V^2*S*CL_alpha * alpha >> >> L is lift, pho is density, V is speed, S is area, CL_alpha is >> lift curve slope, and alpha is angle of attack >> >>Therefore, >> L is proportional to air speed is a completely right statement >> L is also proportional to density, wing area, and lift curve slope >Since when has a "squared" relationship been proportional ? it's not. >I'm suprised an aerospace engineer fell into that hole. >Perhaps it's language here. no; it's wrong. for two quantities to be proportional, there must be a _constant_ of proportionality (emphasis on ``constant" not a coincidence). dave ______________________________________________________________________ -David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not -USAF Phillips Laboratory of benefit to the public." -Albuquerque, New Mexico -tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 From: Tomasz Natkanski Subject: A question on ETOPS requirements Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Arizona Recently I was flying LOT airlines from Newark to Warsaw and prior to the departure I saw one mechanic service both engines of the 767. He just seemed to be adding some fluid. This leads me to a question or two: For ETOPS regulations, can one mechanic service both engines? Also, does LOT need ETOPS to operate the transatlantic route using their B767-ER fleet? Tom Natkanski From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:55 From: j.s.harris@worldnet.att.net (Joel Harris) Subject: Re: Why are ailiners white? Old vs. New References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services On 03 Oct 97 01:18:34 , Steve Lacker wrote: >I came across an interesting claim the other day. I've always assumed >that from the very beginning, jet aircraft airconditioning systems have >operated on the same principle they do today. Ie, take hot bleed air, >cool it while still highly pressurized in a heat exchanger, pass it >through an expander valve so that it expands and gets cold. However, I >was snooping around Carrier's web site (the air conditioning company) >and they claimed the following as one of their "firsts": > >1955: With the advent of jet passenger service, Carrier develops an > air-turbine-driven centrifugal refrigeration machine to cool the > Douglas Aircraft Company's DC 8. Although small enough to fit > inside a small piece of carry-on luggage, it was powerful enough > to air condition seven average sized homes. I'm not sure WRT the DC-8's environmental system, but AA's 707 fleet were equipped with 2 electrically driven air conditioning packs. I'm not exactly sure who manufactured them. I do know that if both packs were started while the plane was hooked to the ground electrical unit (which at BNA was a 125 KVA diesel-powered Hobart truck-mounted generator) it had a bad habit of stalling the GPU. This was not a good thing, since a generator bearing locked up one day and promptly flipped a 3-ton truck that the package was mounted on. AFAIK, most everything since the days of the 707 have been equipped with air cycle machine environmental systems. From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:55 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Why are all airliners white? - Concorde temporary paintscheme References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Karl Swartz wrote: > >I have seen a picture of a 'Pepsi' Concorde, painted all blue > >with the Pepsi logo on the tail ... > >However I heard that they could not fly supersonic in this > >paintscheme as the plane would overheat ?? > > That was a common rumor but it doesn't appear to be based in fact -- > I've seen reports that it did indeed fly at supersonic speeds while > wearing Pepsi Blue. Perhaps not for very long though. I looked at a book this evening, "Dream Scheme", about unique / special event / one-off airliner paint schemes. The AF Pepsi Concorde was one of the planes. It made a tour of Europe and the Mediterranean; it was limited to 3 supersonic flights of 15 minutes each due to thermal considerations. > >It occurred to me that painting, then repainting (back to white) > >a Concorde must be an extremely expensive undertaking ? Is it possible > >they would use some 'washable' paint ? Presumably not water based > >in case of rain, but some mild solvent perhaps ???? > > It may be possible, but the Pepsi Concorde was a full repaint (and > then back to Air France colors). The Pepsi paint required 2,000 man > hours and 300 liters of paint, and reportedly cost $300,000. And it was changed back to AF livery ten days later at equal cost according to the book. Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:55 From: Art Intemann Subject: Re: Why are ailiners white? Old vs. New References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: ajintemann@earthlink.net Some old 707s had "freon systems" (TWA, for example)... Others had the typical Air Cycle Machines in use today. Regards, Art From kls Fri Nov 21 01:59:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 21 Nov 97 01:59:55 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Dennis L. Murphy wrote: >This comment is attributed to the Captain of the Pan Am 707, departing >SFO for HNL in the early 60's, that lost (engine left the airframe) the >right outermost engine and approximately 8 feet of the right wing. A fire >started, but was extinguished with onboard fire suppresant material and >the aircraft landed, sucessfully, at a large military airfield on the >north side of the SFO bay. > >I was sitting in a window seat on the right side of the aircraft when it >happened and very vividly remember the Captain's words...... The picture I'm looking at shows the wing essentially severed at the No. 4 pylon. I thought that represented a bit more than 8'. The quote given is -- and correct me if I'm (or rather Time Life Books 8-) wrong -- is "Folks, we have a little minor problem ... well, maybe it's not so minor." BA's Captain Eric Moody, is quoted as saying as his 747 flew into a cloud of ash and lost all engine power, "Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, This is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnest to to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress." -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:23 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com H Andrew Chuang wrote: > In article , > Michael F. Lechnar wrote: > >BTW: How many A310s are in use on long hauls from SE Asia to Europe vs. > >the number of 767s? > > Other than ARIA (Aeroflot), I can't recall any airlines using A310s > between SE Asia and Europe (South Asia and Middle East, yes, but not SE > Asia). A few airlines that use the B767 between SE Asia and Europe > include Lauda, SAS, Royal Brunei, Vietnam, and, perhaps, Condor. Don't know for sure but what about Austrian ? ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:23 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 , "Bart & Sylvia Peters" wrote: >>BTW, can someone post "normal" cruising altitudes and speeds for the >>main types used today? > >For a Boeing 747-400 initial cruise altitude at max t/o weight ( most of the >time ex- far-east ) is FL 310 mach 0.85 depending on actual wind at the >time. >After Delhi a climb to FL 350 and mach 0.86 are possible. I don't believe this. Cruise on a 747-400 at these mach numbers carries a huge fuel burn penalty. There is now ay the aircraft would make a Europe-Asia trip at those speeds. Long Haul Cruise on a 747-400 is M.82, while M.86 may be possible, I have never seen anyone do it. Have anyone out there seen it? My own experience with a RR powered 747-200 is a throttle push from M.82 to M.84 cost 20,000 pounds of fuel on a 9.5 hour flight. That is about a 10% penalty. I've been in a D10 at m.85 (ATC kept asking us to go faster), when he asked again, the boss said, hey, we already doing M.85, I can't go much faster. The response from ATC was, OK, at least don't slow down for a while. 777's are often found at M.85, that is where they were designed to Cruise (it was an interesting way to attack the A340. On very long flight the difference in cruise speed has a very real impact on travel time). From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:23 From: Cass Alexander Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ATC Systems Consultant Reply-To: cassa@ausnet.net.au Jan-Olov Newborg wrote: > >SNIP > If modern nav-ATC equippment for freer flight (lateral airways) like the > Swedish proposed ADS-B system, the problem not letting aircraft up high > enough initially would be solved. > > http://www.lfv.se/ans/card/news.htm > > US Airforce use the GNSS-transponder today for C5b Galaxy formation > flying and Navy F18 Hornet is testing it. > > Jan-Olov Newborg > > Stockholm Greetings Jan-Olov, Several years ago, a Qantas 747 skipper mentioned to me that costs associated with flying the big Boeings at non-optimum levels averaged out at some 2000 Australian dollars (~ $1300 US) per hour per thousand feet off the optimum level. Qantas 747's and future 777 acquisitions will all include FANS 1 avionics to facilitate ADS transponding and controller-pilot data link coms. Given that Australian ATC centers control 11% of the worlds airspace, and that most of that airspace lacks radar coverage, the ability of aircraft to update their positions to the responsible ATC system, either on a periodic basis or in response to a controller issued "one-shot" request goes some way to providing ATCs with a mechanism for minimising approved separation techniques, and thereby optimising the use of the most popular flight corridors. Testing of ADS in the new Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) has revealed the extraordinary accuracy of this emerging technology, with ADS and radar tracks on the same aircraft being coincident to fractions of a kilometer. You are therefore partially right in saying that: "If modern nav-ATC equippment for freer flight (lateral airways) like the Swedish proposed ADS-B system, the problem not letting aircraft up high enough initially would be solved." However, it must be borne in mind that several other factors play a vital role in the successful use of technology such as ADS and CPDLC in the management of complex and extensive air space, specifically: 1. The ability of the responsible traffic management authority to accept the air-derived data from participating aircraft and display it to their controllers. In the absence of ground-based FANS facilities, separation reductions to minimas will not materialise. 2. The administering authority must also have created and promulgated safe separation standards which can be used by the controllers under a variety of both operational circumstances and system mode degradations 3. Optimally, each aircraft which wishes to operate in airspace which utilises avionics-derived position data relayed to the ATC system should be fitted with the appropriate on-board equipment. Especially where large numbers of crossing tracks are combined with large numbers of aircraft using those tracks in a procedural control (no-radar) environment, a single non-ADS equipped can impact on the separation standards to be applied to many other aircraft, as its lack of appropriate avionics require controllers to employ restrictive procedural separation standards rather than the emerging ADS standards, which are much less "draconian". As more aircraft are fitted with FANS avionics, and the number of city pairs (and therefore crossing air-routes) being flown by airlines continues to burgeon, I can foresee the day when ATS management authorities world wide will preclude non-FANS aircraft from operating in high traffic density, multi-route non radar controlled airspace in which FANS-based traffic separation facilities are available from the ATS service provider. Fanciful ? A precedent already exists in many countries, whereby aircraft which are not fitted with SSR radar transponders are prohibited from entering controlled airspace in which radar is the primary ATC separation tool. In the words of the CEO of Airservices Australia (Bill Pollard), "(TAAATS is) the world's first fully-integrated air traffic management system" and its majority of its cost of AUD350 million will ultimately be recovered from airlines; 95% of Airservices Australia's revenue is derived from RPT operations. Those paying for such an costly (though not necessarily expensive) system will no doubt equip their fleets at the earliest opportunity, then support moves to decline access to the airspace within which they operate to non-airline, non-ADS equipped aircraft. >From their perspective, if the user pays, the user benefits. Hoperfully, aircraft FANS package costs will plummet, as did the costs of radar transponders between their inception and the present. With a vast area comprising both continental and oceanic airspace to administer, Airservice Australia can only fully offer FANS-derived benefits to operators when participation is universal. The same is true of other ATS service providers throughout the world. The bottom line is that whenever airlines complain about restrictive ATC practices in airspace within which advanced technologies such as FANS are in operational use, perhaps they should first have checked whether they are contributing to those restrictions by - in addition to parallel scheduling - failing to equip their fleets with avionics which take full advantage of those advanced services. Cass Alexander (The views expressed herein are my own; they are not necessarily) (those of any organisation for which I may presently be working.) From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:24 From: 113417@rutgers.RUTGERS.EDU, 104@compuserve.com (Mike ) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: U-NET Ltd Reply-To: 113417@rutgers.RUTGERS.EDU, 104@compuserve.com On 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >In article , >Michael F. Lechnar wrote: > >>BTW: How many A310s are in use on long hauls from SE Asia to Europe vs. >>the number of 767s? > >Other than ARIA (Aeroflot), I can't recall any airlines using A310s >between SE Asia and Europe (South Asia and Middle East, yes, but not SE >Asia). A few airlines that use the B767 between SE Asia and Europe >include Lauda, SAS, Royal Brunei, Vietnam, and, perhaps, Condor. When I was a Bankok a few months ago I saw a Tarom A310. Mike From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:24 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) shaped the electrons to say: >>If I recall we have 777-200 (A market), 777-200IGW (B market) >Right. There were also some references to an A+ market version, which >was the A market plane pushed somewhat, but not nearly up to the IGW >weights and range. I've seen references in some books to 3 tiers of -200 A market, with increasing weights and engine power. That is seperate from the -200IGW. >>I'm unclear as to the development of the 777-100X and 777-300IGW. >The 777-100X proposal was a shortened 777-200IGW, roughly, with very, >very long range. Boeing found that none of their customers, except Right. I wasn't sure what had happened with that. Books from a few years back all kind of have that "May fly as soon as 1999" type wording... >Singapore Airlines, were very interested in a super long-range plane >smaller than the 777-100X. Meanwhile, engine performance was improving >more quickly than Boeing had expected, so they abandoned the idea of a >shorter 777 and instead focused on an even higher weight 777-200 for Ok, so the -100X was stillborn and they're focusing on the -200/300 as growth bases. Makes sense. >this market. One proposal was a 777-300 with a fuselage shortened by >33'3" (i.e., the same length as the -200, but with the stronger >structure of the larger aircraft), another was for a 720,000 lbs MGTOW Interesting hybrid. They'd probably take out the 5th door then I suppose. Soudns like a -200 with the wing and wingbox of the -300. > Boeing is studying a derivative of the 777-200 that could fly > nearly 10,000 miles, as well as a longer-range derivative of > the 777-300. I wonder how far the could push it. They still aren't storing fuel outboard of the wing-fold lines are they? And they can also use the horizontal stab too. I'd love to see how far it could go using all of the available fuel storage options. (Of course I'd also like to see just ONE customer order folding wings - just to see it used...) >The "777-400" mentioned in several recent posts here refers to a >possible further stretch. My recollection is that Boeing has not Ok. Blue skying. I don't see the point in a larger stretch: 1. The -300 is the longest airliner already. Making it longer could make airport handling 'interesting'. 2. It'd compete with the 747-400, and possibly the -500/600 plans to some degree. Personally I was kind of surprised that they kept the MD-11 in production beyond just filling existing orders. You'd think the 777 would be the pick of the litter to take that entire market. -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-737-2100 FAX: 510-737-2110 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588 From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Right. There were also some references to an A+ market version, which >>was the A market plane pushed somewhat, but not nearly up to the IGW >>weights and range. > >I've seen references in some books to 3 tiers of -200 A market, with >increasing weights and engine power. That is seperate from the -200IGW. Boeing usually lists "standard" and "option" figures for any given model. An airline can order one of a number of variations between these extremes. On the 777-200 (non-IGW), MGTOW now ranges from 506,000 lbs (229,520 kg) to 545,000 lbs (247,210 kg). United wanted greater range, so their launch order was for 525,000 lbs MGTOW; they were delivered at 535,000 lbs and have since been upgraded to the full 545,000 lbs. Similarly, the 777-200 IGW ranges from 580,000 lbs (263,090 kg) to 632,500 lbs (286,900 kb) MGTOW. >>this market. One proposal was a 777-300 with a fuselage shortened by >>33'3" (i.e., the same length as the -200, but with the stronger >>structure of the larger aircraft), another was for a 720,000 lbs MGTOW > >Interesting hybrid. They'd probably take out the 5th door then I >suppose. Soudns like a -200 with the wing and wingbox of the -300. I'm sure it would have no more than four doors. In fact, I'm not sure how it would differ from a -200 with an IGW wing and engines. Boeing describes the BBJ in similar terms -- the airframe is described as a 737-800 shortened to the same length as the 737-700, rather than being a 737-700 with structural and engine enhancements from a -800. >> Boeing is studying a derivative of the 777-200 that could fly >> nearly 10,000 miles, as well as a longer-range derivative of >> the 777-300. >I wonder how far the could push it. They still aren't storing fuel >outboard of the wing-fold lines are they? The only additional fuel on the IGW is a center tank, so if the base design doesn't have tanks beyond the fold lines then that's still the case. >And they can also use the horizontal stab too. The 777 is Boeing's first design which uses composites for the primary structure of the horizontal stabilizers. I don't know how that would impact the potential use of that area as fuel tankage, but I've heard that Boeing has no plans to put fuel there. >I'd love to see how far it could go using all of the available fuel >storage options. Optimizing for a low passenger count (lots of premium seats with relatively few economy seats) and little or no freight, they can also sacrifice some cargo hold space for fuel tanks. The MD-11(ER) and the longest-range 737 options take this approach. >Ok. Blue skying. I don't see the point in a larger stretch: >1. The -300 is the longest airliner already. Making it longer could make >airport handling 'interesting'. Maybe. I don't know if a further stretch would be enough to make that a significant issue. >2. It'd compete with the 747-400, and possibly the -500/600 plans to some >degree. But those are *much* longer range aircraft. As long as a further 777 stretch doesn't have very long legs, the only current 747 it competes with is the 747-400(D). >Personally I was kind of surprised that they kept the MD-11 in production >beyond just filling existing orders. You'd think the 777 would be the >pick of the litter to take that entire market. It doesn't appear to be able to handle the weight in cargo apps -- AvLeak's Source Book lists the cargo capacity of the 777-200 IGW as only 56,500 lbs, whereas the MD-11 Combi (the F isn't listed) has a whopping 144,300 lbs capacity. In addition, some carriers don't care for ETOPS, though I can't see any of those who aren't already MD-11 customers choosing the MD-11 over the A340. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:24 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >If I recall we have 777-200 (A market), 777-200IGW (B market) For the record, we no longer use the terms A-market, B-market. It was one of those ideas that seemed good at the time, but.... C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:25 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Boeing's only use of 747-400 that I'm aware of is in the context of a : much different aircraft, the very long-range 747-400X mentioned above. Did you mean to type 777-400 here? [Moderator's Note: Yes. I guess I'm too much a creature of habit! -- Karl] -- Gerry From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:25 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A question on ETOPS requirements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Tomasz Natkanski wrote: > Recently I was flying LOT airlines from Newark to Warsaw and prior to the > departure I saw one mechanic service both engines of the 767. He just > seemed to be adding some fluid. This leads me to a question or two: For > ETOPS regulations, can one mechanic service both engines? Also, does LOT > need ETOPS to operate the transatlantic route using their B767-ER fleet? I was told at Air New Zealand that ETOPS regulations do not permit both engines to be worked on at the same time. I have seen it stated that the same mechanic cannot perform the same maintenance function on both engines, but I don't know if that applies to every function, or even if it is a correct statement. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:25 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: A question on ETOPS requirements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Why? Network Dial-Up Customer Tomasz Natkanski wrote in message ... >Recently I was flying LOT airlines from Newark to Warsaw and prior to the >departure I saw one mechanic service both engines of the 767. He just >seemed to be adding some fluid. This leads me to a question or two: For >ETOPS regulations, can one mechanic service both engines? Also, does LOT >need ETOPS to operate the transatlantic route using their B767-ER fleet? The fluid he was probably adding was oil. Yes, one mechanic can service both engines. And yes, ETOPS definitely applies to any two engined aircraft flying over a large body of water. From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:25 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A question on ETOPS requirements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>ETOPS regulations, can one mechanic service both engines? Also, does LOT >>need ETOPS to operate the transatlantic route using their B767-ER fleet? > >The fluid he was probably adding was oil. Yes, one mechanic can service both >engines. And yes, ETOPS definitely applies to any two engined aircraft >flying over a large body of water. No, ETOPS does not definitely apply. It's quite possible to fly a twin in revenue service across the North Atlantic under non-ETOPS rules. It generally requires flying further north and this longer flight path means greater fuel burn and higher cost (though WAW-ORD, which I believe LOT also flies, requires minimal diversion), plus the unavailability of critical alternates would force cancellation over 50% of the time, so it's not an option a carrier would choose under normal circumstances, but it's quite possible. -- 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 Nov 22 20:41:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:25 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , rlawler@isd.net wrote: >Let's understand some about almost any aircraft. There are certain >components on an aircraft, such as an APU, which are not normally >certified for use in the air. Let's understand something else about about almost any aircraft. In an emergency, once you run out of "by the book" things to do, you start trying other things that are not in the book but your pilot-in-command judgement suggest might work. Some of these things are even aniticipated - overweight landings are not "by the book" but that hasn't stopped Boeing (in the case of the one I saw) from including reference speeds for overwieght landings "for use when an overweight landing is judged to be the best option". -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Schaumburg, IL, USA I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:26 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Air Lines C. Marin Faure wrote: > In article , showie@uoguelph.ca wrote: > > Seth Dillon wrote: > > >As you may know, each aircraft has what is called a Minimum Equipment > > >List ... It is in the carriers best interest to repair the aircraft as soon > > >as possible as non-ETOPS routing adds considerable time and expense to the > > >trip. > > > > Just curious - what are the new requirements if a flight is downgraded to > > NON-ETOPS? Must they be less than 60 minute flying time from an airport > > throughout the flight? > > Not necessarily. Depending on the airline, airplane, route, and weather > conditions at the alternates, they may drop from 180 minute ETOPS to 120 > minute ETOPS or even 90 minute ETOPS. This may significantly affect their > route, or their ability to fly non-stop to their destination, but it does > not automatically revert them to the 60-minute rule. A carriers fleet or part of the fleet may be downgraded from 180 to 120 or 90 based on operational performance of the fleet. In some cases a carrier may be able to operate one a/c type at 180 but only have 120 min authority on another a/c type. This is usually due to reliability problems on one type that are not present on another. It may also reflect differing operating experience levels with the two types. I do not know of any regulatory mechanism inplace that would allow an individual aircraft within a fleet to be partially down graded (180 to 120 or 90). The individual aircraft are either ETOPS or non-ETOPS, based on all ETOPS required equipment and systems being operational. The carrier is approved to fly an ETOPS aircraft at 90, 120 or 180 based on the carriers historical reliability data(with that specific airframe/engine configuration) and operational experience. Acarrier operating 767-300ERs with PW4000 engines may have worked up to 180 min authority, but if they added some 767-300ERs with CF6-80C2 engines they may be restricted to 60, 90, or 120 until there is enough reliability data assembled to satisfy the carriers NAA that 180 is justified. The only possible scenario I can imagine is if an ETOPS aircraft had to replace a 180 min cargo fire suppressant bottle with one of less capicity. This however raises a whole bunch of other issues I won't go into here. A 180 min ETOPS flight could be rerouted to a longer route if a suitable alternate was down due to weather or other reasons, but that would not be a reflection of the ETOPS status of the aircraft. -Seth From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >A carriers fleet or part of the fleet may be downgraded from 180 to 120 >or 90 based on operational performance of the fleet. In some cases a >carrier may be able to operate one a/c type at 180 but only have 120 >min authority on another a/c type. This is usually due to reliability >problems on one type that are not present on another. It may also >reflect differing operating experience levels with the two types. I suspect the most common reason may simply be need, or lack thereof. Equipping and maintaining an aircraft to ETOPS requirements requires more work and potentially more expense. No point if you're not going to use it on ETOPS routes. That's why Delta, with more 757 / PW2000 experience than nearly any other airline, doesn't have any ETOPS 757s. Likewise higher ratings -- you don't pay for 180 minute if you only need 120. >I do not know of any regulatory mechanism inplace that would allow an >individual aircraft within a fleet to be partially down graded (180 to >120 or 90). The individual aircraft are either ETOPS or non-ETOPS, >based on all ETOPS required equipment and systems being operational. I thought the MEL included equipment that would be required for, say, 180 minutes, but could be inop for 120 minutes ETOPS. >A carrier operating 767-300ERs with PW4000 engines may have worked up >to 180 min authority, but if they added some 767-300ERs with CF6-80C2 >engines ... Now why would any airline be crazy enough to do that?! Oh, I forgot you work for the engine-type-of-the-month club, er, Delta. :-) >... they may be restricted to 60, 90, or 120 until there is enough >reliability data assembled to satisfy the carriers NAA that 180 is >justified. The reliability data is specific to the airframe/engine combo, not the carrier. Separately, the carrier has to be able to show that it's maintenance and operations meet ETOPS requirements (regardless of airframe/engine). The 767-300 / CF6-80C2 has long been certified to 180-minute ETOPS, so an airline already flying other types under ETOPS rules shouldn't have any problem getting ETOPS certification for the new combo. -- 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 Nov 22 20:41:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:26 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question 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 rlawler@isd.net writes: >Steve Lacker wrote: > >One other point. The APU cannot be operated in the air on the >B747-100/200 series...of running during takeoff, the APU on the B747-400 >can be used upto approx 15-20,000 ft. Its doubtful it can be started >in the air. That is not correct. There are can be altitude limitations on APU use, but on some -200 variants at least, APU use is possible under 20,000', and bleed air is available under 15,000'. There will be a big placard reading "APU CERTIFIED FOR IN-FLIGHT START AND OPERATION" if this is feasible. -- 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 Sat Nov 22 20:41:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:26 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question 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) faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: >All ETOPS twins must be able to immediately start their APUs at cruising >altitude even after hours of cold-soaking. Could you not just heat the APU's normally, given you will be starting it ASAP if you lose an engine anyhow? ISTM you're not short of waste heat in-flight but maybe I'm wrong. On the ground, standby power Diesels have their water-jackets kept warm to ensure they will start quickly and easily. And how are ETOPS APU's started; is bleed air an option, or just electricity? Does the APU have any separate fuel tankage from the engines? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:27 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca re: APUs that don't work at altitude. I am curious as what is done differently on an APU used on ETOPS planes (which can operate anytime anywhere) and APUs that won't work at altitude. Is it a question of the cold temperature or the lower pressure at altitude ? In either case, what is done on an ETOPs rated APU to counter this problem/difficulty ? From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Philipine A340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. On my way back from doing an interview today with Boeing's Bob Withington (you get 20 points if you know who he is- a hint is Boeing wouldn't be in the jet airplane business if it hadn't been for him) I noticed an A340 in Philipine Airlines colors across the field from the Boeing flightline. This was unusual as there are no commercial airline operations out of BFI so we rarely see any large transports other than Boeing's delivery and flight test planes, the UPS and Airborne package freighters across the field, the C-5s and C-17s that come in to pick up military airplane components, and the AN-24's that bring in new engines. I can only assume the A340 was on a delivery flight to the Philipines and dropped into BFI for fuel. As Toulouse is an international airport as well as home for Airbus' final assembly at Aerospatiale, I suppose their employees may find it annoying to step outside the factory for a cigarette break and have to watch Boeing airplanes come and go from the terminal across the field. If the Philipine A340 is, in fact, on a delivery flight, I wonder if it was a deliberate decision to make a stop at BFI so they could flaunt the plane in front of Boeing headquarters...? C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Philipine A340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. I think I can answer my own question about why a Philipine Airlines A340 was parked on Boeing Field yesterday. It seems the president of the Philipines stopped by to have a meeting with Bill Gates before heading to Vancouver to attend the APEC conference. According to the Seattle Times, Bill Gates agreed to give the Philipine government amnesty for using pirated Microsoft software in return for agreements to cooperate in other computing ventures. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:27 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Superfan Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com I would like to know what happens in the domain of the Superfan engines. A bit of history may be interesting. The Superfan -Ultra high bypass- engines were initially foreseen to be mounted on the A340. IAE intended to build a variant of the V2500 engine which incorporated a gearbox driven, variable pitch ducted fan added to the front of the 2500 core. Calculated fuel savings of 20% compared to classic engines were expected. The idea came up in Dec-86 and was cancelled in Apr-87 due to technical risks. - What's the status on UHB engines nowadays, is it under development/trials (PW/RR/GE/IAE/CFM ...) somewhere ? - Have similar/simplified techniques been adopted in the GE90 or Trent's ? - What about reliability, weight, costs, would they not reduce the expected cost advantage (-20% for fuel) ? - Is there some info about it on the web ? Just curious, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 22 20:41:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:27 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Descent Calculator References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , tedlandy@ozemail.com.au (Ted Landy) wrote: >I am trying work out how to create a small program to calculate >descent profiles for aircraft to load into a handheld computer. > I want to be able to enter height, speed, wind component and weight >to come up with a distance. >Originally I thought I could just enter a L/D ratio and presto come >with an answer. Unfortunately for me it is not so easy. For a given >IAS on descent the L/D seems to constantly change (increase). > >Does anyone know of any useful formulas, available programs or have >suggestions that may be of use to me? This is not a simple topic, and the answer will greatly depend on exactly what you are trying to accomplish with your program. The problem is that an aircraft's descent profile in the real world is only somewhat dependent on the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft. Typically, ATC instructions or other procedures (such as a STAR or the 10,000/250knot rule in the US), weather, or airspace restrictions (restricted areas, etc.) will throw off any purely aerodynamic calculation. Also missing is what the pilot and/or operator of the aircraft is trying to accomplish - is the plane late for a bank of arrivals/departures (i.e. flying fast)?, is the mission to save as much fuel as possible (fly optimum L/D speed)?, some combination of the two?, etc. Even throwing away these non-aerodynamic factors, the problem will require knowledge of the density profile with altitude (related to the temperature lapse rate) of the atmosphere on the particular day and time you are measuring. BTW, in the real world, airline pilots use a rule of thumb to determine the distance required for descent: 3 nautical miles for every 1000 feet of altitude - so a descent from 30,000 feet to the surface will take approximately 90 nm. This actually works out reasonably well. 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 Sat Nov 22 20:41:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 22 Nov 97 20:41:28 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Descent Calculator References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 21 Nov 1997, Ted Landy wrote: > I am trying work out how to create a small program to calculate > descent profiles for aircraft to load into a handheld computer. > I want to be able to enter height, speed, wind component and weight > to come up with a distance. > Originally I thought I could just enter a L/D ratio and presto come > with an answer. Unfortunately for me it is not so easy. For a given > IAS on descent the L/D seems to constantly change (increase). > > Does anyone know of any useful formulas, available programs or have > suggestions that may be of use to me? The behavior of airliners at changing Mach numbers is beyond my knowledge, but basic physics suggests a possible reason for the results that you are having. As the aircraft descends at constant indicated airspeed through air that is increasing in density as altitude decreases, the true speed will decrease. The resulting decrease in kinetic energy of the aircraft should be reflected in a stretched out glide compared to a calculation based only on the lift to drag ratio. Taking a 300,000 pound aircraft with a lift to drag ratio of 18, descending from cruise altitude where it has a true airspeed of 500 knots to pattern altitude where it has an airspeed of 250 knots, the kinetic energy at 500 knots would be about 3.3 billion foot pounds, and the kinetic energy at 250 knots would be about 825 million ft lb, for a decrease of about 2.5 billion ft lb. With the given lift to drag ratio of 18 and weight of 300,000 lb, the aircraft would need about 100 million ft lb of energy for each nautical mile that it travels in level flight. 2.5 billion ft lb would thus carry it an extra 25 nautical miles beyond what would be expected based on initial altitude and L/D ratio alone. Assuming the cruising altitude is 45,000 feet, and landing is at sea level, descending 45,000 feet at a glide ratio of 18 to one gives a glide distance of 810,000 ft or about 134 nautical miles. Adding the 25 miles from the kinetic energy decrease increases the glide by about 20 per cent. Is this enough to account for the numbers that you are getting? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:01 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , "Dave Pullan" wrote: >Which leads me to wonder, do the authorities not have other airports to >"suggest" to the capt to land at rather than close Heathrow, of all >airports. While I have not explored the availability of crash rescue >services at, for example Stansted, about 30 miles NE of Heathrow, and of >7000 feet runway length or more, if my memory is correct, it seems to me >that there should be a plan to keep UK's premiere airport from being closed >in most potential accidents. Of course, lives are the number one priority, >but I doubt a business jet with the same problem would have been allowed to >so easily disrupt aviation. I can't say how other countries would handle it but in the U.S., if I'm flying a plane and declare an emergency, ATC better well just do what I ask provided there's no technical reason they can't. Now gear extension problems don't fall in the "distress" (MAYDAY) category of emergency, at least not until you actually land but there are many distress situations where you need a suitable runway and you need it right now. I fly light twins and in those planes, with one engine inoperative, your go-around capability is zero. Once you put the gear down, the plane is descending. So if I do lose an engine, I'm going to be wanting to set it down on a longer runway than I normally need (so I can aim a couple of thousand feet down the runway and then if I come up short, I'm still landing on runway). If the nearest suitable runway is a major air carrier airport, that's where I'm going and we can deal with the aftermath after I'm down safely. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Schaumburg, IL, USA I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:02 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article thomas@nbnet.nb.ca "Dave Pullan" writes: >Which leads me to wonder, do the authorities not have other airports to >"suggest" to the capt to land at rather than close Heathrow, of all >airports. While I have not explored the availability of crash rescue >services at, for example Stansted, about 30 miles NE of Heathrow, and of >7000 feet runway length or more, if my memory is correct, it seems to me >that there should be a plan to keep UK's premiere airport from being closed >in most potential accidents. Of course, lives are the number one priority, >but I doubt a business jet with the same problem would have been allowed to >so easily disrupt aviation. This was discussed on uk.transport.air a few weeks ago. I think the key point was that the plane used up its fuel circling LHR in anticipation of a successful gear lowering (trying to G-force the gear down or find some other fix) so that in the end when a diversion to RAF Manston was suggested the fuel situation already necessatated LHR. -- -Niels From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:02 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Jon Krocker wrote: > The fuel is vaporized as it leaves the dump tube and by the time it hits > the ground it is spread out over such a vast area that it is virtually > undetectable. Remember the DM-SEA crash (Il-62) of Interflug on 14-aug-72 ? They dumped fuel in zero-wind conditions, made a turn and flew through their own fuel-vapors cloud. The vapours ignited on the four rear mounted engines (due to temperature) and the tail broke off in an explosion, 148 passengers and 8 crew died ... Just to tell you that vapours don't always hit the ground ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:02 From: Pete Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: - Reply-To: Pete Hughes In article , Colleen M Wabiszewski writes >>Question...KL also has operated DC8, 9, 10, and MD-11. So are there any >>(M)D aircraft KL has not operated? Just curious! > >KLM does not have any MD-80s or MD-90s, and has not ordered any MD-95s. But they're all DC9s anyway.... [Moderator's Note: Boeing DC-9s at that! :-) -- Karl] -- Pete From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium H Andrew Chuang (Chuanga@cris.com) wrote: : In article , : Michael F. Lechnar wrote: : >BTW: How many A310s are in use on long hauls from SE Asia to Europe vs. : >the number of 767s? : Other than ARIA (Aeroflot), I can't recall any airlines using A310s : between SE Asia and Europe (South Asia and Middle East, yes, but not SE : Asia). A few airlines that use the B767 between SE Asia and Europe : include Lauda, SAS, Royal Brunei, Vietnam, and, perhaps, Condor. Interflug (the airline of the former East Germany did use A310s between Berlin (that would be Schonefeldt) and Vietnam. And is THY a European or an Asian carrier? I think Istambul's airport is on the European side. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 From: 113417@ncren.net, 104@compuserve.com (Mike ) Subject: Payload - Is this correct? