From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:45 From: skiea3b@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: skiea3b@earthlink.net David R. Asher wrote: > Does anybody know what Northwest plans on replacing its aging DC10 fleet > with? Any insight would be appreciated... -D I heard that they were going to expand their 10 fleet. Maybe some UAL birds ???? JC From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:46 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I heard that they were going to expand their 10 fleet. Maybe some UAL >birds ???? Unlikely, since Northwest's DC-10s are all -30 and -40 models. Right now, United is only getting rid of their -10 models (most or all of the remaining ones are going to FedEx) while keeping the eight -30s. In fact, four of the -30s have quite recently been converted to freighters, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see the others converted, too. With that sort of investment, I expect UA will keep them for a while. -- 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 Thu Apr 2 01:23:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:47 From: "Dorjan S. Scott" Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 29 Mar 1998, David R. Asher wrote: > Does anybody know what Northwest plans on replacing its aging DC10 fleet > with? Any insight would be appreciated... -D As of present, we have no plans to replace our DC-10 fleet for another 10-15 years. In fact, we are stiil accquiring ships to add to our fleet (about 5-6 more beginning may of '98). Dorjan Scott Performance Engineering Division Northwest Airlines, Inc. None of my statements represent Northwest Airlines, Inc., or any other organization unless specified. From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:48 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net David R. Asher wrote: > Does anybody know what Northwest plans on replacing its aging DC10 fleet > with? Any insight would be appreciated... -D Actually Northwest is currently adding to its DC-10 fleet. They presently have 21 DC-10-40's and 16 DC-10-30 and 1 DC-10-30ER. One of the 16 DC-10-30's is still in the modification center being converted to a Northwest configuration. There are presently four more DC-10-30 deals in the works. One DC-10-30 is scheduled to be flown to the U.S. this week for modification. An additional 3 DC-10-30ER's will be converted later this year for delivery to NWA by the fist of 1999. A fifth possible aircraft is being looked at and a decision will be made later this year. All of the DC-10s presently operated by Northwest are relatively low cyle aircraft. The highest cycle aircraft has not yet used up 25% of its life cycle. I hope this answers your question. RWL From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:49 From: Ken Stoorza Subject: Re: Tu-144LL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Network Computing Devices rafal d filipczyk wrote: > 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. Isn't this the same a/c that has been around since the late 60's/early 70's? If so, I recall that the passenger routes were abandoned (late 70's?) because the thing had a real penchant for consuming *lots* of fuel. I believe it was then used for mail flights until that was also halted due to economics (read: fuel) in the late 80's. I would guess it's the same a/c fitted with new engines. -- Ken Stoorza From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:50 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 In article , rosgro@wxs.nl (Felix Rosbergen) wrote: > 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. Heavylift operate 2 Shorts Belfast a/c From a distance they look like a C130 BUT up closer they are much bigger. One does operate around European airports. They also used to operate 'Conroy' converted Bristol Britannia freighters with a fatter fuselage. I don't know if any are still in use. Both types have four turbo-props. Mike Mitchell. Aviation enthusiast not fanatic. From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:51 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family 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 robinp@mindspring.com "Robin Peel" writes: >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). IIRC that was an ATL-98 Carvair (DC-4 mod) in the film, not the Bristol, tho both were used by Silver City AW at Lydd in Kent. The Carvairs operated the longer services to e.g. Switzerland (Goldfinger's destination). The twin-engine Bristols were mainly used to Le Touquet in France. -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:52 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family 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 feliks@dds.nl "Felix Rosbergen" writes: >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. Heavylift has a few Shorts Belfast aircraft. That would be what you saw. -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:53 From: spagiola@usa.net Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Robin Peel wrote: > 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). No. The aircraft briefly visible in Goldfinger are Aviation Traders ATL-98 Carvairs -- modified DC-4s with a bulbous nose. The Bristol 170 is a twin-engine taildragger; it also has a bulbous nose, but otherwise looks quite different. Both types were used on car ferry services from England to the European mainland. The Carvair was explicitly designed as a higher-capacity car ferry to supplement/replace the Bristol 170s. 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 Thu Apr 2 01:23:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:54 From: spagiola@usa.net Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion "Martin Hoddinott" wrote: > > Does anyone remember the Bristol 170 Freighter > > I believe they were also used in New Zealand to ferry between North > and South islands. There's an article on this in the current issue of Propliner 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 Thu Apr 2 01:23:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:55 From: john@pegase.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cat in our little cottage On 30 Mar 98 04:31:35 , in , Felix Rosbergen wrote: >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. That was most likely a Short Belfast. Only 10 were ever built (1964-1966), as military freighters for the RAF, and on being taken out of RAF service, in 1976 some went to Heavy Lift Airlines and are still used by them. -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:56 From: ibm@svpal.org Subject: Re: Request for help: Bristol 170 family References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , feliks@dds.nl wrote: > 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. That would be a Short Belfast ( ex RAF ) and yes operated by Heavylift. Its not a Bristol type at all. On the main topic, Trans Canada Airlines operated a pair of Bristol Freighters in the late 40's - early 50's period. IIRC, one is still in existence on static display somewhere in the far north [ White Horse or Yellow Knife ( not sure which )]. Somewhere I have a picture my dad took of one of them at one of the places he was stationed in Newfoundland or Labrador. IBM -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:57 From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia On 29 Mar 98 23:09:32 , Dell Farnan wrote: >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! If there was evidence that there was a design problem with the engine, it would impact ETOPS. Cathay ended up ceasing ETOPS operation (and in fact grounding their A330's) after a series of incidents with the Trents that were clearly design related. The problem with the GE90 has been identified by various sources as a on of assembly error in the engine. From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:58 From: Neason Subject: Re: BA B777 Engine Blows References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Rebecca.Neason@foxinternet.net Philip Dubbin wrote: > 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????? They throw chickens (already dead), propelled by a cannon into aircraft windshields to test their ability to withstand bird strike. (I'm not making this up.) It's likely that similar tests are conducted on the engines. Steve From kls Thu Apr 2 01:23:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:23:59 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: 777 door Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. I believe someone in this group asked how the 777 translating door could work since it is not a plug-type door which is held in place by the pressurization of the cabin. I was out on the 777 final assembly line today and I took the opportunity to make a quick examination of the forward passenger door of a new Air France 777. The door is not a plug, but is fitted with dozens of right-angle, round pads spaced around its circumference which face out. There are corresponding pads attached to the door frame which face in. When closed, the pads on the door press out against the pads on the door frame. This makes it impossible for the door to be forced open, and the greater the pressurization, the tighter the door is pressed closed. When the door is opened, a mechanism at the top of the door relaxes or moves to allow the entire door to move slightly upward. The upward movement is driven by a rotating cam device attached to the door handle. When the door moves up, the pads on the door no longer oppose the pads on the door frame but are positioned just above them, which allows the door to be pushed straight out from the fuselage and then swung to the side. This may not be the best explanation in the world, but that's how the door works. Believe it or not, the passenger doors on today's jetliners are one of the most complex mechanical devices on the entire plane, and there are probably more parts in one door than there are in an entire single-engine general aviation airplane like a Cessna 180. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:00 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 30 Mar 98 04:31:24 , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: >In article , gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) wrote: >> 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. Is this door frame for the 777 a composite structure like the over wing slide door? I can see how this could be a major problem to repair in the field. John From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:01 From: Lee.Lindquist@newsguy.com Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None >> > 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. I was once exiting a NWA DC-9 in Boston, and the Jetway rose 2-3 feet. I stepped off just as it happened, and my buddy just behind me was still in the doorway. The cabin-door was bent "L" shaped, about 1/3 of the way up. A few people already in the Jetway lost their balance, from the quick movement. The scuttle-butt was that some sort of auto-leveler wasn't engaged. From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:02 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Boeing 777 Cabin Door References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services D.M. Procida wrote: > 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? I would think that if a door was removed from the airframe by a sinking jetway it would be most likely only to fall as far as the floor of the jetway. What worries me more when I'm on the ramp is those people dumping lavs on a windy day. Ever seen the mess when they haven't secured the hose properly? Not a pretty sight :) Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:03 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 , procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > 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... Yes, it is potentially very dangerous, particularly to anyone who might be under the jetway. My understanding, however, is that in the WA-001 (prototype 777) incident I described earlier, the hydraulic system of the jetway bled off fairly slowly and the jetway sort of sank down the side of the plane rather than dropped abruptly. The Boeing personnel on the plane had just gotten off when the incident occurred. When this occurs on planes other than the 777, I've been told that the door often still breaks off the plane and falls down below or into the jetway. The difference is that on the 777, the departing door leaves no structural damage behind. As for the insurance aspect, well, I guess ramp personnel shouldn't walk under the jetways, the same as they shouldn't walk in front of or behind idling engines or they shouldn't put their hand on an antenna on the belly of a plane that is marked "DANGER: HOT." Most of the airports I've been filming on recently paint warning stripes under the operating area of the jetway, and in some places I have seen signs warning people to keep clear of the area. Presumably, the people authorized to work on an airport ramp know about the potential danger of all the equipment used, some of which presents a far greater risk on a daily basis than the relatively remote possibility of having an airplane door drop on your head. But the possibility is always there. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:04 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Gear Down on Descent References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com ahlnhl@aol.com (AHL NHL) said: >I live approximately 25-30 miles from PIT . . . > What strikes me funny is that they're always in a gear down >position. >BTW, said planes are always trimmed up for level flight That does seem odd. Around here, they are on final approach and usually are configured with flaps extended, at least partially. You would have to check the Flight Manual for procedure. The two reasons to wait for gear extension are: [A] Airspeed limitations on gear extension and retraction. Lower airspeed also usually translates to lower altitude. For example, the DC10 cannot extend gear at airspeed above 260. [B] Higher fuel consumption. Why cruise at configuration / altitude to conserve fuel and then drop gear only to increase your cost per passenger? Steve C~ From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:05 From: "Krish Chilukuri" Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Time Warner I believe that the P&W announcement was for a mid sized turbon fan, with a very high bypass ratio. Speaking from previous experience, this is likely to be the PW6000 (mid-thrust-family-engine) with a geared fan and a bypass ratio of about 15:1. The by-pass ratio guess is based on a previous P&W effort at developing the Advanced Ducted Propfan. The fan will be bigger, but the application will probably be an aircraft in the 100-120 seat range (shrunk A319?), or even a regional jet? Comments anyone Krish Chilukuri From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:06 From: "Damon Rinard" Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. [Re: PW8000 geared turbofan] >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 ? I understand P&W are using re-cambered PW4000 fan blades to help develop the blades for the new engine. Don't know if they will make the hub the same diameter... Damon Rinard From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:07 From: kubis@pacific.net.sg (Lloyd Kubis) Subject: Cordless Phones On 110-140 Mhz Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber, Pacific Internet, Singapore I have seen cordless phones for sale in electronics shops in Singapore that are marked as operating on 110-140 Mhz complete with 50 and 100 watt amplifiers for increased range. Would these units not cause interference to aircraft navigation systems which I believe operate in the 108-118 Mhz band? Apparently these are made in Taiwan or in China by Taiwanese companies. Lloyd Kubis From kls Thu Apr 2 01:24:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:08 From: Pete Mellor Subject: That's nice of them! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >From the London Evening Standard of Tuesday 31st March (quoted in full):- America acts on seatbelts ------------------------- Passengers in the United States will soon have to keep their seatbelts fastened from take-off to landing. American Airlines is introducing the mandatory seatbelt rule this summer because of concerns over injuries caused by turbulence. Other US airlines are expected to follow suit. Passengers will still be allowed to go to the lavatory. 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 Thu Apr 2 01:24:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Apr 98 01:24:09 From: Julian Scarfe Subject: A320 pitch control (was: emergency procedure) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Scientific Generics Pete Mellor wrote: > > 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. Could you clarify the systems for pitch control on the A320 and family for me. My understanding so far is: Direct law: direct relation between elevator deflection and stick position, with maximum stick defelection corresponding to maximum elev deflection Alternate law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick defelection corresponding to maximum permissible loading Normal law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick defelection corresponding to maximum permissible AOA (or is the AOA protected in a different way?) Is that anything like correct? How does the pilot select Alt or Direct law? -- Julian Scarfe From news Fri Apr 3 22:23:53 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: Al Gerharter Subject: Re: Wing section and angle of incidence Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 References: Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1998 05:28:44 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu dennis.jensen@dwt.csiro.au wrote: > 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 first: A symetrical airfoil, i.e. one of identical upper and lower surfaces, is seldom found on airliners. Often used on aerobatic aircraft, these airfoils generate the almost the same lift inverted. Large a/c airfoils may look near symetrical, and have sections (for fuel storage and high speed drag reduction) that approach symetrical, but overall they have large differences in the area of upper and lower surfaces. No, I don't know of any commercial airliners using symetrical airfoils. Yes, the naca sections are undoubtedly available, but I can't help you there. The manufacturer may have specif data available. second: This is the part I wanted to answer. Yes the wing is set at an angle of incidence to the fuselage. The root of the wing has a much greater angle of incidence than does the tip. Called washout, it is the change in angle of incidence(or in flight, AoA) between the root and the tip. This loads most of the lift next to the root where it can be supported, and where the rest of the wing acts as a "fence" or winglet to minimize the vortices produced by producing lift. The angle of attack shown in the cockpit, excuse me, 'Flight Deck', are an indication of the 'mean' AoA. At high speed cruise, with most of the lift generated by the inboard sections, and the outer most sections flying at near zero, or perhaps even a slightly Negative AoA, you might might see a near zero indication on the AoA, but I doubt it. In smaller a/c, say a Lear 25, The AoA is always positive, assuming we are prducing lift. At the high altitudes required for high speed flight, the air is so thin that the AoA, particularly during a turn, approaches the stalling AoA. Al From news Mon Apr 6 22:20:10 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!news.idt.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: luisma@ic.vel.indra.es Subject: Re: Wing section and angle of incidence Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom9.netcom.com Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion References: Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 03:49:51 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu In article , Al Gerharter wrote: > No, I don't know of any commercial airliners using symetrical airfoils. Yes, >the naca sections are undoubtedly available, but I can't help you there. The >manufacturer may have specif data available. I would recommend those URLs: http://atemi.aa.nps.navy.mil/panel.html http://www.maths.adelaide.edu.au/Applied/llazausk/aero/foil/foil.htm http://opus.aae.uiuc.edu/~selig/ads/coord_database.html >second: > This is the part I wanted to answer. Yes the wing is set at an angle of >incidence >to the fuselage. The root of the wing has a much greater angle of incidence than >does the tip. Called washout, it is the change in angle of incidence(or in flight, >AoA) There is a subtle difference between AoA and angle of incidence. The angle of incidence is purely geometrical, it depends on how the sections are constructed. The AoA is aerodynamical, meaning that the downwash induced by the adjacent sections have some influence (and also the angle of incidence) to determine the AoA for a specific section. >between the root and the tip. This loads most of the lift next to the root where >it >can be supported, and where the rest of the wing acts as a "fence" or winglet to >minimize the vortices produced by producing lift. The angle of attack shown in >the cockpit, excuse me, 'Flight Deck', are an indication of the 'mean' AoA. It is usually measured in the fuselage. It is only useful as a reference. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From news Mon Apr 6 22:20:13 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: k_ish Subject: Re: Wing section and angle of incidence Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom9.netcom.com Organization: Netcom References: Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 03:57:16 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu Al Gerharter wrote: > > Yes the wing is set at an angle of > incidence > to the fuselage. The root of the wing has a much greater angle of incidence than > does the tip. Called washout, it is the change in angle of incidence(or in flight, > AoA) > between the root and the tip. This loads most of the lift next to the root where > it > can be supported, and where the rest of the wing acts as a "fence" or winglet to > minimize the vortices produced by producing lift. Another reason for washout is to ensure the wing root section stalls before the tips. This has several effects: - Maintains aileron control in a stall. - Creates a gradual, progressive stall instead of the entire wing stalling suddenly. - In swept-wing aircraft, the loss of lift at the root while the outboard section is still making lift pitches the nose down, which assists in stall recovery. Many light aircraft have no washout. They often have "stall strips" (a piece of metal running spanwise along the leading edge) to cause the inboard section of the wing to stall first. Ken Ishiguro From news Fri Apr 10 15:17:07 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: spagiola@usa.net Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: Boeing/Airbus profit margins Date: 10 Apr 1998 14:08:44 -0400 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) wrote: > The new 737 airplanes have run into regulatory problems with the JAA. > The failure to get the new airplane over wing doors certified in > Europe as a grandfather to the 737 Type Certificate is holding things > up. Boeing is considering cutting 12 feet off the fuselage. (WSJ) The 737-700 was certified by the JAA a month or so ago (well, strictly speaking the certification is by individual countries, the JAA only recommends). Several European airlines have now taken delivery (including Maersk and Germania). To satisfy the JAA, Boeing had to design new overwing exits which open much faster than the old design, so that the 737 can still meet the stricter evacuation time limits that new models (such as the A320 family) must meet. For Boeing's press release on JAA approval, see http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980219a.html. 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 Apr 11 02:16:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:18 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: SST: A Half-Baked Idea Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University I know that Concorde has a MGTOW in the range of a 767 (408,000lb., according to BA's Web site), though carrying far fewer passengers a shorter maximum range. I also know that nearly half of that weight is fuel, not only to maintain a Mach 2 cruise, but just to get the plane off the ground. Much of the fuel is burned in the takeoff run, both because the engines are running inefficiently and because the wing doesn't work that well at low speeds: it has to get going a lot faster than most airliners just to get off the ground. I read, in fact, that an aborted takeoff in Concorde has to dissipate as much energy as one in a 747; mass is lower, but V1 is higher. These inefficiencies, of course, are due to compromises between high-speed performance and low-speed performance. Those pure turbojets are relatively efficient at Mach 2 and 60,000 feet, but at low speed and altitude, with afterburners engaged, the specific thrust figures are pretty low. And the supersonic delta wing is pretty draggy at low speeds. I was wondering about using a second aircraft to avoid these compromises; say, strap an SST to the back of a 747, Shuttle-style, for takeoff. After attaining a decent airspeed and altitude, the SST would start engines and unlatch from the carrier plane. Think of it as a multi-stage rocket: it's not necessary to carry the extra fuel tanks and big engines all the way to orbit, and upper stages can be optimized for their high-altitude environment. The big wing and high-bypass engines of the 747 would work better up to, say, 350 knots, where a specialized high-speed wing and engines would take over. Perhaps the carrier plane could even be unmanned, and return to land automatically. Of course, the SST would still land on its own, but I don't think that uses a lot of fuel anyway. I realize that this would complicate things a lot, and there would be big questions of economy, reliability, and safety. But I wonder: o How much could this extend the range of an SST, as its fuel tanks would still be fairly full at the start of cruise? Could Concorde become a trans-Pacific aircraft this way, for example? o Could this actually result in a net fuel savings, despite the extra weight and drag of the carrier plane? o Would the 747 be big enough for the job, or would something bigger have to be built? This might be a job for an expanded GE90, for example. o The Concorde/747 combo might be a basis for concrete estimates, but as Concorde weighs over twice what the Shuttle Orbiter does, it probably wouldn't work. What optimizations could be made with a purpose-built 2-plane combo, based on current technology? -- -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 Apr 11 02:16:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:19 From: stein1111@aol.com (Stein1111) Subject: MD-80 Electrical Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and 3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:20 From: seawolf@akula.com (William Chung) Subject: 777's replacing 747-400s??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com I just read a brief article on CNN stating that 777s are becoming more attractive to carriers over the 747s. Is the industry replacing 747s with 777s? I checked out Boeing's website and the performance of the two models are pretty much the same except that the 747-400s can carry about 80 or so more passengers and lift 100,000 more lbs. The range on a 777 exceeds a 747 by a couple of hundred miles. I know BA is using 777s on its JFK-LHR (transatlantic) route. Will we be seeing 777s flying transpacific routes in the future? -- William Chung From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 777's replacing 747-400s??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is the industry replacing 747s with 777s? I checked out Boeing's website >and the performance of the two models are pretty much the same except ... To some degree, yes. At United, the 777 has completely replaced the 747 on Atlantic and Latin routes. However, those were older 747-100 and -200 models, which were significantly more expensive to operate but less capable than the 747-400 whose specs you read on the Boeing web site. >I know BA is using 777s on its JFK-LHR (transatlantic) route. I'm not sure what they're replacing, though. At a guess, probably older 747s, just like United is doing. >Will we be seeing 777s flying transpacific routes in the future? You can see them flying trans-Pacific routes today -- China Southern flies them from Guanzhou to LAX and back at least three times per week, maybe daily now. Beyond that, American recently increased their 777 orders in direct response to gaining more access to Japan. Once they have enough 777s to both replace all of their MD-11s and provide needed expansion for the new routes, they'll only be flying 777s across the Pacific. I'm sure other carriers will follow. -- 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 Apr 11 02:16:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:22 From: David Jones Subject: Re: Tu-144LL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Barnsley College Ken Stoorza wrote: > rafal d filipczyk wrote: > > 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. > > Isn't this the same a/c that has been around since the late 60's/early > 70's? If so, I recall that the passenger routes were abandoned (late > 70's?) because the thing had a real penchant for consuming *lots* of > fuel. I believe it was then used for mail flights until that was also > halted due to economics (read: fuel) in the late 80's. It was the product of industrial espionage on the part of the Soviets (spying on the Anglo-French Concorde project) and was effectively withdrawn when one example crashed at the 1973 Paris Air Show, killing the crew and several French villagers; ironically the French and Soviet authorities colluded in a cover up, the French because it was one of their Mirage jets that caused the crash, and the Soviets because the 144 suffered structural failure during its evasive manoeuvering. It's also ironic in that the US played a large part in killing Concorde as a world player, only to jump into bed with the Russian government 20 years later. Or am I being bitter? From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:23 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Tu-144LL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 02 Apr 98 01:23:49 , Ken Stoorza caused to appear as if it was written: >rafal d filipczyk wrote: >> 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. > >Isn't this the same a/c that has been around since the late 60's/early >70's? Yes. It's the Concordski... > If so, I recall that the passenger routes were abandoned (late >70's?) because the thing had a real penchant for consuming *lots* of >fuel. Unlike it's western counterpart (Concorde), the TU-144 had a marketing problem: in a communist country, who's going to pay premium fares for faster travel? >I believe it was then used for mail flights until that was also >halted due to economics (read: fuel) in the late 80's. The mail flights thing was pure political grandstanding: the Soviet Union didn't want to admit that the thing was a bit of an operational failure. What piece of mail cares if it takes 9 hours instead 4 to fly from A to B? >I would guess it's the same a/c fitted with new engines. New-er engines. Still basically 1970's technology. Personally, I think its all a ruse to allow Boeing to put their name on a supersonic airliner! (Boeing's name really is on the side of the TU-144LL!). Malc. From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:24 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Benoit) Subject: Re: A318 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grolier Interactive Europe Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr On 28 Mar 98 14:21:38 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >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. this project will be cancelled soon according to the press. From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:25 From: Jun Eu Tang Subject: Re: A318 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chalmers University of Technology Marc Schaeffer wrote: > > 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 ;) I had to laugh. Perhaps you were a little overenthusiastic with your chainsaw? :D Anyone knows the status of the proposed AE31X? Compared to the A318 (if launched), would the AE31X take a significantly longer time to develop? Regards. From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:26 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Benoit) Subject: Re: Boeing/Airbus profit margins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grolier Interactive Europe Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr Airbus announced a failed of 61 % of its benefit for 1997. Compared to the boeing lost, the margins seems to be lower and lower than it was. Airline orders are bigger so the margin is reduced. From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:27 From: tpaton@mail.usyd.edu.au (Tony Paton) Subject: 1900d Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia Beech state that the stabilons and tailets on the 1900d eliminate the the need for a stability augmentation system. Can someone explain what a SAS is? From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:28 From: k_ish Subject: AA 777 wings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom AA participated in the definition of the 777. They drove the requirement for folding wings (for ground operations); Boeing went to a great deal of trouble and expense to design in this option which nobody to date is flying. Does anyone know if AA has ordered their 777s with folding wings? Thanks; Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:29 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: >>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? I have no doubt that your dates are correct. However, when I said 1991/92, I meant EVA started operation around that time. EVA's 767-200s are mostly based in Taiwan's southern city of Kaohsiung and they are used mostly for services between Kaohsiung and SE Asia. BTW, EVA is about to start B747 combi service between Kaohsiung and Los Angeles. From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:30 From: spagiola@usa.net Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > 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. Minor nit: the 737-100 was not a "shortened plane." Rather, every other 737 version was a lengthened version. > Similarly, only about 400 of nearly 2,000 > second-generation B737s ordered are for the shortest B737-500. It's interesting to note that the lengthened 737-400 hasn't sold that well either. Another example of an unsuccessful shrink would be the MD-87. > 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.) It is indeed ironic. I wonder if SAS would now like to switch back to the 717? it is well known that they preferred the MD-95 and would have it ordered it had it not been for their lack of faith in Douglas' long-term prospects and Boeing's very large discounts on the 737-600. 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 Sat Apr 11 02:16:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:31 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 Why is the 757-300 not selling well? I read that Boeing hoped to sell it to customers replacing the L-1011 and DC-10. Couldn't the 757-300 be successful in the U.S. on high volume, short distance routes? I know that Delta uses L-1011's on some high volume, short distance routes in the U.S. Wouldn't the 757-300 work well on these routes? Do you think that Delta will merely use its older 767's on these routes as the L-1011's are phased out? The 757-300 appears to be the largest single-aisle plane ever built by Boeing (possibly the U.S. - I know that some of the DC-8's were stretched quite a bit). From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:32 From: luisma@ic.vel.indra.es Subject: Re: TWA 800 in NYRB References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , John Bay <70302.2311@CompuServe.COM> wrote: >i'd have thought the metal fuselage of an airliner would be pretty >effective shielding for emi... It makes a Faraday box, which isolates the inner part of the aircraft from the outside. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:33 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Cordless Phones On 110-140 Mhz References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Lloyd Kubis wrote: > I have seen cordless phones for sale in electronics shops in Singapore > that are marked as operating on 110-140 Mhz complete with 50 and 100 watt > amplifiers for increased range. Would these units not cause interference > to aircraft navigation systems which I believe operate in the 108-118 Mhz > band? I would think so; also the communications band is 118-136 MHz! Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:34 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Cordless Phones On 110-140 Mhz References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Lloyd Kubis (kubis@pacific.net.sg) wrote: : I have seen cordless phones for sale in electronics shops in Singapore : that are marked as operating on 110-140 Mhz complete with 50 and 100 watt : amplifiers for increased range. Would these units not cause interference : to aircraft navigation systems which I believe operate in the 108-118 Mhz : band? Apparently these are made in Taiwan or in China by Taiwanese companies. They sure would interfere! On a high building or a hilltop at 100 watts the range would be 50 miles or more. Of course that's only from the fixed location to the receiving telephone. It is extremely stupid to use this power on the fixed transmitter when the romote telephone only has a couple of watts or usually much less. -- Gerry From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:35 From: pierce.@pat.mdc.com (Gun One) Subject: Re: Cordless Phones On 110-140 Mhz References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pierce Aero In article , kubis@pacific.net.sg (Lloyd Kubis) writes: > I have seen cordless phones for sale in electronics shops in Singapore > that are marked as operating on 110-140 Mhz complete with 50 and 100 watt > amplifiers for increased range. Would these units not cause interference > to aircraft navigation systems which I believe operate in the 108-118 Mhz > band? Apparently these are made in Taiwan or in China by Taiwanese companies. ANY oscillator has the potential to interfere with the sensitive antenna runs of an airliner. There are IFs and superheterodyning in the circuits that transmit many more frequencies than simply those to which the antenna is tuned. Harmonics may also play a factor. The rules against using electronic equipment in airborne aircraft are good ones. Gun One From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:36 From: XXXXcoggs@cogwheel.com (Bob Coggeshall) Subject: Re: Cordless Phones On 110-140 Mhz References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cogwheel, Inc. Reply-To: XXXXcoggs@cogwheel.com On 02 Apr 98 01:24:07 , kubis@pacific.net.sg (Lloyd Kubis) wrote: >I have seen cordless phones for sale in electronics shops in Singapore >that are marked as operating on 110-140 Mhz complete with 50 and 100 watt >amplifiers for increased range. Would these units not cause interference >to aircraft navigation systems which I believe operate in the 108-118 Mhz >band? Apparently these are made in Taiwan or in China by Taiwanese companies. Two words: 'water goods'. At least that's what they are called in HK. Amplifying handhelds to 50 and 100watts in the VHF range, certainly in a consumer product, is just not done. And the other markings, because they cover the air band *has* to be wrong. At least this is how my western mind would keep from being betrayed :) I would wager reasonable money if you bench tested this radio it would neither xmit in that range or power == Bob Coggeshall Cogwheel coggs[at]cogwheel.com (+1)206-230-6445 677 NE 120th / Suite 162 www.cogwheel.com (+1)206-236-2553(fax) Bellevue, Washington, (USA) 98005-3002 From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:37 From: Martin Chiew Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Martin Chiew & Associates Andreas Contes wrote: > 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. HI, no sorry Guten Tag, my name is Justin Chiew. I'm learning Deutsch, so here's a good chance to practise. In response to your question, the 747-400 can lift off at MTOW - Maximum Takeoff Weight, that is 396,800 kilograms, in 3400 metres, acheving a rotation speed of 171 knots (for Qantas). But I think British Airways and most other airlines rotate at 167 knots. 1 Knot is 1.81 kilometres, I think. Just for comparision, at MLW, Maximum Landing Weight, which I think is 267,000 kilograms the 747-400 can takeoff in 1800 metres. The Airbus A340-300 at MTOW can lift off in about 3000 metres. I think up to 70 knots, the 747 accelerates at about 4 knots a second, then as it becomes faster, like at around 160 knots, it accelerates 1 knot a second, or around that. Airbus is better than Boeing! Cheers, Justin Chiew Melbourne, Australia From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:38 From: julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla Reply-To: julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com In article , "Andreas Contes" writes: >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. Takeoff run for a loaded 747 is approximately 30 secs (+ - 5 secs) Take off speed is approximately 180 knots (+ - 10 knots) Landing speed is approximately 120 knots (+ - 5 knots) All from memory of timing a takeoff roll and watching the passenger flight info screen which displays speed and altitude. A 747 pilot will tell you for sure -- 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 Apr 11 02:16:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:39 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >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. I can't give acceleration in 'G's or a specific value, but the simple answer is this: All commercial aircraft are certified to be able to accelerate to takeoff speed -> and decelerate to a stop <- within the confines of the runway. Each runway is analysed by the manufacturer, operator (airline), and the regulating agency (FAA, CAA, etc. The takeoff weight of the airplane is determined by the airplane basic performance, the slope (uphill or downhill) of the runway, the temperature, wind, etc. Basically, a rule of thumb is almost every commercial airplane you see has a takeoff and landing speed of between 120 and 170 nautical miles per hour. Just my opinion... TheFNG From kls Sat Apr 11 02:16:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:40 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com How many blades does a propeller have to have before it becomes a fan :-) I am particularly thinking of "unducted fans." -- 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 Sat Apr 11 02:16:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Apr 98 02:16:41 From: "Low Rider" Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Damon Rinard wrote in message ... >[Re: PW8000 geared turbofan] > >>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 ? > >I understand P&W are using re-cambered PW4000 fan blades to help develop the >blades for the new engine. Don't know if they will make the hub the same >diameter... So far as I've hear, the GTF's Fan has not been finalized. It may or may not have hollow fan blades... As an aside, how would one recamber a shrouded blade? Also: I'll be willing to bet it WILL fit the 737... it's too big a market to pass up... they couldn't make that mistake a THIRD time From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:08 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcXXmsc@geocities.com k_ish wrote: > Does anyone know if AA has ordered their 777s with folding wings? You are right AA wanted the folding wing option, but hasn't ordered it. The weight penality is huge compared to the other benifits. No airline has ordered a 'folded-777', and I even read that BA is no longer offering this option. Can anyone confirm ? -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sat Apr 18 00:49:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:09 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , k_ish wrote: > AA participated in the definition of the 777. They drove the > requirement for folding wings (for ground operations); Boeing went to a > great deal of trouble and expense to design in this option which nobody > to date is flying. > > Does anyone know if AA has ordered their 777s with folding wings? The folding wing idea has been dropped. It proved uneccessary in airport operations and far too heavy. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:10 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Does anyone know if AA has ordered their 777s with folding wings? > >The folding wing idea has been dropped. It proved uneccessary in airport >operations and far too heavy. It's interesting that the diagrams on Boeing's web pages still show them: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777-200/product.html http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777-300/product.html The diagrams show the wingspan as 199ft 11in (60.9m) 155ft 2in (47.3m) (optional) As for being "far too heavy" the figure quoted was 3900 lbs. While a lot of non-revenue producing weight, you make it seem worse. -- 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 Apr 18 00:49:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:11 From: "Eric McMillan" Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. k_ish wrote in message ... >Does anyone know if AA has ordered their 777s with folding wings? They have not. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:12 From: luisma@spainmail.com Subject: Re: 1900d References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , tpaton@mail.usyd.edu.au (Tony Paton) wrote: >Can someone explain what a SAS is? Any ellectronic system which moves the control surface in order to improve the stability. It is less complicated than a AutoPilot. It is more usually found on helicopters. Hope this helps -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:13 From: "J. David Dishman" Subject: Re: 1900d References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Time Warner Communications Tony Paton wrote in message ... >Beech state that the stabilons and tailets on the 1900d eliminate the >the need for a stability augmentation system. Can someone explain what >a SAS is? A SAS is basically a way of improving the flying qualities of an airplane. It senses rates of pitch/roll/yaw and uses other info like a/c config (flaps/slats/gear), airspeed, altitude, Mach, etc., and makes control inputs. An extreme SAS is fly-by-wire where the pilot inputs go into a computer and are combined with all the other stuff above and the computer commands the control surfaces to move. The F-16 and A320 are a couple planes that are fly-by-wire. Any plane with a yaw-damper has a SAS. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:14 From: spagiola@usa.net Subject: JAA certification of Boeing 737NG Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion As a follow-up to the recent discussion of JAA certification of the Next Generation Boeing 737s, in which accusations that the JAA had refused to certify the 737-700 were refuted, readers may wish to note that the JAA has now certified the 737-800 as well. See http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/980413/wa_boeing__1.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 Sat Apr 18 00:49:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:15 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: ORDERS 4 B767-400 cancelled Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com This month 4 B767-400ER orders have been cancelled. A quick guess would be that DELTA has replaced these 4 B764 with the recent order for 2 B772. Can somebody in cyberspace confirm ? Tks, -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sat Apr 18 00:49:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:16 From: "Neil Gerace" Subject: What could replace the P-3? 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: TeMo Rallysport First thanks to all those in rec.aviation.military who helped me make a list of civil-military 'equivalents'. Now, consider a hypothetical situation where the RAAF had the money to replace its venerable P-3C Orion ASW planes with some new model. Say it wanted to convert an exisiting but up-to-date airliner to fill the role. Now my question is, which one? In my 'International Dictionary of Civil Aircraft' which purports to list every type of civil plane still in service -- the Lockheed Electra which the P-3 came from is still in there -- there doesn't seem to be a 4-engined airliner around any more that's about the P-3's size. All planes in the P-3's weight class (~ 65 tonnes) are twins, and the Avro RJ115, the only new quad in the book smaller than the A340, is way too small. I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this right? Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56? Neil Gerace SilkRoad web.services geracen@wantree.com.au http://wantree.com.au/~geracen/silkroad/ From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:17 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >First thanks to all those in rec.aviation.military who helped me make a >list of civil-military 'equivalents'. Sounds interesting! How 'bout posting it to sci.aeronautics.airliners? >Now, consider a hypothetical situation where the RAAF had the money to >replace its venerable P-3C Orion ASW planes with some new model. Say it >wanted to convert an exisiting but up-to-date airliner to fill the role. ... >I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long >patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this >right? Why make that assumption? As long as you can get to a safe landing spot before the other engine fails, it doesn't much matter whether you're spending your many flying hours over open seas following a great circle path from point A to point B or doing lazy circles in the vicinity of point C. Commercial requirements are, if anything, more stringent than military, since the military has greater risk-tolerance. Look at AWACS, which has a similar loiter requirement, albeit not over wide swaths of water. The original version was based on the four-engined 707, but the latest rendition, for Japan, is based on a twin, the 767. >Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes >turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56? The aerodynamicists will tell you that you can't do that, at least not without making a mess of the aerodynamics. Even the A330/340 wing, which was designed from the start to have either one or two engines per wing, gives up some performance in both applications because they could not optimize for either case without sacrificing too much in the other 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 Sat Apr 18 00:49:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:18 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical 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) stein1111@aol.com (Stein1111) writes: >Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and >3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? Three phase power means [grossly simplified] there are 3 output leads, not just two. The combination of them provides a steady power output, not one cycling 400 times per second. [sort of...] But that is less important than the fact that while phase A is going down, B is going up; and when B is then headed down, C is increasing. {Geek-speak -- they are 120 degrees out of phase...} When graphed, you get *_a rotating magnetic field_* that is ideal for driving motors. The motors need no starting winding scheme, and they are reversable by just swapping 2 wires. They tend to be lighter than single phase units of the same size. THAT is why 3 phase is used; starting windings and switches for same are trouble spots, the motors themselves run forever. So the air conditioning compressors will have 3-phase motors. I'd not guess if things like the hydraulic packs do; it would make sense except they'd not work off a DC backup battery. -- 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 Apr 18 00:49:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:19 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 11 Apr 98 02:16:19 , stein1111@aol.com (Stein1111) wrote: >Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and >3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? Three phases make the load on the prime mover constant. Three phases facilitate the use of redundant instrumentation. John From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:20 From: luisma@spainmail.com Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , stein1111@aol.com (Stein1111) wrote: >Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and >3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? It means that the output from the generator consists of 3 pairs of wires, instead of one. By every pair, a sinusoidal AC voltage is applied, being 1/3 of a cycle (120 deg) delayed from the others. By the sake of simplicity, a wire from every pair is connected to the others, thus making a reference point, connected to the metallic airframe. This means that 3 wires (the 3 phases) appear from the generator. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:21 From: "James M. Eadie" Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Stein1111 wrote: > Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and > 3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? AC Generators are usually wound with three armature circuits which are spaced 120 degrees apart on the armature. With a balanced load Y connection, the three line and coil currents are equal, but the line voltages are sqrt(3) times the coil voltages. Thus, while three phase power requires three wires instead of two, you can transmit 73.2% more power over these three wires than in the two wires needed for the single phase power (for a given wire gage). In an aerospace application, this allows use of larger gage wires (significant weight reduction) to deliver the required load capability. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:22 From: k_ish Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Stein1111 wrote: > Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and > 3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? The power to the outlets in your house is single-phase. There is a "hot" and a "neutral", plus a safety ground. The AC voltage looks like a 60Hz sine wave. Most industrial power systems use 3-phase power. There are either three "hots" and a "neutral", or just three "hots" and no neutral. If you look at the overhead wires in a residential area, there are usually two wires (hot + neutral), and in many industrial areas four wires (3xhot + neutral). The three "hots" are all the same voltage and frequency, but are phase-shifted 120 degrees apart. To answer your question, 3-phase power delivers more energy to the load per unit of time. It also reduces the current per phase for a given load (e.g. a single-phase, 5HP motor will require lots more current per phase than a three-phase 5HP motor). This allows smaller, lighter wiring. Lastly, aircraft power systems are 400Hz, not 50-60Hz like in your house. This allows transformers, motors, etc. to be smaller and lighter for the same amount of power. Hope this isn't too much detail. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:23 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , stein1111@aol.com (Stein1111) wrote: >Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and >3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? It refers to the type of electrical generator connected to the aircraft engines. The "three phase" designation means that the generator is outputing three separate 115VAC lines, which have waveforms which are 120 degrees out of phase from each other. The reason for having three-phase electrical equipment is two-fold. 1) it allows three-phase heavy-duty motors to be driven (such as in the stabilizer trim on a B727), and 2) redundancy: if one of the phases shorts out, a three-phase motor will still operate. (The way the generator produces the three phases has to do with the way the rotor is wound - it has three completely separate sets of windings, and is wound in such a way that the resulting windings produce voltages 120 deg out of phase with each other.) Incidentally, older aircraft also have three-phase 28VAC on them. They are used in analog angle-position-sensors called synchros. 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 Apr 18 00:49:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport,uk.environment Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:24 From: Olly Morgan Subject: Aircraft energy consumption per passenger-km? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Scottish Agricultural College Reply-To: O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk-z Can anyone provide me with some figures for energy consumption per passenger-km for aircraft. If you could quote sources/web-sites that would be great. I am looking figures taking into account only the variable consumption (ie: excluding the energy cost of manufacture). These could be expressed either in (kg_of_fuel or MJ)/passenger/km. I am interested in the following scenarios: 1 Short-haul flights 2 Long-haul flights 3 car: av. motorway figures, 1 driver and no passengers 4 train 5 passenger ship Rumour has it that 1 and 3 are pretty similar. Is this the case? Thanks, -- Olly Morgan Scottish Agricultural College Edinburgh, Scotland email: O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk (remove the -z from the address) From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:25 From: Olly Morgan Subject: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Scottish Agricultural College Reply-To: O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk-z I've a vague recollection of reading that aircraft cabins are pressurised to 0.5 atmosphere. Err, why is this? Presumably it would be simple enough to hold it at 1 atmosphere in which case all this ear ache stuff at takeoff/landing would be eliminated? OK so where's the flaw in this? Thanks -- Olly Morgan email: O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk (remove the -z from the address) From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I've a vague recollection of reading that aircraft cabins are >pressurised to 0.5 atmosphere. They're pressurized to the equivalent of an altitude of about 8,000 ft above MSL. I'm not sure what that works out to in atmospheres offhand, but I'd guess it would be more than 0.5. >Presumably it would be simple enough to hold it at 1 atmosphere in which >case all this ear ache stuff at takeoff/landing would be eliminated? > >OK so where's the flaw in this? First, the greater pressure differential (assuming the same cruise altitude) would require a considerably stronger fuselage structure, which implies more weight. Weight is anathema to airliner design. Second, it requires energy to pressurize the cabin, and more energy would be needed to sustain higher pressurization. Avoiding the minor annoyance of everyone's ears "popping" on ascent and descent isn't worth the tremendous cost. -- 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 Apr 18 00:49:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:27 From: philvsr@easynet.fr (Philippe Vessaire) Subject: Re: A320 pitch control (was: 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 , Julian Scarfe wrote: >Direct law: >Alternate law: >Normal law: >Is that anything like correct? How does the pilot select Alt or Direct law? It's correct, Normal law for a full operative acf Alternate law for some failures Direct law with more failures. at the last: no computers, only the last backup mode with rudder, elevator trim and thrust. Note: for alternate law, the systems switch to direct law when gear is extended. -- Salutations Philippe philvsr@easynet.fr From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:28 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A320 pitch control (was: emergency procedure) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Julian, It would take a *long* time to list all of the provisions of the laws! (My source was my copy of the A320 FCOM, which I *think* I interpreted correctly!) To start from the bottom of your message:- > Normal law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick deflection > corresponding to maximum permissible AOA (or is the AOA protected in a > different way?) Normal law is a "load factor demand" law. The "load factor" (G) is proportional to stick deflection. With stick at neutral, the system maintains 1G in pitch. In turns, no pitch correction is required once the turn is established. In addition, there are many protections, of which a limit on AOA is just one. On top of that, the law has different "modes" for different phases of flight (ground, flight, flare, ground). > Alternate law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick deflection > corresponding to maximum permissible loading Same as normal law, without some of the protections. > Direct law: direct relation between elevator deflection and stick position, > with maximum stick defelection corresponding to maximum elev deflection Basically correct, except that the FCOM states "with full authority" rather than stating what the maximum stick deflection corresponds to. (The max. surface deflection depends on CoG and configuration, but other than that, there are *no* protections.) There's *much* more than that, but I don't have time right now to type out a whole section of the FCOM! :-) Regards, Pete From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:29 From: Michael Zaller Subject: Re: A320 pitch control (was: 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. Julian Scarfe wrote: > Pete Mellor wrote: > > > > 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. > > Could you clarify the systems for pitch control on the A320 and family for > me. My understanding so far is: > > Direct law: direct relation between elevator deflection and stick position, > with maximum stick defelection corresponding to maximum elev deflection > > Alternate law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick defelection > corresponding to maximum permissible loading > > Normal law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick defelection > corresponding to maximum permissible AOA (or is the AOA protected in a > different way?) > > Is that anything like correct? How does the pilot select Alt or Direct law? Here's a (slightly) more complete description: Normal Law gives full flight envelope protection to the aircraft (except below 100 ft radar altitude, otherwise you could never land...) There are five primary flight control computers, each with separate and redundant systems. The sidesticks are used to provide input to the computers, which in turn command the actuators to move the flight controls. The sidesticks offer no feedback other than they are spring loaded to neutral. There is no mechanism to limit the deflections of the sidestick; any limits are calculated by the primary flight control computers (Elevator and AiLeron Computers, ELACs, and Spoiler and Elevator Computers, SECs). Also, the movements of the flight control surfaces are adjusted based on airspeed. In other words, the aileron will deflect less at high speeds than at low speeds with the same amount of sidestick input. Alternate Law is in effect when there is some sort of degredation of the flight control computers or their inputs (i.e., airspeed data). There are actually several different Alternate Laws, depending on which systems have been degraded. There is no difference in the sidestick controls between Normal Law and Alternate Law; only certain flight envelope protections are lost. In Direct Law the electrical signals from the sidestick controllers act directly upon the flight control actuators. Test flight crews which I know to have flown in this mode report that it flies much like an old taildragger. Keep in mind that the aircraft can be in Direct Law in one axis (roll) and Alternate Law in another (pitch). Also, don'f forget that the aircraft can be flown using rudder and elevator trim as these are mechanical backups. However, I wouldn't recommend it. Michael Zaller A319/A320 Fleet Engineering, United Airlines P.S. The views expressed are my own, and in no way reflect upon my employer. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:30 From: rdd@nospam.com Subject: Re: A320 pitch control (was: emergency procedure) 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 Julian Scarfe writes: >Could you clarify the systems for pitch control on the A320 and family for >me. My understanding so far is: > >Direct law: direct relation between elevator deflection and stick position, >with maximum stick defelection corresponding to maximum elev deflection Correct, except there's filtering for center of gravity position (i.e., elevator travel is limited by the CG position). There are, otherwise, no flight envelope protections. >Alternate law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick defelection >corresponding to maximum permissible loading Sort of. In pitch, it performs similarly to Normal Law (below). The main differences are in how pitch and low/high speed stability protections are performed. Alternate law can also exist in a mode without high- or low- speed stability protections (just load factor protections). >Normal law: stick deflection controls lift, with maximum stick defelection >corresponding to maximum permissible AOA (or is the AOA protected in a >different way?) Look at it a different way. When you move the stick, you're commanding a load factor. The flight control system reacts to provide that factor. So suppose you pull back. You're increasing load, increasing pitch. You let go. Stick centers. You're now commanding 1G in the last known attitude. Airplane holds the pitch angle and maintains 1G. Normal law also includes load protections, pitch protections, high AOA protections, and high speed protections. It also includes a load alleviation function, which reduces wing loading in turbulence by automatically modulating selected spoiler panels. >Is that anything like correct? How does the pilot select Alt or Direct law? The pilot reaches up and turns off the various flight control computers, with successive degrees of degradation. There is no "on/off" switch for the various laws. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:31 From: Jonathan Thornburg Subject: Tu-144 and Concorde (was: Re: Tu-144LL) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: U of British Columbia Physics In article , David Jones described the Tupolev Tu-144LL (a development of the late-60s and early-70s Tu-144): | It was the product of industrial espionage on the part of the Soviets | (spying on the Anglo-French Concorde project) Although the Tu-144 product certainly _benefited_ from industrial espionage against the Concorde (and from publicly available information on the US B-58 and B-70 bomber projects), to describe it as "the product" of industrial espionage is seriously inaccurate -- the majority of the Tu-144's engineering was home-grown in the USSR. For further details on the Tu-144, IMHO the book Howard Moon "Soviet SST: The Technopolitics of the Tupolev-144" Orion Books, New York, 1989, xii + 276 pp ISBN 0-517-56601-X (hardcover) is pretty good. (Moon discusses Tu-144 industrial espionage in some detail in chapter 4, and also explicitly compares the Tu-144 and the Concorde in chapters 7 and 8.) | and was effectively | withdrawn when one example crashed at the 1973 Paris Air Show, killing | the crew and several French villagers; ironically the French and Soviet | authorities colluded in a cover up, the French because it was one of | their Mirage jets that caused the crash, and the Soviets because the 144 | suffered structural failure during its evasive manoeuvering. As well as Moon's book, another reference on the crash was pointed out in article by our esteemed moderator Karl Swartz : > An excellent writeup of the crash, > with an unbiased comparison of several versions of the sequence of > events, is at http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/RAFAQ/Tu-144.html. But the Tu-144's commercial failure was basically due to economics and insufficient range, not safety: Due to its less sophisticated engines, the Tu-144 was even more fuel-hungry than the Concorde, and it lacked the range to fly the major transatlantic routes non-stop with reasonable payloads. | It's also ironic in that the US played a large part in killing Concorde | as a world player, The Concorde's commercial mostly-failure was (is) due to high operating cost (poor fuel economy), not US interference. I suppose you _could_ say that the US's profligate oil consumption played a large part in the rise of OPEC, which in turn raised oil prices and made both the Concorde and the Tu-144 uneconomical, but that seems a pretty indirect and unintentional chain of causation. Interesting question: Can anyone post actual numbers for the Concorde's operating cost and how it breaks down into fuel, crew, maintainence, and other? People have posted similar numbers for other aircraft in the past (eg article for the 767-200/300, article for the 737-100/200 and 727-200); it would be nice to make comparisons with the Concorde using real-world numbers. | only to jump into bed with the Russian government 20 | years later. Or am I being bitter? It's not really "jumping into bed": With the collapse of the Russian economy and the Ruble, the Tu-144 is a bargin-priced way for Boeing to get (a) good PR, and (b) some interesting SST flight data. I don't think either Boeing or Tupolev has any serious plans for a near-term next generation SST. -- -- Jonathan Thornburg (personal E-mail) U of British Columbia / Physics Dept / "If you are either rich or a camel, you should, as a purely practical calculation, enjoy life now [rather than in the hereafter]." -- John Kenneth Galbraith From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:32 From: peterg1 Subject: Composite Materials Search Engine Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network The Worldwide Composites Search Engine is available at http://www.wwcomposites.com Fully searchable with hundreds of sites indexed. Information on prepregs, honeycombs. foams, adhesives, fiber materials, etc., processing, manufacturing and companies related to the Composite Materials Industry. The is also a surplus materials and key personnel database. Have a look! From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:33 From: Andrew Fry Subject: Airbus auto-trim Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hilton Hosiery Company I understand that the A320 and A340 have "auto trim" systems. Would someone who flies these please explain how "auto trim" operates. Eg Does it actually trim the aircraft? (If so, how does it know when the aircraft is trimmed and it's time to stop winding the little wheel?) Or does it just remove "stick forces"? How well does it function operationally? Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------ (the things we do to avoid spam - and me a vegetarian) Send email to andrewf at slhosiery dot com dot au. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:34 From: digitalel@aol.com (Digital El) Subject: B-757 Almost Off a Cliff Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com A US Airways Boeing 757 nearly rolled off a waiting area near runway 28R at PIT on Wednesday, 15 April. Apparently, the waiting area is slightly banked and the plane started to roll backwards--towards a 20-foot drop and onto a roadway below. The crew reported faulty brakes following the incident. Home video from a passenger shows the main gear just a few feet from cliff's edge. My question: What is likely to have happened, had the plane fallen some 20-feet? Casualties? Explosion? ...or did perhaps the local news blow the incident out of proportion (as usual)? Could an airframe withstand such an unpredictable beating? http://members.aol.com/digitalel/index.html From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:35 From: junaid@cheerful.com Subject: Inertial Navigation Units- LTN-72 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Reply-To: junaid@cheerful.com I work in the engineering and maintenance department of an airlines. I have been working on Inertial Navigation Units (INU) LTR-72 for the last 3 years. These units are giving us problems when the ambient temperature goes above 90 degree F. The Display Units become blank and the RED warning flashes. Once we remove them from the aircraft and cool them they become servicable again. Obviously we are exceeding the max operating temperatures. These values are not specified in the manual. I would appreciate if anyone can explain this phenomena. Junaid Manzoor -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:36 From: Henry Law Subject: UK/M62 - was that a DC-10 fuselage I saw? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None Driving west on the M62 from Manchester towards Liverpool this morning (April 16th) I was amazed to see, on the back of a low-loader truck travelling in the opposite direction on the other carriageway, the fuselage of a large airliner. Police outriders, blue flashing lights, the works. Under the circumstances I didn't get more than a glance at it but I thought it had the upswept, "double-chin" look of a DC-10. Can it have been? If not, what? In any case, why and where from and where to? Perhaps one of our UK correspondents will know. Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:37 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: marcXXmsc@geocities.com H Andrew Chuang wrote: > 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. This is a pretty safe bet ;) > 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. Out of the total 1662 A320-family orders there are +- 320 A319, 1130 A320 and 214 A321. However the A320 made it's first flight on 22-Aug-87, whereas the 319 only went to the air on 25-Aug-95. Therefore average sales per year are 122 for the A319, 106 for the A320 and only 42 for the A321. The 319 isn't doing a bad job. Last year it outsold the 320 by 240 to 74 ( you may check at http://surf.to/orders), this year the 320 has the lead 106 to 54. However I think that the micro-bus A318 has only a very reduced success due to it's high costs per seat. Rgds, -- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sat Apr 18 00:49:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:38 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 , wrote: > >It's interesting to note that the lengthened 737-400 hasn't sold that well >either. Excellent point. When Boeing launched the 757 and later ceased the production of the 727, Boeing left a big hole in its family of aircraft. The 737-400 barely satisfies the capacity requirement but has far shorter range than the 727. Airbus nicely filled the market with the A320. Perhaps, Boeing has itself to blame for leaving a lucrative market sector for Airbus to attack. Boeing allowed Airbus to become a viable competitor. It's quite obvious that the 737NG is meant to fill this hole. Hence, it's not a big surprise that the -800 is the best-selling model in the 737NG family. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:39 From: Helen Rose Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. EHaase2463> == EHaase2463 EHaase2463> Why is the 757-300 not selling well? I read that Boeing EHaase2463> hoped to sell it to customers replacing the L-1011 and DC-10. EHaase2463> Couldn't the 757-300 be successful in the U.S. on high EHaase2463> volume, short distance routes? The 757-300 has a listed range (Boeing's website) of 4,000 statue miles carrying 243 passengers in a "typical mixed class configuration". I wouldn't count 4,000 miles as "short distance". EHaase2463> I know that Delta uses L-1011's on some high volume, short EHaase2463> distance routes in the U.S. Wouldn't the 757-300 work well EHaase2463> on these routes? Do you think that Delta will merely use its EHaase2463> older 767's on these routes as the L-1011's are phased out? Delta's designated replacement for the L1011-1 are L1011-500 in the short term (L1011-1s are being pulled out of service and replaced on domestic routes by previously international L1011-500s). The L1011-1 (think "domestic version") has a range of 3,240 miles (DL's website) and seats 300 passengers in a 2 class configuration. The L1011-500 has a range of 5,300 miles (again, DL's website) and seats only 218 passengers. So while one could argue the L1011-500 and 757-300 are in the same vague class, it's a bit of a push, especially because DL really wanted a L1011 class plane for *domestic* traffic. And they found one. And Boeing sells it. It's the 767-400. 245 passengers in 3 class config (304 in 2 class). The 767-400 has a range of 6,400 miles. So Delta will be able to deploy the 767-400 to replace *either* long range routes formerly operated by the L1011-500 (which are being pulled out of international service by the way, and being replaced by 767-*300s*, at exactly the same seat count in a 3-class config (218)), or short range high density routes (269 passengers in 2 class, so about 30 less than the L1011-1). Delta had been searching for a Tristar replacement for years (and the 777 wasn't it - too big). EHaase2463> The 757-300 appears to be the largest single-aisle plane ever EHaase2463> built by Boeing (possibly the U.S. - I know that some of the EHaase2463> DC-8's were stretched quite a bit). I'm sure Karl Swartz will quote passenger count on the longest stretched DC-8s (Karl loves the DC-8 :-). The 757-300 *is* a long single-aisle plane, yes. It has been aimed at mostly European charter operators. I'm actually quite surprised that more of them haven't ordered it. Just think how many passengers they can cram into a space that seats 243 in a mixed class (probably close to 300 in a single class 29" seat pitch. ouch. You and your 299 closest friends :-). --Helen From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:40 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 > EHaase2463> Couldn't the 757-300 be successful in the U.S. on high > EHaase2463> volume, short distance routes? > >The 757-300 has a listed range (Boeing's website) of 4,000 statue miles >carrying 243 passengers in a "typical mixed class configuration". I >wouldn't count 4,000 miles as "short distance". No, 4,000 miles isn't a "short distance." But it's not relevant, either. Or maybe it is, if the plane has too much range (i.e., it is too heavy and has overly powerful engines for the intended job and thus is uneconomical to operate). A 747-400IGW is certainly capable of flying many "high volume, short distance routes" in the US, but it's not likely to be successful (read "cost effective") at doing so. That said, the success of the 757-200 in the US market suggests that the 757-300 wouldn't suffer too much of an "overrange" penalty. > EHaase2463> I know that Delta uses L-1011's on some high volume, short > EHaase2463> distance routes in the U.S. Wouldn't the 757-300 work well > EHaase2463> on these routes? Do you think that Delta will merely use its > EHaase2463> older 767's on these routes as the L-1011's are phased out? ... >Delta had been searching for a Tristar replacement for years >(and the 777 wasn't it - too big). While Delta has a fondness for large planes (their average seat count per plane on domestic routes is the highest in the US, beyond even United which uses a sizable number of 747s on domestic routes), the general trend has been to replace DC-10/L-1011 class planes with smaller aircraft operating greater frequencies. The DC-10 replacement at United has largely been the 757-200 and A320. At American, it's been the 757-200 and MD-80. > EHaase2463> The 757-300 appears to be the largest single-aisle plane ever > EHaase2463> built by Boeing (possibly the U.S. - I know that some of the > EHaase2463> DC-8's were stretched quite a bit). >I'm sure Karl Swartz will quote passenger count on the longest stretched >DC-8s (Karl loves the DC-8 :-). According to http://www.boeing.com/, the 757-300 beats even the DC-8-61/63, with a maximum of 279 passengers versus only 259 for the longest DC-8 models. 178'7" -- 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 Apr 18 00:49:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:41 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 11 Apr 98 02:16:31 , ehaase2463@aol.com (EHaase2463) caused to appear as if it was written: >Why is the 757-300 not selling well? I read that Boeing hoped to sell it to >customers replacing the L-1011 and DC-10. Couldn't the 757-300 be successful >in the U.S. on high volume, short distance routes? > > I know that Delta uses L-1011's on some high volume, short distance routes in >the U.S. Wouldn't the 757-300 work well on these routes? Do you think that >Delta will merely use its older 767's on these routes as the L-1011's are >phased out? The 757-300 appears to be the largest single-aisle plane ever >built by Boeing (possibly the U.S. - I know that some of the DC-8's were >stretched quite a bit). Boeing does think the the 757-300 is their longest aircraft, and the post-merger Boeing appears to have adopted the old Douglas line as their own. Reading their history of the 707 vs. DC-8 competition is rather amusing... But back to the subject at hand: the 757-300 would make a truly HORRIBLE aircraft for use on high-volume short-haul routes. With only one aisle, you'd spend longer boarding and disembarking passengers than you'd spend in the air! Malc. From kls Sat Apr 18 00:49:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Apr 98 00:49:42 From: ddd@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > > In article , > Karl Swartz wrote: > >>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? According to the EVA Air Timetable that I just picked up at the airport, the 767-200 currently flies the following routes: Taipei-Macau (twice daily), Taipei-Manila, Taipei-Yangon, Kaohsiung-Singapore, Kaohsiung-Jakarta, Taipei- Kaohsiung-Surabaya, Taipei-Denpasar (Bali), and Kaosiung-Denpasar (Bali). Only a few of these flights are daily. steve damrau ddd@ix.netcom.com -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From news Fri Apr 17 13:45:29 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: spagiola@usa.net Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Boeing/Airbus profit margins + hushkits Date: 17 Apr 1998 14:15:41 -0400 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: ITRADE wrote: > ... Neil Kinnock's latest brain child is to not allow > any US aircraft which have been hushkitted to be imported into Europe. > The claim is that they are still noisy. Get it right, will you? The proposal is to not allow import of any Stage II aircraft that has been hushkitted to stage III standards. BAC One-Elevens would be just as much a subject of this restriction as DC-9s or 737s. 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 Sun Apr 26 03:44:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:04 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings 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: C. Marin Faure wrote: > >The folding wing idea has been dropped. It proved uneccessary in airport > >operations and far too heavy. > As for being "far too heavy" the figure quoted was 3900 lbs. While a > lot of non-revenue producing weight, you make it seem worse. Using the FAA's average weight per passenger of 170 pounds, 3,900 pounds equals 22 passengers. That in today's airline environment makes the folding wing very much "far too heavy," especially if those 22 passengers were willing to pay for business class tickets. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:05 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com C. Marin Faure wrote: > > In article , k_ish > wrote: > > > AA participated in the definition of the 777. They drove the > > requirement for folding wings (for ground operations); Boeing went to a > > great deal of trouble and expense to design in this option which nobody > > to date is flying. > > > > Does anyone know if AA has ordered their 777s with folding wings? > > The folding wing idea has been dropped. It proved uneccessary in airport > operations and far too heavy. Interestingly enough, John Roundhill made an AIAA dinner meeting presentation back in the early days of the 777 and showed that the folding wings were essential. Without them, the 777 could not use many existing gates and would have trouble using certain taxiways at older airports, like LaGuardia. I would imagine that the 777 without the folding wings is now locked out of many gates. This leads to the question: how do 777 operators get around the taxiway problems at LaGuardia? Is the 777 used out of this airport? ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sun Apr 26 03:44:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:06 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >how do 777 operators get around the taxiway problems at >LaGuardia? Is the 777 used out of this airport? 777 operators get around the problem by not using them at LGA. That's likely to stay that way since most 777s seem to be flying international routes (plus some intra-Asian services). -- 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 Apr 26 03:44:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:07 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: 777's replacing 747-400s??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com William Chung wrote: > > I just read a brief article on CNN stating that 777s are becoming more > attractive to carriers over the 747s. > > Is the industry replacing 747s with 777s? I checked out Boeing's website > and the performance of the two models are pretty much the same except > that the 747-400s can carry about 80 or so more passengers and lift > 100,000 more lbs. The range on a 777 exceeds a 747 by a couple of > hundred miles. I know BA is using 777s on its JFK-LHR (transatlantic) > route. Will we be seeing 777s flying transpacific routes in the future? 777 is attractive to operate in place of 747-100 and 747-200. Against the 747-400 it's a different matter - the 744 can haul a lot of passengers a long way with cargo. Actual long haul passenger configurations for a 744 are usually 400 to 425 whereas a 777-200 is more likely to be between 250 and 300. Headline figures tend to forget that in the real world the 777 is operated in a three class configuration so it doesn't quite make the often quoted 375 to 440 range. If the 777 competes with the 747-400 then we will start to see it on routes like LHR-SIN, LHR-KUL where the 747-400 is king. The airlines flying those routes: SIA, MAS, and BA are all committed 747-400 and 777-200IGW operators. ---------------- Andrew. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:08 From: "Chris" Subject: Re: 777's replacing 747-400s??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Probably a while before 777 replace 747-400. The 400 is a bit big, in that the F and C capacity is ideal to make lots of money but the Y cabin is too big. The 777 is much more suitable. Try flying long distances in the 777 - its dull. The F class cabin on a 747 is unique - a small hideway in the front through which no one ever wanders. On the 777 it has galleys in front and behind the F cabin, and all pax often board and deplane thru it. As the F cabin is for most important airlines the place where the money is made, the 747 will be preferred. Expect 777s to repalce 742, 741, DC10 equip as these planes wear out and die C From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:09 From: "William Barstow" Subject: Re: Airbus auto-trim References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) All I can say is that when I was in the cockpit of a 737-500, the trim wheels were moving a lot of time, adjusting as the cabin crew went up and down the aisle and as fuel was burnt. It automatically trims the aircraft. Remove NOSPAM to reply AvInfo Web Site: http://fly.to/avinfo From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:10 From: "Gitaj" Subject: A330/A340 Conversions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rutgers University I am curious know if an A330 can be converted into an A340 or vice-versa. Thanks From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:11 From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Oxygen Cylinder in Overhead Luggage Bin Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC While stowing my roll-on in the overhead bin on a 737 yesterday, I noticed an oxygen cylinder at one end of the compartment, securely strapped in place but otherwise unprotected. In lab work, one is taught always to take extreme precautions re the valve end of a pressurized cylinder, because the cylinder will literally run amok if its contents are released swiftly enough (e.g. if the valve is knocked off). Seems to me, some of the heavy items that people stow in the overheads could easily smash the valve on that cylinder, if it was thrown into motion with sufficient G-force. I would have thought the last thing we'd need in a crash landing would be a loose cylinder (and much oxygen to fan the flames of any fire). After considering this, I put my roll-on in a different luggage compartment. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:12 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 1900d References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Reply-To: dave@amiwest.com J. David Dishman wrote: > > Tony Paton wrote in message ... > >Beech state that the stabilons and tailets on the 1900d eliminate the > >the need for a stability augmentation system. Can someone explain what > >a SAS is? In the case of the Beech 1900, one goal of the design was to use as many parts from the King Air 200 as possible. In the wind tunnel, the aircraft was found to lack directional stability and to have a limited CG range. The things hanging down from the horizontal stabilizer increased the directional stability to acceptable levels and the stabilons which project horizontally from the rear fuselage increased the static longitudinal stability and allowed the CG to have acceptable range. When the fuselage was deepened, going from the 1900C to the 1900D, the directional stability decreased due to the added side area of the fuselage ahead of the CG. To counter this, strakes were added to the lower rear fuselage. These strakes restored the aircraft's directional stability. A SAS does what the name implies - it augments the aircraft's stability. On commercial aircraft, this is just what it does - augment. On recent military aircraft, such as the F-16, F-18, X-29, etc., the aircraft would be unflyable but for the computer that provides artifical 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 Sun Apr 26 03:44:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:13 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Report on new En Route Centre (NERC) for UK ATC Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The Fourth Report by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs committee of the House of Commons was printed on 27th March 1998. It is available on:- http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmenvtra/360iv/et0407.htm However, I had a problem accessing it directly using that URL, and anyone who has difficulty might care to try the general URL ... http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk ... and do a keyword search on "NATS", which will call up several sections of the report including the main contents list, together with the answers to some questions asked in parliament on the subject. The gist of the report (which I do not have time to summarise in any greater detail now) is that here is a classic software disaster happening right before our eyes, and the committee have requested an independent review with cancellation as one of the identified options. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk, Web: http://www@csr.city.ac.uk/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:14 From: baldamus@cs.tu-berlin.de (Michael Baldamus) Subject: Re: TWA 800 in NYRB 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 luisma@ic.vel.indra.es wrote: > In article , > John Bay <70302.2311@CompuServe.COM> wrote: > > >i'd have thought the metal fuselage of an airliner would be pretty > >effective shielding for emi... > > It makes a Faraday box, which isolates the inner part of the aircraft > from the outside. Not another TWA 800 theory, BUT: airliners are vulnerable to electromagnetic pulses such as those generated by nuclear explosions (so-called EMP's). They can be hardened, as it has been done with the US presidential 747's. That seems to require considerable effort. Also, it is possible to generate EMP's by electrical means. This is actually done in practice to test military hardware. I can remember a television report showing such a facility in the US. Various tidbits I have gathered over the years seem to indicate that not all military hardware is as resistant as those presidential 747's. That should be especially true of the hardware of potential adversaries of the US. "Directed energy weapons" should, therefore, be interesting given that their characteristics are sufficiently EMP-like. I have no idea whatsoever whether such devices are possible. Michael Baldamus Dresden University of Technology baldamus@math.tu-dresden.de From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:15 From: bartscher@aol.com (Bartscher) Subject: Re: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Presumably it would be simple enough to hold it at 1 atmosphere in which >case all this ear ache stuff at takeoff/landing would be eliminated? > >OK so where's the flaw in this? The flaw in this comes when you board a plane in New York and fly to Denver or board a plane in Los Angeles and fly to Mexico City. The air pressure varies for different cities depending on their altitude such that no matter what they pressurize the aircraft cabin to, your ears still have to equilibrate. Since there is no way around the pressure variation, there is no reason to overbuild the cabin for 1.0 atm rather than an 8000 foot cabin altitude. Eric Bartsch bartscher@aol.com From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:16 From: "Yannick Fournier" Subject: Re: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? 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: EIG's student Olly Morgan wrote in message ... >I've a vague recollection of reading that aircraft cabins are >pressurised to 0.5 atmosphere. Err, why is this? > >Presumably it would be simple enough to hold it at 1 atmosphere in which >case all this ear ache stuff at takeoff/landing would be eliminated? Don't forget that the a/c must replace the air ! Some companies set the "realtive altitude pressure" at higher than 8'000 ft only to economize fuel (and money) ! Yannick From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:17 From: procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) Subject: Re: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK Karl Swartz wrote: > Avoiding the minor annoyance of everyone's ears "popping" on ascent > and descent isn't worth the tremendous cost. On a descent into Malta Luqa in 1984, one of my ears "blocked up" in the usual fashion, and then refused to unblock. No amount of swallowing or yawning made any difference. I went around half-deaf in that ear for about 6 weeks (nobody believed me that there was anything the matter when I tried to explain) until one day, suddenly, I heard an alarming and very loud sound - something like tearing cloth - and my ear opened up and I could hear properly again. Still, I don't suppose my plight would have impressed the airline industry very much. Is there any sure-fire guaranteed way to unblock one's reluctant ears? Daniele -- "...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 Sun Apr 26 03:44:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:18 From: "Stephen Kingston" Subject: Re: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNet UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNet UK) Notwithstanding the well reasoned argument against higher cabin pressurisation, Karl Swartz wrote: >Avoiding the minor annoyance of everyone's ears "popping" on ascent >and descent isn't worth the tremendous cost. My 8 year old nephew was violently sick on wednesday as the result of the landing in Gatwick, and was in significant pain during the decent. (And when I say violently sick, I mean it!!!) This was more than a minor annoyance, although from a financial point of view there is still clearly no need for airlines to fully pressurise cabins. Nevertheless one might regret the lack of the available alternative of a sea crossing to some destinations if one is prone to such reactions (which he is - he is ill every time on a plane landing). All the best, Stephen From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:19 From: hmt@cygnus.co.ukx (Hugo Tyson) Subject: Re: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cygnus Solutions, Cambridge, UK In article kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > >I've a vague recollection of reading that aircraft cabins are > >pressurised to 0.5 atmosphere. > > They're pressurized to the equivalent of an altitude of about 8,000 ft > above MSL. I'm not sure what that works out to in atmospheres offhand, > but I'd guess it would be more than 0.5. My watch consistently says it's about 830mBar over various flights. > >Presumably it would be simple enough to hold it at 1 atmosphere in which > >case all this ear ache stuff at takeoff/landing would be eliminated? > > > >OK so where's the flaw in this? > > First, the greater pressure differential (assuming the same cruise > altitude) would require a considerably stronger fuselage structure, > which implies more weight. Weight is anathema to airliner design. Exactly. > Second, it requires energy to pressurize the cabin, and more energy > would be needed to sustain higher pressurization. Not exactly; it's bypass air from the engine fans (AIUI, IANA aero engineer) and the pressure is limited by the release valves of which there are several, in particular: * one which opens at _absolute_ pressure inside of 1 Bar, so that below cruise/on the ground, the cabin doesn't go above 1 bar which would hurt the passengers even more and prevent the doors opening too, as it happens. * one which opens at _relative_ pressure of about 0.5 Bar above the outside (I think it's about 0.5, could be where the figure above came from) so keep the pressure sensible high up. So the pressure inside is MIN( 1.0, (outside + 0.5) ); the hull can withstand a pressure _difference_ of 0.5 Bar assuming that figure's about right. The air inlet is at the front, often in the cockpit, and the release valves are at the back, generally. Smokers to the back please. This is the explanation for the apparently odd fact that an engine fire can fill the cockpit with smoke, or at least the pilots smell smoke. - Huge From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:20 From: Andrew Crawford Subject: Re: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nildram Ltd In uk.transport Karl Swartz wrote: > First, the greater pressure differential (assuming the same cruise > altitude) would require a considerably stronger fuselage structure, > which implies more weight. Weight is anathema to airliner design. I recently had my first flight in a 777 (United, Heathrow to San Francisco), and was pleasantly suprised to find that I had none ear popping, earaches, deafness, etc that I am used to at takeoff and landing. Would it be correct to assume that this (newer) aircraft keeps the cabin at a higher pressure than the older ones? I was most disappointed to be back in an ear-popping 747 on the way home! -- Andrew Crawford +44 1883 626244 From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,uk.transport Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:21 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Why aren't air cabins pressurised to 1 atmosphere? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Olly Morgan (O.Morgan@ed.ac.uk-z) wrote: : I've a vague recollection of reading that aircraft cabins are : pressurised to 0.5 atmosphere. Err, why is this? : Presumably it would be simple enough to hold it at 1 atmosphere in which : case all this ear ache stuff at takeoff/landing would be eliminated? As kls says, weight. The pressurization now is not keep people from having earaches, but to allow flight above 12,000 feet without everyone passing out or dying from lack of oxygen.. -- Gerry From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:22 From: Carl Peters Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc JWizardC wrote: > .. but the simple > answer is this: All commercial aircraft are certified to be able to > accelerate to takeoff speed -> and decelerate to a stop <- within the > confines of the runway. This is not true. 'Take off speed' (actually rotation speed, Vr, with actual takeoff occurring a little faster) depends on variables such aircraft weight, winds, temp, etc. It is V1 that is the speed at which point thereafter the aircraft is committed to takeoff, as insufficient runway would be left to abort. In many flights, except when the a/c is light and/or there is a great field length, V1 occurs before Vr. Regards to certification, this is not tested - you don't have abort attempts practiced at all different airports, with all the different variables arranged - this would take years. Instead, acceleration and braking are measured, then these abilities are used in tables and calculations published by the manufacturer (with variables such as wind, temp, included), with which V1 can be calculated for a given flight. Next time you're at an airport, watch the traffic. I routinely see 747's, L-1011's, and 727's use 6-8000 feet of a 10,000+ foot runway - I assure you, an abort at Vr would guarantee a bad day for pilots and passengers. Another case to show this point is the location where new aircraft are sometimes taken for rejected takeoffs during testing and certification. These are done at max takeoff weight - Boeing took the 777 to Edwards AFB's 15,000 foot runway to ensure they would have the distance to stop. Carl Peters From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:23 From: "Neil Gerace" Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 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: TeMo Rallysport JWizardC wrote in message ... > >I can't give acceleration in 'G's or a specific value, but the simple >answer is this: All commercial aircraft are certified to be able to >accelerate to takeoff speed -> and decelerate to a stop <- within the >confines of the runway. Eh? V1 (decision speed) is usually less than Vr (takeoff speed). Meaning that after acceleration past V1 to Vr it's too late to stop, and you're committed to the air. Depends on a lot of things like weather, weight and runway length, though. Sometimes V1 and Vr are the same; you're correct in that case. To answer the question though: A good car can take less time to get to the end of a runway than an airliner. Neil Gerace SilkRoad web.services geracen@wantree.com.au http://wantree.com.au/~geracen/silkroad/ From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:24 From: schandrasekhar@geocities.com Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com wrote: > Takeoff run for a loaded 747 is approximately 30 secs (+ - 5 secs) I'm not so sure about this. I recently timed the T/O rolls on a Cathay 747-400 at LAX and HKG at 44 and 51 seconds. At HKG, the TOW was definitely greater, judging from the crowded cabin. > Landing speed is approximately 120 knots (+ - 5 knots) On a related note, does anybody know the stalling speed of a 747 at MLW? -Sharat __ Sharat Chandrasekhar Process Development Engineer Wyman Gordon R&D Houston, TX 77240 (281) 856 3236 From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:25 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: JAA certification of Boeing 737NG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 18 Apr 98 00:49:14 , spagiola@usa.net wrote: >As a follow-up to the recent discussion of JAA certification of the Next >Generation Boeing 737s, in which accusations that the JAA had refused to >certify the 737-700 were refuted, readers may wish to note that the JAA has >now certified the 737-800 as well. See Why are you changing the subject? It is now obvious that Boeing has no intention of making larger over wing exit doors. Cutting twelve feet off the fuselage is obviously not a reference to the 737-700. If the 737-900 comes through with no change, then the JAA will have damaged Boeing with regulatory nonsense. Even with changes to the -900 there will be questions about JAA's motivations. John From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:26 From: 73115.1041@NOSPAMPLEASEcompuserve.com Subject: Forbes Magazine on Boeing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com The May 4, 1998 issue of Forbes Magazine (US Edition) has an excellent article on Boeing and the production problems they have been fighting. In addition to the article, there are some intersting photographs of the production line and one in particular of the new "liftup style" emergency doors on the 737. The article describes the process of replacing the older style doors with the new doors. It is a major structural modification to the airframe and had to be done to 54 airplanes that had already been manufactured. Since there was a lot of discussion in this group as to how these doors work, I have scanned this photo and will make it available by email to those that are interested. As a .jpg file, it's 198K, so it should travel by email without too much problem. Ken 73115.1041@NOSPAMPLEASEcompuserve.com From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:27 From: Ludwig Kammler Subject: airbrakes on 747? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Hi everyone, I'm working on a flight simulator where my predecessors modelled a B747 (-200?) with airbrakes. does it have any? JANE's seems to indicate the contrary. Ludwig From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:28 From: Ludwig Kammler Subject: A320: effect of spoilers when airbraking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Hello, everyone, for modelling the A320 on a flight sim, I need to know what effect the application of the speedbrakes has. I understand there are no dedicated speedbrakes, but some of the inboard spoilers are being actuated to function as one. does that create any pitching moment, loss of lift, etc. noticable to the pilot, or does the flight control system take appropriate action (elevators etc.) to cancel such effects? Ludwig From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:29 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B-757 Almost Off a Cliff References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , digitalel@aol.com (Digital El) wrote: > A US Airways Boeing 757 nearly rolled off a waiting area near runway 28R > at PIT on Wednesday, 15 April. Apparently, the waiting area is slightly > banked and the plane started to roll backwards--towards a 20-foot drop > and onto a roadway below. The crew reported faulty brakes following the > incident. Home video from a passenger shows the main gear just a few > feet from cliff's edge. > > My question: What is likely to have happened, had the plane fallen some > 20-feet? Casualties? Explosion? ...or did perhaps the local news blow > the incident out of proportion (as usual)? Could an airframe withstand > such an unpredictable beating? Jetliners have experienced far worse things than this and have been rebuilt to fly another day. Airframes are very, very strong. That's not to say there would have been no damage; there probably would have been a fair amount, but Boeing's AOG (Aircraft-On-Ground) teams have performed some amazing feats over the years. 747s that have skidded off the end of runways and been torn apart have been rebuilt. I have seen numerous films and videos here at Boeing of airplanes that have suffered all manner of damage on the ground and have been repaired in an amazingly short amount of time. Boeing has preassembled and crated tool and parts kits strategically stored throughout the company and overseas in readiness for an incident of the type you described. Specialists in every aspect of airplane construction and repair are identified as AOG team members, and can be pulled off the assembly lines and flown to the site of an accident within hours. So if the 757 you describe had in fact fallen down the embankment, the chances are pretty good it would have been back in service in a matter of weeks. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:30 From: kafrizzell@aol.com (KAFRIZZELL) Subject: Re: B-757 Almost Off a Cliff References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I don't know specifically about 757, but if Boeing history is worth anything, the airframe may suffer some damage but fire would nt be a likely outcome. Back in the 1970's a 747F was blown off the runway in Anchorage Ak. The plane went down an embankment backwards, there was no fire but it was quite a repair job. kafrizzell @aol.com Everett Wa. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:31 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: North Pole flight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services I don't have any detail, but it has been reported that Cathay Pacific will have a trial non-stop flight from New York JFK to Hong Kong on July 5. The flight will arrive in Hong Kong early morning on July 6, the official opening day of the new Hong Kong Airport at Chek Lap Kok. I'd assume this will be the first landing of a revenue flight at CLK. The flight will fly over the North Pole and Russian air space. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:32 From: "Robert J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org Neil Gerace wrote: > > Now, consider a hypothetical situation where the RAAF had the money to > replace its venerable P-3C Orion ASW planes with some new model. Say it > wanted to convert an exisiting but up-to-date airliner to fill the role. > Now my question is, which one? In my 'International Dictionary of Civil > Aircraft' which purports to list every type of civil plane still in > service -- the Lockheed Electra which the P-3 came from is still in > there -- there doesn't seem to be a 4-engined airliner around any more > that's about the P-3's size. > I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long > patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this > right? As others will point out, there are two quite different causes of engine failure. 1) a sick engine, 2) fuel exhaustion, stupid errors, etc. In general, "reason 2" applies roughly equally to 2 and 3/4 engine aircraft, since they often affect ALL the engines. If the failure is due to "reason 1", one has to look into the urgency of seeking a landing place. A two-engine plane flies adequately on one engine; that was a certification requirement. Three and four-engined planes do OK with one engine out. "Reason 1" engines failure are essentially uncorrelated, so more engines means a higher likelyhood of a single failure. It is twice as high on a 4-engined plane than on a 2-engined plane, everything else being equal. But what happens if another engine were to fail? I wouldn't want to ride in a 3-engined plane with only one working engine. A 4-engined plane with only two engines on the same side wouldn't be very nice, either. If the likelhood of failure of the remaining engine on a two-engine plane is P, then the likehood of failure of one of the two remaining engines on a 3-engine plane (with one out) is twice as high, 2P. Likewise, the likelyhood of a second failure is 3P on on 4-engined plane with one out, due to "reason 1". So, 3 or 4 engines doesn't buy you as much as you might think. I'll bet a failed engine is a worrying situation on those planes as well. Bob Carpenter From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:33 From: elmer@WPI.EDU (Andrew Toppan) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Neil Gerace (geracen@wantree.com.au) was seen to write: > Now my question is, which one? In my 'International Dictionary of Civil When the US Navy was considering a P-3 replacement program in the late 1980's, the proposals were: Boeing: 757 McD: DC-9/MD-80 Lockheed: An updated P-3 eventually known as the P-7 The Lockheed proposal was chosen by the Navy, but the whole program was later cancelled. -- Andrew Toppan --- elmer@wpi.edu --- "I speak only for myself" US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/ Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more Railroad Rosters & Photo Features --- http://membrane.com/~elmer/rail/ From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:34 From: "Carrie" Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Neil Gerace wrote: ...snipped > I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long > patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this > right? > > Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes > turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56? Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me Neil, provided the efficiency of the turbofans is good (and I assume it would be). The 4 engines do provide added security for a long blue water mission. Normal procedure is to transit on 4 and loiter the Number 1 engine onstation for fuel conservation. This makes 4 engines more attractive than 2. The Atlantique can fly on 1 engine, but I wouldn't enjoy it much. It is better to lose an engine than the engine. An airframe built around turbofans is on my Christmas list, but I don't expect it with today's defense budgets and the importance placed on ASW today. I wouldn't bet on seeing an airframe to replace the USN's P-3's before I retire in 2007, and the RAAF (and other clients) are likely to let someone else shoulder the R&D. My personal choice would be a mix of the Nimrod airframe and the P-3C Update III avionics fit. > newserver shared by: Giz giz45aw@usa.net and C Lee needleworks@usa.net From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:35 From: Matt Clonfero Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: rest Reply-To: Matt Clonfero Karl Swartz wrote: >Why make that assumption? As long as you can get to a safe landing spot >before the other engine fails, it doesn't much matter whether you're >spending your many flying hours over open seas following a great circle >path from point A to point B or doing lazy circles in the vicinity of >point C. Commercial requirements are, if anything, more stringent than >military, since the military has greater risk-tolerance. Not necessarily true. Civil air has a lot fewer problems to think about - no-one shoots at them; they rarely plan to shut down an engine to conserve fuel at the patrol area (you want to deliberately shut down one engine on a twin?); and if you have to divert to the nearest airfield in an airliner it's just an embuggerance that customer care sorts out. It doesn't leave a hole in your carefully planned maritime recce planning. Aetherem Vincere Matt. -- Matt Clonfero: Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:36 From: Matt Clonfero Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: rest Reply-To: Matt Clonfero Neil Gerace wrote: >Now, consider a hypothetical situation where the RAAF had the money to >replace its venerable P-3C Orion ASW planes with some new model. Say it >wanted to convert an exisiting but up-to-date airliner to fill the role. First question - why? Why is the RAAF going to fund it's own conversion? Does it have a supply of low flight hour airframes and a supply chain for them? Why not have the P-3Cs reworked - as proposed for the RAF's FLRMPA. Or, get new build P-3Cs - a possibility also studied for FLRMPA. >Now my question is, which one? In my 'International Dictionary of Civil >Aircraft' which purports to list every type of civil plane still in >service -- the Lockheed Electra which the P-3 came from is still in >there -- there doesn't seem to be a 4-engined airliner around any more >that's about the P-3's size. The RAF agrees that four engines is a good thing for a LRMPA, so we can discount the twin engine efforts. However, the current school of thought in civil air seems to be that twins are good enough for long duration over water flights, so the numbers of new four engine airlines seems set to diminish. >All planes in the P-3's weight class (~ 65 tonnes) are twins, and the >Avro RJ115, the only new quad in the book smaller than the A340, is way >too small. And we don't like Airbus. >I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long >patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this >right? Well, plenty of air forces fly the Atlantique, which is a twin - but four engines makes for a warm fuzzy feeling. >Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes >turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56? Ack. You've just made the airframe uniquely expensive (by modifying it on such a gross scale) without even adding the mission gear. Either build new airframes to a proven design; or add mission gear to an existing airframe. Aetherem Vincere Matt. -- Matt Clonfero: Matt-C@aetherem.demon.co.uk | To Err is Human My employers and I have a deal - They don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:37 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY If commercial airliners are safe enough with 2 engines over long stretches of water, why would a subhunter need more? Remember, the more engines you have, the more likely you are to HAVE an engine failure over the water, after which you have a serious problem no matter what. Besides which, engine failures most commonly happen on takeoff, while they're working the hardest. I understand that USN P-3 crews commonly shut down the 2 outboard engines to increase loiter time, when they've reached their patrol areas and can reduce airspeed. If one of them doesn't restart later, it's just a longer ride home. But your question was about what to replace the airframe with -- at the hours per year the military flies, compared to the airlines, I would think the P-3 fleet has a long life yet, as long as they keep paying attention to corrosion. And with the Soviet sub threat gone, there is probably not enough of an argument for Congress to appropriate the money, anyway. - BRIAN CLOUSE GWLF17A@prodigy.com From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:38 From: Rob Montgomery Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ameritech.Net http://www.ameritech.net/ Reply-To: robm@null.net One might also point out that the carrier based equivilent to the Orion (the S-3 Viking) is a twin engine jet. I don't know if it ventures too far from the carrier, but what about the 'dark and stormy night' when one of the engines fails, and it has to head for the beach? -Rob From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:39 From: Craig Gibbard Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Out and About Together Reply-To: oaat@xtra.co.nz The problem is that jet engines are not efficent at low altitudes. A maritime a/c spends most of it's time at low level looking for subs and ships. If you sit up at high altitude: a. The ships can detect you at greater range and you make a lovely big target for them. b. If you detect a sub it takes you valuable time to desend and attack and the sub will hide. The P3 has four engines for the basic reason that it needs all that power to get airbourne if you happen to have uploaded a full weapons load. This can be upto eight torpedoes/mines internally and four Hapoons on the outer racks (no weapons on inner racks). This is a large load approx. 9 600lbs and then add the fuel for a descent patrol range say 48 000 lbs and the a/c is very heavy for take off and during flight. The Brits run the Nimrod but this has a huge problem with time on station compared to the P3 as it uses fuel faster due to it's jet engines. The P3 during patrols often shuts down one engine (No.1 - has no generators or hydraulic pumps) to save fuel. This is impossible on a twin engine a/c. Craig Gibbard oaat@xtra.co.nzNeil Gerace wrote: From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:40 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 18 Apr 98 00:49:16 , "Neil Gerace" caused to appear as if it was written: >Now, consider a hypothetical situation where the RAAF had the money to >replace its venerable P-3C Orion ASW planes with some new model. Say it >wanted to convert an exisiting but up-to-date airliner to fill the role. Why would they want to? The USN has an ongoing block modification program on their P3's to update the mission systems, but the basic airframe is fine. >Now my question is, which one? In my 'International Dictionary of Civil >Aircraft' which purports to list every type of civil plane still in >service -- the Lockheed Electra which the P-3 came from is still in >there -- there doesn't seem to be a 4-engined airliner around any more >that's about the P-3's size. > >All planes in the P-3's weight class (~ 65 tonnes) are twins, and the >Avro RJ115, the only new quad in the book smaller than the A340, is way >too small. > >I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long >patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this >right? No. Evidence: Japan's E767 AWACS aircraft are long-loiter platforms, and only have two engines. Australia's favorite strike aircraft, the F-111, only has two engines. >Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes >turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56? Why bother? Look at the 737-200 based "Surveiller" aircraft used by Indonesia. Or, more immediately relevant, look at the "Wedgetail" AEW platform proposed to the RAAF... a 737-700 with an AWACS mission suite... Neil, I think the RAAF is ahead of you... >Neil Gerace Malc. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:41 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Karl Swartz wrote: > > >First thanks to all those in rec.aviation.military who helped me make a > >list of civil-military 'equivalents'. > > Sounds interesting! How 'bout posting it to sci.aeronautics.airliners? I'll second that motion! > >Now, consider a hypothetical situation where the RAAF had the money to > >replace its venerable P-3C Orion ASW planes with some new model. Say it > >wanted to convert an exisiting but up-to-date airliner to fill the role. > ... > >I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long > >patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this > >right? > > Why make that assumption? As long as you can get to a safe landing spot > before the other engine fails, , if anything, more stringent than > military, since the military has greater risk-tolerance Except for the fact that the military assumes that sometimes conditions are far more, shall we say 'adverse', than civil aviation assumes (ie. someone is trying to remove the P-3 from the sky). The P-3's mission is pretty demanding- low level, all weather conditions, unfriendly territory, low speed, while remaining in RF contact with sonobuoys or methodically searching with the MAD. > Look at AWACS, which has a similar loiter requirement, albeit not over > wide swaths of water. The original version was based on the four-engined > 707, but the latest rendition, for Japan, is based on a twin, the 767. True- the loiter requirements are similar- but at what altitudes? A P-3 loiters down low (not quite wave-top, but very very low). Could a 707 or 767 possibly match the P-3's endurance at such low altitudes? I kinda doubt it. It may also be that a commercial jet is simply too fast. Remember that a P-3 *drops things* into the water, and they have to hit in such a way that they don't disintegrate on impact or submerge too deep before bobbing back to the surface. Having a low-n-slow bird makes it much easier on people designing the ASW gear, in many cases. I think the fact that the US Navy hasn't opted for a commercial airliner as a replacement ASW platform (yet) indicates that they see the value of the small, tough, slow, 4-engine A/C. The RAF is still using the Nimrod, are they not? There was a "P-7" concept at one point which, if memory serves correctly, looked a lot like the new-generation C-130 engines/props grafted onto a low-wing fuselage that resembled a stretched P-3. My understanding is that the navy IS getting worried about how much life is left in the P-3 fleet, and is considering options such as using C-130 derivatives. But I dont know anything definite. I've also heard rumblings that the smaller carrier-based ASW birds (Viking) might be considered as the sole replacement, but that seems a bit foolhardy. No one is going to fly a Viking to the arctic, and although the arctic is a low ASW priority right now, that could change in a heartbeat. My gut feeling is that a new airframe will be needed, or else there will be no direct replacement- the mission will be modified. -- Stephen Lacker slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:42 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University "Neil Gerace" writes: > First thanks to all those in rec.aviation.military who helped me make a > list of civil-military 'equivalents'. > > Now, consider a hypothetical situation where the RAAF had the money to > replace its venerable P-3C Orion ASW planes with some new model. Say it > wanted to convert an exisiting but up-to-date airliner to fill the role. I'm not sure that makes sense. Think of the basic design goal of an airliner: get lots of people to a destination as fast and as economically as possible. Then, the design goals of an ASW plane: hang around as long as possible, looking for things that come your way. Possibly make low, slow passes over a specified area, perhaps dragging or dropping instrumentation. I don't think those goals are very similar, and airliners have developed away from anything that really fits the P-3's mission. The U.S. still relies on P-3's (I saw several parked at Norfolk last week), and they were actually in production until April of 1990. > I'm assuming such a plane would need four engines for safety during long > patrols at sea, not merely because the P-3 has four engines. Is this > right? As I recall, P-3's actually switch off two engines, feathering the props, during long missions. This saves fuel, but doesn't sound practical for a jet. The turboprop engines are ideal for the P-3's mission; staying in the air a long time, but not really going everywhere. Not only are they efficient in terms of specific thrust, but they work well at (relatively) low speeds. Its 14-hour maximum time in the air was beyond the reach of jet-powered aircraft for many years. So what aircraft could take the place of a P-3? The C-130, itself not a new design, is the only current 4-engine turboprop that comes to mind. Lockheed had proposed a P-7, but this was canceled in '89, apparently. -- -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 Sun Apr 26 03:44:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:43 From: mmitch@cix.co.uk (Michael Mitchell.) Subject: Lockheed Constellation to visit Europe? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: mmitch@cix.co.uk If all goes well, a Lockheed C-121A Constellation will visit Europe this Summer. 'Pilot' magazine reports that it is planned to visit the Woodford & Biggen Airshows in June, the PFA rally at Cranfield & the 'Flying Legends' airshow at Duxford in July. Its main reason for the trip is to attend a Berlin Airlift 50th anniversary in Germany. It is also going to an airshow in Switzerland. The a/c is N494TW in the polished metal scheme of the old MATS (Military Air Transport Service) of USAF. I look forward to seeing it, the last time I saw one flying in the UK was in the 1950s. Mike Mitchell, Aviation Enthusiast, not a fanatic. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:44 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> 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: >In article <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>, niels@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote: > >>European registered new generation 737s have had to >> have re-designed emergency exit doors installed to meet the regulations. > >All the New Generation 737s are being fitted (or retro-fitted) with the >new, faster-opening overwing emergency doors, and this door will be used >on 757s as well. IIRC it is a matter of record that Boeing initially resisted JAA pressure to design/install these new exits. While I appreciate the sense of some aviation conservatism I think that it can sometimes be open to question. For example: Why does the 737 still have the `707,727' cockpit/nose shape? Looking at old magazines I have noticed that the original design studies for the 757 (7N7) had the 727 nose/cockpit. Then , I have been told, along came that PSA 727/Cessna collision over San Diego where cockpit visibility (lack of) was deemed influential and it was decided to improve the 757 cockpit windows to what it is today. Whether that was the reason or if it was pure aerodynamics that dictated that I am not sure, but visibility was certainly improved. Nevertheless no improvement was made to the newer 737s even though I -did- see one early design study of the 737-300 that had a 757 nose/cockpit! With the newer-still 737NGs, again, no improvement was made. Conservatism rules. -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:45 From: "Yannick Fournier" Subject: Re: A320 pitch control (was: 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: 7bit Organization: EIG's student >Normal law is a "load factor demand" law. The "load factor" (G) is >proportional to stick deflection. With stick at neutral, the >system maintains 1G in pitch. In turns, no pitch correction is >required once the turn is established. What you meant is, if you fly upside down with, say, 10 deg. up nose over the horizon on an A320 (very unlikely :)), and that you release the stick, the flight(s) computer(s) will let the airplane in this position ? Like with EF2000 ? Yannick From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:46 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: A320 pitch control (was: emergency procedure) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Does anyone have statistical information about how often (if at all) pilots have had to use alternate or direct law modes in revenue flight? From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:47 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com >But back to the subject at hand: the 757-300 would make a truly HORRIBLE >aircraft for use on high-volume short-haul routes. With only one aisle, >you'd spend longer boarding and disembarking passengers than you'd spend in >the air! Boeing has said this was a concern among their customers, so they did some computer modeling of the loading and unloading procedures, an artile about which can be found here: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/t/t01/index.html Basically, they found that the 757-300 took 6.5 minutes longer to turn around than the 757-200, and that there were ways that they could shorten it further. They found that using the 2 door instead of the 1 saved a minute (I know Delta already does this on their -200's whenever possible), using both doors saved 5 minutes (this is tough, because as someone recently pointed out in a thread about the 777, there are very few gates with two jetways), and using alternative loading methods could save as much as 17 minutes (window seats first, then aisle seats instead of back to front). From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:48 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com > EHaase2463> I know that Delta uses L-1011's on some high volume, short > EHaase2463> distance routes in the U.S. Wouldn't the 757-300 work well > EHaase2463> on these routes? Do you think that Delta will merely use its > EHaase2463> older 767's on these routes as the L-1011's are phased out? > >Delta's designated replacement for the L1011-1 are L1011-500 in the short >term (L1011-1s are being pulled out of service and replaced on domestic >routes by previously international L1011-500s). The L1011-1 (think >"domestic version") has a range of 3,240 miles (DL's website) and seats >300 passengers in a 2 class configuration. > >The L1011-500 has a range of 5,300 miles (again, DL's website) and seats >only 218 passengers. So while one could argue the L1011-500 and 757-300 >are in the same vague class, it's a bit of a push, especially because DL >really wanted a L1011 class plane for *domestic* traffic. And they found >one. And Boeing sells it. It's the 767-400. 245 passengers in 3 class >config (304 in 2 class). The 767-400 has a range of 6,400 miles. You're really confusing me here ... First, the L1011-500 capacity of 218 is in three class configuration, so it's two class configuration is larger than that by a dozen or two seats at least. The 757-300 can seat 240 in a two class configuration. The L1011 has a greater capacity ... but not by much, so I'm a little confused as to why it's a push to put them in the same vague class. The 245 capacity of the 767-400 compared to the 218 of the L1011-500 is not too significant, until you consider that the 767 has 8 more first class seats and 20 more business class seats, so the 767 really is a bigger plane than the L1011. >So Delta will be able to deploy the 767-400 to replace *either* long range >routes formerly operated by the L1011-500 (which are being pulled out of >international service by the way, and being replaced by 767-*300s*, at >exactly the same seat count in a 3-class config (218)), or short range >high density routes (269 passengers in 2 class, so about 30 less than the >L1011-1). Delta had been searching for a Tristar replacement for years >(and the 777 wasn't it - too big). The -300 has the same total seat count, but again, it's with more first and business class, but this is less significant in this case. > EHaase2463> The 757-300 appears to be the largest single-aisle plane ever > EHaase2463> built by Boeing (possibly the U.S. - I know that some of the > EHaase2463> DC-8's were stretched quite a bit). > >I'm sure Karl Swartz will quote passenger count on the longest stretched >DC-8s (Karl loves the DC-8 :-). The 757-300 *is* a long single-aisle >plane, yes. It has been aimed at mostly European charter operators. I'm >actually quite surprised that more of them haven't ordered it. Just think >how many passengers they can cram into a space that seats 243 in a mixed >class (probably close to 300 in a single class 29" seat pitch. ouch. You >and your 299 closest friends :-). The Boeing website lists the capacity of the 757-300 in "all-inclusive" configuration as 279. I think this may be the maximum of the plane based on exit criteria, but I'm not sure ... From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:49 From: Bob Weinheimer Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: News User > But back to the subject at hand: the 757-300 would make a truly HORRIBLE > aircraft for use on high-volume short-haul routes. With only one aisle, > you'd spend longer boarding and disembarking passengers than you'd spend in > the air! ANA uses 747s with a fairly dense all coach (or nearly so) configuration on their Osaka-Tokyo Haneda runs. They load and unload through 3 doors in front of the wing. The times I've ridden it they get about 500 people on the plane and seated in less than 10 minutes, off even quicker it seems. When was the last time anyone saw an airline use more than one door to load or unload a large jet? I've seen United put first class passengers through one door and everyone else through a second on international flights, not much help. Air Wisconsin frequently unloads BAC 146s at ORD from both ends. Why can't they figure a way to use more of the several doors on a 757? Yes, current gate architecture isn't friendly to this approach but at what point will it become worth it to the airlines to speed things up? -- Bob Weinheimer Charleston, West Virginia rmweinheimer@newwave.net From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:50 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 , Trevor Fenn wrote: >Is it just me or does that sound very much like a certain DC-10 at Sioux >City? You're right, it's the last way to control this airplane, I think it will never be use outside the simulator. >Doesn't sound like a very safe amount of backup to me, but then maybe I >expect too much. We have have 4 electrics sources, 5 hydraulics ones. And the last backup is for a full lost of electricity. Think about other troubles like IMC and icing in this case. I think it will not be as frequent than the "convertible" 737 in Hawaï. -- Salutations Philippe philvsr@easynet.fr From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:51 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services In article Michael Zaller wrote: > 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... The A320's "mechanical" revision mode is hydraulic. The mode is designed to provide a "get it on the ground" capability in the face of complete *electrical* failure. So cables go allllll the way to the back, whereupon they work with hydraulic actuators in just the same way as any conventional airliner. In normal operation, the same hydraulic actuators (as well as those for the elevators, spoilers, and ailerons) are controlled with electrical signals. The discussions of the real benefit of the "manual" reversion mode are interesting. In past discussions, responses have ranged from "it's impossible" to "it's easy." Similarly, airline policies appear to range from "we train for it" to "why bother?" It appears to be much more difficult to handle in this mode than the mechanical revision modes for, say, the 727 or 737, which, in the case of complete hydraulic failure, will provide three-axis control by manipulating control tabs on the control surfaces. This aerodynamically moves the surfaces, but results in very high control forces. On the bright side, the A320 has triple-redundant hydraulics and five levels of redundancy on the AC electrical side, so perhaps it's not too much to worry about. Failure concerns in the academic community tend to center more around the theoretical reliability of the flight control computers. It's worth pointing out that complete hydraulic failure is considered extremely improbable, and the lack of any true mechanical reversion is consistent with the flight control system design for many other airliners, ranging from the 747 to the 767. Although for an "extremely improbable" event, it's surprising how many airliners have experienced this emergency, or gone down to one level of redundancy. Regards, -- 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 Sun Apr 26 03:44:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:52 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: A320 emergency procedure References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Inc. Trevor Fenn wrote in message ... > >Philippe Vessaire wrote: [snip] >> 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. One BIG difference between the Airbus procedure and the Sioux City DC-10: The DC-10 was being flown entirely by the slight differences in engine thrust giving limited control. They hit the runway going over 300 MPH (no flare, obviously, and I don't know about a/c geometry when it impacted the runway) with the infamous results. That was *no* pre-defined procedure, but rather heroic actions on the pilots involved (a total of four were in the cockpit, as I recall). So the Airbus, even with limited control of the aerodynamic surfaces, will still be flyable and can land. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:53 From: Damon Rinard Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Damon Rinard -- http://home.earthlink.net/~rinard/ Reply-To: rinard@earthlink.net Low Rider wrote: > > Damon Rinard wrote in message ... > >I understand P&W are using re-cambered PW4000 fan blades to help develop the > >blades for the new engine. > > So far as I've hear, the GTF's Fan has not been finalized. Yep. That's why I said "develop". > As an aside, how would one recamber a > shrouded blade? Hot die. The recamber won't be perfect near the shrouds, of course, but by exceeding the temperature and time allowed for regular repairs, they can change the profile quite a bit along most of the length of the blade. The new twist would throw the shroud face geometry out, so they'll have to be welded and machined. I imagine recambering existing blades might be cheaper than making new blades, but I don't know if they would have to make new forgings or if they could just machine a PW4000 forging to the new section profiles. At any rate, perhaps the recamber is just a first guess, and later protos might be new manufacture. Damon Rinard From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:54 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 11 Apr 98 02:16:40 , Don Stauffer wrote: >I am particularly thinking of "unducted fans." An unducted fan has two rows of counter rotating fan blades. John From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:55 From: bartscher@aol.com (Bartscher) Subject: Re: Aspen Airways Convair References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com 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 have a book that claims that Aspen Airways was operating Convair 580s in 1984-85. Aspen is not listed as having any of the other 340, 440, 600, or 640 versions at that date anyway. Eric Bartsch bartscher@aol.com From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:56 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Aspen Airways Convair References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Ray Clawson wrote: > 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. FYI, they also flew to SNA for a few years. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:57 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: RR Avon engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcXXmsc@geocities.com Does someone out there in cyberspace have detailed information about the different versions of the RR Avon engine, which was used in the Comets. I would need links to www sites, articles, paper copies of specs, anything ... Thanks for the help, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sun Apr 26 03:44:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:58 From: bodura@t-online.de (Erik Bodura) Subject: Cessna Citation Jet, Bravo, Ultra AOA-stick-shaker-system Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: T-Online After haveing encoutered a clean stall without stick shaker with clean wing (reproduced gear up and down) I would like to know if any ohter operator of a Citation Jet, Bravo or Ultra has done approaches to stall in the aircraft and has recognized the same phenomena. Stalls in approach or landing configuration work fine which means stick shaker before reaching stall speed. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:44:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Apr 98 03:44:59 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: '98 Commercial aircraft orders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc@geocities.com For those interested I updated the summary of the '98 commercial aircraft orders at http://surf.to/orders. Considering firm orders AI has the lead over BA 188 vs. 130, with the 'battle' A320/B737 163 vs. 119. These figures will of course be modified with the big orders of British, Air France and Mexicana in the single aisle category and the orders of US Airways, KLM, Alitalia, Northwest and Iberia. Not counting all the smaller orders. Rgds, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sun Apr 26 03:45:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 26 Apr 98 03:45:00 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Ground Radar CAT Detection Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com I am working on aircraft CAT detection systems. I see a lot of stuff lately about ground based sensing of CAT. One of the ideas seems to use Nexrad to detect and plot CAT. How is this possible? I thought Nexrad and radars of that band required percipitation or cloud droplets/particles for return. -- 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 Sun Apr 26 03:45:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:45:01 From: UnitedSJC Subject: Re: transpacific service Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In a message dated 28.03.98 14:35:08, you wrote: >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. I was still in LAX in the DC10-30 days so I don't know anything about that, but came to SJC before they extended the runway. The MD11 could do it on 30L but on occasion had to make a fuel stop in OAK. I don't think (and I could be wrong) that it could ever make it off 12R because of a shorter useable runway length due to obstacles (downtown) 3 miles off the runway end. So, when wind conditions dictated the use of 12R, AA would often sit at the end of 30L and wait for the winds to die down enough to permit a takeoff from 30L. I think that the max allowable tailwind component was 5 or 6 kts. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:45:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:45:02 From: spagiola@usa.net Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion "Dorjan S. Scott" wrote: > As of present, we have no plans to replace our DC-10 fleet for > another 10-15 years. In fact, we are stiil accquiring ships to add to our > fleet (about 5-6 more beginning may of '98). Any plans to upgrade their systems, eg to the 2-person crew MD-10 standard? 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 Sun Apr 26 03:45:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:45:03 From: MAPSONterenzKNUJON@NOJUNKdircon.co.ukNOSPAM (Terence Liow) Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 02 Apr 98 01:23:45 , skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: >David R. Asher wrote: >> Does anybody know what Northwest plans on replacing its aging DC10 fleet >> with? Any insight would be appreciated... -D > >I heard that they were going to expand their 10 fleet. Maybe some UAL >birds ???? I think Thai International which is selling its 4 DC-10s. I think FedEx has go the dibs on the UA (and AA) DC-10s Terence Liow - take NOSPAM out of address to reply From kls Sun Apr 26 03:45:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:45:04 From: "Flanders" Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Saint Louis University Northwest also just recently acquired a few DC-10's from Swissair too. (Last year) As far as replacing them, I don't know of any plans by Northwest to replace them, but they still have a commitment to Airbus for around 15 A-330's. Back in '86, Northwest's order included A-320's, A-330's, and A-340's. Since then Airbus has let Northwest convert it's A-340 orders for more A-320 and now A-319's, but Airbus still expects Northwest to acquire A-330's in the early 2000's. So I would guess down the road Northwest will probably replace the DC-10's with A-330's but I think Northwest is still trying to convert those orders to A-320's and keep their DC-10's for a while. From kls Sun Apr 26 03:45:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Apr 98 03:45:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcXXmsc@geocities.com David R. Asher wrote: > Does anybody know what Northwest plans on replacing its aging DC10 fleet > with? Any insight would be appreciated... -D NW has an order for 16 A333 which are scheduled for delivery after '04. However it is no secret that NW is in discussion with both AI and BA to replace the 10s with a mix of A332/345/346 or B763/764/772. There is no target date yet ... Hope this helps, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Mon May 4 02:20:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:21 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A330/A340 Conversions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 26 Apr 1998, Gitaj wrote: > I am curious know if an A330 can be converted into an A340 or vice-versa. Well, you could add a couple of engines and change the fuselage! :-) There is a certain commonality of design. I believe the same basic wing design is used and other bits are similar, which streamlines production, but they are very different beasts, intended for very different routes. One important similarity, however is that the flight control systems on the two aircraft are deliberately designed to give them almost identical handling characteristics and enable the cockpit designs to be virtually the same also. (The most noticeable difference is that the A340 has four thrust control levers, and the A330 only two.) This makes it easy to convert the pilots (not the aircraft) from one model to the other. Pete Mellor ----------- Centre for Software Reliability, City University, London E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon May 4 02:20:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330/A340 Conversions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Well, you could add a couple of engines and change the fuselage! :-) Actually, if you're talking about the A330-300 and A340-300, there'd be no need to change the fuselage. The differences are the center main on the A340, some localized structural differences in the area of the engine mounts, and a hell of a lot of wiring and other systems. That last part along with the cost of the engines would undoubtedly make such an exercise prohibitive. -- 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 May 4 02:20:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:23 From: "rick" Subject: Re: A330/A340 Conversions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BCTEL Advanced Communications Gitaj wrote in message ... >I am curious know if an A330 can be converted into an A340 or vice-versa. At the Time of order and I think up to about 6 weeks prior to completion of the aircraft. From kls Mon May 4 02:20:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330/A340 Conversions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>I am curious know if an A330 can be converted into an A340 or vice-versa. >... and I think up to about 6 weeks prior to completion of the aircraft. ^^^^^^^ If by "completion of the aircraft" you mean it's ready for delivery, 6 weeks may well be after the engines are attached to the airframe -- a little late to change your choice of what kinds and how many, never mind the time to actually build them in the first place. 6 *months* might barely be plausible, though you would almost certainly get hit with a hefty penalty from the engine manufacturer you jilted. -- 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 May 4 02:20:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:25 From: Hapke Subject: Re: A330/A340 Conversions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: City University Gitaj wrote: > I am curious know if an A330 can be converted into an A340 or vice-versa. No, this is not possible although it wouldn't be completely impossible either! But there are too many changes especially regarding the wing, that would make it too difficult and especially too expensive to convert an A330 into an A340 and vice-versa. Also all the systems related to the engines would have to be changed. You better buy an A330 or A340 (which ever you want) straight from the line! Sascha Hapke http://www.city.ac.uk/~ap248/index.htm From kls Mon May 4 02:20:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:26 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.netnospam (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: Tu-144LL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove "nospam" to reply >>I would guess it's the same a/c fitted with new engines. > >New-er engines. Still basically 1970's technology. Blackjack bomber engines, more like late 1980s technology. According to AW&ST, they are the only part of the A/C Boeing/NASA doesn't have access to. From kls Mon May 4 02:20:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:27 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 >>New-er engines. Still basically 1970's technology. >Blackjack bomber engines, more like late 1980s technology. According to >AW&ST, they are the only part of the A/C Boeing/NASA doesn't have access to. Given that a Tu-144D (the model with the new engines) crashed on May 23, 1978, and AvWeek managed to publish a photo of a Tu-160 ("Blackjack") on December 14, 1981, I'd say the engines weren't late 1980s technology -- unless the Soviets also managed to invent a time machine. -- 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 May 4 02:20:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:28 From: ehaase2463@aol.com (EHaase2463) Subject: 757-300 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I found the responses to my question about the 757-300 interesting. I suppose that despite the low operating cost, the lengthy exit time, especially at U.S. hubs with short waits between flights, makes the aircraft unappealing for use in the U.S. In about 5 years, some of the airlines' 757-200's will be almost 20 years old and ready to be replaced. Does anyone believe that some of the airlines, who are not carrying much freight, might replace 757-200's with 737-900's? I have read that the operating cost per seat on the 737-900 is as low as that of the 757-300. From kls Mon May 4 02:20:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:29 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 757-300 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >In about 5 years, some of the airlines' 757-200's will be almost 20 >years old and ready to be replaced. Does anyone believe that some of >the airlines, who are not carrying much freight, might replace 757-200's >with 737-900's? The 757 launch customers were British Airways and Eastern, with Delta not far behind with the first order for PW2000-powered 757s. BA and DL have both recently added new 757-200s to their fleet, so it seems like they'll probably stick with them. (EA is of course long gone.) >I have read that the operating cost per seat on the 737-900 is as low >as that of the 757-300. Perhaps, but you get what you pay for. The 737-900 may be cheaper to operate per seat than a 757-200, but it doesn't have the range, nor does it have the payload capability. -- 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 May 4 02:20:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:30 From: worknmam@greenville.infi.net Subject: L-1011 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InfiNet Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they are said to be phasing them out? From kls Mon May 4 02:20:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >are said to be phasing them out? I'd expect most of them to reappear at supermarkets as Coke cans and such. -- 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 May 4 02:20:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:32 From: k_ish Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Karl Swartz wrote: > >how do 777 operators get around the taxiway problems at > >LaGuardia? Is the 777 used out of this airport? > > 777 operators get around the problem by not using them at LGA. Reminds me of the Vickers VC-10. It was designed to operate out of short runways in hot weather on BOAC's routes to Africa, the Middle East, and India. It had huge flaps because of this. Vickers though this would be a "707 beater" for sure. What happened instead is the airports simply lengthened their runways. :-) In reference to another post in this thread, 3900 pounds is a lot. The commonly used figure for a 747-400 is every pound costs $400 per year in fuel burn, lost payload, etc. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon May 4 02:20:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 May 98 02:20:33 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 26 Apr 98 03:44:05 , David Lednicer caused to appear as if it was written: >> The folding wing idea has been dropped. It proved uneccessary in airport >> operations and far too heavy. > Interestingly enough, John Roundhill made an AIAA dinner meeting >presentation back in the early days of the 777 and showed that the >folding wings were essential. Without them, the 777 could not use many >existing gates and would have trouble using certain taxiways at older >airports, like LaGuardia. I would imagine that the 777 without the >folding wings is now locked out of many gates. This leads to the >question: how do 777 operators get around the taxiway problems at >LaGuardia? Is the 777 used out of this airport? The short answer, as Karl wrote, is not to use the 777 out of airports where it's wingspan prohibit them! The larger answer is to observe that the current thinking is that it is easier and, in the long run, cheaper to fix the ground installations than it is to fly the excess weight. Part of this thinking comes from the observation that ground facilities will have to expand in order to handle the demand for air travel from a larger and more mobile global population. Given that you are now building new terminals and gates, they can be built to accomodate the new, larger wings. Regarding taxiways, this becomes a cross that the ground controllers just have to bear! For example, I believe that BA's 747 service into SAN is limited by the taxiways that it can accomodate... against which, that single movement carries more people than several smaller aircraft, so the added "pain" of reduced mobility is offset by the "gain" of more efficient use of ground resources. This whole issue is of particular relevance to discussions of A3XX and 747-derivatives, for obvious reasons... >David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Malc. From kls Mon May 4 02:20:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 May 98 02:20:34 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: JAA certification of Boeing 737NG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 26 Apr 98 03:44:25 , jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) caused to appear as if it was written: >>As a follow-up to the recent discussion of JAA certification of the Next >>Generation Boeing 737s, in which accusations that the JAA had refused to >>certify the 737-700 were refuted, readers may wish to note that the JAA has >>now certified the 737-800 as well. See >Why are you changing the subject? Given that the subject is the certification of B737NGs, I find it hard to agree that a statement that both the -700 and -800 have been certified is a different subject! >It is now obvious that Boeing has >no intention of making larger over wing exit doors. True. They instead created a exit system that opened significantly faster than the traditional mechanism, and persuaded the JAA that what counts is not some numbers on a requirements document, but how quickly you can evacuate the aircraft... > Cutting twelve >feet off the fuselage is obviously not a reference to the 737-700. If >the 737-900 comes through with no change, then the JAA will have >damaged Boeing with regulatory nonsense. Even with changes to the >-900 there will be questions about JAA's motivations. Huh? The 737-900 will be certificated to the same number of passengers as the -800. All that will change is that those passengers can be arranged in a two-class, instead of a high-density, configuration... >John Malc. From news Sun Apr 26 18:57:47 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.engr,sci.engr.safety,sci.engr.manufacturing Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: posting@cde.psu.edu (Posting) Subject: ROTARY WING TECHNOLOGY CONFERENCE Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: PSU C&DE OMC Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:35:37 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu POSTING: ************************************************************ ROTARY WING TECHNOLOGY AUGUST 10-14, 1998 Nittany Lion Inn Penn State University State College, Pennsylvania ************************************************************ This course, designed for engineers, presents a comprehensive introduction to rotor craft technology. The lecturers, well recognized in their respective disciplines, will cover a range of major topics, including: € Aerodynamics € Dynamics € Stability and Control € Acoustics € Structural Design SHORT COURSE DIRECTOR € Dr. Barnes W. McCormick, Boeing Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering at Penn State LECTURERS € Dr. Richard L. Bennett, Staff Engineer/Research Analysis, Bell Helicopter Textron € Dr. H. C. Curtiss, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University € Peter G. C. Dixon, Director of Engineering, Advanced Technologies Incorporated (ATI) € Dr. John W. Leverton, GKN Westland Consultant € Raymond W. Prouty (retired), McDonnell Douglas Helicopters For complete details and up-to-date information, please visit the Web site at: http://www.outreach.psu.edu/C&I/RotaryWing/ FOR MORE INFORMATION About Program Content: Dr. Barnes W. McCormick The Pennsylvania State University 233 Hammond Building University Park, PA 16802-1401 Phone: (814) 863-0602 Fax: (814) 865-7092 E-mail: bwmaer@engr.psu.edu About Registration: Judy Hall, Conference Planner The Pennsylvania State University 225 The Penn Stater Conference Center Hotel University Park PA 16802-7002 Phone: (814) 863-5130 E-mail: ConferenceInfo1@cde.psu.edu a outreach program of the College of Engineering To receive a brochure with registration materials, nationwide, call 1-800-PSU-TODAY (1-800-778-8632) or send us an e-mail with your name, address, phone number, fax number, and Internet address to ConferenceInfo1@cde.psu.edu . Please be sure to reference ROTARY WING TECHNOLOGY in all correspondence. For information about all of Penn Stateđs upcoming programs, visit our Web site: http://www.outreach.psu.edu From news Sun Apr 26 18:57:52 1998 Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!ix.netcom.com!rdd From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: Ground Radar CAT Detection Message-ID: Sender: rdd@netcom12.netcom.com Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com References: Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 23:42:26 GMT Approved: aeronautics@wilbur.pr.erau.edu On 26 Apr 98 03:45:00 , Don Stauffer wrote: >I am working on aircraft CAT detection systems. I see a lot of stuff >lately about ground based sensing of CAT. One of the ideas seems to use >Nexrad to detect and plot CAT. How is this possible? I thought Nexrad >and radars of that band required percipitation or cloud >droplets/particles for return. JFK uses doppler radar for this purpose. NASA Lewis did extensive study of the detection of micro-bursts using radar and now are working on a LIDAR system. Honeywell's early TCAS systems were designed to integrate radar for mocro-burst detection. Ground clutter killed the NASA Lewis and Honeywell airborne radar detection systems. John From news Wed May 6 11:01:29 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Marc Schaeffer Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: How many jets were built ? Date: 06 May 1998 12:46:39 -0400 Organization: Unorganized Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: I would like to know how many jets have been built. I have already collected most data and put them on my site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/statistc.htm . However I am missing production data of the russian birds like Tu, Il, An, Yak ... Also I would like confirmation of the data I published, especially concerning the Convairs (880 and 990) where I am missing a splitting of the production (prototypes and regular birds). I should precise that I only count the ships who were sold to customers, prototypes are listed seperately. Thanks for the help, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sun May 17 00:42:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:35 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 04 May 98 02:20:31 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >>are said to be phasing them out? > >I'd expect most of them to reappear at supermarkets as Coke cans and such. There was some interest in making trash haulers out of them, but I have not seen anything about that lately. John From kls Sun May 17 00:42:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:36 From: NOSPAMcandee@alumni.princeton.edu (Bill Candee) Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote, in response to the question stated first below: >>Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >>are said to be phasing them out? >I'd expect most of them to reappear at supermarkets as Coke cans and such. And probably not far off the mark. I *did* note, however, a potential market for the newer L-1011-500s. ATA just bought several (three?) low(er)-age -500s from Royal Jordanian for expansion. They have a pretty substantial fleet of L-1011s right now. Perhaps they'd be interested in the newest of Delta's 1011s. --Bill Candee in NYC From kls Sun May 17 00:42:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:37 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >>are said to be phasing them out? > >I'd expect most of them to reappear at supermarkets as Coke cans and such. Don't forget that the RAF has a penchant for turning them into fuel bowsers. " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Sun May 17 00:42:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:38 From: rcteller@aol.com (RcTeller) Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >>Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >>are said to be phasing them out? > >I'd expect most of them to reappear at supermarkets as Coke cans and such. A riot, but how true ?? I was amazed to see at least several 747's, Airbuses, and L-1011's rotting in semi-scapped condition in Ardmore Oklahoma. While they had been used as planes for salvaged parts (door frames,slats and flaps,engines,interior,etc), the majority of the airframes were intact. Are the airplanes as valuable as old beer cans for aluminum? Paul R. From kls Sun May 17 00:42:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:39 From: roberts975@aol.com (RobertS975) Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >are said to be phasing them out? I would expect them to end up either at the Tucson airport or the Pinal Airpark about 30 miles north of Tucson. There are five or 6 L1011s at TUS right now and there are more than a dozen 1011a at Pinal- ex PanAm, Air Canada and Saudia to name a few. From kls Sun May 17 00:42:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:40 From: checkmy@sig.gov (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INTERNET AMERICA Reply-To: checkmy@sig.gov L1011's are finding a new home in the cargo industry. The company I work for operates several in the cargo configuration and 2 still in pax config. Ray -- Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. Cardinal Wolsey (1475?-1530) 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 Sun May 17 00:42:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:41 From: "Gitaj" Subject: MD-11 Safety Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rutgers University I had always heard rumors about rough landings in the MD-11 and had always dismissed them until I saw the burnt wreckage of a Fedex MD-11 at Newark some time back. Has anybody figured out why that happened, and is there a flaw in this aircraft? If that was a passenger plane, there definately would have been huge casualties. From kls Sun May 17 00:42:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:42 From: "Eric Anderson" Subject: MD-11 w/ PW4460-62 Engine Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I'm looking for some additional technical and maintenance information on MD-11s equipped with Pratt and Whitney PW4400 series engines. Any tidbits about the Cowl Load Sharing and electrical interconnections (including FADEC) would be greatly appreciated. From kls Sun May 17 00:42:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:43 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. I think you'd also have to look at the pier-supported runway/taxiway loading issue at LGA; many widebodies operate at less than full TOW due to this factor. - Bob Mann From kls Sun May 17 00:42:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:44 From: msilano@access.digex.net (Michael Silano) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com On 04 May 98 02:20:33 , malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) wrote: >On 26 Apr 98 03:44:05 , David Lednicer caused to appear >as if it was written: > >>> The folding wing idea has been dropped. It proved uneccessary in airport >>> operations and far too heavy. > >> Interestingly enough, John Roundhill made an AIAA dinner meeting >>presentation back in the early days of the 777 and showed that the >>folding wings were essential. Without them, the 777 could not use many >>existing gates and would have trouble using certain taxiways at older >>airports, like LaGuardia. I would imagine that the 777 without the >>folding wings is now locked out of many gates. This leads to the >>question: how do 777 operators get around the taxiway problems at >>LaGuardia? Is the 777 used out of this airport? > >The short answer, as Karl wrote, is not to use the 777 out of airports where >it's wingspan prohibit them! Personally, I'd like to see a 777 try and land at LaGuardia (7000 foot runway) It would make one heck of a splash as it entered Riker's Island Channel. National Airport would be even more entertaining (6869 foot runway) The largest planes flying into or out of LaGuardia are the 757's due mostly to the relatively tight runways. If you've ever landed at either of these runways, you'd much rather have 3000 more feet to stop. So would the pilot. Compare this to airports where the 777 can/does operate: * Newark EWR (longest is 9300 feet long, soon to be 11000 feet long) * JFK (10000, 11000, and 14000 foot-long runways) * Dulles IAD (11500 feet) * Denver DIA (12000 feet) -Mike Silano From kls Sun May 17 00:42:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:45 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Personally, I'd like to see a 777 try and land at LaGuardia (7000 foot >runway) I doubt it would be a problem. The first revenue landing of a 777 took place on 27R at ORD, and that's only 7,967 feet long. We had plenty of room to spare. >It would make one heck of a splash as it entered Riker's Island >Channel. Doubtful. >National Airport would be even more entertaining (6869 foot runway) Considering that United quite recently landed a DC-10 there safely, and a 777 almost certainly has equal or better performance, I doubt DCA is a problem for a 777 either. >Compare this to airports where the 777 can/does operate: > >* Newark EWR (longest is 9300 feet long, soon to be 11000 feet long) ... The longest runway at a particular airport is only interesting for this discussion if its the only runway the 777 can use there. I'm sure it's not. SFO's longest runway (10L/28R) is 11,870 feet long, but 777s routinely depart from 1R which is only 8,901 feet long. The only time I've personally been on a 777 flying SFO-DEN or SFO-ORD which *didn't* use this runway, it was because 1R was closed. While longer flights usually use the longer runways, it's not unheard of for 777s flying SFO-LHR to use 1R if the winds are right -- and a takeoff for a 5,368 mile flight uses a lot more runway than landing. -- 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 May 17 00:42:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:46 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical 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) ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) writes: >The reason for having three-phase electrical equipment is two-fold. 1) it >allows three-phase heavy-duty motors to be driven (such as in the stabilizer >trim on a B727), and 2) redundancy: if one of the phases shorts out, a >three-phase motor will still operate. Sort-of... A 3-phase motor will not start when missing a phase but it may limp along if already going. Because "single-phasing" is often destructive to the motor, larger units have 'loss-of-phase' protection that shuts down the motor. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sun May 17 00:42:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:47 From: "Donald Mc Lean" Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mittagong Mania - http://www.mitmania.net.au Stein1111 wrote in message ... >Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and >3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? Answer from DOWN UNDER: I presume that it actually is rated as a 40KVA 115/200V 3 phase generator. This a pilots explanation and no doubt a 'plumber' will point out the errors of my ways. The stator in the generator has three arms aligned 120degrees apart.Each arm is wired to be an electro-magnet. Imagine a "Y " as the three arms. In the centre driven from the engine via the CSD is a rotating 'wire/s' called naturally, the rotor. As the rotor cuts the magnetic flux and passes a particular arm it produces an EMF of 115V as a single phase. We could see it on a cathode ray tube as a simple sign wave. As it rotates past the next arm it starts another sign wave off as another phase. We could see three waves generated with one 360 degree revolution of the rotor ,each one 120 degrees late on the other. As I said each arm produces 115V. (If thats what the manufacturer wants, here we presume it does) Look now at either top arm of the ' Y '.( Lets say the right hand one) We can resolve with a vector triangle the component of that arm that acts vertically in series with the bottom one. (Like working out the head wind component of a cross wind on the runway) This will be 85V. The generator can sum any two arms to get 115V + 85V = 200V. So, in the avionics suite of the aeroplane the engineers have available a direct source of 115v or 200v power, single or three phase. This is AC power. If they want higher or lower voltage AC they run it through either a 'step up' or ' step down ' transformer. They do that a lot on big jets. As they want DC as well they actually run it through aTRU (Transformer/Rectifier Unit.) Rectification is the process of converting AC into DC. Pontification ceases.That turned out to be bloody long winded didn't it. Pilots hate electrical stuff and diagrams, give us a good clean (dirty) hydraulic system any day. cowboy@ram.net.au From kls Sun May 17 00:42:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:48 From: "Yves E. Hoebeke" Subject: Rosemount Probe Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service I would like to understand how the Rosemount probe can deliver accurate TAT info while it's heating element (anti-ice) is switched on. I understand from my textbooks that this will not interfere with its measurement accuracy, but I do not understand how. Thank you, Yves Hoebeke From kls Sun May 17 00:42:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:49 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: DC-9 Hail damage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] -9 was described as losing the windshield. How the dickens can the crew survive that? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sun May 17 00:42:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:50 From: "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" Subject: 747-312 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Anyone has information on the B747-312s that SIA is currently phasing out??? Who will be their new owner??? What about the fate of the three B747-312s currently on lease to Ansett Australia, who is believed to be returning them to SIA??? From kls Sun May 17 00:42:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:51 From: Robin Peel Subject: DH Trident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD I am looking for information about the the DH Trident, especially the 3b version. I need detailed measurements, V speeds, weights and engine data, as well as any pointers to photos (especially of the last BEA livery). I am hoping to build a model for a flight simulator (X-Plane) to complement the BOAC VC-10 I have already created - but information about this aeroplane is very hard to come by in the USA. Any references to web sites or books would be much appreciated. Thanks, - Robin -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Sun May 17 00:42:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:52 From: Scott Decker Subject: The 737 Wiring Checks Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Enterprise Server Group Hi to all, This is only the second time I've posted to this group but I like to read it as often as I can. Regarding these latest FAA checks on 737's, the wiring that's being checked are wires that go into or through the fuel tanks? If it is into the tanks, what is in the tank that needs this power, fuel pumps? And if the lines go through the tanks, why would you run cables through the tank? If these seem like simple questions, I am a simple mind.... I like to fly and enjoy reading about the systems etc. on aircraft. I worked for a company in a former life, Bruce Industries, that made lighting systems for the industry. I always liked going to the airframe manufactures for meetings and see the mock-ups of the new A/C. I haven't seen the C-17 lighting yet or the MD11 cabin lighting but when I was at Bruce, those were my last projects before they layed off the customer service group. -- Scott Decker AKA: PadMasterson Praegitzer Design On Location at Enterprise Server Group CO3 Intel Corporation Ph: (503)-677-6582 From kls Sun May 17 00:42:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:53 From: "Yves E. Hoebeke" Subject: 757 flap restriction Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service I am currently studying for my DX certificate. I choose the B757 as the aircraft for it. Anyway, the aircraft manual states not to use flaps above FL200. I believe the B737 has the same restriction. Unfortunately, I can not get anyone to give me a clear answer on why the restriction exists. Thank you, Yves Hoebeke. From kls Sun May 17 00:42:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:54 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: 757-300 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 04 May 98 02:20:28 , ehaase2463@aol.com (EHaase2463) caused to appear as if it was written: >In about 5 years, some of the airlines' 757-200's will be almost 20 >years old and ready to be replaced. Well, in 5 years, some 757-200s will be EXACTLY 20 years old! First delivery was in 1983. However, I would question the assertion that a 20 year old 757 would be ready for replacement: the major kicker in replacing 30 year old 727s is the imminent noise restrictions! >Does anyone believe that some of >the airlines, who are not carrying much freight, might replace 757-200's >with 737-900's? I have read that the operating cost per seat on the >737-900 is as low as that of the 757-300. Rather than "replace" 757's with 739's, I would speculate that airlines might select the 739 as an alternative for a mission that previously they would have flown with a 757, while the 757s might drift towards serving more thin routes like some US/Europe... which address some of the capacity issues at congested airports like LHR. Malc. From kls Sun May 17 00:42:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:55 From: ehaase2463@aol.com (EHaase2463) Subject: Re: 757-300 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >The 737-900 may be cheaper to operate per seat than a 757-200, >but it doesn't have the range, nor does it have the payload >capability Delta seems to use the 757-200 on many routes with 2,000 miles or less, so wouldn't the 737-900 be adequate for these routes? From kls Sun May 17 00:42:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:56 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: airbrakes on 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Ludwig Kammler wrote: > I'm working on a flight simulator where my predecessors modelled a B747 > (-200?) with airbrakes. does it have any? JANE's seems to indicate the > contrary. It has flight spoilers or speed brakes which are hydraulically actuated flaps on top of the wing which act as an air brake. rwl From kls Sun May 17 00:42:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:57 From: Carl Peters Subject: Re: airbrakes on 747? Indeed! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet 1st, Inc Ludwig Kammler wrote: > I'm working on a flight simulator where my predecessors modelled a B747 > (-200?) with airbrakes. does it have any? JANE's seems to indicate the > contrary. Indeed it does. The 747 has 2 inboard panels and 4 outboard on each wing. For in flight speedbrake purposes, all will raise except the outer 2 panels on the outboard set (if the outer ones deployed, excessive pitch up can result, as they are located significantly aft of CG). On the ground, in a spoiler capacity, all panels raise. And, the spoilers will work with ailerons, I believe, at low speeds to assist in roll capability. Hope this helps. Carl Peters From kls Sun May 17 00:42:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:58 From: ibm@svpal.org Subject: Re: airbrakes on 747? References: #1/1 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article #1/1, Ludwig Kammler wrote: > I'm working on a flight simulator where my predecessors modelled a B747 > (-200?) with airbrakes. does it have any? JANE's seems to indicate the > contrary. Most modern transport ( jet ) aircraft have some form of spoilers/ airbrakes/lift dumpers. Jane's probably doesn't mention them specifically as it is assumed readers will know that spoilers can also function as airbrakes. The line drawing of the 747 in Jane's should show the spoiler's. The spoiler panels shown near the inboard ends of the wings will be the lift dumpers which are only deployed after touchdown. There are of course exceptions such as the Fokker twin jets F28/F100 which have dedicated speedbrakes forming the tailcone but this is not generally the rule. IBM -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sun May 17 00:42:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:42:59 From: ftmprob@aol.com (Ftmprob) Subject: A DC4 sighting Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I saw a DC4 fly over Trenton NJ today. Months ago I saw the plane parked at Mercer Airport. It was marked "Berlin Airlift" with USAF type stars and bars. Someone told me it belongs to a museum in Massachusetts. My guess it was a Trenton for some kind of service. Anyone know? Frank M From kls Sun May 17 00:43:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:00 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Niels, >Then , I have been >told, along came that PSA 727/Cessna collision over San Diego where >cockpit visibility (lack of) was deemed influential and it >was decided to improve the 757 cockpit windows to what it is today. >Whether that was the reason or if it was pure aerodynamics that dictated >that I am not sure, but visibility was certainly improved. I think you are overlooking a major factor here: The need for a common cockpit with the 767 to facilitate the common rating/dual qualification. The cockpit of the 757 had to be enlarged to accommodate the flight deck of the 767. The windscreens had to be deepened to match the cutoff angle of the 767 and improve over the nose visibility during IMC approaches. The pilot's "picture" is nearly the same in both aircraft (but very different from that of the 737). John From kls Sun May 17 00:43:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 17 May 98 00:43:01 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , niels@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote: > For example: Why does the 737 still have the `707,727' cockpit/nose > shape? Looking at old magazines I have noticed that the original design > studies for the 757 (7N7) had the 727 nose/cockpit. Then , I have been > told, along came that PSA 727/Cessna collision over San Diego where > cockpit visibility (lack of) was deemed influential and it > was decided to improve the 757 cockpit windows to what it is today. > Whether that was the reason or if it was pure aerodynamics that dictated > that I am not sure, but visibility was certainly improved. > Nevertheless no improvement was made to the newer 737s even though > I -did- see one early design study of the 737-300 that had a 757 > nose/cockpit! With the newer-still 737NGs, again, no improvement was made. While I have no idea what drove the decision to retain the existing 737 41 Section window design (outside of holding down costs), I can say that as the 757 fuselage is slightly larger in diameter than the 707/727/737 fuselage, simply grafting a 757 41 section to the front of a New Generation 737 43 Section won't work. Also, the 757 41 Section was designed to accomodate the 767 flight deck. As the 737 flight deck (panel, aisle stand, etc.) is structurally different than the 757's, it would require a lot of redesign and new tooling to accomodate the 737 hardware into a 757 flight deck. But I suspect the main driver was cost, as redesigning the 737 41 Section to accommodate larger windows is probably a lot more complex than simply cutting larger holes. The contour of the skin is tailored to the existing windows, so I suspect an extensive and costly aerodynamic redesign would have been necessary. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sun May 17 00:43:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:02 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) writes: > For example: Why does the 737 still have the `707,727' cockpit/nose > shape? Because it would cost a lot to change it. > Looking at old magazines I have noticed that the original design > studies for the 757 (7N7) had the 727 nose/cockpit. Then , I have been > told, along came that PSA 727/Cessna collision over San Diego where > cockpit visibility (lack of) was deemed influential and it > was decided to improve the 757 cockpit windows to what it is today. Nope. The 757 nose was chosen, if I recall the contemporary announcement correctly, 1. To reduce drag. 2. To commonize the cockpit with the 767, which was being developed at the same time. Not only was there economy in sharing systems, but the 757/767 had a common type certification: any pilot qualified in one was also qualified in the other. Boeing thought of this as a selling point to airlines who wanted crew flexibility, but I'm not sure it worked out that way. 3. To increase cabin space. I think they got an extra row or so of seats out of it, without stretching the overall length. I think cockpit space also improved, as did the cockpit noise level. Similar things happened at the tail; the 757 was originally destined to carry over the 727 tail, with the center hole plugged. The new tail reduced drag, while reducing the overall length of the aircraft (important for ground handling) and adding a row or two of seats in the cabin. The 757 was, of course, a 727 replacement. It originally was to be just a '27 with a new wing, two new engines mounted on the wing, and new flight systems. It kept changing during development. I think AA had a scheme to re-engine their 727s as a cut-rate 757 substitute, but Boeing talked 'em out of it: the new wing and flight systems were a lot of the improvement in the new airplane. > Whether that was the reason or if it was pure aerodynamics that dictated > that I am not sure, but visibility was certainly improved. > Nevertheless no improvement was made to the newer 737s even though > I -did- see one early design study of the 737-300 that had a 757 > nose/cockpit! With the newer-still 737NGs, again, no improvement was made. > Conservatism rules. Not a bad thing, really; changing the whole nose would require lots of certification effort, even beyond the engineering expense. And any change has the chance to introduce some unsuspected problem. Which, I suppose, is the reason behind the certification hassles. -- -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 Sun May 17 00:43:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 17 May 98 00:43:03 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.netnospam (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove "nospam" to reply In article , niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) wrote: >In article > faurecm@halcyon.com "C. Marin Faure" writes: > >>In article <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>, niels@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote: >> >>>European registered new generation 737s have had to >>> have re-designed emergency exit doors installed to meet the regulations. >> >>All the New Generation 737s are being fitted (or retro-fitted) with the >>new, faster-opening overwing emergency doors, and this door will be used >>on 757s as well. And probably 717. I believe that Boeing has offered the technology to the industry as a safety enhancement. There is still some concern of inadvertant deployment during take-off (this is the first time a passenger has been leaning on a spring loaded door during take-off). The fail safes are designed in, but you never know. But hey, its what the JAA wanted. >IIRC it is a matter of record that Boeing initially resisted JAA >pressure to design/install these new exits. While I appreciate >the sense of some aviation conservatism I think that it can sometimes >be open to question. Not conservatism, but business thinking: 1) This is a derivative added to a 1965 or so certificate. 2) Is the design cost and weight penalty worth the safety improvement? I have seen video of the new door in action and it is slick. >For example: Why does the 737 still have the `707,727' cockpit/nose >shape? A former boss of mine told a story about working on the original 737 nose design. He said that they knew the 707/727 nose configuration was draggy and that a better nose/windshield design would cut drag. When program management was approached on the issue the reply was they didn't expect to sell more than 150 of the things and that the design change wouldn't be worth the cost. 3000 built and 800+ ordered later . . . As for why it wasn't changed on the NG, my speculation is that it gets harder to certify a plane as a derivitive when it doesn't look the same. >Looking at old magazines I have noticed that the original design >studies for the 757 (7N7) had the 727 nose/cockpit. Then , I have been >told, along came that PSA 727/Cessna collision over San Diego where >cockpit visibility (lack of) was deemed influential and it >was decided to improve the 757 cockpit windows to what it is today. >Whether that was the reason or if it was pure aerodynamics that dictated >that I am not sure, but visibility was certainly improved. My understanding (from my reading 20 years ago?) was when the decision was made to go to a common cockpit arrangement for 757/767, it was easiest to essentially graft on a 767 upper cab and work out the contours on the lower section. I never thought that the front end of a 757 looked "right". >Nevertheless no improvement was made to the newer 737s even though >I -did- see one early design study of the 737-300 that had a 757 >nose/cockpit! With the newer-still 737NGs, again, no improvement was made. >Conservatism rules. From kls Sun May 17 00:43:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 May 98 00:43:04 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: JAA certification of Boeing 737NG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 04 May 98 02:20:34 , malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) wrote: >On 26 Apr 98 03:44:25 , jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) caused to >appear as if it was written: > >>>As a follow-up to the recent discussion of JAA certification of the Next >>>Generation Boeing 737s, in which accusations that the JAA had refused to >>>certify the 737-700 were refuted, readers may wish to note that the JAA has >>>now certified the 737-800 as well. See > >>Why are you changing the subject? > >Given that the subject is the certification of B737NGs, I find it hard to >agree that a statement that both the -700 and -800 have been certified is a >different subject! As this thread has taken a month to get three posts in I can not blame you for not seeing the subject change. In the WSJ Woodard claimed that the doors would not change and that 12 feet could be cut off the fuselage to fix the problem. >>It is now obvious that Boeing has >>no intention of making larger over wing exit doors. > >True. They instead created a exit system that opened significantly faster >than the traditional mechanism, and persuaded the JAA that what counts is >not some numbers on a requirements document, but how quickly you can >evacuate the aircraft... I think that in service experience with the common cross section of the Boeing single aisle should have counted for far more than a computer simulation. The original post centered around the drop in sales of 737s in Europe during the JAA/FAA certification process. I see the two as related and the other poster did not. John From kls Sun May 17 00:43:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 17 May 98 00:43:05 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting In article , S.L. wrote: >stretched P-3. My understanding is that the navy IS getting worried >about how much life is left in the P-3 fleet, and is considering options >such as using C-130 derivatives. But I dont know anything definite. I've The RNZAF is re-winging its P-3s, which are some of the oldest flying -- there just isn't the money to buy new P-3s, which seems to be the only thing that fills the ASW, SAR and fisheries patrol missions the P-3s are used for. -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 Network Design, Cable Plans, LAN, WAN, Network Security, Internet Consulting From kls Sun May 17 00:43:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 17 May 98 00:43:06 From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? 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: Linköping University, Sweden westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) writes: > I'm not sure that makes sense. Think of the basic design goal of an > airliner: get lots of people to a destination as fast and as > economically as possible. Then, the design goals of an ASW plane: > hang around as long as possible, looking for things that come your > way. Possibly make low, slow passes over a specified area, perhaps > dragging or dropping instrumentation. How about C-130J equiped with the earlier versions permanent underwing tanks. It could shut down two out of four engines on patrol and it can fly realy slow an four engines and flaps if needed. It could even be loaded with fuel tanks for extra long missions and there is plenty of room for a resting second crew. Its a very obvious alternative so someone here ought to have a story on it. Have I missed something fundamental like that the P-3 operates from carriers? Regards, -- -- Magnus Redin Lysator Academic Computer Society redin@lysator.liu.se Mail: Magnus Redin, Rydsvägen 214B, 584 32 LINKöPING, SWEDEN Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine) and (0)13 214600 From kls Sun May 17 00:43:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 17 May 98 00:43:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >How about C-130J ... Have I missed something >fundamental like that the P-3 operates from carriers? I don't think the P-3 is carrier rated. In any case, carrier operations shouldn't be an issue for the C-130 (in general, not necessarily the J model) since it's carrier-rated, the largest aircraft with such a rating. -- 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 May 17 00:43:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 17 May 98 00:43:08 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services The new stretched C-130's would be a good choice. Plenty of room, plenty of power, plenty of lift, and lot's of range. Could probably carry some search and rescue equipment as well as the ASW stuff. Hmm, you could kill two missions with one bird. John From kls Sun May 17 00:43:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 17 May 98 00:43:09 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Of existing production aircraft, I would think that the logical choice would be the Lockheed C-130 Hercules. It is close to the size of the P-3 and is already used for some long range weather observation missions also performed by P-3's. An ASW version of the C-130 could save some weight by not having such a heavily reinforced cargo deck and possible by not having a rear loading ramp. Depending on how much interior volume the Navy wants, it might also have a shorter fuselage, perhaps the same length as on the earliest models. Given the conflicting requirements for an ASW aircraft to fly economically at both high and low altitudes, a four engine turboprop seems to be the best arrangement. At low altitude it can shut down and feather the outboard engines and fly on the inboard engines at near full RPM, where the engines operate most efficiently. At the speed used during search, propellers are much more efficient than turbofans. The Russians are testing an advanced counter-rotating propeller on a new airlifter with a cruise speed approaching 500 knots, and the Europeans are still talking about building a somewhat similar aircraft. Both of these are probably somewhat too big for an ASW plane, but I would expect that this type of engine would be used in preference to turbofans on a future purpose-built patrol aircraft. I believe that the British Nimrod ASW plane shuts down two of its four Rolls-Royce Spey engines while searching. Would it be possible or practical to do this with high-bypass turbofans, which would tend to windmill? I have seen the fans turning on an aircraft parked facing into a moderate wind. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun May 17 00:43:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 17 May 98 00:43:10 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.netnospam (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove "nospam" to reply In article , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: >So what aircraft could take the place of a P-3? The C-130, itself not >a new design, is the only current 4-engine turboprop that comes to >mind. Lockheed had proposed a P-7, but this was canceled in '89, >apparently. >From what I read at the time, the P-7 died due to excessive weight increases. Lockheed apparently underestimated the extent of the structural modifications required to stretch the P-3 airframe (and probably comply with new crash worthiness requirements). As the design progressed and the weight went above the contracted target the program got axed. You see, the military uses weight as a primary judge for program health. If you can stay at your target you are probably managing the program well. If the weight shoots up, ala P-7 & A-12 (Navy), you don't have a clue how to run a program and they pull the contract. We had to pay extremely close attention to weight on RAH-66, Comanche. From kls Sun May 17 00:43:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 17 May 98 00:43:11 From: ibm@svpal.org Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: #1/1 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article #1/1, Matt Clonfero wrote: > > Neil Gerace wrote: [SNIP] > >Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes > >turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56? GE TF/CF-34's as employed on the Lockheed S-3 and Canadair CL6xx aircraft. 12K might be a little past the high end for this mill though. > Ack. You've just made the airframe uniquely expensive (by modifying it > on such a gross scale) without even adding the mission gear. Either > build new airframes to a proven design; or add mission gear to an > existing airframe. One could, I suppose fit, them as podded twins per the B52 but would that gain you what you want? IBM -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sun May 17 00:43:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:12 From: kafrizzell@aol.com (KAFRIZZELL) Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >> Here's a wild idea: how about a four engined 737-600? Who makes
