From news Fri Jan 2 13:19:16 1998 Newsgroups: alt.brain.teasers,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners From: oberoi@emirates.net.ae Subject: 707 : How did it get its name ? Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Deja News Posting Service Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 19:53:00 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Path: ditka!news.mv.net!newsfeed.wizvax.net!ulowell.uml.edu!cam-news-feed2.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newspump.sol.net!sol.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd > A friend of mine came across an interesting reason for how the Boeing > 707 series got the name - 707 : > > It seems that the wing angles of the Boeing 707, were 45 degrees. > The values of the trignometric functions, sine and cosine at 45 > degrees are equal - of the value = 1 / sqrt(2) = 0 . 7 0 7 > Hence the name ? > > Is this the real reason, or merely a coincidence ? > Email responses to oberoi@emirates.net.ae -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet From kls Mon Jan 5 23:41:29 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:29 From: David Lednicer Subject: 747-100 vs. -200 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com I think I have figured out a way to tell a 747-100 from a -200 (short of looking at the mfg. plate), but I am curious if anyone can punch a hole in this. I originally noticed that some 747SPs originally flew with a fairly simple engine pylon, where the trailing edge starts right at the end of the core cowl and goes up to the wing in a straight line. All 747SPs eventually had a modified pylon, where the trailing edge was a generous curve, staying low before ascending to the wing. Additionally, where the outboard pylon meets the wing was extensively modified with a fairing that goes over the wing leading edge and is almost vertical on the inboard side and curved on the outboard side. Since then, I have noticed that full-length 747s have both pylons. Late model -300s and -400s (at least P&W powered ones) have the later 747SP pylon. Earlier -100/-200s seem to have both pylons. My guess is that the -100s are the ones with the earlier pylons, while -200s have the later pylons. Can anyone confirm this? ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon Jan 5 23:41:30 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:30 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-100 vs. -200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >... All 747SPs >eventually had a modified pylon, where the trailing edge was a generous >curve, staying low before ascending to the wing. Additionally, where >the outboard pylon meets the wing was extensively modified with a >fairing that goes over the wing leading edge and is almost vertical on >the inboard side and curved on the outboard side. >... Earlier -100/-200s seem to have both pylons. My guess is that the >-100s are the ones with the earlier pylons, while -200s have the later >pylons. Can anyone confirm this? Funny, I was just sitting in the Red Carpet Club at ORD this afternoon, looking at a parked at gate C16 and noticing the different pylons on the #1 and #2 engines. I couldn't see the trailing edge of the pylon and hadn't seen your message yet, but I did notice that the outboard (#1) pylon had the fairing you describe where it meets the leading edge of the wing, unlike the #2 pylon, just as you describe. This aircraft was an early 747-123 (N156UA, ln 77), so the presence of the fairing does not distinguish a 747-200 from a -100. The trailing edge still might. -- 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 Jan 5 23:41:31 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:31 From: Simong Subject: Re: Boeing defines 747-400IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM all the city pair you have listed are under 8300nm but I still don't think that the b747-400IGW or the A340-500 can make it non-stop because of head-wind. I remember an article for example that it will take a fullloaded Boeing 747-400 (Max takeoff weight) to make the 6400 nm LAX-MANILA run. From kls Mon Jan 5 23:41:32 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Commercial go-ahead for B744IGW Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Just read this in the Seattle times : Boeing's board of directors has given its commercial airplane group the go-ahead to offer a new version of the 747-400 jumbo jet that could fly farther than conventional models. The heavier new model is sought by Qantas of Australia because it would allow the airline to stretch several of its main routes. [[ Which routes ?]] The model is known as the 747-400IGW (increased gross weight). Qantas has asked Boeing to build three new jumbo jets to the increased weight specifications. If enough other carriers also order, the model could be delivered in late 2000, Boeing officials said. (Copyright Seattle Times) END ITEM Now this is a good one QF ordered - firm no LOI - the 744IGW before the a/c was even commercially launched. What will happen if this bird will get no industrial go ahead (like the 745/746/77X). Even if this is very unlikely, since other airlines are interested in the 744IGW, there is always a possibility. I read - don't remember where - that Boeing may also deliver the QF birds with only the 744F wings and proceed later with the other upgrades. Not a very cheap approach. Other question is there any chance to see the 777 cockpit in this upgraded bird ? My opinions, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Mon Jan 5 23:41:33 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Commercial go-ahead for B744IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Now this is a good one QF ordered - firm no LOI - the 744IGW before the >a/c was even commercially launched. What will happen if this bird will >get no industrial go ahead (like the 745/746/77X). The 747-500X/600X proposal had a new wing, new landing gear, new engines, and many other improvements, racking up $7 billion worth of development costs. The 720,000+ version of the 777-200X wasn't quite so extreme but still required pretty substantial development effort. The 747-400IGW, in contrast, doesn't involve much more than rummaging around in the parts bin and putting the parts together in a new way -- it isn't much more than a 747-400F with the fuselage of a passenger -400. As such, development cost is pretty low, so it's probably a viable program even without many orders. >I read - don't remember where - that Boeing may >also deliver the QF birds with only the 744F wings and proceed later >with the other upgrades. Not a very cheap approach. I read that too, in the Wall St. Journal, I think. Actually, I think it was everything except upgraded engines. I'm not sure what the upgrades are, but they may be doable with an upgrade kit. Even if not, delivering an aircraft with one version of an engine with the intention of changing them for improved versions after delivery is hardly unprecedented. It didn't seem like a big deal to me when I read it, except I wondered just what the engine improvements entailed. >Other question is there any chance to see the 777 cockpit in this >upgraded bird ? No. It's clearly a simple upgrade, not a massive redesign which is what inclusion of a 777 cockpit would involve. -- 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 Jan 5 23:41:34 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:34 From: MKopanski@ual.com Subject: Flight 826 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Well just wanted to let you know that N4723U, the aircraft flying the ill-fated NRT-HNL flight, is currently winging its way from NRT to LAS for storage. Too much interior damage to bother fixing... [Moderator's Note: Message was sent on December 31, 1997. -- Karl] Mickey From kls Mon Jan 5 23:41:35 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:35 From: Bryan Shrode Subject: US Former SST Program Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Does anyone know of a place on the I-Net where I can find info on the Boeing 2707 or Lockheed L-2000? Please Help, -- Bryan Shrode bshrode@home.net If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going From kls Mon Jan 5 23:41:36 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:41:36 From: jveen@tincan.tincan.org (John van Veen) Subject: Big Bird Spotted Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Inland Northwest Community Access Network Today a large twin engine jet was observed doing flight tests at the local tarmac-GEG. It was in Cathay Pacific colors, the registration was N5016R I believe, and it was trailing a cone from the tip of the rudder. So, is this the latest model 777? It looks liked a super 757, just beautiful. It made at least three touch and goes WITH the wind, (horizontal wind sock), then did a full stop landing into the wind. Nice plane, nice colors, Cathay Pacific should be proud of this one. John -- John There must be a famine comming. Why else would so many people From kls Mon Jan 5 23:42:57 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:42:57 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY >From "Boeing Jetliners" by Guy NOrris and Mark Wagner, 1996, Motorbooks Intl: "The company chose the opportunity to launch the 700-series of products, the -500 being reserved for gas turbines and the -600 for missiles. By all rights, the new aircraft should have been named the Boeing 700; but possibly for superstitious reasons and because it sounded better, it was designated Boeing 707. Seven is a sacred or mystic number, composed of four and three, which from time immemorial have been accounted lucky numbers." The book didn't say so, but model numbers ending in 7 had already been a Boeing tradition since the late '30's (297, 377, B-17, B-47, KC-97). - BRIAN CLOUSE GWLF17A@prodigy.com From kls Mon Jan 5 23:42:58 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:42:58 From: Seth Heckard Subject: Cockpit Windows Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: sheckard@hotmail.com Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the 757 have just one row of cockpit windows? Seth Heckard / sheckard@hotmail.com From kls Mon Jan 5 23:42:59 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:42:59 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Neason wrote: > > Marc Schaeffer wrote: > > You may add the still ongoing investigation of the B737-rudder problems > > (crash of USAir Flight 427 on Sept. 8, 1994 and United Flight 585 at > > Colorado Springs on March 3, 1991). Even if those incidents are 3 and 6 > > years old, Boeing admitted for the first time in '97 that there is a > > problem with the 737 rudder. > > Please identify the document(s) that support the above claim ("Boeing > admitted...") Point your browser to http://www.seattletimes.com/ptech/ which is the technical section of the Seattle times. Enter as key word 'rudder'. They have an excellent series (more than 30) of articles on the 737 rudder problems. Most of them are from Byron Acohido who is the Seattle Times aerospace reporter. This makes very interesting reading. And be careful : I just stated that Boeing admitted that there is a 737-rudder problem, the link to flights 427 and 585 (you may add the Eastwind incident), has yet to be established. I also read recently that the 427 problem was pilot linked and probably not rudder linked. This last statement has however to be confirmed. My $.02, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:00 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:00 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Karl Swartz wrote: > >- In the SQ config there were 200 seats, this is 92 seats less than for > >the normal three class config for the 772. Less seats means less income, > >and even if those remaining seats are more expensive you would have to > >increase tickets-pricing by 50% to compensate. If the seats are too > >expensive the loading factor would drop, giving you less income ... > > What makes you think the average ticket price would only be 50% higher, > and that expensive seats would kill LF? I just wanted to state that if you only have 200 seats (compared to 292) you will have to sell them 46% higher to get the same revenue. The missing revenue resulting from the reduced cargo volume is not yet considered. Your example is good and surprising at the same time. The C and Y fares are the same if you take the direct flight or if you go via SFO. For the same fare UA sells less seats (301 vs. 418) on the direct flight. Are there more C seats in the 301 config, so that the missing revenue from 117 Y passengers can be (at least partly) compensated ? Is the loading factor on the direct flight higher and the income thus increased ? Or is UA just making less money if their passengers fly direct to HKG ? What about the cargo volume in both cases ? ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:01 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:01 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Your example is good and surprising at the same time. The C and Y fares >are the same if you take the direct flight or if you go via SFO. >For the same fare UA sells less seats (301 vs. 418) on the direct >flight. Are there more C seats in the 301 config, so that the missing >revenue from 117 Y passengers can be (at least partly) compensated? The 301-seat aircraft (fleet type 47P or OP) have a 36/123/142 (F/C/Y) seating config, versus 18/80/320 for the 418-seat (47A/OA) aircraft. (The latter are being changed to a 372-seat config of 18/84/270 with greatly increased pitch in C (47B/OB), but only 5 of 24 are in this config to date.) If they sell F at the same $4,285 fare as C (not bloody likely, but I'm too tired to track down the F fare right now), and they sell all of the premium seats, F/C revenue for the 47P is $681,315 versus only $420,910 for the 47A, a difference of $260,405. That's only considering ORD-HKG fares where of course the fares would be more variable in reality. In all likelihood, that effect would widen the gap, since SFO-HKG probably gets a significant amount of West Coast traffic which doesn't generate as much revenue -- and the domestic traffic on ORD-SFO probably won't make up that difference. Now assume that the 101 available Y seats on the 47P flying ORD-HKG (remember, they only sold 260 of the 301 seats when the flight started) sell at the same fare as 101 of the Y seats on the 47A flying via SFO. If the remaining 219 seats can be sold for more than $1,189 apiece -- the $1,486 "cheap" fare I found easily meets this -- then the 418 seat 47A will make more money. It doesn't work that way, though, since few of the 101 Y seats on the non-stop will be sold at the cheaper fares, whereas with 320 Y seats the one-stop's much greater supply will mean a lot of seats will have to be cheap to match the available demand. In practice, friends at United have told me that the non-stop, even with its restricted number of seats, has been even more profitable than they expected. Note that United also uses the 301-seat planes for ORD-NRT. The 418-seat planes are capable of flying the route with a full load and with only six flights per week there's plenty of demand, but United finds it more profitable to offer fewer seats at higher prices. (They'd love to fly double daily ORD-NRT flights, probably using the 418-seat planes, but the route authority doesn't allow it.) >Or is UA just making less money if their passengers fly direct to HKG? They wouldn't do it if that were the case -- they're in the business to make money. >What about the cargo volume in both cases? Cargo doesn't usually mind stops, so the valuable ORD-HKG non-stop payload is reserved for high-yielding passengers and their luggage. ORD-SFO-HKG does get some revenue from cargo, but still not enough to make up for the the higher passenger fares the non-stop can command. -- 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 Jan 5 23:43:02 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:02 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com jf mezei wrote: > > >- Are the passengers ready to stay that long in an a/c ? > > Personally not, but marketing tends to sway passengers towards non-stops > so those who don't think this through will tend to want a non-stop > before wishing for a flight with a stop-over. I don't think that marketing has a lot to do with this. A lot of PAX don't ask beforehand or know when they set of on some routes (eg. LHR to SE Asia or Austrailia) just what the details are. Non-stops are more reliable. If you get delayed on a stopover for some technical reason in some obscure outpost you can get stuck for 24hrs. A small ATC or minor technical delay can knock out a connection. ----------------- Andrew. From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:03 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Personally not, but marketing tends to sway passengers towards non-stops >> so those who don't think this through will tend to want a non-stop >> before wishing for a flight with a stop-over. >I don't think that marketing has a lot to do with this. A lot >of PAX don't ask beforehand or know when they set of on some >routes (eg. LHR to SE Asia or Austrailia) just what the details >are. Perhaps not directly, but airlines play all sorts of games to get their flights listed at the top of the screen on reservations systems. Doing this is a marketing function, and minimizing trip time is usually a good way of biasing the display in your favor. Obviously a non-stop has a big advantage in reducing trip time. -- 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 Jan 5 23:43:04 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:04 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca wrote: >Karl Swartz wrote: >> I'm not sure that ORD-HKG operates with significantly more crew than >> SFO-HKG, adjusting for the different number of pax and class of service. >> When you consider the crews for both ORD-SFO and SFO-HKG combined versus >> ORD-HKG, I'm not convinced there's that much difference. > >But ORD-HKG doesn't operate under difficult conditions, does it ? >If you provide a plane that can do the distance under any weather, >what is the worse case scenario of flight time and how many crews >would you need to prepare for such situations ? > >And of course, this begs to ask: how does an airline plan its crews for >such a flight ? How much in advance do they know that they will or will >not need an extra crew for each flight/day ? Or would they always have >to have that extra crew on just in case ? I can't speak for how other airlines handle long flights (heck, I can't speak for United either but at least I know something about how United does it) but at United, there is no concept of multiple crews on a flight. We have augmented crews but there is on any flight, one and only one crew headed by one and only one captain. A two-seat aircraft (767, 747-400, 777, etc.) will fly with a captain and up to three first officers. All the F/O's are legal to fly left seat but when a decision has to be made, the captain makes it even if it means waking the captain up. How F/O's are part of the crew is a function of the scheduled flight time. Actual flight time, unless it causes a planned fuel stop, is not normally going to be a factor in crew requirements. I believe with 3 F/O's, the longest scheduled flight time allowed (block to block) is 16 hours. ORD->HKG is under that so there's no need for a larger crew. Working more hours than scheduled can increase crew rest requirements for their next flight but generally has no effect on the operation of the current flight. Flight attendants are similar in that there is one purser leading the service end of things (note some flights have a main cabin purser too but this a separate position). All FA's recieve breaks during the flight but there are not two separate inflight service crews with half off at any one time. -- -- 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 Mon Jan 5 23:43:05 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:05 From: "Tony Morris" Subject: Drift Down Speeds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OFD I would like to know exactly how the 'drift-down speeds' generated by the FMC in the Boeing 767 (which I fly) are determined. They are not 'minimum drag' but seem to be increased for some reason. If anyone has an idea please post me a message. Thanks. From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:06 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:06 From: Arthur Utay Subject: Re: Contra-rotating propellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T brinkja@alpha.unisa.ac.za wrote: > I flew on a BAe Jetstream 4100 aircraft the other day, and I noticed that the > two propellors turned in opposite directions. Yup, TPE331-14GR/HR engines (GR's rotate CW from pilots seat, HR's CCW) The purpose is to minimize engine out control effects, as some other people have stated. > But I suppose then separate sets of spare engines - both > "clockwise" and "anti-clockwise" have to be kept in store since the engines > can not be inter-changed. The engine is modular. Primarily, all that has to be changed to convert from a GR to an HR is the front gearbox, which resides inside the nosecone > Which other aircraft also use this kind of arrangement? No other aircraft use HR engines. The GR's have been certified recently on the Antonov AN-38 -- A. W. Utay awutay@worldnet.att.net C180 N180Y From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:07 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:07 From: raff@de.ibm.com Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unspecified Organisation Marc Schaeffer wrote: > 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 ... I saw a short TV report a few weeks ago about airbags in aircraft. Development for such system is already done - but the system looks quite different to that installed in cars: The airbags have to be blown up "manually" by a central switch in the cockpit in case of an emergency. So there will be no time span of milliseconds but rather minutes. And the airbags stay blown up. I don't know if this makes any sense ?! oli From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:08 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:08 From: cquaranta@aol.com (CQuaranta) Subject: Reliability of gas turbine engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I was reading the NTSB aircraft incident/accident reports and came across a number of instances of "uncontained engine failure" - supposedly either a turbine, compressor or fan blade seperates and punctures the engine housing. What is the approximate rate of these events in terms of events/hours of operation? Chris From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:09 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:09 From: "Andy Tomlinson" Subject: Sir Kenelm Caley Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of UUNET Germany; Info: info@de.uu.net Does anyone know of a Sir Kenelm Caley, Born or lived in Brompton, Yorkshire something to do with flight or aircraft design If anyone has any information about him could you send it to ross.tomlinson@mailexcite.com Thank you From kls Mon Jan 5 23:43:10 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: bounce-back Date: 05 Jan 98 23:43:10 From: "hi-flyer" Subject: de havilland comet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. Does anyone know of any books that have been written about the comet? From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Boeing announced today that the MD-95-30, launched in October 1995 by ValuJet (now AirTran Airlines), is being renamed the 717-200. The Boeing press release is attached; that and technical details can be found at the following URLs: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980108.html http://www.boeing.com/commercial/717/717.html Wonderful! Now the already confusing story of what happened to the 717 is even more confusing to explain. (It is, er, was, Boeing's designation for the KC-135. I'm pretty sure the KC-135 series were all 717-1xx models, with several values for xx, so there's still no ambiguity unless Boeing launches the proposed MD-95-10 as the 717-100.) -------- SEATTLE, Jan 8, 1998 -- The Boeing Company today introduced and renamed the newest member of its commercial airplane family -- the Boeing 717-200 twinjet. "The 717-200 is uniquely qualified to meet the evolving requirements of the new regional jetliner market," said Ron Woodard, president, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. "It's a 100-seat airplane market that demands comfort, low operating costs and high schedule reliability. This is the plane to meet that need." The 717-200 was first introduced to the world in October 1995 as the McDonnell Douglas MD-95. AirTran Airlines launched production with an order for 50 and options for 50 more. Today's announcement embraces the 717-200 as a strong addition to the Boeing product line. The twinjet represents the merged company's commitment to continued production and development of a plane that is ideally suited to meet worldwide expansion and replacement needs in the short-haul, high-frequency 100-seat market. The 717-200 meets those needs by featuring low operating costs, high schedule reliability, efficient short-runway operations, fast turnaround at airport gates and the capability of achieving eight to 12 one-hour flights on a daily basis. Boeing anticipates that the world's airlines will need 2,500 jetliners of 80-120 seats over the next 20 years. The first three 717-200s are in final assembly at the Douglas Products Division of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group in Long Beach, Calif. The program involves a global team of 14 major supplier-partners. Currently, 900 Boeing employees are developing and building the 717-200. "We and our supplier-partners are producing a new airplane with the highest quality at the lowest-possible acquisition cost," Woodard said. Passengers and flight crews will appreciate the 717-200's all-new spacious interior, which features illuminated handrails, larger overhead bins and other amenities. The 717-200 two-crew flight deck incorporates the industry's most modern and proven avionics, configured around six liquid-crystal display units and advanced Honeywell VIA 2000 computer systems similar to those in other new Boeing jetliners. The flight deck has an electronic instrument system, a flight-management system and a central-fault display system. Options available include a Category IIIb autoland capability for bad weather; Global Positioning System; and Future Air Navigation System. Two advanced high-bypass-ratio BR715 engines, built by BMW Rolls-Royce, will power the Boeing 717-200. For the 717-200, this engine is rated at 18,500 pounds of takeoff thrust, with an optional increase up to 21,000 pounds. It provides airlines with lower fuel consumption, reduced exhaust emissions and significantly lower noise levels than power plants on comparable airplanes. With a wingspan of 93.4 feet (28.5 meters) and an overall length of 124 feet (37.8 meters), the 717-200 is similar in size and configuration to the DC-9 Series 30, its highly successful predecessor in regional airline service around the world. Basic maximum takeoff weight of the 717-200 will be 114,000 pounds (51,710 kilograms) with an option for a high-gross-weight version at 121,000 pounds (54,884 kilograms). Nonstop range will be up to 2,230 statute miles (1,940 nautical miles -- 3,122 kilometers). The first 717-200 is scheduled to be delivered to AirTran Airlines in June 1999, after a year-long flight-test program and joint certification by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration and Europe's Joint Airworthiness Authorities. -- 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 Fri Jan 9 00:50:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:44 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: FAA issues Emergency AD for recent 737s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California According to The Wall Street Journal, in articles on January 8 (p. B7) and January 9 (p. A3), the FAA has issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) mandating inspections for 737s produced after September 20, 1995, based on preliminary findings from the wreckage of the December 19, 1997 SilkAir 737 crash. Investigators discovered that the right horizontal stabilizer may have separated from the SilkAir aircraft prior to impact, and that two rows of fasteners (26 in all) were missing from the leading edge of the right horizontal stabilizer. The fasteners may never have been installed. In addition, a hinge bolt from the right elevator was missing. The AD requires immediate inspections to verify that the horizontal stabilizers of 737s produced after September 20, 1995, are not missing any fasteners. While no cause has been determined for the SilkAir crash, the emergency AD was issues as a precaution. It directly affects 95 aircraft in the US registry; a total of 211 aircraft are affected if/when regulators in other countries adopt the rule. The WSJ articles also bring up the rudder problems suspected in the 1994 USAir 427 crash and the 1991 United 585 crash, but also notes that the SilkAir crash occurred in very different circumstances. The earlier WSJ article says the rudder was designed prior to production of the SilkAir aircraft, but the later article quotes a Boeing spokesman as saying the SilkAir aircraft did not incorporate the modification. (Either way, it's probably not relevant to the crash.) -- 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 Fri Jan 9 00:50:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:45 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Commercial go-ahead for B744IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 05 Jan 98 23:41:32 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >Just read this in the Seattle times : > >Boeing's board of directors has given its commercial airplane group the >go-ahead to offer a new version of the 747-400 jumbo jet that could fly >farther than conventional models. The heavier new model is sought by >Qantas of Australia because it would allow the airline to stretch >several of its main routes. [[ Which routes ?]] Two routes where it is very useful. The LAX-SYD routes operate with serious cargo lift restrictions, and at least some of year also have passenger lift restrictions as well. The SIN-LHR run also has similar restrictions. Those are the routes the aircraft was probably purchased for. Not so much a stretch as a revenue enhancer... >The model is known as >the 747-400IGW (increased gross weight). Qantas has asked Boeing to >build three new jumbo jets to the increased weight specifications. If >enough other carriers also order, the model could be delivered in late >2000, Boeing officials said. (Copyright Seattle Times) END ITEM > >Now this is a good one QF ordered - firm no LOI - the 744IGW before the >a/c was even commercially launched. What will happen if this bird will >get no industrial go ahead (like the 745/746/77X). Even if this is very >unlikely, since other airlines are interested in the 744IGW, there is >always a possibility. I read - don't remember where - that Boeing may >also deliver the QF birds with only the 744F wings and proceed later >with the other upgrades. Not a very cheap approach. According to Avweek, The only part of the upgrade that may be delayed is the undercarriage changes. I suspect, but cannot verify that the major changes are for landing weight rather than takeoff. The landing weight went up MORE than MGTOW went up! For QANTAS on these routes, the MGTOW rather than MLW is the major issue. Both routes typically burn upwards of 260,000 pounds of fuel. >Other question is there any chance to see the 777 cockpit in this >upgraded bird ? I'd be very surprised. That is a very expensive engineering change, and I fail to see much merit. The -400 already has a 2 man glass cockpit. From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:46 From: MAPSONterenzKNUJON@NOJUNKdircon.co.ukNOSPAM (Terence Liow) Subject: Re: Commercial go-ahead for B744IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 05 Jan 98 23:41:33 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >The 747-400IGW, in contrast, doesn't involve much more than rummaging >around in the parts bin and putting the parts together in a new way -- >it isn't much more than a 747-400F with the fuselage of a passenger >-400. As such, development cost is pretty low, so it's probably a >viable program even without many orders. I think it's the top of a -100 0r -200 (i.e., short top vs. stretched upper deck) to save weight. >I read that too, in the Wall St. Journal, I think. Actually, I think it >was everything except upgraded engines. I'm not sure what the upgrades >are, but they may be doable with an upgrade kit. Even if not, delivering >an aircraft with one version of an engine with the intention of changing >them for improved versions after delivery is hardly unprecedented. It >didn't seem like a big deal to me when I read it, except I wondered just >what the engine improvements entailed. I don't think it's the engines but the landing gear. Has to be beefed up for some reason and isn't available yet. Terence Liow - take NOSPAM out of address to reply From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:47 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Commercial go-ahead for B744IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The 747-400IGW, in contrast, doesn't involve much more than rummaging >>around in the parts bin and putting the parts together in a new way -- >>it isn't much more than a 747-400F with the fuselage of a passenger >>-400. >I think it's the top of a -100 0r -200 (i.e., short top vs. stretched >upper deck) to save weight. That's the 747-200X proposal that surfaced in Flight International two months ago, as a four-engined alternative to the 777-200X proposal. I have never actually seen anything saying this aircraft would have the shorter upper deck -- that was just a guess based on the -200X moniker. The Qantas 747-400IGW order is for planes with full passenger capacity. They want to carry more cargo and/or have more margin for bad winds on existing 747-400 routes, not the substantial increase in range which sacrificing some payload and structure might permit. -- 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 Fri Jan 9 00:50:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:48 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 747-100 vs. -200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>... All 747SPs >>eventually had a modified pylon, where the trailing edge was a generous >>curve, staying low before ascending to the wing. Additionally, where >>the outboard pylon meets the wing was extensively modified with a >>fairing that goes over the wing leading edge and is almost vertical on >>the inboard side and curved on the outboard side. > >>... Earlier -100/-200s seem to have both pylons. My guess is that the >>-100s are the ones with the earlier pylons, while -200s have the later >>pylons. Can anyone confirm this? > >Funny, I was just sitting in the Red Carpet Club at ORD this afternoon, >looking at a parked at gate C16 and noticing the different pylons on the >#1 and #2 engines. I couldn't see the trailing edge of the pylon and >hadn't seen your message yet, but I did notice that the outboard (#1) >pylon had the fairing you describe where it meets the leading edge of >the wing, unlike the #2 pylon, just as you describe. > >This aircraft was an early 747-123 (N156UA, ln 77), so the presence of >the fairing does not distinguish a 747-200 from a -100. The trailing >edge still might. I don't think the curved trailing-edge pylon can be used to distinguish a 747-200 from a -100. My recollection is the newer pylon started to appear on the B747-200 in the late 70s. I believe the pylon modification was to accommodate higher thrust versions of the JT9D engine. The first time I noticed the modified pylon was on a JT9D-7Q-powered B747-200, which, I believe, went in service around 1978 or 1979 (but it could have been introduced earlier). I think pylons on all the JT9D-7A-powered B747-100 and -200 are of the same design. From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:49 From: Marc Hookerman Subject: Re: 747-100 vs. -200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In article , David Lednicer wrote: >I think I have figured out a way to tell a 747-100 from a -200 (short >of looking at the mfg. plate), but I am curious if anyone can punch a >hole in this. ... > Since then, I have noticed that full-length 747s have both pylons. >Late model -300s and -400s (at least P&W powered ones) have the later >747SP pylon. Earlier -100/-200s seem to have both pylons. My guess is >that the -100s are the ones with the earlier pylons, while -200s have >the later pylons. Can anyone confirm this? Well when Boeing first produced the 747-100, its upper level only had three windows, while as years went airlines had the option to expand this to the amount of windows on the 200 series. The -200 series also introduced the first General Electric powered 747's also. Many -100's have HF antennas on the wing tips also. Many people confuse these with fuel dump chutes. Marc From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:50 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-100 vs. -200 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Late model -300s and -400s (at least P&W powered ones) have the later >>747SP pylon. Earlier -100/-200s seem to have both pylons. >Well when Boeing first produced the 747-100, its upper level only had >three windows, while as years went airlines had the option to expand >this to the amount of windows on the 200 series. Right. This modification also involved relocating some air conditioning equipment in the rear of the hump, allowing the upper cabin length to be increased from 19' to 25'. But as you note, Boeing offered this as a retrofit kit for older 747-100s and later 747-100s may have been built with the change. Furthermore, I've seen at least one 747-200B which had the old "three holer" style upper deck. The upper deck configuration is therefore not useful in distinguishing between a 747-100 and a 747-200B. >The -200 series also introduced the first General Electric powered >747's also. Also Rolls-Royce engines. But David did refer to the P&W powered aircraft. Note, too, that there was a 747-100B model, at least some of which were built with Rolls-Royce engines. I'm not aware of any with GE engines, however, so GE engines without the -300's extended upper deck or the -400's winglets would indicate a 747-200. That still leaves the question of how to tell what it is if it's got JT9D (or RB.211) engines. -- 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 Fri Jan 9 00:50:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:51 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Big Bird Spotted References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom John van Veen wrote: > Today a large twin engine jet was observed doing flight tests at the local > tarmac-GEG. It was in Cathay Pacific colors, the registration was N5016R > I believe, and it was trailing a cone from the tip of the rudder. This is the first 777-300 for CX, the launch customer for this variant. It is undergoing flight test; it was reported seen at ABQ last week by another post to this NG. Or, perhaps CX is starting 777 service ABQ-GEG :-) Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:52 From: "Yo" Subject: Re: Big Bird Spotted References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas I believe you are talking about the 777-300. It first flew from Everett-Paine Field on Oct. 16, 1997. I have a picture of it on Airways magazine, and the registration appears to be N5016R. The picture shows the plane with Boeing house colors, but it goes to say that it will be delivered to Cathay Pacific in May 1998. Hope this helps. John van Veen wrote in message ... From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:53 From: Mike Garrison Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Noise Engineering Brian Clouse wrote: > >From "Boeing Jetliners" by Guy NOrris and Mark Wagner, 1996, Motorbooks > Intl: > > "The company chose the opportunity to launch the 700-series of products, > the -500 being reserved for gas turbines and the -600 for missiles ... > The book didn't say so, but model numbers ending in 7 had already been a > Boeing tradition since the late '30's (297, 377, B-17, B-47, KC-97). I don't think you could call this a tradition. The Pentagon (not Boeing) is responsible for the B-17, B-47, and KC-97 designations. Those planes also had internal Boeing model numbers. I'm not certain, but I think the B-17 was 219 or 215. Anyway, I don't think there was any such tradition. The Model 80 and the Clippers (which I think were 315s) would argue against this. Also, are you thinking of the 247 when you said 297? -Mike From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:54 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) wrote: > >From "Boeing Jetliners" by Guy NOrris and Mark Wagner, 1996, Motorbooks > Intl: > > "The company chose the opportunity to launch the 700-series of products, > the -500 being reserved for gas turbines and the -600 for missiles. By > all rights, the new aircraft should have been named the Boeing 700; but > possibly for superstitious reasons and because it sounded better, it was > designated Boeing 707. Seven is a sacred or mystic number, composed of > four and three, which from time immemorial have been accounted lucky > numbers." > > The book didn't say so, but model numbers ending in 7 had already been a > Boeing tradition since the late '30's (297, 377, B-17, B-47, KC-97). The name 707 was suggested by Boeing's ad agency as it sounded better than Boeing 700 which is what the company was going to call the plane (and actually what it IS called on the Type Certificate). The numbers B-17, B-47, and KC-97 had nothing to do with Boeing. They were the numbers assigned to those planes by the Air Force. The B-17 was the Boeing Model 299, the B-47 was the Boeing Model 450, and the KC-97 was the Boeing Model 367. Three hundred was the series number for four-engine, piston-powered transports. Thus the 314 Clipper, the 307 Stratoliner, and the 377 Stratocruiser. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:55 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Brian Clouse (GWLF17A@prodigy.com) wrote: : The book didn't say so, but model numbers ending in 7 had already been a : Boeing tradition since the late '30's (297, 377, B-17, B-47, KC-97). Not to mention 247D. But Boeing didn't number the bombers, etc - the U.S.Government did that. They got B-15, B-29, B-50, B-52 ....from Boeing. -- Gerry From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:56 From: Woodhead Subject: Final call for papers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET International Crashworthiness Conference 9-11 September 1998 Dearborn, Michigan, USA Conference scope : Structural Crashworthiness; Impact Biomechanics; Occupant Restraint Systems; Accident survey and reconstruction; Modelling. Papers should be submitted by 31st January 1998. Further info; John Herriot, Meetings Management jherriot@meetingsmgmt.u-net.com Rosemary Parravani, Woodhead Publishing Ltd woodhead@dial.pipex.com From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:57 From: "Marv Woolard" Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Seth Heckard wrote in article ... > Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as > a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra > cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And > why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the > 757 have just one row of cockpit windows? I, for one, don't think it's a stupid question; but here are my "WAG"s: (1) very few pilots were actually using the "eyebrow" windows to scan for traffic and (2) visibiltiy out of the forward and side windows was deemed adequate and the added expense of additional windows was not justifiable I still find myself staring into the overhead when scanning for traffic in a 30 degree bank; I usually lean forward to get a better picture instead now. After a while I'm sure I won't miss the eyebrow windows. I really like TCAS but personally I think we often really on it too heavily for some environments where "see and avoid" is still called for... so this may be a third element in eliminating these "extra windows"; ie TCAS provides another window to them. marv From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:58 From: "John Mazor" Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Seth Heckard wrote in article ... > Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as > a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra > cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And > why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the > 757 have just one row of cockpit windows? An old airline pilot once told me that the "eyebrow" windows, being basically useless, were put there to meet the minimum requirement for square inches of viewing area. The bigger, functional winshield panels already had been optimized to some design requirement, so the eyebrows were added to meet the standard. From kls Fri Jan 9 00:50:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:50:59 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as >a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra >cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And >why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the >757 have just one row of cockpit windows? The extra windows are known as eyebrow windows (perhaps because they supposedly look like eyebrows on the aircraft from the outside? who knows where some of these terms come from). In older aircraft they were used for celestial navigation, before the advent of GPS and other technological marvels. They are no longer a requirement, although some newer aircraft still have them for technical or sentimental reasons. We did a survey here of airline pilots and asked them how they felt about removing the windows. We expected the response to be positive, as many pilots stuff the windows with paper to cut down on the glare in the cockpit. On the whole, however, most respondees said the windows can be useful in watching out for traffic, they make the cockpit feel more "open," and, to quote one pilot, "I like to look at the stars." Colleen.M.Wabiszewski@Boeing.com From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:00 From: ae562@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eric Thomas) Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Reply-To: ae562@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eric Thomas) Seth Heckard (sheckard@hotmail.com) writes: > Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as > a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra > cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And > why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the > 757 have just one row of cockpit windows? The upper cockpit windows were installed so that pilots could have the option to navigate by the stars. Also, when flying near the North Pole, a compass tends to be unreliable, which makes cockpit sky windows all the more necessary in order to use a sextant (naviagational tool). However, in this day and age of GPS, the need for these ceiling windows has diminished. Therefore, modern aircraft, especially commercial airliners, tend not to have these extra windows as high tech naviagational equipment has mostly eliminated the need for navigation by stars. From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:01 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Seth Heckard writes >Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as >a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra >cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And >why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the >757 have just one row of cockpit windows? The eyebrow windows are what you look through to see where you are going when in a bank. More modern planes have larger windows and maybe dont need them. So I am told. -- john r. From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:02 From: Joktan Lo Subject: Desalting kit? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Macau CTM InterNetNews site Dear sir, Can some one tell me that why there is no desalting kit on the common airliner to desalt the sea water for the survivor during the survival period after a disaster? Can the water purification tablets whcih are carried on the most airliner nowadays to desalt the sea water? Thanks a lot. From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:03 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Sir Kenelm Caley References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Andy Tomlinson wrote: > Does anyone know of a Sir Kenelm Caley, > Born or lived in Brompton, Yorkshire > something to do with flight or aircraft design I don't recognize Kenelm, but Sir George Cayley has been called by some the inventor of aeronautics. He was certainly one of the first to put science into aeronautical engineering, invented dihedral for lateral stability, invented the glider, and was probably the first to publish the idea of a wing to sustain lift only, not provide propulsion. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:04 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Re: Sir Kenelm Caley 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 "Andy Tomlinson" wrote: >Does anyone know of a Sir Kenelm Caley, >Born or lived in Brompton, Yorkshire >something to do with flight or aircraft design Taken literally, No. But you might just mean Sir George Cayley (1773-1857), a well-known British aviation pioneer who lived at Brompton Hall, near Scarborough, Yorkshire. He experimented with unmanned gliders in the first half of the 19th century. In 1853 he persuaded his coachman to make the first known manned gliding flight, which covered a distance of some 500 yards. Legend has it that the coachman resigned immediately afterwards. Look in any serious book on aviation history if you want more details. Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Amsterdam-Zuidoost The Netherlands E-mail: Lezenne@CompuServe.com Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk The Netherlands From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:05 From: Philip Morten Subject: Re: Sir Kenelm Caley References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Southampton Hall of Aviation Reply-To: prmorte@ibm.net Andy Tomlinson wrote: > Does anyone know of a Sir Kenelm Caley, > Born or lived in Brompton, Yorkshire > something to do with flight or aircraft design You probably mean Sir George Cayley, he flew an unmanned glider at Brompton Hall in 1809, and man-carrying gliders in 1849 and 1853. Harald Penrose says, in the biographical appendix to his "British Aviation - The Pioneer Years" "CAYLEY, SIR GEORGE, Bt. 1773-1857. A giant in the history of science and technology; inventor of the tension-spoke wheel, hot air engine, and caterpillar tractor, and made important contributions to ballistics, lifeboats, railway equipment, architecture, and artificial limbs. Closely involved in rural jurisdiction, land reclamation, unemployment relief, and the humanities in general, as well as aeronautics. He was a Whig, devout Unitarian, and happy family man. It is fitting that Brompton Hall, his old home, has become a school, and a prize named after him is given to the pupil showing greatest practical skill during the year. His descendants still live in the vicinity." There are descriptions of his work in the main text of the book. Descriptions of Cayley's aircraft can be found in "British Aircraft 1809 - 1914, by Peter Lewis, Putnam, 1962. Cayley's major work on aeronautics "On Aerial Navigation" is available on line at: http://hawaii.cogsci.uiuc.edu/invent/i/Cayley/Cayley.html Philip Morten From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:06 From: sendmp@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) Subject: Ethiopian Airlines 767 fleet (& hijacking 23.xi.96) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK I've been trying to discover some more about the Ethiopian Airlines 767 that was lost as a result of a hijacking last November. Where would I be likely to find the following information? How old was the aircraft, and how long had Ethiopian been flying it? How many 767s had Ethiopian at the time of the tragedy? As an aside, I lived in Addis Ababa during the 1980s. Taxis and shops all over town had large Ethiopian Airlines stickers in their windows bearing the Legend "767 is Coming!". It was a national event, almost, when the planes were delivered (this would have been 1985, I believe). I don't recall whether Ethiopian ditributed "767 is Here!" stickers, but some of the taxi-drivers edited their old ones to read "767 is in!" D.M. Procida -- "...the so-called support act, The Awkward Moments, climbed onstage unsmilingly, not even looking at the audience. They only played one song: "Autobahn". In German. For twenty minutes. Then they swaggered off, not once having acknowledged the crowd. Conceited arrogant swine." From kls Fri Jan 9 00:51:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Ethiopian Airlines 767 fleet (& hijacking 23.xi.96) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I've been trying to discover some more about the Ethiopian Airlines 767 >that was lost as a result of a hijacking last November. Where would I be >likely to find the following information? Right here. :-) >How old was the aircraft, and how long had Ethiopian been flying it? How >many 767s had Ethiopian at the time of the tragedy? The accident aircraft, ET-EIZ (msn 23916, ln 187) was the newest of three 767-260(ER) aircraft in Ethiopian's fleet. It first flew on September 17, 1987; Boeing delivered it to Ethiopian on October 22, 1987. Air Tanzania leased it on June 1, 1991 and returned it on February 17, 1992. It otherwise flew for Ethiopian durings its life of just over nine 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 Fri Jan 9 00:51:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,misc.transport.air-industry,rec.aviation.ifr Date: 09 Jan 98 00:51:08 From: bgoodin@unex.ucla.edu Subject: UCLA short course on "CNS/ATM" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Los Angeles On March 30-April 2, 1998, UCLA Extension will present the short course, "Satellite-Based Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance for Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM)", on the UCLA campus in Los Angeles. The instructors are Mr. Cary R. Spitzer, MS, President, AvioniCon, Inc.; Mr. Wayne Aleshire, Captain, United Airlines; Mr. Michael J. Morgan, Honeywell; and Mr. Roy T. Oishi, ARINC, Inc. After a decade of work by the Future Air Navigation Systems committees of the United Nations-affiliated International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the aviation industry is implementing satellite-based communications, navigation, and surveillance for air traffic management (CNS/ATM) on a global basis. CNS/ATM promises substantial increases in airspace system capacity and benefits to both aircraft operators and air traffic services providers. This course begins with a review of avionics concepts to ensure a solid foundation for subsequent material. The rest of the course traces the development of the CNS/ATM concept, introduces its underlying principles, and presents each of the three cornerstone technologies--communications, navigation, and surveillance--from an airborne perspective. These technologies are discussed in detail by experts who contributed to the design and development of the avionics intended to reap CNS/ATM benefits which are now being installed on many aircraft. The course concludes with a summary of real-world experience by a major airline that has already equipped some of its fleet with first-generation CNS/ATM systems. This course is intended as an introduction to CNS/ATM. The level of detail presented makes the course suitable for a broad range of career backgrounds including technology (both air- and ground-based aviation systems), business development, and technical management. The course fee is $1495, which includes extensive course materials. These notes are for participants only, and are not for sale. For additional information and a complete course description, please contact Marcus Hennessy at: (310) 825-1047 (310) 206-2815 fax mhenness@unex.ucla.edu http://www.unex.ucla.edu/shortcourses This course may also be presented on-site at company locations. From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:40 From: Bryan Shrode Subject: Boeing 717-200 (formerly MD-95, check website for details) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Boeing said Thursday, that it had unannounced firm orders for its 717 regional jet, but declined to say how many. I s there anyone that can give the inside scoop as to who the lucky owner(s) are?? (At least AirTran is not the only one out on the lonely 717 limb!) Sincerely, -- Bryan Shrode bshrode@home.net From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:41 From: "Rom S. Solene" Subject: MD90/Boeing 717 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Boeing announced today it will continue to produce the MD90 but rename it the 717-200. Although Boeing will beat Airbus (I believe their 100 seater will be called the AE317?) to the punch line by several years, the cockpit commonality will not be present as it is across Boeing's other products and as Airbus will no doubt have in their competing product when it comes to market. So, the question is, will the commonality issue be a big factor given that the two manufacturers push it when hawking their respective wares? Also, how difficult would it be for Boeing to completely redesign the cockpit to fit in with its other aircraft or will this endeavor equate with redesigning the aircraft from scratch? From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:42 From: jac@panix.com (John Clear) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Panix In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >Wonderful! Now the already confusing story of what happened to the >717 is even more confusing to explain. (It is, er, was, Boeing's >designation for the KC-135. I'm pretty sure the KC-135 series were >all 717-1xx models, with several values for xx, so there's still no >ambiguity unless Boeing launches the proposed MD-95-10 as the 717-100.) According to http://www.boeing.com/commercial/717/Boe717.html : The model number 717 has appeared once before in Boeing history. The second airplane in the 700 series was internally designated the 717. However, the Air Force decided to call it the KC-135, and that became the name by which it is known. Because 717 was never assigned to a commercial jetliner, the number was available for the new 717-200. ------- Nothing like re-writing history to suit your current needs... I guess Boeing reads mta-i, since as of the other day, the "what ever happened to the 717?" links still pointed to the KC-135... John -- John Clear - jac@panix.com PP-ASEL 1Lt, CAP-CAWG http://www.panix.com/~jac From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:43 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY But what, besides engines and instruments and flight controls, is really the difference between a "new, modern" Boeing 717-200 and a 30-year-old Douglas DC9-10? The few of us who care won't accept the name, but most of the traveling public probably doesn't care anyway. I'd also really like to know why Boeing refuses to make any public decision on shortening the plane to a 70-seater (which would make it a pretty stubby-looking, draggy plane with a longitudinal stability margin problem, I would think). Are they simply trying to scare Embraer, Dornier, AI(R) and the like out of the market as a favor to Bombardier? - BRIAN CLOUSE GWLF17A@prodigy.com From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:44 From: zeno@magicnet.net Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MagicNet, Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > Boeing announced today that the MD-95-30, launched in October 1995 by > ValuJet (now AirTran Airlines), is being renamed the 717-200. Will the larger MD-90 still be in production, or is just the MD-95, now known as the 717 be made? From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:45 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Will the larger MD-90 still be in production, or is just the MD-95, now >known as the 717 be made? Boeing announced several months ago that both the MD-80 and MD-90 would be dropped. -- 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 Sun Jan 11 03:24:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:46 From: Thomas Enblom Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ericsson Radio Systems AB Reply-To: thomas.enblom@era.ericsson.se Karl Swartz wrote: > Boeing announced today that the MD-95-30, launched in October 1995 by > ValuJet (now AirTran Airlines), is being renamed the 717-200. So what is happening to the MD11 line? Boeing has stated that the MD11 will be retained in the company's porttfolio (not the case for MD80/90 series) for now. I guess Boeing would win more customers for the freighter and passenger variants if they aligned the aircraft with the 7-series. That would mean a firm commitment to continue development of the aircraft. A suggestion: MD11 --> B7117 %-) /Thomas From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:47 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > I'm pretty sure the KC-135 series were > all 717-1xx models, with several values for xx, so there's still no > ambiguity unless Boeing launches the proposed MD-95-10 as the 717-100.) KC-135 = Boeing 717-100A (first 29 aircrafts) KC-135 = Boeing 717-146 and -148 (next 68+ aircrafts) C-135A = Boeing 717-157 (15 aircrafts) C-135B = Boeing 717-158 (30 aircrafts) KC-135B = Boeing 717-166 (17 aircrafts) C-135F = Boeing 717-164 (12 aircrafts) RC-135A = Boeing 739-700 ( 4 aircrafts) RC-135B = Boeing 739-445B(10 aircrafts) Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:48 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > Boeing announced today that the MD-95-30, launched in October 1995 by > ValuJet (now AirTran Airlines), is being renamed the 717-200. The second and so far undisclosed customer is Debonair with an order for 13-15 B717-2. I got this news from a reliable source. ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:49 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Ooops, yes, you're right, I meant 247, not 297. And the "tradition" didn't date back to the founding of the company, just to about the mid- 30's. Maybe the designations B-17, B-47, and KC-97 were coincidences, maybe not. I doubt the VC-137 designation for the first jet Air Force One was a coincidence, for instance. But it's fun to talk about, anyway. Brian From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:50 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > The name 707 was suggested by Boeing's ad agency as it sounded better than > Boeing 700 which is what the company was going to call the plane (and > actually what it IS called on the Type Certificate). The numbers B-17, > B-47, and KC-97 had nothing to do with Boeing. They were the numbers > assigned to those planes by the Air Force. The B-17 was the Boeing Model > 299, the B-47 was the Boeing Model 450, and the KC-97 was the Boeing Model > 367. Three hundred was the series number for four-engine, piston-powered > transports. Thus the 314 Clipper, the 307 Stratoliner, and the 377 > Stratocruiser. Everything about this post is right except my statement that the 707 is actually called the 700 on the Type Certificate. It's not. The numbers that ARE different on the Type Certificate from the numbers in common usage are the dash-numbers. The 707-120 is officially called a 707-100, while the 707-320 is officially called a 707-300. Sorry for the error. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:51 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Desalting kit? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 09 Jan 98 00:51:02 , Joktan Lo wrote: > Can some one tell me that why there is no desalting kit on the >common airliner to desalt the sea water for the survivor during the >survival period after a disaster? > Can the water purification tablets whcih are carried on the most >airliner nowadays to desalt the sea water? There has been a distinct reduction in the carriage of emergency equipment. For instance most aircraft used to have rafts. Now the escape chutes do double duty as rafts (and I understand from volunteers that the old circular rafts were pretty sea worth, I have not heard nice things about the escape chutes being used as rafts. The reason is fairly clear. I am not aware of any commercial jetliner ditching in the middle of the ocean for a very very long time. (The Ethiopian Airlines 767 went down within sight of land). So part 1 is that the problem just doesn't occur. The other issue is that the airlines now believe it is virtually impossible to put an aircraft down in the sea, and NOT be rescued within 24 hours. All survival planning is based upon this, and most people can in fact survive for 24 hours without water. I know in Australia, a drill is conducted annually where a raft, rescue beacon and volunteered are dumped off the coast of Australia somewhere with a Royal Australian Naval vessel in sight if needed, and the rescue services are told to find them. It hasn't taken 24 hours yet.... The major problem area was the Indian Ocean, however apparently the US has significant rescue capability at Diego Garcia. No., water purification tables do nothing for dissolved minerals (i.e. salt)... From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:52 From: Michael Baldamus Subject: A3XX project affected by financial crisis in Asia? 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: Berlin University of Technology, Germany Airbus has probably counted on airlines from Asia buying the proposed A3XX. Yet, nobody seems to have foreseen anything like the current financial and economic crisis in this region. Is the project now in jeopardy? Michael Baldamus Berlin, Germany From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:53 From: Julian Subject: Virgin Atlantic A340 Undercarriage incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: beer Reply-To: usfmc465@ibmmailnospam.com Hello, I am new to this news group, so this is a bit of an coincidence but.... You may like to know that I flew on G-VSKY on the 1st Jan from Hong Kong. The undercarrage worked well this time! One of the stewardess said that they had flown it a couple of weeks earlier. I hope this information is of use. From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:54 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Reliability of gas turbine engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises CQuaranta wrote: > I was reading the NTSB aircraft incident/accident reports and came across a > number of instances of "uncontained engine failure" - supposedly either a > turbine, compressor or fan blade seperates and punctures the engine housing. > > What is the approximate rate of these events in terms of events/hours of > operation? An uncontained engine failure is an extremly rare event. At a major airline (500+ a/c fleet) 2 or 3 a year on a single engine type would be enough to start a minor panic. Gas turbine engines are incredibly reliable, at the airline I work for mtbr for all engines is around 6000-8000 hours. One RB211-524B4I ran in excess of 25,000 hours. ( thought the RR rep was going to cry when we had to pull it). Engines are removed for a variety of reasons, life limited parts, fod, gas path deterioration, burned or eroded blades, egt limited, etc. These are caused by normal wear and tear, and are usually transparent to the crew as the engine will still make TO power. Fuel consumtion will be a little higher, egt will be a little higher, vibes might be higher, etc. but all within allowable limits. Allowable damage limits are in the maintenance manual and when these limits are reached, or performance has degraded sufficiently, off it comes. A UCF is a different thing. It should not happen and the reason is researched extensivly untill a root cause is identified and corrected. These are taken very seriously by the operator. Sorry I can't provide hard numbers, but I hope this helped. -Seth From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:55 From: kana2@aol.com (J.Kana) Subject: Can Boeing supply all their airline customers? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com There is a growing concern that the factory floor inefficiencies that caused Boeing to lose billions last year could cost the company again in 1998. Part manufactures are finding it difficult to keep up with Boeing's demand and last year this forced the company to halt operations at two separate plants. I work with Fortune Online and right now there is an article detailing the problems this Aeronautic manufacturing giant must face and remedy in the coming year. For those interested, the article can be found at: http://www.pathfinder.com/r0/fortune/newsgroup/in?/fortune/1998/980112/features.html From kls Sun Jan 11 03:24:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jan 98 03:24:56 From: wsherr6080@aol.com (WSherr6080) Subject: United Airlines Boeing 747 Turbulence Encounter Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The recent United Airlines Boeing 747 severe turbulence encounterserves as irrefutable evidence of the weather induced aircraft "pitch-up" in an updraft. (A phenomenon of the swept wing aircraft design), and the resultant pilot's reaction to this instantaneous attitude transition. The simulation, on television, of the United 747 aircraft transitions during the turbulence encounter shows a definite aircraft "pitch-up" to a nose high attitude as a result of a severe updraft. The Flight Data Recorder FDR inddicated a positive two "G" reading. The pilot's instinctive and involuntary reaction to this instantaneous nose up attitude change is to return to level flight asap. The application of a strong forward pitch control input results in a high negative "G" force which pitches any loose objects up to the ceiling. (The classic example of a weather induced "pitch-up" and a resultant pilot induced "upset" accident was the Northwest Airlines Boeing 720B fatal accident near Miami, Fl in 1963. (The Boeing 720B is 7 feet shorter than the 707) The Northwest crew in reaction to a weather induced "pitch-up" trimmed both the horizontal stabilizer and the elevators full nose down and also applied a strong forward pitch contro input that upset the aircraft into a vertical dive. The aircraft came apart in the air. If the United 747 aircraft had actually fallen from a level flight attitude all the passengers would have been subjected to the same powerful "G" forces. The fact is the most severe injuries were inflicted on the passengers in the rear of the aircraft. The "G" forces increase towards the rear of the aircraft. (Longer moment arm) Until the aviation industry recognizes this "pitch-up" phenomenon of a swept wing aircraft design, and initiates a pilot training program to counter the instinctive and involuntary reaction of a pilot to these sudden, uncommanded aircraft attitude transitions, these incidents and accidents will continue to occur. wsherif1@san.rr.com From news Mon Jan 12 00:24:04 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: leishman@hellcat.umd.edu (leishman) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: University of Maryland, College Park References: Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 07:04:41 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu In article oberoi@emirates.net.ae writes: > > A friend of mine came across an interesting reason for how the Boeing > > 707 series got the name - 707 : > > It seems that the wing angles of the Boeing 707, were 45 degrees. > > The values of the trignometric functions, sine and cosine at 45 > > degrees are equal - of the value = 1 / sqrt(2) = 0 . 7 0 7 > > Hence the name ? Absolutely not. The designation has nothing to do with wing sweep angle. The wing sweep angle on the 707 was 35 degrees, an angle likely inherited from German research on swept wings. Try a copy of "Boeing Jetliners" by Norris and Wagner for Boeing aircraft designations. From news Mon Jan 12 00:24:05 1998 Newsgroups: alt.brain.teasers,sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!194.162.162.196!newsfeed.nacamar.de!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. References: Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 07:04:59 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu In article , oberoi@emirates.net.ae wrote: > > A friend of mine came across an interesting reason for how the Boeing > > 707 series got the name - 707 : > > > > It seems that the wing angles of the Boeing 707, were 45 degrees. > > The values of the trignometric functions, sine and cosine at 45 > > degrees are equal - of the value = 1 / sqrt(2) = 0 . 7 0 7 > > Hence the name ? > > > > Is this the real reason, or merely a coincidence ? It's a coincidence. Boeing products fall into numbered categories. I believe 500-series products and 600-series products were military related; in fact, I think the 600-series was used for unmanned missiles or gas turbine engines but I may be wrong on that. When the commercial jet transport project was undertaken, the next unused number series was 700. In fact, the 707 originally was going to be called the Boeing 700, but the company's ad agency thought 707 had a better ring to it. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From news Mon Jan 12 11:26:25 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Eric Olesen" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: FAA issues Emergency AD for recent 737s Date: 12 Jan 1998 13:28:48 -0500 Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >Investigators discovered that the right horizontal stabilizer may have >separated from the SilkAir aircraft prior to impact, and that two rows >of fasteners (26 in all) were missing from the leading edge of the right >horizontal stabilizer. The fasteners may never have been installed. In >addition, a hinge bolt from the right elevator was missing. If this is on the leading edge, just how visible is it that the fasteners were missing??? Is this something that the airline should have noticed during pre-delivery acceptance inpections? Obviously, this should have been picked up on by Boeing, but... E From news Mon Jan 12 13:09:57 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Orders for Airliners in 1997 Date: 12 Jan 1998 13:47:53 -0500 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: Boeing today announced its total orders for 1997 and proclaimed its victory over Airbus. You can read Boeing's press release at: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980112.html Although Boeing only received net orders for 64 more planes in 1997 (502 vs. 438 - 14.6% higher for Boeing), the value of the planes was $11.3 billion USD greater ($39.1 billion vs. $27.8 billion - 40.6% higher for Boeing). This works out to $77.9 million per plane for Boeing and $63.5 million per plane for Airbus. The press release included a set of four charts that showed orders for 1997 and total unfilled orders. For 1997 there were 2 orders for "Other" and there are 10 unfilled orders for "Other". This "Other" refers to a manufacturer other than Boeing (Including MD) and Airbus, and I was wondering who this was. My guess would be Iluyshin or Tupelov, but I really don't know. Thomas A. Beckley beckley@sprintmail.com From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:13 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: MD90/Boeing 717 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >Boeing announced today it will continue to produce the MD90 but rename it >the 717-200. Although Boeing will beat Airbus (I believe their 100 seater >will be called the AE317?) to the punch line by several years, the cockpit >commonality will not be present as it is across Boeing's other products and >as Airbus will no doubt have in their competing product when it comes to >market. So, the question is, will the commonality issue be a big factor >given that the two manufacturers push it when hawking their respective >wares? As I'm sure many other people will/have pointed out, it's the MD-95 that was renamed, not the MD-90. I believe that the 717-200 has three computer screens as its instrumentation, so I would think that Boeing may be able to make the cockpit of the 717-200 similar to its other modern aircraft with only some minor software modifications. This is similar to the 767-400 which is also using these displays, and according to an official Boeing press release (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980109.html), these screens allow commonality between its different aircraft. Finally, the Airbus that competes directly with the 717-200 would be the AE316. There is also an AE317, but it is slightly larger (about 120 passengers versus 100 passengers). From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:14 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat in our little cottage On 09 Jan 98 00:50:43 , in , Karl Swartz wrote: >Boeing announced today that the MD-95-30, launched in October 1995 by >ValuJet (now AirTran Airlines), is being renamed the 717-200. ... >Wonderful! Now the already confusing story of what happened to the >717 is even more confusing to explain. (It is, er, was, Boeing's >designation for the KC-135. I'm pretty sure the KC-135 series were >all 717-1xx models, with several values for xx, so there's still no >ambiguity unless Boeing launches the proposed MD-95-10 as the 717-100.) Except for 4 RC135A's which were built as 739-700s, and 10 RC135Bs which were built as 739-445Bs according to Peter M. Bowers. Other 717 model numbers listed in his table are 100A, 146, 148, 157, 158, 165 and 166 -- John Wright From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:15 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Brian Clouse wrote in message ... >I'd also really like to know why Boeing refuses to make any public >decision on shortening the plane to a 70-seater (which would make it a >pretty stubby-looking, draggy plane with a longitudinal stability margin >problem, I would think). The Dc9-10/20 series was described by many comm' jockeys as the nearest thing to flying a fighter in commercial aviation, in fact I recall ATC flagging them as an aeroplane to haul out of holding patterns when a small window of opportunity arose, due to their agility. Given the BMW RR motors I'd see the 70 seater as quite a proposition, wonder if they'll remove the slats ?? Pitch/ longitudinal stability was never a problem, considering the sweepback the machine had very good inherent balance. >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:16 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University Marc Schaeffer writes: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > I'm pretty sure the KC-135 series were > > all 717-1xx models, with several values for xx, so there's still no > > ambiguity unless Boeing launches the proposed MD-95-10 as the 717-100.) > > KC-135 = Boeing 717-100A (first 29 aircrafts) > KC-135 = Boeing 717-146 and -148 (next 68+ aircrafts) > C-135A = Boeing 717-157 (15 aircrafts) > C-135B = Boeing 717-158 (30 aircrafts) > KC-135B = Boeing 717-166 (17 aircrafts) > C-135F = Boeing 717-164 (12 aircrafts) > RC-135A = Boeing 739-700 ( 4 aircrafts) > RC-135B = Boeing 739-445B(10 aircrafts) So that leaves out the KC-135Q, modified to handle JP-7 for the SR-71, and the KC-135R, the re-engined version with CFM56 (er, F108-CF-100) engines. Not to mention the KC-135E, using TF-33-PW-102 engines and flown by the Air Force Reserve and National Guard. Did these just keep their original designations after modification? An Air Force web site, , mentions a "fleet of 732" planes, and lists a total of 645 as still in service, just as tankers. Does that make your "68+" into 686? -- -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 Jan 20 01:29:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:17 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> KC-135 = Boeing 717-100A (first 29 aircrafts) >> KC-135 = Boeing 717-146 and -148 (next 68+ aircrafts) (rest of list deleted) >So that leaves out the KC-135Q, modified to handle JP-7 for the SR-71, >and the KC-135R, the re-engined version with CFM56 (er, F108-CF-100) >engines. Not to mention the KC-135E, using TF-33-PW-102 engines and >flown by the Air Force Reserve and National Guard. Did these just keep >their original designations after modification? With extremely rare exception, Boeing doesn't change the basic model designation of an aircraft once it's been built. The KC-135Q and KC-135R were modified from other versions, so they would retain their original 717-xxx designation as far as Boeing is concerned. I'm only vaguely familiar with the KC-135E -- was it a modification, like the KC-135R? If so, the same would apply. -- 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 Jan 20 01:29:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:18 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Oh, I get it: Valujet buys MD-95's Airtran buys 717's From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:19 From: pierce@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McDonnell Douglas, Houston Division In article , zeno@magicnet.net writes: > In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > > Boeing announced today that the MD-95-30, launched in October 1995 by > > ValuJet (now AirTran Airlines), is being renamed the 717-200. > > Will the larger MD-90 still be in production, or is just the MD-95, now > known as the 717 be made? The MD-95 is the only McDonnell-Douglas design that is being continued by Boeing. -cp From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:20 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Will the larger MD-90 still be in production, or is just the MD-95, now >> known as the 717 be made? >The MD-95 is the only McDonnell-Douglas design that is being >continued by Boeing. Not true. Boeing said last fall that the MD-11 would be continued, as would the C-17 (possibly including civil derivatives). If you want to talk about McDonnell Douglas, beyond just the Douglas products from Long Beach, various other MD designs will be continued, such as the F/A-18 Hornet. Getting back to airliners, the MD-80 and MD-90 are the only designs not being continued by Boeing. -- 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 Jan 20 01:29:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:21 From: pierce@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McDonnell Douglas, Houston Division In article , GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) writes: > But what, besides engines and instruments and flight controls, is really > the difference between a "new, modern" Boeing 717-200 and a 30-year-old > Douglas DC9-10? The engines and instruments are a generation (or two) newer than your old DC9-10/-30/-50. In addition, it is equipped with two 20,000 lb thrust engines on a 117,000 pound airplane .. compare that with the later MD-80 series that carries the same thrust on a 149,500 pound frame. > The few of us who care won't accept the name, but most > of the traveling public probably doesn't care anyway. Rather a blanket statement for one so isolated. -cp From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:22 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Old 707's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In tyler@plk.af.mil (David Tyler) writes: >we AWACS crews used to watch with raised eyebrows as water-wagon >tankers would take off in the middle a hot afternoon in riyadh, >carrying nearly a full load to the orbiting E-3. they'd put out a >furious amount of smoke and noise, and roll, and roll, and roll... >finally, out where we were sure the runway must be running out, they'd >waddle into the air. whew. I think even worse was watching a DC8-61 depart Bangor, Maine toward the north, and a hill, with a full load of military passengers and baggage enroute to Europe. It was also a case of being sure the runway had run out, but, when airborne, he was really waddling - first one wing would drop a bit and then the other. From the looks, it appeared as if the only thing that got him over the hill was he was in ground effect. Lou. From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:23 From: hunneweb@earthlink.net (Brad Hunnewell) Subject: Re: Old 707's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: bhunnewell@aol.com On 26 Dec 97 03:28:48 , mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) wrote: >On 21 Dec 97 17:01:28 , hackettNO*SPAM@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) wrote: >>The early 707s, the KC-135A with J57 engines, and the B-52G use water >>injection for additional takeoff thrust. The B-52G has a water tank in >>the fuselage forward of the wing. The water injection lasts about 45 >>seconds ... >I didn't die all that quickly. Early 747's, with JT9D-3A and 7A >engines I know were 'wet'. the 7F may have been 'wet'. I know the >flight engineers never cared for wet takeoffs. A number of 'wet' >KC135's are still around, and wet takeoffs are fairly common among the >ANG tankers based at Phoenix during the summer. Actually, the only -135A left is flown by NASA. The last AF one was flown by my squadron at Edwards-it was the infamous "water spray tanker" that could be used to produce ice clouds with exact droplet parameters for testing aircraft in various icing conditions. It was "excessed" in the Spring of 1996. Rumor is they will modify an R model to resume that mission. No ANG units have had A-models for many years-they all fly E and R models now (Phoenix has E models). As to the early 747's using water augmentation- I have never heard such a thing and highly doubt it. Perhaps by "wet takeoff" the aforementioned FE's may have meant "wet runway"-which can be a painful takeoff data correction in some airplanes (like the -135!) From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:24 From: Peter & James Liddell <72132.1641@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Old 707's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) I think you mean 707-138, not 133, 133 would have been an Air Canada 707 and since AC never operated a 707... 138s were QANTAS aircraft. -- Peter "Still all alone in the lonely land" From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:25 From: Paul Raveling Subject: Re: Old 707's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Stephen H. Westin wrote: > I remember reading somewhere that a KC-135 with water injection was > the noisiest aircraft in the world on takeoff. That sounds like an > exaggeration, but certainly the KC-135R with its CFM-56 engines is far > quieter. Water-injected KC-135's & 707's were VERY loud by current standards, but they're only candidates for a noisiest-in-the-world title if we exclude aircraft using afterburners. >From 1960 - 1962 I lived on a hill overlooking LAX, while North American was still manufacturing F-100's there. An F-100 using a single J-57 with afterburner was definitely louder than a KC-135 or 707-120 using four J-57/JT3 engines with water injection. BTW, weren't the early 707-120 series engines JT3C's? I noticed a post about JT3D's, but seem to recall JT3C's as being used from 1957 to 196x, where x is pretty small. These were the civil version of the original J-57's rated at 10,000 pounds static thrust at sea level. -- Paul ______________________ ___________________________ Paul Raveling Oracle Gateway Architecture pravelin@us.oracle.com (650) 506-8393 The statements and opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily represent those of Oracle Corporation. -- Oracle policy From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:26 From: "Mariano A. Buitrago" Subject: Extra emergency exits on 757s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas I have noticed there are some 757s with a small emergency exit right behind the wings. When I have flown those aircraft, the main cabin is usually partitioned in two compartments. American's 757s do not have these doors installed. Is this an option, or a special requirement for these doors? Thank you. MB From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Extra emergency exits on 757s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I have noticed there are some 757s with a small emergency exit right behind >the wings. When I have flown those aircraft, the main cabin is usually >partitioned in two compartments. American's 757s do not have these doors >installed. Is this an option, or a special requirement for these doors? It's an option -- in addition to three main doors on each side, there's a choice of a medium sized door aft of the wing, or a pair of overwing emergency exits. The latter avoids having to leave some extra space at the additional exit, allowing more seats for a standard density config. I'm not sure which version, if either, allows greater capacity -- if the 4th door config allows more total pax it would be required for the high density configurations used by charter operators. The 757-300 has both the smaller 4th door and the overwing exits. -- 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 Jan 20 01:29:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:28 From: "Christian Kuehnke" Subject: Re: FL800 CVR transcript text (long) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany desb@worldnetnospam.attnospam.netremovenospam (J Berry) writes: I would never 'flame' somebody because of a spelling mistake (especially because English is not my native language), but if *aviation experts* transcribe an ATIS message... Well... > (...) > 2000: 22 > (...) > 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 > (...) -- Christian.Kuehnke@Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE | Tel.: +49 441 592 652 (home) From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:29 From: Robert Nielsen Subject: Development of MD-11? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: robert.h.nielsen@worldnet.att.net With Boeing giving more attention to Douglas Products, has anyone speculated about an MD-11 fitted with 777 wings and 3 777 engines? Wouldn't this create quite a capable very long range airplane? From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:30 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >With Boeing giving more attention to Douglas Products, has anyone >speculated about an MD-11 fitted with 777 wings and 3 777 engines? It's essentially impossible to graft an arbitrary wing and fuselage together as you suggest. It would probably be cheaper, and certainly would produce a much better result, to simply design a new wing for the MD-11. In addition, MD had a fair amount of work just fitting a sligthly larger and higher thrust engine to the #2 position of the DC-10 when creating the MD-11. Installing the much heavier and more powerful 777-class engines would entail a redesign of the tail and probably of the entire aft fuselage. -- 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 Jan 20 01:29:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:31 From: dc8ray@hairmail.comnet (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: Drift Down Speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Reply-To: Ray_Clawson@hairmail.netcom On 05 Jan 98 23:43:05 , "Tony Morris" wrote: >I would like to know exactly how the 'drift-down speeds' generated by the >FMC in the Boeing 767 (which I fly) are determined. They are not 'minimum >drag' but seem to be increased for some reason. If anyone has an idea >please post me a message. Thanks. I always thought that drift down speeds were always close to zero flap v2 or best rate of climb speeds, ie, best L/D. Ray From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:32 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows 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 Colleen M Wabiszewski writes: >>Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as >>a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra >>cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And >>why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the >>757 have just one row of cockpit windows? > >The extra windows are known as eyebrow windows (perhaps because they >supposedly look like eyebrows on the aircraft from the outside? who >knows where some of these terms come from). In older aircraft they were >used for celestial navigation, before the advent of GPS and other >technological marvels. Several people seem to think this is the reason, but I have my doubts. My admittedly imperfect memory recalls that the 707 and at least some 747s had a periscope that the navigator could attach the sextant to. The navigator would establish a fix and provide steering instructions to the crew. I'd also question the eyebrow for even rough navigation. Seems to me you'd pick a bright star visible in a main window and use that. Also, a lot of these airplanes are really short-range aircraft, which would normally be using alternate navigation methods (i.e., land-based radio or visual aids) to get the job done. My guess is the eyebrows (some of which are very large) are used for see & avoid, originating in an era when flying, rather than managing, the airplane was acknowledged as a primary responsibility of the flight crew. So you'd want to have as good visibility as possible. Modern aircraft probably get rid of them for maintenance or noise reasons. Plus, they tend to have overall better visibility out the main windows when compared to the main windows of older airplanes. Of course, I could be completely wrong. >They are no longer a requirement, although some >newer aircraft still have them for technical or sentimental reasons. We >did a survey here of airline pilots and asked them how they felt about >removing the windows. We expected the response to be positive, as many >pilots stuff the windows with paper to cut down on the glare in the >cockpit. On the whole, however, most respondees said the windows can be >useful in watching out for traffic, they make the cockpit feel more >"open," and, to quote one pilot, "I like to look at the stars." Sounds good to me. :-) -- 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 Tue Jan 20 01:29:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:33 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows 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: > Seth Heckard (sheckard@hotmail.com) writes: > > Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as > > a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra > > cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And > > why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the > > 757 have just one row of cockpit windows? > > The upper cockpit windows were installed so that pilots could have the > option to navigate by the stars. Also, when flying near the North Pole, a > compass tends to be unreliable, which makes cockpit sky windows all the > more necessary in order to use a sextant (naviagational tool). However, > in this day and age of GPS, the need for these ceiling windows has > diminished. Therefore, modern aircraft, especially commercial airliners, > tend not to have these extra windows as high tech naviagational equipment > has mostly eliminated the need for navigation by stars. I'm not sure this is correct. Aerial sextants require a bubble window, as I believe the optics have to protrude above the skin of the fuselage. You can see these bubble windows on a host of older airplanes from the B-17 (it's on top of the nose in front of the windshield) to some models of the 707 (I believe it's over the aft portion of the flight deck). I believe the eyebrow windows were installed simply to improve visibility in a turn and to let more light into the flight deck for map reading, etc. As flight deck instrumentation and displays became more and more sophisticated, the need for eyebrow windows went away. Also, with the advent of CRT displays, the last thing you want on the flight deck is light reflecting off the panel. The new LCD displays are not degraded nearly as much by extraneous light as CRT displays, by the way. Also, as planes went to 2-pilot crews, it became desirable to put any overhead controls as close to the pilots as possible, and the eyebrow windows may have taken up space the designers wanted to use for something else. I suspect one reason the 737 has stayed with eyebrow windows is to avoid the expense of changing the manufacturing tooling. There may be structural reasons to retan the windows as well, but I don't know what they are. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:34 From: Das Pork Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Reply-To: daspork@ibm.net While the celestial navigation angle sounds interesting, I'm not sure I agree with it. I'd lean towards the viewing area theory as to why the eyebrow windows are installed. These windows are generally if I recall on narrow body aircraft which tend to have much smaller cockpit windows. If you've ever sat in the front seats of an L-1011, 757/767, 747 or really any wide body, you'd see there's really a very large viewing area through the windows. The 727 and DC-9/MD-80 series for example, are pretty difficult to see out of relative to the larger aircraft. Also even the older 747's for example, had a smaller window in the ceiling of the cockpit (not above the pilot's) that the fourth (fifth?) crew member, the Navigator, used to sight with a sextant for celestial navigation. I don't know that smaller aircraft like the 727 and DC-9's were used to go such long distances away from navaids, that celestial navigation was ever a general operating issue for them. Aircraft old enough to have been built with Navigator's in mind, often had such small, specialized ceiling windows for celestial navigation. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:35 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: Big Bird Spotted References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Yo wrote: > I believe you are talking about the 777-300. It first flew from > Everett-Paine Field on Oct. 16, 1997. I have a picture of it on Airways > magazine, and the registration appears to be N5016R. The picture shows the > plane with Boeing house colors, but it goes to say that it will be delivered > to Cathay Pacific in May 1998. Right, The airplane at ABQ was WB502, the second 777-300. It is painted in CX colors. Mike Lechnar From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:36 From: "gmj" Subject: ? on 737-700 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom I know that the manufacturing process for the next generation of 73's has changed, but does the aircraft still use the same radome, nose and fuselage as the others (although they may be manufactured differently).? Does anyone know? Thanks! From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:37 From: desb@worldnet.attnospam.netremovenospam (J Berry) Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services On 05 Jan 98 23:41:34 , MKopanski@ual.com wrote: >Well just wanted to let you know that N4723U, the aircraft flying the >ill-fated NRT-HNL flight, is currently winging its way from NRT to LAS >for storage. Too much interior damage to bother fixing... N4723U was due to be retired in February of 1998, anyway, and replaced with a new 747-400. J Berry From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:38 From: Jon Wright Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Mickey Kopanski wrote: > Well just wanted to let you know that N4723U, the aircraft flying the > ill-fated NRT-HNL flight, is currently winging its way from NRT to LAS > for storage. Too much interior damage to bother fixing... And on the AIRLINE list, Mike White concurred: > As I mentioned earlier, I thought the 747-122 involved in the NRT-HNL > turbulence would be retired early. That it was. > On 31 Dec. UA ferried the flight from NRT to LAS as ferry UA9503. > When it landed the plane had 92,529.92 hours on the airfranme. > The plane named after famed UAL leader William A. Patterson (tail > number 8823) was due to be retired in February anyway. Many of > United's retired fleet have been sent to LAS to sit until they are sold > or determined what will happen to them. I was just in LAS this morning and I am confused. There were three UA 747s in the pen: N4719U, N4720U, and N4723U. N4723U still carried full titles; the other two had been painted out. However I would swear N4720U wore the William A. Patterson moniker. Can anyone reconcile this discrepancy? ObTailNumber: On the ships with painted-out titles, the tail numbers had been painted out, too. What is the reason for that? -- Jon Wright jwright@halcyon.com voice 425-635-0338 fax 425-635-0339 You've got a hard lip, Herbert. http://www.blarg.net/~jwright From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >There were three UA 747s in the pen: N4719U, N4720U, and N4723U. >N4723U still carried full titles; the other two had been painted >out. However I would swear N4720U wore the William A. Patterson >moniker. >Can anyone reconcile this discrepancy? No discrepancy -- both aircraft had the same name. (United also had a pair of Advaned 727-222s simultaneously wearing the City of Cleveland name -- N7255U and N7444U.) N4723U had the William A. Patterson name when it was delivered in 1972. N4720U picked it up much later, I believe in the early 1990s. (Was the name spelled out? For some reason I thought N4720U has it as Wm. A. Patterson whereas N4723U had William spelled out.) Another variation on the name, Mainliner W. A. Patterson, appeared on a DC-8 (N8018U) much earlier. -- 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 Jan 20 01:29:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:40 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services MKopanski@ual.com wrote: >Well just wanted to let you know that N4723U, the aircraft flying the >ill-fated NRT-HNL flight, is currently winging its way from NRT to LAS >for storage. Too much interior damage to bother fixing... There must have been more than 2g pulled if the skin is wrinkled. Does it make a difference that the g-meter was near c of g? I think the bumps are much worse at the tail on those birds. From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:41 From: juris87480@aol.com (Juris87480) Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Just a side note. I wonder if UA will change the flight number. 826 was an old Pan Am flight number. UA826 had not been used since the UA DC-8 collided over Staten Island with the TWA L-1049 in December of 1960. Often airlines "retire" flight numbers after accidents, ie DL 191, AA 191, and DL 1288 (the one that the engine exploded at PNS), UA 232. From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Just a side note. I wonder if UA will change the flight number. 826 was an >old Pan Am flight number. UA826 had not been used since the UA DC-8 collided >over Staten Island with the TWA L-1049 in December of 1960. Often airlines >"retire" flight numbers after accidents, ie DL 191, AA 191, and DL 1288 (the >one that the engine exploded at PNS), UA 232. I hadn't realized that 826 was the flight number of the DC-8 that crashed. In any case, while airlines are usually superstitious about such things, UA kept a flight 585 for years after the 737 crash at Colorado Springs. (Their current schedule does not list a flight 585, however.) Usually such changes are made quickly, and there's still a UA 826 NRT-HNL listed in the reservation system, so I guess this is one UA won't change. -- 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 Jan 20 01:29:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:43 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: FAA issues Emergency AD for recent 737s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Eric Olesen wrote in message ... >Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>Investigators discovered that the right horizontal stabilizer may have >>separated from the SilkAir aircraft prior to impact, and that two rows >>of fasteners (26 in all) were missing from the leading edge of the right >>horizontal stabilizer. The fasteners may never have been installed. In >>addition, a hinge bolt from the right elevator was missing. > >If this is on the leading edge, just how visible is it that the fasteners >were missing??? Is this something that the airline should have noticed >during pre-delivery acceptance inpections? Obviously, this should have been >picked up on by Boeing, but... Even if they were there but 'working' (sic) or insecure, there is no doubt this should have been picked up during "A" inspection scheduled maintenance or other preventative inspection sequences. Does anybody know which sub-contractor produces the horizontal- stab' sub-assemblies, bearing in mind that they are still subject to an acceptance check by Boeing Quality ? Is it confirmed that the hinge bolt was missing ? Usually, failsafe design will accomodate the omission of one attachment path, but for the media to speculate on both missing fasteners AND an attachment bolt seems like wild rubbernecking. I have not seen the FAA emergency A.D. and am not sure wether they emphasise control attachment or skin integrity? >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:44 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: FAA issues Emergency AD for recent 737s 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 airline@flash.net "Eric Olesen" writes: >Karl Swartz wrote in message ... > >>Investigators discovered that the right horizontal stabilizer may have >>separated from the SilkAir aircraft prior to impact, and that two rows >>of fasteners (26 in all) were missing from the leading edge of the right >>horizontal stabilizer. The fasteners may never have been installed. In >>addition, a hinge bolt from the right elevator was missing. > >If this is on the leading edge, just how visible is it that the fasteners >were missing??? Is this something that the airline should have noticed >during pre-delivery acceptance inpections? Obviously, this should have been >picked up on by Boeing, but... There is a possible precedent for this scenario. Last year a Transavia 737-300 almost lost a stab. i.e. it came losse and caused severe vibration/porpoising. The plane just made it into Nuremburg in Germany after declaring an emergency. There was some consternation between Transavia and TAP who had recently done maintainence. -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:45 From: trevfenn Subject: Re: Desalting kit? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services James Matthew Weber wrote: > I know in Australia, a drill is conducted annually where a raft, > rescue beacon and volunteered are dumped off the coast of Australia > somewhere with a Royal Australian Naval vessel in sight if needed, and > the rescue services are told to find them. It hasn't taken 24 hours > yet.... > > The major problem area was the Indian Ocean, however apparently the US > has significant rescue capability at Diego Garcia. I wouldn't hold Australian practice drills up as a good example of search and rescue capability. Despite a few successes in this area, history is littered with search and rescue disasters. The one which springs immediately to my mind was the pilot of an Aerocommander twin which had to ditch in Bass Straight, a relatively narrow stretch of water between the island state of Tasmania and the mainland. When this aircraft went down and a search began the pilot was actually found by an airline aircraft but was later lost due to beaurocratic bungling. For example the Piper Navajo which was obtained to go out and drop survival equipment to the man in the water was denied clearance to fly with the door off because it did not have a placard on the instrument panel directing the pilot to special procedures in the flight manual for operations with the door removed. Surely in an emergency situation the authorities should have spoken to the pilot and briefed him on the procedures and let him go. But no, a man had to die for the lack of a piece of paper. Just my 2 cents worth, and yes I am Australian. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:46 From: Ken S Subject: Deicing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign I was wondering if any one can help explain the FAA rational for deicing aircraft. I have seen aircraft deiced when the outside air temp was -10c and very light snow falling. Now I understand the Clean aircraft concept yet it seems to me that this snow (maybe enough to leave a trace after several hours) poses no threat to the aircraft. Yet because our ops specs call for a "clean airplane" we must de-ice. Any thoughts? Ken From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:47 From: Joktan Lo Subject: Inflight extinguisher - Halon 1211? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Macau CTM InterNetNews site Dear Sir, May I ask whether Halon 1211 is a gas or powder extinguishant? May I ask whether Halon 1211 is toxic and is it a fatal toxic if people breathe in halon? If there is an inflight oven fire, what is your opinion should the cabin crew to touch the oven door to certify that a fire is suspected before they fight the fire. I wonder whether the airliner oven door could conduct the heat or not? From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:48 From: procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) Subject: International aviation and the English language Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK On a BBC radio programme this evening about the spread of English around the world one of the subjects discussed was aviation. While English is the _de facto_ language of international aviation, it cannot officially be accepted as such. This is because certain countries are sensitive about the status of their own language. As a result, the IATA rule-book (at least, I believe they said IATA) says something like: "English should be used pending the development of a more suitable mode of expression for universal use." I'd like to find out more about this. Does anyone have any information, or is there somewhere I could look? Thanks, Daniele --=20 Now available: "Five more songs", The Awkward Moments' new EP. CD: =A34.00 Cassette: =A32.50 +P&P: Europe 50p, everywhere else =A31 Launch party: Chapter Arts Centre, Cardiff, 30th January 1998 From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:49 From: "Larry Nebron" Subject: New CAT Figure? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Does anyone know what the final figure in this PIREP is ??? Is this the new CAT figure mentioned in the Jan 5 AW&ST? ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: . Message label: H1 Block id: 8 Msg. no: D27A #DFB/PIREP./WX YVRSFO5 LAT LONG UTC FL TEMP WIND ??????? N38575 W123266 1654P 25976 M363 295058 P091 N38484 W123243 1655P 24000 M308 285047 P092 N38377 W123163 1657P 21976 M258 273050 P089 N38329 W123127 1658P 19988 M213 267051 P112 N38263 W123079 1700P 17980 M163 264045 P097 N38081 W122545 1704P 16000 M120 258040 P096 N37598 W122528 1706P 13992 M085 251041 P102 N38001 W123007 1708P 12000 M045 257031 P104 From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:50 From: Andrew Long Subject: TWA Flight 800 Sounds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Time Warner Communications I have put up my sound files of the last Air Traffic Control conversation between TWA flight 800 and Boston Center on my web page at: http://home.columbus.rr.com/n7scm/rest/TWA_800.htm I can't keep them up for long so download them now. apl From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:51 From: veryjr@aol.com (VeryJR) Subject: Re: United Airlines Boeing 747 Turbulence Encounter References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >... initiates a pilot training program to counter the >instinctive and involuntary reaction of a pilot to these sudden, >uncommanded aircraft attitude transitions, these incidents and >accidents will continue to >occur. Interesting theory, but do you really think the United pilots were hand flying the airplane during this incident? Especially during the initial stages? I suspect the autopilot was engaged during this period of 'sudden, uncommanded transition.' From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:52 From: Don Stauffer Subject: wake vortex sensor Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com I am looking for a contact, maybe FAA that might have interest in an alternative (non-lidar) wake vortex sensing technology. My boss is going to pull the plug on the effort unless I can find some interest from someone in govt. (FAA, NASA, or such). I have looked at the work done by the Sensors group at Langley. However, since the charter of that group is lidar, I am afraid they would be pretty negative about any non-lidar approach. Can anyone suggest someone in FAA interested in wake vortex sensing? -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:53 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? 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 GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) shaped the electrons to say: >Maybe the designations B-17, B-47, and KC-97 were coincidences, maybe not. They were. B-15? B-29? B-52? And a number of others. All Boeings. The USAAC and USAF made no special effort to end Boeing arcraft in '7'. > I doubt the VC-137 designation for the first jet Air Force One was a >coincidence, for instance. I believe it is. It came shortly after the C-135, almost immediately thereafter. Something else got -136 between them, I'll try to dig up what that was unless someone else has it. -MZ -- Lucent Remote Access Division - 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 Tue Jan 20 01:29:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:54 From: scrumley@erols.com (Seán Emmett Crumley) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: D.C. Public Library In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > Everything about this post is right except my statement that the 707 is > actually called the 700 on the Type Certificate. It's not. The numbers > that ARE different on the Type Certificate from the numbers in common > usage are the dash-numbers. The 707-120 is officially called a 707-100, > while the 707-320 is officially called a 707-300. Sorry for the error. Okay...I'll ask: If the type certificate officially called the 707s -100s and -300s where did the apellation of -120 and -320 come from? craig cshipman@erols.com From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:55 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom C. Marin Faure wrote: > The 707-120 is officially called a 707-100, > while the 707-320 is officially called a 707-300. Sorry for the > error. So I wonder how they got the '20'? I know Pan Am was the launch customer for the 707, and got the customer number of 21. So could 20 be considered the customer number for Boeing? But then, we would expect all Boeing prototypes to be 7x7-x20. Any thoughts?? Ken Ishiguro From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:56 From: y106fm@iamerica.net (toad) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: iAmerica, Inc. >The book didn't say so, but model numbers ending in 7 had already been a >Boeing tradition since the late '30's (297, 377, B-17, B-47, KC-97). What about the B-52? Was it later called 7xxxx whatever? Scott From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:57 From: luisma@spainmail.com (Luis Manuel Perez Llera) Subject: Re: 727 inboard leading edge devices 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 Dec 97 02:33:50 , Simon Ellwood dijo: >The inboard devices are known as Kruger flaps, whilst the outer devices >are standard 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. I disagree. There is a subtle difference between slat and slot. Let me explain: 1) A slot allows the aire from the lower region (which is at higher pressure than the upper region) to flow to the boundary layer. The boundary layer energy is thus increased, as you stated before. 2) A slat is an airfoil different from the main airfoil. It then deccelerates the airflow under it -- that is, in the main airfoil's upper surface, mainly at the suction peak. The main airfoil lift DECREASES (this should be solved by the slat lift), but the adverse pressure gradient over the boundary layer is snaller than it was. The boundary layer can thus be attached more length. From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:58 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@geocities.com raff@de.ibm.com wrote: > Marc Schaeffer wrote: > > 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 ... To continue on my initial question, guess what happens when - say 300- airbags of 80 liters each blow up in the fuselage ... > I saw a short TV report a few weeks ago about airbags in aircraft. > Development for such system is already done - but the system looks > quite different to that installed in cars: The airbags have to be > blown up "manually" by a central switch in the cockpit in case of an > emergency. No they will be 'armed' by the PIC. They will automatically blow up when the G-force exceeds the allowed limits. That's what I read. > So there will be no time span of milliseconds but rather > minutes. If it takes minutes to blow up the bags, you won't need them ... All pax will be hurt/dead :( More serious to blow up an airbag you need +- 10msec. > And the airbags stay blown up. If correct you need to compensate for the gas losses and maintain the pressure. There must be a limit on this (given by the size of the accumulators) > I don't know if this makes any sense ?! No (see above) My opinion, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Tue Jan 20 01:29:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:59 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >I saw a short TV report a few weeks ago about airbags in aircraft. >Development for such system is already done - but the system looks >quite different to that installed in cars: The airbags have to be >blown up "manually" by a central switch in the cockpit in case of an >emergency. So there will be no time span of milliseconds but rather >minutes. And the airbags stay blown up. Sounds like such a system would be more to keep everything in place in the event of a mishap, rather than to cushion an impact as is the case in car accident (Although such a system would obviously cushion an impact also). These days one of the biggest dangers in any sort of airliner mishap would have to be carry-on bags. An airbag system could protect the occupants from carry-on bags and other objects that would be flying around the cabin of the aircraft in the event of a mishap. From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:00 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com raff@de.ibm.com wrote: > I saw a short TV report a few weeks ago about airbags in aircraft. ... Sometime in the past the airliner seats only needed to stand a 3 g longitudinal acceleration. If the seats are popping loose, I am not sure how much an airbag will help. Specs may have tightened in the meantime. Anyone know what current spec is for seat anchor? -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:01 From: "Thomas Lindberg" Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? 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: ABB Network Partner AB Why airbags? Why not instead turn the seats and ride back first? Then you would have support for the whole body in case of a 'normal' crash. Has it bee tried in commercial operation? If not, why? Are there any logical/technical reasons or just the subjective ones? Thomas From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:02 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services raff@de.ibm.com wrote: >> Karl Swartz wrote: >> > 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. ... >I saw a short TV report a few weeks ago about airbags in aircraft. >Development for such system is already done - but the system looks >quite different to that installed in cars: The airbags have to be >blown up "manually" by a central switch in the cockpit in case of an >emergency. So there will be no time span of milliseconds but rather >minutes. And the airbags stay blown up. >I don't know if this makes any sense ?! Makes a lot of sense, but a lot of weight too. Gets rid of most of the probs Karl mentioned. Don't hold your breath for this one....... From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:03 From: The Aronskys <4penpals@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: B747 @ FLL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: 4penpals@worldnet.att.net Wait a minute. I went to FLL about 3 weeks ago. Was that the green and white 747 that had no name or logo on it? Rory Aronsky From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:04 From: Marc Hookerman Subject: Re: B747 @ FLL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Laker flys FLL to various british destinations (london, glasgow, etc.). They use DC-10-30's however. Air Canada has been bringing 747-100's into FLL various times. I feel that the expansion is probably for the allowance of simotanious heavy landings and takeoffs (VFR). The runways are too close to allow ILS landings at the sametime, kind of like STL. Since the increase in FLL's cruise departures...many charters want to bring bigger aircraft into FLL, and with two runways that allow heavy landing and takeoffs is a nice benefit. They are planning however to move the FLL airport. So this is probably for the time being. Marc From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:05 From: dangeorg@popmail.mcs.net (Dan McDaniel) Subject: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aviation Specialties Group I fly a Gulfstream III and Gulfstream IV. My boss asked me if the rudder pedals were connected to the stearing wheel in the Boeing aircraft. Some aircraft are interconnected and others are seperate. Please email comments to dangeorg@popmail.mcs.net/~dangeorg Thank you Dan From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:06 From: choroebus@aol.com (Choroebus) Subject: Caravelle Book? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Anyone know of a book on the subject of Sud Aviation Caravelle? From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:07 From: Philip Miller Subject: clear air turbulence 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: Netcom Reply-To: channelz@ix.netcom.com Can someone explain how this phenomenon occurs? Is it simply a change in density of the air due to temperature? From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:08 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Commercial go-ahead for B744IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services Marc Schaeffer wrote: >Boeing's board of directors has given its commercial airplane group the >go-ahead to offer a new version of the 747-400 jumbo jet that could fly >farther than conventional models. The heavier new model is sought by >Qantas of Australia because it would allow the airline to stretch >several of its main routes. [[ Which routes ?]] LAX-SYD vv and SIN-LHR vv to increase payload, LAX-MEL vv to make practical, for a start. >The model is known as >the 747-400IGW (increased gross weight). Qantas has asked Boeing to >build three new jumbo jets to the increased weight specifications. If >enough other carriers also order, the model could be delivered in late >2000, Boeing officials said. (Copyright Seattle Times) END ITEM Surprised it would take that long. A very simple mod, I'd have thot. From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:09 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Converting speeds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com Sorry if this a very basic one. I'm looking for the formula to convert speed from Mach to mph. ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Tue Jan 20 01:30:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Jan 98 01:30:10 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: DC9 operating manual Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation Does anyone have access to an early DC9 series (-50 or earlier) operating handbook, who would be willing to look up a couple of pieces of information and share it with me via email? A collegue of mine is looking for a single data point for this aircraft, and we do not have a reference handy. This should not take more than a couple of minutes of your time. Please respond to: ehahn@mitre.org Thanks! ed >>>> Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 <<<< The above statement is the opinion of the author. No endorsement or warranty by the MITRE Corporation is expressed or implied. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:12 From: Scott David Smith Subject: backlog Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Duke University, Durham, NC, USA I was trying to find out manufacturing information about Boeing. Does anyone know how big the back log is for general production at this time? How many years is the company back logged to? From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:13 From: Joktan Lo Subject: Cabin safety newsgroup? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Macau CTM InterNetNews site Dear all, Did any person know any cabin safety newsgroup? Thanks all From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:14 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Re: Caravelle Book? Message-ID: References: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM choroebus@aol.com (Choroebus) wrote: > Anyone know of a book on the subject of Sud Aviation Caravelle? I know of only two. One is by Alexandre Avrane, I think simply called "Sud-Est Caravelle" (I don't have my copy handy). It's relatively dated, since it was published ca 1980, but then again, the Caravelle was already in the twilight of its career by then. It does include a very good selection of photographs. A more recent book, published ca 1988, is John Wegg's "Bluebirds". While this book is specifically on Finnair's Caravelles, it also describes the development history in considerable detail. Despite their age, I recommend both highly. Finding them may be a problem, though. John Wegg occasionally digs up a few additional copies of Bluebirds from forgotten places and sells them; check a recent copy of Airways to see if there's an ad (generally a small boxed ad near the back). Or try a used aviation book store. The Aviation Hobby Shop's Jet Airliner Production List, Volume 2, includes a full production list for the Caravelle (and all other non-Boeing jetliners built in the west since WW2). Hope this helps. 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 kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:15 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: clear air turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Philip Miller wrote: > Can someone explain how this phenomenon occurs? Is it simply a change > in density of the air due to temperature? A wind shear is the most common cause. Because of viscosity effects, two streams of air with different velocities have a gradient that will go unstable, and vortices (turbulence) will develop. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:16 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: clear air turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Philip Miller wrote in message ... >Can someone explain how this phenomenon occurs? Is it simply a change >in density of the air due to temperature? 1. Wind shear in the vicinity of upper level wind shifts. 2. Abrupt temperature changes through upper level fronts. 3. Waves formed in a strong wind flow downwind of high terrain or strong thunderstorms. or 4. The abrupt wind and/or temperature change near the Tropopause. From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:17 From: Paul Hathaway Subject: Re: clear air turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch Philip Miller wrote: > Can someone explain how this phenomenon occurs? Is it simply a change > in density of the air due to temperature? As far as I understand it can be caused by high velocity air masses such as the jetstream dipping lower than usual. Paul. From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:18 From: Arthur Utay Subject: Re: Converting speeds 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: AT&T Marc Schaeffer wrote: > I'm looking for the formula to convert speed from Mach to mph. M= V/sqrt(gamma*R*T) where M= Mach No. gamma = gas constant = 1.4 for air R = universal gas constant = 53.352 ft-lbf/lbm-R = 287.04 J/Kg-K T= ambient Temperature = degrees Rankine or Kelvin V = local velocity = ft/s or m/s you also have to multiple the term under the square root by a conversion factor either (gravitational constant) 32.2 ft/s^2 or 9.8 m/s^2 to get the units to come out right. (better check my SI units - I don't use them often) for example M=0.5 (in english units) on a 80 °F day: V= .5 * (1.4 * 53.352 * 32.2 * (459+80)) ^.5 = 569 ft/s or 388 MPH -- A. W. Utay awutay@worldnet.att.net C180 N180Y From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:19 From: "Rick Childs" Subject: Re: Converting speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Marc Schaeffer wrote in message ... >Sorry if this a very basic one. > >I'm looking for the formula to convert speed from Mach to mph. While I am looking through my aerodynamics books for the formula I will say that the conversion is not that basic. To determine mach and/or airspeed you need to know several of the ambient conditions. Altitude, temperature, air density, air compressibility, are all factors. Also, there are different measurements of airspeed (calibrated, true, indicated, etc.) and temperature (static, ram, etc.) as read on the instruments. I will try to post the formula for mach no. as soon as I can dig through the books. Rick From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:20 From: "Rick Childs" Subject: Re: Converting speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Marc Schaeffer wrote in message ... >Sorry if this a very basic one. > >I'm looking for the formula to convert speed from Mach to mph. Found a reference on the internet at http://www.best.com/~williams/avform.htm#Mach Hope this helps, Rick From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:21 From: eertink@nlr.nl (Johan Eertink) Subject: Re: Converting speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Marc Schaeffer (marcmsc@geocities.com) wrote: : Sorry if this a very basic one. : : I'm looking for the formula to convert speed from Mach to mph. Speed = Mach * Speed of sound Now the tricky part: Speed of sound depends on temperature, according to: Speed of sound = sqrt(gamma*R*T), where gamma = 1.4 R = 287.05 K m2/s2 T = temp in Kelvin at sea level, T = 288,15 K, so Speed of Sound = 340.29 m/s = 761 mph According to standard Atmosphere (ISA): With increasing altitude, T decreases by 6.5 deg per 1000 m, up to 11000 m (troposphere). then it remains constant up to 20000 m (stratosphere), then it increases again through the mesosphere. Johan. From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:22 From: "Zarir D. Pastakia" Subject: Re: Converting speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Self Marc Schaeffer wrote: > I'm looking for the formula to convert speed from Mach to mph. The general formula is M = V/ a Where V = Velocity of the aircraft a = Local velocity of the speed of sound @ that altitude or location M = Mach number So V = M * a Keep all the units consistent and you'll have your answer. 1 m/s = 3.6 kph 1 mph = 1.6 kph Good luck!! From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:23 From: hunneweb@earthlink.net (Brad Hunnewell) Subject: Re: Converting speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: bhunnewell@aol.com On 20 Jan 98 01:30:09 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >I'm looking for the formula to convert speed from Mach to mph. A good wag is: Mach # roughly equals NM per minute (ie .85 is about 8.5 nm per minute). Convert this to TAS by multiplying by 60 (in this example, about 510 knots true). As for converting NM to statute miles, you're on your own, I think a NM is about 6100 ft. This is a pilot-friendly conversion, far from exact, but useful and close enough for me! From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:24 From: Ed Mellinger Subject: Re: Cockpit Windows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MBARI Reply-To: meed@mbari.org > >>Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but why do older planes (such as > >>a Boeing 707, 727, or 737, and a DC-8 or -9 and MD-80) have an extra > >>cockpit window (or two) on top of the main row of cockpit windows? And > >>why do newer, but similarly sized planes such as the A320 family and the > >>757 have just one row of cockpit windows? On NASA 717, a DC-8-72, we used to use 'em to see where we were going when in a 60 degree bank turn. I hope most airline pilots use 'em for something else, most of the time... Ed From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:25 From: John Ahlstrom Subject: Re: de havilland comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cisco Systems, Inc. hi-flyer wrote: > Does anyone know of any books that have been written about the comet? Amazon.com lists Wilson, Stewart Viscount, Comet & Concorde Motorbooks International 1996 Their price $18.36 -- John Ahlstrom jahlstrom@cisco.com 408-526-6025 Using Java to Decrease Entropy Any neural system sufficiently complex to generate the axioms of arithmetic is too complex to be understood by itself. Kaekel's Conjecture From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:26 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: de havilland comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@geocities.com hi-flyer wrote: > Does anyone know of any books that have been written about the comet? The best book I found is in German :( it is called : 'Flugzeuge die Geschichte machten' De Havilland Comet by Helmut Gerresheim ISBN 3-613-01539-0 For all english-speaking people I recommend : "Viscount, Comet & Concorde", ISBN 1 875671 21 8 And in case you need to know more (accidents/technical data/pictures/links) about the Comet, feel free to visit the URL listed below, just in case ... Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:27 From: Paul Mayne Subject: Re: de havilland comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Reply-To: prmayne@ibm.net > Does anyone know of any books that have been written about the comet? DH Comet by J Graham Cowell,Airline Publications & Sales 1976 ISBN 0 905117 04 2 or Viscount Comet & Concorde, Wilson, 1996, ISBN 1 875671 21 8 hi-flyer wrote: From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:28 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Robert Nielsen wrote in message ... >With Boeing giving more attention to Douglas Products, has anyone >speculated about an MD-11 fitted with 777 wings and 3 777 engines? >Wouldn't this create quite a capable very long range airplane? > Why? The 777 as is has a longer range than the MD11. It would have great range but most likely not very cost effective. From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:29 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Robert Nielsen wrote in message ... >With Boeing giving more attention to Douglas Products, has anyone >speculated about an MD-11 fitted with 777 wings and 3 777 engines? >Wouldn't this create quite a capable very long range airplane? The only reason the MD-11 is still available is because the 777 freighter is still in development. Also, fitting 3 777 engines would actually be less efficient because they would weigh more and use more fuel. The higher cost of the engines and the huge cost of redesigning the tail engine cowling, and longer landing gear to provide clearance for the larger engines would make this to costly to produce. With a heavier engine at the rear there would probably be weight and balance problems. Lastly, the 777 is by far the best and most advanced airliner in production incorporating customer requested improvements, composite floor beams to prevent corrosion, new improved type of aluminum for the skin, weight savings, aerodynamic improvments, and many other features making the MD-11 platform not worth improving upon. -matt757@earthlink.net From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:30 From: "David E. Pearce Jr." Subject: Re: FAA issues Emergency AD for recent 737s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lockheed Martin elysium wrote: > Does anybody know which sub-contractor produces the horizontal- stab' > sub-assemblies, bearing in mind that they are still subject to an > acceptance check by Boeing Quality ? > > Is it confirmed that the hinge bolt was missing ? Usually, failsafe > design will accomodate the omission of one attachment path, but for the > media to speculate on both missing fasteners AND an attachment bolt > seems like wild rubbernecking. I have not seen the FAA emergency A.D. > and am not sure wether they emphasise control attachment or skin > integrity? When I was working at Boeing, Boeing Wichita made the horizontal stabilizer for the 737, but that was 15 years ago. Also, while I was there, a design of mine for a piece of jettisonable hardware on a B-52 was mis-installed (they left out a hinge bolt), and at first the test failure was attributed to bad design, then failure research showed the bolt was never installed. From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:31 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: FAA issues Emergency AD for recent 737s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Niels Sampath wrote: > There is a possible precedent for this scenario. Last year > a Transavia 737-300 almost lost a stab. i.e. it came losse and caused > severe vibration/porpoising. The plane just made it into Nuremburg in > Germany after declaring an emergency. There was some consternation between > Transavia and TAP who had recently done maintainence. Didn't hear of this one. Is there a report somewhere on the web ?? Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > > Often airlines > >"retire" flight numbers after accidents, ie DL 191, AA 191, and DL 1288 (the > >one that the engine exploded at PNS), UA 232. What happened to TWA flight 800 ? How fast was it 'retired' ? Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:33 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Flight 826 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat in our little cottage On 20 Jan 98 01:29:40 , in , Robin Johnson wrote: >MKopanski@ual.com wrote: >>Well just wanted to let you know that N4723U, the aircraft flying the >>ill-fated NRT-HNL flight, is currently winging its way from NRT to LAS >>for storage. Too much interior damage to bother fixing... > >There must have been more than 2g pulled if the skin is wrinkled. >Does it make a difference that the g-meter was near c of g? I think >the bumps are much worse at the tail on those birds. A report in the January "Pilot" magazine in the UK describes a heavy landing in a 747-436, only two people were injured, by things falling from the lockers etc, and these were at the tail of the aircraft. -- John Wright From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:34 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: Inflight extinguisher - Halon 1211? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , Joktan Lo wrote: > Dear Sir, > May I ask whether Halon 1211 is a gas or powder > extinguishant? Gas > May I ask whether Halon 1211 is toxic and is it a fatal > toxic if people breathe in halon? People have been killed from using halon in a confined area, halon put out fires by binding up the free oxygen in the air, thus suffocating the fire. It will also suffocate a person the same way. > If there is an inflight oven fire, what is your opinion > should the cabin crew to touch the oven door to certify that a fire is > suspected before they fight the fire. I wonder whether the airliner oven > door could conduct the heat or not? Aircraft oven doors are insulated, the will become warm but they won't become hot. Some of the oven doors have a peep hole in them so that you could observe the inside of the oven by pushing aside a small cover. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:35 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: KC-135 minutiae (was: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet") 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: > I'm only vaguely familiar with the KC-135E -- was it a modification, > like the KC-135R? If so, the same would apply. >From the Air Force Fact Sheet, , The KC-135A's are being modified with new CFM-56 engines produced by CFM-International. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135R, can offload 50 percent more fuel, is 25 percent cheaper to operate and is 96 percent quieter than the KC-135A. Under another modification program, all Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard tankers were re-engined with TF-33-PW-102 engines. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, is 14 percent more fuel efficient than the KC-135A and can carry 20 percent more fuel. So I guess the answer is "yes". I suspect that the "TF-33-PW-102" is military terminology for some fairly familiar airliner engine; perhaps the turbofan engine from a later 707. The Web site for the 126th Air Refueling Wing at shows what I think is an 'E model; the engines look like '60s-vintage turbofans to my inexpert eye. Do you suppose the parts are cheaper than upgrading to CFM56's? One report has the 'Es being gradually converted to 'Rs (see , who seems to have info on S, U, V, W, and X variants!). Boy, there seem to have been a lot of variants on this airplane! I guess there are lots of them around, they've been around a long time, and a modified one would tend not to attract attention, either from Congress or from other governments. -- -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 Sat Jan 24 02:53:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:36 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > Oh, I get it: > > Valujet buys MD-95's > Airtran buys 717's Sorry to correct you ;) Valujet bought MD-95's Airtran gets 717's My $.02, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:37 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com Karl Swartz wrote: > I'm only vaguely familiar with the KC-135E -- was it a modification, > like the KC-135R? If so, the same would apply. I can't believe it - I know something that Karl doesn't! The KC-135Es are KC-135As reengined with JT3Ds (TF-33s) removed from retired 707s. They also have 707 horizontal tails. The KC-135As reengined with CFM56s (F108s) also have 707 horizontal tails. Some KC-135Es are now also being reengined with CFM56s to make them KC-135Rs. This info is from Dr. Bob Hopkins book "The Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker; More Than Just a Tanker", a book well worth buying. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Jan 24 02:53:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:38 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat in our little cottage On 20 Jan 98 01:29:17 , in , Karl Swartz wrote: >I'm only vaguely familiar with the KC-135E -- was it a modification, >like the KC-135R? If so, the same would apply. Yup, they used JT3D engines from retired 707's to replace the J57s, with the JT3D's redesignated as TF33s. This accounts for the loads of old 707's with no engines stored in the desert once upon a time. All the E's carry used engines, whereas the R's use new CFM56 engines. -- John Wright From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:39 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" Message-ID: References: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > I'm only vaguely familiar with the KC-135E -- was it a modification, > like the KC-135R? If so, the same would apply. Yes, the KC-135E was a modification, but not of the R model. I believe these were KC-135As. Their engines were replaced with JT3Ds taken from retired civil 707s; that's the reason so many 707s vanished into Davis-Monthan in the early 1980s. And you're right, whatever their initial Boeing number designation, it would not have changed. 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 kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:40 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: MD90/Boeing 717 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >I believe that the 717-200 has three computer screens as its >instrumentation, so I would think that Boeing may be able to make the >cockpit of the 717-200 similar to its other modern aircraft with only some >minor software modifications. This is similar to the 767-400 which is also >using these displays, and according to an official Boeing press release >(http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980109.html), these >screens allow commonality between its different aircraft. Actually, there are six LCD display units. Two primary flight displays, one engine/alert display, one synoptic page, and one navigation display. The part numbers are the same as those used in the 777, and commonality of other parts is being investigated. Colleen.M.Wabiszewski@Boeing.com From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:41 From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMcompuserve.com Subject: Re: MD90/Boeing 717 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zippo News Service [http://www.zippo.com] "Thomas A. Beckley" wrote: >I believe that the 717-200 has three computer screens as its >instrumentation, so I would think that Boeing may be able to make the >cockpit of the 717-200 similar to its other modern aircraft with only some >minor software modifications. This is similar to the 767-400 which is also >using these displays, and according to an official Boeing press release >(http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980109.html), these >screens allow commonality between its different aircraft. The 717-200 (nee MD-95) as presently configured, has the same cockpit as the next gen 737s. This is a 5 across, 1 under, flat panel display system designed by Honeywell. The 767s have the same size displays, but they are older CRT displays, manufactured by Collins. Ken Jongsma From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:42 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: TWA 800 wingtip separation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com John Cheung wrote: > Less than a week ago (on Friday Dec 19), a SilkAir Airline Boeing 737 > broke up in mid-air on a clear day from Jakarta to Singapore, with no > apparent cause, killing all on board. Eye witnesses were reported to > see the plane crashing down with the right hand wing separated. > Some newsgroup comments point to the similarity with this TWA crash. To add more confusion I read that the a/c was grounded for oil/fuel leakage problems and that this was the first (and last) flight after the problem was supposedly fixed. I have this information from a press report and also read it two days earlier in a mailing list. Be careful with similarity on the TWA crash. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg // mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ De Havilland COMET and aircraft orders homepage From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:43 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: TWA 800 question: fuel flow problem Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca in the cockpit voice recorder transcript, less than 2 minutes prior to the "big problem", there is this: 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. ... At 2031: 05 tape damage begins. OK. We know that centre fuel tank exploded. And 1.5 minutes prior to that explosion, there is a "crazy fuel flow indicator" for an engine. Call me newbie, but how come the media have not investigated this or asked serious questions about any potential link between these two events ? Couldn't the initial problems not have been caused by an electrical problem which eventually sparked the explosion ? Could someone put this "crazy fuel flow indicator" in perspective ? Is this something which is as common as someone sneezing and considered perfectly normal ? Also, what exactly did the pilot mean by "where this thing's trimmed" ? Also, how is fuel distributed to each engine ? Is there a single "bus" used by all engines to draw fuel from, and to that bus are valves to each fuel tank to decide where the fuel comes from ? Or do each engine have their own paths to each fuel tank with their own valves to decide where each engine draws its fuel from ? Or do engines draw fuel only from the wing tank under which they are mounted with some pumps to move fuel between tanks, completely independantly from the fuel supply to the engines ? Last question: with a wing tank almost full, what would happen if a pump in centre fuel tank were to start to pump air/fumes from an empty centre tank to a wing tank. Would this cause bubbles/foam to form in the wing tank ? Could this possibly cause an engine's fuel intake to draw some of that bubbled fuel and explain the "crazy fuel flow indicator" ? From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:44 From: skiea3b@earthlink.net Subject: Southwest Airlines 737-700 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: skiea3b@earthlink.net Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 (N700GS). Does anyone know the routing or how the aircraft is performing? Thanks, Jeff From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:45 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 >(N700GS). Does anyone know the routing ... Dallas-Houston, according to the Wall St. Journal. It seems likely that WN would keep them close to home until they're sure everything is in top shape -- and they have enough to start putting them to effective use on routes where the 737-300 isn't up to the job. -- 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 Sat Jan 24 02:53:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:46 From: greg@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) Subject: Re: Single engine jet (VisionAire). References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , Filip De Vos wrote: >Odilo Vazquez (ovazquez@erols.com) wrote: >: Visionaire is currently working a "claimed" 100 plane backlog. They have >: enough impetus to actually build a new manufactruign facility. >: Unfortunatley Burt Rutan is inoved in this and it probably will be > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Huh? > >: overbudget and way late (example Beech 2000). > >What was the cause of the Starship's apparent non-success? >Conservatism with prospective owners? Competition with the King Air, which >remained in production? With pre-owned King Airs? Due to its composite construction, the Starship was heavier and more expensive than the conventional aluminum competition. And, due to its canard configuration, required significantly more runway, especially for takeoff. I understand that composite construction has come a long way in the time since and that it's now possible to make structural members out of composites that are competitive to aluminum ones with regard to strength-to-weight. But back when the Starship was certificated this was not the case. There were other "real world" issues that aren't a factor with experimental prototypes but become acute during the certification process for a civil aircraft. Things like de/anti-icing equipment (the Starship's pusher propellers were especially problemmatic in this regard since they effectively prohibited pneumatic boots) and lightning protection for example. greg From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:47 From: fidevos@eduserv1.rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Single engine jet (VisionAire). References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium David Parkins (dparkins@lightlink.com) wrote: > You don't think this could have anything to do with the following > issues: ... > canard configuration introduced many new certification issued (FAA > required stick pusher and shaker) This (stick-shake and pusher) seems quite strange. I thought the canard configuration precluded the design from stalling, as is usual with other Rutan designs. So why did the FAA add the shaker/pusher? -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:48 From: onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) Subject: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kyoto University, JAPAN What happens to airliner prototypes? Do they eventually get modified to production standards and sold to airline companies, or do they stay with the maker till the end? Are they used for any purpose other than testing this and that? I guess it would cost the manufacturer a lot of money to keep and maintain an aircraft (well, maybe not compared to the development costs). How many prototypes are usually needed till production begins? Thanks; | Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan | | E-mail : onat@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp | | WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html | | My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page | Land mines kill civilians in peacetime! Support total ban. From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:49 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What happens to airliner prototypes? Do they eventually >get modified to production standards and sold to >airline companies, or do they stay with the maker till >the end? It depends. If it's a true prototype, it may be substantially different from production models, in ways that make it undesireable or perhaps not certifiable. For example, the 707 prototype (the 367-80) has a different fuselage width than a standard 707. At best, it would have been an oddball in an airline fleet. (One of the MD-8x prototypes, or maybe it was the MD-90, was actually a different flavor of DC-9, extensively modified to approximately the new configuration.) At the other end of the spectrum, the first 777 is a regular production bird, and Boeing is reportedly preparing it for possible sale to an airline customer. >I guess it would cost the manufacturer a lot of money to >keep and maintain an aircraft (well, maybe not compared >to the development costs). Once they've built the thing, it doesn't cost all that much unless they are flying it, and presumably they'd be paying those costs to fly *some* airplane if they didn't have the prototype sitting around. There is the cost of building it in the first place, which is certainly non-trivial. However, the cost of diving right into production and then finding a problem you need to fix on a whole bunch of planes might be greater than the cost of building a prototype. Convair learned that the hard way with the 990, and the stoppage of the 737-600/700/800 production line was because they found some problems during flight test which meant modification to the planes which had already been built. In the case of the 777, Boeing designed the whole process so they could avoid building a prototype, using computers much more heavily instead. The 777 gestation was planned for a longer period of time than other aircraft, and in some cases they tested things anyway (to validate the computer models), which may mean that Boeing saved little over building a prototype and doing things the old way. Their goal was not necesarily to save lots of money on the 777, but to use it to develop processes which will help save both time and money on future projects. >How many prototypes are usually needed till production >begins? Rarely more than one for commercial airliners, except for something really exotic like Concorde. -- 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 Sat Jan 24 02:53:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:50 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Thomas A. Beckley wrote: > This "Other" refers to a > manufacturer other than Boeing (Including MD) and Airbus, and I was > wondering who this was. My guess would be Iluyshin or Tupelov, but I > really don't know. Don't forget Canadair, Embraer, ATR, etc., etc. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Jan 24 02:53:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:51 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: New CAT Figure? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , "Larry Nebron" wrote: > Does anyone know what the final figure in this PIREP is ??? Is this > the new CAT figure mentioned in the Jan 5 AW&ST? I can't answer you question, but I have questions for you. Apparently you received and decoded an ACARS mesage? The ACARS frequencies are fairly common knowledge, but how do you decode the the digital data? > ACARS mode: 2 Aircraft reg: . > Message label: H1 Block id: 8 Msg. no: D27A > #DFB/PIREP./WX YVRSFO5 > > LAT LONG UTC FL TEMP WIND ??????? > > N38575 W123266 1654P 25976 M363 295058 P091 > N38484 W123243 1655P 24000 M308 285047 P092 > N38377 W123163 1657P 21976 M258 273050 P089 > N38329 W123127 1658P 19988 M213 267051 P112 > N38263 W123079 1700P 17980 M163 264045 P097 > N38081 W122545 1704P 16000 M120 258040 P096 > N37598 W122528 1706P 13992 M085 251041 P102 > N38001 W123007 1708P 12000 M045 257031 P104 -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:40 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing 737-600 Makes First Flight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California The 737-600, the third and smallest member of Boeing's third-generation 737 lineup, made it's maiden flight last Thursday. Boeing's press release on the event follows. It can also be found on the web at http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980122d.html. -- Karl SEATTLE, Jan. 22, 1998 -- The Boeing 737-600 -- the smallest member of the Next-Generation 737 airplane family -- made its first flight today, with Boeing Capts. Mike Carriker and Ray Craig at the controls. At 10:16 a.m. PST, the 102-foot, 6-inch 737-600 took off from Renton Municipal Airport in Renton, Wash. After heading north over Lake Washington, the pilots flew the newest member of the 737 family north to the Strait of Juan de Fuca to conduct a series of flight tests. Two hours and 28 minutes later, the airplane landed at Boeing Field in Seattle. "The first flight of the last of the members of the original Next-Generation 737 family is very satisfying and is a testament to several years of hard work and dedication by many Boeing employees," said Jack Gucker, 737/757 Derivative Programs vice president. "It is also a milestone that exemplifies The Boeing Company's commitment to provide a high-value family of airplanes that will meet all customers' needs." During the flight, Carriker and co-pilot Craig conducted a series of tests on the airplane's systems and structures. Using flight-test equipment on board the aircraft, information from the tests was recorded and transmitted back to Flight Test personnel working in the control room at Boeing Field. The same team of specialists later will analyze the data. "It was a great flight." said Carriker. "The airplane flies just like the 737-700 and -800, which is just what we wanted. Now we can proceed without delay to the rest of the flight-test program." The 737-600 is equivalent in size to the current 737-500 and provides seating for 110 to 132 passengers. Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) launched the 737-600 in March 1995 with an order for 35 airplanes and added six more in October of that year. With today's flight, the 737-600 begins a seven-month flight-testing and certification program. Eventually, the program will include two additional -600 airplanes. Together, the three aircraft will conduct more than 550 hours of flight tests prior to certification in July and delivery to SAS shortly thereafter. In addition to the 737-600, the Next-Generation 737 airplane family also includes the 128-to-149-seat 737-700, 160-to-189-passenger 737-800, and the recently launched 177-to-189-passenger 737-900. Changes from current-production 737s include a new and larger wing, higher cruise speed, more range, and new engines with improvements in noise, fuel burn and thrust. These improvements allow the Next-Generation 737-600/-700/-800/-900 family members to fly higher, faster and farther than current 737s. The 737 -- a short-to-medium-range airplane -- delivers value to airlines in the form of reliability, simplicity, and reduced operating and maintenance costs. In addition, the Next-Generation 737 airplane family offers crew commonality with previous 737s. The 737-600/-700/-800/-900 models are powered by new CFM56-7 engines produced by CFMI, a joint venture of General Electric of the United States and Snecma of France. The CFM56-7 will have a 10-percent higher thrust capability than the CFM56-3C engines that power today's 737s. In addition, the new engines benefit the environment through lower emissions. In addition to commercial airplanes, Boeing also offers a business jet derived from the 737-700. With auxiliary fuel tanks, the business jet can fly more than 6,000 nautical miles. The business jet is sold and marketed through Boeing Business Jets, a joint venture formed this summer between The Boeing Company and the General Electric Co. -- 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 Sat Jan 24 14:46:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:41 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: ? on 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. gmj wrote in message ... >I know that the manufacturing process for the next generation of 73's has >changed, but does the aircraft still use the same radome, nose and fuselage >as the others (although they may be manufactured differently).? I think the fuselage is identical because changing it for no reason would cost a fortune in development, new drawings, retooling, testing, certification, lack of fleet commonality for the customers (airlines would have to stock 2 differnt types of radomes among other things), the 737 is a proven design. Also, Boeing is still producing the 2nd generation models, and having two different designs would be a big headache. I think the 3rd generation 737s mostly just incorporate new avionics, more efficient engines, and a redesigned larger wing to increase fuel capacity and wing performance/efficiency. -matt757@earthlink.net From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:42 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ? on 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , "gmj" wrote: > I know that the manufacturing process for the next generation of 73's has > changed, but does the aircraft still use the same radome, nose and fuselage > as the others (although they may be manufactured differently).? Yes. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:43 From: "Leo Kok" Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM dynamic testing on seats is now 16g -- Leo J.J. Kok Structures Research & Development, Tel: (416)375-3363 de Havilland Inc.,Garratt Blvd., M/S: N18-06 FAX: (416)3737361 DOWNSVIEW, Ontario, Canada M3K 1Y5 E-MAIL: lkok@dehavilland.ca From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:44 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Sometime in the past the airliner seats only needed to stand a 3 g >longitudinal acceleration. If the seats are popping loose, I am not >sure how much an airbag will help. Specs may have tightened in the >meantime. Anyone know what current spec is for seat anchor? The current spec for passenger and crew seats is 16g. The most recent previous requirement was for 9g. The seats may deform, within limits, but may not depart the seat track. From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:45 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Thomas Lindberg wrote: > Why airbags? Why not instead turn the seats and ride back first? Then you > would have support for the whole body in case of a 'normal' crash. > > Has it bee tried in commercial operation? The Comet I of BOAC had 8 seats in a 'vis-a-vis' configuration resulting in 4 'back first' position out of 36 first class seats. > If not, why? Are there any logical/technical reasons or just the subjective > ones? The reason is in that part of the body called brain ... -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:46 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 >> Why airbags? Why not instead turn the seats and ride back first? Then you >> would have support for the whole body in case of a 'normal' crash. >The Comet I of BOAC had 8 seats in a 'vis-a-vis' configuration resulting in 4 >'back first' position out of 36 first class seats. Southwest also has a set of seats like this on most of their planes, though not on the new 737-700s. It's six backwards seats facing six forwards ones, of course. I've heard them referred to as party seating though I don't know if that's what Southwest's calls them. The first row on at least some USAir DC-9s was backwards, too. I flew in one of those seats once. It was a bit weird, not going backwards but feeling like you were on a stage, with the rest of the cabin as the audience. I'm sure there are other airlines with similar arrangements for a few rows, but not the whole cabin. (No need to enumerate all of them here.) The military (at least in the US, but probably elsewhere) uses all rear- facing seats on transports so equipped. They don't give a damn what the "passengers" think, so they go for safety. I've walked through a C-9A Nightingale (military DC-9-30) which had seating in the latter half, and it certainly did look weird at first! -- 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 Sat Jan 24 14:46:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:47 From: "David Smith" Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Thomas Lindberg wrote in article ... > Why airbags? Why not instead turn the seats and ride back first? Then you > would have support for the whole body in case of a 'normal' crash. > > Has it bee tried in commercial operation? > > If not, why? Are there any logical/technical reasons or just the > subjective ones? I have ridden in a rearward-facing seat in a Sabreliner. It's quite an experience to hang by your seat belt during the initial climb-out -- it's like an amusement park ride. I don't think Grandma will go for it. David Smith From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:48 From: gfmoff1@airmail.net (Gary Moffitt) Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA In article , dangeorg@popmail.mcs.net (Dan McDaniel) wrote: > I fly a Gulfstream III and Gulfstream IV. My boss asked me if the > rudder pedals were connected to the stearing wheel in the Boeing > aircraft. Some aircraft are interconnected and others are seperate. > Please email comments to dangeorg@popmail.mcs.net/~dangeorg Can't tell you about a 777 for sure but on a 757 and 767 the rudder pedals most definately are connected to the nose wheel steering, the tiller will give you 65 degrees of left and right control and the rudder pedals will give you 7.5 degrees of left and right control. The rudder pedal streering input is primarily used for runway centerline alignment. -- Gary S. Moffitt From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:49 From: srredbeard@aol.com (SRRedbeard) Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Yes, but only to plus or minus 7 degrees of nws angle. That means for full rudder delfection the nosewheel only move 7 degrees and then only if there is weight on it. From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:50 From: rsmorris@erols.com (R. Morris) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Erol's Internet Services In article , allen079@hotmail.com wrote: > >there was a 707-200 which is how Boeing got to the 300s for the long-range > >version. Braniff had a few of these. > The main visible difference of the Boeing > 720, it does not have a metal tube jutting foreward at the top of the > vertical fin. A fairly common misperception. There were numerous 707's built without this feature, as well. I was led to believe this was a housing for CRAF antennas. R From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:51 From: "Barry Oliver" Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICONS Software, Inc. > I was an A&P mechanic for American Airlines during the mid-sixties. > American Airlines have 23 Boeing 720-23B. The Boeing 720-23B is a much > lighter plane compared with the other Boeing 707. There seems to be > hell of a lot of cracks on the fuselage and each time it came in for > maintenance, we checked for cracks everywhere including the landing > gears. The wings leaking fuel too.. No one seemed to like to work on > this particular aircraft. It may have been tough to maintain but was sure fun to fly compared to the 707-320, seemed like someone strapped a couple of extra engines on it. After running around the Orient in the 707-320 for a few days we often got routed back through Anchorage and then flew a 720 to Seattle. In the winter it would climb out of ANC like a rocket, easy to peg the IVSI at 6,000 FPM. Barry From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:52 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 26 Dec 97 03:28:45 , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: >faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: >> Whoever was in charge of model names >> didn't like that so they decided to call it the 717-020 because its short >> fuselage was more like the KC-135 (Boeing 717) than the other 707 models. > >I thought the 717 (KC-135) actually had a *narrower* fuselage than the >707, not just a shorter one. It does indeed, which is why the KC135 really is a different airframe than the 707. The KC135 is the sucessor to the Dash-80. The airlines wanted 6 across Coach Seating, which made the 707 more attractive than the DC8. From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:53 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>I thought the 717 (KC-135) actually had a *narrower* fuselage than the >>707, not just a shorter one. >It does indeed, which is why the KC135 really is a different airframe >than the 707. The KC135 is the sucessor to the Dash-80. If you're suggesting that the KC-135 and not the 707 is the successor to the Dash-80 because they have the same fuselage width, you're wrong -- the KC-135 is wider than the 367-80, but not as wide as the 707. The Dash-80 was the prototype for both the 707 and KC-135. Despite the 707's upper lobe subsequently being widened by an additional four inches, both could reasonably be considered direct successors to the Dash-80. -- 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 Sat Jan 24 14:46:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:54 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. In article , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > Whoever was in charge of model names > > didn't like that so they decided to call it the 717-020 because its short > > fuselage was more like the KC-135 (Boeing 717) than the other 707 models. > > I thought the 717 (KC-135) actually had a *narrower* fuselage than the > 707, not just a shorter one. You're right. However, from what I've read at the company, the initial thought of calling the 720 the 717-020 was based on the fact that the new plane was shorter than the 707-320 and so was more like the military 717. The length differences in the fuselages were immediatly apparent, where the width differences were not all that obvious. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:55 From: megazone@livingston.com (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 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 westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) shaped the electrons to say: >I thought the 717 (KC-135) actually had a *narrower* fuselage than the >707, not just a shorter one. It does. The 717 is narrower. It was the width originally intended for the 707. Then Douglas announced the DC-8 with a wider body, so Boeing redesigned the 707 to trump them and keep business. But the 717 line was its own family and was left alone. -MZ -- Lucent Remote Access Division - 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 Jan 24 14:46:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:56 From: trevfenn Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Stephen H. Westin wrote: > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > Whoever was in charge of model names > > didn't like that so they decided to call it the 717-020 because its short > > fuselage was more like the KC-135 (Boeing 717) than the other 707 models. > > I thought the 717 (KC-135) actually had a *narrower* fuselage than the > 707, not just a shorter one. Correct, the KC-135/C-135 etc have the same fuselage section as the original Boeing 707 prototype model 367-80 which is smaller than the production 707. The -135's also have a different wing to the 707. Really there is very little in common between the -135's and the 707 apart from appearance and engines. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:57 From: HERB FELDMAN Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Reply-To: az944@lafn.org > The main visible difference of the Boeing 720, it does not have a > metal tube jutting foreward at the top of the vertical fin. I believe the "metal tube" on the vertical fin of the 720 was a HF antenna. Also, the first jet Air Force ones were modified 720s. From kls Sat Jan 24 14:46:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:58 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > Also, the first jet Air Force ones were modified 720s. As noted by many in the past, "Air Force One" is whatever Air Force aircraft the president happens to be on. It hasn't always been that way -- the call was adopted after a controller confused a presidential flight, bearing an undistinguished military call sign, with another flight. Presumably you mean the first presidential jet (the first presidential aircraft was FDR's "Sacred Cow" which was a C-54, a military DC-4). The first presidential jet was based on the 707-120; later VC-137C models were based on the 707-320 Intercontinental. None were based on the 720. -- 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 Sat Jan 24 14:46:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:46:59 From: Tim Long Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Access of Ventura County 805.383.3500 Allen wrote: > The main visible difference of the Boeing 720, it does not have a > metal tube jutting foreward at the top of the > vertical fin. The Western Airlines 720B I flew in 1965 on my FIRST airline flight DID have this antenna on the vertical fin. I have the pictures to prove it! -- Tim Long tlong@vcnet.com From kls Sat Jan 24 14:47:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:47:00 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com According to Bill Cook's book, the 720 started out as answer to the Convair 880/990. By modifying the 707 airframe, a higher cruise speed resulted. The wing was modified by adding a leading edge glove, that is reputed to be worth M=.03 in cruise speed. The airframe is also lighter. The 720 has a higher cruise altitude than the 707 series, which is why they are so popular now as testbeds. P&W Canada and Allied Signal both operate 720s as engine testbeds and Boeing operates (or operated) one as an electronics testbed. -- 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 Sat Jan 24 14:47:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Jan 98 14:47:01 From: Jan Willem de Wijn Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PaiR Communicatie Allen wrote: > The main visible difference of the Boeing 720, it does not have a > metal tube jutting foreward at the top of the vertical fin. Today, I'm hanging my Classics Airliners 1998 calender on the wall. It opens with a nice photograph of Boeing 720B D-ABOP with .... a metal tube jutting forward at the top of the vertical fin. Caption reads: Lufthansa introduced the smaller, 106 seat, Boeing 720B in May 1961 on its more lightly traveled route to South America. LH was the first non-US airline to operate the 720 ... From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:10 From: "Kwuan Tzee" Subject: Re: clear air turbulence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: personal Philip Miller wrote in article ... > Can someone explain how this phenomenon occurs? Is it simply a change > in density of the air due to temperature? The following is taken from "Aviation weather AC 00-6A" Chapter 13 page 142. Clear Air Turbulence(CAT) implies turbulence devoid of clouds. However, we commonly reserve the term for high level wind shear turbulence, even when in cirrus clouds. Cold outbreaks colliding with warm air from the south intensify weather systems in the vicinty of the jet stream along the boundary between the cold and warm air. CAT develops in the turbulent energy exchange between the contrasting air masses. Cold and warm advection along with strong wind shears develop near the jet stream, especially where curvature of the jet stream sharply increases in deepening upper troughs. CAT is most pronounced in winter when temperature contrast is greatest between cold and warm air. A preferred location of CAT is in an upper trough on the cold side of the jet stream.Even in the absence of a well defined jet stream, CAT often is experienced in wind shears associated with sharply curved contours of strong lows, troughs, and ridges aloft, and in areas of strong, cold or warm air advection. Also mountain waves can create CAT. Mountain wave CAT may extendfrom the mountain crests to as high as 5 000ft above the tropopase, and can range 100miles or more downstream from the mountains. CAT can be encountered where there seems to be no reason for its occurrence. Strong winds may carry a turbulent volume of air away from its source region. Turbulence intensity diminishes downstream, but some turbulence still may be encountered where it normally would not be expected. CAT forecast areas are sometimes elongated to indicate probable turbulence drifting downwind from the main source region. I hope the above answer your question. You can read this book for more information on CAT. Kwuan Tzee. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:11 From: Jon Wright Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 24 Jan 1998, Karl Swartz wrote: > The military (at least in the US, but probably elsewhere) uses all rear- > facing seats on transports so equipped. They don't give a damn what the > "passengers" think, so they go for safety. Rear-facing seats are not a safety panacea. Passengers facing rearward are more vulnerable to flying debris. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Wright jwright@halcyon.com voice 425-635-0338 fax 425-635-0339 You've got a hard lip, Herbert. http://www.blarg.net/~jwright From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:12 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Re: de havilland comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM hi-flyer wrote: > Does anyone know of any books that have been written about the comet? In addition to those already mentioned by others, there's a volume in Ian Allan's Classic Civil Aircraft series on the Comet. About 10 years old, but then not much has happened to the Comet since. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA 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 kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:13 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: ? on 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >I think the 3rd generation 737s mostly just incorporate new avionics, more >efficient engines, and a redesigned larger wing to increase fuel capacity >and wing performance/efficiency. Are the second generation 737's currently using the same interior (seats, overhead bins, etc.) as the NG 737's? For that matter, are 757's and 767's using the same interior components where possible? From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:14 From: Brian Ratcliff Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of North Dakota; Grand Forks On 24 Jan 1998 skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: > Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 > (N700GS). Does anyone know the routing or how the aircraft is > performing? I am not sure on the routing or the performance of the aircraft, but I have another question. Does the N-numbers of all southwest jets end in "GS"? I know that all aircraft who started flying with NOrthwest or United end in the letters "NW" and "UA", respectively. What do Southwest Airlines jets end in? I would think it would be "SW" or "SA". Let me know if anyone knows this. THanks, BRian From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:15 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Does the N-numbers of all southwest jets end in >"GS"? I know that all aircraft who started flying with NOrthwest or >United end in the letters "NW" and "UA", respectively. What do Southwest >Airlines jets end in? I would think it would be "SW" or "SA". The majority of Southwest's planes carry NxxxSW registrations, with a fair number of others wearing NxxxWN. The 737-7H4 registrations are a bit more random than the older 737s, for some reason -- besides three with N7xxGS, there are a fair number with N7xxSA (including N707SA, the very first 737-7H4). SA probably is for Southwest Airlines. I have no idea what GS might stand for, but N711HK is probably for Herb Kelleher, and N757LV is probably from LUV, as in Dallas Love Field and also Southwest's stock symbol. United's registrations do NOT all end in UA -- they started that with the 767s in 1981. Before that, they used NxxxxU registrations. The DC-10 and 727 fleets still wear them, as do the 737-222 and 747-122 subfleets (but not other 737s and 747s). In addition, the L-1011s, which did not *start* flying with UA, were never reregistered and carried their NxxxPA registrations during their entire career at UA. Other used aircraft have quickly been reregistered. In general, United seems to be the most picky about getting their vanity registrations -- they'll skip numbers if they have to, which is why there is no 767-222 wearing N616UA. Northwest is much less picky. Many of the planes they bought new use NxxxNW registrations, but a similar number use NxxxUS (all but three 747s, most DC-10-40s and 757s, etc.). They don't seem to worry about reregistering aircraft -- a sizable number retain pre-merger registrations like NxxxRC (Republic) or NxxxNC (North Central, one of the precursors of Republic), or from previous owners like NxxxE (bought used from Eastern). -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:16 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , David Lednicer wrote: >The KC-135Es are KC-135As reengined with JT3Ds (TF-33s) removed from >retired 707s. They also have 707 horizontal tails. The KC-135As >reengined with CFM56s (F108s) also have 707 horizontal tails. Some >KC-135Es are now also being reengined with CFM56s to make them >KC-135Rs. Was that the horizontal or vertical tail? I ask coz an extension was added to the 707 vertical tail to give better directional stability after the dutch roll incidents (and the change was retrofitted to 707s already built), but not added to the 717. I don't recall a change to the horizontal stabiliser on the 707 -- what was it (and why)? -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:17 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Caravelle Book? 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 choroebus@aol.com (Choroebus) wrote: >Anyone know of a book on the subject of Sud Aviation Caravelle? Yes, as far as I know I have at least two, but they are probably not easy to get. The first is: "Sud Est Caravelle", by Alexandre Avrane and others, published in 1981 by Jane's Publishing Co (London, UK) in co-operation with Airline Publications and Sales (ISBN 0-7106-0044-5). After a twenty-page introduction on the development history, the rest of the book concentrates on operators and aircraft registration details. The second is "Bluebirds" by John Wegg. I cannot find my copy at the moment, so I have to be a bit vague on details. I think it was privately published (probably by Finnair). The original print run is no longer available, but until about a year ago the author was offering a small number of review copies for sale by means of small advertisements in the back of Airways Magazine (of which the same John Wegg is chief editor). Try John Wegg, at P.O.Box 1109, Sandpoint, ID 83864-0872, USA, Fax +1-208-263-3313. It is a magnificent coffee-table book with an enormous amount of information on the development history, and the service history with Finnair. Strangely enough, I have no knowledge of any French book on the Caravelle. Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Amsterdam-Zuidoost, The Netherlands E-mail: Lezenne@CompuServe.com Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:18 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Many prototypes are kept for future developements. However, I know that FedEx is flying the MD-11 prototype. The first MD-11 serial numbers went to FedEx, however, they were delivered after the American Airlines recieved their aircraft due to time it took to refurbrish the prototypes. STeve Cole~ STeveC01e@aol.com From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:19 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > Many prototypes are kept for future developements. However, I know that >FedEx is flying the MD-11 prototype. The first MD-11 serial numbers went to >FedEx, however, they were delivered after the American Airlines recieved their >aircraft due to time it took to refurbrish the prototypes. The term "prototype" as applied to aircraft is usually used to refer to aircraft which are nearly custom built (as opposed to using production tooling) and which often differ in substantial detail from the final, full production models. In some cases, there may be parts which are not as strong as production ones, since the aircraft is only intended to serve flight testing and not the rigors of airline service. This may be why the first 747 cannot be certified for service -- it will never be used for anything other than flight tests (and demos and display). With the MD-11, no prototypes were built. FedEx simply got the first several production examples off the line, which were used as part of the flight test program and therefore required refurbishment prior to delivery. The 727 was the same way -- no prototype was built, and after conclusion of the flight test program, line number 1 went to United, where it served for many years, indistinguishable from the other 727-22s except for its registration (N7001U). -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:20 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 707 : How did it get its name ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , y106fm@iamerica.net (toad) wrote: > >The book didn't say so, but model numbers ending in 7 had already been a > >Boeing tradition since the late '30's (297, 377, B-17, B-47, KC-97). > > What about the B-52? Was it later called 7xxxx whatever? The B-52 is the Boeing Model 464. The B-17 was the Boeing Model 299, the B-47 was the Boeing Model 450, the KC-97 was the Boeing Model 367. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:21 From: "JCSFlyboy" Subject: Re: Deicing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Ken S wrote in message ... >I have seen aircraft deiced when the outside air temp was -10c >and very light snow falling. Now I understand the Clean aircraft concept >yet it seems to me that this snow (maybe enough to leave a trace after >several hours) poses no threat to the aircraft. Two words: Clear Ice. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:22 From: "Ali Hammoud" Subject: Re: Deicing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprint Canada Inc. Ken S a écrit dans l'article ... > I have seen aircraft deiced when the outside air temp was -10c > and very light snow falling. Now I understand the Clean aircraft concept > yet it seems to me that this snow (maybe enough to leave a trace after > several hours) poses no threat to the aircraft. Yet because our ops > specs call for a "clean airplane" we must de-ice. I believe that a build-up of ice of less than a 1/10th of an inch on the wings of a DC-9 is enough to reduce lift by 40% and increase drag by as much as 30%... Ali Hammoud Commercial Pilot hammouda@sprint.ca http://www.decollage.org/houla/ From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:23 From: "David E. Pearce Jr." Subject: Re: Deicing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lockheed Martin Ken S wrote: > I was wondering if any one can help explain the FAA rational for deicing > aircraft. I have seen aircraft deiced when the outside air temp was -10c > and very light snow falling. Now I understand the Clean aircraft concept > yet it seems to me that this snow (maybe enough to leave a trace after > several hours) poses no threat to the aircraft. Yet because our ops > specs call for a "clean airplane" we must de-ice. Airline pilots are not test pilots. If specific icing conditions are not enveloped in testing, then a flight into those icing conditions are test flying. It is difficult to quantify snow and icing conditions on an aircraft, so instead they prep the aircraft to known conditions (ie deice it). Also, the aircraft surface could be above freezing and the snow falling could be melting and draining to a lower and colder part of the aircraft and freezing. The snow could melt on the top surface of the wing due to warm fuel and flow down to the leading edge, which being thin metal without fuel behind it is colder, and refreezing. Ice on the leading edge of a wing is not a good place to have it as it can upset the flow over the entire rest of the wing upper surface. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:24 From: "Odilo Vazquez" Subject: Re: Deicing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services The problem with snow on the wing is that it might mask ice underneath, so if you don't remove the snow you don't know whats underneath. In regard to the enviromental conditions, The FARs (part 25 appendix C) and 50 years of flight experience shows that ice can accumulate to temperature as low as -22 deg F. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:25 From: Scott David Smith Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Duke University, Durham, NC, USA Could any one tell me information concerning back log orders for Boeing production. I am trying to figure out how many years of guranteed production the company has. What is the answer to this and where officially can I get this verified. Thanks, Scott Smith From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:26 From: Marc Hookerman Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In article , k_ish wrote: >Thomas A. Beckley wrote: >> This "Other" refers to a >> manufacturer other than Boeing (Including MD) and Airbus, and I was >> wondering who this was. My guess would be Iluyshin or Tupelov, but I >> really don't know. > >Don't forget Canadair, Embraer, ATR, etc., etc. ATR is a division of Airbus. Tupolev and Antonov will have orders too...they just made some new cool planes. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >ATR is a division of Airbus. Wrong. ATR (Avions de Transport Regional) was a 50-50 partnership between Aerospatiale (France) and Alenia/Finmeccanica (Italy). Aero- spatiale also happens to be a major partner in Airbus, but that indirect connection is the only business tie between Airbus and ATR. ATR has now disappeared -- it and the regional transport products of British Aerospace were merged into AI(R) (Aero International (Regional)), of which Aerospatiale, Alenia/Finmeccanica, and British Aerospace are equal partners. -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:28 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >> This "Other" refers to a >> manufacturer other than Boeing (Including MD) and Airbus, and I was >> wondering who this was. My guess would be Iluyshin or Tupelov, but I >> really don't know. > >Don't forget Canadair, Embraer, ATR, etc., etc. Those are not included for sure. I'm sure Boeing only included planes in the same categories as its own, which would be 100 seats +. As I said, Other only accounted for a few sales last year, and there are only 10 "other" orders outstanding. Canadair, Embraer, Saab, etc (aren't ATR's made by Embraer???) all have more order than what I mentioned as being attributed to "Other" by Boeing. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:29 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Don't forget Canadair, Embraer, ATR, etc., etc. >Those are not included for sure. I'm sure Boeing only included planes in >the same categories as its own, which would be 100 seats +. As I said, >Other only accounted for a few sales last year, and there are only 10 >"other" orders outstanding. Possibly Sirocco/Tupolev, which sold a handful of RB.211-535 powered Tu-204s to someone in southeast Asia (Vietnam?). I'm not sure if the sale was last year, though. Lockheed-Martin might be another possibility, if they happened to sell any commercial versions of the C-130. I think UPS was interested in them but I don't recall any sale being completed. There's also ROMBAC, the Romanian company which now owns the BAC-111 tooling. I haven't heard anything from them in a while, though, and I certainly didn't hear of any sales last year. I'm not sure it's even a going concern at this point. >Canadair, Embraer, Saab, etc (aren't ATR's made by Embraer???) ATRs were made by ATR, a joint venture between Aerospatiale (France) and Alenia/Finmeccanica (Italy) which is now part of AI(R), which includes ATR plus the regional transport products of British Aerospace. Embraer is a Brazilian company, with no ties to ATR or AI(R) or any of their parent companies. -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:30 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>What happens to airliner prototypes? Do they eventually > >It depends. If it's a true prototype, it may be substantially different >from production models, in ways that make it undesireable or perhaps not >certifiable. For example, the 707 prototype (the 367-80) has a different >fuselage width than a standard 707. At best, it would have been an >oddball in an airline fleet. I suspect upgrading the 367-80 to airliner standard would have been a fairly major undertaking. As it was, the Dash-80 was pretty thoroughly abused by Boeing as a testbed for all sorts of weird stuff -- engine testbed, several flap configurationd, rear engine mounting (for the 727) are just a few of the things the Dash-80 had done to it. The first 747 (RA-001) saw quite a bit of service as an engine testbed, including for the 777 (used to test fly the PW4084, and I think the RR engines; GE bought their own 747 to test the GE90). >>How many prototypes are usually needed till production >>begins? > >Rarely more than one for commercial airliners, except for something >really exotic like Concorde. Concorde was a research programme masquerading as a commercial airliner development. All up, there were two "prototypes" (001 and 002) and two "pre-production" (01 and 02) aircraft, plus two static test aircraft. In addition, two production aircraft, F-WTSB (201) and G-BBDG (202), were retained by the manufacturers. I can't think of any other commercial aircraft programme where anything like that number of aircraft were built that did not ultimately enter service. BTW: F-WTSB had sidestick controls retrofitted to it at one stage to test the configuration for Airbus -- the A320 *wasn't* the first fly-by-wire commercial airliner... -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:31 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >The military (at least in the US, but probably elsewhere) uses all rear- >facing seats on transports so equipped. They don't give a damn what the >"passengers" think, so they go for safety. I've walked through a C-9A >Nightingale (military DC-9-30) which had seating in the latter half, and >it certainly did look weird at first! I think it's pretty much standard practice the world over -- I've seen it done way back in RNZAF Bristol Freighters (just before they were retired and replaced by 2nd hand Andovers). Of course operators of military transports have to cope with the fact that there's a rather better chance that someone will actively try to crash their birds, something commercial operators mostly don't have to worry about. -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Matthew Lehde wrote: > The only reason the MD-11 is still available is because the 777 freighter is > still in development. I'm surprised to read this. So far I haven't seen an official statement that the 777F is under development. Where did you get this information or is it only an assumption ? Or will Boeing use again a renamed MD product making out of the MD11F a B777-400F ;) Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:33 From: Marc Hookerman Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In article , "Matthew Lehde" wrote: >Lastly, the 777 is by far the best and most advanced airliner in >production incorporating customer requested improvements ... The 777 series is a very good aircraft with great improvements, but when it comes to customer liking, there have been more complaints, but that is becuase of airlines cattle caring the planes. UA has their 777's set with a TIGHT seating arrangment. Very uncomfortable. The only airline with good seating space is TWA still, but they are still catching up. People say flying on a 777 is like having your knees placed in your mouth. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >UA has their 777's set with a TIGHT seating arrangment. Very uncomfortable. Having flown in all three classes on United's 777s, including over ten hours (LHR-SFO) in coach, I can only guess that you've never actually been on one of them. Their Y seats are wider than any others in UA's fleet except the 767s, which I believe they match, and pitch is equal or better, too. Except in F, where a 747 is pretty hard to beat, I'd take a 777 over a 747 any day, at least in UA's config. I'm pretty some carriers are stuffing ten across (3-4-3, just like most 747s) in their 777s. I shudder to think what you'd have to say about *those* planes. -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:35 From: sammy@monmoouth.com Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet >Robert Nielsen wrote in message ... >>With Boeing giving more attention to Douglas Products, has anyone >>speculated about an MD-11 fitted with 777 wings and 3 777 engines? >>Wouldn't this create quite a capable very long range airplane? > >The only reason the MD-11 is still available is because the 777 freighter is >still in development. Also, fitting 3 777 engines would actually be less >efficient because they would weigh more and use more fuel. The higher cost >of the engines and the huge cost of redesigning the tail engine cowling, and >longer landing gear to provide clearance for the larger engines would make >this to costly to produce. This kinda makes me wanna ask a question, why do all the powerplants on an aircraft have to be equal? I mean, OK if there are 2 i can see them equal, but how about on say a 747, 2 of them one type, and the other 2 another type (thrust wise and all) and in the MD-11's case the wing mounted one type and the tail mountd another type. Sammy From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >This kinda makes me wanna ask a question, why do all the powerplants on an >aircraft have to be equal? I mean, OK if there are 2 i can see them equal, >but how about on say a 747, 2 of them one type, and the other 2 another type >(thrust wise and all) and in the MD-11's case the wing mounted one type and >the tail mountd another type. The simple answer is they don't. FedEx has some 727s which have had the #1 and #3 engines replaced with JT8D-217C engines, similar to those on the MD-80 family, while retaining the original JT8D-17A in the center position. The problem is that you need to have spares and maintenance programs for each type of engine. It's bad enough having different engine types on different planes. (There's also been some discussion about this in the past; see the archives at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:37 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Tim Long wrote: >Allen wrote: >> The main visible difference of the Boeing 720, it does not have a >> metal tube jutting foreward at the top of the >> vertical fin. > >The Western Airlines 720B I flew in 1965 on my FIRST airline flight DID >have this antenna on the vertical fin. I have the pictures to prove it! Pan Am's nine 720Bs also had the HF antenna probe, but mostly 720s didn't. -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:38 From: "seo" Subject: Re: Single engine jet (VisionAire). References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Filip De Vos wrote in message ... >This (stick-shake and pusher) seems quite strange. I thought the canard >configuration precluded the design from stalling, as is usual with other >Rutan designs. So why did the FAA add the shaker/pusher? There are many reasons which might have rquired a pusher/shaker to be required. A shaker may be required due to either inadequate or non-existant natural (aerodynamic) stall warning in any or all configurations. A pusher may be required due to poor (or even uncertifiable) stall characteristics. To know the exact reasons on this aircraft you would have to ask the manufacturer. From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:39 From: stephan@lac.inpe.br (Stephan Stephany LAC-CC) Subject: Rate of climb and descent Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I wonder what would be typical rates of climb and descent for airliners. I suppose standard procedures provide for low figures in order to try to make the ride as smooth as possible for the passengers. I also would like to know what are the limit rates in both cases. I mean, for a twin engine aircraft like the 767, "almost empty" (i.e. no passengers/load and a small amount of fuel) does the climb rate exceed 5000 fpm? For the same 767 fully loaded, spoilers on, etc, would be the figure similar to this (downwards)? It does not to be a 767. I just would like to have an idea on the subject. Thank you, --------------------------------- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:40 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >for a twin engine aircraft like the 767, "almost empty" (i.e. no >passengers/load and a small amount of fuel) does the climb rate exceed >5000 fpm? I don't know about the 767, but I've been on a 757 with a moderate passenger load and modest fuel load (an SFO-LAX flight) which exceeded 5000 fpm quite easily. I'd think a very light 767 could do the same with no problem. -- 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 Sun Jan 25 03:27:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:41 From: Joktan Lo Subject: Manual inflation handle for slide? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Macau CTM InterNetNews site There is a manual inflation handle for each aircarft door to inflate the evacuation slide manually incase the slide could not be inflated automatically after the door is opened. 1. Should the cabin crew pull the manual inflation handle once after the door is opened to minimise the inflation time? 2. Or it depends on the type of the aircraft, 737, 747, A321 or A320? From kls Sun Jan 25 03:27:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jan 98 03:27:42 From: jcchar@aol.com (Jcchar) Subject: zero flight time Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.fr I am a french ATPL pilot looking for informations about a type rating with ZFT. On which planes (or simulator), and opinions on this subject like background necessary. thank you From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:12 From: Marc Hookerman Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>ATR is a division of Airbus. > >Wrong. ATR (Avions de Transport Regional) was a 50-50 partnership >between Aerospatiale (France) and Alenia/Finmeccanica (Italy). Aero- >spatiale also happens to be a major partner in Airbus, but that indirect >connection is the only business tie between Airbus and ATR. And what is different from what I said. ATR was a 50-50 partnership with Aerospatiale which is a major partner with Airbus. And how did that not make ATR a part of Airbus Industrie? Marc From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:13 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >And what is different from what I said. ATR was a 50-50 partnership >with Aerospatiale which is a major partner with Airbus. And how did >that not make ATR a part of Airbus Industrie? I own stock in both Southwest Airlines and UAL Corp. (United's parent). By your logic, that makes Southwest a division of UAL. Sorry, but just because the same company owned a piece of both ATR and Airbus doesn't make one a division or any other part of the other. -- 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 Jan 26 01:46:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:14 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Marc Schaeffer wrote in message ... >Matthew Lehde wrote: >> The only reason the MD-11 is still available is because the 777 freighter >> is still in development. > >I'm surprised to read this. So far I haven't seen an official statement >that the 777F is under development. Where did you get this information >or is it only an assumption ? Or will Boeing use again a renamed MD >product making out of the MD11F a B777-400F ;) This is a very logical assumption. 727F,757F,767F,747F. It would be crazy not to eventually offer a 777F and C... Airlines love fleet commonality. And efficiency. matt757@earthlink.net matt lehde IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING! From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:15 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >This is a very logical assumption. 727F,757F,767F,747F. It would be crazy >not to eventually offer a 777F and C... Perhaps. But others have also noted that, despite a high MGTOW (Max- imum Gross Take-Off Weight), the 777's MLW (Maximum Landing Weight) is closer to its empty weight than for many other airliners, the MD-11 in particular. In other words, while the 777 can lift much more than its empty weight, most of that weight must be fuel. That's good if you're designing a long-range passenger aircraft, but not for a freighter. None of these means that Boeing cannot increase the useful payload of the 777, but perhaps they really didn't design it with freighter use as a concern. Even if they did, with a popular freighter in their product line (the MD-11), Boeing may have no reason to produce a 777 freighter. (The L-1011 has never been very popular as a freighter, either.) >Airlines love fleet commonality. True. But relatively few carriers operate both passenger and cargo aircraft. None of the 757F nor 767F operators fly passengers, for example, and I can't think of any 727F operators that do. (There are a handful of 747F operators that fly passenger 747s, though.) >IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING! So, you don't mind flying MD-11s? :-) -- 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 Jan 26 01:46:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:16 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >I'm surprised to read this. So far I haven't seen an official statement >that the 777F is under development. Where did you get this information >or is it only an assumption ? Or will Boeing use again a renamed MD >product making out of the MD11F a B777-400F ;) I keep hearing all this talk of renaming the MD-11 now, but I really don't think Boeing will do that. You have to remember that the reason that they were easily able to rename the MD-95 is because they haven't delivered any yet, and this certainly is not true of the MD-11. From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:17 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , Marc Hookerman wrote: > In article , "Matthew Lehde" wrote: > >Lastly, the 777 is by far the best and most advanced airliner in > >production incorporating customer requested improvements ... > > The 777 series is a very good aircraft with great improvements, but when > it comes to customer liking, there have been more complaints, but that > is becuase of airlines cattle caring the planes. UA has their 777's set > with a TIGHT seating arrangment. Very uncomfortable. The only airline > with good seating space is TWA still, but they are still catching up. > People say flying on a 777 is like having your knees placed in your > mouth. Having recently flown in 777s operated by British Airways, Lauda Air, and Emirates, as well as on the delivery flight of United's first 777, I would strongly disagree with your statement. I have found the nine-abreast seating on the 777 very comfortable, and all the airlines mentioned had reasonable seat pitch in coach class. The ten-abreast 777 actually uses the same coach seat that's used in most other planes (767, 757, 737, etc.), so while it is not as comfortable as the 1-inch wider 9-abreast seat, it's no worse than the coach seats on anyone else's planes. Some airlines may elect to go with the minimum seat pitch in coach which, for a tall person, may not be very comfortable, but the airlines I've experienced personally have not been overly tight. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:18 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? 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: [different engines in same plane] > The simple answer is they don't. FedEx has some 727s which have had the > #1 and #3 engines replaced with JT8D-217C engines, similar to those on > the MD-80 family, while retaining the original JT8D-17A in the center > position. > The problem is that you need to have spares and maintenance programs for > each type of engine. It's bad enough having different engine types on > different planes. Don't many operators use outside contractors for engine maintenance? Is this a reason that some carriers have such a variety of engines and engine makers, even though others seem to be concerned about commonalty? -- Gerry From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:19 From: candee@netcom.com (Bill Candee) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: On the thread about vanity tail numbers: I have noticed that many DC9s at USAirways seem to bear the NxxxVJ designation, whereas ValuJet's DC9s bear a different appellation (so don't appear to be ex-Valujet). Any idea where the VJ designation on these came from? --Bill Candee in NYC From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:20 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > I have noticed that many DC9s at USAirways seem to bear the NxxxVJ > designation, whereas ValuJet's DC9s bear a different appellation (so > don't appear to be ex-Valujet). Any idea where the VJ designation on > these came from? Apparently it comes from Vista Jet, Allegheny's name for their DC-9s. At least that's what a USAir DC-9 pilot told a friend of mine. -- 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 Jan 26 01:46:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:21 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >The majority of Southwest's planes carry NxxxSW registrations, with a >fair number of others wearing NxxxWN. The 737-7H4 registrations are a >bit more random than the older 737s, for some reason -- besides three >with N7xxGS, there are a fair number with N7xxSA (including N707SA, the >very first 737-7H4) ... Are the 737s leased from American still around? 673,674,675,677,678,679,680AA I remember fueling 680 when I was a fueler about a year ago. matt757@earthlink.net matt lehde IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING! From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The majority of Southwest's planes carry NxxxSW registrations ... >Are the 737s leased from American still around? >673,674,675,677,678,679,680AA Yes, though as of about a year ago 679 was owned outright, and several of the others were leased from lessors other than American. There's also N676SW, also an ex-Air Cal/American plane. Like 679, it's owned by Southwest, but unlike 679, it never received an NxxxAA registration. -- 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 Jan 26 01:46:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:23 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 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 Karl Swartz wrote: >The majority of Southwest's planes carry NxxxSW registrations, with a fair >number of others wearing NxxxWN. The 737-7H4 registrations are a bit more >random than the older 737s, for some reason The reason being that the desired registration(s) are not available. For example N700SW is a Citation belonging to SafeWay Insurance. Sometimes the existing owner can be persuaded (bribed!) to relinquish the number, but I imagine this can be expensive. >-- besides three with N7xxGS, there are a fair number with N7xxSA >(including N707SA, the very first 737-7H4). SA probably is for Southwest >Airlines. I have no idea what GS might stand for, Go Southwest ? >but N711HK is probably for Herb Kelleher, and N757LV is probably from >LUV, as in Dallas Love Field and also Southwest's stock symbol. When USAir took over Piedmont they re-registered every single airframe, and Continental also seems to engage in changing registrations more than other carriers. regards Brian From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:24 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Brian Ratcliff wrote: > Does the N-numbers of all southwest jets end in > "GS"? I know that all aircraft who started flying with NOrthwest or > United end in the letters "NW" and "UA", respectively. What do Southwest > Airlines jets end in? I would think it would be "SW" or "SA". Let me > know if anyone knows this. I know that the regs of some SW aircraft end up with the initials of SW managers. Why not after all ! Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:25 From: "Thomas J. Van Haag" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: midexjet@mail.execpc.com Karl Swartz wrote: > Northwest is much less picky ... a sizable number retain pre-merger > registrations like NxxxRC (Republic) or NxxxNC (North Central, one of > the precursors of Republic) ... As well as NxxxRW - ex Hughes Airwest 727s! -- Brakes released Amtrak 8, Hiball the running air test - Milwaukee, WI From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:26 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Footnote on the DH Comet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Gerard Foley wrote on 16 Oct 97: > The sections of the report (of Comet G-ALYP) which are on the web are very > interesting. > Marc should be complimented, and encouraged to post the rest! Even if it lastet very long- the www isn't everything - I finished to post the complete accident report of Comet YP to my site. I incorporated most of the pictures which show where and why this tragedy occured. As this was discussed in this forum, it should make interesting reading. In addition I also posted the accident report of another Comet crash, the G-APDN of Dan-Air. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:27 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Caravelle Book? 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 >choroebus@aol.com (Choroebus) wrote: >> Anyone know of a book on the subject of Sud Aviation Caravelle? In addition to those mentioned in Stefano's post there is a small `Profiles' book that may be found at aviation collectable fairs etc. It was one of a large series of Profiles booklets on aircraft. -- -Niels From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:28 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Caravelle Book? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Kees de LezenneCoulander wrote: > Yes, as far as I know I have at least two, but they are probably not > easy to get. > > The first is: "Sud Est Caravelle", by Alexandre Avrane and others, > published in 1981 by Jane's Publishing Co (London, UK) in co-operation > with Airline Publications and Sales (ISBN 0-7106-0044-5). Alexandre has still some copies of his book, his email address is mailto:aavrane@fr.oracle.com Hope this helps, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:29 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Nigeria airways Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu In the airliners mailing list there is a discussion about Nigeria airways operating flights with only one engine on A310. I would like to bring the discussion to this wider forum. Can anybody confirm the attached 'story' ? What sanctions can be taken against them ? If the story is true Nigeria airways is an 'outlaw', IIRC they have no landing right to the US, how about EU ? START ITEM You're going to have to believe me on this one. I flew on the Nigerian Airways flight from Lagos to London on the A310. On takeoff from Lagos, fire spewed from the left engine. We climbed to about 2,000 feet, then promplty landed in Lagos again. I went to the cockpit, where the pilot informed me that since we had a VIP on our flight that had to be in London soon, we had to takeoff without the engine. So, we did. The flight was terribly delayed due to the obvious loss in speed. I later researched such instances with Nigerian Airways. I found out that this was the third time NA had made the flight with one engine all the way, but on several occasions had landed with only one. More common was cases where NA would make the flight with one engine out on the DC-10. True story. I heard they even tried to make the British Airport Association pay for the engine repair. END ITEM Comments would be highly appreciated, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:30 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Onat Ahmet wrote in message ... >What happens to airliner prototypes? Do they eventually >get modified to production standards and sold to >airline companies, or do they stay with the maker till >the end? >Are they used for any purpose other than testing >this and that? Boeing kept the 707 prototype, the 367-80, until they donated it to the Smithsonian. Boeing got it back and has it inside plant 2 on the west side of Boeing Field. I think that when Boeing found out that the Smithsonian had this aircraft sitting in a desert boneyard they were not very happy about it and they wanted it back. I'm not 100% sure on that though... maybe someone else can verify that. The 727 prototype was sold to United airlines after it had completed its flight testing. Toward the end of its airframe life it was retired and repainted into the older 60s United scheme and then donated to the Museum of flight. It is currently sitting outside the Museum of Flight's restoration hangar at Paine Field in Everett,WA. The museum is working on getting it in flying condition. I think the most expensive (and important) parts they need right now are the 3 Pratt and Whitney JT8s. I assume the prototype 737-100 was sold to Lufthansa with the rest of them. Later on it was bought by NASA and is used for testing of all kinds. Several months ago it was flown to the Museum of Flight where tours were available. It was here for just a few days. I think there was talk of NASA acquiring a (used) 757 for their new testbed and the prototype 737 getting back to Seattle... Maybe somebody knows more about that. The prototype 747 was kept by Boeing and donated to the Museum of Flight. Boeing leased it for a while for use as a 777 engine testbed... Good thing they did because there were internal engine clearance problems which caused surges on one of the take-offs. This aircraft is sitting at Boeing Field on west side with no engines and fencing around it. Sad to think it may never fly again... The prototype 757 was kept by Boeing at Boeing Field. It sat around for a long time while its red white and blue Boeing livery faded. One day it disappeared and the next time I saw it it was painted in the Boeing White and Grey...kind of Continental Airlines looking, but without the gold stripe. A little while ago it was gone again and it returned with an F-22 nose grafted onto the radome for avionics(radar?) testing for the F-22. Crazy looking to say the least. The prototype 767 was sold to the U.S. Army which grafted a huge fairing on the top of it to house some kind of laser...possibly the kind that shoots down missiles(?) It remained in its original (faded) Boeing livery for a long time, but has been painted into the White and Grey. The 777 prototype is currently being refurbished at the Everett Boeing plant for delivery to United Airlines(?). I was sure hoping they would keep it! Oh well. Was that the prototype A320 that crashed at that airshow in 1980 something? I think a prototype A330 crashed in flight testing. I don't think the prototype A340 has crashed yet... I guess its days are numbered. I don't know about the A300s or A310s, but they're probably okay because they don't have that computer controlled flight computer that can't be disabled. matt757@earthlink.net matt lehde IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING! From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Boeing kept the 707 prototype, the 367-80, until they donated it to the >Smithsonian. Boeing got it back and has it inside plant 2 on the west >side of Boeing Field. > >I think that when Boeing found out that the Smithsonian had this >aircraft sitting in a desert boneyard they were not very happy about it >and they wanted it back. I'm not 100% sure on that though... The 367-80 is still owned by the Smithsonian. They were storing it at Davis-Monthan AFB because they don't have room for it at the Air & Space Museum Annex at Dulles. Boeing and/or the Seattle Museum of Flight worked out a deal that got the Smithsonian to loan it to the SMoF; it's at Boeing for restoration. >I assume the prototype 737-100 was sold to Lufthansa with the rest of >them. Later on it was bought by NASA and is used for testing of all >kinds. It was not a prototype; it was a regular production aircraft intended for Lufthansa, as indicated by its 737-130 designation. (30 being the customer code for Lufthansa.) Unfortunately, they bent the fuselage during flight testing (I'm sure there's an interesting story there but I don't know it) and, despite it being perfectly airworthy, Lufthansa didn't want a bent plane. It was finally sold to NASA on July 26, 1973, over six years after it's first flight, then donated to the SMoF on September 20, 1997. It was stored at Moses Lake, pending completion of additional space at the SMoF. >The prototype 767 was sold to the U.S. Army which grafted a huge fairing >on the top of it to house some kind of laser...possibly the kind that >shoots down missiles(?) The project was for infra-red detection, not a laser, and was referred to by the acronym AOA. I've seen conflicting reports about whether or not is was sold to the Army. Several individuals who work for Boeing and who generally are trustworthy have posted that it was, but the Jet Airliners Production List says no. The FAA data as of December 1, 1997, lists it was being owned by Boeing Equipment Holding Company, but the registration date is November 6, 1996, which could mean it was bought back from the Army or perhaps was just transferred from one part of Boeing to another. >The 777 prototype is currently being refurbished at the Everett Boeing >plant for delivery to United Airlines(?). It's a production model built to the same specifications as United's planes, not a prototype, but I'm not aware of United having expressed any interest in it. United switched to buying the IGW model as soon as they could. It is being prepped for sale to an airline, but no buyer has yet stepped up to the plate. >Was that the prototype A320 that crashed at that airshow in 1980 >something? The first A320 was retained by Airbus Industrie; the one that crashed at Habsheim in 1988 was the 9th off the line. >I think a prototype A330 crashed in flight testing. The fifth A330 crashed during a test flight. It was the first to fly with PW4000 engines but it was not a prototype -- it was a production model intended for Malaysia Airlines. There don't appear to have been any A330 prototypes, which probably makes sense since it uses the same airframe as the A340. The first A330 was sold to Cathay Pacific. >I don't think the prototype A340 has crashed yet... I guess its days >are numbered. No A340s have crashed, though one was destroyed by fire while parked at CDG in Paris. (The circumstances have always seemed somewhat murky. Does anyone know the details?) The first three A340s were all retained by Airbus, though it appears that only the first was a prototype. I have no idea why they wouldn't have sold the other two. >I don't know about the A300s or A310s, but they're probably okay because >they don't have that computer controlled flight computer that can't be >disabled. I won't rise to the flight controls bait, and I sincerely hope nobody else will, either -- most of the group is pretty tired of that debate. In any case, the A300 prototype was retained by Airbus Industrie. Sometime after 1974, it was broken up, but parts of it were preserved at Le Bourget Field in Paris. The first A310 was a production model for Swissair. It now flies for Air Liberte under lease from ILFC. -- 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 Jan 26 01:46:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:32 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Not to be a total *****, but they aren't really interconnected directly. The rudder pedals do indeed give about 7 degrees of steering, and if the nosewheel is turned, the tiller will turn as a result of the nosewheel displacement. Part of the preflight checks on all Boeings is to hold the tiller still and deflect the rudder pedals to check for freedom of travel. The reason for holding the tiller is the check is usually done while taxiing, and it's rude to wander drunkenly about the tarmac. TheFNG From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:33 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: ? on 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , "Thomas A. Beckley" wrote: > >I think the 3rd generation 737s mostly just incorporate new avionics, more > >efficient engines, and a redesigned larger wing to increase fuel capacity > >and wing performance/efficiency. > > Are the second generation 737's currently using the same interior (seats, > overhead bins, etc.) as the NG 737's? For that matter, are 757's and 767's > using the same interior components where possible? No. The single-aisle 757 and the twin-aisle 767 do not use any common interior components that I'm aware of. The structures are too different to allow that. The New Generation 737 models and the new 757 have a new interior design that is based on the interior design of the 777. To my knowledge, the interiors going into the 737-300/400/500 are the same as they've always been. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:34 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 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 trevfenn@erols.com "trevfenn" writes: > >Correct, the KC-135/C-135 etc have the same fuselage section as the >original Boeing 707 prototype model 367-80 which is smaller than the Nope the Dash-80 was 12" narrower than the -135! >production 707. The -135's also have a different wing to the 707. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ re: diff. wing Only compared to the later `turbofan' 707s. Not the early short-bodied AND `non-fanjet'-powered 707-100 series. Believe me, there were many many observable 707 variations due to re-engining and on-going aerodynamic modifications. I, and a group of fellow airliner-model-building hobbyist collleagues have been researching and trying to get to grips with the 707 for years now and inconsistancies still keep popping up. The only truism is: It is very hard to generalize -anything- about 707s, except that most had 4 engines attached. And different 707 books/sources will often contradict each other because they are focusing on examples of the same aircraft at different times in its life. -- -Niels From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:35 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) wrote: > On 26 Dec 97 03:28:45 , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: > >I thought the 717 (KC-135) actually had a *narrower* fuselage than the > >707, not just a shorter one. > > It does indeed, which is why the KC135 really is a different airframe > than the 707. The KC135 is the sucessor to the Dash-80. The airlines > wanted 6 across Coach Seating, which made the 707 more attractive than > the DC8. The DC-8 had 3-3 seating from the outset, which is why the airlines threatened to buy it when Boeing initially refused to widen the as-designed KC-135/707 fuselage, which only accomodated 3-2 seating. When Boeing realized the airlines weren't kidding when they said they wanted 3-3 seating, they widened the 707 fuselage to be one inch wider than the DC-8. The KC-135 (Boeing 717) fuselage retained its original width, however. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:36 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , trevfenn wrote: > Stephen H. Westin wrote: > > I thought the 717 (KC-135) actually had a *narrower* fuselage than the > > 707, not just a shorter one. > > Correct, the KC-135/C-135 etc have the same fuselage section as the > original Boeing 707 prototype model 367-80 which is smaller than the > production 707. The -135's also have a different wing to the 707. > Really there is very little in common between the -135's and the 707 > apart from appearance and engines. Actually, the KC-135 and original 707 design have a fuselage width slightly wider than the 367-80. The 707 design was then widened even more to accomodate the airlines' demand for 3-3 seating. But the only plane to have the fuselage width of the Dash-80 was the Dash-80. All the others were wider. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:37 From: "Anthony Chiu" Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ACAY Network Computing Pty Ltd A easier way to tell the difference is the 720B has intakes for the turbo-compressor at the front of 2 and 3 engine pylons, whereas the 707 has these in 2,3 and 4 pylons. The spike up the top of the tail or the size of the strake underneath the tail seem to vary from user to user. By the way, Qantas has the 38 number. Can somebody tell me who has the 37 number? Also, has this "37" user order any 737-700? or rather 737-737???? AC From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:38 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >By the way, Qantas has the 38 number. Can somebody tell me who has the 37 >number? Also, has this "37" user order any 737-700? or rather 737-737???? Air India. (See ftp://ftp.chicago.com/pub/airliners/boeing-code for a relatively complete list of the Boeing customer codes.) So far as I know, Air India has not ordered any 737s of any flavor. Before someone else asks, other customer codes that could lead to amusing combinations include: 07 West German Air Force (Luftwaffe) 27 Braniff (the original one) 47 Western 57 Swissair 67 Cathay Pacific 77 Ansett Airlines of Australia -- 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 Jan 26 01:46:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:39 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: Single engine jet (VisionAire). References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Filip De Vos wrote in message ... >David Parkins (dparkins@lightlink.com) wrote: >> canard configuration introduced many new certification issued (FAA >> required stick pusher and shaker) Airliners already have stick shaker/pushers, don't they? >This (stick-shake and pusher) seems quite strange. I thought the canard >configuration precluded the design from stalling, as is usual with other >Rutan designs. So why did the FAA add the shaker/pusher? Exactly. The canard stalls first. The nose drops, and speed increases before the main wing stalls. Sounds strange. matt757@earthlink.net matt lehde IF ITS NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING! From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:40 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Deicing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. The other day I asked the pilot of the BA 747 why they de-iced an airplane that was accumulating new snow prior to leaving the gate, as I thought the snow would simply blow off when the plane accelerated for takeoff. He said whether or not they de-ice new snow is dependent upon the temperature of the wing with its load of fuel. If the wing is warmer than the air, which it often is, the snow will melt and then the water will freeze on the wing when the plane begins to move. If the wing is the same temperature as the air, the snow will just lie there and will, indeed, blow off when the plane starts to move. In these cases, they don't need to de-ice the plane. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jan 26 01:46:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jan 98 01:46:41 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" 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 don@news.daedalus.co.nz "Don Stokes" writes: >In article , >David Lednicer wrote: >>The KC-135Es are KC-135As reengined with JT3Ds (TF-33s) removed from >>retired 707s. They also have 707 horizontal tails. The KC-135As ^^^^^^^^^^^ clearer statement would be: `later fanjet 707 horiz. tails.' >>reengined with CFM56s (F108s) also have 707 horizontal tails. Some >>KC-135Es are now also being reengined with CFM56s to make them >>KC-135Rs. > >Was that the horizontal or vertical tail? I ask coz an extension was >added to the 707 vertical tail to give better directional stability after >the dutch roll incidents (and the change was retrofitted to 707s already >built), but not added to the 717. > >I don't recall a change to the horizontal stabiliser on the 707 -- >what was it (and why)? Yes, when the change was made from `turbo' to fan jets they got new stabs. Includes retrofits-> not sure exactly `why'. May have just been a useful aerodynamic modification based on on-going research that needed major downtime to install (i.e. during re-engining) as much as due to the change in engines. -- -Niels From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:46 From: Andrew Abshier Subject: American 777s at DFW? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: NOSPAMaravm98@hotmail.com Hi everyone, I do photography for some of the airline magazines and I would like to know if American is planning to operate 777s in any capacity (revenue service or crew training) from DFW. I'm just up the road (well, 200 miles) and would like to get some photos of the 777. Thanks Andy Abshier aravm98@hotmail.com From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:47 From: Matthew Usdan Goldberg Subject: DELTA AIR LINES 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Emory University I work for Delta Air Lines as a gate agent, but many of us here in the company have heard that due to the Asian financial crises, we are receiving 5 777-200IGW's originally destined to Malaysian Airlines, but they are broke...I've also heard that we should be receiving them between this June and August, opposed to the original date of August 1999...I've heard the initial routes will be LGW, FRA, and CDG...I've spoken to pilots and flight attendants, and they don't know much either...Has anyone out there heard anything about Delta getting 777's earlier than announced?? If so, PLEASE let me know! EMAIL ME PERSONALLY, NOT TO THE NEWSGROUP!!! Matt Goldberg mgold07@emory.edu From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:48 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? 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 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Karl Swartz" writes: >>I don't think the prototype A340 has crashed yet... I guess its days >>are numbered. KLS>No A340s have crashed, though one was destroyed by fire while parked >at CDG in Paris. (The circumstances have always seemed somewhat murky. >Does anyone know the details?) If it wasn't arson (there was some AF industrial action going on) then some fault in the APU? That caused a burn out of a Malay A330, no? That, in turn, caused all the APUs (or parts thereof) in all 330s/340s to be replaced. >The first three A340s were all retained by Airbus, though it appears >that only the first was a prototype. I have no idea why they wouldn't >have sold the other two. I thought that 2 had been sold to BWIA, which then cancelled, and they were then taken up by Virgin. Speculation: There was a report in a recent Flight International about Airbus building A340-based-Belugas. -- -Niels From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:49 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Karl Swartz wrote: > No A340s have crashed, though one was destroyed by fire while parked > at CDG in Paris. (The circumstances have always seemed somewhat murky. > Does anyone know the details?) Conicidentally I seem to recall that an Airbus (A330? MAS?) was damaged by fire while parked overnight at Changi, Singapore just over a year ago. ------------ Andrew. From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:50 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Karl Swartz wrote: > The first three A340s were all retained by Airbus, though it appears > that only the first was a prototype. I have no idea why they wouldn't > have sold the other two. Could this have to do with a need to test multiple versions of software and how they react to various situations ? From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:51 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Matt Lehde asked on 26th Jan. if the A320 that crashed in 1988 was a prototype. The answer is that it was a production model operated by Air France. It was hired to the organisers of the Habsheim airshow to do two fly-pasts. To further recoup their costs Air France made it into a revenue flight, with a full load of passengers embarking at Basle for a Sunday afternoon joy-ride around Mont Blanc (after executing the fly-pasts). The rest, as they say, is history. For a summary of the course of events, see my 1994 paper "CAD: Computer-aided Disaster" Pete Mellor Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:52 From: "Robert J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org Karl Swartz wrote: > > I have noticed that many DC9s at USAirways seem to bear the NxxxVJ > > designation, whereas ValuJet's DC9s bear a different appellation (so > > don't appear to be ex-Valujet). Any idea where the VJ designation on > > these came from? > > Apparently it comes from Vista Jet, Allegheny's name for their DC-9s. > At least that's what a USAir DC-9 pilot told a friend of mine. Wasn't it from New York Air? From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:53 From: "Stefano P. Pagiola" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM candee@netcom.com (Bill Candee) wrote: > On the thread about vanity tail numbers: > I have noticed that many DC9s at USAirways seem to bear the NxxxVJ > designation, whereas ValuJet's DC9s bear a different appellation (so > don't appear to be ex-Valujet). Any idea where the VJ designation on > these came from? On a US airplane, VJ = "Vista Jet". This follows on from their (actually, Allegheny's) earlier prop "Vistaliners" which supposedly gave you great views of the countryside. 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 kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:54 From: Prashanth Kuchibhotla Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ASIC, Texas Instruments skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: > Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 > (N700GS). Does anyone know the routing or how the aircraft is > performing? SW seems to be happy enough with the new aircraft's performance. They ordered 12 more and exercised options on 47 more in the next 7 yrs. In addition, they've options on 42 more 737-700s. As the launch customer, they got a very good price deal. Plus, Boeing paid them a "very substantial" late delivery fees on the new 737s, in the millions. According to management, they've plenty of additional markets to grow in, and are right now being restricted by lack of aircraft. Prashanth prashanth a_t ti d_o_t com From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:55 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Global Services, Inc On 24 Jan 1998 skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: > Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 > (N700GS). Does anyone know the routing or how the aircraft is > performing? I got a chance to fly 700GS just the other day out of DAL. What a fabulous aircraft! The airplane rides better through bumps due to the larger wing, the power is a noticeable improvement, and the glass displays are clean and easy to read. So far, the -700 is being used on short flights in and out of DAL (on Sunday, I flew it DAL-AMA-DAL-AUS-DAL-AMA-DAL), and on short flights out of PHX. SW will continue this practice for a few months until all the bugs show up and are ironed out, and then the aircraft will be put into general service throughout the system. So far, no complaints. Chris From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:56 From: Andrew Muir Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing - Wichita Division Reply-To: nospamAndrew.Muir@boeing.com Brian Ratcliff wrote: > > On 24 Jan 1998 skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: > > Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 > > (N700GS). Does anyone know the routing or how the aircraft is > > performing? The word we got here at Boeing is this first airplane will be flying DAL-HOU-HRL-HOU-DAL-AMA-DAL-AUS-DAL-AMA-DAL. From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:57 From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: Deicing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. C. Marin Faure wrote: > whether or not they de-ice new snow is dependent upon the temperature > of the wing with its load of fuel. If the wing is warmer than the air, > which it often is, the snow will melt and then the water will freeze on > the wing when the plane begins to move. If the wing is the same > temperature as the air, the snow will just lie there and will, indeed, > blow off when the plane starts to move. In these cases, they don't need > to de-ice the plane. At last a sensible response to this thread. The operative word in the de-icing literature is "Adhering" to the wing. To see if the snow is adhering to the wing you have got to try to sweep it off a little. With a trace amount falling on cold wings it will indeed blow off, even while taxiing. If it is not adhering, it will not be there for takeoff. Peter From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:58 From: Mario Morillo Subject: Varig b747-400's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: cobra@interasia.com.ph A few years back Varig had 3 B744's in its fleet(PP-VPG,VPH and VPI). Where are they now? I understand one (at least) went to Air New Zealand. TRUE? From kls Tue Feb 3 19:52:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:52:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Varig b747-400's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >A few years back Varig had 3 B744's in its fleet(PP-VPG,VPH and VPI). >Where are they now? I understand one (at least) went to Air New Zealand. >TRUE? True. Here are some brief details on these three aircraft: reg msn ln model 1stflt del RG gone current --- ----- ---- ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- PP-VPG 24956 917 747-441 920505 920601 940920 950326 Garuda PK-GSI PP-VPH 24957 971 747-441 930401 930420 941228 950417 Air NZ ZK-SUI PP-VPI 24896 855 747-475 910508 910531 940812 941107 Air NZ ZK-ILF All were leased from, and subsequently returned to, ILFC. VPG and VPH were built for Varig as evidenced by their -441 model designation. VPI was built for Canadian Airlines International but never flown by them. Varig also has six new 747-441s on order (with GE CF6-80C2B1F engines) for delivery starting November, 1998. -- 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 Feb 3 19:53:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:53:00 From: Bryan Shrode Subject: MD-11ER Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Does anyone know if Boeing is still offrering the Boeing MD-11ER? I know World Airways has a few. Please Respond, -- Bryan Shrode bshrode@home.net - x--x--(_)--x--x---- If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going From kls Tue Feb 3 19:53:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:53:01 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >aircraft. None of the 757F nor 767F operators fly passengers, for >example, and I can't think of any 727F operators that do. (There >are a handful of 747F operators that fly passenger 747s, though.) What about UPS now flying passengers? What aircraft are they using for those charter flights I've heard they're operating on the weekends (And I even saw a UPS check in counter when I was in Tampa, FL last year for the Fourth of July ...). From kls Tue Feb 3 19:53:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:53:02 From: rstevens@worldsite.net (Ryan Michael Stevens) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Worldsite Networks, Inc. In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > But relatively few carriers operate both passenger and cargo >aircraft. None of the 757F nor 767F operators fly passengers > ^^^^^ Well, there is one 767 operator that flies passenger and cargo variants of the 767, namely Asiana. However, I suppose you could consider paassengers to be self-loading cargo... From kls Tue Feb 3 19:53:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:53:03 From: trevfenn Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Karl Swartz wrote: > True. But relatively few carriers operate both passenger and cargo > aircraft. None of the 757F nor 767F operators fly passengers, for > example, and I can't think of any 727F operators that do. (There > are a handful of 747F operators that fly passenger 747s, though.) Ansett in Australia had a 727-200 which had been converted to freighter configuration and was operated by the same crews who operated their passenger 727's up until the retirement of these aircraft. The freighter is still flying for Ansett but is now operated by an outside company on a leasing arrangement. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Tue Feb 3 19:53:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:53:04 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: [different engines in same plane] > The simple answer is they don't. FedEx has some 727s which have had the > #1 and #3 engines replaced with JT8D-217C engines, similar to those on > the MD-80 family, while retaining the original JT8D-17A in the center > position. > The problem is that you need to have spares and maintenance programs for > each type of engine. It's bad enough having different engine types on > different planes. I have wondered about this. Back when Boeing was going to build a new version of the 747, the engine maker suggested that it could use a mix of B777 size engines on the inner pylons and B747 size engines on the outer pylons. Boeing insisted on a new engine of intermediate size. It seemed to me that if an airline already operated B777's or Airbus A330's with big engines, and B747, B767, MD11, A300, A310 or anything else with engines of that size, then they could order a B747-500 or 600 with engines which they already used and maintained, whereas with the intermediate sized engines they would have to stock a whole new set of spare parts. Further, the market for both large and smaller engines is intensely competitive, with all three manufacturers aggressively improving performance and life. In contrast, the intermediate size engine would be a collaboration between two builders and would be the only one of its class, a sellers market. Both builders would have every incentive to concentrate development efforts on their other engines. One disadvantage of mixed engines is that I suppose all engine-out performance figures would have to be figured for the worst case, with one of the larger engines inoperative. This could result in a lower maximum take-off weight for the same airframe. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Tue Feb 3 19:53:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Feb 98 19:53:05 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Back when Boeing was going to build a new version of the 747, the engine >maker suggested that it could use a mix of B777 size engines on the inner >pylons and B747 size engines on the outer pylons. Boeing insisted on a >new engine of intermediate size. For that particular example, it probably wouldn't have been very practical anyway, at least with the GE90 and probably the others. If you've ever seen the pictures of GE's 747 testbed with a GE90 mounted on the #2 pylon, you'll recall that even with a special pylon and presumably a relatively light fuel load (not much wing droop), there is very little clearance between the GE90 and the tarmac. >It seemed to me that if an airline already operated B777's or Airbus >A330's with big engines, and B747, B767, MD11, A300, A310 or anything >else with engines of that size, then they could order a B747-500 or 600 >with engines which they already used and maintained, whereas with the >intermediate sized engines they would have to stock a whole new set of >spare parts. That's fine if they happen to use the same airplanes in the same places, but that may not be the case. United uses their 747-400s across the Pacific, whereas their 777s fly Atlantic and Latin routes. If they were to have a hypothetical 747-500/600 stuck in Sydney with a problem in a PW4084, it wouldn't be much consolation that they hard parts and expertise in London (and in the US). For another example, look at Cathay Pacific. They use 747s and A340s for their really long range routes; the 777s are primarily for shorter, high-density routes. >One disadvantage of mixed engines is that I suppose all engine-out >performance figures would have to be figured for the worst case, with >one of the larger engines inoperative. This could result in a lower >maximum take-off weight for the same airframe. I'm not sure it's quite that clear. The bigger engines would presumably be mounted inboard for weight reasons (as you suggested, though moving them outboard would solve the ground clearance problem) and, for engines of the same thrust, an inboard engine failure isn't as serious as an outboard engine failure due to the shorter lever arm resulting in less yaw effect. Obviously that doesn't hold if the thrust differential is great enough, but it would take more analysis to say with confidence that the failure of a larger inboard engine would be the worst case. -- 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 Feb 11 04:23:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:49 From: RLION@worldonline.nl (Lion's Pers Agentschap) Subject: 747 with engines on the wings? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Online A question: What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead of on it? Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can be reached even without improving the engines themselves!) The 777 is rather silent, but could be even better with engines on the wing. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has a strict noise contour now. The system is: the less noisy aircraft are, the more aircraft can visit the airport. So, what airlines like KLM need is: silent aircraft. Why are Boeing and Airbus Industrie developing the wrong airplanes now: 737-600/700/800/900, 757-300, 767-400, 777-300, A340-500/600 and A3XX? Building aircraft with engines on the wing is very well possible. Examples are: VFW-Fokker VFW-614, Antonov An-72/74 and Boeing YC-14. Why do airlines and aircraft manufacturers wait for ICAO's chapter 4? Why doesn't aviation take its own responsibility? (If you want to see how a Boeing 747-400EOW (engine on wing) looks like, visit: http://home.worldonline.nl/~rlion/lapr011e.htm René de Leeuw RLION's Wilderness Homepage http://home.worldonline.nl/~rlion Lion Air - The Royal Dutch Alternative Lion's Pers Agentschap - News you never believe! Kingdom of Lions - all about lions with a wink From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:50 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Transonic Airliners? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University My impression is that Richard Whitcomb, inventor of the supercritical airfoil, envisioned its use on transonic (transsonic?) airliners cruising at, say, Mach 0.95. This would reduce trip times significantly while avoiding sonic booms. Indeed, the official NASA/Dryden history at states, "Whitcomb envisioned the ideal transonic transport as having both a supercritical wing and transonic area ruling-and, at a later date, winglets..." So why didn't it happen? I can think of a few reasons: 1. Area ruling would make it much harder to stretch or cut fuselage length for derivatives. The current paradigm of a tube with front and back caps seems ideal for this; the last airliner I can recall that violated this was the Constellation. 2. A transonic aircraft would use more fuel than a subsonic one, and folks are still loath to increase fuel consumption. 3. Traffic control could be a problem with airliners ranging from 0.8 Mach to 0.95 Mach sharing the same airways. 4. General conservatism: it's less risky to build a new plane that does the same thing as existing ones, just bigger or cheaper. -- -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 Feb 11 04:23:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:51 From: michael@princeton.edu (Michael Woodhams) Subject: Mongrel 747s (Re: Development of MD-11?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University Dept of AstroPhysics > That's fine if they happen to use the same airplanes in the same places, > but that may not be the case. United uses their 747-400s across the > Pacific, whereas their 777s fly Atlantic and Latin routes. If they > were to have a hypothetical 747-500/600 stuck in Sydney with a problem > in a PW4084, it wouldn't be much consolation that they hard parts and > expertise in London (and in the US). They can keep PW4084 parts and expertise in Sydney also. It would be no harder than keeping the parts and expertise available for the alternative all-new engine for the hypothetical 747-500/600. As long as *one* of the engines on the mongrel 747 is in common with other planes that airline has in the same place, the airline is no worse off compared to flying 747s with an entirely new engine. > >One disadvantage of mixed engines is that I suppose all engine-out > >performance figures would have to be figured for the worst case, with > >one of the larger engines inoperative. This could result in a lower > >maximum take-off weight for the same airframe. > > I'm not sure it's quite that clear. The bigger engines would presumably > be mounted inboard for weight reasons (as you suggested, though moving > them outboard would solve the ground clearance problem) and, for engines > of the same thrust, an inboard engine failure isn't as serious as an > outboard engine failure due to the shorter lever arm resulting in less > yaw effect. Obviously that doesn't hold if the thrust differential is > great enough, but it would take more analysis to say with confidence > that the failure of a larger inboard engine would be the worst case. I would have thought that putting the big engines outboard would be preferable from a weight point of view - the big issue is not supporting the engines when the plane is on the ground, but supporting the fuselage when the plane is in the air. I would have thought that putting the big engine outboard would allow a weaker (lighter) wing between the two engines. I assumed that putting the big engine inboard was entirely due to asymmetric thrust considerations with an engine out. Thinking about weight however, might balance be a problem if the big engines were mounted outboard and one parted company with the wing? Disclaimer - my only expertise in this field is regularly reading this newsgroup. Michael W. From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Mongrel 747s (Re: Development of MD-11?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> That's fine if they happen to use the same airplanes in the same places, >> but that may not be the case. United uses their 747-400s across the >> Pacific, whereas their 777s fly Atlantic and Latin routes. If they >> were to have a hypothetical 747-500/600 stuck in Sydney with a problem >> in a PW4084, it wouldn't be much consolation that they hard parts and >> expertise in London (and in the US). > >They can keep PW4084 parts and expertise in Sydney also. It would >be no harder than keeping the parts and expertise available for >the alternative all-new engine for the hypothetical 747-500/600. >As long as *one* of the engines on the mongrel 747 is in common with >other planes that airline has in the same place, the airline >is no worse off compared to flying 747s with an entirely new engine. You're assuming they fly other types to the same place, which is a totally unreasonable assumption. Continuing with the United/Sydney example, UA only flies to SYD from LAX and SFO, both comparable distances. They currently fly both routes with the 747-400. If they needed a hypothetical 747-500/600 on one of the routes, they'd very likely need it on the other one, too. Therefore, they'd have to have support for both engine types for just the one aircraft type. This is hardly unusual. AA flies nothing but the MD-11 across the Pacific (and will transition to the 777 exclusively). Ditto for DL. UA is moving towards having nothing but the 747-400 in the Pacific division for passenger service (Hawaii is Domestic, not Pacific), and already flies only the 767-300(ER) and 777 in the Atlantic and Latin divisions. There are plenty of other examples. In all of these cases, a mixed-engine design forces the airline to have support for two engine types in far-flung locations, where a new engine would allow them to support only one engine type in those locations. >I would have thought that putting the big engines outboard would >be preferable from a weight point of view - the big issue is not >supporting the engines when the plane is on the ground, but supporting >the fuselage when the plane is in the air. I would have thought that >putting the big engine outboard would allow a weaker (lighter) wing >between the two engines. Huh?! The entire wing generates lift, not just the wing root. The fuselage and payload weight vastly more than even the heaviest 777 engines, so where you place the heavier engines is little bearing on how strong the wing has to be at a given location to lift a given fuselage and payload weight. Whether you like it or not, you *do* have to support the engines when the plane is on the ground. Putting a heavier weight further out means the wing has to be stronger, since on the ground the support is coming from the wing root (where the main landing gear attach). In addition, the wing also has to convey the thrust forces of the engine to the rest of the airframe -- in flight, the engines are essentially dragging the rest of the plane along with them. Those forces require a significant amount of structure, too, and putting the higher thrust engines outboard again increases the necessary structure. -- 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 Feb 11 04:23:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:53 From: Nathan Pusey Subject: Flying High ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cairns Network Services Reply-To: nat@cairns.net.au Hello, Can somebody please explain to me why planes (jet aircraft) fly at very high altitudes on long range flights, and how does this conserve fuel and get maximum distance ? How does this conserve fuel and save time if you can only go half the speed you normally can go at low altitude and you have to use twice the amount of power to get too half the power you get at lower altitudes ? Thanks in advance. From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:54 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia > One disadvantage of mixed engines is that I suppose all engine-out >performance figures would have to be figured for the worst case, with >one of the larger engines inoperative. This could result in a lower >maximum take-off weight for the same airframe. I doubt this is as much of a problem as it seems to be. In the 1980's Qantas had a 747-100 with 1 x JT9D-3A's, 1 X JT9D-7A , 2 x JT9D-7F. It was a leased aircraft, but there is considerable variation in engine performance there. My recollection is that covers about 40,000 to 48,000 pounds thrust. I don't know what impact that had on procedures. I imagine it might have made the autothrottles interesting, but QANTAS had so much trouble with P&W autothrottles they disabled them quite early on so that was a non-issue. Given that this was obviously an early 747-100, I doubt it impacted the MGTOW at all. The thing was probably certified for the -3A's. My thoughts anyway. From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:55 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Thomas A. Beckley wrote: > What about UPS now flying passengers? What aircraft are they using for > those charter flights I've heard they're operating on the weekends (And I > even saw a UPS check in counter when I was in Tampa, FL last year for the > Fourth of July ...). The 7 UPS ships are 727-100 QC aircraft, former passenger aircraft. Seats and overheads are palletized for "easy" installation/removal. -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 USA office 516-944-0900, fax-7280, mailto:rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco/ From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:56 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , Chris Dahler wrote: > On 24 Jan 1998 skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: > > Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 > > (N700GS). Does anyone know the routing or how the aircraft is > > performing? > ... So far, the -700 is being used on > short flights in and out of DAL (on Sunday, I flew it > DAL-AMA-DAL-AUS-DAL-AMA-DAL), and on short flights out of PHX. SW will > continue this practice for a few months until all the bugs show up and > are ironed out, and then the aircraft will be put into general service > throughout the system. So far, no complaints. I was told today that as of right now, the dispatch reliability of Southwest's 737-700s is 100 percent. This won't last, of course, but it's an impressive way to introduce a new plane. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:57 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Andrew Muir wrote: > Brian Ratcliff wrote: > > On 24 Jan 1998 skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: > > > Southwest started revenue service on 1/18/98 with their first 737-700 > > > (N700GS). Does anyone know the routing or how the aircraft is > > > performing? > > The word we got here at Boeing is this first airplane will be flying > DAL-HOU-HRL-HOU-DAL-AMA-DAL-AUS-DAL-AMA-DAL. Not exactly the "long legs" the NG 737 was designed for, but the high cycles get any bugs worked out quickly... -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 USA office 516-944-0900, fax-7280, mailto:rwmannco@interport.net http://www.interport.net/~rwmannco/ From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:58 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 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 Andrew Muir wrote: >The word we got here at Boeing is this first airplane will be flying >DAL-HOU-HRL-HOU-DAL-AMA-DAL-AUS-DAL-AMA-DAL. Speaking of B-737-700... I've heard that some carriers make it a practice to disable the RTO safety features (auto brake, etc) on B-737 aircraft so equipped as a concession to training standardization... Would any Bluecoater care to explain the pros and cons of such a policy... and discuss these in light of considerations such as uncertainty about take-off weight (carry-on baggage, etc.), reduced power take-offs, higher gross weights, possibly higher V1, Vr and Vlof, etc. Should the flight deck be concerned about the suggestion that all these factors seem to imply shorter runway remaining lengths than those necessary for successful RTO??????? Reaction/Comments???? From kls Wed Feb 11 04:23:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:23:59 From: rcteller@aol.com (RcTeller) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com It seems Southwest has been using -700's out of Ellington Field near Houston for training. It's attracted the attention of many at the airport where I work who just assume they've started service there. They apparently haven't but it wouldn't be such a stretch of the imagination to see them there. It is an airport with relatively little use surrounded by population and very close to the Johnson Space Center. On an unrelated footnote, my wife and I are flying out of there tommorrow on a crosstown hop on a Continental Express ATR-42 to connect with our Continental flight to Chicago. We're just treating it like a free aerial tour of Houston. They parking is free at Ellington too!! That's better than what we'd find at Hobby or Bush. Later, Paul From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:00 From: "Jeff Coons" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Robert J. Carpenter wrote in message ... >Karl Swartz wrote: >> > I have noticed that many DC9s at USAirways seem to bear the NxxxVJ >> > designation, whereas ValuJet's DC9s bear a different appellation (so >> > don't appear to be ex-Valujet). Any idea where the VJ designation on >> > these came from? >> >> Apparently it comes from Vista Jet, Allegheny's name for their DC-9s. >> At least that's what a USAir DC-9 pilot told a friend of mine. > >Wasn't it from New York Air? VJ is from VistaJet at Allegheny. New York Air had a variety of registrations. Some airplanes, initially, used ---NY registrations, others retained their original Texas International registrations. The MD80's ordered all had NY registrations which CO kept for quite a while until re-registering to make consistent with their fleet numbering system. -- ============================================ Remove nospam to reply via email From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:01 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Body in B767 gear bay Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The body of an unidentified middle-aged man was found in the gear bay of a B767 after it had arrived at Gatwick from Baku in Azerbaijan (5 1/2 hour flight), on the night of Saturday 7th Feb. The aircraft was parked in a hangar overnight, and the body was discovered by BA staff during routine maintenance checks on Sunday morning. It was not explicitly stated in the reports, but it appears that the stowaway was in the nose gear bay. (The compartment was described as being 4ft high, 6ft wide and 12ft long, when not occupied by the gear.) Sources: BBC Radio 4 news and Guardian, Monday 9th Feb. 1998. 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 Wed Feb 11 04:24:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:02 From: Julian Wasserman Subject: Yaw Dampers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hebrew University Racah Institute of Physics Reply-To: jlnwsrmn@vms.huji.ac.il 1. To what extent are yaw dampers used,if at all, during crosswind take-offs in a 737? 2. In those cases when yaw dampers are used how are they operated and what is the usual and maximum control surface deflection? Cordially, Jules From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:03 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. 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) C-upi@clari.net (UPI) writes: > The Boeing 727 jetliner remained mired deep in the mud today, 1,500 >feet off the tarmac. None of the 115 passengers and six crew members >aboard was injured but the plane lost its landing gear, left engine and >baggage was thrown across a field. {200 ft short of 14R} > Aviation Commissioner Mary Rose Loney said, ``It's going to be quite >a job getting the aircraft out of the mud. It's buried.'' > Loney said crews may have to construct a gravel road to support heavy >equipment such as a crane needed to remove the plane. I thought there existed large lifting bags that were set under the wings and inflated....... In any case, you know it will scrapped after this.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:04 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> asked: >Karl Swartz wrote: >> The first three A340s were all retained by Airbus, though it appears >> that only the first was a prototype. I have no idea why they wouldn't >> have sold the other two. > > Could this have to do with a need to test multiple versions of software > and how they react to various situations ? I doubt it. The FCS on the A340 is designed on very similar lines to that of the A320: 5 interconnected boxes, each of which is dual channel. The outputs of the monitoring channel and command channel are compared on every cycle, and if a mismatch is detected, the box shuts itself down and the others take over as much of its function as they can. The software in the two channels is diverse (different languages, means of compilation, etc.). Having two working versions of the software in each box is therefore essential before an A3XX can even get off the ground (not to mention the problem of getting an airworthiness certificate). This is something with which Airbus have a lot of experience. (The A320 went into service in 1987 (88?). The software is thrashed on the bench and then on the "iron bird" simulator before being allowed anywhere near a moving aircraft. This does not mean that they always get it totally right first time, and the software does get updated during the working life of the model, but I don't think that the reason for retaining two production aircraft had anything to do with the need for a flying testbed. 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 Wed Feb 11 04:24:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:05 From: Ken Rose Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Pete Mellor wrote: > For a summary of the course of events, see my 1994 paper > "CAD: Computer-aided Disaster" Where would I find a copy of it? Thanks - Ken Rose From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:06 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Niels Sampath wrote: > >The first three A340s were all retained by Airbus, though it appears > >that only the first was a prototype. I have no idea why they wouldn't > >have sold the other two. > > I thought that 2 had been sold to BWIA, which then cancelled, > and they were then taken up by Virgin. CorrectMSN 2 is an A340-311 former F-WWAS now operated by VS (Virgin) as G-VHOL (since 30-05-97) MSN 3 is an A340-311 former F-WWDA now operated by VS (Virgin) as G-VSEA (since 07-07-97) > Speculation: There was a report in a recent Flight International > about Airbus building A340-based-Belugas. Right have a look at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ beluga.htm. But those Mega-belugas are just projects. Cheers, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:07 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Andrew Cruickshank wrote: > Conicidentally I seem to recall that an Airbus (A330? MAS?) was > damaged by fire while parked overnight at Changi, Singapore > just over a year ago. Correct this was MSN 67 an A330-322 Reg. 9M-MKA which was damaged on 01-04-97 in Singapore. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:08 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: DELTA AIR LINES 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Matthew Usdan Goldberg wrote: > I work for Delta Air Lines as a gate agent, but many of us here in the > company have heard that due to the Asian financial crises, we are > receiving 5 777-200IGW's originally destined to Malaysian Airlines You are close but not 100% right ;) The 772 in question are from the original Asiana order. They will be equipped with PW engines opposed to the DL choice of RR engines for their 772. > but they are broke... No they are close but not yet broke ... My 0.02 Euro, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:09 From: "Brandon T. Hamilton" Subject: Re: DELTA AIR LINES 777 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 > If so, PLEASE let me know! EMAIL ME PERSONALLY, NOT TO THE NEWSGROUP!!! Please also send it to the newsgroup so us inquiring minds will know also. -Brandon From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:10 From: nak@lucent.com (Neil Kirby) Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T [rear facing seats ] The America West team plane for the Phoenix Suns (a 737) has a set of back facing seats with a table between them and the next row. a) On that plane, in those seats, leg room is *not* an issue. I've been in gods-only-know how many 737 and nearly all of them have little leg room in Y class seating. b) The seats are halfway back, so half of coach gets to stare at anything you do. For some people that's not a problem. My wife told me that it felt peculiar to be nursing our son with such a large audience. Once that was done, the space available was an absolute godsend for traveling with a little person. (While we are on safety, all of you parents out there: buy then a ticket, and belt their car seat into it. The car seat means "long trip, take nap" and lap means "we get to play, even though I should sleep!" Flight crews refer to babies in laps as "projectiles" in crashes. If you have sufficient cash for air travel, you ought to have enough to pay the extra seat. End soap box lecture, thanks.) c) Some people, myself one of them, dislike rear facing while traveling. I find it discomforting, and nauseating on very long trips. Planes are not so bad, but trains or worse yet cars and buses with rear facing seats bother me. It was fine as a kid, but it's a problem now. --- Neil Kirby DoD #0783 nak@lucent.com Lucent Technologies - Home of Bell Labs Innovations Bell Labs Columbus OH USA +1 (614) 860-5304 Hope is not a strategy. Tuning is not a plan. Prayer is not a process. From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:11 From: "Helge Forstner" Subject: Re: airbag anyone?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aviation Management Con$ulting Hello there, >The first row on at least some USAir DC-9s was backwards, too. I flew >in one of those seats once. It was a bit weird, not going backwards >but feeling like you were on a stage, with the rest of the cabin as the >audience. British Airways used to have half of the Cabin looking backwards on their BAC 1-11. H.Forstner Aviation Management Con$ulting h.forstner@forstner-amc.ce.uunet.de From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:12 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com > > Correct, the KC-135/C-135 etc have the same fuselage section as the > > original Boeing 707 prototype model 367-80 which is smaller than the > > production 707. The -135's also have a different wing to the 707. > > Really there is very little in common between the -135's and the 707 > > apart from appearance and engines. The 367-80 has a upper fuselage lobe width of 132 inches. KC-135s have a 144 inch upper lobe and 707s and 720s have a 148 inch upper lobe. 727s, 737s and 757s have the same 148 inch upper lobe, but have different lower lobes. KC-135s and 707-100s have the same wing. 707-320s have a modified wing, with a trailing edge "Yehudi" and a outboard leading edge extension. 367-80's wing has been modified so that it now is representative of a 707-320 (it now also has JT3Ds). The 720s have a 707-100 wing, with a glove on the inboard area. I believe that all the 707s and KC-135s that started out with the short vertical tail were modified to have the taller vertical tail early in their lifetimes. I still haven't figured out which 707s did and didn't have the ventral fin. There appears to also have been two different size ventral fins. The KC-135s and 707-100s had a horizontal tail with a span of 39'8". 707-320s have a 45'8" span horizontal tail. This has now been retrofitted to all KC-135s, when they were reengined. The likely reason for this was to increase longitudinal stability. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Feb 11 04:24:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:13 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom C. Marin Faure wrote: > The DC-8 had 3-3 seating from the outset, which is why the airlines > threatened to buy it when Boeing initially refused to widen the > as-designed KC-135/707 fuselage, which only accomodated 3-2 seating. > When Boeing realized the airlines weren't kidding when they said they > wanted 3-3 seating, they widened the 707 fuselage to be one inch wider > than the DC-8. The KC-135 (Boeing 717) fuselage retained its original > width, however. How ironic!! So the next designs give us the 727 with 3-3 seating, and the DC-9 with 3-2 seating!! And now, the DC-9 has evolved into the 717-200, which was the original Boeing 717, which was only suited for 3-2 seating. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could go to town on this one :-) Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Feb 11 04:24:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:24:14 From: wsherr6080@aol.com (WSherr6080) Subject: Re: Boeing 720B References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The Boeing 720B is 8 feet shorter than the 707 and therefore more susceptible to a weather induced 'pitch-up' from a strong updraft, due to the shorter moment arm. e.g., The Northwest Airlines Boeing 720B fatal accident near Miami, Fl. on February 12, 1963 the pilots' reacted to a weather induced 'pitch-up' by trimming both the horizontal stabilizer and the elevators full nose down, along with a strong forward pitch control input. The aircraft was upset into a vertical dive. The crew had about 35 seconds to recover from 19,000 feet. The aircraft came apart in the air. From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.simulators Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:22 From: ei7gm@no-spam.iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: RVR VIS cat I II III ?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@no-spam.iol.ie Greetings Y'ALL A request for info or pointers for info follows.... Can someone give me the numbers ( in metres or feet) for .. RVR for CAT I + CAT II and CAT III Vis range for CAT I conditions when 200Feet above terrain ON G/Slope+Loc Vis range for CAT II conditions when 100Feet above terrain ON G/Slope+Loc Vis range for CAT III conditions when 50 Feet above terrain ON G/Slope+loc The actual ""number of lights/cross-bars seen"" will also do. *** anti spam in operation. reply to ei7gm@iol.ie please From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:23 From: Maurice Byrne Subject: nosewheel boeing 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indigo Is there any AD or indeed any rule on what is used as a nosewheel pin for an aircraft. And is there anywhere a rule whereby it states that a red tag must be attached to the pin or indeed any pin. Would it make a difference wheither it was a passanger of freight aircraft. I would appreciate any help on this issue. Maurice Byrne Dublin Ireland From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:24 From: Randy Pierce Subject: Runway Lengths Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: wales011@concentric.net Could someone mail me the length of runway needed to land for today's airliners? I live in a city with an airport of 7,500 feet and wondered what exactly could land there. I'd love to see a DC-10 fly in. Thanks. Dave. dglasgow@iusb.edu From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:25 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote in message ... >I wonder what would be typical rates of climb and descent for airliners. >I suppose standard procedures provide for low figures in order to try to >make the ride as smooth as possible for the passengers. I also would >like to know what are the limit rates in both cases. I mean, for a twin >engine aircraft like the 767, "almost empty" (i.e. no passengers/load >and a small amount of fuel) does the climb rate exceed 5000 fpm? For the >same 767 fully loaded, spoilers on, etc, would be the figure similar to >this (downwards)? It does not to be a 767. I just would like to have an >idea on the subject. A 737-400 pilot told me that on take-off there is a maximum 20 degrees nose up rule. A 727-100QF pilot told me that when they're real light they have to sometimes reduce power on climb-out so they don't break the 250kt speed limit under 10,000'. In descent there is probably no limit. If ATC wants you lower NOW I think you can drop like a rock. On descent it's probably at the pilot's discretion. matt757@earthlink.net matt lehde IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING! From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:26 From: "Chris Dahler" Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Global Services, Inc >I wonder what would be typical rates of climb and descent for airliners. >I suppose standard procedures provide for low figures in order to try to >make the ride as smooth as possible for the passengers. I also would >like to know what are the limit rates in both cases. I mean, for a twin >engine aircraft like the 767, "almost empty" (i.e. no passengers/load >and a small amount of fuel) does the climb rate exceed 5000 fpm? For the >same 767 fully loaded, spoilers on, etc, would be the figure similar to >this (downwards)? It does not to be a 767. I just would like to have an >idea on the subject. There are no "limits" as such to rates of climb and descent; you are only limited by the power available, the efficiency of the wing, and the weight of the aircraft. Typically, lightly loaded twin jet modern airliners will easily exceed 5000 fpm; the vertical speed indicator stops at 6000 fpm, but once this instrument is pegged there's no telling how fast you are going up. Descent rates are quite a bit lower. Due to the increasing efficiency of modern wing designs, modern aircraft do not want to come down in a hurry. The limiting factor here is airspeed. Speed brakes help, but not much. You can start a descent at 35,000 feet or so by going to 4000 to 6000 fpm, but as you get into the mid-20,000 feet range, you'll have to back that off to around 3000 to 3500 at the most or you'll exceed design airspeed limits. Chris Dahler From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:27 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca Is there a "passenger comfort" component in limiting the rate of descent of any aircraft ? I am thinking in terms of cabin pressure change rate during descent which can cause quite a bit of pain in ears if it is too fast. DOes this rate vary according to aircrtaft type ? (eg: DC-9 seems to have poor pressure controls so its rate of descent would be more limited than a 747 for instance). From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:28 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote: > I wonder what would be typical rates of climb and descent for airliners. > I suppose standard procedures provide for low figures in order to try to > make the ride as smooth as possible for the passengers. The standard glide slope angle to the runway is 3 degrees. Of course, it may be steeper due to terrain, etc. With initial approach speeds of 250 knots, some simple trig and unit conversion will give you the rate of descent. The desirable initial descent from cruise is as steep and rapid as possible (within passenger comfort, ATC, and pressurization controller limitations). The idea is to keep the aircraft at higher, fuel efficient altitudes as long as possible. Also, it is an instinct of all pilots to avoid "low energy" approaches (long and flat). This goes back to basic flight training, where you should always be in an approach configuration where you can glide to the runway if the engine quits (not as big an issue in airliners). Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:29 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent 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 25 Jan 98 03:27:40 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>for a twin engine aircraft like the 767, "almost empty" (i.e. no >>passengers/load and a small amount of fuel) does the climb rate exceed >>5000 fpm? > >I don't know about the 767, but I've been on a 757 with a moderate >passenger load and modest fuel load (an SFO-LAX flight) which exceeded >5000 fpm quite easily. I'd think a very light 767 could do the same >with no problem. This depends entirely on the operator. At low weight many operators reduce takeoff power to save engine wear so the climb rates are almost the same as for a heavy takeoff. 5000 fpm is extreme. Most of the flights I have analysed peaked around 4500 fpm. ttfn From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:30 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com >What happens to airliner prototypes? Simple - if they are Boeings, they end up in Seattle! Boeing is storing 367-80 at Boeing Field, along with the last 307. The Museum of Flight, on the field, owns the last 80A, a 247 and the prototype 727, 737 and 747. Boeing still operates the prototype 757, 767 and 777 from the field too. All that is missing is the last unguppied 377, which might still exist in Israel and a 314, none of which exist, though the Museum of Flight has the rudder from one. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Feb 11 04:26:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:31 From: p_hamilton@pipeline.com (Paul Lawrence Hamilton) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. Reply-To: p_hamilton@pipeline.com don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) wrote: >I suspect upgrading the 367-80 to airliner standard would have been a >fairly major undertaking. As it was, the Dash-80 was pretty thoroughly >abused by Boeing as a testbed for all sorts of weird stuff -- engine >testbed, several flap configurationd, rear engine mounting (for the 727) >are just a few of the things the Dash-80 had done to it. You will be glad to know that, after an amazing service life that included all the above (plus Tex Johnsons famous barrel roll over Lake Washington) the prototype was restored as a museum piece. Certainly one of the most significant aircraft of the century. Paul Lawrence Hamilton, WWW.METROFLIGHT.W1.COM Samis & Hamilton Airport and Aviation Consultants (301) 299-3573 From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:32 From: tyler@plk.af.mil (David Tyler) Subject: Re: TWA 800 question: fuel flow problem References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab. jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> writes: >Last question: with a wing tank almost full, what would happen if a pump >in centre fuel tank were to start to pump air/fumes from an empty centre >tank to a wing tank. Would this cause bubbles/foam to form in the wing >tank ? Could this possibly cause an engine's fuel intake to draw some of >that bubbled fuel and explain the "crazy fuel flow indicator" ? if that were the case, one would observe correlated engine phenomena such as fluctuating egt, etc., indicating that the amount of fuel go- ing to the engine _really was_ changing. as it stands, it seems like an instrument problem. dave ______________________________________________________________________ -David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not -Air Force Research Laboratory of benefit to the public." -Albuquerque, New Mexico -tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:33 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: TWA 800 question: fuel flow problem References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote in message ... >OK. We know that centre fuel tank exploded. And 1.5 minutes prior to >that explosion, there is a "crazy fuel flow indicator" for an engine. >Couldn't the initial problems not have been caused by an electrical >problem which eventually sparked the explosion ? I don't think this could be the cause of the explosion... A fuel flow indicator would probably be located out on the engine. If it sparked, the wing would have blown up first. >Could someone put this "crazy fuel flow indicator" in perspective ? Is >this something which is as common as someone sneezing and considered >perfectly normal ? I doubt it's very serious. When I was fueling airliners they would have inop fuel (level)guages every once in a while. Just inconvenient... Lots of extra calculations. Of course it's possible that there may have been a fuel pump failure on that engine, but that would only result in power loss and engine shut-down. Not a CWT explosion. Most likely a guage malfunction. >Also, what exactly did the pilot mean by "where this thing's trimmed" ? That is in reference to the trimming of the flight controls to "trim" the airplane to fly level and at the desired pitch. After fuel,cargo, and passengers are loaded and the doors are closed. weight and balance calculations are done to determine the proper trim setting for the horizonal stabiliser. If this setting is incorrect it could cause under or over-rotation on take-off resulting in a catostrofic runway overrun or a stall immediately after rotation. The aircraft trim may have been off slightly requiring the pilot to apply forward or back pressure on the control yoke. This doesn't seem like a big problem to me since they had flown all that distance with no problems. It was probably just annoying... Hopefully an airline pilot will respond... I'm not one yet. >Also, how is fuel distributed to each engine ? On the 747-400 with the automated fuel system during take-off each engine draws off its own wing tank, and after flap retraction draws all fuel from the CenterWT. After the CWT is empty it feeds from the Main 2 & 3 tanks... Main 1 is between Engine 1 & 2, main 2 between Eng 2 and the CWT, main 3 is between the CWT and Eng 3, main 4 is between Eng 3 & 4. Small reserve tanks are outboard of Eng 1 & 4. After 2 & 3 are down to the same level as 1 & 4 each Eng feeds from its own tank. Of course on a 747-100 the fuel distribution is controlled by the flight engineer, but I think on take-off and landing it's standard the for the Engs to feed off their own tanks. >Last question: with a wing tank almost full, what would happen if a pump >in centre fuel tank were to start to pump air/fumes from an empty centre >tank to a wing tank If air/fumes were pumped into the wings it would just go out the fuel tank vents, wouldn't it? Hopefully some airline pilots will respond. The main cause of the crash was the navy missile tearing through the fuselage just forward of the CWT and the resulting rapid decompression. [Moderator's Note: The bit about the missile is of course totally unsubstantiated speculation, not fact as implied. -- Karl] matt757@earthlink.net matt lehde IF IT'S NOT BOEING I'M NOT GOING! From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:34 From: jdhi Subject: Re: Nigeria airways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Reply-To: jdhil@ibm.net Marc: I have my doubts it's a true story for several reasons: 1) Assymetric thrust would make the initial takeoff roll very difficult to control. Nosewheel steering can only do so much. 2) It would make the takeoff roll much longer. Maybe too long as I doubt there's a chart done during certification. I think they are all done after V2 3) I can't imagine passengers riding the damn thing. 4) I can't imagine a crew dumb enough to try it. I wonder if they did. . . . . . . . .jd From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:35 From: Jim Wolper Subject: Re: Nigeria airways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISU Mathematics Department Marc Schaeffer wrote: > START ITEM > You're going to have to believe me on this one. I flew on the Nigerian > Airways flight from Lagos to London on the A310. On takeoff from Lagos, > fire spewed from the left engine. We climbed to about 2,000 feet, then > promplty landed in Lagos again. I went to the cockpit, where the pilot > informed me that since we had a VIP on our flight that had to be in > London soon, we had to takeoff without the engine. So, we did. Nonsense. A non-centerline-thrust twin engine airplane can't maintain heading with one engine idle and the other producing takeoff thrust below a known speed called V_{mcg}. There are procedures for THREE engine takeoffs in FOUR engine airplanes, involving symmetrical thrust early and addition of thrust from the third engine as speed builds up. A long runway helps, too. I'd imagine that anyone trying this in a twin would end up in a smoking hole next to the runway. Jim Wolper ATP/PhD/MEI From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:36 From: tyler@plk.af.mil (David Tyler) Subject: Re: KC-135 minutiae (was: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet") References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab. westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) writes: > Under another modification program, all Air Force Reserve and Air > National Guard tankers were re-engined with TF-33-PW-102 engines. The > re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, is 14 percent more fuel > efficient than the KC-135A and can carry 20 percent more fuel. >So I guess the answer is "yes". I suspect that the "TF-33-PW-102" is >military terminology for some fairly familiar airliner engine; perhaps >the turbofan engine from a later 707. it's my understanding that usaf bought up a slew of old boneyard 707s just to get those engines. dave ______________________________________________________________________ -David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not -Air Force Research Laboratory of benefit to the public." -Albuquerque, New Mexico -tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:37 From: "Matthew Lehde" Subject: Re: MD95-->717-200/ 707s, turbofans & stabs. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Niels Sampath wrote in message ... >In article > don@news.daedalus.co.nz "Don Stokes" writes: >>I don't recall a change to the horizontal stabiliser on the 707 -- >>what was it (and why)? > > Yes, when the change was made from `turbo' to fan jets > they got new stabs. Includes retrofits-> not sure exactly > `why'. May have just been a useful aerodynamic modification > based on on-going research that needed major downtime to > install (i.e. during re-engining) as much as due to the > change in engines. Were these new stabs bigger? Maybe the turbofans were heavier and the weight of a heavier horizontal stab. aft of the CG would re-balance the airframe. Or vice versa. Just brainstorming... You guys know waaaaay more than me about 707s. :) matt757@earthnet.net matt lehde, 747 assembler Fly Boeing! From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:38 From: "David E. Pearce Jr." Subject: Re: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lockheed Martin Niels Sampath wrote: > In article > don@news.daedalus.co.nz "Don Stokes" writes: > >I don't recall a change to the horizontal stabiliser on the 707 -- > >what was it (and why)? > > Yes, when the change was made from `turbo' to fan jets > they got new stabs. Includes retrofits-> not sure exactly > `why'. May have just been a useful aerodynamic modification There was a rebuild of horizontal stabs on high time 707's due to a fatigue crack that was hard to find. A couple of 707's had their tails fall off during landing. I believe these referb'd stabs were what were put on the KC-135E's. From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:39 From: National Aero Safety Subject: The Rumble of Thunder in the Sky, 1HP per LB Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aviation / Industrial Safety Services Reply-To: nataero@wwisp.com (This is the second try at posting this article, as Dejanews is getting lame.) There have been many Great Radial Aero Engines produced around the world beginning about the second decade after the turn of the century, and continuing into the present. Of all the examples constructed by various Manufacturers, to include BMW, Pratt & Whitney, Wright Aeronautical, and others, the most noteworthy of the lot are probably the P&W R-4360, the Wright R-3350, and the P&W R-2800. To concentrate on the largest Engines, both the 4360, and the 3350 could be considered Monsters in comparison to other "Round" Engines of the World. The designations of piston Aero engines are confusing to some, but quite simply, the numbers are Cubic Inches. Therefore the R-4360 is an air cooled radial designed power plant, having 28 cylinders comprising 4,360 Cubic inches, producing 3,500 Horse Power while weighing in at at trim 3,500 Pounds(1,575 KG). The Wright R-3350 Cyclone & Turbo Cyclone, came in various Horse Power ranges from 3,250 to over 3,400 HP. It was, and is, a twin row design, of 18 cylinders(9 per row), comprising 3,350 cubic inches, producing the enormous Horsepower range outlined above.(I don't know the weight, sorry.) Of the two Monster Engines, the Pratt & Whitney 4360 was said to be the most Technically Advanced and complex reciprocating aircraft engine that was ever produced in large numbers. I would imagine that experienced mechanics may argue that the Turbo Compound version of the Wright 3350 was more complex, or at least was more prone to break-down? Regardless, these great machines were magnificent at hauling large Airframes into the Sky for various purposes. R-4360's were found on B-50's; KB-50's; B-36's; C-97's; KC-97's; Boeing 377 Airliners; Douglas C-124 GlobeMasters; and later versions of the C-119. R-3350's were found on the B-29's; C-121's; P-2 Neptunes; early C-119's; The DC-7 Airliner; The Lockheed Super Constallation 1049 Airliner; and the Douglas A-1 SkyRaider. Believe it or not, these were not the largest Radial engines ever built! That honor goes to "Lycoming", who designed and tested the XR-7755. The XR-7755 had 36 cylinders, 9 overhead camshafts, weighed 6,050 Pounds(2,713kg), was liquid cooled, and produced 5,000 HorsePower when the project was terminated. The engine was designed with "7,000 HorsePower" in mind, but the Government Funded Project was dropped before those numbers could be obtained. By comparison with Liquid cooled in-line, or "V"-in-line Aero Engines, there is NO COMPARISON! The Allison V-1710-G6 weighs approximately 1,600 Pounds(717kg), and produces only 1,250 HP. The Rolls Royce Merlin is roughly the same weight and produces only 30 HP more. [As a side note, as of 1995, Rolls Royce has wholely Owned the Allison Engine Company in the US. Of course the BMW Organization holds the Majority Interest in BMW-Rolls Royce GmbH, which is the principle "Risk Partner" on the Trent Engine and others, in addition to the BR-700 Series that it produces in Germany. Pratt & Whitney still builds Aero Engines(Jets), and Curtiss Wright manufacturers Control and actuation systems for the AeroSpace Industry Worldwide.] If someone would care to discuss the Propellers used by these engines and others, please step right up and Post! ROSWELL From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:40 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: VTL Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca re: other non Boeing/Airbus orders. While Fokker may financially be out of the picture, was its order books not fairly well furnished at the time the company went bankrupt ? It is not possible that it still completed some orders prior to physically closing its manufacturing plant(s) ? Come to think of it, what is left of Fokker now ? Does the name still exist ? Does it have some maintenance facilities or have they sold that to a third party ? Are Fokker's assembly plants empty, sold to another company for other purposes (building toys/cars/furniture etc) or have they remained in the aerospace field, and if so, who now owns them ? From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:41 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 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 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Karl Swartz" writes: >Possibly Sirocco/Tupolev, which sold a handful of RB.211-535 powered >Tu-204s to someone in southeast Asia (Vietnam?). I'm not sure if the >sale was last year, though. Was it SE-Asia/Vietnam? I thought it was an Egyptian concern. In either case, the latest World Airline Fleets News says Sirocco will support Tu-204 operations by the Egyptian Air Force (4 freighters and 2 VIP a/c) and Golden Jordan, a new start-up, with 4 R-R powered 204s. -- -Niels From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:42 From: Marc Hookerman Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>And what is different from what I said. ATR was a 50-50 partnership >>with Aerospatiale which is a major partner with Airbus. And how did >>that not make ATR a part of Airbus Industrie? > >I own stock in both Southwest Airlines and UAL Corp. (United's parent). >By your logic, that makes Southwest a division of UAL. > >Sorry, but just because the same company owned a piece of both ATR and >Airbus doesn't make one a division or any other part of the other. I used to be a route planner and scheduler for TWA and AIA, and my sources tell me that ATR and Airbus Industrie were partners with Aerospatiale. We are talking about Aircraft Manufacturing corporations, not airlines. They all were tied together to form the Aerospatiale group. Everything from the concorde to the guppy was considered part of Aerospatiale. Making ATR, Airbus, and Bae a european aircraft manufacturing group. Of course...if you run XXX airlines, and you have a piece of YYY and ZZZ, you therefore are apart of each other. Take Star Alliance for instance. All airlines in that net work together to help and better one another. I see where your coming from...and I can grasp what your saying, but I still feel that ATR was just as much a part of Airbus and Airbus was a part of Aerospatiale...etc...etc. Marc From kls Wed Feb 11 04:26:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I used to be a route planner and scheduler for TWA and AIA, and my >sources tell me that ATR and Airbus Industrie were partners with >Aerospatiale. One source told me the Tupolev 154 I was looking at was a DC-10. Choose your sources more carefully. >We are talking about Aircraft Manufacturing corporations, not airlines. We are talking about the legal framework of businesses. Such laws do not generally distinguish between the particular product and/or service a business offers when determining details of ownership strucuture. Indeed, Airbus is organized as a Groupement d'Intérêts Economiques (GIE), a structure unique (or nearly so) to France which was created for winemakers. The law does not specify that it can only be used for enterprises engaged in the making of wine, and since it was convenient for the purpose it ended up being applied to a maker of airliners. >They all were tied together to form the Aerospatiale group. Wrong. From http://www.aerospatiale.fr/: On January 1, 1970, the French government officially approved the merger of the three companies Sud-Aviation, Nord-Aviation and Sereb, creating a single company: Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale. No mention there of Airbus nor of ATR, perhaps since neither existed at that time -- Airbus was created on December 18, 1970, while ATR was not created until 1981. (AI(R), the successor to ATR, was created January 1, 1996.) >Everything from the concorde to the guppy was considered part of >Aerospatiale. Wrong again. Concorde was created by an agreement between the British and French governments, dated November 29, 1962. Amongst other things, it specified a company from each country for the airframe (BAC and Sud Aviation, respectively) and for the engines (Bristol Siddeley and SNECMA, respectively). With the 1970 merger, Aerospatialle became the French airframe partner in the program. As for the guppies, they were built in the US from Boeing 377s. Airbus merely operated a fleet of them. >Making ATR, Airbus, and Bae a european aircraft manufacturing group. If you definte "group" loosely, sure. And ATR, Airbus, BAe, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Tupolev, ad nauseum, are a (the!) worldwide aircraft manufacturing group. Which says absolutely nothing. >Of course...if you run XXX airlines, and you have a piece of YYY and >ZZZ, you therefore are apart of each other. Take Star Alliance for >instance. All airlines in that net work together to help and better >one another. Working together does not make one a part or a division of the other. They are simply partners. Indeed, United and Lufthansa (the original Star Alliance partners) made quite clearly that neither had any intention of making any equity investment ("(partial) ownership") in the other, as opposed to, e.g., Northwest and KLM. >I see where your coming from...and I can grasp what your saying Obviously not. >but I still feel that ATR was just as much a >part of Airbus and Airbus was a part of Aerospatiale...etc...etc. You're welcome to feel anything you like. That doesn't make it true, though I doubt we'll change your mind. For those who still don't get it but would like to, try exploring Aerosptiale's web site (http://www.aerospatiale.fr/), which does a very good job of detailing the various parts of the business and how they fit together. -- 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 Feb 11 04:26:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Feb 98 04:26:44 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Benoît) Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grolier Interactive Europe Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr On 26 Jan 98 01:46:12 , Marc Hookerman wrote: >In article , > kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >>>ATR is a division of Airbus. >> >>Wrong. ATR (Avions de Transport Regional) was a 50-50 partnership >>between Aerospatiale (France) and Alenia/Finmeccanica (Italy). Aero- >>spatiale also happens to be a major partner in Airbus, but that indirect >>connection is the only business tie between Airbus and ATR. > >And what is different from what I said. ATR was a 50-50 partnership >with Aerospatiale which is a major partner with Airbus. And how did >that not make ATR a part of Airbus Industrie? Wrong, the company, Groupement d'Intérêts Economiques (GIE) ATR, does not yet exist. All ATR activities was taken by AIR (Aero Regional International) SA which was womposed by ATR activities and Avro ones. There is no interest and no direct link between AIR and Airbus. From news Fri Feb 13 13:36:15 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.mathworks.com!kragar.