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: U-NET Ltd Reply-To: 113417@ncren.net, 104@compuserve.com I was reading Flight International's Commercial Aircraft of the World and was surprised to find the following: B777-200 Max payload (kg) 29050 A330-300 '' '' '' 48400 A340-300 '' '' '' 51300 Surely the 777 figure cannot be correct? Mike From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 From: Thorsten Nedderhut Subject: Datalink Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lido Projekt I am investigating what kind of datalink techniques airlines are using currently, e.g. ACARS (via ARINC, SITA, AIR CANADA and AVICOM subnetworks), SATCOM, Mode-S transponders (Levels 2 -4), HF Link. Ani Ideas? What about the future systems (ATN, VDL Mode 2 + 4)? Any committment by airlines? -- Thorsten Nedderhut Phone: +49-69-696-93885 Deutsche Lufthansa AG Fax: +49-69-696-91363 FRA OD Email: thorsten.nedderhut@lido.net D-60546 Frankfurt/Main, Germany From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 From: flynby@worldnet.att.net Subject: Does anybody have any real data for per hour costs B727/B737 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Can anyone give me some hard data for both the B727-200 & B737-200 (advanced models) on a per hour cost, i.e. maintenance skd/non skd and etc.... Thnx From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 From: "dstc47" Subject: Taxation of Aviation Fuel Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indigo Why is there so little obvious interest in plans by the European Community to permit taxation of aviation fuel by EU states? These are included in EU Energy Tax proposals. For the life of me I cannot see why the airlines, the aircraft manufacturers and private pilots have not expressed views on this. Is it that they do not care or is it that they do not believe it will happen? From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 From: Peter Ivakitsch Subject: Saudi MD-11's ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Interlog Internet Services Hello All, Can anyone advise as to the delay in delivery of Saudia Arabian Airline's MD-11's. A good friend of mine who was scheduled to transfer from the A-300 to the MD-11 has been told to expect to remain on the A-300 and was given no word as to the hold up. This all comes after he and several other crew members were trained and prepared to take delivery of the MD-11. The silence from SV is very strange as last we know the 4 MD-11's are sitting in Long Beach ready for delivery. Any information would be greatly appreciated. Regards Peter. From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Saudi MD-11's ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Can anyone advise as to the delay in delivery of Saudia Arabian >Airline's MD-11's. >... last we >know the 4 MD-11's are sitting in Long Beach ready for delivery. There were at least four Saudi 777s and one or two 747-400s on the flight line at Paine Field (Everett, WA) a month ago, too. The holdup apparently is financing -- I read something in AvLeak in the last week or so about a resolution being close, with deliveries expected to begin early next year. -- 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 Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: tjotoole@bit-net.com Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tjotoole@bit-net.com On 3 Nov 1997, James Matthew Weber wrote: > >- Are there other examples where radioactive materials are employed in > >civil a/c ? > > It dawns on me there is indeed, and it is on most aircraft. The Exit > signs that glow in the dark, use Tritium, the radioactive isotope of > Hydrogren to light them. It is essentially a luminous dial, but a lot > less hazardous than using radium. > > Tritium is a low energy Beta emitter, with a fairly short half life > (about 5 years I think). The Beta energy is sufficiently low that the > radiation is probably undetectable outside the sign. Not to mention that if your watch glows it contains tritium. Also tritium is used on night sights for firearms. It's relatively harmless. Tom From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Inland Northwest Community Access Network Woodhams (mdw@ccu1.auckland.ac.nz) wrote: : mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) writes: : >Actually 737-300/400/500 use tungsten weights in the wingtips. : >Tungsten is nearly as dense as uranium, but is much more difficult to : >fabricate. My recollection is 10kg per wingtip. : : 10 kg of Uranium (or Tungsten) would be a bit over half a litre at a : guess - a quite trivial volume compared to the size of a 737 wing. Why is : density so important? Why is a 10kg (half litre) of Tungsten so much : better than (say) 10kg (2 litre) of rock? A bit of a side line to this line: The Club Med, a wind powered ocean going racing vessel, had a U238 keel. It, the keel, came apart while the Club Med was in the South Pacific stranding it, the boat, in Tahiti. This was about 20 years ago. Perhaps one of the folks from that side of the planet recalls the story. John -- John There must be a famine comming. Why else would so many people From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat at home in our little cottage On 03 Nov 97 19:20:04 , in , I wrote: >Frequently the masses are used as mass balances on the aerodynamic >surfaces, ailerons and elevators for example, to help balance the air >load with a physical load, so the mass would be placed in front of the >pivot for such a surface. This helps to increase the flutter speed of >the surface AIUI. You don't want to make the balance weight as small as >possible to keep within the aerodynamic profile of the surface. Whoops, I meant you *do* want to keep the balance weight as small as possible, not you don't. Makes infinitely more sense that way... -- John Wright From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: nul@TCSconcordia.tor250.org (Coridon Henshaw) Subject: Radioactive material on CV990 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: FW Firestorm On Monday November 03 1997 at 02:18, tgg@hplb.hpl.hp.com wrote: > So, I'm not too worried about the radioactivity in > (presumably)depleted uranium weights. I have no knowledge of how > poisionous uranium is, but I suspect I ought to be more worried > about the combustion prodcuts resulting from a crash. DU's chemical toxicity, as a heavy metal, is a much bigger concern than its radioactivity. It will only combust if it's powdered. | This message does not reflect the views of Green Circle Communciations. | | OS/2 Warp - SCSI - free speech. Do I pick losing causes or what? | From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology Reply-To: see@above.edu les visiteurs du Web Bar wrote: > I can't imagine it > coming up for consideration at Boeing unless Boeing needs to increase > 777 production beyond the seven/month that the existing building can > handle. I would like to point out two things. 1) Boeing produces all its wide-body aircraft in one single building. 2) The 777 production area is not that large, as compared to the rest of the building. If Boeing wanted to produce a 10m stretch of the 777-300, I think that they could do it in the same building as where they produce the 777-300. Airports where such planes would land is another matter, of course..... From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> I can't imagine it >> coming up for consideration at Boeing unless Boeing needs to increase >> 777 production beyond the seven/month that the existing building can >> handle. >1) Boeing produces all its wide-body aircraft in one single building. True, but it's one building with seven or so separate bays. The 777 line occupies just one bay, with some spillover into an adjacent one (the easternmost bay) which is otherwise pretty much empty. >2) The 777 production area is not that large, as compared to the rest of >the building. > >If Boeing wanted to produce a 10m stretch of the 777-300, I think that >they could do it in the same building as where they produce the 777-300. Just because the rest of the building isn't used by the 777 line doesn't mean the place is empty. Other bays are used for the 767 and 747 production lines and other projects. Also, it's not one giant building, so an aircraft must fit within a bay even though the overall building is much larger. While the bays are big, they aren't *that* big. The last three positions (including the one in the bay adjacent to most of the 777 line), after the final body join, are "slant" positions which have the aircraft on a 45 degree angle, with the nose pointing southeast. Even the 777-200 covers a sizable portion of the width of the bay. It's not clear that something significantly bigger than the 777-300 would fit, which is probably why Boeing says it wouldn't. Converting the slant positions to straight-in configuration, moving one position to the largely unused bay, might be doable, but there is also the final body join and the stations preceding that where fuselage sections are outfitted. Reworking all of those might mean a major disruption to 777 production. Setting up an entirely new line for a new, longer version, would be quite expensive, plus there simply doesn't appear to be available space. The story could change if, say, the adjacent 767 line is moved to Long Beach, as has been mentioned as a possibility. -- 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 Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Overhead Bins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Several years ago, there was a FAA mandated inspection of the attachment bolts for overhead bins. IIRC, this was because of the British Midland crash (and several others) where the overhead bin attach bolts failed. At the same time, counterfeit aircraft fasteners were a growing FAA concern. Thus the inspection, which affected a large portion of the commercial fleet. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: "Steven G. Thomson" Subject: Re: aborted takeoff and brake damage References: <5vd1f7$ntk@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc > in my days as a 707 FE, we had charts provided to let us know how > long the landing gear had to be left extended to cool them down in > in the event of an aborted takeoff immediately followed by a success- > ful takeoff. Would taking off and planning to leave the gear down for a few extra minutes during the initial climb have a significant impact on the rate of climb and therefore obstruction clearance/takeoff weight? -- Steven From kls Sun Nov 23 03:04:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 23 Nov 97 03:04:04 From: domk1031@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Boeing decisions on Douglas products 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 21 Nov 97 01:59:54 , marguet@MIT.EDU wrote: >> True, but one of the options Boeing recently considered as a counter >> to a possible A3XX was resurrecting the MD-12 -- the 500-600 seater >> with four 777-class engines, not the re-winged MD-11. This option >> would allow Boeing to offer a new aircraft, in lieu of a further 747 >> derivative, but with a quicker time-to-market since much of the >> groundwork has already been done. > >What about the Blended-Wing-Body project of MD ? I attended few week ago >a conference by Dr Liebeck Boeing's program manager for the project. >Liebeck said clearly that the BWB is a rival to the A3XX. IIRC, BWB and flying wing designs can by no means be made to comply with current cabin emergency egress rules. Additionally, the optimum cruise Mach number of both BWB and FW concepts may be well below today's standard Mach 0,78-0,85 range, thus posing some ATC scheduling/separation inconveniencies. Same problem applies to HLFC. Ground infrastructure compatibility is another issue. Last but not least, the market is terribly biased against "exotic" configurations. Burkhard Domke From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:48 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 ... >>>a logo or a decal ? >>Yes. It's a logo, and almost certainly applied to the aircraft using >>a decal. >3M made the decal. On one of the first flights (with the new logo >decals) many pieces fell off enroute to LAX. CI was very unhappy >with 3M. 3M claimed the decal didn't work as expected because of >the high humidity in Taiwan. I believe the problem has since been >resolved. Apparently they resolved the problem using brute force -- it seems that Boeing has rolled CI's last several 747-400s out of the paint hangar at Everett with blank tails, whereupon four or five Chinese artists show up and *airbrush* the flower design onto the tail by hand! (Ok, maybe they do it while it's still in the paint hangar. Wherever it's done, it's not 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 Mon Nov 24 03:27:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:48 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Saudi MD-11's ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article rollers@interlog.com "Peter Ivakitsch" writes: >Can anyone advise as to the delay in delivery of Saudia Arabian >Airline's MD-11's. A good friend of mine who was scheduled to transfer >from the A-300 to the MD-11 has been told to expect to remain on the >A-300 and was given no word as to the hold up. This all comes after he >and several other crew members were trained and prepared to take >delivery of the MD-11. The silence from SV is very strange as last we >know the 4 MD-11's are sitting in Long Beach ready for delivery. Any >information would be greatly appreciated. I have read (World Airline Fleets News [Nov] via `Blue Print') that one of the four MD-11s (they are all Fs) is now bound for Citybird and another to Virgin (both as freighters). However, the report does descibe this as speculative info. (Though, yes, Virgin does seem interested in a -freighter- as they recently started joint freight ops with Malaysian using a Malaysian MD-11F). -- -Niels From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:48 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Saudi MD-11's ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Peter Ivakitsch wrote: >Can anyone advise as to the delay in delivery of Saudia Arabian >Airline's MD-11's. A good friend of mine who was scheduled to transfer >from the A-300 to the MD-11 has been told to expect to remain on the >A-300 and was given no word as to the hold up. This all comes after he >and several other crew members were trained and prepared to take >delivery of the MD-11. The silence from SV is very strange as last we >know the 4 MD-11's are sitting in Long Beach ready for delivery. Any >information would be greatly appreciated. Saudi has problem securing financing for the new aircraft. According to one report, Saudi is expected to start receiving the new aircraft (i.e., the MD-11F, MD-90, B777, etc) early next year. From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:48 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >I would like to know what happens in the domain of the Superfan engines. >A bit of history may be interesting. The Superfan -Ultra high bypass- >engines were initially foreseen to be mounted on the A340. IAE intended >to build a variant of the V2500 engine which incorporated a gearbox >driven, variable pitch ducted fan added to the front of the 2500 core. >Calculated fuel savings of 20% compared to classic engines were >expected. The idea came up in Dec-86 and was cancelled in Apr-87 due to >technical risks. >- What's the status on UHB engines nowadays, is it under >development/trials (PW/RR/GE/IAE/CFM ...) somewhere ? I believe PW is probably the leader in this technology due to its past experience developing a gearbox-driven propfan to compete with GE's unducted fan (UDF). PW was very interested in developing an Advance Ducted Prop (ADP) engine. However, I have not heard much about it, lately. I am not aware either GE or RR being actively pursuing this approach. >- Have similar/simplified techniques been adopted in the GE90 or Trent's >? If you are referring to gearbox-driven and variable-pitch fan, then the answer is no. >- What about reliability, weight, costs, would they not reduce the >expected cost advantage (-20% for fuel) ? I don't think weight is an issue. Even though you will have a much larger fan, there will be less fan blades and you won't need a thrust reverser because of the variable-pitch fan. However, you can find out about the reliability only when it's in the field. From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:48 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:48 From: "Mihir Shah" Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia David Ecale wrote in message ... > The Russians went on to design (well some of the specs >*were* smuggled out of France in toothpaste tubes) the Tu144. This >was a contender until the spectacular crash at the 1968 Paris Air >Show. Did this happen in 1968? That was the year the Tu-144 was _introduced_, I thought. IIRC, the crash at the Paris Air Show happened in 1973, or thereabouts (I definitely recall it being in the early 1970's, at least). Actually, I just found a web site: http://www.iranian.com/History/June97/IranAir/index.shtml , which does say that crash was in '73. >After that, only Aeroflot purchased *that* bird. Were there going to be any other serious customers anyways, even without the crash? I can't imagine any airline based in the West that would even consider it. Even Eastern Bloc nations probably didn't consider it too much, at least not before Aeroflot itself started serious service (which they never did, of course). In other words, I couldn't really picture Interflug or LOT purchasing a Tu-144. Who else? China did not have good relations with the Soviets at the time, I believe. Cuba? North Korea? I'm curious on this one (i.e.: potential non-Aeroflot customers of the Tu-144, if there were any). _____________ Mihir Shah mishah@vt.edu From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Andrew Weir writes: >Without its extra speed, the only thing giving it an edge, it was useless >(with the exception of some Atlantic and maybe polar routes). The great >mystery to me is why the sonic bang problem was not addressed before the >prototype flew. And as for its normal noise, ever heard one of them >take-off? Ouch. I don't know why people make such a big deal about the noise of the concord on take off. It really isn't much louder than a Harrier Jump jet hovering over your head. ;-) From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia >Surely the main reason was very simple, and is the heart of why all civil >supersonic transports are fundamentally unsound (quite apart from take-off >noise, pollution and the ozone layer depletion)? Nobody will tolerate >sonic bangs over land. To the uninitiated, describing a sonic bang ("boom" >is a complete misnomer) is simple: it is simply the loudest noise you ever >heard in your life. It was more than just the sonic boom. The aircraft was is exceptionally noisey. I have friends who used to live in Twyford UK, just outside Reading. They were directly under the path of Concorde for the trip to JFK, and about 35 miles from the end of the runway. Everyafternoon about 4PM the whole house rattled. Came to call it 4 o'clock Concorde. It was simply amazing how loud the thing was, and if you looked, you could find it in the sky, but my guess is that it went over at something around 15,000 feet. I have also been number 1 for takeoff in a 747 behind Concorde, and it is a pretty good racket even inside the 747. I subsequently met up with a gentlemen who had worked on the design of the engines, and he admitted that the noise level behind and below the Olympus engines was very very high. From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: glenn@ims.uni-stuttgart.de (Glenn Carroll) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers 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: IMS, University of Stuttgart In article , don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) writes: |> I don't believe the airlines lost money on Concorde any more than an airline |> "loses" money on any new aircraft ... [Thus] leaving the |> French & British Governments wearing the development costs. While both gov'ts ended up paying for their foolishness, the finger of guilt can be pointed somewhat more precisely than previous postings have done. On the British side, the Ministry of Transport refused to let the Ministry of Finance check their numbers, fearing (rightly) that the project might get cancelled. About half-way through the project, with the budget already exceeded, the MoT realized it's mistake. Well, one of their mistakes. The other was signing a contract which required the permission of the French to withdraw from the project. The French refused. It would be interesting to know how the Airbus Industrie partnership contracts read, in light of the above. glenn -- Glenn Carroll glenn@ims.uni-stuttgart.de Institut fuer Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung Azenbergstr. 12 70174 Stuttgart (49)711-121-1387 office Germany (49)711-121-1366 fax From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: AIRJET II Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: AirJet@ http://home.att.net/~AIRJET/ The Concorde was one of the best examples of how NOT to build an aircraft. The inefficies were tremendous. Airbus learned from the Concorde experience and has since been successful. The United States gained a huge lead in the transport market after W.W.II. While the Europeans concentrated on fighter aircraft during the war, the United States concentrated on bomber transports which later were used in civil airline designs. The Concorde was the first big effort by the European consortium to enter the civil market. It was considered a failure at the time. However, from that failure they gained insight on how to do it the right way several years later with the introduction of the A-300 and future Airbus aircraft. Certainly Lockhead and Douglas lost there way over the years allowing Airbus to become a major player. The supersonic market was killed in the late 60s and 70s by the Green movement. Boeing dropped the SST in response to the political environment at the time, however, they never totally set it aside, waiting for technology developments and political changes instead. The aircraft manufactures have learned a great deal since the development of the Concorde. Like the British Comet, the Americans have sit back and learned by the mistakes of others.. The Boeing 707 was a safer aircraft because of the Comet experiences. The 707 also took advantage of the bad press that the Comet received during its development and became a huge success in its time. From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University David Ecale writes: > All 3 groups started working apace. The Boeing project was > cancelled when Boeing figured out that it would *never* recoup the > development costs. No, Boeing cancelled the 2707 when Congress cut funding. No one ever assumed that development could be supported commercially. Lockheed, Douglas, and Boeing all made proposals, and boeing got the contract. > So, in retrospect, the Concorde & Tu144 were terrible > financial disasters to those who produced them. The only customers > who bellied up to the bar in the end to purchase them were captive > carriers of the respective governments who produced them. The next try > by the Europeans was the A300 Airbus. This followed the lead of the > B747 & created a (medium haul) cattle car. It was a (still subsidised, > but who isn't these days,) commercial success. Well, I recall reading an estimate (in Aviation Week) that the 2707 would be *cheaper* to fly than a 747 by 1980; the capacity would still be smaller (not by *that* much; the 2707 was designed to grow to 300 pax or more), but speed and savings in crew salaries would compensate. The study assumed stable fuel prices, however, and we all know that didn't happen. I suspect that crew salaries have also risen far less than projected in 1970. Concorde failed because of the "tenor of the times", as you put it: new environmental concerns ranging to near-hysteria in some circles, as well as bad times in the airline industry. It was also designed for only transatlantic range, and overland routes were denied because of sonic booms. One wonders what a longer-range, faster SST would do on, say, an LAX-NRT route... -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: tassio@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Andrew Weir wrote: >Surely the main reason was very simple, and it is in the heart of why all civil >supersonic transports are fundamentally unsound (...) >Nobody will tolerate >sonic bangs overland. To the uninitiated, describing a sonic bang ("boom" >is a complete misnomer) is simple: it is the loudest noise you ever >heard in your life. I am so glad you posted because we finally have a participant in these forums who is an expert in sonic booms. I am one of these "uninitiated" and here is what I've been wanting to know for ages: The noise level generated by a sonic boom is a function of the distance from the source of noise. Sitting at the nose of the plane, I'll hear the loudest thing on Earth. If one is a couple of hundred miles from the source, he won't hear a thing. Now imagine the Concorde takes off from JFK, goes up to is cruising level (60000ft?), and then crosses the sound barrier right above my head. How much noise will I perceive? If it is a heck of a lot, then you are right. If it is not, then the ban imposed by the US on supersonic flights over its own land was a political knee jerk to assure the Concorde was a failure. Tassio From kls Mon Nov 24 03:27:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 24 Nov 97 03:27:49 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Now imagine the Concorde takes off from JFK, goes up to is cruising >level (60000ft?), and then crosses the sound barrier right above my >head. How much noise will I perceive? I was at Edwards AFB for their recent airshow, which included an SR-71B doing a Mach 3 flyover at about 75,000 ft. The boom sounded like a couple of gunshots from a few hundred yards. I don't know if lower speed would reduce the intensity (I have a feeling it wouldn't) but lower altitude and a larger aircraft would probably cancel out any advantage of lower speed. >If it is a heck of a lot, then you are right. If it is not, then the >ban imposed by the US on supersonic flights over its own land was a >political knee jerk to assure the Concorde was a failure. While not tremendous, I can see how the noise could be startling and thus worse than a conventional jet flying over at a few thousand feet, especially if it happened a number of times per day, every day. There was also the matter of engine noise on takeoff. Having heard a Concorde departure when the aircraft was about fifteen miles out from Heathrow, I can easily understand why nobody wanted the thing around. The racket must be horrific up close. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ Moderator of sci.aeronautics.airliners -- Unix/network work pays the bills From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:04 From: domk1031@sp.zrz.tu-berlin.de (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Superfan 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 22 Nov 97 20:41:27 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >I would like to know what happens in the domain of the Superfan engines. > >[...] > >- What about reliability, weight, costs, would they not reduce the >expected cost advantage (-20% for fuel) ? A major obstacle is the non-availability of a 50.000+ SHP gearbox satisfying the weight, reliability, durability and cost requirements. Fuel expenses typically account for cca 25% of the DOC. Hence a decrease in TSFC by 20% would translate into a meager 5% overall advantage, given the highly unlikely case there were no additional costs inherited with geared, shrouded Propfans over conventional turbomachinery. Burkhard From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com H Andrew Chuang wrote: > >- What's the status on UHB engines nowadays, is it under > >development/trials (PW/RR/GE/IAE/CFM ...) somewhere ? > > I believe PW is probably the leader in this technology due to its past > experience developing a gearbox-driven propfan to compete with GE's > unducted fan (UDF). PW was very interested in developing an Advance > Ducted Prop (ADP) engine. However, I have not heard much about it, > lately. I am not aware either GE or RR being actively pursuing this > approach. > > >- What about reliability, weight, costs, would they not reduce the > >expected cost advantage (-20% for fuel) ? > > I don't think weight is an issue. Even though you will have a much > larger fan, there will be less fan blades and you won't need a thrust > reverser because of the variable-pitch fan. However, you can find out > about the reliability only when it's in the field. With todays engines being very close one-another, this UHB technique would have the potential to provide an important technical leadership to one of the three engine makers. Is the risk and/or the development costs that high that nobody even wants to build a prototype of an existing engine with UHB technique. Just imagine that one of the three engine-makers for the 777 would go for the UHB technique. The range advantages would be so dramatic that the two other competitors could stop produicing their engines ... I'm just dreaming :-) ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:05 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca C. Marin Faure wrote: > For the record, we no longer use the terms A-market, B-market. It was > one of those ideas that seemed good at the time, but.... I am not a Boeing customer, and if I were, I am sure that someone at Boeing would have sat down with me and explained all the numbering schemes for the 777 and the 737, both of which have spawned lots of new numbers in recent years. I have no problems with the 747 because the numbers, except for the SP and SR were pretty well in increasing. The bigger the number, the bigger and better the plane. Same with the 767-200 and 767-300 (some of which have the ER tag). But I got confused with the 777 right from the start. Seems to me that the "200" is wasted text since it is meaningless as there are so many 777-200 variants. If Boeing were interested in preventing confusion in the general public (or enthousiats) it would have stuck to a more logical naming scheme. Sound to me like Boeing got its new super efficient CAD/CAM tools for the 777, and like a kid with a new LEGO set, is building as many variants as it can in the shortest amount of time :-) :-) In the past design time was long enough that one model had been out flying for years before the next one would come along. But now, I think that design times have been tremendously shortened and it gets harder to follow what products are actually out there. From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:06 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I am not a Boeing customer, and if I were, I am sure that someone at >Boeing would have sat down with me and explained all the numbering >schemes for the 777 and the 737, both of which have spawned lots of new >numbers in recent years. I am sure they would have invested far more effort in explaining to you the capabilities of their products rather than the minutia of their naming conventions. >But I got confused with the 777 right from the start. Seems to me that >the "200" is wasted text since it is meaningless as there are so many >777-200 variants. The -200 suffix refers to a specific size. There's only one named variant, the -200IGW. Within those two variants, a customer can choose many options including different engines and different MGTOW, but that's no different than any other aircraft -- Airbus offers at least four engine choices for the A320-200 (CFM56 and IAE V2500, each in at least two different thrust levels) and varying MGTOW for the aircraft depending on needs. >If Boeing were interested in preventing confusion in the general public >(or enthousiats) it would have stuck to a more logical naming scheme. Therein lies your answer -- I'm sure Boeing doesn't give a tinker's damn about enthusiasts' confusion over their designations. As for the general public, many know what a 747 is, but beyond that, most people are clueless. -- 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 Nov 25 03:26:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:06 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > Boeing usually lists "standard" and "option" figures for any given > model. An airline can order one of a number of variations between > these extremes. On the 777-200 (non-IGW), MGTOW now ranges from > 506,000 lbs (229,520 kg) to 545,000 lbs (247,210 kg). United wanted > greater range, so their launch order was for 525,000 lbs MGTOW; they > were delivered at 535,000 lbs and have since been upgraded to the > full 545,000 lbs. How did they upgrade those birds ?? The 777-200nonIGW has engines rated between 74,000 and 77,000 lbs thrust. As you stated above the MGTOW also changes. I was told that those changes can be made by simple reprogramming of the FMS software (for the MGTOW) and the FADEC (for the engines). Some money will of course also change the owner. Are there *really* no other differences between the various 777-200nonIGW models? The same logic should apply for the different 777-200IGW variants. The differences between 777-200nonIGW and 777-200IGW are (in addition to FADEC and FMS software), stronger structures and the center tank, making it impossible to convert a nonIGW to an IGW 777. Correct ? ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:06 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> United wanted greater range, so their launch order was for 525,000 >> lbs MGTOW; they were delivered at 535,000 lbs and have since been >> upgraded to the full 545,000 lbs. >How did they upgrade those birds ?? The 777-200nonIGW has engines rated >between 74,000 and 77,000 lbs thrust. As you stated above the MGTOW also >changes. I was told that those changes can be made by simple >reprogramming of the FMS software (for the MGTOW) and the FADEC (for >the engines). Despite many published statements that United's non-IGW 777-200s have PW4077 engines, they actually have PW4084 engines that are derated to 77,000 lbs thrust. (Anyone wishing to argue otherwise should first check the dataplate on one of them.) So, they could have increased the thrust by a FADEC change, though to my knowledge they did not. (The PW4090 engines on United's 777-222IGWs are different, so they could not similarly upgrade a PW4084 to a PW4090.) Aircraft built for higher weights can have their MGTOW upgraded with a simple FMS change and appropriate paperwork (including payment to Boeing), but United's 777s include some of the first ones off the production line. It's possible that structural modifications were required before they could be upgraded to the higher MGTOW. It's also possible that with continued stress testing, Boeing found that the basic design was stronger than they thought, in which case it might have been a simple FMS and paperwork change. >Are there *really* no other differences between the various >777-200nonIGW models? I don't know about the non-IGW, but for the IGW, I'm told there's no structural difference between the lowest weight IGW and the highest, assuming you're comparing planes with engines from the same manufacturer. >The differences between 777-200nonIGW and 777-200IGW are (in addition >to FADEC and FMS software), stronger structures and the center tank, >making it impossible to convert a nonIGW to an IGW 777. Correct ? There are also some changes in the avionics and maintenance computers and probably other details, and different engines (not just FADEC programming), but you're essentially correct. -- 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 Nov 25 03:26:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:06 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>A carrier operating 767-300ERs with PW4000 engines may have worked up >>to 180 min authority, but if they added some 767-300ERs with CF6-80C2 >>engines ... > >Now why would any airline be crazy enough to do that?! Oh, I forgot >you work for the engine-type-of-the-month club, er, Delta. :-) Qantas has both JT9D- and CF6-powered B767s. At one time, Air New Zealand had the same (when it acquired two China Airlines' JT9D-powered B767s). I believe ANZ has since sold the two odd planes. From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>>A carrier operating 767-300ERs with PW4000 engines may have worked up >>>to 180 min authority, but if they added some 767-300ERs with CF6-80C2 >>>engines ... >>Now why would any airline be crazy enough to do that?! Oh, I forgot >>you work for the engine-type-of-the-month club, er, Delta. :-) >Qantas has both JT9D- and CF6-powered B767s. Yes, though they bought the JT9D on their 767-200s, then switched to GE for their 767-300s. There's also UPS, with PW2000s on their early 757s, then RB.211s on the later ones. In each case, they switched to what they felt was a better (operationally and/or financially) engine. Malasian, I believe, bought 747s with engines from all three manufacturers, at the behest of their government. Not very logical, but sometimes one doesn't have much choice. The Delta comment was a bit of an inside joke, however. Several friends who read the group know that I've long been befuddled by Delta's 767 engine choices, which unlike the Qantas and UPS cases make no sense whatsoever, IMO. First, Delta bought the 767-200 with GE engines. They stuck with GE for their 767-300 orders, too. Fine so far. Then, they decided to buy 767-300(ER)s. Rather than buying more GE engines, they equipped these aircraft with PW4000s, an engine with which they had no experience and which has a lower in-flight shutdown rate than the GEs they were already flying. While taking delivery of these PW4000-equipped 767-300(ER)s, Delta was concurrently taking delivery of brand-new CF6-80-equipped 767-300s for domestic use. They finally switched to the PW4000 for their last two non-ER 767-300s, creating yet another subfleet. Now they've gone and ordered more 767-300(ER)s and guess what engines they have? Nope, not PW4000s like the earlier ERs, these will have CF6-80 engines! Looking beyond the 767s, Delta has a menagerie of other engines -- the JT8D (727 and 737-200), JT8D-200 (MD-80), CFM56 (737-300), IAE V2500 (MD-90), PW2000 (757), and RB.211 (L-1011). Their 777s will have RR Trents. They again got rid of the JT9D (in addition to the A310-200s, they had them for the short time they had 747s). Other than exotic stuff like the RR Olympus (Concorde) and Russian engines, the only other large jets I can think of which Delta does *not* have are the RR Tay and related engines and the BMWRR BR700-series. Now that the MD-95 is a Boeing product, they can add some BR700s without straying from their stated intent of buying only Boeing. Whoever created this mess must be insane. IMO. :-) -- 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 Nov 25 03:26:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:07 From: "Rob Wells (WLL)" Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre John Mackesy wrote: > There's a book about this event, titled "All Four Engines Have Failed", by > Betty Toottell, published 1985 by Andre Deutsch Ltd. - I have it before me. > There is no mention of APU, but it does say (p52) that the windmilling > engines continued to provide electrical and hydraulic power. > > It's a good read and has some excellent pix of ash damage to engines. Do they mention the name of the "gliding club" that was formed afterwards? Or the name of the volcano that was erupting? [Moderator's Note: It's already been mentioned in this thread that the volcano was Mt. Galunggung. -- Karl] Rob W. -- Rob Wells "The hardest part about making a movie... is cutting all those tiny holes in the edges of the film. After that, everything's easy." - Mel Brooks @ INTERNET: robert.wells@eurocontrol.fr CompuServe: 100272,3004 From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:07 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:07 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin David Lesher wrote: > > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > >All ETOPS twins must be able to immediately start their APUs at cruising > >altitude even after hours of cold-soaking. > > Could you not just heat the APU's normally, given you will be > starting it ASAP if you lose an engine anyhow? "Heating the APU normally" is descending into warm air and allowing it to warm up due to the ambient temperature :-) > ISTM you're not > short of waste heat in-flight but maybe I'm wrong. You're short of waste heat if all the engines are windmilling and you need to start the APU. Even if an engine is running, I think there's probably no provision for "heating" the APU from engine bleed air. > On the ground, standby power Diesels have their water-jackets kept > warm to ensure they will start quickly and easily. Diesels are VERY different beaties from APUs. APUs don't have water jackets, for one thing. Also, I doubt that there is a provision for pre-heating the lubricating oil either (weight penalty) and besides, hot lubricating oil *still* won't heat a cold-soaked combustor on a turbine engine (an APU is just a turboshaft engine, after all). > And how are ETOPS APU's started; is bleed air an option, or just > electricity? AFAIK, APUs are electric start. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:08 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Karl Swartz wrote: > Setting up an entirely new line for a new, longer version, would be > quite expensive, plus there simply doesn't appear to be available > space. The story could change if, say, the adjacent 767 line is > moved to Long Beach, as has been mentioned as a possibility. A while back, there was a documentary on the US "TLC" network about the 747. Quite a bit of time was spent showing the efforts and troubles Boeing had to deal with in building a new plant before it could even build the first 747. It necessitated the building of a railway, huge hangars in mud filled areas (they had to be paved to allow the trucks to move around during construction). I have no idea if the current production facilities date back from the original 747 production, but I would assume that if there is a big enough market, Boeing would build a new hangar/plant/bay to accomodate the longer fuselage. But the bigger question is whether Boeing could politically/legally use the McD facilities it now owns. [Moderator's Note: The 767 and 777 are assembled in the same facilities which were originally built for the 747, though they've been expanded significantly since the early 1970s. -- Karl] From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:08 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:08 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@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 Malcolm Weir (malc@mci2000.com) wrote: >On 20 Nov 97 02:53:39 , fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) caused to >appear as if it was written: >>H Andrew Chuang (Chuanga@cris.com) wrote: >>: Both GE and P&W are unwilling to commit to ~105K-lb-thrust engine >>: necessary for the B777-200X/300X program. The argument is the projected >>: market size does not justify the development costs. I can >>This argument does not play for the engine makers. These engines could be >>useful for a future 777-400. A small, long-distance derivate increases the >>market for the engine. >Sorry? I don't understand this point! I attempted to say that an engine for a proposed ultra-long range 777-200X or 777-300X could also be used for a hypothetical stretched 777-400. This increases the uses and potential market for the engine. >The claim appears to be that GE and P&W are being disingenuous when they >claim that there is an insufficient market for a engine in the 105K-lb >range, although RR think otherwise (or more accurately, RR feel that the >cost of producing theirs is worth the risk, and the others don't GIVEN the >fact that RR is producing one anyway). >This engine would be required for the 777-200X, which doesn't exist AT ALL >at the moment, yet Filip tries to justify it based on another product that >is even less of an aircraft? Hey this is Usenet, too much reality is bad for the discussion! :-) Seriously, I think the Jumbo, and its high-by-pass turbofans were a lot more of a scale-break than what we are discusing right now. With the exception of the Galaxy military trnasport, their were no other projected uses for such engines. The engines and the aircraft were deeloped concurrently. >Has anyone (in the industry) even *talked* about a 777-400? I have no doubt :-) >>: understand that the B777-200X to be very small (which, I belive, Boeing >>: estimated at around 200 units for the next 20 years), but the B777-300X >> >>...while Boeing has to support the cost of delivering the derivate with a ^^^^^^^^^^ ... that should have been 'developing' >>small production run. >... which they are currently conspicuosly NOT doing... >Given that Boeing has yet to finalize the plans for a 777-200X, and as far >as I know is absolutely NOT talking about a 777-400, it would seem pretty >dumb to build an engine just in case Boeing wakes up one morning and decides >to build one. >Anyway, what would a 777-400 be? A stretched -300? That would be useful... >provided you stretched a few airports while you're at it... Wouldn't be the first time, remember the 747? _All airports had to be adapted for that one, just like the previous time, when 707 and DC-8 jet-transports were brought into service. At Amsterdam, two gates at a dedicated Jumbo-pier had to be re-build, because the over-wing-airbridge was too low for the 777. At this dedicated facility, one airbridge conventionally connects to one of the doors forward of the wing, while another is suspended over the wing, and connects to a door after the wing, or possibly the overwing door on the 747. I look forward to your comments about the future 747 stretches or the A3XX or NLA :-) And finally I bring under your attention that not a single airline ordered Boeing's foldable wing-tip 777s. Instead, airports and airlines adapted to the airplane, not the other way round. >>: should be a winner. There are about 1,200 B747s ordered. Most of >>: them can be replaced by the B777-300/-300X. From a marketing >> >>Let alone a 777-400. >So, lemme see, you are suggesting that, while the average 747 classic can be >replaced with a 777-300, airlines would rush out and buy these mythical >777-400's instead? Or are you suggesting that a 747-400 would be replaced Why not? Those extra pax will appeal in the same way operators ordering 757-300 or 767-400 like their extra capacity. Surely JAL and ANA will prefer to fly 500 passengers between HND and KIX with only two, new, low-consumption and low-maintenance engines instead of four older and more costlier ones? >by B777-400, which is rather against Boeing's best interests.... Why build It is in Boeings best interest to offer diverse solutions to customers' problems. Look at the fortunes of McDonnel-Douglas, which cut the DC-8 so as not to compete with the DC-10. >a B747-400 replacement when you're (frantically trying to sort out) building >B747-400s? 8-) Boeing right now is extending just about all product lines so they overlap: 737-900/757-200 757-300/767-200 767-400/777-200 Assuming that it will do the same for the top of the range requires no stretch of the imagination. I think Boeing will first get 737, 757 and 767 stretches into the air, then concentrate on the 747, and only then return to the 777. As I recall, the 767 was designed for the second stretch (the -400) and TOW of up to 400.000 pounds right from the start. I would be surprised Boeing did not build this capability into the 777 airframe. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:09 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Boeing right now is extending just about all product lines so they >overlap: 737-900/757-200 These do overlap in seat count for standard two-class configs, but the 757 has *far* greater range and can handle substantially more seats in a single-class, tight-pitch, inclusive tour layout. The 737-900 offers a cheaper alternative for carriers who don't need that range capability and don't plane on flying sardines. >757-300/767-200 These don't really overlap because the 767-200 is no longer offered. (It's still built as a military airframe, though.) >767-400/777-200 These don't overlap, either -- for comparable configurations, Boeing's numbers say the 777-200 seats 70-90 more passengers than the 767-400. >I think Boeing will first get 737, 757 and 767 stretches into the air, >then concentrate on the 747, and only then return to the 777. The first three have already been launched, so that's a pretty safe bet. Between the 747 and 777, it depends on what the airlines decide they want. If they want lots and lots of seats, the next 747 variant may be the next to launch, but the market case for an even bigger plane doesn't seem to be all the strong. Greater range seems to be more interesting. Buying from Boeing, airlines have a choice of a heavier 777, which will be cheaper to buy and to operate but which will have ETOPS to deal with, or one of several 747 variants. I wouldn't bet against the 777, especially since American has already said they'd be interested, and Crandall won't buy a 747. >As I recall, the 767 was designed for the second stretch (the -400) >and TOW of up to 400.000 pounds right from the start. If so, the job was only halfway done, since they had to change the landing gear to accomodate the extra length of the 767-400. That's a pretty expensive change. -- 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 Nov 25 03:26:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:09 From: Steve Lacker Subject: "Boeing" DC-9?? (was Re: Douglas DC-5) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Pete wrote: > >KLM does not have any MD-80s or MD-90s, and has not ordered any MD-95s. > > But they're all DC9s anyway.... > > [Moderator's Note: Boeing DC-9s at that! :-) -- Karl] What is the official deal with that anyway? I've heard some airlines have started referring to MD-80/90's as "Boeing" airplanes. Does this mean that we should call it a "Boeing" DC-5? "Boeing" DC-7c? I think not! Chrysler bought AMC, but if you call someone's 1969 AMX a "Dodge" you'd better prepare for an argument... (both from Dodge *and* AMX drivers, actually... :-) So does the official name change apply to aircraft lines that are still in production during/after the buyout? In other words, the MD-11 and MD 80/90 are "Boeings", but the DC-10 is still a McDD? That would make some sense to me. (Actually, I think anything that was designed by Douglas should still be *called* a Douglas, but thats too confusing for the general masses.) -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:09 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:09 From: Sjoerd Postma Subject: de-icing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NLR-VV Reply-To: Postma@nlr.nl Does anybody know if groundcrew responsible for de-icing aircraft need a dedicated license by FAA? Of course the ultimate responsibility of accepting the aircraft after a de-icing/anti-icing treatment lies with the pilot-in-command, but still. So far I know there is no special requirement in Europe and most companies do some kind of an in-house training program for their de-icing crews. I know there is some concern, that those responsible for de-icing aircraft, particularly at smaller airports, or those in locations that experienced infrequent ground icing, were not so competent at carrying out the task. In addition, that the fluids and equipment used to deliver it, was felt to be sometimes of unknown quality. Sjoerd Postma From kls Tue Nov 25 03:26:10 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 25 Nov 97 03:26:10 From: trevfenn Subject: Re: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Jon Krocker wrote: > In article , trevfenn > wrote: > > >Not all that puzzling really, If they dumped fuel there would have been > >an outcry from the uninformed public about the plane pouring fuel all over > >their houses or whatever. Burning it instead of dumping it achieves the > >same result without feeding a media frenzy. > > The fuel is vaporized as it leaves the dump tube and by the time it hits > the ground it is spread out over such a vast area that it is virtually > undetectable. Yes, Quite correct. As a pilot myself I am aware that any fuel dumped at around 6000 feet or more will not have an impact on the ground below. Try convincing the public of that fact though. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:24 From: les visiteurs du Web Bar Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ImagiNET Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > If Boeing wanted to produce a 10m stretch of the 777-300, I think that > they could do it in the same building as where they produce the 777-300. > > Airports where such planes would land is another matter, of course..... According to AvWeek (during discussion of the 747-600X), existing airports can handle planes up to 280 feet. Adding 10 meters (the length difference between the 777-200 and the 777-300) to a 777-300 would still be (just) under 280 feet. It should (again according to AvWeek) be able to turn around between terminals at existing airports. M Carling mATbangDOTorg (address altered to reduce spamming) From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:24 From: k_ish Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Karl Swartz wrote: > These don't really overlap because the 767-200 is no longer offered. > (It's still built as a military airframe, though.) I was totally unaware the 767-200 was ever in military use, except for the prototype airborne laser testbed with the cupola on top. Please educate me. Thanks; Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I was totally unaware the 767-200 was ever in military use, except for >the prototype airborne laser testbed with the cupola on top. Please >educate me. The 767's military use (other than the experiment you mention, using 767 line number 1) is as the 767 AWACS. As far as I know, they've only been built for Japan and are designated 767-27C by Boeing (7C is simply Boeing's customer code for the Government of Japan) and as the E-767 by the Japan Air Self Defense Force. For more information, see http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/infoelect/767awacs/. Boeing has also proposed the 767 as a military tanker/transport (see http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/767t-t/) but I haven't heard of much military interest in this project to date. -- 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 Nov 29 03:24:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:25 From: "Tirtag" Subject: Iberias japanese deal Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I've heard that Iberia has lease financed a big deal via japanese banks. Does anybody know which planes the spanish airliner is going to get delivered? And how many? From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:25 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: "Boeing" DC-9?? (was Re: Douglas DC-5) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Steve Lacker wrote: > What is the official deal with that anyway? I've heard some airlines > have started referring to MD-80/90's as "Boeing" airplanes. Does this > mean that we should call it a "Boeing" DC-5? "Boeing" DC-7c? I think > not! Chrysler bought AMC, but if you call someone's 1969 AMX a "Dodge" > you'd better prepare for an argument... (both from Dodge *and* AMX > drivers, actually... :-) The Dash-8 by DeHavilland changed hands a few times in recent times. The government owned it for a while, then it became the Boeing Dash-8. (Qantas still has posters etc showing a BOEING Dash-8.). But now Bombardier owns deHavilland and you'll often see the Bombardier logo on existing Dash-8s. I suspect that part of the maintenance involves putting up the bombardier logo :-) In the case of McD, I think that the anti-trust rules do prevent Boeing from really merging operations. Bombardier was able to join the various manufacturers (Canadair, Shorts, Learjet, deHavilland) in juch a way that they each have their own identities but they also share a lot of infrastructure. (For instance, flight testing is done at Learjet's facilities in Kansas if I remember correctly). An interesting twist is that the Global Express business jet is an actual BOMBARDIER product instead of bearing the name of the division which built it. I suspect that in the longer term, it will be a Boeing DC-9 (or MD80-88-95) I suspect that in the longer term, it will be Boeing who will sign the maintenance and sale contracts with customers etc. Thsi will happen the day you get a customer who places an order for an MD-xxx product at the same time as a Bxxx product. From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:26 From: Neason Subject: Re: "Boeing" DC-9?? (was Re: Douglas DC-5) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The Boeing division that produces MD (produced DC) series aircraft is called "Douglas Products Division" so it is still appropriate to call those aircraft "Douglas" whatevers. But the support for those aircraft (service engineering/spares/tech data) is provided by "Boeing" people using systems and methods from both of the original companies (Boeing and Douglas). "Best Practices" analyses are under way to select which systems and methods will be retained. Some specific details may be available on the Boeing homepage under "NEWS". Steve From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:26 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY In case anyone wants to see a picture of the DC-5, there is one on the Boeing web site, in the Gallery section. I had no idea myself what it was until I stumbled across it. And while you're there, Boeing has a wealth of pictures of both current and historical Boeing, McDD, Douglas, McDonnell, North American, and Rockwell products, all downloadable, as well as a great screen-saver. Oh, it's http://www.boeing.com, in case you hadn't guessed already. - BRIAN CLOUSE GWLF17A@prodigy.com From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:26 From: "Walter E. Shepherd, K2ZPA" Subject: Re: Douglas DC-5 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Aerospace Corp. Reply-To: walter.e.shepherd_at_aero_dot_org@news2.aero.org trevfenn wrote: > Walter E. Shepherd, K2ZPA wrote: > > (I have always thought that the A-26 was one > > of the most graceful and genuinely "pretty" aircraft to ever grace our skys... > > the Consolidated Vultee PBY Catalina would rank as one of the most graceful > > and genuinely "ugly" aircraft... but equally admireable). > > I agree with your thoughts on the A-26 but I think the ugliest ever built > would have to be the A300ST that Airbus is currently building to fly large > aircraft components around. If you read my post carefully, you see I said the PBY was "graceful and ugly"... If I had said "ungainly and ugly", then I'm with you 100%. The A300ST and assorted predecessors in the "Guppy" line are the champs on that score. --Walt Shepherd From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:26 From: Exiled Expat Subject: PW4056 engine EEC Channel Reset to B by pulling fire handle Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Does anyone know why the PW4056 engine resets the EEC to Channel B when the fire handle is pulled? Why did the designers choose B and not A? I am currently on the engine course but the instructor has never been able to find this info out. Thanks, Grounded Spanner From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:26 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> writes: >I am not a Boeing customer, and if I were, I am sure that someone at >Boeing would have sat down with me and explained all the numbering >schemes for the 777 and the 737, both of which have spawned lots of new >numbers in recent years. Wow... you seem to imply that the people making the billion dollar purchase decisions aren't even going to spend the 10 min needed to understand the boeing naming conventions. I can assure you that the numerical suffix that boeing uses to denote each variant don't matter at all to the airline decision makers. From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: > I am not a Boeing customer, and if I were, I am sure that someone at > Boeing would have sat down with me and explained all the numbering > schemes for the 777 and the 737, both of which have spawned lots of new > numbers in recent years. The airlines have no problems with the airplane designations; they know all of them by heart. > But I got confused with the 777 right from the start. Seems to me that > the "200" is wasted text since it is meaningless as there are so many > 777-200 variants. Right now there are only three 777s out there. The 777-200 (original), the 777-200IGW (increased gross weight version of the original), and the 777-300 (stretch version currently in flight test). However, the numbers that follow even an individual airplane model number would boggle the mind; however the general public is rarely exposed to all the different variants that come with each major model type. Even the placement of the galleys in a particular series of planes can add a number to the designation, but you never see these numbers anywhere outside the industry. > If Boeing were interested in preventing confusion in the general public > (or enthousiats) it would have stuck to a more logical naming scheme. If the general public were buying the airplanes, I'm sure the numbering schemes would be simplified :-). One reason there are so many designation numbers is because there are so many variables within each model. With thousands of drawings, millions of parts, and a large number of modifications and improvements being made to the airplanes over the years, it is imperative that there be no confusion between individual airplanes. A modification that applies to one airline's 757s may not apply to another airline's 757s even though they are all 757-200s. This is why the large variety of dash numbers after the basic model numbers. I'm making this number up, but you can have something like 757-200-156B-E4-735-18-6cw-341-0058. That might be just one airplane, or maybe ten. Just what you trainspotters wanted, right? > Sound to me like Boeing got its new super efficient CAD/CAM tools for > the 777, and like a kid with a new LEGO set, is building as many > variants as it can in the shortest amount of time :-) :-) In the past > design time was long enough that one model had been out flying for years > before the next one would come along. But now, I think that design times > have been tremendously shortened and it gets harder to follow what > products are actually out there. This is because the market is changing faster than we or Airbus can keep up with it. An airline that needs a bunch of long-haul planes for routes with a moderate passenger demand one year finds itself suddenly needing high-density, medium haul planes the next year. With competition making it necessary to match airplanes to routes as closely as possible, the airlines aren't willing to settle for a plane they can fly half empty when the demand is low and full when the demand is high. They want planes they can fly full no matter what the demand. So you get the 737-600/700/800/900 family and the A319/320/321 family and so on. If you want to go home with a headache each night after trying to decipher, let alone predict, the market every day, work for an airframe manufacturer. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:27 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia > >Qantas has both JT9D- and CF6-powered B767s. At one time, Air New Zealand >had the same (when it acquired two China Airlines' JT9D-powered B767s). >I believe ANZ has since sold the two odd planes. this was not qiute as irrational as it seems on QANTAS's part. The JT9's are -7R's and are only on the -200's. The CF6's are on the -300's. At the time the 767-300ER's were ordered, there was no suitable P&W engine as far as QF was concerned. They were going to need a new engine in the inventory anyway. The JT9's weren't big enough for the -300's, the RB211-524H wasn't being delivered, and neither were the PAW4000's. RR had only one customer (I think it still does, BA). In short the CF6 was the only proven engine at the time of order. Given the QF route structure, it doesn't pay for them to operate aircraft with unusual configurations. They can be very hard to get fixed at remote stations. If you use commonly used and available engines, there is likely to be a pooled spare or expertise and parts in most places. My recollections anyway. I suspect GE helped things along by making QF a repair station for CF6's. The 767-300ER's are QANTAS's only GE powered aircraft. (Yes they now some A300 with CF6 and CFM56 as a result of Australian Airlines merger). From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >this was not qiute as irrational as it seems on QANTAS's part. The >JT9's are -7R's and are only on the -200's. The CF6's are on the >-300's. At the time the 767-300ER's were ordered, there was no >suitable P&W engine as far as QF was concerned ... The JT9's weren't >big enough for the -300's, the RB211-524H wasn't being delivered, and >neither were the PAW4000's. The JT9D certainly was big enough for the 767-300 -- the first flight of a 767-300 was powered by JT9D engines! JAL was the only customer, however, with 18 examples. Qantas placed their initial 767-300 order on April 24, 1987. By then, the 767-300 had been delivered with JT9D and CF6-80 engines. It had also flown with PW4000s, but that combination had not yet been delivered. Lack of deliveries at time of order is not in itself a plausible reason for an airline to avoid an engine, however, since *somebody* has to take the first step. More plausible is that Qantas, like many JT9D operators, had not had a good experience with them. When they ordered their 767-300s, they weren't about to repeat their mistake and order more Pratts, old or new. They switched from the JT9D to RB.211 for later 747 orders for the same reason. >RR had only one customer (I think it still does, BA). At the time of Qantas' order, RR had no customers at all, since the BA order for 25 767-300s with RB.211 engines wasn't placed until August 14, 1987. There's one other customer for RR-powered 767s -- China Yunnan has three, the last delivered just this past January, with options for two more. Nice engines, but you've got to be nuts to buy them on the 767 because the small world-wide fleet means their resale value is extremely low. -- 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 Nov 29 03:24:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , Seth Dillon wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > In article , showie@uoguelph.ca wrote: > > > Just curious - what are the new requirements if a flight is downgraded to > > > NON-ETOPS? Must they be less than 60 minute flying time from an airport > > > throughout the flight? > > > > Not necessarily. Depending on the airline, airplane, route, and weather > > conditions at the alternates, they may drop from 180 minute ETOPS to 120 > > minute ETOPS or even 90 minute ETOPS. This may significantly affect their > > route, or their ability to fly non-stop to their destination, but it does > > not automatically revert them to the 60-minute rule. > I do not know of any regulatory mechanism inplace that would allow an > individual aircraft within a fleet to be partially down graded (180 to > 120 or 90). Some airlines have MELs that apply to the various ETOPS ratings. While possibly rare, you can have a particular problem or failure that knocks the plane of the 180 MEL but not off the 120, 90, or 75 minute MEL. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:28 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Karl Swartz wrote: > I thought the MEL included equipment that would be required for, say, > 180 minutes, but could be inop for 120 minutes ETOPS. I have been mulling this over for a while and I can not think of anything that would allow this. ETOPS status (for a specific airplane) is either yes or no. The only possibility that comes to mind might be the substitution of a 180 min cargo fire bottle with a 120 min bottle (I am not even sure such an animal exists). > Now why would any airline be crazy enough to do that?! Oh, I forgot > you work for the engine-type-of-the-month club, er, Delta. :-) Hey, it is good job security for the training department. LOL > >... they may be restricted to 60, 90, or 120 until there is enough > >reliability data assembled to satisfy the carriers NAA that 180 is > >justified. > > The reliability data is specific to the airframe/engine combo, not > the carrier. Not entirely correct, as I understand the system. Each carrier must maintain a diversion rate and/or IFSD rate ( I forget the exact numbers) below an established limit for each ETOPS airframe/engine combination in the fleet. For example just because carrier A's IFSD rate exceeds the limit for the 767/PW4000 aircraft it operates it does not mean all 767/PW4000 aircraft in the world are now downgraded. Also a carrier operating, for example, A310/JT9D-7R4 may lose its ETOPS authority on that aircraft due to an unacceptable IFSD/Diversion rate while maintaining ETOPS authority on its 767/PW4000 fleet. > The 767-300 / CF6-80C2 has long been certified > to 180-minute ETOPS, so an airline already flying other types under > ETOPS rules shouldn't have any problem getting ETOPS certification > for the new combo. True, although that is really the call of the carriers PMI. Some may have some heartburn over granting the full 180 if the carrier had no experience with the CF6-80 at all. -Seth From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:28 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> The reliability data is specific to the airframe/engine combo, not >> the carrier. > >Not entirely correct, as I understand the system. Each carrier must >maintain a diversion rate and/or IFSD rate ( I forget the exact numbers) >below an established limit for each ETOPS airframe/engine combination in >the fleet. For example just because carrier A's IFSD rate exceeds the >limit for the 767/PW4000 aircraft it operates it does not mean all >767/PW4000 aircraft in the world are now downgraded. Also a carrier >operating, for example, A310/JT9D-7R4 may lose its ETOPS authority on >that aircraft due to an unacceptable IFSD/Diversion rate while >maintaining ETOPS authority on its 767/PW4000 fleet. Right. I should remember that, since I was once on a United 747-400 that lost an engine just after takeoff, and afterwards the pilots were griping about all the paperwork required by ETOPS rules. When I asked about this, they pointed out that United's 767-300s use essentially the same engines (PW4000s in their case) and thus an IFSD report had to be filed even though the 747-400 is not an ETOPS aircraft. Nevertheless, the basic airframe/engine combo has to be certified for ETOPS. The, the airline and its operations and maintenance have to be certified. It's not clear to me that this depends on experience with the airframe and/or engine for which ETOPS clearance is being requested, though once in service the airline's other experience with the engine is clearly relevant. All of this ignores the special rules used for ETOPS-out-of-the-box used for the 777. United's experience with the PW4000 on the 747 and 767 probably helped with the airline part of the certification, but the PW4000 on their 777s is a substantially different engine. I tried looking for ETOPS info in the FARs, but couldn't find anything. Can anyone cite the exact FARs that cover ETOPS? That's only for US carriers, but the rules in other countries are similar, and the FARs have the advantage of being on-line and this easy to refer to. -- 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 Nov 29 03:24:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:28 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , C. Marin Faure wrote: > I just returned from Auckland where we >filmed a story on Air New Zealand's 767 ETOPS capabilities. They were >heavily involved in working with the vendor(s) to modify the 767's APU >back in the 1980s so it could be started on demand in flight and so meet >the very strict ETOPS operating requirements. There's a brief note in the November issue of New Zealand Wings stating that Air New Zealand are claiming that the delivery flight for their latest toy, 767-319ER ZK-NCL, from Seattle to Christchurch late last month is the longest ever for a commercial twin engined jet aircraft. The distance given is 12,273 km (6627 nm), and the flight took 15 hours, 20 minutes. Janes Aircraft Recognition Guide gives the range of the "767" as 6805 nm. (I find a lot of of numbers in this book a bit suspect -- if not just plain wrong, they often refer to an oddball model, eg the 747 is given as having more range than the separately listed 747-400, it would appear because they've lumped the 747-SP into the "747" entry and used the 747 Classic dimensions and the -SP's performance. This makes this book rather less useful than I'd like. Someone care to recommend a better reference?) -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:28 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >... Air New Zealand are claiming that the delivery flight for their latest >toy, 767-319ER ZK-NCL, from Seattle to Christchurch late last month is the >longest ever for a commercial twin engined jet aircraft. The distance given >is 12,273 km (6627 nm), and the flight took 15 hours, 20 minutes. Not even close. The 767 beat that nearly ten years ago, when on April 18, 1988, an Air Mauritius flew non-stop from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Mauritius during a delivery flight. That flight covered 14,045 km (7,584 nm) in 16 hours, 27 minutes, 25 seconds. More recently, Boeing set a new record by flying a 777-200IGW from Seattle to Kuala Lumpur, leaving March 31 and arriving April 2 during Malasian Airlines' 50th anniversary celebration. That flight covered 20,044 km (10,823 nm) in 21 hours, 23 minutes. >Janes Aircraft Recognition Guide gives the range of the "767" as 6805 nm. >(I find a lot of of numbers in this book a bit suspect ... Published range figures often are pretty suspect, but it sounds like Janes are worse than usual. >Someone care to recommend a better reference? For reasonably authoritative numbers, I consult the following web sites: http://www.airbus.com/ http://www.boeing.com/ -- 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 Nov 29 03:24:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:29 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Steve Lacker wrote: > David Lesher wrote: > > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > >All ETOPS twins must be able to immediately start their APUs at cruising > > >altitude even after hours of cold-soaking. > > > > Could you not just heat the APU's normally, given you will be > > starting it ASAP if you lose an engine anyhow? > > "Heating the APU normally" is descending into warm air and allowing it > to warm up due to the ambient temperature :-) When the combustion temperature, maybe 1100 degrees, of the fuel burning in the APU is considered, there isn't much difference between -45 degrees and +90 degrees. Both temperatures are very cold relative to how warm it will get. Maybe someone who knows more about this has a comment. John From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:29 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emirates Internet Steve Lacker wrote: > Rob Wells (WLL) wrote: > > In Oz it was reported that the APU was definitely non-op. I seem to > > remember that there was only enough compressed air left for one more > > attempt to turn over an engine. But perhaps that was an embelishment > > added by the local tabloids. > > I would say "embellishment." As far as I know, there is NO storage of > compressed air on board a commercial aircraft- certainly not enough for > engine starts. The compressed air is fed from a *running* APU straight > to the engine starter. On most large aircraft the only place that I know of where compressed air is stored is in: The potable water tanks - for drinking water pressure The hydraulic reservoirs - to ensure positive feed of fluid to the pumps. Both are derived from the engines bleed pressure, or the APU. In the case of the water tank pressure is sometimes achieved through the use of an electrical motor driven air compressor. Regards, From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:29 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question 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) Steve Lacker writes: >> Could you not just heat the APU's normally, given you will be >> starting it ASAP if you lose an engine anyhow? >"Heating the APU normally" is descending into warm air and allowing it >to warm up due to the ambient temperature :-) but need it be? I was not meaning to ask just "does anyone do it now?" but also "why not...?" >You're short of waste heat if all the engines are windmilling and you >need to start the APU. Even if an engine is running, I think there's >probably no provision for "heating" the APU from engine bleed air. Err, even given the difference between Diesels and turbines, I doubt a warmed APU could go back to "too cold to start" in the few seconds I mention. And while there many not be bleed heat in use, today, does that preclude same? I can easily see the oil being kept toasty-warm, and THAT keeping the injector thawed. That same bleed air feed might start the beast. ISTM a redundant starting method would not hurt. And don't you get bleed even from a windmilling engine? I can think of one immediate advantage to bleed-air starting. If you overcrank an electric starter, you get a pool of melted copper. At least on {yes, I know, they are different..} Diesels, the air starters are self-cooling -- you can keep cranking until you run out of air. On a balky EMC 1250 hp stationary engine, this was a Godsent..... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:29 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: A question on ETOPS requirements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: (various things about ETOPS rules) Yes, but surely the real question is, who enforces this. Does the Captain decide to declare the flight non-ETOPS because both engines were filled with oil from the same can, as he might have to if one of various specific pieces of equipment were u/s, and so have to fly by an indirect route? (Not easy on some routes!) To take the example of an airline that is running both ETOPS and non-ETOPS flights with the same aircraft model at the same airport, does someone authorise each departure and make the necessary procedural checks? From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:29 From: "Arun K. Karwal" Subject: Re: A question on ETOPS requirements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Tomasz Natkanski wrote in message ... >Recently I was flying LOT airlines from Newark to Warsaw and prior to the >departure I saw one mechanic service both engines of the 767. He just >seemed to be adding some fluid. This leads me to a question or two: For >ETOPS regulations, can one mechanic service both engines? Also, does LOT >need ETOPS to operate the transatlantic route using their B767-ER fleet? A distinction is made between a *maintenance* action and a *serviceing* action. The latter, e.g. topping up engine oil, can be done by one and the same mechanic under ETOPS regulations. Flying transatlantic can be done non-ETOPS, the route that has to be flown goes via Scotland to Iceland to Greenland to Canada, always within one hour of a suitable airfield (respectively Shannon, Keflavik, SondreStromfjord, Goose or Gander are normally 'nominated'). As this is the long way around and therefore very expensive, one would expect that your LOT flight was operated under ETOPS rules, so a more direct route can be flown inside the OTS, and outside one hour flying time from a suitable airfield. Regards, Arun Karwal (B767 pilot) From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:30 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , Postma@nlr.nl wrote: >Does anybody know if groundcrew responsible for de-icing aircraft need a >dedicated license by FAA? Of course the ultimate responsibility of >accepting the aircraft after a de-icing/anti-icing treatment lies with >the pilot-in-command, but still. In he US, no separate license is required for ground crew to de-ice an aircraft. Responsibility for de-icing is on the airline, BTW; and each airline must develop an approved de-icing program. Each ground crewmember who engages in de-icing activities is required to have training in the individual airline's program. Note that the de-icer does not have to be an airline employee; he/she need only have been trained and approved by the airline. > So far I know there is no special >requirement in Europe and most companies do some kind of an in-house >training program for their de-icing crews. I know there is some concern, >that those responsible for de-icing aircraft, particularly at smaller >airports, or those in locations that experienced infrequent ground >icing, were not so competent at carrying out the task. In addition, that >the fluids and equipment used to deliver it, was felt to be sometimes of >unknown quality. Again, in the US, the ground crew must be trained in the airline's program; there is no generic program. In addition, as part of the operation of the airline, the de-icing personnel is subject to inspection by FAA operations inspectors. Given the long "off-season" for de-icing, I'm sure that this part of the operation is given extra scrutiny at the start of the de-icing season. 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 Sat Nov 29 03:24:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:30 From: "redjeff" Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No license is required, or needed for de-icing crews. Most U.S. airlines use aircraft mechanics that have spent a few hours in a de-icing class. From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:30 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Sjoerd Postma wrote: > Does anybody know if groundcrew responsible for de-icing aircraft need a > dedicated license by FAA? Of course the ultimate responsibility of > accepting the aircraft after a de-icing/anti-icing treatment lies with > the pilot-in-command, but still. So far I know there is no special > requirement in Europe and most companies do some kind of an in-house > training program for their de-icing crews. I know there is some concern, > that those responsible for de-icing aircraft, particularly at smaller > airports, or those in locations that experienced infrequent ground > icing, were not so competent at carrying out the task. In addition, that > the fluids and equipment used to deliver it, was felt to be sometimes of > unknown quality. The ground crew responsibile for dd-icing do not have to have licenses, but must attend a special training class which is certified by the FAA and pass the test. And, by the way, that test is not easy.. As for outside the U.S...its true that some other countries do not have requlations concerning deicing/anti-icing. But, any U.S. Flag air carrier who operates outside the U.S. must see to it that the FAA approved deicing/anti-icing program is applied to their aircraft at those foreign airports. From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:31 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Sjoerd Postma wrote: > Does anybody know if groundcrew responsible for de-icing aircraft need a > dedicated license by FAA? Of course the ultimate responsibility of > accepting the aircraft after a de-icing/anti-icing treatment lies with > the pilot-in-command, but still. So far I know there is no special > requirement in Europe and most companies do some kind of an in-house > training program for their de-icing crews. I know there is some concern, > that those responsible for de-icing aircraft, particularly at smaller > airports, or those in locations that experienced infrequent ground > icing, were not so competent at carrying out the task. In addition, that > the fluids and equipment used to deliver it, was felt to be sometimes of > unknown quality. There is no requirement for a person to hold a certificate to deice aircraft. That said, there are training requirements, fluid handling requirements, etc. These are outlined in an advisory circular. Each carrier must have in its FAA approved manual a section detailing how it meets those requirements. The PIC is ultimatly responsible for the proper deicing of the aircraft. Type 1 fluid is pretty simple to apply, Type II and IV are a little trickier but far more effective. The key is to be very aware of OAT, and what is coming down, and how hard. Knowing this, and what is being sprayed on the aircraft (and how it is diluted for type I) the PIC can refer to a chart, which should be in the POM, to calculate dwell time (how long from the start of the fluid application to TO). It is an FAA requirement that that information be communicated to the PIC. -Seth From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:31 From: "Rob Wells (WLL)" Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Sjoerd Postma wrote: > Does anybody know if groundcrew responsible for de-icing aircraft need a > dedicated license by FAA? Of course the ultimate responsibility of > accepting the aircraft after a de-icing/anti-icing treatment lies with > the pilot-in-command, but still. So far I know there is no special > requirement in Europe and most companies do some kind of an in-house > training program for their de-icing crews. I know there is some concern, > that those responsible for de-icing aircraft, particularly at smaller > airports, or those in locations that experienced infrequent ground > icing, were not so competent at carrying out the task. In addition, that > the fluids and equipment used to deliver it, was felt to be sometimes of > unknown quality. G'day Sjoerd, For your interest there was a post to this group back in August. The report mentioned below gives quite a bit of coverage to the training of de-icing crews. 'Avahappy, Rob W. (-: ----- Begin Include ----- 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. ----- End Include ----- -- Rob Wells "The hardest part about making a movie... is cutting all those tiny holes in the edges of the film. After that, everything's easy." - Mel Brooks @ INTERNET: robert.wells@ eurocontrol.fr CompuServe: 100272,3004 From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:31 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: TWA800 Fuel Tank Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet To reduce the probability of a fuselage mounted fuel tank exploding, as did the tank in the 747 on TWA Flight 800, why not fill such a tank first and empty it last. Very few airliners exhaust their fuel reserves in flight. Gerry -- Gerry From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:31 From: you@somehost.somedomain (d) Subject: B-707 undercarriage incident - Ostende, Belgium Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization The plane landed (safely) without front gear on foam, straight on runway, in sea of sparks. Those gears incidents make me wonder : what happened to emergency gravity-actuation ? Is the gear stuck so much it cannot be deployed mechanically ? Can the design be improved to avoid the gear being stuck ? From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:31 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: ATC use of Aircraft-Derived Data (was Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation >Jan-Olov Newborg wrote: >> >>SNIP >> If modern nav-ATC equippment for freer flight (lateral airways) like the >> Swedish proposed ADS-B system, the problem not letting aircraft up high >> enough initially would be solved. >> >> http://www.lfv.se/ans/card/news.htm >> >> US Airforce use the GNSS-transponder today for C5b Galaxy formation >> flying and Navy F18 Hornet is testing it. Please keep in mind that the Swedavia GNSS-transponder is only one of the potential *technical* solutions to providing an air-to-air and/or air-ground communications link. The actual *application* area (i.e. using aircraft-derived position and other information to reduce air traffic restrictions) might be implemented on any of several potential technologies, provided the technology meets the application's requirements for performance (e.g. range, reporting interval, etc.) Technologies which could fill this role are several different VHF waveforms (including the Swedavia system as one candidate), a wide-band (~2 MHz) channel, and other alternatives. The company I work for (MITRE CAASD) is doing research for the FAA in this area, to determine a sound choice for a technical implementation. Our work is structured around the following methodology: 1) User Benefit (in this case, more consistent achievement of optimum initial cruise by air carriers) 2) Application Functional Requirements, based on what is needed to achieve the user benefit (e.g. enhanced ATC decision support tools) 3) Technical Performance Requirements, based on what performance the applications need (e.g. range, reporting interval, etc.) 4) Technical Implementation, based on what achieves the performance requirements, in addition to considering cost (both avionics and ground system), interoperability with international community, acceptance by the user community, availability of radio spectrum, etc. Based on this methodology, we aim to provide the US FAA and the international community with a recommendation on a sound technical solution for an air-air/air-ground data link, one which will meet the performance requirements for future applications, without requiring the users or the ground systems to buy or replace several sets of avionics/ground equipment. (Please note that there are actually two different concepts for transmitting this data: first is an "addressed" method, such as what the current "FANS1" capability by Boeing provides, where a message is sent between a specific aircraft and a specific ground facility. The second is a "broadcast" method, in which each aircraft makes a broadcast transmission of the information, and everyone able to hear the message (both in the air and on the ground) can decode it. (Both methods have complementary advantages - the "addressed" method is useful for oceanic and other areas where the ATC service provider may be separated by several hundred or thousand miles, where line-of-sight ground equipment installations, such as radars or VHF radios, are not feasible. The "broadcast" method is useful for air-to-air applications, where it would be redundant to fill up RF spectrum to transmit the same information to multiple interested parties.) We have several papers and other materials available for those who are interested. Edward Hahn Project Team Manager Airborne Information Support Services Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance Directorate Center for Advanced Aviation System Development The MITRE Coroporation >>>> 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 Sat Nov 29 03:24:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:32 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Jan-Olov Newborg (newborg@algonet.se) wrote: : If modern nav-ATC equippment for freer flight (lateral airways) like the : Swedish proposed ADS-B system, the problem not letting aircraft up high : enough initially would be solved. : http://www.lfv.se/ans/card/news.htm : US Airforce use the GNSS-transponder today for C5b Galaxy formation : flying and Navy F18 Hornet is testing it. What kind of nav-ATC equipment and procedures were involved in the collision in the Atlantic near Namibia involving a U.S. military transport and a German aircraft? -- Gerry From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com James Matthew Weber wrote: > 777's are often found at M.85, that is where they were designed to > Cruise (it was an interesting way to attack the A340. On very long > flight the difference in cruise speed has a very real impact on travel > time). Does anybody know if this lower cruise speed of the 340 will be improved for the -500/600 variants ? ... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:32 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams James Matthew Weber wrote: > On 21 Nov 97 01:59:53 , "Bart & Sylvia Peters" wrote: > > >>BTW, can someone post "normal" cruising altitudes and speeds for the > >>main types used today? > > > >For a Boeing 747-400 initial cruise altitude at max t/o weight ( most of the > >time ex- far-east ) is FL 310 mach 0.85 depending on actual wind at the > >time. > >After Delhi a climb to FL 350 and mach 0.86 are possible. > > I don't believe this. > > Cruise on a 747-400 at these mach numbers carries a huge fuel burn > penalty. There is now ay the aircraft would make a Europe-Asia trip at > those speeds. Long Haul Cruise on a 747-400 is M.82, while M.86 may be > possible, I have never seen anyone do it. Nope, Long range cruise Mach, LRC, for the Pratt & GE 747-400s is between .85 and .86 Mach. Rolls is a touch slower. The only reason you would be at .82 Mach is to fly max range cruise at lower weights or for ATC. I have seen Mach .86 a lot. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:32 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Cass Alexander wrote: > Qantas 747's and future 777 acquisitions (SNIP) Sorry Alexander but as far as I know QANTAS has not yet decided if the new 300 seater will be a 777 or 340. Sure they are the only company (out of 8) which defined the 777 that hasn't ordered the bird. However with the new 340 models I'm no longer sure if you will ever see 777's with a red tail and a white kangaroo ... My opinion, ... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:33 From: Graeme Cant Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net James Matthew Weber wrote: > I don't believe this. > > Cruise on a 747-400 at these mach numbers carries a huge fuel burn > penalty. There is now ay the aircraft would make a Europe-Asia trip at > those speeds. Long Haul Cruise on a 747-400 is M.82, while M.86 may be > possible, I have never seen anyone do it. > > Have anyone out there seen it? Well, James, I have to say that I have. Not only that, I've done it myself - and been surrounded by a dozen other 747s doing it too. In fact, CI100 at max TOW at FL310 puts you at M.854 (+- depending on the temp) in a RR -400. It reduces during flight but you finish over London around FL390 and M.84. The PWs seem to cruise a smidgen (M.003) faster and climb about 4-5 tonnes earlier. SIA don't like wearing out their computers so they do it even better. They just fly M.86. Period. From Singapore to London. Non-stop. > I've been in a D10 at m.85 (ATC kept asking us to go faster), when he > asked again, the boss said, hey, we already doing M.85, I can't go > much faster. The response from ATC was, OK, at least don't slow down > for a while. You probably had SIA behind you. > 777's are often found at M.85, that is where they were designed to > Cruise (it was an interesting way to attack the A340. On very long > flight the difference in cruise speed has a very real impact on travel > time). I think they just didn't want to end up holding up their own 747s like the A340 does. The long-haul routes of the world largely move at ..84-.85. Graeme Cant From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:33 From: Graeme Cant Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: graemec@ibm.net Cass Alexander wrote: > ...Those paying for such an costly (though not necessarily expensive) > system will no doubt equip their fleets at the earliest opportunity, > then support moves to decline access to the airspace within which they > operate to non-airline, non-ADS equipped aircraft... >...Fanciful?... >... The bottom line is that whenever airlines complain about restrictive ATC > practices in airspace within which advanced technologies such as FANS > are in operational use, perhaps they should first have checked whether > they are contributing to those restrictions by - in addition to parallel > scheduling - failing to equip their fleets with avionics which take full > advantage of those advanced services. Cass, 1. ATC is there to serve the airlines and if THEY find that parallel scheduling is commercially appropriate, YOU will find an efficient way to accomodate it. Only in Australia does the ATC authority complain that the airlines keep flying aeroplanes into ATC's airspace... 