>> turbofans in the 10-12,000lb class needed to replace half of a CFM56?
Wouldn't it make more sence to use an existing overwater extended range airplane, the USN considered the use of 757-200 Airplane for TACAMO applications in submarine communications. I would think that similar attributes would be necessary for ASW missions. I also am aware that the P3's slow cruise speed is one of its most favorable assets in ASW missions, it may be difficult to find a turbofan airplane with the cruise speed and time on station of the P3. Just opinions but thought it might add to the conversation. kafrizzell@aol.com, Everett Wa.(USA) From kls Sun May 17 00:43:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:13 From: greg20@ix.netcom.com (Greg Rendell) Subject: US Airways MD-80 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Hi, I was onboard a US Airways MD-82 yesterday, flight 1484 from MCO to PHL, and noticed something on the wings I had never seen before. On both wings, scattered throughout their inboard half, were four small red or orange tubes with what looked like larger openings at the end, which pointed toward the trailing edge. They didn't appear to be in any logical order although they were symetrical across both wings. It looked as though they were connected at the top and then split into two pieces further down, and also appeared to be about 4"-6" long. Does anyone have any idea what these objects were? The only thing I could come up with was that they were some type of sensor for in-flight data gathering. I also printed the information for this aircraft, N818US, from the landings.com website and it had an interesting engine designation that I'd never seen before. Here is a copy of it: N-number : N818US Aircraft Serial Number : 48098 Aircraft Manufacturer : MCDONNELL DOUGLAS Model : DC-9-82(MD-82) Engine Manufacturer : AMA/EXPR Model : UNKNOWN ENG Aircraft Year : 1982 Owner Name : US AIRWAYS INC Owner Address : CRYSTAL PARK FOUR 2345 CRYSTAL DR ARLINGTON, VA, 22227 Registration Date : 20 Apr 1988 Airworthiness Certificate Type: Standard Approved Operations : Transport What kind of engine is "AMA/EXPR", and what (if anything) does this have to do with the devices I saw on the wings? Thanks very much in advance, Greg Rendell in Aston, PA greg20@ix.netcom.com From kls Sun May 17 00:43:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:14 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: US Airways MD-80 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > I also printed the information for this aircraft, N818US, from the >landings.com website and it had an interesting engine designation that >I'd never seen before. Here is a copy of it: ... >N-number : N818US >Aircraft Serial Number : 48098 ... >Engine Manufacturer : AMA/EXPR > Model : UNKNOWN ENG That database is straight from the FAA, whose data on this sort of thing seems to be approximate at best, and often flat out wrong. According to JP Airline Fleets, N818US has Pratt and Whitney JT8D-217 engines. That's a standard engine for a DC-9-82 (MD-82). > What kind of engine is "AMA/EXPR", and what (if anything) does this >have to do with the devices I saw on the wings? I doubt either the engines or the bogus data in the FAA database has anything to do with the devices on the wings. -- 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 May 17 00:43:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 May 98 00:43:15 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: North Pole flight References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net H Andrew Chuang wrote: > I don't have any detail, but it has been reported that Cathay Pacific will > have a trial non-stop flight from New York JFK to Hong Kong on July 5. > The flight will arrive in Hong Kong early morning on July 6, the official > opening day of the new Hong Kong Airport at Chek Lap Kok. I'd assume > this will be the first landing of a revenue flight at CLK. The flight > will fly over the North Pole and Russian air space. Not quite over the North Pole. The Russian and Chinese route available for a JFK-CLK flight would not make it to the North Pole. It would a most fly over the northern coeastline of Alaska. rwl From kls Sun May 17 00:43:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 May 98 00:43:16 From: slong@rockcomputer.com Subject: Re: North Pole flight References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > I don't have any detail, but it has been reported that Cathay Pacific will > have a trial non-stop flight from New York JFK to Hong Kong on July 5. > The flight will arrive in Hong Kong early morning on July 6, the official > opening day of the new Hong Kong Airport at Chek Lap Kok. I'd assume > this will be the first landing of a revenue flight at CLK. The flight > will fly over the North Pole and Russian air space. Making some quick assumptions, CX889 would have to depart around 0200hrs JFK time in order to arrive at CLK around 0630+1. The timings don'tseem to be too desirable. I bet they change once everything is up and runningcome December. Don't be surprised to see a stop at ANC for the first little while. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sun May 17 00:43:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:17 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Tarver Engineering wrote: > > On 11 Apr 98 02:16:40 , Don Stauffer > wrote: > > >I am particularly thinking of "unducted fans." > > An unducted fan has two rows of counter rotating fan blades. > > John So would some of those early twin row counter-rotating turboprops (I forget the planes, they were navy prototypes) qualify? How about the ones on the Russian Bear turboprop? -- 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 Sun May 17 00:43:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:18 From: MCLELLAN Alexander Subject: RE: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Bob Weinheimer asked: >When was the last time anyone saw an airline use more than >one door to load or unload a large jet? Last February I flew KLM from Schipol to Toronto. Passengers boarded the 747 through two doors. It takes much less time than 1 door. Regards Alex. From kls Sun May 17 00:43:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:19 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 26 Apr 98 03:44:49 , Bob Weinheimer caused to appear as if it was written: >> But back to the subject at hand: the 757-300 would make a truly HORRIBLE >> aircraft for use on high-volume short-haul routes. With only one aisle, >> you'd spend longer boarding and disembarking passengers than you'd spend in >> the air! >ANA uses 747s with a fairly dense all coach (or nearly so) configuration >on their Osaka-Tokyo Haneda runs. They load and unload through 3 doors >in front of the wing. The times I've ridden it they get about 500 >people on the plane and seated in less than 10 minutes, off even quicker >it seems. When was the last time anyone saw an airline use more than >one door to load or unload a large jet? I've seen United put first >class passengers through one door and everyone else through a second on >international flights, not much help. Air Wisconsin frequently unloads >BAC 146s at ORD from both ends. Why can't they figure a way to use more >of the several doors on a 757? Yes, current gate architecture isn't >friendly to this approach but at what point will it become worth it to >the airlines to speed things up? Part of the problem is the number of doors, but more significant is the number of aisles. The problem with a long, single-aisle aircraft like the 757-300 is that someone who stops half-way down the aisle to stuff the kitchen sink into the overhead prevents many people from getting to their seat. This is, unfortunately, more of an issue with US domestic short hops than with foreign routes (at the moment) and charters. Malc. From kls Sun May 17 00:43:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:20 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Fokker (was: Orders for Airliners in 1997) 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 On 11 Feb 1998 jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> wrote: >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 ? In the last few days before the bankrupty (Friday 15 March 1996), some quick action behind the scenes divided the company into profitable and unprofitable parts. The viable parts of Fokker were brought together in a new company with the name Fokker Services. This comprised product support, maintenance and aerostructures. Fokker Services remained outside the bankruptcy, and hired some of the essential personnel from Fokker Aircraft. After a short period, Fokker Services was bought by Stork, which is a Dutch company with interests in various engineering fields. Some time later, Stork also bought some assets such as prototype aircraft and test equipment. Fokker Services continued support for the existing fleet of Fokker aircraft without interruption. The aerostructures work (tailplanes for the Gulfstream V, participation in the NH-90 helicopter) was also continued. It has signed an agreement with Airbus Industrie for possible participation in the A-3XX. In cooperation with the Perry Group in the U.S.A., Fokker Services is also actively working on a re-engining program for the F-28, with Rolls Royce Tay engines replacing the Speys. Some subsidiary companies, such as Fokker Space, were also kept outside the bankruptcy, and are gradually being sold. When the main Fokker Aircraft company entered bankruptcy, the court appointed a trustee (called "curator" under Dutch law) with the task of either reorganizing the business or winding it up. This part of the company comprised the engineering and marketing departments and the final assembly operation. With the exception of a skeleton crew for essential maintenance, all personnel were laid off. Within a few weeks, the curator managed to set up a scheme to complete assembly of a limited number of aircraft which were already on the production line or for which most of the parts where already in the pipeline. With the cooperation of suppliers and customers, two batches of aircraft were completed, comprising a total of 10 Fokker 50s, 4 Fokker 60s, 14 Fokker 70s and 2 Fokker 100s. A small number of personnel were rehired for this purpose. The last Fokker aircraft produced under this scheme (a F-50 for Ethiopean Airlines) was handed over in May 1997. While the curator managed to keep limited production going, various attempts were made to sell the company. At one time, it seemed almost certain that the Korean company Samsung would buy Fokker. Malaysia also came close, but in the end none of these attempts came to fruition, and the assembly line was effectively closed down at the end of May 1997. The first public auction in October 1997 comprised mostly furniture, common tools and publicity material. None of the essential tools have as yet been sold, and the buildings and production line are still essentially intact. This situation will of course not last forever, and more auctions are in the pipeline. After the various rescue attempts came to nothing, a mr. Rosen Jacobsen is still making a valiant effort to restart the manufacturing operation. Having made a fortune from other sources, he is spending a substantial sum of his own money, while avoiding publicity. He has set up a new company (Rekkof Restart), which bought some of the essential tools, and has an option on the assembly line. Although Rekkof does not say much publicly, it is rumoured that they have agreements in principle with most suppliers (engines, fuselages, wings). Some parts would be built by the original suppliers, some would be moved to new suppliers (wings). Various press reports have also mentioned launching orders (TAM, Formosa Airlines). The people involved seem to be quite optimistic about the possibility of pulling it off. Time will tell. On the day of the bankrupty, more than 5000 people were laid off. A small number was rehired by Fokker Services, and the curator kept on some people on a temporary basis. Some overseas companies (Boeing, Bell Canada) sent interview teams over almost immediately; a limited number of people (less than a hundred) moved to Seattle. Other aviation companies in Europe have taken on some former Fokker personnel. The remaining persons are gradually being absorbed by local industry. Some of the more entrepreneurial people have started new companies in the engineering and consultancy fields. The company I work for (A.D.S.E.) is one of them. And before anyone asks: Yes, I did work there for about 25 years, right up to the moment the plug was pulled. 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 May 17 00:43:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:21 From: Ludwig Kammler Subject: Fokker F28 or 100 with turbojets? not turbofans? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre Hi everyone, I've come across a flight sim that does a F28 or F100 with single-shaft turbojets. Can anyone tell me if such a thing really existed, say, in the last twenty years? Ludwig From kls Sun May 17 00:43:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:22 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net spagiola@usa.net wrote: > Any plans to upgrade their systems, eg to the 2-person crew MD-10 standard? No MD-10 upgrades planed. rwl From kls Sun May 17 00:43:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:23 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Terence Liow wrote: > On 02 Apr 98 01:23:45 , skiea3b@earthlink.net wrote: > >I heard that they were going to expand their 10 fleet. Maybe some UAL > >birds ???? > > I think Thai International which is selling its 4 DC-10s. I think > FedEx has go the dibs on the UA (and AA) DC-10s There is one aicraft (nbr 1237) already delivered from Varig. It is presently in Amarillo being converted to NWA standards. There are three DC-10-30ER's being purchased from Thai Air...But until a vender is contracted to convert the aircraft..they will go into storage. rwl From kls Sun May 17 00:43:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:24 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net Flanders wrote: > Northwest also just recently acquired a few DC-10's from Swissair too. > (Last year) > > As far as replacing them, I don't know of any plans by Northwest to replace > them, but they still have a commitment to Airbus for around 15 A-330's. ... There have been several DC-10-30's leased or purchased from the KSSU consortium and being followed by by a purchase from Varig and from Thai Air. One more DC-10-30 from World Airlines "may?" occur later this year. That aircraft was the last DC-10 manufactured by McDonnel/Douglas. As for the future. There may be an announcement laster this year regarding the companies plans to obtain new generation aircraft. Whether its a Boeing or Airbus will be the question.. rwl From kls Sun May 17 00:43:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:25 From: Ian M Rimmer Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Northwest also just recently acquired a few DC-10's from Swissair too. >(Last year) As far as replacing them, I don't know of any plans by Northwest to replace them, but they still have a commitment to Airbus for around 15 A-330's. Back in '86, Northwest's order included A-320's, A-330's, and A-340's. Since then Airbus has let Northwest convert it's A-340 orders for more A-320 and now A-319's, but Airbus still expects Northwest to acquire A-330's in the early 2000's. So I would guess down the road Northwest will probably replace the DC-10's with A-330's but I think Northwest is still trying to convert those orders to A-320's and keep their DC-10's for a while. AAF Ian M Rimmer. "Aussie Aviate Fixer" http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ianmrimm From kls Sun May 17 00:43:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: KR-860, Sukhoi's super-jumbo Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California I recently read a report that Russia's Sukhoi design bureau is working on its own super-jumbo design. The KR-860 is intended to carry between 860 and 1000 passengers and have a range of 7,560 nm (14,000 km). This sounds even less likely than the Airbus A3XX. -- 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 May 17 00:43:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 May 98 00:43:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: An-124 and wing dihedral Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Last Thursday there were a couple of Antonov An-124s parked at Moffet Field. (I've seen one there before. Anyone know what they might be doing there?) They reminded me of a question I've had about wing dihedral. The dihedral angle of an aircraft's wings refers to the inclination of the wings from horizontal. When the 777 first appeared, many people noted that it seemed to have greater wing dihedral than many other designs, and indeed if you see one parked next to a 747 it's clear that the 747's wings are relatively close to horizontal while the 777's wing tips are far above the 747's. (Obviosuly you'd better be confident that the wings of one of the planes aren't sagging from a full load of fuel if you make this comparison!) The An-124 also has substantial wing dihedral, but its wing tips are *lower* than its wing roots, just the opposite of the 777. Various US cargo transports with high wings (C-141, C-5, C-17) are similar, though not as pronounced as the An-124. I can see how "positive" dihedral (like the 777) might help cancel out unwanted roll. This might also explain why the 777 has greater dihedral than the 747, since an engine failure on a 777 would produce greater yaw which in turn would trigger a roll. (The same sort of yaw-induced roll which is one of the theories for the USAir 427 crash.) I can't see what "negative" dihedral (like the An-124) would accomplish, or why it would even be desireable. Would someone care to enlighten me on the aerodynamics of wing dihedral? -- 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 May 18 16:02:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:02:55 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Today's Wall Street Journal (p. C15 in the Western Edition) reports that Singapore ordered five Airbus A340-500s on Friday and took options on five more (Singapore has always executed all its options in the past). First delivery is set for 2002. These aircraft will be used for very long range non-stops, such as SIN-LAX. Boeing's offering in this competition was the 777-200X, and it was widely thought that Singapore's order might be the launch order for this derivative. So far, Boeing only has an MOU (not a firm order) for 15 of the planes from Malaysian Airlines. Singapore's A340 order continues a clean sweep by the A340-500/600 over longer-range 777 derivatives in the last year, and is surely a hard hit for 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 Mon May 18 16:02:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:02:56 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : Last Thursday there were a couple of Antonov An-124s parked at Moffet : Field. (I've seen one there before. Anyone know what they might be : doing there?) I believe they are under contract to Lockheed Martin to fly the commercial boosters and satellites to the launch sites. : They reminded me of a question I've had about wing : dihedral. : The dihedral angle of an aircraft's wings refers to the inclination of : the wings from horizontal. When the 777 first appeared, many people : noted that it seemed to have greater wing dihedral than many other : designs, and indeed if you see one parked next to a 747 it's clear that : the 747's wings are relatively close to horizontal while the 777's wing : tips are far above the 747's. (Obviosuly you'd better be confident that : the wings of one of the planes aren't sagging from a full load of fuel : if you make this comparison!) : The An-124 also has substantial wing dihedral, but its wing tips are : *lower* than its wing roots, just the opposite of the 777. Various US : cargo transports with high wings (C-141, C-5, C-17) are similar, though : not as pronounced as the An-124. Negative dihedral...known as "anhedral." : I can see how "positive" dihedral (like the 777) might help cancel out : unwanted roll. This might also explain why the 777 has greater dihedral : than the 747, since an engine failure on a 777 would produce greater yaw : which in turn would trigger a roll. (The same sort of yaw-induced roll : which is one of the theories for the USAir 427 crash.) : I can't see what "negative" dihedral (like the An-124) would accomplish, : or why it would even be desireable. : Would someone care to enlighten me on the aerodynamics of wing dihedral? Again this is way back to things I haven't used for years, but a low wing aircraft will roll "into" a sideslip because the side flow around the fuselage will push down on the wings; (positive) dihedral prevents this. A high-wing aircraft will roll out of the sideslip, but perhaps too fast, and anhedral will slow it down. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Mon May 18 16:02:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:02:57 From: jac@panix.com (John Clear) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Panix In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >Last Thursday there were a couple of Antonov An-124s parked at Moffet >Field. (I've seen one there before. Anyone know what they might be >doing there?) They reminded me of a question I've had about wing >dihedral. Satellite pickups from LockMart or Loral. At one of the Sunnyvale / Mountain View meetings on Moffett re-use (unfortunately anything BUT aviation), a rep from NASA said it is ironic that we now have Soviet transports coming in to pickup Chinese satellites from an American military base. A lot of the satellites have dimensions that make road transport difficult, and with the runway right there, An-124s are an easy way to move them. There are also C-5s in occasionally to pick up US Gov't satellites. I think, but am not sure, that US commercial satellites are moved via An-124 as well (there is usually a Heavy Lift banner on the plane(s?)). John -- John Clear - jac@panix.com http://www.panix.com/~jac From kls Mon May 18 16:02:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:02:58 From: drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > I can see how "positive" dihedral (like the 777) might help cancel out > unwanted roll. This might also explain why the 777 has greater dihedral > than the 747, since an engine failure on a 777 would produce greater yaw > which in turn would trigger a roll. (The same sort of yaw-induced roll > which is one of the theories for the USAir 427 crash.) > > I can't see what "negative" dihedral (like the An-124) would accomplish, > or why it would even be desireable. The main effect of dihedral is to give a roll moment in response to a yaw angle (Cn_beta stability derivative). On most aircraft, having Cn_beta close to zero (i.e. little or no "dihedral effect") is desirable, since this makes the aircraft more controllable on crosswind landings and takeoffs. Another reason for having a near-zero Cn_beta is that a sudden yaw angle from an engine failure should NOT produce a roll moment. This would only complicate life for the scrambling pilot. On the other hand, having zero Cn_beta makes the airplane spirally unstable, but this is easily countered by the pilot or by any rudimentary wing-leveling autopilot. Free-flight model aircraft must have spiral stability, and hence always have large amounts of dihedral. On a low-winger, the flow around the fuselage at a yaw angle acts on the wing which then generates a roll moment as though the wing had negative dihedral (bad). Hence, positive dihedral is added to compensate and return Cn_beta close to zero. On a high-winger, the effect is opposite, and negative dihedral is added to compensate. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Mon May 18 16:02:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:02:59 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Karl Swartz wrote: > > > I can't see what "negative" dihedral (like the An-124) would accomplish, > or why it would even be desireable. > > Would someone care to enlighten me on the aerodynamics of wing dihedral? With a high wing position on a large 4 engine transport aircraft like a C-5 or An124 the anhedral is used to introduce some instability to counteract the high stability of the underslung mass in the fuselage, the engines (spread further out along the wing), and the aerodynamic effect of the high wing position. In addition to engine failure considerations the 777 may also require a greater dihedral than the 747 because the engine layout of the 747 is more stable due to the outboard engine masses. --------------- Andrew. From kls Mon May 18 16:03:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:00 From: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The dihedral required is a function of wing location. All low-wing aircraft have positive dihedral, or wing tips above the wing root when seen in the front view. Dihedral is required for lateral stability in sideslip. All mid-wing aircraft have practically no dihedral. Most high-wing aircraft have no dihedral. However, some large high wing transports such as the AN124, C-5 Galaxy and others have negative dihedral called anhedral. This is actually to counteract the excessive stability in sideslip even with a zero dihedral! For more details, please refer to "Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach" by Daniel Raymer. Hope this helps. Pradip Sagdeo From kls Mon May 18 16:03:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:01 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Inc. This isn't the first Russian transport with negative dihedral. The explanation I received in my old manual stated (speculation, perhaps?) that in flight, when the wings were supporting the full fuselage load that they would bend level. Is this a common thing with large, heavy transports? From kls Mon May 18 16:03:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:02 From: "Pierre Bertrand" Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. Karl Swartz wrote in article > Would someone care to enlighten me on the aerodynamics of wing dihedral? Dihedral is a powerful aerodynamic means of generating a roll from a sideslip. Normal stability requires that wind coming from the left, for instance, lifts the left wing. However, sweep is also a powerful means to generate roll due to sideslip. It is easy to visualize this: as wind is coming from the left, for instance, the left wing is essentially unswept and generates more lift, therefore rolling the aircraft right. The problem is that for modern swept wing aircraft, the sweep already provides plenty of "effective dihedral" and the aircraft does not need any dihedral at all. Actually anhedral would be required to reduce the "roll due to sideslip" to what is the necessary minimum (too much sideslip stability has its problem which i will discuss below). Military cargo aircrafts which are required to be able to load and unload cargo from unprepared fields without special ground equipment are driven to a high wing configuration and therefore have the luxury of designing anhedral into the wing. Modern transport aircraft, however, are more efficient in a low wing configuration (uninterupted cabin floor, underfloor cargo). This configuration has one drawback: tip or engine ground strike. The dihedral on modern high subsonic swept wing transport is actually driven by ground clearance criteria and not by aerodynamics. My guess is that the 777 has more dihedral than the 747 because it has a longer wing span (for tip strike) or a much bigger fan (pod strike). Too much dihedral is bad statically and dynamically. Statically, too much dihedral requires more roll power to counterbalance the "roll due to sideslip". This might force bigger ailerons and spoilerons than necessary (i say "might" because they might be sized for coordinated roll rate). Dynamically, and that is possibly the biggest problem, is the "dutch roll" (a natural oscillation of the aircaft in flight from left to right, like a speed skater, a "dutch" speed skater i guess...). Effective dihedral is the "dutch roll"s engine, so to speak. The more the effective dihedral, the more severe the Dutch Roll gets. All swept wing transport require a "yaw damper", a device wich artificially, through rudder inputs, stiffens up the aircraft to dampen out the Dutch Roll. In fact, a Russian low wing swept transport, the Tu-134 "Crusty", has some anhedral built-in. This was not too penalising for them on landing gear length (and weight!) as the Tu-134 has the main gear in pods on the wing. I don't know this for a fact, but i'm guessing that the high wing swept transport have a much smaller Dutch Roll problem. Mind you, this might not get rid of all of the Dutch Roll, but might allow them to have less severity associated with the loss of of the Yaw Damper system allowing a single channel architecture or a lower reliability and therefore lower cost system. I hope this helps, Pierre Bertrand, Aeronautical Engineer From kls Mon May 18 16:03:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:03 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Karl Swartz wrote: > The An-124 also has substantial wing dihedral, but its wing tips are > *lower* than its wing roots, just the opposite of the 777. Various US > cargo transports with high wings (C-141, C-5, C-17) are similar, though > not as pronounced as the An-124. All modern transports have VERY flexible wings. What is important is the dihedral in flight, not on the ground. > I can see how "positive" dihedral (like the 777) might help cancel out > unwanted roll. This might also explain why the 777 has greater dihedral > than the 747, since an engine failure on a 777 would produce greater yaw > which in turn would trigger a roll. (The same sort of yaw-induced roll > which is one of the theories for the USAir 427 crash.) > > I can't see what "negative" dihedral (like the An-124) would accomplish, > or why it would even be desireable. > > Would someone care to enlighten me on the aerodynamics of wing dihedral? Dihedral is an extremely complicated subject that must be analyzed with 3 D geometry. Any attempt at a 2D explanation is doomed to fail. Some explanations are just plain wrong, others highly misleading. What you must do is look at the angle of attack of the air on the two wings as a slight sideslip developes. By definition, with a sideslip the angle of attack is NOT parallel to the aircraft longitudinal axis. Now, sweepback has a very similar function to dihedral, so planes with sweptback wings need less dihedral than straight wings. -- 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 Mon May 18 16:03:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:04 From: Ken Rose Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom On-Line Services Karl Swartz wrote: > Last Thursday there were a couple of Antonov An-124s parked at Moffet > Field. (I've seen one there before. Anyone know what they might be > doing there?) They reminded me of a question I've had about wing > dihedral. ... > The An-124 also has substantial wing dihedral, but its wing tips are > *lower* than its wing roots, just the opposite of the 777. Various US > cargo transports with high wings (C-141, C-5, C-17) are similar, though > not as pronounced as the An-124. > > I can't see what "negative" dihedral (like the An-124) would accomplish, > or why it would even be desireable. > > Would someone care to enlighten me on the aerodynamics of wing dihedral? I seem to remember hearing, in the context of the B-52's wing, that dihedral is measured in the plane of the wing's chord, and when the wing is set at a substantial angle of incidence the sweep can make it appear to have a negative dihedral when in fact the dihedral is positive. Perhaps this is what is going on. - Ken Rose From kls Mon May 18 16:03:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 18 May 98 16:03:05 From: jcastleANTISPAM@eden.com (Joe Castleman) Subject: Runway length for DC-9? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gyrofrog Communications Greetings! The other day as I was driving to work, I watched a TWA DC-9 take off from runway 17/35 at AUS. This runway is only 5006 feet long, and I had believed that jet aircraft always used 13R/31L, which is 7269 feet. Is a take-off from such a short runway possible for a DC-9? Well, evidently it is, but I sure wonder what the circumstances might have been... I can't imagine that the pilot tried that with a full load of passengers; not so much because of weight, but because of the steep climb, excessive G-force etc. I think a lot of people would get scared and complain. (I myself would have liked to have been on that plane). Up until now, I thought that SNA was the shortest runway currently used by jet airliners (ca. 5800 feet). -- 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 Mon May 18 16:03:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:06 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Improper Jacking Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com A cracked bogie beam was discovered on an Airbus and the cause of the failure was improper placement of the aircraft Jack. The jack was not placed under the jack pad. Has anyone experience this problem on anywide-body jet with large tires? I would be interested in hearing of any such experience and what preventive action was taken to make sure it didn't happen again----besides firing a bunch of mechanics. Steve C~ From kls Mon May 18 16:03:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:07 From: kls@ohare.chicago.com (Karl Swartz) Subject: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In an April 27, 1998 press release, United Airlines said that it had operated its 100,000th ETOPS flight the previous week. Of greater interest was the information provided on the number of ETOPS flights operated by each of UA's ETOPS-rated types through the end of 1997: ETOPS type 1st ETOPS flights engines ---- --------- ------- ------- 767-200 May 1990 21,622 JT9D-7R4D 767-300 May 1991 47,918 PW4060 757-200 1995* 9,606 PW2037 777-200 Jun 1995 16,052 PW4084/PW4090 According to the press release, UA operated "simulated" ETOPS flights with the 757 in spring 1992, culminating in ETOPS certification by summer 1992, but did not actually begin using them in revenue ETOPS service (to Hawaii) until summer 1995. The 777 figure includes both original models (with PW4084 engines, operated at PW4077 ratings) and IGW models (with PW4090 engines). The IGW made its first revenue ETOPS flight for UA in March 1997, so most of the 777 ETOPS flights were with the older model. -- 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 May 18 16:03:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:08 From: Chuck Till Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Michael Silano wrote: > Personally, I'd like to see a 777 try and land at LaGuardia (7000 foot > runway).... Brake systems on passenger aircraft are designed to be adequate for 7000 ft runways near sea-level so that unplanned landings don't pose a risk, as long as there are no unusual worries about obstructions in the glide path, runway weight loadings, poor braking conditions due to ice or snow, very high temperatures, a flap problem, etc. From kls Mon May 18 16:03:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:09 From: a@b.com Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: xalkfj.at.usa.net@newsfep4 msilano@access.digex.net (Michael Silano) wrote: >The largest planes flying into or out of LaGuardia are the 757's due >mostly to the relatively tight runways. If you've ever landed at >either of these runways, you'd much rather have 3000 more feet to >stop. So would the pilot. You do of course realize that DL flys L-1011's into LGA From kls Mon May 18 16:03:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:10 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Michael Silano wrote: > Personally, I'd like to see a 777 try and land at LaGuardia (7000 foot > runway) > > It would make one heck of a splash as it entered Riker's Island > Channel. > > National Airport would be even more entertaining (6869 foot runway) > > The largest planes flying into or out of LaGuardia are the 757's due > mostly to the relatively tight runways. If you've ever landed at > either of these runways, you'd much rather have 3000 more feet to > stop. So would the pilot. I have to point out (having spent more than 1 sleepless afternoon after a redeye and non-productive morning meetings watching the comings and goings at National from the Crystal City Marriott) that the 757 and 767 use far LESS of that 6869 foot runway (landing or taking off- especially taking off!) than any other full-size passenger jet flying in and out of there. I suspect that the 777's runway requirements are not all that different than those of a 727-100 or DC-9. Don't forget that the new Air Force Ones based on the 747 require less runway length than the old 707's did. I don't think the 777 would be precluded from using either airport you mention, although loading might be restricted. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Mon May 18 16:03:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:11 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I have to point out ... that the 757 and 767 >use far LESS of that 6869 foot runway (landing or taking off- especially >taking off!) than any other full-size passenger jet flying in and out of >there. While that may be true, if you're comparing to a 727 (common at LGA due to their use on both DL and US shuttles), keep in mind that the tables may turn if an engine fails right at V1 -- the 757 and 767 will have to complete their takeoff with only 50% of their thrust remaining, plus a fair bit of rudder to counteract yaw, whereas the 727 will still have 67% of its thurst intact and will need less rudder (hence less drag) due to the mounting of its engines closer to the centerline. (Obviously it will need no rudder if the #2 engine is the one which took a powder.) Similarly, I was amazed at how quickly a 777-200IGW got off the ground on an SFO-LHR flight, compared to eihter a 747-200B or 747SP. It felt little different from an SFO-DEN flight. Had we lost an engine, though, it would have been a *very* different story. -- 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 May 18 16:03:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:12 From: Jishnu Mukerji Subject: Re: AA 777 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett-Packard New Jersey Labs Reply-To: jis@fpk.hp.com Michael Silano wrote: > Personally, I'd like to see a 777 try and land at LaGuardia (7000 foot > runway) > > It would make one heck of a splash as it entered Riker's Island > Channel. I have been a passenger on board a United 777-200 on a flight from London to Newark (UA 907) which landed at Newark using Newark's shortest runway i.e. Runway 11-29 (6800'), with ~1000' to spare. The application of brakes and reverse thrust was impressive, but apparently nothing extrordinary. So I don't believe there will be any spalsh if a 777 tries to land at LaGuardia or National (Raegan). Also, 777s used to take off from 4L-22R (8200' before the latest extension to 10000') on occasions. > Compare this to airports where the 777 can/does operate: > > * Newark EWR (longest is 9300 feet long, soon to be 11000 feet long) Actually the current longest runway is 4R-22L (was 8200' is or about to be 10000'). The current second longest runway 4L-22R (8200') will grow to (11000') in 2000. Jishnu Mukerji From kls Mon May 18 16:03:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:13 From: "Peter Frei" Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Active-Net AG, Switzerland L.1011s are becoming increasingly popular with charter airlines. Air Atlanta from Iceland operate a whole bunch for themselves and third parties, and the aircraft may also have a new life as freighter, with TradeWinds and Kalitta American Int'l being among the carriers operating 1011s as pure freighters. The price of a used 1011 is moderate as there are many examples available (more than DC-10s or A.300s). Besides places around Tucson there are at least 12 former Rich 1011s stored at Roswell, NM, since this carrier went out of service, and a further bunch of former TWA aircraft is parked at Kingman, AZ. Delta's withdrawal of the 1011 from service will proabably bring down prices further, making the aircraft interesting even for smaller carriers. With Fedex buying up almost all available DC-10s for MD-10 cargo conversion, the 1011, together with the A.300, is one of the alternatives to new MD-11, 767 or 747 freighters. The 1011 is a fine plane, and I hope it can be seen in the skies well into the 21st century. Peter ----------------------------------------------------- Supplied by >>Peter Frei >>Aviation Photography & Research pfi@active.ch ----------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon May 18 16:03:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:14 From: "Duane" Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company >>Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >>are said to be phasing them out? I don't know if its still active, but alot of L-1011s ended up in Kingman, AZ for scrapping. It was always a hoot to see PA - L1011s parked next to some old (three paint schemes ago) UA 727s, next to the shell of a Comet! A fair number of TWs L-1011 ended up in Kingman as well. From kls Mon May 18 16:03:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:15 From: ScannerDude Subject: Re: MD-11 Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Reply-To: rpribush@ix.netcom.com Gitaj wrote: > I had always heard rumors about rough landings in the MD-11 and had always > dismissed them until I saw the burnt wreckage of a Fedex MD-11 at Newark > some time back. Has anybody figured out why that happened, and is there a > flaw in this aircraft? If that was a passenger plane, there definately > would have been huge casualties. There's no flaw, it's really just tail heavy. What happend was the pilot was coming in too hard, and was really decending fast. When the plane was over the runway, the pilot noticed this, and his first reaction was to pull the yoke back to arrest the rate of desent. However, on all planes, this doesn't stop the rate of desent too well, it only causes the plane to lose airspeed, so the plane stalled, and hit the runway hard, causing it to bounce, and roll over. The pilot forgot that on any aircaft, when landing, u must use thrust to control your desent rate, and pitch to control speed. If that would have been a passenger plane, it is hard to say whether it would've had fatalities. Most of the plane's body was intact, but there was a massive amount of fire, so if anyone died, there's a 99% chance it would've been from the fire, not the sheer impact. Also, Newark Intl Airport has (In my opinion) the best Crash-Fire/Rescue team in the country, they have excellent response times, and are one of the most highly trained. This would have definately saved some lives, had this been a passenger plane. Drew From kls Mon May 18 16:03:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:16 From: Chuck Till Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises David Lesher wrote: > I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] > -9 was described as losing the windshield. > > How the dickens can the crew survive that? Outer panes of the windshield were cracked. By the way, this incident reminds me of a very similar incident with Southern Airways in April 1977 -- a DC-9 approaching Atlanta encountered a thunderstorm not far away from Calhoun, Ga; but both engines failed and would not restart. The pilot got the aircraft onto a highway, but there were 70 fatalities. NTSB Identification: MIA98FA152 Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of AIRTRAN AIRLINES, INC. Accident occurred MAY-07-98 at CALHOUN, GA Aircraft: Douglas DC-9-32, registration: N948VV Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor, 85 Uninjured. On May 7, 1998, about 1920 eastern daylight time, a Douglas DC-9-32, N948VV, registered to and operated by Airtran Airlines, Inc., as flight 426, Title 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled domestic passenger service from Atlanta, Georgia, to Chicago Illinois, encountered turbulence and hail near Calhoun, Georgia, while climbing through 20,000 feet, after departure from Atlanta. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The aircraft received substantial damage. One flight attendant received serious injuries, and one passenger received minor injuries. The airline transport-rated captain, first officer, 2 flight attendants, 1 jumpseat rider, and 80 passengers were not injured. The flight originated from Atlanta, Georgia, the same day, about 1905. The flightcrew stated that while at a position about 50 miles north of Atlanta, they asked for and received permission from the FAA air traffic controller to fly a heading of 330 degrees to go around weather. This would take them between two weather returns and also allow them to follow another aircraft ahead of them. They had not given the flight attendants permission to leave their seats, and the captain again called them and asked them to remain seated. While climbing through 20,000 feet, they encountered severe hail which lasted about 5 seconds, and moderate turbulence which lasted about 30 seconds. The three front windshields shattered and the radome separated from the aircraft. The captain's and first officer's airspeed indicators became inoperative and it became very noisy in the cockpit. They declared an emergency with the FAA air traffic controller and asked for directions to the nearest airport. An approach to landing was made to Lovell Field, Chattanooga, Tennesse, with FAA air traffic controllers reporting the aircraft's ground speed about every 10-15 seconds. A landing was made at 1940, and after inspection of the aircraft by fire department personnel, the aircraft was taxied to a gate. Postlanding examination of the aircraft by an NTSB investigator showed the radome had separated and portions of it had been ingested into the right engine. The three front windshield outer panes were shattered. The wing leading edge devices, horizontal stabilizer leading edge, vertical stabilizer leading edge, and both left and right engine inlet cowls had sustained impact damage. The left and right engine fans had sustained foreign object damage. From kls Mon May 18 16:03:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:17 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises David Lesher wrote: > I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] > -9 was described as losing the windshield. > > How the dickens can the crew survive that? >From what I understand the outer glass layer shattered and obscured visibility but the inner plexiglass layers stayed intact. -Seth From kls Mon May 18 16:03:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:18 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services David Lesher wrote: > I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] > -9 was described as losing the windshield. > > How the dickens can the crew survive that? It was only cracked, didn't actually depart the airframe. There was a case some years ago in England or Europe somewhere of a British Airways BAC-111 which lost the windshield on the captains side. The resulting decompression lifted him from his loosely fasten seat belt/harness and he ended up with the upper half of his body outside the plane with the wind holding him against the upper window frame in the small of his back. He stayed in that position until after the aircraft landed. Investigation revealed that the windshield had been replaced and fastened with the wrong screws, the heads of which were too small and were able to pass through the mounting holes. Would be quite a way to view the approach and landing, not to mention the emergency descent after the decompression. Would have been fun trying to get the bugs out of his teeth as well :) Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon May 18 16:03:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:19 From: jdeitch@bellsouth.net (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: > I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] > -9 was described as losing the windshield. > > How the dickens can the crew survive that? My understanding is that a side window blew out (causing decompression) but the front windows held, although they fractured and spider-webbed. As the glass used is multilayered safety glass, this is quite possible. - Jonathan From kls Mon May 18 16:03:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 18 May 98 16:03:20 From: "Carrie" Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM P. Wezeman wrote in article ... > Of existing production aircraft, I would think that the logical > choice would be the Lockheed C-130 Hercules. It is close to the size of > the P-3 and is already used for some long range weather observation > missions also performed by P-3's. ...snipped... At low altitude it can shut down and > feather the outboard engines and fly on the inboard engines at near > full RPM, where the engines operate most efficiently. " The C-130 is a good aircraft, but I think most Orion aircrew would prefer to keep the P-3 over the C-130. The C-130 is one of the few aircraft out there that makes a P-3 look fast. In our game a long transit is part of the work day, and an aircraft slower than the P-3 would really get old fast. Economy and room aren't the only parts of the equation. BTW, the T-56 turboprops used by both airframes are constant speed turbines with speed control being handled by prop pitch. Respectfully, Giz > newserver shared by: Giz giz45aw@usa.net and C Lee needleworks@usa.net From kls Mon May 18 16:03:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 May 98 16:03:21 From: Mr Turbofan Subject: Re: What could replace the P-3? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Don't be silly. Using a combination of fingers and keyboard, , P. Wezeman typed > Given the conflicting requirements for an ASW aircraft to fly >economically at both high and low altitudes, a four engine turboprop >seems to be the best arrangement. If we're in the realm of Fantasy Aircraft, what about a C-130 with two turbo props and two turbofans ? Best of both worlds ? > I believe that the British Nimrod ASW plane shuts down two of >its four Rolls-Royce Spey engines while searching. Would it be possible >or practical to do this with high-bypass turbofans, which would tend >to windmill? I have seen the fans turning on an aircraft parked facing >into a moderate wind. High BP engines windmill quite nicely, thank you. The only problem with continued windmilling is the risk of bearings drying out, and leading to bearing problems. However, the HP spool generally rotates at a high enough speed for the oil system to continue working. (Normally, the windmilling speed is high enough for the engine to be able to be bump started without using the starter motor.) -- Mr TurboFan From news Wed May 20 09:15:26 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: SJC news Date: 20 May 1998 10:56:43 -0400 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: Prashanth Kuchibhotla wrote: > .... The 777s [AA] are getting from Boeing may be less troublesome to > fly out of SJC than the MD-11s. (I'm assuming that the 777 has a smaller > required runway length. I'm not sure of the exact takeoff runway length > required for a full MD-11 vs. a 777-200IGW.) SJC's runway length was a problem in the early days of MD-11 operations, forcing a very embarassing stop in Oakland on the SJC-Tokyo "non-stop" flight. But the runway has long since been extended to allow max gross weight take-offs by MD-11s. 