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Neason Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 Date: 13 Feb 1998 15:18:04 -0500 Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: jf mezei wrote: > re: other non Boeing/Airbus orders. > While Fokker may financially be out of the picture, was its order books > not fairly well furnished at the time the company went bankrupt ? It is > not possible that it still completed some orders prior to physically > closing its manufacturing plant(s) ? > Come to think of it, what is left of Fokker now ? Does the name still > exist ? Does it have some maintenance facilities or have they sold that > to a third party ? > Are Fokker's assembly plants empty, sold to another company for other > purposes (building toys/cars/furniture etc) or have they remained in the > aerospace field, and if so, who now owns them ? A mildly intoxicated man from the Netherlands confessed to me in Long Beach, Ca last Nov during an ATA Forum reception: "We are bankrupt you know." But it turns out that Fokker Services still exists as a maintenance and spares source for the Fokker fleet, even though the aircraft are no longer manufactured. Steve From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:46 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: airliner market analysis [long] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services AE316/317 vs B717-100/200 (aka MD-95) Airbus has learned that it is very difficult to do business with China. Airbus wants to build the smaller AE316 to compete with the B717. The Chinese are interested in the bigger AE317. The other major partner, Singapore Aerospace, is frustrated and is threatening to pull out. For Boeing, losing the battle to Airbus a few years ago could actually be a blessing in disguise. The B717 offers Boeing an economical way to get into the lower end of the commercial aircraft market. As long as Boeing can keep the cost down, the B717 might be moderately successful. A320 vs B737 Since the launch of the third-generation B737, the B737 has been doing very well against the A320. There were more than 700 NG B737s ordered even before Southwest put the first B737-700 into service; this is a record for a new aircraft type. However, last year, the A320 has chalked up quite a few big orders, most notably US Airways' order of 124 A320 family aircraft, NW's order of 50 A319s, and ILFC's order of 50 A320s. This is the first time in quite a few years that the A320 has outsold the B737 (~350 vs 320). In a recent press release, Airbus compared the 350 figure against Boeing's next-generation figure of "barely 200". (I'm not sure how Airbus arrived at this number. According to Boeing's webpage, 235 B737NGs plus 85 second-generation B737s were ordered. Airbus probably excluded the smaller B737-600 with which the A319/320/321 does not compete. Then, the number was 195 which is consistent with the wording "barely".) Anyway, the A320 seems to be doing even better this year. Iberia has announced an order of 50 A320 family aircraft. United will soon sign a contract for another 50 A320s. Many have also reported an upcoming joint order of 100 aircraft by three Latin American carriers. Since the new year, Boeing only got one major B737 order by Southwest with 50+ units. Boeing cannot afford to lose British Airways' order! At the end of last year, all B737 models had a combined backlog of over 900 planes. Inferring from the Iberia press release, Airbus's A320 backlog is around 730. Boeing's planned 1998 production rate for the B737 was at 24 aircraft per month. The latest Airbus figures that I could find are 10 A320s per month at Toulouse and 8 A319/321s per month at Hamburg. If you add UA's and the Latin American orders and do some simple math, Airbus actually is in worse shape than Boeing. This will probably drive the prices for both aircraft up! A330-200 vs B767-400 As I have said so many times, the A330-200 revitalized the A330 program. At this time, the A330-200 has a small lead. Boeing needs some Asian and European customers for the -400. A340-500 vs B777-200X The A340-500 (along with the -600) was officially launched last year. Two airlines had signed letters-of-intent for the ultra-long-range Airbus plane, namely, EVA Air and Air Canada. It seems EVA Air is not a done deal, yet. Boeing is still courting the airline with a B747 alternative. Emirates may be very close to signing up for the A340-500. Both manufacturers are still vying for Singapore's order. Although, the upcoming Asian Aerospace '98 show in Singapore would be a perfect place for an announcement of such order, the financial crisis will probably hold Singapore Airlines back from making any commitment (unless..., see A340-600 vs B777-300X). Asian airlines account for a lot of B777's backlog. Thus, the current economic turmoil probably affects the B777 line more than any other Boeing's and Airbus's products. OTOH, the recent conclusion of US-Japan bilateral negotiations may have signaled a new age for the B777. Continental has already announced its intent to fly the B777 from Newark and Houston to Japan later this year. It's also no secret that American will replace its MD-11s with the B777s which will be its workhorse across the Pacific. Although, Delta does not have any immediate plan to sell the MD-11s, I think you can count on the B777 to eventually replace the MD-11 across the Pacific. Also, US Airways will soon decide between the A330 and B777. All indications are US Airways will order the B777 and Boeing will drop its lawsuit against US Airways. Furthermore, the A330 is not capable of flying between Philadelphia and Tokyo, but the A340 has never been mentioned as a candidate for US Airways. All of a sudden, there will be four airlines using the B777 across the Pacific. Perhaps, TWA may join the crowd, too (but TWA still has 10 A330s on order.) Currently, China Southern is the only carrier uses the B777 for trans-Pacific flights. A340-600 vs B777-300X With the new US-Japan bilateral, there is an incentive for American Airlines to push Boeing for the B777-300X which it will need for the Dallas-Narita and Chicago-Narita services. Furthermore, AA is also interested in secondary routes like Dallas-Hong Kong for which AA will need the B777-200X. Thus, I think the B777-200X/-300X launch will now be driven by AA and maybe DL more so than by some Asian airlines. Nevertheless, it will be a big blow for Boeing if Singapore decides to order the A340-500. Hence, if AA and DL do show strong enough interest, I won't be surprised if Boeing gives Singapore a real sweet deal to kick off the program. The A340-600 has three sizable committments from three credible airlines (Virgin, Swissair, and Lufthansa) plus a few additional smaller orders. At this time, signed firm orders stand at 19 only. To recover the US$3billion investment, Airbus must need more orders. Nonetheless, IMHO, the twin-engine B777-300/300X will eventually be one of Boeing's most successful widebody lines. The B777-200IGW leads the A340-300 by a good margin, even though the former lags the latter by about three to four years. The two-engine/four-engine argument has not been a big issue in the B777-200IGW/A340-300 competition. It will be an even lesser issue in the A340-600/B777-300X competition, because Boeing still has the B747, though not as efficient as the A340-600/B777-300X, to offer. B747 vs A3XX Quite a number of B747 derivatives have surfaced. The 30-year old B747 will never be as efficient as the A3XX on paper. However, if Boeing could steal 20-30% of a relatively small market without spending a lot of money, it could be a very unattractive business proposition for Airbus to build the A3XX. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:47 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com David Lesher wrote: > > Loney said crews may have to construct a gravel road to support heavy > >equipment such as a crane needed to remove the plane. > > I thought there existed large lifting bags that were set under the > wings and inflated....... The bags would lift it, but not haul it. The crane is needed to move the plane as it doesn't look in good enough shape to be towed. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ home email- stauffer@gte.net work email- stauffer@htc.honeywell.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:48 From: y106fm@iamerica.net (toad) Subject: Re: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: iAmerica, Inc. >In any case, you know it will scrapped after this.... Is it common to scrap planes after incidenses like this? Is there anything that can be salvaged? Scott From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:49 From: benburch@wwa.com (Ben Burch) Subject: Re: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. 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: Organisation? You're kidding, right? In article , wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: > I thought there existed large lifting bags that were set under the > wings and inflated....... > > In any case, you know it will scrapped after this.... I believe that portside wing is no longer properly attached... -- "Love is the law, love under will." -Ben Burch benburch@wwa.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.simulators,rec.aviation.piloting,alt.folklore.urban Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:50 From: neil@nook.demon.co.uk (Neil Trotter) Subject: Smoking on the #13 Bus Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Planet Nook Reply-To: neil@nook.demon.co.uk All the silly talk about B747s performing barrel rolls over the Puget Sound put me in mind of another tall tale, but one which appears to have some basis in truth. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In the late Sixties, passengers on a London bus crossing Tower Bridge were afforded a rare close-up of a high-speed, low-flying fighter plane. One startled onlooker told newspapers at the time, "I heard a sudden roar and saw the plane swooping down. I thought it was going to crash and then it straightened out". On April 5th 1968, the 50th anniversary of the formation of the RAF, the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson did not think it a good idea to let the RAF hold a flypast over London. One pilot decided to stage his own spectacular protest. It was Flight Lieutenant Alan Pollock of Number One Squadron, a division whose history goes back to the First World War. In those days, risking your kite at every opportunity was considered an officer's duty. Climbing into his Hunter fighter plane he took off from West Raynham in Norfolk and headed towards London. Approaching from the Channel, he followed the Thames and dipped towards Tower Bridge. He then aimed his aircraft at the gap between the upper span of the bridge and the road below. He reckoned that with 110ft of vertical space to play with, he could fly the 12ft-high Hunter through with no trouble. The jet was 34ft wide, the clearance between the two towers 200 ft. As he closed in on the box-shaped target, a red double-decker bus drove into the frame. There is a stage during any flight that pilots call "commitment". This has nothing to do with lasting relationships and Saturday night in with a Merchant-Ivory video -- it means committing to an act and sticking with it, because to do otherwise would endanger your aircraft. The Thames was less than 100ft below, and the upper span of Tower Bridge ruled out pulling on the joystick to climb. Flight Lieutenant Pollock was committed. His jet shot through the gap over the top deck of the bus-load of startled commuters. Pollock buzzed the House of Commons for good measure and the honour of the RAF was satisfied. Air marshals swore blind they had nothing to do with the one maverick flyer who, it turned out, was due to retire on medical grounds anyway. This handy detail avoided a court martial. [Michael Dempsey, writing for FHM, August 1994.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Neil "think I'll take the tube today" Trotter From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:51 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University RLION@worldonline.nl (Lion's Pers Agentschap) writes: > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead > of on it? > > Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct > airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a > big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can > be reached even without improving the engines themselves!) Please cite the tests that have shown this. > (If you want to see how a Boeing 747-400EOW (engine on wing) looks > like, visit: > http://home.worldonline.nl/~rlion/lapr011e.htm Well, I think the airflow over the wings might be a bit problematic with the configuration shown. Not to mention the problems of blasting the aluminum skin with hot exhaust, a situation that required modifications to early DeHaviland Comets. I think the traditional underwing mounting was chosen to minimize airflow interference with the wing. Notice that the VFW-614 mounted its engines well above the wing. See for a photo of one still in service as a testbed for DLR. This one has been modified with a fly-by-wire system to simulate the handling characteristics of various aircraft. Low mounted engines will also tend to increase the angle of attack by twisting the wing, which is probably not a bad thing at takeoff time. Didn't the VFW-614 require special stiffening to counteract unfavorable wing twist? Finally, engine inspection and maintenance would be more complicated with over-wing engines. > Lion Air - The Royal Dutch Alternative "Lion Air is a virtual airline. We cannot accept your bookings!" I think we have progressed beyond vaporware to vapor airlines... -- -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 Feb 19 01:33:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:52 From: "Yves E. Hoebeke" Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service Lion's Pers Agentschap wrote in article ... > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead > of on it? Drag! Airflow over the airfoil is higher in speed than the airflow passing the lower surface of the airfoil. Remember, drag increase by the square of speed. > Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct > airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a > big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can > be reached even without improving the engines themselves!) > The 777 is rather silent, but could be even better with engines on > the wing. I'm not sure if it would make _that_ much difference, put possible. > Amsterdam Airport Schiphol has a strict noise contour now. The system > is: the less noisy aircraft are, the more aircraft can visit the > airport. So, what airlines like KLM need is: silent aircraft. > Why are Boeing and Airbus Industrie developing the wrong airplanes > now: 737-600/700/800/900, 757-300, 767-400, 777-300, A340-500/600 and > A3XX? Well.. I didn't see Fokker make aircraft any different. > Building aircraft with engines on the wing is very well possible. > Examples are: VFW-Fokker VFW-614, Antonov An-72/74 and Boeing YC-14. An-72/74: Probably so the military version has a lower IR signature. YC-14: To keep water spray out of the engines. VFW-614: Need to get more of them into Schiphol, never mind the higher fuel bill. ;-) > Why do airlines and aircraft manufacturers wit for ICAO's chapter 4? > Why doesn't aviation take its own responsibility? Define aviation... manufacturers, FAA, CAA, ATC ??? Pax willing to pay more? Just my $0.02, Yves Hoebeke From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:53 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Lion's Pers Agentschap wrote: > So, what airlines like KLM need is: silent aircraft. > Why are Boeing and Airbus Industrie developing the wrong airplanes > now: 737-600/700/800/900, 757-300, 767-400, 777-300, A340-500/600 and > A3XX? Hold on. What are your arguments to support this statement ?? Those birds you listed are the best which AI and Boeing will be able to offer to their customers. Do you prefer flying Il76 and Tu154 into AMS ? Just as an example I read that AI is for instance reducing the landing noise on the 340NG. Also a 777 is a very quit a/c. My .02 Euro, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:54 From: "Chris Dahler" Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead >of on it? The engine on the wing design has been tested on the types of aircraft you mentioned in your post. It is actually easier to build an airplane this way because of the support structure of the engine. However, one can be absolutely sure that aircraft manufacturers would not be building a design were it not efficient, and this is the case with over-the-wing designs: they are aerodynamically inefficient. The disturbance of airflow over the portion of the wing on which the engine sits degrades performance, which all adds up to more fuel being burned. The noise part of your post didn't make much sense. The majority of noise from a jet aircraft does not originate at the engine itself, it originates aft of the exhaust. The roaring you hear is primarily a result of the superhot air expanding rapidly as it leaves the engine, causing a compression wave; this is the same principle that causes thunder following a lightning bolt. Other areas of noise are caused aerodynamically by the tips of the wings and flaps and by the "buzz" heard from modern turbofan engines, which is caused by the tips of the fan blades exceeding the speed of sound as they spin around. Modern turbofan engines are much quieter due to improved core design and also due to the high bypass of relatively unheated air around the core exhaust; this "tube" of unheated exhaust air around the superheated exhaust gases provides a buffer to dampen the shock wave of the exhaust, thus reducing the overall noise. The placement of the engine on top of the wing would not reduce noise by a noticeable amount at all. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:55 From: megazone@megazone.org (MegaZone) Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe RLION@worldonline.nl (Lion's Pers Agentschap) shaped the electrons to say: > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead >of on it? > > Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct >airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a >big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can >be reached even without improving the engines themselves!) 1. Maintenance - it is a lot harder and a lot more expensive to get at high mounted engines. 2. Cabin noise - the VFW-614 failed in part because it was low wing with overwing engines. The enginer noise was loud and constant in the cabin. You only have a few minutes around an airport, but hours in the cabin. 3. Flutter. Mouting the engines on pylons under the wing makes them natural balance weights. 4. Danger. If an enginer throws a compressor or turbine while under the wing the wing shields the cabin. A low wing with over wing engines endangers the cabin. And a highwing with overwing engines is a maintanence nightmare - let alone highwing airliners are notoriously unpopular. Underwing engines can also be designed to safely shear away in times of trouble and they fall clear of the airframe. I could come up with more but I'm getting tired. I don't think we'll see over-wing engines on commercial craft in the forseeable future. -MZ -- Gweep, author, webmaster, human being, me H:510-527-0944 W:800-458-9966 510-426-0770 Hail Discordia! From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:56 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? 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: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Lion's Pers Agentschap wrote: > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead > of on it? ... > Building aircraft with engines on the wing is very well possible. > Examples are: VFW-Fokker VFW-614, Antonov An-72/74 and Boeing YC-14. If I remember the competition for the C-17, the Douglas version had engines under the wings, while the Boeing version had engines on upper side of wings. Now, for stol reasons, the engines were blowing the flaps, and the term upper side blowing and lower side blowing were used. So I don't know if the reasons that resulted in the Douglas design being selected over the Boeing design had any thing to do with that. I was under the impression that Boeing hung engines away from wing, rather than building them into the wing, ala Comet, was concern for wing structural integrity in case of an uncontained catastrophic engine failure. However, sticking engines above wing and forward would help that. In fact, didn't a short haul German airliner have just that feature? One factor might be engine maintainance. On a big aircraft, if the engine is above the leading edge by the same distance existing Boeing engines are below it, one would need a pretty impressive scaffold to service it. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ home email- stauffer@gte.net work email- stauffer@htc.honeywell.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:57 From: bobo@algonet.se Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Algonet/Tninet In article , RLION@worldonline.nl (Lion's Pers Agentschap) wrote: > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead > of on it? > > Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct > airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a > big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can > be reached even without improving the engines themselves!) Well, I think the main reason is that weight of the engines help relieve the bending forces on the wing structure. And it so happens that "a little bit more aluminum" is the last thing an airline wants to push around the sky. Can't help thinking about Roy Braybrook's insightful statement in some issue of Air International: "An airliner is a tubular device for making money". /MJ From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:58 From: "You don't really need to know that" Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None at all really Lion's Pers Agentschap wrote: > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead > of on it? Because airflow over the wing is what produces lift to allow the plane to fly. Putting the engines over the wing would produce enormous disturbances to the airflow over the wing. Is it any coincidence that the VFW-614 didn't make it into large scale production? The Antonov and Boeing YC-14 are a different concept altogether as they are designed to utilise Upper Surface Blowing (USB) to produce extra lift by deflecting the jetblast downwards as it leaves the wings upper surface. Even with the engines mounted under the wing you will often see wing fences mounted on the engine nacelles to straighten out the airflow over the wings upper surface. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:33:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:33:59 From: Carl Peters Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? 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: Internet 1st, Inc With the development of high bypass ratio engines, noise has been cut several orders of magnitude. Sound attenuation is further accomplished by special honeycomb linings inside the intake nacelle, bypass duct, and tailpipe, optimizing low pressure fan blade to vane numbers and spacing, using low noise combustors, optimizing turbine blade/vane spacing, using an extended cowl (RR, V2500) and so on. With more energy used from the core gas flow to drive the N1 fan, the overall velocity decreases compared to older low bypass or turbojet engines. This is very dramatic, as noise is proportional to the 8th power of jet velocity while in flight. Re-engineering engines to the top of the wing would prove to be costly, and markedly worsen maintenance access. The noise in the cabin would go up considerably if the engines were above the wing, unless you now move the wing to a high mounting, such as the C-5 and C-141. Now, you have added total re-engineering of the wing, wing carry through structure, and part of the fuselage, made refueling and maintenance a bit more difficult, and have to totally redesign the landing gear. All for what? I believe you will find very little complaint with the great reductions in noise with newer high bypass ration engines, especially compared to the decibels we are exposed to in day to day urban life. (I assure you, a 777 on takeoff is much kinder to my ears than children can be). >Lion's Pers Agentschap wrote: (snip) > but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a > big portion of the noise for people living around airports. Not exactly true. You have two types of noise - that which is high pitch coming forward from the N1 fan, and the lower pitched rumble from the rear. Optimizing placement of the engine so that the wing will shield the exhaust (only from below, so a departing a/c on a runway will still have nearly the same noise level from behind) will place the front ahead of the leading edge, and provide no shielding. If you move the engine back, then the efflux approaches the trailing edge, losing any protection. > Why are Boeing and Airbus Industrie developing the wrong airplanes > now: 737-600/700/800/900, 757-300, 767-400, 777-300, A340-500/600 and > A3XX? Are you implying that millions of man hours and dollars spent by the a/c manufacturers over the years in R&D and market comprehension led to this 'error in design'? With respect, I'll gladly accept the work of thousands of engineers representing the top talent in the world at Airbus, Boeing, etc. as having designed the 'right' airplanes. Carl Peters From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:00 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? 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: Texas Networking, Inc. Lion's Pers Agentschap wrote: > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead > of on it? > > Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct > airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a > big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can > be reached even without improving the engines themselves!) > The 777 is rather silent, but could be even better with engines on > the wing. > Why are Boeing and Airbus Industrie developing the wrong airplanes > now: 737-600/700/800/900, 757-300, 767-400, 777-300, A340-500/600 and > A3XX? Why do you think such an arrangement would be quiter? I believe you are being fooled by your intuition here: intuition says that the engines make noise, so if you put a big chunk of metal (the wing) between the engines and the ground, and airplane will seem quieter to people on the ground. But intuition is often wrong and its 90% wrong in this case. Most of the very loudest noise associated with jet engines does NOT come from the engine nacelle itself, but rather from the long (many meters in length) region behind the engine where high-velocity exhaust gasses are mixing with lower-velocity air and creating tremendous turbulence. Since this region extends well behind the wing, mounting the engine above the wing wouldn't block downward propagation of this sound at all. Furthermore, the loudest components of jet noise are low frequency, which means long-wavelength. This means that the loudest sounds, even if generated above the wing, would be able to diffract around the wing quite easily. Some slight shielding of the higher-freqency and highly localized noise created by the engine *inlet* could indeed be shielded by placing the engine above the wing, but this is a minor component for modern engines. (Older engines, like early JT8D's had much more inlet noise, but hushkit makers have addressed this with inlet guide vane respacing kits.) Therefore, there is minimal to no acoustic advantage of placing the engines above the wings. Furthermore, there is an increased cost of maintaining engines that are difficult to access on the ground. Short answer: Boeing and Airbus are NOT developing the "wrong" aircraft- at least not for the reason stated. -- Steve Lacker sglacker at texas dot net If you can’t take the time to help fight SPAM by converting the above address, you wouldn’t like my response to your mail anyway :-) From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:01 From: neil@nook.demon.co.uk (Neil Trotter) Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Planet Nook Reply-To: neil@nook.demon.co.uk In article , Lion's Pers Agentschap said: > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead > of on it? At a guess, to keep C of G low, thereby improving overall stability. Ease of service might be another reason. Furthermore, since most moise emanates from the BACK, and some from the front of a jet engine, it seems to me that the same effect could be achieved by flying the beasts 20ft higher. Since I am *not* an engineer, I would be grateful if one would jump in at this point and validate. > (If you want to see how a Boeing 747-400EOW (engine on wing) looks > like, visit: > http://home.worldonline.nl/~rlion/lapr011e.htm Scary! But interesting. -- Neil. Neil Trotter, Shoeburyness, UK +44 (0) 1702 291672 neil@nook.demon.co.uk http://www.nook.demon.co.uk/ From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:02 From: "Rich Duncan" Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net One of the reasons for mounting the engines under the wings is to minimize the possibility of high energy turbine/compressor blade damage occurring to the passenger cabin - and hence the passengers themselves. If you look at passenger airplanes with engines in the plane of the cabin - you will normally not have any passenger seats in the plane of the high energy compressor or turbine sections - this area is relegated to the lavatories and the galleys. On smaller commuter type airplanes the limitations are less stringent although still in place to some extent. As an example there are normally no seats in the plane of the propeller. Another reason to mount engines below and forward of the wing is to allow for gravity flow of fuel to the engines in the unlikely event that all the fuel pumps (electric and engine driven) fail. In the case of all Boeing aircraft (except on the 727-100/200 and recently acquired DC-9/MD-80/MD-90//717-200 and engine #2 on the DC-10/MD-11) the engines will continue to run in this exact situation - although not at full takeoff power. If the engines were mounted above the wings the fuel pumps would be necessary at all times. Also the upper wing mounted engines on the YC-14 were placed not because of noise but to provide additional lift during takeoff and landing - via "coanda effect" (blown flaps). They were a pain to work on due to the placement and a problem due to the hot exhaust blowing on the upper wing skins and upper surface of the flaps. Also in exact opposite to your reasoning, regarding noise, it is quieter in the cabin with the engines under the wing. By the way I had a chance to ride on a VFW Fokker VFW-614 once and I remembered that it had a very noisy cabin and I always worried about the engines in the event of a failure. They also blocked the view from the cabin even more so than a normal low wing design. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:03 From: "jlberton" Subject: Re: 747 with engines on the wings? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Lion's Pers Agentschap wrote in message ... > What is the reason that airliners have engines under the wing instead >of on it? > > Possibly it will take a little bit more aluminium to construct >airliners this way, but with overwing engines the wing can deflect a >big portion of the noise for people living around airports. (This can >be reached even without improving the engines themselves!) > The 777 is rather silent, but could be even better with engines on >the wing. Yes, and with the discharge noise of today's high bypass, modern geometry fans now dominating the overall noise in many cases, engines mounted over the wing might become even more attractive. Off the top of my head, here are a few pros and cons: *Pros: - Shorter, lighter landing gear -- a major benefit. - Possibly better (or at least equal) interference installation drags. The high lift effect of the flow over the wing may be attractive. - Fewer restrictions on nacelle diameter, allowing the efficiency trend of bypass ratio growth to continue. - Possibly a better 'wheels up' emergency landing configuration. - Less inlet flow distortion during ground roll, resulting in slightly better field thrust performance and a little less fan noise while on the ground. - No more ice slush or FOD ingestion from the nose gear. * Cons: - Maintenence issues. New servicing rigs/lifts required. - Increased cabin noise or more sound proofing material required. - A 'simple' re-engining of an existing airplane is unlikely. Engine mounts, wing box, and even empennage would require redesign. - Over-wing emergency passenger egress may be more difficult. - Potentially worse in-flight catastrophic engine mount failure and engine breakaway configuration. - Possible airline/passenger acceptance issues. Jeff Berton From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:04 From: Sharat Chandrasekhar Subject: CHINA AIRLINES AIRBUS CRASH QUESTIONS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The crash of a China Airlines Airbus A-300 begs the following questions: 1) Does anybody know if the glideslope at TPE was active at the time of the crash or whether it was NOTAMed out of service, as in the case of the KAL 747-300 crash in Guam several months ago. 2) Wouldnt the cockpit GPWS horn have sounded and warned the pilots to pull up? I presume the A-300 is equipped with it. 3) Is the CVR transcript online somewhere This almost certainly looks like yet avoidable another CFIT tragedy -Sharat -- Sharat Chandrasekhar (281) 856 4421 Process Development Engineer schandrasekhar@geocities.com Wyman Gordon Forgings http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/1169 From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:05 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Nigeria airways 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) Jim Wolper writes: >Nonsense. A non-centerline-thrust twin engine airplane can't maintain >heading with one engine idle and the other producing takeoff thrust >below a known speed called V_{mcg}. There are procedures for THREE engine >takeoffs in FOUR engine airplanes, involving symmetrical thrust early >and addition of thrust from the third engine as speed builds up. A long runway >helps, too. Different world, but I've seen charts for engine-out takeoffs in ISTM C5's and HerkyBirds {-135's}. [This is by inference; I recall the charts and those are the only two beasts I got to see such details for..] *think* there were 2 engine [one per side, of course] out specs listed, too.... But this assumes the other guys are shooting at you, and you REALLY want to takeoff... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:06 From: "Dennis Pettigrew" Subject: Re: Nigeria airways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LavaNet, Inc. Jim Wolper wrote in message ... >Marc Schaeffer wrote: >> START ITEM >> You're going to have to believe me on this one. I flew on the Nigerian >> Airways flight from Lagos to London on the A310. On takeoff from Lagos, >> fire spewed from the left engine. We climbed to about 2,000 feet, then >> promplty landed in Lagos again. I went to the cockpit, where the pilot >> informed me that since we had a VIP on our flight that had to be in >> London soon, we had to takeoff without the engine. So, we did. > >Nonsense. A non-centerline-thrust twin engine airplane can't maintain >heading with one engine idle and the other producing takeoff thrust >below a known speed called V_{mcg}. I flew in Nigeria so I know the philosophy they maintain regarding VIPs - I know it sounds outlandish but it might have been attempted. With regard to the physical possibility - I've done it in a B-737 simulator before & we all know that is just a bundle of mathematical formulas supposedly accurately representing an aircraft. All you have to do is add power on the operating engine proportianally so as to maintain control with nose wheel steering then when the rudder becomes a factor you can continue to add power until V mcg - all you need is runway (Idid it in the Sim on a 10,000' rwy with room to spare). I know it sounds crazy - but it is possible both from the physical and unfortunately cultural viewpoint. Regards, Dennis Pettigrew (just a pilot) From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:07 From: "Rich Duncan" Subject: Re: Nigeria airways References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net Jim Wolper wrote in message ... >Marc Schaeffer wrote: >> You're going to have to believe me on this one. I flew on the Nigerian >> Airways flight from Lagos to London on the A310. On takeoff from Lagos, >> fire spewed from the left engine. We climbed to about 2,000 feet, then >> promplty landed in Lagos again. I went to the cockpit, where the pilot >> informed me that since we had a VIP on our flight that had to be in >> London soon, we had to takeoff without the engine. So, we did. > >Nonsense. A non-centerline-thrust twin engine airplane can't maintain >heading with one engine idle and the other producing takeoff thrust >below a known speed called V_{mcg}. There are procedures for THREE engine >takeoffs in FOUR engine airplanes, involving symmetrical thrust early >and addition of thrust from the third engine as speed builds up. A long >runway helps, too. I'm not sure this is relevant to the discussion but I have performed the very procedure you have describe as "nonsense" in the 737-300, 757-200, 767-200/300 and 777-200 simulators at the Boeing (now Flight Safety - Boeing Training International) facility here in Tukwilla, WA. It helps to have a long runway and a light airplane but with careful application of power, rudder and nose wheel steering it is possible. I doubt that I would ever try it for "real" but it is nice to know that it is possible to accomplish this "nonsense" task if my life depended on it. By the way - the last time I heard about a three engined take-off (somewhere in Africa I believe) the 707-320C's crew "lost it" during the take-off roll - totaled the airplane and injured the crew - no fatalities. By the way a three engined take off is illegal in the USA with any type of paying passengers aboard - it is definitely a risky maneuver. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:08 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 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 dave@amiwest.com "David Lednicer" writes: > >I believe that all the 707s and KC-135s that started out with the short >vertical tail were modified to have the taller vertical tail early in >their lifetimes. I still haven't figured out which 707s did and didn't >have the ventral fin. There appears to also have been two different >size ventral fins. Yes, there were 2 ventral fin sizes. Here is a rundown I typed out previously of those a/c -with ventral fins- (tho some fins may have been added/removed later!) ...original customers: (from George Cearley Jr's `Boeing 707 +720' book) note: `B' = fan engine 1) TALL vertical stab(tail), HF antenna present, LARGE ventral fin: TWA 707-131 -331 -331B Continental 707-124 Western 707-139 Pan Am 707-321, -321B Sabena 707-329 Air France 707-328, -328B SAA 708-344 Lufthansa 707-430 Air India 707-437 BOAC 707-436 VARIG 707-441 El Al 707-458 Cunard Eagle 707-465 2) TALL vertical stab(tail), HF antennae present, SMALL ventral fin Pan Am 707-121B American 707-123B QANTAS 707-138B Aer Lingus 720-048 Braniff 720-027 Eastern 720-025 Pacific Northern 720-062 Western 720-047B Lufthansa 720-030B Northwest 720-051B TWA 720-051B AVIANCA 720-059B Pakistan 720-040B Saudi 720-068B El Al 720-058B Continental 720-024B Ethiopian 720-060B (note QANTAS -138B is the shortest production 707 (shorter than 720). The -138 had the same overall length as a KC-135 but with a longer forward fuselage, and shorter rear fuselage) 3) Tall vertical stab(tail), NO HF antenna, small ventral fin TWA 707-131B (except 2 a/c during 1967) United 720-022 American 720-023, -023B Capital 720-022 (flew in United livery, leased from them prior to merger) --- Note there are -3- more categories of 707s/720s WITHOUT ventral fins....! i.e. those with a short tail AND HF antenna those with a tall tail AND HF antenna and those with a short tail and NO HF antenna (only some United 720-022s) -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:09 From: ei7gm@no-spam.iol.ie (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@no-spam.iol.ie In article , allen079@hotmail.com wrote: : : > The main visible difference of the Boeing : > 720, it does not have a metal tube jutting foreward at the top of the : > vertical fin. The Common HF antenna used for transmitting by both HF transceivers. Another difference that the 720 had that i never saw on a 707 was a underside "small tail fin" which was about 1-foot high and about 2-foot long.... A 720 that was dumped in Dublin (bahama world airlines -i think ) with a red-dolphin-on-tail-fin had this "feature" and when asked about this 'we' were told it was an additional fin to improve stability. Regards all Round. anti-spam in progress From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:10 From: "Rich Duncan" Subject: Re: Boeing 720 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net By the way the 757 and 727 share a common lower deck cargo hold and upper deck passenger lobe - the 757 was originally just a re-engined 727-200 - it even started off with the 727-200 t-tail - minus the intake for the number two engine. It still has the flat aft pressure bulkhead design (without a door in it) from the 727-200. It is interesting to note that both the 727 and the 757 have a deeper aft cargo bay than in the forward end. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:11 From: John Stodola Subject: Variations in seat spacing? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hughes Network Systems Folks, I just flew in coach from BWI to Puerto Vallarta via Houston and back on Continental. Had four different planes: 737, MD-80, DC-9 (new), and DC-9 (old). The seat spacing in the first three seemed to be the same. But the older CD-9 had seats much closer together. Didn't have a tape measure handy, but the spacing differene was obvious. My question: is it common for a carrier to have different seat spacing for the same service class? Is this determined by the plane type? Thanks for any enlightment... -- John Link Stodola Principal Writer stodola@hns.com Hughes Network Systems At home I am MDGolf@aol.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:12 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: Runway Lengths References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Inc. Randy Pierce wrote in message ... >Could someone mail me the length of runway needed to land for today's >airliners? I live in a city with an airport of 7,500 feet and wondered >what exactly could land there. I'd love to see a DC-10 fly in. Runway length isn't the only concern. The runway has to be stressed for the weight of the aircraft (e.g. you could probably land a 747 on a 4500' runway, but if it's an asphalt surface the 747 will sink right into it like mud). Terrain, noise routing, etc. also play a factor... From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:13 From: jcastleANTISPAM@eden.com (Joe Castleman) Subject: Re: Runway Lengths References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gyrofrog Communications In article , wales011@concentric.net wrote: >Could someone mail me the length of runway needed to land for today's >airliners? I live in a city with an airport of 7,500 feet and wondered >what exactly could land there. I'd love to see a DC-10 fly in. Your airport could accomodate a DC-10. I live in Austin TX, where the runway is about the same length. AA used to fly in one or two DC-10s a day, but not for 2 or 3 years, and the biggest plane I've seen there lately is a B757 (although about a year ago, I saw an AA MD-11 fly in -- wonder what the story was behind that?). I used to see Stretch DC-8 Freighters, but last summer they moved the air freight operations to Bergstrom (which will be our new airport next year). Keep in mind that the DC-10 was, in part, designed to be able to fly in and out of New York LGA, where each runway is 7000 feet. I thought 7000 feet was short, but Orange Co. is under 6000 (barely over a mile!) and handles B757s, as well as transcontinental flights (a lot of fuel to lift off of a little runway). Burbank, Chicago-Midway, and Washington-Nat'l are all under 7000 feet, I believe. St. Thomas is now 7000 feet, *after* being stretched in the 1970s (following a crash landing by a DC-8). I've wondered about this subject for a while -- I'd like to know where the smallest runway is that is in regular use by airliners (i.e. B737 or larger). So far SNA seems to take the cake... -- Joe Castleman (to reply, remove "ANTISPAM" from my address) Gyrofrog Communications http://www.eden.com/~jcastle Austin, Texas U.S.A. "I was always frightened of strange people" --Andy Warhol From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:14 From: Robin Peel Subject: Re: Runway Lengths References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD Randy Pierce wrote: > Could someone mail me the length of runway needed to land for today's > airliners? I live in a city with an airport of 7,500 feet and wondered > what exactly could land there. I'd love to see a DC-10 fly in. It depends on lots of things (especially aeroplane weight, altitude and temperature). I flew many times on a DC-10 flight American Airlines used to offer out of Austin, Texas (AUS-DFW-LAX), using the longest (7269') runway (13R/31L). I presume the DC-10 had minimal fuel for the hop to DFW, to keep the take-off weight down. And when bad weather affects operations at DFW, many American aeroplanes turn up at Austin, including DC-10s and the occasional MD-11. I believe the biggest airliners currently scheduled out of Austin are American's 757s. - Robin. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:15 From: roberts975@aol.com (RobertS975) Subject: Re: Runway Lengths References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Could someone mail me the length of runway needed to land for today's >airliners? I live in a city with an airport of 7,500 feet and wondered >what exactly could land there. I'd love to see a DC-10 fly in. Any current airliner could land and take off in 7500 feet. Larger wide-body jets such as a 747 would have be relatively light to do that distance, however. Air Force One, a 747-200 with mods, has been into Providence RI which has a 6800 foot runway. But it will only take off with enough fuel for the fifty minute flight back to Andrews AFB. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:16 From: nemoman@earthlink.net (nemoman) Subject: Re: Runway Lengths References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Randy Pierce wrote: >Could someone mail me the length of runway needed to land for today's >airliners? I live in a city with an airport of 7,500 feet and wondered >what exactly could land there. I'd love to see a DC-10 fly in. I've seen a KC-10 tanker fly into VNY 34L. Length: 6000 feet. BIG dust cloud from the reverse thrust! John Paoli, C.E. KACD, Santa Monica/ KBCD, Newport Beach From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:17 From: pierce.@pat.lgb.cal.boeing.com (Gun One) Subject: Re: TWA 800 question: fuel flow problem References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pierce Aero In article , "Matthew Lehde" writes: |> jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote in message ... |> |> >Could someone put this "crazy fuel flow" in perspective ? |> Most likely a guage malfunction. Most likely. |> >Also, what exactly did the pilot mean by "where this thing's trimmed" ? |> |> That is in reference to the trimming of the flight controls to "trim" the |> airplane to fly level and at the desired pitch. After fuel,cargo, and |> passengers are loaded and the doors are closed. weight and balance |> calculations are done to determine the proper trim setting for the horizonal |> stabiliser. If this setting is incorrect it could cause under or |> over-rotation on take-off resulting in a catostrofic runway overrun or a |> stall immediately after rotation. Not likely. More likely just slightly more pressure forward or back to compensate, as poster Lehde added. Also, don't forget aileron and rudder trim. Those are set at zero on take-off but might not be the correct setting for flight based on weight distribution, variations in engine thrust, old airframe, etc. |> The main cause of the crash was the navy missile tearing through the |> fuselage just forward of the CWT and the resulting rapid decompression. Oh brother .... -gun one From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:18 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: TWA 800 question: fuel flow problem References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights In article , Matthew Lehde writes >If air/fumes were pumped into the wings it would just go out the fuel tank >vents, wouldn't it? Hopefully some airline pilots will respond. Yes, it would. -- Pete Finlay Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer please delete the xxx in the email address to reply From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:19 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: TWA 800 question: fuel flow problem References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights In article , Matthew Lehde writes >On the 747-400 with the automated fuel system during take-off each >engine draws off its own wing tank, and after flap retraction draws all >fuel from the CenterWT. After the CWT is empty it feeds from the Main >2 & 3 tanks... Main 1 is between Engine 1 & 2, main 2 between Eng 2 and >the CWT, main 3 is between the CWT and Eng 3, main 4 is between Eng 3 & >4. Small reserve tanks are outboard of Eng 1 & 4. After 2 & 3 are down >to the same level as 1 & 4 each Eng feeds from its own tank. >Of course on a 747-100 the fuel distribution is controlled by the flight >engineer, but I think on take-off and landing it's standard the for the Engs >to feed off their own tanks. On the -100 and -200, for take-off and landing, the No1 and No4 crossfeed valves are open, the No2 and No3 are shut. So, the inboard engines are on tank-to-engine feed, and the No1 and No4 tanks feed both the No1 and No4 engines from a common manifold. -- Pete Finlay Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer please delete the xxx in the email address to reply From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:20 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , dave@amiwest.com wrote: > >What happens to airliner prototypes? > > Simple - if they are Boeings, they end up in Seattle! Boeing is > storing 367-80 at Boeing Field, along with the last 307. The Museum of > Flight, on the field, owns the last 80A, a 247 and the prototype 727, > 737 and 747. Boeing still operates the prototype 757, 767 and 777 from > the field too. All that is missing is the last unguppied 377, which > might still exist in Israel and a 314, none of which exist, though the > Museum of Flight has the rudder from one. This is more or less correct. The 80A in the Museum of Flight is not the prototype, but is, I believe, the last one around unless the National Air & Space Museum has one hidden away at Silver Hill. Likewise, the Museum of Flight's 247 is not the prototype, but is one of the few survivors (the NASM has one, too). The Model 307 Stratoliner that was flown back to Boeing Field a couple of years ago also is not a prototype but is believed to be the last one in existance (I believe only 13 were made). The prototype 757 is still used by Boeing as a flying test bed. The prototype 767 does not belong to Boeing. It was sold a number of years ago to the US Army who uses it as the platform for what was originally called the AOA or Airborne Optical Adjunct. It has an optical, infrared scanner installed in a large, streamlined dome on top of the fuselage. The prototype 777 is still in Boeing's inventory, although how long it will remain so is currently in question. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:21 From: Michael & Iain Butler Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chaos David Lednicer wrote: > > >What happens to airliner prototypes? > > Simple - if they are Boeings, they end up in Seattle! Boeing is > storing 367-80 at Boeing Field, along with the last 307. The Museum of > Flight, on the field, owns the last 80A, a 247 and the prototype 727, > 737 and 747. Boeing still operates the prototype 757, 767 and 777 from > the field too. All that is missing is the last unguppied 377, which > might still exist in Israel and a 314, none of which exist, though the > Museum of Flight has the rudder from one. Well there are a few other Boeing's before the 247. The original Boeings vanished without trace in Auckland in the 1920's. Folk law has it they are buried in tunnels. Reality is that the probably joined a heap of WWI left overs in a giant bonfire. -- Mike Butler Wellington NZ Tip CD Lab/Terrier New Zealand Dog Agility on the Web Ben BC X http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mbutler/nala/ From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:22 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) wrote: >I suspect upgrading the 367-80 to airliner standard would have been a >fairly major undertaking. As it was, the Dash-80 was pretty thoroughly >abused by Boeing as a testbed for all sorts of weird stuff -- engine >testbed, several flap configurationd, rear engine mounting (for the 727) >are just a few of the things the Dash-80 had done to it. Was there a "367" that the Dash 80 was an alleged modification of, or was the 367 made up along with the -80? (I had thought the designation was 377-80 so the existence of a completely new aircraft could be hidden as a modified Stratocruiser.) Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:23 From: "Rich Duncan" Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net David Lednicer wrote in message ... >>What happens to airliner prototypes? > > Simple - if they are Boeings, they end up in Seattle! The number 1 767-200 is owned by the US Army - and operated under contract by a joint US Army and Boeing crew. It is the largest airplane in the US Army's fleet - and is used for re entry vehicle tracking of ballistic missile warheads re-entering the atmosphere. The 757-200 prototype is on loan to the USAF and Lockheed/Boeing for the F-22A avionics and weapons systems testing. It is even equipped with a launch rail for AIM-120 and AIM-9 missals as well as the full offensive and defensive suites for the F-22A Raptor. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:24 From: tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) Subject: Re: Prototype airliners; what is their fate? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , p_hamilton@pipeline.com wrote: > You will be glad to know that, after an amazing service life that > included all the above (plus Tex Johnsons famous barrel roll over > Lake Washington) the prototype was restored as a museum piece. > Certainly one of the most significant aircraft of the century. And prior to being restored it was FLOW into BFI. This was just a few years ago, too. Amazing aircraft! Tom Benedict tbenz@halcyon.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:25 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , nat@cairns.net.au wrote: > Can somebody please explain to me why planes (jet aircraft) fly > at very high altitudes on long range flights, and how does this conserve > fuel and get maximum distance ? How does this conserve fuel and save > time if you can only go half the speed you normally can go at low > altitude and you have to use twice the amount of power to get too half > the power you get at lower altitudes ? The higher you go the more your drag is reduced and the more efficiently your engines run. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:26 From: Chris Pitzel Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PSINet Reply-To: cmp086@mail.usask.ca Nathan Pusey wrote: > Can somebody please explain to me why planes (jet aircraft) fly > at very high altitudes on long range flights, and how does this conserve > fuel and get maximum distance ? How does this conserve fuel and save > time if you can only go half the speed you normally can go at low > altitude and you have to use twice the amount of power to get too half > the power you get at lower altitudes ? There are two main physical reasons this is true. There may be others which others can elaborate on as well (I'm not too familiar with some of the operating characteristics modern gas turbines, so I couldn't really comment on efficiency issues). a) The earth's gravitational attraction decreases as you get further away from the earth. When you're at sea level, the earth's acceleration due to gravity is approximately 9.81 metres/second (or 32.2ft/sec for the non-metric types). As you go higher, the attractive forces between the earth and a particle decrease (the particle being the aircraft). This translates into less energy being needed to overcome this gravitational attraction in order to keep an aircraft airborne. If you were to measure your weight on an aircraft at FL400 and your weight at sea level, you would find that you would weigh less at altitude. For example, I weigh roughly 130 pounds at sea level, yet I would only weigh perhaps 110 pounds at 40k feet. There are formulas to determine this which can be derived from the relationship: F = G*m1*m2/r^2 Where F is the force between the two bodies, G is the gravitational constant, m1 is the mass of one of the particles, m2 is the mass of the other particle, and r is the distance between the centres of the two particles. Anyone who has taken an introductory physics course of any kind will have seen these formulas. b) The density of air (and therefore pressure) decreases with altitude. Air is much more dense at lower altitudes than it is at high altitudes. If you want proof of this, just try climbing Mount Everest without oxygen ;-). Temperature also decreases with an increase in altitude until you reach a certain altitude, then it levels off and (I believe) even starts to increase. Since it is much easier to move an object through a very low-density fluid than it is to move it through a higher density fluid, this means that an aircraft will require less power in order for it to overcome frictional forces due to wind resistance (ie: drag). This is pretty self-evident; take a tub of syrup and try moving your finger through it. Then take a tub of water and move your finger through it. Observe which is easier to move through. You'll find that the water exerts much less drag than does the water. The resistance is proportional to the viscosity of the fluid. Overcoming this resistance is very costly in terms of fuel burn, and pilots often will fly hundreds of miles out of their way just to fly with the wind (in the jetstream) instead of against the wind to reduce this drag and make the flight faster. To calculate wind resistance involves a bunch of logarithmic relationships, but in general, to make an aircraft fly twice as fast requires 8 times as much power (velocity cubed relationship). In terms of fuel burn, gas turbines have certain operational power settings at which they are most efficient. It may be more efficient for an operator to run an engine at 66% of full power over a period of 15 hours than it would be for an operator to run an engine at 100% of full power for 10 hours just to achieve the same flight distance (these numbers, are by no means, accurate or anything). However, there are economic reasons for not always selecting the most efficient operating power setting on an aircraft. For example, if you end up having to pay for an extra crew to fly the plane because the first crew can't legally fly a flight that long, then that adds up to some really large costs (fuel is only ~20% of the total operating cost of a typical flight). > Thanks in advance. I hope I've given you some answers to your questions; if I didn't, I at least got the discussion started. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:27 From: g3av8tor@aol.com (G3AV8TOR) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com A jet aircraft at altitude, 30 to 45,000 feet, is flying much faster and is more fuel efficient than one at , let's say, 10,000 feet. You may be confusing your airspeeds. There is indicated airspeed, which is what the pilot in the cockpit reads; calibrated airspeed, which is indicated airspeed corrected for instrument errors; and true airspeed, which is calibrated airspeed corrected for altitude and temperature. Most jet aircraft also have a display showing true arispeed. Assuming no instrument errors, indicated and calibrated airspeeds are the same, as an aircraft climbs, the true airspeed increases for a given indicated airspeed. This rate of increase is about 2% per 1000 feet up to the tropopause on a standard temp day. As an example, an aircraft indicating 300 knots at 10,1000 feet would have a true airspeed of about 360 knots. (300+20%). The same aircraft flying at 300 knots indicated at FL310 (31,000 feet) would have a true airspeed of about 486 knots.(300+62%). Most jets I fly are not able to maintain the same indicated at altitude, but they are still faster at altitude. For example, at an altitude of 35,000 feet, I can indicate 250 knots. This translates to about 425 knots true airspeed (250+70%), which is still faster than the 300 KIAS example above. A pilot wishing to be more exact with their calculations can use charts or a computer to calculate true airspeed. Large deviations from standard temperatures can wreak havoc with the 2% equation. Most jets I fly use N1 or fan speed expressed in %RPM to indicate engine power. The engines will need less fuel for a given N!% as the aircraft climbs do to the decreased air density. While thrust for a given N1% is not constant as the aircraft climbs, the aircraft is still more fuel efficient at altitude. Hope this helps. Gary From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:28 From: roberts975@aol.com (RobertS975) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > Can somebody please explain to me why planes (jet aircraft) fly >at very high altitudes on long range flights, and how does this conserve >fuel and get maximum distance ? How does this conserve fuel and save >time if you can only go half the speed you normally can go at low >altitude and you have to use twice the amount of power to get too half >the power you get at lower altitudes ? Some of your premises in your question are wrong. Fuel consumption in jet aircraft is far lower at altitude mainly because the air resistence is so much lower at higher altitudes. Because of the thinner air, the indicated airspeed will be lower, but the true airspeed corrected for the less dense air and colder temps will be higher. Jet engines are notorious fuel hogs at lower altitudes. Hope this answers your questions. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:29 From: TGFC55A@prodigy.com (Michael Navarra,jr.) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY I may be wrong, so anybody else reading this please let us know. However, I believe the reasons for higher altitude flight are several fold. First there is the concern of noise. The farther the distance from the ground the less amount of sound will reach the ground. Next is basic science or physics. If one knows about air fuel mixture principles, like in automotive applications where carborators & fuel injection systems attempt to maintain a 14:1 ratio of air to fuel at ground level. Then it might stand to reason that at higher altitudes where the air is thinner(less dense), that less fuel may be required to maintain proper air fuel ratios. Then there is also the issue of wind resistance. Again, at higher levels from the ground the air is thinner, giving less friction(resistance) to the air surfaces(including wings) of the entire aircraft. This would also cause the need for less fuel and allow further distances and speeds than at closer to earth heights. Thanks for listening. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:30 From: Paul Hathaway Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch Nathan Pusey wrote: > Can somebody please explain to me why planes (jet aircraft) fly > at very high altitudes on long range flights, and how does this conserve > fuel and get maximum distance ? How does this conserve fuel and save > time if you can only go half the speed you normally can go at low > altitude and you have to use twice the amount of power to get too half > the power you get at lower altitudes ? Simplest way to think of it is that the time used to attain cruise altitudes is short in relation to the time spent en route at the fuel efficient altitudes. The 'extra fuel" used to get to 35,000 feet is small compared to the fuel saved by cruising there for 4,5, or 6 hours. As the air at high altitudes is significantly less dense than air at low altitudes, the jet encounters less drag as it flies, reducing the amount of fuel required to "push" the aircraft along. A jet engine is essentially an "air pump" which operates just as efficiently at high altitude (up to a point) as on the ground. Aircraft also cruise in the flight levels to avoid much of the weather we experience on the ground, take advantage of fast moving tailwinds, get improved radio coverage, and as a safety margin (ie no terrain to hit, no little planes to dodge, no birds, sufficient altitude to restart a failed engine etc etc) Passengers also like the smoother ride. Hope this helped. Paul. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:31 From: kevbo@fuji.email.ne.jp (Kevin J. Bogart) Subject: Re: Older Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Asahi Net > If you look at cargo operators -- regular service, though perhaps > not what you had in mind -- you'll find some older equipment. FedEx > has a few 727-100s from 1964, and Kalitta American International > Airways has a DC-8-51C dating from 1962, leased to a subsidiary but > apparently in service. > > If you don't limit yourself to jets, Reeve Aleutian still operates > three Lockheed L-188 Electras in scheduled passenger service, two of > which date from 1959. You can probably still find some Convair 580s > in odd corners of the country, and there are even DC-3s which are in > regular service of sorts. (Is Vintage Airlines still flying them in > South Florida?) There are still DC-3s flying cargo routes out of the US Virgin Islands for Four Star Aviation-- STT-SJU and STT-MIA I think. They are unquestionably beautiful planes -- after a coupla AA 757s whine overhead, it's quite a sight. There is a smallish hill at the end of the runway (an EA jet slammed into it in the late 70s I think) -- if you are on the other side of it watching the flights go over, watching the DC-3s pass over the hill on a slow climb is as close to a small time machine as you can get, especially with the retro Four Star markings. It's actually been a coupla years since I've been down to STT, so Four Star may have acquired new equipment by now. Kev -- Kevin J. Bogart College of the University of Chicago, AB '97 JET ALT, Ehime-ken, Japan From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:32 From: k_ish Subject: Re: KC-135 minutiae (was: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet") References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom David Tyler wrote: > westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) writes: > > Under another modification program, all Air Force Reserve and Air > > National Guard tankers were re-engined with TF-33-PW-102 engines. > > The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, is 14 percent more fuel > > efficient than the KC-135A and can carry 20 percent more fuel. > > >So I guess the answer is "yes". I suspect that the "TF-33-PW-102" is > >military terminology for some fairly familiar airliner engine; perhaps > >the turbofan engine from a later 707. > > it's my understanding that usaf bought up a slew of old boneyard 707s > just to get those engines. In 1993 I was in Tucson, and took a drive around Davis-Monthan AFB (for those who might not know, it is where US military aircraft are sent for long term storage, cannibalization, or scrap). There were probably 50 ex commercial airline 707's of various types being cannibalized for parts. IIRC, the vertical tails were being removed. Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:33 From: "Rich Duncan" Subject: Re: KC-135 minutiae (was: MD-95-30 becomes 717-200 "Regional Jet") References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net David Tyler wrote in message ... >westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) writes: >>So I guess the answer is "yes". I suspect that the "TF-33-PW-102" is >>military terminology for some fairly familiar airliner engine; perhaps >>the turbofan engine from a later 707. > >it's my understanding that usaf bought up a slew of old boneyard 707s >just to get those engines. Most of the engines use on the KC-135E reengine program were civilian JT3D-3B engines removed from various surplus 707-100B, 720B, 707-320B and 320C airplanes. The TF-33-PW-102 was the military designation applied to these engines. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:34 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >> What about UPS now flying passengers? What aircraft are they using for >> those charter flights I've heard they're operating on the weekends (And I >> even saw a UPS check in counter when I was in Tampa, FL last year for the >> Fourth of July ...). > >The 7 UPS ships are 727-100 QC aircraft, former passenger aircraft. Seats >and overheads are palletized for "easy" installation/removal. Thanks for the info ... the next question I have is why are they using some of the oldest aircraft they have for this? Are there any plans to do the same with their more modern 757's and 767's? I imagine it would be much more difficult since those planes don't have windows I believe (they were purpose built freighters ...) ... I can't imagine people wanting to fly without windows ... From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:35 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 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: >I was told today that as of right now, the dispatch reliability of >Southwest's 737-700s is 100 percent. This won't last, of course, but it's >an impressive way to introduce a new plane. Not -quite- as impressive as your company memo may make it seem. If it were a -completely- `new' plane , yes. But you can't sell it by promoting its commonalities with older 737s and ease of fitting in with older 737 ops and maint. and then claim it as being an impressive `new' plane. A new wing and derivatives of a proven engine are unlikely to be the cause of any problems or bugs when attached to many proven systems not mention the 30 year old general airframe design. Plus, it was delayed into service entry by a factor of months allowing plenty of time to prepare. So a perfectly smooth, if delayed, entry, but not that `impressive'. -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:36 From: "Chris Dahler" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >Speaking of B-737-700... I've heard that some carriers make it a >practice to disable the RTO safety features (auto brake, etc) on B-737 >aircraft so equipped as a concession to training standardization... > >Would any Bluecoater care to explain the pros and cons of such a >policy... and discuss these in light of considerations such as >uncertainty about take-off weight (carry-on baggage, etc.), reduced >power take-offs, higher gross weights, possibly higher V1, Vr and >Vlof, etc. Deactivating RTO is a practice used by a few airlines, Southwest probably being the largest. The degradation of reaction time from the onset of an emergency to the application of full braking by the pilot is taken into account when computing balanced field length and the resulting maximum allowable takeoff weight. There is a weight and V1 penalty for not using RTO, and any airline with this feature deactivated takes this penalty. The thinking is that the expese of maintaining the autobrake system is greater than an expense incurred in the rare instance where the airline would have to limit freight or pax to accommodate a weight restriction. In any case, activating the autobrake system does not actually provide an additional margin of safety when viewed in this light, because with this system, the aircraft may take off heavier and have a higher V1, which will result in more runway used during the emergency stop. Balanced field computations will by definition result in maximum performance in either situation, which means a minimum necessary runway length for stopping to allow the maximum weight for takeoff. Autobrakes just allow the airline to squeeze a few more pax or a little more freight onto the aircraft. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:37 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Pilot Training at Obscure Airports (was: Southwest Airlines 737-700) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University rcteller@aol.com (RcTeller) writes: > It seems Southwest has been using -700's out of Ellington Field near > Houston for training. It's attracted the attention of many at the > airport where I work who just assume they've started service there. When I visited Legoland back in 1990, I was a bit surprised to see a shiny new Lufthansa 747-400 take off from the adjacent airport at Billup, Denmark. Seemed like an odd place to offer intercontinental service. Then I saw it take off again about 15 minutes later. And again, and again... -- -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 Feb 19 01:34:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:38 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Inc. I recall reading an article in Flying magazine several years ago from a feature on the success of Federal Express. A DC-10 Captain (young fella, as I recall) claimed that ferrying the empty cargo jet with light fuel load he exceeded 8000 fpm. This article came out probably about 10 years ago, and I am relying on the same memory that has trouble remembering my own wedding anniversary ;-) so confirmation would be good. In general, I don't know of a general restriction on climb rates as long as the 250 kt (groundspeed) rule isn't violated, not taking other traffic into account of course. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:39 From: "Marv Woolard" Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote in article ... > Is there a "passenger comfort" component in limiting the rate of descent > of any aircraft ? I am thinking in terms of cabin pressure change rate > during descent which can cause quite a bit of pain in ears if it is too > fast. > > DOes this rate vary according to aircrtaft type ? > > (eg: DC-9 seems to have poor pressure controls so its rate of descent > would be more limited than a 747 for instance). Older types may not have as sophisticated systems. Electronic controllers generally do a good job limiting cabin rates of descent. Most have a rate knob which permits operator intervention (ie pilot) to increase or decrease programmed rate. The normal rates are 500 fpm in climb and 300 fpm in descent in most types that I've seen; these are adjustable within a small range (like 1000 fpm climb to 500 fpm descent). The real problem with fast descents is that the cabin can become depressurized prematurely; most plan depressurization just before or after touchdown (so the pilot presets Landing Field Elevation so that the controller knows to which altitude to descend) and in most cases the cabin pressure altitude is equal to the landing field elevation 2-3 thousand feet above the airport elevation. In steep, uninterrupted descent you could end up with the cabin altitude at 2,000 feet when the aircraft reaches 2,000 feet; ergo depressurized and then the rate of descent of the cabin will equal the rate of the aircraft (probably greater than the programmed 300 fpm, programmed rate). Normal descent profiles do not result in this! From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:40 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Ideally, the aircraft would climb rapidly to its cruise attitude and would descend, with the engines at idle and without using airbrakes to touchdown on the arrival runway. The energy spent in the climb is largely recovered in the descent. On the 122 mile Dublin-Shannon sector in a B747, the pilots would often climb to 13000-14000 feet and cut the power until the final approach to Shannon. Not that this was an ideal sector for a B747.. Antoin Dalltun From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:41 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Rate of climb and descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com k_ish wrote: > Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote: > > I wonder what would be typical rates of climb and descent for airliners. > > I suppose standard procedures provide for low figures in order to try to > > make the ride as smooth as possible for the passengers. > > The standard glide slope angle to the runway is 3 degrees. Of course, > it may be steeper due to terrain, etc. With initial approach speeds of > 250 knots, some simple trig and unit conversion will give you the rate > of descent. > > The desirable initial descent from cruise is as steep and rapid as > possible (within passenger comfort, ATC, and pressurization controller > limitations). The idea is to keep the aircraft at higher, fuel > efficient altitudes as long as possible. Also, it is an instinct of all > pilots to avoid "low energy" approaches (long and flat). This goes back > to basic flight training, where you should always be in an approach > configuration where you can glide to the runway if the engine quits (not > as big an issue in airliners). Decent rate is limited by safety concerns. The 727 had lots of drag devices, and CAN provide a very high rate of descent. There were a series of crashes following its introduction. The problem is, if you are going down this fast, it takes considerable altitude to stop that rate of descent. The pilots did not start the transition to the glide slope/final descent soon enough, and crashed. So rapid descent is limited to higher altitudes. I do not know if other planes were certified to do this, but have ridden on DC-8s a few times when the pilot got cleared to a lower altitude unexpectly soon, and used reverse thrust while at high altitude. The pilots always warned passengers, 'cause it created quite a buffet! -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ home email- stauffer@gte.net work email- stauffer@htc.honeywell.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:42 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Orders for Airliners in 1997 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > As for the guppies, they were built in the US from Boeing 377s. Airbus > merely operated a fleet of them. The first two Guppies were built in the US and the remaining two Guppies were built some years later in St Nazaire under Boeing license IIRC. Hth, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:43 From: Antoin Daltun Subject: Re: B727/737 Passenger/Cargo convertibles References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 04:23 11/02/98, Bob Mann wrote: >The 7 UPS ships are 727-100 QC aircraft, former passenger aircraft. Seats >and overheads are palletized for "easy" installation/removal. On the original B737QC the "overheads", i.e."hatracks" and passenger service units, were hinged so that they could be pushed upwards when the aircraft was being used as a freighter. At that stage, the racks were open. The overheads were not removable or palletised. I suspect the B727QCs were the same. Galleys could be palletised, and often were on B727s, tho' not B737s so far as I know, because removing a galley would not give an extra cargo pallet position. Later, about 1975, Boeing introduced a "wide body look" for passenger and QC B737s where there was a smooth profile and the racks were closed by doors. This was left in place permanently and meant that the pallet profile was restricted compared to a B707 freighter (for example). The closed in hatracks were now an FAA safety requirement to prevent passengers and cabin crew being hit by falling objects. Later again, much bigger bins became standards and passenger carry-ons have continued to outpace them! The problems with QCs were the compromises outweighing the expected higher utilisation [clash between passenger and cargo demands late evening/early morning, conversion times], alternative nigh-time uses [passenger charters], the interior compromises that were needed [high operating weights due cargo gear, limitations to pallet profile] and the extent of damage to the passenger amenities from cargo loading. A few high quality airlines have introduced B737-300QCs in Europe realtively recently. It would be interesting to hear their experiences: Air France/Inter-l'Aeropostale, Falcon Aviation Sweden (and SAS?) Antoin Daltun From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:44 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: B727/737 Passenger/Cargo convertibles References: $-1 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: rwmannco@interport.net Antoin Daltun wrote: > On the original B737QC the "overheads"...were not removable or palletised. I > suspect the B727QCs were the same. ... > The problems with QCs were the compromises outweighing the expected higher > utilisation [clash between passenger and cargo demands late evening/early > morning, conversion times], alternative nigh-time uses [passenger > charters], the interior compromises that were needed [high operating > weights due cargo gear, limitations to pallet profile] and the extent of > damage to the passenger amenities from cargo loading. B727QC bins/PSUs/"overheads" are removable and removed for cargo/package operation. Inability to remove overheads would restrict use of a standard main deck "plug" container and thoroughly compromise netted cargo build-up profile. Thoroughly agree on the reasons widespread QC use waned. Eastern Airlines invested a fortune in the concept for pax-to-cargo use, and fell on their sword doing so. UPS' reverse (cargo-to-pax) experience has yet to be fully sorted. - 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 Feb 19 01:34:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:45 From: Krister Engvoll Subject: Re: The Rumble of Thunder in the Sky, 1HP per LB 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: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology National Aero Safety wrote: > (By comparison with Liquid cooled in-line, or "V"-in-line Aero Engines, > there is NO COMPARISON! The Allison V-1710-G6 weighs approximately > 1,600 Pounds(717kg), and produces only 1,250 HP. The Rolls Royce Merlin > is roughly the same weight and produces only 30 HP more. I too am a great fan of large radial engines, and precious few sounds are greater than that of a big radial engine. I will never forget when I was sleeping out in the open ( protesting the then ridicolous room charge) at a (very) small Norwegian glider airstrip, and was awakened at dawn by a T6 lowpass. Mmmm... Few girls have ever bested that performance... But , you are wrong in your comparison to other engines. The Merlin 61 that powered the mk9 produced 1535hp and the Griffon 65 powering late war Spitfires (mk14?) could wring out more than 2000hp, I believe it weighed some 1800pounds. The inline H-engines from Napier-Sabre were good for 2800hp, but I do not remember their weight, certainly far less than the radials. Hawker Tempests flew these. All in all, if you compare engines from the same time, I think you will find they have similar power to weight ratio. And for the record: No engine ever sounded better than the RR Merlin, the big radials are a close second. BTW. As for Lycoming it is no wonder they could not make it work, when they in the 50 years since have not managed to to come up with better GA engines than the O-200,320,360,540 crap. -- Krister Engvoll Laboratoriet for Radiologisk Datering Sem Sælandsvei 5 7034 Trondheim e-mail: engvoll@phys.ntnu.no http://www.phys.ntnu.no/~engvoll From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:46 From: agtabby@aol.com (Agtabby) Subject: Re: The Rumble of Thunder in the Sky, 1HP per LB References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Thank you for an interesting post. I had never heard of the 36 cylinder engine. The highest power ratings I had heard for the mentioned engines was 3800 for the 4360, and 3700 for the 3350. The R3350 is used in the highly modified F8F Bearcat racer "Rare Bear" is rumored to to have 5000 hp, and it is the piston engine record holder, at 528 mph. Aircraft engines were hitting limits at 4000 hp. If you make displacement per cylinder too big, you lose hp/weight. You can make many cylinders, but this adds complexity, and increases chances of failure. I assume that modern jet engines have many less mtbf, I would like to see the stats. I would think the old radials were 10 or 100X worse. Andrew From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:47 From: "Chris Dahler" Subject: Re: Yaw Dampers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >1. To what extent are yaw dampers used,if at all, during crosswind >take-offs in a 737? > >2. In those cases when yaw dampers are used how are they operated and >what is the usual and maximum control surface deflection? The yaw damper is always engaged in normal operations. The amount of movement of the rudder is a function of airspeed on the 737. From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:48 From: trfox@hotmail.com Subject: Delta 777's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Was just on Delta today and asked the Captain about the 777 order that was supposedly canceled by Malaysian Airlines. He said the deal fell through because of the configurations not being what Delta needed and the price was steep because of the currency crisis...don't know why. Just another data point...doesn't look like 777's soon at Delta... tonyc From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:49 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: MD90/Boeing 717 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >The 717-200 (nee MD-95) as presently configured, has the same cockpit >as the next gen 737s. This is a 5 across, 1 under, flat panel display >system designed by Honeywell. The 767s have the same size displays, >but they are older CRT displays, manufactured by Collins. Hate to nitpick, but... The 717-200 does NOT have the same cockpit as the next generation 737s. The instrument panel configuration is six across, the two most outboard displays being slight lower on the panel than the center four. The rest of the cockpit is a blend of existing MD-11, MD-90, and DC-9 technology, as well as some new developments. Commonality with the 737NG cockpit is being investigated, but no decision has been made. Redesign and recertification of the cockpit is certainly a possibility, but would be a major undertaking in terms of both cost and schedule impacts, and would likely not take place until after AirTran has taken delivery of their aircraft. Colleen.M.Wabiszewski@Boeing.com From kls Thu Feb 19 01:34:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Feb 98 01:34:50 From: bobo@algonet.se (Mats Jönsson) Subject: Request for help: Bristol 170 family Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Algonet/Tninet Does anyone remember the Bristol 170 Freighter (the passenger version was called the Wayfarer), a blunt-nosed, twin-piston-engined transport from the late forties? They were used well into the sixties by British Air Ferries (Now British World Airlines) transporting cars over the English Channel. I am in the process of researching a story where a Freighter figures prominently, which is why I would like to get in touch with anybody who knows whether the Freighter had a pressurised cabin or not. It would be especially interesting to hear from people who have crossed the channel in a BAF freighter, but any recollections about the creature comforts offered by the Bristol 170 would be helpful. Thanks beforehand Mats Jönsson bobo@algonet.se From news Sat Feb 28 15:24:27 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.idt.net!ais.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: dennis.jensen@dwt.csiro.au Subject: Wing section and angle of incidence Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 22:16:20 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu In having a discussion with someone, there are a few points I would like to clear up. First, with commercial airliners, does anyone know which airliners have symmetrical airfoils, what NACA sections are used, and where these NACA sections can be found. Second, the wing is set at some angle of incidence to the fuse. Does anyone know what angles are generally used. Furthermore, does anyone know whether the AoA sensor measures the AoA of the airfoil, or of the fuse? I have been having an email disagreement, where this person claims that he has extensive aviation experience, and that he has seen a 747-400 fly for hours at zero AoA!!! Furthermore, he claims that the airfoil sections for all airliners are assymmetric. Please help. Dennis -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:45 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Asian Aerospace 98 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services During this year's Asian Aerospace Show (AA98), neither Airbus nor Boeing had announced a single order. The Asian Aerospace Show is the second largest trade show of its kind after the Paris Air Show. Both airframers have often used major air shows to announce significant orders and/or aircraft launches. For example, last year in Paris, Airbus announced the launch of the A340-500/600. For Boeing, the B757-300 was the last Boeing model launched at an air show; and that was nearly two years ago at Farnborough. Thus, it was uncharacteristically quiet at AA98 for the two airframers, especially Boeing. Before the AA98 show, I thought Boeing would at least announce new B717 customers at the show. I also thought Airbus would officially announce the Latin American orders of approximately 100 firm A320 family aircraft. Well, neither announcement took place. Both companies outlined future product plans, namely, the A3XX, AE31X, B777-200X, B747-400Y, etc. However, variants of these plans have been around for a while. So, IMHO, nothing really interesting came out from the airframers at the AA98 show. On the engine manufacturers' side, there were a few more activities at the show. Since GE's ambitious expansion into after-market business, all three major engine manufacturers (GE, P&W, and R-R) have been actively forming joint ventures with airline operators. Indeed, a number of Asian joint ventures were announced (or re-announced) at the show. (Interestingly, Boeing had earlier expressed its interest in the after-market business. However, Lufthansa warned Boeing not to compete with its own customers. Right now, Boeing is probably too busy in correcting its production problems. Hence, I have not heard too much about Boeing's after-market expansion.) The most interesting piece of news (related to large commercial aircraft/ engine) at the show was probably P&W's announcment of three new engine programs: the PW40XX (for the A340-500/600, B767-400, and B747 growth), the PW6000 (potentially for the AE31X and similar aircraft), and, most notably, the PW8000, a geared turbo fan intended for the A320 and possibly the B737. P&W's many mis-steps since the late 70s have resulted in drastical drops in market share. Last year, P&W had sold less new engines than R-R! Whether these new programs will bring back P&W's past prominence will remain to be seen. Nevertheless, it took almost a decade before the CFM56 found its success on the B737. Thus, it could be a long road to past glory for P&W. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:46 From: "Sébastien ROBIN" Subject: Fluorescence Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ImagiNET I am looking for pictures of fluorescence flow on a plane. If someone has that please send it to me. Thank you very much. Sébastien ROBIN Geneva School Engineering From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:47 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , Paul Hathaway wrote: >Simplest way to think of it is that the time used to attain cruise >altitudes is short in relation to the time spent en route at the fuel >efficient altitudes. The 'extra fuel" used to get to 35,000 feet is >small compared to the fuel saved by cruising there for 4,5, or 6 hours. And for really efficient planes, you don't even need to be up there that long. I have numerous times flown SFO-SNA in a 757 at 41,000 feet. Total flight time is in the 1:00 to 1:05 range. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Roselle, IL, USA I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:48 From: boyd@cs.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Computer Science Reply-To: boyd@cs.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd) In article , Chris Pitzel wrote: > For example, I weigh roughly 130 pounds at sea level, yet I > would only weigh perhaps 110 pounds at 40k feet. Hogwash. > There are formulas to > determine this which can be derived from the relationship: > > F = G*m1*m2/r^2 > > Where F is the force between the two bodies, G is the gravitational > constant, m1 is the mass of one of the particles, m2 is the mass of the > other particle, and r is the distance between the centres of the two > particles. Anyone who has taken an introductory physics course of any > kind will have seen these formulas. The radius of the earth is 6.378e6 meters. Your 40,000 feet added onto sea-level altitude is 6.390e6 meters. So the force of gravity on you is going to be 0.996 of what it is at sea level. This turns your 130 pounds into 129.5 pounds. You lose about half a pound. Your estimate was off by a factor of 20. (Would you care to pay 17 dollars for a candy bar?) -- Dan From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:49 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Subject: Re: Flying High ? 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 cmp086@mail.usask.ca writes: >Nathan Pusey wrote: >If you were to measure your weight on an aircraft at FL400 and your >weight at sea level, you would find that you would weigh less at >altitude. For example, I weigh roughly 130 pounds at sea level, yet I >would only weigh perhaps 110 pounds at 40k feet. There are formulas to >determine this which can be derived from the relationship: > > F = G*m1*m2/r^2 So... If the Earth is F1 and you are F2, then F1/F2 -> R1^2/R2^2. Given an earth diameter of 6300 kilometers and the fact that at 40,000' you're at 10.1 kilometers, that gives us what, 6300^2/6300^2 = .9968. So I would anticipate that if you weigh 130 pounds at sea level, you'll weigh, oh, 130 pounds at 40,000'. > Since it is much easier to move an object through a very low-density >fluid than it is to move it through a higher density fluid, this means >that an aircraft will require less power in order for it to overcome >frictional forces due to wind resistance (ie: drag). This is a happy cooincidence, given the fact that engine power drops along with density and pressure (your steroid-ridden CFM-56 at 25K lbs at sea level is going to be making 2-3K lbs at altitude), however, it is not a primary factor. The primary factor for flying at high altitude is the thin air. The airplane, being an aerodynamic creature, must have a faster inertial airspeed in order to remain within safe parameters. Thus, assuming that engine costs can be kept in reason, one will simply get to the destination a whole lot faster. See g3av8tor@aol.com's article, , for details. -- 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 Tue Mar 3 03:12:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:50 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GoodNet On 19 Feb 98 01:34:26 , Chris Pitzel wrote: >If you were to measure your weight on an aircraft at FL400 and your >weight at sea level, you would find that you would weigh less at >altitude. For example, I weigh roughly 130 pounds at sea level, yet I >would only weigh perhaps 110 pounds at 40k feet. There are formulas to >determine this which can be derived from the relationship: > > F = G*m1*m2/r^2 The reduction in F is trivial, in fact the radius of the earth is substantally higher at the equator than it is at the poles, far more than the mere 8 miles that 40,000 feet represents. The difference in weight between sea level and 40,000 feet . If you take the radius of the earth to be about 4000 miles, you can work out that the differerence in F is about .2%. Your 130 pounds at sea level will weight 129.7 pounds at 40,000 feet. This is simply not a significant factor. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:51 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services RobertS975 (roberts975@aol.com) wrote: : > Can somebody please explain to me why planes (jet aircraft) fly : >at very high altitudes on long range flights, and how does this conserve : >fuel and get maximum distance ? How does this conserve fuel and save : >time if you can only go half the speed you normally can go at low : >altitude and you have to use twice the amount of power to get too half : >the power you get at lower altitudes ? : Some of your premises in your question are wrong. Fuel consumption in : jet aircraft is far lower at altitude mainly because the air resistence : is so much lower at higher altitudes. Because of the thinner air, the : indicated airspeed will be lower, but the true airspeed corrected for : the less dense air and colder temps will be higher. Jet engines are : notorious fuel hogs at lower altitudes. Hope this answers your : questions. I think the part about getting better fuel efficiency at high altitudes is correct, but I'm not so sure about the part about lower drag. The wings have to generate enough lift to carry the airplane, and the lift-to-drag ratio does not vary much with air density at subsonic speeds, so the drag is independent of altitude, i.e., you have to fly faster or at a higher angle of attack in thinner air so the drag goes up. Piston engine planes flew at lower altitudes because their fuel efficiency was not improved by flying higher. Jets do better at high altitude. Obviously there is some design freedom--the engine can be designed with some optimum altitude--but overall IIRC the best economy is obtained if it is optimized for high altitude. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:52 From: Stuart Bruff Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC-Marconi Chris Pitzel wrote: > The earth's gravitational attraction decreases > For example, I weigh roughly 130 pounds at sea level, yet I > would only weigh perhaps 110 pounds at 40k feet. I think that may be a little optimistic G 6.6700E-11 g0 wt Re 6.3780E+06 m 9.8052 ms-2 130.0000 lbs Me 5.9800E+24 kg Alt(m) Reff (m) galt galt/g0 wt at alt Alt (ft) 0 6.3780E+06 9.8052 1.0000 130.0000 0 1000 6.3790E+06 9.8022 0.9997 129.9592 3281 2000 6.3800E+06 9.7991 0.9994 129.9185 6562 3000 6.3810E+06 9.7960 0.9991 129.8778 9843 4000 6.3820E+06 9.7929 0.9987 129.8371 13123 5000 6.3830E+06 9.7899 0.9984 129.7964 16404 6000 6.3840E+06 9.7868 0.9981 129.7558 19685 7000 6.3850E+06 9.7837 0.9978 129.7151 22966 8000 6.3860E+06 9.7807 0.9975 129.6745 26247 9000 6.3870E+06 9.7776 0.9972 129.6339 29528 10000 6.3880E+06 9.7746 0.9969 129.5933 32808 11000 6.3890E+06 9.7715 0.9966 129.5527 36089 12000 6.3900E+06 9.7684 0.9962 129.5122 39370 13000 6.3910E+06 9.7654 0.9959 129.4717 42651 14000 6.3920E+06 9.7623 0.9956 129.4312 45932 15000 6.3930E+06 9.7593 0.9953 129.3907 49213 16000 6.3940E+06 9.7562 0.9950 129.3502 52493 17000 6.3950E+06 9.7532 0.9947 129.3098 55774 18000 6.3960E+06 9.7501 0.9944 129.2693 59055 19000 6.3970E+06 9.7471 0.9941 129.2289 62336 20000 6.3980E+06 9.7440 0.9938 129.1885 65617 110.0 lbs = 0.8462g = 8.2967 ms-2 : at alt = 555617 m = 1822890 ft = 345 miles Of course, I've probably got my sums wrong ... Stuart Bruff From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:53 From: Evan McElravy Subject: Best Sellers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM What are the best selling commercial airliners? Based on a few random facts and a lot of guess work, I'd guess they come out something like this: 1. Boeing 737 2. McDonnell-Douglas DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/Boeing 717-200 3. Boeing 727 4. Boeing 747 5. Airbus A320/A319/A321 After that, I have no idea where to go. 707? A300? DC-10? This includes regional aircraft, too (Saab 340 is No.1 in that category, I think, followed by either the ATR or Dash-8). Also, how do these numbers compare to some not-so-modern aircraft? I know Douglas made something like 12,000 DC-3s, but most of these went to the armed forces, though many returned to airline service. Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:54 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What are the best selling commercial airliners? Based on a few random facts >and a lot of guess work, I'd guess they come out something like this: > 1. Boeing 737 > 2. McDonnell-Douglas DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/Boeing 717-200 > 3. Boeing 727 > 4. Boeing 747 > 5. Airbus A320/A319/A321 > >After that, I have no idea where to go. 707? A300? DC-10? Close, except the 707 is still ahead of the A320/319/321 for now, and as you note the DC-3 is greater than Boeing's entire 707 thru 777 production if you include the C-47. There probably are some Russian types which are well up the list, too. Here's the ranking for 100+ seat Western commercial jetliners, with production totals (estimated deliveries to date for types which are still in roduction): 1. 737 3000+ 2. DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 2210+ 3. 727 1832 4. 747 1140+ 5. 707/720 1010 (see note) 6. A320/319/321 800+ 757 800+ 8. A300/310 790+ 9. 767 690+ 10. A330/340 200+ 11. DC-10/KC-10/MD-11 620+ (446 DC-10/KC-10) 12. F-28/70/100 ~590 13. DC-8 556 14. L-1011 250 15. 777 110+ The 707 count also includes various military 707 derivatives, but not the KC-135 series (of which 820 were built). You may occasionally see the 707 production total reported as 1012; line numbers went this high but two planes were assigned two different line numbers. A few months ago, the 757 was ahead of the A320/319/321. It's too close to call right now, but within a few months the little Airbus family should have a solid lead on the 757. Both have probably already passed the A300/320. >This includes regional aircraft, too (Saab 340 is No.1 in that >category, I think, followed by either the ATR or Dash-8). I have no idea where the regionals would fit into this picture. >Also, how do these numbers compare to some not-so-modern aircraft? I know >Douglas made something like 12,000 DC-3s, but most of these went to the >armed forces, though many returned to airline service. The military DC-3 was the C-47 Dakota. 417 DC-3s were built before the start of World War II. After the start of hostilities, at least 194 of these were pressed into military service and another 10,238 C-47s were built. I doubt any further civilian DC-3s were built since thousands of C-47s became surplus after the war and were converted to airliners and sold to many airlines. Here are a few other propliner totals: Douglas DC-4 140 (61 pre-war, 79 post-war, excludes C-54s) DC-6 537 DC-7 336 Lockheed L-049/C-69 88 L-649/L-749 133 L-1049 250 (excluding military versions) L-1649 43 Boeing 307 9 (Stratoliner) 377 56 (Stratocruiser) Convair CV-240 176 CV-340 212 Martin 2-0-2 31 4-0-4 103 -- 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 Mar 3 03:12:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:55 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: History lives on Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. Anyone in the Seattle area interested in the piston era of air transportation might want to take a visit to Renton Airport. While most of the field is covered by new 737s and 757s, a small company at the south end of the field seems to be specializing in the rebuilding or overhauling of DC-4s, DC-6s, and DC-7s. These have all been painted red and white with big numbers on the tails, so I suspect they are, or are becoming, firebombers. Currently there is a Douglas product on their ramp (DC-6 maybe?) and the other day a real gem showed up. It's a very clean, polished-aluminum Curtiss C-46. All the planes, including the C-46, have been lettered for Evertts Air Fuel or something of that sort. The C-46 looked to be a beauty from the road as I drove by, so it's worth a look. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:56 From: "Ken O'Riordan" Subject: Boeing 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Union Bank of Switzerland Taking a quick look at the current band of 777 orders, almost all seem to be for the IGW. Does anyone know the ratio. Are airlines no longer interested in the baseline '200? Regards, Ken. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:57 From: "dennisvv" Subject: A300 Crashes in Asia Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: COMPAQ Anyone care to comment on recent "wave" of aircrashes among Asian air carriers recently: a) Could cost-cutting measures, arising from the current Asian currency crisis, be a culprit? b) Or are there actual mechanical/structural flaws in the A300 that hasn't been made public knowledge yet? c) Whatever became of the investigations surrounding the recent Silk Air, Garuda, and CAL A300 crashes? These incidents are too much of a coincidence, wouldn't you say? -- dennisvv From kls Tue Mar 3 03:12:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:58 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A300 Crashes in Asia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >c) Whatever became of the investigations surrounding the recent Silk Air, >Garuda, and CAL A300 crashes? Silk Air 185 was a 737-300, not an A300. Investigators appear to be mystified by this one. Garuda 152 was indeed an A300, but it seems likely that controller error and/or miscommunication between the controller and the pilots will be identified as the primary cause. The fact that it was an A300 appears to be sheer bad luck. >These incidents are too much of a coincidence, wouldn't you say? Given that the three have little in common other than general part of the world, I'd say it's hard to argue it's anything other than coincidence. -- 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 Mar 3 03:12:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:12:59 From: 187 Subject: Re: CHINA AIRLINES AIRBUS CRASH QUESTIONS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber, Pacific Internet, Singapore Reply-To: lowwol@pacific.net.sg Sharat Chandrasekhar wrote: > 2) Wouldnt the cockpit GPWS horn have sounded and warned the pilots to > pull up? I presume the A-300 is equipped with it. news has it that 2 rings which sounded like an alarn was heard by the tower prior tothe plane crashing. another thing to note is that the newspapers had been saying that the pilot may have mistaken the highway, which is quite a near distance from the airport, as the runway. is this possible? i do not think so because if really so, the g/s and loc antenna would have reflected it to the pilot. -- Agreements welcomed. Constructive criticism considered. Flames ignored. YESTERDAY is history. TOMORROW is a mystery. Today is a gift, that is why we call it the PRESENT. Send reply to: lowwol@pacific.net.sg From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:00 From: "Edward Lee" Subject: Re: CHINA AIRLINES AIRBUS CRASH QUESTIONS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET > 1) Does anybody know if the glideslope at TPE was active at the time of > the crash or whether it was NOTAMed out of service, as in the case of > the KAL 747-300 crash in Guam several months ago. > 2) Wouldnt the cockpit GPWS horn have sounded and warned the pilots to > pull up? I presume the A-300 is equipped with it. > > 3) Is the CVR transcript online somewhere > > This almost certainly looks like yet avoidable another CFIT tragedy The glideslope signal for ILS 05L at TPE was active and the surface weather was VIS 1000 meter SCT 100 feet BKN 200feet according to news release from CAA. >From other news sources here in Taiwan, the CVR and DFDR reports were just read out in Austraulia and were sent to Taiwan today. The authority has not yet release those reports to the media. Looks like it was another CFIT, but still unknow if it's possible to get out of the high pitch, high power and very high rate of climb on that go-around. Ed From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:01 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Airbus/Boeing Purchase Terms Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Reply-To: uniphone@home.com All, My question: What are the standard/generally accepted purchase terms used in airliner transactions (or is there such a thing)? Specifically, what percentage of the price is generally paid up front? I realize this may vary widely from one customer to the next, I'm just looking for an estimate. Thanks in advance. John Lombardi SFO A320 From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:02 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Dear Ken, >> "CAD: Computer-aided Disaster" > > Where would I find a copy of it? If you give me your snail-mail address, I'll post you a hard copy. (I don't have a complete on-line copy, unfortunately, since some of the diagrams are literally "cut-and-paste" and I have never gotten around to scanning them in.) Regards, Pete --------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:03 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Benoit) Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grolier Interactive Europe Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr >Matt Lehde asked on 26th Jan. if the A320 that crashed in 1988 >was a prototype. The answer is that it was a production model >operated by Air France. It was hired to the organisers of the >Habsheim airshow to do two fly-pasts. To further recoup their >costs Air France made it into a revenue flight, with a full >load of passengers embarking at Basle for a Sunday afternoon >joy-ride around Mont Blanc (after executing the fly-pasts). In reality, there were 4 prototypes of the A340 Now aircraft N° 001 : still test aircraft 002 : Virgin atlantic 003 : Vorgin atlantic 004 : Royal saoudia family (HZ-125) the fire at CDG was an AFR aircraft there were 3 protoypes of A330 one crashed (f-wwkh). It was destinated to Thaï the first two are stored in germany like 2 A321 ones The A320 in 86 was an Air France Plane with AFR crew not Airbus ! The first protoype still be a test airplane like 2 A319. A300-600 prototype was sold to Novespace to be a ZERO G Aiplane A310 is now a cargo in fedex fleet A300B protype is stored at Le Bourget museum From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:04 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Benoit) Subject: Re: B757/B767/B777 Stearing system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grolier Interactive Europe Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr On 03 Feb 98 19:52:49 , Andrew Cruickshank wrote: >Karl Swartz wrote: >> No A340s have crashed, though one was destroyed by fire while parked >> at CDG in Paris. (The circumstances have always seemed somewhat murky. >> Does anyone know the details?) > >Conicidentally I seem to recall that an Airbus (A330? MAS?) was >damaged by fire while parked overnight at Changi, Singapore >just over a year ago. It's true an a330 of MAS in singapore airport. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Delta 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu trfox@hotmail.com wrote: > Was just on Delta today and asked the Captain about the 777 order that > was supposedly canceled by Malaysian Airlines. He said the deal fell > through because of the configurations not being what Delta needed and > the price was steep because of the currency crisis...don't know why. > Just another data point...doesn't look like 777's soon at Delta... I have different information : both, AA and DL were interested in MH 777 but at the "exclusive-supplier-agreemen-that-doesn't-exist" price they would have had from Boeing, but MH of course wouldn't agree... Cheers, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:06 From: "Ted Perez" Subject: Boeing 777 Cabin Door Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Best greetings to all! :-) It's been a while since i have last read anything from this wonderful newsgroup. Finally, i am able once again to participate, with all of your approval. Lately, my flight attendant wife asked me a question, "Can you show me a picture of the Boeing 777 cabin door, and how it works?" Well, i've scoured the Internet, and... nothing. Well, actually someone named Andrew sent me a scanned imaged from some training material, but it wasn't an actual photo of the door from an aircraft in scheduled operations. Can anyone here help me out? Links... anything... will be of help for sure. Thanks for giving this trivial matter your valuable time and attention. Sincerely, Ted Perez ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:07 From: "Tirath Patel" Subject: Re: 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM trfox@hotmail.com wrote in message ... >Was just on Delta today and asked the Captain about the 777 order that >was supposedly canceled by Malaysian Airlines. He said the deal fell >through because of the configurations not being what Delta needed and >the price was steep because of the currency crisis...don't know why. >Just another data point...doesn't look like 777's soon at Delta... >tonyc Well actually, Malaysia was out of cash in this currency crisis. I don't know why, but the Malaysian government is going to still build a new Kuala Lumpur airport. The government is cash stripped. Delta is looking into the 777 to replace their L1011s and MD11s. US Airways is also looking into 777s. The Seattle Times recently reported that US Airways might give their choice of either 777s or A330s by This week. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:08 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. 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) y106fm@iamerica.net (toad) writes: >>In any case, you know it will scrapped after this.... >Is it common to scrap planes after incidenses like this? Is there anything >that can be salvaged? A) All reports are it's been bent with a B. One wing is no longer fully attached, etc. B) Most importantly, it's a 727. It will have lots of hours and cycles. It's not worth that much flyable, much less needing million$ of rebuilding. C) Considering they can not ferry it out to the desert.... you can be sure it will be stripped of everything worthwhile. The carcass will need to be chopped up and carted off, unless the O'Hare FD wants it for a fire/rescue training prop. -- 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 Tue Mar 3 03:13:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:09 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GoodNet On 19 Feb 98 01:33:48 , y106fm@iamerica.net (toad) wrote: >>In any case, you know it will scrapped after this.... > >Is it common to scrap planes after incidenses like this? Is there anything >that can be salvaged? Generally if the cost to repair exceeds the likely value of the airframe, the air frame will be junked. However the avionics, interior and engines will be salvaged if they are worth recovering. Depending upon age, they may be worth recovering. In any even what is scrapped is usually a whole lot less than the entire aircraft. China Airlines banged up a 747-200 at Manilla about a year ago. The cost to repair exceeded the book value of the aircraft, so it was junked, however a good deal of the value of the aircraft was in the engines, avionics and other salvageable parts, so the loss was probably considerably less than it would appear. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:10 From: dahler@iglobal.net (Chris Dahler) Subject: Re: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >>In any case, you know it will scrapped after this.... > >Is it common to scrap planes after incidenses like this? Is there anything >that can be salvaged? It all depends on the level of damage. Just like in an auto accident, if the cost of repairing the aircraft is greater than the cost of replacing it, it will be scrapped. In the case of an aircraft, some other variables come into play. For example, the value of that 727 is probably only a couple million or so. The damamge to it far exceeds that amount. However, the cost of replacing it with a comparative aircraft like the 737-700 (30+ mil) or upgrading to a 757 (60 mil), may dictate that the aircraft be repaired. When aircraft are scrapped, all the useful parts are stripped and either used for replacements on other aircraft in that airline's fleet or sold to other airlines or parts suppliers. In any case, it isn't just sent to the junkyard. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:11 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 727 @ ORD; hard landing. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom toad wrote: > >In any case, you know it will scrapped after this.... > > Is it common to scrap planes after incidenses like this? Is there > anything that can be salvaged? Lots of stuff is salvaged. Avionics, doors, any undamaged flight control surfaces, lavs, galleys, seats, cabin furnishings, hydraulic parts, etc., etc. Once the aircraft is a empty metal tube, it's off to the smelter. Whether or not an aircraft is scrapped is very analogous to whether your car is totalled by the insurance company after an accident. Obviously, severe damage will send any aircraft (or car) to the scrap heap. More minor damage, and the value of the asset is important. $7000 damage to a brand new Mercedes will get repaired, but not $7000 to a '85 Honda. Since the 727 in question was long ago paid for and was just "gravy" to the airline, it's not worth repairing. (In fact, many aircraft of this vintage are such fuel hogs that they are worth more as a source of spare parts! Ken Ishiguro From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:12 From: ehaase2463@aol.com (EHaase2463) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the Boeing 757-300? From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:13 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > AE316/317 vs B717-100/200 (aka MD-95) > > Airbus has learned that it is very difficult to do business with > China. Airbus wants to build the smaller AE316 to compete with the > B717. The Chinese are interested in the bigger AE317. The other major > partner, Singapore Aerospace, is frustrated and is threatening to pull > out. If they would not succeed - and I doubt they can afford to do so - is there a chance to see this baby-bus being built by AI with other partners. Just think at Saab who has a lot of free capacity. > As long as Boeing can keep the cost down, the B717 might be moderately > successful. In long term the AE31X should have the lead as it will be designed from scratch. There will be the advantage of commonality with other members of AI, especially the 320. But that doesn't make the 717 a bad plane, this airframe has been very successful for over 30 years. > A320 vs B737 > > Anyway, the A320 seems to be doing even better this year. The key to the success is that - in my opinion - the 320 family is now complete. If the 320 would still be alone (no 321 and 319) it would be an isolated solution and be far less interesting for airlines. This is also - in part - why the MD90 and late 80 series failed, there were no smaller or bigger derivatives. Strange as this was one of the reasons for the big success of the DC9. > Boeing cannot afford to lose British Airways' order! This will be a very interesting one, apparently the order will be split, although I doubt it. > A330-200 vs B767-400 > > As I have said so many times, the A330-200 revitalized the A330 > program. At this time, the A330-200 has a small lead. Boeing needs > some Asian and European customers for the -400. This should be a tough battle over the next years, the advantage of the 764 is that the 763 is well established, the 332 is however the newer design. So far the 764 has only be ordered by US customers, see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/b764a332.htm for more details. > A340-500 vs B777-200X > > Both manufacturers are still vying for Singapore's order. The SIA order will kick off either of those a/c. Also the choice of the major japanese carriers will be very important and influence the NW decision. > A340-600 vs B777-300X > > Hence, if AA and DL do show strong enough > interest, I won't be surprised if Boeing gives Singapore a real sweet > deal to kick off the program. SIA will always get a good deal as they may 'really' launch the 345/6 or 772/3X. So far the commitments for the 345/6 don't include a really big order of over 15 firm a/c. > IMHO, the twin-engine B777-300/300X will eventually be one > of Boeing's most successful widebody lines. This is also my opinion, but there has been no order for the 773 for 2.5 years. This derivative will really start to be interesting if Boeing will stop to produce the 744 which would be a direct rival to the 773X. I doubt that the basic 773 will ever be a big success. > B747 vs A3XX > > Quite a number of B747 derivatives have surfaced. The 30-year old B747 > will never be as efficient as the A3XX on paper. Finding the financing for the 3XX will be the most difficult job for the Airbus team. I doubt this will take place anytime soon. You missed the A310 vs B762 market. There is still a (small) market for such an a/c, but I doubt that the investment is worth it. I read that the 310NG would get the engines of the 340NG. But again this is a niche. My views, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:14 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >SIA will always get a good deal as they may 'really' launch the 345/6 or >772/3X. So far the commitments for the 345/6 don't include a really big order >of over 15 firm a/c. The A340-500/600 has already been launched, and now has over 100 orders. I read something a week or so ago saying the SIA order for a super long- range airliner would be less than ten units, so they certainly won't be the first "really big" order for the A340-500 if they go that way. >This is also my opinion, but there has been no order for the 773 for 2.5 >years. This derivative will really start to be interesting if Boeing will >stop to produce the 744 which would be a direct rival to the 773X. The 777-300 is significantly smaller than the 747-400, thought the difference is not huge. In addition, the ETOPS issue is real -- Virgin Atlantic, for example, chose the A340 over the 777 in part because they would have had to fritter away the 777s for about six months while they gained sufficient experience for ETOPS. That and size will keep the 747 in the Boeing catalog for a while yet. >You missed the A310 vs B762 market. There is still a (small) market for >such an a/c, but I doubt that the investment is worth it. No, because Boeing stopped offering the 767-200 years ago. (The airframe is still produced for the E-767 AWACS, but that's it.) Boeing obviously agreed with your assesment that the investment wasn't worth even keeping the model in the catalog. -- 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 Mar 3 03:13:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:15 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Niels Sampath wrote: >In article faurecm@halcyon.com "C. Marin Faure" writes: >>I was told today that as of right now, the dispatch reliability of >>Southwest's 737-700s is 100 percent. This won't last, of course, but it's >>an impressive way to introduce a new plane. > >Not -quite- as impressive as your company memo may make it seem. If it >were a -completely- `new' plane , yes. But you can't sell it by >promoting its commonalities with older 737s and ease of fitting in with >older 737 ops and maint. and then claim it as being an impressive `new' >plane. A new wing and derivatives of a proven engine are unlikely to be >the cause of any problems or bugs when attached to many proven systems >not mention the 30 year old general airframe design. Plus, it was >delayed into service entry by a factor of months allowing plenty of time >to prepare. So a perfectly smooth, if delayed, entry, but not that >`impressive'. Being a derivative does not mean it will have few introduction problems. For example, it wasn't a very smooth introduction for the B747-400. Also, you may want to check R-R's Trent 700 and 800 in-service data. Both are derivative engines. Yet, both have, I believe, the highest inflight shutdown rate, lowest dispatch reliability rate, and the most unscheduled engine removals. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:16 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , niels@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote: > In article faurecm@halcyon.com "C. Marin Faure" writes: > >I was told today that as of right now, the dispatch reliability of > >Southwest's 737-700s is 100 percent. This won't last, of course, but it's > >an impressive way to introduce a new plane. > > Not -quite- as impressive as your company memo may make it seem. If it > were a -completely- `new' plane , yes. But you can't sell it by > promoting its commonalities with older 737s and ease of fitting in with > older 737 ops and maint. and then claim it as being an impressive `new' > plane. A new wing and derivatives of a proven engine are unlikely to be > the cause of any problems or bugs when attached to many proven systems > not mention the 30 year old general airframe design. My reliability statement was not taken from a Boeing memo but from information put out by Southwest Airlines. And I think you would be surprised at the high number of differences there are between the New Generation 737s and the 737-300/400/500. Many of the airplane's systems, while performing the same functions, have been completely redesigned. The wing's control surfaces are different from those used on the earlier wing. The interior has been completely redesigned. There is a far greater use of computers and software in the new 737s, and these are usually the items that affect dispatch reliability these days. The engines and control systems of all of today's planes, Boeing and Airbus, are extremely reliable. The computerized flight management and fault-diagnostic and warning systems can be another story, however. More flights are delayed today by false fault warnings on the flight deck than by actual component problems. But regardless of the commonality between the new and old 737 models, 100 percent dispatch reliability is an impressive achievement, as few airlines can accomplish that with ANY airplane, new, old, or derivative. As far as your "new airplane" statement goes, an airplane IS the wing. The fuselage is just a tube to keep the wind out of the passenger's faces, although the finance department of an airline tends to view it a bit differently. Putting an all-new wing and tail surfaces on an existing fuselage creates an all-new airplane as far as its aerodynamics and efficiency is concerned. The new wing on the 737 fuselage has created an airplane that flies faster and higher than the previous model while burning less fuel. If the designers had started with a clean piece of paper to come up with a plane to meet the New Generation 737's market, the end result probably would have looked like the New Generation 737. The fact that we didn't have to design and build the fuselage tooling just meant we were that much farther ahead. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:17 From: mmitch@cix.co.uk (Michael Mitchell.) Subject: Re: Pilot Training at Obscure Airports (was: Southwest Airlines 737-700) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: mmitch@cix.co.uk In article When I visited Legoland back in 1990, I was a bit surprised to >see a shiny new Lufthansa 747-400 take off from the adjacent >airport at Billup, Denmark. Seemed like an odd place to offer >intercontinental service. Then I saw it take off again about 15 >minutes later. And again, and again... Over here in the UK there is a large runway at RAF Manston, Kent (2,700m).IT is used by several airlines, Virgin, Air UK etc for training. To see a 747 doing 'Touch & Go' is something. I have over the years seen A340, F100, DC8F & B707 as well. They are real landings, no ILS installed. I have even heard them ask for the PAPI lights to be turned off! Mike Mitchell. Aviation enthusiast not fanatic. From kls Tue Mar 3 03:13:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 98 03:13:18 From: tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) Subject: Re: Pilot Training at Obscure Airports (was: Southwest Airlines 737-700) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: > When I visited Legoland back in 1990, I was a bit surprised to see a > shiny new Lufthansa 747-400 take off from the adjacent airport at > Billup, Denmark. Seemed like an odd place to offer intercontinental > service. Then I saw it take off again about 15 minutes later. And > again, and again... And if you visited Moses Lake, in Washington, USA, you could see JAL 747s doing the same thing. I don't know whether they still have a presence there, but back in the 70's and 80's MWH was a major crew training location for JAL. The 747 they used was very old and in very poor shape. I worked for a regional ariline that serviced MWH and we handled frequent AOG shipments from Boeing to JAL@MWH. Tom Benedict tbenz@halcyon.com From news Fri Mar 6 12:25:07 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Bill Hough Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Asian Aerospace 98 Date: 04 Mar 1998 10:03:54 -0500 Organization: IBM.NET Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: H Andrew Chuang wrote: > During this year's Asian Aerospace Show (AA98), neither Airbus nor > Boeing had announced a single order. The Asian Aerospace Show is the > second largest trade show of its kind after the Paris Air Show. I thought Farnbourough was the world's second largest airshow after Paris. -- Bill Hough can be reached at brhough@ibm.net remove "nospam" before hitting "send". Check out the photos at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/3964/ Attend the Newark Airport Airline Collectible Show & Sale: http://www.freeyellow.com/members/psa188/page1.html From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:02 From: Bryan Shrode Subject: Boeing 717-200 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network I have a question regarding the Boeing 717-200 (MD-95). On Boeing's site, they said 18 customers showed a interest in the 717. Who are they? Please Respond, -- Bryan Shrode bshrode@home.net - x--x--(_)--x--x---- If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:03 From: STEFANO PAGIOLA Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > As far as your "new airplane" statement goes, an airplane > IS the wing. The fuselage is just a tube to keep the wind > out of the passenger's faces, although the finance > department of an airline tends to view it a bit differently. > Putting an all-new wing and tail surfaces on an existing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > fuselage creates an all-new airplane as far as its ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > aerodynamics and efficiency is concerned. The new wing on > the 737 fuselage has created an airplane that flies faster > and higher than the previous model while burning less fuel. You realize, of course, that your employer just devoted a great deal of effort to arguing precisely the opposite definition of what constitutes a new plane with the US and European certification authorities? Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:04 From: "Gregory L. Smith" Subject: Re: Southwest Airlines 737-700 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Reply-To: Gregory.L.Smith2@boeing.com C. Marin Faure wrote: > As far as your "new airplane" statement goes, an airplane IS the wing. > The fuselage is just a tube to keep the wind out of the passenger's faces, > although the finance department of an airline tends to view it a bit > differently. Putting an all-new wing and tail surfaces on an existing > fuselage creates an all-new airplane as far as its aerodynamics and > efficiency is concerned. The new wing on the 737 fuselage has created an > airplane that flies faster and higher than the previous model while > burning less fuel. If the designers had started with a clean piece of > paper to come up with a plane to meet the New Generation 737's market, the > end result probably would have looked like the New Generation 737. The > fact that we didn't have to design and build the fuselage tooling just > meant we were that much farther ahead. While I agree with most of what you have written, I must take exception to your comment that we didn't have to design and build new fuselage tooling. That is just wrong. Here in Wichita, we are using completely new concepts (WRT the classic line) in tooling and assembly for the Next Generation 737. All of the 737 NG aircraft are being built on completely new tooling in a different area of the plant than the Classic line. I should know since I was involved in the groups which designed the Sections 41 and 47 (cab and aft entrance/galley area), floors, and struts for the new aircraft. -- Greg Smith 737NG/747/767 Strut Weight Engineering Wichita, KS (316) 526-3690 Gregory.L.Smith2@Boeing.com From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:05 From: mayerp1@nevada.edu (PAUL G MAYER) Subject: Re: Pilot Training at Obscure Airports (was: Southwest Airlines 737-700) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services Tom Benedict (tbenz@halcyon.com) wrote: : And if you visited Moses Lake, in Washington, USA, you could see JAL 747s : doing the same thing. I don't know whether they still have a presence : there, but back in the 70's and 80's MWH was a major crew training : location for JAL. The 747 they used was very old and in very poor shape. I : worked for a regional ariline that serviced MWH and we handled frequent : AOG shipments from Boeing to JAL@MWH. They were still there as of the summer of '95. I had the pleasure of escorting a group of Civil Air Patrol cadets on an exchange program to Japan that year. Our Japanese counterparts visited Washington state, including a tour of the JAL facility at MWH. Tailwinds, LTC. Paul Mayer, CAP mayerp1@nevada.edu UNLV/CCSN Las Vegas, NV ATP, AGI, IGI; former YR F/O (DHC-6-300) and now Just a Japanese 222 student at UNLV and... Mercenary 16/35/70mm/Imax/Video/Dailies Projectionist/Engineer-- When the money runs out, so do I. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:06 From: trm@xxxtig.com.au (Jock) Subject: Re: Pilot Training at Obscure Airports (was: Southwest Airlines 737-700) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Internet Group Ltd tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) wrote: >> When I visited Legoland back in 1990, I was a bit surprised to see a >> shiny new Lufthansa 747-400 take off from the adjacent airport at >> Billup, Denmark. Seemed like an odd place to offer intercontinental >> service. Then I saw it take off again about 15 minutes later. And >> again, and again... > >And if you visited Moses Lake, in Washington, USA, you could see JAL 747s >doing the same thing. I don't know whether they still have a presence >there, but back in the 70's and 80's MWH was a major crew training >location for JAL. The 747 they used was very old and in very poor shape. I >worked for a regional ariline that serviced MWH and we handled frequent >AOG shipments from Boeing to JAL@MWH. Yes Tom....JAL still do their initial FO training for the 747 classic at Moses Lake. JAL still like to use the real thing for pilot training! (They also use category 5 simulators) The 747's maybe old but I can assure you they are in *good* shape. JAL's maintenance philosophy is to change everything when there is a problem. Price isn't the main concern. The airframe (and systems) are under increased workload during touch and go's. With their maintenance philosophy in mind, the frequent AOG parts requests is understandable. JAL just rotate a regular online 747 into the training. Most of the time these aircraft arrive at destination airports with *no* unserviceabilities at all. PS I've heard that JAL's 747-400 fleet has maintenance costs higher than they would like? Cheers -- Jock trm@tig.com.au From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:07 From: Dimitrios Tombros Subject: Modern sovier airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Zurich I am interested in the sales and use of more modern russian made airliners like Tu-204. Are there any airlines using them? What is their sales record until now? Which are still being produced? Any information would be appreciated. -- 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 Fri Mar 13 03:35:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:08 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: A300 Crashes in Asia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GoodNet On 03 Mar 98 03:12:57 , "dennisvv" wrote: >Anyone care to comment on recent "wave" of aircrashes among Asian air >carriers recently: > >a) Could cost-cutting measures, arising from the current Asian currency >crisis, be a culprit? Probably not >b) Or are there actual mechanical/structural flaws in the A300 that hasn't >been made public knowledge yet? A300 autopilot is a little funny, and it was implicated in at least one crash, however the A300 that went down belonged to CAL, and CAL has acquired a very long reputation for very poor cockpit procedures. This is the 5th widebody they have lost in the past decase, and frankly, none of them should have been wrecked. A number of airlines don't allow their employees to travel on CAL. >c) Whatever became of the investigations surrounding the recent Silk Air, >Garuda, and CAL A300 crashes? There are some things about the Silk Air crash that don't make a lot of sense. The big one is why the CVR and FDR stopped several minutes before the crash. This suggestes they were turned off, or the aircraft suffered some very very strange failure. Garuda also has long standing reputation for poor maintenance. At Garuda, nothing is ever fixed unless it is truly inoperative. An engine that delivers only 50% of rated performance, they probably keep flying with. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:09 From: tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) Subject: Re: A300 Crashes in Asia 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: > Silk Air 185 was a 737-300, not an A300. Investigators appear to be > mystified by this one. Yesterday there was an article in the Seattle Times reporting that investigators are looking into the possibility of pilot suicide as the cause for the SilkAir crash. I didn't read the details. Tom Benedict tbenz@halcyon.com From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:10 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca James Matthew Weber wrote: >Your 130 pounds at sea level will > weight 129.7 pounds at 40,000 feet. This is simply not a significant > factor. But taken on the whole plane filled with people and cargo, doesn't this change in WEIGHT not allow the plane fly more efficiently ? OK, so it is just 0.4% (0.004) in change roughly. But in aerodynamics, isn't any reduction in drag accompanied by a significant performance increase ? Since incremental refinements in efficiency of aircraft are getting smaller and smaller, doesn't this relatively insignificant different not start to make a difference ? (Think of it in olypics records which use dto be broken by seconds and are now being broken by hundreths of seconds which yse to be thought of as insignificant). While we're at it, is the "centrifugal force" of the plane circling the earth at 10km altitude at about 1000kmh in favourable winds as significant as the weight difference factor or is it really really close to nil ? From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:11 From: tyler@ug2.plk.af.mil (David Tyler) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab. Stuart Bruff writes: >Chris Pitzel wrote: >> The earth's gravitational attraction decreases >> For example, I weigh roughly 130 pounds at sea level, yet I >> would only weigh perhaps 110 pounds at 40k feet. >I think that may be a little optimistic well... maybe if he were weighing himself at 40k ft in a dive... :) dave ______________________________________________________________________ -David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not -Air Force Research Laboratory of benefit to the public." -Albuquerque, New Mexico -tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:12 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Flying High ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GoodNet On 03 Mar 98 03:12:47 , lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) wrote: >In article , Paul Hathaway > wrote: > >>Simplest way to think of it is that the time used to attain cruise >>altitudes is short in relation to the time spent en route at the fuel >>efficient altitudes. The 'extra fuel" used to get to 35,000 feet is >>small compared to the fuel saved by cruising there for 4,5, or 6 hours. > >And for really efficient planes, you don't even need to be up there that >long. I have numerous times flown SFO-SNA in a 757 at 41,000 feet. Total >flight time is in the 1:00 to 1:05 range. Traveling at FL410 on SFO SNA is only coincidentally related to fuel consumption. It has everything to do with getting there on time. Relatively few airliners can fly that high, so it avoids congestion.. It gets you up and over the traffic. It saves fuel because it avoids ATC delays. It is very unlikely to be the optimal altitude for the A/C however. The aircraft has to be at extremely low weight to make it attractive to fly up there. You will find the odd 767 and 757 up there, along with 747-SP's at end of cruise on a very long haul flight. Airbuses never get that high, and neither do 737's. It is very rare for 777 or 747's to be up there. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:13 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: 777's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Tirath Patel wrote: > Well actually, > Malaysia was out of cash in this currency crisis. I don't know why, but > the Malaysian government is going to still build a new Kuala Lumpur airport. The KLIA was almost complete when the financial storm broke. It was due to open next month and is currently undergoing tests. Halting it would almost certainly cause problems now - it would still need considerable maintenance even if the project was suspended. Staff have already been purchasing new houses and moving into the surrounding area. The existing airport at Subang (they call it something else) has capacity problems - and at night there have reputedly been problems finding space for aircraft on the ground - presumably after a substantial portion of the MAS fleet comes home to roost. ----------------- Andrew. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:14 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , "Ted Perez" wrote: > Lately, my flight attendant wife asked me a question, "Can you show me a > picture of the Boeing 777 cabin door, and how it works?" Well, i've > scoured the Internet, and... nothing. Well, actually someone named > Andrew sent me a scanned imaged from some training material, but it > wasn't an actual photo of the door from an aircraft in scheduled > operations. The 777 uses a translating door. In other words, instead of retracting into the cabin, pivoting, and then moving back out of the cabin like earlier Boeing airplanes (except the 767 which uses a door that moves straight up into the top of the cabin), the 777 door unplugs, moves straight out, and then moves to the side. The outside of the door always faces out. It is similar in operation to the door Airbus uses on some of their models. An interesting sidebar to the 777 door. It seems that failing hydraulics in jetways is not that uncommon of an occurance. When it happens, the jetway sags down to the ground, and it can peel the door right off an airplane in the process. On the doors of most planes, this results in a lot of structural damage as frames and skins are severely stressed and bent. The repair can take days, even weeks. The airlines brought this up during the desing phase of the 777 as an expensive problem they have to deal with more than they would like. As a result of their input, we put some sort of shearpin mechanism (I'm not an engineer) in the door so it would break free of the plane without damaging any of the surrounding structure. Our design was put to the test during a demonstration tour of WA001, the prototype 777, to South America. It was parked at a jetway and everyone had just gotten off when an airport technician accidentally cut the hydraulic pressure to the jetway. It started to sink down on its wheels and in the process neatly peeled the forward door right off the 777. But the shear mechanism worked as designed; the door ripped off and fell onto a baggage cart down below, but there was no damage at all to the door frame, skins, or surrounding airplane structure. A new door was air expressed (at the airport's expense) from Seattle, and the plane was back in the air the next day. Replacing the door was simply a matter of removing the remaining door parts from the hinge(s), installing the new door, and hooking up the lights and warning circuits. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:15 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Boeing 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu Ken O'Riordan wrote: > Taking a quick look at the current band of 777 orders, almost all seem > to be for the IGW. Does anyone know the ratio. Total 777 orders = 364 (310 for B772 (+-220 are IGW's) and 54 for B773) Delivered 777 = 111 (60 B777 and 51 B777IGW's) as of Jan-98 Besides airlines may still change between the different 777. Just think at DL and AA with their 'exclusive-supplier-deal-which-doesn't-exist'. Those contracts are quite flexible, the customer is always getting what he needs, even if at the time he made the order he was 'wrong'. > Are airlines no longer > interested in the baseline '200? It all depends on their needs, if you want to be more flexible and have the extra money you go for the IGW. Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:16 From: 187 Subject: Re: Asian Aerospace 98 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber, Pacific Internet, Singapore Reply-To: lowwol@pacific.net.sg H Andrew Chuang wrote: > During this year's Asian Aerospace Show (AA98), neither Airbus nor > Boeing had announced a single order. The Asian Aerospace Show is the > second largest trade show of its kind after the Paris Air Show. i would like to correct u that the Asian Aerospace is the third largest air trade show/expo after Paris and the other one at the United Kingdom, not necessary in that order. rgds. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:17 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Asian Aerospace 98 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 04 Mar 1998 10:03:54 -0500, Bill Hough caused to appear as if it was written: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: > >> During this year's Asian Aerospace Show (AA98), neither Airbus nor >> Boeing had announced a single order. The Asian Aerospace Show is the >> second largest trade show of its kind after the Paris Air Show. > >I thought Farnbourough was the world's second largest airshow after >Paris. Well, this is tough, since Farnborough and Paris alternate each years, so you can't really compare them: the attendance figures for to rank 1997 shows cannot be easily compared with 1996's figures. I think it safe to say that the northern European airshow held alternately at Le Bourget and Farnborough is larger than the Asian Aerospace show! Malc. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:18 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Asian Aerospace 98 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > During this year's Asian Aerospace Show (AA98), neither Airbus nor > Boeing had announced a single order. Right, the biggest deal was announced by Brazilian aircraft maker Embraer covering $810 million for up to 60 ERJ-135 regional jets from U.S.-based Business Express. Note that LH announced LOI for 3 more MD11F during the show, but not at the show. > Both companies outlined future > product plans, namely, the A3XX, AE31X, B777-200X, B747-400Y, etc. Interesting that the A318 project was only revealed after the AA98, certainly for not offending the Asian partners. > the PW8000, a geared turbo fan intended for the A320 and > possibly the B737. Could somebody explain the innovative features of this PW8000 Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:19 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: PW 8000 engines for 737/320 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu I recently read that PW decides to launch the PW 8000 to compete with the CFM on the 737/320 series. The report mentioned : START ITEM "The new PW8000 geared turbofan is the next leap in engine technology," said Karl Krapek, Pratt & Whitney president. It is expected to reduce operating costs by as much as 10 percent - an estimated $600,000 a year for a typical jet. It will reduce fuel consumption by 9 percent, extending the nonstop range of the airplane, and cut noise levels by 30 decibels.It will generate 25,000 to 35,000 pounds of thrust, while a smaller version, the PW6000, will provide 16,000 to 23,000 pounds of thrust. The project will go into detailed design stages in the spring with certification scheduled 30 months later, or early in 2001, said Mark Sullivan, Pratt & Whitney spokesman. END ITEM This report raises several questions : -Doesn't Boeing have an exclusive supplier agreement with CFM for the 737NG ? -What financial effort would it be for AI and Boeing to implement a new engine ? -As Pratt is already represented in the 320 engine market with IAE the move surprises, or way they replace the V2500 series with the PW8000. What about the other partners in the IAE project ? In my view this engine would be a nice starting point for an A320NG ;) Any comments are welcome, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:20 From: philvsr@easynet.fr (Philippe Vessaire) Subject: B727/737 Passenger/Cargo convertibles 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: Ligue de defense des dahus bleus In article , Antoin Daltun wrote: > A few high quality airlines have introduced B737-300QCs in Europe >realtively recently. It would be interesting to hear their experiences: >Air France/Inter-l'Aeropostale, Falcon Aviation Sweden (and SAS?) It's work fine in Aéropostale. The goal is night postal fret and a day use as 2nd job for the planes. Maintenance is day works, each night the planes fly. -- Salutations Philippe philvsr@easynet.fr From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:21 From: Shawn Jipp Subject: Aspen Airways Convair Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nanometrics UK I am trying to recall all of the aircraft that I have flown in. Somewhere between 1979-82 Aspen Airways based in Colorado began flying to South Lake Tahoe, California for a time. I need to know what model of Convair they used. Was it the 580? 440? 340? Thanks! Please reply here or to sjipp@ibm.net From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:22 From: STEFANO PAGIOLA Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Evan McElravy wrote: > What are the best selling commercial airliners? Based on a > few random facts and a lot of guess work, I'd guess they > come out something like this: > 1. Boeing 737 > 2. McDonnell-Douglas DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/Boeing 717-200 > 3. Boeing 727 > 4. Boeing 747 > 5. Airbus A320/A319/A321 > After that, I have no idea where to go. 707? A300? DC-10? Well, in terms of number built to date (as opposed to number ordered) the top-10 ranking among jets goes: (1) 737 at about 3,000 (2) DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 at about 2,200 (3) 727 at 1,832 (4) 747 at about 1,140 (5) 707/720 at about 1,000 (6) and (7) A319/A320/A321 and 757 roughly equal at about 800 (8) and (9) A300/A310 and 767 roughly equal at about 700 (10) DC-10/MD-11 at about 610 The ties should soon be broken, with the A320 series pulling ahead of the 757 and the 767 pulling ahead of the A300/A310. No other changes in rankings are likely anytime soon. Eventually, the A320 series will overtake the 707 and 747, and may pass the 727 total (they have about 1,500 orders to date). Given enough time, they may overtake the DC-9 series as well, although that depends on Boeing's success with the 717. I doubt they'll ever catch up to the 737's phenomenal total (which continues growing). The 757 and 767 will probably eventually pass the 707 total. If Boeing puts some serious marketing muscle behind the MD-11, the DC-10/MD-11 may pass the A300/A310 total (which is very unlikely to grow by much from current numbers). The 777 and A330/A340 are so new that it will take them a long time to have a hope of making the top 10, although I expect that both will eventually figure, displacing the DC-10/MD-11 and A300/A310. I suppose we could organize a pool ;-) Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:23 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 03 Mar 98 03:12:54 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >Here's the ranking for 100+ seat Western commercial jetliners, with >production totals (estimated deliveries to date for types which are >still in roduction): > > 1. 737 3000+ The 3000th 737 (a -400) was delivered to Alaska Airlines on 2/27/98. Malc. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:24 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Also, how do these numbers compare to some not-so-modern aircraft? I know >>Douglas made something like 12,000 DC-3s, but most of these went to the >>armed forces, though many returned to airline service. > >The military DC-3 was the C-47 Dakota. 417 DC-3s were built before the >start of World War II. After the start of hostilities, at least 194 of >these were pressed into military service and another 10,238 C-47s were >built. I doubt any further civilian DC-3s were built since thousands of >C-47s became surplus after the war and were converted to airliners and >sold to many airlines. Add to that at least 2500 Lisunov Li-2s built under license in the Soviet Union. Plus 487 assembled in Japan and a few in the Netherlands by Fokker, giving a total well in excess of 13,000. > Douglas > DC-4 140 (61 pre-war, 79 post-war, excludes C-54s) Of course quite a lot of post-war airlines got underway with war surplus C54s... IIRC, Fokker sold something like 800 F-27s. I think that's a better record than the Saab 340's. (And the F-27 is a bigger plane.) -- 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 Mar 13 03:35:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:25 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > >What are the best selling commercial airliners? Based on a few random facts > >and a lot of guess work, I'd guess they come out something like this: > > 1. Boeing 737 > > 2. McDonnell-Douglas DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/Boeing 717-200 > > 3. Boeing 727 > > 4. Boeing 747 > > 5. Airbus A320/A319/A321 > > > >After that, I have no idea where to go. 707? A300? DC-10? > > Close, except the 707 is still ahead of the A320/319/321 for now, Obviously it all depends if the criteria is total announced orders or total airframes produced. Hard to know what the original poster meant by 'best selling commercial airliners'. I would guess total announced orders, but again this is a guess ... Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:26 From: STEFANO PAGIOLA Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > ... Boeing stopped offering the 767-200 years ago. (The airframe > is still produced for the E-767 AWACS, but that's it.) > Boeing obviously agreed with your assesment that the investment > wasn't worth even keeping the model in the catalog. Is that true? I know none have been ordered in a while, but I haven't heard anything about them no longer offering it. Its listed in the Boeing's website, with no indication that I can see that it's not on offer. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:27 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 03 Mar 98 03:13:14 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >>This is also my opinion, but there has been no order for the 773 for 2.5 >>years. This derivative will really start to be interesting if Boeing will >>stop to produce the 744 which would be a direct rival to the 773X. > >The 777-300 is significantly smaller than the 747-400, thought the >difference is not huge. In addition, the ETOPS issue is real -- Virgin >Atlantic, for example, chose the A340 over the 777 in part because they >would have had to fritter away the 777s for about six months while they >gained sufficient experience for ETOPS. That and size will keep the 747 >in the Boeing catalog for a while yet. In addition, the 744 can carry more weight-per-passenger than the 773 (some of which is used for the fuel for the longer range of the 744). Still, on routes like LAX-SYD this is a major issue for carriers, who can sell more cargo space than they can lift. Given that a hypothetical 773X will first have to deliver the range of the 744 (if it is to replace it), the numbers will continue to favor the 744 and its successors (-400Y) for a while to come. Malc. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:28 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> AE316/317 vs B717-100/200 (aka MD-95) >> >> Airbus has learned that it is very difficult to do business with >> China. Airbus wants to build the smaller AE316 to compete with the >> B717. The Chinese are interested in the bigger AE317. The other major >> partner, Singapore Aerospace, is frustrated and is threatening to pull >> out. > >If they would not succeed - and I doubt they can afford to do so - is there a >chance to see this baby-bus being built by AI with other partners. Just think >at Saab who has a lot of free capacity. As long as the Chinese are involved, most of the assembly will be in China. China's previous negotiations with Korea fell apart because the Korean insisted on having at least one assembly line in Korea. >> As long as Boeing can keep the cost down, the B717 might be moderately >> successful. > >In long term the AE31X should have the lead as it will be designed from >scratch. There will be the advantage of commonality with other members of AI, >especially the 320. But that doesn't make the 717 a bad plane, this airframe >has been very successful for over 30 years. For regional jets, technology and commonality may not be very important. Don't forget, the US is still the largest market for these regional jets. Many of the regional jet operators in the US are not directly tied to major Boeing and Airbus operators. >> A330-200 vs B767-400 >> >> As I have said so many times, the A330-200 revitalized the A330 >> program. At this time, the A330-200 has a small lead. Boeing needs >> some Asian and European customers for the -400. > >This should be a tough battle over the next years, the advantage of the 764 >is that the 763 is well established, the 332 is however the newer design. So >far the 764 has only be ordered by US customers, see >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/b764a332.htm for more >details. The 767 has always be strong in the US and relatively weak in Asia and Europe. The 764 will not change this trend. Nevertheless, if AA also orders the 764, the 764 will have a very solid customer base, even though they are all US customers. >You missed the A310 vs B762 market. There is still a (small) market for such >an a/c, but I doubt that the investment is worth it. I read that the 310NG >would get the engines of the 340NG. But again this is a niche. I didn't mean to be complete. I also did not mention anything on the B757. The Trent 500 and PW4XXX have all been proposed as alternative powerplants for the B767-400. I doubt an A310 replacement is high on Airbus's development list. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:29 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>SIA will always get a good deal as they may 'really' launch the 345/6 or >>772/3X. So far the commitments for the 345/6 don't include a really big order >>of over 15 firm a/c. > >The A340-500/600 has already been launched, and now has over 100 orders. 100 "commitments" not orders. These commitments include options. Announced firm orders (include letters of intent) consist of 9 -600s from Swissair, 2 -600s from EgyptAir, 8 -600s from Virgin Atlantic, 10 -600s from Lufthansa, 6 -500s from EVA Air, and 5(?) from Air Canada (I don't remember AC's that well). That's only 40. Emirates seems to be the seventh customer, and I doubt it will place more than 6 firm orders. Furthermore, I don't think EVA Air's order is a done deal. >I read something a week or so ago saying the SIA order for a super long- >range airliner would be less than ten units, so they certainly won't be >the first "really big" order for the A340-500 if they go that way. With only 8 or 9 announced intended orders for the A340-500 (from EVA and Air Canada), ten units will more than double the order book! ;-) Although, SIA may need only 10 A340-500s or B777-200Xs, it will also need a significant number of A340-600s or B777-300Xs. Thus, my guess is SIA will order between 20 to 25 of A340-500/600s or B777-200X/300Xs. >>This is also my opinion, but there has been no order for the 773 for 2.5 >>years. This derivative will really start to be interesting if Boeing will >>stop to produce the 744 which would be a direct rival to the 773X. > >The 777-300 is significantly smaller than the 747-400, thought the >difference is not huge. In addition, the ETOPS issue is real -- Virgin >Atlantic, for example, chose the A340 over the 777 in part because they >would have had to fritter away the 777s for about six months while they >gained sufficient experience for ETOPS. That and size will keep the 747 >in the Boeing catalog for a while yet. I thought Virgin intended to use the A340-600 to replace the B747 classics. >>You missed the A310 vs B762 market. There is still a (small) market for >>such an a/c, but I doubt that the investment is worth it. > >No, because Boeing stopped offering the 767-200 years ago. (The airframe >is still produced for the E-767 AWACS, but that's it.) Boeing obviously >agreed with your assesment that the investment wasn't worth even keeping >the model in the catalog. Until last year, Boeing still listed prices for the 767-200 and 767-200ER. This year, Boeing no longer lists the prices for the 767-200 and 767-300. However, the prices for the two ER versions are still listed. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:30 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > The A340-500/600 has already been launched, and now has over 100 orders. Yes I know that the 340NG has been launched ;) What I meant was a really big order which would boost the program. Concerning the 100 orders, I can't agree : Orders LOI Options Total 10 46 66 Virgin 8 - 8 Egyptair 2 - 2 EVA - 6 6 A. Canada - 5 15 Swissair - 9 9 Lufthansa - 10 10+ A. France - 10 10? Emirates - 6 6 This table has been established with public information and some 'good links'. LH has a lot of options on the 330/340 family which they may convert either way (332 or 346). AF has signed the LOI for the 346 long time ago and should be one of the two unannounced customers, the others should be Emirates. Total commitments would be 122 but with only 10 firm orders. > I read something a week or so ago saying the SIA order for a super long- > range airliner would be less than ten units, so they certainly won't be > the first "really big" order for the A340-500 if they go that way. Right, when I posted my mail I hadn't read this article. > Virgin > Atlantic, for example, chose the A340 over the 777 in part because they > would have had to fritter away the 777s for about six months while they > gained sufficient experience for ETOPS. Since the 777 got ETOPS from day one on, did this only apply to VS as they only operate 4-engine a/c ?? > No, because Boeing stopped offering the 767-200 years ago. Hmmm .... looking at the '98 prices for Boeing a/c the list price for the 762ER is 83.0 - 93.0 M$ !! Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Virgin >> Atlantic, for example, chose the A340 over the 777 in part because they >> would have had to fritter away the 777s for about six months while they >> gained sufficient experience for ETOPS. >Since the 777 got ETOPS from day one on, did this only apply to VS as >they only operate 4-engine a/c ?? ETOPS certification applies to operators and their maintenance programs independent of the airframe/engine certification. So, just because the 777 with PW4000 engines had ETOPS on day one (I think the 777/Trent did too, not sure about the 777/GE90), a given airline wouldn't necessarily be ETOPS approved for the 777. A number of factors probably helped United get ETOPS approval for their 777 fleet from day one -- a well-established ETOPS program on other types (757, 767), extensive experience with the selected engine type (PW4000, already on the UA 747-400 and 767-300(ER) fleet), and, perhaps most significant of all, substantial ETOPS experience with the 777 itself (UA crews flew the last 500-600 flights of the 1,000 flight ETOPS-out- of-the-box airframe/engine certification program). Besides not having an existing ETOPS program, Virgin may have simply lost to different rules -- I don't think BA received ETOPS-OOTB for their 777s, either, so the UK authorities may not accept the idea. -- 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 Fri Mar 13 03:35:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu EHaase2463 wrote: > Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of the Boeing 757-300? This bird dosn't sell very well. So far only the launch customer Condor (12 orders) and Icelandair (3 orders) have ordered it in 1.5 year. It makes only sense in the charter market as the trip costs per seat are very low. I really don't see a regular airline putting all those passengers in this thin tube. And yes ... Icelandair isn't known for being very comfortable. My views, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:33 From: Michael Peterson Subject: Civilian Transports That Were Notorius Commercial "flops" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISPNews http://ispnews.com Reply-To: mikey@garden.net Searching for information, background, leads, threads, and first hand accounts, etc. on the following highly unsuccessful airliners for an article. If not direct information - any leads on bibliography or old periodical print resources??? - Burnelli's Canadian CBY-3, Sincase SE.2010, McDonnell MD-220, and Dassault Mercure? Thanks. Mike Peterson From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:34 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: CHINA AIRLINES AIRBUS CRASH QUESTIONS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , lowwol@pacific.net.sg wrote: >another thing to note is that the newspapers had been saying that the >pilot may have mistaken the highway, which is quite a near distance from >the airport, as the runway. is this possible? >i do not think so because if really so, the g/s and loc antenna would >have reflected it to the pilot. But that assumes they continued to monitor the localizer and glide slope after starting to fly visually to what they think is the runway. As a light plane pilot, I have to admit once I see the runway, I'm not paying all that much attention to the navigation instruments. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Roselle, IL, USA I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:35 From: "Marv Woolard" Subject: Re: CHINA AIRLINES AIRBUS CRASH QUESTIONS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net 187 wrote in article ... > Sharat Chandrasekhar wrote: > > 2) Wouldnt the cockpit GPWS horn have sounded and warned the pilots to > > pull up? I presume the A-300 is equipped with it. > > news has it that 2 rings which sounded like an alarn was heard by the > tower prior tothe plane crashing. > > another thing to note is that the newspapers had been saying that the > pilot may have mistaken the highway, which is quite a near distance from > the airport, as the runway. is this possible? > i do not think so because if really so, the g/s and loc antenna would > have reflected it to the pilot. I have seen no data on whether the autopilot was still engaged though I did read somewhere that some carriers were disallowing autoland for some period of time after this accident; which leads me to believe that this was an autoland not a pilot hand flown landing. As you point out no gpws warning sounds if the aircraft is configured for landing (gear and flaps) and it appears on or above glideslope. Assuming these are all met and yet the aircraft landed short of the runway then there are only two possibilities: (1) ground equipment fault or failure (bad glideslope signal) or (2) airborne equipment failure (bad interpretation of a good glideslope signal). If the aircraft was "hand flown" below glideslope a "Glideslope" aural warning would have presumably sounded though there probably is some low altitude cutoff for this warning. In my estimation the weather warranted an autoland, but I don't know the status of the airborne or ground systems. marv From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:36 From: mech74720@aol.com (Mech747 20) Subject: Re: CHINA AIRLINES AIRBUS CRASH QUESTIONS References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >> 2) Wouldnt the cockpit GPWS horn have sounded and warned the pilots to >> pull up? I presume the A-300 is equipped with it. > >news has it that 2 rings which sounded like an alarn was heard by the >tower prior tothe plane crashing. > >another thing to note is that the newspapers had been saying that the >pilot may have mistaken the highway, which is quite a near distance from >the airport, as the runway. is this possible? >i do not think so because if really so, the g/s and loc antenna would >have reflected it to the pilot. Has wind shear been considered? Mech74720@aol.com, matt757@earthlink.net 747 Assembler The opinions above are my own. If it's not Boeing I'm not going! From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:37 From: "Campfire" Subject: Geared turbofans Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com This is my first posting to this apparently nearly deceased newsgroup(is ANYONE out there? :) My curiosity was piqued when I read about PW developing a new geared turbofan. PW put out a news release stating it was the last great improvement to be made with current technology(paraphrasing here, so I hope I got it right). Does anyone know what advantages PW expect out of this? I'm assuming they'll be running a bigger fan and will need to slow it down from the core speed, and that the bigger size is because this engine would be for the proposed superjumbo jets. Anyone have any info? Comments? What about some of their competitor's comments that this is old technology with no inherent advantages? Dave From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:38 From: mmitch@cix.co.uk (Michael Mitchell.) Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: mmitch@cix.co.uk I did reply to requests for info on the Bristol 170 before. Just to repeat that its cruising height was 5,000ft no pressure required!. Mike Mitchell. Aviation enthusiast not fanatic. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:39 From: Roger Thomas Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family 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: Central Queensland University Mats Jönsson wrote: > > Does anyone remember the Bristol 170 Freighter (the passenger version was > called the Wayfarer), a blunt-nosed, twin-piston-engined transport from > the late forties? They were used well into the sixties by British Air > Ferries (Now British World Airlines) transporting cars over the English > Channel. Was a Bristol Frightner (on a freight run) that regularly landed at Tamworth (NSW, Australia) for fuel - distinctive engine note from the sleeve valve engines. It would arrive mid-morning, refuel and depart immediately. Used to be nearly out of sight by sunset. From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:40 From: "Martin Hoddinott" Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mo_To Systems Mats Jönsson wrote in article ... > Does anyone remember the Bristol 170 Freighter (the passenger version was > called the Wayfarer), a blunt-nosed, twin-piston-engined transport from > the late forties? They were used well into the sixties by British Air > Ferries (Now British World Airlines) transporting cars over the English > Channel. I believe they were also used in New Zealand to ferry between North and South islands. -- Martin From kls Fri Mar 13 03:35:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Mar 98 03:35:41 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Mats_J=F6nsson?= writes >Does anyone remember the Bristol 170 Freighter (the passenger version was >called the Wayfarer), a blunt-nosed, twin-piston-engined transport from >the late forties? They were used well into the sixties by British Air >Ferries (Now British World Airlines) transporting cars over the English >Channel. > >I am in the process of researching a story where a Freighter figures >prominently, which is why I would like to get in touch with anybody who >knows whether the Freighter had a pressurised cabin or not. Not pressurised. >It would be especially interesting to hear from people who have crossed >the channel in a BAF freighter, but any recollections about the creature >comforts offered by the Bristol 170 would be helpful. Not a lot of comforts from what I have seen of them. have been told that you had a good view as you flew so low over the channel. Last one in the UK crashed on t/off from Enstone in Oxfordshire last year, very luckily it did not burn and there were no fatalities. There are two left in western Canada, think. One may even be still flying. -- john r. From news Tue Mar 17 19:24:04 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: Marc Schaeffer Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Commercial aircraft orders '97 Date: 18 Mar 1998 01:35:14 GMT Organization: Unorganized Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <6en8ci$14k@examiner.concentric.net> For those interested, I have recently completed the 'census' of the '97 orders for commercial aircraft (more than 100 seats). A splitting of the different orders regarding regions is included. I excluded BBJ, ACJ and military orders. This results in a slightly different picture than announced by AI and Boeing. The URL is http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/orders97.htm Rgds, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:20 From: Pete Mellor Subject: In the air? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The following is a query from my friend Felix Redmill :- > Pete: > > I am told that at any one time two thirds of the world's civil aircraft are > in the air, and that this is necessary as there is not room for all of them > on the ground. Is this so? If it is, it will be interesting if all airline > companies decide not to have any of their planes in the air on the night of > 31 December 1999! But please tell me if you are aware of the truth of this. > > Regards, > Felix. This is the first time I have heard this. It has the feel of an urban myth, but I told Felix I'd check. Any thoughts? 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 Sat Mar 21 16:31:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:21 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door 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: >The 777 uses a translating door. In other words, instead of retracting >into the cabin, pivoting, and then moving back out of the cabin like >earlier Boeing airplanes (except the 767 which uses a door that moves >straight up into the top of the cabin), the 777 door unplugs, moves >straight out, and then moves to the side. The outside of the door always >faces out. It is similar in operation to the door Airbus uses on some of >their models. But how does it DO that? I am picturing a tapered plug. Let's use the manhole ^H^H^H Maintenance Hatchway cover analogy. It can not fall into the hole since it is tapered. Is the 777 door also a tapered plug? How than, does it 'fall through'...? Do I gather the 767 uses the L-1011 door approach? I always regarded that as elegant and space efficient, although I hear they would often stick due to airframe flexing. And no sheer pins needed... -- 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 Mar 21 16:31:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:22 From: Julian Fitzherbert Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > The 777 uses a translating door. In other words, instead of retracting > into the cabin, pivoting, and then moving back out of the cabin like > earlier Boeing airplanes (except the 767 which uses a door that moves > straight up into the top of the cabin), the 777 door unplugs, moves > straight out, and then moves to the side. The outside of the door always > faces out. It is similar in operation to the door Airbus uses on some of > their models. I've seen some 777 descriptions (can't offhand remember which) that suggest Boeing invented this type of door for the 777. Is it really that special? The Vickers VC10 door (1962 civil now RAF tankers) unplugs by popping up slightly and then translating out and to the side in a similar way. > An interesting sidebar to the 777 door. It seems that failing hydraulics > in jetways is not that uncommon of an occurance. When it happens, the > jetway sags down to the ground, and it can peel the door right off an > airplane in the process. Whether a VC10 door frame would survive this I don't know :) -- Julian Fitzherbert Research Geophysicist Data Analysis Product Development, Schlumberger Geco-Prakla, Schlumberger House, Buckingham Gate, Gatwick Airport, West Sussex, United Kingdom. RH6 0NZ From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:23 From: nedd Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA On 13 Mar 1998, C. Marin Faure wrote: > The 777 uses a translating door. In other words, instead of retracting > into the cabin, pivoting, and then moving back out of the cabin like > earlier Boeing airplanes (except the 767 which uses a door that moves > straight up into the top of the cabin), the 777 door unplugs, moves > straight out, and then moves to the side. The outside of the door always > faces out. It is similar in operation to the door Airbus uses on some of I know that this in a bonehead question, but there's one thing I don't understand about this kind of door. I know that the idea behind the trad. retracting door is that the door serves as a kind of plug, with the internal air pressure pressing outward against the door. How is this achieved with the translating door you describe? -- From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:24 From: Robert Kochersberger Subject: A320 emergency procedure Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: N.C. State Reply-To: rckeg@unity.ncsu.edu The last time I rode in the cockpit of a Lufthansa Airbus 321 (earlier this week), the pilot told me he'd just done simulator practice on landing the plane after a complete failure of the fly-by-wire system. He said the plane can be landed using only rudders and elevator trim, but it's a very challenging exercise. Any Airbus pilots out there who can comment on how it's done? From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:25 From: mike.collins@dial.pipex.com (Mike) Subject: Interesting United 928 channel 9 conversation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Reply-To: mike.collins@nospam.dial.pipex.com I flew back from ORD to LHR on 17 March (B777) and was listening to the channel 9 conversations. There were general delays at ORD on Tuesday so we were half hour late to begin with when the Captain told us (not channel 9) that we were all ready to go but we were being held by maintenance because they say "we have loaded to much oil" into the number two engine. This was 17.55 after about ten minutes on channel 9 the captain contacted maintence in SFO and asked what was going on: Maintenance "we are scheduled to have a decision for you at 19.00". Captain "excuse me, we have to wait 43 minutes for you to decide if we have too much oil". Maintenance "yep". Captain " how can this be? all our instruments here show everything is fine and dandy yet your documents show it isn't and it is going to take 45 minutes to decide who is correct?" Maintenance: "it isn't a matter of too much oil being loaded at this time, it is that the amount of oil that has been loaded on number two engine recently has triggered an alert here at maintenance that suggests that the engine mght be leaking oil" Anyway what happened after was that the engine had to be started and a leak test done...which was negative ...so I guess the engine just likes oil. But the crew of the aircraft were totally unaware that maintenance carried out these checks or indeed that they were capable of it. We left at 19.30 and the engine didn't fail over the pond...;-) Mike From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:26 From: Iain Stuart Subject: BA B777 Engine Blows Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Don't be silly. Anyone got any info on the uncontained GE90 event on a BA B777 ? I'm surprise that it's made so little headlines, especially with runway at Heathrow being closed due to it. Thanks in Antici............pation. ---------------------- Big-Iain From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:27 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: PW 8000 engines for 737/320 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 13 Mar 98 03:35:19 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >I recently read that PW decides to launch the PW 8000 to compete with >the CFM on the 737/320 series. > [...] >This report raises several questions : >-Doesn't Boeing have an exclusive supplier agreement with CFM for the >737NG ? AFAIK, the PW8000 won't fit the 737 anyway, as the fan diameter is too large. Burkhard From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:28 From: greg@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , Campfire wrote: >This is my first posting to this apparently nearly deceased newsgroup(is >ANYONE out there? :) >My curiosity was piqued when I read about PW developing a new geared >turbofan. PW put out a news release stating it was the last great >improvement to be made with current technology(paraphrasing here, so I hope >I got it right). Does anyone know what advantages PW expect out of this? >I'm assuming they'll be running a bigger fan and will need to slow it down >from the core speed, and that the bigger size is because this engine would >be for the proposed superjumbo jets. Anyone have any info? Comments? What >about some of their competitor's comments that this is old technology with >no inherent advantages? I saw a blurb about this in AvWeek. I too was struck by the author's tone that this was something totally new under the sun. Lycoming developed a geared turbofan, the ALF (Advanced Lycoming Fan)-502 back in the late 1970s. I don't think they were the only manufacturer to do so. The ALF-502 went into the Avro/BAe-114 (hope I have the model right - the high winged four-engined short haul commuter). The early history, at least, was not rosy with some wags suggesting that BAE really stood for "Bring Another Engine." Of course, IIRC, all of the ducted/unducted ultra-high bypass designs fielded a decade ago were geared. Gears and airplanes generally don't mix well. I guess P&W thinks they can lick the problems though. P&W no doubt is trying to eek out the last bits of efficiency gains. Most turbofans are somewhat of a compromise since the fan is a direct-drive off the turbine. As a result, you tend to end up with a fan that's turning too fast and a turbine that's turning too slowly for max. efficiency. You can try and fix this with double and triple spool designs (at a horrible increase in manufacturing costs). But, as the man says, that helps you get better but you never get well. greg From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:29 From: euclid1@juno.com (Ptolomy) Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom "Campfire" wrote: >This is my first posting to this apparently nearly deceased newsgroup(is >ANYONE out there? :) >My curiosity was piqued when I read about PW developing a new geared >turbofan. PW put out a news release stating it was the last great >improvement to be made with current technology(paraphrasing here, so I hope >I got it right). Does anyone know what advantages PW expect out of this? >I'm assuming they'll be running a bigger fan and will need to slow it down >from the core speed, and that the bigger size is because this engine would >be for the proposed superjumbo jets. Anyone have any info? Comments? What >about some of their competitor's comments that this is old technology with >no inherent advantages? Dave, The basic idea behind the geared fan is maximum efficiency. (of course) Anyway, in most t-fans, the fan is part of the low pressure spool - there being the fan, several stages of low press. compressor and the low pressure turbine all physically linked by a single shaft, and is separate from the core - or high pressure spool. The problem is that all of the lp components rotate at the same rpm, but have different aerodynamic efficiency ranges; therefore, this set up is a compromise - reducing overall efficiency. The fans best eff. is slower than that of the lpc and the lpt. By introducing a geared fan you can slow the fan while increasing the rpm of the lpc and the lpt, raising overall efficiency. This will allow higher temps to be maintained, and better power extracion by the turbines, having the direct benefit of increased fuel efficiency and ultimately range. The geared fan is not a new concept, and it is applied effectively in some small t-fan engines. P&W's proposal takes the idea a bit further and applies it to larger engines. It's biggest drawbacks are increased weight and maintenance costs. One of the reasons the geared fan idea has not takenoff in the past has been durability problems with the fan drive gearing. Increased efficiency must go hand in hand with durability and relatively low maintenance costs if one wishes to sell engines. Hope this helps. Regards, JCD. From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:30 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Campfire wrote: >This is my first posting to this apparently nearly deceased newsgroup(is >ANYONE out there? :) >My curiosity was piqued when I read about PW developing a new geared >turbofan. PW put out a news release stating it was the last great >improvement to be made with current technology(paraphrasing here, so I hope >I got it right). Does anyone know what advantages PW expect out of this? >I'm assuming they'll be running a bigger fan and will need to slow it down >from the core speed, and that the bigger size is because this engine would >be for the proposed superjumbo jets. Anyone have any info? Comments? No. the engine will not be used for the proposed superjumbo jets. It is intended for the A320 and possibly for the B737. Since the introduction of high-bypass turbofan engines, there has not been any major improvement to engines. For the past decade or so, engine companies have introduced incremental fuel cost and operating cost savings as well as noise reduction of a few decibels every once a while. The deregulation of the US airline industry in the late 70s shifted the need for bigger planes (like the B727 and B757) to smaller planes which are ideal for hub-and-spoke operations. Boeing reacted to the market and launched the second-generation B737, while P&W didn't. After all, only 600 or 700 B737s were ordered before the deregulation. So, why should P&W believe the B737 would transform the US domestic market? On the other side, CFMI had an engine, the CFM56, that it could not find any application with a future (re-engining the B707 and DC-8 didn't really have much future). Thus, CFMI sneaked in. IMHO, I doubt that neither CFMI nor Boeing foresaw the tremendous success. P&W's market share tumbled as a result of the success of the B737/CFM56. To regain some of its lost market share, P&W wants to introduce a product that can help Pratt differentiate itself from the competition. With the Boeing-CFMI exclusive agreement on the B737, Pratt has to work its way in from the Airbus side. If the A320 with the PW8000 does have signifcantly lower operating costs than the B737, Boeing will be forced to consider a new geration of B737 with the PW8000. >What >about some of their competitor's comments that this is old technology with >no inherent advantages? That was a cheap shot from R-R. P&W has the most extensive experience in gear-driven fans. Some of the development work that many people are aware of include the propfan in the late 80s and the Advanced Ducted Propulsor (ADF). I don't think the R-R gear-driven fan in the 60s was anything close to what P&W is proposing. In a nutshell, the geared turbofan allows fan, low pressure, and high pressure systems to operate at its optimal speed. One may argue that this is what R-R's three-shaft design is trying to achieve. However, the low pressure turbine in R-R's three-shaft design is still limited by the fan speed. Hence, more turbine stages are needed to drive the fan which means more parts and lost efficiency. Furthermore, a two-spool design with a gearbox will have less mechanical complexities than a three-spool design. The comments from CFMI had more "meat". CFMI announced its own initiatives for improving the CFM56 with similar goals. CFMI also said that CFMI had never discounted P&W, but CFMI would not allow someone to steal three quarters of the market share from CFMI, like they did to P&W. In addition, CFMI does not think P&W's timing is right. It intends to introduce the new improved engine two years later than the PW8000. I don't think P&W worries about R-R's cheap shot, but P&W does have to worry about CFMI's comments. From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:31 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Geared turbofans 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 Campfire wrote: > My curiosity was piqued when I read about PW developing a new geared > turbofan. PW put out a news release stating it was the last great > improvement to be made with current technology(paraphrasing here, so I hope > I got it right). Does anyone know what advantages PW expect out of this? Pratt is hoping to run the fan at its optimum speed while simultaneously running the LP compressor at *its* optimum speed, withouth having to use a 3-shaft arrangement with its associated inefficiencies. The drawback to geared fans has always been the gearbox, but Pratt is saying they can use all the gearbox expertise they gained with their UDF (unducted fan) program to get a reliable, small, efficient gearbox. > I'm assuming they'll be running a bigger fan and will need to slow it down > from the core speed, and that the bigger size is because this engine would > be for the proposed superjumbo jets. Anyone have any info? Comments? Nope. They're aiming at a midsize engine. In fact, they're aiming RIGHT at the CFM-56 family, hoping to cut into its market dominance. They should have done this YEARS ago- Pratt was once THE dominant maker in that market with the JT8D, and it still stands to this day as one of the best aero engines of all time, bar none. But after the JT8D 200 series, Pratt let that market segment go except through their rather unsuccessful collaboration on the IAE V2500. I just hope they haven't waited too long- CFM has a TIGHT hold on that market. > What about some of their competitor's comments that this is old technology with > no inherent advantages? They are OBLIGATED to say that, aren't they ;-) The truth will come out in the end- either the gearbox will be the engine's downfall, or else Pratt will knock some wind out of CFM's sails and get back to a better market share. I would never bet any serious money *against* Pratt & Whitney... -- Steve Lacker sglacker at texas dot net If you can’t take the time to help fight SPAM by converting the above address, you wouldn’t like my response to your mail anyway :-) From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:32 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Campfire wrote in message ... > PW put out a news release stating it was the last great >improvement to be made with current technology(paraphrasing here, so I hope >I got it right). Does anyone know what advantages PW expect out of this? >I'm assuming they'll be running a bigger fan and will need to slow it down >from the core speed, and that the bigger size is because this engine would >be for the proposed superjumbo jets. Anyone have any info? Comments? What >about some of their competitor's comments that this is old technology with >no inherent advantages? What worries me is the diameter of the fan --- surely it would be so great as to preclude it from installation on, for instance, B737 ? Secondly, reliability of the gearbox would be crucial, I wonder at the sense of adding complication to the primary rotating components of the engine? Not like it's a CSD or pump that can be disconnected without further affect ?? Sounds risky ??? >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:33 From: Christian Weber Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TU Braunschweig, Germany Reply-To: Ch.Weber@tu-bs.de Hi Dave, first of all there was an article in the February 23, edition of Aviation Week & Space Technology on the PW8000, so you might want to check that one out. As I understood, the PW8000 is to lead to an 8-10% DOC decrease, have a bypass ratio of 11:1, a pressure ratio of 40:1 and a 13 stage engine. It also is to have 40% fewer stages and 50% fewer airfoils. The gear is to lower the fan' s speed with having the turbine and low pressure compressor can run at greater speed than now at the same time. This is curently not possible because they sit on the same spool and sofore turn with the same speed. Hope this helps you a little, and if you can't get access to the AW&ST issue let me know and I can send you a copy of it... Christian From kls Sat Mar 21 16:31:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Mar 98 16:31:34 From: spagiola@usa.net Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) wrote: > >The military DC-3 was the C-47 Dakota. 417 DC-3s were built before the > >start of World War II. After the start of hostilities, at least 194 of > >these were pressed into military service and another 10,238 C-47s were > >built. I doubt any further civilian DC-3s were built since thousands of > >C-47s became surplus after the war and were converted to airliners and > >sold to many airlines. > > Add to that at least 2500 Lisunov Li-2s built under license in the Soviet > Union. Plus 487 assembled in Japan and a few in the Netherlands by Fokker, > giving a total well in excess of 13,000. Ron Davies has established that over 6,000 Li-2s were built (see his "Aeroflot" book). If memory serves, the Fokker-built aircraft were assembled from parts built in the US, and are thus included in the US production numbers, they are not in addition to them. (Shameless plug: see the current issue of _Airways_ for a story I wrote on Airkenya, one of the last airlines to operated DC-3 schedules until very recently, with several DC-3 pictures.) Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:25 From: philvsr@easynet.fr (Philippe Vessaire) Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure 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: Ligue de defense des dahus bleus In article , Robert Kochersberger wrote: The last time I rode in the cockpit of a Lufthansa Airbus 321 (earlier >this week), the pilot told me he'd just done simulator practice on >landing the plane after a complete failure of the fly-by-wire system. He >said the plane can be landed using only rudders and elevator trim, but >it's a very challenging exercise. Any Airbus pilots out there who can >comment on how it's done? For pitch: elevator trim (hydraulic actuator) For yaw: hydro-mecanical servo as all other airplanes For roll: engine thust disymetry. we need a very long long final approch and only little actions are usefull. -- Salutations Philippe philvsr@easynet.fr From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >For roll: engine thust disymetry. Which also has an effect in both other axes. Yaw is in fact what you're producing from the asymetric thrust, not roll, but the yaw leads to one wing generating more lift than the other, producing the desired roll. Pitch is also affected since the engines are below the centerline and thus any change in thrust will have a pitch effect. Is the yaw damper still effective in Direct Law? Without it, and with the other controls largely crippled, I'd expect you'd end up fighting an uphill battle with Dutch Roll and phugoid oscillations, just like UA 232 (the DC-10 that lost hydraulics and crash landed at Sioux City). -- 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 Mar 24 11:38:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:27 From: markhamj@kemmunet.net.mt Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On 21 Mar 98 16:31:24 , Robert Kochersberger wrote: >The last time I rode in the cockpit of a Lufthansa Airbus 321 (earlier >this week), the pilot told me he'd just done simulator practice on >landing the plane after a complete failure of the fly-by-wire system. He >said the plane can be landed using only rudders and elevator trim, but >it's a very challenging exercise. Any Airbus pilots out there who can >comment on how it's done? Hi, I'm a A320 FO and participated in the exercise several times. Initially, I thought the plane would be unflyable but that is not the case. Once the fly-by-wire system degardes to this mode, then the first thing one must do is to disconnect the autothrust as it would cause uncontrollable oscillations due to thrust-pitch coupling. Then, you have three control sources: rudder, pitch trim and thrust. Once the plane is trimmed for straight and level flight ( constant thrust ) then gentle inputs on the rudder will enable you to steer a course, say on an ILS. Once established on the LOC, you can then take gear and flaps keeping power constant, but trimming up to establish a 700fpm rod. Now , thrust comes in as well. you can make small adjustments for pitch up or pitch down ( more thrust, less thrust). If you've done everything right, you'll come on the runway, but you have no way to flare. Add a little thrust at 30ft and the PNF will downtrim immediately on runway contact. It's easier said than done, however. Having said that, our instructor demonsatrated a complete fbw and hydraulic failure leaving us with no flying control. He still managed to land the plane using thrust control only!!! From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:28 From: Erik Verheijden Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: erikve@bwot.tmf.hva.nl Robert Kochersberger wrote: > The last time I rode in the cockpit of a Lufthansa Airbus 321 (earlier > this week), the pilot told me he'd just done simulator practice on > landing the plane after a complete failure of the fly-by-wire system. He > said the plane can be landed using only rudders and elevator trim, but > it's a very challenging exercise. Any Airbus pilots out there who can > comment on how it's done? I think you first want to try that one out in a light airplane. I know a pilot who landed his Piper Super Cub using elevator trim and flaps for attitude changes after one of the elevator cables broke. It should be possible, but I still prefer a mechanical backup system. Erik From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:29 From: dpw@dircon.co.uk (Daniel Wilder) Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: dpw@dircon.co.uk On 21 Mar 98 16:31:24 , Robert Kochersberger wrote: >The last time I rode in the cockpit of a Lufthansa Airbus 321 (earlier >this week), the pilot told me he'd just done simulator practice on >landing the plane after a complete failure of the fly-by-wire system. He >said the plane can be landed using only rudders and elevator trim, but >it's a very challenging exercise. Any Airbus pilots out there who can >comment on how it's done? With great difficulty. Did he tell you whether he was successful? I've only seen one person manage a mechanical backup landing, and that was in VMC with no wind. Its sole use (at least this is what it says in the FCOMs) is to keep the aircraft in flight following temporary complete loss of electrical power. The key word being temporary. Airbus reckons that you'll always be able to bring back enough systems using the RAT to maintain at least direct law. Basically, the pitch trim wheel is linked mechanically to the horizontal stabiliser for pitch control, and you get a degree of yaw from the mechanical link from the rudder pedals to the rudder. Regards, Daniel. --- Daniel Wilder dpw@dircon.co.uk From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:30 From: mmitch@cix.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: mmitch@cix.co.uk In article , big-iain@big-iain.demon.co.uk (Iain Stuart) wrote: > Anyone got any info on the uncontained GE90 event on a BA B777 ? > > I'm surprise that it's made so little headlines, especially with >the >runway at Heathrow being closed due to it. There was a brief question & reply on sci.aeronautics.airliners in the week. It apparently happened early in the takeoff roll and bits of fan were found on the runway. I think we would have heard a lot more if it had been a RR! Mike Mitchell. Aviation enthusiast not fanatic. From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:31 From: arsenal@caribbean.prestel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: [not set] On 21 Mar 98 16:31:26 , Iain Stuart wrote: >Anyone got any info on the uncontained GE90 event on a BA B777 ? > >I'm surprise that it's made so little headlines, especially with runway at >Heathrow being closed due to it. The event took place on 12 March at 1930 on runway 27L. The 777-200IGW with 230 people bound for Boston had reached a take-off speed of more than 90mph when the turbine in the No 1 engine caused an explosion that was heard around LHR. The pilot brought the plane to a halt and taxied back to the gate. No casualties were reported. Airport crews cleared the debris and the runway was fully operational by 2100. The problem was caused by a manufacturing fault - a misassembled vane in the rear of the engine. When the engine was developing near maximum take-off thrust, one of the fixed vanes, which directs hot gases through the engine, caught against the low pressure turbine as it rotated at high speed. Blades on the turbine were immediately ripped off and blown out of the back of the engine. BA said that it had completed inspecting and clearing all engines from the same batch as the failed engines by 20 March. This isn't the first problem that BA has had with its GE90 engines. First there was a year-long delay in the plane entering service caused by the GE90's failure to pass a standard test for withstanding flying into a flock of birds. Then last year BA had to check its 777 fleet because of cracks in fan blade seals. Also, -200IGWs were withdrawn for a while from long range flights by BA because of excessive wear in gearbox bearings. From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:32 From: jliebson@Roadrunner.com (John Liebson) Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Santa Fe Institute Iain Stuart wrote: >Anyone got any info on the uncontained GE90 event on a BA B777 ? > >I'm surprise that it's made so little headlines, especially with runway at >Heathrow being closed due to it. IF you are referring to an incident that happened at London Heathrow 12March98, then, according to _The Wall Street Journal_ (WSJ) for 20March98, this was rather a "non-event event": The WSJ article states that a 777, departing for Boston Logan, shut down one engine at the point that the aircraft had attained a speed of approximately 85 mph in the takeoff run, the aircraft was taxied back to the gate, emergency chutes were not deployed, etc. A GE Aircraft Engines spokesman in Cincinnati is said to have commented that the problem was in a low-pressure stage of the engine, and a BA spokesman said that BA and GE had jointly determined that the problem was only in the engine that had the problem, resulting from an improperly-assembled fixed blade, with other engines in the same manufacturing batch being okay. From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:33 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: PW 8000 engines for 737/320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscREMOVE_TO_REPLY@cmdnet.lu Burkhard Domke wrote: > AFAIK, the PW8000 won't fit the 737 anyway, as the fan diameter is too > large. As the target for the PW8000 is the 320 and 737 I doubt that they are that dumb to exclude 50% of the market from the start. My views, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: PW 8000 engines for 737/320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> AFAIK, the PW8000 won't fit the 737 anyway, as the fan diameter is too >> large. >As the target for the PW8000 is the 320 and 737 I doubt that they are that >dumb to exclude 50% of the market from the start. It doesn't matter, they've already been excluded from the 737NG by virtue of the agreement between Boeign and GE, which gives GE (via CFMI) sole engine rights in exchange for a risk-sharing position in the airframe program. The PW8000 could be used on either the 2nd generation 737 (an unlikely scenario) or a 4th generation (which is many years off at best), but not on the 3rd generation unless GE gives its blessing (which I wouldn't count on). -- 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 Mar 24 11:38:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:35 From: spagiola@usa.net Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion greg@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) wrote: > Lycoming developed a geared turbofan, the ALF (Advanced Lycoming Fan)-502 > back in the late 1970s. I don't think they were the only manufacturer > to do so. > The ALF-502 went into the Avro/BAe-114 (hope I have the model right - the > high winged four-engined short haul commuter). The early history, at > least, was not rosy with some wags suggesting that BAE really stood > for "Bring Another Engine." The aircraft you're referring to is the BAe 146. The Avro RJ series is a development of this, with LF-507 engines. And yes, the ALF-502s do have a reputation for being troublesome, which seem to have been ironed out now. For more details on the BAe 146 and Avro RJ, see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:36 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Steve Lacker wrote: >Pratt is hoping to run the fan at its optimum speed while simultaneously >running the LP compressor at *its* optimum speed, withouth having to use >a 3-shaft arrangement with its associated inefficiencies. The drawback >to geared fans has always been the gearbox, but Pratt is saying they can >use all the gearbox expertise they gained with their UDF (unducted fan) >program to get a reliable, small, efficient gearbox. UDF is GE's unducted fan which is not a geared-driven design. You're referring to P&W's ADP (Advance Ducted Propulsor). >Nope. They're aiming at a midsize engine. In fact, they're aiming RIGHT >at the CFM-56 family, hoping to cut into its market dominance. mode on> They should have done this YEARS ago- Pratt was once THE >dominant maker in that market with the JT8D, and it still stands to this >day as one of the best aero engines of all time, bar none. But after the >JT8D 200 series, Pratt let that market segment go except through their >rather unsuccessful collaboration on the IAE V2500. I just hope they >haven't waited too long- CFM has a TIGHT hold on that market. mode> It can all sum up in one word -- complacency. P&W cannot afford to be complacent anymore. Otherwise, P&W's commercial operation might soon follow Douglas's footstep. In the past few years, R-R seems to be following the Airbus model -- compete in all market segments at any cost. Hopefully, with a major thrust in developing new products for the next century, P&W will not have to take the Douglas's path. From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:37 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet spagiola@usa.net wrote: : (Shameless plug: see the current issue of _Airways_ for a story I wrote on : Airkenya, one of the last airlines to operated DC-3 schedules until very : recently, with several DC-3 pictures.) If anyone is interested, I can post recent pictures of DC3's at San Juan and a 1938-40 picture of a DC2 at Columbus on a web page. I also have a fairly good picture of a Ford Trimotor from the late 1930's which I can post or e-mail/ -- Gerry From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:38 From: "Neil Gerace" Subject: DC-3 / C-47 was Re: Best Sellers 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 Organization: SilKRoad web.services Those who don't follow the fortunes of the RAAF may be surprised to learn that it has two DC-3s still in service - with, ironically enough, the Advanced Research and Development Unit (ARDU). Although they're military aircraft, they're DC-3s, not C-47s. Ex-airline. Neil Gerace SilkRoad web.services geracen@wantree.com.au http://wantree.com.au/~geracen/silkroad/ From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:39 From: mbaldwin@safnow.org Subject: Boeing 777 Wriggle Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I remember reading on this group at least a year or so ago about a problem Boeings 777s were having: it seems that when seated in the back of the plane that there was a perceptable side-to-side wiggle, of sorts. If my memory serves me correctly, several posters said this problem was fixed. I don't think so. I've taken a dozen or so transatlantic legs on UA's 777 in the last few years and have never noticed the wiggle. However, I've never sat further back than the trailing edge of the wing. On a recent trip, I was in the last row and, let me tell you, they haven't fixed the wiggle problem. It lasted the entire flight. It basically felt like you were being shaken side to side every second for five hours. So what's the deal? -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:40 From: Ian Judge Subject: Re: Interesting United 928 channel 9 conversation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home In article , Mike writes >Anyway what happened after was that the engine had to be started and a >leak test done...which was negative ...so I guess the engine just >likes oil. But the crew of the aircraft were totally unaware that >maintenance carried out these checks or indeed that they were capable >of it. What they are tracking is the consumption of oil over time. The amount of oil burnt along with analysis of deposits found on the chip detectors gives an indication of the engine health. Also the flight crew have to fill in an engine monitor which tracks speeds and temps as well. However my faith in the chemists art was knocked down a couple of notches recently when a hydraulic fluid sample couldn't be tested because it was "too dirty" - we had found slivers of metal in a filter bowl during a routine change and wanted to know if something in the system was breaking up. In the end we just followed the MM and changed the pump. All views expressed are personal and _|_ do not necessarily reflect those of _____(_)_____ my employer ! ! ! ian@judgei.demon.co.uk http://www.judgei.demon.co.uk/ From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:41 From: alan@nospam.com (Alan) Subject: Re: Interesting United 928 channel 9 conversation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. On 21 Mar 98 16:31:25 , mike.collins@dial.pipex.com (Mike) wrote: >I flew back from ORD to LHR on 17 March (B777) and was listening to >the channel 9 conversations. > >There were general delays at ORD on Tuesday so we were half hour late >to begin with when the Captain told us (not channel 9) that we were >all ready to go but we were being held by maintenance because they say >"we have loaded to much oil" into the number two engine. This was >17.55 after about ten minutes on channel 9 the captain contacted >maintence in SFO and asked what was going on: > >Maintenance "we are scheduled to have a decision for you at 19.00". The local maintenance controller set a time when preliminary troubleshooting was to be done and a decision would then be made concerning an actual departure time. That is having the airplane "on decision" until 19:00. >Captain "excuse me, we have to wait 43 minutes for you to decide if we >have too much oil". > > Maintenance "yep". At that point, it was not known whether too much oil was added or there was a real oil system problem. The 43 minutes was to allow maintenance to accomplish some checks. > Captain " how can this be? all our instruments here show everything >is fine and dandy yet your documents show it isn't and it is going to >take 45 minutes to decide who is correct?" > >Maintenance: "it isn't a matter of too much oil being loaded at this >time, it is that the amount of oil that has been loaded on number two >engine recently has triggered an alert here at maintenance that >suggests that the engine mght be leaking oil" The PW 4090's sometimes hide oil without returning it to the oil tank. The tanks are serviced to full before each ETOPS trip. When the amount of oil that was added is entered into the computer, it automatically calculates average consumption and , if it is over the limits, the computer generates a maintenance item. In the case of your aircraft, the #2 engine showed an average consumption of .56 qts per hour. The limit is .50. After the technicains did their checks, it was confirmed that it was overserviced. That was corrected and a computer entry was made to show the corrected oil service. Your engine's average consumption turned out to be only .05 qph. >Anyway what happened after was that the engine had to be started and a >leak test done...which was negative ...so I guess the engine just >likes oil. But the crew of the aircraft were totally unaware that >maintenance carried out these checks or indeed that they were capable >of it. I wish more pilots would pay us a visit. Our Chief Pilot visits the control center quite often at my station, but very few Line Pilots do. We have so much we could learn from each other. BTW, I do ride jump seat occasionally to see things from their perspective. >We left at 19.30 and the engine didn't fail over the pond...;-) I hope you had a good flight. Sorry about your delay, but "Safety is Number One". Alan From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:42 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: A318 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscNOSPAM@cmdnet.lu Since the A319 is already known as the baby-bus, I took some time to think about what the micro-bus A318 will look like. The picture of the A318 I 'took' can be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/a318.htm ;) Should be an interesting discussion, ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:43 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , Pete Mellor wrote: >The following is a query from my friend >Felix Redmill :- >> I am told that at any one time two thirds of the world's civil aircraft are >> in the air, and that this is necessary as there is not room for all of them >> on the ground. Is this so? If it is, it will be interesting if all airline >> companies decide not to have any of their planes in the air on the night of >> 31 December 1999! But please tell me if you are aware of the truth of this. Sounds extremely doubtful. At around 0600 Eastern Time, I'd venture to say that most U.S. carriers have 95% of their fleets on the ground. Exceptions would be some late red-eyes, International flights, and Hawaii to West Coast red-eyes. Carriers like Southwest which do not (AFAIK) operate any red-eyes have 100% on the ground. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Roselle, IL, USA I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them addCode: AD2 aO EIV D1730 FY5 nI From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:44 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: In the air 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 >I am told that at any one time two thirds of the world's civil aircraft >are in the air, and that this is necessary as there is not room for all of >them on the ground. Is this so? All civil aircraft ? No, I would guess that only 10% of these are flying at a time. Two thirds of all airliners does not seem unreasonable, although I doubt it's true at all hours. It's 9.30pm on the west coast now, 12.30 in the east and early morning in Europe. I suspect two thirds are on the ground right now. Brian From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:45 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Pete Mellor wrote: > The following is a query from my friend > Felix Redmill :- > > I am told that at any one time two thirds of the world's civil aircraft are > > in the air, and that this is necessary as there is not room for all of them > > on the ground. Is this so? If it is, it will be interesting if all airline > > companies decide not to have any of their planes in the air on the night of > > 31 December 1999! But please tell me if you are aware of the truth of this. > This is the first time I have heard this. It has the feel of > an urban myth, but I told Felix I'd check. Any thoughts? Not quite true. But .... Some airlines like BA get in the range of 15 to 17 hours/day of flight averaged over the lifetime of their 747-400s. This would imply that two thirds of their 747-400s are in the air at any one time. Smaller aircraft on shorter flights and possibly idle overnight don't get this kind of flying usage figure - possibly reducing as far as 30 to 40%. There are problems with ground space at some airports and there would be space problems if you suddenly decided that all aircraft had to be grounded for 24 hours with many aircraft ending up at alternative airports off their normal beaten track because there would be no space at their normal points of departure and arrival. ------------ Andrew. From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:46 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Some airlines like BA get in the range of 15 to 17 hours/day >of flight averaged over the lifetime of their 747-400s. This would >imply that two thirds of their 747-400s are in the air at any one time. If true, that's pretty impressive, but most of those planes are too new to have seen their first D check, which will put them on the ground for a big chunk of time. I happen to have the NTSB report for UA 811 at hand. That's the United 747-122 which blew a cargo door about an hour out of HNL on February 24, 1989. The aircraft was delivered on November 3, 1970, 6988 days or approximately 160,512 hours before the accident. At the time of the accident, the aircraft had 58,815 total flight hours (and 15,028 cycles). That gives an average daily utilization of 8.8 hours over 18+ years. >Smaller aircraft on shorter flights and possibly idle overnight >don't get this kind of flying usage figure - possibly reducing as >far as 30 to 40%. That's about right. The "Aloha Convertible" accident aircraft had a life of 6928 days (delivered May 10, 1969 and the accident occured on April 28, 1988) and had accumulated 35,692 flight hours (but a whopping 89,680 cycles) for an average daily utilization of only 5.1. Amongst aircraft flying in regular airline service, that's probably close to a worst case. I think Southwest actually manages 8-9 hours in the air per plane. -- 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 Mar 24 11:38:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:47 From: swanevel@total.net Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. Reply-To: swanevel@total.net > > I am told that at any one time two thirds of the world's civil aircraft are > > in the air, and that this is necessary as there is not room for all of them > > on the ground. Is this so? If it is, it will be interesting if all airline > > companies decide not to have any of their planes in the air on the night of > > 31 December 1999! But please tell me if you are aware of the truth of this. There are two angles to this question: 1) Is there enough hangar space? The answer is probably NO. Hangars that always seem to be empty during the day are usually full of aircraft overnight for maintenance and minor repairs. 