2. "Whenever airlines complain about restrictive ATC...". Well, we've done the equipping. So have a lot of others. Where are YOUR proposals to deny the prime airspace to those who aren't equipped? YOUR egalitarian bureaucracy is the one that has real problems with that. The airlines don't. You talk about it as if it's a whole stunning new concept. It may be to you, but it's not to anyone else. 3. I'm staggered that the whole of your long thesis revolves around the concept of 'manual' ATC - where every aircraft is personally controlled. That 1930s concept is inadequate to cope for more than about another ten years. You see ADS and CPDLC as a smart form of HF position reporting and you're staggered that aircraft are actually where they know they are. Your thinking is still set in a frame of doing quicker what you're already doing. Unfortunately, that is a dead end which cannot cope with current levels of traffic in some areas. The paradigm shift (knew that would be useful one day) that is needed is the move to "just-in-time" ATC - Free Flight. Only enough ATC to resolve the conflicts. TCAS, GPS, FMCs are the real technologies which will allow the huge growth in air traffic which is about to come. Look at your list of problems: > 1. The ability of the responsible traffic management authority to accept > the air-derived data from participating aircraft and display it to their > controllers. In the absence of ground-based FANS facilities, separation > reductions to minimas will not materialise. > 2. The administering authority must also have created and promulgated > safe separation standards which can be used by the controllers under a > variety of both operational circumstances and system mode degradations... The free flight paradigm (love that word) solves all of that. It also puts control back in the aircraft. Can you imagine a concept where trucks were only allowed onto a freeway at regular intervals and had to report their progress every ten minutes to some 'controller' to ensure they were still far enough apart? ...And were only allowed to travel closer together if they talked to the controller more often? It's laughable. The current system was needed when aicraft couldn't 'see'. Now, with electronics, they can, and the old system is a dinosaur. Within ten years, aircraft will be leaving the factory with an integrated suite of electronics which will calculate potential conflicts and co-operatively work with the other traffic to resolve the conflict. No ground station will be involved in this process. This will be the technology used in most cruise flight. Manual ATC will only occur on climb/descent from/to terminal areas. I'm sorry Cass, but that lovely new system of yours will barely be paid for before it's obsolete. It's the last part of the air transport system that hasn't shifted to the jet age. A friend of mine once said that the trouble with ATC was that someone once called them 'controllers' and they think that's what they have to do. They forget that the aim is only to separate traffic. Graeme Cant From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:33 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:33 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: > > With todays engines being very close one-another, this UHB technique >would have the potential to provide an important technical leadership to >one of the three engine makers. Is the risk and/or the development costs >that high that nobody even wants to build a prototype of an existing >engine with UHB technique. Just imagine that one of the three >engine-makers for the 777 would go for the UHB technique. The range >advantages would be so dramatic that the two other competitors could >stop produicing their engines ... The bypass ratio of the GE90 is around 9 to 10, much higher than its competitors (the PW4084/90/98 and Trent 800 [bypass ratio of around 6]). (Various "superfan"/UHB designs have bypass ratio of around 12 to 15.) The GE90, even though a heavier engine, does have a slightly better fuel efficiency. However, efficiency alone does not sell the engine. GE is certainly not too successful in marketing its GE90. The right technology at the right time will make a manufacturer the leader in the market. Is an ultra-high-bypass engine the answer at this time? I kinda doubt it! From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:34 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Saudi MD-11's ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>Can anyone advise as to the delay in delivery of Saudia Arabian >>Airline's MD-11's. A good friend of mine who was scheduled to transfer >>from the A-300 to the MD-11 has been told to expect to remain on the >>A-300 and was given no word as to the hold up. This all comes after he >>and several other crew members were trained and prepared to take >>delivery of the MD-11. The silence from SV is very strange as last we >>know the 4 MD-11's are sitting in Long Beach ready for delivery. Any >>information would be greatly appreciated. >I have read (World Airline Fleets News [Nov] via `Blue Print') that one >of the four MD-11s (they are all Fs) is now bound for Citybird and another >to Virgin (both as freighters). However, the report does descibe this as >speculative info. >(Though, yes, Virgin does seem interested in a -freighter- as they recently >started joint freight ops with Malaysian using a Malaysian MD-11F). There were four SV MD-11Fs parked on the ramp here in Long Beach, but they were moved to Marana the week before last because they were taking up space needed for other aircraft waiting for delivery. The rumors about Saudi Arabian having financing difficulties are true, they have not made any payments on the MD-11s or on the MD-90s which are also awaiting delivery. The rumor that two of the MD-11s will be delivered to other customers is highly speculative, no one here at Douglas (Products Division, no longer DAC, as a result of the "hostile takeover") has heard that rumor, and we are all still working toward the SV delivery here. Colleen.M.Wabiszewski@Boeing.com From kls Sat Nov 29 03:24:34 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 03:24:34 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Saudi MD-11's ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 , Peter Ivakitsch caused to appear as if it was written: >Can anyone advise as to the delay in delivery of Saudia Arabian >Airline's MD-11's. A good friend of mine who was scheduled to transfer >from the A-300 to the MD-11 has been told to expect to remain on the >A-300 and was given no word as to the hold up. This all comes after he >and several other crew members were trained and prepared to take >delivery of the MD-11. The silence from SV is very strange as last we >know the 4 MD-11's are sitting in Long Beach ready for delivery. Any >information would be greatly appreciated. Believe it or not, the problem is that Saudia is having trouble financing them! I believe that the original plan called for Saudia to obtain normal commercial funding, but foreign banks became a little leery about Saudi Arabia's current debt structure, possible unrest in the neighborhood, etc. So the finance rates offered were not economically viable for the airline. The current plan is to apparently to obtain domestic Saudi financing. All reports indicate that the delay has more to do with sorting out some complicated financing rather than any kind of attack of cold feet at the aircraft themselves. The aircraft currently effected are all MD-11F's. I believe, though, that there are some twenty-nine MD90's involved in the same deal, too. The airline also has/had five 747-400's and twenty-three 777-200's on order, so it is possible that there are some negotiations going on with Boeing regarding some late changes (specifically, would Boeing want to build those MD90's if they could deliver something else instead?). Malc. From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:56 From: 71531.1503@compuserve.com (david avery) Subject: Re: TWA800 Fuel Tank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services In message - gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) writes: >To reduce the probability of a fuselage mounted fuel tank exploding, >as did the tank in the 747 on TWA Flight 800, why not fill such a tank >first and empty it last. Very few airliners exhaust their fuel reserves >in flight. Because of the loading on the wings, Fuel carried in the wings puts almost no stress on the wing - body connection , whereas fuel inthe body puts stress on the connection. Also for roll stability, fuel in the wings increases the roll inertia. Dave Avery 71531.1503@compuserve.com Avia Research Flight simulator H/W S/W (Link Mk-1 and GP4) From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:56 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: Re: TWA800 Fuel Tank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unisource Espana NEWS SERVER Reply-To: luisma@spainmail.com El día 29 Nov 97 03:24:31 , gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) dijo: >To reduce the probability of a fuselage mounted fuel tank exploding, >as did the tank in the 747 on TWA Flight 800, why not fill such a tank >first and empty it last. Very few airliners exhaust their fuel reserves >in flight. Thist also would be very interesting for structural reasons. Remember that the lasts emptied tanks must be the inner ones due to the bending moment. From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:56 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca C. Marin Faure wrote: > Right now there are only three 777s out there. The 777-200 (original), > the 777-200IGW (increased gross weight version of the original), and the > 777-300 (stretch version currently in flight test). I get the impression that the very first batch of 777s handed to United for instance were "early prototypes" (lets call them 777-200) and that by now Boeing has new and improved 777-200s available (777-200IGW etc). Would any airline without existing 777s want to order the same airplanes that were first delivered to UA ? Or would they not prefer to get the more recent incantations of the 777-200s that have incorporated improvements (IGW range etc)? Are we talking here about the evolutionary fine tuning of the 777-200 or does Boeing really plan to keep on marketing various models of the 777-200 ? From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:57 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I get the impression that the very first batch of 777s handed to United >for instance were "early prototypes" (lets call them 777-200) and that >by now Boeing has new and improved 777-200s available (777-200IGW etc). Unlike some earlier Boeing jetliners, even the first 777 is considered a production model and not a prototype -- Boeing is thinking of selling it, whereas the first 747 cannot even be certified for airline use. The first batch of 777s handed to United are not the oldest 777s in service -- the three which started service on June 7, 1995 were line numbers 7 thru 9. United does have line number 2 (N774UA aka WA002) but it was part of the flight test program and wasn't delivered until March 1996. All of them, including WA002, came with a 535,000 lbs MGTOW and have since been upgraded to 545,000 lbs, the highest for a non-IGW 777-200. >Would any airline without existing 777s want to order the same airplanes >that were first delivered to UA ? Or would they not prefer to get the >more recent incantations of the 777-200s that have incorporated >improvements (IGW range etc)? It depends on how they're going to be used. The IGW offers more range but costs more ($134-153 million versus $128-144 million according to Boeing). If a carrier doesn't need the range, there's not much point to spending the extra money. Cathay Pacific, for example, received their four 777-200s last year (they also have 777-300s on order) and while IGWs were all being delivered, theirs are standard models with the same 545,000 lbs MGTOW as United's. CX intends to use them on relatively short routes (the 747 and A340 handle the long hauls) so they don't need IGWs and thus didn't buy them. >Are we talking here about the evolutionary fine tuning of the 777-200 or >does Boeing really plan to keep on marketing various models of the >777-200 ? Of course they'll keep offering it, so long as demand exists. They didn't drop the 767-300 just because the 767-300(ER) became available, and while it's not a hot seller, they do sell some from time to time. Likewise other models are available in a wide variety of weights and options. -- 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 Nov 29 15:39:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:57 From: Jan-Erik Andelin Subject: Re: "Boeing" DC-9?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 29 Nov 1997, jf mezei wrote: > I suspect that in the longer term, it will be a Boeing DC-9 (or > MD80-88-95) I suspect that in the longer term, it will be Boeing who > will sign the maintenance and sale contracts with customers etc. Thsi > will happen the day you get a customer who places an order for an MD-xxx > product at the same time as a Bxxx product. ... which happended recently when Far East Air Transport bought 10x B757 and 2x MD83 in the same deal. Jan-Erik Andelin MD80 INTERNATIONAL FORUM http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/md80.htm -------------------------------------------------------------- Jan-Erik Andelin * phone +358-19-584 622 Agatan 63 * e-mail andelin@clinet.fi 06100 Borga, Finland * WWW http://www.clinet.fi/~andelin/ From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:57 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: "Boeing" DC-9?? (was Re: Douglas DC-5) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >But now Bombardier owns deHavilland and you'll often see the Bombardier >logo on existing Dash-8s. I suspect that part of the maintenance >involves putting up the bombardier logo :-) Quite often the purchase agreement specifies that the aircraft should be painted on the aircraft in a conspicuous position. I have heard that there is a new FAA rule which requires aircraft manufacturer, type and individual manufacturer's serial number to be painted externally. Does anyone know if this is correct? Brgds Antoin Daltun From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:58 From: "Mark Rogers" Subject: Re: aborted takeoff and brake damage References: <5vd1f7$ntk@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service Steven G. Thomson wrote in article ... > > in my days as a 707 FE, we had charts provided to let us know how > > long the landing gear had to be left extended to cool them down in > > in the event of an aborted takeoff immediately followed by a success- > > ful takeoff. > > Would taking off and planning to leave the gear down for a few extra > minutes during the initial climb have a significant impact on the rate of > climb and therefore obstruction clearance/takeoff weight? Yes. I don't know of any aircraft today where you would leave the gear down to cool the brakes after a rejected takeoff. There are brake cooling charts, and a subsequent takeoff would not be permitted until after the brakes had cooled sufficiently. Most aircraft (over about 100,000 lbs) I know of now require an inspection after a high speed abort. --Mark Rogers From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:58 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:58 From: tyler@plk.af.mil (David Tyler) Subject: Re: aborted takeoff and brake damage References: <5vd1f7$ntk@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab. "Steven G. Thomson" writes: >> in my days as a 707 FE, we had charts provided to let us know how >> long the landing gear had to be left extended to cool them down in >> in the event of an aborted takeoff immediately followed by a success- >> ful takeoff. >Would taking off and planning to leave the gear down for a few extra >minutes during the initial climb have a significant impact on the rate of >climb and therefore obstruction clearance/takeoff weight? good question... at times, the 80s seem so far away... :) ok; with a strong ``AS I RECALL" clause appended, obstruction clearance charts are generated using ``gear down" performance anyway (at least for the 707). i have some old manuals at home; i'll go look and make sure. dave ______________________________________________________________________ -David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not -USAF Phillips Laboratory of benefit to the public." -Albuquerque, New Mexico -tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:59 From: "Pasi Tanskanen" Subject: Re: aborted takeoff and brake damage References: <5vd1f7$ntk@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telecom Finland News Service >>be left extended to cool them down in >> in the event of an aborted takeoff immediately followed by a success- >> ful takeoff. > >Would taking off and planning to leave the gear down for a few extra >minutes during the initial climb have a significant impact on the rate of >climb and therefore obstruction clearance/takeoff weight? More importantly, would it not have more effect on braking performance (ability to absorb heat/energy) in the event of another rejected takeoff, if the brakes are not allowed to cool first. Pasi From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:59 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article faurecm@halcyon.com "C. Marin Faure" writes: >The primary reason for the multiple-wheel trucks on the 777, the four main >gearsets on the 747, and the extra center gear on the A340 are to safely >distribute the weight ... Does it make for more efficient braking as well? -- -Niels From kls Sat Nov 29 15:39:59 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:39:59 From: alexander.mclellan@eurocontrol.be (McLELLAN Alexander, DED/1) Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM C. Marin Faure wrote: >The primary reason for the multiple-wheel trucks on the 777, the four main >gearsets on the 747, and the extra center gear on the A340 are to safely >distribute the weight of the planes on the world's existing taxiways and >runways without damaging the tarmac or concrete. Dunno if it's relevant, but for road vehicles, the damage done to the road surface is proportional to the 6th power of the axle weight. So a truck is worth a million cars! 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 Sat Nov 29 15:40:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:00 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In "David Fielding" writes: >I don't know of specific regulations of weight-per-wheel, or any >published data about specific airports. Although my copy of the Airport/Facility Directory for Alaska is a bit old, I have always seen Runway Weight Bearing Capacity listed for major (not bush strips) airports both in Alaska and the "lower '48". The list will show the landing gear configuration and a permissable operating weight for that configuration. The configurations run from "S" for Single Wheel-type landing gear (DC-3, F-15) to TDT for Twin Delta Tandem landing gear (C-5 and Concorde) Lou. From kls Sat Nov 29 15:40:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:00 From: k_ish Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Luis Manuel Perez Llera wrote: > Does anybody know if there is any regulation stating that the > weight-per-wheel is limited in aircrafts due to runways care? In other > words, the reason for the modern aircrafts wear more wheels than older > ones is the danger of wheel explosion or the runway strength? I do recall reading that the weight per square foot is higher for a 727 than a 747, which distributes its higher weight over a much larger area. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Nov 29 15:40:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:01 From: mayerp1@nevada.edu (PAUL G MAYER) Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services FWIW, here's an extract (P. 5) from the legend of a US FAA Airport/Facility Directory. It appears that the matter of aircraft weight vs. runway strength is delt with by engineering coordination between aircraft manufacturers, aircraft operators, and airport operators. There doesn't appear to be a *reg* per se (but then, I'm only a pilot and therefore may not be privy to such things). Anyway, here's what a pilot can determine from an A/FD: ***** RUNWAY WEIGHT BEARING CAPACITY Runway strength data shown in this publication is derived from available information and is a realistic estimate of capability at an average level of activity. It is not intended as a maximum allowable weight or as an operating limitation. Many airport pavements are capable of supporting limited operations with gross weights of 25-50% in excess of the published figures. Permissible operating weights, insofar as runway strengths are concerned, are a matter of agreement between the owner and user. When desiring to operate into any airport at weights in excess of those published in the publication, users should contact the airport management for permission. Add 000 to figure following S, D, DT, DDT, AUW, etc., for gross weight capacity: S--Single-wheel type landing gear, (DC-3), (C-47), (F-15), etc. D--Dual-wheel type landing gear, (DC-6), etc. T--Twin-wheel type landing gear, (DC-6), (C-9A), etc. ST--Single-tandem type landing gear, (C-130). SBTT--Single-belly twin tandem landing gear (KC-10). DT--Dual-tandem type landing gear, (707), etc. TT--Twin-tandem type (includes quadricycle) landing gear (707), (B-52), (C-135), etc. TRT--Triple-tandem landing gear, (C-17) DDT--Double-dual-tandem landing gear, (E4A/747). TDT--Twin-delta-tandem landing gear, (C-5, Concorde). AUW--All up weight. Maximum weight bearing capacity for any aircraft irrespective of landing gear configuration. SWL--Single Wheel Loading. (This includes information submitted in terms of Equivalent Single Wheel Loading (ESWL) and Single Isolated Wheel Loading). SWL figures are shown in thousands of pounds with the last three figures being omitted. PSI--Pounds per square inch. PSI is the actual figure expressing maximum pounds per square inch runway will support, e.g., (SWL 000/PSI 535). Quadricycle and dual-tandem are considered virtuallly equal for runway weight bearing consideration, as are single-tandem and dual-wheel. Omission of weight bearing capacity indicates information unknown. The ACN/PCN System is the ICAO method of reporting pavement strength for pavements with bearing strengths greater than 12,500 pounds. The Pavement Classification Number (PCN) is established by an engineering assessment of the runway. The PCN is for use in conjunction with an Aircraft Classification Number (ACN). Consult the Aircraft Flight Manual or other appropriate source for ACN tables or charts. Currently, ACN data may not be available for all aircraft. If an ACN table or chart is available, the ACN can be calculated by taking into account the aircraft weight, the pavement type, and the subgrade category. For runways that have been evaluated under the ACN/PCN system, the PCN will be shown as a five part code (e.g. PCN 80 R/B/W/T). Details of the coded format are as follows: (1) The PCN NUMBER--The reported PCN indicates that an aircraft with an ACN equal or less than the reported PCN can operate on the pavement subject to any limitation of the tire pressure. (2) The type of pavement: R--Rigid F--Flexible (3) The pavement subgrade category: A--High B--Medium C--Low D--Ultra-low (4) The maximum tire pressure authorized for the pavement: W--High, no limit X--Medium, limited to 217 psi Y--Low, limited to 145 psi Z--Very low, limited to 73 psi (5) Pavement evaluation method: T--Technical evaluation U--By experience of aircraft using the pavement NOTE: Prior permission from the airport controlling authority is required when the ACN of the aircraft exceeds the published PCN or aircraft tire pressure exceeds the published limits. ***** Whew! Just for fun, here's some real-world examples (can you tell I've got *alot* of time on my hands? :) : KLAX S-175, D-225, DT-400, DDT-900 KSFO S-60, D-200,DT-355,DDT-710 KDEN S-100, D-200, DT-380, DDT-850 KLAS S-23, D-220, DT-633 Tailwinds, LTC. Paul Mayer, CAP mayerp1@nevada.edu UNLV, Las Vegas, NV ATP, AGI, IGI; former YR F/O (DHC-6-300) and now Just a Japanese 221 student at UNLV From kls Sat Nov 29 15:40:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:02 From: "William R. (Bill) Hoscheit" Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Luis Manuel Perez Llera wrote in message ... >Does anybody know if there is any regulation stating that the >weight-per-wheel is limited in aircrafts due to runways care? In other >words, the reason for the modern aircrafts wear more wheels than older >ones is the danger of wheel explosion or the runway strength? I believe that the issue is based on the load spread, not necessarily a "weight per wheel" equation, as tire pressure can make a significant difference (much more an issue in non-commercial aviaiton). I guess an indisputable response is "it can be". It can certainly mitigate whether or not it might operate out of a given airfield. For example, a mammoth aircraft, such as the An-225, with its just-as-massive weight, manages to spread the load effectively enough to operate from even unimproved or unprepared surfaces. There is no question that improved runways can reduce landing system wear, just as reduced per-wheel wieght reduces runway damages. While regulations do exist as far as what load a runway can bear, beside other basic design considerations, it is the desire to operate in these varied environments that lead manufacturer's/operators to adopt their aircraft more than any specifc mandate. A perfect example is the Indian A-320 variant, whose undercarriage is different than virtually all other operators'. -- Kindest Regards, William R. (Bill) Hoscheit Pacific Presentation Graphics http://24.1.167.192 When I die, I hope I go peacefully in my sleep like my uncle, and not screaming in terror like his passengers. From kls Sat Nov 29 15:40:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:02 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 20 Nov 97 02:53:42 , luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) wrote: >Does anybody know if there is any regulation stating that the >weight-per-wheel is limited in aircrafts due to runways care? In other >words, the reason for the modern aircrafts wear more wheels than older >ones is the danger of wheel explosion or the runway strength? Sorry for the late response. They're are no regulations per se, but if you want to sell an aircraft it must be capable of using the runways that that your customer uses. Every runway has a unique strength- this catergorised as a Loading Classification Number (LCN) or a Pavement Classification Number (PCN). The reason every runway/airport has different LCN/PCN values is that almost runways are constructed differently. Some may have flexible surfaces or rigid surfaces. Also the depth of the structural layers will vary. I am no expert in runway design but I guess these differences are based on the underlying terrain and also the fact that many runways have been extended from smaller runways. Anyway from LCN/PCN value an aircraft designer can determine the equivalent single wheel load (ESWL) required. Then he can determine the type and size of tyre/wheel to use including the tyre pressure and also the number required. The term ESWL is used since the ESWL derived from a four wheel bogie is not the vertical load on the bogie divided by four but a somewhat higher value since the proximity of the wheels in the bogie does not spread the weight out applied to runway completely. Based on wheel disposition and bogie geometry empirical charts can used to determine the correction factor. Clearly there is a compromise here as the undercarriage engineer wants a large bogie which will add weight and results in stowage problems that the airframe designer doesn't want. ESWL tables for manny tyres and also correction factors for bogie geometry can be found in an excellent book, "Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design" by Egbert Torenbeek, Delft University Press. Finally (sorry if this is long winded) - I disagree with your comment that more modern aircraft have a greater number of wheels. Most major runways were upgraded with the introduction of the B707/DC8 and the B747. The B747 still requires the highest LCN/PCN values since its ESWL values are the greatest. Although aircraft like the B777 have two six wheel bogies, Boeing is plannning a family of aircraft - the MTOW has already grown to 286 tonnes from the starting 240 tonnes for the -200IGW. The -300 pushes this to 300 tonnes and the -200X being touted is pushing 335-340 tonnes. I believe this will indeed require an additional centreline wheel pair like the A340-300 and MD-11. Hope this answers the questions! From kls Sat Nov 29 15:40:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: No. of wheels and runways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The [777-300] pushes this to 300 tonnes and the -200X being >touted is pushing 335-340 tonnes. I believe this will indeed require >an additional centreline wheel pair like the A340-300 and MD-11. The 777-300 still uses the same landing gear layout as the -200 and -200IGW. I've not seen any mention of an additional centerline main in any of the -200X proposals, either. I don't think the 777 was designed for this addition, unlike the A340 and DC-10 (upon which the MD-11 was based), so adding it might be pretty painful. -- 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 Nov 29 15:40:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:03 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Payload - Is this correct? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 , 113417@ncren.net, 104@compuserve.com (Mike ) wrote: >I was reading Flight International's Commercial Aircraft of the World >and was surprised to find the following: > >B777-200 Max payload (kg) 29050 >A330-300 '' '' '' 48400 >A340-300 '' '' '' 51300 > >Surely the 777 figure cannot be correct? I am not sure what max payload really is. Aviation week quotes cargo capacity, however you could also claim it is the spread between empty and max landing weight. According to Aviaition Weeks source book the figures cargo capcity is Cargo MLW-Empty wt B777-200 56,500 pounds (25,700kg) 123,000 pounds A330-300 41,400 pounds (18,800kg) 125,000 pounds A340-300 45,000 pounds (20,500kg) 134,000 pounds This strikes me as a meaningless measurement. The avweek data suggest the Flight data for the 777 is probably in KG, and the airbus data is probably in pounds. It isn't far from the cargo data in Avleak if you make that assumpton From kls Sat Nov 29 15:40:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:03 From: John Weiss Subject: Re: Descent Calculator References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group > In article , tedlandy@ozemail.com.au (Ted Landy) wrote: > >I am trying work out how to create a small program to calculate > >descent profiles for aircraft to load into a handheld computer. > > I want to be able to enter height, speed, wind component and weight > >to come up with a distance. > >Originally I thought I could just enter a L/D ratio and presto come > >with an answer. Unfortunately for me it is not so easy. For a given > >IAS on descent the L/D seems to constantly change (increase). > > > >Does anyone know of any useful formulas, available programs or have > >suggestions that may be of use to me? It depends on what you're trying to do. For a max range or max endurance descent, you'd have to find the appropriate Angle of Attack (which would remain relatively constant) for the airplane in question, and translate it to airspeed with a weight and altitude/temp factor if necessary. Then you'd have to put in a correction factor for wind (rule of thumb I use is add half the headwind component, until max of max range cruise speed; or reduce by the same until max endurance AOA). -- john.r.weiss@boeing.com (Notice: *NOSPAM*. in reply address) Scientific Computing Development (47deg29'32"N/122deg12'05"W) Boeing Commercial Airplane Group From kls Sat Nov 29 15:40:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 29 Nov 97 15:40:04 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: 727 inboard leading edge devices Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl The inboard leading edge devices on the 727 do not deploy by sliding forward as do the devices on most other aircraft. Instead, they rotate downward and outward pivoting near the leading edge. Intuitively, this bothers me. With a "sliding" device, the change in wing shape during deployment seems more continuous to me. Do the 727 devices do strange things to the aerodynamics when partially deployed? Why were the devices made in this way? Is there a name for this type of device? From news Sat Nov 29 23:01:39 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsgate.duke.edu!news.eng.convex.com!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!munnari.OZ.AU!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!not-for-mail From: richard@bofh.its.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. Muirden) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. Date: 30 Nov 1997 05:50:14 GMT Organization: RMIT Information Technology Services Approved: bofh@rmit.EDU.AU Message-ID: <65quqm$kj5$1@aggedor.rmit.edu.au> References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> writes: >I get the impression that the very first batch of 777s handed to United >for instance were "early prototypes" (lets call them 777-200) and that >by now Boeing has new and improved 777-200s available (777-200IGW etc). no no. The two variants were always on the boards, with the "A" market model available earlier - the "B" model is what is now called the IGW but started out life being called the 777-200B. -richard -- "I don't care if you've got a | Richard Muirden, Systems Admin, ITS, RMIT Uni personal message from God | richard@rmit.EDU.AU // +61 3 9660 3814 complete with stone tablets..."| http://www.rmit.edu.au/richard - Commander Sinclar | Can you beat my 150 Shostakovich CD's? to Bester, Babylon 5 | Would you even *want* to? :-) From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:49 From: "Dick Bussiere" Subject: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Last week, I was aboard a US-Airways 727-200 on a shuttle from New York to Boston. When we began our takeoff roll, there was a loud "bang" from the rear of the plane. We thought we had hit something or that a major malfunction had occurred. Needless to say, the pilot continued the takeoff roll and the flight proceeded normally. A few minutes later, the captain got on the loudspeaker and said that we had experenced a compressor stall in one of the engines. He said that it was common when taking off into a strong crosswind. Is this true? More importantly, when a compressor stall occurs, is there a loss of power in the stalled engine? Thanks, Dick Bussiere From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:49 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:49 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Needless to say, the pilot continued the takeoff roll and the flight >proceeded normally. I'm surprised. >A few minutes later, the captain got on the loudspeaker and said that we had >experenced a compressor stall in one of the engines. He said that it was >common when taking off into a strong crosswind. In a recent discussion (archives of sci.aeronautics.airliners are at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) it was noted that compressor stalls are not uncommon on the #2 (center) engine of L-1011s at high angle-of-attack due to the intake being partly blocked by the fuselage. It wouldn't be surprising if the same were true to some degree on the 727. >Is this true? More importantly, when a compressor stall occurs, is there a >loss of power in the stalled engine? Your description certainly sounds like a compressor stall. Yes, there is a power loss -- and often damage to the engine, which is why I am surprised that the flight continued. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:50 From: Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England Reply-To: Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> On 29 Nov 1997, H Andrew Chuang wrote: > The bypass ratio of the GE90 is around 9 to 10, much higher than its > competitors (the PW4084/90/98 and Trent 800 [bypass ratio of around 6]). > (Various "superfan"/UHB designs have bypass ratio of around 12 to 15.) > The GE90, even though a heavier engine, does have a slightly better fuel > efficiency. Be careful here. Engine weight doesn't come into fuel efficiency calculations. Specific Fuel Consumption is measured in pounds (of fuel) per hour per pound force (of thrust). You can't really compare engines of different types with this because the fuel efficiency of the engine aircraft combination also depends on the engine's weight, the nacelle and the integration with the airframe. SFC is important, but is not the only factor. If you improve SFC by putting a huge fan on the front of the engine you will make the nacelle bigger and heavier. You will then have to burn more fuel to cope with the extra weight and nacelle drag. The end result might be better or worse aircraft fuel burn depending on how everything balanced out. ____ Matthew Willshee E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge, CB3 0DS : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:50 From: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com There is another practical problem associated with superfan, ultra-high bypass ratio engines. I remember that at one time a bypass ratio of 17 was floating around, and I have seen calculations singing praises of bypass ratios of up to 36. The problem is that of fan size. Anyone who has seen what the replacement of the powerplant on a 737 has done can relate to that. The undercarriage for most aircraft would be too long and skinny for comfort. Or the weight penalty would be too high. I believe this is one of the main reasons why an ultra high bypass ratio engine is not practical. Just my $0.02's worth. Pradip Sagdeo From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:50 From: Matthew Kranz Subject: Re: 727 inboard leading edge devices References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: kranz@sprintmail.com Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > The inboard leading edge devices on the 727 do not deploy by sliding > forward as do the devices on most other aircraft. Instead, they rotate > downward and outward pivoting near the leading edge. Intuitively, this > bothers me. With a "sliding" device, the change in wing shape during > deployment seems more continuous to me. Do the 727 devices do strange > things to the aerodynamics when partially deployed? Why were the devices > made in this way? Is there a name for this type of device? These devices are called leading edge flaps, or Krueger flaps, presumably named after the engineer that thought them up. Yes, it does seem rather unnatural, when compared to slats. But they must work, since Boeing has used them on the 707, 737, and 747 in addition to the three-holer. -- Matthew K. Kranz COMM/Multi/Inst. Greensboro, NC Flight Engineer From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:50 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:50 From: Simon Ellwood Subject: Re: 727 inboard leading edge devices References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bodge It & Co. Ltd. In article , Andrew Goldfinger writes > The inboard leading edge devices on the 727 do not deploy by sliding >forward as do the devices on most other aircraft. Instead, they rotate >downward and outward pivoting near the leading edge. Intuitively, this >bothers me. With a "sliding" device, the change in wing shape during >deployment seems more continuous to me. Do the 727 devices do strange >things to the aerodynamics when partially deployed? Why were the devices >made in this way? Is there a name for this type of device? The inboard devices are known as Kruger flaps, whilst the outer devices are standard slats. The Krugers are normally flexible and form a LE shape during deployment. Aircraft such as the 707 & 747 have only these Krugers - no slats. Both devices increase lift by increasing the curvature and camber of the wing at the LE. However, when the slat is fully deployed, it leaves a slot between itself and the LE of the wing. This slot effectively accelerates flow over the wing LE, increasing the energy in the boundary layer flow. The upshot of all this is that the stall angle of the slatted part of the wing is increased, and thus on an aircraft like the 727, the wing roots stall before the tips. This has the advantages of :- 1) Preventing tip stall and roll when the aircraft stalls. 2) As the root stalls before the tips, and the 727 has a sharply swept wing, a strong pitch down is induced from the "still flying" tips which are a fair way behind the CG. Has anyone noticed that on the 727 the no.s 2,3 and 6,7 slats deploy first at a lower flap setting than the rest of the slats and Kruger's ?? Can any of you Boeing engineers tell us why ?? Simon Ellwood From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:51 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: 727 inboard leading edge devices References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 29 Nov 97 15:40:04 , Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > The inboard leading edge devices on the 727 do not deploy by sliding >forward as do the devices on most other aircraft. Instead, they rotate >downward and outward pivoting near the leading edge. Intuitively, this >bothers me. With a "sliding" device, the change in wing shape during >deployment seems more continuous to me. Do the 727 devices do strange >things to the aerodynamics when partially deployed? Why were the devices >made in this way? Is there a name for this type of device? The device you refer on the inboard wing section is of the Boeing 727 is a Krueger flap (named I believer after a German (?) aerodynamicist. The Boeing 747 also has them on the inboard section of the leading edge too. They are less efficient at delaying stall than leading edge slats (the ones you refer to as sliding forward) but are mechanically simpler and lighter. However, that is not the over-riding reason they are used since all Airbus and all new Boeing aircraft now use full span leading edge slats. I think the true reason lies with the requirements that stall must be demonstrated to me smooth with a stable pitch forwards and no roll. Now no aircraft is built perfectly symmetric and if the outer wing stalls you will get wing drop and roll with pitch down. Thus the designer will in general force the inboard wing to stall first they by reducing the moment arm and any roll tendancy. Since Krueger flaps are less efficient they will do this quite nicely. Nowadays I believe they change the profile of the slats and tracks to achieve the same inboard wing stall whilst using the most efficient high lift device. Any comments from Boeing aerodynamicists on the above? ttfn From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:51 From: "redjeff" Subject: Re: 727 inboard leading edge devices References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit the 727 is equiped with 8 LE slats, 4 on each wing, along with an inboard LE flap . The slats cannot be partially extended. There have been a couple of incidents where the slats down stops have sheared from the track and allowed the slat to slide completely off. An AD was issued and periodic inspections of the slats and downstops is now required. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:51 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Iberias japanese deal References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Tirtag wrote: > I've heard that Iberia has lease financed a big deal via japanese banks. I read the same news and was first also very impressed by the total financing volume (reported in Yen). But the finance would just have been big enough to get one A320/B737 ! > Does anybody know which planes the spanish airliner is going to get > delivered? And how many? Four months back there was already a discussion about the IBERIA fleet renewal in this NG. Two months back I heard that IB is about to order 64 new a/c. Since then it has been very quiet. There are several a/c to be replaced, mainly 28 B727, 6 A300, 4 DC10 and 7 B742. In addition the 24MD87 could be replaced with A319. I think that Iberia also uses DC9 in latin-america. Latest news is that the B727 will be equipped with GPS. As Luis Bravo pointed out in a previous post, the B727 will be replaced with a mix of B757 and A320, two types IB is already operating. Concerning the widebody's there are only rumours ... B767-300, A330-200, A330-300HGW, A340-600 and B777-200. If the MD87 goes to Aviaco the A319 may be interesting for IB. The A346 to replace the B742 is a pretty safe bet, since IB is already operating the A343 the B772 makes little sense. The A300 could either be replaced by A332 or B763, both types not yet operated by IB. Only the cockpits would be familiar to IB (with the B757 and A340). I think that the price (of course) and the delivery positions will decide who gets the deal. By the way does anybody know the first available delivery positions for the different Airbus and Boeing products ? Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:51 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:51 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 29 Nov 97 03:24:26 , tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) wrote: >>I am not a Boeing customer, and if I were, I am sure that someone at >>Boeing would have sat down with me and explained all the numbering >>schemes for the 777 and the 737, both of which have spawned lots of new >>numbers in recent years. > >Wow... you seem to imply that the people making the billion dollar >purchase decisions aren't even going to spend the 10 min needed to >understand the boeing naming conventions. > >I can assure you that the numerical suffix that boeing uses to denote >each variant don't matter at all to the airline decision makers. I find this whole line very peculiar. If you think this is a problem, I suggest you take a good look at Airbus did with the A-300, There are 11 different models of the A300, they are externally almost all identical (yes a few are 2 feet longer and 1 inch taller). But unless you have a tape measure with you, I doubt you are going to notice. A300B2-100 A300B2-200 A300B4-100 A300B4-200 A300C4-200 A300F4-200 A300-600 A300-600C A300-600F A300-600R There is nothing about the models numbers that tell you very much. can you tell me the difference between a A300-B2-100 and an A300C4-200? (I happen to know what the difference is, so don't bother telling me). At least with the 777's,the naming convemtions tell you something useful about the variant and a -200 and a -300 are physically different aircraft. In reality, each airline ends up with its own model. For instance -38 designation such as 747-438 or 747-338, 767-238, 767-338 belong to QANTAS Airways. There are in fact externally the standard aircraft, but the internal configuration, certification, engines, MGTOW are often unique to that particular airline. If you take away the paint job and the sat antenna if so equipped, a Cathay 747-400, a Qantas 747-400 and a BA 747-400 are going to look very much the same, but each will have a different model number in the last 2 digits. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I find this whole line very peculiar. If you think this is a problem, >I suggest you take a good look at Airbus did with the A-300, There >are 11 different models of the A300, they are externally almost all >identical (yes a few are 2 feet longer and 1 inch taller). But unless >you have a tape measure with you, I doubt you are going to notice. Not quite -- the first two A300s built (A300B1 models -- add yet another to your list!) were 167'2" (50.97m) long. The A300B2 and A300B4 were stretched to 175'11" (53.6m). The slight difference you mention is from these versions to the current -600 models, which have a 21" (0.52m) plug aft of the wing along with the A310's rear fuselage and other changes. >There is nothing about the models numbers that tell you very much. To make it even more confusing, the early versions are often referred to as simply an A300B4 (or A300B2) while the current models are called A300-600. Yet the *correct* designation for the current models is A300B4-600! We could further confuse things by talking about the A300B4-2C, which was rechristened A300B4-200, and various other early designations. To really make a mess, how 'bout the A300B10 and A300B11, which developed into the A310 and A340, respectively? :-) >In reality, each airline ends up with its own model. For instance -38 >designation such as 747-438 or 747-338, 767-238, 767-338 belong to >QANTAS Airways. There are in fact externally the standard aircraft, >but the internal configuration, certification, engines, MGTOW are >often unique to that particular airline. Even this gets muddied, unfortunately. There are a pair of 747-451s (51 is Northwest's Boeing customer code) flying around which are indistinguishable from 747-422s (22 is United's code). They were built for Northwest but cancelled at the very last moment (one had flown in Northwest colors already). United took them, and in the six or so months between signing and taking delivery, Boeing converted them to United's specifications -- but they kept the -451 designation. McDonnell-Douglas made it easy with the DC-10. There are just four models: -10 medium-range model -30 long-range model -40 -30 with JT9D engines -15 -10 with high-rated engines from the -30 Or is it easy? Two DC-10-30s can be very different indeed, despite having the same model designation. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:52 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: TWA800 Fuel Tank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Gerard Foley wrote: > To reduce the probability of a fuselage mounted fuel tank exploding, > as did the tank in the 747 on TWA Flight 800, why not fill such a tank > first and empty it last. Very few airliners exhaust their fuel reserves > in flight. You can blame the engineers that constructed the B747 and most other aircraft for that. The problem is that you must fill the wing tanks before the center tanks due to a structural limits in the wing root. If not, you take a weight penality for departure. The amount of the penalty varies with each model. regards, From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:52 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: TWA800 Fuel Tank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) writes: >El día 29 Nov 97 03:24:31 , gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) dijo: >>To reduce the probability of a fuselage mounted fuel tank exploding, >>as did the tank in the 747 on TWA Flight 800, why not fill such a >>tank first and empty it last. Very few airliners exhaust their fuel >>reserves in flight. > >This also would be very interesting for structural reasons. Remember >that the lasts emptied tanks must be the inner ones due to the bending >moment. I have only one question in mind - most aircraft I have worked with CV880, CV990, L1649, B727 (early models) have to include the weight of any center tank fuel in the zero fuel weight as it is non- dempable. Is this so with the B747 as well??? Lou. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:52 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:52 From: David Tyler Subject: Re: TWA800 Fuel Tank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Gerard Foley wrote: > To reduce the probability of a fuselage mounted fuel tank exploding, > as did the tank in the 747 on TWA Flight 800, why not fill such a tank > first and empty it last. Very few airliners exhaust their fuel reserves > in flight. fuel loading and burning sequences are determined by two factors: 1.) center of gravity (CG) , and 2.) centerline weight. in a swept- wing aircraft like the 747, fuel in the wing tanks moves the CG aft, while fuel in the center tank moves in forward. i'm not now and never have been qualified in the 747, but in the 707, you couldn't keep an arbitrarily large amount of fuel in the center tank without a good deal of fuel in the wings-- the CG would be out-of-limits forward. also, the wings have a ``center of lift;" a location along the wing where the upward force of lift is centered: __ | ____________________ Fuselage | wing ________------| | ------ __| ^ X | Y center of lift please forgive the ascii ``art." now, consider that if you have a _lot_ of weight in the fuselage (like lots of center tank fuel in addition to payload) and _very little wing fuel_, the lift generated by the wing tends to _bend the wing_ at the point i've marked `X.' this is not good for the service life of the aircraft! however, if you have wing fuel weight- ing the wing down at the point i've marked `Y,' the weight keeps lift from bending the wing about `X.' ahh... much better. there's one final reason the practice you've suggested is not foll- owed: wing tank fuel can gravity-feed to the engines without any electrical power required to pump it. you can see that if you took off on a long overwater burning centerline fuel first, then exper- ienced something really fun like loss of electrical power to the bus powering the center tank pumps, well, you may a.) cuss a lot and turn around if you havn't burned much center fuel because you know you need it to get to your destination and now you can't have it, or b.) press on with wing fuel if you've burned most of the center gas prior to the pump failure. if you take off and burn the wing fuel first, getting way out over the ocean, then start burning the center- line fuel and _then_ have the failure-- well, you are not having a very good day at the office. all that centerline gas may as well be water for all the good it will do you! cheers, dave ______________________________________________________________________ -David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not -USAF Phillips Laboratory of benefit to the public." -Albuquerque, New Mexico -tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:53 From: "solrac" Subject: depleted uranium in air accident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I'm also worried about the use of depleted uranium in civil aircraft. Especialy because a DC 10 crashed in my neighbour airport in 1992 - Faro, 21 dec. (Martinair). As a journalist I have made a lot of research about this accidente and every step I made I became more surprised and frightening about the dangers that an airplane carries around. All the systems that dont' work properly. All the information that the crew forgett to see in this case and so on. In Faro for example the pilot should never ever tryed to land because the airfield was flooded. His airplane could never land there with that conditions. It stays in the boock that the widht of that airport is not long enough. My last information is that it is possibel that this DC 10 had DU balanced weight. Most of the wings and tail, where this weights are built in, where destroid by fire. Nobody of the rescue team used any kind of proteccion and nobody really knows if there was any DU. The victims created a foundation to suport their claims. I'm still in contact with them, and they are now presenting very strange simptoms of ilness. How or where cann I know if this particular airpane had any DU in it. The specifications of the airplane are Mcdonnell Douglas DC 10 30F - serial number: 46924 - Martinair Holland NV. It was built in 1975. Thank you already for any kind of information... Carlos From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:53 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Does anybody have any real data for per hour costs B727/B737 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 23 Nov 97 03:04:03 , flynby@worldnet.att.net wrote: >Can anyone give me some hard data for both the B727-200 & B737-200 >(advanced models) on a per hour cost, i.e. maintenance skd/non skd and >etc.... > >Thnx Okay B727-200 and and B737-100/200 coming up. This data is from Avmark Aviation Economist and is from US reported data in 1994. US airlines are required to produce this data annually under a regulation known as form or section 41 reporting AFAIK. Avmark published this in Aug 1995. I am sure there is more recent data available now. Boeing 737-100/200 Total block hours: 942,402 Gallons of fuel ('000): 766,480 ASMs (millions): 33,132 Operating Expenses (dollars per block hour) Labour: 490 Fuel: 428 Other: 28 Direct maintenance - airframe: 138 - engine: 105 Maintenance burden: 163 Depreciation: 139 Aircraft rent: 211 Total costs per block hour: $1,702 Boeing 727-200: Total block hours: 1,492,352 Gallons of fuel ('000): 1,879,070 ASMs (millions): 77,472 Operating Expenses (dollars per block hour) Labour: 661 Fuel: 669 Other: 46 Direct maintenance - airframe: 175 - engine: 127 Maintenance burden: 261 Depreciation: 171 Aircraft rent: 94 Total costs per block hour: $2,204 Boeing 727-200: Total block hours: 1,492,352 Gallons of fuel ('000): 1,879,070 ASMs (millions): 77,472 Hope this helps. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:53 From: delete_to_here-garyn@pacifier.com (Gary Neff) Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , "redjeff" wrote: >No license is required, or needed for de-icing crews. Most U.S. airlines >use aircraft mechanics that have spent a few hours in a de-icing class. Offhand, I can't think of any US airlines that use mechanics as deicers. Gary From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:53 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emirates Internet redjeff wrote: > No license is required, or needed for de-icing crews. Most U.S. airlines > use aircraft mechanics that have spent a few hours in a de-icing class. Most of the airlines that I have had to work for have required a Licensed Aircraft Engineer to inspect the De-icing job and to certify its effectiveness and time of De-ice in technical log prior to departure. regards Exiled Expat From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:53 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:53 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia >The JT9D certainly was big enough for the 767-300 -- the first flight >of a 767-300 was powered by JT9D engines! JAL was the only customer, >however, with 18 examples. Perhaps for the -300, certainly not for the -300ER. I am are of no -300ER's that are JT9D powered. The -300 ER's MGTOW is up to 71,000 pounds higher than the -300. The -300 MGTOW is well below even the -200ER's MGTOW. >Qantas placed their initial 767-300 order on April 24, 1987. By then, >the 767-300 had been delivered with JT9D and CF6-80 engines. It had >also flown with PW4000s, but that combination had not yet been >delivered. QANTAS only bought the -300ER variant, and while you probably could use the JT9D on the -300ER, I don't know of anyone who did. It would imply a fairly sizeable loss in MGTOW. The largest JT9D is 56,000 pounds, the CF6-80 used on the -300ER's is rated at 60,800 pounds thrust, and also has an SFC advantage over the largest of the JT9D's almost 10%. On the long haul routes QANTAS operates the -300ER's, the loss of payload and the higher fuel burn on the JT9's would have been a significant problem. >Lack of deliveries at time of order is not in itself a plausible >reason for an airline to avoid an engine, however, since *somebody* >has to take the first step. More plausible is that Qantas, like many >JT9D operators, had not had a good experience with them. When they >ordered their 767-300s, they weren't about to repeat their mistake and >order more Pratts, old or new. They switched from the JT9D to RB.211 >for later 747 orders for the same reason. I don't believe that was the reason. They bought the 767-200's long after the airline was buying 747's with RR engines. My understanding is they got better fuel economy on the RB211-524D4D's. On the QANTAS route structure, that was not a trivial issue. A few per cent difference in SFC if you keep flying 5-7000 miles leg is a lot of money as both fuel saved, and cargo carried. >>RR had only one customer (I think it still does, BA). > >At the time of Qantas' order, RR had no customers at all, since the BA >order for 25 767-300s with RB.211 engines wasn't placed until August >14, 1987. There's one other customer for RR-powered 767s -- China >Yunnan has three, the last delivered just this past January, with >options for two more. Nice engines, but you've got to be nuts to buy >them on the 767 because the small world-wide fleet means their resale >value is extremely low. QANTAS knows all about that, they have a couple of 747-SP's that are unique. (They have the only SP's with RB211-524D4D's in the world), in fact there appear to be only 3 or 4 RR equpped SP's ever built. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The JT9D certainly was big enough for the 767-300 -- the first flight >>of a 767-300 was powered by JT9D engines! JAL was the only customer, >>however, with 18 examples. >Perhaps for the -300, certainly not for the -300ER. I am are of no >-300ER's that are JT9D powered. As I said, JAL had the only JT9D-powered 767-300s. All were non-ER, and thus there are no JT9D-powered 767-300ERs. Which does not imply that one could not have ordered such a beast, merely that nobody did. BTW, I was incorrect in stating that there were 18 built. That came from a Boeing list. I had forgotten that Boeing only notes the first engine type purchased by an airline on a given airframe. Only the first 13 aircraft (built 1985-1990) have JT9D engines. Beginning with their 14th 767-300, built in 1994, they switched to CF6-80C2B2 engines, possibly because of problems with the JT9Ds (either performance and/or reliability) or perhaps simply because Pratt may no longer have been willing to build JT9Ds. (JAL also switched to GE for their 747-400s, but back to Pratt for the MD-11 and 777.) >QANTAS only bought the -300ER variant, and while you probably could >use the JT9D on the -300ER, I don't know of anyone who did. It would >imply a fairly sizeable loss in MGTOW. The largest JT9D is 56,000 >pounds, the CF6-80 used on the -300ER's is rated at 60,800 pounds >thrust ... No, *one* CF6-80 model used on the 767-300(ER) is rated at 60,800 lbs thrust. According to AvLeak's Source Book, engines with as little as 52,000 lbs thrust are available on the 767-300(ER). As we've observed, that's not always the most reliable reference, and one has to wonder at what point the plane stops being an ER, so a better indicator may be a real aircraft -- Gulf Air has 767-3P6(ER)s with relatively low (for an ER) MGTOW of 387,000 lbs and 57,900 lbs thrust CF6-80C2B4 engines. For the same application, lhrust levels for engines from different manufacturers vary, with GE generally a bit higher than Pratt, so a 56,000 lbs thrust JT9D seems plausible as a 767-300(ER) powerplant, at least at lower weights. In practice, most 767-300(ER) operators seem to have optioned them to the highest weight possible, or very nearly so. This and the fact that the JT9D was both obsolete and endowed with more than its share of problems is probably why no JT9D-powered 767-300(ER)s were built. >>More plausible is that Qantas, like many JT9D operators, had not had >>a good experience with them. When they ordered their 767-300s, they >>weren't about to repeat their mistake and order more Pratts, old or >>new. They switched from the JT9D to RB.211 for later 747 orders for >>the same reason. >I don't believe that was the reason. They bought the 767-200's long >after the airline was buying 747's with RR engines. Yes, but the RB.211 was not an option for the 767-200, at least not at that time. So, buying GE engines for their 767-200s would have meant choosing to have three large turbofans in their inventory. They ultimately did attain that dubious status when they ordered the 767-300s with GEs, but at that point it was a Hobson's choice. >My understanding is they got better fuel economy on the >RB211-524D4D's ... A few per cent difference in SFC if you keep >flying 5-7000 miles leg is a lot of money as both fuel saved, and >cargo carried. As someone else noted, SFC doesn't mean much if it comes with greater drag and/or weight. Rolls long claimed lower fuel burn for the RB.211 while their competitors pointed out that the RB.211 was heavier and that it had more drag, which collectively cancelled out the advantage in SFC. In practice, the 747SPs provided a good comparison. Qantas flew their RB.211-equipped versions on the same routes flown by Pan Am, and later United, with JT9D-equipped 747SPs. I've heard that Qantas had to divert for fuel far less often, thanks to the RB.211s. (Obviously Qantas had a direct comparison between their JT9D- and RB.211-powered 747-238Bs, but I've never heard any comparisons of them.) >>Nice engines, but you've got to be nuts to buy them on the 767 >>because the small world-wide fleet means their resale value is >>extremely low. >QANTAS knows all about that, they have a couple of 747-SP's that are >unique. (They have the only SP's with RB211-524D4D's in the world), in >fact there appear to be only 3 or 4 RR equpped SP's ever built. A total of six 747SPs were built with RB.211s. (The other 39 have JT9D engines. Oddly, none were ordered with GEs.) Besides Qantas's two, the other RB.211-powered 747SPs were bought by Saudia (three) and UAE Royal Flight (one, the last SP built). -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com James Matthew Weber wrote: > I suspect GE helped things along by making QF a repair station for > CF6's. The 767-300ER's are QANTAS's only GE powered aircraft. (Yes > they now some A300 with CF6 and CFM56 as a result of Australian > Airlines merger). So QF didn't purchase any of those A300 ? Rgds, -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:54 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:54 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Karl Swartz wrote: > Right. I should remember that, since I was once on a United 747-400 > that lost an engine just after takeoff, and afterwards the pilots were > griping about all the paperwork required by ETOPS rules. When I asked > about this, they pointed out that United's 767-300s use essentially > the same engines (PW4000s in their case) and thus an IFSD report had > to be filed even though the 747-400 is not an ETOPS aircraft. > > Nevertheless, the basic airframe/engine combo has to be certified for > ETOPS. The, the airline and its operations and maintenance have to be > certified. It's not clear to me that this depends on experience with > the airframe and/or engine for which ETOPS clearance is being requested, > though once in service the airline's other experience with the engine > is clearly relevant. Agreed > All of this ignores the special rules used for ETOPS-out-of-the-box > used for the 777. United's experience with the PW4000 on the 747 and > 767 probably helped with the airline part of the certification, but > the PW4000 on their 777s is a substantially different engine. I think, and this is strictly opinion, the 777's 180 minute out of the box approval had more to do with the work Boeing and the engine manufacturers did prior to the aircraft entering service. I am a little uncomfortable with that, there is a substantial learning curve with any new aircraft or engine for both the operator and the manufacturer. This involves learning to analize trends and symptoms and take corrective action before an event occurs. While the PW4000 is based on an existing type, the GE90 and RR Trent are a whole new breed of cat. I do not have any experience with these engines, but it is probable that the in service limits are very tight, and the inspection interval is small. Both will probably be relaxed and escalated as operating experienced is gained, > I tried looking for ETOPS info in the FARs, but couldn't find anything. > Can anyone cite the exact FARs that cover ETOPS? That's only for US > carriers, but the rules in other countries are similar, and the FARs > have the advantage of being on-line and this easy to refer to. I don't believe the FAR's address this directly. There is an Advisory Circular which covers ETOPS program requirements but I do not know which one. -Seth From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:55 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I think, and this is strictly opinion, the 777's 180 minute out of the >box approval had more to do with the work Boeing and the engine >manufacturers did prior to the aircraft entering service. I am a little >uncomfortable with that, there is a substantial learning curve with any >new aircraft or engine for both the operator and the manufacturer. In fairness, the last 600 (?) flights of the 1,000 flight ETOPS proving program for the PW4000-powered 777 were operated by United, with Boeing supervision, so United did have significant operational experience prior to service entry. They also already had a sizeable PW4000 fleet. >While the PW4000 is based on an existing type, the GE90 and RR Trent >are a whole new breed of cat. The Trent is as much a derivative as the 777's PW4000s -- Rolls just stopped using the RB.211 designation. There are a lot of changes, to be sure, but the same is true when comparing a PW4084 and a PW4060. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:55 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: ETOPS question on Aer Lingus A330 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , James Matthew Weber wrote: >this was not qiute as irrational as it seems on QANTAS's part. The >JT9's are -7R's and are only on the -200's. The CF6's are on the >-300's. At the time the 767-300ER's were ordered, there was no >suitable P&W engine as far as QF was concerned. They were going to >need a new engine in the inventory anyway. The JT9's weren't big >enough for the -300's, the RB211-524H wasn't being delivered, and >neither were the PAW4000's. RR had only one customer (I think it still >does, BA). In short the CF6 was the only proven engine at the time of >order. In additional to BA, China's Yunnan Airlines is also an RB.211-powered B767 operator. The RB.211 engine was chosen because Yunnan switched previous B757 orders using the RB.211-535E4 engine to the B767. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:55 From: andyberrySPAMFREE@tamu.edu (Andy Berry) Subject: Boeing Airline Codes?? was Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Texas A&M University Is there an online list of the codes that Boeing gives its model numbers (i.e. 777-2xx) for the airline that takes delivery?? Also, how do they fit in "model suffixes" in there? Is it B777-2xxIGW? TIA Andy B. -- Andy Berry andyberrySPAMFREE@tamu.edu *Note! Change e-mail address in header!* **All opinions are mine, not TAMU's, EAP's, or Anybody Else's!!** From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:55 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing Airline Codes?? was Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is there an online list of the codes that Boeing gives its model >numbers (i.e. 777-2xx) for the airline that takes delivery?? Yes (ftp://ftp.chicago.com/pub/airliners/boeing.code). >Also, how do they fit in "model suffixes" in there? Is it B777-2xxIGW? Correct. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:55 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: A question on ETOPS requirements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Robin Johnson wrote: > kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >> (various things about ETOPS rules) > > Yes, but surely the real question is, who enforces this. Does the > Captain decide to declare the flight non-ETOPS because both engines > were filled with oil from the same can, as he might have to if one of > various specific pieces of equipment were u/s, and so have to fly by > an indirect route? (Not easy on some routes!) > To take the example of an airline that is running both ETOPS and > non-ETOPS flights with the same aircraft model at the same airport, > does someone authorise each departure and make the necessary > procedural checks? Yes, the person designated under FAR 121 Subpart "U". I wonder who it could be.. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:55 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:55 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia >There's a brief note in the November issue of New Zealand Wings stating >that Air New Zealand are claiming that the delivery flight for their latest >toy, 767-319ER ZK-NCL, from Seattle to Christchurch late last month is the >longest ever for a commercial twin engined jet aircraft. The distance given >is 12,273 km (6627 nm), and the flight took 15 hours, 20 minutes. I believe that is incorrect. I think the actual record for a 767 is held by an Air Mauritius 767-300ER on a delivery flight for a commercial aircraft. The 777-200IGW painted in MAS colors flew almost 20,000km. I suspect there is something else going on here. Perhaps a record for revenue service on a twin jet, certainly not a distaince record for a commercial twin. From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:56 From: Exiled Expat Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emirates Internet David Lesher wrote: > Steve Lacker writes: > > >> Could you not just heat the APU's normally, given you will be > >> starting it ASAP if you lose an engine anyhow? > but need it be? I was not meaning to ask just "does anyone do it > now?" but also "why not...?" The 777 APU is the first commercial aircraft that I know of that now has electrical heating pads installed onto the APU Gearbox assy which is heated at all times that there is AC power on the aircraft to ensure better colld temperature starts. > That same bleed air feed might start the beast. ISTM a redundant > starting method would not hurt. And don't you get bleed even from a > windmilling engine? I can think of one immediate advantage to > bleed-air starting. If you overcrank an electric starter, you get a > pool of melted copper. At least on {yes, I know, they are > different..} Diesels, the air starters are self-cooling -- you can > keep cranking until you run out of air. On a balky EMC 1250 hp > stationary engine, this was a Godsent..... The 777 also now has a redundant starting unit that consists of a pneumatic air driven turbine starter that is always used to start the APU over the electric starter whenever air is availlable. Seems to me that the aerospace designers are doing a pretty good job doing what they are paid to do. :-) From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:56 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:56 From: Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England On 29 Nov 1997, John van Veen wrote: > When the combustion temperature, maybe 1100 degrees, of the fuel burning > in the APU is considered, there isn't much difference between -45 > degrees and +90 degrees. Both temperatures are very cold relative to > how warm it will get. Maybe someone who knows more about this has a > comment. I should think that the limiting factor on cold starts is oil temperature. If the oil is very cold then it will be too viscous to pump around the oil system. This can lead to problems with bearings and local overheating of the oil (because the cold oil is too thick to pump into the hot bearing chambers to replace the heated oil there). As to the temperature scales mentioned in John's post don't really apply. The oil will cold soak down to ambient temperature, but when the APU is running, the oil is cooled to stop it decomposing. I think about 100 degrees celsius is a reasonable maximum temperature for an oil system, but I may be wrong here. ____ Matthew Willshee E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge, CB3 0DS : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:57 From: wieni@aol.com (WIENI) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com For all ETOPS flights the APU is a NO-GO- item. Therefore it's of course certified for operation and starting in cruising altitude. For this reason all APU's I know have an oil heater, which is permanently on to reduce the drag when starting in high altitude. A very important fact for APU starting capability in high altitude is the pressure ratio of intake vs. exhaust. This is a major driver when choosing the APU intake position. The APU bleed is not only necessary for engine restart but also for cabin ventilation and pressurization ( perhaps more important). In case of no electrical power from the main engines there is also a ram air turbine on AIRBUS A/C delivering power for the basic systems. [Moderator's note: Boeing's twins also have a ram air turbine. -- Karl] Best Regards Mat From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:57 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Don Stokes wrote: >There's a brief note in the November issue of New Zealand Wings stating >that Air New Zealand are claiming that the delivery flight for their latest >toy, 767-319ER ZK-NCL, from Seattle to Christchurch late last month is the >longest ever for a commercial twin engined jet aircraft. The distance given >is 12,273 km (6627 nm), and the flight took 15 hours, 20 minutes. Aaargh! I just looked at the Royal NZ Aero Club report in the same issue (which I don't usually read, and I wonder of the magazine editors don't either), and it states that the claim is for a world record for speed over a recognised course. It also says the time taken was 14 hours 54 minutes. (At least the distances agree!) -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LANs, WANs, Radio Networks, Internet Consulting From kls Mon Dec 1 02:33:57 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 01 Dec 97 02:33:57 From: kevbo@fuji.email.ne.jp (KJ Bogart) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 vs. B777-200X/B747-200X etc. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Asahi Net > >A 777-400X would be well suited to the Japanese domestic market e.g. > >NRT-KIX. > > I think that's more likely than charter work. BTW, it's HND, not NRT, > and at the other end it may still be OSA. Well, TYO-OSA might be a smart designation for the whole market, as there are ex-NRT and ex-KIX flights around. The old Osaka airport, Itami, uses ITM as a three-letter code. The high-volume domestic market (and reasonably high frequency I believe) is HND-ITM, then, for the flights between Itami and Haneda. On a similar note, the characters for Hane-da literally mean "wing field", as in the wings of birds. The kanji even resembles two wings. Cool, ne? Kevin From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:21 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Tu-334 status Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: i b4 e xcept after c Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk Does anyone know the current status of the TU-334? (for those who don't kno wwhat that is, its a Russian regional jet project. Prototype has flown. Looks like a `BAC 1-11 on steroids' i.e. T-tail, rear twin jet engines.) Have/did any Russian airlines made firm orders? (as `firm' as one can use that term) -- -Niels From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:22 From: "B.A. Patterson" Subject: PHL-NRT Under ETOPS 180 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com The U.S. Gov't has been reported as negotiating rights with Japan for US Airways to serve NRT. It would presumably do so from PHL. Since US Airways only has, and is only likely to acquire, two engined aircraft, can they use such an airplane (777 or A330) to fly PHL-NRT under ETOPS 180? If they had to stop enroute or fly a convoluted route, it seems that they could not be competitive. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: PHL-NRT Under ETOPS 180 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The U.S. Gov't has been reported as negotiating rights with Japan for US >Airways to serve NRT. It would presumably do so from PHL. Since US >Airways only has, and is only likely to acquire, two engined aircraft, can >they use such an airplane (777 or A330) to fly PHL-NRT under ETOPS 180? They could even do it with 120 minute ETOPS rules. See http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=PHL-NRT&ETOPS=120 Once you get past eastern Canada, where there are plenty of alternate airports, the key alternates are as follows: YZF Yellowknife, NT, CA FAI Fairbanks, AK, US PASY Shemya AFB, AK, US UHPP Petropavlosk-Kamchatsky, RA See http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=PHL-NRT&RANGE=120min@(YZF,FAI,PASY,UHPP,NRT)&RANGE-STYLE=outline If Shemya is unavailable, PACD (Cold Bay, AK, US) can be substituted with a minimal deviation from the great circle route. With 180 minute ETOPS, this deviation is unnecessary, and there's considerable padding to compensate for the strong northern winds. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:22 From: Andrew Weir Subject: TCAS 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 Question 1: Is it true TCAS is required in US on passenger transports but not freighters? If it is good for one, why not the other? Question 2: Will ICAO require TCAS for all members and if so when? From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:22 From: "ho" Subject: airbag anyone?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM i have been wondering whether it would be practical to have airbag installed on an airliner to increase the chance of survival. The airbag i have in mind was not the ordinary one in the car, it should completely engulf the passenger on the seat and creating a sphere which is hollow in the centre where the passenger is sitting. Thereby, protecting the passenger from all corners in a crash. i have draft of the system but having difficulties finding software to test it out anyone who is interested for more details please drop an email to ericho@swiftech.com.sg From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >i have been wondering whether it would be practical to have airbag >installed on an airliner to increase the chance of survival. I'd expect survivable airliner accidents to be relatively low G, at least along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, as there are lots of crumple zones. The need for the greater upper body restraint offered by airbags (or shoulder belts) would therefore be reduced. Basically, an airbag would be an expensive and complex solution to a problem which may not exist. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:22 From: SHIH-HSUAN_WANG@email.china-airlines.com Subject: ETOPS communication question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM ETOPS regulation (AC 120-42A) requires the aircraft to have "reliable two-way voice communications between the airplane and the appropriate air traffic control unit". Is HF phone patch "reliable" enough for ETOPS operation? Do anyone know what airlines are currently using HF phone patch for their ETOPS flights? -Suzanne From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: Derik Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: (missing) Karl Swartz wrote: > >Needless to say, the pilot continued the takeoff roll and the flight > >proceeded normally. > > I'm surprised. Not I, if a compressor stall is experienced on initial power up under normal conditions, it usually signifies a fuel problem. But in instance of a periodic tailwind, chances are you only had a burp. > >A few minutes later, the captain got on the loudspeaker and said that we had > >experenced a compressor stall in one of the engines. He said that it was > >common when taking off into a strong crosswind. Usually it is a tailwind that will cause a compressor stall. They are very common when doing powerbacks with a good wind outside. > In a recent discussion (archives of sci.aeronautics.airliners are at > http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html) it was noted that > compressor stalls are not uncommon on the #2 (center) engine of > L-1011s at high angle-of-attack due to the intake being partly blocked > by the fuselage. It wouldn't be surprising if the same were true to > some degree on the 727. Actually, the 727's #2 engine isn't that prone to having compressor stalls. It seems like we get them more on the #1 or #3. > >Is this true? More importantly, when a compressor stall occurs, is there a > >loss of power in the stalled engine? > > Your description certainly sounds like a compressor stall. Yes, there > is a power loss -- and often damage to the engine, which is why I am > surprised that the flight continued. A short burp actually. Compressor stalls usually won't cause any damage to an engine if they are not at high power settings. If they did, we would never be able to keep spare engines in stock. :) Like I said, if the stall was on initial powerup and there was only one, I feel there would be no problem in continuing. However, if you experienced a stall at higher power settings, (which is more uncommon due to the amount of air flowing through the engines), stop that sucker. :) From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Dick Bussiere wrote: > When we began our takeoff roll, there was a loud "bang" from the > rear of the plane. > > A few minutes later, the captain got on the loudspeaker and said that we had > experenced a compressor stall in one of the engines. He said that it was > common when taking off into a strong crosswind. > > Is this true? More importantly, when a compressor stall occurs, is there a > loss of power in the stalled engine? Although the mechanisms are different, you can think of a compressor stall as having the exact same effect as a "backfire" through the carburetor of a car engine (anyone besides me still drive carbureted cars? :-) There is a *momentary* complete loss of power accompanied by a "bang", but if no serious damage was done, the engine should come back to full power almost immediately since the rotating components don't have time to slow down very much. Severe compressor stalls can damage the compressor by cracking blades or stator vanes. Apparently in this case the engine gave no signs of any ailment, so the pilot continued on. You did say it was a 737-200 which would have Pratt & Whitney JT8D's, so short of throwing a load of bricks into the inlet, there isn't much that will damage the engine enough to shut it down :-) Of course, that could *also* mean it did suffer some mild compressor damage but just kept chugging on.... It is possible that 30 years of experience shows that an occasional compressor stall on a JT8D is so unlikely to do any damage that its not worth aborting the flight. The explanation of a stall in crosswind also sounds reasonable, since the airflow through the inlet would be disturbed, particularly on the "downwind" engine I would assume. Some aircraft, such as 727-100's and L-1011's are slightly more prone to compressor stalls in one engine (#2 in this case) than in the others because of unique features of the inlet. In the 727 and L-1011, the inlet for #2 is atop the fuselage and coupled to the engine via an "S" duct, which makes the flow into that engine a bit more marginal than the others. The 727-200 addressed the issue with a revised inlet shape for #2, and I don't know if anything was ever done on the TriStar. In any event, it wasn't a severe problem for either plane, since both have outstanding safety and reliability records. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: user@msn.com (Larry Martin) Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>Needless to say, the pilot continued the takeoff roll and the flight >>proceeded normally. > >I'm surprised. I (as a passenger) experienced a compressor stall in the number two engine in a Delta 727 doing Tampa-Dallas some years ago. Same deal - loud bang. We began a slow turn back to the airport and the captain came on the PA and, in a very shaky voice, told us we were returning to Tampa. Some moments later he is back on the PA in an equally shaky voice telling us it was a minor problem and that safety was always "their number one concern at Western Airlines". This was soon after Delta had bought them. His "command voice" didn't do much to calm the passengers and the little old lady sitting next to me almost broke my arm holding on. Fifteen hours later I finally landed at Yuma, Arizona but that's another story....... Larry Martin From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >A few minutes later, the captain got on the loudspeaker and said that we had >experenced a compressor stall in one of the engines. He said that it was >common when taking off into a strong crosswind. The B727 #2 engine is apt to compressor stall in strong crosswinds owing to the length of the inlet duct. This was especially true for the early model -100's (vortex generators were later added to the duct to smooth the flow). Generally, the crosswind stall can be avoided by advancing power on the outboards first, accelerating to 80 knots or so (straightening out the flow into #2), and then advancing #2 throttle slowly. This procedure naturally requires a suitably long runway. The early turbojets and turbofans (JT3D, JT8D, etc.) were very susceptible to compressor stalls, but damage rarely resulted. It isn't at all uncommon to get a stall during engine acceleration, reduce throttle to clear and then continue the takeoff as the engine spun back up normally. I think you'll find that stalls on engines with variable stators are more serious and do require shutdown/inspection. Even some of those allow continued operation if the engine stalled during transient throttle movement. The Captain did the right thing. He got on the PA right away to let everyone know things were OK. John Lombardi uniphone@pacbell.net From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: veryjr@aol.com (VeryJR) Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The same thing happened to another 727 in Newark last week. After two attempts with Compressor stalls the aircraft went back and the flight was cancelled. It sounds as if the wind in NY has been a problem. Kent From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Dick Bussiere wrote: > Last week, I was aboard a US-Airways 727-200 on a shuttle from New York to > Boston. When we began our takeoff roll, there was a loud "bang" from the > rear of the plane. We thought we had hit something or that a major > malfunction had occurred. Needless to say, the pilot continued the takeoff > roll and the flight proceeded normally. > > A few minutes later, the captain got on the loudspeaker and said that we had > experenced a compressor stall in one of the engines. He said that it was > common when taking off into a strong crosswind. > > Is this true? More importantly, when a compressor stall occurs, is there a > loss of power in the stalled engine? It sure sounds like a compressor stall. On the 727 and L1011 the center engine is very sensitive to crosswinds. A crosswind gust while the aircraft is moving slowly can cause a stall or a series of stalls. The JT8Ds on the 727 are pretty tough as far as tolerance to stalls goes. The captain probably checked his instruments and noted that all was within limits and elected to continue. If EGT, N1, N2, and EPR were okay then it is likely there was no damage. The RB211 is not so tolerant. A stall as you described would result in a RTO and probable damage to the HP compressor blades. A stall in an RB211 requires a mandatory borescope inspection of the compressor. -Seth From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: Robin Peel Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Dick Bussiere wrote: > Last week, I was aboard a US-Airways 727-200 on a shuttle from New York to > Boston. When we began our takeoff roll, there was a loud "bang" from the > rear of the plane. We thought we had hit something or that a major > malfunction had occurred. Needless to say, the pilot continued the takeoff > roll and the flight proceeded normally. > > A few minutes later, the captain got on the loudspeaker and said that we had > experenced a compressor stall in one of the engines. He said that it was > common when taking off into a strong crosswind. I experienced a compressor stall in an American Airlines MD-80 (drifting down through around 15,000 on an approach into Washington National). As you described, it was a single, sharp bang from the left engine, followed by puzzled looks fropm all aboard. The engine was shut down and we landed as a single-engine aeroplane at DCA, surrounded by fire trucks (I would have preferred and would have chosen the longer runways at IAD, which don't have the Potomac at each end). I could not figure out how the compressor stall occured when the engines were at (or near) idle at this stage of a descent. - Robin. -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: airbearzln@aol.com (AirBearZln) Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I have experienced a compressor stall (as a passenger) in an OLD peruvian 727, caused, as I recall, by a rear quartering tailwind. Likewise, the Capitano just taxied to the runway better aligned into the wind and pressed on. Same flight had two tire blowouts, which delayed us for several hours while Pep Boys jacks sufficient to lift the plane were arranged...but that is another story. I have experienced compressor stall while flying a Bell 204, and the standard drill is to shut down and have the engine inspected.l I am told that it is less of a big deal in large fixed-wing type engines. Rob From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:23 From: redjeff@bellsouth.net (Jeff Peterson) Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I know on a first hand basis that DL uses A&P mechanics for deicing. Been there, done it, got the T shirt and the cold wet feeling of spending more than a handful of nights spraying glycol on aircraft control surfaces. Don't forget to keep the spray away from the APU exhaust on the 727 wing! From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: de-icing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Gary Neff wrote: > In article , "redjeff" wrote: > >No license is required, or needed for de-icing crews. Most U.S. airlines > >use aircraft mechanics that have spent a few hours in a de-icing class. > > Offhand, I can't think of any US airlines that use mechanics as deicers. Delta uses mechanics for deicing at maintenance stations. At most non-maintenance stations ramp personnel who have recieved the same initial and recurrent training as the mechanics perform the deicing. At some stations contract deicing companies or other 121 carriers perform this deicing. The contract personnel are trained by Delta. To the original poster, the FAA advisory circulal which outlines the requirements for a 121 carriers deicing program is AC120-60. -Seth From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > Right now there are only three 777s out there. The 777-200 (original), > > the 777-200IGW (increased gross weight version of the original), and the > > 777-300 (stretch version currently in flight test). > > I get the impression that the very first batch of 777s handed to United > for instance were "early prototypes" (lets call them 777-200) and that > by now Boeing has new and improved 777-200s available (777-200IGW etc). Boeing is constantly improving all its airplane models, sometimes on its own and sometimes in conjuction with the customers. As improvements are made, they are incorporated into the airplanes currently in the factory and also can be retrofitted to the airplanes already in service. While the first planes received by United may not have had all the improvements and modifications incorporated into later aircraft, there is no reason these changes couldn't have been added by United. I have no idea if or how many 777 updates have been incorporated into United's first 777s. But individual airplanes evolve throughout their lives, which is necessary if the owner is to recoup the full value of its investment. British Airways' 747-100s and 200s, for example, have had a full-size CRT display added on the aisle stand which displays some of the information previously available only on 747-400s. So even though United got the first 777s, I would be very suprised if these planes have not benefitted from at least some of the improvments incorporated into the current 777-200s. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: jchase Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio, USA I can vouch for the variations. In June-July 1996, I flew Cleveland-Newark-Heathrow and back on United; three of the aircraft used were 777's. I say three because the aircraft all had different interior decor, and at least one had different breakdown for the number of rows in first, business, and coach class. All the 777's were operated by United! When I got home I checked the Boeing internet site which revealed that less than 20 777's had been delivered as of that date. (One similarity- ALL of the mini-TV's in the coach class seatbacks were hard to see!) From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >In June-July 1996, I flew Cleveland-Newark-Heathrow and back on >United; three of the aircraft used were 777's. United doesn't fly CLE-EWR, and didn't in 1996. Perhaps you meant Washington-Dulles instead of Newark, but that would have been a Jetstream on United Express for the CLE-IAD segment. >I say three because the aircraft all had different interior decor, >and at least one had different breakdown for the number of rows in >first, business, and coach class. All of United's 777s have the same 12/49/231 breakdown of F/C/Y seats. At least one was delivered in a different configuration, but converted prior to the start of service in 1995. United's 777-222IGWs have newer C seats, and lack the in-seat video, but the still have the same arrangement of seats. Other than that, they have the same decor as the second plane in service had on its very first flight, so I'd be surprised if others are different. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Saudi MD-11's ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >The aircraft currently effected are all MD-11F's. I believe, though, that >there are some twenty-nine MD90's involved in the same deal, too. The >airline also has/had five 747-400's and twenty-three 777-200's on order, so >it is possible that there are some negotiations going on with Boeing >regarding some late changes (specifically, would Boeing want to build those >MD90's if they could deliver something else instead?). Saudi Arabian did also order 29 MD-90s. These are currently in production, and the first production model is being used for flight test. These are rather radically modified MD-90s, based on the desires of the airline. In addition to a number of new systems, the cockpit has a lighted, push-button overhead and a six-across LCD configuration replacing the standard instrument panel (these units are the same part number as those used in the 777, made by Honeywell). Considering all the upgrades the airline has made from the EFIS MD-90, and the production status of the aircraft, I doubt that they would want to replace them with a different Boeing aircraft at this late date, especially when you consider the current production delays in Seattle. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: Peter Ivakitsch Subject: Saudi Arabia's MD-11's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Interlog Internet Services Apologies if this message is out of line, I just wanted to say a quick thank you to all who replied to my query about the Saudi MD-11 delivery delays. Your comments were very much appreciated. Regards Peter. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: B737 2nd generation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com When will Boeing stop to offer the B737 2nd generation to airlines? Recent orders from low-cost carriers for the 733/734/735 show that on short routes these a/c are still interesting to operate. Price should also be an issue and I guess the difference (after discounts) is bigger than shown in the official Boeing pricelist. 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 Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >On 29 Nov 1997, H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> The bypass ratio of the GE90 is around 9 to 10, much higher than its >> competitors (the PW4084/90/98 and Trent 800 [bypass ratio of around 6]). >> (Various "superfan"/UHB designs have bypass ratio of around 12 to 15.) >> The GE90, even though a heavier engine, does have a slightly better fuel >> efficiency. > >Be careful here. Engine weight doesn't come into fuel efficiency >calculations. Specific Fuel Consumption is measured in pounds (of fuel) >per hour per pound force (of thrust). > >You can't really compare engines of different types with this because the >fuel efficiency of the engine aircraft combination also depends on the >engine's weight, the nacelle and the integration with the airframe. SFC >is important, but is not the only factor. > >If you improve SFC by putting a huge fan on the front of the engine you >will make the nacelle bigger and heavier. You will then have to burn more >fuel to cope with the extra weight and nacelle drag. The end result might >be better or worse aircraft fuel burn depending on how everything balanced >out. I agree with your general statements here. I would also like to add that it may also depend on the stage length of a trip. A heavy engine with low thrust specific fuel consumption (TSFC) may use more fuel on a short trip than a light engine with high TSFC, but less fuel on a long trip. I believe that's a reason why most of the GE90 orders are for the B777-200IGW. Nevertheless, based on various data I have seen, I believe the GE90, some 3,000 lbs heavier than the Trent 800 per engine, is slightly more fuel efficient than both the PW4000 and the Trent 800 (not just the TSFC). From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:24 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com What I found amusing when these things were supposed to be the next great new thing was the lengths folks would go to avoid saying "propeller" or "turboprop." When does a turboprop become an "unducted fan?" -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) wrote: >There is another practical problem associated with superfan, ultra-high >bypass ratio engines ... The problem is that of fan size. Probably a good reason to try it out on a high-winged aircraft. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: Herbert Lasky Subject: Boeing & Airbus Production Difficulties Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Does any know whether Airbus has encountered the same production difficulties that Boeing is experiencing? If so, are the difficulties the same? If not, what have done to avaoid delays? Seperately, is the Boeing delivery schedule for Delta public knowledge? If it is, which models will be delivered when? -- Herbert Lasky Director of Honors Programs Eastern Illinois University cfhxl@eiu.edu ph 217-581-2017 fax 217- 581-7222 From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) wrote: > In article , > C. Marin Faure wrote: > > I just returned from Auckland where we > >filmed a story on Air New Zealand's 767 ETOPS capabilities. They were > >heavily involved in working with the vendor(s) to modify the 767's APU > >back in the 1980s so it could be started on demand in flight and so meet > >the very strict ETOPS operating requirements. > > There's a brief note in the November issue of New Zealand Wings stating > that Air New Zealand are claiming that the delivery flight for their latest > toy, 767-319ER ZK-NCL, from Seattle to Christchurch late last month is the > longest ever for a commercial twin engined jet aircraft. The distance given > is 12,273 km (6627 nm), and the flight took 15 hours, 20 minutes. Having just included a comment on that flight in a video I just finished, the record as I understand it was a speed record between Everett, Washington and Christchurch, New Zealand. I did not see anything in the press release I was given about it being the longest-ever delivery flight for any kind of airplane. The record set was for speed, not distance. The course was 12,243 km and the time was 14 hours, 53 minutes. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Exiled Expat wrote: > The 777 APU is the first commercial aircraft that I know of that now has > electrical heating pads installed onto the APU Gearbox assy which is heated > at all times that there is AC power on the aircraft to ensure better colld > temperature starts. Out of curiosity, do the aircraft used by Canadian North (CP) and First Air (7F) that serve the high arctic have any provision for starting their APUs in gournd conditions that are not that far off from flying at altitude ? CP has 737-200 Combis with the gravel runways modifications. 7F has 727 combis. (I assume they also have the gravel runway mods). Is it true that in the very cold days, the planes land at Resolute and leave one engine running while pax and cargo and loaded/unloaded on the other side? While techically not ETOPS flights, are these planes given ETOPS-like maintenance etc because of the potentially harsh environment they must operate under ? Also, if all the airports between Yellowknife and Resolute are in a severe storm condition, but both Yellowknife and YRB are clear, can they still operate these planes ? From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: ETOPS Question 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: What ? Using his favourites wax crayons, , Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> scrawled >On 29 Nov 1997, John van Veen wrote: >> When the combustion temperature, maybe 1100 degrees, of the fuel burning >> in the APU is considered, there isn't much difference between -45 >> degrees and +90 degrees. >I should think that the limiting factor on cold starts is oil temperature. >If the oil is very cold then it will be too viscous to pump around the oil >system. This can lead to problems with bearings and local overheating of >the oil (because the cold oil is too thick to pump into the hot bearing >chambers to replace the heated oil there). He's right you know, but it's very tricky to get down that low. When Boeing did a trial cold start on a B757, they had to fly to Yakutsk (sp?), Siberia in winter and leave the engine overnight + with no special protection to get the engine to the required temp (-40C ?). No commercial operator would be that cavalier about their property, or would they ? Anyway, the engines started first time, and soon got up to a sensible operating temperature. >As to the temperature scales mentioned in John's post don't really apply. >The oil will cold soak down to ambient temperature, but when the APU is >running, the oil is cooled to stop it decomposing. I think about 100 >degrees celsius is a reasonable maximum temperature for an oil system, but >I may be wrong here. A bit low. IIRC the temperature limit on a B747 is 171C, so running at 100C should present no problems. ----------- Iain Stuart From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin John van Veen wrote: > > "Heating the APU normally" is descending into warm air and allowing it > > to warm up due to the ambient temperature :-) > > When the combustion temperature, maybe 1100 degrees, of the fuel burning > in the APU is considered, there isn't much difference between -45 > degrees and +90 degrees. Both temperatures are very cold relative to > how warm it will get. Maybe someone who knows more about this has a > comment. OK- others have confirmed that APU's often have oil heaters, so lets assume that there aren't any big issues with viscous drag from cold oil. That *still* leaves the problem of sufficiently vaporising Jet-A in the combustors for the ignitors to light it off... and THAT is a lot harder when the inlet air is at -45 degrees rather than +90 degrees. Similar effects can be observed with turbine engines just over the range of temperatures encountered at sea level. I recently flew 2 legs on an RB.211 powered 757. The first engine start was at an ambient temp of about 70F, and I (as always) watched the tailpipe out the window. During startup, I could tell exactly when the engine lit off by hearing a gentle "thump" sound accompanied by heat shimmer suddenly appearing behind the engine. Second leg: engine start on the ground took place at about 30F. This time, when fuel was turned on, a big stream of partially-vaporised fuel sprayed out the tailpipe (looked like white smoke, smelled like raw kerosene when it got sucked into the ventilation system) for about 1 second before the engine actually lit off (which could again be identified by a gentle "thump" and appearance of heat shimmer). I've noticed this on bigger fan engines for as long as I've been flying. If startup is even *noticeably* slower at 30F versus 70F, then there's a big problem (potentially) at -45F. I don't know exactly what the APU builders *do* to aid this, but I suspect that the fuel spray-bars (or whatever they are) were redesigned to vaporise fuel efficiently, and ignitors are carefully designed to be able to light colder, poorly vaporized fuel. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: bwalkernospam@odyssey.on.ca (Bill Walker) Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Odyssey Networks, Inc., London, Ontario, CANADA Matthew Willshee <96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >I should think that the limiting factor on cold starts is oil temperature. >If the oil is very cold then it will be too viscous to pump around the oil >system. This can lead to problems with bearings and local overheating of >the oil (because the cold oil is too thick to pump into the hot bearing >chambers to replace the heated oil there). Quite right, oil viscosity is the main problem with low ambient temperature turbine engine starting and running. Other, less likely, but still possible problems (from my own accursed personel experience) include ice on the ignitors, frozen water in the fuel lines (sure the burners at 1100C, but the fuel has to get there first!), and misbehaving electronics. Any other problems, anyone? -- Weight & Balance Walker wage slave of the aerospace industry From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:25 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: ETOPS Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises WIENI wrote: > For all ETOPS flights the APU is a NO-GO- item. True > Therefore it's of course certified for operation and starting in > cruising altitude. For this reason all APU's I know have an oil > heater Not on the 767/757/727/737/A310/L1011/MD11/MD88/MD90 > which is permanently on to reduce the drag when starting in high > altitude. A very important fact for APU starting capability in high > altitude is the pressure ratio of intake vs. exhaust. This is a > major driver when choosing the APU intake position. Most APU's I have encountered will windmill at 10-20% in flight if the inlet door actuator fails open. > The APU bleed is not only necessary for engine restart On high bypass engines inflight restart is performed using windmill rotation only. This is typiclly around 25-30% N2. The 767/757 when sensing engine speed below flight idle will pop up a restart altitude/airspeed envelope matrix on EICAS. It should be noted that crash engaging the starter at these RPMs could have catastrophic results to the gearbox. > but also for cabin > ventilation and pressurization ( perhaps more important). > In case of no electrical power from the main engines there is also > a ram air turbine on AIRBUS A/C delivering power for the basic systems. A310/757/767/L1011 the RAT provides hydraulic power only. DC10/MD11 have an electric generator driven by the RAT. This in turn powers an electrically driven hyd. pump. The 767ER has a hyd powered generator, driven by the center hyd system. This system is pressurized by either elec. hyd pumps or air driven pumps. the air coming from the A/C pneumatic system. > [Moderator's note: Boeing's twins also have a ram air turbine. -- Karl] -Seth From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin tassio@watson.ibm.com wrote: > Andrew Weir wrote: > >Surely the main reason was very simple, and it is in the heart of why all civil > >supersonic transports are fundamentally unsound (...) > >Nobody will tolerate > >sonic bangs overland. To the uninitiated, describing a sonic bang ("boom" > >is a complete misnomer) is simple: it is the loudest noise you ever > >heard in your life. > > I am so glad you posted because we finally have a participant in these > forums who is an expert in sonic booms. No offense to the initial poster, but those were not the comments of an "expert" in sonic booms.... or at least not the comment of someone who's stood at Cape Canaveral while a Saturn V lifted off (I understand the Shuttle is a bit loud too...:-) There are non-sonic-boom-generated sounds that are as loud as sonic booms. I'm certainly not an *expert* in booms, but I have had a bit of acoustics, including non-linear acoustics. (translation: I just know enough to be dangerous... :-) > I am one of these "uninitiated" > and here is what I've been wanting to know for ages: > The noise level generated by a sonic boom is a function of the distance > from the source of noise. Yes, it is. If a supersonic airplane flies overhead at 60,000 feet, it will not necessarily rattle the foundations. In fact, depending on the size of the aircraft, you might not even notice it. Bigger aircraft generally produce bigger shock waves (sonic booms). Once the sonic boom is generated, it propagates as a more-or-less ordinary sound wave travelling at the local speed of sound, experiencing the normal attenuation effects due to spreading and absorption. I say "more or less" ordinary, because near the source it is a "finite amplitude" (non-linear) sound wave. Far enough away, it transitions to a normal sound wave. There are many other ways of producing finite amplitude sound waves, by the way. > Sitting at the nose of the plane, I'll hear the > loudest thing on Earth. Careful there! Inside the airplane (or even, hypothetically, sitting outside it but *moving with it*) you won't here a thing. > Now imagine the Concorde takes off from > JFK, goes up to is cruising level (60000ft?), and then crosses the sound > barrier right above my head. How much noise will I perceive? See above: probably not more than a gunshot. The Concorde is *big* compared to most supersonic A/C, and thus has a pretty big shock footprint. It could very well be an annoyance to those along regularly-flown routes who might have to hear it several times a day. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu () Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry tassio@watson.ibm.com wrote: : Andrew Weir wrote: : >Surely the main reason was very simple, and it is in the heart of why all civil : >supersonic transports are fundamentally unsound (...) : >Nobody will tolerate : >sonic bangs overland. To the uninitiated, describing a sonic bang ("boom" : >is a complete misnomer) is simple: it is the loudest noise you ever : >heard in your life. This is nonsense. I've heard sonic booms from militry aircraft back in the early/mid 1960's. They used to fly over our house a cople times a week it seems. It sounds like medium loud thunder, though genrally shorter duration. I have heard louder thunder. The boom from supersonic aircraft did tend to rattle dishes and windows but it is not "the loudest noise" I ever heard. It was annoying though. : JFK, goes up to is cruising level (60000ft?), and then crosses the sound : barrier right above my head. How much noise will I perceive? If it is a : heck of a lot, then you are right. If it is not, then the ban imposed by : the US on supersonic flights over its own land was a political knee jerk : to assure the Concorde was a failure. I think the problem with overland supersonic flight is that everyone along the flight path is going to get a boom. The military restricted suspersonic flight over land, probably because of the number of complaints. Imagine how many complaints an airline would get on one NY to LA flight with a window rattling boom following the plane the whole way across the country. -- Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: "Gerard M. Foley" Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Time Warner During the 1950-1970 period there were a lot of sonic booms around. Here near Rickenbacker AFB, there were one or two a day. People would call the airbase and be assured that they had no planes up. They then called the Naval Reserve operation at CMH and got the same answer. They then called North American Aviation (also by CMH) to find they were not flying that day. The transcontinental B58 flight that set a record gave a lesson to a lot of people. I don't know the answer to the attenuation on the ground from Mach 2 at 60,000 ft. I don't remember the B58 altitude, but it was plenty loud on the ground most of the way. -- Gerry K8EF From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: "Damon Marcus Lewis" Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DML Enterprises James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >It was more than just the sonic boom. The aircraft was is >exceptionally noisey. I have friends who used to live in Twyford UK, >just outside Reading. They were directly under the path of Concorde >for the trip to JFK, and about 35 miles from the end of the runway. >Everyafternoon about 4PM the whole house rattled. Were the rules for take-off different in the United States? I live under the former flight path the Concordes took upon approach to Dulles, and I can't recall them being any louder than another plane. I rarely saw them on takeoff, so I can't really compare. But, my question is did the Concorde follow different rules until it was off the coast to keep them quieter? Damon Lewis From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia > >I don't know why people make such a big deal about the noise of the >concord on take off. It really isn't much louder than a Harrier Jump >jet hovering over your head. ;-) Obvioulsy you have never spent any time living under the departure path. I have friends who used to live in Twyford in the UK. They were about 40 miles off the end of the runway at Heathrow that was used for most JFK departures. I used to stay there sometimes when I was in the UK. Every afternoon about 4PM the whole house used to shake. It was Concorde going over, you had to look very hard to spot it. It must have been over 10,000 feet when it went over. That is a guess, but frequently you couldn't see it, it was above the clouds.. It was hard to believe an aircraft that small, that far above could make that much racket. As the house rattled, everyone used to say: 4 o'clock Concorde!! BTW, when I say directly under, I mean directly under. About 10 years ago an Pan-AM 747 dropped part an engine housing on the way out. It ended up quite literally across the street! I subsequently met someone who had worked on the engines, he assured me that behind and beneath the Olympus engines, it really was very. I very noisy. It's been a few years, but I think the guy's name was FFolkes, and I remember he was the Rank-Xerox Professor of Aeronautics at Cambridge. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 24 Nov 97 03:27:48 , "Mihir Shah" wrote: >>After that, only Aeroflot purchased *that* bird. > >Were there going to be any other serious customers anyways, even without the >crash? I can't imagine any airline based in the West that would even >consider it. Even Eastern Bloc nations probably didn't consider it too >much, at least not before Aeroflot itself started serious service (which >they never did, of course). In other words, I couldn't really picture >Interflug or LOT purchasing a Tu-144. Who else? China did not have good >relations with the Soviets at the time, I believe. Cuba? North Korea? I'm >curious on this one (i.e.: potential non-Aeroflot customers of the Tu-144, >if there were any). Aeroflot actually fly the TU-144 in domestic service for about a year. I think the comments ignore a major problem with Concord and the TU-144. For the Eastern Block, the number of destinations where the aricraft was useful was very limited. While the Cubans would probably have liked it, it lacked the range to get anywhere where the speed advantage was useful. The Concorde (presumably the TU144 had very similar range characteristics) makes it across the Atlantic from Paris or London ro NY, Washington or Miami, but that is about all it can do. About the only place the TU-144 could be flown was from Eastern Europe/Soviet Union to the Siberia. It couldn't reach North America or Asian destinations. My own belief is the lack of any destinations where anyone could fly the TU-144 had a lot to do with why no other airlines flew it, and Aeroflot certainly didn't fly it for long. I From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia >I was at Edwards AFB for their recent airshow, which included an >SR-71B doing a Mach 3 flyover at about 75,000 ft. The boom sounded >like a couple of gunshots from a few hundred yards. I don't know if >lower speed would reduce the intensity (I have a feeling it wouldn't) >but lower altitude and a larger aircraft would probably cancel out any >advantage of lower speed. Several points. I don't know how well sound is conductedwhen the air density is very low. SR71 flys above the tropopause, Concode flys in the Troposphere. I also suspect there are some subtle features onthe SR71 to reduce it noise signature as well as it radar signature. Even ignoring that, SR-71 and Concorde are of similar size and weight. On that basis, the 'boom' should have similar energy. However the inverse square law suggests that the boom from 75,000 feet will deliver only about 15% of the energy per unit area on the ground that the boom will deliver from 30,000 feet. Concorde usually goes Supersonic as it passes 30,000 feet, and while the aircraft approaches 60,000 feet, it only does so at the very end of cruise. It covers a lot of distance at altitudes that are a lot lower, and consequently has a large noise foot print. Concorde's other problem is the jet exhause is supersonic, even if the aircraft is not. That is a major cause of noise at lower speeds and altitudes. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>I was at Edwards AFB for their recent airshow, which included an >>SR-71B doing a Mach 3 flyover at about 75,000 ft. The boom sounded >>like a couple of gunshots from a few hundred yards. I don't know if >>lower speed would reduce the intensity (I have a feeling it wouldn't) >>but lower altitude and a larger aircraft would probably cancel out any >>advantage of lower speed. >Several points. I don't know how well sound is conductedwhen the air >density is very low. SR71 flys above the tropopause, Concode flys in >the Troposphere. I also suspect there are some subtle features onthe >SR71 to reduce it noise signature as well as it radar signature. True. The point I was attempting to make was that the SR-71 was already pretty loud, and that Concorde would be even louder. Your comments just reinforce that. >Even ignoring that, SR-71 and Concorde are of similar size and weight. >On that basis, the 'boom' should have similar energy. I guess it depends on your definition of similar. At 408,000 lbs MGTOW versus 140,000 lbs, I'd say Concorde is *much* heavier. It's also nearly twice as long. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:27 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia >The aircraft manufactures have learned a great deal since the development >of the Concorde. Like the British Comet, the Americans have sit back and >learned by the mistakes of others.. The Boeing 707 was a safer aircraft >because of the Comet experiences. The 707 also took advantage of the bad >press that the Comet received during its development and became a huge >success in its time. This really isn't accurage. The problem was De-Havilland had no experience in building large pressurized aircraft, or large jet aircraft. By the time Boeing built the Dash-80, they had already built several large pressurized aircraft, as well as the B-47 and B-52. In one of the books on the history of QANTAS, there is a discussion about how it was the QANTAS selected the 707. In their evaluation, it became clear that many of the negatives De Havilland had to say about the 707 were a result of De Havilland's not adequately understanding the problems. Boeing didn't need the Comet experience, they already knew from other experience. Also the American were probably better engineers than the British by that time, may well have had access to better design tools even then. A lot of the 707 advantages stem from better engineering analsysis of the problems. Interestingly enough, this same problem also impacted Douglas to a lesser extent in the DC-8 design. They lacked the experience in building large jets. As one Boeing official put it, the 707 always had better high altitude, high speed handling characteristics than the DC-8. We had a lot more experience than Douglas had. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:27 From: rlorenz@lpl.arizona.edu (Ralph Lorenz) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Arizona Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry : While not tremendous, I can see how the noise could be startling and : thus worse than a conventional jet flying over at a few thousand feet, : especially if it happened a number of times per day, every day. : There was also the matter of engine noise on takeoff. Having heard : a Concorde departure when the aircraft was about fifteen miles out : from Heathrow, I can easily understand why nobody wanted the thing : around. The racket must be horrific up close. I was once on a coach (=bus) riding to Heathrow, and we drove parallel to the runway, perhaps 50-100m to one side of it. Concorde was oncoming and took off - the noise was indeed impressive, and I remember breaking into a broad grin; it was just too cool - louder than most fighter displays I've heard at airshows... Incidentally, wearing a walkman or similar while in a bus at LHR, you can hear a squeek from the radar dish on the tower (close to the bus terminal) - maybe 3 per revolution, so there must be some RF leaking out of some sidelobes somewhere.. Ralph Lorenz Lunar and Planetary Lab University of Arizona From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:27 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign tassio@watson.ibm.com writes: >barrier right above my head. How much noise will I perceive? If it is a >heck of a lot, then you are right. If it is not, then the ban imposed by >the US on supersonic flights over its own land was a political knee jerk >to assure the Concorde was a failure. I have heard the claim made a few times that the noise restrictions "killed" the concorde (a few times in this thread in fact). I would like to contest this claim. Although the restrictions hurt concorde sales to some extent, in the end, the plane isn't viable economically. There simply isn't a market for transportation that costs more than $500 per man-hour saved. They might have been able to sell a few more of the planes without the flight restrictions, but the airlines would have retired them quickly because they could not sell the tickets at a price that covers the expenses. Not to mention the fact that the planes would have been sold at a loss. Selling 20 more planes and losing an extra $100 million would not have made the program any more successful. From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:27 From: The Aronskys <4penpals@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: 4penpals@worldnet.att.net One thing though. I went through the Internet this morning and picked up a copy of a picture of a Concorde taking off. It must have been Concorde #7 for British Airways because there was a lot of people standing behind this gate watching it takeoff. The thing about a 747 behind a Concorde is that you have the second fastest jet behind the world's fastest jet. Do any of you remember that ABC movie in 1983 called "Starflight: The Plane That Couldn't Land"? That movie was about the world's newest fastest passenger jet taking off from Los Angeles to Australia (Estimated flying time: Two Hours). Imagine the sonic boom on that thing. Anyway, the plane's rockets are stuck in ON position after collision with some debris. Next stop, outer space. I also read an article about the Concorde being good for about 20 more years. Can the world really handle that? On British Airways, to be on a Concorde, it is $5,000 bucks a shot, one way. Rory Aronsky (De-Lurking at Gate 5) From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I also read an article about the Concorde being good for about 20 more >years. Can the world really handle that? If there's a market now, why shouldn't there continue to be one over the next 20 years?! People don't just fly JFK-LHR once and then never do it again. >On British Airways, to be on a Concorde, it is $5,000 bucks a shot, >one way. If want to send a letter from California to New York, I can send it via normal First Class mail for $0.32. It'll probably take 3-5 days to get there. If I want to get it there in two business days, it costs me a little over $8 -- 25 times as much to go about twice as fast. Compared to normal first class, the Concorde fare is only about double, and you get there twice as fast. Even compared to "bulk rate" (er, economy) it's only about ten times as expensive. For someone who absolutely, positively has to be there ASAP, Concorde's fares seem like a decent deal. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:27 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com James Matthew Weber wrote: > I subsequently met up with a gentlemen who had worked on the design of > the engines, and he admitted that the noise level behind and below the > Olympus engines was very very high. Do you (or somebody else) have any values, do we speek of 140dB or more ?? Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Tue Dec 9 03:54:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 09 Dec 97 03:54:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: C-5 to 747? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. Many people assume that the 747 was a direct outgrowth of Boeing's C-5 effort, and that the 747 is, in effect, a civilian version of our C-5 design. I recently had the opportunity to video tape an extensive interview with Dick Withington, who was one of Boeing's top aerodynamicists with a career spanning the B-17 to the 767, and who was heavily involved in Boeing's C-5 effort. I asked him what, if any, relationship there really was between the C-5 design and the 747. His answer was none. Everything about the two designs was different, he said, engines, wing, tail, fuselage, structure, landing gear, etc. The only relationship of one program to the other was the fact that when Boeing lost the C-5 competition, Withington sent about 100 of his C-5 engineers up to Everett to work on the new 747 program. They took with them their experience of working on the design of a large transport aircraft, but that was the only thing from the C-5 program that ended up on the 747 program. Otherwise the programs were completely different, and the airplanes, Withington said, were as different as night and day. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:00 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:00 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: C-5 to 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net C. Marin Faure wrote: > Many people assume that the 747 was a direct outgrowth of Boeing's C-5 > effort, and that the 747 is, in effect, a civilian version of our C-5 > design. Lets face it, history has shown that if Boeing would have received the C5 contract the Air Force and taxpayer would have been better served. The B747 design has always carried more payload farther, faster, with more reliability that the C5A or C5B. Boeing makes big aircraft better.... From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: C-5 to 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Lets face it, history has shown that if Boeing would have received the >C5 contract the Air Force and taxpayer would have been better served. The >B747 design has always carried more payload farther, faster, with more >reliability that the C5A or C5B. Since as Marin explained, the 747 bears little resemblance to Boeing's proposal for the C-5 competition, I'm not sure what you base that on. The C-5 doesn't need to fly farther because it's optimized for maximum cargo lift, not range (the range of a fully loaded 747-400F isn't all that impressive, BTW), and it can refuel in the air if necessary. As with all military aircraft, reliability requirements aren't the same since miltary aircraft fly far less often than commercial aircraft, and maintenance economics can be sacrificed (to some degree) for higher performance. As for payload, the C-5B only slightly exceeds the maximum payload weight of a 747-400F, but a far more important requirement is that it handle extremely bulky and/or dense payloads, and be able to support loading and unloading of those payloads at minimally equipped airports, not to mention landing on unpaved runways. An M1A1 Abrams battle tank cannot fit in a 747, and if it could, the cargo deck floor couldn't support it. The C-5 can take it on with no ground support to help. >Boeing makes big aircraft better.... Many would say that it took Boeing a decade to come close to the technology of the L-1011 TriStar (with the 767), and about 25 years to surpass it (with the 777). The C-130 Hercules is another example of Lockheed building damned good large transports. The C-5, for whatever reasons, seems to have been an anomaly amongst Lockheed's transports (and other planes) in being such a turkey in its early years. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 From: airbearzln@aol.com (AirBearZln) Subject: Re: "Boeing" DC-9?? (was Re: Douglas DC-5) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Yes, correct. See FAR 45.11, which requires in essence the data plate be near the tail on the outside, so the ubnfortunates who come upon the wreckage can id the airplane. I think this rule is about 15 years old. Rob From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 From: riffraff@eskimo.com (David R. Hendrickson) Subject: Re: B737 2nd generation 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: Seattle - it's not Hell, but you can see it from here! In article , marcmsc@geocities.com wrote: > When will Boeing stop to offer the B737 2nd generation to airlines? > Recent orders from low-cost carriers for the 733/734/735 show that on > short routes these a/c are still interesting to operate. Price should > also be an issue and I guess the difference (after discounts) is bigger > than shown in the official Boeing pricelist. were' shutting down one of the two "classic" 737 lines in the Renton plant at the end of February to be converted for the 2nd Next Gen line. i think we finally stop making the classic a year or so from now. everything of course subject to demand... dave David R. Hendrickson riffraff@eskimo.com david.r.hendrickson@boeing.com 737 Next Generation Final Assembly Functional Test Team 4-82 Bldg. Col. J4 Renton, WA M/S 99-72 (253) 234-3639 From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 From: Carl Peters Subject: crosswind landings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc To our pilots or others in the know - when watching crosswind landings by airliners, the great majority land while still crabbing. This must put considerable lateral loads on thr gear in addition to the scrubbing of the tires. Is this the taught method in training? In the light aircraft I fly, we usually try to cross control the aircraft, keeping the crosswind wing down while holding opposite rudder, thus maintaining the runway heading during touchdown. Thanks for the input, Carl Peters From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: Superfan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Don Stauffer wrote: > What I found amusing when these things were supposed to be the next > great new thing was the lengths folks would go to avoid saying > "propeller" or "turboprop." When does a turboprop become an "unducted > fan?" When you take out the gearbox between the propellor and the engine shaft and add extra blades to the prop. -- Andrew. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A question on ETOPS requirements References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) wrote: > kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > (various things about ETOPS rules) > > Yes, but surely the real question is, who enforces this. Does the > Captain decide to declare the flight non-ETOPS because both engines > were filled with oil from the same can, as he might have to if one of > various specific pieces of equipment were u/s, and so have to fly by > an indirect route? (Not easy on some routes!) > To take the example of an airline that is running both ETOPS and > non-ETOPS flights with the same aircraft model at the same airport, > does someone authorise each departure and make the necessary > procedural checks? Airlines that fly ETOPS have very extensive operational procedures governing their ETOPS flights. It's not the captain's decision whether or not to declare a flight non-ETOPS. The flight's status is determined by the airline's very rigorously-enforced ETOPS guidelines. The person responsible for releasing an ETOPS flight probably varies from airline to airline, but at the ones at which I've filmed it's been a Dispatch function. Most people do not realize this, but while the airplane is obviously an important part of the ETOPS picture, it's not the only part. In fact, the airline's operations, maintenance, and systems monitoring functions come under much more scrutiny than the airplanes themselves. Simply purchasing an ETOPS airplane does not allow an airline to fly ETOPS. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:01 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 From: "Shawn P. Stokes" Subject: Re: PHL-NRT Under ETOPS 180 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services B.A. Patterson wrote: > The U.S. Gov't has been reported as negotiating rights with Japan for > US Airways to serve NRT. It would presumably do so from PHL. (snip) Ah but would it be from PHL. There is a lot of technology based industry in the Pittsburgh area that would provide O&D traffic plus the connects. When USAir first applied for service to NRT it was PIT-NRT. I have to wonder if anyone has heard anything from US abt this. Either way as has been stated it would not matter range wise. [Moderator's Note: While interesting, this is drifting off into misc.transport.air-industry territory, so I've directed followups solely to that newsgroup. -- Karl] Shawn From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: PHL-NRT Under ETOPS 180 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 09 Dec 97 03:54:22 , "B.A. Patterson" wrote: >The U.S. Gov't has been reported as negotiating rights with Japan for US >Airways to serve NRT. It would presumably do so from PHL. Since US >Airways only has, and is only likely to acquire, two engined aircraft, can >they use such an airplane (777 or A330) to fly PHL-NRT under ETOPS 180? If >they had to stop enroute or fly a convoluted route, it seems that they >could not be competitive. This is less of a problem than it seems. Most of the route is in fact over dry land. The great circule route will take the flight over the north Pacific. One's perception of distances in the far north is often distored by the Magellan projection maps. The reality is NRT is only about 6.5 hours from ANC, and there are several alternates in the Aleutians, although weather tends to be a challenge there. I don't think ETOPS 180 will require any route alternation. PHL-NRT is not appreciably different in length than JFK-NRT, DTW-NRT or DIA-NRT, all of which has been flown non stop regularily by JAL and NW long before the 747-400 was available. Well within range of 777IGW or A330-200. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: "Jim" Subject: Re: PHL-NRT Under ETOPS 180 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MediaOne Express B.A. Patterson wrote in message ... >The U.S. Gov't has been reported as negotiating rights with Japan for US >Airways to serve NRT. It would presumably do so from PHL. Since US >Airways only has, and is only likely to acquire, two engined aircraft, can >they use such an airplane (777 or A330) to fly PHL-NRT under ETOPS 180? 6779 miles per the great circle and 120 min etops makes it. Boeing claims 767-300ER design range is 7,120. 767-200ER, they claim, can do 7,680. USAir has these from Piedmont. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: PHL-NRT Under ETOPS 180 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Boeing claims 767-300ER design range is 7,120. >767-200ER, they claim, can do 7,680. USAir has these from Piedmont. Six of USAir(ways)' 767-200(ER)s came from Piedmont. Another six came after the merger, though they may have been ordered by Piedmont. With regard to range, Boeing's quoted maximum is for the highest gross weight option (probably with whatever engines give the greatest range). At 351,000 lbs MGTOW, USAirways' 767-200(ER)s are far below the 395,000 lbs maximum, and have commensurately less range. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet John Vincent Lombardi (uniphone@pacbell.net) wrote: : The early turbojets and turbofans (JT3D, JT8D, etc.) were very : susceptible to compressor stalls, but damage rarely resulted. It isn't at : all uncommon to get a stall during engine acceleration, reduce throttle : to clear and then continue the takeoff as the engine spun back up : normally. Way off the point: When I first rode in a TWA707 from O'Hare to Philadelphia, probably around 1957, I thought the takeoff run was the longest I had ever experienced. Later on 707's seemed to get off the ground fairly easily. Were they re-engined or something to improved the initial acceleration? Gerry -- Gerry From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: cjardine@wctc.net (Chris Jardine) Subject: Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CJ Electronics On 01 Dec 97 02:33:49 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>Needless to say, the pilot continued the takeoff roll and the flight >>proceeded normally. > >I'm surprised. A few years back I was on a Northwest 727 from MSP to MEM and we experienced compressor stall while in flight in the #2 engine. Our captain was quite calm and simply told us that the noise we heard was compressor stall and it was probably due to turbulence getting into the S Tube. He then said that he was going to throttle up and make sure that turbulence was the only problem and that if we didn't hear the sound again that we would be on time into Memphis. If we heard it again that he would have to shut down the engine and we would end up a little late. It didn't seem to be a real problem. I'm really glad the captain was really calm about the problem. Chris Jardine Chris Jardine CJ Electronics cjardine@wctc.net http://www.wctc.net/~cjardine/ From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine) Subject: Re: Concorde economics References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: I.E.C.C., Trumansburg, N.Y. > I also read an article about the Concorde being good for about 20 more >years. Can the world really handle that? On British Airways, to be on a >Concorde, it is $5,000 bucks a shot, one way. I gather the load factors on Concorde flights are very high. BA and AF have special ground procedures so you can show up at the airport 1/2 hour before flight time rather than 2 hrs, and they whisk you through customs at the other end. Particularly in the current financial climate, there are plenty of people who believe that it's worth the price. The RT Concorde fare JFK-LFR is only $370 more than the already absurd first class fare of $8104 so what the heck. To Paris, it's $6000 RT if you buy the tix four days ahead, which is a little less than the regular first class fare. -- John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869 johnl@iecc.com, Village Trustee and Sewer Commissioner, http://iecc.com/johnl, Finger for PGP key, f'print = 3A 5B D0 3F D9 A0 6A A4 2D AC 1E 9E A6 36 A3 47 From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: Peter Coe Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Speaking for myself.org. Reply-To: Peter Coe "Damon Marcus Lewis" writes: >James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >>It was more than just the sonic boom. The aircraft was is >>exceptionally noisey. I have friends who used to live in Twyford UK, >>just outside Reading. They were directly under the path of Concorde >>for the trip to JFK, and about 35 miles from the end of the runway. >>Everyafternoon about 4PM the whole house rattled. >Were the rules for take-off different in the United States? I live under the >former flight path the Concordes took upon approach to Dulles, and I can't >recall them being any louder than another plane. I rarely saw them on >takeoff, so I can't really compare. But, my question is did the Concorde >follow different rules until it was off the coast to keep them quieter? I took that route in 1994, in both directions. On landing, the plane doesn't really do anything special. However, on take-off the plane took some pretty drastic noise abatement moves. These were much worse than what might be experienced during the typical Orange County take-off. For starters, Concorde always takes off using after burners. If you have been anywhere near concorde when those light up, you will kow they are gratuitously noisy. So the sequence of events is, plane starts rolling, 5 seconds later, one pair of afterburners lights, followed swiftly by the other pair. You really feel those go! The take-off is then pretty quick, but about 20 seconds into the air, the burners are switched off, and the engines throttled back. You are quite litterally thrown forward in your seats by this sudden reduction in thrust. The plane then waddled around the countryside, comparatively low, and a very high nose up attitude (which is typical of Concordes low speed handling). It took quite a long tim e before the altitude was sufficient for the thrust to be increased, and the afterburners didn't get lit again until we were way out over the sea. >From the other end of the perspective, I used to live in South London close to the approach path to Heathrow, and like everyone else has mentioned, you knew when Concorde was flying over - even on approach. The only other civilian airliners that were comparable were the soviet aircraft. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Ralph Lorenz wrote: > : While not tremendous, I can see how the noise could be startling and > : thus worse than a conventional jet flying over at a few thousand feet, > : especially if it happened a number of times per day, every day. > > : There was also the matter of engine noise on takeoff. Having heard > : a Concorde departure when the aircraft was about fifteen miles out > : from Heathrow, I can easily understand why nobody wanted the thing > : around. The racket must be horrific up close. > > I was once on a coach (=bus) riding to Heathrow, and we drove parallel > to the runway, perhaps 50-100m to one side of it. Concorde was oncoming > and took off - the noise was indeed impressive, and I remember breaking > into a broad grin; it was just too cool - louder than most fighter > displays I've heard at airshows... A Concorde on final approach to LHR is extremely distinctive audibly from the ground. On take off you don't just hear a Concorde on take off - you feel it. I've been in 757s which were behind a Tornado and behind a Concorde when queuing for take off. The Tornado took off with both afterburners lit - very audible. The effect with Concorde was felt as a rumble and buzz through the 757 in addition to the noise. At airshows the Vulcan used to give the same sort of rumble as it turned away from the crowd under power - again with a low frequency you could feel - not exactly surprising given that it also used four Olympus turbojets. --------------- Andrew. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:02 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 09 Dec 97 03:54:26 , "Damon Marcus Lewis" wrote: >James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >>It was more than just the sonic boom. The aircraft was is >>exceptionally noisey. I have friends who used to live in Twyford UK, >>just outside Reading. They were directly under the path of Concorde >>for the trip to JFK, and about 35 miles from the end of the runway. >>Everyafternoon about 4PM the whole house rattled. > >Were the rules for take-off different in the United States? I live under the >former flight path the Concordes took upon approach to Dulles, and I can't >recall them being any louder than another plane. I rarely saw them on >takeoff, so I can't really compare. But, my question is did the Concorde >follow different rules until it was off the coast to keep them quieter? The short answer is yes. On takeoff in the USA, the afterburners are shut off about 30 seconds into flight, and remain off until the aircraft begins the runup to Mach 1, which occurs only after the aricraft is out to sea. Dulles is a good way from the Atlantic Ocean, so once burners are off, the aircraft flies about 20 minutes before beginning the runup to Mach 1. Out of JFK, it usually takes a lot less time to get clear of the mainland. I believe out of Heathrow, they leave the burners on, and begin the runup to Mach 1 as soon as they are clear of traffic, even it is is over the UK. I believe ATC in the UK is pretty good about getting them clear of the airport traffic in a hurry. I'd also point out the aircraft is a lot quieter on approach than on takeoff. On approach, the aircraft is much lighter, and the burners will always be off. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: jdeitch@bellsouth.net (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>I also read an article about the Concorde being good for about 20 more >>years. Can the world really handle that? > > If there's a market now, why shouldn't there continue to be one over > the next 20 years?! People don't just fly JFK-LHR once and then never > do it again. >From what I understand, there are quite a few package deals involving the Concorde one way, and the QE2 the other .... as there are a lot more seats on the QE2, it doesn't take much to fill up the Concorde. Remember, it IS a rather small airplane, seat-wise ... if people keep flying on it at $5k a ticket, why not keep flying it ? - Jonathan From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Mihir Shah wrote: > David Ecale wrote in message ... > > > The Russians went on to design (well some of the specs > >*were* smuggled out of France in toothpaste tubes) the Tu144. This > >was a contender until the spectacular crash at the 1968 Paris Air > >Show. > > Did this happen in 1968? That was the year the Tu-144 was > _introduced_, I > thought. IIRC, the crash at the Paris Air Show happened in 1973, or > thereabouts (I definitely recall it being in the early 1970's, at > least). For the record, the crash of the Concordski occured on the 03-Jun-73 at 15h29. During a vertical climbing the a/c stalled, headed left and lost height. While the pilot tried to regain control, the outer part of the right wing broke off followed by the tail. Next the fuel tanks leaked, which led to the explosion of the Tu144. The 6 crewmembers and 9 people on the ground were killed. No official accident report was ever released. Note that in Dec-75 the 144 entered commercial service, without undergoing a major design change. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >For the record, the crash of the Concordski occured on the 03-Jun-73 at >15h29. During a vertical climbing the a/c stalled, headed left and lost >height. While the pilot tried to regain control, the outer part of the >right wing broke off ... You neglect to mention that, in some versions of the analysis, part of the violent manuvering was to avoid a Mirage fighter which arguably was not where it should have been. An excellent writeup of the crash, with an unbiased comparison of several versions of the sequence of events, is at http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-144.html. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University "Mihir Shah" writes: > Were there going to be any other serious customers anyways, even without the > crash? I can't imagine any airline based in the West that would even > consider it. Well, one fact alone would probably eliminate it from consideration: its range was shorter than Concorde. Sort of a supersonic Caravelle. What would you do with a supersonic plane without even transatlantic range? Unless you live in a dictatorship, over-land flights were basically out of the question, so the Soviet Union and China were the only conceivable customers, having long distances to fly *and* tight control over public protest. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: brokenspar@aol.com (BrokenSpar) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Does anyone remember when Braniff had a Concorde on lease to them and it was painted in their colors?? This was in maybe 78 or 79 or close to that. I've got a number of great photos of the aircraft in the Braniff colors...anyone know where I can get ahold of a photo of the Concorde painted in Pepsi colors?? Cheers From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) writes: > Aeroflot actually fly the TU-144 in domestic service for about a year. > I think the comments ignore a major problem with Concord and the > TU-144. For the Eastern Block, the number of destinations where the > aricraft was useful was very limited. While the Cubans would probably > have liked it, it lacked the range to get anywhere where the speed > advantage was useful. The Concorde (presumably the TU144 had very > similar range characteristics) Nope. The TU-144 had significantly *shorter* range than Concorde. I think range was around 2,000 miles. This made it more of an exercise in national prestige than a workable airplane. After all, what good is a supersonic airliner that won't cross any major ocean? I believe (though I don't understand the details why) that this difference had to do with the turbofan engines on the TU-144. The non-bypass engines in Concorde are actually *more* efficient at supersonic cruise. > makes it across the Atlantic from Paris > or London ro NY, Washington or Miami, but that is about all it can do. > > About the only place the TU-144 could be flown was from Eastern > Europe/Soviet Union to the Siberia. It couldn't reach North America or > Asian destinations. > My own belief is the lack of any destinations where anyone could fly > the TU-144 had a lot to do with why no other airlines flew it, and > Aeroflot certainly didn't fly it for long. And the tendency to fall out of the sky had something to do with it, too :). I believe this had to do with the low-speed characteristics of the delta wing. At low speeds, Concorde (and presumably the TU-144) needs *more* power to maintain altitude as airspeed declines, so it's fundamentally unstable. Concorde's autothrottle system compensates for this, but is a bit beyond the Soviet technology of the time, presumably leaving it up to the quick reflexes of the pilot. As east-west relations began to warm a bit, the Soviets tried to hire Lucas to adapt Concorde's engine controls to the TU-144, until someone in Britain observed that its NK-144 engines were shared with the Backfire bomber, and figured they would just have to sort the whole thing out on their own. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: stodola@hns.com (John Stodola) Subject: Re: Concorde noise (was: Concorde's other customers) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hughes Network Systems Inc. mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) wrote: >It was more than just the sonic boom. The aircraft was is >exceptionally noisey. I have friends who used to live in Twyford UK, >just outside Reading. They were directly under the path of Concorde >for the trip to JFK, and about 35 miles from the end of the runway. >Everyafternoon about 4PM the whole house rattled. Came to call it 4 >o'clock Concorde. It was simply amazing how loud the thing was, and if >you looked, you could find it in the sky, but my guess is that it >went over at something around 15,000 feet. When the Concorde was running out of Dulles, I used to play golf in Laytonsville, MD, about 30 miles from Dulles, on the outgoing flight path of many flights. Normally, you could not hear commercial airliners at that location because they were so high. Not so the Concorde. It was so noisy, I expected it be hundreds of feet in the air, not thousands. It was hard to relate the small size and altitude of the plane with the immense noise. John From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: Chris Dickson Subject: Re: Concorde noise (was: Concorde's other customers) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cray Research, A Division of Silicon Graphics Inc. Karl Swartz wrote: > There was also the matter of engine noise on takeoff. Having heard > a Concorde departure when the aircraft was about fifteen miles out > from Heathrow, I can easily understand why nobody wanted the thing > around. The racket must be horrific up close. I'd always considered Concorde's reputation for noise to be somewhat overblown.... Until, that is, I happened to be collecting my car from the long term car park at LHR (next to one of the runways) just as one took off. The noise was physically painful - loud enough to set off the burglar alarms in most of the cars parked around mine. I later talked to the car park attendant, and he told me that he'd noticed that the noise was much louder on days with dense low-level cloud cover (as was the case at the time). He said that the car alarms didn't generally go off on clear days, but almost always did on cloudy ones. Can anyone suggest an explanation for this? I've speculated that it may have somthing to do with the air density/temperature/moisture content. Does anyone know how/if these factors affect noise propagation, and if they're something that have to be, or ought to be considered in aircraft noise monitoring/prediction? -- Chris Dickson SGI / Cray Research Performance modeler 655F Lone Oak Drive Vector servers, simulation & modeling Eagan, MN 55121 email: cd@cray.com Tel: (+1) (612) 683 5375 From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:03 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Concorde noise (was: Concorde's other customers) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >Now imagine the Concorde takes off from JFK, goes up to is cruising > >level (60000ft?), and then crosses the sound barrier right above my > >head. How much noise will I perceive? I think there's a misconception here; the sonic boom follows any aircraft cruising above Mach 1. It's not just a transient when going transsonic. > I was at Edwards AFB for their recent airshow, which included an > SR-71B doing a Mach 3 flyover at about 75,000 ft. The boom sounded > like a couple of gunshots from a few hundred yards. I don't know if > lower speed would reduce the intensity (I have a feeling it wouldn't) I think it would; after all, boom intensity is zero below Mach 1. My mental model is that the sound that should precede the aircraft all gets squeezed into one nasty transient; the faster you go, the more waves pile up, and the more intense the boom. > but lower altitude and a larger aircraft would probably cancel out any > advantage of lower speed. > > >If it is a heck of a lot, then you are right. If it is not, then the > >ban imposed by the US on supersonic flights over its own land was a > >political knee jerk to assure the Concorde was a failure. > > While not tremendous, I can see how the noise could be startling and > thus worse than a conventional jet flying over at a few thousand feet, > especially if it happened a number of times per day, every day. Yeah. After all, *lots* of airliners cross the U.S. every day. If every one boomed, life would be much uglier. > There was also the matter of engine noise on takeoff. Having heard > a Concorde departure when the aircraft was about fifteen miles out > from Heathrow, I can easily understand why nobody wanted the thing > around. The racket must be horrific up close. Well, yes, but... I happened to be visiting New York back in 1977 (?) when Concorde made a demonstration visit to JFK, amid much frou-frou about takeoff noise. Some enterprising TV reporter took a sound meter down to a subway station, and recorded higher levels for the northbound express train than for Concorde on take-off! So yes, it's awfully loud, but so are a few other things about which there is no public outcry. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: The Aronskys <4penpals@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Concorde Engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: 4penpals@worldnet.att.net Hello. Being a commercial aircraft enthusiast (If you say you've seen all commercial aircraft enthusiasts, you haven't seen me) and the Concorde being my 2nd favorite airliner (My 1st being the 747), these two questions arose in my mind: 1). What is the maximum speed of a Concorde? 2). Because of the speed of the Concorde, the engines must be pretty powerful. What kind of engines are these and are these some kind of special engines? Rory Aronsky (De-lurking at Gate 5) From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: brailletec@t-online.de (Blista-Brailletec) Subject: Re: Boeing & Airbus Production Difficulties References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: T-Online Herbert Lasky wrote: > Does any know whether Airbus has encountered the same production > difficulties that Boeing is experiencing? If so, are the difficulties > the same? If not, what have done to avaoid delays? > > Seperately, is the Boeing delivery schedule for Delta public knowledge? > If it is, which models will be delivered when? To my knowledge, Airbus proudly makes known that it is encountering none of the same production difficulties as Boeing, though the output of new airplanes is being roughly doubled over two years. Best check the Airbus website http://www.airbus.com/ for news. The fact is that deliveries so far have been running smoothly. I think Airbus has much greater control over its suppliers network, because it's knit with a more long-term partnership in mind, and also has a very good logistics and production planning experience from having worked in four production centres since the beginning. Boeing seems to rely more on short-term arrangements even with suppliers for whom it is the sole important customer. That's my impression, anyway. I don't know about the Delta delivery schedules, sorry. Regards M. Lange Blista-Brailletec From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: "Laurence Huttunen" Subject: Bird Strike Risk Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Is there any point of operation where a bird strike is of particular danger to the operation of modern passenger jets? On the Monday before Thanksgiving, I was on a Northwest A320 departing San Jose, CA. While accelerating down the runway, a large vibration started through the aircraft and after what seemed about three seconds engine power was reduced and the takeoff aborted. I later overheard crew members saying that we were going about 60 mph when a bird was ingested into the left engine. Indeed, upon deplaning, there was a clean (and bent) spot on an otherwise sooty collection of turbine blades where the fowl did its deed. The plane was put out of service as a result. On the next day, I heard a news report that a Northwest Airbus out of Orange County, CA was already in the air when it hit a bird and had to return to the airport. This must be a relatively common occurance, but one wonders if there is are critical times at which the risk is greatest and what those risk(s) are. Larry From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>i have been wondering whether it would be practical to have airbag >>installed on an airliner to increase the chance of survival. > >I'd expect survivable airliner accidents to be relatively low G, at >least along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, as there are lots >of crumple zones. The need for the greater upper body restraint >offered by airbags (or shoulder belts) would therefore be reduced. >Basically, an airbag would be an expensive and complex solution to a >problem which may not exist. Also, given the soul searching that auto airbags are currently being given in the US, I would find it surprising if such equipment were actually installed in an aircraft. Given the current environment, I think it would need to be proven conclusively that the crash problem (whatever that is) would be solved while at the same time no additional problems caused by airbag deployment would be created. In addition, since most air crashes seem to involve a fire afterwards, I don't think rescue crews would be too thrilled about having a bunch of pyrotechnic devices which may or may not be deployed in the burning wreckage. I understand that an undeployed airbag in a car wreck is something that auto rescue personnel are very careful to deactivate prior immediately. 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 Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: rdd@nospam.netcom.com Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? 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 "ho" writes: >i have been wondering whether it would be practical to have airbag >installed on an airliner to increase the chance of survival. One would assume there's a whole lot of other things to do to enhance survivability for passengers, such as: - Pointing seats backwards. - Providing shoulder harnesses. - Requiring infants have their own seats and carriers. - Providing misting systems. - Utilizing internal furnishings that don't decompose into lethal byproducts when burned. - Providing smoke-hoods. - Making exits easier to open (as Boeing is doing with the new swing-out overwing design on the new 737s). -- 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 Wed Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: trevfenn Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Karl Swartz wrote: > >i have been wondering whether it would be practical to have airbag > >installed on an airliner to increase the chance of survival. ... > Basically, an airbag would be an expensive and complex solution to a > problem which may not exist. And can you imagine 400 or so airbags going off as a result of severe clear air turbulence :) Hmmmmm what would all that gas do to the cabin pressure I wonder? Interesting thought :) Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , Andrew Weir wrote: >Question 1: Is it true TCAS is required in US on passenger transports but >not freighters? If it is good for one, why not the other? This is correct, as the Congressional legislation mandating TCAS was worded to protect air passengers. The FAA (and Congress for that matter) is considering a TCAS mandate for cargo carriers, but no decision has been made as of yet (12/9/97). In the US, the cargo airlines are considering alternate methods of collision avoidance, using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). The idea is that each aircraft would periodically broadcast its position, speed, heading, flight ID, and other information to everyone able to receive it. In contrast, TCAS I/II uses active interrogations: For example, if there are ten aircraft in a volume of airspace, each aircraft must interrogate all of the other aircraft, which then must reply to each interrogation individually, to get the picture of the surrounding airspace. Clearly, the ADS-B has the potential to reduce the amount of RF spectrum used for this application. In addition, ADS-B may have other applications which could be used to increase the efficiency of the airspace system. Obviously, there are many issues which to be worked out, including the question of how one would get from today's TCAS environment to an ADS-B environment. BTW, you can read about the cargo airline's study at: 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 Dec 10 04:05:04 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:04 From: Derik Subject: Re: TCAS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: (missing) Andrew Weir wrote: > Question 1: Is it true TCAS is required in US on passenger transports but > not freighters? If it is good for one, why not the other? Yes, that is correct. I can't answer the second question, but I do believe (as well as the transport pilots) that it should be required on them. > Question 2: Will ICAO require TCAS for all members and if so when? That I cannot answer as well, but hopefully it will come soon. Derik From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:05 From: Woodhead Subject: Call for papers - International Crashworthiness Conference Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET A new, major International Conference..... ****International Crashworthiness Conference - IJCrash'98**** - - - - - - - 9-11 September 1998 at The Dearborn Inn - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dearborn, Michigan, USA - - - - - - - - - - - - Sponsored by the International Journal of Crashworthiness Published by Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, England woodhead@dial.pipex.com Celebrating the first century of mobile structural safety and injury prevention..... This century will go down in history as the most productive in terms of personal and mass mobility. Advances in structural safety and occupant protection have led to a tremendous reduction in the severity of injuries to occupants of road and rail vehicles, air and spacecraft, ships and submarines. As this century and millennium comes to an end, this conference will provide engineers, designers and researchers with an opportunity to reflect on the achievements made to date in crashworthiness or structural safety and impact biomechanics or occupant response. It will also offer a forum for "What next?", how can we improve the overall safety of mobile structures and how can we continue to reduce injuries? The major emphasis of debate will focus on the ever increasing importance of computer modelling and its validation, new concepts in restraint systems, new occupant mechanics hypotheses and realistic accident reconstructions. Conference Scope :- The conference will address the following session areas: Session I Structural Crashworthiness Session II Impact Biomechanics Session III Occupant Restraint Systems Session IV Accident Survey and Reconstruction Session V Modelling The scientific program will include keynote lectures, contributed papers and poster presentations emphasising all aspects of crashworthiness. Submission of Papers and Posters :- Potential authors are invited to read the 'Call for Papers' (below) and submit abstracts for oral and poster presentation on any of the above topics for inclusion within the conference programme. Acceptance will be determined by the Conference Scientific Faculty on the grounds of intrinsic merit and relevance to the main themes of the conference. Call for Papers :- Abstracts To participate in this important international conference, prospective authors are requested to submit an abstract for consideration by the Conference Scientific faculty. Abstracts should be sent to the conference organizers. It is important that sufficient information is included within the abstract to allow it to be fairly assessed by the conference Scientific Faculty. ABSTRACTS MUST REACH THE CONFERENCE ORGANIZERS BY FRIDAY 30 JANUARY 1998. Authors will be informed of the status of their contribution in February/March 1998. Authors should submit a 400-500 word abstract, which should be typed/printed and CONFINED TO ONE PAGE ONLY. Figures, graphs and tables should not be included at this stage. The format for the title of the abstract, authors' names and affiliations should be presented as in the following example: Optimal design of composite fuselage frames for crashworthiness M B Woodson, E R Johnson and R T Haftka (NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681, USA) It is important that : the main corresponding author is named first and is underlined, then followed by all other associated authors. The authors' affiliation (Institution/Company) is given first followed by the relevant department and then the remainder of the address should follow as in the example given above. Authors should indicate whether oral or poster presentation is preferred. Publication :- The Keynote papers will be edited and published after the Conference in book form. All other conference papers will be published as a special issue of the International Journal of Crashworthiness and will be given to all participants at the conference. Provisional registration forms & further information :- To request further information or a provisional registration form please email R Parravani at Woodhead Publishing Limited woodhead@dial.pipex.com International Journal of Crashworthiness :- The International Journal of Crashworthiness provides an authoritative forum for the publication of original research and applied work fundamental for researchers, engineers and designers. The journal covers all matters relating to crashworthiness for road and rail vehicles, air and spacecraft, ships and submarines, and on/off-shore installations. Issues addressed include the quality of response of materials, body structures and energy-absorbing systems subject to sudden dynamic loading. It also encompasses impact biomechanics, which can be broadly categorised into human response, mechanics of injury, human tolerance, development of human surrogates for impact simulation and occupant protection in general. The journal also welcomes submissions with experimental, analytical or numerical analysis as a means of comprehending and predicting the crash response of occupant behaviour. Free sample copies available from the publisher. Published by Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Abington Hall, Abington, Cambridge, CB1 6AH, England Phone +44 (1223) 891358 Fax +44 (1223) 893694 email woodhead@dial.pipex.com Web http://ds.dial.pipex.com/woodhead/ From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:05 From: "David A. Stuart, Sr." Subject: Single engine jet. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: ABSnet Internet Services, Inc. - (410)-685-2000 - info@abs.net Reply-To: dstuart@mail.bcpl.lib.md.us In the December WIRED magazine they have a short profile of a single engine corporate jet, the Vantage by VisionAire ( www.visionaire.com ) It is powered by a single Pratt & Whitney JT15D-5. My question is: Didn't Gulfstream also market a single engine biz-jet in the 1980's? I don't think it ever made it into production though. Does anyone else recall that aircraft and it's name? DAS From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:05 From: Sjoerd Postma Subject: in-flight icing and ATC Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NLR-VV Reply-To: Postma@nlr.nl Does anybody know if ATC does have standard procedures for aircraft that encounter severe icing conditions and need to leave these conditions immediately? Most time this will not give too much problems (I think), but what if a stack of several aircraft is situated in severe icing conditions? Did any thing change after the American Eagle ATR72 accident near Roselawn in 1994? From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:05 From: wayne_dohnal@ccm.co.*intel*.com (Wayne Dohnal) Subject: TWA 800 wingtip separation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Intel Corp During the Monday night TWA 800 NTSB hearings, the "sequencing team" reported that both wingtips separated from the inner portions of the wings fairly early in the breakup sequence. The man giving the report tried to explain the logic of this, and the panelists shook their heads like they understood what he was saying, but I still can't understand! Can anyone explain how it make any sense for the wingtips to separate when they weren't anywhere close to the explosion or structural breakup area? After watching the load test and breakup of the 777 wing on TV, I concluded that there was no possible way for a wing to break up in flight. (I realize these are different aircraft, but I'm assuming Boeing would have similar wing strength across the product lines). Wayne Dohnal not representing my employer From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:05 From: x@y.z (Patrick Dunford) Subject: AN-124 Ruslan Crash pics Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Patrick Dunford Computer Consulting This site carries numerous photographs taken around the crash site of the aircraft. http://www.icc.ru/fed/plane.html -- Patrick Dunford, New Zealand Email Name: pdunford Email Domain: caverock.net.nz Reader: Anawave Gravity 2.0b2 Internet: http://www.caverock.co.nz/~pdunford From kls Wed Dec 10 04:05:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 10 Dec 97 04:05:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > >i have been wondering whether it would be practical to have airbag > >installed on an airliner to increase the chance of survival. > > I'd expect survivable airliner accidents to be relatively low G, at > least along the longitudinal axis of the aircraft, as there are lots > of crumple zones. The need for the greater upper body restraint > offered by airbags (or shoulder belts) would therefore be reduced. > Basically, an airbag would be an expensive and complex solution to a > problem which may not exist. Since the airbaigs will all blow up at the same moment the available volume for the air in the a/c will be reduced in a few milliseconds. Guess what happens ... Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com ---->>>>> Check out my aircraft homepage <<<<<---- WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ From news Tue Dec 2 11:19:14 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Airbus 300, 310 market failure Date: 02 Dec 1997 13:17:51 -0500 Organization: WorldBank Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > > ... the A300 and the > > A310 types have very few orders (under 10 as I remember). What is the > > reason that these two types are failing in the market ? Is the B767 so > > much better ? > > I don't know if this is the reason for the order discrepancy, but the 767 > has a superior wing. I have had one major airline tell me directly this > was the primary factor in their selection of the 767 over the competing > airplanes. Depends how you define "superior". The A310 has a very nice wing, from a technical viewpoint. Unfortunately, it was optimized for short/medium range and so the A310 was unable to compete with the long-range versions of the 767 as effectively as it might have. Since the bulk of the market ended up being for the long-range versions, the wing was indeed an important factor in the A310's poor showing relative to the 767. But I think this is a case of poor market forecasting rather than poor wing design. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA Check out my web site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From news Tue Dec 2 11:23:58 1997 Path: ditka!daver!news1.isp.net!uunet!in3.uu.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. Date: 02 Dec 1997 13:23:31 -0500 Organization: WorldBank Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: Karl Swartz wrote: > ... the first two A300s built (A300B1 models -- add yet another > to your list!) were 167'2" (50.97m) long. The A300B2 and A300B4 were > stretched to 175'11" (53.6m). The slight difference you mention is from > these versions to the current -600 models, which have a 21" (0.52m) plug > aft of the wing along with the A310's rear fuselage and other changes. > To make it even more confusing, the early versions are often referred > to as simply an A300B4 (or A300B2) while the current models are called > A300-600. Yet the *correct* designation for the current models is > A300B4-600! > We could further confuse things by talking about the A300B4-2C, which > was rechristened A300B4-200, and various other early designations. To > really make a mess, how 'bout the A300B10 and A300B11, which developed > into the A310 and A340, respectively? :-) The complicated aspect of the Airbus naming scheme is that they changed it several times. In the beginning, there were the B1, B2, and B4 models. As you noted, the B1 is shorter. The B2 and B4 are the same length, but the B4 has a higher gross weight. Initially, variants were specified with dash numbers such as -1C or -2C. There was also a B2K-3C. Later, this was changed to a system of dash numbers based on -yxx where y is the basic variant, and xx is a code for the engine type. Thus a B4-203 is a B4 model, variant 200, with GE CF6 engines. But the old numbering scheme is still cited in many places. To complicate things, unlike Boeing aircraft, the designation of Airbus aircraft does change if the aircraft is modified. As Karl noted, designations of Boeing aircraft never change once the aircraft is built. So the 747-451s that United has remain -451s because they were initially built for Northwest (Boeing customer code 51) even though right now they have very little in common with other -451s and much in common with United's own -422s. Not so on Airbus aircraft. Do the appropriate mods, and a -103 can become a -203. Airbus has since standardized on the -yxx scheme, where y now indicates the basic model (series 100, 200, etc) rather than sub-model, but the logic remains the same. > McDonnell-Douglas made it easy with the DC-10. There are just four > models: > -10 medium-range model > -30 long-range model > -40 -30 with JT9D engines > -15 -10 with high-rated engines from the -30 > Or is it easy? Two DC-10-30s can be very different indeed, despite > having the same model designation. You forgot the DC-10-30ER. And of course, we'll soon be getting MD-10s. But you're right, the Douglas designations were quite simple. On the DC-9, the second digit of the dash number indicates the variant, distinguishing the -31 from the -32 (higher gross weight variant), for example. And here too, the designation changed if the aircraft was modified. When they switched to MD-, however, this system got all mucked up. You're right that two DC-10-30s can be very different (ask ValuJet about their fleet of DC-9-30s). But so can two 747-451s. If the designation isn't going to change once the aircraft leaves the factory door, why not keep it simple? To my mind, the current Airbus scheme is the most logical and informative of the current schemes. By looking at an Airbus designation such as A320-231 I can see both the series (200) and the engine (V2500, and if I had a better memory I'd be able to say exactly which dash number of the V2500). Moreover, the dash number tells me about the aircraft's CURRENT state, not the state it was in when it left the factory. A Boeing designation such as 747-451 also tells me the basic series (400), but beyond that it only tells me who the aircraft was originally built for (Northwest), and there are so many customer codes anyway that keeping track of them all is near-impossible. It doesn't tell me anything else about the aircraft. If I had encyclopedic knowledge, I might know which engine type Northwest specified, and so what engine the aircraft is likely to have. Even major post-delivery modifications would not be reflected in the designation, however, except informally eg 747-123 (F). And as long as we're expressing opinions, let me add that I personally dislike the ER and IGW suffixes that seem to be all the rage these days. Consider a 777-200. There already is a -200IGW (formerly known as -200B). But what happens if they go ahead with the -200X? That will involve a further increase in gross weight. What will they call that? And will it still make sense to call the -200IGW an IGW when there's an even higher gross weight model around? If Boeing had stuck with -200A, -200B, etc, then -200C would have been a natural progression. And what of the 767-400ER? There is no 767-400, just a -400ER. Excuse me, but that's "extended" compared to what? Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA Check out my web site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From news Tue Dec 2 14:54:55 1997 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. Date: 2 Dec 1997 22:20:47 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <6621jv$65i@examiner.concentric.net> References: Path: ditka!news2.mv.net!news.mv.net!newsfeed.wizvax.net!ulowell.uml.edu!cam-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.0.154.56!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master In article , Stefano P. Pagiola wrote: > >And as long as we're expressing opinions, let me add that I personally >dislike the ER and IGW suffixes that seem to be all the rage these days. >Consider a 777-200. There already is a -200IGW (formerly known as -200B). Nitpicking: IIRC, Boeing actually skipped the B-market -200 (~ 6,000-nm range) and went straight to the B-plus -200 and called it the -200IGW. I think you're being over critical of Boeing's lettering scheme for sub-models. Don't forget Airbus has the A340-300 and A340-300E, and is considering to offer an A330-300HGW based on the A330-300. And how about the 'R' in A300-600R? >But what happens if they go ahead with the -200X? That will involve a >further increase in gross weight. What will they call that? The B707-320 and B707-420 had the same length. So did the B747-100 and B747-200, as well as the B747-300 and B747-400. Thus, the -200X does not have to be a sub-series of the -200. From news Tue Dec 2 17:55:54 1997 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Airbus 300, 310 market failure Date: 2 Dec 1997 21:56:05 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <66205l$2cr@examiner.concentric.net> References: Path: ditka!news2.mv.net!mv!news.mv.net!newsfeed.wizvax.net!ulowell.uml.edu!cam-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!newsfeed.internetmci.com!199.0.154.56!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master In article , Stefano P. Pagiola wrote: > >Depends how you define "superior". The A310 has a very nice wing, from a >technical viewpoint. Unfortunately, it was optimized for short/medium range >and so the A310 was unable to compete with the long-range versions of the >767 as effectively as it might have. Since the bulk of the market ended up >being for the long-range versions, the wing was indeed an important factor >in the A310's poor showing relative to the 767. But I think this is a case >of poor market forecasting rather than poor wing design. > I don't think the A310 did poorly against the B767. To be a little bit more precise, the A310 competes directly with the B767-200, in terms of seating capacity. Both have accumulated around 200+ orders. Both have not been selling well in the past few years. They are pretty even. The B767 has better range capabilities (mostly because of the wing), but the A310 has better cargo hauling capabilities (because of the wider cross-section). When KLM switched from the A310 to the B767, one of the major factors was KLM did not need the cargo capacity of the A310. The B767 is very popular on both sides of the North Atlantic. However, in Asia and the Middle East, the A300/310 rules. From news Tue Dec 9 15:24:39 1997 Path: ditka!news2.mv.net!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: David Ecale Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Airbus 300, 310 market failure Date: 09 Dec 1997 15:41:48 -0500 Organization: Cray Research a division of Silicon Graphics, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: <66205l$2cr@examiner.concentric.net> H Andrew Chuang wrote: > ... When KLM switched from the A310 to the B767, one of the > major factors was KLM did not need the cargo capacity of the A310. Indeed, this is the case. I flew one of the last A310 KLM flights a few years ago & there was an article in the seat pocket that identified the (then) planned changes in the KLM fleet. The Airbus A310s were being traded to Middle-Eastern airlines & KLM was repositioning its Intra-European aircraft away from dual passenger-cargo capabilities to straight passenger. Smaller aircraft aimed at passengers were going to be acquired. The next 2 Intra-European flights that I had on KLM birds were both Boeing 737 (-300 & -400) aircraft. Zipping through four customs barriers in as many hundred miles dramatically changed the economics of surface shipment in Intra-European commerce. KLM was just following the change in business needs as Intra-European carco air shipment dwindled. The best part of *why* KLM changed aircraft was that the fall in Intra-European customs barriers had greatly reduced the time delays on truck shipment of goods. Yes, the trucking industry was able to compete with the airline industry on a time-delay vs. cost-of- transport basis! (PS. The next time you take a Rhine River cruise and look at those picturesque castles, just remember that every one of them was built as a toll-gate!) > ...However, in Asia and the Middle East, the A300/310 rules. I suspect that the fact that you can't run trucks on Autoroute & Autobahn quality highways in the Middle East is still a reason for the A300 & A310's popularity in the ME & Asia. -- David Ecale ecale@cray.com "The difference between a wolf pup and a German Shepard pup is that a wolf pup is quite happy teething on the leg of a stag that it's parents brought down in a hunt while the German Shepard pup prefers to teeth on remote controls and high end graphing calculators...." From news Mon Dec 15 04:21:28 1997 Path: ditka!daver!newsgate.tandem.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news2.chicago.iagnet.net!131.103.1.115!news1.chicago.iagnet.net!iagnet.net!199.0.154.56!ais.