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 Fri May 29 02:43:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:30 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: KR-860, Sukhoi's super-jumbo References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY Agreed, this project will never make it into metal - the key is that Sukhoi is "financing" this from a percentage of military sales, which are about nonexistent for them. If Boeing doesn't think there's enough market for this size, and Airbus is equivocating, then you'd never see a Russian plane in it either. I see that, and most of the other blue-sky projects we hear about from the Russian design bureaus, as basically advertising themselves as partners or subcontractors for Western companies. There are a number of such deals that have been announced, by Western firms hoping that the Russian market will develop, but few have made any tangible headway. Failing that, some of their engineers may be thinking of how their resumes would look to the Western firms. Despite Russia's manufacturing woes, dating to Soviet times, and lack of financing, there are a LOT of highly talented technical people there who have to be aching over the current plight of the aerospace industry in their homeland, and also have to realistically plan their futures. BRIAN CLOUSE GWLF17A@prodigy.com From kls Fri May 29 02:43:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:31 From: Robert Kochersberger Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: N.C. State Reply-To: rckeg@unity.ncsu.edu Karl Swartz wrote: > In an April 27, 1998 press release, United Airlines said that it had > operated its 100,000th ETOPS flight the previous week. Of greater > interest was the information provided on the number of ETOPS flights > operated by each of UA's ETOPS-rated types through the end of 1997: ... These _are_ interesting stats. Does UA say anywhere how many ETOPS flights suffered engine problems that required a diversion within the 180-minute (is that right?) distance? From kls Fri May 29 02:43:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > These _are_ interesting stats. Does UA say anywhere how many ETOPS >flights suffered engine problems that required a diversion within the >180-minute (is that right?) distance? Nobody ever puts anything negative in a press release unless they're forced to do so. Especially not an airline. They wouldn't even admit that engines *could* have problems, never mind how often that had happened! I have seen stats from engine manufacturers on in-flight shutdowns per thousand hours of operation, though. According to an article in Flight International from June 4, 1988, the GE CF6-80C2 had "an engine-caused in-flight shutdown rate of 0.009 per 1,000 flying hours." A subsequent article in the April 1, 1989 issue of the same publication claimed the CAA requirement for 120-minute ETOPS was that "the engine type must have a shutdown rate of fewer than 0.05 per 1,000 flights," with plans to tighten that to 0.03 in the future. Odd that the regulation supposedly was written in terms of rate per 1,000 *flights*, versus per 1,000 hours as in the GE statistics. I don't know if that's really the way the regulations are (were) written of if it's just an error in the article, Rate per 1,000 hours makes more sense to me. BTW, it wasn't easy to confirm, but all of UA's ETOPS aircraft are certified for 180-minute ETOPS, even though none other than the 757s are currently used on routes where they need more than 138-minute ratings. -- 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 May 29 02:43:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:33 From: Roger Thomas Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Central Queensland University Andrew Cruickshank wrote: > With a high wing position on a large 4 engine transport aircraft > like a C-5 or An124 the anhedral is used to introduce some And also on the *small* 4 engine BAe 146 - a pretty little aeroplane. From kls Fri May 29 02:43:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:34 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral 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 dihedral also affects: - ground clearance of wingtips and suspended engine pods at touch-down as a function of both bank and pitch angle (critical condition flat tire(s)/fully compressed oleo). Ground clearance of wingtips and extended trailing-edge high-lift devices becomes critical especially for low-set high aspect ratio swept-wing configurations (most airliners). Positive dihedral is a measure to keep corresponding landing gear length requirements down. - fuel flow (towards the pumps) within integral wing tanks. Burkhard Domke From kls Fri May 29 02:43:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:35 From: Jim Wolper Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISU Mathematics Karl Swartz wrote: > Would someone care to enlighten me on the aerodynamics of wing dihedral? Many aircraft with flexible wings appear to have anhedral (that is, "negative dihedral" ) when sitting still, but effectively have dihedral when developing lift because the wingtips bend upwards. This was one of the noticeable quirks of the 767 when it first came out. I imagine that the 747 wings are stiffer than the 777 wings because of the extra bending moment from the outboard engines. Jim Wolper ATP/PhD/CFI From kls Fri May 29 02:43:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:36 From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) writes: > The dihedral required is a function of wing location. All low-wing > aircraft have positive dihedral, or wing tips above the wing root when > seen in the front view. Not true of the F-104, which has a low wing with marked anhedral. On the other hand, it's got a huge vertical stabilizer. The F-4 also has a low wing with some anhedral on the inboard section, although this is harder to see as the lower surface is pretty much level and the upper surface tapers downward. The outboard section, however, has dihedral, although, being much smaller, not enough to negate the inboard anhedral. -- Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA shafer@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html For personal messages, please use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com From kls Fri May 29 02:43:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:37 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In general connection with this thread, I am aware that yaw-damping is one of the functions of the digital flight control system on fly-by-wire aircraft such as the A320 and its successors and the B777. However, Dutch roll is a vice of any delta-winged aircraft. Presumably, automatic yaw-damping was achieved in pre-FBW days by a simple analogue system (possibly part of the autopilot)? I'm guessing. Does anyone have any definite information? Pete -------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri May 29 02:43:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:38 From: "Donald Mc Lean" Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mittagong Mania - http://www.mitmania.net.au Andrew Cruickshank wrote in message ... >With a high wing position on a large 4 engine transport aircraft >like a C-5 or An124 the anhedral is used to introduce some >instability to counteract the high stability of the underslung >mass in the fuselage ... Are you sure it has anhedral in the air. There is a big weight to support and the wings bend as also does the C-141. Sit behind it on the runway on take off and watch them bend to what is probably a dihedral position. The B747 at max weight on take off also bends up considerably as it gets airborne resulting in a considerable change in the chord line and requiring a substantial retrim while maintaining V2. cowboy From kls Fri May 29 02:43:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:39 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Richard Rea wrote: > > This isn't the first Russian transport with negative dihedral. The > explanation I received in my old manual stated (speculation, perhaps?) that > in flight, when the wings were supporting the full fuselage load that they > would bend level. Is this a common thing with large, heavy transports? It is with the B-52. The wings bend up a bit in flight. John From kls Fri May 29 02:43:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:40 From: "Mihir Shah" Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia Joe Castleman wrote in message ... >The other day as I was driving to work, I watched a TWA DC-9 take off from >runway 17/35 at AUS. This runway is only 5006 feet long, and I had >believed that jet aircraft always used 13R/31L, which is 7269 feet. Is a >take-off from such a short runway possible for a DC-9? Well, if a 757 is designed to take off from runways as short as 5000 feet, then it's not inconceivable for a DC-9 (which is much smaller) to do so. It is possible that the payload may have been less, too, as you suggested. _____________ Mihir Shah mishah@vt.edu From kls Fri May 29 02:43:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:41 From: amuir@twsu.campus.mci.netnospam (Andrew Muir) Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: remove "nospam" to reply In article , jcastleANTISPAM@eden.com (Joe Castleman) wrote: >The other day as I was driving to work, I watched a TWA DC-9 take off from >runway 17/35 at AUS. This runway is only 5006 feet long, and I had >believed that jet aircraft always used 13R/31L, which is 7269 feet. Is a >take-off from such a short runway possible for a DC-9? >From 1977-78 Janes All the Worlds Aircraft FAA Take-off field length for the DC-9: Srs 20 5,100 ft (1,555 m) Srs 30 5,530 ft (1,685 m) Srs 40 6,850 ft (2,088 m) >From 1991-92 Janes MD-81 6,410 ft (1,954 m) MD-82 7,595 ft (2,315 m) MD-83 8,075 ft (2,462 m) MD-87 6,275 ft (1,913 m) These numbers are for max T-O weight, so if you are a little light in a DC-9-30, using a 5,000 ft runway probably isn't a problem. From kls Fri May 29 02:43:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:42 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University jcastleANTISPAM@eden.com (Joe Castleman) writes: > The other day as I was driving to work, I watched a TWA DC-9 take off from > runway 17/35 at AUS. This runway is only 5006 feet long, and I had > believed that jet aircraft always used 13R/31L, which is 7269 feet. Is a > take-off from such a short runway possible for a DC-9? Well, evidently it > is, but I sure wonder what the circumstances might have been... Here in Ithaca, New York (ITH), "the circumstances" are every day. USAir runs regular DC-9 flights here, and the sole runway is about 5000 feet. > Up until now, I thought that SNA was the shortest runway currently used by > jet airliners (ca. 5800 feet). Remember that the DC-9 (and the 727, for that matter) was designed to extend jet service to smaller airports, in an era when many airports were quite small, indeed. -- -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 Fri May 29 02:43:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:43 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , jcastleANTISPAM@eden.com (Joe Castleman) wrote: >The other day as I was driving to work, I watched a TWA DC-9 take off from >runway 17/35 at AUS. This runway is only 5006 feet long, and I had >believed that jet aircraft always used 13R/31L, which is 7269 feet. Is a >take-off from such a short runway possible for a DC-9? Well, evidently it >is, but I sure wonder what the circumstances might have been... I can't >imagine that the pilot tried that with a full load of passengers; not so >much because of weight, but because of the steep climb, excessive G-force >etc. I think a lot of people would get scared and complain. (I myself >would have liked to have been on that plane). The procedure by which pilots decide which runways are acceptable are well established and generally followed by the book. The factors involved in which runways are acceptable for use have to do with the so-called Balanced Field Length. This number is related to the known ability of the aircraft to accelerate to V1 speed and then stop without using thrust reversers, and is based on several factors. These include: 1) Engine type and power setting 2) Aircraft weight 3) Density altitude (combination of altitude, temperature, and humidity) 4) Runway orientation and slope 5) Winds These factors are calculated separately for each takeoff specifically for the available runways, and if a particular runway was shorter than the balanced field length, it would not be used. There is absolutely no reason for a crew to accept a runway shorter than the required balanced field length, and I doubt that any crew would do so. As for other factors which you mention (steep climb, excessive G-forces), I'm not aware of anything quantifiable for either one that is related to safety. For example, "steep climb" means what exactly? Also, during a takeoff scenario, the amount of normal acceleration which the aircraft could possibly experience is limited due to the low airspeed - the aircraft would stall well before an "excessive" G-force (say, +4G which is the limit load of the aircraft) would be experienced. (Aircraft generally climb at a predetermined airspeed which is nowhere near the stall speed, BTW.) Also, since the passengers are belted in, generally feel a smooth acceleration through rotation into climb, I can't imagine that anyone who has flown before would not expect this sequence of events through takeoff. Finally, I'd like to mention that gaining altitude as quickly as possible in the first minutes of a flight is probably the single most important safety factor if, for some reason, there were an emergency (engine shutdown, etc.) The extra altitude translates into additional range, and that can mean all the difference in being able to return to an airfield vs. landing off the airport. ed >>>> Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 <<<< The above statement is the opinion of the author. No endorsement or warranty by the MITRE Corporation is expressed or implied. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Fri May 29 02:43:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:44 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Joe Castleman wrote: > The other day as I was driving to work, I watched a TWA DC-9 take off from > runway 17/35 at AUS. This runway is only 5006 feet long, and I had > believed that jet aircraft always used 13R/31L, which is 7269 feet. Wow. The biggest thing I've seen using that runway in the past 10 years was a B-17 :-) > Is a take-off from such a short runway possible for a DC-9? Well, > evidently it is, I've always assumed that the DC-9 and 737 were originally *built* for that size runway, but all the really short runways around the country had just gone away over the years. I do remember flying into Baton Rouge many years ago (on a 727) and being aware that the runway there was even shorter than AUS. Just out of curiousity- which direction was the takeoff? If it was to the south, I imagine the people along Airport Blvd. down toward the river got an unusually good dose of JT8D noise. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029 512-835-3286 slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Fri May 29 02:43:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:45 From: "Robert J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org I've seen a 757 take off from 33 at DCA, which is 5189 ft long, aimed straight at the Pentagon. I'd guess that the 757 has better short-field performance than the DC-9, however. Bob Carpenter From kls Fri May 29 02:43:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:46 From: Robin Peel Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD It depends upon the wind. Though I have never left from 17/35 at KAUS (other than when I was the the pilot of a rented C-172 or PA-28), a strong southerly / south-west wind may make it an attactive option for a DC-9 compared to cross-wind take-off on 13L/31R. - Robin. -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Fri May 29 02:43:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:47 From: checkmy@sig.gov (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews! at Internet America Reply-To: checkmy@sig.gov On 18 May 98 16:03:05 , jcastleANTISPAM@eden.com (Joe Castleman) wrote: >The other day as I was driving to work, I watched a TWA DC-9 take off from >runway 17/35 at AUS. This runway is only 5006 feet long, and I had >believed that jet aircraft always used 13R/31L, which is 7269 feet. Is a >take-off from such a short runway possible for a DC-9? Well, evidently it >is, but I sure wonder what the circumstances might have been... I can't >imagine that the pilot tried that with a full load of passengers; not so >much because of weight, but because of the steep climb, excessive G-force >etc. I think a lot of people would get scared and complain. (I myself >would have liked to have been on that plane). Flight crews use a system called(usually) airport analysis. It's tabulations of data taken from the approved flight manual of the particular aircraft. In it it list the runways for a particular airport and the outside air temperatures. You bring the 2 together for a certain runway and it gives you your max takeoff weight limited by either the length of the avaible runway or the ability of the aircraft to climb and miss obstacles in the event of an engine failure. Clear as mud now? Also in airport analysis is the landing data, based on certain airports and runways, with outside air temp., aircraft components operational or not(such as auto braking or auto ground spoilers), wet runway, ect. Also factored in the ability of the aircraft to execute a missed approach from 1500 feet above the airport with one engine inop. It's quite complicated sounding(and I left out a lot about climb segments and gradients), but in the cockpit it's fairly easy to look the numbers up. I used to fly the baby DC9 (-15), and 5,000 feet doesn't sound to short for a lightly loaded airplane with a head wind. Ray Clawson -- Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. Cardinal Wolsey (1475?-1530) 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 Fri May 29 02:43:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:43:48 From: "Donald Mc Lean" Subject: Re: Runway length for DC-9 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: Mittagong Mania - http://www.mitmania.net.au Ref: Joe Castleman 19th May. What was the surface wind at the time Joe and the surface temp.Was the longer r/w NOTAMED out or restricted in length for some reason. A pilot would only consider a departure runway if it was operationally acceptable from performance manual data that suggests the payload can be uplifted. We hate leaving payload behind, thats profits and airlines can't for long pay wages out of losses. Perhaps the departure you saw was a non revenue flight at very low brakes release weight. There are no higher 'G' forces or steeper climbs,etc. You would notice no difference in the pax cabin unless you can pick body angle with a degree or two from inside and I'll bet you can't. A two engine aeroplane is required to have the capability of achieving a gross gradient of climb in the second segment of 2.4% with the critical engine failed. There is no hit / miss or maybe about it. If it can't then the pilot in command doesn't, and would take an alternative runways if available. No alternative then BRW reduction. cowboy@ram.net.au From kls Fri May 29 02:43:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:49 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: MD-11 Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >> If that was a passenger plane, there definately >> would have been huge casualties. SD> If that would have been a passenger plane, it is hard to say SD> whether it would've had fatalities. Ahh, but there was a similiar incident involving a DC10 in Europe. It hit with one wing low and rolled over on its back snapping off the wing. More details to follow when I can get the info "here". >There's no flaw, it's really just tail heavy. > ...his first reaction was to pull the yoke > back to arrest the rate of desent. The horizontal stabilizer of the MD-11t is 60% of the area of the DC10's. Therefore, the MD-11 does not respond quickly to pitch rate inputs and large yoke inputs at touchdown should be avoided. STeve C~ From kls Fri May 29 02:43:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:50 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Crash similar to MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com This is a follow-up on the message about the EWR crash. (reply was delayed due to business trip) A similar crash occurred in Portugal in 1992 on a passenger aircraft with drastic results. Here are the details. Date: Dec 21, 1992 07:33 local time. Flight MP 495 landing on Runeway 11 at Faro Airport Portugal Martinair DC10-30F, Aircraft Registration PH-MBN 56 killed, 106 serious injuries, 176 minor or no injuries The aircraft in final phases of approach crossed a turbulence area associated with microburst and downburst phenomena, that initiated a longitudinal instability. Premature power reduction and sudden wind variation increased the descent rate, which reached values exceeding the operational limits of the a/c. Fracture of Right MLG was due to combination of descent rate and drift correction. Descent rate at touchdown: 900 ft/min. Right MLG failed and right wing fractured. The aircraft departed the runway with a track of 120 deg in an inverted position. The left wing dug into the soft ground and caused the fuselage to brake into 3 sections. The rear section came to rest in the normal position and the front and center section of the left side with the windows on the ground. The 56 passengers in forward section exited thru rupture without fatalities. In the intermediate section, the forward portion, rows 11 - 19, had 25% survivability as many were ejected from the aircraft. The aft intermediate section nearest the fuel tanks, rows 20- 29, experienced 89% fatalities. The rear section, rows 30-41, had 100% survivability. SC From kls Fri May 29 02:43:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:51 From: "Steve" Subject: Building planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Irish Does anyone know of program that is similar to the Basic Aircraft Design (BAD) Web page. I would love to get my hands on another program where I can design aircraft for different uses. Kind regards Steven P.S. The BAD address is http://fornax.arc.nasa.gov:9999/badweb/badweb.html try it out My lowest ticket price is $274.?? Any takers? If you could answer me at my e-mail address shersd@iafrica.com Thanx From kls Fri May 29 02:43:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:52 From: Bryan Shrode Subject: 777 GE90 owners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Can someone please specify a list of all the airlines that use the GE90 on their 777-200s? Please Respond, -- Bryan Shrode bshrode@home.net ----x--x--(_)--x--x---- From kls Fri May 29 02:43:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:53 From: "Steven L. Ferguson" Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Co. Reply-to: SLFERGUSON@MAR.LMCO.COM There is a proposal in the works to convert old L-1011s to freighters for UPS. -- Steven L. Ferguson Flight Test Specialist Sr. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems Co. From kls Fri May 29 02:43:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:54 From: widgetboy1@aol.com (WidgetBoy1) Subject: Re: L-1011 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Does anyone have any ideas who might pick up Delta's L-1011's, as they >are said to be phasing them out? Delta has at least 10 L-1011's stored at Mojave. Two of which are -500's. I think they are working on selling some of the stored planes. Delta still operates 40 L-1011's, down from 56. The TriStar is expected to be around at Delta for roughly another five years. BTW, American Trans Air now operates Delta's first 11 Tristars. From kls Fri May 29 02:43:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:55 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Donald Mc Lean wrote: > Stein1111 wrote in message ... > >Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and > >3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? > > Answer from DOWN UNDER: > I presume that it actually is rated as a 40KVA 115/200V 3 phase generator. ... For your next assignment could you please axplain the workings of a Flux Valve. Of course you can also have the three phase generator wound in a delta or trainglular configuration resulting in three phases without a neutral, but this will be used only were there will always be a balanced three phase load. Is it getting cold down in OZ yet? I'm starting to run out of vegemite so forgive my rantings :) Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Fri May 29 02:43:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:56 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: RE: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) writes: >>The reason for having three-phase electrical equipment is two-fold. 1) it >>allows three-phase heavy-duty motors to be driven (such as in the stabilizer >>trim on a B727), and 2) redundancy: if one of the phases shorts out, a >>three-phase motor will still operate. >Sort-of... A 3-phase motor will not start when missing a phase >but it may limp along if already going. Because "single->phasing" >is often destructive to the motor, larger units have 'loss-of-phase' >protection that shuts down the motor. I am an electrical engineer by education. A three phase motor certainly will start and run with a phase missing. It is likely to overhead if you run it for a long period of time, and obviously there will be a substantial loss of power output. There are very good reasons for using three phase, 400Hz power in an aircraft. Motors, generators and power supplies use 'iron' core components. The amount of Iron you need is directly proportional to the frequency. Hence a 400Hz transformer will need only about 14% of the core weight a 60Hz transformer needs. a 400hz motor will weigh a lot less than a 60Hz motor. a 400Hz transformer will also weigh a lot less than it's 60Hz cousin. Weight is money in an Aircraft. A three phase alternator has 3 armature windings instead of one. It produces a frequency at 3 times the rotation speed, so a 400hz would mean the alternator has to turn at 24000RPM as a single phase, but only 8000 RPM for 3 phase. Big difference in bearling life, and manufacturing cost. A three phase alternator operating at 400hz will also weigh a lot less, and occuply a much smaller volume than a single phase alternator of simliar output. (better use of the interior volume for windings, and less Iron in the field winding core). Any polyphase electric motor has starting torque. Single phase motors are quite troublesome because by definition they have no starting torque. You do various things to them, like using a capacitor to introduce a phase shift (effectively another phase) to get them started. In general, the more things you do to make a single phase motor start well, the worse (less efficient it is) when you actually run it. Three phase motors are also much more efficient than their single phase relatives. You will notice if you ever look that you will never find a single phase motor rated at more than about 2 horsepower. They just don't work very well. Single phase motors also have very large starting currents, another problem... The other issue is many Aircraft motors have to run backwards and fowards. On a three phase motor this is easy. Just exchange any two phases, and the direction reverses. This is a much more difficult problem on a single phase motor. -- James Matthew Weber Service Delivery Manager Diyar United Trading and Contracting Co. P.O. Box 44240 Hawalli 32057 State of Kuwait PH +965 434 0560 x 230 FAX +965 431 5107 Mobile +965 971 2069 From kls Fri May 29 02:43:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:57 From: Jeff Peterson Subject: Re: US Airways MD-80 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Had to be some other device for Ice detection. Maybe Boeing will find one that works From kls Fri May 29 02:43:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:58 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 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 geracen@wantree.com.au "Neil Gerace" writes: >A good car can take less time to get to the end of a runway than an >airliner. I have heard a story of a charity fund-raising drag race between a Malmo Aviation BAe 146 and a Ferrari (both owned by same Swedish tycoon) at an airstrip in Sweden. The lightly loaded 146 won.(!) But it then blew all the fuses/tires braking to a halt and was out of service for the next day or two. B^) B^( -- -Niels From kls Fri May 29 02:43:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:43:59 From: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH Reply-To: bi737@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel G. Sharpes) In the FWIW category ... I've been told that of the many RTO's that have occured after V1, many of them ended badly, in either lives or airframes lost. About a quarter were due to engines, a quarter to tires. But there has never been an accident due to continuing the takeoff. Anybody have different info? -- Dan From kls Fri May 29 02:44:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:00 From: Robert Kochersberger Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: N.C. State Reply-To: rckeg@unity.ncsu.edu Neil Gerace wrote: > A good car can take less time to get to the end of a runway than an > airliner. OK, since we're on acceleration, how about looking at it from the standpoint of automobile evaluation, where a standard measure is the 0-to-60 time. How long does it take the major passenger jets--737, 747, etc., and the Airbus 320, 330, 340--to reach 60 miles per hour? From kls Fri May 29 02:44:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:01 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Okay, okay, okay... Apparently I didn't make myself clear enough. When I said the aircraft has to reach flying speed, I was oversimplifying. V1 is indeed the speed at which the aircraft is assumed to no longer have enough runway remaining to stop safely. Many (if not most) takeoff accidents are from pilots trying to abort a takeoff ->after reaching V1<-, thereby proving once again that F=MA. Vr is the speed at which the pilot is required to lift the nose and the engineers say the plane SHALL fly off the runway. V2 is the minimum safe flying speed. TheFNG From kls Fri May 29 02:44:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:02 From: "Donald Mc Lean" Subject: Re: Acceleration of a 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mittagong Mania - http://www.mitmania.net.au Acceleration is about power to weight ratio so as has been suggested by some writers , it depends on the BRW of the aeroplane, the heavier , the slower acceleration. If you are watching departures at the terminal note the service destination, thats an indication of the t/o weight not the number of passengers. Vr can never be less than V1 and only at very light weights would be theoretically the same. In this case pilots make Vr 2kts faster so there is a definite call at the decision speed V1. These V speeds are all a function of the BRW and the BRW is a function of the r/w length and temp and pressure but mainly temp, these of course being the variables that effect the engine thrust. The heavier the BRW the higher the V1, Vr and V2. Certification states that Vr is 1.1Vs and V2 can never be less than 1.2Vs but could be much more depending on the obstacles in the second segment off the end of the runway. For landing the same rules apply. Approach speed (Vref) is set at certification as 1.3Vs so will be a function of the aeroplanes landing weight. Vs covers any flap selection but in all cases less flap means more runway and higher speeds. cowboy@ram.net.au From kls Fri May 29 02:44:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:03 From: Robin Peel Subject: DH Trident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD I am looking for information about the the DH Trident, especially the 3b version. I need detailed measurements, V speeds, weights and engine data, as well as any pointers to photos (especially of the last BEA livery). I am hoping to build a model for a flight simulator (X-Plane) to complement the BOAC VC-10 I have already created - but information about this aeroplane is very hard to come by in the USA. Any references to web sites or books would be much appreciated. Thanks, - Robin -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Fri May 29 02:44:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:04 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Don Stauffer wrote: > Tarver Engineering wrote: > > On 11 Apr 98 02:16:40 , Don Stauffer wrote: > > > > >I am particularly thinking of "unducted fans." > > > > An unducted fan has two rows of counter rotating fan blades. > > So would some of those early twin row counter-rotating turboprops (I > forget the planes, they were navy prototypes) qualify? How about the > ones on the Russian Bear turboprop? For an example of what I mean, look at page 68 in the May 11 Av Week. Is that a turboprop or an unducted fan? -- 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 Fri May 29 02:44:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:05 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: Geared turbofans References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 17 May 98 00:43:17 , Don Stauffer wrote: >Tarver Engineering wrote: >> >> On 11 Apr 98 02:16:40 , Don Stauffer >> wrote: >> >> >I am particularly thinking of "unducted fans." >> >> An unducted fan has two rows of counter rotating fan blades. >> >> John > >So would some of those early twin row counter-rotating turboprops (I >forget the planes, they were navy prototypes) qualify? The Navy airplanes used regular propellers mounted forward, I believe. The English produced piston versions of these. > How about the ones on the Russian Bear turboprop? When GE built their counter rotating turboprop, Russians where bending the metal. There is a high probability that the blades are nearly identical to the Russian version. John From kls Fri May 29 02:44:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:06 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Fokker F28 or 100 with turbojets? not 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 Ludwig Kammler wrote: >I've come across a flight sim that does a F28 or F100 with single-shaft >turbojets. Can anyone tell me if such a thing really existed, say, in >the last twenty years? All 'classic' F-28s are equipped with two Rolls Royce RB-183-2 Spey Mk-555-15 engines (or various subtypes thereof). This engine is a two-shaft turbofan engine with a by-pass ratio of 1. All Fokker 100s are equipped with two Rolls Royce RB-183-03 Tay Mk-620-15 or Mk-650-15 engines. This engine is also a two-shaft turbofan, combining the RB-183-2 core with a new LP system, raising the BPR to 3. The Fokker 70 variant was only available with the lower-rated Tay Mk-620-15. No single-shaft turbojet engines have ever been fitted to an airframe in the F-28 or F-100/70 series. 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 May 29 02:44:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:07 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Rosemount Probe References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , "Yves E. Hoebeke" writes >I would like to understand how the Rosemount probe can deliver accurate TAT >info while it's heating element (anti-ice) is switched on. > >I understand from my textbooks that this will not interfere with its >measurement accuracy, but I do not understand how. Its in the design, I am told. The sensor takes air from the center of the flow whereas heated air is on only the outer side of the flow. There must be a very small heating effect but is is disregarded. I once changed a probe for inflight errors and found a large charred locust jammed inside, disrupting the airflow. It certainly does heat the sensors if run on the ground, its how we check both the probes a/ice heating and signal. Cheers, -- _J_O_H_N____R_E_L_P_H____________ john@guava.demon.co.uk Teddington, Middlesex in Cold Old England. From kls Fri May 29 02:44:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:08 From: "Chris Hall" Subject: Re: Rosemount Probe References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Yves E. Hoebeke wrote in message ... >I would like to understand how the Rosemount probe can deliver accurate TAT >info while it's heating element (anti-ice) is switched on. > >I understand from my textbooks that this will not interfere with its >measurement accuracy, but I do not understand how. Easy, Yves. The mast heating element is separate to the temperature measuring element. The TAT figure is calculated by measuring the electrical resistance of a coil of wire in an almost stalled airstream inside the probe. The mast heating element is well away from this airstream, and the heat in the mast is taken away by the outside airflow pretty fast. Chris Hall. From kls Fri May 29 02:44:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:09 From: NOSPAMcandee@alumni.princeton.edu (Bill Candee) Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom jdeitch@bellsouth.net (Jonathan N. Deitch) wrote: >In article , > wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes: >> I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] >> -9 was described as losing the windshield. >> >> How the dickens can the crew survive that? >My understanding is that a side window blew out (causing decompression) but >the front windows held, although they fractured and spider-webbed. As the >glass used is multilayered safety glass, this is quite possible. Nope, as it turns out. As you may know, the side windows on a DC9 *open*, and, when the media took pictures of the aircraft, the F/O window was open, leading to a report that it had blown out. However, there was no window blow-out and no decompression. (Note no passengers said anything about oxygen masks or decompression, which they would have noticed.) --Bill Candee in NYC From kls Fri May 29 02:44:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:10 From: ae562@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Eric Thomas) Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage 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) I have a further question, did the turbofans still work (partially?) after all the battering from the hail? I saw video footage of the hail damage, and you could visibly see golf ball sized dents on the leading edge of the wing. Considering that damage (and other), I'm just amazed that the engines did not blow up from the pounding. Did the pilot shut down the engines during the worst part of the storm to save the engines? What a situation! From kls Fri May 29 02:44:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:11 From: "Stephane Le Berre" Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service David Lesher a écrit dans le message ... >I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] >-9 was described as losing the windshield. > >How the dickens can the crew survive that? Check the NTSB report : NTSB Identification: MIA98FA152 Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of AIRTRAN AIRLINES, INC. Accident occurred MAY-07-98 at CALHOUN, GA Aircraft: Douglas DC-9-32, registration: N948VV Injuries: 1 Serious, 1 Minor, 85 Uninjured. On May 7, 1998, about 1920 eastern daylight time, a Douglas DC-9-32, N948VV, registered to and operated by Airtran Airlines, Inc., as flight 426, Title 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled domestic passenger service from Atlanta, Georgia, to Chicago Illinois, encountered turbulence and hail near Calhoun, Georgia, while climbing through 20,000 feet, after departure from Atlanta. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The aircraft received substantial damage. One flight attendant received serious injuries, and one passenger received minor injuries. The airline transport-rated captain, first officer, 2 flight attendants, 1 jumpseat rider, and 80 passengers were not injured. The flight originated from Atlanta, Georgia, the same day, about 1905. The flightcrew stated that while at a position about 50 miles north of Atlanta, they asked for and received permission from the FAA air traffic controller to fly a heading of 330 degrees to go around weather. This would take them between two weather returns and also allow them to follow another aircraft ahead of them. They had not given the flight attendants permission to leave their seats, and the captain again called them and asked them to remain seated. While climbing through 20,000 feet, they encountered severe hail which lasted about 5 seconds, and moderate turbulence which lasted about 30 seconds. The three front windshields shattered and the radome separated from the aircraft. The captain's and first officer's airspeed indicators became inoperative and it became very noisy in the cockpit. They declared an emergency with the FAA air traffic controller and asked for directions to the nearest airport. An approach to landing was made to Lovell Field, Chattanooga, Tennesse, with FAA air traffic controllers reporting the aircraft's ground speed about every 10-15 seconds. A landing was made at 1940, and after inspection of the aircraft by fire department personnel, the aircraft was taxied to a gate. Postlanding examination of the aircraft by an NTSB investigator showed the radome had separated and portions of it had been ingested into the right engine. The three front windshield outer panes were shattered. The wing leading edge devices, horizontal stabilizer leading edge, vertical stabilizer leading edge, and both left and right engine inlet cowls had sustained impact damage. The left and right engine fans had sustained foreign object damage. Stephane Le Berre From kls Fri May 29 02:44:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:12 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University Chuck Till writes: > David Lesher wrote: > > I've not seen any photos, but the ValueJet [yes, I call it that] > > -9 was described as losing the windshield. > > > > How the dickens can the crew survive that? > > Outer panes of the windshield were cracked. By the way, this > incident reminds me of a very similar incident with Southern > Airways in April 1977 -- a DC-9 approaching Atlanta encountered > a thunderstorm not far away from Calhoun, Ga; but both engines > failed and would not restart. The pilot got the aircraft onto > a highway, but there were 70 fatalities. I seem to recall that it was a 727, and all three engines failed. The flight crew flew into the worst storm in 50 years, having failed to keep up to date on weather conditions, which chagned rapidly as they hopscotched across the South that day. The fatal damage was not due to the hail hitting the plane, although all the leading edges were quite dented, but rather the sheer volume of water ingested by the engines. The flight crew focused on restarting the engines, which had all puked all their turbine blades out the back. After the emergency was declared and the first briefing was given, the next thing anyone new in the cabin was when a flight attendant saw trees out the window and yelled, "Grab your ankles!" All this recalled from reading the condensed report in AW&ST two decades ago, so take it with a grain of salt. -- -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 Fri May 29 02:44:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:13 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Outer panes of the windshield were cracked. By the way, this >> incident reminds me of a very similar incident with Southern >> Airways in April 1977 -- a DC-9 approaching Atlanta encountered >> a thunderstorm not far away from Calhoun, Ga; but both engines >> failed and would not restart. The pilot got the aircraft onto >> a highway, but there were 70 fatalities. >I seem to recall that it was a 727 ... Nope. Southern never had any 727s as far as I know. In any case, the accident in question, which took place on April 4, 1977, involved a DC-9-31, registration N1335U. Incidentally, most or all of the fatalities occurred because the port wingtip caught an embankment just after touching down on the highway, and this caused the plane to veer to the left off the highway, right into a gasoline station. The impact killed both pilots and 31 passengers; another 20 passengers died in the fire. Eight people on the ground also died. >The fatal damage was not due to >the hail hitting the plane, although all the leading edges were quite >dented, but rather the sheer volume of water ingested by the >engines. The flight crew focused on restarting the engines, which had >all puked all their turbine blades out the back. It was actually somewhat more complex than that. The fan and first five low-pressure compressor stages showed no significant signs of foreign object damage, and tests showed that high water ingestion rates merely caused reduction in rotor RPMs without damage. However, it was discovered that at low RPMs, water ingestion caused the high-pressure compressor to become much more sensitive to stalls and surges, a situation exacerbated by throttle advancement. The NTSB's conclusion was that the engines were reduced to low power settings, probably to slow the aircraft to turbulence penetration speed. The subsequent advancement of the throttles, in combination with the high water ingestion rate, caused the high-pressure compressors to surge. The overpressure caused the blades of the sixth (and final) low- pressure compressor stage to deflect *forward* to impact the fifth-stage stator vanes. Fragments of these blades and vanes were ingested into the high-pressure compressor, causing severe damage. Continued high power settings resulted in high fuel flow, which in conjunction with reduced compressor efficiency led to excessive turbine temperatures, which in turn finally caused the failure of the engines. (Most of this from Macarthur Job's Air Disaster, volume 2.) -- 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 May 29 02:44:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:14 From: k_ish Subject: Decoding AA 757 gear doors Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom I log all commercial flights I take as a passenger (just like I do when I fly my Cessna). One of the things I put in the logbook is the tail number of the aircraft. Often, the tail number is not easily visible at the gate, but most airlines put a number on the forward fuselage or gear doors that is enough to figure out the tail number. For example, an AA MD80, N508AA, has "508" by the cargo door. AS puts the number above the windscreen. On AA 757's, some of the gear door codes are as described. Others use a code such as "5CX" (which is N681AA). Can anyone tell me how to figure out the tail number from the "5xx" code that AA uses? Thanks!! Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri May 29 02:44:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:15 From: "Donald Mc Lean" Subject: Fog Dispersal systems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Mittagong Mania - http://www.mitmania.net.au Can any reader give me information as to manufacturers, sites, etc where I can find out about the current progress in development of the 'topic'. I understand that at Paris CDG propane gas artificial dispersal systems have operated since the airport was opened. The down side is a thin veneer of ice on the runway and taxi-ways. I read that a system was being trialed a few years ago at Milan Malpensa or Linate that used liquid nitrogen, much more environmentally friendly and apparently did not leave the ice layer. Question: Where are they at then in all this R&D on fog dispersal at airports. cowboy@ram.net.au From kls Fri May 29 02:44:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:16 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Improper Jacking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom In stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) writes: > > A cracked bogie beam was discovered on an Airbus and the cause of >the failure was improper placement of the aircraft Jack. The jack was >not placed under the jack pad. > Has anyone experience this problem on anywide-body jet with large >tires? I would be interested in hearing of any such experience and >what preventive action was taken to make sure it didn't happen >again----besides firing a bunch of mechanics. Only personal involvement was with one of our B-720's back in the late 70's. Bogie fractured for the exact same reason - improper use of jacks (not on the jack-points). Lou. From kls Fri May 29 02:44:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:17 From: "William R. Winter" Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Reply-To: wwpi@juno.com MCLELLAN Alexander wrote: > Bob Weinheimer asked: > >When was the last time anyone saw an airline use more than > >one door to load or unload a large jet? > > Last February I flew KLM from Schipol to Toronto. Passengers boarded the > 747 through two doors. It takes much less time than 1 door. May 18, 1998 Burbank,CA Alaska 507 MD 80 (Front and rear doors no gateway) Will From kls Fri May 29 02:44:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 May 98 02:44:18 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscNOSPAMNO@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > Today's Wall Street Journal (p. C15 in the Western Edition) reports that > Singapore ordered five Airbus A340-500s on Friday and took options on > five more (Singapore has always executed all its options in the past). This isn't true for the A343 options which SIA had. None of those (10 ?) options was converted. > First delivery is set for 2002. These aircraft will be used for very > long range non-stops, such as SIN-LAX. Another route which was named was SIN-SFO. I believe that the SIA order can be considered as a very important signal for the future orders in this category. The choice of the Japaneese carriers and of NW should be pretty clear. I don't believe that the 772X can get off the ground with orders from AA and DL, their exclusive suppliers agreement would imply a huge dsicount. Also the total orders won't be sufficient to get the bird launched. The question is : can Boeing get within the next months orders or LOIs for the 772X from the Japaneese. I also doubt that CX will make a choice in this category within the next 24 months, the asian crisis hasn't even reached the maximum. It was also announced that QF won't order any 300 seater before the turn of the century. Another good Boeing customer which doesn't come into consideration. For those interested I have summarized the orders for the A340NG at http://surf.to/orders > Boeing's offering in this competition was the 777-200X, and it was > widely thought that Singapore's order might be the launch order for this > derivative. So far, Boeing only has an MOU (not a firm order) for 15 of > the planes from Malaysian Airlines. Singapore's A340 order continues a > clean sweep by the A340-500/600 over longer-range 777 derivatives in the > last year, and is surely a hard hit for Boeing. If it is a hard hit for the 777 it should enable Boeing to free manpower for working on new derivatives of the 747 to make life harder for the A3XX. Rgds, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Fri May 29 02:44:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 29 May 98 02:44:19 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > In article , > niels@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote: > While I have no idea what drove the decision to retain the existing 737 41 > Section window design (outside of holding down costs), I can say that as > the 757 fuselage is slightly larger in diameter than the 707/727/737 > fuselage, simply grafting a 757 41 section to the front of a New > Generation 737 43 Section won't work. That shocks me; as the '57 was originally an uprated 727, I thought the revisions were limited to nose, tail, and wing. Wasn't the fuselage cross section carried over? -- -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 Fri May 29 02:44:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 May 98 02:44:20 From: travelcarl1@webtv.net Subject: Embraer 145 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Organization: WebTV Subscriber Has anyone else out there flown in the ERJ? WHAT AN AWESOME PLANE! I rode the IAH-ICT run with CO express and was most impressed. Compared to the Canadair regional jet, it "feels" faster, and has windows you can actually see out of. (the Canadair CRJ has windows that are mounted very low in relation to the seats) A slightly higher cabin noise level than the CRJ just adds to a sportier feel, but it is still far quieter than any of the larger jets. The 2X1 seating arrangement makes me wonder why anyone would fly on a larger plane if they had a choice. I hope the skies are black with these things! From kls Sat Jun 6 15:38:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:38:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 777 GE90 owners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc****@cmdnet.lu Bryan Shrode wrote: > Can someone please specify a list of all the airlines that use the GE90 > on their 777-200s? Leasing : ILFC and GE Europe : Air France , British, Lauda Asia : China Southern Gulf : Saudia, Kuwait, US : Continental Note that British is in negociations with GE to buy the 777s and lease them back. HTH, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sat Jun 6 15:38:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:38:55 From: Jim Wolper Subject: Re: Yaw Damping was: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISU Mathematics Pete Mellor wrote: > [...] Dutch roll is > a vice of any delta-winged aircraft. Presumably, automatic > yaw-damping was achieved in pre-FBW days by a simple > analogue system (possibly part of the autopilot)? > > I'm guessing. Does anyone have any definite information? Yaw damping can be achieved using analogue output feedback and is usually included as part of an autopilot installation. It is useful in straight-wing aircraft as well, especially those that fly at higher altitudes where the thin air may reduce the effectiveness of the vertical tail in damping yaw. Jim Wolper ATP/PhD/CFI From kls Sat Jun 6 15:38:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:38:56 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral 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 wolpjame@cwis.isu.edu "Jim Wolper" writes: >I imagine that the 747 wings are stiffer than the 777 >wings because of the extra bending moment from the outboard >engines. I am open to correction but I thought that one advantage of the L1011 over the DC-10 was that its engines were further outboard (caveat: because the tail engine on the DC-10 was off the centreline viz. one engine out scenario) resulting in: a lighter TriStar wing (less stiff?) ...despite their extra bending moment outboard engines dampen the flexing...need less inherant stiffness (weight) in the wing... i.e. twins theoretically need(ed) a stronger wing than 4x wing-engined a/c which in the past has meant a stiffer/heavier twin wing. But, to pre-empt Mr. Faure , Boeing obviously markets the 777 wing as great because its both strong and light etc etc.....i.e. new wing technologies with regards to wing strength/weight have probably reduced twin disadvantages as much as engine thrust + reliabilty advances. A new light + flexible (but no loss in strength) 777 wing may now simply reflect this change. So I guess it depends on the comparative ages of the designs you are looking at. Relatedly I am pretty sure the `clean wing' VC-10 needed a stiffer/heavier wing than the 4-engine 707 for the same sort(s) of reason(s) back in the `60s. -- -Niels From kls Sat Jun 6 15:38:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:38:57 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>I imagine that the 747 wings are stiffer than the 777 >>wings because of the extra bending moment from the outboard >>engines. > I am open to correction but I thought that one advantage >of the L1011 over the DC-10 was that its engines were further outboard I understood it to be an aerodynamic advantage -- having engines on the wing which are closer to the fuselage increases the interaction between the two airflows in undesireable ways. (I'm sure the aerodynamicists on the group will correct my oversimplification of this.) But you also have to think about where the center of lift is for the wing. It's reasonably close to the fuselage, but not too close. It may be the case that the L-1011's wing engines are very close to this spot. By moving them inboard of this spot, the DC-10 requires more structure to support the now "off-center" weight. Similarly, the outboard engines on a 747 are probably well outboard of the center of lift, again requiring more structure. (Aerodynamics are better, though.) >(caveat: because the tail engine on the DC-10 was off the centreline viz. >one engine out scenario) The L-1011 has the same issue. Are you thinking of the fact that the DC-10's #2 engine is so high above the centerline, whereas the L-1011's is right on it? That would affect pitch, not yaw, which is what the placement of the wing engines influences. If the #2 engine on either aircraft is shut down, it simply because a sluggish twin. My understanding was that the DC-10's wing engines are closer to the fuselage than those on the L-1011 because they didn't want to put an enormous tail and rudder on the thing. This is at least partly an artifact of the #2 engine placement -- the L-1011 appears to have greater rudder area, without significantly different tail height, because the S-duct allowed them to get the engine out of the way. >Relatedly I am pretty sure the `clean wing' VC-10 needed a stiffer/heavier >wing than the 4-engine 707 for the same sort(s) of reason(s) back in the `60s. Perhaps because it needs to support a relatively heavier fuselage -- which is heavier both because its weight includes the engines but also because it must include the structure to support those engines, neither of which is necessary on the 707. -- 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 Jun 6 15:38:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:38:58 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Roger Thomas wrote: > Andrew Cruickshank wrote: > > With a high wing position on a large 4 engine transport aircraft > > like a C-5 or An124 the anhedral is used to introduce some > > And also on the *small* 4 engine BAe 146 - a pretty little aeroplane. BAe 146/Avro RJ doesn't look like it has any anhedral at all - only 3 degrees according to Janes. --------------- Andrew. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:38:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:38:59 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Donald Mc Lean wrote: > Andrew Cruickshank wrote in message ... > >With a high wing position on a large 4 engine transport aircraft > >like a C-5 or An124 the anhedral is used to introduce some > >instability to counteract the high stability of the underslung > >mass in the fuselage ... > > Are you sure it has anhedral in the air. There is a big weight to support > and the wings bend as also does the C-141. Sit behind it on the runway on > take off and watch them bend to what is probably a dihedral position. The > B747 at max weight on take off also bends up considerably as it gets > airborne resulting in a considerable change in the chord line and requiring > a substantial retrim while maintaining V2. C-141 doesn't have much anhedral and can look almost straight winged in the air. The anhedral is more obvious on the AN-124 and C-5 and B-52 - but yes it does appear to be more exaggerated on the ground. On high wing military combat aircraft such as A-7, Harrier, and Alpha-Jet the anhedral is more pronounced. -------------- Andrew. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:00 From: Andrew Cruickshank Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OpenKast Limited Reply-To: andrew@openkast.com Mary Shafer wrote: > psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) writes: > > The dihedral required is a function of wing location. All low-wing > > aircraft have positive dihedral, or wing tips above the wing root when > > seen in the front view. > > Not true of the F-104, which has a low wing with marked anhedral. On > the other hand, it's got a huge vertical stabilizer. F-104 is mid wing. The fact that the tail is a T is also supposed to be a factor in the choice of anhedral. ------------- Andrew. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:01 From: Garry Forrest Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University The AN-124 and C-17 both have anhedral both on the ground and in flight with max payload. There's wing bending, but not that much. It's a stability issue with the C-17, and probably the Antonov. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:02 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I imagine that the 747 wings are stiffer than the 777 >wings because of the extra bending moment from the outboard >engines. The wings on a 747 flex A LOT on take-off... I think the 747 wings may be less stiff because of the additional weight of the engines help to "pull" the wing down against the lifting force. Aircraft that have engines mounted on the fuselage and not on the wings, like 727s and DC-9s, actually have to have stronger wings because of this. Can any engineers out there verify this? Matt Student Pilot 2.1PIC "Airline Pilot in Training", 747-400 Assembler. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:03 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: sfeigin@us.spambegone.oracle.com Mary Shafer wrote: > Not true of the F-104, which has a low wing with marked anhedral. On > the other hand, it's got a huge vertical stabilizer. Since this thread started with aircraft like the AN-124, it's probably not fair to compare with the F-104, which has wings about as long as my arm. And my arms aren't long. -- Stuart Feigin Nothing I say represents the official opinion of Oracle Corporation. That's Larry's job. And he never lacks an opinion. To reply, remove "spambegone." from my reply address From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:04 From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Partners of America Pete Mellor wrote: >In general connection with this thread, I am aware that >yaw-damping is one of the functions of the digital flight >control system on fly-by-wire aircraft such as the A320 >and its successors and the B777. However, Dutch roll is >a vice of any delta-winged aircraft. Presumably, automatic >yaw-damping was achieved in pre-FBW days by a simple >analogue system (possibly part of the autopilot)? > >I'm guessing. Does anyone have any definite information? Early yaw dampers employed a simple rate gyro to determine angular velocity about the yaw axis of the aircraft. Rudder deflection proportional to the measured yaw rate effectively increased the damping in yaw of the aircraft, ;which is very effective in damping the combined yaw/roll motion commonly called Dutch Roll. Pilots can accomplish the same by applying manual rudder deflection proportional to yaw velocity, providing that they can sense angular velocity and not be overly impressed by the perceived side slip (yaw angle). Presumably this is very tiring over a long period of time. I presume that the sophisticated flight control computers of today take advantage of the information from the inertial platforms, using both roll and yaw velocity and perhaps yaw angle to do a more elegant job. Incidentally, does anyone know if their is any relationship to this subject and the reported continuous minor yawing motion reported to be noticeable in the extreme aft portion of the 777, at least in its earlier days. If such continuous yawing exists, is it caused by pure aerodynamics or is it a manifestation of some sort of limit cycle oscillation resulting from non-linearities in the flight control servos? - John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:05 From: Evan McElravy Subject: AI(R) Partners Agree to Dissolution Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM So much for the much-touted consolidation of European aerospace companies: Partners Agreed On Company Dissolution Toulouse, April 27, 1998 AI(R) PARTNERS AGREED ON COMPANY DISSOLUTION At a meeting of the AI(R) Board of Directors which was held last Friday, April 24th, all necessary agreements regarding the dissolution of AI(R) and the ongoing working relationships between ATR and BAe Regional Aircraft have been reached between Aerospatiale, Alenia Aerospazio and British Aerospace. The legal agreements will be drawn up for signature within the next two weeks and the product focus implemented progressively and completed by end of June 1998. ATR and BAe Regional Aircraft will continue to operate from Toulouse and Washington by sharing accommodation. This organizational change concentrates focus on ATR and BAe Regional Aircraft respective product lines, with customer needs a priority, and represents a positive response to the competitive challenges of our marketplace. (http://www.airegional.com/) Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:06 From: ScannerDude Subject: Re: Crash similar to MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Reply-To: rpribush@ix.netcom.com STeveC01e wrote: > This is a follow-up on the message about the EWR crash. (reply was delayed > due to business trip) > > A similar crash occurred in Portugal in 1992 on a passenger aircraft > with drastic results. [details elided] you have to understand that this flight crashed as a result of a microburst. The EWR flight crashed because it stalled while flaring. Like I said before, there's no way of knowing what the survivability rate would have been on the EWR flight, had it been a passenger one. Drew From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:07 From: "D. A. Ling" Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: About as disorganized as I can be (You should see my house) Reply-To: take out the words and use numbers Stephen H. Westin wrote: > That shocks me; as the '57 was originally an uprated 727, I thought > the revisions were limited to nose, tail, and wing. Wasn't the > fuselage cross section carried over? Yes, and no. While the 707-727-737 used a common fuselage, the 757 was a _different design_ and we felt no requirement to maintain much with the older aircraft. (757 was one of Boeing's first uses of fly-by-wire flight controls - spoilers/speedbrakes) Conversely, the next generation 737 was "merely" a rewing, so we kept the fuselage "the same". As to the windows, we DO try to keep what works. (Less parts, less inventory, etc etc) From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:08 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >> While I have no idea what drove the decision to retain the existing 737 41 >> Section window design (outside of holding down costs), I can say that as >> the 757 fuselage is slightly larger in diameter than the 707/727/737 >> fuselage, simply grafting a 757 41 section to the front of a New >> Generation 737 43 Section won't work. Cost is probably by far the main reason, but with the different cockpit design to fit the 757 41 section it probably would not have cockpit commonality with the classic 737. >That shocks me; as the '57 was originally an uprated 727, I thought >the revisions were limited to nose, tail, and wing. Wasn't the >fuselage cross section carried over? I think you're right, the 757 fuselage is lower aft of the wings by about 10" just like the 727. Also, I've heard that the 757 also has the same flat aft pressure bulkhead like the 727, not a domed bulkhead like the other 7 series aircraft. Matt Student Pilot 2.1PIC "Airline Pilot in Training", 747-400 Assembler. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:09 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Stephen H. Westin wrote: > faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) writes: > > While I have no idea what drove the decision to retain the existing 737 41 > > Section window design (outside of holding down costs), I can say that as > > the 757 fuselage is slightly larger in diameter than the 707/727/737 > > fuselage, simply grafting a 757 41 section to the front of a New > > Generation 737 43 Section won't work. > > That shocks me; as the '57 was originally an uprated 727, I thought > the revisions were limited to nose, tail, and wing. Wasn't the > fuselage cross section carried over? To carry matters further, the 757 cockpit section is the same as the 767. This change was made fairly far into the 757 development program, for commonality of manufacturing. The cockpits are identical enough that the pilot's type rating covers both 757/767. One clue the cockpit was "grafted" on is the cockpit floor of a '57 is lower than the main cabin and there is a step down. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:10 From: alexnieves1@juno.com (Alex J Nieves) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM All the Boeing narrow bodies have the same uncomfortable fuselage diameter. Actually, to me, it seems as though the 757 is even narrower. You are correct in your assumption as far as I know. Also, one reason that Boeing kept the same nose design for the 737NG is because it is so widely recognized around the world, and changing it would lose the recognition. -- Alex Nieves alexnieves1@juno.com From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:11 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> <19980224180900.NAA05511@ladder03.news.aol.com> <888762977snz@nospam.demon.co.uk> 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: > That shocks me; as the '57 was originally an uprated 727, I thought > the revisions were limited to nose, tail, and wing. Wasn't the > fuselage cross section carried over? No, the 757 had an all-new fuselage design. As a result, it is very slightly larger in diameter than the 07/27/37, although for all practical purposes the cabin widths are the same. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:12 From: Spam@to.you (Philippe Vessaire) Subject: Re: Fog Dispersal systems 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: [posted via] Easynet France Reply-To: Spam@to.you On Fri, 29 May 1998 02:44:15, "Donald Mc Lean" wrote: > Question: Where are they at then in all this R&D on fog dispersal at > airports. To day, all R&D i know is about landing devices CAT III compliant. The goal is to have radio and balistic guidance for 0 foot decision heigt and 0m visibility. The best I know for passengers ACF is 20 feet and 75m Philippe Vessaire philvsr@!!!!easynet.fr enlever !!!! pour la vrai adresse Email remove !!!! for true Email From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:13 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: rationale for 3-phase/400 Hz motors (was: MD-80 Electrical) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Terrific explanation. Thanks! -- - 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 Sat Jun 6 15:39:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:14 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 29 May 98 02:43:55 , Trevor Fenn wrote: >Donald Mc Lean wrote: >> Stein1111 wrote in message ... >> >Can someone help explane " 3 phase" when it comes to a 40KVA 115 volt and >> >3 phase output generator. What does 3 phases do for you? >> >> Answer from DOWN UNDER: >> I presume that it actually is rated as a 40KVA 115/200V 3 phase generator. >... > >For your next assignment could you please axplain the workings of a Flux >Valve. A flux valve closes for each application of the electrically driven signal. The output is an 800 cycle signal (400 Hz input), proportional to the Earth's magnetic field alignment with the flux valve. >Of course you can also have the three phase generator wound in a delta >or trainglular configuration resulting in three phases without a >neutral, but this will be used only were there will always be a balanced >three phase load. This would only be done for a generator one wanted to explode at the first fault. The DC component of the fault current is directly proportional to the Neutral ground quality. (zero phase, see Blondell Transform) One should never do what is suggested above in a real system, as it is unsafe. The DC fault voltage would approach infinity, for the suggested connection. John From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:15 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin James Matthew Weber wrote: > I am an electrical engineer by education. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So am I, and I'm going to send you back for a review course! ;-) (I know you just typed ahead of your thinking and confused *poles* with *phases*, but others probably would misunderstand this) You said: > A three phase alternator has 3 armature windings instead of one. Correct for a "single pole" alternator, but very few are built that way. An alternator may have any number of poles per phase (n-poles means that the armature has n*3 windings for 3-phase, n windings for single phase), so it can operate at integral divisions of the "one-pole" speed to get the same frequency at a lower shaft RPM. a 4-pole motor or alternator (whether 3 phase or single phase) will turn half as fast as a 2-pole motor or alternator. That is how hydroelectric alternators produce the same frequency as steam turbine powered alternators while spinning at a far lower speed- they have many more poles per phase. >It produces a frequency at 3 times the rotation speed, INCORRECT!!! Single phase and 3-phase alternators or motors having the same number of poles per phase will rotate at exactly the same speed for the same frequency excitation. Recall that we don't have separate alternators in our powerplants to produce 60Hz single phase and 60 Hz 3-phase power, which would be the case if your statement were true! Any one "leg" of a 3-phase 60 hz line can be used to drive a single-phase load. Think of it this way: a 3-phase alternator is simply 3 single-phase alternators of the same frequency rating, mounted 120 degrees apart on the same frame and shaft. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:16 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical 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) James Matthew Weber writes: >>Sort-of... A 3-phase motor will not start when missing a phase >>but it may limp along if already going. Because "single->phasing" >>is often destructive to the motor, larger units have 'loss-of-phase' >>protection that shuts down the motor. >I am an electrical engineer by education. A three phase motor certainly >will start and run with a phase missing. It is likely to overhead if you >run it for a long period of time, and obviously there will be a substantial >loss of power output. There are very good reasons for using three phase, >400Hz power in an aircraft. {This is perhaps off base for this group, moderator....I have cc:ed by mail...} [Moderator's note: We're still talking about parts of "transport- category aircraft" so it's within the group's charter, albeit on the fringes. I'm learning something in the process, and hopefully others are too. -- Karl] I'm also an EE, and I dug out Electric Machine Fundamentals, Chapman, McGraw Hill, 1985... (Ghosts of Prof Klingshirn, a required rite of graduation, echo in my ear.....) On page 339 the author points out that 3-phase provides ..a rotating magnetic field of constant amplitude.. It goes on to derive the starting and running torque... Then on 573, it talks about how single phase motors have ...no starting torque... and goes on to discuss the auxiliary starting windings thus needed. I'll submit as obvious the fact that if you lose one leg of a 3-phase source, you have a single phase system. You have but 2 wires left. And with no starting winding scheme on the motor.... Large (100hp) motors frequently have loss-of-phase protection, as the motor will sit there, not rotating, not generating counter-EMF to reduce the running current, and soon smoking. On a big plant, the LoF is battery-powered so it can shunt-trip the appropriate breakers no matter what. >400Hz transformer will need only about 14% of the core weight a 60Hz >transformer needs. a 400hz motor will weigh a lot less than a 60Hz motor. a >400Hz transformer will also weigh a lot less than it is 60Hz cousin. True, but 60 vs 400 Hz is not the issue here, 3-phase vs single is. >A three phase alternator has 3 armature windings instead of one. It >produces a frequency at 3 times the rotation speed, so a 400hz would mean >the alternator has to turn at 24000RPM as a single phase, but only 8000 RPM >for 3 phase. Big difference in bearling life, and manufacturing cost. (The alternator in an aircraft is driven by a "constant speed drive" -- in reality a complex hydraulic pump/motor system. Thus the alternator can make constant freq. AC while the engine speed changes. Ergo, the real speed of the alternator can be chosen as desired at design time. You want it fast, fine.. slow, sure...) But that said, I can not see any truth to your statement above. The output frequency of a synchronous generator is: [page 380] f = n * P * 1/120 e m where n is the rotor speed, and P the # of poles m I can't envision where came you up with the concept that poles equates to phases. After all, I take single phase off a 3-P generator routinely. Is it magically 1/3 the frequency when I do? Yes, 3-P motors easily reverse. They have lots of advantages, & disadvantages to boot. One is, they need 3 phases to start. -- 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 Jun 6 15:39:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:17 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: $-1 <199805312215.PAA15639@netcom16.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >I'll submit as obvious the fact that if you lose one leg of a >3-phase source, you have a single phase system. You have but 2 >wires left. And with no starting winding scheme on the motor.... WRONG.. Each phase has a pair of wires if it is a Wye connect. The neutrals may in fact be tied to gether, but power is still hot to netural. Analysis of A Delta connect (which has no neutral connects) is much more complex, however Aircraft do not use Delta connects. The reason you have no starting torque on a single phase, is that the it appears as a pair of phasers operating exactly 180 degrees out of phase. The torque is literally the product of current in the windings multipled by the rotor fields. The mirror image phasers cause the torque to cancel. Two phases will in fact produce a phaser that does indeed have a net energy in one direction or the other. It will be seen to rotate, although not very nicely, and not with the nice symmetry you get from 3 phases into a 3 phase motor. What you have a 3 phase motor with asymetric torque, i.e. it produces much more torque in some positions than others, but it does indeed produce torque. The assymetric torque, causes the loss of RPM, which reduces the back EMF, and the motor will overheat. Actually something else happens if you don't protect it. Most motors have iron core components that run very close to saturation to minimize the use of iron core components. As they begin to heat, the permeability goes down, so the iron components saturate. This greatly reduces the inductive component in the impedance, and dramatically increases the current in the rotor windings, which greatly increases the ohmic heating in the core. In fact the permittivity goes to unity (Same as air) at the Curie point if it gets hot enough, this reduces the back EMF still further (more accurately the inductive component in the impedance, which raises the current, which raises the I squared R losses (ohmic heating), and you get thermal runaway until the circuit breaker trips out, or the windings melt. The other problem is the assymetric load causes substantial size loads on the bearings, which they are not designed to take, so it will probably lead to premature bearing failure as well, but it will run. >Large (100hp) motors frequently have loss-of-phase protection, as >the motor will sit there, not rotating, not generating counter-EMF >to reduce the running current, and soon smoking. On a big plant, >the LoF is battery-powered so it can shunt-trip the appropriate >breakers no matter what. The motor stops do to loss of torque. When one phase goes, 1/3 of the energy, and most big electric motors are not exactly grossly oversized. Motor do indeed have something called Stall Torque, if you exceed it, they do indeed stall, and with only 2 phases, there will be rotor positions where very little torque is produced. If the rotor stalls, bad things happen and in fact the motor on the nameplate has a value called L R A, Locked ROTOR amperage, which is what the motor will draw if the rotor doesn't turn, and power is applied. It is typically many times run current. (it also tells you what the motor will draw the instant you close contactor to start the motor). >>400Hz transformer will need only about 14% of the core weight a 60Hz >>transformer needs. a 400hz motor will weigh a lot less than a 60Hz motor. a >>400Hz transformer will also weigh a lot less than it is 60Hz cousin. > >True, but 60 vs 400 Hz is not the issue here, 3-phase vs single is. > >>A three phase alternator has 3 armature windings instead of one. It >>produces a frequency at 3 times the rotation speed, so a 400hz would mean >>the alternator has to turn at 24000RPM as a single phase, but only 8000 RPM >>for 3 phase. Big difference in bearling life, and manufacturing cost. > >(The alternator in an aircraft is driven by a "constant speed drive" >-- in reality a complex hydraulic pump/motor system. Thus the >alternator can make constant freq. AC while the engine speed >changes. Ergo, the real speed of the alternator can be chosen as >desired at design time. You want it fast, fine.. slow, sure...) YOu can choose any speed you want, the slower you turn it, the few turns it will make per operating hour, and longer the bearings will last. Maintenance costs money, so you design the equipment for the longest life you can get away, so that usually means the lowest RPM that will give you what you need. 24000 RPM is real problem. Most Iron core equipment will literally disintegrate at about 20,000 RPM. (That speed is also often listed on the name plate. If you want to see a mess, you should see what a building looks like after the shunt winding on a 100 HP DC motor has opened. The Armature usually comes apart at about 20,000 RPM, and sends 200-300 pound pieces of iron sailing through the air at 300-400 mph. You can hear the motor 'takeoff', and then you pray you are parallel to axis of rotation, and not anywhere near it. Afterward it looks like a bulldozer has been through the building. In my youth, in the Motor Lab at the University of Wisconin we had a before and after picture of the Allis Chalmers Motor lab after a big one got away.. By the way, most current aircraft has gone away from VSCF drives on the generators. They are too complicated, It is now down with an Integrated Drive Generator (IDG), the Frequency is controlled electronically by altering the frequency that you drive the field windings on the alternator. Remove Hydraulics and moving parts. The IDG is part of the engine assembly. Driving the Field winding with AC in the proper phase relationship makes the field appear (electrically) to be rotating, this allows you alter the effective speed that rotor turns, without actually altering its RPM at all. This allows you to maintain 400 Hz power, no mater what speed the engine is turning, and does so without any complex mechanical drive or hydraulics. >But that said, I can not see any truth to your statement above. The >output frequency of a synchronous generator is: [page 380] > > f = n * P * 1/120 > e m > > where n is the rotor speed, and P the # of poles Poles are in two places my friend. They are in the rotor, AND in the armature. You are correct if you assume there is only 1 pole in the field winding. Demonstration generators are built that way, real ones are not because it is very poor use of the space. If you think about that for a minute, you will realize that the armature winding will in fact produce 1 cycle each time it goes past a pole in the field coil. If I have 3 poles in the field, the armature will in fact produce 3 cycles as it turns through 360 degrees, hence the frequency will be 3 times the rotation speed. The relationship between Field poles and Armature poles is a construction detail that perhaps should have pointed out in the original article. So in the real world, single pole field windings almost never exist. There is usually a one to one relationship between field and rotor windings, so a 3 pole armature will almost always have a 3 pole field winding as well. Now you do get 3 times the frequency. My guess is an Aircraft probably actually uses a 6 pole armature and a 6 pole field winding, and that would result in 400Hz power from only 4000 RPM. > m > >I can't envision where came you up with the concept that poles >equates to phases. After all, I take single phase off a 3-P >generator routinely. Is it magically 1/3 the frequency when I do? It isn't a concept, its a matter of understanding how these things are actually built, which I didn't think was of great interest to most people who follow this group. Where space and weight aren't an issue, you may have many more poles, and many more field windings. Generators turned by water turbines are typically 24 pole. They will have usually have field windings with 24 poles as well, and these configurations will also produce 3 phase power by properly wiring the pole windings. A 24 pole alternator only has to turn at 150RPM to produce 60Hz, which means you can drive it directly from the water turbine in a hydroelectric plant, not gear drives, no transmission. This is probably not the case in aircraft because both size and weight are at premium. I doubt you have ever worked on rotating machinery. >Yes, 3-P motors easily reverse. They have lots of advantages, & >disadvantages to boot. One is, they need 3 phases to start. Do the field analysis my friend. They will indeed start as long as the starting torque requirement isn't very high. Even if it is high, you may find an external rotor resistor can be switched in to alter the speed torque characteristic to produce maximum torque at low RPM, in fact most servo motors are designed to produce maximum torque at zero RPM. Take a good look a switching locamotive some time. If you look carefully you will find this big piece of metal that almost looks like chian link fence. Its the external rotor resistor that is switched in when the engineer starts up the train. It alters the speed/torque relationship to produce very high torque at very low RPM. Really makes the thing run badly at High RPM, so generally it gets shorted out as soon as the train is moving more than few miles per hour. They are also much smaller and ligher than their single phase counterparts. They have much lower starting currents than their single phase cousins as well, which means you don't need huge contactor to start them. I don't know what you do for a living, but I doubt your Education included a course in Rotating Electrical Machinery. Mine was taught by one Professor Donald W. Novotony, who wrote the book on Rotating Machines in the 1960's, recently retired as Professor of Electrical Engineering at the Univerity of Wisconsin. Professor Novotony was also a consultant to a number of motor manufacturers, generator makers, and Wisconsin Electric Power. James Matthew Weber Service Delivery Manager Diyar United Trading and Contracting Co. P.O. Box 44240 Hawalli 32057 State of Kuwait PH +965 434 0560 x 230 FAX +965 431 5107 Mobile +965 971 2069 From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Followup-To: poster Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:18 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California James Matthew Weber wrote: > >Yes, 3-P motors easily reverse. They have lots of advantages, & > >disadvantages to boot. One is, they need 3 phases to start. ... > Take a good look a switching locamotive some > time. If you look carefully you will find this big piece of metal that > almost looks like chian link fence. Its the external rotor resistor that is > switched in when the engineer starts up the train. Uh, are you still talking about three-phase motors? If so, then this is wrong. With the exception of some recent road locomotives, and perhaps some ancient electrics, locomotives use DC traction motors, not AC. At least those built or operated in North America. No Diesel-electric switchers have been built with AC motors to my knowledge. Perhaps you are thinking of the dynamic brake grid. To restrain a train on a long downgrade, without burning up a lot of brake shoes, the traction motors are used as generators with large resistor grids used to load them. (In a pure electric, the generated power can be fed back into the power feed, helping trains coming *up* the hill. This is called regenerative braking.) Dynamic brakes are used on road locomotives; switchers very rarely have them. [Obviously this tangent is way off the original thread and topic. Please followup if you like in e-mail, not by posting to the group.] -- 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 Jun 6 15:39:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:19 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: MD-11 Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >>There's no flaw, it's really just tail heavy. >> ...his first reaction was to pull the yoke >> back to arrest the rate of desent. Is it possible for an aircraft to be tail heavy when the CG of the average airliner must be within 10 to 40 percent of the MAC? > The horizontal stabilizer of the MD-11t is 60% of the area of the DC10's. >Therefore, the MD-11 does not respond quickly to pitch rate inputs and large >yoke inputs at touchdown should be avoided. The stab may be smaller on the MD-11 than on the DC-10 because of the increased moment arm with the longer fuselage of the MD. Like how the 747SP required a larger stab and tail because of its shorter moment arm compared to the standard 747. I'm just guessing here.... anybody know for sure? Matt Student Pilot 2.1PIC "Airline Pilot in Training", 747-400 Assembler. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:20 From: kullenberg@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: MD-11 Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion > Therefore, the MD-11 does not respond quickly to pitch rate inputs and large > yoke inputs at touchdown should be avoided. Actually quite the opposite is the case. While it's true the the horiz stab. in the MD-11, is smaller; since the plane is longer, the moment arm is greater, plus the elev has greater throw than the DC-10, and the cg envelope is greater. The result of this is that the MD-11 is not as highly damped as the DC-10, resulting in more pitch change for a given elev input. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: end of the line for the MD-11 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Last Wednesday, Boeing announced the termination of MD-11 production after completion of remaining orders. As of April 30, 1998, 178 MD-11s had been delivered and there were commitments (including orders, options, and "reserves," whatever those are) for another 22 aircraft. So, total MD-11 production will be at most 200 aircraft. The press release is available from http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1998/news_release_980603a.html and is also included below. -- 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 *** Boeing press release *** Boeing Announces Phase-Out Of MD-11 Jetliner Program SEATTLE, June 3, 1998 -- After months of assessing future sales prospects for the MD-11 jetliner, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group (BCAG) has determined that there is not sufficient market demand to warrant continued production beyond the current order base. Consequently, MD-11 production will be phased out with the delivery of orders now on hand, with the last delivery scheduled for February 2000. As of April 30, 1998, there were 22 commitments for MD-11s, including firm orders, options and reserves. "Despite our best marketing efforts, it became clear to us that there simply was not enough customer interest in either the passenger or freighter versions of this airplane to justify keeping the production line open," said BCAG President Ron Woodard. "Since our last MD-11 market forecast in November, demand for new MD-11 passenger and freighter aircraft has declined," Woodard said. The decision to discontinue MD-11 production at the end of the current order base will not result in a separate "special charge." Certain MD-11 program asset and liability valuation adjustments, however, are expected to be included in second-quarter operating earnings. "We will now turn our attention to completing production of the airplanes on order with the high quality our customers expect; and we will continue to provide world-class support to all MD-11 operators as long as the airplanes are in service," Woodard added. Approximately 3,750 Boeing employees work on the MD-11 program. About 3,000 employees work on the program at Long Beach and 600 employees manufacture MD-11 wings at the facility in Toronto, Ontario. Another 75 employees in Salt Lake City and 75 employees in Melbourne, Ark., also support the program. "I realize this is a painful decision for the many employees who have worked long and hard on the MD-11," Woodard said. "We will be producing the airplane for another 18 months and we'll use that time to explore opportunities for alternative work for these employees. But ultimately we will have to lay off employees for whom we do not have work." Last November, BCAG announced the phase-out of the MD-80/MD-90 twinjet program, with final delivery scheduled for January 2000. "This MD-11 announcement is not a signal that we are closing the Long Beach facility," Woodard said. "We have a skilled and experienced workforce there and our newest airplane -- the 717 -- will roll out of the Long Beach factory next week. We're also using the facility for finishing work on 737s. In addition, we're considering establishing a Next-Generation 737 production line there to assemble Boeing Business Jets, 737-700Cs and perhaps other versions of the airplane." The majority of the employment impact on the MD-11 program in Long Beach will not be felt until mid-1999. Other sites and external suppliers that support the program will begin feeling the impact earlier. Woodard said the company intends to place additional work at the Salt Lake City facility, but has not determined the final work package for the plant. He also said the company is looking at the possibility of placing additional temporary work in its Toronto, Ontario facility. The company is reviewing its options for the Melbourne, Ark., facility but has not made any decisions. The company announced earlier this year that it intended to transfer in excess of 1,000 employees who perform customer support and other functions at Douglas Products Division from Long Beach to the Seattle area. Woodard said that BCAG has since decided not to relocate most of those employees at this time in order to minimize cost and disruption. Consequently, BCAG will continue to provide customer support for MD-series aircraft from Long Beach. The MD-11 was launched in 1986 and completed its first flight on January 10, 1990. The aircraft entered service in December 1990. As of April 30, 1998, 178 MD-11s had been delivered in four versions: passenger; freighter; convertible freighter; and "combi." Prior to that, 446 DC-10s -- the predecessor to the MD-11 -- had been delivered, including 60 to the United States Air Force as KC-10 tanker/cargo aircraft. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:22 From: "Yves E. Hoebeke" Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprynet News Service William R. Winter wrote in article ... > MCLELLAN Alexander wrote: > > Bob Weinheimer asked: > > >When was the last time anyone saw an airline use more than > > >one door to load or unload a large jet? > > > > Last February I flew KLM from Schipol to Toronto. Passengers boarded > > the 747 through two doors. It takes much less time than 1 door. > > May 18, 1998 Burbank,CA > Alaska 507 MD 80 (Front and rear doors no gateway) Also at Long Beach, CA and Ontario, CA. No jetways... Also out of the Aero (Boeing pub.) January issue: Aircraft: B757-200 14F150Y Entry/Exit Enplane Deplane Door 1 (Front left): 26.0min 12.5min Door 2 26.0min 11.5min Door 1&2 23.0min 09.0min Door 1&2 (*) 12.0min 08.0min (*) "Outside-in method": window seats first, then middle and last aile seats) To get total turn-around time you need to factor in luggage/cargo operations, cabin cleaning, fueling and galley servicing. Yves. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:23 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >I have seen stats from engine manufacturers on in-flight shutdowns per >thousand hours of operation, though. According to an article in Flight >International from June 4, 1988, the GE CF6-80C2 had "an engine-caused >in-flight shutdown rate of 0.009 per 1,000 flying hours." A subsequent >article in the April 1, 1989 issue of the same publication claimed the >CAA requirement for 120-minute ETOPS was that "the engine type must have >a shutdown rate of fewer than 0.05 per 1,000 flights," with plans to >tighten that to 0.03 in the future. Odd that the regulation supposedly >was written in terms of rate per 1,000 *flights*, versus per 1,000 hours >as in the GE statistics. I don't know if that's really the way the >regulations are (were) written of if it's just an error in the article, >Rate per 1,000 hours makes more sense to me. I am ignorant of the progression of ETOPS regulations. However, nowadays, to get ETOPS the engine type must have inflight shutdown (IFSD) rate of less than 0.02 per 1,000 flight *hours*. The PW4000-94inch and CF6-80C2 are running neck-to-neck, both have IFSD rate at about 0.008 per 1,000 flight hours. The RB.211-524G/H is slightly worse, but not by much. The PW4000-100inch (for the A330) and PW4000-112inch (for the B777) have pretty low IFSD rates, so does the GE90 (but I think that's because GE is "babying" the engines in the field). If my sources are correct, I believe the Trent engines are not doing very well in this category. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:24 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL 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: : Odd that the regulation supposedly : was written in terms of rate per 1,000 *flights*, versus per 1,000 hours : as in the GE statistics. I don't know if that's really the way the : regulations are (were) written of if it's just an error in the article, : Rate per 1,000 hours makes more sense to me. Their minds must be back in the piston engine era, when the take off stress was the major cause of engine problems. -- Gerry From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:25 From: Scott Macmillan Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Up2U In article , Robin Peel writes >I am looking for information about the the DH Trident, Hello Robin. DH Trident? Dont you mean HS Trident. Hawker Siddeley that is. Anyway, check at http://www.zoomoon.ndirect.co.uk/ This site has aircraft in various UK airline colours for FS98. There is a BA Trident on there, and it may have some info on the aircraft in the docs. Also you could try http://www.landings.com/ There is a huge data base of info on aircraft, airlines and lots more at this site. Happy landings. -- Scott Macmillan GM7OMU, IO75tv Glasgow, Scotland, UK. From kls Sat Jun 6 15:39:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jun 98 15:39:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >DH Trident? >Dont you mean HS Trident. >Hawker Siddeley that is. No, it was originally designed by de Havilland, their DH.121 model. (I thought I had previously heard it called the DH.191. Anyone know which is really correct?) It became the HS.121 Trident when Hawker-Siddeley took over de Havilland. I believe the Trident name post-dated the take- over, so DH Trident is probably incorrect, but DH is not. -- 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 Jun 8 02:57:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:49 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: NG737 performance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. I was told today by a friend in Boeing Flight Test that the winglets fitted to the Boeing Business Jet, which is actually a New Generation 737-700, have reduced the airplane's fuel consumption by at least 3 percent so far at the speeds, altitudes, and attitudes at which they have been tested, and even better performance is anticipated. The performance increase is significant enough that consideration is being given to removing one of the BBJ's long-range fuel tanks which will, of course, increase the payload. At least one commercial carrier has ordered winglets for their passenger NG737s. The winglets can be added to any of the NG737 Series, and are made of composite materials reinforced by a metal structure. So far, the operators of NG737s are very happy with them. Cruise performance in terms of speed and fuel consumption is proving to be better than what Boeing predicted, and dispatch reliability rates are exceeding 99 percent. According to my friend, the only persistent problem has been the tendency for the bulbs in some of the flight deck indicator lights to last only about 30 hours. The problem is being worked on. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jun 8 02:57:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:50 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Gerard Foley wrote: > Their minds must be back in the piston engine era, when the take off > stress was the major cause of engine problems. Has this changed with jet engines ? I would have though that it would still have been during takeoff that jet engines failed. (Although one could contend that during landing, when thrust reversers are deployed, there would be stress too). Since the purpose of ETOPS is to allow planes to go far, we're talking about low number of cycles and high number of hours. Perhaps statistics look less scary when you're talking number of hours as opposed to number of flights. From kls Mon Jun 8 02:57:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:51 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc****@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > I am ignorant of the progression of ETOPS regulations. [SNIP] If my > sources are correct, I believe the Trent engines are not doing very well > in this category. Part of the problem of the Trents are the T700 which are mounted on the A330 and which were responsible for the grounding of this type some 9 months back. What's the story with the T800 which are mounted on the 777. Does someone of the list have access to the stats ? Ian maybe ;) -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Mon Jun 8 02:57:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:52 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: airliner market analysis [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > > > >When was the last time anyone saw an airline use more than > > > >one door to load or unload a large jet? Qantas uses 2 doors on 747s. Interestingly, the forward door is no longer exclusive to the rich folks up front. Qantas sends FG HIJ pax through the first door and directs them to the starboard aisle, while ABC DE pax take the second door and are directed in the port aisle. This worked well at the end of the flight. But for loading, there is still the bottlenecks because so many pax still block the aisle to stowe their portable home in the overhead bin. From kls Mon Jun 8 02:57:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:53 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM MechB747 wrote: > The wings on a 747 flex A LOT on take-off... > I think the 747 wings may be less stiff because of the additional weight of > the engines help to "pull" the wing down against the lifting force. > Aircraft that have engines mounted on the fuselage and not on the wings, like > 727s and DC-9s, actually have to have stronger wings because of this. During take off, with tanks filled to the brim, are there any general guidelines as to the percentages of weight each of the following represents ? -fuel -engines -aircraft itself. -passengers/cargo Would these vary significantly between different aircraft types from the bae-146 up to an AN-124 or B747 ? If engines are a lot lighther than the fuel, then once at cruise, the wings would have a lot of available strength to support the engines once much of the fuel has been burned since the wings would have to be designed to lift a whole lot more at take off. Correct ? Also, am I right in assuming that lift is not evenly produced along the length of the wing ? (eg: less lift generated near wing-tip ?). Would that also not contribute to the placement of engines ? You'd want the heavier stuff nearest to the area where the greatest lift is being produced, right ? Or aerodynamic considerations much more important in selecting placement of engines ? From kls Mon Jun 8 02:57:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:54 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral 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: >>(caveat: because the tail engine on the DC-10 was off the centreline viz. >>one engine out scenario) > >The L-1011 has the same issue. Are you thinking of the fact that the >DC-10's #2 engine is so high above the centerline, whereas the L-1011's >is right on it? That would affect pitch, not yaw, which is what the >placement of the wing engines influences. If the #2 engine on either >aircraft is shut down, it simply because a sluggish twin. >My understanding was that the DC-10's wing engines are closer to the >fuselage than those on the L-1011 because they didn't want to put an >enormous tail and rudder on the thing. This is at least partly an >artifact of the #2 engine placement -- the L-1011 appears to have >greater rudder area, without significantly different tail height, >because the S-duct allowed them to get the engine out of the way. Yes I wasn't clear enough in my little caveat. The DC-10s engine above the centreline (red herring word in retrospect) affected yaw only indirectly via the resulting small rudder. No. 2 engine out is not the issue. No 1 or 3 was/is. The DC-10 engines had to be more inboard to reduce thrust assymetry affects and keep the small rudder effective should engine 1 or 3 fail. -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Mon Jun 8 02:57:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:55 From: "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >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. Not on a Singapore Airlines B777-200. They seat only 286 in a three class configuration, so imagine the large legroom available even on economy class!!!!!! Bob From kls Mon Jun 8 02:57:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:56 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 ... >>People say flying on a 777 is like having your knees placed in your >>mouth. >Not on a Singapore Airlines B777-200. They seat only 286 in a three class >configuration, so imagine the large legroom available even on economy >class!!!!!! UA only had six more seats in theirs, a total of 292. Their newest ones have even fewer seats, a total of 278 (officially 272 because they no longer count the six crew rest seats) but the two rows of Y seats which were removed went entirely to add space to F. So, Singapore's 286 could still result in lousy seating for those in Y if they gave all the space to those up front. -- 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 Jun 8 02:57:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:57 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: MD-11 Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net On 06 Jun 98 15:39:20 , kullenberg@my-dejanews.com wrote: >While it's true the the horiz stab. in the MD-11 is smaller, >since the plane is longer, the moment arm is greater, plus the >elev has greater throw than the DC-10...The result...the MD-11 >is not as highly damped as the DC-10, resulting in more pitch >change for a given elev input. I'm not sure about the greater throw aspect mentioned above, but I do know in addition that the horizontal stabilizer and elevators of the MD-11 are significantly more efficient at creating lift than those of the DC-10. The DC-10 used symmetrical airfoil shapes, MD-11 uses assymmetrical and, I think, supercritical airfoil shapes for the stab/elevs. __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Mon Jun 8 02:57:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:58 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc****@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > Last Wednesday, Boeing announced the termination of MD-11 production > after completion of remaining orders. Im not surprised of the decision but surprised that the decision was taken that fast. I expected such a decision not before the end of the year. So far LH hasn't converted to firm orders the 3 new options. I believe -- or should I better say believed -- that the decision of LH to choose a second time the MD11F would have made the choice for other prime companies easier. Looking at this Boeing decision, Airbus should have axed for a long time it's A310 and A300 lines ! > As of April 30, 1998, 178 MD-11s > had been delivered and there were commitments (including orders, > options, and "reserves," whatever those are) for another 22 aircraft. > So, total MD-11 production will be at most 200 aircraft. To the best of my knowledge total orders are 191. It is a pretty safe bet to say that some of the customers will cancel their remaining orders, since the value of the MD11 will take a deep drop. Why spend money on sth that will be axed ? My views, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Mon Jun 8 02:57:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:57:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Looking at this Boeing decision, Airbus should have axed for a long time >it's A310 and A300 lines ! It's pretty amazing that Airbus has kept those lines going. However, there's significant commonality between them and the A330/A340 so it may not be as expensive as it seems. In the case of the MD-11, there might be a little bit of cockpit commonality with the C-17 (I think I heard that they share the same windshield) but that's about it. >To the best of my knowledge total orders are 191. So 9 options/reserves? > It is a pretty safe bet to say that some of the customers will cancel > their remaining orders, since the value of the MD11 will take a deep > drop. I see no reason to expect that MD-11 values will plummet. With nearly 200 of them built, and substantial commonality with the DC-10, it's not like they're rare orphans. The MD-80 didn't drop in value once Boeing announced termination of that program, and for that matter 727 values still aren't that bad considering how long they've been out of production. The MD-11's proven value as freighters will no doubt support prices, too. -- 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 Jun 8 02:58:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:00 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: 737NG (was: Seating Pitch) References: <34F1BFA3.20DA@sanspam.kodak.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , alexnieves1@juno.com (Alex J Nieves) wrote: > All the Boeing narrow bodies have the same uncomfortable fuselage > diameter. Actually, to me, it seems as though the 757 is even narrower. > You are correct in your assumption as far as I know. Also, one reason > that Boeing kept the same nose design for the 737NG is because it is so > widely recognized around the world, and changing it would lose the > recognition. As I have stated in other posts to other aviation groups when this subject has come up, there is NO commonality between the 757 fuselage and the 707/727/737 fuselage. The 757 fuselage was an all-new design and is in fact very slightly wider in cross section than the earlier planes, although for all practical purposes the cabin interior widths are the same. I used to think all four fuselages were identical, too, until I was corrected by a senior design engineer and a 757 factory manager when I was producing a video about 757 production back in the early 1980s. Recognition had nothing to do with retaining the existing 737 41 Section design in the New Generation series: I believe this decision was based entirely on the need to keep the design and production costs as low as possible. As thre was no major reason to change the existing design, why spend the money to change it? The only thing I'd like to know is why the eyebrow windows were retained. For a series of videos I am producing, we have been flying in 737s (and every other Boeing model) all over the world. In most cases, the airline crews block the eyebrow windows with whatever they can find. For instance, the Istanbul Airlines crew we flew with had wedged a Kleenex box into the window. I would have thought if the windows serve no function and if crews don't like them, it would have been a simple matter to skin over the window openings without changing the design or tooling. Perhaps retaining the windows satisfied some sort of certification requirement. I don't know. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:01 From: "massengale.atlanta" Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >No, it was originally designed by de Havilland, their DH.121 model. (I >thought I had previously heard it called the DH.191. Anyone know which >is really correct?) It became the HS.121 Trident when Hawker-Siddeley >took over de Havilland. I believe the Trident name post-dated the take- >over, so DH Trident is probably incorrect, but DH is not. Credit for the Trident goes to deHavilland as the design specs laid down by BEA in 1956 resulted in a project called the DH 119 using four RR Avon R. A. 29s. A brief effort to incorporate a BOAC long range spec resulted in another design called the DH 120, but when the latter ordered the VC-10, deHavillands again focused on the BEA requirement. This design, the DH121, was the final result of some political wrangling whereby a consortium consisting of deHavilland, Fairey and Hunting was retained to produce the aircraft type. This was semi-finalised in 1958 with selection of the RR R. B 141, revised finally in 1959 to include the RR Spey engines. deHavilland merged in 1959 with the Hawker-Siddeley group and the consortium was dissolved. (This information was published in 1962 in "Turbine-Engined Airliners of the World" by F. G. Swanborough, Temple Press Books before the first Trident delivery took place.) Incidentally, according to "Airliners Magazine" in an article published in its Spring, 1992 edition, a total of 117 Tridents were built and 116 delivered between 1963 and 1978. [Moderator's Note: So what happened to the remaining Trident? Was it a prototype which was retained by HS? -- Karl] Regards, Marshall H. Massengale, Atlanta From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:02 From: "elysium" Subject: Re: Embraer 145 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa travelcarl1@webtv.net wrote in message ... >Has anyone else out there flown in the ERJ? >WHAT AN AWESOME PLANE! >I rode the IAH-ICT run with CO express and was most impressed. Compared >to the Canadair regional jet, it "feels" faster, and has windows you >can actually see out of. (the Canadair CRJ has windows that are mounted >very low in relation to the seats) A slightly higher cabin noise level >than the CRJ just adds to a sportier feel, but it is still far quieter >than any of the larger jets. The 2X1 seating arrangement makes me >wonder why anyone would fly on a larger plane if they had a choice. I >hope the skies are black with these things! Silk purse out of a sows' ear ? I thought the Brasilia was ghastly. The seating config' is good, rather like the 2X3 on the DC-9/Md-80 it gives more aisle per seat and enhances service. >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:03 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Cross crew qualification Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*SPAMNO*@cmdnet.lu Airbus Training has set up short difference training courses to obtain the new type rating when the applicant holds one of the family as base aircraft. This is known as Cross Crew Qualification (CCQ). Converting from A320 to A330 takes 11 days, A320 to A340: 13 days, A340 to A320: 11 days, A330 to A340: 3 days, A340 to A330: 1 days. What I am interested in is to know the training days which are needed for the Boeing models. The 757 and 767 share the same cockpit, but all other Boeing birds are different. IIRC the 737NG can however display the 777 layout or the 737 2G layout, so that training should be quite reduced. What about the other conversions : 737 2G to 757 // 737 2G to 777 // 757 to 777 // 757 to 747 // 777 to 747 Any insiders ? -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Mon Jun 8 02:58:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:04 From: "Arron Shore" Subject: FAA certification of AN-2 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Micron Semiconductor, Inc. What is the chance of getting a commercial certification from the FAA for the Russian/Polish AN-2 "Annie"? If you can't get a commercial certification for an airplane what options are there for making an income from it? I would like to own an AN-2 but unless there is a way to make an income from it, there really isn't much of a chance. Any help would be greatly appreciated Thanks, Arron From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:05 From: mba340@club-internet.fr (Benoit) Subject: Re: 747-312 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Grolier Interactive Europe Reply-To: mba340@club-internet.fr On 17 May 98 00:42:50 , "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" wrote: >Anyone has information on the B747-312s that SIA is currently phasing >out??? Who will be their new owner??? What about the fate of the three >B747-312s currently on lease to Ansett Australia, who is believed to be >returning them to SIA??? French Company, CORSAIR, bought one last year. From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:06 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: 50 years of jet service Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*SPAMNO*@cmdnet.lu On the 02-May-52 Comet 1 G-ALYP started the time of commercial jet air service. The flight operated the London Heathrow-Johannesburg (via Rome, Cairo, Khartoum, Entebbe and Livingstone) route. The same frame was lost on 10-Jan-54. To the best of my knowledge the only Comet 1 frame which survived is frame 6022, a former Comet 1A delivered to Air France as F-BGNZ. It was converted in Mar-57 to Mk 1XB standard and was reregistered XM823. It was the last airworthy Ghost powered Comet. Its final flight was on 08-Apr-68. As G-APAS it is preserved at Cosford Aerospace Museum. The idea ... is to celebrate the fifty years anniversary of commercial jet air service on 02-May-2002 by getting the sole remaining Comet 1 frame back in the air. To start, detailed informations about the actual condition of this ship would be of great help. Any contacts with former DH employees would be appreciated. You may contact Marshall Massengale at mailto:massengale.atlanta@mci2000.com and/or Marc Schaeffer at mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com for further informations. A special section has been setup on the DH Comet website at http://surf.to/comet Any help is highly appreciated, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Mon Jun 8 02:58:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:07 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Another route which was named was SIN-SFO. I believe that the SIA order > can be considered as a very important signal for the future orders in > this category. The choice of the Japaneese carriers and of NW should be > pretty clear. I don't believe that the 772X can get off the ground with > orders from AA and DL, their exclusive suppliers agreement would imply > a huge dsicount. Also the total orders won't be sufficient to get the > bird launched. Boeing is supposedly still experiencing delivery problems. (Not sure if this affects the 777 line). Could this not be an important factor in an airline making a decision against a Boeing product ? Has Boeing lost credibility in making delivery promises ? I am not an airline, but if I were, I would be cautious about any delivery promises made by Boeing in the short term, especially for a plane that is not yet in production. Hence, by being "realistic" about real deliveries one could expect, the 777 product may not fit an airline's needs and hence the airline would go for the equivalent Airbus product. Is that a fair assumption ? From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:08 From: zirkball@aol.com (Zirkball) Subject: Climb profile-- A340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com An A340 pilot friend of mine recently explained to me that the climb gradient for his A340 (as well as most other commercial a/c) as well as the rate of climb slowly diminishes as the aircraft climbs into less dense air, until stabilizing at about 500 fpm around 24000'. I have noticed that the gradient is about 3-4 percent during the first 10000 feet and then seems to reduce to about 1.5% up in the flight levels. Can anyone shed some light on this? (This example of course assumes that ATC is not assigning altitudes and is leaving it up to the pilot). zirkball From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:09 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University > >I seem to recall that it was a 727 ... > > Nope. Southern never had any 727s as far as I know. In any case, the > accident in question, which took place on April 4, 1977, involved a > DC-9-31, registration N1335U. Shows how memory can fade over twenty years... > Incidentally, most or all of the > fatalities occurred because the port wingtip caught an embankment just > after touching down on the highway, and this caused the plane to veer > to the left off the highway, right into a gasoline station. The impact > killed both pilots and 31 passengers; another 20 passengers died in the > fire. Eight people on the ground also died. Yup, that was the one. Thanks for the expert correction. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:10 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Part of the "public image" of engines is that they are supposed to be able to ingest/digest frozen turkeys without damage. Right ? So, if engines are supposed to be able to ingest turkeys, why would golf ball sized hail cause it damage ? Also, would a gold ball sized piece of hail melt on its way through an engine or would it not have time to melt ? (and just be shredded). From kls Mon Jun 8 02:58:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jun 98 02:58:11 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Part of the "public image" of engines is that they are supposed to be >able to ingest/digest frozen turkeys without damage. Right ? Not frozen. There's a joke about how the Brits borrowed a turkey cannon from the FAA for a locomotive and destroyed half the cab. They asked if they had done something wrong and the FAA said "thaw the turkeys." >So, if engines are supposed to be able to ingest turkeys, why would golf >ball sized hail cause it damage ? In the case of the Southern DC-9, it was a surge caused by all the water, not FOD, which caused the damage. As long as all the bits of turkey remained a relatively solid chunks, the engines are probably ok. In the case of the recent ValuJet, er, AirTran incident, it was not engine damage but windshield damage. Ok, so that's supposed to be able to take a direct turkey hit, just like the engines. I can only guess that a large and sustained number of hail hits may be worse than one turkey. -- 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 news Tue Jun 9 11:19:56 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: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X Date: 09 Jun 1998 13:11:39 -0400 Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com Approved: hrose@kei.com Message-ID: References: >Boeing is supposedly still experiencing delivery problems. (Not sure if >this affects the 777 line). Could this not be an important factor in an >airline making a decision against a Boeing product ? >Has Boeing lost credibility in making delivery promises ? >I am not an airline, but if I were, I would be cautious about any >delivery promises made by Boeing in the short term, especially for a >plane that is not yet in production. Hence, by being "realistic" about >real deliveries one could expect, the 777 product may not fit an >airline's needs and hence the airline would go for the equivalent Airbus >product. >Is that a fair assumption ? The production problems are primarily plaguing the 737 production line, though I think all the lines have been affected to a lesser extent, but I don't believe that its affected deliveries other than 737's. Actually, someone lookint to get their hands on 777's or 747's and possibly even 767's might be in a good position because of the Asian financila woes. There are probably several carriers there who might be willing to sell some of their delivery slots ... From kls Tue Jun 16 02:14:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:51 From: "Robert J. Carpenter" Subject: Musee de l'Air et de l'Espace, Paris Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org You might be interested in the Web site of the Paris Air and Space Museum, located at Le Bourguet airport. http://www.mae.org/ This is one of the world's best air museums, and their site has photos of dozens of their planes, as well as sparse text in French. Bob Carpenter From kls Tue Jun 16 02:14:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:52 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*****@cmdnet.lu JF Mezei wrote: > Boeing is supposedly still experiencing delivery problems. (Not sure if > this affects the 777 line). To the best of my knowledge the 777 is the line which is the less affected with delivery problems. > Could this not be an important factor in an > airline making a decision against a Boeing product ? It is for sure not increasing the confidence of the customers. > Has Boeing lost credibility in making delivery promises ? Looking at the comment of the Transavia boss (who gets his 737NG late) yes. He said that he was happy to test an AI product in the meantime ... > I am not an airline, but if I were, I would be cautious about any > delivery promises made by Boeing in the short term, especially for a > plane that is not yet in production. I would not confirm this. As example take the 764 or 753 programs which are on time. Boeing has a tremendous developping potential, and believe me if they tell the customers that a new ship will be developed for day x it will be like that. Getting then the birds out in time as production ramps up, has proven to be a different issue. But here we are talking production logistics and not engineering. > Hence, by being "realistic" about > real deliveries one could expect, the 777 product may not fit an > airline's needs and hence the airline would go for the equivalent Airbus > product. I tend to say that the four engine vs. two engine issue has a higher impact on very long range flights. My views, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Jun 16 02:14:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:53 From: p.lambourne@research-int.com Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , marcmscNOSPAMNO@cmdnet.lu wrote: >I don't believe that the 772X can get off the ground with > orders from AA and DL, their exclusive suppliers agreement would imply > a huge dsicount. Also the total orders won't be sufficient to get the > bird launched. The question is : can Boeing get within the next months > orders or LOIs for the 772X from the Japaneese. If Boeing does not launch the 772X then it is fair to say that Airbus will have a product in the A340-500 that Boeing does not offer. Do the exclusive supplier aggrements for AA & DL mean that they cannot buy the A340, and therefore will not be able to compete with other airlines on very long thin routes? Patrick -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Tue Jun 16 02:14:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:54 From: coggs@cogwheel.comREMOVE_THIS (Bob Coggeshall) Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cogwheel, Inc. Reply-To: coggs@cogwheel.comREMOVE_THIS WRT the SIA order for A340's; Keep in mind SG's geographics. Is it not true that the A34X is the only viable choice that'll do N.America from Singapore non-stop ? == Bob Coggeshall Cogwheel coggs[at]cogwheel.com (+1)206-230-6445 677 NE 120th / Suite 162 www.cogwheel.com (+1)206-236-2553(fax) Bellevue, Washington, (USA) 98005-3002 From kls Tue Jun 16 02:14:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:55 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >WRT the SIA order for A340's; Keep in mind SG's geographics. Is it not >true that the A34X is the only viable choice that'll do N.America >from Singapore non-stop ? It is not true. That's the whole point of this thread -- Singapore considered the A340-500 and 777-200X to both be technically capable of doing the job, or at least that's what the said in public. Their stated reason for choosing the A340-500 was price. AW&ST had some interesting comments on the order. They noted that the order for only five A340-500s was insufficient to cover all of SIA's planned flying, and suggested that SIA might yet order the 777-200X -- in addition to the A340-500. According to the article, one of SIA's demands was the right to cancel the order with no penalty in the event of Boeing being unable to secure 180-minute ETOPS out of the box. I suppose that's reasonable from the airline's point of view (Virgin passed up the 777 in favor of the A340 because they expected it would take six months or more to secure ETOPS authority and without it the 777 was essentially useless to them) but it's hard to see how SIA could reasonably expect Boeing to eat $1 billion (figuring five planes at ~$200 million per plane) or more if a government agency decided to yank their chain even a little bit. -- 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 Jun 16 02:14:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:56 From: Philip Morten Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Southampton Hall of Aviation Reply-To: prmorte@ibm.net Karl Swartz wrote: > > >DH Trident? > > >Dont you mean HS Trident. > > >Hawker Siddeley that is. > > No, it was originally designed by de Havilland, their DH.121 model. (I > thought I had previously heard it called the DH.191. Anyone know which > is really correct?) It became the HS.121 Trident when Hawker-Siddeley > took over de Havilland. I believe the Trident name post-dated the take- > over, so DH Trident is probably incorrect, but DH is not. No, you are right, the Trident was the D.H. 121; although the de Havilland company became part of HS in 1960 and the Trident first flew in 1962 the Trident continued to be known by the original company's name for a few years. For example, the 1963 Observer's Book of Aircraft lists it under DH but by the 1964 edition it is in the HS section. Philip Morten From kls Tue Jun 16 02:14:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:57 From: Graham Glen Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ain't nobody here but us chickens > >[Moderator's Note: So what happened to the remaining Trident? Was it a >prototype which was retained by HS? -- Karl] One was lost in a test flight in 1966 whilst investigating stall behaviour. The aircraft entered a "super-stall", and no spin recovery chute was fitted. Regards Graham -- Graham Glen graham@irving.demon.co.uk ".. and it always was possible to measure the distance between so-called management and the so-called creative by the time it took for a memo to go in one direction and a half-brick to come back in the other." Dennis Potter From kls Tue Jun 16 02:14:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:58 From: "C. Elberfeld" <*SPAMNOT*elberfeld@sprintmail.com> Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: *SPAMNOT*elberfeld@sprintmail.com > > [Moderator's Note: So what happened to the remaining Trident? Was it a > prototype which was retained by HS? -- Karl] One was lost on a test flight in 1966 after entering a deep stall. A deep stall also caused the BEA Trident crash at Staines in 1972, claiming the lives of all aboard (around 118). How that aircraft fell victim to a deep stall, in spite of both having both stick shaker and "stick pusher" systems was the subject of an extensive investigation. The conclusion, in short, was a breakdown of crew co-ordination, brought on by the probable incapacitation of the captain. The excact sequence of events was never determined, beacause CVR's (Cockpit Voice Recorders) were not required on UK registered aircraft prior to this accident. My question for the newsgroup: Why did the UK authorities wait so long to require CVR's (long after the FAA did)? From kls Tue Jun 16 02:14:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:14:59 From: massengale.atlanta Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > >[Moderator's Note: So what happened to the remaining Trident? Was it a >prototype which was retained by HS? -- Karl] Trident 1C G-ARPY (msn 2126), intended for BEA, crashed at Felthorpe, Norfolk, England on 3 June 66 on its maiden test flight. Regards, Marshall H. Massengale, Atlanta From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:00 From: Robin Peel Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD Thank you all for the information and links. I built a first draft of the DH 121 (HS Trident) for the X-Plane simulator, in the last BEA livery, and it looks good and flies well. Just waiting for a book order to arrive from the UK to finalise the weights and V speedsn... I am surprised how late the Trident was produced - those built in 1978 must have had a very short service life. I am assuming none are still flying (not even in China?). - Robin. -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:01 From: Philip Morten Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Southampton Hall of Aviation Reply-To: prmorte@ibm.net > > [Moderator's Note: So what happened to the remaining Trident? Was it a > prototype which was retained by HS? -- Karl] No, the missing aircraft was the penultimate Trident 1C for BEA, G-ARPY, which was destroyed in deep stall crash during its maiden flight on 3 Jun 66 killing the pilots George Errington and Peter Barlow and two other crew. de Havilland Aircraft since 1909, A J Jackson, Putnam, ISBN 0 85177 802 X Philip Morten From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:02 From: "HatCat" Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Rochester N.Y. (716)-777-SURF Sounds similar to how the DH146 became HS146, then BAe146, and finally Avro146 and Avro RJ70/85/100/115. Wacky world, eh? JD From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:03 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Karl Swartz wrote: > No, it was originally designed by de Havilland, their DH.121 model. (I > thought I had previously heard it called the DH.191. Anyone know which > is really correct?) The DeHavilland numbering system ended at about 126. According to my sources, the DH.126 became the HS.136, then the HS.146 and finally the BAe-146 that we all know and love(?) today. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:04 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >>UA has their 777's set with a TIGHT seating arrangment ... > >>People say flying on a 777 is like having your knees placed in your > >>mouth. > > >Not on a Singapore Airlines B777-200. They seat only 286 in a three class > >configuration, so imagine the large legroom available even on economy > >class!!!!!! > > UA only had six more seats in theirs, a total of 292. Their newest ones > have even fewer seats, a total of 278 (officially 272 because they no > longer count the six crew rest seats) but the two rows of Y seats which > were removed went entirely to add space to F. So, Singapore's 286 could > still result in lousy seating for those in Y if they gave all the space > to those up front. Along these lines, I was surprised at how uncomfortable Cathay Pacific's economy class is on the A330. Although they have one of the best economy class seats I've ever experienced, they jam them in so tight that when the seat in front of you reclines, it completely jams you in -- there's simply no way to get out, if you're not a contortionist, without having the person in front lift his seat back. Here too, it seems to be a case of giving all the space to the folks in front. 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 Jun 16 02:15:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:05 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*****@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > >Looking at this Boeing decision, Airbus should have axed for a long time > >it's A310 and A300 lines ! > > It's pretty amazing that Airbus has kept those lines going. However, > there's significant commonality between them and the A330/A340 so it > may not be as expensive as it seems. Right in addition it would dig a hole in the Airbus models, between the A321 and the A332. > >To the best of my knowledge total orders are 191. > > So 9 options/reserves? Concerning options LH has 3 which are supposed to be converted (approved by the board) the other 3 options are due in Nov-98. To the best of my knowledge EVA Air holds another two options. This sums up at 8. But what the heck is a reserve ? Never heard of this before in this business ! Maybe someone can enlighten me ?!? > I see no reason to expect that MD-11 values will plummet. With nearly > 200 of them built, and substantial commonality with the DC-10, it's not > like they're rare orphans. Ok maybe I was too pessimistic. Again time will tell us ... My views, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Jun 16 02:15:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:06 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , marcmsc****@cmdnet.lu wrote: > To the best of my knowledge total orders are 191. It is a pretty safe > bet to say that some of the customers will cancel their remaining > orders, since the value of the MD11 will take a deep drop. Why spend > money on sth that will be axed ? Well, ask TWA, who recently got Boeing to extend MD-80 production past the scheduled cutoff date so they could order some 20-odd additional aircraft. If the aircraft fits your needs and you'll be using them for some time, it may well make sense to order a couple extra. I wouldn't be surprised to see that happening in this case. eg Lufthansa might still take up their options, and Finnair might take on a few more. Since FedEx had proven itself willing to scoop up just about any Douglas trijet that comes on the market, resale values haven't taken that much of a dive. 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 Jun 16 02:15:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:07 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Im not surprised of the decision but surprised that the decision was > taken that fast. I suspect that the decision was made by Boeing before Boeing announced it would buy McD. I am sure Boeing did its homework and decided a lot of stuff before buying. But PR requires that you carefully choose the time when you release "bad" news. > Looking at this Boeing decision, Airbus should have axed for a long time > it's A310 and A300 lines ! 2 points: I would think that the current A310s (600?) have a fair bit in common with the newer AI planes, whereas the DC-10/MD-11 has nothing in common with Boeing planes, from a manufacturing point of view. There *seems* to be a trend in commercial airlines making every effort to dump their MD11s to anyone who would want them (aka: FEDex). With used MD11s available second hand, and a limited market to buy them, prospects for new sales are not good. What I find interesting is that DC10 operators don't seem to try so hard to dump their DC10s whereas those who own MD11s seem more active at shedding them. Is this a correct observation? From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:08 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 08 Jun 98 02:57:59 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >> It is a pretty safe bet to say that some of the customers will cancel >> their remaining orders, since the value of the MD11 will take a deep >> drop. > >I see no reason to expect that MD-11 values will plummet. With nearly >200 of them built, and substantial commonality with the DC-10, it's not >like they're rare orphans. The MD-80 didn't drop in value once Boeing >announced termination of that program, and for that matter 727 values >still aren't that bad considering how long they've been out of >production. Didn't the TWA MD-80 order happen *after* Boeing announced the end of that program? One of the reasons that companies announce end-of-production is so that potential customers know that they'd better place an order sooner rather than later... Malc. From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:09 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > Last Wednesday, Boeing announced the termination of MD-11 production > after completion of remaining orders. >Im not surprised of the decision but surprised that the decision was >taken that fast. I expected such a decision not before the end of the >year. The reason we were given here in Long Beach for the quick decision was part order lead times. The company had to make a commitment in the short term to order parts to build the MD-11throughout the year 2000. As you may know, the more parts you order, the cheaper the price you can negotiate on the individual part. So if you buy a year's worth of production parts, you can get them cheaper than if you buy three months' worth or even six months' worth. Production positions for the year 2000 were not sold out, and the expectation that they would be sold out in the near future was low. While there were customers interested in the aircraft, none were ready to buy right now. Another reason, though inofficial, is that they are investing money to modify the production facilities to accomodate the 737 final assembly work - perhaps they felt there wasn't enough room here for three lines. I'll add the standard disclaimer about these being my opinions and not BCAG's. Colleen Wabiszewski colleen.m.wabiszewski@boeing.com From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:10 From: Andrew Muir Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing - Wichita Division Reply-To: nospamAndrew.Muir@Boeing.Com Karl Swartz wrote: > In the case of the recent ValuJet, er, AirTran incident, it was not > engine damage but windshield damage. Ok, so that's supposed to be > able to take a direct turkey hit, just like the engines. I can only > guess that a large and sustained number of hail hits may be worse than > one turkey. I think the requirement is that the Windshield keep out a "turkey", not remain transparent after impact. I think Shattering and Crazing is OK, provided the "turkey" doesn't enter the cockpit or cause decompression. The assumption being, it would have to be a pretty big bird to shatter both pilot amd co-pilot's windshields. Anyway, that was what was required when I was peripherially involved with the T-46 canopy bird strike tests. So, I believe that the Air Tran windshield worked as required, no decompression. Unfortunately, the requirement did not anticipate flying into such a sevre hail storm where crazing and shattering would destroy visability for both pilots. From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:11 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Don't be silly. Using a combination of fingers and keyboard, , Karl Swartz typed >>Part of the "public image" of engines is that they are supposed to be >>able to ingest/digest frozen turkeys without damage. Right ? > >Not frozen. There's a joke about how the Brits borrowed a turkey cannon >from the FAA for a locomotive and destroyed half the cab. They asked if >they had done something wrong and the FAA said "thaw the turkeys." Why would British Rail borrow an FAA cannon when both British Rail Engineering Ltd and Rolls-Royce are based in Derby ? (Tho' I have heard the story being the Yanks borrowed the RR cannon(s) and made the frozen boob.) [Moderator's note: Perhaps it's just a joke? -- Karl] s'pose you all know the correct attitude for the duck to be fired in at ? Tail first, with head tucked undr a wing. Simulates the real life case, where the bird thinks "What's that noise behind me?....Oh sh..."splat. Anyone mentioned the cat event ? ---------------------- Big-Iain From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:12 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*****@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > Ok, so that's supposed to be > able to take a direct turkey hit, just like the engines. I can only > guess that a large and sustained number of hail hits may be worse than > one turkey. So IIUC it is time that the FAA and JAA change their test procedures :o) -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Jun 16 02:15:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:13 From: Subject: Re: DC-9 Hail damage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArgoNet, but does not reflect its views Reply-To: In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>Part of the "public image" of engines is that >>they are supposed to be able to ingest/digest >>frozen turkeys without damage. Right ? >Not frozen. There's a joke about how the Brits >borrowed a turkey cannon from the FAA for a >locomotive and destroyed half the cab. They >asked if they had done something wrong and the >FAA said "thaw the turkeys." <..slightly off-topic!...> ..but note that being Brits we didn't have resident turkeys. We had to import them from our favourite cousins... residents of the good 'ole USofA! On the other hand... many 'locomotives' had major difficulties in one typically Brit winter snowstorm, (dank, wet and slushy)... the excuse used by the then British Rail explaining the none/late arrival of many of their trains due to engine failure... ..."We are sorry, but it's the wrong type of snow"! Just as well they didn't have wings to play with... :)) Bill ZFC -- A R G O N E T ---==============--- adopt@argonet.co.uk internet provider for all / Adoption InterLink UK Acorn RISC machines / http://www.argonet.co.uk/adopt/ Sun,14 Jun 1998.21:00:36 From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:14 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin JF Mezei wrote: > > Gerard Foley wrote: > > Their minds must be back in the piston engine era, when the take off > > stress was the major cause of engine problems. > > Has this changed with jet engines ? I would have though that it would > still have been during takeoff that jet engines failed. (Although one Yes and no ;-) Turbine engines are affected by power setting, but not to anywhere NEAR the degree that piston engines are. The stress on every single component of a piston engine goes up dramatically at high power settings, greatly increasing the risk of failure. With turbines, the main increase in stress is due to higher combustion temperatures, and if they stay below a critical value, the life of the engine isn't compromised much. You don't have to worry about connecting rod bearings seeing 100X the force per unit area they do at cruise, exhaust valves seeing many times the temperature they do at cruise settings, valve retainers getting hammered harder on each cycle (A common hazard with piston engines was sucking in a valve and having it punch a hole in a piston), connecting rods stretching at higher RPMs, cylinder blocks flexing at high torque settings, etc. Jets just "spin faster and burn hotter". So the risks of high-power setting failures are far less than with piston engines. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:15 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , JF Mezei wrote: > Gerard Foley wrote: > > Their minds must be back in the piston engine era, when the take off > > stress was the major cause of engine problems. Actually , takeoff had little to do with it. ETOPS came about as the result of the 60-minute rule, which is still on the books, incidentally. This rule was created in the 1950s as the result of several fatal crashes of twin-engine (piston) airliners which burned up their remaining engine in an attempt to reach an airport after losing one engine. The problem is that a piston engine, unlike a turbofan engine, experiences an increasing probability of failure as its power in increased. So a twin-engine piston airplane flying on one engine at the high power settings required for continued flight runs a substantially increased risk of losing the remaining engine. Jet engines, at least the modern ones, can be run all day at high power as long as fan, compressor, and turbine speeds (N-speeds) are not exceeded and temperatures are not exceeded. As modern turbofans turned in increasingly impressive reliability statistics during the early 1980s on planes like the A300, A310, and 767, it was realized that the old 60-minute was not necessary, and thus ETOPS was born. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:16 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: 3X Jet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa The May issue of Popular Mechanics has a short feature about a new aircraft concept that is being promoted by a company called 3X Jet Inc. The idea is to take a rear-engined jet like the DC-9 or most business jets, and, instead of mounting identical engines on either side of the tail, to install two dissimilar engines, both on the aircraft centerline. One engine is of the same size as normally used on an aircraft of that weight, and the other engine is about twice that big, sized to give optimal efficiency when providing all the thrust at cruise. The plane would start the smaller engine first, use it to taxi to the run-up area, start the big engine there, takeoff and climb to cruising altitude on both engines, and cruise with the big engine only. Before landing, the smaller engine would be started, the plane would land with both engines running, then shut down the big engine after leaving the active runway and taxi with the small engine. The small engine is shown mounted in the back of the fuselage where it has minimal drag at cruise, with some type of low-drag inlet: a retractable inlet or NACA scoop. The disadvantage of this concept is that the weight and cost are higher than a conventional twin-jet because of the larger engine. The advantages claimed are: 1. Lower fuel consumption during taxi by using one engine at greater thrust level; the big engine would be available for steep grades. 2. With 50 percent greater thrust on takeoff, higher useful load, ability to use shorter runways, greater safety from the same length runways, or some combination. Faster climb to cruise with less fuel burned while climbing; greater excess thrust in case of wind shear. Runway length requirement would have to assume loss of the big engine, but with the greater acceleration, there would be more runway remaining in front of the aircraft at any given speed. 3. Lower fuel consumption in cruise with the big engine optimized for that flight regime. 4. Lower maintenance cost. The overhaul cost per pound of thrust is less for one big engine than for two smaller ones. By not using the big engine for taxi, life is extended 10 percent over normal. Small engine is used such a small fraction of the time that it would normally not need overhaul in the life of the airframe. 5. Option of cruise with both engines running at somewhat higher speed. There are several proposals around for supersonic business jets that would need to fly subsonic over land; if these had one big and one small engine instead of three identical engines (as presently proposed) they could use one engines for subsonic cruise. Overhaul cost would be reduced as well, although in this case they would need to overhaul both at about the same intervals. Overall, the 3X company says that total operating cost would be reduced 10-15 percent in typical use. There was a more detailed article about this in Aviation Week about three years ago. The AWST writer seemed generally supportive of the idea; one possible problem they mentioned was that it can be difficult to start engines at cruising altitude. They had comments from several people in the industry who thought the idea was unorthodox but were unwilling to dismiss it out of hand. The unbuilt original idea of the Hustler business turboprop was somewhat similar in concept; it had a single turboprop with a back-up turbofan in the rear of the fuselage. Comments? It seems to me that if 3X Jet can get a STC to convert one of the popular business jets used by Federal Express and its competitors, one of them might well be willing to try it. They already fly single-engine turboprops on many routes. If it proves out in express service, then people might be willing to try it for business and regional jets. How big of an aircraft would this system be practical for? The AWST article said maybe DC-9 size. The obvious extreme would be half the size of the largest existing twin jet, i. e. the Boeing 777. The largest common aircraft of rear-engine configuration is the B-727; might it be practical to retrofit them? I think the cruise engine would need to be in the RR RB-211 class, with the smaller engine in the 25,000 pound thrust range (any alternatives to the CFM-56?) There are a lot of 727's in package service. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:17 From: "Richard Flow" Subject: SAE Regulations & Engine Stands Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Does anyone have a copy of the SAE regulations as they pertain to jet engine stands? I'm particularly interested in (if it's broken down this way) the air transport stands for GE's CF6 and CFM56 series engines. Apparently there are specific SAE standards on the stands that are used to move/transport engines by air between points (as cargo). I would appreciate a copy. Thanks, Rick Flow FlowRW@worldnet.att.net From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:18 From: Nul@TCSConcordia.$N0!SPAM$.org (nul) Subject: Aircraft loading (was airliner market analysis [long]) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Nul@TCSConcordia.$N0!SPAM$.org (nul) On Monday June 08 1998 at 02:57, JF Mezei wrote: > This worked well at the end of the flight. But for loading, there is still > the bottlenecks because so many pax still block the aisle to stowe their > portable home in the overhead bin. Is there some technical or commercial reason that aircraft can't be loaded by reverse isle order (i.e. rear to front)? I know this can't be done with some Russian planes because of stability problems. Is this also the case with western designs? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | This message does not reflect the views of Green Circle Communciations. | | OS/2 Warp - SCSI - free speech. Do I pick losing causes or what? | | CGI, C/C++ and HTML spoken here. http://www.myna.com/~gcircle/csbh.html | From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:19 From: nwadmin@zdnetmail.com Subject: 767 range Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net I have recently seen a Air New Zeland 767 at LAX and was curious about where it was flying in from. I looked up the flight on their website and found it was from Auckland via Papeete to Los Angeles. It gives a route time of 8 hours. I am wondering how long a 767 can stay airbore, and what is it's EROPS range. Thanks for the help. From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:20 From: "Donald Mc Lean" Subject: MAY 31 1928. 70th Anniversary 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: Mittagong Mania - http://www.mitmania.net.au Originally owned by Hubert Wilkins, world famous Australian arctic explorer and navigator the Fokker F7 Tri-motor monoplane had been found unsuitable for arctic flying. Kingsford-Smith who had arrived in the USA early in 1928 purchased it, named it Southern Cross and immediately made an attempt on the world non-refuelled endurance record. He stayed airborne for 50h 04min, just 2h 18min short of the record but while in the air conceived the idea of flying from the USA to Australia in three hops, to HNL, Suva (FIJI) and BNE (Aust). With his co-pilot Charles Ulm they commenced to prepare the Fokker for the long over water flight, fitting extra fuel tanks and three new Wright Whirlwind engines. These were purchased from the USN by Mr. Sidney Myer, an Australian businessman visiting the USA. With additional financial help from American businessman G. Alan Hancock the preparations were completed. Two ex Navy men, neither of whom had flown before, joined the two Aussies in what many considered a suicidal mission. They were Harry Lyon as Navigator and James Warner as radio Operator. With weather clear the greatly overloaded aeroplane was coaxed into the air at Oakland at 9am on Thurs. 31 st May 1928 and set heading at the 2400 miles of ocean to Honolulu. Warner tapped their call sign in morse, KHAB, and hundreds of amateur radio operators tuned in on their wave length. Maintaining 4000ft at an IAS of 74 kts they flew into darkness, reporting ops normal to the steamers Manoa, Wilhelmina and just after midnight, the Malikio. They arrived over Wheeler's Field at 0930 HNL time , escorted by a dozen Navy and Army Air Corps aeroplanes. The flight time was 27h 27min. The Cross still had 130gal in the tanks. Totally deaf from the roaring of the engines the fliers faced a huge welcoming crowd. They were only the fourth aeroplane to make this flight from the mainland. A check revealed it in perfect condition and they planned to rest up and depart on the next leg to Suva on Sunday 3rd June. More about next leg on 3rd. cowboy@ram.net.au From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:21 From: John van Veen Subject: A 777 with four engines. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Has Boeing given any consideration to making a 777 with four engines? It might be a hit as a long range go anywhere transport. It would drive Airbus nuts. Any thoughts? John From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Has Boeing given any consideration to making a 777 with four engines? Yeah, over thirty years ago. It's called a 747. 777-200IGW will soon have a MGTOW of 656,000 lbs and the 777-200X is planned for 750,000 lbs, which compares nicely with the 700,000 lbs of the original 747-100. Similar passenger capacity, too, especially if you compare the 777-300 to the 747-100/200. >It might be a hit as a long range go anywhere transport. With over 1,150 examples delivered so far, most would agree it has been a hit. Only the 727, 737, and DC-9 family have done better, though the A320 family will almost certainly pass the 747 production total within the next three or four years. >It would drive Airbus nuts. That's probably a fair assesment, too. As for just sticking two more engines on a 777, many in this group have noted how the aerodynamics (not to mention structure) of a wing which is designed for a twin are quite different from that of a wing designed for a four-engined aircraft. The A330/340 wing accomplishes this but has some serious compromises as a result, which is why the A340-500/600 will have a new or mostly new wing. -- 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 Jun 16 02:15:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:23 From: gapackers@mindspring.com (GO PACK!) Subject: Questions from a Newbie... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: gapackers@mindspring.com Greetings. As one of about 15 members of the human race that would actually spend an afternoon at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport watching planes land, I have a few questions regarding jet flight that I would like to pose to this group. I apologize if they sound a little trite, but believe me, I am really interested in the answers... 1.) How fast are typical jets going just before you take off. I usually try to fly Delta's 767s out of Hartsfield for business, and I've always wondered just how fast we are going down the runway. 2.) How about landing? 3.) Someone once said Hartsfield has one of the longest runways in the world. How long does a runway have to be to accomodate a 767 to landing? I understand there's a minimum, but on the average? 4.) Is it possible, as a layman, to see the cockpit during flight? I do some free-lance writing and have been offered a story involving business travel and nearly everyone I question about the story wants to know if they can see the cockpit? Do they ask a flight attendant? Write the airline in advance? Barge in during a coffee break? 5.) I live in Northeast Atlanta and frequently see decending jets over our apartment complex...although I can't tell how high they are...and was wondering f they always use the same flight path when decending. Once in while, I notice they don't seem to be flying over very frequently. Thanks... Eric From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:24 From: dzul@theos.com (dzul) Subject: Re: 747-400 Initial Cruise References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd Reply-To: dzul@theos.com In message - 22 Nov 97 20:41:23 mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) writes: :> :>Cruise on a 747-400 at these mach numbers carries a huge fuel burn :>penalty. There is now ay the aircraft would make a Europe-Asia trip at :>those speeds. Long Haul Cruise on a 747-400 is M.82, while M.86 may be :>possible, I have never seen anyone do it. :> :> Have anyone out there seen it? normally out of singapore to europe, (on the B744 with PW4056) at max weight, initial flight level is FL280 for a couple of hours and then to FL310. At about 4-5 hours, FL350 and then a few hours later FL390. btw we always cruise between Mach 0.85 and Mach 0.86. basically the econ speed is governed by the weight of the aircraft, the flight level and the cost index (input into the FMS). dzul@theos.com From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:25 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >MechB747 wrote: >> The wings on a 747 flex A LOT on take-off... >> I think the 747 wings may be less stiff because of the additional weight of >> the engines help to "pull" the wing down against the lifting force. >> Aircraft that have engines mounted on the fuselage and not on the wings, >> like 727s and DC-9s, actually have to have stronger wings because of this. > >During take off, with tanks filled to the brim, are there any general >guidelines as to the percentages of weight each of the following >represents ? > -fuel > -engines > -aircraft itself. > -passengers/cargo Guidelines for loading the aircraft or engineering/design guidelines? I don't know of any guidelines as to the percentages of weight for the above, but I am not an engineer, either. The engines and the airframe both are included in the Operating Empty Weight. There is the operating empty weight, then fuel, passengers and cargo can be added to this while keeping within the Max Take-off weight, and weight and balance parameters, of course. In terms of the percentages of weight.... there are weight limitations for the passenger floor, but this shouldn't be a problem with a passenger aircraft... it is a factor with a freighter. >Would these vary significantly between different aircraft types from the >bae-146 up to an AN-124 or B747 ? I don't know because I've never heard of these weight percentage guidlines. >If engines are a lot lighther than the fuel, then once at cruise, the >wings would have a lot of available strength to support the engines once >much of the fuel has been burned since the wings would have to be >designed to lift a whole lot more at take off. Correct ? I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but the wing is designed with the strength to support the engines, full fuel, and the airframe with max payload plus extra strength designed into the wing for safety. There's no question that a having a lot of fuel in the wings will exert a downward force to help counteract the upward pressure on the wing, just like the engines do, but the wing is designed to have the structural strength to take-off and cruise at the MTOW without fuel in the wings... Technically, I don't know if you could load the aircraft to MTOW without filling the wing tanks because the floor beams probably couldn't handle all the weight that would be loaded onto them to get to MTOW, but the point is that I don't think any fuel is required in the wings to help counteract the lifting force on the wings. The Center wing section where all of the upward pressure acting on the wings is concentrated is VERY strong and is designed that way to keep the wings where they belong... even without fuel in them, I think. >Also, am I right in assuming that lift is not evenly produced along the >length of the wing ? (eg: less lift generated near wing-tip ?). Yes there is less lift generated at the wingtip(on a swept wing plane... I'm referring to the 747 throughout)...because there is less surface area of the wing farther outboard, there is less area for the airflow to "push" against. >Would that also not contribute to the placement of engines ? You'd want the >heavier stuff nearest to the area where the greatest lift is being >produced, right ? Or aerodynamic considerations much more important in >selecting placement of engines ? That sounds very logical to me, and yes, aerodynamics probably are a more important consideration, but I'm just an assembler, not an Engineer. .....Any engineers out there? Matt Student Pilot 4.5PIC "Airline Pilot in Training", 747-400 Assembler. http://members.aol.com/mechb747...Table of Airliner Info at /mechb747/cjt1 From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:26 From: Chuck Subject: Re: Yaw Damping was: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delta Air Lines Jim Wolper wrote: > Pete Mellor wrote: > > > [...] Dutch roll is > > a vice of any delta-winged aircraft. Presumably, automatic > > yaw-damping was achieved in pre-FBW days by a simple > > analogue system (possibly part of the autopilot)? > > > > I'm guessing. Does anyone have any definite information? > > Yaw damping can be achieved using analogue output > feedback and is usually included as part of an autopilot > installation. It is useful in straight-wing aircraft as well, > especially those that fly at higher altitudes where the thin > air may reduce the effectiveness of the vertical tail in > damping yaw. I would add to Jim's comment that while yaw damp is concidered part of the autopilot system it works independantly of the autopilot. The A/P does not have to be engaged for yaw damp to work. Also when the Y/D system moves the rudder there is no feedback to the rudder pedals in the cockpit. Chuck From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:27 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: Cross crew qualification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com > What I am interested in is to know the training days which are needed > for the Boeing models. The 757 and 767 share the same cockpit, but all > other Boeing birds are different. IIRC the 737NG can however display the > 777 layout or the 737 2G layout, so that training should be quite > reduced. Training between the traditional 737 and the 737NG takes one day of ground school followed by three takeoffs and landings under the supervision of a check airman, which may be accomplished on revenue flights (at least, that's the way Southwest Airlines does it). > What about the other conversions : > > 737 2G to 757 // 737 2G to 777 // 757 to 777 // 757 to 747 // 777 to 747 Currently, as far as I am aware, there are no reduced training programs for any of these conversions you have listed. Each different aircraft type has its own separate training program, and that will usually vary from one month to 6 weeks. The only time you wind up in reduced programs is when the type rating is common; then you get into what the FAA calls a "differences" course, and that can be vastly reduced. If the type rating changes, however (as in, for example, the 747 to the 747-400), then entire course must be accomplished. From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:28 From: "Russell L Farris" Subject: Re: Cross crew qualification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp At US Airways we are qualified on both the 757 at initial upgrade, with one day of 767 differences training at the end. From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:29 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: Cross crew qualification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , marcmsc*SPAMNO*@cmdnet.lu wrote: > What I am interested in is to know the training days which are needed > for the Boeing models. The 757 and 767 share the same cockpit, but all > other Boeing birds are different. IIRC the 737NG can however display the > 777 layout or the 737 2G layout, so that training should be quite > reduced. > > What about the other conversions : > > 737 2G to 757 // 737 2G to 777 // 757 to 777 // 757 to 747 // 777 to 747 Some airlines have training programs that move pilots from 737-200s to the 757/767 in about 28 days. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:30 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: 747-312 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , mba340@club-internet.fr wrote: > >Anyone has information on the B747-312s that SIA is currently phasing > >out??? Who will be their new owner??? What about the fate of the three > >B747-312s currently on lease to Ansett Australia, who is believed to be > >returning them to SIA??? > > French Company, CORSAIR, bought one last year. Another went to Angola Airlines. 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 Jun 16 02:15:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:31 From: jtarver@tminet.com (Tarver Engineering) Subject: Re: MD-80 Electrical References: <199805312215.PAA15639@netcom16.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com On 06 Jun 98 15:39:17 , James Matthew Weber wrote: >>(The alternator in an aircraft is driven by a "constant speed drive" >>-- in reality a complex hydraulic pump/motor system. Thus the >>alternator can make constant freq. AC while the engine speed >>changes. Ergo, the real speed of the alternator can be chosen as >>desired at design time. You want it fast, fine.. slow, sure...) > >You can choose any speed you want, the slower you turn it, the few turns it >will make per operating hour, and longer the bearings will last. Hysterysis considerations prove this to be false. If you try to run a 400 Hz synchronous generator at 60 Hz, you will get smoke. The USAF tried to convert their weight and balance equipment to 20 Hz from 60 on Edwards; burned every motor down. >Maintenance costs money, so you design the equipment for the longest life >you can get away, so that usually means the lowest RPM that will give you >what you need. 24000 RPM is real problem. The higher the rotating frequency, the more efficient and smaller the generator. If what you are claiming were true then hydro-electric power would be more efficient than steam; it is not. (the relationship is the square of the rotation speed) > Even if it is high, you may find an external rotor resistor can be >switched in to alter the speed torque characteristic to produce maximum >torque at low RPM, in fact most servo motors are designed to produce >maximum torque at zero RPM. Take a good look a switching locamotive some >time. If you look carefully you will find this big piece of metal that >almost looks like chian link fence. Its the external rotor resistor that is >switched in when the engineer starts up the train. It alters the >speed/torque relationship to produce very high torque at very low RPM. >Really makes the thing run badly at High RPM, so generally it gets shorted >out as soon as the train is moving more than few miles per hour. More correctly, we would call that resistor a capacitor, so that it provides the phase shift necessary to produce starting torque. >They are also much smaller and ligher than their single phase counterparts. >They have much lower starting currents than their single phase cousins as >well, which means you don't need huge contactor to start them. You are confusing DC locomotives, with AC locomotives. John P. Tarver, PE Electrical Engineer E14066 From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:32 From: "steven tobey" Subject: UPS B767 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net I happened to notice that on the "Olympic Partner" B767 that UPS operates there is a different coding of the ship number (if this is the ship number) on the nose gear doors. Aircraft in question is N320UP, however, on the nosegear doors the following was noted, IPXA, below that, 097B. Anyone have ideas on what the letter/number combination is for? All other UPS B767s I've seen list the ship number on the doors, this one's a bit different. Steve From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:33 From: Eberhard Lammich Subject: Re: FAA certification of AN-2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Hi! I don't know if this helps, but in Germnay there are quite many An2 (Tante Anna) flying for sightseeing trips or parachutists for commercial purposes. And they have regular German registration by German authorities. Greetings -- Eberhard Lammich Strike.Eagle@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:34 From: proctor@sequence.stanford.edu (Michael Proctor) Subject: Re: FAA certification of AN-2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University In article , "Arron Shore" wrote: >What is the chance of getting a commercial certification from the FAA for >the Russian/Polish AN-2 "Annie"? >If you can't get a commercial certification for an airplane what options are >there for making an income from it? > >I would like to own an AN-2 but unless there is a way to make an income from >it, there really isn't much of a chance. Any help would be greatly >appreciated Last summer I did see an AN-2 flying in/out of Lone Pine ( or was it Independence ) CA. Anyway these are two pocket size towns nn the eastern side of the Sierra Nevades, close to Death Valley. I don't know if it was commercial activity, except that there is a lot film work nearby ie great landscape for Wild West movies... but telephone, the airstrip an ask. Michael -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ reply: remove NO SPAM +++++++++++++++++++++++++ From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:35 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: FAA certification of AN-2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "Arron Shore" wrote: > What is the chance of getting a commercial certification from the FAA for > the Russian/Polish AN-2 "Annie"? > If you can't get a commercial certification for an airplane what options are > there for making an income from it? > I would like to own an AN-2 but unless there is a way to make an income from > it, there really isn't much of a chance. Any help would be greatly > appreciated Well, getting certification is a matter of spending the money necessary (ie running the tests, plus any changes required). Other than that, there's no obstacle to getting certification for any type. I know of a number of An-2s on the US register. As far as I know they are all registered as "experimental" which does restrict the way they can be used. But they can certainly be displayed at airshows, for example, for whatever the show organizers are willing to pay. Bear in mind that "making money" off your An-2 will require a lot more than just having an airplane licenced to carry passengers. If you plan to do so, your whole operation will need certification as well. 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 Jun 16 02:15:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:36 From: sammy@monmouth.com Subject: Boeing and Long Beach... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet I was wondering, now that the only Douglas line Boeing has decided to keep open is the 717, do they not have a much larger capacity now? With this added factory capacity, can they not add production there of more popular aircraft? Therefore reducing delays in delivery and current congestion in their current plants? Since the MD-80/90 and MD-11 are gone, cant they start a new line for 737s (regular production ones, not just special types as they have said), could this give them an advantage over Airbus when making delivery promises? I'm sure they are already thinking along these lines, sure beats keeping those plants empty. From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:37 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: NG737 performance 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: >At least one commercial carrier has ordered >winglets for their passenger NG737s. Do you know, or can you reveal, which one? -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:38 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: NG737 performance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM C. Marin Faure wrote: > At least one commercial carrier has ordered > winglets for their passenger NG737s. The winglets can be added to any of > the NG737 Series, and are made of composite materials reinforced by a > metal structure. I was under the impression that winglets were effective on long range flights but for short hops were not worth the extra weight. Is this correct ? If so, at what sort of flying distance would the winglets become cost effective ? Since the 737s being built by Boeing right now are considered "737" by the government and thus must have some type of commonality with all other 737s built, wouldn't winglets also become attractive for previous generation 737s down to the -200 ? Or is the wing of the new 737s so different in shape ? (I realise that componets and materials may be different on the new models compared to the tanks built back in the 60s and 70s, but isn't the basic shape the same ?) From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:39 From: redjeff@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: NG737 performance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 08 Jun 98 02:57:49 , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: >I was told today by a friend in Boeing Flight Test that the winglets >fitted to the Boeing Business Jet, which is actually a New Generation >737-700, have reduced the airplane's fuel consumption by at least 3 >percent so far at the speeds, altitudes, and attitudes at which they have >been tested, and even better performance is anticipated ... Wow 3%!!!! You can get atleast 5 on a 727 by extendind the T/E flaps to 5 degrees down and pulling the c/b for the L/E flaps Winglets are for looks From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:40 From: ehaase2463@aol.com (EHaase2463) Subject: Northwest's DC-10's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The June issue of World Airline Fleets states that Northwest estimates a 42 year life for 173 of its DC-9's and an even longer life for its DC-10's. The article indicates that the DC-9's may last for 15 more years and that DC-10 could fly 23 more years. Is it desirable and realistic for a major airline to keep its aircraft for so long? From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:41 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Embraer 145 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "elysium" wrote: > >Has anyone else out there flown in the ERJ? > >WHAT AN AWESOME PLANE! > >I rode the IAH-ICT run with CO express and was most impressed. Compared > >to the Canadair regional jet, it "feels" faster, and has windows you > >can actually see out of. (the Canadair CRJ has windows that are mounted > >very low in relation to the seats) A slightly higher cabin noise level > >than the CRJ just adds to a sportier feel, but it is still far quieter > >than any of the larger jets. The 2X1 seating arrangement makes me > >wonder why anyone would fly on a larger plane if they had a choice. I > >hope the skies are black with these things! > > Silk purse out of a sows' ear ? I thought the Brasilia was ghastly. > The seating config' is good, rather like the 2X3 on the DC-9/Md-80 > it gives more aisle per seat and enhances service. Let me second the appreciation of the ERJ-145's passenger comfort. Here's a comparison of the ERJ-145 and CRJ that I posted to a different group some time ago: Basically, from a passenger perspective I'd say that both are a clear improvement over turboprops, especially in terms of noise and the smoothness of the ride. It does not seem to me that either has a clear advantage in those two parameters. Both have an aisle that I had no problem standing up straight in (I'm 1.8m tall; that's about 6 feet, for you Americans). The CRJ does feel wider; there's a pronounced 'tube' effect in the EMB-145, although the large windows make the cabin very light and alleviate this problem somewhat. In terms of seat comfort, I think the EMB-145 has a slight edge, since its seating is 1-2 rather than 2-2; on a full plane, having the single seat might be much more comfortable than sharing a seat unit. I don't have direct measurements, but I think the CRJ might have more on-board storage space; but perhaps this is an illusion, since with 4-abreast seating there will be more demand for the available space. One thing that irritated me on the CRJ is how low the windowline is. Sitting normally, my eyeline is above the top of the window; I need to lean forward to look out, which becomes uncomfortable after some time. I didn't have this problem on the EMB-145. (I understand that the windowline will be raised in the CRJ-700.) One area where the EMB-145 definitely shines is the bathroom. On the CRJ, the bathroom is on one side of the aisle, level with the last seat row. That made it impossible for me to stand up straight while doing my business, since the curvature of the fuselage lowers the ceiling very quickly once you're out of the aisle. On the EMB-145, the bathroom spans the entire width of the fuselage, aft of the passenger cabin. No problem standing up, and lots of elbow room, too. In fact, this is probably one of the better bathrooms on any commercial type. So overall, I'd say that the EMB-145 probably has a slight edge in terms of passenger comfort. Enough that if it came to a straight choice between either (airfare and schedule being the same), I'd almost certainly prefer the EMB-145; but not enough that I'd wait for a EMB-145 if the CRJ had the more convenient schedule or cost less. 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 Jun 16 02:15:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:42 From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Flight Safety Foundation Accident Prevention Reports on Web Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Partners of America Does anyone know why the Flight Safety Foundation has ceased publishing their highly informative Action Prevention reports on their website (www.flightsafety.org)? The last update of these monthly publications was in December 1997.- - - John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Tue Jun 16 02:15:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:43 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Measurement of airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com I am working on a project where we need to estimate the speed of taxiing aircraft as seen on a video tape. The people taking the video did not document the focal length used nor the distance from the centerline of the taxiway. I intend to develop a scale by measuring a known distance or size object on one or two of the aircraft. One convenient distance would be from the nose gear to the main gear. On cars that would be called the wheelbase- don't know what an aircraft designer calls it. The drawings in Janes are pretty small for scaling to measure this. There are quite a few 737s and A320s on the tape. Anyone know where to find that measurement for either of those, or any other popular airliner? -- 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 Tue Jun 16 02:15:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Jun 98 02:15:44 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Measurement of airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I am working on a project where we need to estimate the speed of taxiing >aircraft as seen on a video tape. The people taking the video did not >document the focal length used nor the distance from the centerline of >the taxiway. >I intend to develop a scale by measuring a known distance or size object >on one or two of the aircraft. One convenient distance would be from >the nose gear to the main gear ... Boeing has diagrams with various dimensions on their web site, e.g., http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737-300/ext.html Of the ones I looked at, only the 747-400 showed the wheelbase, but all included the MLG (main landing gear) track as well as overall length and tail height, either of which could also be useful for your purposes. Wingpsan and tailplane span are also included, though those are probably not very helpful in your case. I didn't look at Airbus' site (http://www.airbus.com/) but they have a nice web presence as well with lots of information on their aircraft, again probably sufficient to give you something from which to work. -- 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 Jun 26 02:37:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:36 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: Yaw Damping was: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , Chuck wrote: >Jim Wolper wrote: >> Pete Mellor wrote: >> >> > [...] Dutch roll is >> > a vice of any delta-winged aircraft. Presumably, automatic >> > yaw-damping was achieved in pre-FBW days by a simple >> > analogue system (possibly part of the autopilot)? >> > >> > I'm guessing. Does anyone have any definite information? >> >> Yaw damping can be achieved using analogue output >> feedback and is usually included as part of an autopilot >> installation. It is useful in straight-wing aircraft as well, >> especially those that fly at higher altitudes where the thin >> air may reduce the effectiveness of the vertical tail in >> damping yaw. > >I would add to Jim's comment that while yaw damp is concidered part of >the autopilot system it works independantly of the autopilot. The A/P >does not have to be engaged for yaw damp to work. > >Also when the Y/D system moves the rudder there is no feedback to the >rudder pedals in the cockpit. I suspect the top writer meant to say that Dutch roll was part of a swept-winged aircraft rather than delta. The 727-100 had a divergent Dutch roll that could quickly get out of hand and therefor had two yaw dampers. On the other hand, the longer geometry of the 727-200 reduced the Dutch roll to a simple annoyance. Back in the dark ages of the early '60s, the KC-135's with the old manual rudder had a pretty strong Dutch roll and since each of the three axis of the autopilot could be engaged separately, the rudder axis was used solo as a yaw damper while hand flying. With the conversion to the powered rudder, the KC-135 Dutch roll dropped to a small fraction of what it had been before. None the less, crews were still required once a quarter to complete a celestial navigation leg above 40,000 ft. with all autopilot off. Biggest challenge in that was for the Boomer to not fall off the stool trying to get his shot. Ron From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:37 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , nwadmin@zdnetmail.com wrote: >I have recently seen a Air New Zeland 767 at LAX and was curious about >where it was flying in from. I looked up the flight on their website >and found it was from Auckland via Papeete to Los Angeles. It gives a >route time of 8 hours. I am wondering how long a 767 can stay airbore, >and what is it's EROPS range. Thanks for the help. We used to have a scheduled block to block from Madrid to Dallas/Ft. Worth of 11:50 and I've gone 12:30 on it. The route from London to Los Angeles is even longer. The aircraft is certified for 180 minute ETOPS. Longest overwater leg is Hawaii to west coast of US. Ron From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:38 From: terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 16 Jun 98 02:15:19 , nwadmin@zdnetmail.com wrote: >I have recently seen a Air New Zeland 767 at LAX and was curious about >where it was flying in from. I looked up the flight on their website >and found it was from Auckland via Papeete to Los Angeles. It gives a >route time of 8 hours. I am wondering how long a 767 can stay airbore, >and what is it's EROPS range. Thanks for the help. Quite a long time. 8 hrs isn't even what CPs (or ACs) 767s (CP uses -300ERs only) from YVR to LHR. Reverse direction is almost 10 hours. CP also does LHR to Beijing in a 767-300ER which is some 11 hours. Any longer 767 routes out there? Terence Liow - replace royaumeuni with the abbreviation of the U_nited K_ingdom of England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland to reply From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:39 From: Michael & Iain Butler Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chaos nwadmin@zdnetmail.com wrote: > I have recently seen a Air New Zeland 767 at LAX and was curious about > where it was flying in from. I looked up the flight on their website > and found it was from Auckland via Papeete to Los Angeles. It gives a > route time of 8 hours. I am wondering how long a 767 can stay airbore, > and what is it's EROPS range. Thanks for the help. Papeete-Los Angeles is 6607kms 8h10min N bound 8h35 S bound This is not the longest Air NZ 767 flight they also do Auckland-Honolulu 7086km 8h50 N 9h05 S Nadi-Nagoya 7273km 9h30 N 8h55 S Nadi-Osaka 7313km 9h55 N 9:35 S Christchurch-Singapore 8400km 11h15 N 10h05 S Auckland-Taipei 8884km 11h35 N 11h10 S Auckland-Osaka 8953km 11h25 N 11h00 S Auckland-Fukuoka 9090km 11h45 N 11h20 S Auckland-Hong Kong 9144km 11h35 N 10h55 S Osaka-Christchurch 9472km no north 11h15 S Fukuoka-Christchurch 9828km no north 11h50 S Now cancelled is Auckland-Seoul 9639km What is unusual about Papeete-Los Angeles is that it has very few diversion fields and is the only one of all these routes that requires more than 138min ETOPS. Even at 180min ETOPS you can't fly a great circle (although getting close) That more than the range is why I'm surprised that air NZ put a 767 on this route. -- 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 Fri Jun 26 02:37:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:40 From: "Anthony Chiu" Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I went from Sydney to Hong Kong in an Ansett 767-300ER two weeks ago. It took 9 hours 20 minutes. This is at least one hour longer than a 747. AC From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:41 From: Patrick de Jong Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.globalxs.nl/home/p/pdejong nwadmin@zdnetmail.com wrote: > I have recently seen a Air New Zeland 767 at LAX and was curious about > where it was flying in from. I looked up the flight on their website > and found it was from Auckland via Papeete to Los Angeles. It gives a > route time of 8 hours. I am wondering how long a 767 can stay airbore, > and what is it's EROPS range. Thanks for the help. I flew with Martinair 767-300ER reg. PH-MCH non stop Amsterdam-Bangkok in 11 hours without falling down. Rgrds, -- _______________________________________________________________ Patrick de Jong --- Zwijndrecht --- The Netherlands Position: N51 49.0 E004 38.7 Homepage: http://www.globalxs.nl/home/p/pdejong Email: pdejong@globalxs.nl From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:42 From: worknmam@greenville.infi.net Subject: USAF KC10 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InfiNet The USAF is scheduled to announce a contract award for modification and maintenance of their KC10 fleet ( 59 aircraft). Does anyone have any insight as to what vendor this may have been awarded to? (Boeing (+douglas) and Lockheed are in the running.) From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:43 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , p.lambourne@research-int.com wrote: > If Boeing does not launch the 772X then it is fair to say that Airbus will > have a product in the A340-500 that Boeing does not offer. Do the exclusive > supplier aggrements for AA & DL mean that they cannot buy the A340, and > therefore will not be able to compete with other airlines on very long thin > routes? No. As part of the agreement with the EU which let them go forward with the McDonnell Douglas merger, Boeing agreed that it would not enforce the sole supplier agreements with AA, DL, and CO (or enter into new ones). Ergo, these airlines are free to buy the A340-500 if they want to (or any other Airbus aircraft, for that matter, even if there is a competing Boeing product). 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 Fri Jun 26 02:37:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:44 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World's Usenet -- http://www.Supernews.com >If Boeing does not launch the 772X then it is fair to say that Airbus will >have a product in the A340-500 that Boeing does not offer. Do the exclusive >supplier aggrements for AA & DL mean that they cannot buy the A340, and >therefore will not be able to compete with other airlines on very long thin >routes? To gain approval of the merger with McDonnell-Douglas Boeing agreed that the exclusive supplier agreements it had signed with AA, DL, and CO are all non-enforceable, so these airlines are all free to buy Airbus products if they want. What I'm not sure of is if they were to do this, it might void the deal, meaning the airlines would lose any price guarantees that are included in the deals. From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:45 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 16 Jun 98 02:14:53 , p.lambourne@research-int.com caused to appear as if it was written: >In article , > marcmscNOSPAMNO@cmdnet.lu wrote: >>I don't believe that the 772X can get off the ground with >> orders from AA and DL, their exclusive suppliers agreement would imply >> a huge dsicount. Also the total orders won't be sufficient to get the >> bird launched. The question is : can Boeing get within the next months >> orders or LOIs for the 772X from the Japaneese. > >If Boeing does not launch the 772X then it is fair to say that Airbus will >have a product in the A340-500 that Boeing does not offer. Do the exclusive >supplier aggrements for AA & DL mean that they cannot buy the A340, and >therefore will not be able to compete with other airlines on very long thin >routes? The answer is no, for two reasons: 1) The "exclusive" deals only ever covered aircraft for which Boeing had a competitive offering... 2) The "exclusivity" elements of the deals were "voluntarily" struck out by Boeing after the European Commission announced that they wouldn't approve the Boeing / McDD marriage if Boeing would hold the airlines to the exclusive provisions. >Patrick Malc. From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:46 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services I meant to comment on SQ's order for a long time, but I have been quite busy lately. In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>WRT the SIA order for A340's; Keep in mind SG's geographics. Is it not >>true that the A34X is the only viable choice that'll do N.America >>from Singapore non-stop ? > >It is not true. That's the whole point of this thread -- Singapore >considered the A340-500 and 777-200X to both be technically capable >of doing the job, or at least that's what the said in public. Their >stated reason for choosing the A340-500 was price. ETOPS was a concern, nevertheless. One question that I have about the B777-200X is its take-off performance, especially in a relatively hot Singapore. The A340-500 will be powered by 4 53K-lb-thrust engines, while the proposed -200X would be powered by 2 102K engines. I believe the A340-500 will have a slightly higher MTOW than the B777-200X. However, the -200X is a twin, twins generally should have higher thrust-to-weight ratio than four-engine planes (and this has been discussed many times in s.a.a). Relative to other B777 variants, an 102K engine does seem to be adequate for the proposed MTOW for the -200X. Or, is it because Airbus got so paranoid about its underpowered A340-300 that it decided to make the -500/-600 most overpowered aircraft? ;-) >AW&ST had some interesting comments on the order. They noted that the >order for only five A340-500s was insufficient to cover all of SIA's >planned flying, and suggested that SIA might yet order the 777-200X -- >in addition to the A340-500. I find this report to be extremely speculative. Perhaps, AW&ST wanted to cover its behind, because a week or two before this report, AW&ST said Boeing was ahead in this competition. At that time, I had already read in both Flight International and the Wall Street Journal that SIA intended to order the A340-500. Concerning the small order, SIA has traditionally used number that include options. Thus, the five+five number is not a big surprise. With five planes, SIA will be able offer two daily SIN-US West Coast flights. With limited payload, yields on these services need to be much higher. Hence, I think it will take some time to develop the market for this type of services. Anything more than two daily flights, IMHO, is unrealistic. So, at this time, five planes make sense. IMHO, both Airbus and Boeing seem to have seriously over-estimated the market potential for the 200-/300-seat, ultra-long-range aircraft. Until now, only two firm orders for seven A340-500s have been placed. Boeing is shifting gear and pitching yet another B747-400X to customers like Qantas, EVA, and Cathay. Personally, I think the A340-600 and/or B777-300X will have a great future, but I'm uncertain about the A340-500 and B777-200X. I won't be terribly surprised if Boeing actually sells more B747-400X than the B777-200X and A340-500 combined. Nevertheless, with the ending to the current Asian economic turmoil nowhere in sight, Asian carriers might eventually be forced to use smaller aircraft. Whether this will happen or not still remains to be seen. P.S. Since I am on the subject of B777, I might as well talk about a potential order from Taiwan's China Airlines (CI). CI has recently decided to phase out the A300 after two nearly identical crashes in a three-year span. (The MD-11 and the B747 classics are also to be phased out.) Although, human errors played an important role in both crashes, pressure has been mounting both within the company and from outside. At least one-third of the flight crew had petitioned the airline to stop flying the A300, especially the -600R. Loads on the A300 flights are particularly poorer (i.e., Taiwanese passengers are avoiding the A300) than flights on other aircraft. The B777 is a leading candidate with the B767, A330, and A340-500 also being considered. My guess is the order will likely consist of a combination of the B777 and B767 (as well as some B747Fs). The A340-500 might have a chance because of the (false) impression that four-engine planes are safer. Nevertheless, the government has banned the airline from any aircraft ordering until the safety standard is improved. This might not be an easy obstacle to clear. Still, Boeing must be eagerly waiting for this order, because this will be a rare big order (on the order of US$4-5 billion) from Asia where the economy turmoil has brought down many major carriers in the region. From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:47 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Singapore picks the A340-500 over the 777-200X References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The A340-500 will be powered by 4 53K-lb-thrust engines, >while the proposed -200X would be powered by 2 102K engines. I believe >the A340-500 will have a slightly higher MTOW than the B777-200X. More than a little bit -- the latest figured on http://www.airbus.com/ have the A340-500 with a MGTOW of 804,700 lbs, whereas Boeing now has the 777-200X at 750,000 lbs MGTOW, a recent boost from 735,000 lbs. Engines for the 777-200X are now in the 104,000 lbs thrust range. >However, the -200X is a twin, twins generally should have higher >thrust-to-weight ratio than four-engine planes (and this has been >discussed many times in s.a.a). Relative to other B777 variants, an >102K engine does seem to be adequate for the proposed MTOW for the >-200X. model MGTOW thrust t/wt 1out ----- ------- ------ ------ ------ 757-200 240,000 38,250 0.3187 0.1594 777-200 545,000 84,000 0.3083 0.1542 777-200IGW 648,000 92,000 0.2840 0.1420 777-200X 750,000 104,000 0.2773 0.1387 A340-500 804,700 53,000 0.2635 0.1976 A340-600 804,700 56,000 0.2784 0.2088 I included the 757-200 as it is notorious for being overpowered. You're right, with 104,000 lbs thrust engines, the 777-200X does look somewhat anemic. -- 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 Jun 26 02:37:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:48 From: Jim Eadie Subject: Re: 3X Jet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company One obvious problem is the loss of thrust if the large engine failed during takeoff or climb. See 14 CFR 25.121 "Climb: One-engine-inoperative" and 25.123 "En route flight paths" From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:49 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >The A330/340 wing accomplishes this but >has some serious compromises as a result, which is why the A340-500/600 >will have a new or mostly new wing. I made the same statement before and was corrected by someone in the industry that the wing on the A340-500/600 is not a new one, it's only an "insert". IIRC, the new A340-500/600 will still have a nominal cruise Mach number of 0.82, same as the original A340. From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:50 From: Garry Forrest Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University One of the biggest cost drivers for jets are -- the jets. Old man Royce is reported to have answered the question, "Why do you fly in only four-engine aircraft?" with "Because they don't make any six engine airliners." Of course he sold engines. The folks who buy and operate engines think less is better. If we could figure out how to strap a single engine to a fuselage, believe me we'd do it. (But where would you put the revenue bodies?) -- Garry Forrest Senior Scientist Boeing Airlift and Tanker From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:51 From: "Anthony Chiu" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM OR graft a MD-11 tail with the centre engine attached and call it 7-11! From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:52 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , JF Mezei wrote: > I suspect that the decision was made by Boeing before Boeing announced it > would buy McD. I am sure Boeing did its homework and decided a lot of stuff > before buying. But PR requires that you carefully choose the time when you > release "bad" news. Six months ago, Boeing announced they would ax the MD-80/MD-90 but KEEP the MD-11, to more or less everyone's surprise. If this was a ploy to "carefully choose the time to release bad news" it certainly was a devilishly complicated one. I certainly think that Boeing expected to shut down the MD-11 when they made the merger, but then re-thought the idea when they made a thorough review of the issue. And now have re-thought it again. Of course, there may have been a lot going on behind the scenes. For example, it's conceivable that the initial decision to maintain the MD-11 line was based on someone's strong advocacy for that approach, tied to a promise to deliver orders to justify it. When the orders didn't materialize, the decision was reversed. Just speculating, mind you. > There *seems* to be a trend in commercial airlines making every > effort to dump their MD11s to anyone who would want them (aka: > FEDex). With used MD11s available second hand, and a limited market > to buy them, prospects for new sales are not good. Well, let's see. AA and SR have sold theirs to FedEX, though it'll be several years before they all go there. LTU sold theirs to Swissair. KE is (has?) converting all of its MD-11s to freighters. Other than that, everyone still has theirs. Garuda is looking to return its MD-11s, but that's primarily because of its economic problems. And KLM and Alitalia are reviewing fleet plans and may well choose to replace their MD-11s in the medium term. It's hard to call anything a trend when there were so few operators to begin with, but certainly it's not very positive overall. > What I find interesting is that DC10 operators don't seem to try so hard to > dump their DC10s whereas those who own MD11s seem more active at shedding > them. Is this a correct observation? Well, AA and UA have both sold their DC-10 fleets to FedEx. Large numbers are already in storage. CO has sold all its DC-10-10s to Emery, and is already planning to replace all its -30s with 777s and 767-400s. Every major European airline that had DC-10s has replaced them, except for BA, who will do so next year. Northwest is the solitary exception, with no plans to replace their DC-10s that I'm aware of. So I'd say DC-10s are also on their way out. But certainly the MD-11 will have lasted a much shorter time in mainline service. 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 Fri Jun 26 02:37:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:53 From: "Thomas A. Beckley" Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. >> To the best of my knowledge total orders are 191. It is a pretty safe >> bet to say that some of the customers will cancel their remaining >> orders, since the value of the MD11 will take a deep drop. Why spend >> money on sth that will be axed ? > >Well, ask TWA, who recently got Boeing to extend MD-80 production past the >scheduled cutoff date so they could order some 20-odd additional aircraft. >If the aircraft fits your needs and you'll be using them for some time, it may >well make sense to order a couple extra. I wouldn't be surprised to see that >happening in this case. eg Lufthansa might still take up their options, and >Finnair might take on a few more. Since FedEx had proven itself willing to >scoop up just about any Douglas trijet that comes on the market, resale >values haven't taken that much of a dive. Did TWA's buy extend the life of the MD-80 production line? How many are left to be delivered? Boeing recently announced that the production rate of the MD-80/-90 production line will be 3 planes a month for the forseeable future, so if we know how many remain to be delivered it should be easy to figure out how long they need to keep the line open at this rate. Looking at three Boeing press releases, the numbers just don't seem to add up. When the discontinuation of the line was announced at the beginning of November, there were 13 unfilled MD-80 orders and 91 unfilled MD-90 orders and the production rate was four a month. That means that there were a total of 104 unfilled orders, and at 4 a month it would take 26 months, or until approximately the end of 1999. In the news release they said they expected the line to wrap up in mid-1999, so this is about right, especially if the 20 Chinese MD-90's were included in the total orders and not the total production rate. TWA ordered their additional 24 MD-80's in April, and that news release just says that it was announced in November that production would be phased out when current committments are met. This would seem to contradict the new order, since the new order was not a current committment at the time ... When Boeing announced discontinuation of the MD-11 in early June, the same news release also mentioned the discontinuation of the MD-80 line and said production would be complete in January 2000. When Boeing announced production rates for 1999, they announced that 3 planes would be delivered a month for the next year. This would seem to extend the life of the line, especially considering the additional order of 24 by TWA. These additional orders as well as the existing ones would certainly seem to require more time than January 2000 to complete. The real question is, how many more MD-80/-90 aircraft are there to be delivered? I can't seem to find a straight answer for this on the Boeing website, but maybe I just missed it ... From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:54 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: >Since FedEx had proven itself willing to > scoop up just about any Douglas trijet that comes on the market, resale > values haven't taken that much of a dive. On the other hand, it may be exactly because resale values have taken a dive that FEDex decided to buy those orphaned DC-10s/MD-11s. From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:55 From: Garry Forrest Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University Re MD-80: Boeing was eager to deliver some seats given its ongoing troubles with production. The old Douglas folks were likewise eager to defer their termination when Boeing shuts the plant down. And TWA worked a real bargain. -- Garry Forrest From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:56 From: "Mark A. Nighman" Subject: Deicers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: mnighman@sprintmail.com Hello! I am looking for any information that can be provided on aircraft deicers. In particular, I would like to find information on the evaluation of deicers as related to hydrogen embrittlement. Thank you. Mark From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:57 From: "Frank Muenker" Subject: Slower aircrafts ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: U Saarbruecken, Computational linguistics dept. Hi, I was recently on a Delta B767-ER (-200 I think) flight from Frankfurt to Cincinatti and the flight time was almost 10 hours. I could see on the monitors that the average cruise speed was only about 480 mph which is fairly slow compared to the 550 - 570 it could go. Also on 2 other inner-European flights ( about 4.5 hrs) with a B737 and a B757 cruise speed was way below 500 mph. I can recall that about 5 years ago cruise speed was always 520-570, at least on flights longer than 1 hr. I assume it has to do with fuel consumption, but does anybody know if the fuel performance is significantly better at lower speeds and if so why did they just start *now* to do that ? All aircrafts I was on looked like the newest models. Is it that the latest models have a different curve of fuel performance ? Any hints appreciated, Frank From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:58 From: Scott Macmillan Subject: Airbus trim system? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Up2U Hello folks, I was watching one of those 'in the cockpit' videos the other day that featured the Airbus A320. During the video I could see the trim wheel moving back and forward of its own accord. The captain explained that the aircraft has an auto trim system, the trim being operated by the aircrafts computers. Anyway, what I would like to know is how do the computers know how the pilot wants the plane to fly? eg. Lets say your in a light aircraft in level flight, then you decide to climb. You add power then pull back on the yoke, then trim the aircraft to maintain the climb attitude. Now lets say you decide to remain in level flight, but fly at a higher air speed. You would add power, then push the yoke forward to maintain level flight, then trim. If you were to do the same in the airbus, how do the computers know if the pilot wants to climb, or if he wants to fly at a higher airspeed? I'm guessing that the trim system is linked to the autopilot, and the computers will know what to do by what the pilot selects on the autopilot panel, but then, what about flying manually? Thanks for taking the time. -- Scott Macmillan GM7OMU, IO75tv Glasgow, Scotland, UK. From kls Fri Jun 26 02:37:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:37:59 From: "Donald Mc Lean" Subject: IS IT 'THRUST 'OR 'POWER' ON A BIG JET. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In answering a question on use of reverse thrust , asymmetric use of reversers Mandy Bartels said that the 'power' on the b747-400 is reduced to 'idle' and the reversers are operated in that position to minimise the opposition to brakes or words to that effect. Surely the 'thrust' is reduced to 'zero' with the reversers at the interlock position, ie , so no forward or reverse thrust is produced. This is a far cry from 'idle' thrust that on a cold winter morning can be over 1200lbs per engine (approx 5000 total) that works against the brakes on landing rollout. Its not just terminology. cowboy From kls Fri Jun 26 02:38:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jun 98 02:38:00 From: Prashanth Kuchibhotla Subject: Landing the 747 on autopilot Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ASIC, Texas Instruments I was grazing the channels last night and came across the last 1/2 hour of a truly awful Hollywood formula terror-in-the-skies movie. The only reasons I stayed were the B747 and Lauren Holly (in that order). The ending showed the B747 completely landing itself hands-off after Ms. Holly programs in the runway and airport codes into the computer. Brakes. Thrust reversers. The works. All hands-off. I remember reading somewhere that the 747 (at least the new ones) can land itself. True? How often has it been tried? In regular passenger service? Prashanth Dallas, Texas From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:22 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 26 Jun 98 02:37:38 , terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni caused to appear as if it was written: >Quite a long time. 8 hrs isn't even what CPs (or ACs) 767s (CP uses >-300ERs only) from YVR to LHR. Reverse direction is almost 10 hours. >CP also does LHR to Beijing in a 767-300ER which is some 11 hours. > >Any longer 767 routes out there? Not a route, but an E-767 AWACS has a 13 hour mission endurance withing 300 miles of its base, and then its time for a drink (OK, time to tank). This is a B767-200 with a very big round thing stuck on the back... MGTOW is 385,000lbs compared with the commercial B767-200's 395,000lbs... Malc. From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:23 From: "Pierre Bertrand" Subject: Re: 3X Jet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TotalNet Inc. Jim Eadie wrote in article ... > One obvious problem is the loss of thrust if the large engine failed during > takeoff or climb. See 14 CFR 25.121 "Climb: One-engine-inoperative" and > 25.123 "En route flight paths" hence the name 3X jet. The small engine is the same size as one of the engines if the aircraft was a twin. So it meets all the OEI (One Engine Inoperative) requirements by design (this is what sizes the small engine). So the big engine is twice that size, hence the name 3X. 2X for the big engine and 1X for the little one. A more accurate nomenclature would be 1.5X, since the aircraft is overpowered by 50% according to conventional twin aircraft standards but i think they thought 3X had more zing.... Yes Virginia, the aircraft is overpowered by 50%, and so the aircraft is heavier and costlier for it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the advantage claimed by the inventor is not that obvious and requires detailed analysis. And the answer is different depending on whether you use creative accounting or not.... From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:24 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: 3X Jet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 26 Jun 1998, Jim Eadie wrote: > One obvious problem is the loss of thrust if the large engine failed during > takeoff or climb. See 14 CFR 25.121 "Climb: One-engine-inoperative" and > 25.123 "En route flight paths" I believe that they have this problem covered. The smaller engine is the same size as one of the engines on a conventional twin of the same weight, so with the big engine out they should climb as well as a conventional twin with either engine out. Of course the size of the smaller engine would have to be in proportion to the slightly greater weight and engine-out drag of the 3X jet. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:25 From: Iain Stuart Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Don't be silly. Using a combination of fingers and keyboard, , Garry Forrest typed >If we could >figure out how to strap a single engine to a fuselage, believe me we'd >do it. (But where would you put the revenue bodies?) In the Under-Wing pods of course ! Doh ! (I mean, you wouldn't need them for engines, so would mean that you could have interchangeable passenger and freight pods.) Hmm. Wonder if I could patent this idea ? Seriously, wasn't there a Rich International L1011 that took off with only one engine ? From Alaska, I think. ------------------------------------------------------ Big-Iain From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:26 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc????@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > I made the same statement before and was corrected by someone in the > industry that the wing on the A340-500/600 is not a new one, it's only > an "insert". Correct, but a very expensive one ;) > IIRC, the new A340-500/600 will still have a nominal > cruise Mach number of 0.82, same as the original A340. Not correct, the A340NG will have a slightly higher Mach number of 0.845, this is a result of the higher wing sweepback. I collected the technical data of these birds at the URL listed below. Rgds, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sun Jun 28 18:47:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:27 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , wrote: > >Well, let's see. AA and SR have sold theirs to FedEX, though it'll be several >years before they all go there. LTU sold theirs to Swissair. KE is (has?) >converting all of its MD-11s to freighters. Not yet, but they (KE) will eventually. Also, add two more to the list. China Eastern is expected to transfer their MD-11s to a new cargo subsidiary. Taiwan's China Airlines will phase out their MD-11s when Taiwan's government gives them the green light to order new planes. From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:28 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc????@cmdnet.lu Thomas A. Beckley wrote: > Did TWA's buy extend the life of the MD-80 production line? Yes > How many are left to be delivered? 32 as of 01-Jun-98 > Looking at three Boeing press releases, the numbers just don't seem to add > up. When the discontinuation of the line was announced at the beginning of > November, there were 13 unfilled MD-80 orders and 91 unfilled MD-90 orders For the MD90 there is a backlog of 38 -30s and 20 -30Ts > The real question is, how many more MD-80/-90 aircraft are there to be > delivered? I can't seem to find a straight answer for this on the Boeing > website, but maybe I just missed it ... The Boeing website is very comprehensive and the information you looked for is included. If you are interested in orders/deliveries and backlogs for all jets you may wanna check http://surf.to/orders. HTH, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sun Jun 28 18:47:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:29 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc????@cmdnet.lu spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Northwest is the solitary exception, with no plans to replace their > DC-10s that I'm aware of. They have the A330 order which is still due. Besides this I was told from a reliable source that both Boeing and Airbus are talking to NW about the replacement of the 10s. Does any NW-insider have more information ? My $.02, -------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com 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 Sun Jun 28 18:47:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:30 From: alan721@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Landing the 747 on autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Prashanth Kuchibhotla wrote: > > I was grazing the channels last night and came across the last 1/2 hour > of a truly awful Hollywood formula terror-in-the-skies movie. The only > reasons I stayed were the B747 and Lauren Holly (in that order). The > ending showed the B747 completely landing itself hands-off after Ms. > Holly programs in the runway and airport codes into the computer. > Brakes. Thrust reversers. The works. All hands-off. > > I remember reading somewhere that the 747 (at least the new ones) can > land itself. True? How often has it been tried? In regular passenger > service? The late model 747's do have autoland capability that is used quite regularly. At the airline where I work, the aircraft MUST make an autoland at least every 30 days to remain in Category III autoland status. B-737-300 and later, 757, 767, & 777 also have autoland. I saw the movie and, while they tried to make some technically correct moves, some of it was BS. Programming the desired airport and runway into the flight management computer was correct, but some of her inputs were BS. Selecting all three autopilots on approach was correct, but I don't remember her setting the autobrake selector. Thrust reversers have NO automatic deployment. It is manual only. Overall, it was the best attempt at accuracy that I have seen. I was riding jumpseat into Dulles in a B-757 a few years ago and asked the captain if he could possibly do an autoland. He had to maintain his currency, so he agreed if traffic was light. We had about a 10 to 15 knot crosswind and the 757 landed exactly on the centerline. I was impressed. I was also surprised by the workload that the crew had, even though the autopilot was doing the flying. And it was VMC! -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:31 From: rroberts@eudoramail.com (r roberts) Subject: Re: Landing the 747 on autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BCTEL Advanced Communications On 26 Jun 98 02:38:00 , Prashanth Kuchibhotla wrote: >I remember reading somewhere that the 747 (at least the new ones) can >land itself. True? How often has it been tried? In regular passenger >service? It most definitely does and very nicely with or without passengers From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:32 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: Landing the 747 on autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World's Usenet -- http://www.Supernews.com > I remember reading somewhere that the 747 (at least the new ones) can > land itself. True? How often has it been tried? In regular passenger > service? Just about any modern jet aircraft has an autopilot with autoland capabilities these days, from B737's to B747's and everything in between. This function is used when performing a Cat III approach, in which visibilities get as low as 700 feet. Further, in order to maintain an autopilot's certification for autoland, generally the aircraft must perform an autoland approach once every 30 days, regardless of the weather. The autopilot will bring the aircraft down a glidepath and on the horizontal centerline of the runway using a conventional ILS system. It will retard the throttles and perform a flare, then touch down the nose gear. A separate system called Autobrakes will apply brake pressure at a level preset by the crew. A further separate system called Autospoilers will deploy the speedbrakes and ground spoilers once the aircraft is on the ground. These functions are about all the aircraft is capable of doing on its own. Reverse thrust still has to be applied manually by the pilot (at least, I am unaware of any autothrottle system that has reverse command capability). From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:33 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Landing the 747 on autopilot 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 Prashanth Kuchibhotla writes: >I was grazing the channels last night and came across the last 1/2 hour >of a truly awful Hollywood formula terror-in-the-skies movie. The only >reasons I stayed were the B747 and Lauren Holly (in that order). The >ending showed the B747 completely landing itself hands-off after Ms. >Holly programs in the runway and airport codes into the computer. >Brakes. Thrust reversers. The works. All hands-off. The 747 has long had an "autoland" capability. Most airliners made since the 1960s have also had autobrakes. In addition, ground spoilers can be set to automatically deploy upon touchdown. Thrust reversers are still commanded by the pilots on all types of airplanes. There may also be limits as to directional control on the rollout. You may wish to read the book "Flying the Big Jets" by Stanley Stewart. It is a good introduction to the various sorts of technology, from an operational perspective. -- 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 Sun Jun 28 18:47:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:34 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: Slower aircrafts ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , "Frank Muenker" wrote: >I was recently on a Delta B767-ER (-200 I think) flight from Frankfurt to >Cincinatti and the flight time was almost 10 hours. I could see on the >monitors that the average cruise speed was only about 480 mph which is >fairly slow compared to the 550 - 570 it could go. Also on 2 other >inner-European flights ( about 4.5 hrs) with a B737 and a B757 cruise speed >was way below 500 mph. I can recall that about 5 years ago cruise speed was >always 520-570, at least on flights longer than 1 hr. You're trying to compare ground speed to air speed. The FRA to CVG flight you cite was westbound where you normally have a headwind. A 480mph westbound groundspeed is not all that slow. -- -- 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 Sun Jun 28 18:47:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:35 From: Tom Turton Subject: Re: Slower aircrafts ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ANET Internet Services Frank Muenker wrote: > I was recently on a Delta B767-ER (-200 I think) flight from Frankfurt to > Cincinatti and the flight time was almost 10 hours. I could see on the > monitors that the average cruise speed was only about 480 mph which is > fairly slow compared to the 550 - 570 it could go. Also on 2 other > inner-European flights ( about 4.5 hrs) with a B737 and a B757 cruise speed > was way below 500 mph. I can recall that about 5 years ago cruise speed was > always 520-570, at least on flights longer than 1 hr. > I assume it has to do with fuel consumption, but does anybody know if the > fuel performance is significantly better at lower speeds and if so why did > they just start *now* to do that ? All aircrafts I was on looked like the > newest models. Is it that the latest models have a different curve of fuel > performance ? Let me preface this by saying its about 20% knowledge, 80% guesswork :-) It is my understanding that fuel consumption is indeed the main reason why aircraft today are flying slower. In fact, if I recall, it was aircraft from the B707/DC-8 days which made coast-to-coast flights at speeds bordering on Mach 1 (probably more like 0.95, but this is part of that 80% guesswork I mentioned!). To further speculate, I would guess that the reason more modern aircraft are flying slower is driven from a purely financial bottom line approach. As airlines attempt to cut their operating expenses, fuel consumption is one of the big variables they have to play with. So they ask their friendly aircraft manufacturers to give them a plane that beats the competition (or at least matches it). The manufacturers can't do a whole lot more aerodynamically to a conventional looking plane, so they slide on down the drag curve (lower speed equals lower drag) and they "design" the airplane to operate at a lower speed (I believe somewhere in the neighborhood of Mach 0.82-0.86 is typical). I have no idea what the actual costs involved are, but I assume the benefit derived from flying slower and saving fuel makes up for the increased costs associated with taking longer to fly from point A to B (higher costs for pilots and cabin crew, higher maintenance costs because of maintenance scheduled by time rather than mileage, etc). Well, take the above for what it's worth, and maybe someone who is more knowledgable can give some more "factual" data. ---Tom Turton From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:36 From: "Udayan V. Bhapkar" Subject: Re: Slower aircrafts ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: ubhapkar@erols.com Frank Muenker wrote: > I was recently on a Delta B767-ER (-200 I think) flight from Frankfurt to > Cincinatti and the flight time was almost 10 hours. I could see on the > monitors that the average cruise speed was only about 480 mph which is > fairly slow compared to the 550 - 570 it could go. Also on 2 other rest clipped... If the displayed 480 mph is ground speed, or radar track speed, then it would be affected by the wind speeds. Across the the Atlantic, it is common to see Westbound speeds some 100 mph lower than Eastbound speeds due to the prevailing winds. That alone could account for the discrepancy you observed. Udayan From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:37 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Slower aircrafts ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Frank Muenker wrote: > I was recently on a Delta B767-ER (-200 I think) flight from Frankfurt to > Cincinatti and the flight time was almost 10 hours. I could see on the > monitors that the average cruise speed was only about 480 mph which is > fairly slow compared to the 550 - 570 it could go. Also on 2 other > inner-European flights ( about 4.5 hrs) with a B737 and a B757 cruise speed > was way below 500 mph. I can recall that about 5 years ago cruise speed was > always 520-570, at least on flights longer than 1 hr. > I assume it has to do with fuel consumption, but does anybody know if the > fuel performance is significantly better at lower speeds and if so why did > they just start *now* to do that ? All aircrafts I was on looked like the > newest models. Is it that the latest models have a different curve of fuel > performance ? The monitors (more accurately the PFIS, or Passenger Flight Information System) shows groundspeed, not airspeed. Westbound there was probably a headwind. Trans-Pacific it's not uncommon to see below 450 westbound and above 700 eastbound. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:38 From: Iain Stuart Subject: IS IT 'THRUST 'OR 'POWER' ON A BIG JET. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Don't be silly. Using a combination of fingers and keyboard, , Donald Mc Lean typed >In answering a question on use of reverse thrust , asymmetric use of >reversers Mandy Bartels said that the 'power' on the b747-400 is reduced to >'idle' and the reversers are operated in that position to minimise the >opposition to brakes or words to that effect. >Surely the 'thrust' is reduced to 'zero' with the reversers at the interlock >position, ie , so no forward or reverse thrust is produced. Nope. The thrust reversers are operated at engine idle to minimise the shock loading on the engine/aircraft. The engine can then be accelerated, in Rev Thrust. Not to full power, but to a fair power. This provides a thrust, but in the opposite direction to usual, decellerating the aircraft on landing (or reversing the aircraft from a gate, if you can't be bothered waiting for a tug.) The LaudaAir 767 crash shows what can happen if a reverser operates in flight at high power. ------------------------------------------------------ Iain From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:39 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , wrote: > >Along these lines, I was surprised at how uncomfortable Cathay Pacific's >economy class is on the A330. Although they have one of the best economy >class seats I've ever experienced, they jam them in so tight that when the >seat in front of you reclines, it completely jams you in -- there's simply no >way to get out, if you're not a contortionist, without having the person in >front lift his seat back. Here too, it seems to be a case of giving all the >space to the folks in front. I guess not being tall is not that bad after all. ;-) For Cathay, the seating in the A330 is a great improvement over the L-1011 which the A330 replaces. (Cathay's L-1011 was configured with ten-abreast economy seating instad of the usual nine-abreast one.) Cathay's A330 is used mostly on regional routes, and East Asians are on the average smaller. Perhaps, that's why Cathay use the tighter configuration to maximize its revenue without annoying the majority of its customers. P.S. Cathay's new B777-300 are configured with 3-3-3 economy seating instead of the 2-5-2 which is used on Cathay's B777-200. Cathay claims the new configuration was chosen for cabin crew convenience! P.P.S. Cathay is seeking potential customers to lease the four B777-200As that it owns. The -200A and the A330 cater to nearly the identical market sector. Having both in the fleet simply doesn't make too much sense. From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:40 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Boeing and Long Beach... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >I was wondering, now that the only Douglas line Boeing has decided to >keep open is the 717, do they not have a much larger capacity now? With >this added factory capacity, can they not add production there of more >popular aircraft? Therefore reducing delays in delivery and current >congestion in their current plants? Since the MD-80/90 and MD-11 are >gone, cant they start a new line for 737s (regular production ones, not >just special types as they have said), could this give them an advantage >over Airbus when making delivery promises? I'm sure they are already >thinking along these lines, sure beats keeping those plants empty. Boeing is investigating the use of the Long Beach facilities for 737 production work, however, I do not believe it would be feasible to move an entire line here in the immediate future. The MD-90 and MD-11 lines have been discontinued, but this does not mean that the airplanes are "gone." Production and delivery of both of these aircraft is scheduled to continue well into the year 2000. One might assume that the production difficulties in Puget Sound will have been resolved by then. However, there are interim solutions which might be helpful, such as conducting final assembly of the 737 in Long Beach. Customer-specific configurations slow down the production line quite a bit, therefore, it would be quicker (and cheaper) to produce a line of "plain vanilla" 737s in Seattle and then fly them to Long Beach for installation of interiors, galleys, and customer-specific options in the flight deck. This would take advantage of the skilled production workforce as well as factory space. Colleen Wabiszewski 717 Systems Engineering From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:41 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: Boeing and Long Beach... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I was wondering, now that the only Douglas line Boeing has decided to >keep open is the 717, do they not have a much larger capacity now? With >this added factory capacity, can they not add production there of more >popular aircraft? Therefore reducing delays in delivery and current >congestion in their current plants? Since the MD-80/90 and MD-11 are >gone, cant they start a new line for 737s (regular production ones, not >just special types as they have said), could this give them an advantage >over Airbus when making delivery promises? I'm sure they are already >thinking along these lines, sure beats keeping those plants empty. You got that right! They have thought about it, and have sent a couple 737s down their for "finish work" prior to delivery... I think these may be Garuda's which of course wont be purchased for a little while because of the Asian economy. There are supposed to be a total of 10 737s going to Long Beach, if they're not already there. There was a press release about this which also mentioned that they are considering opening a 737 line in long beach for the Business Jets and Combi's so that Renton could just do a lot of standard passenger models without getting slowed down with the other derivitaves. They are also considering assembling some of the passenger 737s down there in the future. Sounds like a good idea to get caught up, but nobody up here agrees with me! :-) This would be a good way to keep the people in Long Beach working while catching up on the 737 deliveries. They are also doing finish work on some 757s at Everett now to free up employees in Renton to work only on 737s. This was all in a press release by the way.... Matt Student Pilot 5.6PIC "Airline Pilot in Training", 747-400 Assembler. http://members.aol.com/mechb747...under construction... From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:42 From: k_ish Subject: Re: Boeing and Long Beach... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom sammy@monmouth.com wrote: > I was wondering, now that the only Douglas line Boeing has decided to > keep open is the 717, do they not have a much larger capacity now? With > this added factory capacity, can they not add production there of more > popular aircraft? Therefore reducing delays in delivery and current > congestion in their current plants? Since the MD-80/90 and MD-11 are > gone, cant they start a new line for 737s (regular production ones, not > just special types as they have said), could this give them an advantage > over Airbus when making delivery promises? I'm sure they are already > thinking along these lines, sure beats keeping those plants empty. As you probably know, building an aircraft production line is a massive capital investment. As you also probably know, the airliner industry is very cyclic. It wouldn't make much sense IMHO to invest the capital and probably get the production capacity on line right as the next downturn hit. A much more sensible use of the capacity in LGB is exactly what Boeing is doing....using it to help with completion of "green" aircraft. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:43 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: Airbus trim system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Inc. Scott Macmillan wrote in message ... >eg. Lets say your in a light aircraft in level flight, then you decide >to climb. You add power then pull back on the yoke, then trim the >aircraft to maintain the climb attitude. > >Now lets say you decide to remain in level flight, but fly at a higher >air speed. You would add power, then push the yoke forward to maintain >level flight, then trim. > >If you were to do the same in the airbus, how do the computers know if >the pilot wants to climb, or if he wants to fly at a higher airspeed? Actually, at least in small aircraft, the trim establishes the airspeed. Changing the power will cause the plane to either climb (more power) or descend (less power). You trim the plane for best rate-of-climb (or cruise-climb, if you're not in a hurry to get up) and then you trim for cruise speed. You can't compare the rather simple autopilot of a light aircraft with the more sophisticated autopilot/flight computers of modern airliners. From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:44 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Measurement of airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com For whatever it may be worth, all the airlines I work with have a policy of taxi speed of 20kt or less. However graceful an airplane may be in the sky, they're all lame geese on the ground. TheFNG From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:45 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Measurement of airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Thanks for the post. Overall length is hard to use since the camera was too close to the taxiway, and on the larger aircraft the fuselage does not fit on the screen all at once. While we can stop the frame and piece together the length, that may be subject to error. The screen is just a bit wider than the wheelbase on the larger planes. We now have during one sequence a Beech Kingair, which is small enough we ARE going to use the overall length of that shot to calibrate the setup for those runs. Now, if I could just get the guys to set the camera at the same spot each day, and use the same focal length! :-) -- 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 Sun Jun 28 18:47:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:46 From: hackettNO*SPAM@southwind.net (Kim Hackett) Subject: Re: Measurement of airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Your Organization >wheelbase- don't know what an aircraft designer calls it. The drawings >in Janes are pretty small for scaling to measure this. There are quite >a few 737s and A320s on the tape. Anyone know where to find that >measurement for either of those, or any other popular airliner? Doesn't Janes have this information in tabular form under geometric description? From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:47 From: "Robert J. Carpenter" Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org Graham Glen wrote: > >[Moderator's Note: So what happened to the remaining Trident? Was it a > >prototype which was retained by HS? -- Karl] > > One was lost in a test flight in 1966 whilst investigating stall > behaviour. The aircraft entered a "super-stall", and no spin recovery > chute was fitted. Weren't TWO BAC 1-11 lost in deep stalls during testing? Was the Trident before them? Bob Carpenter From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:48 From: Andrew Muir Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing - Wichita Division Reply-To: nospamAndrew.Muir@Boeing.Com > The DeHavilland numbering system ended at about 126. According to my > sources, the DH.126 became the HS.136, then the HS.146 and finally the > BAe-146 that we all know and love(?) today. Don't you mean AIR RJ-100? From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:49 From: Andy Weir Subject: Re: DH Trident 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 >My question for the newsgroup: Why did the UK authorities wait so >long to require CVR's (long after the FAA did)? Because the powers that were, namely BOAC and BEA, which merged later to form BA, were unwilling to bear the expense. They had fairly recently installed FDRs and did not want to repeat the revenue losses involved in installation, taking planes off-line, etc. According to a former head of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, he and his colleagues "beat our heads against a brick wall" trying to get CVRs introduced, but the airlines successfully lobbied the Transport Ministry to prevent it. Then came Staines, and resistance folded. From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:50 From: "Anthony Chiu" Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM They never learn. The same happened to the prototype BAC 111 a couple of years later. From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:51 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion gapackers@mindspring.com wrote: > Greetings. As one of about 15 members of the human race that would > actually spend an afternoon at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport watching > planes land... Oh, there's a lot more than that. In fact, there's a large convention of such people meeting next week in Seattle (see http://www.sirius.com/~baahs/AI98.htm). > 4.) Is it possible, as a layman, to see the cockpit during flight? Not on a US airline. According to FAA regulations, only a very restricted group of people are allowed in an airline's cockpit while in flight. But there's no problem on the ground. Usually, the cockpit door is open during check-in -- just poke your head in and say hello. In some cases they'll tell you're too busy to talk to you, but usually they're quite friendly. On non-US airlines, it's usually up to the pilot. Ask the flight attendant to convey a request to visit the cockpit; I've seldom been refused. 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 Sun Jun 28 18:47:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:52 From: "Matthew J. Smedley" Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Penn State University, Center for Academic Computing Reply-To: smed@iname.com I can answer this one...the other ones I'm not entirely sure about. On 16 Jun 1998, GO PACK! wrote: > 4.) Is it possible, as a layman, to see the cockpit during flight? I > do some free-lance writing and have been offered a story involving > business travel and nearly everyone I question about the story wants > to know if they can see the cockpit? Do they ask a flight attendant? > Write the airline in advance? Barge in during a coffee break? Any ship registered in the United States is forbidden by FAA regulations to allow an unauthorized person (i.e., non-airline or non-regulatory) in the cockpit during flight so no luck on your internal business traveling. However, most foreign carriers will allow it -- I took advantage of this on a flight on a British Airways 777 from London to Philadelphia and got to spend about 10 minutes chatting with the very friendly captain as we were flying over Newfoundland. -Matt ___________________________ Matt Smedley smed@iname.com http://cac.psu.edu/~mjs174 From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:53 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet GO PACK! (gapackers@mindspring.com) wrote: : 1.) How fast are typical jets going just before you take off. around 150-160 knots=170-185 mph. : 2.) How about landing? About the same. : 3.) Someone once said Hartsfield has one of the longest runways in the : world. How long does a runway have to be to accomodate a 767 to : landing? I understand there's a minimum, but on the average? I think it is probably on the Boeing webpages, but maybe not. It varies with the temperature, barometric pressure, airport altitude and the weight of the airplane. Almost every kind of jet can be landed on a 5000 foot runway, but most people don't like to do it. 8000 feet is nice and 10000 us better. : 4.) Is it possible, as a layman, to see the cockpit during flight? I : do some free-lance writing and have been offered a story involving : business travel and nearly everyone I question about the story wants : to know if they can see the cockpit? Do they ask a flight attendant? : Write the airline in advance? Barge in during a coffee break? Not on U.S. registered aircraft. On many foreign lines, see the captain. : 5.) I live in Northeast Atlanta and frequently see decending jets over : our apartment complex...although I can't tell how high they are...and : was wondering f they always use the same flight path when decending. : Once in while, I notice they don't seem to be flying over very : frequently. Most follow roughly the same pattern at the end of their approach to an airport, but in visual weather, the crew can deviate to some extent. In instrument conditions, all planes will be as close to the same pattern as they can be. When the wind favors landing in the other directions, most of the planes will be taking off in your direction and probably diverge on their various routes before they reach you. -- Gerry From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:54 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >1.) How fast are typical jets going just before you take off. I >usually try to fly Delta's 767s out of Hartsfield for business, and >I've always wondered just how fast we are going down the runway. ...On a 737 rotation is around 130kts+ (150mph?) Climbout is around 160, accelerate to 210, then flaps up, then the FAA max of 250 below 10,000 feet. Above 10,000 or the class B airspace climb is 280-320 kts. Most airliners operate at about the same landing speeds, but the widebodies with highly swept wings like the 747 and DC-10 are a little faster, I think. (The 777 can go as slow as a 737 due to it's large flaps.) >2.) How about landing? ...About 135kts, but all speeds vary with weight. Approach speeds are in the area of 170-210kts (6 or more miles from the airport, limited to 250kts under 10,000') >3.) Someone once said Hartsfield has one of the longest runways in the >world. How long does a runway have to be to accomodate a 767 to >landing? I understand there's a minimum, but on the average? Landing: 5,600' Takeoff: 7,900' >4.) Is it possible, as a layman, to see the cockpit during flight? I >do some free-lance writing and have been offered a story involving >business travel and nearly everyone I question about the story wants >to know if they can see the cockpit? Do they ask a flight attendant? >Write the airline in advance? Barge in during a coffee break? ...I Wish! The FAA doesn't allow this. :-( you'll have to fly outside of the U.S. >5.) I live in Northeast Atlanta and frequently see decending jets over >our apartment complex...although I can't tell how high they are...and >was wondering f they always use the same flight path when decending. >Once in while, I notice they don't seem to be flying over very >frequently. They will be landing and taking off into the wind, so they change direction, and if the airport has runways at different angles to each other they may use a differrunway depending on the wind. I'm not familiar with your airport or how far out from the airport you are, but there are often a couple different published approaches. Matt Student Pilot 5.6PIC "Airline Pilot in Training", 747-400 Assembler. http://members.aol.com/mechb747...under construction... From kls Sun Jun 28 18:47:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 28 Jun 98 18:47:55 From: g3av8tor@aol.com (G3AV8TOR) Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Eric: When I was a kid, my parents would frequenlty take me to Atlanta Airport. I would sit next to what is now the approach end of 26R for hours and watch the jets come and go. (Not to mention the Connies, Electras...I feel old.) The business jets I fly will have a take-off speed of about 120-135 knots indicated depending on takeoff weight, airport elevation, and outside temperature. I say indicated because the actual speed, or true airspeed, can be higher due to airport altitude and outside temperature. And, of course, the ground speed is affected by a headwind of tailwind. (A headwind is preferable.) My final approach speed is usually between 120-140 knots indicated. This number is based on the aircraft weight at landing and wind. The more I weigh, the higher the approach speed. More speed is added for gusty winds. This is usually bled off 10 to 15 knots over the runway threshold before touchdown. Again, true airspeed and groundspeed will be affected by the same factors mentioned above. Someone in the newsgroup will be able to be able to answer your questions on the 767. I think that the speeds are not going to be much different. I would suggest you ask a flight attendant for a tour of the cockpit. Whether or not you will get one depends on the airline's rules, cockpit work load, the crews mood that day,...etc. I would definitely not suggest barging in. Most airports have standard arrival and departure procedures for each runway in use. The runway in use is ususally dertermined by the wind direction. Note the wind direction on the days the aircraft are flying overhead. The wind direction on the days the aircraft are not overhead will probably be different. Gary "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it ain't fixed, don't fly it." From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:17 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) wrote: >On 26 Jun 98 02:37:38 , terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni caused to appear as if >it was written: > >>Quite a long time. 8 hrs isn't even what CPs (or ACs) 767s (CP uses >>-300ERs only) from YVR to LHR. Reverse direction is almost 10 hours. >>CP also does LHR to Beijing in a 767-300ER which is some 11 hours. >> >>Any longer 767 routes out there? > >Not a route, but an E-767 AWACS has a 13 hour mission endurance withing 300 >miles of its base, and then its time for a drink (OK, time to tank). > >This is a B767-200 with a very big round thing stuck on the back... MGTOW >is 385,000lbs compared with the commercial B767-200's 395,000lbs... It takes practice to think global rather than a chart on a wall. Vancouver to London is shorter than Dallas to London. Flying from deep Europe, say Paris or Frankfurt to the US... Miami is only 30 min. nearer than Dallas and Los Angeles only 30 minutes farther. Both Anchorage and Rio de Janerio are closer. Bye the way, a B767-200ER weighs in at 351,000 and the -300ER at 400,000. Ron From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:18 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >It takes practice to think global rather than a chart on a wall. >Vancouver to London is shorter than Dallas to London. Flying from deep >Europe, say Paris or Frankfurt to the US... Miami is only 30 min. nearer >than Dallas and Los Angeles only 30 minutes farther. Both Anchorage and >Rio de Janerio are closer. >From Frankfurt, the distances (in statute miles) are as follows: FRA-MIA 4,823 FRA-DFW 5,135 FRA-LAX 5,800 FRA-GIG 5,900 FRA-ANC 4,676 At typical westbound cruise speeds, Miami is probably nearly an hour closer than Dallas and Los Angeles is nearly two hours further, not a mere 30 minutes. And Rio de Janeiro is hardly closer, though Anchorage is. >From Paris (CDG), Rio de Janeiro (GIG) is a mere two miles closer than LAX, and Anchorage is over 100 miles further away than MIA. Otherwise, the same comments apply. >Bye the way, a B767-200ER weighs in at 351,000 and the -300ER at 400,000. 351,000 lbs is the MGTOW for a 767-200, not the ER version, which as Malcolm said goes up to 395,000 lbs. 400,000 lbs was the MGTOW for the 767-300(ER) but they bumped it to 412,000 lbs several years ago. A further increase may be in the works, using some parts from the 767-400(ER). -- 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 Jun 29 02:38:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:19 From: Evan McElravy Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>4.) Is it possible, as a layman, to see the cockpit during flight? I >>do some free-lance writing and have been offered a story involving >>business travel and nearly everyone I question about the story wants >>to know if they can see the cockpit? Do they ask a flight attendant? >>Write the airline in advance? Barge in during a coffee break? > >...I Wish! The FAA doesn't allow this. :-( you'll have to fly outside >of the U.S. No, you don't have to fly outside the U.S., just on a non-U.S. carrier. Flights originating in the U.S. or with a final destination of the U.S. are no different than flights totally outside the U.S. By the same token, a U.S. carrier isn't allowed to give cockpit tours just becuase it operates a flight outside the U.S., which many do (Northwest's Amsterdam-Delhi servce, for example). I've been told Air Canada is an excellent for getting up front. In fact, they ususally offer a quick look around to all unaccompanied minors, assuming the captain is in the mood. On the ground is no problem though, assuming the crew has the time to accomodate your wishes (better chances after a flight than before). I got to spend about ten minutes in the first officer's seat of a B-1900D a few years back (during a layover) and have got quick runovers of other aircraft before, too, most recently one of Continental's 737-700s. The captain actually extended an invitation to all the gearheads to stick their heads in their way out the door. Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:20 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Technical University of Berlin, Germany On 28 Jun 98 18:47:26 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> >> IIRC, the new A340-500/600 will still have a nominal >> cruise Mach number of 0.82, same as the original A340. > >Not correct, the A340NG will have a slightly higher Mach number of 0.845, >this is a result of the higher wing sweepback. ...combined with reduced thickness/chord ratio (chordwise "insert"). But as wing loading has crept well into the 800s (kg/mē, that is), 0,845 seems somehow ambitous. LRC/ECON speeds may differ. How balanced a design can these -500/600 A340s be, anyway? Burkhard From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:21 From: donbikes@aol.com (Donbikes) Subject: Re: IS IT 'THRUST 'OR 'POWER' ON A BIG JET. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >In answering a question on use of reverse thrust , asymmetric use of >reversers Mandy Bartels said that the 'power' on the b747-400 is reduced to >'idle' and the reversers are operated in that position to minimise the >opposition to brakes or words to that effect. >Surely the 'thrust' is reduced to 'zero' with the reversers at the interlock >position, ie , so no forward or reverse thrust is produced. This is a far >cry from 'idle' thrust that on a cold winter morning can be over 1200lbs per >engine (approx 5000 total) that works against the brakes on landing rollout. >Its not just terminology. cowboy Sorry, Cowboy, the only way you can get zero thrust is to shut the engines down. With the engines running, the minimum thrust is idle, which can be used in two flavors - forward or reverse. Don S. Don Stimson donbikesx@aol.com (remove x from address to reply) From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:22 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: IS IT 'THRUST 'OR 'POWER' ON A BIG JET. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@gte.net Donald Mc Lean wrote: > In answering a question on use of reverse thrust , asymmetric use of > reversers Mandy Bartels said that the 'power' on the b747-400 is reduced to > 'idle' and the reversers are operated in that position to minimise the > opposition to brakes or words to that effect. > Surely the 'thrust' is reduced to 'zero' with the reversers at the interlock > position, ie , so no forward or reverse thrust is produced. This is a far > cry from 'idle' thrust that on a cold winter morning can be over 1200lbs per > engine (approx 5000 total) that works against the brakes on landing rollout. > Its not just terminology. cowboy Aloha, I have seen mfg. reports that say compressor cascade vanes and turbine reverser blocker doors can give up to about a 40% reverse thrust. Last I heard these same engines at idle gve about 15% fwd. thrust at idle. I would posit that a 25-35% difference is significant. Regards, Hugh From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:23 From: "Matt Leffers" Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net GO PACK! wrote in article ... >Greetings. As one of about 15 members of the human race that would >actually spend an afternoon at Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport watching >planes land, I have a few questions regarding jet flight that I would >like to pose to this group. I apologize if they sound a little trite, >but believe me, I am really interested in the answers... Don't feel alone! At dfw, the observation area is cram-packed some nights with people watching the planes come and go. People bring takeout and picknicks and make the airport a fun place!! matt From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:24 From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Pilot's Braking Options Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC I have the impression that on some landings, a pilot may apply a whole lot of braking force in order to slow down enough to take an earlier turnout from the runway. A couple of times, coming into Newark on Continental (an airport/airline combination that I have become very familiar with, over the years) I've felt the brakes go on very hard, and we _just_ make it into a turnout that probably brings us back to the terminal a minute or two more quickly than if we slowed more gently and proceeded farther down the runway before turning off it--which is what normally happens. More recently, into Phoenix in a 737 on AmericaWest, the braking was the hardest I can remember, AND the thrust reversers were used extensively, right up till the last possible moment when the aircraft turned off the runway. (This was not because we were near the end of the runway; we were barely past the halfway mark.) Is this all just a figment of my imagination, or are some pilots sometimes in the habit of using heavy braking to avoid a more lengthy route from the runway to the gate? From kls Mon Jun 29 02:38:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jun 98 02:38:25 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Yaw Damping was: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On Fri Jun 26 10:42:22 1998 jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) wrote:- >>> > [...] Dutch roll is >>> > a vice of any delta-winged aircraft. [...] > > I suspect the top writer meant to say that Dutch roll was part of a > swept-winged aircraft rather than delta. Quite right, Ron! (I was wondering when someone would take me to task over that!) 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/ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------