From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:11 From: Andrew Oliva Subject: TU-154 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WorldWide Access - Midwestern Internet Services - www.wwa.com I'm flying internally within Russia this August and am looking to see if there is somewhere I can go to look for technical specs on this aircraft on the internet? Andrew Oliva http://www.cbu.edu/~aoliva From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:12 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 , Marc Schaeffer wrote: > >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 ? I have heard that NW is in no hurry of replacing their DC-10s. That's why they have bought several used -30s in the past few years. OTOH, it does appear that NW will take the A330 and may even order more. The A330 is a natural replacement for the DC-10. From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:13 From: Augusto LAGHI Subject: DC9-30 Alitalia Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Italia Online Is there anyone having info about US registrations of Alitalia/ATI DC-9/30 and their relationship with previous Italian registration ? -- Augusto Laghi alaghi@iol.it http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/1903 http://www.baskerville.it/flynet/ali/home.html From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:14 From: Augusto LAGHI Subject: Re: Pilot's Braking Options References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Italia Online Charles Platt wrote: > 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 It depend on the separation from the following aircraft on final for the same runway. If the landed aircraft is not able to clear the runway quickly, maybe the following must perform a go-around. -- Augusto Laghi alaghi@iol.it http://www.baskerville.it/flynet/ali/home.html From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:15 From: Robert Courteau Subject: Re: Mobiles and laptops in-flight References: <6n38b2$8ol$1@eros.clara.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CAE Electronics, Montreal Tina wrote: >A friend sent me E-mail on his laptop from "somewhere over the >Atlantic". I know others who claim they have connected to the Internet >in-flight. As far as I understand the technology, connecting to a >network on a laptop works the same way as dialing on a mobile phone >(doesn't it?). > >Why, then do airlines ask passengers to switch off mobile phones for the >entire flight but PCs are to be switched off ONLY for take off and >landing? If using mobile phones can interfere with flight systems, >doesn't the same apply for PCMCIA cards? What about airlines that offer >onboard fax services & such...? Your friend was probably using his laptop (legal above 10,000 ft), and connecting to the seatback in-flight telephone service, which uses satellite communications (not cellphone technology) to link to the ground phone network. So you can indeed e-mail, fax, or surf the Net - provided you are ready to spend many dollars a minute doing so. From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:16 From: "Tina" Subject: Re: Mobiles and laptops in-flight References: <6n38b2$8ol$1@eros.clara.net> <3597A126.1C1C2265@cae.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Robert Courteau wrote: > Your friend was probably using his laptop (legal above 10,000 ft), >and connecting to the seatback in-flight telephone service, which uses >satellite communications (not cellphone technology) to link to the >ground phone network. So you can indeed e-mail, fax, or surf the Net - >provided you are ready to spend many dollars a minute doing so. Aah, thank you for clarifying ! Would it even be possible to get a connection at, say, 35 000 ft using a mobile phone? Tiina From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:17 From: terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni Subject: Re: 767 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 28 Jun 98 18:47:22 , malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) wrote: >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... And only the Japanese Air Self-Defense Forc (or self-defense air force) has it? The USAF doesn;t have any, does it? Terence Liow - replace royaumeuni with the abbreviation of the U_nited K_ingdom of England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland to reply From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:18 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 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>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 Why would you quote statute miles? I did not bother to check your numbers, but I suspect they are great circle, actual routes are typically a bit longer due to ATC routings. >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. You are assuming a constant ground speed. Winds are typically lighter at higher latitudes. My times were based on both experience and inflight estimates by the FMC. >>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). Certifications vary depending on customer and engine combination. For example the Increase you mentioned for the 300ER was a paperwork item only, no modifications required. I stand by the 200 vs. 200ER weights. Ron From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:19 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 >Why would you quote statute miles? Because that's what airlines use (even in planning departments, though not actual flight ops) and what a lot of maps and people commonly use. Besides, the units don't much matter -- Rio de Janeiro is not closer to Frankfurt than Miami. Period. You could use furlongs and it wouldn't change the outcome. >I did not bother to check your numbers, but I suspect they are great >circle, actual routes are typically a bit longer due to ATC routings. Yes, they are great circle routes, and of course you are correct about actual routings. However, I seriously doubt the ATC routings for FRA-MIA would add more than the 1077 miles (1733 km, 936 nm, 8616 furlongs, etc.) required to merely match the great circle distance for FRA-GIG, never mind make FRA-MIA longer than FRA-GIG. >>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 ... >You are assuming a constant ground speed. Winds are typically lighter at >higher latitudes. My times were based on both experience and inflight >estimates by the FMC. Here is Lufthansa's schedule on these routes, including block time: LH 462 FRA 1015 MIA 1405 747-200 9:50 LH 450 FRA 1050 LAX 1320 747-400 11:30 LH 452 FRA 1400 LAX 1630 747-400 11:30 LH 438 FRA 940 DFW 1325 A340-300 10:45 LH 500 FRA 2205 GIG 0500 A340-300 11:55 Block time isn't the same as flight time, of course, though for these flights the ground component of the block time is probably similar. FRA-LAX is an hour an 40 minutes longer than FRA-MIA, quite a bit less than the three hours I suggested though significantly more than the 60 minutes you claimed. That's assuming the 747-200 and 747-400 fly at the same speed. The -400 may have a slight advantage, plus it will likely be able to climb higher, quicker, giving it further advantage, but this factor is probably not huge. At best, an "apples to apples" comparison might have the difference a bit closer to two hours. The A340 is significantly slower than the 747, so you can't compare all four routes, but it's pretty clear that GIG is not closer to FRA than DFW in time any more than it is in distance. If we can at least agree that FRA-DFW is further than FRA-MIA, then it's obvious that GIG cannot be closer to FRA than MIA. >>>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). > >Certifications vary depending on customer and engine combination. For >example the Increase you mentioned for the 300ER was a paperwork item >only, no modifications required. I stand by the 200 vs. 200ER weights. You said nothing about "200 vs. 200ER weights" -- you never mentioned the 200 (non-ER) at all, just the ER versions of both -200 and -300. When Malcolm compared the E-767 to the 767-200(ER) it's clear enough that he was referring to the capability of the 767-200(ER) in general terms, not a specific, possibly restricted example aircraft. You're welcome to stand by whatever weights you like, but I suspect most of us here will prefer to stick with what Boeing says. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:20 From: "Peter Frei" Subject: Re: Northwest DC10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Active-Net AG, Switzerland rlawler@isd.net schrieb in Nachricht ... >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. Just a quickie for information - Thai's first two DC-10s, HS-TMA and TMB, flew into Zurich, Switzerland, for heavy-maintenance by Swissair on April 29 and 25, respectively, and will then go to NWA. PFI -- Supplied by >>Peter Frei >>Aviation Photography and Research pfi@active.ch From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:21 From: rlawler@isd.net Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: rlawler@isd.net EHaase2463 wrote: > > 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? Only for the same reason that you probably wouldn't drive a 1982 Buick. Even if the car was in top running order, "its not new". Most people today have a fictation about that. Its true that the older an aircraft gets, the more maintenance it may require. But as long as that required maintenance is performed and it remains economical to do it, there is nothing wrong with the aircraft. Most of Northwests DC-10's have used up only about 25% of their life cycle (in terms of takeoffs and landings). They are realatively cheap to operate and are capabile of operating into the 21st century. Keep in mind that those new aircraft rolling off the Boeing and Airbus production line are extremely expensive. When you consider the cost of the aircraft and the cost of maintenance over its lifetime, there is barely room for any profit. From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:22 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , EHaase2463 wrote: >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? NW made the statement during a time when Boeing and Airbus are heavily pitching the B717 and A319M5, respectively, to NW. I think NW is trying to tell the manufacturers that only if the price is right will NW considering purchasing a 100-seat replacement. After all, NW has another 15 years to make a decision (as the study shows), while the B717 desperately needs a reputable customer and Airbus refuses to let Boeing get too much ahead in the 100-seat market. NW is no doubt in the driver's seat. I seriously doubt NW will keep the DC-9s for another 15 years (i.e., I think NW is bluffing). From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I seriously doubt NW will keep the DC-9s for >another 15 years (i.e., I think NW is bluffing). Regardless of whether or not they were bluffing, it appears that most of them will be retired in less than 15 years. There's an article about the program in AW&ST (p. 48, June 22, 1998), which says that the plan was for the DC-9s to fly up to 104,000 cycles, but NW recently reduced that to 100,000 cycles. The reason for the reduction is that the rear pressure bulkhead should (must?) be replaced at 100,000 cycles, and one done recently as an experiment turned out to be "an invasive, wide-ranging job" according to a NW spokesman. The article claims an average of 69,000 cycles for the planes at present with 2,000 cycles being added per year. That still works out to more than 15 years until retirement for the average aircraft, even with the limit dropped from 104,000 to 100,000 cycles, but there presumably are some high-cycle aircraft which will have to be retired early. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:24 From: "Baker" Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MCI2000 Why not. The DC-10's in Northwest's fleet can fly easily for another 15 years with the proper maintainance. The same goes for the DC-9's. It is much more economical to refurbish those then buy new. From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:25 From: Jim Wolper Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISU Mathematics Department > gapackers@mindspring.com wrote: > > 4.) Is it possible, as a layman, to see the cockpit during flight? You can always go to the local airport and take a few flying lessons. This will tell you much more about "what it's like" than a zillion bytes of net.wisdom. Jim Wolper, Certificated Flight Instructor From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:26 From: dwl@panix.com (David W. Levine) Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC In Evan McElravy writes: >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. Assuming they aren't on a quick turn or a chaotic schedule, my impressino is most flight crews love to show off thier toys. I've spent more a few delays up front chatting with the pilots. They'll be monitoring ATC, or the guys doing a repair, or whatever, but, to a large degree, they're bored too. Spent 45 minutes with a AA crew which was showing off the latest slick stuff the brand new plane they had could do. Pulling up waypoints, checking the number of hours on each engine, etc. Very nice stuff, and these guys were proud of it. Ask nice, and you'll generally get at least a quick look. - David From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Very nice stuff, and these guys were proud of it. >Ask nice, and you'll generally get at least a quick look. Or better. I had a very nice chat with the crew of a brand new 777-200IGW before our departure from LHR. They were proud of having operated the first scheduled eastbound trip across the pond the day before. I pointed out that if they checked the aircraft's log they would find that it had being doing the trip for a week already. The captain noted how the company never gave them the straight story and we moved on to more interesting topics about the plane and how it compared to the non-IGW 777 and to 747s, but a few hours into the flight a flight attendant showed up at my seat with a bottle of Dom Perignon, courtesy of our captain. :-) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:28 From: "Dave Pullan" Subject: Re: Questions from a Newbie... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NBTel Internet G3AV8TOR wrote in article ... > > 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. The indicated take off speed, V2, on the jets I fly are not affected by air temp nor elevation. Position error is approx nil. Does Gulfstream actually do differently? From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:29 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University Garry Forrest writes: > One of the biggest cost drivers for jets are -- the jets. > 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?) I think you're leaving out another factor: efficiency. I believe bigger engines have lower specific fuel consumption. So an aircraft with four engines, each of 50,000-lb thrust, will always be less economical than a similar one with two 100,000-lb thrust engines, other factors being equal. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:30 From: "Neil Gerace" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SilkRoad web.services Reply-To: "Neil Gerace" Garry Forrest wrote in message ... >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?) Really? From the point of view of the person who has to pay for and maintain engines, sure. But from the point of view of the person who has to explain to victims' relatives why the plane they died in had no spare engines when one failed, definitely not. Besides, doesn't a civilian single-jet aircraft exist already? I saw a picture of one recently, it had the intake above the rear part of the fuselage. and the exhaust under the tail, like a 727. Neil From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:31 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 >Besides, doesn't a civilian single-jet aircraft exist already? I saw a >picture of one recently, it had the intake above the rear part of the >fuselage. and the exhaust under the tail, like a 727. The only single-engine civil jet transport I can think of is the Visionair Vantage. At least I think that's the name. Burt Rutan and Scaled Composites are a major part of the program. It has a pair of intake scoops at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock positions, though, not a single intake above the fuselage like the 727's #2 engine. It's also just a prototype, undergoing development flight testing. Make that fixed-wing civil jet transport -- I'm sure there are plenty of examples of single-jet civil helicopters. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:32 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 Kim Hackett wrote: > > >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? They only have 'overall dimensions', like length, etc. Since the larger aircraft are longer than can fit in a frame, I find it hard to extrapolate. However, we ended up not getting the project, so it looks like the info is moot at this point anyway. Thanks anyway, guys. -- 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 Wed Jul 1 02:42:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:33 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A320: effect of spoilers when airbraking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 26 Apr 1998, Ludwig Kammler wrote: > 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? Yes, the A320 and its successors do not have a dedicated set of surfaces for airbrakes. Instead, the spoilers (five pairs of surfaces on the upper surfaces of the wings) have three functions: - deployed asymmetrically, to assist the ailerons in achieving a roll (sometimes), - deployed symmetrically at a small angle (no more than 5 degrees?) to increase drag and so act as airbrakes, and - deployed symmetrically on air-to-ground transition at full extension (45 degrees?) to dump lift and keep the wheels on the deck after touchdown, i.e., ground spoilers. All movements of the spoilers are commanded by the SECs (Spoiler and Elevator Computers, of which there are three, with responsibility for different pairs of spoilers) under normal flight laws (i.e., in the absence of a failure of part of the flight control system or of one or more of the three hydraulic circuits. I would expect the deployment of the spoilers as air-brakes to have a pitching moment (since they would decrease lift from the wings slightly as well as increasing drag). I am quite sure that the FCS would compensate for this automatically, since the use of airbrakes is always completely automatic and under control of the FCS, not directly by the pilots. (In an overspeed condition on descent, the FCS would deploy the spoilers as airbrakes automatically, without any input from the crew.) Sorry to be a bit uncertain of the details, but I am writing from home and don't have my A320 FCOM to hand. Pete Mellor ----------- Centre for Software Reliability, City University, London E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ------------------------------- From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:34 From: Scott Decker Subject: Re: Pilot's Braking Options References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Enterprise Server Group Charles Platt wrote: > 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? Just a thought on this subject, but sometimes, ATC will space A/C a little to close for their comfort and ask the pilots to exit the runway as soon as practical. I listen to ATC a lot and have heard this along with getting another A/C off to meet a flow time for an IFR departure. Years ago, I flew in to Reno on Frontier A/L's on 737-? and I remember watching the gates then the GA ramp go by still off the ground. About the time I watched the tower go by, I think the pilot said, "DOWN you BEAST" and that we did. I don't remember how much runway was left, but I watched a magazine that was on the floor go by at about 70+ MPH as he hit the breaks. (I think the pilots feet were smoken too) At that point I wasn't sure if I would need a cab to get a ride back to the airport. All and all I think we were that close to a go-around and what I think got the whole thing started was the wind. If you don't know Reno, the wind can be a real ^&*$$&^* for pilots and I think this guy did a great job. BTW, he did use thrust reversers to the very end. -- Scott Decker AKA: PadMasterson Praegitzer Design On Location at Enterprise Server Group CO3 Intel Corporation Ph: (503)-677-6582 E-MAIL: Scott.Decker@pii.com From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:35 From: cmarcum@juno.com (C E Marcum) Subject: Re: Pilot's Braking Options References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 29 Jun 98 02:38:24 cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) writes: >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? It is not a figment of your imagination. Some pilots are very cognizant of giving passengers the best ride possible (while saving their company a ton of money on brake jobs) and others are more interested on getting you (and/or themselves) to the gate as quickly as possible. And I'm sure there are a few who could care less about you being back there. Charlie lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Charles E. Marcum CMarcum@juno.com CEMarcum@usms.org Knoxville, Tennessee, USA llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:36 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Pilot's Braking Options References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com You are exactly right in your assumptions. It does vary wildly from day to day and pilot to pilot. But lets not forget that getting to the gate on time is what the customers want, not smooth rollouts. From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:37 From: jordmkair@aol.com (Jordmkair) 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 >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, I'm pretty sure you CAN'T load a large airplane to MTOW without fuel in the wings. I'm no engineer either, but I recall this concept from my ATP study. Most large airplanes have what's called a Zero Fuel Weight, a weight beyond which you cannot add more passengers or cargo - you can only add fuel. I imagine it's based on the bending forces that will be present where the wings (lift) meet the fuselage (non-fuel load). From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:38 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: UPS B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , "steven tobey" wrote: >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. Can't speak for UPS, but at AAL the three character alphanumeric nose number is used for internal record keeping and may or may not match the last three numbers of the tail number. Other airlines which contract with AAL for maintenance services will probably use a similar scheme. Ron From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:39 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: interesting ETOPS stats from UAL References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , "S.L." wrote: >Turbine engines are affected by power setting, but not to anywhere NEAR >the degree that piston engines are ... Biggest single factor perhaps for jet engines has been the computation and use of a reduced power setting for most takeoffs. Ron From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:40 From: Vince Wayland Subject: Grounding of 777's? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Center for Atmospheric Research When we arrived at DIA last night, (Thurs. 06/18/98) there were long lines at the UAL customer service counters. Later, on the RTD bus, I overheard UAL employees discussing the fact that the FAA wanted all 777s grounded immediately for a software problem. Anybody know what's up? Vince -- Vince Wayland The National Center for Atmospheric Research (303) 497-1300 CCR/PCM Modeling Group wayland@ucar.edu NCAR/CGD, PO Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Grounding of 777's? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >When we arrived at DIA last night, (Thurs. 06/18/98) there were long >lines at the UAL customer service counters. Later, on the RTD bus, I >overheard UAL employees discussing the fact that the FAA wanted all 777s >grounded immediately for a software problem. Anybody know what's up? According to the info I have, the problem appeared after a routine update to the navigation database in the FMC, provided by Honeywell. The update resulted in the FMC being unable to compute performance parameters such as takeoff speeds. After determining that none of the updates were relevant to routes flown by United, FAA permission was received to temporarily revert to the previous month's version of the database. Delays of up to two hours were reported, and one flight diverted. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:42 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: Cross crew qualification References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , "Russell L Farris" wrote: >At US Airways we are qualified on both the 757 at initial upgrade, with >one day of 767 differences training at the end. At AAL, the 767's had been around for several years when the first 757 was purchased and the training consisted of a 1/2 day (on paper) mostly consisting of viewing the slide package for the walkaround. Now that the 757's are in the majority, the program has reversed to 757 training with 767 differences thrown in. The operating manual has had the same reversal. Ron From kls Wed Jul 1 02:42:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Jul 98 02:42:43 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Re: 757 flap restriction 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 "Yves E. Hoebeke" wrote: >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. Sometimes a limitation is caused by nothing more sinister than the following reasoning: flaps are only needed for take-off and landing => flaps have only been tested below 20000 ft => use of flaps is only permitted below 20000 ft. In this case, there are some fundamental reasons for not using flaps at high altitude. It is not so much the altitude itself which is the problem, but rather the higher Mach numbers that go with it. For the same indicated airspeed, the corresponding Mach number increases with altitude. I do not know what the actual flap limiting speeds are for the aircraft you mention, but let us use 200 kts as an example. At Sea-level this equates to Mach 0.302, at 10000 ft to Mach 0.365, at 20000 ft to Mach 0.446 and at 30000 ft to 0.555. As flaps increase wing camber and therefore cause higher local airspeeds around the profile, you definitely do not want to have flaps down at the higher Mach numbers because of compressibility effects. 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 Mon Jul 6 03:24:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:26 From: "Ken" Subject: Ramp Arrivals Technology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMnet Malaysia The new Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) has opening has been met with a lot of derision from passengers and flight crews alike; with plenty of associated press coverage. One of the procedural temporary changes has necessitated the aircraft to stop short of the ramp, disregarding the automatic guidance system, and then wait for the aircraft to be marshalled into position. Apparently there may be some problems with the calibration of the system which flight crews use to position the aircraft at the ramp i.e. Left/Right/Stop indications. I had assumed the equipment was purely optical however today I learnt the latest technology employs sensors and the problem may be related to the fuselage/nose gear wheel well doors disturbing the sensor feedback. Could someone shed some more light on how these latest technology guidance systems work? Many thanks! Ken From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:27 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Pratt & Whitney radial question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. Does anyone in the group know when the Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Jr. went out of production? My reference books say the engine was introduced in 1929 but outside of saying thousands were produced during WWII they do not give an end-of-production date. Thanks. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:28 From: schnabl@mbox.vol.it (Roberto Schnabl) Subject: 747 operations from short(ish) runways Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telecom Italia Net Could anybody shed some light on heavies' long range operations from shorter runways? I am talking about long flights from around 9,000' runways in a 747 like BA's 747-400 from Nagoya Japan (8,990' runway) to LHR, other examples which come to my mind are the flight which NW used to run in a 747 from Osaka's older Itami airport (9,843' runway) to LAX or LH's 747 flight from Duesseldorf (9,843' runway with TORA restrictions) to LAX. All flights are or were nonstop and I am intrigued by what takeoff performances must have been like on a hot summer day in a nearly full plane because if payload is very much affected I do not think the economics would work for the carrier. I recall one summer takeoff in a fully laden TWA 747 (must have been an older 100 or 200 series) from Rome Fiumicino' 16R to JFK which lasted well over 50 seconds: runway is 12,800' and we lifted off just before the 34L TDZ marking so ground run must have been around 11,500'! Did not like that at all! On the other hand I also remember transitting Boston Logan in a LH 747-200 enroute FRA-PHL: as we lined up on 09 (7,000') I was feeling a bit uncomfortable but we took off in what must have been no more than a 4,000' ground run (plane was very light though) therefore performance can change a lot. I am aware that takeoff parameters are carefully worked out in a data sheet and are very much dependent on weight, temperature, weather conditions, runway gradient etc. nevertheless taking off on a hot summer day in a fairly laden 747 from a 9,000' runway would give me the creeps. Obviously if they do it it must be safe, still I am a little bit curious and would appreciate any comments from people who really fly the big birds. Thanks and kind regards Roberto Schnabl From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:29 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: DC9-30 Alitalia 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 Augusto LAGHI wrote: > Is there anyone having info about US registrations of Alitalia/ATI > DC-9/30 and their relationship with previous Italian registration ? I assume you mean the ones Northwest acquired. Here goes: N601NW was I-DIBA, N602NW = I-DIBE, N603NW= I-DIBL N604NW = I-DIBP, N605NW = I-DIBM, N606NW= I-RIFG N607NW = I-RIFY, N608NW = I-RIFC, N609NW= I-RIFD N610NW = I-RIFB, N611NA = I-RIFL, N612NW= I-RIFZ N613NW = I-RIFP, N614NW = I-RIFH, N615NW= I-DIBI N616NW = I-RIFS, N617NW = I-RIFJ, N618NW= I-RIFU N619NW = I-RIFE, N620NW = I-RIFV, N621NW= I-RIFM N622NW = I-RIFW, N623NW = I-RIFT details at http://www.concentric.net/~Aeromoe/nw.html Brian @ YYJ From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:30 From: Jeff Taylor Subject: Re: DC9-30 Alitalia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM Canada Augusto LAGHI wrote: > Is there anyone having info about US registrations of Alitalia/ATI > DC-9/30 and their relationship with previous Italian registration ? Several of these aircraft, perhaps 5, were "D" Checked by Air Canada at YUL for Northwest. 13 Aircraft in total. Ex Eastern, Ex Midway and Ex Alitalia. Done 2years ago From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:31 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The World's Usenet -- http://www.Supernews.com H Andrew Chuang wrote in message ... >I seriously doubt NW will keep the DC-9s for >another 15 years (i.e., I think NW is bluffing). NW reported, through WSJ, that two to four DC-9s will be retired, each year, over the next 15 years. John From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:32 From: "Peter Frei" Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customers of Active-Net AG, Switzerland >EHaase2463 wrote: > 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? "There is no such thing as an old airplane - there's only well and not so well maintained aircraft". This statement was issued by a former Lufthansa CEO a few years ago. It is therefore feasible for NW to keep their DC-9s for another 15, and their DC-10s for another 23 years. Theoretically at least. Physically the noise regulations that will come into effect in the next few years will limit the use of these older, not- stage-three aircraft severely. Unless NW heavily invests in hush-kits, it may be cheaper buying new. Older aircraft usually require more attention during maintenance, thus driving costs up. Regards. Peter From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:33 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 01 Jul 98 02:42:22 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) caused to appear as if it was written: >In article , >EHaase2463 wrote: >>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? >NW made the statement during a time when Boeing and Airbus are heavily >pitching the B717 and A319M5, respectively, to NW. I think NW is >trying to tell the manufacturers that only if the price is right will >NW considering purchasing a 100-seat replacement. After all, NW >has another 15 years to make a decision (as the study shows), while >the B717 desperately needs a reputable customer and Airbus refuses to >let Boeing get too much ahead in the 100-seat market. NW is no doubt >in the driver's seat. I seriously doubt NW will keep the DC-9s for >another 15 years (i.e., I think NW is bluffing). What would the operating economies of a DC9 dragged into Stage 3 compliance look like compared to a new build aircraft? What are NW's options and obligations regarding Stage 3? As far as I know, there is a hushkit developed for the things by ABS Partnership, but I don't know how many DC9s need this... Malc. From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:34 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: 757 flap restriction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , "Yves E. Hoebeke" wrote: >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. $$$. Most Boeings have a similar limit simply because no customer was willing to spend the dollars having the aircraft certified for flaps above that altitude. Ron From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:35 From: Matthew Kranz Subject: Re: 757 flap restriction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: mkranz@mindspring.com Yves E. Hoebeke wrote: > 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. The B727 has a similar restriction. I was told that the restriction exists simply because, during certification testing, the test crews never extended the flaps above FL200. Therefore, to prevent your everyday airline pilot from venturing into the unknown and becoming a test pilot, the restriction was placed in the AFM. Hope this helps. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Matthew K. Kranz COMM/Multi/Inst. Greensboro, NC Flight Engineer =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:36 From: hunneweb@qnet.com (Brad Hunnewell) Subject: Re: 757 flap restriction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: bhunnewell@aol.com On 17 May 98 00:42:53 , "Yves E. Hoebeke" wrote: >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. I asked that very question in 737 school, and the answer I got was: don't use flaps above 20,000 ft because the limit airspeeds in the book are in indicated airspeed. If Boeing had published (and been paid for) flap limits in Mach #, it would be OK. But nobody wants that info because nobody can imagine why we would want to use flaps above 20,000 ft, anyway! Just what I heard. From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:37 From: "Russell L Farris" Subject: Re: 757 flap restriction References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp Yves E. Hoebeke wrote in article ... > 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. Every jet airliner I have flown (DC-8, DC-10, B-727,B-767/757 and Fokker F-28) has the 20,000 foot altitude restriction on flap extension. My understanding is that the FAA during certification only requires flap demonstration to FL200 during the flight tests, it's just a number really. Since the manufacturer is only required to show safe flap operation to FL 200, the restriction exists in the flight manual as an aircraft limitation. Hope this helps From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:38 From: "Gary S. Martin" Subject: Re: Measurement of airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Air Force Flight Test Center JWizardC wrote in message ... >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. That may be the stated policy, but an Air Traffic Controller that I know tells me that Southwest and some others competing with them have been known to taxi at 40 knots or better in order to help the on-time record a little. Gary Martin From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:39 From: "Neil Gerace" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SilkRoad web.services Reply-To: "Neil Gerace" Garry Forrest wrote in message ... >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?) And what would you tell their next-of-kin when the single engine fails? Two or more engines are safer than one. I'm sure the folks who buy and operate engines know this. The BAe 146 is a small plane. Planes that size don't need four engines but it has them for extra safety and to bypass ETOPS restrictions. Why does the A340 exist when the A330 is the same size and has only two engines? To exploit the greater freedoms in the rules which planes with more than two engines enjoy. BTW a single-jet civilian plane does exist. VisionAire Vantage Powerplant: one 12.9kN P&W Canada JT12D-5 turbofan. MTOM: 3175 kg. First flight: 16/12/96 Service entry planned for late this year or early next. It has two intakes, oval shaped on either side of the rear part of the roof. The exhaust is invisible in the photo but would appear to be under the tail. Sorry, I don't have a scanner. It requires only one pilot and seats five passengers, one beside the pilot and four in a 2+2 club arrangement in the main cabin. Neil From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:40 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 >The BAe 146 is a small plane. Planes that size don't need four engines >but it has them for extra safety and to bypass ETOPS restrictions. Since the BAe-146 has a still air range of only 1,300 miles (according to AW&ST's Source Book), ETOPS isn't much of an issue. That's why you don't generally find more than two engines on regional aircraft. From what I've heard, the 146 has four engines simply because when it was built, four of the ALF502 engines were more efficient and closer to the thrust requirements for the plane than two of anything else available. Neither safety nor ETOPS had anything to do with it. >Why does the A340 exist when the A330 is the same size and has only >two engines? To exploit the greater freedoms in the rules which planes >with more than two engines enjoy. While Airbus has sold a fair number of A340s on the basis of avoiding ETOPS restrictions, the main reason for building both was to provide greater range -- the basic A340-300 has over 60% greater range than the same-sized A330-300. When the A330/340 were designed, engines large enough to build a twin with the range of the A340 didn't exist and thus the A340 was born. Now that such engines exist and Boeing has built the 777 around them, Airbus has of course made a virtue out of not needing to follow ETOPS rules, while at the same time producing a long-range twin in the form of the A330-200. -- 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 Jul 6 03:24:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:41 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Stephen H. Westin wrote: > I think you're leaving out another factor: efficiency. I believe > bigger engines have lower specific fuel consumption. So an aircraft > with four engines, each of 50,000-lb thrust, will always be less > economical than a similar one with two 100,000-lb thrust engines, > other factors being equal. The question should be: If a 4 engined plane has 4 50k lb-thrust engines (200k total), how much thrust would a comparable twin have ? Since they must be able to survive on a single engine after having reached V2 (or is it V1 ?) during takeoff, surely there must have to be some "spare" thrust into each of the 2 engines ? So, if a twin engine aircraft must have spare capacity in its engines, how much does that spare capacity cost to carry/maintain/build compared to the cost of 4 smaller engines which do no stretch materials to their limit ? Is it not logical to say that the 777's engines, being state of the art and challenging engineers and materials to their limits, would cost more to build/research than building smaller engines for whom today's materials represent little or no challenge ? I am not familiar with jet engine prices (they don't carry them in stock at the local supermarket:-). It would be interesting to see a comparison of *purchase* price for 4 A340 class engines compared to the price for 2 777 class engines. From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:42 From: "Neil Gerace" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SilkRoad web.services Reply-To: "Neil Gerace" Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >Make that fixed-wing civil jet transport -- I'm sure there are plenty >of examples of single-jet civil helicopters. Sure there are, but they're turboshafts, not jets. Neil From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:43 From: fjfjlspencer@alaska.net (Lee Spencer) Subject: FAA orders Boeing 737 engine checks Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Alaska Inc. -- http://www.alaska.net Here's an article that should be of interest. FAA orders Boeing 737 engine checks By Tim Dobbyn WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered U.S. airlines flying the newest Boeing 737 aircraft to check immediately for a problem that shut down two engines over Europe last week. The urgent airworthiness directive to inspect engine gearboxes for a faulty shaft affects 23 U.S.-registered Boeing 737-700 and 737-800 models. FAA said in a statement its action followed two inflight engine shutdowns last Friday involving a Transaero Airlines plane in Russia and a Braathens Airlines flight in Norway. There were no injuries in either incident and the twin-engined 737 is designed to be able to fly on one engine. Although engine-maker CFM International had previously advised airlines of the gear box problem in service bulletins, FAA decided to order swift action after the two European incidents. The engine accessory gearbox is used to start the engine, but once ignition occurs, the gearbox takes off engine power to run the plane's hydraulic and electrical systems. Earlier this year FAA ordered immediate inspections of hundreds of older 737s for vibration-induced wear on wires running through fuel tanks. The problems are not related. Cincinnati, Ohio-based CFM, a joint venture of General Electric Co. and Snecma of France, said the problem had been traced to an outside supplier. CFM spokeswoman Pat Klaus said gearbox starter shafts from mid-1996 until April this year had not been shotpeened, a manufacturing process that relieves stress and prevents metal fatigue. "CMF International has instituted an aggressive field program to replace this part on all the engines involved," Klaus said. FAA said the planes affected by its order cannot fly until until the gearbox on the No. 2 engine is checked for metallic debris. If abnormal magnetic particles are detected the gearshaft must be replaced. The No. 1 engine is to be inspected the next day. Airlines not finding any problem can keep inspecting the gearboxes every other day but FAA insisted that all No. 2 engine gearshafts be replaced by Aug. 1 or within 350 hours of use. For the No. 1 engine gearshaft the mandatory replacement date is Sept. 1 or within 725 hours. FAA said the magnetic particle inspection would take half an hour to complete at a cost of about $30 per engine. Gearshaft replacement would take 12 hours and cost about $10,295 per engine or about $536,000 for the whole U.S. fleet. Southwest Airlines Co. which has 11 Boeing 737-700s said the work could be carried out overnight. "There will be zero impact on our schedules," said Southwest spokeswoman Ginger Hardage. -- oust the fjfj at the start of the email return address Best Regards, Lee Spencer From kls Mon Jul 6 03:24:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jul 98 03:24:44 From: "Thomas J. Bueld" Subject: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nacamar Data Communications I saw a Boeing TripleSeven of Air France at Tenerife Airport, Canary Island on July 4th, 98, chanching both Engines. Sources of the airport reported that there was an Inflight Engine ShutDown on a flight between France and SouthAmerica due Engine Fire followed by trouble with the remainig engine and a subsequent Emergency Landing at TFS. No reports by officials (Boeing/Air France) so far. For me it is for shure that the development of Mega size Engines will become People Killer. It is unbelievable that both manufactures and Certification Instituitions are continuing to allow this type of Megatwins to operate in remote areas of the world (oceans) on a 180 min EROPS basis from of the production lines despite of the known series of Engine troubles. There are Aircrafts on offer like 747s, MD11s and A340s, which are much more healthier to travellers like the aircraft mentioned above. How long will public kept in the dark about the risk in choosing such aircrafts ? Any comment ? Capt. T. Bueld From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:11 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Findings on China Airlines' A300 crash in Taiwan Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Taiwan's CAA has released its findings on the A300 crash near Taipei last February. The authorities concluded that the crash was caused by human errors. The co-pilot was new to the aircraft type, and the pilot was too concerned with the deteriorating weather conditions (which would have forced the plane to divert to Kaohsiung in Southern Taiwan). The captain also ignored serveral warnings of being too high during the approach. However, to my surprise, Taiwan's CAA demanded China Airlines to phase out the A300 in two years under the recommendation of "experts" (foreign and local). According to the news article that I read, they claim the A300 are not "suitable" for East Asian pilots! Well, no matter how silly this recommendation sounds, some people at Boeing must be happy to hear this. Expect a sizable B777 (or B777/767) order soon from CI. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:12 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Re: Pratt & Whitney radial question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: >Does anyone in the group know when the Pratt & Whitney R-985 Wasp Jr. >went out of production? My reference books say the engine was introduced >in 1929 but outside of saying thousands were produced during WWII they do >not give an end-of-production date. Thanks. As far as I know production of this engine ended at the end of WWII, and all aircraft using this type since then have relied on war-surplus stocks. This includes large numbers of Beech 18s and DHC Beavers. Production of engine spares was transferred to Pratt & Whitney Canada at some stage. If you can get hold of a copy of "Power: The Pratt & Whitney Canada Story" published by CANAV Books in 1989, you will find numerous references to this situation. 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 Sat Jul 11 03:00:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:13 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "Thomas J. Bueld" writes: >For me it is for shure that the development of Mega size Engines will >become People Killer. It is unbelievable that both manufactures and >Certification Instituitions are continuing to allow this type of >Megatwins to operate in remote areas of the world (oceans) on a 180 min >EROPS basis from of the production lines despite of the known series of >Engine troubles. There are Aircrafts on offer like 747s, MD11s and >A340s, which are much more healthier to travellers like the aircraft >mentioned above. >How long will public kept in the dark about the risk in choosing such >aircrafts ? Any comment ? Well, your post makes it quite clear that the public is being kept in the dark. Twins aren't "people killers". In fact, how many air disasters can you trace to engine failure on a twin? Since the vast bulk of air transport occurs in twins, and virtually no accidents are directly attributable to the lack of extra engine, I think your post demonstrates extreme ignorance. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:14 From: Robert Nielsen Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: robert.h.nielsen@worldnet.att.net Thomas J. Bueld wrote: > For me it is for shure that the development of Mega size Engines will > become People Killer ... > How long will public kept in the dark about the risk in choosing such > aircrafts ? Any comment ? Your comments are full of opinion and speculation. Please cite facts and data to make your point. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:15 From: "Chris Hall" Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Thomas J. Bueld wrote: > For me it is for shure that the development of Mega size Engines will > become People Killer ... > How long will public kept in the dark about the risk in choosing such > aircrafts ? Any comment ? Thomas, IMHO the risk of simultaneous double engine failure on any twin jet aircraft is very unlikely. Most jet engines will keep running and generating thrust even with some considerable damage as long as fuel is being squirted in. In EROPS operation it is not often that the aircraft is at 180 minutes from an airfield, often it is considerably less. Also, once one engine is shut down for any reason, then the crew will be VERY reluctant to shut the second one down whatever warnings come up. The new megathrust engines will suffer from teething problems as with any new technology, but I would not hesitate to fly with them. Chris Hall From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:16 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "Neil Gerace" writes: >The BAe 146 is a small plane. Planes that size don't need four engines >but it has them for extra safety and to bypass ETOPS restrictions. I don't think there is any evidence that the BA146 has 4 engines to avoid ETOPS or for an extra safety margin. >Why does the A340 exist when the A330 is the same size and has only >two engines? To exploit the greater freedoms in the rules which planes >with more than two engines enjoy. Well, I think the four engine variant was made because they knew they couldn't increase the 330 payload or range using the existing engines, and they couldn't get an engine manufacturer to create a new, larger engine. It is only since the introduction of the 777 that Airbus has been touting the non-ETOPS nature of the 340. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:17 From: MCLELLAN Alexander Subject: RE: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM KLS wrote: >Since the BAe-146 has a still air range of only 1,300 miles (according >to AW&ST's Source Book), ETOPS isn't much of an issue. That's why you >don't generally find more than two engines on regional aircraft. From >what I've heard, the 146 has four engines simply because when it was >built, four of the ALF502 engines were more efficient and closer to the >thrust requirements for the plane than two of anything else available. >Neither safety nor ETOPS had anything to do with it. ISTR that the (then) HS-146 was designed for STOL and quiet operation - for example at London City Airport, where both are required. Regards Alex. This message does not constitute official EUROCONTROL correspondence. The Organisation is not responsible for its contents or the consequences of its use, nor for inaccurate transmission or misdirection. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:18 From: "Antoin Daltun" 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: 7bit The early BAe146 100 was also specifically designed for operation to short fields where a four-engined aircraft is beneficial in extreme cases (points such as Innsbruck, a private field used at Aspen CO). This did mean that it was over-powered for most purposes and sold very poorly. The stretch to the 200 series traded off some performance for better payload and helped sales a bit, but the four engines have always been seen as having an operating cost penalty. There are well-established thermodynamic reasons why large engines are more cost and weight-efficient than small ones in most normal circumstances. The 146 also suffered from poor reliability problems specific to the engines fitted, one operator remarking that engine-changing on 146s should be an Olympic sport since his airline could put up a winning team and it was more widely-practised than synchronised swimming. The idea of a twin-engined version of the 146 surfaces every few years. As an aside, aircraft normally undergo ditching trials (models in a water tank). This was done later than usual in the development of the 146 and I understand some early aircraft had (or have?) permitted overwater time restricted to gliding time from land. This would be quite restrictive on those aircraft (e.g. London-Copenhagen not permitted). Antoin Daltun From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:19 From: tlm@delphi.com Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) JF Mezei writes: >I am not familiar with jet engine prices (they don't carry them in stock >at the local supermarket:-). It would be interesting to see a comparison >of *purchase* price for 4 A340 class engines compared to the price for >2 777 class engines. Don't forget, though, the increased maintenance costs of twice as many engines. A more valid comparison would be _life cycle costs_, which covers all costs - purchase price, operations, maintenance - from procurement to retirement. Ed R. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:20 From: "Tom Hanna" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dynamite Internet http://www.dynamite.com.au/ Neil Gerace wrote in message ... >Why does the A340 exist when the A330 is the same size and has only >two engines? To exploit the greater freedoms in the rules which planes >with more than two engines enjoy. Couldn't it be asked the other way - ie why does the 330 exist when the 340 does? Cheers, Tom From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:21 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: DH Trident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Anthony Chiu wrote: > > They never learn. The same happened to the prototype BAC 111 a couple of > years later. For the record the following the following aircraft were lost to deep stall accidents: HP Victor 3/23/62 BAC 1-11 10/22/63 Tu-134 10/22/63 (yes, the same day!) HS Trident 6/3/66 ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:22 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Peter Frei wrote: > Physically the noise regulations that will come into effect in the next few > years will limit the use of these older, not- stage-three aircraft severely. > Unless NW heavily invests in hush-kits, it may be cheaper buying new. Older > aircraft usually require more attention during maintenance, thus driving > costs up. I belive DC-10s are already stage-III compliant, I know the L-1011 is. For that matter, I think the 747-100 is. Your comment does apply to the DC-9 fleet, but since a number of cargo carriers have found it quite economical to hushkit DC-9s and 727s, I don't see why it would be any less feasible for a passenger carrier. I had heard once or twice that Delta may hushkit quite a few 727s, but I've never had that confirmed definitively. -- 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 Jul 11 03:00:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I belive DC-10s are already stage-III compliant, I know the L-1011 is. As I understand it, United's DC-10-10s are not Stage III, but their DC-10-30s are. Other carriers may differ. >For that matter, I think the 747-100 is. United's are not, but they are relatively high MGTOW aircraft (750,000 lbs, or 734,000 lbs for two remaining ones which were never upgraded). Other carriers, operating their aircraft at lower weights, might manage Stage III. >Your comment does apply to the DC-9 fleet, but since a number of cargo >carriers have found it quite economical to hushkit DC-9s and 727s, I >don't see why it would be any less feasible for a passenger carrier. The difference is that many cargo carriers operate far fewer flights per day than passenger carriers. Domestic Fed Ex planes, for example, fly from Memphis to some other city and then back each day. At worst, they might add on a tag, for a whopping total of four daily flights, with many sitting idle over the weekend. Assuming no tags, no weekend flying, and two weeks out each year for a C check, that's only 500 cycles per year. In contrast, AW&ST said Northwest's DC-9s are averaging 2,000 cycles per year. Now assume a DC-9 is 10,000 cycles away from some major and expensive chunk of work, at which point it's more economic to scrap the plane. A hushkit on a Northwest must pay for itself within five years. The cargo carrier can amortize the cost of its DC-9 hushkitting over 20 years. It might well make sense for the cargo carrier to add hushkits, but not the passenger carrier. >I had heard once or twice that Delta may hushkit quite a few 727s, but >I've never had that confirmed definitively. I think they've started. I know United put its first hushkitted 727s in the air a few months ago, and has firm orders for kits to do 59 of its 75 727s, with options for kits for the other 16. UA also plans to put hushkits on their 24 737-200 Advanceds. (The non-Advanced 737-222s will not get hushkits; the last of them will be gone by the end of the year.) -- 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 Jul 11 03:00:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:24 From: pratibha_rg@hotmail.com Subject: New E-Mail List - Nondestructive Testing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Dear Colleague ! I am happy to inform you that a new E-Mail Discussion Group / List has been created, and is currently functional, for discussing the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in and the creation of effective knowledge based systems (KBS) for Nondestructive Testing (NDT). The Draft Charter of the E-Mail Discussion Group ------------------------------------------------ * Use of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics in Nondestructive Testing / Materials Evaluation * Developmental Issues Relating to the Creation of Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic, Knowledge Based Systems Software / Hardware for Nondestructive Testing / Materials Evaluation * Application of Artificial Intelligence for practical problems in Nondestructive Testing / Materials Evaluation * NDT Automation with emphasis on Artificial Intelligence * And other related issues Potential Issues for Discussion ------------------------------- * The Role of AI and KBS in Effective NDT * Most Appropriate ANNs for NDT * Which is the best architecture for an NDT KBS ? * Current KBS for NDT, their design, implementation and Performance * A KBS for NDT Wish List * Are there problems in NDT which can never be solved by AI ? * The Importance of Common Sense, and the lack of it, in NDT KBS * Is there a pattern in NDT problem solving for AI to exploit ? * The use of internet, data fusion, visualisation, software agents in NDT * Etc. Etc. To Subscribe Please Visit ------------------------- http://www.listbot.com/subscribe/DESKPACK To Participate (after becoming a member), send message to --------------------------------------------------------- DESKPACK@listbot.com Sincerely, C.Rajagopalan, Visiting Scientist, Fraunhofer Institute for Nondestructive Testing, University Building 37, 66123 Saarbruecken,GERMANY -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:25 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: end of the line for the MD-11 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I have heard that NW is in no hurry of replacing their DC-10s. That's >why they have bought several used -30s in the past few years. OTOH, >it does appear that NW will take the A330 and may even order more. >The A330 is a natural replacement for the DC-10. They just bought 3 more from Thai(?) I think. I've been hearing that NW plans to fly their DC-10s and DC-9s for AT LEAST 10 more years or more. They figure they have 23 years of service left in them or something like that!!! Are they really going to be getting A330s? I thought they changed most (or all) of those options to A320s. I think the MD-11 is a natural replacement for the DC-10... there are a lot being returned from the airlines. Matt Student Pilot, 747 Assembler. http://members.aol.com/mechb747...under construction... From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:26 From: Andre Neves Subject: MD-11 Problems? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUnet Portugal Please, I would like some information on the pitch up problems of the MD-11 upon touchdown. I heard that on spoiler deployment the md-11 has the tendency to strongly pitch up, what may have caused multiple tail strikes and/or hard nosewheel touchdowns... (FedEx accident among other situations). thanks... From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:27 From: tlm@delphi.com Subject: Re: Development of MD-11? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) H Andrew Chuang writes: >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. Or perhaps it's aircraft-specific. I flew a CX A330 and 777-200 on the same route, and found the latter superior in comfort (and being tall, seat pitch and I suppose seat configuration are rather important :). If the A330, which is bad, is an improvement over the L1011, then I suppose I should be grateful that the Lockheeds are gone! >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. Bummer. I'd hate to see those 777s phased out in favor of a (from _my_ POV) inferior aircraft. I thought they'd kind of swap types depending on the load for that route for that day: A330 --> 777-200 --> 747. Ed R. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:28 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Airbus trim system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com My understanding, limited though it is, is what you were witnessing is called 'mach trim'. There were several incidents and accidents on older 707/DC-8 types where the aircraft got far enough out of trim due to high mach numbers (often due to Clear Air Turbulance) that the elevator couldn't compensate, and the stabilizer trim (the entire stab moves, not just an elevator tab) motor didn't have enough 'oomph' to get the plane back into trim. This was called 'jet upset' and caused more than a few bent airplanes and spilled drinks in the earilier days of jet transport flying. Secondarily, as an aircraft's speed increases toword the top half of the mach meter, the airplane has a tendancy for the nose to duck under. This is called (cleverly enough) 'mach tuck'. Automatic Mach Trim helps to compensate for these two effects. It doesn't try to anticipate the pilot's wishes, it just tries to keep things from getting too far beyond reasonable. TheFNG From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:29 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'm no engineer either, but I recall this concept from my ATP study. >Most large airplanes have what's called a Zero Fuel Weight, a weight >beyond which you cannot add more passengers or cargo - you can >only add fuel. I imagine it's based on the bending forces that will be >present where the wings (lift) meet the fuselage (non-fuel load). A FedEx MD-11 pilot I talked to said MZFW has to do with the wing bending between the fuselage and the landing gear while on the ground Since we're on the subject of MZFW, this is for everyone who thinks the 777 won't be as good a freighter as the MD-11... :-) BOW MZFW Max Payload MTOW 777-200ER 316,800 430,000 113,200 656,000 MD-11ER 294,200 400,000 105,800 630,500 Matt Student Pilot, 747 Assembler. http://members.aol.com/mechb747...under construction... From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:30 From: "john r." Subject: 777 Mechanics ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence Hello, are there any mechanics or ground engineers who work the 777, preferably on the ramp, out there. I have a few questions about how you handle the procedures about the engine cowls or C ducts, any engine fit. Cheers, -- john r. From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:31 From: Andre Neves Subject: Vagar airport, Faeroe Islands Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUnet Portugal Anybody knows Vagar airport in the Faeroe Islands? It seems a 737 operates there every day, and the runway is 4100x100 feet long (Maersk). I would love to know what kind of procedures are in place to land and take-off from such an extreme airport. I imagine the 737 probably uses all the runway to stop after eating up some 1000 feet to touchdown. Does it mean that a 737 after all wheels are on the ground can brake in, say, 1000 feet from over 120 knots if the runway is dry? because sometimes (many) the runway will be wet! All inputs very wellcome... thanks... From kls Sat Jul 11 03:00:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Jul 98 03:00:32 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Ramp Arrivals Technology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 6 Jul 1998, Ken wrote: > The new Kuala Lumpur International Airport (KLIA) has opening has been met > with a lot of derision from passengers and flight crews alike; with plenty > of associated press coverage. One of the procedural temporary changes has > necessitated the aircraft to stop short of the ramp, disregarding the > automatic guidance system, and then wait for the aircraft to be marshalled > into position. ... > Could someone shed some more light on how these latest technology guidance > systems work? By a timely coincidence, I flew back from Belfast in a British Midland A321-200 earlier this evening, and managed to scrounge a ride in the jump seat. As we taxied up to the disembarkation point, the captain explained that he had to use a new positioning system. He didn't feel that he needed this, but if he didn't use it, and dented the terminal building, questions might be asked! :-) The device consisted of a pair of vertical strip-lights, one red, one green (or bluish green) about 10cm apart, inside what looked like a hood, slighty above cockpit level. As we approached, both lights were visible. I guess (although I did not specifically ask) that if you can see both lights you are lined up; if you can see red only you are too far to the right; if you can see green only you are too far to the left. In daylight (as it was when we landed) you could use the yellow line on the tarmac. Having established alignment, you need to judge how far forward to taxi. The second part of the system consisted of a metal screen with a wide horizontal slit in it. About a metre behind the slit, a vertical strip-light was mounted. The screen was about 10 metres to the right of the vertical pair of lights. As the aircraft taxied forward, the light behind the slit appeared to move along the slit due to parallax. On the face of the metal plate were white stripes (paint? sticky tape?) labelled "A320", "A321", "B737", etc., each with its own position along the slit. So, you simply creep forward until you see the vertical strip light aligned with the white stripe corresponding to your own model of aircraft. Simple! In fact, precise positioning was not important in our case, since, as a humble internal flight, we had to walk down the staircase on wheels and stroll across the tarmac to the terminal building! :-) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk -------------------------------------------------------------- From news Fri Jul 10 19:23:50 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!nntpX.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.idt.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.concentric.net!global-news-master From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 1998 1st half order update Date: 10 Jul 1998 21:14:05 EDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <6o6e8t$3pl@examiner.concentric.net> In the first six months, Airbus has received orders for a total of 287 planes: A300/310 0 A319/320/321 247 A330-2/300 11 A340-3/5/600 29 Total 287 Boeing has received orders for a total of 282 planes: B717 5 B737-3/4/5/6/7/8/900 198 B747 9 B757 5 B767-300/400 8 B777-200/300 26 MD-11 7 MD-80 24 Total 282 For details, please check for Airbus's orders, and for Boeing's orders. Just a couple of quick comments: Boeing barely matches Airbus in the first half. If you take away the non-7-series sales (i.e., ex-MD products including 717), Boeing trails Airbus by 41 planes! In 1994, Airbus sold four more planes than Boeing. IMO, it wasn't a very convincing one, because Airbus had more cancellations than Boeing in that year. Airbus sales have really picked up since the middle of last year. Airbus also seems to have a lot more orders on the horizon than Boeing. Boeing will need a spectacular second half to beat Airbus, but Boeing says it will pay more attention to profit than market share. Hence, it's likely that Airbus will have a huge victory this year. I think Boeing will be very happy if BA's narrowbody order can be saved. One thing still puzzles me a lot is the A319/320/321 production rate. Boeing got a lot of bad press because there are hardly any B737 delievery slots left in the next two years. However, the Airbus narrowbody has a backlog similar to the B737's, and the production rate of the A320 family will still be significantly less than that of the B737 (18-19 vs. 21 currently, and ~22[?] vs. 27 in a not-to-distant future). Does it mean that there are a lot of long-term A320 orders? From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:15 From: "Chuck" Subject: Re: MD-11 Problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Preferred Company Andre Neves wrote in message ... >Please, I would like some information on the pitch up >problems of the MD-11 upon touchdown. >I heard that on spoiler deployment the md-11 has >the tendency to strongly pitch up, what may have caused >multiple tail strikes and/or hard nosewheel touchdowns... >(FedEx accident among other situations). I have heard of the same problems but have always been told it was the result of No.2 engine in reverse thrust. Maybe someone else has more info. Chuck From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:16 From: "Galen L. Hinshaw" Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update References: <6o6e8t$3pl@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISPNews http://ispnews.com H Andrew Chuang wrote in message <6o6e8t$3pl@examiner.concentric.net>... >Boeing barely matches Airbus in the first half. If you take away the >non-7-series sales (i.e., ex-MD products including 717), Boeing trails >Airbus by 41 planes! And if you take away the 300-series sales, Airbus trails Boeing by 282 planes! What's the point? Sales are sales. As a mechanic involved in the heavy maintenece of heavy aircraft, and having seen many aircraft types ranging in age from 5 to 35 years in service, I firmly believe that domestic aircraft (whether born from Boeing or Douglas drawing boards) will far outlast the Airbus line. Basically, the Airbus is a "disposable" aircraft--- well said by a co-worker of mine. Galen Hinshaw From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:17 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: FAA orders Boeing 737 engine checks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Lee Spencer (fjfjlspencer@alaska.net) wrote: : CFM spokeswoman Pat Klaus said gearbox starter shafts from mid-1996 : until April this year had not been shotpeened, a manufacturing process : that relieves stress and prevents metal fatigue. Actually shotpeening imposes a stress which raises the endurance (fatigue) strength of the metal. No problem. -- Gerry From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:18 From: hipower77@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: FAA orders Boeing 737 engine checks References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , fjfjlspencer@alaska.net (Lee Spencer) wrote: > > Here's an article that should be of interest. > > FAA orders Boeing 737 engine checks deleted article about engine checks dated July 6, 1998 (note the date) where Southwest said they could check all their affected jets overnight with no impact to their schedule. Here's an incident report from the NTSB website: NTSB Identification: MIA98IA193 Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of SOUTHWEST AIRLINES COMPANY Incident occurred JUL-07-98 at BIRMINGHAM, AL Aircraft: Boeing 737-7H4, registration: N701GS Injuries: 96 Uninjured. This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. On July 7, 1998, about 0640 central daylight time, a Boeing 737-7H4, N701GS, registered to and operated by Southwest Airlines Company as flight 1565, a Title 14 CFR Part 121 scheduled domestic passenger flight from Tampa, Florida, to Birmingham, Alabama, had a failure of the number 2 engine during descent for landing at Birmingham. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. The aircraft received minor damage. The airline transport-rated pilot, first officer, 3 flight attendants, and 91 passengers were not injured. The flight originated from Tampa, Florida, the same day, about 0549. The pilot reported to the operator that about 40 miles from Birmingham, while in descent for landing, the number 2 engine failed. Flight attendants reported to him that flame was visible coming from the number 2 engine exhaust and extending aft toward the tail of the aircraft. He did not receive a fire warning and did not activate the fire extinguishing system. He shut down the number 2 engine and made an uneventful landing at Birmingham. After landing, he stopped on the taxiway and shutdown the remaining engine. After fire department personnel on the ground examined the aircraft for fire and deemed it safe, the aircraft was towed to the gate where the passengers were deplaned via the jetway. Post crash examination of the engine by an FAA inspector showed the tailpipe of the number 2 engine contained metal debris. The aircraft structure had no fire damage. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:19 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) 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 am also a member of the 'not an engineer' club {hmmm - NAE - I like it!}. However, I have done a couple of weight and balance charts for big Boeings. The main (wing) tanks are always required to be full prior to loading the center tank(s) because of center of gravity problems. As the fuel burns, the CG shifts in flight, and it is possible for the aircraft to be outside of CG limits for safe landing in case of a diversion. TheFNG From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:20 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: An-124 and wing dihedral References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Erol's Internet Services MechB747 wrote: > >I'm no engineer either, but I recall this concept from my ATP study. > >Most large airplanes have what's called a Zero Fuel Weight, a weight > >beyond which you cannot add more passengers or cargo - you can > >only add fuel. I imagine it's based on the bending forces that will be > >present where the wings (lift) meet the fuselage (non-fuel load). > > A FedEx MD-11 pilot I talked to said MZFW has to do with the wing bending > between the fuselage and the landing gear while on the ground Doesn't make a lot of sense. If that was the case you would have problems upon landing where you would still have the same weight in the fuselage as on takeoff but very little weight in fuel in the wings. For the FedEx pilots information to be accurate surely you would always have to land at a weight above the zero fuel weight so that the bending moment was not exceeded. Zero fuel weight limits are not only in the domain of large aircraft, many light twins as small as the Piper Seneca II have a Maximum zero fuel weight limit. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:21 From: Maciej =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kwiecie=F1?= Subject: Re: TU-154 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At the very beginning welcome to everybody on this very interesting group! Sorry for any stupid young age mistakes I can make as a newbie... ;-) By the way... Reading your quite professional posts I wonder: How many of you are real airline pilots? [Moderator's note: Please send any responses to the author, not the newsgroup. Maciej, if you'd like to summarize the responses you get feel free topost that. Karl] Any way... At 02:42 01-07-98, Andrew Oliva wrote: >I'm flying internally within Russia this August and am looking to see if >there is somewhere I can go to look for technical specs on this >aircraft on the internet? I have never been looking on the Internet for any information connected with Tupolev-154 but my father was a cpt. in Polish Airlines on Tu-154M for several years and I still have a complete in-flight manual. If you are intersting in any special information - don't hesitate to ask for. ;-) Maciej Kwiecien kfietnju@friko4.onet.pl From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:22 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: TU-154 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I'm flying internally within Russia this August and am looking to see if >there is somewhere I can go to look for technical specs on this >aircraft on the internet? Try http://www.aeroflot.org/tu_154.htm Brian From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:23 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: Re: TU-154 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Andrew Oliva wrote: > I'm flying internally within Russia this August and am looking to see if > there is somewhere I can go to look for technical specs on this > aircraft on the internet? Do your best to avoid flying in one of these. Not a comfortable experience. It's the 727 from hell. From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:24 From: Les Subject: Re: TU-154 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Andrew Oliva wrote: > I'm flying internally within Russia this August and am looking to see if > there is somewhere I can go to look for technical specs on this > aircraft on the internet? Tupoljev TU-154B I don't know any place where they specify TU-154 specs. Your best bet would be to look for Boeing-727, since it is a very close copy of that model. The best I can do is to use my own sources (books). Span: 37,55 Length: 47,89 Height: 11,39 m Wing area: 20,140 m2 Power plant: three Szolovjov D-30KU-154 each with 10.500 kp thrust Accommodation: 128-169 Max. payload: 19.988 kg Max. takeoff: 95.997 kg Cruising speed: ~900 km/h Max. speed: 0,9 Mach Max. range: 2.748 km First flew: October 1968 (that is correct) To make you feel better the same plane with some minor modification was/still being used by bulgarian Balkan, cuban Cubana, polish Lot and the Syrian Air airlines. Regards Les Garam From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:25 From: ranfaa@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Airbus trim system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Scott Macmillan wrote: > 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. > Anyway, what I would like to know is how do the computers know how the > pilot wants the plane to fly? You were on the right track Scott. The computer and the autopilot through the FMC or its equivalent does all the work BUT follows the pilots commands. In auto cruise the pitch command mode is 'altitude hold', some altitude has been selected by the pilots on the APFDMCP and the autopilot maintains that selection. The autothrottle maintains the selected speed for cruise, either via an FMC or a speed selection in some speed select mode again on the APFDMCP. Equilibrium flight, alls well. Instability due to wind shear. Nose rises, little movement with the autothrottle, as speed decreases so does drag and the aeroplane, depending on its speed stability, re-accelerates to the equilibrium speed position again with thrust equalling drag. Same for minor slowdowns. Different problem if the speed is lost due to temp change, this is permanent and requires thrust lever movement to re-establish the cruise equilibrium state again but with a different thrust setting and thrust lever angle. For an auto climb, after clearance, a new altitude is selected on the APFDMCP and the autothrottle system applies climb or max climb thrust as the autopilot pitches the nose up and commences climb. The climb speed, if climb is commenced t optimum weight for climb to new altitude, will be close to the same as previous and this will also be near/the same for the cruise speed at the new level. Manually the pilot applies climb thrust and commences a climb not unlike that which you do in your 'bug smasher'. He trims the stabiliser into the attitudehe requires and maintains his climb speed. If the auto throttle is engaged then as he pitches to climb, it will, in one mode, apply power to maintain the selected speed until it has max climb thrust on. This is sloppy technique and in another mode it would be commanded just to apply climb thrust and the pilot has control in pitch over his speed and/or a particular rate of climb. He won't for long however be able to achieve both and usually he settles for the desired speed. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:26 From: "eagle 1" Subject: B777 Central Maintenance Computer? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Just need some info. Does the B777 have a Central Maintenance Computer as an option for airlines to order, similar to the one installed on the B747-400? If so, is there an upgrade in the system from the B747-400. Thanks. From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:27 From: "Galen L. Hinshaw" Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISPNews http://ispnews.com S.L. wrote in message ... >I belive DC-10s are already stage-III compliant, I know the L-1011 is. >For that matter, I think the 747-100 is. Your comment does apply to the >DC-9 fleet, but since a number of cargo carriers have found it quite >economical to hushkit DC-9s and 727s, I don't see why it would be any >less feasible for a passenger carrier. I had heard once or twice that >Delta may hushkit quite a few 727s, but I've never had that confirmed >definitively. The DC-10's are Stage III compliant. Five DC-10's have been commissioned into Northwest's fleet by my company in the last two years ( #'s 1232-1236). We have also installed the FedEx hushkit on three American Trans Air 727's, downtime being about three weeks, best I recall. I see no reason for Delta not to hush the 727's. United has about 75 of them, requiring Stage III supression. They struck a trade deal with FedEx about 18 months ago for 50-some kits with an option for a handful more at a later date. FedEx received several DC-10's in return ( I'm sure these are older -10 series that have been decommissioned, but will make fine cargo carriers). Galen Hinshaw davinci@atomic.net From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:28 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: Findings on China Airlines' A300 crash in Taiwan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia H Andrew Chuang (Chuanga@cris.com) wrote: > However, to my surprise, Taiwan's CAA demanded China Airlines to phase > out the A300 in two years under the recommendation of "experts" (foreign > and local). The experts weren't representatives of AI and Boeing, were they? Just the thing the manufacturers need to say, "get rid of your old aircraft". > Expect a sizable B777 (or B777/767) order soon from CI. Or A330/340? Cheers David From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:29 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Findings on China Airlines' A300 crash in Taiwan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services I spoke too soon. :-( Taiwan's CAA has not released its findings, yet. The article that I read in a Chinese newspaper was the findings by the French. Taiwan authorities will not relase its findings until reports from Australia and the US arrive. From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:30 From: "Ash, Housewares" Subject: Re: Findings on China Airlines' A300 crash in Taiwan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: S-mart. Shop Smart. Shop S-mart H Andrew Chuang wrote: > > Taiwan's CAA has released its findings on the A300 crash near Taipei > last February. The authorities concluded that the crash was caused by > human errors. The co-pilot was new to the aircraft type, and the pilot > was too concerned with the deteriorating weather conditions (which would > have forced the plane to divert to Kaohsiung in Southern Taiwan). The > captain also ignored serveral warnings of being too high during the > approach. As an aside, I grew up with one of the people who died in the crash. Chris Corey was a childhood friend in Old Greenwich, CT. It's eerie when one of these crashes comes home like that.... From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:31 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com There are a couple of other issues that seem to be getting missed in this discussion; If you have an engine, you must have controls, plumbing for fuel, hydraulics, electrical systems, indication systems, pneumatics, thrust reversers, monitors, attachment points (you can't just super-glue these things on, you know, except maybe the A-10) and an extra four-leaf clover and rabbit's foot. Reallistacally, though, there are examples where four-engine jets have crashed simply because of an explosion of one engine taking out the one adjacent to it. Two, three, four, or six engines (see the AN-126 {?}) are no guarantee against accidents. Besides: most accidents happen at home, so why not move? [Moderator's note: The six-engined Russian aircraft you're thinking of is the An-225, a derivative of the four-engined An-124. Karl] TheFNG From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:32 From: k_ish Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Antoin Daltun wrote: > The early BAe146 100 was also specifically designed for operation to short > fields where a four-engined aircraft is beneficial in extreme cases (points > such as Innsbruck, a private field used at Aspen CO). This did mean that > it was over-powered for most purposes and sold very poorly. > The stretch to the 200 series traded off some performance for better payload > and helped sales a bit, but the four engines have always been seen as having > an operating cost penalty. IIRC, the original design was twin-engine. The original engine maufacturer (R-R?) didn't have an engine in the correct thrust class ready in time, so BAe had to scramble and change to the four-engine Avco-Lycoming powered design. Two other asides; they were so noisy, that PSA had additional soundproofing added. The ones I flew were still noisy and personally, if I were flight or cabin crew on one I would probably wear foam earplugs. The other aside is that they don't have reverse thrust, only wheel brakes and a speedbrake in the tailcone. Air Wisconsin had lots of problems operating into short, slick runways in winter. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jul 19 22:07:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Jul 98 22:07:33 From: "The Warden" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are a greater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Also, if something happens and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into providing sideways control (can't remember the technical term for it) and would do a better job than having two engines closer to the center line. For instance, if UAL 232 had been a 707, 747, A340, or even a DC-8, (first off, the problem wouldn't have happened, but that's another story), they may have been able to get a bit more directional movement, and may have been able to correct for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:02 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update References: <6o6e8t$3pl@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Galen L. Hinshaw (davinci@atomic.net) wrote: > H Andrew Chuang wrote in message <6o6e8t$3pl@examiner.concentric.net>... > >Boeing barely matches Airbus in the first half. If you take away the > >non-7-series sales (i.e., ex-MD products including 717), Boeing trails > >Airbus by 41 planes! > And if you take away the 300-series sales, Airbus trails Boeing by 282 > planes! What's the point? Sales are sales. How do they compare by total seat numbers in the new orders? Numbers of planes are all well and good, but one big plane could have the same number seats as 3-5 smaller planes. Cheers David From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:03 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update References: <6o6e8t$3pl@examiner.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Galen L. Hinshaw wrote: > >H Andrew Chuang wrote in message <6o6e8t$3pl@examiner.concentric.net>... >>Boeing barely matches Airbus in the first half. If you take away the >>non-7-series sales (i.e., ex-MD products including 717), Boeing trails >>Airbus by 41 planes! > >And if you take away the 300-series sales, Airbus trails Boeing by 282 >planes! What's the point? Sales are sales. The point is in the pre-MD-acquisition days, Boeing was able to maintain 60-70% market share with its 7-series family. Now, even with the Douglas aircraft, Boeing has been struggling with the market share for the past year and a half, especially the past six months. Airbus marketing has been extremely aggresive, and I'm simply making a note. From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:04 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > In the first six months, Airbus has received orders for a total of > 287 planes: > > Boeing has received orders for a total of 282 planes: > > For details, please check > > for Airbus's orders, and > > for Boeing's orders. At the risk of self-promoting I may suggest this URL http://surf.to/orders, where the orders of both Airbus and Boeing are compiled by firm order, LOI, region, plane ... > Boeing barely matches Airbus in the first half. If you take away the > non-7-series sales (i.e., ex-MD products including 717), Boeing trails > Airbus by 41 planes! After the latest order from SAS, Boeing has again the lead with 306 vs. 302 firm orders. Airbus leads the single aisle market 253 vs. 220. > Airbus sales have really picked up since the middle of last year. Airbus > also seems to have a lot more orders on the horizon than Boeing. I am especially looking for the widebody choice of SAS and KLM, which are due for Sep-98. The widebody choice for Iberia seems pretty clear, with all the busses they already have. > Boeing > will need a spectacular second half to beat Airbus, but Boeing says it > will pay more attention to profit than market share. Hence, it's likely > that Airbus will have a huge victory this year. I think Boeing will be > very happy if BA's narrowbody order can be saved. The 20 widebodys will be 777, and the narrowbody will most probably be A320. > One thing still puzzles me a lot is the A319/320/321 production rate. > Boeing got a lot of bad press because there are hardly any B737 > delievery slots left in the next two years. However, the Airbus > narrowbody has a backlog similar to the B737's, and the production > rate of the A320 family will still be significantly less than that of > the B737 (18-19 vs. 21 currently, and ~22[?] vs. 27 in a not-to-distant > future). Does it mean that there are a lot of long-term A320 orders? Since 25-May-98 the 320 has a production rate of 22. The first free slot is msn 1009 which will be delivered on 11-Jun-99. Starting Nov-98 there are still lots of free slots, confirming that a big percentage of the A320 orders are long-term ones. This will certainly help AI in getting the British order. 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 Sun Jul 26 23:57:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:05 From: "Larry Sakurai" Subject: Re: TU-154 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Stuart Feigin wrote in message ... >Do your best to avoid flying in one of these. Not a comfortable >experience. It's the 727 from hell. You're not the first I've seen who says that the Soviet airliners (former, of course) are not a pleasant experience compared to their Western counterparts, and I'm curious about it. What is it about the Tu-154 that's unpleasant? Do the newer types, such as the Tu-204 or the IL-96M suffer from the same deficiencies? From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:06 From: Spoon1 Subject: Re: TU-154 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Andrew Oliva wrote: > I'm flying internally within Russia this August and am looking to see if > there is somewhere I can go to look for technical specs on this > aircraft on the internet? You can try to find specs on the TU-154 at Aeroflots Web Site . It has seeting plans and specs . I found some info for you Tupolev TU-154( Careless) Range: 2850nm. Crusing Speed:0.9 Mach Passengers: 167 Power Plant: 3 Kuznetsov NK-8-2 Turbofans From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:07 From: Spoon1 Subject: 707 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal Jordanian as a cargo plane ? From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:08 From: "Maria & Thomas Eidrup" Subject: spoilers used during take-off??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kalmar Hello! I flew with a modern verion of Boeing 737, Falcon Aviation, from Malmoe in Sweden to Athens the 29 of May. To my surprise I saw the spoilers go up during acceleration for take-off. As far as I know they should only be used during landing to destroy the lifting force. Therefore I was more than puzzled. The spoilers went in again some seconds before rotate. Is there anyone who can give me an eplanation to this. Was everything the way it should have been? Thomas Eidrup Sweden ltj@altavista.net From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:09 From: Spam@to.you (Philippe Vessaire) Subject: A320: effect of spoilers when airbraking? 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 Wed, 1 Jul 1998 02:42:33, Pete Mellor wrote: > Sorry to be a bit uncertain of the details, but I am writing from > home and don't have my A320 FCOM to hand. The inner pair of spoiler has only ground dump lift fonction. And , only for A320 (not 321 nor 319), the air speed brakes fonction have more maxi deflection without auto pilot. Philippe Vessaire philvsr@!!!!easynet.fr enlever !!!! pour la vrai adresse Email remove !!!! for true Email From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:10 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Re: A320: effect of spoilers when airbraking? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Pete Mellor wrote: >Yes, the A320 and its successors do not have a dedicated set >of surfaces for airbrakes. Instead, the spoilers (five pairs >of surfaces on the upper surfaces of the wings) have three >functions: Four functions actually: All five spoilers (on each wing) are used for ground spoilers. The four outboard spoilers act for roll augmentation. The three middle panels are used as speed brakes. Additionally, on most A320's (not A319's) the two outermost panels are used for gust load alleviation in combination with the aileron. >I would expect the deployment of the spoilers as air-brakes to have >a pitching moment (since they would decrease lift from the wings >slightly as well as increasing drag). I am quite sure that the >FCS would compensate for this automatically, The speed brakes on the A320 do cause a slight pitch change when deployed or retracted. My suspicion is that the rate of deployment and retraction is controlled so as to minimize any resultant excursions. Retraction at high speeds (>315/.75) or with autopilot on, can take up to 25 seconds. Surprisingly, or all its automation, a pronounced "ballooning" which accompanies flaps extension to position 2 was not worked out of the system. Why, I don't know. >since the use of >airbrakes is always completely automatic and under control of >the FCS, not directly by the pilots. (In an overspeed condition >on descent, the FCS would deploy the spoilers as airbrakes >automatically, without any input from the crew.) This is not correct. There are no inflight situations that can cause the speed brakes to extend automatically (although there are several criteria that can cause automatic retraction). Although the degree and rate of extension are controlled by the three SEC's, they are deployed in flight only in response to pilot selection. High speed protection will not cause the speed brakes to extend. The aircraft will pitch to slow. Interestingly, this can cause "annoying" altitude excursions in mountain wave activity. The aircraft will pitch up without regard to assigned altitude or certificated ceiling at Vmo+6 or Mmo+.01. Speed brakes are then applied manually to limit the degree of excursion. Although it has been reported that the speed brakes retract automatically in response to go around power, this is not the case. Angle of attack protection must be active to cause the inhibition. Given sufficient margins, one could fly around all day with max power and speed brakes full. Thanks for helping me study for my annual proficiency check! John Lombardi From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:11 From: ranfaa@my-dejanews.com Subject: RE: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , MCLELLAN Alexander wrote: > ISTR that the (then) HS-146 was designed for STOL and quiet operation > - for example at London City Airport, where both are required. ranfaa comment: some stol performance with an engine out. The aeroplane is powered by four hair dryers. We proved in Aust some years ago that if anti-ice is turned on in flight the aeroplane falls out of the sky. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:12 From: ranfaa@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "Antoin Daltun" wrote: > As an aside, aircraft normally undergo ditching trials (models in a water > tank). This was done later than usual in the development of the 146 and I > understand some early aircraft had (or have?) permitted overwater time > restricted to gliding time from land. This would be quite restrictive on > those aircraft (e.g. London-Copenhagen not permitted). ranfaa comment: who risks life and limb flying any distance over water in a high wing airliner. Even if they have the best ditching charactistics in the world, how does a high wing aeroplane float. Answer: wing on the top of the water. The case rests. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:13 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. 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 warden@usa.net "The Warden" writes: > Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... Due to the vagaries of cyberspace on th eroute from my ISP to this forum, I may be late with this news but: The latest Flight International reported that Boeing is seriously considering a large APU-with-thrust* for the 777X. i.e a tailpipe for the APU/engine would be in the tail for boosted take-offs. This would require a `levered' main gear to avoid tailpipe strikes on rotation, and of course, increased operating costs, but it is interesting. Also after hearing here how `winglets are for wings that aren't that well designed' it seems Boeing has learned from its 737BBJ winglets and the 777X may have winglets. *I think the engine considered was a varient of the McBoeing F-18s TF-404..but I don't have the mag handy. -- -Niels From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:14 From: tschell@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Terry Schell) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign "The Warden" writes: >Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are a >greater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Also, if something happens >and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into >providing sideways control (can't remember the technical term for it) and >would do a better job than having two engines closer to the center line. For >instance, if UAL 232 had been a 707, 747, A340, or even a DC-8, (first off, >the problem wouldn't have happened, but that's another story), they may have >been able to get a bit more directional movement, and may have been able to >correct for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made >the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have >landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... This is like saying, "shouldn't we put build planes with titanium shielding to protect against small chunks of space debris re-entering out atmosphere." Theoretically, that could bring a plane down, but the chances are sooooo small that it doesn't warrent the expense of trying to protect from it. Based on millions of flight hours, it is clear that a 4 engine aircraft does not have a significant safety advantage over a comparable twin. If we were to spend an extra 5% of flight expenses in order to increase overall safety, adding extra engines to twins would not be the best investment of those safety dollars. From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:15 From: "DRF" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Without being rude, I am curious about your background in transport aircraft, given the opinions stated. I think that the term that you are looking for is "asymetrical thust" for loss of directional control. That is what _was_ utilized by UA232, ten years ago yesterday. In that case, not only was rudder control lost to both rudders (most transport jets have two independent rudder systems, except the B737) but a total loss of all three hydraulic systems. Generally speaking, when you get to the point where you've lost all rudder authority, you've most likely got other problems too! As to the landing and the "gust of wind": IMHO as a professional pilot when you come in as hot (fast) as they did, there's not a whole lot you can do. When the tires blew or the struts snapped or whatever "would have" hapened next, bad things were going to happen. If it had been an A340, who knows what would have happened? Does anyone know what alpha law will decided is "proper" following a catastrophic event? Hope no one has to find out. The above is not to detract from the Captain and crew of UA232; indeed, it was there "keeping it together" that motivated me to become a pilot. David 727 FE From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:16 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 19 Jul 98 22:07:33 , "The Warden" caused to appear as if it was written: >Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are a >greater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Also, if something happens >and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into >providing sideways control (can't remember the technical term for it) and >would do a better job than having two engines closer to the center line. For >instance, if UAL 232 had been a 707, 747, A340, or even a DC-8, (first off, >the problem wouldn't have happened, but that's another story), they may have >been able to get a bit more directional movement, and may have been able to >correct for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made >the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have >landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... Boeing, possibly in response , is looking into using a thrusting APU for the longer range B777 derivatives. Basically, since the APU in the tail of a commercial airline is a turbine engine, the idea is that you can harness the capabilities of that engine as a thruster... the thing is call an Auxilliary Power and Thrust Unit (APTU), and is basically an engine used only on take-off. The idea of "take-off assist" engines is not new, ranging from the JATO's used on things like Consolidated PBY "Catalinas" and currently on Lockheed C130's, to the *fourth* engine used on the Trident. Malc. From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:17 From: k_ish Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom The Warden wrote: > Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are > agreater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Most failures will result in a loss of one engine; in this case, the added engines buy you nothing in terms of safety factor. Actually, the added engines do increase the probability of a single engine out incident. There are other scenarios that can cause the loss of all engine power (misfueling, ingestion of volcanic ash, maintenance error on all engines). In these cases, it doesn't matter how many engines you have. IMHO, four engines create slightly more than twice the chance for an engine failure of some sort, and they buy you no added safety factor when it does happen. > Also, if something happens > and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into > providing sideways control (can't remember the technical term for it) and > would do a better job than having two engines closer to the center line. Compare a 777 to a 747. The 747's outboard engines are mounted further outboard, but the 777 has almost double the thrust per engine. The overall moment created by the differential thrust is roughly the same. Also, an airplane is perfectly flyable with the rudder inactive. I can fly around all day without use of rudder. A rudder assists in making coordinated turns, but it is not essential. > For > instance, if UAL 232 had been a 707, 747, A340, or even a DC-8, (first off, > the problem wouldn't have happened, but that's another story), they may have > been able to get a bit more directional movement, and may have been able to > correct for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made > the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have > landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... Coincidentally read a transcript of a lecture by Captain Haynes to engineers at NASA Dryden. The reason the wing dug into the ground had nothing to do with crosswinds. With no elevator control, the aircraft was exhibiting a phugoid oscillation around its trim speed. They discovered that in the dive, you had to apply power, and at the top of the oscillation you had to chop power (very counter-intuitive). But when power was applied, the plane would roll to the right. Unfortunately, the dive portion of a phugoid began about 300 feet AGL. (Or to paraphrase Capt. Haynes, they had been very lucky, but their luck ran out right there.) The reason he was at Dryden was to test fly a simulator where instead of the control yoke controlling the usual surfaces, there was a reversion mode that used thrust for control of yaw and pitch. The simulator was a F-15, which has both engines almost on the centerline. The distance from the centerline isn't a big factor if you have lots of thrust! Ken Ishiguro From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:18 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Inc. The Warden wrote in message ... >Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are a >greater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Also, if something happens >and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into >providing sideways control (can't remember the technical term for it) and >would do a better job than having two engines closer to the center line. >For >instance, if UAL 232 had been a 707, 747, A340, or even a DC-8, (first off, >the problem wouldn't have happened, but that's another story), they may >have >been able to get a bit more directional movement, and may have been able to >correct for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made >the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have >landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... If a gust of wind pushes you off course, having another engine isn't going to help you much - the engines need time to spool up. The greatest effect of having multiple engines is during takeoff, where an engine failure is the most critical. As for rudder control, the cases I know of that resulted in loss of rudder control were cause by major failures (e.g. Sioux City - DC10 - total loss of hydraulics, Japan - 747 - rear pressure bulkhead failed and blew off part of the vertical tail). Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully using asymmetric control of the engines? From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:19 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Findings on China Airlines' A300 crash in Taiwan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , David Bromage wrote: >H Andrew Chuang (Chuanga@cris.com) wrote: >> However, to my surprise, Taiwan's CAA demanded China Airlines to phase >> out the A300 in two years under the recommendation of "experts" (foreign >> and local). > >The experts weren't representatives of AI and Boeing, were they? Just the >thing the manufacturers need to say, "get rid of your old aircraft". I'm pretty sure the "experts" weren't manufacturer reps. When I learn more about this, I'll post it. >> Expect a sizable B777 (or B777/767) order soon from CI. > >Or A330/340? The A340-500 is being considered and might have a slight chance. However, all signs indicate that it will be primarily a Boeing order with the A340-500 having a remote chance to be included. From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:20 From: ranfaa@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Airbus Trim System References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I don't think the original poster was seeing the auto stab trim compensating for mach tuck. The Mach trim system was installed to prevent the nose dropping due to movement of centre of pressure as speed increased to some level above the normal operating region. It was on the B707 in my experience and as the nose started to drop the mach trim applied a counteracting pitch trim force that resulted in positive forward pressure (a push forward) being required by the pilot if the aircraft was not to attempt to climb. This nose up pitch or course meant speed bleed and climb so the tendency was to return to equilibrium flight. The thrust would have to be reduced to prevent speed build up again. With the current generation of airliners with high speed wings, high cruise speeds and low drag I would be suprised if mach tuck was still a problem needing a special trimmer. Certainly I have never read in any Boeing publication that such a system is fitted or needed. The upsets, and there were quite a few in those early years of jet transport operation were researched by NASA at moffit field ,in advanced (for its time) simulators and there findings were reflected in new crew procedures, improved weather radar and operating techniques. I recall the upsets were mainly caused by entry into Cb's with the autopilot height hold engaged. The initial updraft caused the stab trim to trim nose down to attemtpt to retain the cruise altitude. Then as the aeroplane entered the area of strong downdraft it pitched down and commenced a rapid rate of descent. The speed built up rapidly with all the forward trim still on. The electric trim motors attempted to trim the nose up but the air loads were to great and the motors stalled. The speed increased and the wings came off very quickly. The technigue was to trim for turbulence penetration, disengage the altitude hold, and dont worry about altitude in th cell. As the trim moved the stab it was immediately manually returned to the pre cell entry position. Speed was controlled either with thrust or speed brake and we just rode it out. Once we knew what was the cause of the trouble and the fix I think the upsets almost ceased. New and better radar helped too. Current generation of airliners have hydraulic motors, not electric. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:21 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Airbus trim system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , Scott Macmillan wrote: > 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. Sitting in the jump seat of an A321 a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that the trim wheels seemed pretty active. The captain said that it was quite normal, as the auto-trim continually adjusts for slight movements of CoG as the drinks trolley moves backwards and forwards along the cabin, or passengers go to the toilet (to name but two causes). In a normal flight, after they have set the initial trim on the ground prior to take-off, the crew never touch the trim wheels. The only exception that I am aware of is in the case of complete loss of the flight control system, when the manual adjustment of of the horizontal stabiliser via the trim wheels becomes the only means of controlling pitch. (This has never occurred on a scheduled flight.) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk, Web: http://www@csr.city.ac.uk/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Jul 26 23:57:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Jul 98 23:57:22 From: "Christian Kuehnke" Subject: Recent incidents Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany The NTSB recently started to list incidents reported by foreign investigation authorities. Understandably, the findings are not reported as quickly as for cases where the NTSB itself does the investiagion. Does anybody know more about the following incidents? NTSB Identification: DCA98WA062 Scheduled 14 CFR 129 operation of HAPAG LLOYD FLUG Incident occurred JUN-27-98 at MUNICH Aircraft: Boeing 737-800, registration: DAHFD Injuries: ON JUNE 27, 1998, AT 0842 GMT, A HAPAG LLOYD FLUG GMBH, D-AHFD, EXPERIENCED AN UNCOMMANDED #2 ENGINE ACCELERATION DURING THE FLARE FOR LANDING AT MUNICH AIRPORT, MUNICH, GERMANY. THE ENGINE ACCELERATED TO 111% BEFORE IT WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE FLIGHTCREW. NO INJURIES OR DAMAGE TO THE AIRPLANE OCCURRED. THE INCIDENT IS BEING INVESTIGATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY. NTSB Identification: DCA98WA063 Scheduled 14 CFR 121 operation of LTU INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS Incident occurred JUL-05-98 at PALMA MALLORCA Aircraft: Douglas MD-11, registration: DAERB Injuries: Accident being investigated by the Government of Germany. NTSB Identification: DCA98WA064 Scheduled 14 CFR 129 operation of AIR FRANCE Incident occurred JUL-01-98 at TENERIFE Aircraft: Boeing 777, registration: Injuries: Paris, France, diverted into Tenerife, Portugal, because of an uncommanded engine shutdown. No other details known. This incident is being investigated by the French government. -- Christian.Kuehnke@Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE | Tel.: +49 5802 987 917 From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:26 From: JF Mezei Subject: Stage III definition Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The other day, I noticed a noisy plane overhead (I live 8.5 km from an airport). I looked and low and behold it was an F28. (Canadian Airlines). It sounded just as "bad" as a DC-9 or 737-200. Will Stage III only affect planes with a certain weight, or is it an all encompassing regulation about noise ? In other words, would it be possible to have, after STAGE III deadline, an ultralight aircraft that makes more noise than a 707 not outfitted with a hushkit ? And as far as the F28 is concerned, are its engines much quieter than that of the DC-9 or 737-200 ? Is the F28 considered Stage III compliant? From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:27 From: C Fairburn Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > > This is like saying, "shouldn't we put build planes with titanium > shielding to protect against small chunks of space debris re-entering > out atmosphere." Theoretically, that could bring a plane down, but the > chances are sooooo small that it doesn't warrent the expense of trying > to protect from it. Based on millions of flight hours, it is clear that > a 4 engine aircraft does not have a significant safety advantage over a > comparable twin. If we were to spend an extra 5% of flight expenses in > order to increase overall safety, adding extra engines to twins would > not be the best investment of those safety dollars. One could also come up with the statistical notion that, given engine failures are (largely) independent events, having 4 engines as opposed to 2 actually increases the risk of engine malfunction on any given airplane... Of course, given that an engine failure has occurred, its effects on a twin may indeed have a more significant implications due to impacts on secondary systems (e.g.hydralics etc.). Also, as we see in cases like Kegworth, here in England, shutting down an undamaged engine by mistake doubtlessly has more impact in a twin !! Chris fairburn (new eavesdropper to the list !) From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:28 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion "Richard Rea" wrote: > Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully using > asymmetric control of the engines? AA DC-10 over Windsor, Ontario, in the early 1980s? The basic problem was similar to that of the THY DC-10 just a little later: ie loss of the aft cargo door and damage to the cabin floor and, as a consequence, to the controls. The pilots used asymmetric thrust in getting the plane down (at Detroit, if memory serves) without further damage. But I don't recall how severe the damage was, and whether there was in fact total loss of hydraulics. Anyone? 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 Wed Jul 29 00:29:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:29 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 >> Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully using >> asymmetric control of the engines? > >AA DC-10 over Windsor, Ontario, in the early 1980s? The basic problem was >similar to that of the THY DC-10 just a little later: ie loss of the aft >cargo door and damage to the cabin floor and, as a consequence, to the >controls. The pilots used asymmetric thrust in getting the plane down (at >Detroit, if memory serves) without further damage. But I don't recall how >severe the damage was, and whether there was in fact total loss of >hydraulics. Anyone? I don't have the full NTSB report, but from excerpts and some other accounts, it appears that they still had full hydraulics. The rudder controls were jammed, however, and two of the four elevator control cables were severed with the other two being partly jammed, allowing only sluggish pitch control. They still had full ailerons and flaps. Roughly half left aileron was required to counteract the right rudder and they used the engines both differentially for directional control and together to assist the crippled elevator controls so as to maintain a reasonable rate of descent. The availability of the flaps allowed them to fly the approach at a much more reasonable speed than UA 232 at Sioux City. In summary, I'd say Windsor doesn't make a convincing argument for control using only asymmetric engine thrust. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:30 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University k_ish writes: > Coincidentally read a transcript of a lecture by Captain Haynes to > engineers at NASA Dryden. > The reason he was at Dryden was to test fly a simulator where instead of > the control yoke controlling the usual surfaces, there was a reversion > mode that used thrust for control of yaw and pitch. The simulator was > a F-15, which has both engines almost on the centerline. The distance > from the centerline isn't a big factor if you have lots of thrust! And, in fact, a fighter plan has been successfully landed at Edwards/Dryden with no use of control surfaces. Even better, the same feat was achieved, several times, with an MD-11! It required some clever reprogramming of the fly-by-wire system to translate control inputs to engine thrust commands, but worked quite nicely, I understand. Manufacturers and airlines don't seem to be interested though. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:31 From: "Richard Isakson" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here The Warden wrote in article ... > Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... Originally the 777 was a three engine derivative of the 767. When the ETOPS rules were changed the program was canceled. The number was recycled for the current 777. The original longer range 777 and the 767 were to share a common wing. Because of this commonality the current 767 has a larger wing than it would have had, had it been designed by itself. This has produced an airplane that has grown nicely and makes a good cargo plane. Rich Isakson From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:32 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 26 Jul 98 23:57:17 , k_ish wrote: >Most failures will result in a loss of one engine; in this case, the >added engines buy you nothing in terms of safety factor. Actually, the >added engines do increase the probability of a single engine out >incident. There are other scenarios that can cause the loss of all >engine power (misfueling, ingestion of volcanic ash, maintenance error >on all engines). In these cases, it doesn't matter how many engines you >have. > >IMHO, four engines create slightly more than twice the chance for an >engine failure of some sort, and they buy you no added safety factor >when it does happen. This really, worries me. When on a twin and you lose an engine instead of flying at 35-39,000ft you're down to 20,000ft and to achieve this you've pushed the power forwards on your last engine, normally to max continuous from max cruise. Now any probability statistics for infight shut down rates go out of the window since your remaining engine is working that much harder. This is why we have ETOPS rules which have gradually increased from 60mins to 180mins over the last couple of decades. Now for four engines you lose only 25 percent thrust, not 50 percent, hence the power increase is lower to maintain an adequate flight level. This immediately implies an inherent increase in safety. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- | Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, BEng. (Hons) | Aircraft Performance | | Email: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Analysis & Noise | | Web: www.daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Specialist | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:33 From: Rob Montgomery Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ameritech.Net www.ameritech.net Complaints: abuse@ameritech.net Reply-To: robm@null.net k_ish wrote: > Most failures will result in a loss of one engine; in this case, the > added engines buy you nothing in terms of safety factor. Actually, the > added engines do increase the probability of a single engine out > incident. There are other scenarios that can cause the loss of all > engine power (misfueling, ingestion of volcanic ash, maintenance error > on all engines). In these cases, it doesn't matter how many engines you > have. > > IMHO, four engines create slightly more than twice the chance for an > engine failure of some sort, and they buy you no added safety factor > when it does happen. Now, I don't claim to be an expert, but I think that we can also take this thought to the next level. If we assume that an engine has X chance of failure, then, as you state, we can assume that a twin will have 2X chance of having one engine fail, while a four engine aircraft will have 4X chance of an engine out condition. If we assume that all aircraft are built to remain flyable with any single engine out (N+1 redundancy, where N is the number of engines required for flight), we can then assume that a twin has, after a single engine failure, X chance of having a second engine failure, whereas a four engine aircraft (with only three operating) has 3X chance of a second engine failure. Hmmmm. Now, if we consider that, with an N+1 redundancy, a twin must have 200% the power required to continue a flight from V1, whereas a four engine aircaraft only needs 133%, we can further assume that a four engine aircraft will have a lower thrust to weight ratio. Hence, on takeoff, the four engine aircraft will spend more time wallowing around at low altitude (where a single engine failure, and the possibly subsequent momentary loss of directional control might cause an inadvertant landing). What am I getting at? I think I'd rather fly a twin. Just my opinion. -Rob -- robm@null.net From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:34 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: 767-400 "a different type"? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I was interested in the following comment by Robert W. Baker Jr., AA's executive vice president of operations to The Dallas Morning News (while discussing AA's plans for replacing its remaining DC-10s): > "The problem with the [767-]400 is it's really a different fleet type," > Baker told the newspaper in Saturday's editions. "The cockpits are > different and you bump up the engine thrust so you really have to > consider a new fleet type." Any comments? I knew the 767-400 was going to have an improved cockpit, but didn't realize the differences would be major enough that someone would considere it a different type. Do the cockpit differences mean pilots cannot be cross-rated with earlier 767s (and with 757s)? Conversely, can they be cross-rated with something else (747-400? 777?) If this is the perception by major users, I can't see the -400 selling 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 Wed Jul 29 00:29:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:35 From: Scott Macmillan Subject: Another Airbus question RE Flaps Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Up2U Thanks to all those who have given me some info on the Airbus trim system. Heres another quick qusetion : I notice that Airbus have assigned numbers to the stages of flap instead of the actual degree of flap being lowered as in Boeing aircraft Can someone tell me what degree of flap is lowered and what is the max IAS at each stage on an A320 please. Thanks in advance. -- Scott Macmillan GM7OMU, IO75tv Glasgow, Scotland, UK. From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:36 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM someone said: > > One thing still puzzles me a lot is the A319/320/321 production rate. > > Boeing got a lot of bad press because there Boeing got a lot of bad press because it was unable to keep to its delivery schedule promises which were perhaps too agressive considering it was a much more "brand new" product than just another 737. Startup production hiccups were seen as pneumonia by the media and a few customers got/will get planes late at extra cost to Boeing. Airbus meanwhile has had its models for some time now (that A320 for almost 10 years), has had the time to work out the production (and product) defects, has a good grip on how many and how fast it can build them. I'd speculate that Boeing's orders are fairly new, whereas Airbus' are perhaps older. There hasn't been much time for Boeing customers to cancel orders for whatever reasons, whereas, I'd say that some Airbus customers have cancelled/delayed orders, and that gives Airbus room to play with its delivery schedules. From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:37 From: "Ken" Subject: Re: Recent incidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMnet Malaysia The B777 was en route to Paris from Sao Paulo on its second ETOPS flight. An engine lost oil and as a result the engine was shut down. I don't think it was an uncommanded shutdown. The aircraft diverted to Tenerife, where a core change was carried out. The cause of the oil loss was failed filter bowl fasteners. This is not the first occurrence of this problem, and I hear rumours from a BA colleague that BA have suffered an identical problem since the France event. ETOPS clearance for the Air France B777 has been reduced to 120 mins, but looking at the route structure I don't think this will really affect their Operation. That's all I know. Regards Ken From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:38 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Recent incidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 26 Jul 98 23:57:22 , "Christian Kuehnke" wrote: > NTSB Identification: DCA98WA064 > > Scheduled 14 CFR 129 operation of AIR FRANCE > Incident occurred JUL-01-98 at TENERIFE > Aircraft: Boeing 777, registration: > Injuries: > >Paris, France, diverted into Tenerife, Portugal, because of an uncommanded >engine shutdown. No other details known. This incident is being investigated >by the French government. This was reported in Flight International (15-21 July) - The Aircraft was en-route from Sao Paulo, Brazil to Paris when 6 hours into the flight the crew shut down an engine following an oil loss indication. I guess it was on a single engine for some time as this must be mid atlantic (anyone care to estimate this based on the great circle route?). GE are quoted as suspecting a sump pump failure. Flight Intl. noted that the French DGAC have since reduced the 180mins ETOPS clearance to 120mins. Related, I know BA has had at least one departure failure with a GE90 powered 777 where they closed a runway at heathrow to 'sweep' the debris away (turbine blade failure). Flight Intl. has also reported that BA will request tenders from all three 777 engine manufacturers for its next 777 order. IMO it's unlikely that BA will switch suppliers. It seems to be more of polite warning as they did this with a 744 order recently but still stuck with RR. -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, BEng. (Hons) | Aircraft Performance Email: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Analysis & Noise Web: www.daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Specialist From kls Wed Jul 29 00:29:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Jul 98 00:29:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Recent incidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I guess it was on a single engine for some time as this must be mid >atlantic (anyone care to estimate this based on the great circle >route?). The great circle route for GRU-CDG passes almost directly over Tenerife (GCXO), and pretty close to Cape Verde (SID) and Lisbon (LIS): http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=GRU-CDG,GCXO&RANGE=120min@(SID,GCXO,LIS)&RANGE-STYLE=outline Using a 757 engine-out speed of 389 kts, SID and LIS are both about 120 minutes flying time from GCXO, so if all three airports were available and GCXO was the closest, then they must have been less than an hour out for a 757. Unless the 777's engine-out speed is signifcantly worse than a 757's (I'd expect it to be better), the flying time should have been well under an hour. -- 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 Aug 6 11:26:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:07 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: 767-400 "a different type"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here > Any comments? I knew the 767-400 was going to have an improved cockpit, but > didn't realize the differences would be major enough that someone would > considere it a different type. Do the cockpit differences mean pilots cannot > be cross-rated with earlier 767s (and with 757s)? Conversely, can they be > cross-rated with something else (747-400? 777?) As far as I am aware, the aircraft will be the same type rating as the 757/767. The problem for airlines will come mainly with the avionics, just like the 737NG has the same type rating as the older 737's. The -400 uses a 777-like cockpit, while the older 757/767 uses a mixture of EFIS and round-dial instruments. Southwest got around the problem of the cockpit differences with the 737NG by having Boeing design the displays to mimic the round-dial instruments. I believe Boeing has made some statement or other to the effect that this could just as easily be done with the 767-400. This would get around the training requirements of the FAA as far as the pilots go, but dealing with the pilot unions would be a different matter. So far, Southwest is the only pilot union that has agreed with their company to fly the 737NG in a common schedule and pay scale as the older 737's. The other airlines ordering the 737NG have had to negotiate higher pay scales and a separate fleet type with their unions (meaning a pilot at Delta flying the 737-300 would not be concurrently scheduled to fly the 737-700). This would almost certainly be the case with the newer 767, since the aircraft has a longer range and higher seat capacity, and these two factors have historically been the primary considerations for unions negotiating pay scales and fleet commonalities (the longer the range and the more seats, the higher the pay). AA's comments on the 767-400 stem not from the aircraft having a different type rating for pilots but from the fact that the engines and many other parts are not interchangeable with the older 767 models, and the pilots at most, if not all, airlines would require a higher pay scale and require that the aircraft be *considered* to be a separate type from a scheduling standpoint before they would agree to fly it. Chris From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:08 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 767-400 "a different type"? 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: > Any comments? I knew the 767-400 was going to have an improved cockpit, but > didn't realize the differences would be major enough that someone would > considere it a different type. AFAIK the 764 will get a switchable cockpit layout, either 763 or 777 configuration. Just like on the 737NG, before you start the flight you have to choose a configuration. > Do the cockpit differences mean pilots cannot > be cross-rated with earlier 767s (and with 757s)? If my information is correct it is full cross-rated, even if the display is on LCDs. > Conversely, can they be > cross-rated with something else (747-400? 777?) For sure not with the 744. But the 'new' layout of the 764 cockpit is 777 like. Of course this covers only the displays the rest of the cockpit is different. Again these are informations I read -- sometime, somewhere ;) -- so I might be wrong ... > If this is the perception by major users, I can't see the -400 selling well. Your perception is confirmed by the market. The A332 sold twice as well as the B764. You may check my site http://surf.to/orders for further details on performance and orders of both ships. 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 Thu Aug 6 11:26:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:09 From: Evan McElravy Subject: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Any comments? I knew the 767-400 was going to have an improved cockpit, but >didn't realize the differences would be major enough that someone would >considere it a different type. Do the cockpit differences mean pilots >cannot be cross-rated with earlier 767s (and with 757s)? Conversely, can >they be cross-rated with something else (747-400? 777?) > >If this is the perception by major users, I can't see the -400 selling >well. IMHO, that is what blew the US Airways deal. Buying the 767-300/400 would have added a new cockpit type into the fleet while buying A330 would add no new cockpit types. Since US Airways wanted an aircraft larger then the 763, Boeing would have had a much better chance of getting the order if the 764 could share a rating with the 757 and 767, both of which US operates. The fact that Boeing filed suit against US (one of the most ignorant tricks I've heard of), couldn't have helped relations either. Between this boneheaded strategy, the absurdly conceived 757-300 and 737-900 (plus they are still making -300/400/500s) and the never-ending parade of hairbrained 777 schemes, I'm afraid the boys in Seattle have lost a lot of their focus in recent years. It is no surprise to me that Airbus is having a banner year and will, in all liklihood, beat Boeing in orders this year. With the cyclical nature of the industry, Boeing is in no shape for the next downturn, which seems likly to be just around the corner. And their marketing is poor, too. The 717 could potentially be a blockbuster but they seem to be doing little to push it to airlines like Northwest, TWA, AA, and even US that could very potentially be interested in buying it. Customer confidence is plummeting (the similarities to Kodak's current plight are startling) and I think a management change is in order. Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:10 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The fact that Boeing filed suit against US (one of the most ignorant >tricks I've heard of), couldn't have helped relations either. USAir had a binding contract with Boeing to accept and pay for a number of aircraft. Boeing bent over backwards to renegotiate the deal but USAir simply said "screw you," refusing to negotiate in good faith. Under the circumstances, had Boeing *not* filed suit, I as a stockholder would have expected a good explanation from Boeing executives as to why they were not protecting the interests of myself and other stockholders. It would be "ignorant" to expect them to take no action. >the absurdly conceived 757-300 and 737-900 What do you think is so absurd about them? Do you think all stretches are absurd? The 757-200 had "excess range" for charter operators, and the 757-300 allows them to use the aircraft's capabilities where they need it -- payload (passengers), not range. The 737-900 was launched because airlines wanted 737-800 capacity in a mixed-class configuration. If Boeing can build such derivatives and make a greater profit at doing so than could be made by otherwise deploying the resources, it is absurd to not build them. (I'm assuming that Boeing management acted rationally in terms of profit maximization.) >plus they are still making -300/400/500s Because they had commitments to do so. Should they unilaterally cancel their commitments the way USAir did? In any case, 737 Classic production will end soon -- I think 2000 is the date I heard. >the never-ending parade of hairbrained 777 schemes This is supposed to be new?! Airframe manufacturers are always coming up with ideas to try to meet their customers' needs. One could argue that the NLA (Boeing), VLCT (partnership of Boeing, Aerospatiale, DASA, etc.), A3XX (Airbus), and MD-12 (the four-engined superjumbo, with MD and the Taiwanese acting in partnership) are equally hairbrained schemes. And what of the A340-8000, which as recently as a few weeks ago still was on the Airbus web pages as if it were likely to be build. Even more bizarre were the 1970s proposals for a three-engined 747 to compete with the DC-10 and L-1011. >The 717 could potentially be a blockbuster but they seem to be doing >little to push it to airlines like Northwest, TWA, AA, and even US that >could very potentially be interested in buying it. How do you know they're doing little to push it? Given the recent bugs in NW's DC-9 life extension program, I'd be very surprised if Boeing were not aggressively pursuing a 717 order, possibly tied to a deal on more 747s which NW is considering. TWA might be a good opportunity, but AA is probably fine with the F100s for a while. I know that UA briefly considered the 717 (it might still have been the MD-95 at that point) but it didn't have the range. >I think a management change is in order. Perhaps, but your arguments aren't convincing. -- 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 Aug 6 11:26:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:11 From: "Grant Parsamyan" Subject: NASA's Ice Detection Technology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Hello, I work for the NASA Technology Transfer Center. We take the latest NASA developed technologies and try to find commercial applications for them. If you are interested in seeing one of NASA's latest ice detection technologies, you can view information by going to the address below: http://monica.usc.edu/CommQuest/deice/ We would like to get your opinion on potential commercial uses for the Ice Detector and Deicing Fluid Effectiveness Monitoring System. You can give us your feedback through the web site or by sending an e-mail to : dabney@usc.edu We appreciate your input, Rob Dabney Project Manager NASA Far West RTTC Technology Description: Developed by the NASA Ames Research Center, the ice detector and deicing fluid effectiveness monitoring system measures atmospheric conditions and the thickness of ice to provide information on the effectiveness of deicing fluid being applied. Ice Detector and Deicing Fluid Effectiveness Monitoring Systems can be used to detect the formation of ice and to ensure that the minimum amount of deicing fluid is used to melt ice. The system detects ice at levels you specify and continuously monitors the concentration and amount of deicing fluid needed to deice a surface, thereby minimizing pollution of the environment from excess deicing fluids. The technology saves energy and chemicals by deicing only when needed instead of automatically or periodically. The system is ideal for use in airplanes and helicopters but could also be used in commercial refrigeration applications, road surfaces and a number of other commercial applications. In flight applications, It is crucial for a pilot to know that a deicing process has been completed successfully. The flight crew can detect and monitor the deicing process to make sure all ice has been removed. This ensures that no more deicing fluid is applied than is needed, which will prevent excessive harm to the environment. In commercial refrigeration applications the Ice Detector and Deicing Fluid Effectiveness Monitoring System would deice only when ice is detected. Currently, many commercial refrigeration systems deice on a scheduled or automatic basis. Applying this technology could greatly reduce energy and chemical consumption in refrigeration systems. The invention consists of two components: an ice detector and a deicing fluid effectiveness monitoring system. The ice detection portion is composed of a temperature sensor and a parallel arrangement of electrodes whose coefficient of coupling indicates the formation and the thickness of the ice. The fluid effectiveness-monitoring portion comprises a temperature sensor and an ionic-conduction cell array that measures the conductivity of the deicing fluid, which depends on its concentration and its freezing point. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:12 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: New Navigation Device Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl While sitting and waiting for my recent Frontier Airlines flight to complete boarding, I noticed the captain arriving. He was carrying what looked like a large transparent blue earth globe. He quickly entered the cockpit, leaving me to wonder what this new navigation device was. Later in flight, the flight attendent opened the cockpit door and I looked in. The globe was actually a beach ball, and the captain had wedged it into the front window above the glare shield. He was using it to keep the sun out of his eyes! From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:13 From: Peter Stanning Subject: Accidents caused by cigarette smoking Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The CAA were quoted in yesterdays Daily Telegraph as saying that no aircraft accident had ever been caused by cigarette smoking seem to remember a 707 crash in France caused by a fire in a toilet.This was some years ago now but I thought the fire was caused by a cigarette. Any ideas? -- Peter Stanning From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:14 From: "Tom barnett" Subject: deicing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Is anyone aware of a system in Buffalo which uses radiant energy to deice? Any experiences with it? Apparently FAA approved. Tom Barnett From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:15 From: ranfaa@my-dejanews.com Subject: Probability of Two Engines Failing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion When the big twins first started transatlantic operation this was the formula that the mathematicians produced to predict the first twin ditching through multiple engine failure.(The original date I don't recall) Needless to say that time passed a long time ago. The probability of a double power unit shutdown from independent causes is expressed as (2 P1 P2 T Y )where P1 is the probability of a single engine failure in cruise per hour, P2 is the probibility of second engine failure, T is the flight time duration, and Y is the diversion time at single engine cruise speed to the nearest suitable aerodrome. P1 is conservatively assessed by the ICAO study group as the recorded shut-down rate fo the mature aircraft -engine combination. P2 the probability of second engine failure from an independent cause, will be higher than P1 because the second engine will be operating at higher power; sot the study group recommends that P2 is 2P1. A double engine shutdown is regarded by most airworthiness authorities , and by the ICAO study group, as 'catastrophic" in other words , fatal. Allowing for he probability of a fatal crash resulting from total engine failure from independent causes to be one in 100 million hours , or 10 to power of -8, the study group recommends the folowing formula for assessing the required inflight shutdown rate for a particular route: 10 to power of -8 (0.6 + 0.4 T ) all divided by T Y The question we asked in QANTAS was: WHAT IF THE SECOND ENGINE FAILED FIRST ? -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:16 From: Mindy Subject: Concord Climb rate ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: losks@pacbell.net Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 . From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:17 From: "Bruce O'Neel" Subject: Webcast of 757-300 first flight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Geneva Auuughhh. I missed this. Did anyone catch it? (from Infobeat) Boeing flight to be Webcast The inaugural flight of the Boeing 757-300 will be webcast live at www.boeing.com. The flight is scheduled for 10 a.m. pacific, Sunday, Aug. 2. "Our 757-300 customers, our suppliers, Boeing (BA) employees, and airplane buffs everywhere will be able to watch as it happens," said Margaret Nomi, deputy program manager of the 757-300 program. The 757-300, Boeing's newest twinjet and a derivative of the 757-200, is designed to carry more passengers at lower cost. -- Bruce O'Neel phone: +41 22 950 91 22 (direct) INTEGRAL Science Data Centre +41 22 950 91 00 (switchb.) Chemin d'Ecogia 16 fax: +41 22 950 91 33 CH-1290 VERSOIX e-mail: Bruce.Oneel@obs.unige.ch Switzerland WWW: http://obswww.unige.ch/isdc/ Moore's Law does not apply to backhoes -- Aaron Goldberg From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:18 From: "NASA Far West RTTC" Subject: New Technology Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Far West RTTC Reply-To: "NASA Far West RTTC" Hello, I work for a Technology Transfer Center. We take previously developed technologies and find commercial applications for them. The center works with privately funded technologies and NASA funded technologies. I would like to get your opinion on potential commercial uses for stable passive composite magnetic bearings – i.e. bearings with low loss, spatial stability, rigidity, and high load capacity. The new technology offers easily machinable bearings with high load capacity, rigid alignment and longitudinal stability, long life, and low parasitic power loss.. Could you please send your feedback to me at: camendez@usc.edu I appreciate your input, Caroline Mendez Director, Commercial Programs NASA FWRTTC, USC ETTC From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:19 From: "Ken" Subject: Re: 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TMnet Malaysia Spoon1 wrote in message ... >Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal >Jordanian as a cargo plane ? China Southwest Airlines. One B707 converted to Cargo some years ago. It was still in service two years ago and I cannot see any reason why it should still not be flying. Regards Ken From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:20 From: "dstc47" Subject: Re: 707 - passenger service lives on References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indigo Spoon1 wrote in message ... >Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal >Jordanian as a cargo plane ? Your question is somewhat ambiguous. A lot of third world operators use B707s as freighters, so I assume you mean 707s on passenger services. If so, then the current issue of Aircraft Illustrated shows Azzara Air Transport of Sudan B707 ST-JJC at Sharjah operating a passenger service, - from Nairobi/Mogadishu on Weds. and to Khartoum on Thurs . Your best bet for a passenger seat might be if you can talk your way on to a military passenger 707 however. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:21 From: "The Warden" Subject: Re: 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Spoon1 wrote in message ... >Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal >Jordanian as a cargo plane ? Don't know of any U.S. passenger carriers that still use 707's. They are around as cargo jets still, though. Too bad; the 707 was one of the toughest jets out there. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:22 From: removenospampaulr@att.net (PR) Subject: Re: 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: PR@bgtnsc02 On 26 Jul 98 23:57:07 , Spoon1 wrote: >Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal >Jordanian as a cargo plane ? I think BAX International is still running a few. They prefer DC-8's. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:23 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Spoon1 wrote: > Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal > Jordanian as a cargo plane ? You may visit Bill Harms excellent airliner status at http://www.bird.ch/bharms . It just contains *every* information you were ever looking for ;) -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Aug 6 11:26:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:24 From: "Larry Sakurai" Subject: Re: 707 References: <#uOF8eju9GA.241@upnetnews05> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Don Boberick wrote in message <#uOF8eju9GA.241@upnetnews05>... >Not sure where you are at Spoon1 but Larry and I live not to far from a big >707 (and 747, Tri Star, DC10, etc.) graveyard at Mojave airport in >California. Man, it's been years since I've been out there, Don. Over ten years ago, I saw a line of 880s, and one 990. One of these days, I ought to see what's out there now. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:25 From: ayrton@wam.umd.edu (el toro) Subject: Re: 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maryland, College Park, MD Spoon1 (noctulius@usa.net) wrote: : Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal : Jordanian as a cargo plane ? Check www.airliners.net. They have a database of pics and you may be able to get some leads about your question. el toro From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:26 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: UA A321 ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Following the recent UA order for A319 and A320, it is interesting to note that UA hasn't yet ordered the A321. The last order for B757 from UA was placed in '96. What's the strategy of UA in the B757/A321 market ? As I have seen no order for either plane, the management may be in doubt itself. The 321 could fly most -- but not all the -- routes the 757 is flying. Any thoughts ? -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Aug 6 11:26:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Following the recent UA order for A319 and A320, it is interesting to >note that UA hasn't yet ordered the A321. The last order for B757 from >UA was placed in '96. What's the strategy of UA in the B757/A321 market ... >The 321 could fly most -- but not all the -- routes the 757 is flying. It's hard to see what value the A321 would offer UA. It's true that the A321 could fly many 757 routes, but UA already has the 757, and there is no need to replace them anytime soon. When the last two 757s on order are delivered (next December and January) UA will probably have enough 757s to handle most of the flying for which the type is suited. There probably are some edge cases where the 757 might be marginally better than a smaller or larger type, but it's not worth adding just one or two more planes. For example, BOS-SAN is flown with an A320 -- a 757 might do the job as well, but the yields on the additional seats wouldn't justify the added cost of the 757 unless UA had surplus 757s. On the other side, UA recently started taking delivery of domestic 767-300s because they got a better deal (at least per seat) than for 757s. Presumably the marginal yields of the added seats on the routes where those aircraft will be used exceed the higher cost of the larger aircraft. -- 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 Aug 6 11:26:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:28 From: Spoon1 Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net The Warden wrote: > Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are a > greater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Also, if something happens > and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into > providing sideways control (can't remember the technical term for it) and > would do a better job than having two engines closer to the center line. For > instance, if UAL 232 had been a 707, 747, A340, or even a DC-8, (first off, > the problem wouldn't have happened, but that's another story), they may have > been able to get a bit more directional movement, and may have been able to > correct for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made > the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have > landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... I think you are wrong, The 777-200/300's have very dependable engines. In United 232's case, a 777-200 is powered by a Pratt & Whitney PW 40-84. United chose the engine because it was powerful and dependable. Besides a plane the size of a 777-200 has alot of momentum on landing. It's not the engines that could have saved United 232. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:29 From: jchase Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio, USA Is there any record of a double engine failure and subsequent aircraft loss on a twin-jet from separate causes? - that is, exclude volcano dust or bird ingestions killing both engines, running out of fuel, or other events that kill ALL engines regardless of number. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:30 From: andyweir 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 >> Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully >> using asymmetric control of the engines? >AA DC-10 over Windsor, Ontario, in the early 1980s? The basic problem was >similar to that of the THY DC-10 just a little later: ie loss of the aft >cargo door and damage to the cabin floor and, as a consequence, to the >controls. The pilots used asymmetric thrust in getting the plane down (at >Detroit, if memory serves) without further damage. But I don't recall how >severe the damage was, and whether there was in fact total loss of >hydraulics. Anyone? Had occasion to talk a couple of years ago to Bryce McCormick, captain during said Windsor AA DC-10 incident (in June 1972, BTW. He did land at Detroit). His ability to control the aircraft with differential thrust had been due, at least in part, to his conservatism when converting to the DC-10 from B707. He told me that at the time he instinctively distrusted exclusively hydraulically-operated controls. What if, he asked his instructor, you lose hydraulics? Can't happen, he was told. No way. Nonetheless, he asked and was allowed to experiment in the sim with differential thrust until he got the hang of it. I believe that in his incident McCormick had lost the tail engine but retained limited control of the elevators and the ailerons. Not a total hydraulic loss, I think, but enough to make differential thrust pretty important. Captain Denny Fitch's knowledge of this incident had contributed to his ability to control UAL 232 when he was invited into the Al Haynes cockpit to operate the throttles in the famous flight which ended at Sioux City July 1989. It became McCormick's party trick. He told me how he astounded some FAA inspectors along with him on a test flight for an air generator by landing the plane (don't know from how far out) without touching the control column. He flared by slightly pulling back on the tail engine and pushing forward on the other two. "It just squeaked in", he said. In 1995 NASA, I think it was, demonstrated a propulsion control software package called PCA that took the guesswork out of differential thrust. It simply plugged into the FMC or FADEC of an MD-11. Don't know the current situation, but I believe NASA expressed disappointment in the lack of interest in the package from airlines. Presumably, the software's principles are universally applicable and could be adapted for any big jet with FMC and/or FADEC. I wonder what became of it? From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:31 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: > "Richard Rea" wrote: > > Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully using > > asymmetric control of the engines? > > AA DC-10 over Windsor, Ontario, in the early 1980s? Sorry to follow-up my own post. That date obviously should have read early 1970s. 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 Aug 6 11:26:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:32 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Richard Rea wrote: > Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully using > asymmetric control of the engines? I can think of at least 2 involving the B-52. One is the rather famous incident where a B-52H lost almost the entire vertical empennage in severe turbulence and yet landed successfully (I've seen the photo of the tail-less plane still in the air, with gear down, in numerous books.) Another incident that I've never seen written up anywhere involved a friend who was a B-52 pilot (I'm sure there are MANY such incidents involving military aircraft). At the time of this incident, he was not yet the aircraft commander, and it was a slightly older B-52 (G model, I believe- still had J-57's instead of TF33's). The incident was not unlike the Sioux City DC-10, in that it was a near complete loss of hydraulic power. Unlike the DC-10, they were able to stay aloft a *long* time and converse with ground crews and Boeing engineers about how to proceed. They landed using asymmetric thrust and they popped the 'chute early in the roll in order to keep the tail behind the nose where it belongs. They still bounced hard enough to crack the airframe, but they landed on the runway and in (mostly) one piece. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:33 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 Reply-To: garryf@pacbell.net The MD-11 demo of full aircraft control with coupled autoflight and throttles was completely uneventful. We did that almost two years ago. The wonders of electric airplanes! From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:34 From: "Larry Sakurai" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote in message ... >"Richard Rea" wrote: >> Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully >> using asymmetric control of the engines? >AA DC-10 over Windsor, Ontario, in the early 1980s? The basic problem was >similar to that of the THY DC-10 just a little later: ie loss of the aft >cargo door and damage to the cabin floor and, as a consequence, to the >controls. The pilots used asymmetric thrust in getting the plane down (at >Detroit, if memory serves) without further damage. But I don't recall how >severe the damage was, and whether there was in fact total loss of >hydraulics. Anyone? You're right, Stef. In 1972, 21 months before the THY incident, AA Flight 96 had a similar incident. The collapsed floor jammed the control cables, but they still had hydraulics. The rudder was jammed full left, and the captain had to apply ailerons to compensate for the yaw. With no control over the rudder, the crew used asymmetric thrust to control the airplane. The crew also had some control over the elevators, albeit it took a very heavy hand to move the elevators. This contrasts to the Sioux City incident, where the crew had no hydraulics, and no control over any of the moving surfaces. But while the AA crew was successful in landing their plane, they couldn't keep it on the runway and came to rest half on and half off the runway. From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:35 From: ranfaa@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "Richard Rea" wrote: > The Warden wrote in message ... > >Me who doesn't have much faith in new technology thinks that 4 engines are a > >greater safety factor, despite the extra cost. Also, if something happens > >and rudder control is lost, the two outboard engines could be pressed into > for that gust of wind that pushed them off of the runway and made > >the wing dig into the ground (if that had not happened, they would have > >landed safely). Personally, I think the 777 should be a trijet, at least... > > (e.g. Sioux City - DC10 - total loss of hydraulics, Japan - 747 - rear > pressure bulkhead failed and blew off part of the vertical tail). > > Does anybody know of a case where a plane was controlled successfully using > asymmetric control of the engines? The japanese b747 bulkhead blow out illustrates the lag effects inherent in any attempt to control the aeroplane just using asymmetric thrust, or in their case all thrust and just attempting to use pitch effects to try and maintain height and some directional control. Turn means the nose drops so thrust must be applied on all engines to start a nose up pitch. How much? then as the turn is stopped or all thrust must be reduced to prevent unwanted climb. In theory it may seem possible but in practice ????? Regarding the question of asymmetric thrust to control direction; I have a photo of a b52 that lost almost all the vertical fin after striking cat near the rockies many years ago now. It was controlled with some effort and successfully landed. This is an aeroplane with with a fair distance between the two critical outboard engines and because of the relatively low power involved, the asymmetry would not be that great. Add to this the fact that the other 8 engines could be set at a constant thrust for speed control then a potential disaster was averted. I don't suggest for one second that it would have been easy, there was great airmanship and crew co-operation displayed in this incident that was in the highest traditions...etc. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:36 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk wrote: > On 26 Jul 98 23:57:17 , k_ish wrote: > >IMHO, four engines create slightly more than twice the chance for an > >engine failure of some sort, and they buy you no added safety factor > >when it does happen. > > This really, worries me. When on a twin and you lose an engine instead > of flying at 35-39,000ft you're down to 20,000ft and to achieve this > you've pushed the power forwards on your last engine, normally to max > continuous from max cruise. Now any probability statistics for infight > shut down rates go out of the window since your remaining engine is > working that much harder. This is why we have ETOPS rules which have > gradually increased from 60mins to 180mins over the last couple of > decades. If we were still flying piston-engine airplanes, you would have a legitimate concern. The 60-minute rule, which is still on the books, was written in the 1950s as the result of several fatal accidents involving twin-engine piston transports that lost one engine and burned up their remaining engine trying to maintain altitude and reach an airport. The probability for engine failure on piston engines goes up fast with the amount of power being demanded from it. This is not true of turbofan engines, as long as temperature and N-speeds are not exceeded. If you look at the graph representing the chances of failure vs. power output of piston engines and turbofan engines, the failure rate line climbs steeply with power output from a piston engine, but remains relatively flat with turbofan engines. In other words, a turbofan doesn't care what power setting you use so long as its temperature and rotational limits are not exceeded. Pushing the power up on the remaining engine of a twin-engine jetliner does not add to the risk of engine failure as it would if you were flying a twin-engine piston airplane. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:37 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , robm@null.net wrote: > If we assume that all aircraft are built to remain flyable with any > single engine out (N+1 redundancy, where N is the number of engines > required for flight), we can then assume that a twin has, after a single > engine failure, X chance of having a second engine failure, whereas a > four engine aircraft (with only three operating) has 3X chance of a > second engine failure. Hmmmm. > > Now, if we consider that, with an N+1 redundancy, a twin must have 200% > the power required to continue a flight from V1, whereas a four engine > aircaraft only needs 133%, we can further assume that a four engine > aircraft will have a lower thrust to weight ratio. Hence, on takeoff, > the four engine aircraft will spend more time wallowing around at low > altitude (where a single engine failure, and the possibly subsequent > momentary loss of directional control might cause an inadvertant > landing). > > What am I getting at? I think I'd rather fly a twin. Just my opinion. The other thing to consider, although it is not readily measurable, is the degree of maintenance received by an ETOPS twin. Certificating the airplane for ETOPS is only part of the story. The airline itself must also be certificated for ETOPS operations. This means they have to have operational, maintenance, and data gathering and tracking practices that meet ETOPS requirements. Some airlines have applied their ETOPS maintenance and operational procedures to their non-ETOPS fleet as well, and the reliability of all their aircraft has gone up as a result. So in addition to whatever statistics about twin vs three or four-engine airplane safety you care to look at, you also have to take into account the fact that the ETOPS twin is a very well-taken-care-of piece of machinery. Based on what I have observed at the ETOPS airlines I've filmed at over the last year or so, I cannot think of a safer place to be on this planet that over the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific on an ETOPS twin, Boeing or Airbus. C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:38 From: "DOUGLAS G ROMNEY" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp >The idea of "take-off assist" engines is not new, ranging from the JATO's >used on things like Consolidated PBY "Catalinas" and currently on Lockheed >C130's, to the *fourth* engine used on the Trident. Didn't the Mexicana 727s have JATO for getting out of MEX on hot muggy days? [Moderator's Note: Yes. This has been discussed a number of times in the newsgroup; see http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html. -- Karl] Miles From kls Thu Aug 6 11:26:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 11:26:39 From: wsherr6080@aol.com (WSherr6080) Subject: TWA 800 Graphics and Simulations indicate probable cause: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Graphics of the debris field appearing in "Newsday" and the "Press Enterprise" newspapers, based on NTSB specifications of the FDR readouts; and the NTSB simulations of the accident, indicate an initial breakup prior to the explosion. A streaming fire from the lower fuselage appears at the same time and 4 seconds later the explosion occurs and the forward 70 feet of the aircraft nose structure is severed from the fuselage. This flame front is the probable ignition source for the center fuel tank. From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:36 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: Stage III definition References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here JF Mezei wrote in message ... >The other day, I noticed a noisy plane overhead (I live 8.5 km from an >airport). > >I looked and low and behold it was an F28. (Canadian Airlines). > >It sounded just as "bad" as a DC-9 or 737-200. > >Will Stage III only affect planes with a certain weight, or is it an all >encompassing regulation about noise ? The FARs show no weight minimum for compliance. >In other words, would it be possible to have, after STAGE III deadline, >an ultralight aircraft that makes more noise than a 707 not outfitted >with a hushkit ? An Ultralight is prohibited from operating in controlled airspace; so this should not be much of a problem. John From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:37 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Stage III definition References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 29 Jul 98 00:29:26 , JF Mezei wrote: >The other day, I noticed a noisy plane overhead (I live 8.5 km from an >airport). > >I looked and low and behold it was an F28. (Canadian Airlines). > >It sounded just as "bad" as a DC-9 or 737-200. A perfectly reasonable assumption. The F28 has Rolls Royce Spey engines of various marks. These are essentially lower thrust variants of Spey engines used in BAC1-11 aircraft. Military variants were also used in UK Phantoms and Bucaneers. They are low bypass ratio (1.0) engines and hence are pretty noisy. >Will Stage III only affect planes with a certain weight, or is it an all >encompassing regulation about noise ? >In other words, would it be possible to have, after STAGE III deadline, >an ultralight aircraft that makes more noise than a 707 not outfitted >with a hushkit ? No, all jet transport aircraft must be certificated to Stage 3 rules. Below a certain weight (T/O between 20 and 48 tonnes depending on the no. of engines) you must not exceed a certain noise level (89EPNdB). >And as far as the F28 is concerned, are its engines much quieter than >that of the DC-9 or 737-200 ? Is the F28 considered Stage III compliant? Takeoff EPNL: Fokker F.28 Mk 4000: 92.9 Douglas DC9-10: 91.4 Boeing 737-200: 92.0-97.0 (depending on model) Sideline EPNL: Fokker F.28 Mk 4000: 101.7 Douglas DC9-10: 100.8 Boeing 737-200: 100-101 Approach EPNL: Fokker F.28 Mk 4000: 99.4-101.4 Douglas DC9-10: 100-103 Boeing 737-200: 102-105 See above, actually noisier than a DC9-10 at takeoff certification point (measured at 6.5km from start of takeoff roll). It clearly isn't stage 3 compliant. There is a program to re-engine it with Tay engines. The heavier engines require a fuselage plug to balance the aircraft - much like the MD80--->MD90 change, although this is on existing aircraft. Not heard of any orders for the coversion yet. -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, BEng. (Hons) | Aircraft Performance Email: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Analysis & Noise Web: www.daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Specialist From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:38 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu JF Mezei wrote: > Boeing got a lot of bad press because it was unable to keep to its > delivery schedule promises which were perhaps too agressive considering > it was a much more "brand new" product than just another 737. The main problem remains that the suppliers could not adjust to the asked output rates. In addition the hire and fire philosophy is not applied in Europe, resulting in lower occupation in bad times, but with the actual high output AI has more qualified workers available, whereas Boeing needs to invest time and money in training new workers. The above mentioned delivery problems speak in favor of AI. > Airbus meanwhile has had its models for some time now (that A320 for > almost 10 years), has had the time to work out the production (and > product) defects, has a good grip on how many and how fast it can build > them. a good point ;) > I'd speculate that Boeing's orders are fairly new, whereas Airbus' are > perhaps older. No. The 737 outsold the 320 until '96 included. The 320 has outsold the 737 since then, but a big percentage of the 320 orders are for delivery after '00. > There hasn't been much time for Boeing customers to > cancel orders for whatever reasons, why should they cancel orders ?? they get a financial compensation because Boeing couldn't keep the delivery dates. And if they were smart enough (at the time the contract was signed) they can even lease a replacement a/c and Boeing has to pay for it ;) > whereas, I'd say that some Airbus > customers have cancelled/delayed orders, and that gives Airbus room to > play with its delivery schedules. The only 320 order which has recently been cancelled was PAL for 4 A320 (msn 861, 863, 868 and 870) 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 Thu Aug 6 23:22:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:39 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Airbus flexibility v. Boeing It used always be assumed that Boeing had much more flexibility about moving production rates up and (especially) down than Airbus because of US hire and fire policies, a large mobile labour pool in the US and generally less bureaucracy than in Europe. When I was at Aer Lingus, we signed contracts for A330s at Christmas 1993 and the first aircraft was in service in May 1994 after an extensive modification programme (including moving from 9-abreast high-density short-haul to two class six/eight abreast long-haul with different seats and galleys). It was also the first Airbus operation by Aer Lingus, the first A330 ETOPS operation and the first A330 operation into North America. While the mod programme was largely sub-contracted out to Deutsche Airbus, the whole programme was almost incredibly fast. A subsequent transfer and re-configuration of an Air Inter aircraft was also expeditiously handled. The comparison with Boeing's lead-times on fairly routine B737/B767 mods was very impressive. I particularly remember an issue when doubt arose about toilet tank capacity on a fairly high density B767 on long-haul sectors. Some improvement on their part was certainly called for. The B737NG problems are reminiscent of difficulties with the B747-400 introduction. Antoin Daltun From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:40 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Re: Another Airbus question RE Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >I notice that Airbus have assigned numbers to the stages of flap >instead of the actual degree of flap being lowered as in Boeing aircraft > >Can someone tell me what degree of flap is lowered and what is the max >IAS at each stage on an A320 please. Hope this answers your questions. BTW, 1+F can only be selected on the ground (<100 KTS) or inflight after retracting from 2 or greater (<210 KTS). Position Slats Flaps Max Speed Remarks 1 18 0 230 Initial Approach 1(1+F) 18 10 215 Takeoff/Go Around 2 22 15 200 Takeoff/Approach 3 22 20 185 Takeoff/Approach/Landing FULL 27 40 177 Landing John Lombardi From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:41 From: "Gitaj" Subject: Re: Another Airbus question RE Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Scott Macmillan wrote in message ... >I notice that Airbus have assigned numbers to the stages of flap >instead of the actual degree of flap being lowered as in Boeing aircraft > >Can someone tell me what degree of flap is lowered and what is the max >IAS at each stage on an A320 please. Here is the A320 flap info. The columns are selector position, degree slats, degree flaps, max IAS, and most common uses. POS SLATS FLAPS SPD USE 1 18 0 230 Int. Appr. 1 18 10 215 T.O. 2 22 15 200 T.O./Appr. 3 22 20 185 T.O./Appr./Ldg. 4/FULL 27 35 177 Ldg. From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:42 From: "Galen L. Hinshaw" Subject: Re: Another Airbus question RE Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISPNews http://ispnews.com Scott Macmillan wrote in message ... >I notice that Airbus have assigned numbers to the stages of flap >instead of the actual degree of flap being lowered as in Boeing aircraft > >Can someone tell me what degree of flap is lowered and what is the max >IAS at each stage on an A320 please. The flaps and slats are assigned position numbers. At position 0, flaps and slats are fully retracted. At position 1, flaps are at 0 or 10 degrees (the latter for takeoff) and slats are at 18 degrees; at position 2, flaps are 15 and slats are 22 degrees. At position 3, flaps are 20, slats 22. At FULL position, flaps are 35 and slats27. And incidentally, Boeing does not use degrees as position assignments...they use "units". Douglas (or McDonnell-Douglas) uses degrees. Galen Hinshaw From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:43 From: Nate Vallier Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Illinois Online Services Group Reply-To: natev@mtco.com Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Following the recent UA order for A319 and A320, it is interesting to > note that UA hasn't yet ordered the A321. The last order for B757 from > UA was placed in '96. What's the strategy of UA in the B757/A321 market > ? As I have seen no order for either plane, the management may be in > doubt itself. The 321 could fly most -- but not all the -- routes the > 757 is flying. United has 100 757s... i seriously doubt they would consider getting rid of them so soon, especially since their average age is like 3 or 4 years old. i think it would be the stupidest move United has ever made if they get the A321. Just my opinion. Nate From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:44 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: 767-400 "a different type"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here > AFAIK the 764 will get a switchable cockpit layout, either 763 or 777 > configuration. Just like on the 737NG, before you start the flight you > have to choose a configuration. Just as a point of information, the pilot has no direct control over the display format. This is defined by the airline and can be altered by maintenance personnel, but the FAA would never allow the pilots to change the fundamental way the information was presented to them on a whim. For example, on the 737NG at Southwest, the information is presented in a traditional round-dial format (with a pictorial representation of a round altimeter, vertical speed indicator, airspeed indicator, etc) rather than the more advanced tape displays of the altitude and airspeed. The pilots cannot switch the display between one format or another. Southwest's maintenance department could switch the displays, but that would trigger training for the pilots and most likely an FAA-mandated separate fleet type rather than the common fleet they now have. From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:45 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: New Navigation Device References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Inc. Andrew Goldfinger wrote in message ... > While sitting and waiting for my recent Frontier Airlines flight to >complete boarding, I noticed the captain arriving. He was carrying what >looked like a large transparent blue earth globe. He quickly entered the >cockpit, leaving me to wonder what this new navigation device was. > > Later in flight, the flight attendent opened the cockpit door and I >looked in. The globe was actually a beach ball, and the captain had >wedged it into the front window above the glare shield. He was using it >to keep the sun out of his eyes! You should have referred him to Flying magazine. Tom Block (Writes for Flying, Flys for USAir) recently wrote about what he uses to alleviate this problem. The article was a few months back, but I don't have it in front of me now. It's interesting how you can spend millions of dollars trying to get everything just right, and it still takes a two-dollar item to fix something so annoying as not being able to block the sun from your eyes. From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:46 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 6 Aug 1998, jchase wrote: > Is there any record of a double engine failure and subsequent aircraft > loss on a twin-jet from separate causes? - that is, exclude volcano dust > or bird ingestions killing both engines, running out of fuel, or other > events that kill ALL engines regardless of number. While we are on the topic of multiple engine failures (regardless of which engine failed first! :-) I would like to raise again a thorny old topic, i.e., to what extent might the fact that the engines are controlled by the same FADEC render the A/C prone to multiple engine failure due to the activation of a latent design fault in the FADEC? I have tried to get information on the FADEC on several occasions, but without too much success. In particular:- - Who manufactures FADECs? (I know that they come as an integral part of the engine, and hence are the responsibility of the engine manufacturer, but I presume the engine manufacturers outsource FADEC development? If so, to whom?) - I believe that the FADEC is a dual-channel device, but with identical software in both channels. Hence it has a certain amount of hardware redundancy, but no design diversity, between the channels. - Are the FADECs used in helicopters in any way similar to those used on turbofans? (Same manufacturer? Same hardware? Different software?) I know that the FADEC as a potential source of common-cause failure is of concern to the certification authorities. (An interesting AD on the subject was issued several years ago.) Any information on FADECs would be very welcome. Pete Mellor, CSR, City University, London PS: Were those birds participating in the strike independently, or deliberately flying in close formation? :-) From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:47 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: Re: TU-154 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: sfeigin@us.nospam.oracle.com Larry Sakurai wrote: > You're not the first I've seen who says that the Soviet airliners (former, > of course) are not a pleasant experience compared to their Western > counterparts, and I'm curious about it. What is it about the Tu-154 that's > unpleasant? Do the newer types, such as the Tu-204 or the IL-96M suffer > from the same deficiencies? It's been a while, but what I remember is that it is extraordinarily cramped in every dimension. I'm not very big, and I had trouble moving my hands and arms. The lighting, A/C, and overhead bins are not up to modern standards. Even the materials used for the seat, armrests, and traytables seemed inferior. There were no modern plastics. The uncomfortable ride (I think it was China Eastern) may have been due to pilot training. I think his prior flights were in MIG's. One nice thing about China Eastern was the flight attendents. They do a superb job with limited resources. From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:48 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 1998 1st half order update References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Since 25-May-98 the 320 has a production rate of 22. The first free slot > is msn 1009 which will be delivered on 11-Jun-99. Starting Nov-98 there > are still lots of free slots, Uuups This should be : Starting Nov-99 there are still lots of free ... -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Aug 6 23:22:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:49 From: greg@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , Chris Hall wrote: >Thomas J. Bueld wrote: >> For me it is for shure that the development of Mega size Engines will >> become People Killer ... > >> How long will public kept in the dark about the risk in choosing such >> aircrafts ? Any comment ? > >Thomas, IMHO the risk of simultaneous double engine failure on any twin jet >aircraft is very unlikely. Most jet engines will keep running and generating >thrust even with some considerable damage as long as fuel is being squirted >in. While not statistically important, I can think of two accidents involving double-engine failure in twins as well as at least one non-accident in a four-engine aircraft which might have been an accident if not for the number of engines. I can also write a rabidly runon sentence. SAS at Stockholm in winter of 1991/92 - MD-80 I believe that lost both due to ice ingestion off the upper wing surfce. Not, necessarily a "two engine issue" except that the particular config. of that two engine aircraft favors engine contamination from the wing. Southern Airways, 1969 or thereabouts. Double engine failure from rain/hail ingestion. Would more engines have helped? See below volcanic ash ingestion. All four engines shut down for a period. Eventually got some or all (?) back on line. I don't think there's ever been a double engine-shutdown on a twin jet airliner where the shutdown causes weren't directly attributable to external factors (i.e. no fuel, outside damage, etc.). Reminds me of a joke: An F-15 and a B-52 are flying formation. F-15 pilot radios the BUFF: "I can't believe you're flying that heap. You wouldn't believe the stuff I can do in this baby!" To which the F-15 pilot begins an impressive display of rolls, loops, etc. The BUFF pilot responds: "That is good. However, this old gal has her own bag of tricks. Want to see?" F-15 pilot replies in the affirmative and sits back to watch. Ten, fifteen minutes go by and nothing appears to be happening. The F-15 pilot radios: "Hey, I thought you were going to show me some tricks?!" to which the B-52 pilot replies "I've been doing just that!" The F-15 pilot responds "What? I didn't see anything! What did you do?" The B-52 pilot responds: "I shut down two engines." greg -- greg travis "The coffee shop piano plays toe-tapping jazz, greg@littlebear.com thanks to its Windows operating system." http://www.prime-mover.org/ --- Microsoft, in "The Future is Today" From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:50 From: Robin Peel Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD Chris Hall wrote: > Thomas, IMHO the risk of simultaneous double engine failure on any twin jet > aircraft is very unlikely. Most jet engines will keep running and generating > thrust even with some considerable damage as long as fuel is being squirted > in. > > In EROPS operation it is not often that the aircraft is at 180 minutes from > an airfield, often it is considerably less. Also, once one engine is shut > down for any reason, then the crew will be VERY reluctant to shut the second > one down whatever warnings come up. I believe a Southern Airlines (?) DC-9 went down with major loss of life following a double engine flameout in a thunderstorm, near Atlanta in the 1970s (the story is in this month's AOPA Pilot magazine, I believe). However, it seems probable that all the engines of ANY aeroplane would have failed in this circumstance. Having personally flown in a full MD-82 on one engine into DCA, I can tell you that it is safe, but uncomfortable (even though I feel quite safe flying single engine GA aeroplanes - they glide a tad better than an MD-80, and only need a small field to land). Though engine failure of modern powerplants is rare, it does seem to make common sense that if one fails, there may a significantly increased the risk of the other failing (eg. in the Southern example above, or if the fuel was contaminated, or if the FADEC malfunctioned...). Or, as with the British Midland 737, incorrect diagnosis of the failed engine (and shut down of the wrong one) could lead to an unintentional loss of both engines. If the British Midland flight had been a 727 instead of a 737, shut down of the wrong engine may have enabled the aeroplane to reach the runway on the remaining one. - Robin. -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:51 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: Accidents caused by cigarette smoking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE Peter Stanning wrote: > > The CAA were quoted in yesterdays Daily Telegraph as saying that no > aircraft accident had ever been caused by cigarette smoking seem to > remember a 707 crash in France caused by a fire in a toilet.This was > some years ago now but I thought the fire was caused by a cigarette. Fire started in a toilet of a VARIG's passenger 707 coming from Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), in route to Paris, some minutes before the scheduled landing (this was in 1973). The plane made an emergency landing in a field and most of the passengers died due to smoke inhalation. PIC, 1st officer and another crew member survived. Later on this PIC died when the VARIG cargo 707 he was in charge disappeared over the Pacific (1974, 1975?). Hope this helps. Stephan -------------------- Dr. Stephan Stephany mailto:stephan@lac.inpe.br http://www.lac.inpe.br/~stephan LAC - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory INPE - Brazilian Institute for Space Research BRAZIL From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:52 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: Accidents caused by cigarette smoking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE Peter Stanning wrote: > > The CAA were quoted in yesterdays Daily Telegraph as saying that no > aircraft accident had ever been caused by cigarette smoking seem to > remember a 707 crash in France caused by a fire in a toilet.This was > some years ago now but I thought the fire was caused by a cigarette. You can find a more comprehensive report in: http://web.inter.NL.net/users/H.Ranter/index/dbindex.htm - choose 1973; - search for RG820 (flight number); 11.07.73 (14.03) Boeing 707-345C PP-VJZ (19841/683) Varig occupants : 17 crew + 117 passengers = 134. fatalities: 7 crew + 116 passengers = 123. location: Paris; nr (France) nature: Scheduled Passenger phase: Final Approach flight: RG820 Rio de Janeiro-Galeao IAP - Paris-Orly Varig Flight 820 departed Rio de Janeiro at 03.03h for a flight to Paris. At 13.57h the aircraft had already descended to FL080 and contacted Orly approach, who told the crew to maintain FL080 and head to the OLS VOR which would take the aircraft to the downwind leg of Runway 26. At 13.58:20h the flight crew contacted Orly approach and reported a "problem with fire on board". An emergency descent was requested. At 13.59 clearance was given to descend to 3000ft for a Runway 07 landing, making a straight-in approach possible. While the situation on board was getting worse (smoke entering the cockpit and passengers becoming asphyxiated), a clearance to descend to 2000ft was given at 14.01:10h. The flight crew put on oxygen masks as smoke was making it impossible to read the instruments. At 14.03 the pilot decided to make an emergency landing 5km short of the runway with gear down and flaps at 80deg. The Boeing approached with considerable nose-up attitude, in a slight left bank. The aircraft truncated some small trees and made a heavy landing on a field. Both main gears collapsed and the engines were torn off in the subsequent skid. The fuselage however, remained intact. Ten occupants (all crew members) evacuated the aircraft. By the time the firemen arrived (6-7 minutes later) the fire had burned through the roof and there was no sign of life. Of the four unconscious occupants the firemen could evacuate, only one survived. PROBABLE CAUSE: "A fire which appears to have started in the washbasin unit of the aft right toilet. It was detected because smoke had entered the adjacent left toilet. The fire may have been started by an electrical fault or by the carelessness of a passenger. The difficulty in locating the fire made the actions of cabin personnel ineffective. The flight crew did not have the facilities to intervene usefully from the cockpit against the spread of the fire and the invasion of smoke. The lack of visibility in the cockpit prompted the crew to decided on a forced landing. At the time of touch-down the fire was confined to the area of the aft toilets. The occupants of the passenger cabin were poisoned, to varying degrees by carbon monoxide and other combustion products." Source: 'Varig 707 had a toilet fire', Flight International 17.04.1976 (995) -------------------- Dr. Stephan Stephany mailto:stephan@lac.inpe.br http://www.lac.inpe.br/~stephan LAC - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory INPE - Brazilian Institute for Space Research BRAZIL From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:53 From: "Mario Leite Fernandes" Subject: Re: Accidents caused by cigarette smoking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > The CAA were quoted in yesterdays Daily Telegraph as saying that no > aircraft accident had ever been caused by cigarette smoking seem to > remember a 707 crash in France caused by a fire in a toilet.This was > some years ago now but I thought the fire was caused by a cigarette. It was Varig Boeing 707-345c PP-VJZ (c/n 19841); the plane crashed July 1973 in a cabbage field near Orly airport, in a Rio de Janeiro-Paris flight. Smoke from plastics burned by a back toilet fire, started by a cigarette, filled cabin and intoxicated passengers and most of crew. There were some survivors, including most of cabin crew (far from source of smoke, were able to open windows). Sorry my poor English. Regards Mario Fernandes (mariolf@uol.com.br) Vargem Grande Paulista - SP Brasil From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:54 From: keenan@idirect.moc (Martin Keenan) Subject: Re: Accidents caused by cigarette smoking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Evil geniuses for a better tomorrow In article , Peter Stanning wrote: >The CAA were quoted in yesterdays Daily Telegraph as saying that no >aircraft accident had ever been caused by cigarette smoking seem to >remember a 707 crash in France caused by a fire in a toilet.This was >some years ago now but I thought the fire was caused by a cigarette. Although I don't know if smoking was ever *definitely* proven to be the cause, it was at least suspected in the fatal crash landing of Air Canada DC-9-32 C-FTLU at Cincinatti on June 2, 1983. The investigation was one of the major causes of Air Canada banning in-flight smoking back in the eighties. -- Martin Keenan Reverse letters in "moc" to respond F-101 Voodoo Fans of the world, Unite! From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:55 From: Rob Devlin Subject: Re: 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: KC4GD Spoon1 wrote: > Does anybody know any airlines that still use the 707 other than Royal > Jordanian as a cargo plane ? When I was in Somalia in '93-'94 I talked to a few 707 crews from African ? Airlines that were carrying some passangers and cargo in and out. I even got to help dig one out of the sand when it ran off the runway turning around. Rob From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:56 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: B777 Central Maintenance Computer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The B777 has a Central Maintenance Computer Function (CMCF) as part of the Aircraft Information Management System (AIMS). There is a Maintenance Access Terminal (MAT) with 88-key keyboard, trackball, 1.44 floppy disk (IBM format) and (optional) hard disk. It can make printouts using the on-board printer, save reports to disk, or datalink via VHF or SATCOM. The MAT is used for many routine maint functions i.e. Navigation Database loading, engine monitoring, and a zillion or so on-board sensors. As far as I know, the CMCF and MAT are not optional equipment. TheFNG From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:57 From: alan@nospam.com (Alan) Subject: Re: B777 Central Maintenance Computer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. On 19 Jul 98 22:07:26 , "eagle 1" wrote: >Does the B777 have a Central Maintenance Computer as an option for airlines >to order, similar to the one installed on the B747-400? > >If so, is there an upgrade in the system from the B747-400. As far as I know, the Maintenance Access Computer (MAT) is part of the certification of the B-777 and, as such, is "standard equipment". It is much more advanced compared to the CMC on the 747-400 and is a function of AIMS, Airplane Information Management System. To upgrade the 747 to the MAT, would be a major undertaking, since AIMS is highly integrated into the airplane systems. From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:58 From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: Re: B777 Central Maintenance Computer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com "eagle 1" wrote: >Does the B777 have a Central Maintenance Computer as an option for airlines >to order, similar to the one installed on the B747-400? Yes, but it runs as a software partition called the ACMF (Aircraft Condition Monitoring Function) within the Honeywell AIMS (Airplane Information Management System). >If so, is there an upgrade in the system from the B747-400. The 777 and the 747-400 have virtually nothing in common with regard to the avionics. Several customers have asked Boeing to use the 777 cockpit/avionics on the next version of the 747, but so far, none have been willing to pay the non-recurring engineering to actually move it. Ken Jongsma From kls Thu Aug 6 23:22:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:22:59 From: faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) Subject: Re: B777 Central Maintenance Computer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NorthWest Nexus Inc. In article , "eagle 1" wrote: > Just need some info. > > Does the B777 have a Central Maintenance Computer as an option for airlines > to order, similar to the one installed on the B747-400? I believe a CMC is standard on every 777 delivered. What is optional is the number and location of terminals for the Portable Maintenance Access Terminals which allow mechanics to access the CMC from a variety of locations in or under the airplane. The 777's CMC along with its BITE (Built-In-Test-Equipment) and fault isolation system represents quite an advancement over the 747's system. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the 747's system has by now incorporated many of the improvements introduced on the 777. We recently interviewed the maintenance director of an Asian 777 operator. He told us, "We also operate the Airbus A320, which is a very advanced, computerized airplane. The A320 can identify which system has a problem. But the 777 can identify which PART has a problem. This makes it very easy for us to keep the airplane flying." C. Marin Faure author, Flying A Floatplane From kls Thu Aug 6 23:37:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:37:16 From: Darryl Morrison Subject: Airbus Safer? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tdcm@istar.ca It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... What do you guys think? From kls Thu Aug 6 23:37:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Aug 98 23:37:17 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You >don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... >What do you guys think? I think you haven't been paying attention. If by "FAA reccomendations" (sic) you mean airworthiness directives (ADs), you can find a list which is allegedly complete for all ADs issued on or after January 1, 1996 at http://www.fedworld.gov/pub/faa-cai/faa-cai.htm I counted 14 for the 737 and 17 for the A321 (plus one which covers the A319 and A321 but not the A320). Looking at the bigger aircraft, there are three covering the 777, 17 for the 747, 5 for the MD-11, and 8 for the A340 (5 of which also cover the A330; there is an additional AD which covers just the A330-301). It seems to me that Airbus incurs a ADs at a rate comparable to Boeing, so by the metric of "FAA reccomendations" (sic) there's not much difference in safety between the products of the two manufacturers. -- 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 Aug 18 01:04:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:23 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Darryl Morrison wrote: > It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You > don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... The A320 has had it more than fair share of problems back in the late 80s. I think that your *impression* of Boeing getting more media coverage are due to many causes: - the media is more aware of Boeing. - Boeing has some planes still in service which are quite old. As such, they are "pionneers" and it is on those planes that the FAA is first experiencing "aging" problems which require some fixing. - Boeing also has some brand spanking new planes (777 and 737-NG) and those are bound to have a few bugs that need fixed. - By comparison, the Airbus products are more or less adult/middle aged and have gone through their initial teething problems but are not old enough to have "aging" problems yet. QUESTION: In the case of Boeing, AD's are quite simple. Boeing is a USA company, the FAA is a USA body. Most other countries will copy US-FAA directives and implement them in their own countries. Right ? What happens in the case of Airbus. Do the "initial" directives come from the FAA or from the Civil Aviation body in France or from whom ? Does the FAA then just implement them in its own jurisdiction or does it re-do the investigations/testing ? From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:24 From: "Charles Litzkow" Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber of Pacific Internet, Singapore Darryl Morrison wrote in message ... >It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You >don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... > >What do you guys think? I disagree. I've worked on Douglas(now Boeing), Boeing, and Airbus aircraft as a line mechanic and heavy maintenance mechanic. I believe Boeing builds a much better aircraft. As an avionics tech, I've found that Airbus tends to over-complicate systems in the name of progress. For instance, Airbus built in a system called ALTU (Automatic Light Testing Unit) which tests all the cockpit caution and warning lights to the degree that improper resistance in one lamp will cause a pause in the test to show that lamp needs to be changed. Each light assembly contains four lamps. Can't the crew just press test and see what's working? Airbus has initiated a cockpit scheme that essentially gives pilots a false security. Allowing the plane to scrutinize the aircraft rather than the pilot can lead to dangerous scenarios when certain systems fail. In regards to safety, I believe Boeing has a better recorded reliability rating than Airbus. In fact, here in Asia more accidents involving Airbus have occurred in the last eighteen months than have Boeing. Whether that was pilot related or aircraft related is still under investigation in many cases. Opinion only. Open to discussion. From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:25 From: "Galen L. Hinshaw" Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISPNews http://ispnews.com Darryl Morrison wrote in message ... >It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You >don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... > >What do you guys think? Maybe you aren't aware that the A-320 doesn't have control cables and therefore no manual reversion? And maybe you've never seen the film footage of the A-320 reaching extreme attitudes as the pilot fights the computer for control of the airplane. Or the airshow crash of an A-320 whose computers would not allow the pilot to perfofm a go-around because the airplane was in landing configuration. Or the A-320 that crashed in Russia...the computer would not allow the pilot to increase altitude (a deviation from the preset flight plan) in order to clear terrain. The public does not hear about 99.9% of the the AD's and SB's issued on aircraft. Any more questions? From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >And maybe you've never seen the film footage of the A-320 reaching >extreme attitudes as the pilot fights the computer for control of the >airplane. The only such incidents I'm aware of with Airbus aircraft have been with A310s (the best known being an Interflug A310 near Moscow on February 11, 1991, and a TAROM A310 near Paris on September 24, 1994) and the A330 flight test crash (at Toulouse on June 30, 1994). If you're aware of any such incidents with an A320, please post details. >Or the airshow crash of an A-320 whose computers would not allow the >pilot to perfofm a go-around because the airplane was in landing >configuration. That would be the Habsheim crash on June 26, 1988, but there has never been any clear evidence of the crash being the result of anything other than the pilots putting the plane into a predicament they couldn't get it out of. There are, however, a lot of inconsistencies between what the DGAC report on this crash says and various witness accounts and third-party analyses. Still, there's not sufficient basis for your placing blame on the computers unless you're in posession of data which the rest of the public lacks. >Or the A-320 that crashed in Russia...the computer would not allow the >pilot to increase altitude (a deviation from the preset flight plan) in >order to clear terrain. There have been no A320 crashes in Russia. The closest crash which comes to mind is the Aeroflot A310 crash near Novokusnetzk on March 23, 1994, but that had virtually nothing to do with computers and everything to do with pilot stupidity. Specifically, the captain and FO both leaving their seats while the captains kids took over. I'm not terribly fond of the recent Airbus products, but I also believe they deserve a fair treatment. -- 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 Aug 18 01:04:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:27 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Darryl Morrison wrote: > > It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You > don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... > > What do you guys think? How about all those A320s that flew themselves into the ground with their FBW fancy autopilot? Flight crew shouldn't have to have doctorate in computer science to enter go-around mode from approach mode. -- 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 Aug 18 01:04:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:28 From: "Josh Lutz" Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net Darryl Morrison wrote in message ... >It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You >don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... > >What do you guys think? I think you should be shot for saying that! Have you ever worked on an Airbus? They are a nightmare to work on. The percentage of accidents is pretty close, there are just fewer Airbus aircraft to crash. From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:29 From: Boeing707@worldnet.att.net (levelflight) Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services On 06 Aug 98 23:37:16 , Darryl Morrison wrote: >It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You >don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... > >What do you guys think? I think that your statement is totally incorrect. Aside from the A300, most Airbus products flying right now are less than 15 years old. Also dont forget that about 80% of the world's airline fleet is comprised of Boeing airplanes; this means that when there is an incident or accident with an airliner, it's about an 80% probability that it will be a Boeing airplane involved. One of the main reasons that Airbus is winning so many orders away from Boeing right now is that Boeing has so much work on their order book they cant keep up with production. I work for USAirwaysin FLL on the ramp and I was disappointed when our company chose Airbus over Boeing. The mainstay of our fleet is - and has been for years - the Boeing 737 (-200/-300/-400). These airplanes have a dispatch reliability of over 99%. And our 757 fleet is even better than that. As to FAA orders on Boeing products - ADs and Advisory Circulars and such...note that almost all of them cover older Boeing products... 747-100's and -200's...some of these airplanes are almost 30 years old. As models become older and older...ADs and ACs become more and more common - this is logical because the older a machine gets, the more maintenance it needs. Airbus does not have any airplane in the air that is as old as the 747-100 or the 727-100. So, lets all come back here 25 or 30 years from now and see if the FAA is issuing ADs or ACs on A320s or A310s that are 30 years old. I bet they will be (if these airplanes are still flying). Dont get me wrong: I am in no way knocking Airbus. They do produce a fine airplane. USAirways initial ground training for the new Airbus order we made recently indicates to me that the airplane has superb craftsmanship and is made with great care. I look forward to working these airplanes but will still be awfully sorry to see the Boeings go away. Dont forget the old pilots line: "they build muscle into those airframes in Seattle". Oh, and dont forget Boeing's favorite line: "IF ITS NOT A BOEING...I'M NOT GOING!!!" Regards Ken Boeing707@worldnet.att.net and such From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:30 From: "jla" Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I have discussed this with several friends, all of us UA employees. The logical assumption we have come to is that the A319/320 aircraft were purchased to replace some 727-200/737-300/500 and 757 aircraft on specific routes (in addition to replacing aircraft pulled to make up the Shuttle fleet). The Airbus aircraft are faster than the 737's, very fuel-efficient (much moreso than the 727), and have a longer range than the 737's or 727's. However they have less capacity than the 757, making them ideal to use in markets where lower capacity is needed, or higher frequency (thus leading to a lower demand for the increased capacity on the larger craft) is desired. The A319 configuration is the same as the 737-300, while the A320 is almost identical to the 727-200. In addition, they are ideal for coast-to-coast flights as they have both the range and the inflight amenities (i.e.: video/audio entertainment) lacking on the 737/727 aircraft. The A321 would not offer any great advantage over the 757 and it would be cost-inefficient to replace aircraft already in the fleet (especially when we have SOOOO many of them). The 757 has all of the video/audio amenities, is ETOPS qualified, has a decent range, and is fleet-compatible with the 767 aircraft, with more of the 767-300's coming online soon, thus allowing UA to cross-utilize pilots on both types. Although the same could be said of the A321, UA already has the 757 and, if it ain't broke... Also, in line with this, and in response to another post regarding 767-300's, I believe many of those will see service on domestic routes, replacing the DC-10's and they slowly make their way over to FedEx. Although initially UA stated that the 777-200 would replace the DC-10, it will probably end up that the 767's will end up with more of this duty than its' big sister. -- jla From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:31 From: csavel@mindspring.com (CraigSavel) Subject: Re: Accidents caused by cigarette smoking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: csavel@mindspring.com Peter Stanning wrote: >The CAA were quoted in yesterdays Daily Telegraph as saying that no >aircraft accident had ever been caused by cigarette smoking seem to >remember a 707 crash in France caused by a fire in a toilet.This was >some years ago now but I thought the fire was caused by a cigarette. I do remember an Air Canada DC-9 from Dallas to Toronto about 10 years ago. A passenger decided to have a smoke in the lavatory and somehow started a fire. The plane landed in Cincinnati, but approximately 19 persons died. Craig Savel From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Accidents caused by cigarette smoking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I do remember an Air Canada DC-9 from Dallas to Toronto about 10 years >ago. A passenger decided to have a smoke in the lavatory and somehow >started a fire. The plane landed in Cincinnati, but approximately 19 >persons died. That's now been over 15 years (June 2, 1983), and 23 of the 46 people aboard died. But a cigarette was only one of several possible root causes for the accident, the others involving either electrical problems or an overheated flush motor. The NTSB was unable to determine the exact cause of the fire. -- 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 Aug 18 01:04:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:33 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: 777 sighting References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >My friend was driving past March AFB (Riverside, CA) last Saturday >evening. On the ramp across the field, he saw a 777 painted with an AA >fuselage and Boeing "factory" tail (777 diagonally up the fin). He >spent a few hours at an event nearby; the 777 flew overhead several >times. On his drive home, it was circling at fairly low altitude >(3000'); this was about 10:30 at night. > >Anyone know what was going on? Sounds thouroughly routine for Moses >Lake, but not March AFB! That was the first 777-300 with Pratt's. One of the engineers told me they were taking it down to California for a while... Matt Student Pilot, 747 Assembler. To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home. From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:34 From: "Duane Ward" Subject: Re: 777 sighting References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM k_ish wrote in message <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com>... >My friend was driving past March AFB (Riverside, CA) last Saturday >evening. On the ramp across the field, he saw a 777 painted with an AA >fuselage and Boeing "factory" tail (777 diagonally up the fin). He >spent a few hours at an event nearby; the 777 flew overhead several >times. On his drive home, it was circling at fairly low altitude >(3000'); this was about 10:30 at night. > >Anyone know what was going on? Sounds thouroughly routine for Moses >Lake, but not March AFB! It may have actually been in full Boeing 'colors'. The first two 777-300 were unpainted (silver fuselage) with red/white/blue strip down the middle, with (as you describe) the 777 diagonaly up the tail. From a distance they do tend to look like AA planes (I still have to do a double take when I drive by BFI and one of them is on the tarmac). Duane From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:35 From: Tom Turton Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ANET Internet Services Mindy wrote: > Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it > higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 . Not the max performance numbers, but I believe they are "representative" performance numbers, FAA document 7110.65 shows: Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate B757 2500 fpm climb rate B767 3500 fpm climb rate ---Tom Turton From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:36 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 06 Aug 98 11:26:16 , Mindy wrote: >Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it >higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 . In a word no. Concorde climbs about on par with four engined transports like 747s and A340s. It of course needs to fly at rather higher speeds. Not helping climb performance as well is the need to reduce power deeply; some time after takeoff - what is referred to as a noise abatement cut-back procedure. As far as I know they calculate the time of cut-back to the second before each flight based on takeoff weight and weather conditions. -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, BEng. (Hons) | Aircraft Performance Email: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Analysis & Noise Web: www.daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Specialist From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:37 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: Concord climb rate References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Its not a question that can be readily answered in its present form. The elapsed time from brakes release to level at cruise flight level would give an indication of the average rate of climb and that could be compared , using the same parameters for the other types you are interested in. Like every other type of aeroplane the concorde initial rate of climb (depending on weight) would be very high initially and decreasing as it climbs in the accelerating portion of the climb. (presuming standard atmosphere). If it climbs to a ias/mach cross over then on attaining the climb mach and holding that speed in the decelerating portion of the climb below the tropopause, the rate initially increases again then decreases all the way to cruise level. This is the theory but I have never flown a supersonic airliner yet, perhaps there are some ex military pilots lurking who can explain, in gerneral terms, how the climb to height is executed. cowboy@ram.net.au -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:38 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Flying The Aussie Super Connie Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion FLYING THE AUSSIE SUPER CONNIE There is an excellent seven page article with great colour pictures in the June 1998 copy of the English magazine AEROPLANE MONTHLY. (www.ipc.co.uk/pubs/aeroplan.htm ) Although he is too modest to publicise it himself it has been written by Captain Sandy Howard, a QANTAS B747 Classic senior check and training Captain. We all know Sandy as a regular poster on the aus.aviation news group. The article describes the main features of his endorsement, circuit training, engine out and normal approaches and other peculiar features of engine operation, flying with hydraulic boost on and off and the brute strength required on some occasions. Sandy uses his unique dual endorsement to highlight to pilots with heavy jet ratings the differences in techniques required to accurately fly the two types. The difficulties operating a big four engine prop verses a big four engine jet make interesting reading. For those interested in fact and figures, on boost, BMEP settings, approach speeds, etc, the article will answer all your questions and then some. The magazine is available at all good newsagents in the Sydney area and I thoroughly recommend it. Posters use the above name for the thread as any broad classification will be lost in the Deja archive. Witness what comes up when you interrogate the archive for 707. Cowboy@ram.net.au -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:39 From: "Paul Rotzler" Subject: can someone please help me... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CityNet, Inc. Hello all. This isn't a technical question at all, I am just curious on what the climbrate is for the 747 from takeoff, to cruising altitude. Also, what do they usually descend at? Thanks! Paul Rotzler From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:40 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Smoky Gulfstream Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RCN Internet Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org While recently plane-watch at DCA, I noticed a Gulfstream take off. It left a trail of soot that made even the oldest 727 look lily-white. I haven't seen such a trail for many years. The Gulfstream was new enough to have winglets. I'm sure that I've seen much cleaner Gulfstreams. What was the problem? Bob C. From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:41 From: you@spammers.can.all.kiss.my.ass.com (Andy) Subject: Albino jumbo jets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MediaOne I've seen more than one all-white jumbo jets at LAX now (since I live a few miles from it), the latest sighting today as a 747-200 took off. Mighty quiet for such a big plane, too. So does anyone have any idea who these albinos belong to? I'm figuring our always open and forthright government. From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:42 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Recently I asked:- > I would like to raise again a > thorny old topic, i.e., to what extent might the fact that the > engines are controlled by the same FADEC render the A/C prone to > multiple engine failure due to the activation of a latent design > fault in the FADEC? Before everyone jumps down my throat, I would like to clarify my question. I am well aware that there is one FADEC per engine. When I said "controlled by the same FADEC", I meant the same *design* of FADEC (including the same software in each FADEC, and in each channel of each individual FADEC). 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 Tue Aug 18 01:04:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:43 From: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk (Darren Rhodes) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daz Technology Reply-To: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk On 06 Aug 98 11:26:36 , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: >This is not true of turbofan engines, as long as temperature and N-speeds >are not exceeded. If you look at the graph representing the chances of >failure vs. power output of piston engines and turbofan engines, the >failure rate line climbs steeply with power output from a piston engine, >but remains relatively flat with turbofan engines. In other words, a >turbofan doesn't care what power setting you use so long as its >temperature and rotational limits are not exceeded. Pushing the power up >on the remaining engine of a twin-engine jetliner does not add to the risk >of engine failure as it would if you were flying a twin-engine piston >airplane. I have heard of a 747-400 operator that has 9 out of 10 engine shutdowns at high power, i.e. during takeoff. Temperature exceedance is one thing, but reduced margin at high power on high time turbine blades is an issue. -- Mr. Darren P. Rhodes, BEng. (Hons) | Aircraft Performance Email: darren@daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Analysis & Noise Web: www.daz-technology.demon.co.uk | Specialist From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:44 From: Robin Peel Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CPWD jchase wrote: > Is there any record of a double engine failure and subsequent aircraft > loss on a twin-jet from separate causes? - that is, exclude volcano dust > or bird ingestions killing both engines, running out of fuel, or other > events that kill ALL engines regardless of number. The British Midland 737 that went down at Kegworth a few years ago may be in this category. After a "routine" (?) engine failure, the wrong engine was shut down. So, both engines were lost for separate (but related) reasons. - Robin. -- Robin A. Peel robinp@mindspring.com Austin, Texas, USA From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:45 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: pre-Farnborough comments [long] Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Farnborough Air Show will take place in less than a month's time. Boeing and Airbus have used this and other air shows to announce aircraft launches and major orders. Last February, both manufacturers were awfully quite at the Asian Air Show in Singapore. Hopefully, it won't be as quite at Farnborough. Here is my usual long-winded comments: ;-) A319M5/B717 The AE31X project between Airbus Asia and China's AVIC is no longer on the table. Airbus has been promoting the A319M5 feverishly in the past few months in an attempt to keep Boeing from securing major orders for the B717. The two major 100-seater orders on the horizon are NW, which has more than 150 aging DC-9-30/40s, and ILFC, which is poised to order 50 100-seaters. However, NW is unlikely to make any commitment anytime soon due to its labor disputes with various unions. Thus, I doubt there will be any significant breakthrough. The likelihood of the A319M5 to be launched at the Farnborough Air Show is 50-50 at best. IMHO, I think Bombardier and Fairchild/Dornier are taking the right approach in introducing jet-powered aircraft to regional operators. That is, both companies are attacking from the low-end (50- and 70-seaters) while a larger aircraft is also planned. Boeing's (or, originally McD's) approach of building a 100-seater first, then, expand to 80-seat and 120-seat categories is questionable. Airbus' plan to build the A319M5 without other product to cater the low-end of the regional market is even more ludicrous. Nevertheless, the strategy is necessary for Airbus to achieve its goal of garnering 50% of the commercial aircraft market in the near term. Also, other than NW, there are not that many major potential 100-seat replacement orders. Most sizable DC-9-30 operators (such as SAS, Continental, and US Airways) have already made their replacement decisions. Most regional operators are not likely to take a big jump to fly 100-seat planes. Thus, I think the potential for the 100-seater market is way over exaggerated. A320/B737 The spotlight will be on British Airways' narrowbody order. It seems Airbus is a locked-in, but until it's official, Boeing might still have a chance. Personally, I don't think the lack of B737 delivery slots is an issue. GE Capital has previously swapped A320 delivering slots when US Airways was unable to secure earlier slots because of pilot union problems. If BA were to order from Boeing, GE Capital would no doubt play an integral role. With or without BA's order, the A320 has proven to be extremely successful. It will soon eclipse the once-successful DC-9/MD-80 family in a not-too-distant future. A330-200/B767-400ER The longer-range, more current A330-200 is out-selling the B767-400ER by a two-to-one margin. Other than Delta and Continental, Boeing has not been able to secure any other sizable orders. American Airlines' decision to order the B777-200ER to replace the DC-10 is, IMO, a setback for the B767-400ER. Boeing does not seem to know what it wants to do with the -400ER. Both Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce are interested in offering powerplants for the -400ER, but they don't seem to be able to get a clear definition from Boeing. Even GE is ready to offer an updated CF6-80G2 for the -400ER in addition to the -80C2 which will power all the current -400ER orders. On paper, I think the A330-200 should be an excellent fit for SAS which is about to choose a long-range plane. A340-500/600/B777-200X/300X In the 300-seat category (A330-300, A340-300, B777-200A/ER), Boeing is doing quite well. Recent DC-10 replacement order by American, and upcoming orders from British and potentially from Taiwan's China Airlines should make a good year for the B777, especially considering the fact that Asia, where the B777 heavily relies on, is in a serious recession. However, if Boeing is unable to launch the B777-200X/300X in the near future, it will hurt B777's future viability. IMHO, Boeing decided to compete in the 300-seat market because Boeing has a design that can replace the older B747s *and* compete with the original A330/340 (and MD-11). Boeing has cheaply launched the B777-300, but it has a limited range capability. Boeing must need the B777-300X to effectively compete with the A340-600 for the B747 replacement market. OTOH, it's not an inexpensive business proposition for Airbus to launch the A340-500/600. Although, the A340-500/600 has created a lot of headaches for Boeing, Airbus will need a lot more orders for the new models to recover its US$3b investment (which is more than half of B777's original development cost). Boeing has successfully delayed EVA Air's and Emirates' decisions to convert their respective MOUs for the A340-500 into firm contracts. Nevertheless, if Boeing cannot launch the B747-400X and/or the B777-200X anytime soon, Airbus will get those orders. Hopefully, we will get an answer at the Farnborough Air Show. From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:46 From: procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M.Procida) Subject: Re: TWA 800 Graphics and Simulations indicate probable cause: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK WSherr6080 wrote: > Graphics of the debris field appearing in "Newsday" and the "Press > Enterprise" newspapers, based on NTSB specifications of the FDR > readouts; and the NTSB simulations of the accident, indicate an initial > breakup prior to the explosion. A streaming fire from the lower > fuselage appears at the same time and 4 seconds later the explosion > occurs and the forward 70 feet of the aircraft nose structure is severed > from the fuselage. This flame front is the probable ignition source for > the center fuel tank. I watched an episode of the Channel 4 (UK) programme "Black Box" devoted to the TWA 800 disaster a couple of weeks ago. Most chilling of all the chilling things it recounted was how the plane - it is believed - broke up. The forward part of the fuselage was severed by the explosion, and plummeted towards the earth. The remainder of the plane shot up like a rocket, streaming flames. Its parabolic trajectory brought it to earth only after a relatively long time minutes, if I remember correctly. Those in the rear of the plane, like the wife and daughters of a man interviewed for the programme, were in all probability aware of what was happening. 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 Tue Aug 18 01:04:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:47 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA 800 Graphics and Simulations indicate probable cause: References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The remainder of the plane shot up like a rocket, streaming flames. ... >Those in the rear of the plane, like the wife and daughters of a man >interviewed for the programme, were in all probability aware of what was >happening. Maybe, maybe not. I recall hearing that many of the passengers were killed long before impact with the water, by what amounted to severe whiplash. That would appear to be consistent with the aft section of the aircraft pitching up very quickly after the forward section broke away. -- 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 Aug 18 01:04:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.products,rec.aviation.ifr,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:48 From: Don Woods Subject: Airborne weather radar Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Technology Service Corp. Hi, We have a NASA contract to develop an airborne weather radar mode to detect potential structural icing hazards ahead. To demonstrate it, we need to team with a company that manufacures airborne weather radars. We know of some, but need to expand the list. Please e-mail or post the name of any such companies you know of. Best wishes, _____________________ Don Woods Technology Service Corporation Phone: (310)954-2210x274 11400 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 300 Fax: (310)477-2196 LOS ANGELES CA 90064-1550 E-mail: don@tsc.com From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:49 From: Evan McElravy Subject: How come... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Why do you often see DC-9s/MD-80s parked with their thrust reversers open at holding areas, cargo ramps, gates, etc? Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:50 From: "Larry Sakurai" Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM You know, American's taking another approach to bringing their 727s into Stage III compliance: wing modifications. The modifications can be done at a third of the cost and can be done in something like 48 hours. Another big plus: no performance penalty compared to what hushkitted engines suffer. The modifications involve the wing's high-lift devices (slats and flaps) which would add a new flap setting on 727s that would allow takeoff and landing at reduced power settings. The company doing the modifications is the Raisbeck Commercial Group, and they're looking into doing similar modifications for DC-9s. Duganair is also offerring a modification kit that involves no engine hushkitting. From kls Tue Aug 18 01:04:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Aug 98 01:04:51 From: Spoon1 Subject: Re: Northwest's DC-10's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Flashnet Communications, http://www.flash.net Baker wrote: > Why not. The DC-10's in Northwest's fleet can fly easily for another 15 > years with the proper maintainance. The same goes for the DC-9's. It is > much more economical to refurbish those then buy new. You are right , the DC-9 and DC-10's are very dependable aircraft. Still I think that replaceing a ageing fleet is a good idea. I am glad they got some A320's and 757's, to place in their short route catagory . Even still can't Northwest use the newer MD-90's to replace their DC-9's . Their 727's are getting old . I think northwest needs another good long range plane like the767-300 or maybe 777 . The A340 is good two . According to my books it is the longest range passenger plane in the world. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:22 From: Boeing707@worldnet.att.net (levelflight) Subject: Re: Albino jumbo jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 18 Aug 98 01:04:41 , you@spammers.can.all.kiss.my.ass.com (Andy) wrote: >I've seen more than one all-white jumbo jets at LAX now (since I live >a few miles from it), the latest sighting today as a 747-200 took off. >Mighty quiet for such a big plane, too. So does anyone have any idea >who these albinos belong to? I'm figuring our always open and >forthright government. I couldnt even guess whose they were without knowing the registration number (the "N" number, if its registered in the United States). But I would guess that if its a 747-100 or -200 AND its being flown by a U.S. operator, it is probably Tower Air. They have a couple of -200s that are painted just white with a VERY small decal on the fuselage that you can miss if you're far away from the airplane. Ken Boeing707@worldnet.att.net From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:23 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: Albino jumbo jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I've seen more than one all-white jumbo jets at LAX now (since I live >a few miles from it), the latest sighting today as a 747-200 took off. >Mighty quiet for such a big plane, too. So does anyone have any idea >who these albinos belong to? I'm figuring our always open and >forthright government. Was it a freighter?... CKS(AIA) has at least one like that with the black anti glare under the cocpit windows. Matt Student Pilot, 747 Assembler. To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:24 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Smoky Gulfstream References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RCN Internet Robert Carpenter wrote: > While recently plane-watch at DCA, I noticed a Gulfstream take off. It > left a trail of soot that made even the oldest 727 look lily-white. I > haven't seen such a trail for many years. The Gulfstream was new enough > to have winglets. The Gulfstream you saw was probably not new at all. It was most likely a Gulfstream IIB which if I'm not mistaken combines the fuselage of the original G II with the wing and winglets from a G III. Many IIB's are flying still with the original dirty engines lurking under that gleaming new paint job. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:25 From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Smoky Gulfstream 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 Were you at Gravelly Point? That used to be my favorite spot. I don't know the exact answer to your question. I can tell you that some of the older Gulfstreams have gotten winglets as part of a modification program. The Army has a Gulfstream II based at Andrews that has this mod...... Scott From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:26 From: g3av8tor@aol.com (G3AV8TOR) Subject: Re: Smoky Gulfstream References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Bob, The Gulfstream you saw was probably a GIII. The GIII has the older Rolls Royce Spey engines that are not the high by-pass fans that the GIV's or GV's have today. The GIII does have winglets. In addition, there are GII's that have been modified with GIII wings, complete with winglets, and with a GIII nose, which are more aerodynamic. The modified GII still has the older engine. The GII does not have the wrap around windscreen like the GIII, IV, or V. While I have not personally flown a modified GII, I hear they perform very well.. Gary Gary "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it ain't fixed, don't fly it." From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:27 From: mckinnis@ccnet.com Subject: Re: Smoky Gulfstream References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service Robert Carpenter typed: >While recently plane-watch at DCA, I noticed a Gulfstream take off. It >left a trail of soot that made even the oldest 727 look lily-white. I >haven't seen such a trail for many years. The Gulfstream was new enough >to have winglets. >I'm sure that I've seen much cleaner Gulfstreams. What was the problem? Situation normal, for a G-II. Noisy, too, but I'm not complaining. Winglets? I read an article in Professional Pilot (www.flightdata.com/propilot/nov96/travolta.html) that John Revolting ... uh ... Travolta, got a winglet mod for his G-II. $457K. I'll take two. Gary From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:28 From: MCLELLAN Alexander Subject: RE: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM You can get some proper info about automation, aircraft, A320s, 767s and all manner of other wonderful stuff from: > `Computer-Related Incidents with Commercial Aircraft' at > http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de Be warned, though. Some of your favourite prejudices will be tested by the facts that appear in this thoughtful and scholarly collection. If you get to the last of the articles, about A320 maintenance, don't forget what April 1st is about... Regards Alex. McLellan This message does not constitute official EUROCONTROL correspondence. The Organisation is not responsible for its contents or the consequences of its use, nor for inaccurate transmission or misdirection. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:29 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion "Galen L. Hinshaw" wrote: > Darryl Morrison wrote in message ... > >It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You > >don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... > > > >What do you guys think? Ah, just what we needed. Another Airbus vs Boeing flamewar. > Maybe you aren't aware that the A-320 doesn't have control cables and > therefore no manual reversion? And maybe you've never seen the film footage > of the A-320 reaching extreme attitudes as the pilot fights the computer for > control of the airplane. Or the airshow crash of an A-320 whose computers > would not allow the pilot to perfofm a go-around because the airplane was in > landing configuration. Or the A-320 that crashed in Russia...the computer > would not allow the pilot to increase altitude (a deviation from the preset > flight plan) in order to clear terrain. > Any more questions? Yes. Please identify the airline and date of this supposed A320 crash in Russia, and a source for your conclusions regarding its cause. You might also want to note that your interpretation of the cause of the Habsheim crash is not that of the official crash report. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 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 Wed Aug 19 00:57:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:30 From: tlm@delphi.com Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Karl Swartz writes: >>Or the airshow crash of an A-320 whose computers would not allow the >>pilot to perfofm a go-around because the airplane was in landing >>configuration. > >That would be the Habsheim crash on June 26, 1988, but there has never >been any clear evidence of the crash being the result of anything other >than the pilots putting the plane into a predicament they couldn't get >it out of. There are, however, a lot of inconsistencies between what >the DGAC report on this crash says and various witness accounts and >third-party analyses. Still, there's not sufficient basis for your There was an article in AW&ST a few months ago discussing the possibility that the inflight data recorder was switched after the crash. This conclusion was reached based on the pattern of strips on the casings of the recorder that was supposed to be in place, and the one actually found (or planted). Ed R. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>That would be the Habsheim crash on June 26, 1988 ... >There was an article in AW&ST a few months ago discussing the possibility >that the inflight data recorder was switched after the crash. This >conclusion was reached based on the pattern of strips on the casings of >the recorder that was supposed to be in place, and the one actually found >(or planted). Interesting. I don't recall seeing that article. Can you give us an issue date and page number? While I didn't catch the AW&ST article, I've seen the Equinox segment on it. (Equinox is a UK program resembling a mix of Nova and some of the Discovery Channel stuff in the US.) They had film of the boxes being put in the boot, er, trunk of a car soon after the crash -- spiffy new boxes, just as you'd expect from a brand new airplane that had crashed in a manner that produced no fire and relatively little damage to the tail area where the recorders are located -- and interviews with several people who had seen the old and battered boxes in the DGAC's posession. The same program also discusses an apparent five-second gap in the FDR data. Early in the flight, the CVR and FDR are in sync, but at the end the FDR is five seconds ahead of the CVR. Apparently the allegedly missing five seconds correspond to a critical point in time -- when many of the witnesses reported a boom which might have been an engine surge or stall, and also when Asseline (the captain) claims he pulled back on the side-stick but the plane pitched down instead of up. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > A319M5/B717 > > The likelihood of the A319M5 to > be launched at the Farnborough Air Show is 50-50 at best. IMHO, I think > Bombardier and Fairchild/Dornier are taking the right approach in > introducing jet-powered aircraft to regional operators. That is, both > companies are attacking from the low-end (50- and 70-seaters) while a > larger aircraft is also planned. I am pretty sure that the 728/528/928JET program will be a big success. They have already 165 commitments from 4 customers and the commonality of the bird, will give it's operators the same advantages as on a 320 or 737NG. > Also, other than NW, there are not that many major > potential 100-seat replacement orders. Most sizable DC-9-30 operators > (such as SAS, Continental, and US Airways) have already made their > replacement decisions. Most regional operators are not likely to take a > big jump to fly 100-seat planes. Thus, I think the potential for the > 100-seater market is way over exaggerated. Right, most 100 seat jets are replaced by higher capacity birds, the 100 seat segment being more and more taken over by the regional operators. Thus the x28JET seems to be the right plane family at the right moment. > A320/B737 > > The spotlight will be on British Airways' narrowbody order. It seems > Airbus is a locked-in, It looks like this one is for the 320, but as you state you never know ... especially with BA ;) > but until it's official, Boeing might still have > a chance. Personally, I don't think the lack of B737 delivery slots is > an issue. GE Capital has previously swapped A320 delivering slots when > US Airways was unable to secure earlier slots because of pilot union > problems. If BA were to order from Boeing, GE Capital would no doubt > play an integral role. With or without BA's order, the A320 has proven > to be extremely successful. As of today (18-Aug) I have listed 278 vs 273 orders for the A320 vs B737(old and NG) in the '98 orders summary at http://surf.to/orders. Big A320 orders to be announced at Farnborough should include the BA order, the Mexicana order and the follow-on LH order. > A330-200/B767-400ER > > The longer-range, more current A330-200 is out-selling the B767-400ER by > a two-to-one margin. Other than Delta and Continental, Boeing has not > been able to secure any other sizable orders. Correct, the ILFC order for the 764 covers only 4 ships and the initial CO order has been reduced from 30 to 25. CO has ordered 772 instead. > American Airlines' > decision to order the B777-200ER to replace the DC-10 is, IMO, a setback > for the B767-400ER. The problem with the 764 is that is half a 767 (design wise) and half a 777 (cockpit wise). This problem was highlighted by an AA official who qualified the 764 as a new type of plane. I still feel that the 771 instead of the 764 would have been the better choice, even if seating costs would have been higher. > On paper, I think the A330-200 > should be an excellent fit for SAS which is about to choose a long-range > plane. There are several WB orders which should be announced at Farnborough : SAS (replace the 763s) , BA (replace 10s and 763s), KLM (replace the 11s and 743s) , LH (replace the 300s), Iberia (replace the 742s). Following are *rumours* which I collected from various reliable sources in the industry. They may be wrong, but they have proven to be most of the time quite accurate. So read my post with this comment in mind ... ;) The SAS order will most likely be for the 332, the 764 has apparently been ruled out. BA will choose again the 777 even if they may change the engine supplier. KLM is tough but I got word that the 777 is out of the race, maybe 764 vs 332 with in addition some 346. LH will go for the 332. Iberia is likely to choose the 346, the 777 would add a new type to the fleet. And of course there is the ever lasting NW widebody order, but maybe they will keep their 10s still some 20 years ;) > A340-500/600/B777-200X/300X > > In the 300-seat category (A330-300, A340-300, B777-200A/ER), Boeing is > doing quite well. Recent DC-10 replacement order by American, and > upcoming orders from British and potentially from Taiwan's China > Airlines should make a good year for the B777, especially considering > the fact that Asia, where the B777 heavily relies on, is in a serious > recession. Interesting to note that all 777 orders for this year (43) are from northamerican operators. This will change with the BA order ... > However, if Boeing is unable to launch the B777-200X/300X in > the near future, it will hurt B777's future viability. IMHO, Boeing > decided to compete in the 300-seat market because Boeing has a design > that can replace the older B747s *and* compete with the original > A330/340 (and MD-11). Boeing has cheaply launched the B777-300, but it > has a limited range capability. The 773 isn't a big success and will never get one because it lacks the necessary range. The last 773 order was in '95 and since then the total orders have gone down from 53 to 47. Mainly conversions from the -300 to the -200. 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 Wed Aug 19 00:57:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >BA (replace 10s and 763s) Why would you expect BA to replace their 767-300(ER)s? The newest was delivered just 18 months ago, and the oldest is less than nine years old. With their oddball Rolls-Royce engines (China Yunnan's three examples are the only other 767s with RB.211s), BA's 767s probably have a very low second-hand value. >BA will choose again the 777 even if they may change the engine supplier. Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:34 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Darren Rhodes wrote: > > On 06 Aug 98 11:26:36 , faurecm@halcyon.com (C. Marin Faure) wrote: > >This is not true of turbofan engines, as long as temperature and N-speeds > >are not exceeded. If you look at the graph representing the chances of > >failure vs. power output of piston engines and turbofan engines, the > >failure rate line climbs steeply with power output from a piston engine, > >but remains relatively flat with turbofan engines. > > I have heard of a 747-400 operator that has 9 out of 10 engine > shutdowns at high power, i.e. during takeoff. > > Temperature exceedance is one thing, but reduced margin at high power > on high time turbine blades is an issue. Of course the probability of failure is higher at maximum power. This is true for any engine type I can think of. I think the point that Mr. Faure was making is that the *rate* of increasing probability of failure as a function of power setting is very different for piston vs. turbine engines. A piston engine is *measureably* more likely to fail at 80% power than it is at 70% power. To see a comparable difference in probability of failure with a turbine engine, you would have to compare operation at, say, 50% and 98% power. A piston engine, despite its much earlier arrival on the scene, is *vastly* more complex than a turbine engine. My experience is with automotive piston engines, but many of the same principles apply to aero engines. With racing auto engines, you *must* be concerned with things like the fact that the cylinder block (although it may be a solid 300 pound chunk of cast iron) *flexes* at high power settings. The crankshaft flexes, both in torsion and in lengthwise bending modes. The thrust face of cylinder walls is actually distorted on each power stroke, especially if the rod length to stroke ratio is less than about 1.8 (which is one of many reasons I think the ubiquitous small-block Chevrolet is such a pile of junk compared to small block Ford and Chrysler v8 engines, but thats another story for another newsgroup :-) Valves bounce and stretch, cam lobes see in excess of 10,000 PSI at the point they contact the lifter face (all the while the cam lobe is rotating at up to 3500 RPM on a 7000 RPM engine), piston rings distort, connecting rods stretch, and all *sorts* of other things happen even at normal power settings, and it gets worse much faster with increasing power. There is even a unique failure mode caused solely by a sudden *reduction* of power output at high rpm. This just doesn't happen with a turbine- there are a handful of failure modes that become critical at high power, but that is *way* up on the power band- typically *beyond* the power level that the remaining engine of a twin is called to produce after the other engine fails. I love the big piston aero engines, but only because they are such incredible pieces of engineering. I would much rather trust my life to a boring ol' turbine :-) Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:35 From: terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 18 Aug 98 01:04:35, Tom Turton wrote: >Mindy wrote: >> Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it >> higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 . > >Not the max performance numbers, but I believe they are "representative" >performance numbers, FAA document 7110.65 shows: > >Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate >B757 2500 fpm climb rate >B767 3500 fpm climb rate The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate???? Terence Liow - replace royaumeuni with the abbreviation of the U_nited K_ingdom of England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland to reply From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California In article , Terence Liow wrote:>On 18 Aug 98 01:04:35, Tom Turton wrote: >>Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate >>B757 2500 fpm climb rate >>B767 3500 fpm climb rate >The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate???? I was on a UA 757 flying SFO-LAX a few years ago and, listening on channel 9, heard our pilots request a higher altitude. ATC granted the request on the condition that we could do at least 3000 fpm -- we could, and as I recall gave them better than 4000 fpm. So, I seriously doubt the accuracy of Tom's numbers. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:37 From: Garry Forrest Subject: Re: 777 sighting References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> <35D868D3.FE@boeing.com> <6rcbd4$da0$1@winter.news.erols.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University Reply-To: garryf@pacbell.net For ballast, we use tubs of cement, approximately 4'x8'x3' high. Chained securely to the deck. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:38 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: Flying The Aussie Super Connie References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Re: Flying the Aussie Super Connie Sandy I anticipate you will get a lot of questions so I am getting in early with three. I notice that you have quoted the Vmcg as 84 kts and the Vmca3 as 91 kts. This is different to the B747 Classic where the Ca is less than the Cg. There it makes sense of course as the aileron can assist in maintaining control in flight. Q1 On the connie, presumably the 91 kts is for the CRITICAL ENGINE failure case and if the props rotate the way I imagine they do, then the number 4 (stb outboard) is the critical engine. Your statement that below 84 kts , the take off must be rejected but you cannot get airborne below 91 kts with an engine failure or the aircraft will be uncontrollable begs me to ask what the procedure is in that unlikely event of loss of the critical engine after V1 but prior to the Vmca. Q2 In another area the article states ‘if the speed at the threshold is correct (usually 100 -150 kts), flaring at the right height ‘ Is there a misprint in speeds. That seems to be a high range for threshold crossing speed considering the quoted speeds down wind, etc. (maybe you are stating the full range for the full landing weight range) Q3 From what you know now what is you opinion on the efforts of a pilot to revert to the connie with only experience on a big jet compared with the efforts needed long ago when pilots came onto the connie from a lancastrian, dc 4 or even the B-17, B-29, Boeing strata -cruiser line. What about going from the super connie to the b707 as against the reverse as you have done. Hope I haven’t put you on a spot mate, see you at Nowra air day on 30th August. Good luck. cowboy -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:39 From: "David Fielding" Subject: Re: Flying The Aussie Super Connie References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home cowboy@ram.net.au wrote in article ... > FLYING THE AUSSIE SUPER CONNIE (snip) > There is an excellent seven page article with great colour pictures in > the June 1998 copy of the English magazine AEROPLANE MONTHLY. > (www.ipc.co.uk/pubs/aeroplan.htm ) Anyone know someplace in the northeast U.S. to get a copy of this publication? Preferably near an airport... Or, would anyone in the U.K. care to sell/trade me a copy of the article? Maybe I have something to swap. David Fielding -- dfield@epix.net From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:40 From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: How come... 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 >Why do you often see DC-9s/MD-80s parked with their thrust reversers open at >holding areas, cargo ramps, gates, etc? Opening thethrust reverser buckets on these airplanes allows water to drain & provides some FOD protection. Scott From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:41 From: "john r." Subject: Re: 767-400 "a different type"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Chris Dahler writes >As far as I am aware, the aircraft will be the same type rating as the >757/767. The problem for airlines will come mainly with the avionics, just >like the 737NG has the same type rating as the older 737's. The -400 uses a >777-like cockpit, while the older 757/767 uses a mixture of EFIS and >round-dial instruments. Well folks, all the 757/767's I hve seen have EFIS and EICAS crt systems. They use an separate engine backup display as EICAS is only dual channel driven. The Boeing glossy I saw was short on facts about what was behind the side by side nav and pfd displays, the old system I suspect. -- john r. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:42 From: Evan McElravy Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Not convincing, huh? I'll do my best. >>The fact that Boeing filed suit against US (one of the most ignorant >>tricks I've heard of), couldn't have helped relations either. > >USAir had a binding contract with Boeing to accept and pay for a number >of aircraft. Boeing bent over backwards to renegotiate the deal but >USAir simply said "screw you," refusing to negotiate in good faith. >Under the circumstances, had Boeing *not* filed suit, I as a stockholder >would have expected a good explanation from Boeing executives as to why >they were not protecting the interests of myself and other stockholders. >It would be "ignorant" to expect them to take no action. In a long term business with a very small number of potential customers, suing your customers should be your absolute last resort. Nothing will ever convince me that Boeing had no other alternative besides filing suit. I'm a Boeing stockholder, too, and, quite frankly, I'd be surprised if US Airways orders a single Boeing aircraft in at least 30 years. US Airways was in financial peril when they "said 'screw you'" and one would expect Boeing to show a little more flexibility. >>the absurdly conceived 757-300 and 737-900 > >What do you think is so absurd about them? Do you think all stretches >are absurd? The 757-200 had "excess range" for charter operators, and >the 757-300 allows them to use the aircraft's capabilities where they >need it -- payload (passengers), not range. The 737-900 was launched >because airlines wanted 737-800 capacity in a mixed-class configuration. >If Boeing can build such derivatives and make a greater profit at doing >so than could be made by otherwise deploying the resources, it is absurd >to not build them. (I'm assuming that Boeing management acted rationally >in terms of profit maximization.) Certainly not: I think stretches that sell are a marvelous idea. As you may have noticed, the 753 isn't exactly flying off the shelves. A handful of charter carriers does not a profitable aircraft make. When some major carriers (American is rumored) place large 753 orders, I'll eat crow. In the mean time, I stand by my opinion. And your assumption that Boeing managament acted rationally: that's what we're debating! If I thought they were behaving rationally, I wouldn't have written the original message. As for the 739, it competes too closely with the 757-200. Not a direct overlap, certainly, but close enough that it is troubling. Boeing would have targeted that market much better with a 757-100, which would retain the significant performace advantages the 757 has over the 737. I am willing to make a small exception in this particular instance since it does appear to be selling rather well but we'll see in the long term. But really I think that 4 variants of the same basic aircraft in production at the same time is really too many. Douglas' insistance on building an DC-9/MD-80 special for every customer that came along (a lesson learned after the one-size-fits-all DC-8) played a major roll in sinking that company. >>plus they are still making -300/400/500s > >Because they had commitments to do so. Should they unilaterally cancel >their commitments the way USAir did? In any case, 737 Classic production >will end soon -- I think 2000 is the date I heard. Not entirely true, Boeing has taken new orders for second-generation 737 equipment from several leasing companies and major carriers, Alaska among them. If they keep the order books open, production will be going on long after 2000 (particularly if delays in manufacturing keep up). Aircraft manufacturers have unilaterally changed orders before. All A320s after Ship 21 were -200s. Once again, this is not the same circumstance as Boeing is facing but it has happened >>the never-ending parade of hairbrained 777 schemes > >This is supposed to be new?! Airframe manufacturers are always coming >up with ideas to try to meet their customers' needs. One could argue >that the NLA (Boeing), VLCT (partnership of Boeing, Aerospatiale, DASA, >etc.), A3XX (Airbus), and MD-12 (the four-engined superjumbo, with MD >and the Taiwanese acting in partnership) are equally hairbrained schemes. >And what of the A340-8000, which as recently as a few weeks ago still >was on the Airbus web pages as if it were likely to be build. Even more >bizarre were the 1970s proposals for a three-engined 747 to compete with >the DC-10 and L-1011. There is a difference between experimentation and indecision. In the case of Boeing, they have changed their "official" long term 777 strategy a number of times without attracting any new customers. And the Airbus webmaster's tardiness may or may not be indicative of any indecision on Airbus' part. They actually put the A340-8000 up for sale (and got a whopping 2 orders). Boeing has offered none of its 777 experiments to the airlines yet. And lets face it, some of the ideas they are batting around are right off the charts. The third engine in the tail for take off assistance, for example. Makes the so-called "hunchback of Mukilteo" look downright sane. And lets not forget the folding wingtip debacle. Catering to every *potential* whim of an airline is no way to stay in business (see my above on Douglas). >>The 717 could potentially be a blockbuster but they seem to be doing >>little to push it to airlines like Northwest, TWA, AA, and even US that >>could very potentially be interested in buying it. > >How do you know they're doing little to push it? Given the recent bugs >in NW's DC-9 life extension program, I'd be very surprised if Boeing >were not aggressively pursuing a 717 order, possibly tied to a deal on >more 747s which NW is considering. TWA might be a good opportunity, >but AA is probably fine with the F100s for a while. I know that UA >briefly considered the 717 (it might still have been the MD-95 at that >point) but it didn't have the range. Some rumors indicate that Boeing is working hard on Northwest and just as many rumors say that the plane is doomed after the AirTran order is filled. And as much as Boeing wants the Long Beach floor space for the 737, I'm more inclined to the latter view (a shame becuase I really love the DC-9 family). We've heard this story from Boeing before: weren't they going to just market the blazes out of the MD-11 as a cargo plane? That lasted about three months. If Boeing were truly aggressively marketing the aircraft or if it stood any chance on the market (which I think very much it does), there would have been more orders by now. (Unless some of the undisclosed orders - there are several - are major.) >>I think a management change is in order. > >Perhaps, but your arguments aren't convincing. The company's financial results speak for themselves. Rumors have been flying around that Ron Woodard's neck is under the axe for months despite Phil Condit's assertions that the company's problems are "no one's fault." Well guess what? I think Phil's head is under the axe, too. Or at least it ought to be. Enough with touchy-feely management styles like "Working Together" and "Bringing People Together." Start moving some airplanes out the friggin' door! Seen Airbus's order book lately? Pretty damn good. And from what I here, they've pretty well got the BA order wrapped up. That would be a ugly little disaster for Boeing, wouldn't it? And how about lay offs? They just layed off several thousand emplyees. Just two years ago, they couldn't hire enough people. With a gigantic order backlog, those don't sound like the actions of a healthy company. I suspect that in the future, Boeing is going to have difficulty finding qualified employes becuase few people want to pack up the family and move to Seattle for what is probably glorified temp work. Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >US Airways was in financial peril when they "said 'screw you'" and one >would expect Boeing to show a little more flexibility. If they were in such financial peril at that time, what business did they have placing an order for up to 400 aircraft from Airbus? Despite much of the BS which flies around, I doubt Airbus was/is giving those planes away for free. >I think stretches that sell are a marvelous idea. As you may >have noticed, the 753 isn't exactly flying off the shelves. A handful of >charter carriers does not a profitable aircraft make ... When some major >carriers (American is rumored) place large 753 orders, I'll eat crow. Boeing has been learning that a one-size-fits-all approach is a thing of the past. One way of adapting to the new environment is to cobble up new variants from existing parts, and the 757-300 appears to be a good example of that approach. There doesn't appear to be much new about it (with a 27 month development period from order to delivery there *can't* be much that's really new). A handful of charter carriers (not that I'd consider Icelandic to be a charter carrier) placing smallish orders very well might make a profitable aircraft if the development is cheap enough and Boeing can charge a significantly higher price. Still, I agree that the 757-300 will be a lot more of a success if one or more major carriers order it. >As for the 739, it competes too closely with the 757-200. Not a direct >overlap, certainly, but close enough that it is troubling. Boeing would have >targeted that market much better with a 757-100, which would retain the >significant performace advantages the 757 has over the 737. Those performance advantages of the 757 come at a substantial cost disadvantage -- according to Boeing's web site, prices for the 757-200 run about $11.5 million more than for the 737-900. In return, you get a plane that's typically over 35,000 lbs heavier, with an entirely new type rating and maintenance program if you're already a 737 operator but not a 757/767 operator. You get a lot more range, which may or may not be of value to you, and a few more seats. Consider the 737-900 launch customer, Alaska. The 757 (even a -100 model) would offer them nothing but added cost over the 737-900. Somewhat more interesting is Continental, which ordered the 737-900 despite already being a 757 customer. I believe I read that CO will be using them on Central American routes, where range isn't an issue and presumably the better operating economics outweigh having another variant (but not type, since CO is already a 737 operating including the 737-700) in the fleet. >Douglas' insistance on building an DC-9/MD-80 special for >every customer that came along (a lesson learned after the one-size-fits-all >DC-8) played a major roll in sinking that company. Douglas screwed themselves well before the MD-80, in part by *not* building a single variant of the DC-8 Super Sixty. But that's rather different than what Boeing is doing -- the DC-8-62/63 wing was a big change from the wing on the earlier models, whereas the four sizes of the 737NG are pretty much the same other than where you snip off the sausage, er, fuselage. The BBJ and C-42A are bigger changes, but Boeing seems to be taking the right approach by keeping those out of the way of regular production as much as possible. >>Because they had commitments to do so. Should they unilaterally cancel >>their commitments the way USAir did? In any case, 737 Classic production >>will end soon -- I think 2000 is the date I heard. >Not entirely true, Boeing has taken new orders for second-generation 737 >equipment from several leasing companies and major carriers, Alaska among >them. If they keep the order books open, production will be going on long >after 2000 (particularly if delays in manufacturing keep up). That's a reasonable point, though I wonder how many of those new orders were simply filling in gaps left by unexercised options -- gaps which might otherwise have resulted in problems stemming from lumpy production rates. >Aircraft manufacturers have unilaterally changed orders before. All A320s >after Ship 21 were -200s. Once again, this is not the same circumstance as >Boeing is facing but it has happened The difference between an A320-100 and -200 is relatively minor, whereas the 737NG is *very* different from the 737 Classic in a number of major areas, like the wing, engines, and cockpit. >There is a difference between experimentation and indecision. In the case of >Boeing, they have changed their "official" long term 777 strategy a number >of times without attracting any new customers. If they come up with something and their customers say "no, it's not quite what we want," Boeing is not supposed to go back to the drawing boards? As for changing strategies, they first changed because the engine manufacturers were improving the engines faster than anyone had expected, and most airlines were saying the 777-100 was too small and would be too expensive per ASM to operate. Then the airlines kept asking for more range, and finally Singapore said "sure, we'll take it if you guarantee that it will have 180-minute ETOPS OOTB and we can cancel the order right up until delivery time if that doesn't happen." Picking a strategy and sticking to it come hell or high drifts is stupid if you're operating in a highly dynamic market. >They actually put the A340-8000 up for sale (and got a whopping 2 orders). What exactly were the terms of those "orders?" Airbus is well known for playing fast and loose with terminology when it comes to counting orders. >Boeing has offered none of its 777 experiments to the airlines yet. What exactly were they doing with Singapore in that case, and was the Malaysia Airlines MOU for 15 777-200Xs done unilateraly, without any sort of offering coming from Boeing?! >And lets face it, some of the ideas they are batting around are right off >the charts. The third engine in the tail for take off assistance, for >example. Makes the so-called "hunchback of Mukilteo" look downright sane. I can't argue with that one. It seems pretty loony to me, too. >And lets not forget the folding wingtip debacle. Driven in large part by AA, the same airline which over thirty years ago was demanding a widebody *twin* which could fly out of LGA -- and quite happily fulfilled that wish by buying the three-engined DC-10. Airlines are not terribly rational customers. >many rumors say that the plane is doomed after the AirTran order is filled. >And as much as Boeing wants the Long Beach floor space for the 737, I'm more >inclined to the latter view ... Well, Boeing has finally announced their plans for a 737 line at Long Beach, in an area that previously was used for MD-11 production. No risk to the 717-200 program (yet). >And how about lay offs? They just layed off several thousand emplyees. Just >two years ago, they couldn't hire enough people. With a gigantic order >backlog, those don't sound like the actions of a healthy company. While some of those layoffs have been in the Puget Sound area, many have been in other parts of the country and have nothing to do with commercial aircraft. They are instead a logical part of the continuing rationali- zation of assets and operations after the acquisition of Rockwell's aerospace operations and the McDonnell Douglas merger. It would be unhealthy to maintain overlapping functions just because they came from different predecessor companies. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:44 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM re: all the various variations on Boeing products. Boeing is in an unfortunate position of having the "legacy" syndrome. Boeing has to deal with the "upwards-compatible" expectation of its many plane types, some of which date back to the 60s. Airbus took a bold step in the 80s in "abandoning" its older types and designing a new cockpit system and even introduced it to its 310-600 model while it was building a new family. Airbus is lucky in that all of the 320,330,340 derivatives are all the "same". Boeing is stuck on the one side with airlines that want to preserve their investments in the older planes (maintenance + pilots) and on the other side, airlines wishing to have a unified family. If Boeing can wing its "virtual" cockpit onto the 777 and 737 lines, as well as the 767-400, it will help the transition from the "old Boeing" to a more unified line of aircraft. But it is stuck with most of the derivatives of planes still using the old style. Worst case is the 747 which has no new derivatives in sight so it will be quite a while before a 747 with 777 style cockpit becomes available. Assuming that any new Boeing model/derivative has a 777-style cockpit that allows similar commonality to Airbus' family, how long would it take before airlines have a fleet that operates mostly on a 777-style cockpit ? (i.e. no more a requirement to be backwards compatible) 10 ? 20 years ? From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:45 From: "john r." Subject: Re: B777 Central Maintenance Computer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , C. Marin Faure writes > However, I wouldn't be surprised if >the 747's system has by now incorporated many of the improvements >introduced on the 777. The 747 CMC is nothing like as comprenhensive as the 777. It will stay that way untill a major upgrade of the 747 - a long awy off I hope. >We recently interviewed the maintenance director of an Asian 777 >operator. He told us, "We also operate the Airbus A320, which is a very >advanced, computerized airplane. The A320 can identify which system has a >problem. But the 777 can identify which PART has a problem. This makes >it very easy for us to keep the airplane flying." Oooh er, I wander how often the maintenance director has actually used the system? While the 777 is much better than the 747-400 and neither plane can be maintained without the CMC, both suffer from a nasty habit of "forgetting" defects. I guess they are considered low grade and so are dumped once the defect is cleared but it undermines your confidence when somone has seen the message and the plane wont admit to it. I ask my guys to record anything befor they try to clear, so we know where to start, next time. As for positive identification, its difficult to know if its the unit faulted or the unit that identifies the fault. The 777 is better in this. -- john r. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:46 From: tlm@delphi.com Subject: Re: Probability of Two Engines Failing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) writes: >The question we asked in QANTAS was: > >WHAT IF THE SECOND ENGINE FAILED FIRST ? Remind me not to fly Qantas. Thanks! To those who don't get it: by definition the second engine can never fail first, because then it would be the first engine.... ;-D Ed R. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:47 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Probability of Two Engines Failing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 06 Aug 98 11:26:15 , ranfaa@my-dejanews.com caused to appear as if it was written: >When the big twins first started transatlantic operation this was the formula >that the mathematicians produced to predict the first twin ditching through >multiple engine failure.(The original date I don't recall) Needless to say >that time passed a long time ago. > >The probability of a double power unit shutdown from independent causes is >expressed as (2 P1 P2 T Y )where P1 is the probability of a single engine >failure in cruise per hour, P2 is the probibility of second engine failure, T >is the flight time duration, and Y is the diversion time at single engine >cruise speed to the nearest suitable aerodrome. > >P1 is conservatively assessed by the ICAO study group as the recorded >shut-down rate fo the mature aircraft -engine combination. > >P2 the probability of second engine failure from an independent cause, will >be higher than P1 because the second engine will be operating at higher >power; sot the study group recommends that P2 is 2P1. One thing that I've never been very clear on is the proportion of in-flight engine shutdowns that are, as it were, "optional". It is clear that there are two basic varieties of shutdown: those that are, essentially, precautionary, and those that were necessary as a result of (say) the engine leaving large chunks of its fan on the runway (like the GE-90 did on BA's 777 at LHR). By contrast, Cathay's Trent 700 problems on their A330s were precautionary, apparently motivated by a desire to avoid turning a multi-million dollar engine into a pile of junk (and, of course, the realization that as soon as said engine becomes said junk, you now have the same situation as BA had...) Which leads to the (operational, not regulatory) question: speaking purely theoretically, what is the likelihood that in the event that an ETOPS aircraft did have unrelated problems with both engines, how far could the aircraft travel in a "bugger the resale value, I want to get home" mode? (This is partly prompted by the infamous Eastern L-1011 incident, which got home *because* the number 2 engine had been shut down, and so had some remaining run time before it seized; numbers 1 & 3 seized virtually simultaneously, as I recall, and well short of the runway). In other words, from an statistical standpoint, shouldn't P2, which really ought to be defined as the probability of a total loss of power given that you have one engine failure, be *less* than P1, to account for the cases where the Captain basically decides that if the company doesn't like it, they can damn well take the cost of the engine out of his pay... if he lives. Malc. From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:48 From: erisajd@NOSPAM.erols.com (Joseph David Farrell) Subject: Re: Probability of Two Engines Failing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Reply-To: erisajd@delete.erols.com >The question we asked in QANTAS was: > >WHAT IF THE SECOND ENGINE FAILED FIRST ? A corrollary to [Joe's ETOPS corrollary] Murphys Law states: The probability of a second engine failing is the cube of the probability of the first engine failing. Or, more to the point, once you lose one, it more likely that you will lose another. JDF From kls Wed Aug 19 00:57:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 00:57:49 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl In article Gregory Travis, greg@sherrill.kiva.net writes: >Ten, fifteen minutes go by and nothing appears to be happening. The F-15 >pilot radios: "Hey, I thought you were going to show me some tricks?!" to >which the B-52 pilot replies "I've been doing just that!" The F-15 pilot >responds "What? I didn't see anything! What did you do?" The B-52 >pilot >responds: > >"I shut down two engines." Which reminds me of the call from a B-52 to ground control. "I have lost and engine, and wish to declare an emergency!" Ground controller: "Ah, yes ... the dreaded 7 engine landing!" From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:22 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: > >>There is a difference between experimentation and indecision. In the case of >>Boeing, they have changed their "official" long term 777 strategy a number >>of times without attracting any new customers. > >If they come up with something and their customers say "no, it's not >quite what we want," Boeing is not supposed to go back to the drawing >boards? As for changing strategies, they first changed because the >engine manufacturers were improving the engines faster than anyone had >expected, and most airlines were saying the 777-100 was too small and >would be too expensive per ASM to operate. Then the airlines kept >asking for more range, and finally Singapore said "sure, we'll take it >if you guarantee that it will have 180-minute ETOPS OOTB and we can >cancel the order right up until delivery time if that doesn't happen." >Picking a strategy and sticking to it come hell or high drifts is stupid >if you're operating in a highly dynamic market. IMHO, Boeing has not really changed any of its long-term 777 strategy. The B777 program actually proceeded faster than the original plan. This forced Airbus to react with an expensive (US$3b) solution (i.e., the re-winged A340-500/600) which, in turn, put a lot of pressure on the 777 program. Let me explain a little bit more: The original Boeing plan (I have a 1994 chart in front of me) was to certify the A-market plane by May of 1995 (which Boeing had successfully achieved). Then, the B-market plane with a range of 6,000 nm would be certified in Dec, 96. The B-plus-market plane with a range of 7,400 nm was planned with no date, and the C-market plane with a range of 8,700 nm (and the equivalent stretched version would have a range of 6,700 nm) was indicated as a possible future growth. Obviously, the B777 development was much better than expected that Boeing skipped the B-market and jumped to the B-plus-market B777 directly and renamed it IGW (increased gross weight) which has since been renamed again to ER (extended range). With the early success, Boeing began studies on the C-market plane (i.e., B777-200X/300X). Airbus' decision to launch the A340-8000 (i.e., a shortened A340-300E or an A340-200 on steroid) resulted in Boeing's proposal of a shortened B777 which Boeing heavily promoted in Asian media. (I don't believe the shortened B777 was in any of the original B777 plans.) Neither Boeing nor Airbus was able to get enough interest, and both went back to the drawing board. At that time, the B777 with a larger wing was way ahead of the weight-, wing-, and engine-limited A340. Well, Airbus decided to dish out US$3b to compete with the B777X. Engine companies are reluctant to develop 102k-lb thrust engines. (IIRC, Boeing originally anticipated engines of up to 115k-lb thrust for the C-market variant. At 102k, I believe the plane will be "under-powered." That's probably why Boeing is considering using an APU to boost take-off performance.) All of a sudden, Boeing's two-year advantage disappeared. Much of the early marketing success of the B777 was due to the availability of three engine suppliers. Boeing was able to sell the B777 with an attractive pricing due to engine suppliers' concessions. Arguably, the B777 is a money loser for all the three engine companies. IMHO, that's why all three companies are reluctant to commit themselves to another blood bath. >>They actually put the A340-8000 up for sale (and got a whopping 2 orders). > >What exactly were the terms of those "orders?" Airbus is well known for >playing fast and loose with terminology when it comes to counting orders. The Brunei Sultan ordered one or two A340-8000s. Air Canada was the only airline operator that had signed an MoU for the A340-8000. However, AC had later withdrawn the commitment but ordered the A340-500 and -600 instead. From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:23 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>>The 717 could potentially be a blockbuster but they seem to be doing >>>little to push it to airlines like Northwest, TWA, AA, and even US that >>>could very potentially be interested in buying it. >> >>How do you know they're doing little to push it? >Some rumors indicate that Boeing is working hard on Northwest and just as >many rumors say that the plane is doomed after the AirTran order is filled. >And as much as Boeing wants the Long Beach floor space for the 737, I'm more >inclined to the latter view (a shame becuase I really love the DC-9 family). Rumors aside, the fact is that Boeing does have marketing representatives at Northwest, TWA, Air Canada, Aloha, and some other airlines. In addition, AirTran is not the only customer for the aircraft: Bavaria and Pembroke are also customers (albeit for smaller orders). Given that the 717 has not even entered flight test, I don't think it strange that there aren't more orders yet (although I must admit to being biased, after investing the last two years into this airplane). Regarding floor space, that is one thing that we have in abundance here in Long Beach - the company has been looking to offload extra space for more than a year now. There is more than enough space here to accommodate the desired production rates for the 717 and 737. >The company's financial results speak for themselves. Rumors have been >flying around that Ron Woodard's neck is under the axe for months despite >Phil Condit's assertions that the company's problems are "no one's fault The company line on this issue has been that we have a process problem, not a people problem. Personally, I think they are one and the same issue - after all, it is people who implement the processes. However, we have also heard the rumors about management changes and have been told repeatedly and vehemently that they are untrue. From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:24 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>US Airways was in financial peril when they "said 'screw you'" and one >>would expect Boeing to show a little more flexibility. > >If they were in such financial peril at that time, what business did >they have placing an order for up to 400 aircraft from Airbus? Despite >much of the BS which flies around, I doubt Airbus was/is giving those >planes away for free. Airbus tends to arrange rather creative financing. Both Northwest and US Airways have benifited from Airbus' flexibility. The Chinese have expressed a preference for Airbus over Boeing in negotiating payback. John From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:25 From: "Josh Lutz" Subject: Re: Albino jumbo jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net Andy wrote in message ... >I've seen more than one all-white jumbo jets at LAX now (since I live >a few miles from it), the latest sighting today as a 747-200 took off. >Mighty quiet for such a big plane, too. So does anyone have any idea >who these albinos belong to? I'm figuring our always open and >forthright government. One of them belongs to Atlas air, another one belongs to AIA (Kitty Hawk or Kalitta which ever one you want to call it now) and there is another one that I'm not sure of but it's just marked with the word CARGO at the front and it's not US registered. Hope this helps. From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:26 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu ---Karl Swartz wrote: > >BA (replace 10s and 763s) > > Why would you expect BA to replace their 767-300(ER)s? The newest was > delivered just 18 months ago, and the oldest is less than nine years > old. My mistake, I should have developed. By replacing I meant 'replacing capacity-wise'. The 772 will replace the 763 on routes where they are getting too small. Of course they won't lay of their 763s they are -- as you have pointed out -- much too young ;) > With their oddball Rolls-Royce engines (China Yunnan's three > examples are the only other 767s with RB.211s), BA's 767s probably > have a very low second-hand value. This is indeed a pretty safe bet > BA will choose again the 777 even if they may change the engine supplier. > > Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the > PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all? It was reported in Flight Intl (?) that RR is about to get the deal. There is however no discussion in converting the existing GE powered 777 to RR. Way too expensive. My views, == ...................................................... Marc Schaeffer - mailto:marcmsc@geocities.com WWW http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803 _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:27 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>BA (replace 10s and 763s) > >Why would you expect BA to replace their 767-300(ER)s? The newest was >delivered just 18 months ago, and the oldest is less than nine years >old. With their oddball Rolls-Royce engines (China Yunnan's three >examples are the only other 767s with RB.211s), BA's 767s probably have >a very low second-hand value. Agree. >>BA will choose again the 777 even if they may change the engine supplier. > >Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the >PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all? I think the Trent is in the lead, but I think GE must be doing serious damage control. (Also, don't forget BA is highly skilled in threatening its suppliers. ;-) If BA does choose the Trent, it will further reduce the competitiveness of the GE90. (Long time ago, I said "GE90" sounded to much like "JT9D" which is one of the most troublesome turbofan engines. I jokingly predicted the GE90 would take the same path as the JT9D. I guess my "prophecy" is about to be fulfilled. ;-) In the past two years, GE's new engine sales are impressive solely due to the CFM56. Even the once-popular CF6 has not been doing very well. GE is losing grip on the high-thrust end while P&W is losing grip on the low-thrust end. The two American engine companies have given too many opportunities for Rolls-Royce to catch up. Even five years ago, I would not have thought Rolls-Royce could be a long-term viable competitor. Now, I think P&W is in serious trouble if they don't do something about their commercial product line soon. From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:28 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 19 Aug 98 00:57:33 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >>BA (replace 10s and 763s) > >Why would you expect BA to replace their 767-300(ER)s? The newest was >delivered just 18 months ago, and the oldest is less than nine years >old. With their oddball Rolls-Royce engines (China Yunnan's three >examples are the only other 767s with RB.211s), BA's 767s probably have >a very low second-hand value. Surely any operator of RB.211-powered B747s would be happy with BA's 767-300ERs (for the same reason that BA chose them!). But I agree that the probability of BA replacing 767-300s is remote, particularly since BA rosters from the same pool as their B757s. But *those* may be looking forward to retirement... BA has some of the oldest 757s around. But not likely, I think, that they will announce replacements any time soon... >Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the >PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all? My personal theory leans towards the Trent, both from the internal UK political aspect, but also from one other persepctive: BA has discussed using their crews on QF aircraft, and vice versa, since their B747-400s are more-or-less identical. On a similar note, AA has a bunch of Trent-powered 777s on order, and AA pilots are upset about some rumors they've heard about BA pilots flying their aircraft... Malc. From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:29 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu wrote: > I am pretty sure that the 728/528/928JET program will be a big success. They > have already 165 commitments from 4 customers and the commonality of the > bird, will give it's operators the same advantages as on a 320 or 737NG. The idea looks good, but (i) the schedule they've committed to is incredibly tight; can they deliver? and (ii) is there a large enough market to support that many models? Commitments at this point mean relatively little. Recall that EMBRAER had over 300 signed options for the EMB-145 in late 1990, from airlines such as Comair, Mesaba, Skywest, Business Express, and WestAir. How many of them are operating EMB-145s today? (granted that the EMB-145 was substantially delayed). Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 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 Wed Aug 19 16:01:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:30 From: hranter@inter.nl.net (Harro Ranter) Subject: mid-air collision information Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NLnet Reply-To: hranter@inter.nl.net Last week i added a review of all midair collisions involving airliners since 1945 on my website. It totals 119 accidents/incidents which are described, ranging from the Grand Canyon UAL/TWA collision in 1956 to the New York UAL/TWA collision in 1960 and of course the latest collision over France involving a Proteus Air Beech 1900D. You can find it at: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/H.Ranter/index/midairindex.htm Best regards, Harro Ranter From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:31 From: MD80 International Forum Subject: Re: How come... (fwd) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Why do you often see DC-9s/MD-80s parked with their thrust >reversers open at holding areas, cargo ramps, gates, etc? I posted your question to the MD80 Pro Mailing List. The reversers are deployed for long-time parking or in strong wind conditions to cut airflow that would cause the engine to free-wheel. For shorter periods the engine is designed to lubricate even without oil pump output, but longer parkings may wear the bearings if the airflow is not shut down. Said a Spirit Airlines Captain on the list. Jan-Erik Andelin MD80 INTERNATIONAL FORUM http://surf.to/md80 -------------------------------------------------------------- Gamla stigen 10 C 5 phone +358-19-584 622 06100 Borga, FINLAND fax +358-19-584 633 From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:32 From: Alex Richman <103015.1026@compuserve.com> Subject: Turboprop hull losses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Are there any datasets for turboprop hull losses giving rates per million departures (similar to that available for jets)? Thanks Alex Richman MD Aviation Quantitative Reports on Safety From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:33 From: Tom Turton Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ANET Internet Services Karl Swartz wrote: > In article , Terence Liow wrote: >On 18 Aug 98 01:04:35, Tom Turton wrote: > >>Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate > >>B757 2500 fpm climb rate > >>B767 3500 fpm climb rate > > >The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate???? > > I was on a UA 757 flying SFO-LAX a few years ago and, listening on > channel 9, heard our pilots request a higher altitude. ATC granted > the request on the condition that we could do at least 3000 fpm -- > we could, and as I recall gave them better than 4000 fpm. So, I > seriously doubt the accuracy of Tom's numbers. Boys, boys, boys - I never claimed those to be MAX climb rates - only representative numbers as published in an FAA document. It is my "assumption" that those are probably nominal climb rates that the aircraft can "always" make (high weight, close to cruising altitudes??). Obviously, a lighter weight airplane flying on a nice crisp clear day at lower altitude, can probably burn through those numbers. I merely posted them as a starting point - hoping that someone else might have a source of better data than mine (i.e. a flight ops manual). From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:34 From: Frank Jenkins Subject: 757 climb rate (was: Concorde Climb rate ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Savantics Inc. Reply-To: fjenkins@Savantics-Inc.com terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni wrote: > ...... > > > >Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate > >B757 2500 fpm climb rate > >B767 3500 fpm climb rate > > The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate???? This is anecdotal, but a UAL 757 captain I know claims that he regularly pegs the R/C meter at 6000fpm on climbout. Frank Jenkins From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:35 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 26 Jul 98 23:57:17 , k_ish wrote: >Most failures will result in a loss of one engine; in this case, the >added engines buy you nothing in terms of safety factor. Actually, the >added engines do increase the probability of a single engine out >incident. There are other scenarios that can cause the loss of all >engine power (misfueling, ingestion of volcanic ash, maintenance error >on all engines). In these cases, it doesn't matter how many engines you >have. > >IMHO, four engines create slightly more than twice the chance for an >engine failure of some sort, and they buy you no added safety factor >when it does happen. >This really, worries me. When on a twin and you lose an engine instead >of flying at 35-39,000ft you're down to 20,000ft and to achieve this >you've pushed the power forwards on your last engine, normally to max >continuous from max cruise. Now any probability statistics for infight >shut down rates go out of the window since your remaining engine is >working that much harder. This is why we have ETOPS rules which have >gradually increased from 60mins to 180mins over the last couple of >decades. >Now for four engines you lose only 25 percent thrust, not 50 percent, >hence the power increase is lower to maintain an adequate flight >level. This immediately implies an inherent increase in safety. Two points.First of all, no current engine really works very hard at altitude. The big loads on the engines are at takeoff. 100% N1 is a lot less load on the engine at FL300 than it is at sea level. I also seriously doubt that statistical evidence supports the assertion that 4 engines are safer than 2 in a currently certified commercial aircraft. How many crashes of twins have we seen where the number of engines had anything to do with the crash? I can only think of one, Lauda Air over Thailand... Let me point out a counter argument. More engines do mean more in flight shutdowns, which means more attention to that shut down and a distraction from the real business of flying the aircraft. This may well make 3 and 4 engine aircraft LESS safe, especially given that such failures have become so rare. In a light aircraft, this is a different story, but the truth be know in a light aircraft, you are probably safer with 1 engine than with 2... I am reminded of a comment a friend made about the CAA in Australia. They used to require light twin pilots to demonstrate landing skills with engine out on a regular basis, until it was pointed out to them that far more pilots were getting killed being trained and practicing to deal with the problem, than the problem was causing... 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 Wed Aug 19 16:01:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:36 From: m.weber@duc.com.kw (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 06 Aug 98 23:37:17, Karl Swartz wrote: >>It seems like Airbus Aircraft are alot safer than Boeing aircraft. You >>don't hear of FAA reccomendations concering Airbus... > >>What do you guys think? > >I think you haven't been paying attention. If by "FAA reccomendations" >(sic) you mean airworthiness directives (ADs), you can find a list which >is allegedly complete for all ADs issued on or after January 1, 1996 at > > http://www.fedworld.gov/pub/faa-cai/faa-cai.htm > >I counted 14 for the 737 and 17 for the A321 (plus one which covers the >A319 and A321 but not the A320). > >Looking at the bigger aircraft, there are three covering the 777, 17 for >the 747, 5 for the MD-11, and 8 for the A340 (5 of which also cover the >A330; there is an additional AD which covers just the A330-301). > >It seems to me that Airbus incurs a ADs at a rate comparable to Boeing, >so by the metric of "FAA reccomendations" (sic) there's not much >difference in safety between the products of the two manufacturers. I think I'd be much more interested in the accident rate, based upon both Flight hours, and flight operations. In terms of flight operation the A320 tended to stand hand and shoulders above the rest (as in a high accident rate). There have been numerous accidents with A320's on approach and landing. D10's don't fare all that well either. More D10 hulls have been lost in such accidents than 747's and L1011's combined (even counting the efforts of China Airlines).... On this basis, my recollection is the 727 turns out to be safest aircraft in the sky. If you measure in terms of flight hours, I think the 747 wins. It's been a few years since I saw current numbers however, I do remember that at that time, the A320 was more than an order of magnitude more 'dangerous' than 727. My thoughts anyway... From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >In terms of flight operation the A320 tended to stand hand and >shoulders above the rest (as in a high accident rate). There have been >numerous accidents with A320's on approach and landing. D10's don't >fare all that well either. At one point, I remember reading that the A320 had passed even the DC-10 as having the worst safety record. Unfortunately, I don't know what the exact metric was and haven't been able to find the reference again. For most any metric, the statistics were distorted by a small sample and a lot of crashes relatively early on. If you looked again (and included the A319 and A321), I suspect the A320 family would fare reasonably well since there have been only two hull losses and no fatalities in nearly five years, despite a tremendous buildup in the number of aircraft in service. >On this basis, my recollection is the 727 turns out to be safest >aircraft in the sky. Perhaps, though there were a series of troubling crashes in the early days which gave the 727 a really bad safety record at the time. One might argue that the early A320 crashes were analogous, but the early 727 crashes were due to a dissonance between pilot psychology and the unprecedented (for an airliner) performance of the 727. The return for those painful lessons was a quantum leap in efficiency. The A320, in contrast, paid a similar price for comparatively minor advances. (This is really Robert Dorsett's argument -- hopefully he'll correct me or elaborate if I've bobbled it up.) Actually, the safest types by flight operations (and flight hours) include Concorde, the Mercure, and the 777, all of which have zero crashes adn zero fatalities. Maybe that means they're really safe, or maybe that just means the sample is too small. Of the planes which have had at least one fatal event and/or hull loss, I thought the 737 was the safest by flight operations, ahead of the 727. Yes, there have been a substantial number of 737 crashes, but there are a hell of a lot of 737s out there and they each have been racking up flights at a tremendous rate. >If you measure in terms of flight hours, I think the 747 wins. Not surprising since it probably flies the most hours per flight and most accidents are during to takeoff or landing, not cruise. All of this illustrates the problem of figuring out what's a useful metric. For example, I've noted before that http://www.airsafe.com/ has an interesting and useful collection of data, but to me the metric is a bit screwy -- events in which at least one passenger was killed. As a result, the 747 is dinged for an Aerolineas Argentinas flight during which a passenger died of food poisoning, but the 737 is *not* dinged for the Aloha "convertible" since the only fatality was a crew member. Obviously there's a lot more context, but looking at those two alone, which would you pick on a safety standpoint? For better or worse, here are a few of his rates including best and worst, taken from http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm. Model Rate Events Flights ----- ---- ------ ------- Fokker F28 2.63 20 7.6M Douglas DC10/MD11 1.92 15 7.8M Boeing 747 1.85 22 11.9M Airbus A310 1.25 3 2.4M Airbus A300 1.01 7 6.9M Lockheed L1011 0.93 5 5.4M Airbus A320 0.77 4 5.2M Fokker F70/F100 0.75 3 4.0M Boeing 737-100/200 0.72 34 47.1M Boeing 727 0.66 46 69.5M Boeing 757 0.59 4 6.8M Boeing 737-300/400/500 0.47 11 23.5M Boeing 767 0.34 2 5.9M Douglas MD80 0.32 6 19.0M Saab 340 0.16 1 6.3M -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Aug 19 16:01:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Aug 98 16:01:38 From: m.weber@duc.com.kw (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 18 Aug 98 01:04:30, jla wrote: >I have discussed this with several friends, all of us UA employees. The >logical assumption we have come to is that the A319/320 aircraft were >purchased to replace some 727-200/737-300/500 and 757 aircraft on specific >routes (in addition to replacing aircraft pulled to make up the Shuttle >fleet). > >The Airbus aircraft are faster than the 737's, very fuel-efficient (much >moreso than the 727), and have a longer range than the 737's or 727's. >However they have less capacity than the 757, making them ideal to use in >markets where lower capacity is needed, or higher frequency (thus leading to >a lower demand for the increased capacity on the larger craft) is desired. >The A319 configuration is the same as the 737-300, while the A320 is almost >identical to the 727-200. With all due respect, this is the proverbial apples and oranges. You are comparing the 737-200/300 and 727-200 to the A320, which is a much later aircraft. The 737-200 was current in the 1960's and 70's, the -300's entered service about 1980. I think the 727 was out of production well before the first A320 flew. If you would like to compare the A320 to the 737-NG, I think you will find the 737-NG actually flies a good faster than the A320, has longer range than the A320, and is probably at least as fuel efficient. The -600 to -900 range covers wider range of capacities than the A319-A321. From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:42 From: "Martin Chiew" Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >With all due respect, this is the proverbial apples and oranges. You >are comparing the 737-200/300 and 727-200 to the A320, which is a much >later aircraft. The 737-200 was current in the 1960's and 70's, the >-300's entered service about 1980. I think the 727 was out of >production well before the first A320 flew. > > If you would like to compare the A320 to the 737-NG, I think you >will find the 737-NG actually flies a good faster than the A320, has >longer range than the A320, and is probably at least as fuel >efficient. The -600 to -900 range covers wider range of capacities >than the A319-A321. Sorry to say, but in terms of speed, the 737NG being faster than the A320 is a load of Rubbish. The A320 cruises at M0.8 as opposed to the 737NG which cruises at M0.785. More closer to the A320's league is the 737-300 which in Australia cruises at 0.74 as opposed to the A320's M0.8. On a typical run to Perth, an Ansett Australia Airbus A320-211 carrying about 144 passengers can outrun a Qantas Boeing 737-400. It cruises higher, is much more comfortable, is faster (0.80 vs 0.74) and consumes less fuel, while carrying 10 or more passengers + cargo. Even for the A320 to be still comparable with the 737NG and probably be more efficient is quite an achievement, for an aircraft which is ~9 years older. From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Martin Chiew wrote: >Sorry to say, but in terms of speed, the 737NG being faster than the A320 is >a load of Rubbish. The A320 cruises at M0.8 as opposed to the 737NG which >cruises at M0.785. More closer to the A320's league is the 737-300 which in >Australia cruises at 0.74 as opposed to the A320's M0.8 ... What mathematics do you use to come up with 0.74 being "more closer" (clearly you use a different English, too) to 0.8 than 0.785 is?! >On a typical run to Perth, an Ansett Australia Airbus A320-211 carrying >about 144 passengers can outrun a Qantas Boeing 737-400. It cruises >higher, is much more comfortable, is faster (0.80 vs 0.74) and consumes >less fuel, while carrying 10 or more passengers + cargo. Which serves only to illustrate the point with which you were arguing, namely, that comparing the A320 family and the 737 Classics is an apples and oranges comparison. Your example might have been interesting had Qantas been flying a 737-800. -- 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 Aug 23 14:33:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:44 From: "Larry Sakurai" Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >With all due respect, this is the proverbial apples and oranges. You >are comparing the 737-200/300 and 727-200 to the A320, which is a much >later aircraft ... > If you would like to compare the A320 to the 737-NG, I think you >will find the 737-NG actually flies a good faster than the A320, has >longer range than the A320, and is probably at least as fuel >efficient ... Not only that, even the old 200s cruise faster than the A320s. They were designed at a time when speed was a bigger issue than it is today. I don't know how the fuel economy of the 737 NGs stack up to the A320s, but with their newer wings and powerplants, I would imagine they're pretty competitive. From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:45 From: Frank Muenker Subject: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nacamar Group Plc. tlm@delphi.com schrieb in Nachricht ... >Karl Swartz writes: >>>Or the airshow crash of an A-320 whose computers would not allow the >>>pilot to perfofm a go-around because the airplane was in landing >>>configuration. >> >>That would be the Habsheim crash on June 26, 1988, but there has never >>been any clear evidence of the crash being the result of anything other >>than the pilots putting the plane into a predicament they couldn't get >>it out of. There are, however, a lot of inconsistencies between what >>the DGAC report on this crash says and various witness accounts and >>third-party analyses. Still, there's not sufficient basis for your > >There was an article in AW&ST a few months ago discussing the possibility >that the inflight data recorder was switched after the crash. This >conclusion was reached based on the pattern of strips on the casings of >the recorder that was supposed to be in place, and the one actually found >(or planted). there are basically 2 things to mention about this accident: 1. It was the probably most stupid and most careless thing somebody ever did in the history of aviation. 2. When a brand new aircraft crashes during an air show, it's the probably worst thing that can happen to an aircraft manufacturer. Therefore they tried everything to blame the pilots and take the fault away from the aircraft. What they did was to fly an A320 over a field in front of the spectators at about 30ft altitude with minimum speed, minimum thrust and nose way up. The situation where you are very close to a stall. The computer was flying and everything was just fine, BUT: What the pilot forgot was to check the terrain on the map. There were 60 ft trees ahead and since they were flying nose up he didn't see them on time. And when he saw the trees he performed a go-around but it was too late and they crashed into the trees. Hard to believe but true. The other unbelievable thing was that they took passengers (!!!) on this trip. They made a tombola and the *winners* got a ride on this flight. What a test pilot does is one thing but taking passengers on a flight where you intentionally go to the limits of an aircraft is something completely different. For point 2: The Airbus executives denied at any time that they told the pilot to perform this stunt, while the pilot said they did. But at the end they sacrificed the pilot who eventually went into jail. I don't doubt that they removed the flight recorder, just in case. But the pilot always said the aircraft was fine and that it was just too late for the go-around. And he really didn't have any reason to *protect* airbus after everything that happened. Cheers Frank From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:46 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >1. It was the probably most stupid and most careless thing somebody ever >did in the history of aviation. A lot of stupid and careless things have been done. The Aeroflot captain with his kids at the controls comes to mind. I'm not sure I'd give "top" honors to Habsheim, though it was pretty boneheaded. >What the pilot forgot was to check the terrain on the map. There were >60 ft trees ahead and since they were flying nose up he didn't see them >on time. I seriously doubt you can produce any evidence to substantiate this theory. The pilots waited too long to pull up, but to blame it on their ignorance of the terrain is neither credible nor consistent with any of the reports on the accident which I've encountered. >I don't doubt that they removed the flight recorder, just in case. Since the flight recorders contain critical information and they cannot be decoded in the field, removing them is an obvious and standard move. Substituting others for the ones which were in the crash is a decidedly non-standard action. >But the pilot always said the aircraft was fine and that it was just >too late for the go-around. Completely untrue. Quite the contrary, the captain has consistently said that the aircraft did *not* respond in accordance with his control inputs. -- 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 Aug 23 14:33:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:47 From: "Martin Chiew" Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Bear in mind the data on the Airsafe page is very poor statistically as I seriously doubt that the Saab SF340 has had more flights than an A320 series, and this statistical data has not been updated in the past year or so! >From a passengers point of view, an Airbus FBW aircraft beats any Boeing, anyday, more space, and certainly more comfortable, with the worlds best pressurisation systems. Cheers, Justin Chiew From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:48 From: Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de Subject: Re: How come... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@compuserve.com> wrote: > Opening thethrust reverser buckets on these airplanes allows water to drain > & provides some FOD protection. and how are they operated then once the engines are shut down. simply pull the thrust reverser levers and switch on some electrically operated hydraulic pumps? Regards, Ralf -- Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-2571-549327 | sipple@writeme.com D-48268 Greven | Anrufbeantw. +49-2571-549326 | pgp key on request! From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:49 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Airbus P305 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu It is rumoured that AI is proposing to SIA the P305 to replace their existing A310 fleet. This P305 should focus on short range widebody services. It will incorporate the RR Trent 500 engines of the A340NG, the FBW cockpit of the other buses and a new wing. That's all the information which I read, however I still have some questions: - Is there a market for a shortrange WB - what would be -- roughly -- the development costs - what the target delivery date - I read somewhere that AI might even launch the A322 (an A321 with the beefed P305 wing), which could then compete with the 757. Two subquestions : -- is this technically possible (one same wing for a widebody and a narrowbody) -- would this 322 have a chance to replace the oldest 757 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 Aug 23 14:33:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:50 From: Evan McElravy Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>BA (replace 10s and 763s) > >Why would you expect BA to replace their 767-300(ER)s? The newest was >delivered just 18 months ago, and the oldest is less than nine years >old. With their oddball Rolls-Royce engines (China Yunnan's three >examples are the only other 767s with RB.211s), BA's 767s probably have >a very low second-hand value. > >>BA will choose again the 777 even if they may change the engine supplier. > >Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the >PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all? Rumors I've heard is that the GE90 is almost definitely out. As for which of the remaining two competitors gets it, your analysis of BA's 767 fleet could yield the answer: BA likes RR engines. Remember the outrage when they ordered the L-1011 instead of the A300 to get RR engines? Still, BA is savvy and wouldn't buy the RR unless there were some compelling advantages. But judging from the 777 orders of late, the Trent must offer some definite advantages since it seems to be the engine of choice in a number of important orders: Delta, AA, and (I believe) Continental. Those are all significant victories (commonality with the RB211s - except Delta - on the 757s, maybe?). But as someone mentioned, it is never wise to second-guess BA. BTW, has anyone other than BA had any troubles with the GE90? They seem to have had awful luck with them, from what I've heard. How are Air France's behaving? Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:51 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Attributions from various posters. > > A330-200/B767-400ER > > The longer-range, more current A330-200 is out-selling the B767-400ER by > > a two-to-one margin. Other than Delta and Continental, Boeing has not > > been able to secure any other sizable orders. Is it fair to compare one sub-model of a plane with another submodel of another plane ? Wouldn't it be more representative to compare sales of A330 vs B767 ? What if Boeing had a huge order of 767-300, and just a few token orders of 767-400, the above comparison would leave out a big piece of information. Or is the 767-300 no longer orderable ? > The problem with the 764 is that is half a 767 (design wise) and half a 777 > (cockpit wise). Can't the 767-400 adjust the layout of its cockpit to emulate that of a conventional 767 as is the case for the recent 737s ? From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:52 From: chuanga@cris.com Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article Karl Swartz wrote: >>BA will choose again the 777 even if they may change the engine supplier. > Anybody have a conjecture on whether BA will pick the Trent or the > PW4000 -- or decide to stick with the GE90 after all? I went to one of the Farnborough sites and read an article on this matter. According to the report, R-R is ahead of GE for two reasons: 1. In the upcoming B777 order, BA is supposed to cancel 10 RB.211-powered B747-400s. Rolls will waive the cancellation penalty if BA chooses the Trent 800 for their new B777s. 2. BA is interested in the heavier gross weight B777-200ER which Boeing has recently started offering. The new plane requires 95K-lb thrust engines. The highest thrust GE90 currently in production is 92K. Both GE and R-R have recently offered 95K engines (obviously to fulfill BA's requirement). BA worries that the EGT (exit gas temperature) of the growth GE90 will be too high and may affect the durability of the engine. (This seems to be consistent with another report that I have read citing GE is trying to lower the EGT by around 30 degs.) GE Capital Aviation Services (GECAS) has already bought some of BA's B747s (and B777s, I'm not sure of the latter) and leased them back to BA. With a portfolio of more than 900 planes, it won't be too difficult for GECAS to absorb 10 new B747-400s. Hence, if GE wants the deal bad enough, they will get it. OTOH, the rumor that I heard when GE withdrew the plan to develop 102K GE90 for the B777X was GE's CEO (Jack Welch) said he would not spending a f****** cent on the GE90 when GE Aircraft engines personnel presented the proposal to GE's board of directors. Anyway, BA is not expected to announce the engine selection at the Farnborough Air Show. From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:53 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM H Andrew Chuang wrote: > was indicated as a possible future growth. Obviously, the B777 development > was much better than expected that Boeing skipped the B-market and jumped > to the B-plus-market B777 directly and renamed it IGW (increased gross > weight) which has since been renamed again to ER (extended range). I think that all this renaming and changing of priorities is what is causing confusion. What is exactly a 777 "today" ? However, if a large company such as Boeing can turn around on a dime and re-adjust its priorities based on changes in the marketplace, that should be viewed as a good thing, even if it causes confusion. Heck, if their CAD and manufacturing processes have been tuned to the point where it is possible to build individualised 777 planes for each customer (without much cost), then this would be a tremendous asset to Boeing. (Look at the success of DELL computers which even Compaq will try to emulate with its "build to order" systems.). The Asian crisis is showing how quickly a marketplace can change. Boeing is reacting to this. If you have an architecture (777) which is flexible enough to allow you many different variants to be produced cost effectively and quite rapidly, then in this day and age, you'll have an edge on your competition. Right now, I see the 777 programme as a chef which just built a huge restaurant with a huge kitchen with expectations of being an incredible overnight success. But with the asian crisis and some competition, Boeing isn't getting as much as it had hoped for. As a result, it is offering a variety of new menus to see which one would attract customers. When it finds a menu that is popular, it will then start cooking it up in its state of the art and flexible kitchen. From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > The Brunei Sultan ordered one or two A340-8000s. 2 IIRC. But I can't find it in the AI production lists. I guess that the -8000 which did the flight test was indeed a beefed -200. But wasn't the fuselage of the -8000 also supposed to be shorter ? > Air Canada was the > only airline operator that had signed an MoU for the A340-8000. However, > AC had later withdrawn the commitment but ordered the A340-500 and -600 > instead. Right. -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 23 14:33:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:55 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Colleen M Wabiszewski wrote: > In addition, AirTran is not the only customer for the > aircraft: Bavaria and Pembroke are also customers (albeit for smaller > orders). Did I miss sth ? So far there are only 50 firm orders from AirTran and 5 from german leasing company Bavaria. The only other rumoured -- but not yet official -- customer is Debonair. Could you -- as you are an insider -- tell us more about the Pembroke order ? > Given that the 717 has not even entered flight test, I don't > think it strange that there aren't more orders yet The 737NG has some 700 ordres before it started flight tests, now this is strange ;) -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 23 14:33:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:56 From: "Neil Gerace" Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SilkRoad web.services Reply-To: "Neil Gerace" James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >I also seriously doubt that statistical evidence supports the assertion >that 4 engines are safer than 2 in a currently certified commercial >aircraft. How many crashes of twins have we seen where the number of >engines had anything to do with the crash? I can only think of one, Lauda >Air over Thailand... If a reverser suddenly deployed on a four engined plane, the loss of lift which caused the uncontrollability of OE-LAV would still occur, but wouldn't the crew have more time to sort it out? There is still one engine on that wing holding it up. Neil From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:57 From: peter.unmuth@siemens.at (Peter Unmuth) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Siemens AG Austria Reply-To: peter.unmuth@siemens.at James Matthew Weber wrote: |I also seriously doubt that statistical evidence supports the assertion |that 4 engines are safer than 2 in a currently certified commercial |aircraft. How many crashes of twins have we seen where the number of |engines had anything to do with the crash? I can only think of one, Lauda |Air over Thailand... Hi! Sorry to correct you, but the Lauda Air crash had nothing to do with the number of engines. AFAIK it was a failure of the thrust reverser during the flight. Correct me if I'm wrong! Peter -- /* The opinions stated here represent only the author's point of view */ /* Peter Unmuth (peter.unmuth@siemens.at) */ From kls Sun Aug 23 14:33:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:58 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com James Matthew Weber wrote: > In a light aircraft, this is a different story, but the truth be know in a > light aircraft, you are probably safer with 1 engine than with 2... > > I am reminded of a comment a friend made about the CAA in Australia. They > used to require light twin pilots to demonstrate landing skills with engine > out on a regular basis, until it was pointed out to them that far more > pilots were getting killed being trained and practicing to deal with the > problem, than the problem was causing... I have heard many people claim that the statistics prove that more fatal crashes result from an engine failure on a twin than an engine failure on a single. Does anyone know of a reliable reference for such a statistic? -- 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 Aug 23 14:33:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:33:59 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion James Matthew Weber wrote: > Let me point out a counter argument. More engines do mean more in flight > shutdowns, which means more attention to that shut down and a distraction > from the real business of flying the aircraft. This may well make 3 and 4 > engine aircraft LESS safe, especially given that such failures have become > so rare. A possible counter-counter-argument is that since the crews of twins are so unlikely ever to encounter an in-flight shutdown, they may panic if they do, thus making them LESS safe than three+ engined aircraft, whose crews are more accustomed to the event. Just to point out that this kind of argument doesn't really get us very far. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. Check out my web site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:00 From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards CA andyweir writes: > In 1995 NASA, I think it was, demonstrated a propulsion control > software package called PCA that took the guesswork out of > differential thrust. It simply plugged into the FMC or FADEC of an > MD-11. Don't know the current situation, but I believe NASA > expressed disappointment in the lack of interest in the package from > airlines. Presumably, the software's principles are universally > applicable and could be adapted for any big jet with FMC and/or > FADEC. I wonder what became of it? It's NASA DFRC and they're going into a simulation using one of the Ames simulators fairly soon, using airline pilots as subjects. It works by picking off the pilot's command from the cockpit controllers and using this input, with a simple control system, to drive the engines so that the plane responds in something approaching the normal manner. Being a backup mode, of course, degraded performance is acceptable, so there's no need to make this system fly as well as it does in the primary modes. Flying by using the yoke (or sidestick) in the usual way is much more natural than trying to do it with the throttle levers. (Actually, Al Haynes did use the yoke, with Denny watching his inputs and manipulating the throttle levers to produce the "commanded" response. As a result, Haynes had not ever looked at Denny; the first time he saw him was at the SUX hospital, when he was taken to his room, and Haynes was concerned that he wouldn't know which one was Denny if there were two patients in the room.) I can't find the PCS briefing charts right now, but there have been at least a dozen incidents of pilots using thrust-only or thrust-augmented flight path control to save the airplane. These aren't all airliners, though; one was an F-14. The various technical papers on PCS, written by Frank W. Burcham and C. Gordon Fullerton, are on the DFRC Web page, at http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/ in the link that leads to technical reports. A description of the current status can probably also be found there, in the links for current research projects or press releases, I think. -- 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 Sun Aug 23 14:34:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:01 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 James Matthew Weber wrote: > I also seriously doubt that statistical evidence supports the assertion > that 4 engines are safer than 2 in a currently certified commercial > aircraft. How many crashes of twins have we seen where the number of > engines had anything to do with the crash? I can only think of one, Lauda > Air over Thailand... So you assume that if the reverser of engine 1 or 4 on a quad would have failed, there would have been no crash. It seems possible and even logical, but: - has it ever occured in flight on a quad (not speaking of reversing #2 and 3 on DC8s before touchdown) - has it ever been tested during flight test (I seriously doubt it ;) - can it be prooven math wise (torque of the engines applied to the centerline of the a/c) -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 23 14:34:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:02 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RCN Internet Andrew Goldfinger wrote: > > In article Gregory Travis, greg@sherrill.kiva.net writes: > >Ten, fifteen minutes go by and nothing appears to be happening. The F-15 > >pilot radios: "Hey, I thought you were going to show me some tricks?!" to > >which the B-52 pilot replies "I've been doing just that!" The F-15 pilot > >responds "What? I didn't see anything! What did you do?" The B-52 > >pilot >responds: > > > >"I shut down two engines." > > Which reminds me of the call from a B-52 to ground control. > > "I have lost and engine, and wish to declare an emergency!" > > Ground controller: > > "Ah, yes ... the dreaded 7 engine landing!" may not be as easy as it sounds, have you ever noticed how small the rudder is on a B-52? I once read that two engines out on the same side of a B-52 is cause for abandoning the aircraft. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:03 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights In article , Gregory Travis writes > volcanic ash ingestion. All four engines shut down >for a period. Eventually got some or all (?) back on line. British Airways 747-236, over by Jakarta. I think they got 3 of them back. I'll look it if anyone's interested. -- Pete Finlay From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:04 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: 757 climb rate (was: Concorde Climb rate ?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 19 Aug 98 16:01:34 , Frank Jenkins caused to appear as if it was written: >> >Concorde 5000 fpm climb rate >> >B757 2500 fpm climb rate >> >B767 3500 fpm climb rate >> >> The 757, as overpowered as it is, can only manage that climg rate???? > >This is anecdotal, but a UAL 757 captain I know claims that he regularly >pegs the R/C meter at 6000fpm on climbout. Obviously, without some additional definition, these numbers are fairly useless. For example, climbout for the B757 from SNA is extremely rapid for the first 1,000ft, then it virtually stops for a while as a result of noise abatement procedures. One could argue, therefore, that the B757's climb rate should be the number applicable without noise abatement. ... and this is relevant if one of the aircraft in that list happens to have afterburners which it normally shuts off immediately after takeoff... Malc. From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:05 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Tom Turton wrote: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > I was on a UA 757 flying SFO-LAX a few years ago and, listening on > > channel 9, heard our pilots request a higher altitude. ATC granted > > the request on the condition that we could do at least 3000 fpm -- > > we could, and as I recall gave them better than 4000 fpm. So, I > > seriously doubt the accuracy of Tom's numbers. > > Boys, boys, boys - > I never claimed those to be MAX climb rates - only representative > numbers as published in an FAA document. It is my "assumption" that > those are probably nominal climb rates that the aircraft can "always" > make (high weight, close to cruising altitudes??). Obviously, a > lighter weight airplane flying on a nice crisp clear day at lower > altitude, can probably burn through those numbers. I merely posted them > as a starting point - hoping that someone else might have a source of > better data than mine (i.e. a flight ops manual). cowboy's comment; what the hell are we trying to find out here, initial rates of climb or the time to height. It will depend on power to weight ratio, ie, as stated above, the lighter the aeroplane the higher it can climb but the longer it takes. There will be consistency if we presume the aeroplane is operated correctly and is climbed to the optimum altitude for the weight. That's what a PERFORMANCE MANUAL will indicate. They all go well at the start but at the end they are staggering a bit.If KS was on one that could, off the bat,at altitude, find 3000 plus fpm then it must have been suffering an altitude blockage and was way to light for the altitude at which it was cruising. cowboy@ram.net.au -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:06 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >If KS was on one that could, off the bat,at altitude, find 3000 plus >fpm then it must have been suffering an altitude blockage and was way >to light for the altitude at which it was cruising. An altitude blockage?! That's a new one! As for being too light, I wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight regulations for airliners or any other sort of aircraft. This happened to be during climb -- probably below 20,000' and well below cruise -- with a light load on a 337 mile flight. Of course the aircraft was well below the weight it would have been at had it been taking a full load 2500+ miles against headwinds to Hawaii. -- 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 Aug 23 14:34:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:07 From: JAMESKIRK@t-online.de (Kai Rüffer) Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate "The truth" 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 Tom Turton schrieb in Nachricht ... >Mindy wrote: >> Does anyone know what the rate of climb is for the Concord ? Is it >> higher than subsonic airliners such as the 767 or the 757 . I know it in detail, because I'm flying the B757/767. It's a matter of weight,thrustsetting, speed,temperature,altitude and so on..... When the aircraft's are almost empty and you select a high thrustsetting they can easily catch up with a 20 year old fighter. For the first 5000 feet they both have climrates over 6000fpm. The B767 has a little better weight-thrust ratio the the B757.(empty) The Concorde has app. 4000-5000fpm climerate during the initial climeout. ...... From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:08 From: "Don Boberick" Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Tom, Those climb rates sound low to me, too. What is the title to Order 7110.65? Could that be an Air Traffic Service Order relating to operational parameters? From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:09 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: can someone please help me... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "Paul Rotzler" wrote: > This isn't a technical question at all, I am just curious on what the > climbrate is for the 747 from takeoff, to cruising altitude. Also, what do > they usually descend at? cowboy's comment: we have covered this with the question about the concord. The climb rate is not constant and is influenced throughout the climb by the power to weight ratio. the heavier the aeroplane , the lower the initial cruise altitude. The rate at take off must be a minimum depending on how many engines the aeroplane has so that it can clear obstacles if a critical engine fails. In the b747 it is a gross of 3%. At max auw and hot ambients the roc is not impressive. The normal climb schedule for jet airliners is to fly, climb at a fixed IAS until around 24-25000ft to lock onto a fixed mach number and continue on that until cruise is reached. In all likelihood this is the cruise mach also. At the start climbing at constant ias the aeroplane is in the accelerating phase of the climb and the roc , initially high (relatively) decreases as altitude is gained. At the IAS/ mach cross over point is neared the roc would be relatively quite poor. As the aeroplane starts to climb at the fixed mach number it is in the decelerating portion of the climb schedule and so initially the roc increases again ( not as much as at take off but more than that experienced just prior to the speed change over altitude). This new increased roc does not last for long and evenually as the aeroplane approaches its cruise altitude is down to just over a 200fpm if the aeroplane is climbing to optium for the weight. There are speeds, dependent on aircraft weight , for high gradient or max rate climb's that are flown if ATC demands. At cruise altitude the aeroplane is always initially too heavy and suffering a fuel penalty and it remains there until it is suffering a fuel penalty by becoming too light, when it climbs to where it is too heavy, etcetera , etcetera,etcetera. The reverse procedure is followed in the descent.(some other poster have a go) The rates can vary depending on what is trying to be achieved. For instance an emergency descent with the pax standing on the back of the seat in front of them can go higher than 14000fpm. That is, as I said , an emergency descent following loss of cabin pressure. Optimising the performance of heavy jets on a long sector such as syd-lax, Bkk - Lon so the max payload is carried and the sector is completed depite the wx is what makes this type of flying so fascinating. The climb and the descent are aminor part of the entire sector. cowboy@ram.net.au -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:10 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: 767-400 "a different type"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here > >As far as I am aware, the aircraft will be the same type rating as the > >757/767. The problem for airlines will come mainly with the avionics, just > >like the 737NG has the same type rating as the older 737's. The -400 uses a > >777-like cockpit, while the older 757/767 uses a mixture of EFIS and > >round-dial instruments. > > Well folks, all the 757/767's I hve seen have EFIS and EICAS crt > systems. They use an separate engine backup display as EICAS is only > dual channel driven. Yes, that's what I meant by a mixture of EFIS and round dial displays. All 757/767 aircraft currently in production have an EFIS attitude indicator, an EFIS HSI/Nav Display, and two tubes in the center acting as engine and systems status displays. The airspeed indicators, altimeters, vertical speed indicators, and RMI's are still the round-dial instruments (essentially the same as used in older model 727's and 737's) and are not EFIS tubes. > The Boeing glossy I saw was short on facts about what was behind the > side by side nav and pfd displays, the old system I suspect. The side-by-side nav/pfd arrangement you saw for the 767-400 is the same arrangement used in the 777 and the 737NG aircraft. The displays can be configured as either a 777-style mimic (with altimeter and airspeed tape displays surrounding a large attitude display), or they can be configured to mimic the old 757/767 style, with a round-dial presentation of the altimeter, airspeed indicator, RMI, and vertical speed indicator on the screens. This display format will allow the preservation of the common type rating. Chris Dahler From kls Sun Aug 23 14:34:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:11 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Airports- SMGCS status? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com After being away from airport sensors for several years, I have been assigned to a project looking at sensors for SMGCS systems. Can anyone fill me in on current status? Who at FAA is involved in this now? I have advisory circular 120-57A. Is there anything more recent than this, in terms of FAA documents? -- 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 Aug 23 14:34:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:12 From: JF Mezei Subject: Handling of imminent crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM There are two incidents which come to mind where I wonder if survavibility would not have been increased with the use of "unconventional" methods: Ethiopian 767 landing on water: He landed pretty much as if he were going to land on a runway. What would have happened if, at last second, he would have raised the angle of attack to stall the aircraft. Wouldn't this have dramatically reduced the airspeed and then caused a lesser drop into the water from low altitude ? American 757 at Cali: Increased speed/altitude to try to avoid mountain, so it hit it at higher speed causing more destruction. What would the result have been had the pilot instead put in the thrust reversers to slow the airplane and raise angle of attack to match the mountain and have it "land" uphill ? Yep, using thrust reversers and stalling the aircraft by raising its angle of attack with insufficient speed are big no-nos, but wouldn't this have lessened the impact ? Which brings me to the future. Is it something that aircraft manufacturs should look into ? *IF* a computer were to know that it was physically impossible to save a situation (eg: Cali) could it not then make the decision to stop trying to save it and act to increase survavibility? It seems to me that in some cases, taking unconventional actions which would go against a pilot's instincts would actually reduce loss of life. How are pilots trained to deal with a major aircraft about to crash ? Is their training limited to trying to avoid crashes ? I assume that aircraft's systems are aslo designed to deal solely with avoiding a crash instead of dealing with one ? Thoughts ? From news Thu Aug 13 11:20:22 1998 Path: ditka!daver!newsgate.tandem.com!su-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: k_ish Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: 777 sighting Date: 13 Aug 1998 17:39:23 GMT Organization: ICGNetcom Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> My friend was driving past March AFB (Riverside, CA) last Saturday evening. On the ramp across the field, he saw a 777 painted with an AA fuselage and Boeing "factory" tail (777 diagonally up the fin). He spent a few hours at an event nearby; the 777 flew overhead several times. On his drive home, it was circling at fairly low altitude (3000'); this was about 10:30 at night. Anyone know what was going on? Sounds thouroughly routine for Moses Lake, but not March AFB! Ken Ishiguro From news Mon Aug 17 13:44:57 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777 sighting Date: 17 Aug 1998 19:17:27 GMT Organization: nams Sender: nntp@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <35D868D3.FE@boeing.com> References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> k_ish wrote: > My friend was driving past March AFB (Riverside, CA) last Saturday > evening. On the ramp across the field, he saw a 777 painted with an AA > fuselage and Boeing "factory" tail (777 diagonally up the fin). [...] > Anyone know what was going on? Sounds thouroughly routine for Moses > Lake, but not March AFB! First 777-300 with PW4098 Engines. In town for cruise performance testing. March has a nice, long runway that enables us to do a max weight takeoff and puts us in our favorite test area at top of climb. Mike Lechnar From news Tue Aug 18 13:14:56 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: k_ish Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777 sighting Date: 18 Aug 1998 19:26:05 GMT Organization: Netcom Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <35D9007D.CCA36279@ix.netcom.com> References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> <35D868D3.FE@boeing.com> Michael F. Lechnar wrote: > First 777-300 with PW4098 Engines. In town for cruise performance > testing. March has a nice, long runway that enables us to do a max > weight takeoff and puts us in our favorite test area at top of climb. Thanks for the info; maybe I will drive out there myself to see it. Any idea how long it will be there? BTW, where is the "favorite test area"? Ken Ishiguro From news Tue Aug 18 13:14:56 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "sevnet" Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777 sighting Date: 18 Aug 1998 19:26:23 GMT Organization: RCN Internet Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <6rcbd4$da0$1@winter.news.erols.com> References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> <35D868D3.FE@boeing.com> >First 777-300 with PW4098 Engines. In town for cruise performance >testing. March has a nice, long runway that enables us to do a max >weight takeoff and puts us in our favorite test area at top of climb. Hey, BTW, what do they use to simulate max take-off weight? Do they actually fill it up with tons of unneeded fuel and then dump it before landing? And what about the payload? Water? Sand? Lead? I can only guess. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:16 From: narayana@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in Subject: Re: Airbus P305 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: > It is rumoured that AI is proposing to SIA the P305 to replace their > existing A310 fleet. This P305 should focus on short range widebody > services. It will incorporate the RR Trent 500 engines of the A340NG, > the FBW cockpit of the other buses and a new wing. Despite being a perfect fit for the long-haul routes the a330-200 may be a little too large and heavy for some domestic and regional routes.A market might just exist for the p305. For example Indian airlines might just be looking for such an aircarft to replace it's venerable a300's.If airbus can come up with an aircraft that matches the a300 or the a310 in capacity/performance and beats it in terms of efficiency it could succeed in winning a large part of this niche market.This begs to ask the question what will boeing come up with?.An improved 767? Barath Narayan -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:17 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Did I miss sth ? So far there are only 50 firm orders from AirTran and >5 from german leasing company Bavaria. The only other rumoured -- but >not yet official -- customer is Debonair. Could you -- as you are an >insider -- tell us more about the Pembroke order ? A friend who works in marketing told me that money has changed hands, but that was all she said. Rumor has it the order will be the same as Bavaria, 5 firm and 5 options. >> Given that the 717 has not even entered flight test, I don't >> think it strange that there aren't more orders yet >The 737NG has some 700 ordres before it started flight tests, now this >is strange ;) Granted, however the 737 NG was a minor mod compared to the redesign involved with the 717. And perhaps the public perception that Boeing was/is not committed to the airplane is contagious - the friend mentioned above has also said that a number of airlines were interested, but were witholding final judgment on the airplane until the company showed positive interest in the future of the program. The original strain of the conversation was Boeing's supposed lack of interest in the program, and it was this lack of interest which I was disputing. Boeing has no other aircraft to compete with the A319M5, and given the company's fairly public aim of putting Airbus out of business (as they did to us poor Douglas types, although admittedly our own management played a significant part in that demise), they would market the 717 if only to provide competition. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:18 From: Garry Forrest Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University > if a large company such as Boeing can turn around on a dime and > re-adjust its priorities based on changes in the marketplace ...then Boeing might not have charged off over US$2 billion recently. Unfortunately the airplane manufacturing establishment isn't there yet. The company is still forecasting scant operating earnings for the remainder of the year. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:19 From: Eberhard Lammich Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG On 18 Aug 1998, Don Stauffer wrote: > How about all those A320s that flew themselves into the ground with > their FBW fancy autopilot? Flight crew shouldn't have to have doctorate > in computer science to enter go-around mode from approach mode. Perhaps time is over for John Wayne with wings. The pilot is a bus driver with higher salary, that's all. As long as autopilots are not designed by Microsoft ("Pull up, pull up! Are you sure? -Yes- -No-") Airbus and Boeing aircraft (Yes, Boeing uses computers, too!) will be quite safe. Greetings -- Eberhard Lammich Strike.Eagle@studbox.uni-stuttgart.de From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:20 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) 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: > >What the pilot forgot was to check the terrain on the map. There were > >60 ft trees ahead and since they were flying nose up he didn't see them > >on time. > > I seriously doubt you can produce any evidence to substantiate this > theory. The pilots waited too long to pull up, but to blame it on their > ignorance of the terrain is neither credible nor consistent with any of > the reports on the accident which I've encountered. I remember seeing somewhere (Flight Int'l? AWST?) a transcript of the CVR which did suggest that, at the very least, the pilots were quite complacent about the possibility of obstructions to their flight path. Since I don't subscribe to either of these quite expensive mags and read them in the library, however, I cannot at this point check my recollection. Anyone? > >But the pilot always said the aircraft was fine and that it was just > >too late for the go-around. > > Completely untrue. Quite the contrary, the captain has consistently > said that the aircraft did *not* respond in accordance with his control > inputs. That's certainly correct. The pilot HAS consistently blamed the aircraft. Whether he is correct in doing so is another matter. I can certainly imagine that when you've suddenly realized that trees are in your path and pushed the throttles to max power that it'll seem like forever as the engines spool up and you begin climbing. That subjective perception, however, need not imply any actual problem. It's certainly not a secret that jets take time to spool up. That A320 was flying just off the ground, nose up, with neither potential nor kinetic energy. That's asking for trouble. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >That's certainly correct. The pilot HAS consistently blamed the aircraft. >Whether he is correct in doing so is another matter. I can certainly imagine >that when you've suddenly realized that trees are in your path and pushed the >throttles to max power that it'll seem like forever as the engines spool up >and you begin climbing. That subjective perception, however, need not imply >any actual problem. It's certainly not a secret that jets take time to spool >up. True enough, but Asseline also claims that the elevators did exactly the opposite of what he requested, and an analysis by a former British accident investigator lends some credence to those claims. There's an interview with Bernard Ziegler (Airbus EVP) in the Equinox episode in which Ziegler essentially argues that up is down and vice versa, until irrefutably proven wrong. Ziegler is single-handedly enough to give any company a bad name, IMO. With regard to the engines, there's the pair of "booms" heard by many shortly before the crash. I believe the DGAC report attributed these to impact with the trees, but both the timing and the sounds were wrong. There was speculation that they were compressor stalls -- the versions of the CFM56 used on the A320 were having some problems at that time, corresponding to conditions not unlike those just prior to the crash. Jets do take time to spool up, but they take even longer if a couple of stalls occur in the process. -- 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 Aug 25 00:53:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:22 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > Substituting others for the ones which were in the crash is a decidedly > non-standard action. How serious are the allegations that the flight recorders were substituted to protect Airbus ? Are they as serious as allegations that aliens shot down TWA800 or are there serious facts that lend credibility to this ? I do know that there were serious questions about engine manufacturers doing the investigation of their own engines. (but questions only, no proof that the investigation came to a wrong conclusion) However, the fact that an investigation on one incident may have been flawed does not affect other investigations of the many problems of the A320, nor does it affect that once the plane was debugged after a couple of years of beta testing in production, it has become a fine plane. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Substituting others for the ones which were in the crash is a decidedly >> non-standard action. >How serious are the allegations that the flight recorders were >substituted to protect Airbus? That's two different questions. As to whether the flight recorders were substituted, the ones claimed to be in the posession of the authorities are reported to be badly damaged. (I can't remember if there have been any photographs released of them or not; they are *still* being stored under tight security.) You can track down the Equinox episode yourself and see the video footage which clearly shows the new-looking recorders in the boot of a car immediately after the accident. Someting clearly doesn't match. Nothing, however, says *why* they might have been swapped, if indeed they were. It could have been to hide evidence of a US missle fired from off Long Island for all we know. One can only wonder why they would have gone to the trouble if there was nothing to hide. Note that this doesn't imply that Airbus was involved even if anything devious did occur. >Are they as serious as allegations that aliens shot down TWA800 or are >there serious facts that lend credibility to this? Real photographs which you can see yourself if you bother seem more credible than most of the bizarre theories about TWA 800. Once again, dig up the Equinox program, which has a lot of food for thought. >However, the fact that an investigation on one incident may have been >flawed does not affect other investigations of the many problems of the >A320, nor does it affect that once the plane was debugged after a couple >of years of beta testing in production, it has become a fine plane. Not if any problems which might have existed at Habsheim were in fact fixed, but if there were in fact problems with the aircraft, we didn't get to learn from the aircraft. Perhaps they were merely rare and we haven't seen the last of them -- not unlike the alleged rudder problem with the 737, suggested as the cause of UA 585 at Colorado Springs and US 427 at Pittsburgh. Even though I know the odds are in my favor even if there is a rudder problem with the 737, I find myself getting a bit nervous before every flight on one of them. Years of beta testing in production?! I damned well don't want to use any product whose manufacturer thinks of me and other paying customers as unwilling test victims, er, subjects while they finish doing their job, unless I've been aprised of the risks and have formally agreed to accept them. I do that regularly with computer hardware and software. With products that can kill me, forget it unless I'm having a hell of a lot more fun than getting a drink or two and a movie. -- 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 Aug 25 00:53:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:24 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Larry Sakurai wrote: > Not only that, even the old 200s cruise faster than the A320s. Interesting. What is your source ? According to the latest FI commercial aircraft directory, the speeds are the following for: B737-1/2, B737-3/4/5, B737NG and A320s : normal operating speed Mno : 0.745 - 0.745 - 0.785 - 0.78 maximum permitted operating speed Mmo: 0.84 - 0.82 - 0.82 - 0.82 The Mno is the interesting figure, at 35Kft the 737NG is 5 km/h faster than anA320. > They were > designed at a time when speed was a bigger issue than it is today. I don't agree. Speed is even more important nowadays. > I don't > know how the fuel economy of the 737 NGs stack up to the A320s, but with > their newer wings and powerplants, I would imagine they're pretty > competitive. I haven't seen any confirmed figures for the 737NG. But both should be pretty close. 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 Aug 25 00:53:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:25 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Larry Sakurai wrote: >James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >>With all due respect, this is the proverbial apples and oranges. You >>are comparing the 737-200/300 and 727-200 to the A320, which is a much >>later aircraft ... > >> If you would like to compare the A320 to the 737-NG, I think you >>will find the 737-NG actually flies a good faster than the A320, has >>longer range than the A320, and is probably at least as fuel >>efficient ... > >Not only that, even the old 200s cruise faster than the A320s. They were >designed at a time when speed was a bigger issue than it is today. I don't >know how the fuel economy of the 737 NGs stack up to the A320s, but with >their newer wings and powerplants, I would imagine they're pretty >competitive. I would think so. However, I was surprised when I read an IAE (International Aero Engines, maker of the V2500 engines) newsletter that one of the major factors that A320/V2500 was chosen by LanChile, TACA and TAM was because even the new generation B737s have serious take-off weight limitation at high altitudes. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:26 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Evan McElravy wrote: > the Trent must offer some definite > advantages IIRC there was an interesting comparision between the 3 engines made some weeks back in this forum. > since it seems to be the engine of choice in a number of > important orders: Delta, AA, and (I believe) Continental. AAL and DAL have the Trent, COA has the GE90 and UAL the PW. 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 Tue Aug 25 00:53:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:27 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , JF Mezei wrote: >Attributions from various posters. > >> > A330-200/B767-400ER >> > The longer-range, more current A330-200 is out-selling the B767-400ER by >> > a two-to-one margin. Other than Delta and Continental, Boeing has not >> > been able to secure any other sizable orders. > >Is it fair to compare one sub-model of a plane with another submodel of >another plane ? Why not? The have approximately the same capacity (~250) with the A330-200 has 900 nm range advantage over the B767-400ER. >Wouldn't it be more representative to compare sales of A330 vs B767 ? No. The standard A330 seats 300 passengers (in three classes) while the three models of the B767 seats about 180, 220, and 245 (in three classes). >What if Boeing had a huge order of 767-300, and just a few token orders >of 767-400, the above comparison would leave out a big piece of >information. Or is the 767-300 no longer orderable ? Airlines have different needs. That's why Boeing is offering four different models of the B737NG and Airbus three modes of the A320 to accommodate different needs. >> The problem with the 764 is that is half a 767 (design wise) and half a 777 >> (cockpit wise). > >Can't the 767-400 adjust the layout of its cockpit to emulate that of a >conventional 767 as is the case for the recent 737s ? I think they actually do. Check out a recent article on the B767-400ER in Flight International. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:28 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: pre-Farnborough comments [long] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > The new plane requires 95K-lb thrust > engines. The highest thrust GE90 currently in production is 92K. > Both GE and R-R have recently offered 95K engines (obviously to > fulfill BA's requirement). BA worries that the EGT (exit gas > temperature) of the growth GE90 will be too high and may affect the > durability of the engine. (This seems to be consistent with another > report that I have read citing GE is trying to lower the EGT by > around 30 degs.) This seems kind of strange since GE was making a big deal of their all-new design with more room to grow... saying it had been run to 125,000lbs in tests. If the CEO says no, I guess that's it. He knows what he's doing though... I sure wouldn't buy GEs for a 777. The GE90 sure looked good on paper! Matt in Seattle From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:29 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Airports- SMGCS status? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Dick Temple at FAA Airports can discuss SMGCS with you. There are a number of publications and other documents which he may recommend.... let me know if you need any assistance after touching base with him. Peter McHugh, System Safety Plans Division 202 267-8670 From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:30 From: Tom Turton Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ANET Internet Services Don Boberick wrote: > Those climb rates sound low to me, too. What is the title to Order 7110.65? > Could that be an Air Traffic Service Order relating to operational > parameters? 7110.65 is entitled simply "Air Traffic Control". The data I cited was from Appendix A of that document, and on second look it states: "CLIMB AND DESCENT RATES - Climb and descent rates based on average en route climb/descent profiles at median weight between maximum gross takeoff and landing weights." So, they ain't the best and they ain't the worst - guess that's about ALL you can infer from those numbers :-) --Tom From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:31 From: mike@dizzydev.com (Mike Schmitt) Subject: Landing Gear Loads Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Howdy all -- I was talking with a friend about heavy aircraft and runway/taxiway loading, and came up with a couple questions y'all might be able to answer. Take a friendly B744 taxiing towards takeoff as an example. I know for a couple of facts that there are 16 rear tires and 2 front tires, and that the plane weights 875,000 pounds at MGTOW. I'm assuming the front tires hold 1/2 the weight of the rear tires each. Using these numbers, you end up with about 51,500lbs per rear tire and around half that for the front ones of dead-weight "compression" load. I also understand that there is a taxi length limit for heavily-loaded aircraft to control the amount of heat and flex the tires go through prior to the takeoff run, to reduce the probability of a blowout on takeoff. So our handy mythical plane flies halfway around the world, burning off 300,000 pounds of fuel in the process, leaving us with a 575,000 pound plane about to land. This would imply roughly 33,800 pounds per rear tire if the aircraft were sitting on the ground. However, the plane -- despite every pilot's best effort to grease the landing -- will be descending at somewhere between zero and, say, 500 feet per second when it touches down; the oleos will compress upon touchdown, lessening the momentary impact load on the tires; and there is also a shear effect from sideways loading (crosswind/not-quite-straight landing) and, initially, spinning the tires up to ~150knots, then hammering them with the brakes to slow our trusty airplane back down to zero. My questions revolve around the points during that cycle when the tires are actually experiencing the maximum weight load (meaning compression only), and the maximum overall load, including both weight and the shear effects. I'd also like to know, if the numbers are in anybody's head, the approximate values for a given airplane type & weight at both points. Also, is the reason there is a taxi limit because the tires actually experience higher loading/heating during takeoff than landing? It's one thing to say the tires hold 50,000lbs; it's another to describe what they go through on each cycle. Any information appreciated. Cheers, Mike From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Landing Gear Loads References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >plane -- despite every pilot's best effort to grease the landing -- >will be descending at somewhere between zero and, say, 500 feet per >second when it touches down ... spinning the tires up to ~150knots 500 feet per second is nearly 300 knots. Yes, I think it's safe to say that the vertical velocity is between zero and twice the airspeed of the aircraft at touchdown! Perhaps an extra zero snuck in there? >Also, is the reason there is a taxi limit because the tires actually >experience higher loading/heating during takeoff than landing? In a normal takeoff, probably not, but keep in mind that the tires need to retain some semblance of composure in the worst case, which is a rejected takeoff right at V1. In many cases that won't be a lot less than the usual landing speed, except there will be a lot less runway on which to brake and a lot more energy (due to the higher weight) to get rid of. A lot of that abuse goes to the brakes, but the heat which they generate quickly finds its way to the nearby tires. -- 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 Aug 25 00:53:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:33 From: checkmy@sig.gov (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: How come... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Reply-To: checkmy@sig.gov On 23 Aug 98 14:33:48 , Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de wrote: >Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@compuserve.com> wrote: > >> Opening thethrust reverser buckets on these airplanes allows water to drain >> & provides some FOD protection. > >and how are they operated then once the engines are shut down. >simply pull the thrust reverser levers and switch on some >electrically operated hydraulic pumps? In general, most tr's are hydraulically operated. I was told that the tr's are opened on the ground to stop the wind from blowing through the engine and causing the rotating sections to spin, thus causing wear on the main engine bearings due to lack of sufficient oil pressure. Ray Clawson -- Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. Cardinal Wolsey (1475?-1530) My email address is dc8ray at airmail dot net From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:34 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Albino jumbo jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >>I've seen more than one all-white jumbo jets at LAX now (since I live >>a few miles from it), the latest sighting today as a 747-200 took off. >Was it a freighter?... CKS(AIA) has at least one like that Hmm. Several years back, FedEx leased some 747-100's from a company that had just painted them all white--hoping someone would make a permanent lease. One of these was one of the first Pan Am deliveries. Maybe I can find out who had and/or still has them, if you need to know. Steve C~ From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:35 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: 777 sighting References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> <35D868D3.FE@boeing.com> <6rcbd4$da0$1@winter.news.erols.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , garryf@pacbell.net wrote: > For ballast, we use tubs of cement, approximately 4'x8'x3' high. Chained > securely to the deck. cowboy's comment: presumably these take you up to max structural weight and then what? If its full fuel tanks to get up to mbrw what do you then do to get dwown to max landing. I dont consider for one second the option of a fuel dump. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:36 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: 777 sighting References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > Garry Forrest said... >For ballast, we use tubs of cement, approximately 4'x8'x3' high. Chained >securely to the deck. Three FOOT high blocks of concrete! Wow! They don't use barrels of water to obtain max take-off GW? Steve C~ From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:37 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: spoilers used during take-off??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here > I flew with a modern verion of Boeing 737, Falcon Aviation, from Malmoe in > Sweden to Athens the 29 of May. To my surprise I saw the spoilers go up > during acceleration for take-off. As far as I know they should only be used > during landing to destroy the lifting force. Therefore I was more than > puzzled. The spoilers went in again some seconds before rotate. Is there > anyone who can give me an eplanation to this. Was everything the way it > should have been? Everything was fine. In addition to being used as brakes, spoilers are also used to help the ailerons in a turn. When the pilot displaces the control wheel more than a preset amount to the right or the left, the spoilers begin to rise in addition to the ailerons. The pilot on your flight was more than likely taking off in a crosswind, which necessitates some roll to counteract the rudder inputs required to keep the aircraft on the centerline of the runway. Chris From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:38 From: Jarimark Neumann Subject: Re: spoilers used during take-off??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Not Organized Maria & Thomas Eidrup wrote: > I flew with a modern verion of Boeing 737, Falcon Aviation, from Malmoe in > Sweden to Athens the 29 of May. To my surprise I saw the spoilers go up > during acceleration for take-off. As far as I know they should only be used > during landing to destroy the lifting force. Therefore I was more than > puzzled. The spoilers went in again some seconds before rotate. Is there > anyone who can give me an eplanation to this. Was everything the way it > should have been? Yes it was! On airliners usually the spoilers are used to increase the effect of the ailerons when the slats and flaps are extended. Sitting in the Boeing you weren't able to have a look on both wings simultaneously but if you were, you would have seen that the spoilers of only one wing came up. They came up in according to the aileron deflect the pilot gave. That means: if the pilot pushes the stick (or turns his yoke) to the left, the left aileron wil raise up and spoilers on the left wing too, and the right one goes down. The aircraft will roll to the left. Of course they aren't raised the same way up as to dump lift after touchdown. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:39 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: spoilers used during take-off??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Maria & Thomas Eidrup wrote: > I flew with a modern verion of Boeing 737, Falcon Aviation, from Malmoe in > Sweden to Athens the 29 of May. To my surprise I saw the spoilers go up > during acceleration for take-off. As far as I know they should only be used > during landing to destroy the lifting force. Therefore I was more than > puzzled. The spoilers went in again some seconds before rotate. Is there > anyone who can give me an eplanation to this. Was everything the way it > should have been? I've noticed that on many passenger aircraft, the spoilers are deployed asymetrically at low speeds whenever the pilot needs more roll authority than the ailerons alone can provide. For example, if the pilot (or autopilot) calls for a *lot* of roll to the right and the ailerons can't do it all because of low airspeed, the spoilers on the right wing *only* will deploy to provide a greater rolling moment to the right. The spoilers on the left wing won't deploy in such a case. I've seen this a few times during approaches with a lot of turbulence, and once or twice on takeoffs with a lot of crosswind. I understand that there are a few aircraft out there that *solely* use spoilers for roll control and don't even have ailerons. A friend was a B-52 and has told me that the B-52 is such an airplane and handles a bit differently than other large planes as a result (although the B-52 has enough oddities that I'm sure there are *many* reasons for it to handle differently!) -- 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 Aug 25 00:53:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:40 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Gust Alleviation on A320 series Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM An early description of the A321 in Flight International said that gust alleviation was installed in the A320 as a structural requirement, but would not be required in the A321 or A319. I think I read a recent comment in this forum which said it is now on the A321. Can someone who knows confirm or deny please? Antoin Daltun From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:41 From: narayana@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in Subject: a340-500/600 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Will the cruising speed of the a340-500/600 be any geater than the a340-200/300 after the wing modifications? Barath Narayan -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:42 From: "Graeme Hogan" Subject: Re: TWA 800 Graphics and Simulations indicate probable cause: References: <6rqpck$k3i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: A customer of Netspace Internet cowboy@ram.net.au wrote in message <6rqpck$k3i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >cowboy's comment: surely Karl you can post something more definitive than >'I recall'. He recalls it. What's your problem clownboy ? >With the resources and knowhow at your disposal you should be able to >establish if the medical reports on victims is in the public domain or not. >I >would have thought that the pitch up at that speed (below 300kts) would >have produced "g" forces low enough to be sustained by a human torso, after >all the wings did not break off. With the forward section removed there would have been less inertia to overcome. >I find it hard to agree with the filmed >simulation of the eventual break up of the main structure after the stall, >wing over and descent as depicted. The NTSB spokesman said that the FDR >gave a split second of info at the time of initiation of the accident and >then nothing. Naturally so, as the flight data acquisition unit, power >souces etc are in the flight deck that has detached. So they are asking us >to believe that after the climb and wing over the aeroplane exceeded its Vne >and some so that aerodynamic loads caused the wings to break off, the fuel >tanks fracture and the fuel ignite. The structual integrity of the aircraft has been removed with the fwd section. >But the max altitude reached I recall So now you recall. >was well short of 20000ft. Are the wings that weak, Only your argument. >I'd have thought not. If the explosion and fire was in the area of the >centre wing fuel tank and it is by diagram and definition, between wings, >wouldn't the initial explosion quite possibly have weakened the wing, >main spar, whatever, that assisted in their breakup,rather than just >aerodynamic loads. In this case surely inspection of the debris would >have shown this. This did not get a mention. >Of course if the medical evidence supports you contention then so be it. >Perhaps it is possible for you to find out.I am not proposing any new >theories, just questioning the computer simulation of the sequence of >vents. I am in awe of the work put in by the NTSB investigators who >assembled the wreckage so completely from what was, initially, a heap of >trash. They deserve what ever accolades they get. Oh, you got something right. Well done clownboy. From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:43 From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@compuserve.com> 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 >So you assume that if the reverser of engine 1 or 4 on a quad would have >failed, there would have been no crash. It seems possible and even logical, >but: >- has it ever occured in flight on a quad (not speaking of reversing #2 and >3 on DC8s before touchdown) >- has it ever been tested during flight test (I seriously doubt it ;) >- can it be prooven math wise (torque of the engines applied to the >centerline of the a/c) C-5 at Ramstein (Sept 90) one Thrust Reverser kicked in just after rotation. I believe it was an outboard that went into reverse. Aircraft cartwheeled. Total loss. Some survivors in the troop compartment, none up front. Scott From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:44 From: lstone@wwa.com (Larry Stone) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Maybe In article , "Neil Gerace" wrote: >If a reverser suddenly deployed on a four engined plane, the loss of lift >which caused the uncontrollability of OE-LAV would still occur, but wouldn't >the crew have more time to sort it out? There is still one engine on that >wing holding it up. Huh? Engines do not produce lift, airflow over the wings produce lift. Engines produce thrust and give the plane speed through the air which in turn produces lift. The problem with an engine failure (or worse obviously, a reverser deployment giving us negative thrust) is the asymetrical thrust (center of thrust not on the aircraft centerline) and the resultant yaw. The limiting factor is then how much rudder you have to counteract that yaw. -- -- Larry Stone --- lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ Roselle, IL, USA I work for United Airlines but never, never speak for them addCode: AD2 aO EIV D1730 FY5 nI From kls Tue Aug 25 00:53:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:45 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 >The problem with an engine failure (or worse obviously, a reverser >deployment giving us negative thrust) is the asymetrical thrust (center of >thrust not on the aircraft centerline) and the resultant yaw. The limiting >factor is then how much rudder you have to counteract that yaw. The cascades of the thrust reversers (at least on the PW4000-equipped 767s) are ahead of the wing, so thrust reverser deployment causes airflow disruption which in turn causes loss of lift, in addition to the yaw effect you describe. Studies based on wind-tunnel tests after the Lauda Air crash showed a 25% loss of lift with the engine at maximum climb power, leading to a roll rate of about 28 degrees per second within four seconds. It was found that full aileron and rudder had to be applied within 4-6 seconds. Any longer and recover was not possible. -- 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 Aug 25 00:53:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Aug 98 00:53:46 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Daedalus Consulting Marc Schaeffer wrote: >So you assume that if the reverser of engine 1 or 4 on a quad would have >failed, there would have been no crash. It seems possible and even logical, >but: > >- has it ever occured in flight on a quad (not speaking of reversing #2 and 3 >on DC8s before touchdown) DC8s used to have slightly touchy reverser controls -- on 4 July 1966 Air NZ's DC8-50 ZK-NZB accidentally deployed the No.4 reverser while simulating an engine failure at V1 on a check flight, and didn't make it. The aircraft got airborne but at well below a controllable speed and crashed, killing two of the four crew on board. The same aircraft had experienced a similar incident earlier but recovered. The thrust reverser controls were subsequently modified. -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:50 From: Pete Mellor Subject: BA goes for AI Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >From the UK media 24-26th August 1998:- On 25th August, British Airways signed a firm order with Airbus Industrie for 39 A319 and 20 A320 airliners for use on domestic UK and European routes, with an option on 129 more of the same family (possibly including the A321). BA CEO Bob Ayling said "We have ordered the right aircraft at the right time at the right price. This is a great investment in our future. This order is particularly good news for the UK regions and the communities around the airports we serve." (The last statement is a reference to the fact that modern aircraft such as the A320 will create less noise for those living under the approach and take-off paths.) In interview, he said that the decision had been taken on purely commercial grounds. AI CEO Noel Forgeard said "We are delighted that the world's favourite airline has chosen the world's favourite airliner." The order was signed at AI headquarters in Toulouse on the morning of the 25th, in the presence of Tony Blair (paying a quick visit on his way to Omagh) who said that the British Government is "fully committed to the success of the enterprise" and looked forward "to the day when Airbus will be the number one producer of aircraft in the world". The value of the order to AI is variously reported as 1.4 or 1.8 billion GBP. The tone of the news items was triumphal, with statements that AI has finally "cracked the BA nut" and that "there are tears in Seattle tonight". (This is the first order that BA has placed with AI. Its existing A320s were acquired in the take-over of British Caledonian a few years ago.) The European spokeswoman for Boeing put a brave face on it while being comprehensively sneered at by John Humphreys ("Yes, but what are you going to do with all those B737s rusting away out there in the desert?" and, when a siren sounded in the background, "That sounds like an emergency vehicle. Is that an omen for Boeing?"). She pointed out that BA had also placed a large order for the B777 (16 firm, options on 16 more, value 3 billion GBP - in fact more in value than the AI order). (I normally feel instant compassion fatigue for any squirming politician that Humphreys gets on his hook, but I felt quite sorry for the poor girl!) All of the aircraft (Airbus and Boeing) will be fitted with IAE power units. British Aerospace has a 20% share of AI, and Rolls-Royce has 30% of IAE. Workers at BAe Filton (R&D), Chester (wings) and Lancashire (wings) were reportedly dancing on the shop floor, and those in Derby (RR engines) were pretty chuffed, too. Overall, the latest round of orders guarantees 38,000 jobs in the UK aerospace industry. (If only Bob had asked me about the software! :-) Pete ---- Pete Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, London, e-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk "The dogs yap, but the caravan moves on." - Arab proverb. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:51 From: Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: > any actual problem. It's certainly not a secret that jets take time to spool > up. That A320 was flying just off the ground, nose up, with neither potential > nor kinetic energy. That's asking for trouble. The pilot claims that Airbus' flight envelope protection prevented him from "pulling" the plane sufficiently to clear the trees. Airbus says that the flight envelope protection prevented the plane from entereing a stall which had resulted in a more severe impact with more fatalities. If you look at a video of crash, you can see the A/C moving towards the forest with a very low terrain closure rate. My opinion is that whatever the management says ("Make it spectacular") and the plane's performance and fancy systems are, a pilot has to take all that in account and operate the plane accordingly. In this case he has deliberately sacrificed safety for a cheap show. Viele Gruesse, Ralf -- Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-2571-549327 | sipple@writeme.com D-48268 Greven | Anrufbeantw. +49-2571-549326 | pgp key on request! From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:52 From: "Frank Muenker" Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nacamar Group Plc. Karl Swartz schrieb in Nachricht ... >A lot of stupid and careless things have been done. The Aeroflot >captain with his kids at the controls comes to mind. I'm not sure >I'd give "top" honors to Habsheim, though it was pretty boneheaded. Hmm, true, but then it was at least runner-up to the Aeroflot incident. >Completely untrue. Quite the contrary, the captain has consistently >said that the aircraft did *not* respond in accordance with his control >inputs. Hmm, well I appearantly goofed there. It's what I read in the newspaper 10 years ago, what might have been wrong or at least not detailed enough. I just remember that it was a subject in the papers for a very long time. Everything was very controversial and it never seemed to be really cleared up. And since this shouldn't have been toooo difficult the rumors became louder and louder that Airbus was trying to put all the blame onto the pilot and was hiding something from the public. Anyway, was it finally cleared up ? Thanks Frank From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:53 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) 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: > >That's certainly correct. The pilot HAS consistently blamed the aircraft. > >Whether he is correct in doing so is another matter. I can certainly imagine > >that when you've suddenly realized that trees are in your path and pushed the > >throttles to max power that it'll seem like forever as the engines spool up > >and you begin climbing. That subjective perception, however, need not imply > >any actual problem. It's certainly not a secret that jets take time to spool > >up. > > True enough, but Asseline also claims that the elevators did exactly > the opposite of what he requested, and an analysis by a former British > accident investigator lends some credence to those claims. Unfortunately, there's been so much mud thrown around in this instance that very few of the people involved have much credibility, and so it'll be very hard for "The Truth" to be fully known. Consider that Airbus, for example, was obviously in a panic to ensure that no fault be found with its brand-new airliner. Even if there was no fault, they might well have done things to cover any possible fault up before they realized they had nothing to worry about. Consider that the pilot was obviously anxious not to take the blame for an accident that killed several people and destroyed a shiny new airplane. Whether right or wrong, both parties had incentives to try to cover their asses. Throw in factors such as the in-grained animosity of many pilots against computers which they perceive as taking their jobs away, fierce competition with other manufacturers', nationalistic attitudes on all sides, and the well-known media track record for accurate reporting of all matters aviation-related, and good luck figuring out what really happened or even having an intelligent discussion about it (this forum, alas, often included despite many outstanding individual contributions). My perspective is this: that airplane had no business being at minimum controllable airspeed below the level of trees in its flight path, especially with a full load of passengers. That is asking for trouble. The decision to put the plane there was the pilot's and so the responsibility for the accident must rest primarily with him. Had the pilot succeeded in climbing above the trees and avoiding an accident, I would still have fired him. It is _possible_ that some technical problems with the airplane then compounded the problem -- problems that, had they not occured, _might_ have permitted the pilot to salvage the airplane from the consequences of his initial error. As discussed above, and in other posts in this thread, the evidence on this has been so muddied it's hard to know what to think. But if one applies Occam's razor, there is no need to assume complicated failures to explain this accident: an airplane where it shouldn't be and the well-known time for engines to spool up and for an airplane to begin climbing from minimum airspeed are enough. My prior, therefore, is to believe that this was a case of pilot error until sufficient evidence is presented to me that technical problems were present and sufficiently important to convert what would otherwise have been a non-accident into an accident. I have not seen such sufficient evidence (although certainly there are things in the record which make me wonder) and for the reasons stated above fear such evidence (if it exists) may never come to light in credible ways. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 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 Wed Sep 2 01:07:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:54 From: proctor@sequence.stanford.edu (Michael Proctor) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Stanford University > I seriously doubt you can produce any evidence to substantiate this > theory. The pilots waited too long to pull up, but to blame it on their > ignorance of the terrain is neither credible nor consistent with any of > the reports on the accident which I've encountered. I always wonder about the argument that, if there hadn't been computer aided control of the aircraft, the pilots efforts to pull the aircraft up would have most likely caused a stalled resulting in a much more destructive accident then the controlled descent into some trees, that resulted in only three deaths. Michael -- reply: remove NO SPAM From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:55 From: nul@TCSconcordia.tor250.$N0|SPAM$.org (Coridon Henshaw) Subject: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: FW Firestorm Karl Swartz wrote: > Nothing, however, says *why* they might have been swapped, if indeed they > were. It could have been to hide evidence of a US missle fired from off > Long Island for all we know. One can only wonder why they would have gone > to the trouble if there was nothing to hide. Note that this doesn't imply > that Airbus was involved even if anything devious did occur. The French government has a long history of using their security services to 'protect' French industry by stealing commercial secrets from non-French companies. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch for the French government to swap a few flight recorders in the interests of protecting the French members of Airbus Industrie. -- This message does not reflect the views of Green Circle Communciations. OS/2 Warp - SCSI - free speech. Do I pick losing causes or what? http://www.myna.com/~gcircle/csbh.html Copyright 1998 Coridon Henshaw. Standard Usenet rights freely granted. Duplication rights specifically denied for SneakPeek services. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:56 From: arch6@mail.inlink.com Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InLink Two points: 1) aerodynamics in high alpha flight (high angle of attack (high AOA)) 2) engines in high alpha flight In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >...I can certainly imagine > >that when you've suddenly realized that trees are in your path and pushed the > >throttles to max power that it'll seem like forever as the engines spool up > >and you begin climbing. That subjective perception, however, need not imply > >any actual problem. It's certainly not a secret that jets take time to spool > >up. High alpha flight causes several shifts in aerodynamic behaviour which can become "contrary" to normal stick-and-throttle feel and required action, just as inverted flight also requires "different" action. In hi-alpha one must be aware of these and compensate, unfortunately an airline computer probably doesn't have the same exception handling routines to switch over gains and control laws to handle this. Additionally, to recover from hi alpha positions there are several options, some of which do not work on all aircraft. The AFTI F-16, F/A-18 hi aplha demo and F-15 STOL Demonstrator could hold their nose and power out of this AND ADD CONTROLS. Several unique features (ex. thrust-to-weight, active engine control, exhaust nozzle paddles, additional control surfaces, etc.) enabled this which are NOT in airliners. Underpowered aircraft would require to drop the nose slightly and add power but require altitude trade-off for more acceleration. Turbofan engines also lengthen this accel period over turbojet or afterburner/reheat engines. IMHO the computers in the Airbus (or any other airliner) do not have the specific aerodynamic look-up tables or equations to solve for this region of flight, although one can fly into them at will (as Airbus and others have demonstrated). In various NASA and defence program hi aplha flight tests there was significant remodelling of the control laws and rewriting of the code to allow acceptable, recoverable perfomance in these regions, and some of the borders of these regions are not obvious! Even with a recorder, the parameters captured probably do not correlate to the actual vehicle attitude/performance without speculating on the "unobservable" parameters which are missing. Missing not due to oversight but because they are normally optimized for the EXPECTED flight region(s). > True enough, but Asseline also claims that the elevators did exactly > the opposite of what he requested... > > With regard to the engines, there's the pair of "booms" heard by many > shortly before the crash. I believe the DGAC report attributed these > to impact with the trees, but both the timing and the sounds were wrong. > There was speculation that they were compressor stalls -- the versions > of the CFM56 used on the A320 were having some problems at that time, > corresponding to conditions not unlike those just prior to the crash. Hi aplha flight "can" run havoc with the inlet flow of an engine. Particularly if the pilot demands maximum power while in an extreme angle of attack. The normally well behaved air flow will separate and stall over the lip on the inlet and turbulent or redirected air then impacts the inlet blades at an excessively higher AOA. This has sometimes caused decreased performance or compressor stalls or other "things". Many engines designed to "go there" do have additional features, design and testing to prove themselves worthy of that risk. It is possible that this disturbed air caused the engine computers to delay the spool up even more to avoid the increased stall probability. A further decreased engine acceleration, the sluggish hi alpha aircraft performance and the proximity to the ground and the oncoming obstructions could cause quite a bit on concern in the cockpit. Imagine what you would do... BTW: Engine manufacturers do their own investigations to both help the agency and also to get the appropriate data to defend themselves and for product improvement. This data is still available to law, should that be deemed required, and they are required to share their findings. Many engines are software controlled to the point that losing a computer decreases thrust by a significant margin. The complexity of this higher effiiciency engine can only be unravelled by the software engineer of that company as software cannot be "observed" as can cams, pulleys and wires that most investigators grew up on. (There are new or well retrained investigators who can handle this too, but the limited numbers still make the manufacturer the fastest and most sure respondent). From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:57 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Every so often the Habsheim crash rears its ugly head again, and every time most of the people get a lot of the facts wrong. Michel Asseline, the pilot, has written "Le Pilote Est-il Coupable", his own account of the events. He points out several factors other than technical ones which led up to the crash, and to the resulting deaths. There was enormous political pressure from government level down to make the A320 a conspicuous success. Asseline was under personal pressure, since he was the chief training pilot in Air France, the "reference airline" for A320 sales. Both he, and the aircraft that crashed, were removed from a busy schedule to perform the fly-past at the Habsheim flying club's annual air show. Air France took the decision to provide a fly-past at the request of the air show organisers. They did so in order to take advantage of a great opportunity for publicity, but it was also a commercial transaction. The air show paid a hefty fee to Air France, who further increased their profits by filling the 'plane with day-trippers. None of this was due to any decision by Asseline. The schedule was tight, and this was the reason why no proper briefing on the airfield was given to the crew. In fact, there was no briefing. An AF operative simply left a black-and-white photocopy of a coloured original map along with brief written instructions. There was no time to visit the airfield on foot first and reconnoitre. The flight was planned: first pass at 100 feet, flaps and gear down, nose-up attitude, low speed (deliberately to demonstrate the ability of the FCS to maintain safe flight close to stall). The second pass was to be at 300 feet, level attitude, clean configuration, high speed (so the crowd could say "Wow!"). The first pass took place at 30 feet because the baro-altimeter was giving a reading 70 feet out. They did not know about the trees because of the lack of pre-flight briefing, monochrome map (the trees were in green on the original) and lack of a pre-flight visit. At this point, there is usually a big row because all the pilots on the list ask how the hell an experienced pilot could mistake 30 feet for 100 feet. I'm not getting into that one again right now, but Asseline does offer an explanation in his book. For a detailed account of the crash, see my paper "CAD: Computer-Aided Disaster" and/or Peter Ladkin's website. Asseline has not yet gone to jail, but he is about to exhaust the appeal procedures. (Watch this space for further details.) Pete Mellor, CSR, City University --------------------------------- On 23 Aug 1998, Frank Muenker wrote: > tlm@delphi.com schrieb in Nachricht ... > >Karl Swartz writes: > >>>Or the airshow crash of an A-320 whose computers would not allow the > >>>pilot to perfofm a go-around because the airplane was in landing > >>>configuration. > >> > >>That would be the Habsheim crash on June 26, 1988, but there has never > >>been any clear evidence of the crash being the result of anything other > >>than the pilots putting the plane into a predicament they couldn't get > >>it out of. There are, however, a lot of inconsistencies between what > >>the DGAC report on this crash says and various witness accounts and > >>third-party analyses. Still, there's not sufficient basis for your > > > >There was an article in AW&ST a few months ago discussing the possibility > >that the inflight data recorder was switched after the crash. This > >conclusion was reached based on the pattern of strips on the casings of > >the recorder that was supposed to be in place, and the one actually found > >(or planted). > > there are basically 2 things to mention about this accident: > 1. It was the probably most stupid and most careless thing somebody ever > did in the history of aviation. > 2. When a brand new aircraft crashes during an air show, it's the probably > worst thing that can happen to an aircraft manufacturer. Therefore they > tried everything to blame the pilots and take the fault away from the > aircraft. > > What they did was to fly an A320 over a field in front of the spectators at > about 30ft altitude with minimum speed, minimum thrust and nose way up. The > situation where you are very close to a stall. The computer was flying and > everything was just fine, BUT: What the pilot forgot was to check the > terrain on the map. There were 60 ft trees ahead and since they were flying > nose up he didn't see them on time. And when he saw the trees he performed a > go-around but it was too late and they crashed into the trees. Hard to > believe but true. > The other unbelievable thing was that they took passengers (!!!) on this > trip. They made a tombola and the *winners* got a ride on this flight. What > a test pilot does is one thing but taking passengers on a flight where you > intentionally go to the limits of an aircraft is something completely > different. > > For point 2: The Airbus executives denied at any time that they told the > pilot to perform this stunt, while the pilot said they did. > But at the end they sacrificed the pilot who eventually went into jail. I > don't doubt that they removed the flight recorder, just in case. But the > pilot always said the aircraft was fine and that it was just too late for > the go-around. And he really didn't have any reason to *protect* airbus > after everything that happened. > > Cheers > Frank From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:58 From: cleyman@cix.co.uk (Clive Leyman) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange Reply-To: cleyman@cix.co.uk In article , frank@living-source.com.nospam (Frank Muenker) wrote: > What "they" did was to fly an A320 over a field in front of the > spectators at about 30ft altitude with minimum speed, minimum thrust > and nose way up. > For point 2: The Airbus executives denied at any time that they told the > pilot to perform this stunt, while the pilot said they did. > But at the end "they" sacrificed the pilot who eventually went into > jail. Perhaps someone just ought to mention that it was an airline pilot at the controls of an Air France aircraft, not an Airbus pilot Clive Leyman From kls Wed Sep 2 01:07:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 02 Sep 98 01:07:59 From: "Larry Sakurai" Subject: Re: Airbus P305 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >If airbus can >come up with an aircraft that matches the a300 or the a310 >in capacity/performance and beats it in terms of efficiency it could >succeed in winning a large part of this niche market.This begs to ask >the question what will boeing come up with?.An improved 767? Don't be surprised if improvements come out of Boeing's 767-400 program that'll apply to the smaller models. The Boeing-MDC engineers (they teamed up before the merger was announced) have added new raked wingtips for the -400. I believe that as a result, the -400 will actually have a shorter wingspan than the -300, and it'll be able to use gates used by DC-10s, MD-11s, and L-1011s. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:00 From: cNhOuSaPnAgMa@cris.com Subject: Re: Airbus P305 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In sci.aeronautics.airliners Marc Schaeffer wrote: > It is rumoured that AI is proposing to SIA the P305 to replace their > existing A310 fleet. Your statement is a bit strong; I would say, "AI has briefed SIA of the P305 project as a possible A310 replacement." > This P305 should focus on short range widebody > services. It will incorporate the RR Trent 500 engines of the A340NG, > the FBW cockpit of the other buses and a new wing. That's all the > information which I read, however I still have some questions: > - Is there a market for a shortrange WB Boeing and Airbus combined have sold around 500 B767-200s and A310s of which most are of the long range versions. The B757-300 is supposed to cover part of the shorter range B767-200 market. At this time, the stretched B757 seems to have very limited market appeal. Also, the B767-200ER is still being offered, but no airline seem to need 200-seat airplanes. Thus, I don't think there is a big demand for short-to-medium range widebodies in the 200-seat category. > - what would be -- roughly -- the development costs With FBW and a new wing, I would guess that it would cost a little (but not much) less than the US$2.5-3b that Airbus is going to spend on the A340-500/600. > - what the target delivery date My understanding is the A3XX has a higher priority, but I could be wrong. If Airbus' priority has not changed (which means most of Airbus' resources will be devoted to the A3XX), it will be a while. > - I read somewhere that AI might even launch the A322 (an A321 with the > beefed P305 wing), which could then compete with the 757. Two This one I have not heard. > subquestions : > -- is this technically possible (one same wing for a widebody and a > narrowbody) Don't know. However, I would think a P305 wing would be too big for the A321. Doesn't make much sense. > -- would this 322 have a chance to replace the oldest 757 Why not? From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:01 From: "Tom Furnivall" Subject: DC-8 Owners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET UK server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET UK) While looking through the commercial jet census I noticed that Boeing have 8 DC-8's that have been scrapped. As I find this quite odd I would be interested to know how Boeing used these aircraft, and how they acquired them (I think it would be a bit odd for them to buy from their competitor). Tom Furnivall tom.furnivall@dial.pipex.com From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:02 From: "Steven" Subject: Missouri ANG operating KC-10? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM This weekend at Lambert Field, I observed a parked KC-10 Extender. It had ANG markings on the tail, but I was unable to see the state. It later departed at dusk and flew right over me, using the callsign "Team 76". Any information is appreciated! -- Steven (to reply, remove the "k" from .knet) From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:03 From: rah@netcom.com (Richard Hyde) Subject: Replace radome with window on 747? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom I've always wondered why the 747 didn't have a passenger level front window. Surely they don't need all of the room in the nose for electronics, since smaller jets can get by. Imagine: A ceiling to floor window for those lucky enough to be seated in row 1. The airlines could call it 'Sky Throne' service and charge a hefty premium. Virgin Atlantic, are you listening? :-) Cheers, Rick -- Include "wombat" in Subject: line of mail sent to me [to override spamgard(tm)] Richard Hyde RaH@netcom.com This space intentionally left blank From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:04 From: Wade Chafe Subject: Jet Engine spool time. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Zone What is the typical N1 and N2 spool up times from idle to full power? Is there much variation between engines? If possible I'd like to know the times for a 737, MD82 and 767. Any information on this would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps someone could point me to a source of information on Jet Engine performance? Regards, Wade Chafe From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:05 From: markwrk@aol.com (MARKWRK) Subject: 747 wing flexibility Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is correct and where I might find the facts on this. I checked the Boeing site and was unable to find anything. Thanks, Mark From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:06 From: g3av8tor@aol.com (G3AV8TOR) Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >An altitude blockage?! That's a new one! As for being too light, I >wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight regulations for airliners or any >other sort of aircraft. The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100 pounds. Gary "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it ain't fixed, don't fly it." From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>As for being too light, I wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight >>regulations for airliners or any other sort of aircraft. >The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100 pounds. Interesting. Why?! The only reason I can think of is that the aircraft might not have flight tested in that part of the envelope -- not unlike the prohibition against flap usage above 20,000' on some Boeings because it wasn't ever flight tested. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:08 From: skybanditt@aol.com (skybanditt) Subject: United Airlines' Future Fleet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Question 1: UA has stated in several press releases that they will have a grand total of 645 a/c in their future fleet. In addition, they will only have 5 fleet types. Now, assuming that 757/767 has a common rating, and that they hushkit all the 727s "as promised", this amounts to 6 fleet types. (A319/20, 737, 727, 757/767, 744, 777). So this might indicate that UA would retire the 727s. Any ideas??? Question 2: Assuming that they *keep* the 727s, by adding up all the plnes (except for 757s) the total # of aircraft would be 525. (85 A320, 48 A319, 57 737-500, 101 737-300, 75 727-200, 19 767-200/ER, 37 767-300/ER, 52 777-200s, 51-747-400s). Thus, it appears that UA will have 120 757-200s (645-525), although I think they have only ordered 102... Can anyone clarify??? Is it possible that they will keep some old a/c??? Do the DC-10-30Fs count as part of the fleet??? Any responses would be appreciated. HL From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:09 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: United Airlines' Future Fleet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >UA has stated in several press releases that they will have a grand total of >645 a/c in their future fleet. In addition, they will only have 5 fleet types. >Now, assuming that 757/767 has a common rating, and that they hushkit all the >727s "as promised", this amounts to 6 fleet types. (A319/20, 737, 727, 757/767, >744, 777). So this might indicate that UA would retire the 727s. Any ideas??? UA is hushkitting the 727 (and 737-200 Advanced) fleets, but I've heard they only plan to keep them in service for an additional 4-5 years. That and getting rid of the 747-200 fleets (UA has two very different varieties) will get them down to the five fleet types. >Assuming that they *keep* the 727s, by adding up all the plnes (except for >757s) the total # of aircraft would be 525. (85 A320, 48 A319, 57 737-500, 101 >737-300, 75 727-200, 19 767-200/ER, 37 767-300/ER, 52 777-200s, 51-747-400s). >Thus, it appears that UA will have 120 757-200s (645-525), although I think >they have only ordered 102... Can anyone clarify??? UA currently has 96 757s and I can only come up with two more on order. But you're forgetting 24 737-200 Advanced. Those bring the total up to 647, except two of the 777s won't arrive until 2002, bringing us back down to 645. Evidently it is expected that all 9 747-200 and 8 DC-10-30 will be gone by the end of 2001. > Is it possible that they will keep some old a/c??? Every word in a press release is chosen with great care. Here is the key part of UAL's July 30, 1998 press release: The airline's fleet will grow from 571 aircraft at year-end 1997 to 645 at year-end 2001 based on current delivery and retirement schedules. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The April 14, 1998 press release announcing the order for 23 additional Boeing widebodies said something similar, but then it was "an expected 639 aircraft at the end of 2001." Note the different total at the end of 2001, which could be influenced by deferred retirements as well as by new aircraft deliveries. > Do the DC-10-30Fs count as part of the fleet??? The above totals suggest not, but the variation in the projection for 2001 over the span of just 3 1/2 months this year is greater than the current size of the DC-10-30F fleet. In other words, they're lost in the noise. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:10 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Ron Woodard sacked Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Boeing announced today (September 1, 1998) that Senior VP Alan Mulally, who had been president of Boeing's Information, Defense, and Space Systems Group, and been named to replace Ronald B. Woodard as president of Boeing Commerical Airplane Group. Chairman Phil Condit reportedly forced Woodard to resign on Sunday after yet another cost problem emerged within BCAG. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:11 From: ea@remove-this.arcticmail.com Subject: Re: Albino jumbo jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: news.cix.co.uk Iraqi 747 SP (YI-ALM) not seen for some years is apparently all white :-) From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:12 From: "Paul" Subject: Re: Albino jumbo jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Web America Networks Fedex no longer has any 747's of any kind. We leased the last 2 several years ago. As I recall the lease was up this last May, however I don't know what we did with them. Boneyard? Paul From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:13 From: zinegreen@aol.com (ZineGreen) Subject: Re: Albino jumbo jets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I've seen more than one all-white jumbo jets at LAX now - the latest sighting >today as a 747-200 took off. Was it a freighter? El Al has an all-white 747-200 freighter that flies regularly out of LAX (and JFK too). I'd bet that was it. Rumors are that its lack of markings is for security reasons, but I tend to doubt this since all of El Al's pax airplanes are painted in company colors. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:14 From: "john r." Subject: Re: 767-400 "a different type"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Chris Dahler writes > >> The Boeing glossy I saw was short on facts about what was behind the >> side by side nav and pfd displays, the old system I suspect. > >The side-by-side nav/pfd arrangement you saw for the 767-400 is the same >arrangement used in the 777 and the 737NG aircraft. The displays can be >configured as either a 777-style mimic (with altimeter and airspeed tape >displays surrounding a large attitude display), or they can be configured to >mimic the old 757/767 style, with a round-dial presentation of the altimeter, >airspeed indicator, RMI, and vertical speed indicator on the screens. This >display format will allow the preservation of the common type rating. The 747-400 and 777 flight decks are similar, what drives the them, the electronic systems, are totaly different. This need not concern the pilots too much and I guess it would be possible to adapt older designs to have a common operation and display without the total redesign needed to have common driving electronics. We have only just got our 747-400's working well, are struggling with the 777 (somtimes, though its getting better), lets leave well alone. -- john r. on the ramp, keeping them flying From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:15 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (niels sampath) Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: L1011500 Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article colleen.m.wabiszewski#064#boeing.com@mail.mdc.com "Colleen M Wabiszewski" writes: > > >The 737NG has some 700 ordres before it started flight tests, now this > >is strange ;) > > Granted, however the 737 NG was a minor mod compared to the redesign > involved with the 717. Interesting perspective. I had thought it was rather more the other way `round (tho I wouldn't say `minor'). I thought the 737NG has a whole new wing whereas the MD-95 has the DC-9 wing...just a slight angle of attack diff. Tho I guess the MD has a greater change of engines/avionics and resulting certification hurdles compared to the 737 changes. -- -Niels From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:16 From: "Larry Sakurai" Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Colleen M Wabiszewski wrote in message ... >>The 737NG has some 700 ordres before it started flight tests, now this >>is strange ;) > >Granted, however the 737 NG was a minor mod compared to the redesign >involved with the 717. The NG is a minor modification compared to the 717? The NGs have brand new wings! And the CFM-56s aren't the same as those on the 300/400/500 family; they're more advanced. Now I'd like to see the 717 be successful-- Douglas' last legacy in the commercial transport business, but when Boeing cut the MD-90, it's hard for me to see how the 717-- without a family stablemate-- will compete well against Fairchild-Dornier's products, and others. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:17 From: Rob Montgomery Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Ameritech.Net www.ameritech.net Complaints: abuse@ameritech.net Reply-To: robm@null.net Martin Chiew wrote: > It cruises higher, is much more > comfortable, is faster (0.80 vs 0.74) and consumes less fuel, while carrying > 10 or more passengers + cargo. Please forgive the stupid question, but how much higher does the A320 cruise? If it's 'high enough' wouldn't the A320's 0.80 actually have a lower ground speed (definately IAS) than the B737's 0.74 or 0.78+? Or should I go back and take my highschool physics again? Thanks, -Rob -- robm@null.net From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:18 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Subject: Re: UA A321 ? 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 "Martin Chiew" writes: >Sorry to say, but in terms of speed, the 737NG being faster than the A320 is >a load of Rubbish. The A320 cruises at M0.8 as opposed to the 737NG which >cruises at M0.785. More closer to the A320's league is the 737-300 which in >Australia cruises at 0.74 as opposed to the A320's M0.8. On a typical run >to Perth, an Ansett Australia Airbus A320-211 carrying about 144 passengers >can outrun a Qantas Boeing 737-400. It cruises higher, is much more >comfortable, is faster (0.80 vs 0.74) and consumes less fuel, while carrying >10 or more passengers + cargo. What airline do you fly for again? Thumbing through a US carrier's performance handbook for the A320, I only see the number "0.78" everywhere. Of course, this discussion started with the A321, so perhaps it flies a bit faster. Of course, sometimes airlines get stuck with airplanes unsuitable for the routes being flown (no fault of the airplane manufacturer, of course) so they run them them faster, at a loss. Sounds to me like Ansett Australia could really use some used 727s if speed is such a consideration. Then they'd really leave those 737s in the dust. >Even for the A320 to be still comparable with the 737NG and probably be more >efficient is quite an achievement, for an aircraft which is ~9 years older. Oh, yeah, and what awesome changes in technologies over the last 10 years, too. Brand new engine technologies, brand new design technologies. NOT. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:19 From: "Russell Farris" Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp Eberhard Lammich wrote in article ... > On 18 Aug 1998, Don Stauffer wrote: > > How about all those A320s that flew themselves into the ground with > > their FBW fancy autopilot? Flight crew shouldn't have to have > > doctorate in computer science to enter go-around mode from approach mode. > > Perhaps time is over for John Wayne with wings. The pilot is a bus > driver with higher salary, that's all. > As long as autopilots are not designed by Microsoft ("Pull up, pull up! > Are you sure? -Yes- -No-") Airbus and Boeing aircraft (Yes, Boeing uses > computers, too!) will be quite safe. While I respect Eberhards opinion, he obviously doesn't understand what the job is all about. As a pilot who is currently qualified on the 767 AND the DC-3, I'll have to remember the bus driver analogy the next time I'm shooting a non-precision approach on a stormy night to a 6,000 foot runway with a gusting 30 knot crosswind and no lead in lights. No computer in the world can cope with that one...nor could a bus driver, with all the implications that entails. I love the FMC in the 767, but to treat the pilot like the weakest link in the safety chain is flat out wrong...keep us in the loop! Russ Farris From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:20 From: mike@dizzydev.com (Mike Schmitt) Subject: Re: Landing Gear Loads References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>plane -- despite every pilot's best effort to grease the landing -- >>will be descending at somewhere between zero and, say, 500 feet per >>second when it touches down ... spinning the tires up to ~150knots > >500 feet per second is nearly 300 knots. Yes, I think it's safe to say >Perhaps an extra zero snuck in there? "Per minute," the proofreader says, "per minute!" Signed, Typo-A-Second P.S. While an ideal target is 0fpm descent rate on touchdown, what's a nominal range that most aircraft experience? From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:21 From: Kim Hackett Subject: Re: Landing Gear Loads References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SouthWind Internet Access, Inc. Reply-To: hackettNOSPAM@southwind.net Landing descent veocities of 500 ft per second is way too high of a number. 500 ft per minute is closer to the requirement. Federal Air Regulations Airworthiness Standards Part 25 for Transport Category Airplanes is used to certify transport aircraft ranging in size from business jets to the 747-400. FAR 25.473 specifies the limit descent velocity of 10 ft per sec at the design landing weight and a limit descent velocity of 6 ft per sec at the design takeoff weight. Under Part 25, aircraft nose gear and main gear are drop tested to 10 fps limit (once in a lifetime condition) and 12 fps (ultimate) descent velocities. For the Cessna Citation Excel, a 20,000 lb MTOW business jet aircraft, the maximum nose gear (NG) static reaction sitting on the ramp is about 2,000 lb and each main gear (MG) maximum static reaction is about 9200 lb. The gear is analyzed for a variety of landing conditions, including level landing, tail down landing, one wheel, 2 wheel, and 3 wheel landing conditions, and lateral drift landing. For the Excel NG, the max vertical dynamic landing load is about 9000 lb and the max NG drag load is about 4000 lb for a 10 fps limit landing. The MG max vertical load is about 21,000 lb, maximum side load is about 8000 lb, and the maximum drag load is 9100 lb. These are limit values and are multiplied by 1.5 to get ultimate loads for design. The Citation Excel has one tire on the NG and two tires on each MG. The main gear tire loads would be roughly half the main gear loads. I don't know about a taxi length limit to control heat and tire flexure during taxi. I believe commercial jets have a taxi length limit that is to keep the brakes from overheating. I think that Boeing aircraft have a minimum time limit between landing and takeoff which is to ensure adequate time for brake cooling. The brakes must be cooled down before the aircraft takes off in case they need the brakes in an aborted takeoff. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:22 From: gwilson404@aol.com (GWilson404) Subject: Re: Landing Gear Loads References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>plane -- despite every pilot's best effort to grease the landing -- >>will be descending at somewhere between zero and, say, 500 feet per >>second when it touches down ... spinning the tires up to ~150knots > >500 feet per second is nearly 300 knots. Yes, I think it's safe to say >that the vertical velocity is between zero and twice the airspeed of the >aircraft at touchdown! > >Perhaps an extra zero snuck in there? The standard descent rate for the stressing of a Landing Gear at Design Landing Weight is 10 ft/s. The gear is also to allow a vertical speed of 6 ft/s when landing at Max Takeoff Weight. Gerald Wilson From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:23 From: "Don Boberick" Subject: Re: Landing Gear Loads References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I just know you meant 500 feet-per-minute. Five hundred feet per second would be 30,000 FPM, which is a bit much for the airframe to withstand, much less the tires. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:24 From: Steve Subject: Canada 3000 757-200's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Griffin Internet User Can anyone tell me what engines Canada 3000 use on their 757-200's Thanxx Steve From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:25 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Canada 3000 757-200's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Can anyone tell me what engines Canada 3000 use on their 757-200's JP Airline Fleets says Rolls-Royce RB.211-535E4. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:26 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: Junkers Trimotor Airliner Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl Recently, at IAD I saw a display of a Junkers Trimotor Airliner (IIRC it was the Ju52, or some similar designation). It had one rotary engine on the nose, and one on each wing. The wing mounted engines appeared to be canted slightly outwards. Does anyone know why this was done? I speculate that it may have been to make the effective thrust vectors of the engines go through the center of mass, and therefore improve engine out performance. If so, why is this not done with modern airplanes? From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:27 From: Garry Forrest Subject: B717 Flight Test Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University Reply-To: garryf@pacbell.net I saw B717 T-1 out and about doing some taxi tests out at Long Beach this afternoon. (I had forgotten how slooowly those first tests go.) It's still about a month away from first flight, right? With 60 firm orders and 20 options? Only an order of magnitude less than the B737NGs at the same maturity. From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:28 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >It's still about a month away from first flight, right? The BR715 received JAA approval last Friday (August 28, 1998), and I read somewhere that the 717-200 will make it's first flight this week or next. Boeing's home page (http://www.boeing.com/) has something about a 717-200 First Flight Webcast as the main banner, but it's a broken link. :-( -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 2 01:08:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 01:08:29 From: MJones Subject: B-727 Preservation Project Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Hello, all: I'm new to the list, and so far like what I see. Perhaps one of you has a suggestion: I'm a volunteer on the N7001U B-727-100 preservation/restoration project underway at Paine Field in Seattle for the Museum of Flight. For those of you unfamiliar w/ the project, this was the first 727 off the line and served with United until 1991. So it can be considered a significant aircraft from that standpoint. United took more than a few valuable parts with them as part of the donation agreement. In fact, this last Saturday was the first time it has had electrical power since being parked. The goal is to make it airworthy again, if only for a short ferry flight to the museum at Boeing Field. Ideally it will remain airworthy and will make the occasional guest appearance at airshows, etc. depending on whether we can obtain engines on other than a loaner basis. We are in need of many parts, including engines, flap drive components, center engine thrust reverser, B system hydraulics. Since the 727 is still a popular craft, no one we've yet talked to is willing to give up these valuable pieces. I'm hoping one of the list members has contacts or ideas or perhaps knows where an abondoned craft sits, maybe even in a foreign country. We have the resources to rebuild most anything, so beyond-tolerance parts are O.K. Thanks in advance, Mike Jones p.s. the web site detailing the project is at http://home1.gte.net/rbogash/ual727tx.htm From kls Wed Sep 2 10:09:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 10:09:16 From: Colleen M Wabiszewski Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM First flight for the 717 is scheduled for today, Wednesday, September 2nd. The pilots are in preflight right now. From kls Wed Sep 2 10:09:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 02 Sep 98 10:09:17 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RCN Internet Karl Swartz wrote: > I read somewhere that the 717-200 will make it's first flight this week > or next. Boeing's home page (http://www.boeing.com/) has something > about a 717-200 First Flight Webcast as the main banner, but it's a > broken link. :-( Link is no longer broken, first flight is scheduled for sept. 2nd at 11:00 am Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Thu Sep 3 01:35:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 03 Sep 98 01:35:27 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California A Swissair MD-11 operating flight 111 from New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport to Geneva (with a planned continuation to Zurich) crashed into the Atlantic off Blandford, Nova Scotia, at approximately 1018pm local time (0118 GMT). News reports claim the pilots reported smoke in the cabin and/or cockpit and dumped fuel in St. Margaret's Bay before attempting an emergency landing at Halifax International Airport. According to Swissair, there were a total of 228 souls aboard -- 213 passengers and 15 crew. The flight also carried a Delta Air Lines code under a code-sharing agreement; a Delta spokesman said 53 Delta passengers and one Delta flight attendant were included in the total. Some bodies and human remains have been recovered, but there are as yet no confirmed reports of survivors. The accident aircraft is reported simply as having been manufactured in 1991. Swissair has nine MD-11s matching that description, all powered by Pratt and Whitney PW 4462 engines. This is the second MD-11 hull loss, the first being FedEx flight 14 at Newark on July 31, 1997. While there were no fatalities in that crash, two passengers were killed aboard a China Eastern MD-11 when flight 583 experienced an upset on April 6, 1993 following inadvertent deployment of the flaps and slats at FL330. That flight diverted to Shemya AFB, Alaska, with little or no damage to the aircraft. Boeing's statement on the crash ends with the following paragraph, which Usenet readers would do well to heed: It is too early at this point to know what may have led to the crash. Aircraft accident investigation typically are rigorous and time consuming; attempting to predict findings or speculate prematurely on what happened can be counter productive. Readers may wish to consult the following web sites for further details over the next few days: http://www.cnn.com/ http://www.swissair.ch/ (phone numbers for family and friends) http://www.boeing.com/ Thanks to sci.aeronautics.airliners readers John S. Maddaus and mskonfa@usa.net for providing an initial "heads up" about the crash. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Thu Sep 3 01:35:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Sep 98 01:35:28 From: civetone@aol.com (CivetOne) Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hi Garry, Hope you got out to the airport today (9/2). If you did you saw T-1 taxi out and takeoff on its maiden flight. Quite a site, actually, since it was joined during the takeoff by a Learjet chase aircraft making a low pass. The two flew off together into the L.A. haze and then on to Boeing's Yuma flight test facility. From kls Thu Sep 3 01:35:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Sep 98 01:35:29 From: "Don Boberick" Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM How do we tell the B717 from the MD80 (in the absence of tell tale paint markings)? From kls Thu Sep 3 01:35:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Sep 98 01:35:30 From: poorboy@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Ron Woodard sacked References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > Boeing announced today (September 1, 1998) that Senior VP Alan Mulally, > who had been president of Boeing's Information, Defense, and Space > Systems Group, and been named to replace Ronald B. Woodard as president > of Boeing Commerical Airplane Group. > > Chairman Phil Condit reportedly forced Woodard to resign on Sunday after > yet another cost problem emerged within BCAG. You could have seen that coming from a mile away. Even though the problems were not all directly his fault (suppliers promised too much too quickly)someone eventually would have to take the fall. Too bad the board didn't make Condit take it. Would have been more fitting. Hopefully, the cost and production initiatives that Woodard kept on track are seen through. They really are the only hope for Boeing in the long run. The interview with Woodard in the 2-8 September issue of Flight International now takes on a whole new light. -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Thu Sep 3 01:35:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Sep 98 01:35:31 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Ron Woodard sacked References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > Chairman Phil Condit reportedly forced Woodard to resign on Sunday after > yet another cost problem emerged within BCAG. The news release I saw talked about the "sacrificial goat" and Boeing feeling the need to blame someone because it had lost money for the first time in history. Out of curiosity, while Woodard is ,in the end, responsible, were any of Boeing's problems any fault of his or were the demands placed on the commercial group just too much for anyone to handle ? For instance, would Woodard have been forced to accept more orders than he knew he could deliver ? Or was he b lind to all this and gladly accepted delivery commitments he had no idea Boeing could not keep ? The article also noted that Woodard had been offered an undisclosed job inside of Boeing and it was unknown if he was going to take it. From news Thu Aug 27 08:19:10 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!shore!newsfeed.xcom.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!nntp.giganews.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777 sighting Date: 27 Aug 1998 14:30:59 GMT Organization: nams Sender: nntp@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <35DAE258.3FB@boeing.com> References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> <35D868D3.FE@boeing.com> <35D9007D.CCA36279@ix.netcom.com> k_ish wrote: > > Michael F. Lechnar wrote: > > > First 777-300 with PW4098 Engines. In town for cruise performance > > testing. March has a nice, long runway that enables us to do a max > > weight takeoff and puts us in our favorite test area at top of climb. > > Thanks for the info; maybe I will drive out there myself to see it. Any > idea how long it will be there? > > BTW, where is the "favorite test area"? Ken, Already back in Seattle, I think. For cruise testing we like to use an area of restricted airspace off of the CA coast called "W-291" on the navigation charts. It gives us room to fly without worrying too much about other traffic. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From news Thu Aug 27 08:19:11 1998 From: "D. A. Ling" Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: 777 sighting Date: 27 Aug 1998 14:31:31 GMT Organization: About as disorganized as I can be (You should see my house) Sender: nntp@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <35DB3221.47C1@hotmail.com> References: <35D0FE91.11946059@ix.netcom.com> <35D868D3.FE@boeing.com> <6rcbd4$da0$1@winter.news.erols.com> Path: ditka!news.mv.net!newsfeed.wizvax.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail sevnet wrote: > Hey, BTW, what do they use to simulate max take-off weight? Do they > actually fill it up with tons of unneeded fuel and then dump it before > landing? And what about the payload? Water? Sand? Lead? I can only > guess. Water barrels (looks kinda like a big beer barrel collection) From news Tue Sep 8 19:28:54 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Swissair MD11 Crash - additional details Date: 8 Sep 1998 18:14:43 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <1998090304222900.AAA18825@ladder01.news.aol.com> <35EE3515.27A6@bigger.net> <6sltud$2an$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> bgagner@my-dejanews.com wrote: > I seen a webpage sometime ago that had several FAA reports of aviation > accidents. Indeed, the MD-11, like the DC-10, has had a string of incidents > and mishaps in recent years. There was a FedEx accident last year involving > an MD-11, and I can't recall the others at the moment. A 'string' of incidents? Let's check the facts: there was only one previous hull loss, that of FedEx at Newark last year, in which no-one was killed. There was only one previous fatal event, on a China Eastern flight which encountered severe in-flight turbulence. That's in the eight years since the MD-11 entered service (late 1990). The NTSB database at http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.htm shows 10 incidents on the MD-11 since 1 January 1996, none fatal; that same database shows 20 for the 767, including 1 fatal (Ethiopian) in the same time period, 21 for the 757 (3 fatal), 20 for the 747 (3 fatal), 8 for the TriStar (1 fatal), and 11 for the DC-10 (none fatal). If the MD-11's record since 1996 qualifies it for "a string of incidents" then so does that of everyone else, and I hope you enjoy riding the trains (which also have their problems...) Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 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 -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Wed Sep 9 04:05:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:05:38 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: SR 111 transcript Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California AP News Service has an expanded transcript of radio communications between SR 111 and controllers at Moncton Center and Halifax, which can be found at http://www.abcnews.com/wire/World/AP99987130.html This version has timestamps and additional conversation as compared to what was released in a Swissair press release several days ago. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 9 04:05:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:05:39 From: ibm@svpal.org Subject: Swissair Flt 111 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Its kind of early for speculation but I'm wondering about the choice of diversion made. There are at least 3 airports between Boston and Halifax capable of handling Heavies, to whit: Yarmouth ( 6000ft rwy/ILS ), CFB Greenwood ( 10000ft rwy/ILS or equivalent ) and NAS Brunswick in Maine. Yarmouth is directly underneath the jet routes to Europe, Greenwood and Brunswick slightly off to the side. Yarmouth's runways are a tad short, but trust me, it can be ( and has been ) done. I'm therefore puzzled about the choice of Halifax for the diversion given the emergency nature of the situation particularly since the plane was originally directed to try for Boston. Anyhow I expect they'll find the black boxes quickly as I saw some Canadian Navy mine counter-measures vessels in on-site video and the water should not be all that deep. IBM -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:02 From: "Dave and Bernice Campbell" Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sprint Canada Inc. I live about 30 kilometres from the crash site, and am a member of the same fire department that was first on-scene. The fishermen that were first to reach the debris field report very small pieces of wreckage, and that the site was more terrifying than they had even thought it would be(many of these fishermen are also Auxiliary Coast Guard members and are used to recovering bodies from the ocean). There is absolutely no hope of finding survivors. Apparently another 7 minutes and they would have made Halifax International Airport(which is also where I work for Pratt and Whitney Canada). One person I know has wondered if it was a deliberate ditching. A fisherman has now reported that a navigation buoy near the scene has had the top ten feet of it sheared off from an impact, and one report said that the radar track showed that the plane made a circle off the coast, but whether to dump fuel or to prepare for a crash landing was unknown(I've yet to hear other news agencies report this radar track so I don't know if it's for certain). So far there do not appear to be any possible criminal undertones to this crash. Let's just hope a definitive cause can be found. Dave Campbell From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:03 From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ME, INC. CNN reports on it's WWW site and on cable that this airframe was delivered to Swissair August of '91. IF this is the case then the reg# is HB-IWF, C/N 48448, LN 465. Per JP Airline Fleets this is only MD-11 delivered to swissair that month. [Moderator's Note: Based on various sources, HB-IWF was indeed the accident aircraft. -- Karl] Scott -- Scott Jacobson 75706.2201@compuserve.com From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:04 From: k_ish Subject: SR111- Do procedures need to change? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Let me preface my remarks with the comments that although I have my private pilot license, I don't know a whole lot about flying large transports. Also, the cause and even the sequence of events leading to the crash of SR111 is still just speculation. That having been said, it seems to me that SR111, ValuJet, and the AC DC-9 at CVG (all inflight fires) may have had a better outcome if they had landed immediately. In light aircraft, the procedure in case of an uncontrolled, in-flight fire is to land immediately, even if it is off-airport. The top priority is to get on the ground, because a fire can spread rapidly or cause sudden structural or systems failure. It seems to me that in a large transport, landing at any airport (even if the runway is too short) or even off-airport might be better. Of course, it's hard to judge while it's happening, but maybe a study of past inflight fires might create a change in procedures. As a passenger or pilot I would rather face getting a MD-11 as slow as possible on a 3000 foot general aviation runway (even though the gear would probably shear off and/or the plane would overrun the end of the runway), rather than face another 5 minutes in the air, on fire. Does anyone with more background have comments? Regardless of the cause, my heart goes out to the passengers, crew, relatives, and friends of SR111. Ken Ishiguro From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:05 From: "Frank Muenker" Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nacamar Group Plc. Karl Swartz schrieb in Nachricht ... >A Swissair MD-11 operating flight 111 from New York's John F. Kennedy >International Airport to Geneva (with a planned continuation to Zurich) >crashed into the Atlantic off Blandford, Nova Scotia, at approximately >1018pm local time (0118 GMT). News reports claim the pilots reported >smoke in the cabin and/or cockpit and dumped fuel in St. Margaret's Bay >before attempting an emergency landing at Halifax International Airport. Yesterday a German Lufthansa captain said in an interview that smoke in the cockpit is the absolute worst that can happen because once you loose visibility the aircraft is 100% uncontrollable. I know it might be very stupid but please allow me this question: If the pilot manages to descend to < 6000 ft and reduce airspeed to < 250 knots, why wouldn't it be possible to open the side cockpit windows? Sure, that would give an enourmous draft, but it would be at least better than having 0 visibility. Maybe one of the pilots here in this ng can answer why it isn't possible. I assume that if it was the pilot would have done it) Thanks Frank Muenker P.S.: wasn't this accident similiar to the ValueJet in Florida ? From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:06 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >why wouldn't it be possible to open the side cockpit windows? I think there was mention of that being done in the case of ValuJet 592. >P.S.: wasn't this accident similiar to the ValueJet in Florida ? Both involved fire, or at least smoke, aboard aircraft manufactured by McDonnell Douglas, and both crashed into water killing all aboard. On the other hand, one crash occurred shortly after takeoff and involved an old aircraft that hadn't received the best of maintenance, while the other occurred well after the flight had reached its cruising altitude and involved a relatively new aircraft with a clean maintenance record by a top-notch carrier. In a few vauge, superficial terms, yes, they are similar. Whether or not there are any significant similarities remains to be seen. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:07 From: "Stephen Gilkes" Subject: Typical descent rate of Large jetliner? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Any ideas of the typical descent rate of a large jetliner (737 - 777), i.e. when coming down from cruise altitude (30,000) to airport holding (6,000). Also, can anyone offer any ideas on how to navigate using the 777 display. On the 737-400 (Flight Simulator 98) I use the HSI and tune the NAV2 into the required frequency of the VOR to give me an OBI reference. However, on the 777 there is no HSI but a Navigation MFD which doesn't seem to have an OBI or anything that I can use as a reference. Any ideas on how to navigate using the new system? Perhaps this question might be better put to a Flight Simulator 98 newsgroup but I thought I'd ask the real techies! Regards Stephen From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:08 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Crash of SR111 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM As is my custom in these posts, the usual dislcaimers apply. This post involves a good deal of speculation that at least is not yet supported by factual material. Based upon the track of the aircraft,I can't help noticing some similarities to the EL-AL Freighter crash at Amsterdam, and some wisdom passed on to me by a very senior American Airlines DC10 driver shortly before his retirement. At this stage it isn't clear the initial event was. I suspect some kind of power plant problem on one of the under wing engines, probably the right engine. Observation number 1. If it is bad enough that you want to make an emergency landing, you probably should make As soon as possible. While the efforts to protect the airframe and not do an overweight landing, or overstress the engines (as in Air Florida 90) may be laudable, all you may be doing is protecting the equipment for the post accident investigation. A thumbnail calculation says the MD11 was unlikely to be more than 100,000 pounds over MLW. A heavy landing that might damage the aircraft, however if you don't get it on the ground in a hurry, as my friend the captain put it, once things go wrong, they tend to get worse, and they often do so very suddenly, and in a very unpleasant fashion. Ergo, SR111 should have made the dive for the runway, and not bothered to try to dump fuel and carry out any sort of maneuvers. The high speed descent would probably have also prevented the sequence of events that probably resulted in the crash. Exactly what goes wrong isn't clear, at this stage, but things obviously did go from bad to worse (pilot's call goes from level 2 emergency to level 1), and my guess is that is the point at which one engine really does pack it in, and probably takes one of the hydraulic systems with it. Observation 2: All jetliners since the 707 have incorporated a feature called a rudder ratio computer. The purpose of this device is to maintain an almost identical feel to the rudder control throughout the flight envelope. It is sort of analogous to variable ratio power steering. Its a feature that very few pilots think about very much, however I suspect this is the third accident in the last decade in which this device lead the pilot to a fatal mistake. The Rudder ratio computer masks the loss of rudder efficiency with reduced airspeed until the rudder authority is GONE. In theory if you keep track of minimum control speed this doesn't happen, however it is obvious in the heat of battle, this very important issue seems to have been lost several times. If you look at the crash of the El-AL 747 freighter, it is clear the crew losses control of the aircraft, and in fact I believe the FDR showed that at the time of the crash, the aricraft was in fact below minimum control speed. A similar accident occurs to an RAAF C135 a few years back simulating engine and hydraulic failure (the guy decided to do so at about 1500 feet, so when the airplane got away, it was in the water in a flash). The RAAF pilot flew right down the edge of rudder authority, and when he needed a lot of rudder assistance, there was nothing left. My suspicion on SR111 is in the descent with the loss of the engine, the crew lost track of minimum control speed, and lost the required rudder authority. As I said, a dive for the runway would have maintained a very high air speed, and while it might well have damaged the aircraft on landing, the crew and passengers might well have lived to discuss their 'night to remember'.. As I mentioned previously, this analysis is highly speculative, and at least at the moment there is not a lot of data to support the hypothesis. 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 Wed Sep 9 04:12:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:09 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Crash of SR111 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >A thumbnail calculation says the MD11 was unlikely to be more than 100,000 >pounds over MLW. AvLeak's Source Book says typical MLW is 440,000 lbs and JP says the accident aircraft's MGTOW was 618,000 lbs. Boeing's web site says fuel capacity for a standard MD-11 is 38,615 gallons. One gallon of fuel is very roughly 6.7 lbs (depends on temperature and other facts, but its a reasonable back-of-the-envelope figure), giving a maximum fuel weight of 259,000 lbs. However, the pilots radioed "fuel on board is two-three-zero tons" according to the transcript at http://www.abcnews.com/wire/World/AP99987130.html, which seems far too high whether you take that as tons = 2,000 lbs or tonnes = 1,000 kg. The cockpits of recent Boeings which I've been in (all on United) have fuel measurements in hundreds of pounds -- maybe with the decimal to make it thousands. Could they have meant tons = 100 lbs, i.e., 23,000 lbs of fuel? Assuming most of the fuel is used during climb to initial cruise for a flight of this length (about half the aircraft's range), this seems plausible, which would suggest the aircraft was at most about 20,000 lbs overweight -- even less problem for an overweight landing than with your 100,000 lbs thumbnail figure. (Which is not to lend credence to the idiot relatives claiming the pilots were stupid for "wasting time" by dumping fuel.) One other bit of data, also from JP -- the seating config was 18/42/197 for a total of 257, so with 215 passengers the aircraft was about 84% full. No idea on cargo. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:10 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Further to Karl's message with the basic facts of this crash, the UK media (BBC Radio 4 news and Guardian newspaper) reported today (Sunday) that the flight data recorder had been recovered and read. (The CVR is still to be located, although signals from it have been detected by sonar.) Unfortunately, the DFDR was found to have stopped recording at the point at which the aircraft descended below 10,000 feet, i.e., it does not cover the last 6 minutes of the flight, during which the behaviour of the plane is the most mysterious! Investigators speculate that this is due to a total loss of power at that time. >From the state of the wreckage and the bodies, the impact appears to have been *extremely* violent. Already, there are allegations of pilot error (the captain should not have wasted time circling to dump fuel, but should have gone straight into Halifax). I think the ground rules about premature speculation should apply here? Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:11 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: a340-500/600 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu narayana@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in wrote: > Will the cruising speed of the a340-500/600 be any geater > than the a340-200/300 after the wing modifications? Yes. The wing speep will be inceased from 30 deg to 31.5 deg, resulting in a higher design cruise speed of M0.83. This is realised with a tapered wing insert. 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 Wed Sep 9 04:12:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:12 From: "Luis Sanchez" Subject: Re: a340-500/600 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indigo >Will the cruising speed of the a340-500/600 be any geater >than the a340-200/300 after the wing modifications? OF course, it depends of the angle of lead edge respect to the central axe of the plane, that will be changed. One more cuestion, is AI thinking about a A330 strecht? From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:13 From: ASDL User Subject: Re: Airbus P305 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA, USA Larry Sakurai wrote: > Don't be surprised if improvements come out of Boeing's 767-400 program > that'll apply to the smaller models. The Boeing-MDC engineers (they teamed > up before the merger was announced) have added new raked wingtips for > the -400. I believe that as a result, the -400 will actually have a shorter > wingspan than the -300, and it'll be able to use gates used by DC-10s, > MD-11s, and L-1011s. The 767-400 will not have a wing span shorted than the -300ER, the raked wing tips, allowed Boeing to shorten the wing span over what would have existed had they used wing tip extensions and winglets as previously planned. From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:14 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Airbus P305 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu cNhOuSaPnAgMa@cris.com wrote: > > - Is there a market for a shortrange WB > > Boeing and Airbus combined have sold around 500 B767-200s and A310s > of which most are of the long range versions. The B757-300 is > supposed to cover part of the shorter range B767-200 market. At this > time, the stretched B757 seems to have very limited market appeal. The biggest disadvantage of the 753 compared with a widebody is for sure the long handling time at the gate. > > - I read somewhere that AI might even launch the A322 (an A321 with the > > beefed P305 wing), which could then compete with the 757. Two > > This one I have not heard. I heard it from inside ... AI. > > subquestions : > > -- is this technically possible (one same wing for a widebody and a > > narrowbody) > > Don't know. However, I would think a P305 wing would be too big for > the A321. Doesn't make much sense. My initial question was mainly focussed on the fact that this would be another compromised wing design (like on the 330/40). Having a short range wing on the A305/P305 and putting it on a long range A322 wouldn't be optimal. If this P305 wing is -- say 4 frames larger at the fuselage/wing box but not higher -- than today's A320 family wing, is the main requirement a fuselage plug or do you have to redesign the whole area ?? It should be pretty similar to the A340/A340NG and B737/B737NG wing upgrades. Any thoughts ? -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wed Sep 9 04:12:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:15 From: ourebi@inetex.com Subject: Re: DC-8 Owners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "Tom Furnivall" wrote: > While looking through the commercial jet census I noticed that Boeing have 8 > DC-8's that have been scrapped. As I find this quite odd I would be > interested to know how Boeing used these aircraft, and how they acquired > them (I think it would be a bit odd for them to buy from their competitor). Trade-ins. Just like your car dealer. Brian -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:16 From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: DC-8 Owners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ME, INC. My best guess is that they're trade-ins on new airframes. Scott -- Scott Jacobson 75706.2201@compuserve.com From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:17 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: DC-8 Owners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Tom Furnivall wrote: > While looking through the commercial jet census I noticed that Boeing have 8 > DC-8's that have been scrapped. As I find this quite odd I would be > interested to know how Boeing used these aircraft, and how they acquired > them (I think it would be a bit odd for them to buy from their competitor). Here is the answer I got from Bill Harms : I believe all 8 of these DC-8 aircraft were taken as trade-ins by Boeing, circa 1978, presumably against 727-222(A)s that United Airlines had on order at the time. They were removed from service at United and went directly to Kingman, Arizona, where they stayed until they were broken up. I do not believe Boeing ever had any purpose in buying them other than to appease a good customer. The conversions from -11/12 to -21 had taken place in or around 1960-1966, while they were still with United. 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 Wed Sep 9 04:12:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:18 From: Krish Chilukuri Subject: Re: Boeing craziness (was Re: 767-400 "a different type"?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TWC Road Runner, San Diego, CA Larry Sakurai wrote: > Now I'd like to see the 717 be successful-- Douglas' > last legacy in the commercial transport business, but when Boeing cut the > MD-90, it's hard for me to see how the 717-- without a family stablemate-- > will compete well against Fairchild-Dornier's products, and others. The MD90 is definiely not a stable mate for the B717. I doubt pilots could cross train. Different engines, different cockpit --- Krish Chilukuri From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:19 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM proctor@sequence.stanford.edu (Michael Proctor) wrote on 02 Sep 98 01:07:54:- > > I seriously doubt you can produce any evidence to substantiate this > > theory. The pilots waited too long to pull up, but to blame it on their > > ignorance of the terrain is neither credible nor consistent with any of > > the reports on the accident which I've encountered. > > I always wonder about the argument that, if there hadn't been computer > aided control of the aircraft, the pilots efforts to pull the aircraft up > would have most likely caused a stalled resulting in a much more > destructive accident then the controlled descent into some trees, that > resulted in only three deaths. That is the official view of Airbus Industrie, as published in their own reports issued in response to public criticism. AI claim that the aircraft was in alpha-protection mode, which would prevent the pilot increasing the AOA beyond a certain limit. Asseline claims that, having (unknown to him) passed below the 50 foot AGL, the A/C was in landing mode, in which the programmed flight laws impose a certain rate of derotation, which the pilot has to counteract to achieve flare. Nobody knows for certain which mode it was in, since the mode changes are not recorded on the DFDR. It is not disputed that, in the final few seconds of flight, the pilot was applying nose-up stick while the FCS was simultaneously applying nose-down elevators. This is apparent from the DFDR trace in the accident report. The main point about the presence of the on-board computer-based flight control system is that, without it, nobody would have ever dreamed of trying such a stunt, which was performed precisely in order to demonstrate the safe flight envelope protection features of the FCS. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk, Web: http://www@csr.city.ac.uk/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:20 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Stefano Pagiola wrote on Wed Sep 2 10:10:58 1998:- > Throw in factors such as the in-grained animosity of many pilots > against computers which they perceive as taking their jobs away, ... Until Habsheim, Asseline was gung-ho in favour of the A320, and had made himself extremely unpopular with the flight engineers' union for totally backing the use of two-man crews. > The decision to > put the plane there was the pilot's and so the responsibility for the > accident must rest primarily with him. He followed the flight plan he was handed by Air France. The fact that he was at 30 feet and not 100 feet as planned was a combination of instrument failure and (it must be said) pilot error in not detecting the low altitude from external visual clues. However, neither captain (Asseline: PF) nor FO (Pierre Mazieres: PNF) noticed the discrepancy. In fact, just before the 'plane leveled out for the fly-past, the FO announced to the captain that they were just about to descend to 100 feet (source: CVR transcript in official accident report). The decision to fly with a 'plane load of day-trippers was likewise a decision by the management of Air France. Of course (I hear everyone say) if the captain thought he was being asked to endanger passengers' lives, he had the right (not to mention the duty) to refuse to undertake the flight as ordered. This might not have improved his career prospects with AF. However, the main reason he did not refuse was that he did not think it was dangerous. He had been trained (and had trained dozens of other AF pilots in turn) that the safety protections provided by the FCS could be relied upon absolutely in order to get out of any conceivable trouble that the 'plane could get into. > Had the pilot succeeded in climbing > above the trees and avoiding an accident, I would still have fired him. Had he been at the planned height, he'd have missed the trees by 70 feet. Had he just missed the trees, there would probably been palpitations in the boardroom and possibly an internal enquiry in AF, but nothing that would have jeopardised PR. As captain, Asseline bore the brunt of the blame, had his licence yanked immediately, and faced criminal proceedings. The fact that he showed "attitude" did not help his case. (The FO was also charged, but made no public statement whatsoever. He continued to fly for AF.) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk, Web: http://www@csr.city.ac.uk/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:21 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com If I am flying at 30 ft and high AOA and want to "go around" I would add power and pull up, expecting the elevators to go up and engines to accelerate. From what I understand about the A320 control systems this is not necessarily what happens in all cases. Engine spool up is not the problem it has been made out to be because it really only comes into play when asking for max power when starting at idle. Its hard for me to believe a fly by at 30 ft could be made at idle power. I suspect the pilot tried to extricate himself from a rapidly deteriorating situation by reverting to his instincts, pulling up and firewalling throttles, which obviosly was not the correct inputs. This whole event highlights the problems of incorporating high tech into line operations. Perhaps desingners need to allow for the fact that pilots, when faced with a crisis, will revert to traditional methods. From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:22 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Pete Mellor wrote: > Michel Asseline, the pilot, has written "Le Pilote Est-il Coupable", > his own account of the events. He points out several factors other > than technical ones which led up to the crash, and to the resulting > deaths. > ... > Air France took the decision to provide a fly-past at the > request of the air show organisers. They did so in order to > take advantage of a great opportunity for publicity, but it > was also a commercial transaction. The air show paid a hefty > fee to Air France, who further increased their profits by > filling the 'plane with day-trippers. None of this was due > to any decision by Asseline. > The schedule was tight, and this was the reason why no proper > briefing on the airfield was given to the crew. In fact, there > was no briefing. An AF operative simply left a black-and-white > photocopy of a coloured original map along with brief written > instructions. There was no time to visit the airfield on foot > first and reconnoitre. I don't know French law on this topic, but under US Federal Aviation Regulations, it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that he/she has all the necessary information for a safe flight. Sec. 91.3 (a) "The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft." Sec. 91.103 "Each pilot in command shall, before beginning a flight, become familiar with all available information concerning that flight." In this case, Asseline manifestly failed to do so (a poor photocopy would not qualify as "all available information"). Neither time pressure nor anything else would qualify as excuses in front of an NTSB investigator -- the pilot has ultimate responsibility. Besides, if time and publicity pressure had really been so high that Asseline would have been in trouble with his bosses if he failed to perform the flight, he still could have flown a more conservative flight profile (eg done the planned flight at a higher altitude, or made a circuit of the fields before committing to a low-level pass). > The flight was planned: first pass at 100 feet, flaps and gear > down, nose-up attitude, low speed (deliberately to demonstrate > the ability of the FCS to maintain safe flight close to stall)... > The first pass took place at 30 feet because the baro-altimeter > was giving a reading 70 feet out. We've by now become accustomed to the "long thin chain" theory, in which aviation accidents are due to a chain of events, often of low probability, and would have been prevented if only one element of this chain was broken. Here, though, it seems we have the opposite: if you believe Asseline, everything was conspiring for this accident to happen: not only is there poor info, but then the altimeter doesn't work, and then the flight control system does screwy things, and then the engines don't respond. Methinks he doth protest too much. Coming from an impartial outside observer, I might buy this. Coming from a party with a lot to gain from a particular interpretation of events, it strains credibility. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 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 Wed Sep 9 04:12:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:23 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? 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 "Russell Farris" writes: >Eberhard Lammich wrote in article ... >> Perhaps time is over for John Wayne with wings. The pilot is a bus >> driver with higher salary, that's all. > >While I respect Eberhards opinion, he obviously doesn't understand what >the job is all about. As a pilot who is currently qualified on the 767 AND >the DC-3, I'll have to remember the bus driver analogy the next time I'm >shooting a non-precision approach on a stormy night to a 6,000 foot runway >with a gusting 30 knot crosswind and no lead in lights. No computer in the >world can cope with that one...nor could a bus driver, with all the >implications that entails. Hey, you've got to remember, it's always clear and visibility unlimited in the lab and executive boardrooms. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:24 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: RCN Internet rdd@netcom.nospam.com wrote: > Sounds to me like Ansett Australia could really use some used 727s if speed > is such a consideration. Then they'd really leave those 737s in the dust. Ansett has only just recently retired the last of it's 727 fleet with the aircraft being sold to FedEx I believe. I'm sure if not for the fact that the politicians who control Sydney airport had made it impossible for the 727's to operate there they would still be an important part of the Ansett fleet, especially as they were relatively young aircraft. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:25 From: Evan McElravy Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >>On a typical run to Perth, an Ansett Australia Airbus A320-211 carrying >>about 144 passengers can outrun a Qantas Boeing 737-400. It cruises >>higher, is much more comfortable, is faster (0.80 vs 0.74) and consumes >>less fuel, while carrying 10 or more passengers + cargo. > >Which serves only to illustrate the point with which you were arguing, >namely, that comparing the A320 family and the 737 Classics is an apples >and oranges comparison. Your example might have been interesting had >Qantas been flying a 737-800. It isn't apples and oranges: the 2nd gen 737s (or which the -400 is a member) are the same design age (roughly) as the A320. AI, however, produced a much more capable (if more tempremental) aircraft and it has taken 10 years for Boeing to put into service a comparable aircraft. Among the modern offerings, however, the 737NG and A320, despite small differences, are roughly equal in capability. The differences lie in technology (FBW vs. cables) and comfort (the A320 is still quite a bit wider). I've never been a fan of 737s, but, after a ride in a Continental -700, I am forced to concede that it is an outstanding piece of equipment and Boeing managed to fix most of the flaws of the 2nd gen. series, except of course the narrow cabin, which is pretty much locked in. Given Martin's example, though, I'm not sure that the A320 is really a step forward: Ansett's old 727s would have blown both the 734 and the A320 by like they were moving backwards. Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Which serves only to illustrate the point with which you were arguing, >>namely, that comparing the A320 family and the 737 Classics is an apples >>and oranges comparison. Your example might have been interesting had >>Qantas been flying a 737-800. > >It isn't apples and oranges: the 2nd gen 737s (or which the -400 is a >member) are the same design age (roughly) as the A320. AI, however, produced >a much more capable (if more tempremental) aircraft and it has taken 10 >years for Boeing to put into service a comparable aircraft. While the A320 made its first flight just three years (almost to the day) after the 737-300, to claim that they are the same design age is ridiculous. That 737 had essentially the same fuselage (except for a few plugs), cockpit, wings, and tail (with minor mods) as the 737-100, which made its first flight nearly *twenty* years before the A320. New engines and the fuselage stretch were the primary changes -- hardly enough to justify your claim that the 2nd generation 737 is roughly the same design age as the A320. Yes, Boeing could have built an entirely new aircraft, but chose not to do so. That reduced time to market and lowered costs (hence incresing profits and/or lowering price) for Boeing, while allowing much greater commonality for previous 737 customers. Boeing would freely admit that it was a technically inferior design to what they could have done with a clean slate, but then a clean slate design would not have met what they perceived as their market goals. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com |Work kls@netapp.com |WWW http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:27 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >How do we tell the B717 from the MD80 (in the absence of tell tale paint >markings)? The 717 is much shorter, has BR715 high-bypass engines, a shorter wingspan and the MD-87 style tail which is squared off at the upper aft corner to improve the aerodynamics in the same way that the screwdriver tailcone does... Matt Student Pilot, 747 Assembler. To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home. From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:28 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil) Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net On 03 Sep 98 01:35:28 , civetone@aol.com (CivetOne) wrote: >Quite a site, actually, since it was joined during the takeoff by a >Learjet chase aircraft making a low pass. A dissapointment, really, since you couldn't hear how quiet the 717 was over the roar of the Lear. __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:29 From: Krish Chilukuri Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TWC Road Runner, San Diego, CA Don Boberick wrote: > How do we tell the B717 from the MD80 (in the absence of tell tale paint > markings)? One simple way is to look at the engines. The MD80 will have a thrust reverser with external stangs that stick out past the exit nozzle. The 717 will have a pre-exit reverser on a BR715 engine. Stangs will not be visible. The nozzle exit will be planar Krish Chilukuri From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:30 From: rcochran@netcom.com (Richard Cochran) Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Don Boberick (boberick@email.msn.com) wrote: : How do we tell the B717 from the MD80 (in the absence of tell tale paint : markings)? The B717 has the old DC-9 style wings. The most obvious difference is that the trailing edge is straight, while the MD-80 wings have a bend in the trailing edge. The aspect ratio is also different, as well as the wingspan. The tougher question is "how do we tell the B717 from the DC9-30?". The B717 has the modern "screwdriver" tailcone, and, from the photos I've seen, appears to have bigger engine nacelles. I expect (HOPE!) that if you see it in flight, you'll notice that it's considerably quieter, as well. --Rich From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:31 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Trevor Fenn wrote: > > "Ah, yes ... the dreaded 7 engine landing!" > > may not be as easy as it sounds, have you ever noticed how small the > rudder is on a B-52? > > I once read that two engines out on the same side of a B-52 is cause for > abandoning the aircraft. Not even CLOSE, according to my friend who flew both the B-52G and B-52H. In fact, it wasn't all that uncommon to virtually lose 2 on one side on a takeoff run in the "G" model. "How do you 'virtually' lose two?" I asked him. His answer: Takeoffs on the J-57 powered B-52G were frequently made "wet" (water injection on). Water injection automatically shuts down if N1 drops below a certain threshhold (somewhere around 90% I think). The old G models were notorious for having the throttles vibrate backward on a takeoff run. Once a throttle crept below that magic value, off went the water injection on that engine *and* the one it shares an underwing pod with... so 2 engines on one side would lose their water injection, and therefore a huge portion of their thrust rather suddenly. The same thing happened if one engine actually failed on takeoff- its pylon-mate would lose water injection. According to my friend, this was cause for a lot of grumbling and possibly foul language (although my friend has probably never spoken a harsh word in his life- extreme cool-headedness must come with flying the BUFF) in the cockpit, perhaps a chastisement for not keeping a hand on the throttles, and a little bit of tap dancing with the controls, but not much else. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:32 From: "Andrew Mountford." Subject: Re: AF Triple Seven double Engine Trouble at Tenerife References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Compaq Pete Finlay wrote in message ... >In article , Gregory Travis writes >> volcanic ash ingestion. All four engines shut down >>for a period. Eventually got some or all (?) back on line. > >British Airways 747-236, over by Jakarta. I think they got 3 of them >back. I'll look it if anyone's interested. I read about that incident and apparently the crew were magnificent; one part I liked was a joke made by the chief purser to a business class passenger..."you don't have an important meeting to get to do you; only if we can't get the engines started we'll be up here all night!' If they did say that then top hat well and truley off to the bloke!! From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:33 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: B-727 Preservation Project References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I don't know what the potential availability might be, but an old FAA B-727 sits on the campus of an Oklahoma Community College Vocational Facility at Will Rogers Field (OKC)... It may be that some parts from that bird are not essential for the use to which it is being put... Pete McHugh (202) 267-8670 From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:34 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: B-727 Preservation Project References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. MJones wrote: > I'm hoping one of the list members has contacts or ideas > or perhaps knows where an abondoned craft sits, maybe even in a > foreign country. We have the resources to rebuild most anything, so > beyond-tolerance parts are O.K. In the last three years, I have seen abandoned looking 727s, without engines, parked in Istanbul Turkey, Cancun Mexico, and San Jose Costa Rica. The Istanbul aircraft was a THY aircraft, I don't know who owned the others. They might be parts trees, but it is worth checking. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:35 From: Richard Rea Subject: Re: Junkers Trimotor Airliner References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Internet Services Andrew Goldfinger wrote in message ... >Recently, at IAD I saw a display of a Junkers Trimotor Airliner (IIRC it >was the Ju52, or some similar designation). It had one rotary engine on >the nose, and one on each wing. The wing mounted engines appeared to be >canted slightly outwards. Does anyone know why this was done? I >speculate that it may have been to make the effective thrust vectors of >the engines go through the center of mass, and therefore improve engine >out performance. If so, why is this not done with modern airplanes? The Ju52 was originally a twin-engined passenger airplane, and when the third engine was put on the nose it became the Ju52-3M. BMW made the radial engines used. As for splaying the engines outward it may be to improve engine-out performance (I have heard conflicting, anecdotal reports of the early BMW radial engines not being very reliable). What I remember most about the Ju52-3M was that it was a very rugged airplane. There was a story about flying a Ju52-3M low through the jungle (Africa?) with the wings cutting through the trees, undergrowth, etc., creating a makeshift landing strip. From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:36 From: "Don Boberick" Subject: Re: Junkers Trimotor Airliner References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Recently, at IAD I saw a display of a Junkers Trimotor Airliner (IIRC it >was the Ju52, or some similar designation). It had one rotary engine on >the nose, and one on each wing. Were the engines actually "rotary" or just radial? [Moderator's Note: They were radials. -- Karl] From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:37 From: jimzbrewer@aol.com (JimZBrewer) Subject: Re: Junkers Trimotor Airliner References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I didn't notice the angle of the engines, but I had the distinct pleasure of flying aboard a restored Lufthansa Ju52 in August 1990 at Pratt & Whitney's 65th anniversary air show. It was fun looking out the window to see the oil level indicators atop the No. 1 and 3 engines, and watching the flight engineer hand-pump fuel to the engines. And a touch-and-go in the rain in East Hartford was one of my most memorable flight experiences of all time. From kls Wed Sep 9 04:12:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 09 Sep 98 04:12:38 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Performance drop on B772ER ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu I was reported the following : ""If the airframe deterioration of the B777-200X is similar to that of the B777-200ER then customers are in trouble. For reasons not understood the B777-200ER has deteriorated some 1.5 to 2 percent fuel burn. What's interesting is that this performance loss appears to be primarily airframe related rather than engine related. For such a new aircraft it appears to have got Boeing worried and they have yet to explain it. Furthermore Boeing want to take up to add a further 1.5 percent weight to the Operating Empty Weight i.e. 1.5 percent less payload available to the operator."" Performance drop in time are common, but frame related drops are really strange. Can't believe this. Any 777 pilots out there to comment/deny/confirm. Would appreciate. Also what does the 1.5% OEW increase cover ? Really curious, -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Sep 10 02:08:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:13 From: Boudewijn Verhaar Subject: RR, PW and GE 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: eut Reply-To: b.t.verhaar@nospamstud.tue.nl Could you give me an idea of the RR, GE and PW powered fleets around the globe? These companies can power most of the commercial aircraft can't they? (Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, Fokker, Saab) Are air-line companies that loyal that they power their whole fleet (from small to big) with RR engines, for example? I count BRR and Allison engines as RR engines, obviously. Hopefully any-one will be able to shed a light on this. Thanks Boudewijn Verhaar Some quotes: "Rolls-Royce is a world leading power systems business, ..." "We are capable of powering more aircraft types than any other aero engine manufacturer ..." "Rolls-Royce provides power to the world's armed forces for applications ranging from front line combat aircraft and large military transports to combat and light helicopters. Rolls-Royce has the widest range of military engines on offer anywhere in the world." "Aircraft Engines is the world's largest producer of large and small jet engines for commercial and military aircraft." "Industrial Systems is a leading supplier of products used to distribute, protect, operate and control electrical power and equipment, as well as services for commercial and industrial applications." "Pratt & Whitney is the world's leading designer, developer and manufacturer of gas turbine engines for commercial, military and general aviation aircraft." As you can see I won't get any useful info on their internet sites. From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:14 From: sandyhnospam@hartingdale.com.au (Sandy Howard) Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hartingdale Internet On 02 Sep 98 01:08:05 , markwrk@aol.com (MARKWRK) wrote: >I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 >feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is >correct and where I might find the facts on this. I checked the Boeing >site and was unable to find anything. Try adding a zero to your estimates. cheers Sandy Sandy Howard Sydney Australia sandyhNOSPAM@hartingdale.com.au From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:15 From: k_ish Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom MARKWRK wrote: > I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 > feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is > correct and where I might find the facts on this. I checked the Boeing > site and was unable to find anything. A wing was put into a test jig and bent to failure in the upward direction. IIRC, the deflection was something like 25 feet. It's routine to see a 747 wing deflect +/- 5 feet in normal turbulence. Also, you can watch the wingtips slowly sag when parked at the gate as the plane is refueled; again about 5 feet. Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:16 From: "Chris Barker" Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Merrill Lynch MARKWRK wrote in article ... > I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 > feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is > correct and where I might find the facts on this. I checked the Boeing > site and was unable to find anything. I dont know about Boeing wings, but in the May edition of last years Lufthansa in flight mag there was an article about Airbus wing flex limits. You might try the AI home page for further information, but I seem to remember the maximum design flex for Airbuses was quite suprising....much more than 6 feet as I recall Chris From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:17 From: Boeing707@worldnet.att.net (levelflight) Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM There was a Wings episode on the Discovery channel that covered the 747. There was an interview with Joe Sutter, who was the chief engineer of the 747-100 prototype. He said in this interview, and I quote, "the 747's wing can be deflected 27 (yes, TWENTY SEVEN!!) feet UP or DOWN before it breaks." This is quite an incredible amount. But it is just another reason why the 747 is such a magnificent machine. Ken Smith Boeing707@worldnet.att.net From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:18 From: "Michael M. McCormick" Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company MARKWRK wrote: > I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 > feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is > correct and where I might find the facts on this. I checked the Boeing > site and was unable to find anything. I spent a bit of time looking around the internal web for info and couldn't find anything. I recall that the 777 wing failure test bent the wings up something like 17 feet before they broke (this *after* the full life cycle fatigue test). But that's just my memory and that's been known to fail before! Sorry I don't have a real answer for you. From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:19 From: mechb747@aol.com (MechB747) Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 >feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is >correct and where I might find the facts on this... 6 feet on a 747 doesn't sound exessive to me at all. Boeing aircraft have very flexible wings, which act sort of like shock absorbers... that's why they ride so nice. Matt in Seattle Student Pilot To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home. From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:20 From: "Michael Weiss" Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Microsoft Corp. Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >Yes, Boeing could have built an entirely new aircraft, but chose not to >do so. That reduced time to market and lowered costs (hence incresing >profits and/or lowering price) for Boeing, while allowing much greater >commonality for previous 737 customers. And, let's not forget that they only expected to sell about fifty of 'em. R&D had to be kept to a minimum. This was, after all, before airline deregulation. From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Yes, Boeing could have built an entirely new aircraft, but chose not to >>do so. That reduced time to market and lowered costs (hence incresing >>profits and/or lowering price) for Boeing, while allowing much greater >>commonality for previous 737 customers. > >And, let's not forget that they only expected to sell about fifty of 'em. >R&D had to be kept to a minimum. This was, after all, before airline >deregulation. Deregulation was approved by the US Congress in 1978. Boeing didn't decide to build the 737-300 until two years later, in 1980, and its first flight came in 1984. Far from being a serendipitious beneficiary of deregulation, the 2nd generation 737 was the first aircraft tailor- made for deregulation. -- 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 Sep 10 02:08:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:22 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: Airbus P305 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >The biggest disadvantage of the 753 compared with a widebody is for sure the >long handling time at the gate. Definite true if passengers are loaded and loaded using two doors. However, with one door, I think the difference will be minor. The B757-300 will most likely to have significant cost advantage over a twin-aisle aircraft that operators cannot ignore. >My initial question was mainly focussed on the fact that this would be >another compromised wing design (like on the 330/40). Having a short range >wing on the A305/P305 and putting it on a long range A322 wouldn't be >optimal. >If this P305 wing is -- say 4 frames larger at the fuselage/wing box but not >higher -- than today's A320 family wing, is the main requirement a fuselage >plug or do you have to redesign the whole area ?? It should be pretty similar >to the A340/A340NG and B737/B737NG wing upgrades. If the P305 is indeed a short-range aircraft, I can assure you the project will not fly! You initially mentioned Singapore (SQ) as a potential customer for the P305. I'm certain SQ will not be interested in anything that will have a range capability less than the existing A310. Just look back the history of European commercial jets before the A300-600, most of them (including the original A300) were short-range aircraft, and most of them were commercially failures. From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:23 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: RAT for CVR 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) There are very valid reason for not putting the CVR onto the last-chance emergency battery bus, but how about on its own deployable ram air turbine? I've no idea how many watts a modern solid-state CVR draws, but it can't be all that much. It's rather impractical to back up the FDR in this way, as its inputs are fed from systems that are also going to be off-line, but the CVR mikes could easily be powered from the CVR in the tail. Is the deployment of a RAT a notable drag on an airframe of transport size? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Thu Sep 10 02:08:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 02:08:24 From: Richard Hay Subject: Is the 737 a hazard for cargo loaders? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM IIRC reading a Qantas executive saying that the 737's were a OH&S hazard for their freight loaders - the under floor cargo bays being so small that back injuries are common Anybody had any personal experiences? - are A320s any better? Richard Hay From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:12 From: "Howard Firm" Subject: Boeing B-314 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: [poster's organization not specified] My grandfather passed away and I found out that in the early forties He flew a four engine seaplane from the U.S. to Ireland. I have tons of pictures and logbooks, charts and other stuff from the airline...It was Pan American Airways. The logbooks mention three different Aircraft, the Berwick, The Yankee Clipper and theDixie Clipper. His first log was August of 1939 and the last entry is dated January of 1943. Does anybody know of this air service? Thanks, Howard From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:13 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Performance drop on B772ER ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: Bob_Mann@RWMann.com Where was this performance degradation reported? If the 1.5-2.0% SFC deterioration is not "understood", how is it atributed to airframe? - Bob Mann -- - 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 Thu Sep 10 03:04:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:14 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: SR111 Fuel numbers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I have now seen a couple of transcripts where the pilots of SR111 claims fuel aboard at 230 tons. Simple arithmetic says this makes no sense at all. That is 460,000 pounds of fuel. The JFK-Geneva run is not likely to burn more than about 120,000 pounds, and in reserves, and allowance for delays at JFK, and I have a hard time believing there was much more than 135,000 pound aboard when they pushed back. Typical MD11 fuel consumption asabout 16,000 pounds per hour, 460,000 pounds of fuel is about 28.5 hour endurance. I find that hard to believe, in fact I find it hard to believe the fuel capacity on an MD11 would be much over 120 tons. In fact I doubt the difference between emtpy weight and MGTOW is that much! Any comments? 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 Thu Sep 10 03:04:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:15 From: cp@panix.com (Charles Platt) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Ralf Sipple (Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de) wrote: > My opinion is that whatever the management says ("Make it spectacular") and > the plane's performance and fancy systems are, a pilot has to take all that > in account and operate the plane accordingly. In this case he has deliberately > sacrificed safety for a cheap show. This may or may not be true; we can only speculate. What interests me is whether the maneuver was practiced beforehand. Seems to me, if I was going to do a demo with a risk of failure, I would run through it a few times before the audience arrives. Does anyone know if this is standard procedure in air shows? Is there a script, or does the pilot (literally) "wing it" at the event? If the pilot is free to improvize, this would explain why so many crashes have occurred at so many air shows, over the decades. It would not explain why manufacturers allow the situation, though. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:16 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Pete Mellor wrote: > Stefano Pagiola wrote on Wed Sep 2 10:10:58 1998:- > > Throw in factors such as the in-grained animosity of many pilots > > against computers which they perceive as taking their jobs away, ... > > Until Habsheim, Asseline was gung-ho in favour of the A320, and > had made himself extremely unpopular with the flight engineers' > union for totally backing the use of two-man crews. That remark was not aimed at Asseline; it simply pointed out one of the many reasons it's been so difficult to have a reasoned debate on this issue. > > The decision to > > put the plane there was the pilot's and so the responsibility for the > > accident must rest primarily with him. > > He followed the flight plan he was handed by Air France... > The decision to fly with a 'plane load of day-trippers was likewise > a decision by the management of Air France. Of course (I hear everyone > say) if the captain thought he was being asked to endanger passengers' > lives, he had the right (not to mention the duty) to refuse to undertake > the flight as ordered. I've seen nothing in the record to indicate that he had any misgivings, before the fact, about what he was asked to do. He might well have had confidence in the airplane's ability to safely fly the requested profile. He ought to have known better than to try such a maneuver with no preparation. Heck, we're taught to do two 'clearing turns' (successive 90 degree turns in each direction to ensure that there's no conflicting traffic) before doing things as tame as steep turns. > This might not have improved his career prospects with AF. Had he been a rookie pilot, perhaps. But he was CHIEF PILOT. I find it hard to imagine there would have been grave repercussions had the CHIEF PILOT decided to fly a more conservative flight profile. > However, the main reason he did not refuse was > that he did not think it was dangerous. He had been trained (and had > trained dozens of other AF pilots in turn) that the safety protections > provided by the FCS could be relied upon absolutely in order to get > out of any conceivable trouble that the 'plane could get into. I think this last point is crucial, and probably the single most important cause of the accident. Call it the Titanic syndrome, if you will: "Hey, this airplane can't be crashed, so I can do things with it, like running at high speed through icefields or at low speeds just barely off the ground, that sane pilots wouldn't do." One can even make an interesting parallel between the White Star Line's Bruce Ismay urging the Titanic's Capt. Smith to beat the speed record to New York and Air France's decisions to fly a loaded plane before a crowd of onlookers at Habsheim. None of which absolves the pilot in command from responsibility, though it helps explain things. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 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 Thu Sep 10 03:04:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:17 From: "J. B." Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Reply-To: jbartolo@pacbell.net PS2727 wrote: > If I am flying at 30 ft and high AOA and want to "go around" I would add > power and pull up, expecting the elevators to go up and engines to > accelerate. From what I understand about the A320 control systems this > is not necessarily what happens in all cases. I'm not an expert on all the details of this incident, but I thought that regardless of the computers and flight control system, if you're at the far end of the power curve (max power and high AOA) the only thing you have left is to lower the nose to gain airspeed. If you're at 30 AGL, you have no options. Jim B. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:18 From: Jesus Brezmes Subject: Re: Swissair Flt 111 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM As far as I know, the choice of Halifax was done because the altitude at the time of the emergency (over FL300) does not allow you to go down instanly and land just right below where you are when you declare an emergency. Even Hallifax proved to be too near since the pilot would have to fly in a circle path in order to lose altitude safely before landing, remember that descent rates are limited, they cannot be infinite or instantaneous. Besides that, my personal opinion, completely speculative of course, is that the plane exploded at 10.000 feet. I base my idea in the following facts: 1. Radar lost contact with the plane at FL100, something unusual at that altitude unless the plane explodes 2. The plane transponder seems that it became suddenly dead at that altitude 3. The first black box recovered (the digital data recorder black box) went blind at that altitude, that is, it was recovered with minor damage and data before FL10000 has been read easily, which means that the recording mechanism died at 10.000 feet due to whatever cause(electrical powerdown, explosion, etc). 4. Neighbors heared a loud "boom" that could have been the explosion rather than the impact with water 5. The plane sections located so far are far appart than expected, which may point to the fact that the plane was already in pieces when it hit the water 6. The smoke in the cabin is a clear indication of a fire, of course, and that fire could have reached the center fuel tanks of the plane if the fire started in the cargo bay as suggested by some experts. I don't think they run out of fuel dumping too much fuel to prepare landing, as some preliminary comments pointed out. In that case landing over water should have been softer, the tail hitting first the water. There are some stablished procedures for such emergency situation. Well, I insist that this is my opinion and I woud like to see more comments on the accident on the list. Of course mine and the rest of the comments sent to the list will only be hypothesis. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:19 From: "Michael Weiss" Subject: Re: Crash of SR111 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Microsoft Corp. Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >However, the pilots radioed "fuel on board is two-three-zero tons" according >to the transcript at http://www.abcnews.com/wire/World/AP99987130.html, >which seems far too high whether you take that as tons = 2,000 lbs or >tonnes = 1,000 kg. The cockpits of recent Boeings which I've been in >(all on United) have fuel measurements in hundreds of pounds -- maybe >with the decimal to make it thousands. Could they have meant tons = >100 lbs, i.e., 23,000 lbs of fuel? MSNBC indicated that they thought he may have inadvertently been referring to the GW, rather than fuel. If so, that would have placed them at either 460,000 lbs or 230,000kg. Either way, that still jibes with your estimate that the aircraft was probably around 20Klbs over MLW. And, yes, we're all in agreement that it's much easier to determine the right thing as a Monday morning quarterback. It's hard to imagine any pilot being willing to sacrifice all of those lives if there was an expectation that there was an option of saving the lives by sacrificing the airframe. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:20 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Crash of SR111 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > the aircraft's range), this seems plausible, which would suggest the > aircraft was at most about 20,000 lbs overweight -- Question: considering that there was potentially a fire on board. (and indications point this way)., no matter what the maximum landing weight limits, is there a consideration to reduce the fuel load as much as possible to reduce the fire/explosion which might result from a less than perfect landing ? Or is that not a consideration ? > One other bit of data, also from JP -- the seating config was 18/42/197 > for a total of 257, so with 215 passengers the aircraft was about 84% > full. No idea on cargo. SR web site on the night of the crash indicated 12F, 49C and 178 Y for MD11s. (Total 239, which puts the plane near capacity). Not sure how accurate and up/to/date that site is. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:21 From: "Craig Beaty" Subject: Re: Crash of SR111 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Green Country Flight Training - Tulsa James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >As is my custom in these posts, the usual dislcaimers apply. This post >involves a good deal of speculation that at least is not yet supported by >factual material. > >Based upon the track of the aircraft,I can't help noticing some >similarities to the EL-AL Freighter crash at Amsterdam, and some wisdom >passed on to me by a very senior American Airlines DC10 driver shortly >before his retirement. > >At this stage it isn't clear the initial event was. I suspect some kind of >power plant problem on one of the under wing engines, probably the right >engine. I'm curious, but why did you pick the right engine? I don't know about that myself. The first thing the pilot told ATC is that they have 'smoke in the cockpit'. That means one of a few things: an electrical fire, related to a system on the circuit breaker panel, wiring and insulation, avionics, or flight displays. Smoke related to airconditioning and pressurization problems would have filled the whole cabin. If smoke came from one of the engines, it might be by way of the bleed air for pressurization and air conditioning. But, the pilot didn't mention to ATC a problem with either engine, which I presume he would have if it was the case. Another possibility would be a cargo fire (a la Valuejet) which would another tragic and preventable accident. I read today investigators have found cockpit pieces with heat damage. Ergo, SR111 should have made >the dive for the runway, and not bothered to try to dump fuel and carry out >any sort of maneuvers. The high speed descent would probably have also >prevented the sequence of events that probably resulted in the crash. I wonder under what configuration and altitude they are approved to dump fuel from. They (the crew) mentioned dumping fuel at 10,000 feet, and I presume, level flight. >>Exactly what goes wrong isn't clear, at this stage, but things obviously >did go from bad to worse (pilot's call goes from level 2 emergency to level >1), and my guess is that is the point at which one engine really does pack >it in, and probably takes one of the hydraulic systems with it. Even if one engine did 'pack it in', the plane would still have plenty of backup hydraulics (I don't even think one of the hydraulics systems would fail) and plenty of controllability. >Observation 2: All jetliners since the 707 have incorporated a feature >called a rudder ratio computer. Does the 727 have a rudder ratio computer? >The Rudder ratio computer masks the loss of rudder efficiency with reduced >airspeed until the rudder authority is GONE. In theory if you keep track of >minimum control speed this doesn't happen, however it is obvious in the >heat of battle, this very important issue seems to have been lost several >times. If you look at the crash of the El-AL 747 freighter, it is clear the >crew losses control of the aircraft, and in fact I believe the FDR showed >that at the time of the crash, the aricraft was in fact below minimum >control speed. The way I understand your explanation of the rudder ratio computer is that at lower airspeeds for the same rudder pedal deflection, the rudder actually deflects more. If that is correct, that is the way it's supposed to work. You still have the maximum amount of physical rudder travel available at low speeds, the deflection and effectiveness of which the engineers properly designed and passed certification for. The El-AL 747 freighter lost control, as I remember, when two (of it's four) engines on the SAME SIDE departed (fell off) the aircraft on takeoff (either that or the two engines had complete failures at the same instant). The 747 is not capable of a two engine on one side only climbout, as they tragically learned. >My suspicion on SR111 is in the descent with the loss of the engine, the >crew lost track of minimum control speed, and lost the required rudder >authority. There is absolutely no hint of engine malfunction so far. They had a fire. In the cockpit. In hindsight, they should have gone directly for the airport in a high drag emergency descent. >As I mentioned previously, this analysis is highly speculative, and at >least at the moment there is not a lot of data to support the hypothesis. Yes I see. Nevertheless I was temped to respond. let's hope the CVR lasted longer into the flight than the FDR. Craig Beaty CFI ASE, ASMEL Tulsa, OK "If you want to be a pilot, you have to act like one; if you want to act like a pilot, you have to think like one; if you want to think like a pilot, you have to study like one." From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:22 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >Someone else wrote: >>P.S.: wasn't this accident similiar to the ValueJet in Florida ? > >Both involved fire, or at least smoke, aboard aircraft manufactured by >McDonnell Douglas, and both crashed into water killing all aboard. On >the other hand, one crash occurred shortly after takeoff and involved >an old aircraft that hadn't received the best of maintenance, while the >other occurred well after the flight had reached its cruising altitude >and involved a relatively new aircraft with a clean maintenance record >by a top-notch carrier. Karl, I hope that you weren't implying that the maintenance history of the DC9 in the Valujet crash was a factor in the crash; while I haven't seen the final, definitive report, I don't believe that maintenance on the airframe itself was even a partial causal factor in that accident. ed >>>> Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 <<<< The above statement is the opinion of the author. No endorsement or warranty by the MITRE Corporation is expressed or implied. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:23 From: pierce@spamnot.pat.mdc.com (Gun One) Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pierce Aero >From the nimble fingers of kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz): : Both involved fire, or at least smoke, aboard aircraft manufactured by : McDonnell Douglas, and both crashed into water killing all aboard. On : the other hand, one crash occurred shortly after takeoff and involved : an old aircraft that hadn't received the best of maintenance, Just so there is no misconception about the ValuJet accident, there was no indication improper maintenance contributed to the crash. It was a case of wrongly including oxygen cannisters with tires and grease in the cargo hold. They may as well have just lit the fuse and tossed a bomb in there. -gun one From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:24 From: pierce@spamnot.pat.mdc.com (Gun One) Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pierce Aero >From the nimble fingers of Pete Mellor : : Already, there are allegations of pilot error (the captain should : not have wasted time circling to dump fuel, but should have gone : straight into Halifax). There is a limit to the descent angle a heavy jet (or just about any civil aircraft, for that matter) may fly. If my maximum angle allows me to lose a thousand feet for every 2 NM of forward progress, and I am at 10000 feet, then any landing spot closer than 20 NM will require me to S-turn or do a 360 or whatever to dissipate the extra altitude. With an emergency onboard, and the captain not knowing its exact cause, exceeding an airspeed limit to get down more quickly would not be prudent. (As a side note, the pilot of the Hawaiian 737 which lost its roof was incredibly lucky that she didn't lose the whole airplane in her high speed descent.) I believe the press, in their somewhat less than infinite wisdom, have latched onto the fuel dumping as an indication of the captain being preoccupied with something other than what was a bona fide emergency, when in fact, he was probably dumping fuel INCIDENTAL to reacting to the major problem. Landing overweight is not a problem, as long as the speed (which will be higher) is relatively controlled. It would require, at the least and with acceptable piloting technique at touchdown, an inspection or two with probably no damage to the airframe. -gun one From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:25 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Pete Mellor wrote: > >(The CVR is still to be located, although signals from >it have been detected by sonar.) ??? Do CVR's have acoustic beacons or pingers? I assume they have RF beacons, but I didn't know they had pingers. > Unfortunately, the DFDR was found to have stopped recording at > the point at which the aircraft descended below 10,000 feet, > i.e., it does not cover the last 6 minutes of the flight, during > which the behaviour of the plane is the most mysterious! > Investigators speculate that this is due to a total loss of > power at that time. Do DFDR's and CVR's not have internal backup batteries to continue powering the recorders for a while after a power failure? Lithium cells with service lives of 10 years or more are common as dirt (in personal computers and other electronic systems) now, so this shouldn't pose a huge maintenance problem -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:26 From: "Herb Carmen" Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InfiNet >Yesterday a German Lufthansa captain said in an interview that smoke in the >cockpit is the absolute worst that can happen because once you loose >visibility the aircraft is 100% uncontrollable. >I know it might be very stupid but please allow me this question: >If the pilot manages to descend to < 6000 ft and reduce airspeed to < 250 >knots, why wouldn't it be possible to open the side cockpit windows? Sure, >that would give an enourmous draft, but it would be at least better than >having 0 visibility. >Maybe one of the pilots here in this ng can answer why it isn't possible. > I assume that if it was the pilot would have done it) Depends on where the smoke was coming from. Opening the vents in the cockpit, if the smoke came from the cabin, may only draw more smoke into the cockpit. He may have opened the side window. I'm as curious as you. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:27 From: gerrit@auracom.com (Gerrit Deppe) Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Interhop I live about 40 km away from Peggy's, and what I am beginning to realize is that the captain may have been the ultimate hero in this crash. It is possible that Zimmerman aborted crash-landing on land, over crash-landing on water... thus saving many more lives. He was professional and careful right to the end in steering the out-of-control; zero visibility airliner into the ocean. My humble regards to the captain of the ship! Gerrit From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:28 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Internet Services Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>why wouldn't it be possible to open the side cockpit windows? > >I think there was mention of that being done in the case of ValuJet 592. There are a couple of problems with opening windows if indeed there is an on-board fire. One is that you are adding lots of fresh air to feed the fire. If it is a smoldering fire, then the appropriate measure would be to don oxygen masks and avoid allowing outside air into the cabin. Also, if you have smoke entering the cabin and you open windows or fresh-air vents, the pressure inside the cabin will drop relative to the outside air (flow around a large body will tend to cause a decrease in pressure within the body) and will exasperate the problem, i.e. cause *more* smoke to enter the cockpit. I don't think that it would have been too good an idea for the pilot to try to stick his head out of the window, as there wouldn't have been much to see that would be helpful (it was dark, wasn't it?). You also wouldn't be able to see the instruments. From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:29 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Pete Mellor wrote: > Already, there are allegations of pilot error (the captain should > not have wasted time circling to dump fuel, but should have gone > straight into Halifax). I think the ground rules about premature > speculation should apply here? Pilots act based on the information which is available to them. The big question is whether the pilots underestimated the problem initially. I noticed that in the transcript, initial clearance was given to 29k feet. Perhaps a lower clearance should have been given encouraging the plane to start to loose altitude as quickly as possible so that it can get decent altitude by the time they get close to Halifax. Based on information I obtained from canadian media, the plane was at 16k feet by 22:21 and 10k feet by 21:23 (which corresponds to the top of the bay, according to this media report). With a descent from 33k feet starting at 22:15, it gave a descent rate of 2800 feet per minute which the reporter said was quite normal (qualifying 3000feet/min as normal). Based on those numbers, it would seem that the plane got to Peggy's cove at altitude of 16k feet, and 30 miles to go, at a speed of 300 knots, those 30 miles would have taken 6 minutes which would have allowed the plane to drop a theoretical 18000 feet, giving a bit of a margin to land. (with a 2.8k feet perminute rate, those 6 minutes would have allowed 16800 feet drop, again within limits. Obviously my logic and data are flawed somewhere as it doesn't look that obvious to me that a detour was really necessary. Can anyone please explain where I have erred in my logic ? From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:30 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Swissair MD11 Crash - additional details References: <1998090304222900.AAA18825@ladder01.news.aol.com> <35EE3515.27A6@bigger.net> <6sltud$2an$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> 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: EarthLink Network, Inc. > A 'string' of incidents? Let's check the facts: there was only one previous > hull loss, that of FedEx at Newark last year, in which no-one was killed. > There was only one previous fatal event, on a China Eastern flight which > encountered severe in-flight turbulence. That's in the eight years since the > MD-11 entered service (late 1990). The NTSB database at > http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.htm shows 10 incidents on the MD-11 since 1 > January 1996, none fatal; that same database shows 20 for the 767, including > 1 fatal (Ethiopian) in the same time period, 21 for the 757 (3 fatal), 20 for > the 747 (3 fatal), 8 for the TriStar (1 fatal), and 11 for the DC-10 (none > fatal). If the MD-11's record since 1996 qualifies it for "a string of > incidents" then so does that of everyone else, and I hope you enjoy riding > the trains (which also have their problems...) I went to the NTSB database back to 1/1/90 and I found 22 MD-11 incidents. 5 tailstrikes, 3 hard landings (5 injuries), 2 runway excursions (7 injuries), a jammed stab-trim gearbox because MD failed to lube it at the factory, the China accident due to "inadequate design of the slat handle" (2 dead); the rest of the incidents being ATC errors, tail pipe fires and a few mtc errors. There are 25 DC-10 incidents but there are no repetitve themes like the MD-11 has. You mention 1 fatality for the 17 L-1011 accidents. You fail to mention that it involved a gnd crewmember being run over by a nose tire, hardly the airplane's fault. Like the DC-10 no common themes. I didn't look at all of the 35 767 accidents, but did look at the first 19 (one of these is actually a 757). 7 turbulence encounters, 2 uncontained engine failures, 1 tailpipe fire, 1 APU fire, 2 ground collisions. Apparently the 767 is a turbulence magnet. What I'm trying to say here is that you have to be careful with the numbers that you put out, they can be very misleading. But with a total of 8 landing accidents one can safely say that the MD-11 does have a problem of some kind with getting back on the ground. Douglas has proven itself over the years to also have a problem with good design, that's been proven numerous times with the DC-10 and the MD-11 slat handle shows it again. Those that maintain the beasts also know about quality control at Douglas and the seized gearbox bears that fact out too. IMHO, Dave From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Swissair MD11 Crash - additional details References: <1998090304222900.AAA18825@ladder01.news.aol.com> <35EE3515.27A6@bigger.net> <6sltud$2an$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/Query.htm shows 10 incidents on the MD-11 since 1 > January 1996, none fatal; that same database shows 20 for the 767, including > 1 fatal (Ethiopian) in the same time period, 21 for the 757 (3 fatal), 20 for > the 747 (3 fatal), 8 for the TriStar (1 fatal), and 11 for the DC-10 (none > fatal). If the MD-11's record since 1996 qualifies it for "a string of > incidents" then so does that of everyone else ... But the MD-11 fleet size is only around 170-180, versus over 700 for the 767 and over 800 for the 757. The 747 fleet size is surely much larger than for the MD-11, though with retirements an exact count is harder to come up with. Counts for the L-1011 and DC-10 are likewise difficult to pinpoint. So, the MD-11 incident rate per aircraft in service is over twice that of the 767, 2.24 times that of the 757, and probably at least a bit higher than its stablemate, the DC-10. The MD-11 is furthermore a longer-range aircraft than any of the others you mention except for the 747, hence the incident rate per cycle (takeoff and landing) probably shows an even greater spread. While not exactly a staggering difference, it does seem that the MD-11 has had more than its fair share of incidents. -- 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 Sep 10 03:04:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:32 From: k_ish Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Don Stauffer wrote: > James Matthew Weber wrote: > > In a light aircraft, this is a different story, but the truth be know in a > > light aircraft, you are probably safer with 1 engine than with 2... > > > > I am reminded of a comment a friend made about the CAA in Australia. They > > used to require light twin pilots to demonstrate landing skills with engine > > out on a regular basis, until it was pointed out to them that far more > > pilots were getting killed being trained and practicing to deal with the > > problem, than the problem was causing... > > I have heard many people claim that the statistics prove that more fatal > crashes result from an engine failure on a twin than an engine failure > on a single. Does anyone know of a reliable reference for such a > statistic? I don't have any references, but I do recall reading in "Flying" or "AOPA Pilot" that the fatal accident rate in piston twins after one engine fails is something like 4x the fatal accident rate in piston singles once one engine fails. An old maxim in light aircraft is the purpose of the second engine is to fly you to the scene of the accident. :-) Also, ferry pilots (people who take light aircraft on long distance delivery flights) would much prefer a single to a twin. The reason is that the chance of an engine failure in a twin is slightly more than 2x of a single. If the engine does fail in a twin, it leaves you in a high-drag situation where you will not have enough fuel to make landfall. So you have twice the chance of an engine failure, and in either case you are going to get wet. Of course, the entire subject is very different for turbine aircraft. Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Sep 10 03:04:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Sep 98 03:04:33 From: Krish Chilukuri Subject: Re: A 777 with four engines. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TWC Road Runner, San Diego, CA I came in late to this particular thread and hence do not know if this has already been discussed. Here are my impressions on this issue - critique is most welcome. As a result of the Lauda crash, a team of industry and FAA specialists got together to discuss options prior to recommending new rules. a) The latest certification requirement is that the probability of in-flight reverser deployment should be extremely remote - three independent lines of defense against deployment are required. Integrity of reverser locks should be shown even in the event of a turbine rotor disk failure. b) Or else, the FAA will require in-flight demonstration that the aircraft remains controllable after a single reverser deploys at take off power. (earlier demonstrations were required only at flight idle power). Most new aicraft go the reliability route. I suspect that you will not be able to find a test pilot who is willing to demonstrate aircraft controllability with asymmetric reverser deployment under full engine power!! BTW, NASA conducted some flight tests on a DC8-72 aircraft, and deployed both inboard reversers in flight. At high enough airspeeds, the reverser plumes tucked under the wing. At low airspeeds, the plume went over the wing, causing massive separation and loss of lift. The aircraft lost altitude at the rate of almost 12000 ft/min when reversers were deployed at cruise and about 30000 ft. I also believe that the C-17 test flights routinely deploy reversers during flight test, with much larger rate of loss of altitude. Krish Chilukuri From news Sun Sep 20 16:26:10 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Lufthansa CRJ-700 order Date: 20 Sep 1998 21:56:59 GMT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <6tr5t7$i$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Lufthansa has just ordered 10 CRJ-700s, with 10 more on option (as well as 10 more CRJ-100s). Deliveries of the 10 CRJ-700 on firm order will begin in the first quarter of 2001 and be completed in the second quarter of 2002. A few months ago, Lufthansa had expressed a strong interest in the Fairchild Dornier 528JET/728JET/928JET aircraft family and "expressed [a] desire to become the launch customers." Together with Crossair, an initial order for a total of 120 aircraft and options was discussed. Does this order for the CRJ-700 end that? LH will now have two models of thew CRJ family that overlap with the bottom two rungs of the x28JET family, plus the Avro RJ85, which is a little smaller than the 928JET but has capabilities, such as the ability to get into tight airports on LH's schedule like Florence and London City, that the x28JET family may not have. It's probably not a happy day in San Antonio and Oberpfaffenhofen. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 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 -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From news Sun Sep 20 16:28:14 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: shevell@leland.stanford.edu (Richard S. Shevell) Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Swissair MD11 Crash - additional details Date: 20 Sep 1998 21:52:39 GMT Organization: Stanford University Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: References: <1998090304222900.AAA18825@ladder01.news.aol.com> <35EE3515.27A6@bigger.net> <6sltud$2an$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> In article <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: > bgagner@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > I seen a webpage sometime ago that had several FAA reports of > > aviation accidents. Indeed, the MD-11, like the DC-10, has had a > > string of incidents and mishaps in recent years. > If the MD-11's record since 1996 qualifies it for "a string of > incidents" then so does that of everyone else, and I hope you enjoy > riding the trains (which also have their problems...)" Thanks for setting the record straight. Until the Swissair crash, the MD-11 has had a very safe record. This one has the feel of the Valuejet accident, starting with smoke in the cockpit and then possibly burning through control systems or ?. Hopefully the FDR will tell something of the originating problem. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:32 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: UPDATE: '98 Commercial aircraft orders Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Following the '98 Farnborough show, I updated the '98 commercial aircraft order census at http://surf.to/orders. The customer lists for the 777 and 737NG have also been updated. Counting LOIs and MOUs Airbus leads 498 vs. 483. Counting only firm orders Boeing leads 480 vs. 476. The market is thus pretty equilibrated which should be good for the next years. In the narrowbody market the A320 leads 394 vs. 320 for the B737 and B717. The 777 leads 72 vs. 60 for the A340/333. The 767 has 33 orders, whereas the A300/332 have 44 orders. Only 50 orders came from Asia this year, 326 from Europe and 295 from Northamerica. To come back to Farnborough, there were no big surprises as the major deals -- Varig, ILFC, UPS and Emirates -- were expected. However there has been no announcement made from KLM and SAS for their widebody renewal. Other big narrowbody orders from TWA and Mexicana should be announced before the end of the year. The major non event has been the 717, with Boeing still looking for it's first major prime customer. But the strike at NW hasn't helped Boeing. I doubt that the A318 will be -- from the economical point of view -- a big rival. The 736 has the same problem as it represents only 11% of total 737NG sales. 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 Mon Sep 21 00:31:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:33 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: post-Farnborough comments Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services The past 18 months have not been kind to Boeing, and Airbus's newly gained prowess has once again overshadowed Boeing at the Farnborough Air Show. OTOH, Boeing had accumulated a sizable backlog over the past years. Thus, if one looks at future deliveries, Boeing should still be able to maintain the 60% market share as long as they can turn the tide around, soon. At the air show, Airbus announced its intent to launch the A318 with Pratt & Whitney's new PW6000 engine. However, I think the Airbus 100-seater will only be launched if they can secure an order from Northwest. IMHO, the A318 only makes sense to two large carriers with a need of 100-seater, namely Northwest and Air Canada, because both carriers are also operating the A320 family of aircraft. Northwest appears to have established a solid relationship with Airbus, I think Airbus is quite optimistic of NW launching the A318. Nevertheless, IMHO, the B717 is already an oversized regional aircraft, the A318 is even worse. I seriously doubt it will sell well. For Boeing, they have failed to secure further B717 orders before the air show. I find a recent rumor of TWA possibly ordering the B717 to be quite interesting. Earlier this year, TWA ordered 24 MD-80s. Hence, the B717 might actually be a sensible choice for TWA. The hot-selling A330-200 appears to have cooled down a little bit. Only an order for one plane by Emirates was unveiled at the air show. However, Airbus has gained additional A340-500/600 sales for a total of 11 units of firm order and an additional of 15 options (ILFC ordered 5+5 and Emirates 6+10). EVA Air has officially withdrawn its previous committment to buy up to 12 A340-500/600s due the Asian financial crisis. Including Singapore Air's order (of which the contract has not been signed), Airbus has a total of 16 -500s and 34 -600s on firm order. Boeing is supposed to refine the B767-400ER to better match the A330-200 capabilities. I think this is the reason why the B767-400ER backlog has stalled for a while, but GE Capital did order three -400s at Farnborough. On the B777X front, I finally read something (in this week's Flight International, 16-22 Sept) that makes sense: GE might offer a 112K lb-thrust GE90 for the B777X. My impression (which has been confirmed by various reports and Boeing's proposal to use the APU for additional takeoff thrust) that a B777X with two 102K engines will be seriously underpowered and will have very poor takeoff performance. IMHO, the "unexpected" appearance of the US$3b A340-500/600 has forced Boeing to go a step further in order to be competitive. GE did not see a big market for a 102K engine and decided to withdraw its earlier offer. I guess GE was right; and Airbus has been snatching away potential B777X launch customers. If the engine requirement does go up to the 110K range, the GE90 might have a big advantage over the competition. I seriously doubt the PW4000 can go much beyond its latest 98K engine. the Trent 800 can probably be grown beyond 100K with some work. With the monopoly on the A340-500/600, it won't hurt R-R too badly even if they can't grow the engine. Since I am talking about engines, I might as well make a few comments on the engine companies. Rolls-Royce had a tremendous showing at Farnborough. R-R and its American subsidiary, R-R Allison, have garnered most of the engine orders at Farnborough. GE made a respectable showing, but two of the three big orders it "received" at the air show were from (surprise, surprise) GE Captial Aviation Services for 30 A320s and 12 B767s, and the other big order was from Varig, from whom GE Engine Serices acquired 95% of Varig's engine overhaul operation. Nevertheless, GE is going after the aftermarket business in a big way. It has projected US$5b revenue this year from its aftermarket opeartion or nearly 50% of GE Aircraft Engines' sales! (Rolls and P&W combined aftermarket sales are about 50% of GE's.) Other than the announcement of PW6000 being selected for the A318, Pratt & Whitney left Farnborough nearly empty-handed! From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:34 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Airbus P305 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu H Andrew Chuang wrote: > If the P305 is indeed a short-range aircraft, I can assure you the > project will not fly! That was also my first thought when I heard about it > You initially mentioned Singapore (SQ) as a > potential customer for the P305. I'm certain SQ will not be interested > in anything that will have a range capability less than the existing > A310. Agree. What I was told is that SIA told AI that the 332 is too heavy for their regional needs. AI could develop at pretty low costs an 'A332 light' with lower MTOW and fuel capacity. This would however do little to reduce the OEW. Note that in the latest FI it was reported that AI will -- probably -- revamp the 300/310 with the Trent 500s and 340 cockpit, without implementing the FBW. Maybe this is what SIA is looking at. Looking at the other SIA choice, Boeing, I can only see a beefed B763 with B764 cockpit and more fuel efficient engines which could interest SIA. I just can't see them buying a ship which is that long on the market, as SIA always wants to be in the leading group. > Just look back the history of European commercial jets before the > A300-600, most of them (including the original A300) were short-range > aircraft, and most of them were commercially failures. Certainly true for everything which was developed in the UK. The 300 was initially only a short range WB, so I think that AI squeezed every possible nm out of this design with the A300-600 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 Sep 21 00:31:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:35 From: Arne Stuermer Subject: Airbus P305 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: Aachen University of Technology / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik Reply-To: Arne.Stuermer@post.rwth-aachen.de The development of the Airbus P305, the intended follow on to the A300/310, has been postponed due to the starin on the companies resource due to development of the A340-500/600, the A318 and the A3XX. Instead a proposal to reengine the current widebody twins with the RR Trent 500 and an increase in MTOW are being studied to improve payload/range performance. Apparantly the only airline actively seeking a follow on in this market segment was SIA. What Id loike to know, is if Boeing has plans to revive its 777-100X development, abandoned several years aso, for reasons I dont remember. Even though there might be an overlap with the 767-400 market, it would definetly be superior to it in range. And since SIA is a 777 operator (eevn though iut went for the A340-500 for the extreme long-haul instead of the 777-200X) it could be an optin for them... Anyone know anything? From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:36 From: "Paul" Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Web America Networks Karl Swartz wrote in article ... > >>As for being too light, I wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight > >>regulations for airliners or any other sort of aircraft. > > >The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100 pounds. > > Interesting. Why?! The only reason I can think of is that the aircraft > might not have flight tested in that part of the envelope ... The A300's and A310's that fedex flys all have minumum flt wts, if we don't put freight on them then fuel must be allocated as ballast weight to bring the airframe up to the minumum flt weight. I've been told by every crewmember that I asked that this is because that weight was the weight that the airframe was certified at when it left the factory. If anyone can add any info I for one would be glad to hear it. Paul From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:37 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: Concord Climb rate ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Tom Turton wrote: > 7110.65 is entitled simply "Air Traffic Control". The data I cited was from > Appendix A of that document, and on second look it states: "CLIMB AND DESCENT > RATES - Climb and descent rates based on average en route climb/descent > profiles at median weight between maximum gross takeoff and landing weights." > So, they ain't the best and they ain't the worst - guess that's about ALL you > can infer from those numbers :-) Thank you Tom, in essence that is what I posted on the 18th of August cowboy -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:38 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Minimum flight weight (was: Concord Climb rate ?) 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 Karl Swartz kls@chicago.com wrote: >>>As for being too light, I wasn't aware of any *minimum* weight >>>regulations for airliners or any other sort of aircraft. > >>The HS-125-800 (Hawker 800) has a minimum zero fuel weight of 13,100 >>pounds. > >Interesting. Why?! The only reason I can think of is that the aircraft >might not have flight tested in that part of the envelope ... From my time in an aircraft project office I distinctly remember that the stress people always came to ask us for the minimum flight weight (not minimum zero-fuel weight). It definitely goes into the sums somewhere. I cannot remember the exact reason, but I think it had to do with the gust respone which is more violent for a lightly loaded aircraft. I have never seen it as a formal limitation though. Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander E-mail: Lezenne@CompuServe.com Amsterdam-Zuidoost, The Netherlands Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:39 From: MCLELLAN Alexander Subject: Re: Concorde climb rate References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM An article in "The Controller" about a fam flight on Concorde says "The subsonic climb is carried out with a rate of climb (ROC) of 3000 - 6000 ft/min." Regards Alex. This message does not constitute official EUROCONTROL correspondence. The Organisation is not responsible for its contents or the consequences of its use, nor for inaccurate transmission or misdirection. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:40 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: Bob_Mann@RWMann.com Howard Firm wrote: > The logbooks mention three different Aircraft, the Berwick, The Yankee > Clipper and theDixie Clipper. His first log was August of 1939 and the last > entry is dated January of 1943. > > Does anybody know of this air service? Sure, Howard. Those earliest PA transatlantic flights departed within a mile of my office, in Port Washington, NY. The "airport" was Manhasset Bay. Still functions as a seaplane base for itinerant operations. The old PA hangars are still here, now in use by several marine engineering firms, but the wooden seaplane ramp is long gone. The Port Washington library has an excellent colection of vintage pictures and memorabilia. - Bob Mann R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. || Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 || office 516-944-0900, fax -7280 mailto:Bob_Mann@RWMann.com || http://www.RWMann.com/ From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:41 From: Scott Macmillan Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Up2U In article , Howard Firm writes >My grandfather passed away and I found out that in the early forties He flew >a four engine seaplane from the U.S. to Ireland. I have tons of pictures and >logbooks, charts and other stuff from the airline...It was Pan American >Airways. > >The logbooks mention three different Aircraft, the Berwick, The Yankee >Clipper and theDixie Clipper. His first log was August of 1939 and the last >entry is dated January of 1943. Hello Howard, I cant help with the US to Ireland routes, but I saw a mention of a book called "Pan Americans Pacific Pioneers" in a magazine. The books tells the history of Pan American's Pacific Ocean flights from 1935 to 1946. Around the correct time, but the wrong ocean. Regards. -- Scott Macmillan GM7OMU, IO75tv Glasgow, Scotland, UK. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:42 From: "David Fielding" Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home The 314 was a 74 passenger, forty ton, 180 m.p.h. airliner. The wing was designed for the XB-15, a gigantic long-range bomber prototype which was eventually downsized to become the B-17 Flying Fortress. The fuselage and the rest of the plane were built to Pan American specs. Only 12 were ever built. Yankee Clipper Const. # 1990, Registered NC18603 Delivered to Pan Am Feb. 4, 1939 Flew first scheduled transatlantic mail service, New York - Marseilles May 20, 1939 Sank in Tagus River, Lisbon, Portugal Feb. 1943 Dixie Clipper Const. # 1992, Registered NC18605 Delivered to Pan Am April, 1939 First scheduled transatlantic passenger service, New York - Marseilles June 18, 1939 Purchased by War Assets Department 1946 Sold to World Airways, scrapped 1950 Berwick Const. # 2082, Registered NC18608 (british G-AGCA) Delivered to British Purchasing Commission (for BOAC) May, 1941 Sold to World Airways, 1948 All of the Boeing 314 'boats continued flying in support of the war effort throughout WWII. Churchill took the controls of one during a trip, and was reportedly greatly amused. After the war, there were plenty of long-range landplanes and long, hard runways available; two things which made big flying boats obsolete. None survive to the present day, all having been lost or scrapped. One was deliberately sunk off New York City for nonpayment of harbor fees... David Fielding dfield@epix.net From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:43 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 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 Howard, List I have done a little digging: 1) The services: Pan American inaugurated the first heavier than air scheduled services across the North Atlantic on 20 May 1939 with Boeing 314 Yankee Clipper (c/n 1990 NC18603) under Capt AE LaPorte, carrying almost one ton of mail from Port Washington via the Azores and Lisbon to Marseilles, in 29 hours. On 24 June, commanded by Harold Gray, the same aircraft opened a northern mail service via Shediac (New Brunswick, Canada), Botwood (Newfoundland) and Foynes to Southampton. On 28 June Capt ROD Sullivan (plus four other flight crew members and four pursers) carried the first 22 scheduled passengers on the southern route on Dixie Clipper (c/n 1992 NC18605). On 8 July Yankee Clipper, under Capt LaPorte carried 17 passengers on the first revenue flight on the northern route. The end to end New York-Southampton one way fare was USD 375 one way, USD 750 round trip. The first pan American schedule was published in July 1939 (local times): PA 101 Port Washington NY dp 0730 Saturday Shediac ar 1230/dp 1330 Botwood ar 1630/dp 1800 Foynes ar 0830/dp 0930 Sunday Southampton ar 1300 PA100 Southampton dp 1400 Wednesday Foynes ar 1530/dp 1630 Botwood ar 0530/dp 0700 Thursday Port Washington ar 1400 Distances from Port Washington: Shediac 593 miles, Botwood 1067, Foynes 3,061, Southampton 3,411. The Marseilles service was also weekly. Four aircraft were allocated to the routes. A detailed inspection followed each round trip, initially taking four days, later reduced to 48 hours. Six flying boat commanders were allocated to the routes, but two of them were assigned to the Marseilles route. On 3 September 1939, Britain and France declared war on Germany and on 5 September 1939, Pan American announced that all services to Southampton and Marseilles would be suspended with Foynes and Lisbon (in neutral states) becoming the terminals. The last Pan American flight in 1939 left Foynes on 7 October and services were suspended for the winter. In fact, Pan American did not return to Foynes until 20 May 1942. During summer 1942, they operated twice weekly New York (La Guardia)- Shediac-Botwood-Foynes. Some flights also served Lough Erne in Northern Ireland where many US troops (and aircraft) were stationed. In Winter, Botwood iced up and flights operated New York-Horta (Azores)-Lisbon- Foynes. One aircraft was lost on alighting on the River Tagus at Lisbon on 22 February 1943. The last Pan American flying boat service left Foynes on 29 October 1945, the previous day having seen their first DC-4 landplane service arrive at Rineanna (now better known as Shannon). 2) The Aircraft: The Boeing 314 won a Pan American competition for long range aircraft and a contract for six aircraft was signed on 21 July 1936 for deliveries starting on 21 December 1937. In fact, first delivery was delayed until 27 January 1939 (two aircraft c/n 1988-89, NC18601-2) plus four others (c/n 1990-3, NC18603-6) later in 1939. Six more Boeing 314As (c/n 2081-6 NC18607-12) were ordered with delivery in 1941, but three of these were diverted to British Overseas Airways Corporation, BOAC (c/n 2081 G-AGBZ, c/n 2082 G-AGCA, c/n 2084 G-AGCB). Yankee and Dixie Clippers are already mentioned above. Berwick was the name of the second BOAC aircraft delivered in May 1941. Maybe your grandfather was involved in training BOAC crews. The date he flew this aircraft would be interesting, since the US did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the US banned its ships and aircraft from operating in the war zone (although there was some activity including early location of troops in Northern Ireland). After the war, the surviving aircraft operated briefly for charter companies (World Airways, Universal, American International) but all had been written off or scrapped by 1951. Sources: Davies, REG, 1964:A History of the World's Airlines. London: Oxford University Press Davies REG, 1987: Pan Am an airline and its aircraft. London: Hamlyn Irish Air Letter, 1985: Aviation on the Shannon. Dublin. Official Airline Guide, 1969: Birth of an Industry, a nostalgic collection of airline schedules 1929-39. Oak Brook: Reuben H Donnelley Corporation. "Last of the Flying Clippers : The Boeing B-314 Story" M.D. Klaas; Hardcover; @ $59.95 each at , a new publication, looks like being a very detailed account of the aircraft and its operations but my order of 3 August has yet to be shipped. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:44 From: the_singer@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Performance drop on B772ER ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I offer the following to stimulate further discussion... B777 engines are well instrumented so measuring engine performance accurately should not be a problem. If an aircraft is losing performance then I would assume that calculating the aiframe performance loss is simply total deterioration less engine deterioration. Perhaps the following could account for airframe performance loss: 1. Control Surfaces not correctly located 2. Undercarriage doors not flush 3. Increased Operating Empty Weight 4. Instrumentation Errors 5. Operating Procedures 6. Baseline Data Items 1 & 2 - On a long haul flight any small into-wind step could have a substantial effect. Item 3 - Aircraft get heavier with time, modifications generally add weight, aircraft get dirty, airlines carry more cabin items. When was the aircraft last weighed? Item 4. - The longer the mission the more accurate the data, but similarly if the instrumentation is in error or the various transducers are drifting with time then any small error could be magnified. Item 5. - Full power take-offs versus derated take-off's? Could a change of airline policy influence the overall data? Similarly if the APU is started earlier in flight then the increased drag from the APU door would probably have a major influence. Item 6 - Presumably Boeing produces a "model" aircraft to which all other aircraft are compared against in terms of airfcraft performance. How much actual data do Boeing ontain on long range flights and how much do they have to assume from the flight data? Any real performance engineers out there? Rgds Ken From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:45 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Performance drop on B772ER ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Bob Mann wrote: > Where was this performance degradation reported? All I will tell you is that I got this from inside a well known asian carrier. > If the 1.5-2.0% SFC deterioration is not "understood", how is it atributed > to airframe? I wrote : "For reasons not understood the B777-200ER has deteriorated some 1.5 to 2 percent fuel burn. What's interesting is that this performance loss appears to be primarily airframe related rather than engine related." Note that in my initail post it is stated "this performance loss *APPEARS* to be primarily airframe related". Thus we may conclude that both the carrier and the manufacturer have only assumptions at this stage. The reason I posted this information in the group was to get more information on this problem. Note that the MD11s had at the beginning of it's carrer performance problems, which were related to the frame and not to the engines. This 777 problem -- if confirmed -- seems however to occur only with time. -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sep 21 00:31:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:46 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>>Yes, Boeing could have built an entirely new aircraft, but chose not to >>>do so. That reduced time to market and lowered costs (hence incresing >>>profits and/or lowering price) for Boeing, while allowing much greater >>>commonality for previous 737 customers. >> >>And, let's not forget that they only expected to sell about fifty of 'em. >>R&D had to be kept to a minimum. This was, after all, before airline >>deregulation. > >Deregulation was approved by the US Congress in 1978. Boeing didn't >decide to build the 737-300 until two years later, in 1980, and its >first flight came in 1984. Far from being a serendipitious beneficiary >of deregulation, the 2nd generation 737 was the first aircraft tailor- >made for deregulation. Totally agree. If you check the B737 order history, for most part, the first generation had not been a big seller for Boeing and was trailing the DC-9 by a good margin. In 1978, all of a sudden, sales of the aircraft picked up dramatically. I don't think it's a coincidence that Deregulation in the US took place in the same year. MD updated the DC-9 by stretching it (i.e., the MD-80) and was only mildly successful in the market place. Boeing updated the B737 and more than made up for the mis-sized B727 replacement (i.e., B757). Nevertheless, in retrospect, by leaving the 150-seat, trans-Continental sector open, Boeing did allow Airbus a huge opportunity to move into the single-aisle market. Thus, comparing the second-genration B737 and the A320 is comparing apples and oranges. They don't even cater to the same market (but there is some overlap). The third-generation B737 is a more direct competitor of the A320. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:47 From: "Michael Weiss" Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Microsoft Corp. Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>And, let's not forget that they only expected to sell about fifty of 'em. >>R&D had to be kept to a minimum. This was, after all, before airline >>deregulation. > >Deregulation was approved by the US Congress in 1978. Boeing didn't >decide to build the 737-300 until two years later, in 1980, and its >first flight came in 1984. Far from being a serendipitious beneficiary >of deregulation, the 2nd generation 737 was the first aircraft tailor- >made for deregulation. Sorry. I should have been clearer. I meant the first generation 737. I suppose one could say that there was more justification to replace the 737 with a completely new design (sort of like the original intent of the 757 as a replacement for the 727). From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:48 From: Boeing707@worldnet.att.net (levelflight) Subject: Re: Is the 737 a hazard for cargo loaders? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 10 Sep 98 02:08:24 , Richard Hay wrote: >IIRC reading a Qantas executive saying that the 737's were a OH&S hazard >for their freight loaders - the under floor cargo bays being so small that >back injuries are common > >Anybody had any personal experiences? - are A320s any better? A resounding no. I work in 737-200s/-300s/ and -400s for USAirways in FLL. The 737 airplane is a joy to work from a bin standpoint. The bins average about 4-5 feet high depending upon the model and which bin youre in. Our initial ground training for the A319/320/321 seems to indicate about the same dimensions. As for the worst airplanes I've ever worked from a bin standpoint, here are my nominations: (first listed as the worst) 1. Fokker F-100. Without a doubt the most backbreaking (literally) bin I've ever worked. The rear bin is even worse. The bin floors are covered with a fiberglas panel that gets all over you, as an added bonus. 2. MD-80/DC-9. Three bins on a narrowbody?!? Also not much height inside, albeit a little more than the F100. 3. Bac-111. Cargo doors were heavy and sometimes came off the tracks. Also rear bin was claustrophobic. The one redeeming quality about the 111 was that we had the front bin carpeted; great for napping between offload and onload!! Ken Smith Boeing707@worldnet.att.net From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:49 From: cwunder@offline.no (Claus Wunderbaum) Subject: Re: Is the 737 a hazard for cargo loaders? 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: www.pekin.net/times Reply-To: big-john@bigfoot.com On 10 Sep 98 02:08:24 , Richard Hay, wrote: >the 737's were a OH&S hazard >for their freight loaders - the under floor cargo bays being so small that >back injuries are common The 737 cargo bays may be small, but just you climb into the aft hold of a Fokker 100. Gives a new meaning to words like cramped and narrow. -- - CW - ·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º> When God creates a beautiful woman, the devil creates a new account. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:50 From: "Alan" Subject: Re: Is the 737 a hazard for cargo loaders? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: XMission http://www.xmission.com/ Richard Hay wrote in message ... >IIRC reading a Qantas executive saying that the 737's were a OH&S hazard >for their freight loaders - the under floor cargo bays being so small that >back injuries are common > >Anybody had any personal experiences? - are A320s any better? I've worked 737 cargo bins for years (also 727, 757, MD-88, MD-90, 767, L-1011, MD-11); the size of the bins is not a problem. There is limited head clearance when kneeling under the door (it opens inward and hangs down from the bin ceiling about 8 inches), but it's not a huge problem. The bins of the MD-88 and MD-90 are substantially smaller in both height and width- it's like loading and unloading a sewer culvert. In those aircraft, your back can indeed get sore if you're trying to move extremely heavy freight pieces. My experience is that as long as you're wearing gloves and good kneepads, you're not going to injure yourself- unless you're stupid and abuse your back while you work, and the shape of the aircraft bin has nothing to do with that unless you're extremely tall. -Alan, Delta Ramp Supervisor From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:51 From: michael clavien Subject: Liquid cooling on aircrafts ?? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indcontrol Pty Ltd Hi All I need to find a reliable way to cool some high power electronics. I would like to know if there is any such thing as heat exchangers/radiators on aircrafts? I am looking for something small ,about the size of 2 liter(1/2 gallon) container If you do know, what is it used for and what is the liquid used Please reply to my email address -- Regards Michael Clavien INDCONTROL PTY LTD < POWER ELECTRONICS and CONTROLS> 294 Norton St Leichhardt 2040 Australia From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:52 From: "Stephen Gilkes" Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM According to Karl Sabbach's excellent book "21st Century jet" the wings of the 777 were expected to snap at about 24 feet from the normal position. He doesn't mention in distance when the wings actually snapped but does state that the force involved was 154 percent of the maximum normal load. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:53 From: procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M.Procida) Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK Sandy Howard wrote: > >I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 > >feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is > >correct and where I might find the facts on this. I checked the Boeing > >site and was unable to find anything. > > Try adding a zero to your estimates. I'm sure you've all heard this joke before, but it's a favourite of mine. A passenger is staring nervously out over the flexing wing as the plane lurches uncomfortably through severe turbulence. Eventually he summons a stewardess and points it out to her, flexing through several metres of travel. "Don't worry, sir," she tells him reassuringly, "it's designed to do that." "Look," he replies urgently, "*I* designed that wing and it's *not* designed to do that!" Daniele -- ... in breadth and sweetness of melody it is unsurpassed... But it is not enough to put Procida into our good graces. J. Budden From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:54 From: "David M. Clark" <9404136c@student.gla.ac.uk> Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM All airliner wings can flex incredible amounts, as you'd expect when you think about the load they have to carry. Next time you're on an airliner next to a window, just check the wingtip level on the ground, then in the climb - you'll see the tip move from below the level of the window, to inline with the top of the fuselage! From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:55 From: "Michael M. McCormick" Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company OK, how about a reply to my own posting? I happened to be at an open house in Everett, WA this weekend (where the 777 is built) and saw the video of the 777 wing failure test again. The person manning the information booth there told me the wings flexed 24 feet (not 17 as I recalled) before failure. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:56 From: jstaik@aol.com (JStaik) Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I heard once that a 747 wing is designed to flex in turbulence up to 6 >feet at the tip (3 feet up, 3 feet down). Does anyone know if this is >correct and where I might find the facts on this... I know the Boeing B-52 wing was supposed to be able to flex a total of 25 feet. You could tell the fuel state of the bird on the ramp by the droop in the wings. One supposes that Boeing would have some continuity in wing technology. You might look in a 747 flight manual - no doubt one is available somewhere on the web. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:57 From: pchapman@ionsys.com (Peter Chapman) Subject: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Psychic Friends Network, Inc. A couple days ago I saw a fascinating sight I had never yet come across -- seeing the shockwave of local transonic flow above the wing of an airliner in flight. This isn't the visualization of low pressure because of condensing water vapour, a more commonly observed phenomenon. I'd like to hear comments on this. While my undergrad was in aero engineering (making this all the more fascinating), I'm not in the business now. During a flight in a B-757, what I first saw were a number of tangled lines of shadows that basically formed one line extending outboard for about 10 feet from the fuselage, on the upper wing surface, at roughly the 1/2 chord point. These shadows danced fore and aft by about 30 cm total with any little bit of turbulence the aircraft reacted to. The reason I could see the shadows this time, but not on any other flight I've been on, was because the sun was on the other side of the aircraft, direcly in line with my view from a window seat outboard onto the center of the wing root area. The light would be shining right down along a plane perpendicular to the airflow direction, if the shock was barely at Mach 1. Then when I moved my head so that I was right inline with the shadows, the view out to the wingtips was distorted along a thin vertical line, that also moved in unison with the shadows. This was now a more direct viewing of the shockwave itself, or at least its effect on light passing through it. The effect was only seen when the light refracted at a very shallow angle almost directly inline with the shock wave with its abrupt change in air density. Schlieren photos work on the basis of density changes too, or am I mistaken? The airliner might be travelling at 0.8 Mach. Generally one doesn't want any shock waves -- with large drag increases around the speed of sound. Is it reasonable that locally, at least in the inboard area of the wing a slight shock wave could form during normal cruise conditions? I haven't tried working out what pressure coefficients would be appropriate, or learned whether there's an increased thickness to chord ratio at the root that would make a undesirable shock wave more likely. It was fascinating to be there in flight, seeing aerodynamic effects that are normally invisible. Took a couple photos too. Peter Chapman Toronto, Canada From kls Mon Sep 21 00:31:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:58 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: BIG GE-90 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The current issue of Flight International reports that GE is studying a 112,000 pound thrust version of the GE90 for the 777-200X. The same article reports the thrusting APU proposed for the heavyweight 200X is going to be a 'non-starter'. This is a significant reversal from pervious reports that GE was not interested in higher thrust versions of the GE90 to compete with the PW4098 or Trent8102. I guess they don't want to compete, they want to leave them behind! The 112,000 pound thrust GE90 should support a 777 aircraft with a MGTOW of about 780,000 pounds, and have runway and other requirements similar to the current -200IGW/ER aircraft. The problem for those unfamilar is the -200X realistically needs an engine in the 110,000 pound thrust range to give acceptable MGTOW performance, and it isn't clear that either the RR Trent 800 or PW4000 can get there. Most of the Industry admitted long ago that the GE90 could probably be take to about 120,000 pounds thrust. James Matthew Weber 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 Mon Sep 21 00:31:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:31:59 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: RAT for CVR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin David Lesher wrote: > There are very valid reason for not putting the CVR onto the > last-chance emergency battery bus, but how about on its own > deployable ram air turbine? No, it shouldn't be on a bus at all, nor on a RAT. It *should* have an internal lithium battery backup so that it will continue operating even if you rip it out of the aircraft, IMHO :-) So should the DFDR- even if its inputs lose power and fall off-line, the recorder itself shouldn't be the weak link. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Mon Sep 21 00:32:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:00 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: RAT for CVR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) wrote: > There are very valid reason for not putting the CVR onto the > last-chance emergency battery bus, but how about on its own > deployable ram air turbine? The power must also be supplied to the Flight Data Acquisition Unit that collects the data and converts it to a form that can be recorded. On the subject of power availability to the DFDR or the CVR in the back end of the aeroplane, there is a source available, the APU battery. This assisted in the start up of the APU, is fully charged and has no other purpose as far as I can see once the APU is running and providing power to the buses cowboy -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum From kls Mon Sep 21 00:32:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:01 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: A340 gear incidents 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: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Following the recent A340 gear problems with the Sabena A342 and the A343 from Virgin, the internet edition of the 'Neue Zürcher Zeitung' wrote the following : 'After the emergency landing of a Sabena Airbus A 340 last Saturday with four slightly injured persons, Airbus Industries has issued a directiv calling for the inspection of all A 340 jets fitted with "Type D" gears. According to Sabena this measure will apply only to 6 aircraft worldwide. The Belgian carrier which iis owned to 49,5 % by Swissair, has four A-340. Of these four, only one will fall under the directive since the other three ones are equipped with "Type E" and "Type F" gears.' What type of gear did the Virgin A340 have ? IIRC the Virgin incident was different to the SN one as they detected the problem while being in the air, whereas the SN gear 'broke' after touching down. Any insights ? -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sep 21 00:32:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:02 From: domk1031@cetus.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: a340-500/600 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 09 Sep 98 04:12:12 , "Luis Sanchez" wrote: >>Will the cruising speed of the a340-500/600 be any geater >>than the a340-200/300 after the wing modifications? > >OF course, it depends of the angle of lead edge respect to the central axe >of the plane, that will be changed. Of course, it depends on the sweep of the upper surface isobars respectively the percentile chord where the shock is located ;-) Burkhard From kls Mon Sep 21 00:32:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:03 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Boudewijn Verhaar wrote: >Could you give me an idea of the RR, GE and PW powered fleets around the >globe? These companies can power most of the commercial aircraft can't >they? (Boeing, Airbus, McDonnell-Douglas, Fokker, Saab) I will give you a brief list of aircraft over 100 seats. Market share and fleet size (including those on order) are very rough estimates: fleet size GE P&W R-R CFMI IAE BRR Airbus A300 ~450 75% 5%(JT9D) 20%(PW4000) A310 ~300 65% 10%(JT9D) 25%(PW4000) A319/20/21 ~1,800 60% 40% A330 ~250 15% 45% 40% A340 ~250 25% 75% Boeing B707 ~1,000 <100% >0% B727 ~1,800 100% B737 ~4,000 25% 75% B747 ~1,300 25% 35%(JT9D) 20% 20%(PW4000) B757 ~900 <45% >55% B767 ~800 60% >10%(JT9D) < 5% 25% B777 ~450 30% 35% 35% Douglas DC-8 ~600 100% DC-9 ~1,000 100% MD DC-10 ~450 90% 10% MD-11 ~200 55% 45% MD-80 ~1,200 100% MD-90 ~150 100% MD-95 55 100% Fokker F100 300 100% Lockheed L-1011 250 100% Many of these numbers are not very accurate, but it should give you a rough idea how each engine company is doing. >Are air-line companies that loyal that they power their whole fleet >(from small to big) with RR engines, for example? Hong Kong's Cathay Pacific used to have an all-R-R fleet, but now has a sizable CFM56-powered A340 fleet. I can't think of any major airlines with an all-R-R fleet. There used to be a lot airlines with all-P&W fleet, but it is harder and harder to find one now. Loyalty to engine companies is rare now. That's why you have Delta which operates both GE- and P&W-powered B767s, Lufthansa operates both CFM- and IAE-powered A320 family, UPS operates both R-R- and P&W-powered B757s, and the list goes on. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:32:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:04 From: jstaik@aol.com (JStaik) Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology publises such a list annually. This is the most widely circulated aaviation industry magazine an most large libraries keep a copy or two. From kls Mon Sep 21 00:32:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:05 From: mskonfa@usa.net Subject: CO's First B777-200ER's First Flight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Hey Fellow Enthusiasts, It's been a hectic two weeks, I've been gathering pictures for my site and now finally I am updating it slowly but surely. I think you will all love the latest update: Continental Airlines' First B777-200ER on its First Flight in Paine Field in Everett Washington USA. I have tons more stuff to add including: Al Gore flying in N80001 (757) in BFI KE's B747-400 Cargo being tested in PAE Heavy crosswinds for the heavies at JFK NW's and AC's airplanes stranded all over the country Plus much more. Hopefully they will all be there by the end of the week. I'll keep everyone posted. Please enjoy. Hey, a friend of mine had a question: What was the rationale used for the designation used in giving country codes for airplane registrations: e.g. Jamaica is 6Y, Trinidad is 9Y, The U.S. is N, Canada is C, China is B, France is F, U.K. is G, Germany is D, etc. Some of them makes sense, but why is the U.S. N and not U? Anyone... Thanks in advance. Kerwin... Crusin' Altitude http://www.cruisinaltitude.com airline photos, free wants ads and more... mskonfa@usa.net ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1 From kls Mon Sep 21 00:32:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:06 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: B717 Flight Test References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >The 717 will have a pre-exit reverser on a BR715 engine. Stangs will not be >visible. The nozzle exit will be planar What is a stang? Antoin Daltun From kls Mon Sep 21 00:32:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 00:32:07 From: Scott Decker Subject: Fuel Dump Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Enterprise Server Group In light of the MD11 Crash, I'm NOT trying to start a debate over this incident because the facts are not in yet, but I have a question regarding something that was mentioned about this tragedy. It was mention that the pilot may have dumped to much or all of the fuel. I don't think this was the case personally however it brought up a question. Can ALL the fuel be dumped in a situation like this? Is it possible to accidentally starve your own engines if you forget to stop? Again I don't want to start anything in respect to the crash, but just a simple question. -- Scott Decker AKA: PadMasterson Praegitzer Design On Location at Enterprise Server Group CO3 Intel Corporation Ph: (503)-677-6582 E-MAIL: Scott.Decker@pii.com From kls Mon Sep 21 03:57:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 03:57:22 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) 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 jbartolo@pacbell.net writes: >PS2727 wrote: >I'm not an expert on all the details of this incident, but I thought >that regardless of the computers and flight control system, if you're at >the far end of the power curve (max power and high AOA) the only thing >you have left is to lower the nose to gain airspeed. If you're at 30 >AGL, you have no options. So here's a question. The A320's flight control computers aren't performing finite element analysis every second of the way to determine maximum performance (not on 386's and MC68000s, at least :-)). They're dealing with look-up tables, with values determined to represent maximum performance in a laboratory. Considering this, no doubt alpha-max is determined to be a value *conservatively* defined NOT to be more than true alpha-max. This value no doubt would need to consider normal wear and tear, additional drag sources, etc. There will always be compromises introduced by the flight testing and development process. Therefore, even though, *academically*, your argument is correct, in *reality*, there very likely was some energy to be goosed out of the (perfectly functional and normally operating) system. This is one reason why the solution to low-energy accidents isn't protecting the airplane from the flight crew--it's better feedback and control systems. Let the crew understand what's going on and let them do what's necessary for that situation. But all this is speculation. Perhaps someone from AI would comment on the design of their higly proprietary flight control system? No pilots: engineers. :-) This in no way excuses Asseline from flying the airplane in such a way that he was so low, at such a high deck angle, that he couldn't see the trees he was about to fly into. Yes, the energy reserve might have been usable. But he shouldn't have been in that situation to begin with. Just like the Cali 757 crash. Who cares if the 757 doesn't have automatic spoiler retraction on TOGA power, or whatever malicious rubbish the Boeing- bashers were spreading around. The root cause of that crash went to the design and usage of the FMS and a variety of failures which resulted in the airplane being flown on the wrong track and profile. That's where engineering attention should be focused. Give the pilots the tools they need to enhance situational awareness and provide them with standardized methods of flying the airplane. Heroic-measures systems should truly be the lowest priority. -- 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 Mon Sep 21 03:57:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Sep 98 03:57:23 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Janet, me and our cats in our little cottage Reply-To: news@pegase.demon.co.uk On 10 Sep 98 03:04:17 , in , J. B. wrote: >PS2727 wrote: >> If I am flying at 30 ft and high AOA and want to "go around" I would add >> power and pull up, expecting the elevators to go up and engines to >> accelerate. From what I understand about the A320 control systems this >> is not necessarily what happens in all cases. > >I'm not an expert on all the details of this incident, but I thought >that regardless of the computers and flight control system, if you're at >the far end of the power curve (max power and high AOA) the only thing >you have left is to lower the nose to gain airspeed. If you're at 30 >AGL, you have no options. You are absolutely right. It always *seems* counterintuitive and therefore difficult for even experienced pilots to do, but the way out of the described situation (at some larger altitude than 30 feet) is to push the nose down. ISTR Pete Mellor in another post saying that the DFDR showed the pilot *trying* to pull the nose up - in which case he was doing totally the wrong thing. The FCS trying to push the nose down was trying to do the right thing. However, as JB says, at 30 feet you have no options left. The way I was taught to fly and the way I have been taught to teach people to fly is simply to *always* give yourself a way out. This debate backs up my theory underlying the Habsheim accident, that software people always blame the computers, and pilots always blame the pilot :-) -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From news Sun Sep 27 09:15:49 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Tim Lee" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Re: A340 gear incidents Date: 27 Sep 1998 15:31:47 GMT Organization: BT Internet Sender: Usenet News System Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <6ubcg6$kdd$1@uranium.btinternet.com> References: I used to be responsible for puchasing the main gears for A330 and A340 from Messier Dowty, and this post interested me! AFAIR, most of the aircraft were fitted with D standard gear (up to about MSN140, which is about as far as I got before leaving). During my time there, product improvements were continous, so what letter they're up to now, God knows. I'm not sure what MSN the Virgin aircraft is, but I'd guess it was a D or pre-D gear. You're right - the VS aircraft had an extension failure (caused I believe by a maintenance error with the brake rods) - the crew then landed on the understanding that they had a leg missing. The SN case is interesting, and I wasn't aware of it. Having seen many facts and figs about the MLG of A330/340, and having known many of the highly careful and competent people who design and build them, a "break" seems incredible. Rgds Tim From news Sun Sep 27 14:57:28 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!news-peer-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: BA to equip newly ordered B777s with R-R Trent engines Date: 27 Sep 1998 13:50:35 PDT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <6um8er$5q8@journal.concentric.net> BA has announced its engine selection for the recently ordered B777s. As speculated earlier, BA opted for the Trent 895 engine instead of the GE90 currently powers all BA's B777s in service. The order is for up to 64 units of Trent 895. With this order, R-R now takes over P&W as the prime engine supplier on the B777. (Before the Singapore Airlines' B777 order in 1995, R-R had a measely 10-15% of the B777 market.) After 30 years, R-R's triple-spool design finally seems to be paying off.