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: aircargo@concentric.net Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.disasters.aviation,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: A Scientific Santa Report Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 04:01:52 GMT Organization: misc.transport.air-industry.cargo Sender: MTA-IC Moderator Approved: aircargo@concentric.net Message-ID: <34bdab6d.24549224@news.concentric.net> ((Originally posted 12/21/96)) As a result of an overwhelming lack of requests -- and with research help from that renowned scientific journal Spy magazine (January 1990) -- I am pleased to present the annual scientific inquiry into Santa Claus. (1) No known species of reindeer can fly. But there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and, while most of these are insects and germs, this does not completely rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen. (2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. But since Santa doesn't appear to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total -- 378,000,000 according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91,800,000 homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each. (3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 0.001 seconds to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh, and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91,800,000 stops are evenly distributed around the Earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household, a total trip of 75,500,000 miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding, etc. This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on Earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second; a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour. (4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized Lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see Point #1) could pull 10 times the normal amount, we cannot do the job with 8, or even 9. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload -- not even counting the weight of the sleigh -- to 353,430 tons. Again (for comparison), this is 4 times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth. (5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance -- this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 0.00426 seconds. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force. In conclusion, if Santa ever did deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now. *<|:{ ) Happy Holidays, ===================================== Michal Douglas Usenet Moderator for misc.transport.air-industry.cargo The Air Cargo Newsgroup - http://www.mta-ic.com From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:20 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:20 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services [Karl, I didn't keep a copy of my original post. I'm rewriting one.] This has not been a good year for Boeing: EU's objection of the Boeing/MD merger, production delays due to parts shortage, negative publicity due to the on-going TW800 investigation and hearings, etc. Now, Boeing is falling behind Airbus in launching the ultra-long-range aircraft. When Boeing failed to launch the B747X program, Boeing said airline customers were more interested in ultra-long-range aircraft like the B777-200X than ultra-high-capacity planes. Boeing was (and probably still is) convinced that the B777-200X will transform the trans-Pacific market like the B767 did for the trans-Atlantic market. However, if you look at Airbus's customer list for the new A340-500 and -600, only EVA Air (BR) and Air Canada (AC) have made commitments for the -500 with a total of 8 firm oders (6 for BR and 2 for AC). Where is the huge interest in ultra-long-range planes that Boeing has once suggested? For the ultra-long-range market, I think the A340-500 should be very competitive with the B777-200X (i.e., if it is launched), becuase some operators are reluctant to use twin-engine planes for ultra-long-range operations. In fact, I think this is the first time Airbus has a legitimate chance of getting Japan Airlines (JL) to become an Airbus customer with the A340-500. Nevertheless, I can think of only two routes which JL needs an ultra-long-range aircraft, namely, Japan-Brazil and Japan-South Africa. For the B747-100/-200-replacement market, I can't really see the four-engine A340-600 be competitive with the twin-engine B777-300/-300X in the long run. A note on engines for the new aircraft: Pratt & Whitney has decided to compete with Rolls-Royce for powering the new A340 derivatives. This should made the A340 a more competitive product. P&W will also offer a 102K engine for the proposed B777-200X/-300X. My understanding is that American Airlines is very interested in the B777-300X for routes like Dallas-Tokyo and the -200X for routes like Dallas-Hong Kong. Thus, I think the -200X/-300X will eventually be launched; it's just a matter of time. After all, -200X/-300X will still have a two-year lead over the Airbus's new duo if Boeing can launch them before next summer. From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:21 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:21 From: bartscher@aol.com (Bartscher) Subject: Re: Single engine jet. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The aircraft was called the Perigrine I believe. It may have been a casualty of the spinoff of Gulfstream from Grumman. However this is a guess at best. Maybe someone else can shed some light on this. I had noticed that these new single engine busines jet proposals bear a striking resemblance to it though. The only thing I can think of that has changed since then is the acceptance of single engine aircraft for charter flights in instrument conditions (Cessna Caravan, TBM700, PC-12). Maybe this is enough to revive the concept of a single engine jet successfully. Eric Bartsch bartscher@aol.com From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:22 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:22 From: k_ish Subject: Re: C-5 to 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom rlawler@isd.net wrote: > The B747 design has always carried more payload farther, faster, > with more reliability that the C5A or C5B. > > Boeing makes big aircraft better.... "Better" if you mean a transport aircraft that can carry 400 passengers 7,500 miles from a 10,000 foot paved runway to another one, with lots of ground support equipment at both ends. This is *not* the mission profile of the C-5. The mission profile of the C-5 is to carry bulky, oversize payloads to and from semi-improved airfields with no ground support equipment. The C-5 has many features to assist in this- large fuselage cross-section, high wing for low cargo floor height, stabilizer and engines placed away from FOD, built in forward and aft cargo ramps, the ability to para-drop payloads, tire pressure adjustable in-flight, and a squat/kneel landing gear feature which inclines the entire aircraft and reduces the cresting angle at the top of the cargo ramp. Long range and high payload per aircraft are economic factors vital to an airline and unimportant to the military....in flight refueling and more aircraft take care of these problems. I do agree the 747 is a fantastic bird (as is the C-5). Boeing could no doubt build an excellent military heavy transport. Comparing the two aircraft, however, is apples and oranges IMHO. Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:23 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:23 From: x@y.z (Patrick Dunford) Subject: Re: C-5 to 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: My ISP is Cave Rock Internet, http://www.caverock.net.nz Whereas "kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)" verily didst writeth on 10 Dec 97 04:05:01 ... ] As for payload, the C-5B only slightly exceeds the maximum payload ] weight of a 747-400F, but a far more important requirement is that it ] handle extremely bulky and/or dense payloads, and be able to support ] loading and unloading of those payloads at minimally equipped airports, ] not to mention landing on unpaved runways. And a 747 couldn't land on the ice at McMurdo, but C-5s have flown there from time to time. -- Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, New Zealand Email Name: pdunford Email Domain: xtra.co.nz Reader: Anawave Gravity 2.0b2 Internet: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:24 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:24 From: Patrick McConnell Subject: Re: TWA 800 wingtip separation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service Wayne Dohnal wrote: > During the Monday night TWA 800 NTSB hearings, the "sequencing team" > reported that both wingtips separated from the inner portions of the > wings fairly early in the breakup sequence. The man giving the report > tried to explain the logic of this, and the panelists shook their heads > like they understood what he was saying, but I still can't understand! > > Can anyone explain how it make any sense for the wingtips to separate > when they weren't anywhere close to the explosion or structural breakup > area? After watching the load test and breakup of the 777 wing on TV, > I concluded that there was no possible way for a wing to break up in > flight. (I realize these are different aircraft, but I'm assuming > Boeing would have similar wing strength across the product lines). My guess would be that, after the nose separated from the aircraft, the aft section pitched up violently because the center of gravity move way, way aft. The pitch-up caused the wings to reach an angle of attack far beyond that which could be achieve by the intact aircraft at the airspeed they were travelling. The resulting lift loads could quite conceivably have failed the wings. The wing will fail at it's weakest point, which could well be just outboard of the fuel tanks. Fuel in the wings relieves the wing bending moment (at least compared to an equivalent weight carried in the fuselage), so the fuel tank termination could be the failure point. Or, the outboard engine attachment point, where the engine point load is introduced, could be it. Certainly the failure point is known to the investigators from the full scale static test. From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:25 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:25 From: sommer@rand.org (Geoffrey Sommer) Subject: Re: TWA 800 wingtip separation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RAND In article , wayne_dohnal@ccm.co.*intel*.com (Wayne Dohnal) wrote: > During the Monday night TWA 800 NTSB hearings, the "sequencing team" > reported that both wingtips separated from the inner portions of the > wings fairly early in the breakup sequence. The man giving the report > tried to explain the logic of this, and the panelists shook their heads > like they understood what he was saying, but I still can't understand! > > Can anyone explain how it make any sense for the wingtips to separate > when they weren't anywhere close to the explosion or structural breakup > area? After watching the load test and breakup of the 777 wing on TV, > I concluded that there was no possible way for a wing to break up in > flight. (I realize these are different aircraft, but I'm assuming > Boeing would have similar wing strength across the product lines). I haven't been following the hearings, but this makes sense. Loss of nose section causes massive center of gravity shift aft; this results in severe nose-up pitching moment. Since aircraft is flying faster than Va (maneuvering speed) this moment results in an aerodynamic force that is reacted through the wings, which fail in span-wise bending. Many years ago, an XP6M jet seaplane suffered a similar catastrophic pitch-up, as a result of a tail control surface design flaw. As I recall, part of one wing-tip was found embedded in the other wing-tip. The wings bent up until they touched above the fuselage! Geoffrey Sommer RAND From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:26 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:26 From: desb@worldnetnospam.attnospam.netremovenospam (J Berry) Subject: FL800 CVR transcript text (long) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Attached is the text of the CVR from FL800. I cleaned up the formatting as best I could, some of the original NTSB pagination remains. GROUP CHAIRMAN'S FACTUAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER 1 FACTUAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER by James R. Cash Electronics Engineer WARNING The reader of this report is cautioned that the transcription of a CVR tape is not a precise science but is the best possible product from a NTSB group investigative effort. The transcript, or parts thereof, if taken out of context can be misleading. Therefore, the attached CVR transcript should only be viewed as an investigative tool to be used in conjunction with other evidence. Conclusions or interpretations should not be made using the transcript as the sole source of information. 2 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Office of Research and Engineering Washington, D.C. 20594 October 20, 1997 Group Chairman's Factual Report of Investigation Cockpit Voice Recorder DCA-96-MA-070 A. ACCIDENT Location: East Moriches, New York Date: July 17, 1996 Time: 3031:12 Eastern Daylight Time Aircraft: Trans World Airlines Inc. Boeing 747-100 N93119 B. GROUP Chairman: James R. Cash Electronics Engineer National Transportation Safety Board Member: Dale Ranz Chief 747 Engineering Pilot Boeing Commercial Aircraft Co. Member: James Ryan Supervising Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Member: Harold D. Spain Captain TWA Inc. 3 Member: Lyle Streeter Air Safety Investigator Federal Aviation Administration Member: Al Weaver Accident Investigator Pratt&Whitney Aircraft Member: Gene York Captain Airline Pilots Association C. SUMMARY A Fairchild model A-100 cockpit voice recorder (CVR) s/n UNK was brought to the audio laboratory of the National Transportation Safety Board. A transcript was prepared of the entire 311/2 minute good 0 quality recording. (attached) D. DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION The CVR unit arrived in the lab in a large cooler still submerged in water. The exterior of the CVR was extremely dented and distorted. The front panel of the CVR was ripped from the unit and was only being held on by the underwater locating beacon mount. The normal carrying handle was missing. The data plate that is normally attached to the front panel was also missing and never recovered. The protective dust cover had to be cut in several places before it could be removed. The interior crash enclosure appeared to be in good condition. There were only a few minor scratches and dents noted. The interior tape reel assembly was wet. Several small thin plastic reel pieces were broken off and were found loose inside of the enclosure. The recording media was wet but otherwise appeared to be in good condition. The tape was not broken or physically damaged from the accident. There were no signs of any fire or heat damage noted to either the exterior or the interior of the unit. The Dukane underwater locator beacon that 4 was installed on the CVR was slightly dented and scratched but operated normally when tested in the lab. 1 The recording consisted of four channels of good quality audio information. One channel contained the cockpit area microphone audio information. The other three channels contained the Captain's, the First Officer's, and the Second Officer's radio/intercom information. The recording starts at 1959:40 EDT and continues uninterrupted until 2031:12 EDT when electrical power was removed from the unit. When the recording starts, the Kennedy gate agent is in the cockpit telling the crew that they are ready for departure. The aircraft's door is closed and the crew request push-back from the gate at 2001:42 EDT. During the push-back and before taxi the crew starts the number 1,2,and 4 engines. The flight contacts ground control at 2008:13 EDT and requests taxi clearance. During the taxi the crew starts the number 3 engine at 2014:29 EDT. The flight is cleared for takeoff on runway 22 right at Kennedy at 2018:21 EDT. The takeoff and climb appear normal. The flight contacts Kennedy departure control at 2020:14 EDT. They are subsequently turned over to Boston Center at 2023:37 EDT. Boston Center instructs the crew to continue their climb and maintain fifteen thousand feet at 2030:15 EDT. The acknowledgment of this transmission at 2030:19.2 EDT is the last radio transmission received from the aircraft. The recording stopped at 2031:12 EDT. James R. Cash Electronics Engineer 1 The Beacon was returned to Dukane Corporation, the manufacturer, for a post accident evaluation of its operation. See addendum report. 5 TRANSCRIPT OF A FAIRCHILD MODEL A-100 COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER S/N UNK WHICH WAS REMOVED FROM A TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., BOEING COMMERICAL AIRCRAFT CO. B747-100 N93119, WHICH WAS INVOLVED IN AN INFLIGHT ACCIDENT ON JULY 17, 1996 APPROXIMATELY 10 MILES SOUTH OF EAST MORICHES, NEW YORK. RDO Radio transmission from accident aircraft CAM Cockpit Area Microphone sound or source INT Aircraft flight/ground intercom sound or source -1 Voice identified as Captain (left seat) -2 Voice identified as First Officer (right seat) -3 Voice identified as Second Officer -4 Voice identified as Instructor Flight Engineer -5 Voice identified as gate agent personnel -6 Voice identified as male aircraft ground personnel -? Voice unidentified TWR JFK Local Controller (tower) GND JFK Ground Controller DEP New York Radar Departure Controller CTR Boston ARTCC Controller (center) FIC TWA Flight Information Controller GH Kennedy Gate Hold Controller LOAD TWA passenger/freight load Controller ATIS Kennedy automated terminal information service UNK Unknown source 6 * Unintelligible word @ Nonpertinent word # Expletive deleted % Break in continuity () Questionable text (( )) Editorial insertion - Pause Note: All times are expressed in Eastern Daylight Savings time. Only radio transmissions to and from the accident aircraft were transcribed. 7 0 CVR Quality Rating Scale The levels of recording quality are characterized by the following traits of the cockpit voice recorder information: Excellent Quality Virtually all of the crew conversations could be accurately and easily understood. The transcript that was developed may indicate only one or two words that were not intelligible. Any loss in the transcript is usually attributed to simultaneous cockpit/radio transmissions that obscure each other. Good Quality Most of the crew conversations could be accurately and easily understood. The transcript that was developed may indicate several words or phrases that were not intelligible. Any loss in the transcript can be attributed to minor technical deficiencies or momentary dropouts in the recording system or to a large number of simultaneous cockpit/radio transmissions that obscure each other. Fair Quality The majority of the crew conversations were intelligible. The transcript that was developed may indicate passages where conversations were unintelligible or fragmented. This type of recording is usually caused by cockpit noise that obscures portions of the voice signals or by a minor electrical or mechanical failure of the CVR system that distorts or obscures the audio information. Poor Quality Extraordinary means had to be used to make some of the crew conversations intelligible. The transcript that was developed may indicate fragmented phrases and conversations and may indicate extensive passages where conversations were missing or unintelligible. This type of recording is usually caused by a combination of a high cockpit noise level with a low voice signal (poor signal-to-noise ratio) or by a mechanical or electrical failure of the CVR system that severely distorts or obscures the audio information. Unusable Crew conversations may be discerned, but neither ordinary nor extraordinary means made it possible to develop a meaningful transcript of the conversations. This type of recording is usually caused by an almost total mechanical or electrical failure of the CVR system. 8 1959: 40 Start of recording. 1959: 41 CAM-? got it. 1959: 42 CAM-? an agent comin'. 1959: 43 CAM-? yeah right. 1959: 44 CAM- 5 passenger's bag pulled, the passenger was on board the whole time. 1959: 49 CAM- 5 all right. 1959: 50 CAM- 1 is the bags back on? 1959: 52 CAM- 5 huh? 1959: 53 CAM-? yes. 9 1959: 53 CAM- 1 yeah he was on the whole time. 1959: 54 CAM- 1 okay. 1959: 56 CAM- 4 are we reconciled? 1959: 56 CAM-? let's go. 1959: 58 CAM-? push. 1959: 59 CAM (( sound similar to cockpit door closing)). 2000: 01 CAM- 1 we won't bother telling them that. 2000: 03 CAM-? nope. 2000: 04 CAM- 1 you don't mind, huh? 10 2000: 11 CAM- 3 we'd have a mutiny back there. 2000: 14 CAM- 4 now the lavatories are full. 2000: 15 CAM- 1 okay, well she said she'd call me as soon as they ah --. 2000: 16 CAM- 3 probably have to get the ATIS now, huh? 2000: 18 CAM- 2 don't don't ah let them do their job Ralph they'll tell you when they're seated. 2000: 22 ATIS -- visibility greater than one zero ceiling better than five thousand temperature two eight due point two one altimeter three zero zero seven approach in use VOR DME runway two two left departure runway runway two two right and southwest departures runway three one left from intersection of kilo kilo all pilot are require to read back all runway hold short instructions in interest of noise abatement please use the assigned runway advise you have tango Kennedy airport information tango two three five one Zulu weather wind two two zero eight visibility --. 2000: 36 CAM- 3 all door lights are out. 11 2000: 37 CAM- 1 thank you. 2000: 53 CAM- 2 tango. 2001: 02 INT- 6 cockpit ground. 2001: 05 INT- 1 hello ground 2001: 06 INT- 6 all right every thing is shut down here you should have all door lights out and when you have clearance you can release the brakes. 2001: 13 INT- 1 yeah we'll get the clearance we're waitin' on all the people to sit down I'll be back with ya in just a second. 2001: 18 CAM (( sound of cabin chime)). 2000: 40 INT- 6 okay we're standing by. 2001: 23 CAM- 3 hello darling. 12 2001: 24 CAM- 3 everybody seated thanks. 2001: 25 CAM- 1 amazing. 2001: 26 CAM- 3 everybody's seated. 2001: 27 CAM- 1 do we have push back clearance to move? 2001: 28 CAM- 3 we're we're we cleared to push from FIC or -. 2001: 30 CAM- 1 no not yet. 2001: 31 CAM- 2 you have to call them. 2001: 32 RDO- 3 FIC TWA eight hundred gate twenty seven. 2001: 37 FIC TWA eight hundred? 13 2001: 38 RDO- 3 yeah we're ready to push. 2001: 39 CAM (( sound of electric seat adjustment)). 2001: 42 FIC TWA eight hundred you're cleared to push gate twenty seven. 2001: 46 CAM- 2 cleared to push. 2001: 47 CAM- 1 cleared to push. 2001: 48 RDO- 3 cleared to to push eight hundred. 2001: 50 INT- 1 okay ground we are cleared to push yeah well wait a minute hang on a minute. 2001: 53 CAM- 1 did they say everybody was seated yeah they did. 2001: 54 CAM- 3 yes. 14 2001: 58 INT- 1 okay, we're cleared to push sorry. 2001: 57 INT- 6 brakes released please. 2001: 58 CAM (( sound similar to parking brake being released)). 2001: 59 INT- 1 beacon on brakes released. 2002: 00 INT- 6 thank you. 2002: 02 CAM- 2 you got something else to do Ralph. 2002: 05 CAM- 1 number one ADP-. 2002: 06 CAM- 2 there you go. 2002: 07 CAM- 1 and the electric. 15 2002: 08 CAM- 2 it's a command. 2002: 09 CAM- 1 electric's on. 2002: 10 CAM- 2 right. 2002: 10 CAM- 2 that's a command. 2002: 11 CAM- 1 command. 2049: 27 CAM- 1 number one ADP on and the electric. 2002: 16 CAM- 2 before you release the brakes. 2002: 22 CAM-? *. 2002: 27 CAM- 2 block's at oh two I assume. 16 2002: 29 CAM- 3 I'm showin' oh two out. is that what you want? 2002: 32 CAM- 2 that's fine. 2002: 33 CAM- 1 yeah. 2002: 34 CAM- 2 that's fine. 2002: 35 CAM- 1 okay. 2002: 38 CAM- 2 that's a minute over kill. 2002: 40 CAM- 1 yeah well that was because they weren't seated they probably had people standing up and they were *. 2002: 46 CAM- 2 * down. 2002: 48 CAM- 2 exactly. 17 2002: 50 CAM- 1 you can bet on it. 2002: 54 CAM- 1 I still think I'm sittin' too high in this thing. 2003: 10 FIC eight hundred. 2003: 11 CAM- 1 somebody calling us . 2003: 12 RDO- 3 go ahead. 2003: 13 FIC tell your mechanic to pull you back push you back far enough so we can get an arrival into your gate. 2003: 18 RDO- 3 okay. 2003: 21 INT- 1 and ah ground FIC wants you to push us back far enough so they can bring somebody in our gate. 2003: 27 INT- 6 okay we'll do that. 18 2003: 30 INT- 1 thank you. 2003: 32 CAM-? * where's this thing. 2004: 07 CAM- 1 ah there's that ah new airplane. 2004: 10 CAM- 2 one twenty nine yes sir. 2004: 43 INT- 6 okay this looks far enough. 2004: 45 INT- 1 okay if you say so. 2004: 47 INT- 6 brakes parked please. 2004: 48 CAM (( sound of parking brake being set)). 2004: 50 INT- 1 brakes parked. 19 2004: 51 INT- 6 thank you cleared to turn your engines. 2004: 54 INT- 1 okay we'll turn one two and four today. 2004: 56 INT- 6 (( sound of two mike clicks)). 2004: 59 CAM- 1 turn one please. 2005: 12 CAM- 2 (( sound of cough)). 2005: 19 CAM- 1 contact. 2005: 22 CAM- 2 you got N- 1? 2005: 26 CAM- 1 I do now. 2005: 27 CAM- 2 you do now. 20 2005: 29 CAM- 3 four fifty. 2005: 30 CAM- 1 it bobbled but not much. 2005: 42 CAM- 1 and turn two please. 2005: 44 CAM- 4 ***. 2006: 00 CAM- 1 N- one. 2006: 01 CAM- 3 turning. 2006: 04 CAM- 1 two. 2006: 07 CAM- 3 four hundred. 2006: 24 CAM- 1 turn four. 21 2006: 25 INT- 1 turning four. 2006: 27 INT- 6 * four. 2006: 45 CAM- 1 contact. 2006: 51 CAM- 3 four hundred. 2006: 56 INT- 1 disconnect ground equipment stand by for hand signals thank you. 2006: 58 INT- 6 okay. 2007: 13 CAM- 1 okay and after start checklist when you have a moment. 2007: 14 CAM (( sound of momentary power interruption to the CVR)). 2007: 15 CAM (( sound of altitude alert tone)). 22 2007: 20 CAM- 3 stand by. 2007: 29 CAM- 1 after start. 2007: 30 CAM- 3 after start checklist. flight recorder? 2007: 33 CAM- 1 on. 2007: 34 CAM- 3 start switches? 2007: 35 CAM- 1 off. 2007: 36 CAM- 3 beacon lights? 2007: 37 CAM- 1 are on. 2007: 38 CAM- 3 brake pressure? 23 2007: 41 CAM- 1 checked. 2007: 42 CAM- 3 start levers? 2007: 44 CAM- 1 idle detent. 2007: 45 CAM- 3 engine anti- ice? 2007: 46 CAM- 1 off. 2007: 50 CAM- 1 you need to get taxi clearance. 2007: 52 RDO- 2 Kennedy gate hold TWA's eight hundred heavy we're lifeguard ah we're ready to taxi out delta alpha with tango. 2008: 01 GH TWA eight hundred all right contact ground one two one point niner for the taxi inform them that you are lifeguard. 2008: 04 CAM- 3 after start checklist complete. 24 2008: 07 RDO- 2 roger. 2008: 13 RDO- 2 Kennedy ground TWA's eight hundred heavy lifeguard comin' out delta alpha with tango. 2008: 19 GND ah TWA eight hundred heavy ah you're a life guard today? 2008: 24 RDO- 2 yes sir. 2008: 25 GND you know every day you come out and we don't know that you're a lifeguard and then you tell us you are and ah if you could tell company to ah you know ah put that in their flight plan ah it would help us out alot. 2008: 38 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred understand I don't think they knew it either until the last minute. 2008: 41 GND all right TWA eight hundred taxi right on alpha and hold short of echo. 2008: 47 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred right alpha hold short of echo. 25 2008: 49 RDO- 3 and a load TWA eight hundred. 2008: 52 CAM- 1 right on alpha and hold short of echo. 2008: 53 CAM- 1 clear right? 2008: 54 CAM- 2 clear right. 2008: 55 CAM (( sound of parking break being released)). 2008: 57 CAM- 2 clear left. 2009: 05 RDO- 3 and load TWA eight hundred. 2009: 07 LOAD eight hundred stand by. 2009: 19 CAM- 2 watch number one it's too high. 26 2009: 26 CAM- 1 forty five percent. 2009: 28 CAM- 1 you got a guy over there. 2009: 30 CAM- 2 yup. 2009: 34 CAM- 1 right on alpha huh? 2009: 36 LOAD eight hundred ready to copy? 2009: 37 RDO- 3 ready to copy. 2009: 38 LOAD on board twenty nine up front one eight three in the rear takeoff fuel is one seven six decimal six your gross takeoff weight is five nine zero seven seven one trim six decimal one and no reported GSI's. copy? 2009: 41 CAM- 1 clear. 27 2009: 42 CAM- 2 yeah. 2009: 43 CAM- 2 keep it comin'. 2009: 51 CAM- 1 does he look clear? 2009: 52 CAM- 2 yup it's no problem. 2009: 56 RDO- 3 okay twenty nine in the front one eighty three in the back one seven six decimal six on the fuel five nine zero decimal seven seven one on the takeoff weight six point one on the trim and no GSIs TWA eight hundred out. 2010: 01 CAM- 1 one two three --. 2010: 09 CAM- 1 ya think he's gunna try and get us out being a lifeguard? 2010: 10 LOAD okay read back. * both times? 28 2010: 12 RDO- 3 yeah we're out at ah zero zero zero two and ah expecting off here probably about ah thirty five. 2010: 15 CAM- 2 I think he just *. 2010: 19 CAM- 2 that's your undershoot problem huh. 2010: 21 CAM- 1 * it is ? 2010: 24 LOAD copy zero two and three five have a good flight eight hundred. 2010: 25 RDO- 3 see ya. 2010: 26 CAM- 1 how's that look? 2010: 27 CAM- 2 better. 2010: 50 CAM- 3 six point one on the trim. 2010: 53 CAM- 2 okay set up here. 29 2011: 58 CAM- 1 well we lost a little bit of weight huh? payload. 2012: 04 GND TWA eight hundred make a left turn on um taxi way echo behind Carnival and hold short of runway three one right and you can monitor tower now on one two three point niner. 2012: 17 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy left echo hold short of three one right over to the tower, bye. 2012: 24 CAM- 1 left on echo behind carnival hold short of three one right. 2012: 35 CAM- 2 (( sound of cough)). 2012: 38 CAM (( sound of parking brake release)). 2012: 41 CAM- 2 can I have the weight slip if you are done with it, Ollie? 2013: 22 CAM- 2 notice that's going to be an undershoot too. 30 2013: 24 CAM- 1 what's that? 2013: 25 CAM- 2 good. 2013: 27 CAM- 1 well then someone's given me the wrong poop cause I was tryin' to turn like on the L ten eleven they said I was over- turning. 2013: 33 CAM- 2 ah. 2013: 38 CAM- 1 how much past center then? 2013: 40 CAM- 2 nose wheel is back by the emergency exit door. right? 2013: 41 TWR and lifeguard TWA eight hundred heavy Kennedy tower good evening you with me? 2013: 42 CAM- 1 right, right. 2013: 45 CAM-? (sound of cough). 31 2013: 46 CAM- 2 so you really can't start the turn until the nose wheel is past there the center taxi line and whatever it takes as far as -. 2013: 54 CAM- 1 the angle but *. 2013: 56 CAM- 2 as far as comin' out with the main gear you just want to play with it a little bit a few times to find out. 2014: 04 CAM- 1 okay. 2014: 07 CAM- 2 but that first turn would have been a very dirty *. 2014: 10 CAM- 1 *. 2014: 11 CAM- 2 there's no way you could - . 2014: 12 TWR TWA eight hundred heavy lifeguard Kennedy tower. 32 2014: 13 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy lifeguard go ahead. 2014: 16 TWR I'm gunna put you behind British Airways so the company heavy seven six knows to follow you so make a right on the runway a left at Zulu alpha and follow British. 2014: 23 RDO- 2 TWA eight hundred heavy okay right on ah thirty one ah correction thirteen left and follow British. 2014: 29 CAM- 1 start the number three motor. 2014: 31 CAM- 2 let's. 2014: 33 CAM- 2 start taxi. 2014: 36 CAM- 1 okay. 2014: 37 CAM- 2 are you ready? 2014: 37 CAM- 3 okay. 33 2014: 43 CAM- 2 just let me have one engine. 2014: 39 CAM- 3 there you go. 2014: 40 CAM-? if you need it. 2014: 41 CAM- 3 all right we got enough pressure. 2014: 42 CAM- 2 okay here we go I'll get the engine for ya. 2014: 53 CAM- 2 watch your feet just steer it. 2014: 56 CAM- 2 just leave 'em alone for a little bit. 2014: 58 CAM- 1 you want number three back? 2014: 59 CAM- 2 yup. 34 2015: 01 CAM- 2 don't touch the engines. 2015: 02 CAM- 1 okay. 2015: 04 CAM- 2 start lever. 2015: 08 CAM- 3 four hundred. 2015: 23 CAM- 2 okay you can have 'em now. 2015: 29 CAM- 2 here you got no problems. 2015: 33 CAM- 1 delayed engine -. 2015: 34 CAM- 2 wide runway you don't need to worry about it. 2015: 36 CAM- 1 yeah delayed engine start. 35 2015: 39 CAM- 3 delayed engine start checklist. start switches? 2015: 42 CAM- 1 off. 2015: 43 CAM- 3 start levers? 2015: 45 CAM- 1 idle detent. 2015: 47 CAM- 3 engine anti- ice? 2015: 47 CAM- 1 off. 2015: 51 CAM- 3 delayed engine start checklist is complete. 2015: 53 CAM- 1 taxi checklist. 2015: 55 CAM- 3 taxi checklist. Flaps and runway? 36 2015: 58 CAM- 1 flaps are ten and green for runway two two right Kennedy. 2016: 04 CAM- 3 ten eight green two two right Kennedy. take off data EPR and airspeed bugs? 2016: 08 CAM- 1 five hundred and ninety thousand seven seventy one takeoff EPR's set at point three three bugs set and cross checked at one fifty three. 2016: 16 CAM- 2 set and cross checked. 2016: 17 CAM- 3 stabilizer trim? 2016: 18 CAM- 1 is set at six point one. 2016: 21 CAM- 3 probe heat? 2016: 22 CAM- 1 on. 2016: 23 CAM- 3 flight controls? 37 2016: 25 CAM- 1 checked. 2016: 26 CAM- 3 auto- brakes? 2016: 28 CAM- 1 armed. 2016: 29 CAM- 2 now you can start it. 2016: 31 CAM- 3 yaw dampers? 2016: 32 CAM- 1 on. 2016: 34 CAM- 2 wrong answer checked. 2016: 35 CAM- 1 checked. 2016: 37 CAM- 2 right here don't roll out start rollin' out you're beside the line. 38 2016: 43 CAM- 3 seat belt shoulder harnesses? 2016: 44 CAM- 1 checked. 2016: 51 CAM- 1 okay gentlemen standard TWA crew coordination you call out eighty Vee one Vee R please. 2016: 58 CAM- 2 that's the first officers -. 2017: 00 CAM- 1 we're going to fly headings, huh. 2017: 02 CAM- 2 I say that's standard first officer duties. 2017: 06 CAM- 1 well. 2017: 07 CAM- 3 taxi checklist is complete. 2017: 08 CAM- 1 two hundred five degree on the heading five thousand. 39 2017: 10 CAM- 2 that's it. 2017: 18 TWR TWA eight hundred heavy caution wake turbulence from a seven fifty seven runway two two right taxi into position and hold. 2017: 24 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy lifeguard position and hold two two right. 2017: 28 CAM- 1 position and hold two two right. 2017: 31 CAM- 1 will you alert the cabin please. 2017: 40 CAM- 3 flight attendants please be seated for takeoff. 2017: 55 CAM- 4 ****. 2018: 03 CAM- 2 now that's better. 2018: 04 CAM- 3 now it's coming on *. 40 2018: 06 CAM- 1 I'll just extend it out to that line. 2018: 07 CAM- 3 * sure *. 2018: 09 CAM- 2 yeah that's one of the ways you test yourself too is whether when you get rolled out is the whole airplane longitudinally lined up. 2018: 15 CAM- 1 yeah. 2018: 21 TWR TWA eight hundred heavy lifeguard wind's two four zero at eight runway two two right cleared for takeoff. 2018: 27 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy lifeguard cleared for takeoff two two right. 2018: 31 CAM- 1 before takeoff checklist. 2018: 33 CAM- 3 before takeoff checklist. icing considerations? 41 2018: 34 CAM- 1 checked. 2018: 35 CAM- 3 cabin alert? 2018: 36 CAM- 1 checked. 2018: 36 CAM- 3 transponder? 2018: 37 CAM- 1 that's checked. 2018: 39 CAM- 3 ignition? 2018: 40 CAM (( sound of click)). 2018: 41 CAM- 1 flight start. 2018: 42 CAM- 3 body gear steering? 42 2018: 43 CAM- 1 disarmed. 2018: 44 CAM- 2 clocks. 2018: 46 CAM- 3 before takeoff checklist is complete. 2018: 48 CAM- 1 thank you. 2018: 49 CAM- 4 get right up in there. 2018: 51 CAM (( sound of increasing engine noise)). 2018: 59 CAM- 1 trim throttles. 2019: 14 CAM- 2 eighty knots. 2019: 23 CAM- 2 Vee one. 43 2019: 35 CAM- 2 Vee R. 2019: 41 CAM (( sound of two clicks)). 2019: 43 CAM- 1 gear up. 2019: 44 CAM- 2 gear up. 2020: 00 TWR TWA eight hundred heavy contact New York departure one three five point niner good evening. 2020: 05 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy good night. 2020: 14 RDO- 2 Kennedy departure TWA's eight hundred heavy lifeguard leaving nine hundred climbing five thousand. 2020: 19 DEP lifeguard TWA eight hundred heavy New York departure radar contact climb and maintain one one thousand. 2020: 24 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy climb and maintain one one thousand. 44 2020: 29 CAM- 1 climb to one one thousand and maintain. 2020: 44 DEP TWA eight hundred heavy turn left heading one five zero. 2020: 47 CAM- 1 left to one five zero. 2020: 48 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy turn left heading one five zero. 2020: 51 CAM- 1 flaps five. 2020: 53 CAM- 2 flaps five. 2021: 11 CAM- 1 flaps one. 2021: 12 CAM- 2 flaps one. 2021: 26 CAM- 1 flaps up. 45 2021: 29 CAM- 2 say what? 2021: 29 CAM- 1 flaps up. 2021: 30 CAM- 2 flaps up. 2021: 48 CAM- 1 climb thrust. 2022: 01 DEP TWA lifeguard TWA eight hundred heavy turn left heading zero seven zero. 2022: 07 RDO- 2 TWA's lifeguard eight hundred heavy turn left heading zero seven zero. 2022: 11 CAM- 1 left zero seven zero. 2022: 29 DEP TWA eight hundred heavy or lifeguard TWA eight hundred heavy turn left heading zero five zero vector climbin' around traffic. 46 2022: 35 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy turn left heading zero five zero. 2022: 41 CAM- 1 left zero five zero climb vector. 2022: 44 DEP TWA eight hundred heavy the traffic in the turn will be three o'clock and five miles northeast bound four thousand nor- is a company seven two five five in trail will be a Saab- Fairchild when you're out of five I'll have on course. 2022: 54 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy understand. 2022: 58 CAM- 1 he's at three o'clock? 2023: 00 CAM- 2 yeah. 2023: 02 CAM- 2 that's the problem. 2023: 19 DEP TWA eight hundred heavy direct Betty resume own navigation. 2023: 22 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy direct Betty own navigation. 47 2023: 26 CAM- 1 direct Betty and our own nav. 2019: 52 CAM- 1 that's alive. 2023: 37 DEP TWA lifeguard TWA eight hundred heavy contact Boston one three two point three. 2023: 38 CAM- 2 huh. 2023: 39 CAM- 1 direct Betty. correct? 2023: 42 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy ah say again the frequency. 2023: 44 DEP one three two point three. 2023: 46 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy good day. 2024: 00 CAM- 1 *. 48 2024: 01 CAM (( sound of noise of recording tape)). 2024: 30 CAM- 1 seems like a home sick angel here (*/ awesome). 2024: 36 CAM- 2 it's bleeding off airspeed that's why. 2024: 38 CAM- 1 yeah *. 2024: 41.7 RDO- 2 New York center TWA's lifeguard eight hundred heavy eight thousand two hundred climbing one one thousand. 2024: 48 CTR TWA eight hundred Boston center roger climb and maintain one three thousand. 2024: 53.4 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy climb and maintain one three thousand. 2024: 57 CAM- 1 climb and maintain one three thousand. 49 2025: 31 CTR TWA eight hundred what's your rate of climb? 2025: 34.5 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy ah about two thousand feet a minute here until accelerating out of ten thousand. 2025: 41 CTR roger sir climb and maintain flight level one niner zero and expedite through fifteen. 2025: 47.1 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy climb and maintain one niner zero and expedite through one five thousand. 2025: 53 CAM- 1 climb to one nine zero expedite through one five thousand. 2025: 57 CAM- 3 pressurization checks. 2025: 59 CAM- 3 (takeoff) thrust go on cross feed? 2026: 02 CAM-? ah. 2026: 04 CAM- 1 yeah. 50 2026: 07 CAM- 3 I'll leave that on for just a little bit. 2026: 12 CAM- 3 is that right? 2026: 13 CAM- 4 yes. 2026: 24 CTR TWA eight hundred amend the altitude maintain ah one three thousand thirteen thousand only for now. 2026: 29 CAM- 1 thirteen thousand. 2026: 30.3 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy okay stop climb at one three thousand. 2026: 35 CAM- 1 stop climb at one three thousand. 2026: 51 CAM- 1 *. 51 2026: 59 CAM- 2 twelve for thirteen. 2027: 35 CAM (( sound of click)). 2027: 47 CAM (( sound of altitude alert tone)). 2028: 13 CTR TWA eight hundred you have traffic at one o'clock and ah seven miles south bound a thousand foot above you he's ah Beech nineteen hundred. 2028: 20.6 RDO- 2 TWA's ah eight hundred heavy ah no contact. 2028: 22.5 RDO- 3 FIC TWA eight hundred. 2028: 25 FIC TWA eight hundred. 2028: 25.7 RDO- 3 Eight hundred with an off report ah plane number one seven one one nine we're out at zero zero zero two, and we're off at zero zero one nine, fuel one seven nine decimal zero, estimating Charles De' Gaul at zero six two eight. 52 2028: 42 FIC TWA eight eight hundred got it all. 2028: 44.8 RDO- 3 Thank you. 2029: 15 CAM- 1 look at that crazy fuel flow indicator there on number four. 2029: 23 CAM- 1 see that. 2029: 35 CAM- 1 some where in here I better trim this thing (in/ up). 2029: 39 CAM- 2 huh? 2029: 39 CAM- 1 some place in here I better find out where this thing's trimmed. 2030: 15 CTR TWA eight hundred climb and maintain one five thousand. 2030: 18 CAM- 1 climb thrust. 53 2030: 19.2 RDO- 2 TWA's eight hundred heavy climb and maintain one five thousand leaving one three thousand. 2030: 24 CAM- 1 Ollie. 2030: 24 CAM- 3 huh. 2030: 25 CAM- 1 climb thrust. 2030: 28 CAM- 1 climb to one five thousand. 2030: 35 CAM- 3 power's set. 2030: 42 CAM (( sound similar to a mechanical movement in cockpit)) 2031: 03 CAM *. 2031: 05 CAM (( sounds similar to recording tape damage noise)). 54 2031: 12 end of recording. From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:27 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:27 From: Michael Eisenstadt Subject: Re: Concorde's other customers (There were none in the end!) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Organization? What organization? BrokenSpar wrote: > Does anyone remember when Braniff had a Concorde on lease to them and it > was painted in their colors?? Saw it on the ground at DFW once. I was on 727 Braniff sitting on those luxurious leather seats crafted in Brazil and purchased with Brazilian currency income which could not be converted to dollars. Mike Eisenstadt From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:28 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:28 From: "Jim DeYoung" Subject: Re: Concorde Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services The Aronskys <4penpals@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message ... >1). What is the maximum speed of a Concorde? > >2). Because of the speed of the Concorde, the engines must be pretty >powerful. What kind of engines are these and are these some kind of >special engines? Concorde's max operating speed is 1450 mph, with a typical cruise speed of Mach 2.02. It's equipped with 4 Rolls Royce/SNECMA Olympus 593 Mk 610 Turbojets and are rated at 38,050 lbs of thrust each. I'm not 100% sure but I believe that the engines have variable inlets that enable the engines to perform well at any flight altitude as Concorde cruises at FL600. I hope I was able to help. From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:29 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:29 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Concorde noise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 10 Dec 97 04:05:03 , Chris Dickson wrote: >I later talked to the car park attendant, and he told me that he'd >noticed that the noise was much louder on days with dense low-level >cloud cover (as was the case at the time). He said that the car alarms >didn't generally go off on clear days, but almost always did on cloudy >ones. > >Can anyone suggest an explanation for this? I've speculated that it may >have somthing to do with the air density/temperature/moisture content. >Does anyone know how/if these factors affect noise propagation, and if >they're something that have to be, or ought to be considered in aircraft >noise monitoring/prediction? Temperature, humidty and windspeed/direction have a big effect on noise levels. The standard used for certification noise measurements is 15 degC and 70 percent humidity with windspeed less than 10 knots. This is often not representative of a given airfield including heathrow and thus higher noise levels are quite likely in practice. As regards the clear day vs cloudy day I suspect the biggest factors here are humidty and temperature. These affect sound sbsorption rates and since we're talking of large propagation distances a small change in absoprtion rate can be quite a few decibels in noise levels on the ground. I am involved with measuring noise levels around Heathrow airport and we do see wide variations in measured noise levels from day to day that are not attributable to how the aircraft is flown but mostly down to the weather. Recorded Data that is not close to the standard day conditions is normally filtered out prior to further analysis. From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:30 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:30 From: M Carling Subject: Re: Confusion over 777 variants. References: <647g1s$epa@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ImagiNET jchase wrote: > I can vouch for the variations. In I flew > Cleveland-Newark-Heathrow and back on United; three of the aircraft used > were 777's. I say three because the aircraft all had different > interior decor, and at least one had different breakdown for the number > of rows in first, business, and coach class. All the 777's were > operated by United! When I got home I checked the Boeing internet site > which revealed that less than 20 777's had been delivered as of that > date. All of UA's 777s have the same seating configuration. At the time you write of (June-July 1996), UA had about 10-12 777s. There may have been some minor variation in interior decor--though I've never noticed any, and I've flown on all of those planes. M Carling mATbangDOTorg From kls Wed Dec 17 03:41:31 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:41:31 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: Bird Strike Risk References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: What ? Using his favourites wax crayons, , Laurence Huttunen scrawled >Is there any point of operation where a bird strike is of particular >danger to the operation of modern passenger jets? ... >This must be a relatively common occurance, but one wonders if there is >are critical times at which the risk is greatest and what those risk(s) >are. Birdstrikes occur mainly on Take-Off, but can occur anywhere. I recall seeing a report of a L1011's engine ingesting a buzzard or vulture over India at 26,000 feet. Engine ran on, but was a bit shakey. RISK : Depends on your categories. A 2 oz Hummingbird would cause no problems and wouldn't even be notices. But a full size swan or goose... All engines have to undergo bird strike testing, operating at max LP speed. Number / weight of birds varies, as logic suggests. Either a single 4lb bird, a small number of 1.5lb birds of a large number of sparrows. If an engine can't survive the impacts, and continue to produce 75% thrust for 15 mins. It doesn't enter service. Or that's the theory... 8-) ----------- Iain Stuart http://www.big-iain.demon.co.uk/ From kls Wed Dec 17 03:43:05 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:43:05 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: AN-124 Ruslan Crash pics References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Patrick Dunford wrote in message ... >This site carries numerous photographs taken around the >crash site of the aircraft. > >http://www.icc.ru/fed/plane.html Looking at these photos, one wonders if icing may have played a part in the tragedy ? >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Wed Dec 17 03:43:06 1997 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 17 Dec 97 03:43:06 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Old 707's (was:Re: Compressor Stall at Takeoff?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat in our little cottage On 10 Dec 97 04:05:02 Gerard Foley wrote: > Way off the point: >When I first rode in a TWA707 from O'Hare to Philadelphia, probably around >1957, I thought the takeoff run was the longest I had ever experienced. > > Later on 707's seemed to get off the ground fairly easily. Were they >re-engined or something to improved the initial acceleration? The 707 entered service in October 1958... if you flew in a 707 about then it could only have been a 707-100 series (actually a 131 for TWA) with P&W JT3C-6 engin