2) Is there enough space, period? Probably. At any given time, 61,000 people are airborne in the US. That represents maybe 400 planes (given that some are beech 1900s and some are 747-400s). Would we be able to park 400 aircraft on all the apron space at airports, as well as grave yards in AZ and the like? This whole year 2000 question is interesting. I admit I would not be comfortable flying into a third world airport (then again, they may rely much less on computers than the west, making them no safer/less safe than otherwise). But is there any indication that ATC at North American / European airports won't be ready? Fred. From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:48 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscSTOPSPAM@cmdnet.lu Pete Mellor wrote: > > I am told that at any one time two thirds of the world's civil aircraft are > > in the air, Boeing states that out of it's 3000 737 delivered so far (minus the written off ones) More than 825 737s are in the air at any time, with one taking off every six seconds. Looks roughly like 1/3 in the air. Hth, ------------------------------------------------------ Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET website http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website http://surf.to/orders From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:49 From: billaryclinton@hotmail.com Subject: Altitude reading on aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion On a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg I used my Garmin GPS 12 XL and I compared the readings with those on the movie screen when "flight tracker" is on. The speed and heading matched, the position as well (I checked the GPS readings on a map which map position matched on the flight tracker graph), but the altitude sometimes deviated by several hundred meters (up to 2000 ft). Is this because aircraft use "logical" altitude, determined by local air pressure and GPS'es by satellite geometry ? Klaas -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:50 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet In , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > An interesting sidebar to the 777 door. It seems that failing hydraulics > in jetways is not that uncommon of an occurance. When it happens, the > jetway sags down to the ground, and it can peel the door right off an > airplane in the process. Shouldn't the jetway bellows be made weak enough to tear away without serious damage to the airplane? -- Gerry From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:51 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , Julian Fitzherbert wrote: > In article , > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > > The 777 uses a translating door. In other words, instead of retracting > > into the cabin, pivoting, and then moving back out of the cabin like > > earlier Boeing airplanes (except the 767 which uses a door that moves > > straight up into the top of the cabin), the 777 door unplugs, moves > > straight out, and then moves to the side. The outside of the door always > > faces out. It is similar in operation to the door Airbus uses on some of > > their models. > > I've seen some 777 descriptions (can't offhand remember which) that suggest > Boeing invented this type of door for the 777. Is it really that special? I'm not an engineer, so I don't know what sort of mechanical or design innovations are contained within the 777 door. I'm sure there are seveal features that make it unique and better than previous doors. But the general concept of a translating door is not new. Airbus has used this type of door on some (or all) of its models for years. In fact, Boeing sent at least one engineer on a bunch of commercial Airbus flights to observe how well the translating door worked in everyday service. Was it easy for cabin attendants and ramp agents to open? Did it interfere with boarding and catering equipment? Was it more maintenance-free than conventional plug doors? And so on. > > An interesting sidebar to the 777 door. It seems that failing hydraulics > > in jetways is not that uncommon of an occurance. When it happens, the > > jetway sags down to the ground, and it can peel the door right off an > > airplane in the process. > > Whether a VC10 door frame would survive this I don't know :) Now this IS a 777 innovation, I believe. The deliberately designed "weak links" that are incorporated into the door's hinge mechanism were in response to the airlines' concerns about airframe damage when a jetway sinks its weight down an open door (any door, not just a translating door). To my knowledge, the 777 is the only plane (so far) to have addressed this issue with a door mechanism designed to break away cleanly if the jetway falls on it, this saving the airline a tremendous amount of repair costs. And as I pointed out in a previous post, this feature was "tested" on WA001, the prototype 777, when a jetway in South America did just that, and peeled one of the forward passenger doors right off the plane and dumped it onto a baggage cart that happened to be sitting down below. A new door was flown in from Seattle that evening and installed and WA001 was airworthy and flew out on schedule the next day. In the old days, this mishap would have laid up the plane for days if not weeks as damaged skin and doorframe components were removed and replaced. I filmed the door icing tests that were performed on the 777 door back in the early 1990s, and I can attest to the ease with which what in reality is a very large door can be opened (with or without ice covering it). But while the 777 translating door is a beautifully designed unit and seems very easy to use in the field, the concept is not a 777 exclusive. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:52 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > >The 777 uses a translating door. In other words, instead of retracting > >into the cabin, pivoting, and then moving back out of the cabin like > >earlier Boeing airplanes (except the 767 which uses a door that moves > >straight up into the top of the cabin), the 777 door unplugs, moves > >straight out, and then moves to the side. The outside of the door always > >faces out. It is similar in operation to the door Airbus uses on some of > >their models. > > But how does it DO that? I am picturing a tapered plug. Let's use > the manhole ^H^H^H Maintenance Hatchway cover analogy. It can not > fall into the hole since it is tapered. Is the 777 door also a > tapered plug? How than, does it 'fall through'...? Maybe someone with direct experience with the 777 door design will answer this. But I do not believe the 777 door is a tapered plug. If it was, it wouldn't be able to move straight out as you point out. I believe, and I may be wrong, that the part of the door mechanism that presses against the inside of the door frame under pressurization retracts slightly with the opening movement of the handle. This makes the door small enough to move straight out through the door opening. The outer door panel is simply a piece of skin that fairs the door opening flush with the rest of the fuselage. I know that when the door is opened, it first moves into the fusleage a very small amount, perhaps an inch or so. I assume this is to relieve the mechanical pressure on the door so the pressure plates or whatever they're called, can retract. At that point the door can be pushed forward through the opening and then swung to the side. If my schedule allows, I will try to pay a lunchtime visit to the BFI flightline this week and check out a passenger door on one of the 777-300s curently in flight test. If I can figure out or ask someone how it works, I will pass the information on to you. As for the 767 passenger door,it retracts back into the fuselage and then moves straight up into the overhead. To my knowledge, it's the only plane Boeing has ever made with this type of door. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:53 From: John Bay <70302.2311@CompuServe.COM> Subject: TWA 800 in NYRB Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CompuServe, Inc. (1-800-689-0736) The April 9 issue of the New York Review of Books contains an article on the TWA 800 disaster by a Harvard professor named Elaine Scarry, who sets forth the possibility that the U.S. military downed the plane not with a missile but with High Intensity Radiated Fields (HIRFs). Scarry, whose field is something called "Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value", is not technically qualified to form any firm conclusions about this, and allows as much. Some of the scenarios she discusses seem far fetched to me. Nevertheless, it must be said that she seems to have done her homework, and her conclusions are suitably restrained - mainly that "the subject of electromagnetic interference should be made part of the TWA 800 inquiry". -- John Bay sevenohthreeohtwo.2311@compuserve.com From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:54 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >> ... Boeing stopped offering the 767-200 years ago. (The airframe >> is still produced for the E-767 AWACS, but that's it.) >> Boeing obviously agreed with your assesment that the investment >> wasn't worth even keeping the model in the catalog. > >Is that true? I know none have been ordered in a while, but I haven't >heard anything about them no longer offering it. Its listed in the >Boeing's website, with no indication that I can see that it's not on >offer. > Isn't Boeing currently offering the 767-200 to the national airline in India. I remember seeing somewhere that Boeing and Airbus were competing for it and there was a lot of mud slinging because both airlines were offering "older" model airliners. I think Boeing started it because Airbus was offering the A300 (or maybe the A310) and Boeing came out and said Airbus doesn't even make that plane anymore, and Airbus responded by saying Boeing hasn't sold a 767-200 since 1991. From kls Tue Mar 24 11:38:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 Mar 98 11:38:55 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > For regional jets, technology and commonality may not be very important. I have to say that I don't -- fully -- agrre with this one. From a maintenance, training and spare parts point of view it would be pretty smart to have a certain commonality. Even in the regional jet market. The first manufacturer to have a family of a/c will survive the battle. I believe that two a/c are not a family (EMB135&145 and CRJ50&70). Three should be the right number of members for a family ;) This is what makes the success of the 737 and the 320 familys in the upper segment. (3 and in the near future 4 a/c for each family). Also the DC9 had the same strategy to come to it's glory. Of course an a/c needs to have other advantages, commonailty isn't everthing. OTOH American (?) ordered EMB145RJ and CRJ70 instead of CRJ50&70, showing that if the purchase price of an a/c is very low, the above logic is no longer valid. Nevertheless I would say that the cost splitting (purchase price/ total maintenance and training costs) must be pretty similar in both market segments. > Don't forget, the US is still the largest market for these regional jets. > Many of the regional jet operators in the US are not directly tied to > major Boeing and Airbus operators. Right. But the aim of the new-baby-boeing (717) is to get new customers in the lower segment. > The 767 has always be strong in the US and relatively weak in Asia and > Europe. The 764 will not change this trend. Nevertheless, if AA also > orders the 764, the 764 will have a very solid customer base, even though > they are all US customers. What is your opinion, will the 763 be replaced mainly with the 764 or the 332 ? > I didn't mean to be complete. I also did not mention anything on the B757. > The Trent 500 and PW4XXX have all been proposed as alternative powerplants > for the B767-400. I doubt an A310 replacement is high on Airbus's > development list. IIRC I read an interview in the 25 years of AI issue of FI that they intend to launch an A310NG, once the Trent 500 engines are running. Kind of mix between the RR T500, A310 body and A320 controls. Should be pretty cheap to launch. Of course this makes only sense if there is a market for such a bird ... ........................................................... Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg -- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/ The DE HAVILLAND COMET and AIRCRAFT ORDERS website From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:35 From: Bill Hough Subject: transpacific service Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Reply-To: brhoughnospam@ibm.net After reading Brian Lusk's article in Airways, I have some questions: 1. American started SJC-NRT service w/DC-10-30s and couldn't make Tokyo nonstop, account runway length. Now, of course, SJC extended the runway and AA switched to MD-11s. What I can't remember is if the MD-11 could do it on the old 30L-12R runway length, or if BOTH runway extension and aircraft upgrade were required. 2. After CAAC was broken up into Air China, China Eastern, China Southern, China Braniff, et. al., most (all) transpacific service was flown by Beijing-based Air China. Now, China Eastern, China Southern have joined Air China over the Pacific. What's the breakdown on these three airlines' transpacific service? 3. American is operating SEA-NRT, which Allegis was forced to give up after they bought PA's pacific division. Did the route pass directly from UA to AA, or did a third airline (CO) fly the route for a while? Finally, for those who havn't seen 5/98 Airways yet, there's a photo of a Qantas 707-138 wearing a 40th Anniversary logo on the tail. (didn't know about that!!) Although the background is nondescript, I'm told on good authority that the photo was taken at IDL. re: photo above Qantas-anyone care to guess what the angular protrusion behind the nose of the PA 707 is? (no I don't know) -- Visit the Unofficial JFK Airport 50th Anniversary Page: http://members.tripod.com/~psa188/index.html From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:36 From: "Ciril Thomas" Subject: Re: A318 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Newnetworks Marc Schaeffer wrote in message ... >Since the A319 is already known as the baby-bus, I took some time to >think about what the micro-bus A318 will look like. Marc - thats hilarious!!! I love it. That plane has to be the ugliest thing I've ever seen! :-). Ciril. From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:37 From: "Mihir Shah" Subject: Re: A318 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Marc Schaeffer wrote in message ... >Since the A319 is already known as the baby-bus, I took some time to >think about what the micro-bus A318 will look like. The picture of the >A318 I 'took' can be found at >http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/a318.htm ;) Actually, isn't Airbus looking for Asian partners for the A316/317, which would be narrowbody (w/ 2+3 seating in coach) jetliners in the 100-seat category? Of course, this begs the question: is Airbus saving the A318 designation for a possible future jetliner, either a stretch of the A317 or yet another shortening of the A319. Or perhaps you're just "having fun" playing around with the A318 moniker and a photo editing application? :) _____________ Mihir Shah mishah@vt.edu From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:38 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A318 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Since the A319 is already known as the baby-bus, I took some time to >>think about what the micro-bus A318 will look like. >Actually, isn't Airbus looking for Asian partners for the A316/317, which >would be narrowbody (w/ 2+3 seating in coach) jetliners in the 100-seat >category? Of course, this begs the question: is Airbus saving the A318 >designation for a possible future jetliner, either a stretch of the A317 or >yet another shortening of the A319. That's the AE316/317 -- note the E. That project is under study by Airbus (actually subsidiary Airbus Industrie Asia) along with AVIC of China and Singapore Technologies. Politics have been hindering that project, so as a backup Airbus has been considering a further shrink of the A320 to create what would presumably be called the A318. -- 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 Sat Mar 28 14:21:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:39 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Wriggle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 24 Mar 98 11:38:39 , mbaldwin@safnow.org wrote: >I remember reading on this group at least a year or so ago about a problem >Boeings 777s were having: it seems that when seated in the back of the plane >that there was a perceptable side-to-side wiggle, of sorts. > >If my memory serves me correctly, several posters said this problem was fixed. > >I don't think so. I've taken a dozen or so transatlantic legs on UA's 777 in >the last few years and have never noticed the wiggle. However, I've never sat >further back than the trailing edge of the wing. On a recent trip, I was in >the last row and, let me tell you, they haven't fixed the wiggle problem. > >It lasted the entire flight. It basically felt like you were being shaken side >to side every second for five hours. This is usually an autopilot problem. D10's had a really bad Dutch roll problem in the early days. There wasn't a problem up front, but the ride in all the way back was really bad!! The reason airlines put lounges in the back of D10's originally is anyone who had to sit back there for a few hours was almost guaranteed to be made ill. The problem was eventually fixed (it took years), and the lounges promptly disappeared after that. As the manufacturer sorts out the fine points of the flight control and autopilot software, the problem will probably go away. From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:40 From: Rob Mohr Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Wriggle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I copy that wriggle. Flew out of Chicago, way in the back of the plane, and the side to side movement is apparent. .. Incidentally, although that 777 was brand new at the time, the interior of the plane looked "worn out." Flimsey plastic molding and an ugly off-white color that is sure to show dirt and smugges. .. Finally, why not two jet-ways to exit such a big plane? Half of humanity had to walk through the same exit door. From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Wriggle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Incidentally, although that 777 was brand new at the time, the interior >of the plane looked "worn out." It probably wasn't "brand new" -- you mentioned Chicago so it's a good bet you were on United, and some of their 777s have been in service for nearly three years now. I was on their fourth one last week and it was definitely looking worn. >Finally, why not two jet-ways to exit such a big plane? Half of humanity >had to walk through the same exit door. United has some gates where they use both doors 1L and 2L, but many gates don't have two jetways available, and some that do have them at fixed positions that are tied to the 747. At Chicago, United uses at least five gates for 777s (B16, B17, C10, C16, C18) and of those, only the last two have two jetways. A bigger problem is that United generally uses door 2L for boarding (if they're only using 1) but blocks the galley so there's no good way to get to the right aisle. The last time I encountered that, they kind of waved me towards coach and told me to climb across the seats there! They could probably gain nearly as much from intelligently using both aisles as they could from using two jetways. -- 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 Sat Mar 28 14:21:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:42 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Wriggle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In mbaldwin@safnow.org writes: >I remember reading on this group at least a year or so ago about a >problem Boeings 777s were having: it seems that when seated in the >back of the plane that there was a perceptable side-to-side wiggle, of >sorts. > >On a recent trip, I was in the last row and, let me tell you, they >haven't fixed the wiggle problem. > >It lasted the entire flight. It basically felt like you were being >shaken side to side every second for five hours. One of my older pilot-acquaintances said they had a problem with the early 707's in that the tail of the plane would rock side-to-side while at cruise; wasn't what you could consider a "shake", just a "drift" left than right that kept repeating itself. Installation of a dorsal fin from under the rear passenger door to just about the rear of the fuselage tamed down these oscillations. Guess there just wasn't enough vertical stabilizer area in the early model. Lou. From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:43 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: PW 8000 engines for 737/320 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 24 Mar 98 11:38:33 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >Burkhard Domke wrote: >> AFAIK, the PW8000 won't fit the 737 anyway, as the fan diameter is too >> large. > >As the target for the PW8000 is the 320 and 737 I doubt that they are that >dumb to exclude 50% of the market from the start. Fan diameters: CFM56-3B/C 60 in. (B737-3/4/500) CFM56-7 61 in. (B737-6/7/8/900) PW8000 76-79 in. So you tell me about ground and bank angle clearance of a conceived PW8000/B737 combination. And don't forget the enhanced FOD risk stemming from an airflow of about 1369 lbs/sec for the PW8000, compared to about half (!) as much for the CFM56. And since a smaller core is hardly feasible, you can't go far below those 76 inches in fan diameter while maintaining an 11:1 by-pass ratio. Anyway, the B737s would only fit the extreme lower edge of the 25,000 to 35,000 lbs. thrust spectrum stated for the PW8000. The "conventional" 56 inch dia fanned PW6000 (15,000 to 23,000 lbs SLST) seems to be more suitable for the B737 (except -8/900), doesn't it? Burkhard From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:44 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 24 Mar 98 11:38:45 , Andrew Cruickshank caused to appear as if it was written: >> > I am told that at any one time two thirds of the world's civil aircraft are >> > in the air, and that this is necessary as there is not room for all of them >> > on the ground. Is this so? If it is, it will be interesting if all airline >> > companies decide not to have any of their planes in the air on the night of >> > 31 December 1999! But please tell me if you are aware of the truth of this. >There are problems with ground space at some airports and >there would be space problems if you suddenly decided that all >aircraft had to be grounded for 24 hours with many aircraft >ending up at alternative airports off their normal beaten track >because there would be no space at their normal points of >departure and arrival. Ignoring (for a moment) the multi-day disruption to the airline's schedule that a fleet-wide grounding might cause, if the reason that the aircraft had to be parked was sufficiently systemic, there's a lot of space at airports that *could* be used for parking, such as taxi and runways, turning and holding spaces. Sure, if you clog all of these up, you won't be able to move a/c around as normal, but you could unclog the mess with another time... Malc. From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:45 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Karl Swartz wrote: > >Some airlines like BA get in the range of 15 to 17 hours/day > >of flight averaged over the lifetime of their 747-400s. This would > >imply that two thirds of their 747-400s are in the air at any one time. > > If true, that's pretty impressive, but most of those planes are too new > to have seen their first D check, which will put them on the ground for > a big chunk of time. The figure may also be better for some of the earlier aircraft if they were used on specific optimal routes. One thing I have noticed is that BA do seem to turn their aircraft around quite quickly at the endpoint of the route compared with some other airlines. This may be clever scheduling (and slot acquisition/management) as well as more efficient turnaround. > I happen to have the NTSB report for UA 811 at hand. That's the United > 747-122 which blew a cargo door about an hour out of HNL on February 24, > 1989. The aircraft was delivered on November 3, 1970, 6988 days or > approximately 160,512 hours before the accident. At the time of the > accident, the aircraft had 58,815 total flight hours (and 15,028 cycles). > That gives an average daily utilization of 8.8 hours over 18+ years. I spotted an ad from Air India in Flight back in January selling four 747-200s. They only gave a year of manufacture (which I have subtracted from 1998 - therefore assuming a whole year of operation during the manufacturing year - but this only gives an error of around 5% anyway on the youngest aircraft). Age Cycles Hours hrs/day hrs/cycle ----------------------------------------------------------- 27 22585 75019 7.6 3.3 26 22093 73595 7.7 3.3 23 17779 62913 7.5 3.5 19 14493 51829 7.5 3.6 The low hrs/cycle is probably due to routings through say Paris CDG to LHR from Delhi where there is a reasonably long segment followed by a short hop. -- Andrew. From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:46 From: "O'NEEL Bruce" Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Geneva kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > If true, that's pretty impressive, but most of those planes are too new > to have seen their first D check, which will put them on the ground for > a big chunk of time. That brings up an interesting question, how do airlines schedule big maintenance events such as D checks? To use an example, I watch SR110/SR111 arrive at Geneva around 9am and leave around 1230pm each day to and from New York for about 3 hrs on the ground. I seem to remember that it's on the ground at NY for about the same length of time. Assuming that SwissAir doesn't have a spare MD11 sitting around, what happens if this plane needs maintenance. Is SR110/111 canceled? Do the lease a plane for a week? cheers bruce -- Bruce O'Neel phone: +41 22 950 91 22 (direct) INTEGRAL Science Data Centre +41 22 950 91 00 (switchb.) Chemin d'Ecogia 16 fax: +41 22 950 91 33 CH-1290 VERSOIX e-mail: Bruce.Oneel@obs.unige.ch Switzerland WWW: http://obswww.unige.ch/isdc/ From kls Sat Mar 28 14:21:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:47 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: In the air? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >That brings up an interesting question, how do airlines schedule big >maintenance events such as D checks? ... >Assuming that SwissAir doesn't have a spare MD11 sitting around, what happens if this plane needs maintenance. Is SR110/111 canceled? Do the lease a plane for a week? A D check takes a lot more than a week. I think a C check is usually scheduled for about two weeks, with a D check taking at least a month. Anyway, one case is an airline with a relatively small fleet flying a lot of long, international routes. United's 747-400 fleet, for example. During past summers, UA has had them scheduled absolutely solid, with no opportunity for anything beyond routine line maintenance (up to a B check, which takes about 12 hours and occurs roughly once per month). Once the summer schedule is over, many routes are trimmed back (SFO-NRT has operated with three daily flights in past summers, but only two for the remainder of the year) or switched to smaller equipment (one year, UA used a 747-400 for ORD-FRA but just for the summer). At this point, there are spare 747-400s and so it's no problem rotating them through lengthy maintenance. Another case is a very large fleet, such as UA's 737-300 fleet, which totals 101 aircraft. With that many aircraft and two weeks for the annual (actually every 393 days) C check, there should be four aircraft in heavy maintenance on a nearly continuous basis, so the fleet plan includes spares. There undoubtedly are situations where an airline has a fleet that's so small, they must lease a plane while theirs are in for heavy maintenance, but I'd guess Swissair just does their MD-11s during the winter months. -- 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 Sat Mar 28 14:21:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Mar 98 14:21:48 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Engine Efficiency Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" "Jane's All the Worlds Aircraft" lists the Rolls Royce RB211 524H high bypass turbofan as having a specific fuel consumption in cruise of .570 pounds of fuel per pound of thrust per hour at mach .85, which I think is about 500 knots. This figures out to be about 35 percent total efficiency. Other modern engines have similar performance. The total efficiency is the product of the engine's thermal efficiency in converting chemical energy in the fuel into kinetic energy in the exhaust stream, and the propulsive efficiency in converting the kinetic energy in the exhaust stream into useful thrust horsepower. This propulsive efficiency is a function of the ratio of the speed of the exhaust to the speed of the aircraft. "Jane's" does not list the information I need to calculate the propulsive efficiency. I would appreciate it if someone could post the cruise exhaust velocity of the RB211 524H or other engine of similar performance (the Trent 700 and 800, some versions of the CFM56, and others are listed with s.p.c. in the .575 range). Alternately, if I had the cruise mass flow through the engine I could calculate the exhaust velocity by dividing the cruise thrust by the mass flow. Thank you in anticipation, Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:24 From: "David R. Asher" Subject: Northwest DC10's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gonzaga University Does anybody know what Northwest plans on replacing its aging DC10 fleet with? Any insight would be appreciated... -D From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:25 From: "Andreas Contes" Subject: Acceleration of a 747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Aachen University of Technology / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik Hi! Can someone tell me how great ist the acceleration of a 747 or an other 300-400 passengers aircraft. And at which speed the aircraft lift up. Sorry for my english...i am german. Please sent an email. Andreas From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:26 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Thomas A. Beckley wrote: >Isn't Boeing currently offering the 767-200 to the national airline in >India. I remember seeing somewhere that Boeing and Airbus were competing >for it and there was a lot of mud slinging because both airlines were >offering "older" model airliners. I think Boeing started it because Airbus >was offering the A300 (or maybe the A310) and Boeing came out and said >Airbus doesn't even make that plane anymore, and Airbus responded by saying >Boeing hasn't sold a 767-200 since 1991. Taiwan's EVA Air was found around 1991/92. They have taken delivery of non-ER B767-200 from Boeing as late as 1995 or 1996. I believe they have four of them. If your Airbus quote is accurate, then Airbus's response is off by quite a few years. From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Taiwan's EVA Air was found around 1991/92. They have taken delivery of >non-ER B767-200 from Boeing as late as 1995 or 1996. I believe they >have four of them. EVA Air was founded in 1989. Their four 767-25E aircraft were delivered January thru April 1994, one per month. I'm amazed that anyone was buying 767-200s that late. On what sorts of routes do they fly them? -- 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 Sun Mar 29 23:09:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:28 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> For regional jets, technology and commonality may not be very important. > >I have to say that I don't -- fully -- agrre with this one. From a >maintenance, training and spare parts point of view it would be pretty >smart to have a certain commonality. Even in the regional jet market. >The first manufacturer to have a family of a/c will survive the battle. >I believe that two a/c are not a family (EMB135&145 and CRJ50&70). Three >should be the right number of members for a family ;) > >This is what makes the success of the 737 and the 320 familys in the >upper segment. (3 and in the near future 4 a/c for each family). Also >the DC9 had the same strategy to come to it's glory. Of course an a/c >needs to have other advantages, commonailty isn't everthing. When one talks about commonality, two things come to mind: 1. flight crew: with vastly different pay scales between pilots for major carriers and pilots for regional carriers, cockpit commonality has no value to most airline operators at all. 2. spare parts/maintenance: there are plenty examples of cost-conscious airlines with mixed fleet of similar planes (e.g., American's A300 and B767; Cathay's A330/340 and B777) and mixed engines (e.g., Delta's B767 with the CF6 and PW4000 engines; UPS's B757 with the RB.211 and PW2000). Furthermore, with more and more airlines outsourcing maintenance work, this should become less and less an issue. Cost is arguably the single biggest issue. That's why Boeing is trying to drive the B717 cost down and make it a viable competitor. However, it appears Boeing is unable to drive the price down to the target of around US$20mil per copy. OTOH, Airbus has not been able to reach to a concensus with the Chinese partner on the AE31X project. Boeing's acquisition of McDonnell Douglas suddenly provided Boeing with an entry into the 100-seat market. Instead of Boeing wondering whether they should design something to compete with the AE31X, the table is now turned and Airbus has to think seriously and promptly whether they can afford to let Boeing have a sizable lead, at least, chronologically. The A319M5, IMHO, is a very poor stop gap for Airbus. First of all, the plane was optimized for a much longer range and much higher capacity than the intended market of the A319M5. The plane must have extremely unattractive seat-mile cost. The A319 itself is probably already has a relatively high unit operating cost, that's why out of more than 1,500 A320 family aircraft ordered, less than 250 are for the baby bus. Historically, shortened planes have never sold well (the A330-200 may be an exception). Just look at the B737. The B737-100 had a terrible sales record. Similarly, only about 400 of nearly 2,000 second-generation B737s ordered are for the shortest B737-500. Also, the B737-600 is not doing well. It is commonly known that SAS's 41 -600s (nearly half of the -600 ordered) was heavily discounted. (Ironically, it was the SAS -600 order that practically took away any credibility of the MD-95 program for which SAS was originally anticipated to be the launch customer. Now, Boeing has to rebuild the credibility of the MD95/B717 program.) Secondly, how can Airbus drive the cost of the A319M5 low enough to be able to compete with the B717 or RJ100? Currently, there are four engines (the BR715, PW6000, CFM56, and V2500) competing to power the new plane. It does not appear any of these engines can meet both time and cost constraints. Thus, Airbus might have a hard time picking the right powerplant. Thirdly, Boeing has the Long Beach production line for a dedicated B717 production. Airbus has a surprisingly large backlog of nearly 900 A319/20/21s (almost as many as the B737 backlog). Airbus will have to increase the A319/20/21 production rate significantly (from the current rate of 18-20 planes per month) in order to cope with the burgeoning backlog. Will Airbus be able to accommodate additional production if the A319M5 is launched? (Nevertheless, neither the A319 nor A321, which are assembled in Hamburg, is a big seller. So, perhaps Hamburg has the capacity to handle the A319M5.) Lastly, if Airbus does launch the A319M5, the Chinese will be extremely upset. Due to a deteriorating relationship between China and the US between 1995 and 96, Airbus has made significant strides in the Chinese market. The launch of the A319M5 will no doubt hinder future Airbus campaigns in China. I'm not sure a potential of selling no more than 500 A319M5s is worth the risk of being shut out of the Chinese market in the future. >> The 767 has always be strong in the US and relatively weak in Asia and >> Europe. The 764 will not change this trend. Nevertheless, if AA also >> orders the 764, the 764 will have a very solid customer base, even though >> they are all US customers. > >What is your opinion, will the 763 be replaced mainly with the 764 or >the 332 ? Most of the 767-300 are still relatively new. Replacement market is probably insignificant at this time. The 767-400 and A330-200 are currently targeting the DC-10 and L-1011 replacement market, since some operators do not need the bigger B777 or A330. Nevertheless, I think the A330-200 should have a slight edge over the B767-400 in the long run. From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:29 From: fili@students.uiuc.edu (rafal d filipczyk) Subject: Tu-144LL Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign I've just read an article (clari.world.europe.russia) on Tupolev's supersonic passenger jet Tu-144LL. It looks that the design produced very good preliminary results. Tupolev claims the jet will be twice faster than today's passenger jets and the cost of flying will be just about 20% higher. Anybody knows more about this aircraft? It seems to me the two major problems with the passenger jets are speed and cabin noise. Rafal From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:30 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Tu-144LL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I've just read an article (clari.world.europe.russia) on >Tupolev's supersonic passenger jet Tu-144LL. It looks >that the design produced very good preliminary results. >Tupolev claims the jet will be twice faster than today's >passenger jets and the cost of flying will be just about >20% higher. Anybody knows more about this aircraft? The Tu-144LL is neither a new design nor a possible future SST. It's merely the 1960s era Soviet design, I believe the newer Tu-144D model which has the Koliesov engines instead of the original Nk-144 engines, brought back to life for use as a testbed in a partnership of Russia and the US. The HSCT (High Speed Civil Transport) is the project for which this research is being done -- it's a long way off from even a decision to build a prototype. For more about the Tu-144, see Howard Moon's book Soviet SST (Orion Books, 1989). It's an excellent book on the subject, assuming you can find it. (A friend found my copy in a used book store.) >It seems to me the two major problems with the passenger jets >are speed and cabin noise. Speed?! Well, yes, the point of the HSCT is to go faster than today's subsonic jets. Cabin noise was an issue with the Tu-144 in large part because the Soviets did not master some of the clever technology used in Concorde to cool the airframe, and instead used massive air conditioning units. These suckers apparently generated gale force winds and accompanying noise. Given better technology, this isn't a significant issue -- I've not heard that Concorde's cabin is appreciably noisier than a subsonic jetliner. -- 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 Sun Mar 29 23:09:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:31 From: P.Dubbin@physiology.unimelb.edu.au (Philip Dubbin) Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Melbourne In article , arsenal@caribbean.prestel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) wrote: >First there was a year-long delay in the plane entering service caused >by the GE90's failure to pass a standard test for withstanding flying >into a flock of birds. what, if i may ask, does this test involve????? philip -- Philip Dubbin Professional Officer Department of Physiology From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:32 From: Dell Farnan Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yale University can any body coment on wether this engine failure would effect any certifications that the 777 may have such as ETOPS. My understanding is that boeing and (with either either pratt or GE turbines) got an early ETOPS on the grounds of testing data and development flight. If this is the case could such a failure jeopordize this! Unless I am mistaken the 777 has not been in serveice too long and in terms of accidents/incidents per flight hour it may be pretty high! I also recoginize that 1 incident per X hours appears higher if the incident occurs at an early hour in the X number! -- Dell "Trying to keep the greasy side down and the pointy end forward" Farnan Tel. Office: (203) 432 4367 From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:33 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 24 Mar 98 11:38:30 , mmitch@cix.co.uk (Mike Mitchell) caused to appear as if it was written: >In article , big-iain@big-iain.demon.co.uk (Iain Stuart) wrote: >> Anyone got any info on the uncontained GE90 event on a BA B777 ? >> >> I'm surprise that it's made so little headlines, especially with >the >>runway at Heathrow being closed due to it. > > There was a brief question & reply on sci.aeronautics.airliners in the >week. It apparently happened early in the takeoff roll and bits of fan >were found on the runway. I think we would have heard a lot more if it >had been a RR! One, rather important point: The failure was NOT uncontained in the normal use of the term. Bits of fan fell out the back of the engine (as it were), but the shroud protecting the aircraft was not breached. In other words, the engine was a mess, but the aircraft was unscathed... A true uncontained failure results in consequences like the DC-10 at Sioux City or the Delta MD-80 in Florida a year or so ago... Malc. From kls Sun Mar 29 23:09:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Mar 98 23:09:34 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Roger Chung-Wee wrote: >This isn't the first problem that BA has had with its GE90 engines. >First there was a year-long delay in the plane entering service caused Hmmm... Where do you get your information? The first GE90-powered B777 entered into service about five months after the first PW4000-powered B777 entered into service on June 7, 1995 (right on schedule). IIRC, the original plan was to have the B777/GE90 combination certified two to three months after the B777/PW4000 combination. Thus, I believe it was two or three months behind schedule. It wasn't a year-long delay. >by the GE90's failure to pass a standard test for withstanding flying >into a flock of birds. The GE90 engine certification was delayed due to numerous development problems. However, IIRC, the bird-strike test wasn't one of them (maybe your're referring to the blade-out test). Anyway, GE/Boeing did expect to make up the engine certification delay, but the airframe/ engine certification was also delayed because they had encountered other problems during various flight tests. I'm pretty sure those problems were not related to the bird-strike nor blade-out test. >Then last year BA had to check its 777 fleet >because of cracks in fan blade seals. Once again, I think you got the part wrong. I do recall reading about compressor seal problem on the GE90. >Also, -200IGWs were withdrawn >for a while from long range flights by BA because of excessive wear in >gearbox bearings. IIRC, it took two incidences (which did not involve an inflight shutdown) before BA and GE took some action. However, it took five or six inflight shutdowns on the Trent 700-powered A330 before R-R addressed the gearbox problem on the Trent 700. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:05 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM P.Dubbin@physiology.unimelb.edu.au (Philip Dubbin) asked on Mon Mar 30 09:53:19 1998 :- > In article , > arsenal@caribbean.prestel.co.uk (Roger Chung-Wee) wrote: >> First there was a year-long delay in the plane entering service caused >> by the GE90's failure to pass a standard test for withstanding flying >> into a flock of birds. > > what, if i may ask, does this test involve????? I recall having seen a television programme in which a slow-motion shot was shown of a dead chicken (well, I assume it was dead, and it certainly was after the test! :-) being sucked into the inlet of a turbofan. (I presume the frozen chicken is used for certification for trans-polar routes! :-) BAe in Stevenage, UK, accidentally carried out a more stringent test when an unfortunate engineer on the ground was sucked in by the inlet draught of an engine being bench tested. The details were rather gruesome. Apparently, his white coat spread out and acted as an aerofoil, keeping him suspended in front of the engine for several seconds before he accelerated towards the fan. Urgh! The accident occurred several years ago. I can't recall the exact date, but I remember reading the report in one of the Stevenage local newspapers. 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 Mon Mar 30 04:31:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:06 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: PW 8000 engines for 737/320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Burkhard Domke wrote: >On 24 Mar 98 11:38:33 , Marc Schaeffer > wrote: > >>Burkhard Domke wrote: >>> AFAIK, the PW8000 won't fit the 737 anyway, as the fan diameter is too >>> large. >> >>As the target for the PW8000 is the 320 and 737 I doubt that they are that >>dumb to exclude 50% of the market from the start. > >Fan diameters: > >CFM56-3B/C 60 in. (B737-3/4/500) >CFM56-7 61 in. (B737-6/7/8/900) > >PW8000 76-79 in. > >So you tell me about ground and bank angle clearance of a conceived >PW8000/B737 combination. And don't forget the enhanced FOD risk >stemming from an airflow of about 1369 lbs/sec for the PW8000, >compared to about half (!) as much for the CFM56. >And since a smaller core is hardly feasible, you can't go far below >those 76 inches in fan diameter while maintaining an 11:1 by-pass >ratio. I believe in one of the articles on the PW8000, a Pratt official did say if the PW8000 is to be put on the B737, Boeing will need to redesign the landing gears to accommodate the larger fan. >Anyway, the B737s would only fit the extreme lower edge of the 25,000 >to 35,000 lbs. thrust spectrum stated for the PW8000. > >The "conventional" 56 inch dia fanned PW6000 (15,000 to 23,000 lbs >SLST) seems to be more suitable for the B737 (except -8/900), doesn't >it? The PW6000 has been proposed for much smaller planes: the AE31X, the Indonesian jet (IPTN 2130?), and the latest entry in the potentially very crowded 100-seat market, the A319M5. The PW6000 may be appropriate for the B737-600 and marginal for the -700, but definitely underpower for the -800 and -900. The majority of the B737 will be in the -700 and -800 segments. Thus, I don't think the PW6000 is a suitable powerplant. Anyway, P&W will have to first demonstrate that the PW8000 can achieve its promised potential on the "next genration" A320, then P&W will be able to force Boeing to abandon its exclusive agreement with CFMI, and develop a fourth-generation B737. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:07 From: ahlnhl@aol.com (AHL NHL) Subject: Gear Down on Descent Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I live approximately 25-30 miles from PIT and see jetliners overhead frequently. What strikes me funny is that they're always in a gear down position. At what point do crews put the gear down--and why so early? BTW, said planes are always trimmed up for level flight (apparently) ...with flaps stowed. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:08 From: tyler@ug2.plk.af.mil (David Tyler) Subject: Re: TWA 800 in NYRB References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Force Phillips Lab. John Bay <70302.2311@CompuServe.COM> writes: >...Some of the scenarios she discusses seem far >fetched to me. Nevertheless, it must be said that she seems to >have done her homework, and her conclusions are suitably >restrained - mainly that "the subject of electromagnetic >interference should be made part of the TWA 800 inquiry". i'd have thought the metal fuselage of an airliner would be pretty effective shielding for emi... i admit that emergency procdures for usaf aircraft in the vicinity of a nulear detonation involve resetting circuit breakers, and it's clear that emi can couple to the aircraft interior through seams and cracks of the proper size, but this ``theory" seems as lame as all the others involving the us military. one _really_ good question seldom considered in this little ex- changes is _why_ the military (whatever branch) would be testing live weapons (of whatever kind-- missiles, directed energy, what- ever) in some of the world's most crowded airspace when they have lots and lots of other isolated places (e.g., area 57, much of the american west, the high seas) to do it..? dave ______________________________________________________________________ -David W. Tyler "It seems you feel our work is not -Air Force Research Laboratory of benefit to the public." -Albuquerque, New Mexico -tyler@plk.af.mil --Rachel From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:09 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Best Sellers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom In gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) writes: > >If anyone is interested, I can post recent pictures of DC3's at San >Juan and a 1938-40 picture of a DC2 at Columbus on a web page. I also >have a fairly good picture of a Ford Trimotor from the late 1930's >which I can post or e-mail/ And, speaking of "odd" Gooney-bird pictures, I have a few of the DC-3 on floats. There were five sets of floats built during WWII by EDO for Gooney-birds . Only known remaining set is under the Gooney-bird whose pictures I have. Lou. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:10 From: Jun Eu Tang Subject: Re: transpacific service References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chalmers University of Technology > 2. After CAAC was broken up into Air China, China Eastern, China > Southern, China Braniff, et. al., most (all) transpacific service was > flown by Beijing-based Air China. Now, China Eastern, China Southern > have joined Air China over the Pacific. What's the breakdown on these > three airlines' transpacific service? China Southern only has thrice-weekly CAN(Guangzhou)-LAX nonstop on the B777-200IGW. China Eastern has MD-11 (or the A340-300 now) passenger flights to LAX as well as SEA (I have seen one there) from Shanghai, and cargo flights to more cities. Air China has B747 flights to LAX, SFO (I'm not so sure) and JFK (when I was there 4 years ago). At that time, the CA flight I saw originated from Shanghai. Anyway, you may want to check out their websites for more up-to-date info. > re: photo above > Qantas-anyone care to guess what the angular protrusion behind the nose > of the PA 707 is? (no I don't know) I'll make an educated guess when I see the photo. I'll settle for cable-TV at the moment. --- :) Regards. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:11 From: "Mihir Shah" Subject: Re: transpacific service References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Bill Hough wrote in message ... >2. After CAAC was broken up into Air China, China Eastern, China >Southern, China Braniff, et. al., most (all) transpacific service was >flown by Beijing-based Air China. Now, China Eastern, China Southern >have joined Air China over the Pacific. What's the breakdown on these >three airlines' transpacific service? My understanding is that Air China's main hub is at Beijing, China Eastern's is at Shanghai, and China Southern's is at Guangzhou (a.k.a. Canton). Air China's rather outdated and hard-to-read route map on their web site shows, I believe: SFO-Beijing (PEK) LAX-PEK JFK-ANC-PEK It appears that the first two routes have been taken over by China Eastern, with SFO-PEK flown twice weekly and LAX-PEK flown daily. Both these routes continue onto Shanghai (SHA), which is China Eastern's hub as mentioned above. They are flown using MD-11's. It appears that the JFK route may have been axed, but I'm not 100% sure on this. So as of now, I can't seem to find any transpacific passenger routes flown by Air China itself, although I find this somewhat hard to believe. I do know that Air China still operated cargo service to the West Coast. Hopefully someone will clear me up on this whole situation... China Eastern, at one point, also flew LAX-SHA non-stop, according to their also-outdated web site's route map. PEK-SEA and SHA-SEA are also shown, and at least one of these routes (not sure which one or if it's both) continue onto ORD. However, the web site's own flight schedule only shows the aforementioned daily LAX-PEK-SHA flight and twice-weekly SFO-PEK-SHA flight. China Southern's only service is their recently-started thrice-weekly LAX-Guanzhou (CAN) service, flown using 777's. _____________ Mihir Shah mishah@vt.edu From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:12 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Above FL180 (18,000 feet MSL), altimeters are set to standard atmosphere (29.92"), so I would guess the variation was GPS/satellite-related, not altimeter/aircraft-related. -- - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. || Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 || office 516-944-0900, fax -7280 mailto:Bob_Mann@RWMann.com || http://www.RWMann.com/ From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:13 From: Rod Madsen Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom All aircraft flying above 18,000 ft set their altimeters to a "sea level barometric pressure" or 29.92 in Hg and they do determine their "altitude" by this means. They aren't too concerned what their actual altitude is, just that they are not sharing any airspace with another airplane. If they all have this common understanding (and they do)then nobody runs into anbody else. That could explain the diference. Rod From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:14 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , billaryclinton@hotmail.com wrote: >On a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg I used my Garmin GPS 12 XL and I >compared the readings with those on the movie screen when "flight tracker" is >on. >The speed and heading matched, the position as well (I checked the GPS >readings on a map which map position matched on the flight tracker graph), >but the altitude sometimes deviated by several hundred meters (up to 2000 >ft). Is this because aircraft use "logical" altitude, determined by local air >pressure and GPS'es by satellite geometry ? That is correct. GPS calculates the "geometric height", or altitude of the receiver referenced to the WGS-84 ellipsoid. Aircraft fly by barometric altimeter, which of course varies according to weather patterns and temperature. Some suggest that in the future aircraft should use geometric height for altimetry. IMHO, that would be questionable for the following reasons: 1) An aircraft that is trimmed correctly in cruise will naturally fly the barometric altitude - it will rise and fall with the local varience in air density at a similar rate to what the barometric altitude changes. An aircraft tracking geometric height would be constantly adjusting power and/or pitch to maintain a given altitude/speed. 2) GPS altitude under selective availability is accurate to only ~150 meters. Even under differential correction, the residual error is expected to be something like 5-7 meters. (I'm assuming standard differential correction, and not real-time kinematic correction.) Barometric altimeters are already designed to be accurate to about 20 feet when close to the ground, and most transport aircraft have radar altimeters for approach and landing which are extremely accurate. 3) Adopting GPS altitude would require universal equipage with GPS; while this might be the wave of the future, it will not be realistically achieved for some time. (At some future time, this objection may go away.) The above are definitely my $0.02 only, and not an official position of my company, BTW. 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 Mar 30 04:31:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:15 From: Don Holmes Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Reply-To: dholmes1@ibm.net billaryclinton@hotmail.com wrote: > On a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg I used my Garmin GPS 12 XL and I > compared the readings with those on the movie screen when "flight tracker" is > on ... the altitude sometimes deviated by several hundred meters I would say the 12XL primary purpose was for hiking and that altitude is always 'ZERO', your feet on the ground! With SA you can forget about the altitude figure meaning anything! From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:16 From: cl6013r@aol.com (CL6013R) Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >but the altitude sometimes deviated by several hundred meters (up to 2000 >ft). Is this because aircraft use "logical" altitude, determined by local air >pressure and GPS'es by satellite geometry ? YES , the airplanes altimiter is set 29.92 inches of mercury during cruise (any time above 18,000'). True altitude may vary by a couple of thousand feet due to air pressure changes , but if we are all at 29.92 then we all read the same altitude and maintain proper verticle seperation. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:17 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 24 Mar 98 11:38:49 , billaryclinton@hotmail.com wrote: >On a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg I used my Garmin GPS 12 XL and I >compared the readings with those on the movie screen when "flight tracker" is >on. >The speed and heading matched, the position as well (I checked the GPS >readings on a map which map position matched on the flight tracker graph), >but the altitude sometimes deviated by several hundred meters (up to 2000 >ft). Is this because aircraft use "logical" altitude, determined by local air >pressure and GPS'es by satellite geometry ? The earth is not a perfect sphere. It is a very complex ellipsoid. As a result, there are several hundred different sets of survey data. In order to accurately translate a GPS position into Long, Lat, and Altitude and make it match a local map, you have to use the same survey data the map makes used. Most GPS's (at least the American ones) default to WGS84, which is the standard for North America. The higher end GPS's support many other references, and some of the Magellans allow you to input the 5 constants that make the corrections. The point is the use of WGS84 outside North America can easily produce errors of several hundred meters, especially in Altitude. The GPS measures the distance from the Sats, not from the ground!!! It accurately locates your position in space, however due to irregularities inthe surface of the earth, this is not necessarily accurately translated into altitude above the earth if you don't have the local corrections for the shape of the earth. The Aircraft probably does wander a little at cruise, particularily over water, where there is no reason to adjust the altimeter very ofte as long as everyone uses the same settings. There may be no local barometric data from sea level, so it may not be practical either. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:18 From: mccand56@best.com (Wayne T. McCandless) Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , billaryclinton@hotmail.com wrote: >On a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg I used my Garmin GPS 12 XL and I >compared the readings with those on the movie screen when "flight tracker" is >on ... the altitude sometimes deviated by several hundred meters Due to the geometry of the GPS constellation with reference to a terrestrial observer (i.e., you in a B747), the altitude resolution is the weakest GPS "axis". This arises because the signals from the satellites that are in view have much less "diversity" in the altitude signal than they will for latitude, longitude, and time. -- W. T. McCandless San Jose, California From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:19 From: "Doug Haluza" Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises billaryclinton@hotmail.com wrote in message ... >On a flight from Frankfurt to Johannesburg I used my Garmin GPS 12 XL and I >compared the readings with those on the movie screen when "flight tracker" >is on. >The speed and heading matched, the position as well (I checked the GPS >readings on a map which map position matched on the flight tracker graph), >but the altitude sometimes deviated by several hundred meters (up to 2000 >ft). Is this because aircraft use "logical" altitude, determined by local >air pressure and GPS'es by satellite geometry ? I don't know the details of the "flight tracker" system, but I assume it is an output from the aircraft's navigation system. There are several reasons for an altitude variation between your handheld GPS and the aircraft's indicated altitude. 1) High VDOP (Vertical Dilution of Precision, the vertical component of PDOP) caused by poor satellite geometry due to the ability to see less than half the sky out the side window. 2) SA errors which are, on average, 1.5 times greater in vertical distance than in horizontal distance. With poor VDOP, the error is even greater. 3) Geoid/Ellipsoid height differences (aircraft altitude is referenced to the MSL Geoid and GPS uses an arbitrary Ellipsoid). Many receivers have a Geoid height correction, but the lower cost receivers have a less accurate Geoid model. 4) At cruising altitude (> 18,000 ft MSL) aircraft altimeters are set to standard pressure, and are not corrected for surface pressure variation. This can cause a difference between pressure altitude and true altitude in excess of 1000 feet. This is not a problem for air navigation because all aircraft use the same setting, and have the same "error". The magnitude of the error you saw was well within this envelope. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.geo.satellite-nav,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:20 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Altitude reading on aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom I use a GPS in my Cessna, and it is very accurate in X and Y, but not Z (altitude). A friend is a GPS engineer with Litton, and I asked him why. Although I am an engineer, too, I quickly did not understand his explanation!! The first reason he gave was that the earth is not a perfect sphere. The GPS models this deviation based on latitude, but how accurate and extensive this internal model is depends on the GPS. His explanation quickly became complex, involving math, propigation velocities of signals, etc. A typical error on my GPS is 500 feet. He said this was pretty good. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:21 From: "Mark Rogers" Subject: Re: Interesting United 928 channel 9 conversation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service Ian Judge wrote in article ... > What they are tracking is the consumption of oil over time. The amount > of oil burnt along with analysis of deposits found on the chip detectors > gives an indication of the engine health. Also the flight crew have to > fill in an engine monitor which tracks speeds and temps as well. Actually, engine reports are completely automated and transmitted via ACARS. No longer any flight crew input (for most aircraft types). --Mark Rogers From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:22 From: megazone@megazone.org (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door 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 gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) shaped the electrons to say: >Shouldn't the jetway bellows be made weak enough to tear away without serious >damage to the airplane? With many jetways if it sinks it will angle forward as it pivots, easily bringing the body of the jetway in over a protruding door. So it isn't just a matter of the bellows. I've even seen jetways with hard metal clamshell like covers, not a bellows. -MZ -- Gweep, author, webmaster, human being, me "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 781-788-0130 Hail Discordia! From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:23 From: procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK C. Marin Faure wrote: > Our design was put to the test ... an airport technician accidentally cut > the hydraulic pressure to the jetway. It started to sink down on its > wheels and in the process neatly peeled the forward door right off the > 777. But the shear mechanism worked as designed; the door ripped off and > fell onto a baggage cart down below, but there was no damage at all to the > door frame, skins, or surrounding airplane structure. Isn't this potentially dangerous, given that there are likely to be all kinds of people wandering around down below? What are the insurance implications of designing part of an aircraft so that it might fall off in such a fashion? On the other hand, it's not easy to see what is to be done about it. After all, a different design of door might damage a large part of the fuselage and *then* break off and fall onto the ground-crew... Daniele From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:24 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) wrote: > In , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > An interesting sidebar to the 777 door. It seems that failing hydraulics > > in jetways is not that uncommon of an occurance. When it happens, the > > jetway sags down to the ground, and it can peel the door right off an > > airplane in the process. > > Shouldn't the jetway bellows be made weak enough to tear away without serious > damage to the airplane? You'd think so, but apparently the strength of the fabric and frames are sufficient to cause a lot of damage when the jetway sinks down onto the door. The airlines apparently have had enough problems with this over the years to warrant requesting the design of the 777 door be such that it will break away without damaging the door frame and surrounding airframe structure which can be very expensive and time-consuming to repair. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:25 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Wriggle 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 24 Mar 98 11:38:39 , mbaldwin@safnow.org wrote: >I remember reading on this group at least a year or so ago about a problem >Boeings 777s were having: it seems that when seated in the back of the plane >that there was a perceptable side-to-side wiggle, of sorts. > >If my memory serves me correctly, several posters said this problem was fixed. > >I don't think so. I've taken a dozen or so transatlantic legs on UA's 777 in >the last few years and have never noticed the wiggle. However, I've never sat >further back than the trailing edge of the wing. On a recent trip, I was in >the last row and, let me tell you, they haven't fixed the wiggle problem. > >It lasted the entire flight. It basically felt like you were being shaken side >to side every second for five hours. > >So what's the deal? The tail-wag is related to aeroelasticity, i.e. aerodynamic loads inducing a structural response and vice versa. In this case it's an interaction bewteen the first mode of structural bending of the fuselage and aerodynamic forces acting on the tail/rudder assembly (or the empennage altogether). The usual approach to get rid of the tail-wag is to task the yaw-damper to counter-act the wag with proper rudder inputs or to rebalance the rudder. Gets a tad more complex with sensible side-stick controls, as the tail-wag implies a nose-wag, which in turn forces the side-stick into the pilot's hand/arm (body inertia !), thus inducing unwanted (disturbing) control inputs... Burkhard From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:26 From: Michael Zaller Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure 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: Mikeysoft. Lemme get this straight, you know someone who had some flight control cables fail and still prefer a mechanical airplane? Anyway, the rudder and elevator trim controls on an A320 ARE mechanical. It's not easy to land an airplane in this condition, but heck, they almost landed a DC10 with much less... From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:27 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On Tue Mar 24 19:51:04 1998, Karl Swarz wrote: > Is the yaw damper still effective in Direct Law? Without > it, and with the other controls largely crippled, I'd expect you'd > end up fighting an uphill battle with Dutch Roll and phugoid > oscillations, ... As I understood it, the original query related to the use of mechanical backup after complete loss of FCS. Yaw damping is one of the functions of the ELAC (Elevator and Aileron Computer) of which there are two in the FCS. While at least one ELAC still functions, it will compute rudder commands to achieve yaw damping and turn coordination, which are transmitted to the rudder actuators by the FAC (Flight Augmentation Computer), of which there are also two, and which achieve the ELAC's yaw orders as well as being responsible for rudder trim and rudder travel limit. If both FACs are down, only manual control of rudder is available. If both ELACs are down, the FCS reverts to alternate law, which implies pitch alternate law (reduced pitch protections), roll direct law (direct stick-to-surface-position relationship) and yaw alternate law (which provides only yaw damping, presumably computed by FACs). The next step in the degradation path is direct law, which implies direct stick-to-surface-position relationship for both pitch and roll, and only manual control of rudder for yaw. After that, it's mechanical backup. (Note that the trim-wheels on the central pedestal that are used for pitch control move the trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS), not the elevators.) 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 Mon Mar 30 04:31:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:28 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Philippe Vessaire wrote: > In article , Robert Kochersberger wrote: > > >The last time I rode in the cockpit of a Lufthansa Airbus 321 (earlier > >this week), the pilot told me he'd just done simulator practice on > >landing the plane after a complete failure of the fly-by-wire system. ... > we need a very long long final approch and only little actions > are usefull. Is it just me or does that sound very much like a certain DC-10 at Sioux City? Doesn't sound like a very safe amount of backup to me, but then maybe I expect too much. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:29 From: dc8ray@hairmail.comnet (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: Aspen Airways Convair References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Reply-To: Ray.Clawson@hairmail.netcom On 13 Mar 98 03:35:21 , Shawn Jipp wrote: >Somewhere between 1979-82 Aspen Airways based in Colorado began flying >to South Lake Tahoe, California for a time. > >I need to know what model of Convair they used. Was it the 580? 440? >340? I think Aspen had 580's. It is the only convair mod that has enough "umph" to handle the high altitudes. Ray CV240/340/440/600/640 type ratings -- (begin .sig file) The reply field has been changed to foil spammbots. My email address is dc8ray(at)airmail(dot)net I don't know if this works or not but it makes me feel better. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:30 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re:Aspen Airways Convairs 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 >Somewhere between 1979-82 Aspen Airways based in Colorado began flying to >South Lake Tahoe, California for a time. > >I need to know what model of Convair they used. Was it the 580? 440? >340? All of the above, plus the 240. For service dates see http://www.concentric.net/~Aeromoe/airlines.html Brian From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:31 From: "dstc47" Subject: Re: Aspen Airways Convair References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indigo Shawn Jipp wrote in message ... >I am trying to recall all of the aircraft that I have flown in. > >Somewhere between 1979-82 Aspen Airways based in Colorado began flying >to South Lake Tahoe, California for a time.> >I need to know what model of Convair they used. Was it the 580? 440? >340? According to the book "The Convairliner Story" Aspen Air had convair 240s 1968/70, 440s until 1978 and eighteen 580s from 1972 onward, so the answer to your question is probably a 580. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:32 From: roberts975@aol.com (RobertS975) Subject: Re: Aspen Airways Convair References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >omewhere between 1979-82 Aspen Airways based in Colorado began flying >to South Lake Tahoe, California for a time. > >I need to know what model of Convair they used. Was it the 580? It was a CV580. From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:33 From: "rosevax" Subject: Steep takeoffs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Fisher-Rosemount, Rosemount Inc. Hello all, About 12 years ago I was on a flight out of O'Hare on a UA 737 where the pilot made a high-power takeoff and a *very* steep climb, with just a small reduction in takeoff power. He held this climb & power until almost cruise level. My question is, why? I can understand the need to clear the airport area if traffic is heavy, but why the steep & fast climb? It was a fun ride though... Thanks, --- Mark Newman Rosemount, Inc. marknew@no-spam.hydro.rosemount.com (remove 'no-spam' to reply) From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:34 From: e.calius@irl.cri.nz (Emilio P. Calius) Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Industrial Research Ltd In article , "Martin Hoddinott" wrote: > Mats Jönsson wrote in article ... > > Does anyone remember the Bristol 170 Freighter > > I believe they were also used in New Zealand to ferry between North > and South islands. Yes, I've heard that there are a couple still around, including one being used as a restaurant. They were also used in Argentina by the Air Force (FAA) many years ago. There is (or used to be) one in the museum at Buenos Aires' Aeroparque airport. It was before my time, but a friend's father told me that the one trip he had in one as a passenger was the flight he remembered best - it was the most uncomfortable one he ever had. Of course he rode in a cargo carrier which had practically no passenger amenities, but he vividly recalls it as being cold, drafty, cold, very noisy, cold, slow, vibrating, freezing cold... It really made him appreciate the later Fokker F-27's and even C-47's, which were older than the Bristol! Emilio From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:35 From: Felix Rosbergen Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: World Access Reply-To: feliks@dds.nl > > Does anyone remember the Bristol 170 Freighter (the passenger version was > > called the Wayfarer), a blunt-nosed, twin-piston-engined transport from > > the late forties? They were used well into the sixties by British Air > > Ferries (Now British World Airlines) transporting cars over the English > > Channel. Do you hav a picture of that freighter ?? Ik work at Schiphol ( Amsterdam Airport ) and somebody last weekend said ' look there goes a Bristol'. I don't know what type or anything, but the guy said it was at least 30 years old. I was on old 4 porp plane with a vage appearence of a hercules. The one i saw is still in service as a freighter for 'Heavy Lift', an air cargo company. If you want me to, i can try and take a closer look this weekend. Just tell me where to look to be make a possitive ID. Good luck and let me know! Felix From kls Mon Mar 30 04:31:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 98 04:31:36 From: Robin Peel Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD I think you get to see these beasts in action in the James Bond movie "Goldfinger" (sean Connery and the Aston Martin have to fly to Geneva, as I recall). - Robin -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA