From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:10 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 , Arne Stuermer wrote: >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, I seriously doubt it. >for reasons I dont remember. High unit operating cost commonly associated with shortened aircraft. >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? SIA is interested in an A310 replacement for mostly regional services with sufficient range to serve secondary points in NE Asia, Australasia, India subcontinent and the Middle East. The B777-100X will be an overkill. Even the B767-400 will be an overkill. Furthermore, my understanding is SIA is interested in aircraft in the 200-seat class. The B777-100X would be way to big! From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:11 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 Arne Stuermer wrote: > 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. This is also confirmed by one of the latest issues of FI. > 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, Two years to be a l'ill bit more precise. > for reasons I dont remember. The operating costs per seat were estimated to be too high. There were of course other factors -- OEW too high, small market -- but this was the main one. > Even though there might be an overlap with > the 767-400 market, it would definetly be superior to it in range. Looking at the sales of the A340NG, it would have been a bad move from Boeing to launch a ultra-long-range-777. The A345 sales not as good as the A346 (details on my site) and the future belongs certainly to the A346 and not to the A345. The A345 and B772X or even B771X remain niche-market-birds. > 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) Remember that the 772X still needs to be launched, as of today Thai, Malaysian, Egyptair, American, Delta and China Airlines are interested. > Anyone know anything? Lots of people know something :-) 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 Mon Oct 5 00:26:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:12 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: RAT for CVR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University "S.L." writes: > 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. Except, of course that you really *want* the CVR (and FDR) to stop at the right moment. They are loop recorders, after all, and you don't want one to spend a week under water continuously re-erasing information from the crash. So presumably you want it to stop at the point where it's ripped out of the aircraft. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:13 From: Subject: Re: RAT for CVR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA S.L. wrote: > 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. I seem to recall that FDR's and CVR's record over old data after 1/2 hour or some other amount of time. How do you propose to have them stop recording after the crash? If they are internally powered they would keep on recording over the information with null inputs for a few days till the recovery crew found them? What good would that be? Getting them to keep running through a total power bus failure is certainly possible, but how long should they continue after that? If you choose too large a time frame you might over-write vital information from the beginning of the incident, too short a time and you still miss the last 'n' minutes of flight. -- Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:14 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: RAT for CVR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. cowboy@ram.net.au wrote: > 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 The only airplanes that I'm aware of that have a dedicated battery for the APU are the 757 and 767. All other airplanes (DC-9, MD-88, MD-90, 727,737,L-1011 ) that I've worked with have only one battery that 's used for emergency power as well as starting the APU. I have worked on DC-10s but I can't recall how the battery situation was on that airplane. I know that the A310 has more than one battery but again I don't recall how that was wired up. Dave From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:15 From: k_ish Subject: Re: RAT for CVR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom S.L. wrote: > 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. One fatal flaw with any battery backup, that has been pointed out in this NG before. A CVR is on a 30-minute loop; a FDR is on a longer loop, probably several days. If the battery backup had continued to run on SR111, by the time the recorders were recovered, they would have contained no data instead of missing the last 10 minutes. Additionally, the last "time stamps" on the CVR and FDR could provide valuable data on how the failure(s) progressed. Also, a lithium battery of the capacity required to power an FDR becomes a substantial hazard in itself. Design a safe source of backup power that knows exactly when to shut itself off under any and all crash scenarios, and the NTSB will beat a path to your door. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:16 From: TJH Subject: Re: RAT for CVR References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Mythical Animals Reply-To: skygodtj@ayeteetee.net Good thought in theory, however, what's to prevent the CVR and DFDR from recording over the very data it's supposed to track during the accident? If it's "own built-in, lithium battery" keeps it recording and in the case of the CVR, 25 hr tape... it would keep recording over the cockpit voices and start recording.... watery bubbling sounds as it sits under 270' of water(not really, no mikes) awaiting rescue. It would really record silence over the voices, and the same with DFDR's. Thought there's no 25 hr tape, it could conceivably keep recording over valuable data during the time it takes to retrieve it from the bottom of the Atlantic, Pacific, top of the Rockies, middle of dense woods... you see my point? It's a good idea, but remember the inputs would cease to provide... inputs. No more cockpit mikes, no more flt control position, no more engine parameters as these could all come apart from the monitoring harnesses... why keep recording... nothing? TJH, B757 IP From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:17 From: steve Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Through a training film I have seen, I believe the initial strength testing of the 747 wing flexed it in a upward direction to a load more than twice it's designed strength and it finally shattered the spar at 37 feet. FYI From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:18 From: tlm@delphi.com Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) "David M. Clark" <9404136c@student.gla.ac.uk> writes: >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! One can see this during takeoff, the wing rising as lift increases with speed. Ed R. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:19 From: Geno Rice Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet JStaik wrote: > 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. In fact, the B52 has a wheel at the end of each wing to prevent the tips from striking the runway on takeoff. Geno Rice From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:20 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Stephen Gilkes wrote: > 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. IIRC the wings never snapped. The body of the plane caved in first. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:21 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >IIRC the wings never snapped. The body of the plane caved in first. It sounds like you may be confused with the 767. They never did break it's wing as the fuselage crumpled first, in the area of the cargo door aft of the wing root, at well beyond the wing's design load. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:22 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) 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 >I know the Boeing B-52 wing was supposed to be able to flex a total of >25 feet. I've heard 23 feet. >One supposes that Boeing would have some continuity >in wing technology. Yes, I think the same physical principles apply. It's just the wing is longer and probably more flexible for some aerodynamic reason. SC~ From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:23 From: me@myhouse.com Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. On 21 Sep 98 00:31:56 , jstaik@aol.com (JStaik) 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 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. Has anyone seen the numbers on the Airbus 340. Watching that thing take off fully loaded, it sure looks like it flexes more than the 747. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:24 From: "DRF" Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Transport category aircraft will not allow fuel to be dumped beyond a pre-set minimum number of pounds. This amount varies by type. Only planes manufactured at the Boeing -Hollywood plant can do that! From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:25 From: Garry Forrest Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University The fuel dump system is controlled to shut off at a predetermined "bingo," or minimum fuel level per FARs. For the MD-11 that may have been around 4,000 lb. per tank. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:26 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Some aircraft have a max takeoff weight that is higher than the max landing weight, so the whole point to dumping fuel is to lower the aircraft's weight to a value below the max landing weight\. My MD-11 book is in storage (Murphy's Rule) but on the 767-300ER, fuel can be jettisoned only from the center tank. The crew must start and stop the jettison operation, if left ON, the tank will be emptied. Jettison rate is about 1,600 lbs/min. The center tank on the -300ER holds 80,400 lbs, at 1,600 lbs/min it would take 50 minutes to empty it. For the L-1011, jettison is stopped automatically when tanks 1 and 3 reach 8,000 lbs and tanks 2L and 2R reach 4,000 lbs. Dave From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:27 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Scott Decker wrote: > 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? I dug out my DC-10 and MD-11 books and on both airplanes when tank 1 and 3 reaches 11,000 lbs and tank 2 reaches 12,000 lbs, the transfer pump turns off and transfer valve for that tank closes automatically. It appears that the only difference, besides that the MD-11's system is vastly more complicated, is that on the MD-11 the dump valves will close automatically, while on the DC-10 the FE will have to close them. Dave From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:28 From: Robert Courteau Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Scott Decker wrote: > 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? The MD11 fuel dump system is controlled by a panel, on which the pilot inputs the amount of fuel to keep; the fuel system controller then dumps until the selected level is reached. It is therefore not possible for the crew to "forget to stop" the dump procedure. Not to mention that I fail to see how running out of fuel would kill the FDR and CVR at the same time as dropping the aircraft out of radar coverage. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:29 From: Jason Beavan Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Zeta Internet, http://www.zeta.org.au/ Scott Decker wrote: > 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. I can only talk for the 747, but I guess all jets would be the same. Fuel can only be jettisoned to 'standpipe' level, there is a considerable quantity of unjettisonable fuel. On the 747(classic) that quantity is 13,150kg at 2.5 deg nose up and 11,800kg at 5 deg nose up. This equates to about 90mins holding fuel till tanks dry. Hope this helps. Regards Jason From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:30 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >In light of the MD11 Crash, I'm NOT trying to start a debate >It was mention that the pilot may have dumped to much or all of the >fuel. I'm not able to answer your specific question, but regarding the circumstances, I suppose if the Flight 111 had a electrical fire in a major bus, then once the Fuel Dump was initiated, then the crew would NOT be able to stop it IF they lost all power. Make sense? Steve C~ From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:31 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Scott Decker wrote: > 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? In the big airliners i know of, the answer is NO. In each fuel tank is a standpipe and the tank can not be emptied below 'standpipe level'. I don't know if the position of the pipe is regulated by law but the fuel remaining seems to be in the order of 45 minutes at low level consumption rates. Don't know for the DC-10 but in boeing 747 there are jettison electric fuel pumps to get rid of the fuel. If Swissair crew was carrying out a electrical fire location and smoke removal then most likely there was no power available for these jettison pumps. If the DC-10 was capable of gravity jettison i suggest that it would be at a very low dump rate. DC-10 operators may like to comment. 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 Oct 5 00:26:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:32 From: apollo_4@my-dejanews.com Subject: Seeking info on SF340 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion I am desperately seeking any info available on the Saab/Fairchild SF340. My step-father is an experienced aircraft mechanic, but he is not familiar with this model plane. He soon has a job interview with a small airline. The position he is seeking would deal with these planes extensively, and he'd like as much info about them that I can find. Here is the type of thing I am looking for. Engine specs and diagrams, electrical schemantics, safety history, FAA Advisory Directives, postings from the National Transportaion Safety Board, etc. Basically, I'm looking for everything you could possibly find out about this aircraft. Any information you can provide me is greatly appreciated. Please reply by e-mail if possible. Thanks in advance. Apollo -----== 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 Oct 5 00:26:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:33 From: "Tom Furnivall" Subject: Aircraft Service Life Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom) I am assuming that when aircraft are sold to airlines there is an expected service life figure. If any of these figures are known I would be interested in knowing which aircraft, on average have been retired 'early' ie. before the number of cycles, flying hours, or years quoted by the manufacturer was reached. And which have been retired 'late'. What are any of these figures (in cycles, flying hours, or years) for aircraft currently in service or production. One I think I know of for the retired late list - DC-3's! From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:34 From: csa722@aol.com (CSA722) Subject: Re: Liquid cooling on aircrafts ?? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >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 Most small aircraft use an oil cooler that would be in the size range you mentioned. Being aircraft parts, they are expensive. There are after market oil cooler kits for autos that would probably work as well and be less pricey. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:35 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: How many hours does a plane log in a year? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: sfeigin@us.oracle.spambegone.com I just saw an article from AP about new 737 wiring problems. Here is part of what they said "The FAA, continuing its focus on tank safety, said Monday it was requiring all airlines to inspect the fuel boost pump wiring on Boeing 737-100 through -500 series aircraft with 20,000 to 30,000 flight hours. That adds up to a little more than one to two years of flight time. " According to my trusty calculator, if the plane never landed once, it would log 20 to 30 thousand in 2.3 to 3.4 years. But what is the realistic number? I guess a Southwest 737 could log 12 hours a day. But wouldn't most log even fewer? Maybe the correct time is 5-8 years? From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:36 From: stevea@nwlink.com Subject: Boeing 747-400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwest Link Was up with a student today (9.27). Watched a British Airways 747-400 depart from Sea-Tac, cross BFI at about 800 ft. AGL, and then make a 180 degree turn and return, landing downwind on Rwy. 16 at Sea-Tac. Maneuverability of the aircraft was impressive. Told it was an emergency landing. Anybody have any more info? (I was busy getting the Aeronca 7AC Champ out of the way - didn't want to get hit with any debris.) From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:37 From: Geno Rice Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet On the subject of the flying boats, I read a novel a few years back that took place on one of them. The author wrote that the engines were servicable during flight and that one of the duties of the engineer was to climb inside the wing to attend to the engines (for example, oiling). Is this true? If so, can you imagine the combination of cold, heat, and noise that the poor man would have had to endure! Regards, Geno Rice From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:38 From: QuantMan@aol.com Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM A great deal of detail on this service, which appears to be well researched, is embedded in an entertaining fiction in Ken Follett's novel, "Night Over Water," published in 1991 and still available. I highly recommend it! Alan Burstein From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:39 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services "Howard Firm" wrote: >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 the Dixie Clipper. His first log was August of 1939 and the last >entry is dated January of 1943. > >Does anybody know of this air service? Berwick was one of the B-314's that went to British Overseas Airways. The other two were both Pan American aircraft. When you say he flew these aircraft do you mean as aircrew? Perhaps he was training British aircrew. There's quite a lot of info available in various places about the Pan Am and BOAC services. These were the only two operators of that type of aircraft at the time you mention. They use to land, if that is the word, at Foynes, in Ireland, on the south bank of the Shannon River, opposite the site of Shannon Airport, and there is a museum there in one of the old terminal buildings, set up I think by Maureen O'Hara, the wife of Capt Charles Blair, who was a pilot for American Export Airlines. (They flew big Sikorsky flying-boats) None of the Boeing 314's have survived, unfortunately. Robin Johnson PS This has got delayed - I'm glad to see some other people interested. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:40 From: patrick_lambourne@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: BIG GE-90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , James Matthew Weber wrote: > 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'. > > 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 What thrust is needed from the engines for the proposed Airbus 3XX, and would the existing/proposed GE-90 be sufficient? I know that airlines can use the same engines in the 767 and 747-400, could the same scenario apply for the 777 and A3XX? Patrick -----== 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 Oct 5 00:26:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:41 From: Evan McElravy Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >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. Agreed: the 737 was nearly cancelled by Boeing brass on three occasions. The DC-9 was a much greater seller (and for good reason, IMHO). >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. Only by comparison to the 737 was the MD-80 "only mildly successful." 1,200 sold is hardly a mild success. Does this mean you would consider the 757 to be a flop? >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. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this argument doesn't wash. The A320 was designed to be an all-around versatile aircraft to replace aging 727s and snag orders from the 737 and, more importantly, the MD-80. The original A320 was a little large for that task and AI produced the A319. Just becuase an aircraft has superior perfromance doesn't mean it is an apples and oranges comparison. Remember that the MD-80 had greater seating capacity and range than the 733 (150/3,014sm to 126/ 2,500sm). The 737-700 was a "catch-up" aircraft, albeit a damn fine one. Evan McElravy evanm@penn.com From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:42 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: > MD updated the DC-9 by stretching it (i.e., the MD-80) and was only > mildly successful in the market place. I normally respect Andrew's judgement, but I'm a little puzzled as to how 1,100+ MD-80 sales represent "only mild success". 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 Mon Oct 5 00:26:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:43 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 H Andrew Chuang wrote: > 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). Well ... the B733 competed with the A319 and the B734 with the A320 to some extend, even if they were apples and oranges. > The third-generation B737 is a more direct > competitor of the A320. I would even say : 'The third-generation B737 is *THE ONLY* competitor of the A320 family'. Or is there still another competitor around which I missed ;) -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Oct 5 00:26:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:44 From: "Riley Rainey" Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Web Simulations 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. I'd be interested in comments, too. I was returning to DFW from Orlando last week in a 767-300 and saw the same thing. I happened to have a digital camera with me and I took a few shots. I saw two prominent lines which intersected, both approximately mid-chord. The lines started near the fusleage. One was perpendicular to the fusleage, one approximately parallel to the leading edge sweep. Both lines disappeared before reaching the location of the engine pylon. Neat to watch. As we slowed to descend, they moved noticeably forward, then disappeared. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:45 From: cleyman@cix.co.uk (Clive Leyman) Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing 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 , pchapman@ionsys.com (Peter Chapman) wrote: > 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. Yes, I've seen that as well, once on a VC10 flying the Atlantic in the afternoon , and once on a Raytheon (nee BAe) 125 flying to Toulouse early morning. On both occasions the sun was low and shining through both cabin windows. First time I saw it (my discipline in aerodynamics also) we got so absorbed by what was going on that the stewardess asked us to desist as we were un-nerving the other passengers!. Although the aircraft may be flying at 0.8M, it is quite usual to have a region of locally supersonic flow over the top surface - hence the description of a supercritical airfoil. One tries to get the flow to re compress without shock waves though, because as you say they cause drag. Boeing might be interested in that one!. What did surprise us on the VC10 was that the shock wave danced over a large part of the chord - obviously not a stable aerodynamic situation, and very different from the impression of stable flow you get from wind tunnel tests. I guess that the balance smooths out most of the force and moment variations. Clive Leyman From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:46 From: Michael B Subject: Performance figures af the B737-300/400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au P/L, Melbourne, Australia Reply-To: michaelb@connect.net.au I am curently flying B737-300 and -400 and would like to get my hands on some performance figures that are not in the performance manuals issued to me by the company I work for. Amongst other things, I'd like to know the single engine climb gradients for a given gross weight and flap setting. This information must be available somewhere. Could you please e-mail me as well as post the reply as i am having problems retrieving messages more than a day old and am away working for up to four days at a time. Thanks. Michael. Thanks. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:47 From: JF Mezei Subject: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM OK, cellphones are a big no-no for on airlines. But it seems that the biggest reason is because at altitude it "confuses" land-bases cell sites. However, if an airplane were to loose all power (or all radios), would it still be feasable to use a passenger's analog cell phoen to keep in touch with ATC/tower ? If so, should it now become part of the "drill" for pilots to request that a pax lend a cellphone as soon as problem is discovered just in case they may need one ? (or perhaps have aricraft equipped with one charged cellphone that works over the frequencies used by the countries the plane is called to travel over ? From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:48 From: Thomas Buro Subject: Delta fuel / delta payload Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wuppertal I am searching for the sensivity data of fuel burn to payload for aircraft. How much fuel (kg) is burned more, when one kg of payload is added to the aircraft. E.g. for a range of 1000 km, 5000 km and 10.000 km. Has anyone this data for actual aircraft types. Regards Thomas Buro buro@gmx.net From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:49 From: Thomas Buro Subject: RTO Decision made by the computer Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wuppertal On a conference about the design of human-machine systems, i.e. Cockpit design the issue of Rejected take off was discussed. A professor could mathematically prove that decisions shortly before V1 is reached are better made by a computer. The scenario was: one engine failure, no further problems etc. In case of engine failure and a wrong decision of the pilot the computer would fly the aircraft. What do professional pilots think about that issue? Would you like such a system, which is taking control or would you like to have warnings from the computer what is the better decision ? (How should such a warning look like) Regards Thomas P.S.: The accident some years ago in warschau is interesting for this issue too. Can someone tell me the Date, AC, etc. and where to get more information about it. Thanx (Please send also a copy to buro@gmx.net directly) From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:50 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: CO's First B777-200ER's First Flight References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet mskonfa@usa.net wrote: : 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. The designations originate in radio call sign allocations, which were started in the 1912-27 period and are maintained by the International Telecommunications Union. U was to USSR. USA took K, N and W, and has added others more recently. -- Gerry From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:51 From: JF Mezei Subject: SR111: Reality check please Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I have seen some news-releases from US law firms stating that the MD11 is capable of an emergency descent at 6000 feet per minute. Can anyone confirm this ? If the 6000 number is not accurate, please substitute it with the proper number in subsequent questions. When a pilot is told that the threshold for a runway is X miles away, does this mean that the pilot must plan to be at altitude 0 at the threshold ? If not, how high must he be ? and how far would that threshold be from the actual runway ? If one is to make an emergency descent at 6000 feet/min, how far from the threshold (and how high) must he level the plane to make final approach ? During a descent, how fast can an MD11 go in terms of airspeed ? During an emergency 6000ft/min descent, how slow could that plane go ? How long would it take to slow the plane from its descent speed to a speed acceptable for landing? (in time or distance units). - - - - - - In the case of TWA800, the engines continued to run even after the plane was decapitated (cockpit lost). On a plane of that vintage, would the engine throttles simply stay where they were or would the fuel pumps stop working and engines just run for a while on what is left in the lines ? Assuming that there was total failure in the MD11 cockpit and that the cockpit was electrically separated from the rest of the plane. Would the MD11's engines continue to operate at the last throttle level which was set, or would they just exhaust whatever fuel is left in their lines ? Do the electrical systems of an engine (fuel pump, FADEC etc) operate directly off the engine's generator or do they feed from the airplane's power buses ? - - - - - - - We know that the plane was "viable" between 22:15 and 22:26, roughly 11 minutes between the time the pilots started to act on Halifax and the time the electrical system failed. We also know that the plane was able to sustain a certain level of control after that (from the fact that the plane made a tight circle - is that a correct assumption ?). Swissair's simulator said that it would have been physically impossible for them to land the plane without making the detour at Peggy's cove. Lawyers state that it could have been and that the plane could have descended faster without problem. But the question is: even if it could descend fast enough, would it have been able to travel the horizontal distance to Halifax ? From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:52 From: checkmy@sig.gov (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: SR111 Fuel numbers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Reply-To: checkmy@sig.gov I think in the confusion of the cockpit, that the pilot gave the weight of the airplane. Perhaps the confusion of translating caused this. Ray Clawson -- The reply field has been changed to foil spammbots. My email address is dc8ray at airmail dot net I don't know if this works or not but it makes me feel better. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:53 From: Mexcellent Subject: Re: SR111 Fuel numbers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Virginia James Matthew Weber (m.weber@duc.com.kw) wrote: : 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! According to this transcript http://www.abcnews.com/wire/World/AP99987130.html Swissair 111 (10:21:30.1)@: Roger. At the time, uh, fuel on board is, uh, two-three-zero tons. We must, uh, dump some fuel. May we do that in this area during descent? (Note: Two three zero tons represents the current gross weight of the aircraft, not the amount of fuel on board.) From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:54 From: Phil Wood Subject: Re: SR111 Fuel numbers 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 James Matthew Weber wrote: > I have now seen a couple of transcripts where the pilots of SR111 > claims fuel aboard at 230 tons. That is what he said, but it is generally assumed he was talking about the gross weight of the entire aircraft - He was probably worried about his landing weight, not fuel weight. According to the Boeing web page (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md-11/product.html), the MD-11 carries up to 38,615 gal. (~100+ tons) of fuel, and I've read that Swissair tankering was common from JFK ... > 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! Again, from Boeing's web, MGTOW: 602,500 lbs Empty: 291,600 lbs -- Phil Wood woodp@woodp.com Philip.Wood@sv.sc.philips.com Phil's Home on the Web From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:55 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: SR111 Fuel numbers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University James Matthew Weber writes: > I have now seen a couple of transcripts where the pilots of SR111 claims > fuel aboard at 230 tons. > 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? The annotation on ABC's Web site assumes that the pilot was actually quoting groos weight, rather than fuel weight. Much more plausible. MGTOW is listed as 273 metric tons, 286 tons for the extended-range version. Typical operating empty weight is 132-133 tons. See for details. The captain was under considerable stress, after all, and the gross weight was probably uppermost in his mind in terms of an emergency landing. An understandable error under the circumstances. BTW: a ton is only 2,000lb. in the U.S, and not always here. The long ton is very roughly equivalent to the metric ton, which is 1,000kg. or about 2,200lb. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:56 From: hasse@iphcip1.physik.uni-mainz.de Subject: type of aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Johannes Gutenberg-Universitaet Mainz, Germany What is the difference between a Boing 737-200 Advanced and a Boing 737-275 Advanced (or a 727-247 (F) Advanced and a 727-260 (F) Advanced)? Where can i found some information about the second number of the aircraft description? Or is there a simple system behind the number? thanks Jan From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:57 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: type of aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What is the difference between a Boing 737-200 Advanced and a >Boing 737-275 Advanced (or a 727-247 (F) Advanced and a 727-260 (F) >Advanced)? See ftp://ftp.chicago.com/pub/airliners/boeing-code -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:58 From: Julian Scarfe Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Scientific Generics John Wright wrote: > 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. Is this standard behaviour of the FCS, then? The way I understand it, in normal law, pulling back on the sidestick commands an upwards acceleration. If the FCS needs to push the nose *down* to achieve that acceleration because the aircraft is flying on the back side of the drag curve, will it do so? That might explain the apparent "opposite" reaction, as Pete Mellor described it: "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." So the question then is what mode was actually selected and why? -- Julian Scarfe From kls Mon Oct 5 00:26:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:26:59 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 I agree that the maneuver should not have been done in that setting, but my point is simply this- The Airbus approach to automation does not, in my opinion, merge well with the way transport pilots have operated aircraft. Strange as it may seem, there are many situations in airline flying where crews revert to stick and rudder skills to save a rapidly deteriorating situation. To expect the thousands of pilots worldwide to embrace and become comfortable with the idea of flying a computer is proving to be a problem. This incident is an example of a pilot expecting his airplane to do A and it does B. There was never a situation that I know of where the crew of a 727 were confused as to what mode the flight controls were in. Maybe we should stop and rethink this. I have nothing against Airbus machines, I just question putting a computer between the pilot and the control surfaces on a transport airplane. Paul From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:00 From: "eden" Subject: Turbofan sketch Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Divisão O&M Dear friends, i'm instructor of powerplant in Brazil, and i'm searching for some sketchs made in AutoCAD, any engine attend of my demand, old or new, it is only for teaching in my class. If someone Knows where i can find it or if someone could send it to me i would be very thankful. best regards Eden Rodrigues Nunes Junior From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:01 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: A340 upgrade Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu What change is needed to convert an A340-311 with CFM56-5C2 to an A340-313X with CFM56-5C4. I know that -- among other factors -- the MTOW was increased on the 313X. If memory serves it has also a strengthened wing and undercarriage. Is this conversion possible, if yes what changes are needed on the frame and on the engines. Can the changes on the frame be performed during a C or D check ? Any experts out there ? -------------------------------------------------------- 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 Oct 5 00:27:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:02 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 , I wrote: >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: [list snipped] Just want to make a note, it's obvious that I listed market share based on original engine choice. I did not include re-engining share, such as the DC-8 and B727. >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. With the recent A340 order by Emirates, R-R said in its press release said that Emirates will eventually become an all-Trent airline. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:03 From: Arne Stuermer Subject: Airbus Safety 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 Fact is: the A320 family has a larger number of hull-loss accidents per million departures than does its competitor the B737 series. Check the statistics... I believe the Russian accident might have been confused with the one by a Lufthansa A320 in Warsaw, Poland. This was a hull loss on landing, after spoilers and thrust reversers could not be deployed during a landing on a wet runway. Apparently aquaplaning was an issue, prompting the planes computers yo not get the necessary all-wheels down signal necessary for this deployment. What Id like to know is why Euro press jumped on every possible MD-11 glitch lately, but no reports were made on Sabena A340 landing gear collapse last week... Just something that makes me think sometimes... From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:04 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Fact is: the A320 family has a larger number of hull-loss accidents per >million departures than does its competitor the B737 series. Check the >statistics... I don't have all the statistics readily at hand, unfortunately, but I do have some of the pieces. On August 19, I posted a message including some stats from http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm. Here are the relevant from that article: Model Rate Events Flights ----- ---- ------ ------- Airbus A320 0.77 4 5.2M Boeing 737-100/200 0.72 34 47.1M Boeing 737-300/400/500 0.47 11 23.5M "Events" in this case is passenger fatalities, not hull losses which I find more relevant in discussions of a given airframe's safety, but at least we have the number of flights or departures. Total for the 737 family is 70.6 million. (This data is slightly data so the number of 737NG operations is insignificant.) There have been six A320 family hull losses to date, all involving the A320 (no A319 or A321 has been lost): date flight reg model fatal location ---- ------ --- ----- ----- -------- 26-Jun-1988 AF F-GFKC A320-111 3 Habsheim, FR 14-Feb-1990 IC 605 VT-EPN A320-231 92 Bangalore, IN 20-Jan-1992 IT 5148 F-GGED A320-111 87 Mt. Ste. Odile (Strasbourg), FR 14-Sep-1993 LH 2904 D-AIPN A320-211 2 Warsaw, PL 10-Mar-1997 GF 071 A40-EM A320-212 0 Abu Dhabi, AE 22-Mar-1998 PR 137 RP-3222 A320-214 3 Bacolod, PH That gives a rate of 1.15 hull losses per million flights for the A320 family. Looking at http://aviation-safety.net/database/103.htm, I find listed a total of 85 hull losses for the 737, a rate of 1.20 per million flights or about 4% higher than the A320 family rate. Having thus checked the statistics, your assertion that the A320 family has a higher hull loss rate than the 737 does not appear to be factual. If you have more accurate statistics which demonstrate otherwise, I'm sure the group would love to see them. >What Id like to know is why Euro press jumped on every possible MD-11 >glitch lately, but no reports were made on Sabena A340 landing gear >collapse last week... Because after 229 people were killed on a Swissair MD-11, the MD-11 is news. The A340 hasn't earned itself the limelight. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:05 From: TJ Hvasta Subject: Re: Airbus Safer? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Mythical Animals Reply-To: skygodtj@ayeteetee.net Don't forget the OTHER famous line... for the airplane that has a mind of it's own.... EWR Tower: "NW 167, are you going around?" NW 167(an A320): "Wait um, uh, yeah, yeah I think it is...." My roomates are A320 FO's and Instructors, I'm in the 757 and they keep trying to get me to come over to the "dark side"....... TJ From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:06 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 , "S.L." wrote: >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. They do have ultrasonic beacons, but do *not* have RF beacons. >> 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 Even if there was internal battery backup for these systems, it would be of limited use if none of the systems they were hooked up to had lost power - no input source data would be transmitted to the Flight Data Acquisition Unit (FDAU) or the FDR. It should be noted that the aircraft does have a battery bus for essential systems, and that the FDAU, FDR and CVR are part of these systems. For the FDAU, FDR and CVR to have lost power would imply that the battery bus itself was damaged. Without an understanding of exactly where and how much wiring was damaged, it is impossible to determine one way or another whether an internal battery would have been of any use. ed >>>> Ed Hahn | ehahn@mitre.org | (703) 883-5988 <<<< The above statement is the opinion of the author. No endorsement or warranty by the MITRE Corporation is expressed or implied. Really, I wouldn't kid you about a thing like this. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:07 From: jmaddaus@NO-SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) 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: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO-SPAMusa.net "Richard Rea" wrote: >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. Also, I remember reading an article dealing with the amount of outside air vs. recirculated air that is available throughout the ac. I don't know whether this is true for all aircraft types, but the generalization was that the cockpit is approximately 90% ventilated from the outside, while first class is 50% and coach is down to 20%. My question then is can a pilot control the amount of new air vs. recirculated air in the cabin/cockpit, does it really vary (and this may simply be because of placement of intakes, vents, etc. and can a pilot completely shut off outside air entering the cabin in case of a fire? jmaddaus@usa.net From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:08 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) 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: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) "S.L." writes: >Do CVR's have acoustic beacons or pingers? I assume they have RF >beacons, but I didn't know they had pingers. Yes, they do. Somewhere I read the specs for what CVR/FDC's must tolerate and still survive. It's rather staggering - high temp, pressure, shock... and still bleet for x # of days. >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 The general problem is the sensors. They need power, too. As I speculated in my other post, backup RAT for the CVR might be possible. Other problems include the fact that you can't assume the power going off means "deploy backup means" -- what happens when you shut down for the night ;-? But retrofitting THAT will be very costly. The FAA would not even get behind upgrading the existing ?5-7? channels scribed on stainless ribbon system still in wide use in 737's.... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:09 From: "sevnet" 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 Richard Rea wrote in message ... >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. Can this be done? Can a pilot stick his head out of the window of a plane while it's in flight? Would the wind be enough to knock him out? I've stick my head out of a car moving at 60mph and it was hard to take, but a plane moving at 300mph? From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:10 From: dougb@railfan.com (Doug Bailey) 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 On 10 Sep 98 03:04:22 , ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >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. The final report on Valujet 592 is on the NTSB web site as a PDF file. It makes fascinating reading. The url is: http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/1997/AAR9706.pdf Fascinating reading. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:11 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) 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: Little to None On 10 Sep 98 03:04:23 , pierce@spamnot.pat.mdc.com (Gun One) caused to appear as if it was written: >>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. Sorry, Gun One, but ValuJet's maintenance organization was the entity that put the canisters on board. You are absolutely correct in suggesting that there was nothing at all wrong with the maintenance of the aircraft. But the tragedy happened becuase of ValuJet's maintenance philosophy. Malc. From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:12 From: Roger & Helen Llewellyn 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: Singapore Telecommunications Ltd JF Mezei wrote: > 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. As i understand it when the diversion request was made the a/c was only 70 nms from Halifax. This indeed would make it quite an elevator ride to sea level to land. Other questions might be : weight of a/c, length of rwy avail, if he was too heavy for a landing on the avail rwy then extra track miles to make the descent more comfortable whilst at the same time reducing the weight by jettisoning highly inflamable fuel seems like a good idea. you might like to know that even in good conditions it is no easy task for anyone to arrive at a totally unplanned and unfamiliar destination in the middle of the night in a heavy modern jet airliner. as for giving a lower clearance to encourage the plane to lose height - i think it is safe to assume the guys on the flight deck knew more about the incident than ATC ! From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:13 From: Ray Kirk 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: VOLKTEK CORPORATION As with most people in this NG - I would like to point out that I am not an expert or a professional in this field - so I do not want to give the impression that I know what I am talking about. With ref. the SR-111 accident and the terrible loss of life. There have been several questions regarding the dumping of fuel. >From my understanding - this is a fairly simple and standard procedure, especially in the Military. The pure and simple fact that this was a flight prepared to cross a big pond with a belly load of fuel. The pilot had to contend with a crash landing with a whole lot of fuel and a ready made fire to make matters worse. I cannot imagine anything worse that a crash landing, on fire, fully fueled, probably flying blind, partially disabled and in the dark - the choice to dump fuel seems like the most obvious given the circumstances. Ray Kirk From kls Mon Oct 5 00:27:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:14 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Silk Air and SR 111 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM While I will concede that a 737-300 and and MD-11 don't have a lot in common other than being jet aircraft, I am compelled to notice that both the Swiss Air Aircraft and the Silk Air aircraft crashed, and in both cases, the FDR and CVR ceased operation well before impact. The lack of the CVR and FDR data will no doubt impair the investigation. I have not heard any good explanations about why the Silkair units stopped functioning, and at this stage, there aren't any good reasons (but some plausible theories) about why they ceased operating on SR111. I had always been lead to believe that these devices were operated in a fashion to allow them to operate under catastrophic failure conditions. Apparently this isn't the case. Did the FDR and CVR cease operating in the Air Canada 767 that made a dead stick landing at Gimli? Perhaps it is time that some type of backup power system be mandated for these devices so they can run for at least a few minutes after an electrical failure. Given that almost all current jetliners are totally dependent upon electricity for many functions, it seems to me that it may not be such a good idea to design the FDR and CVR in such a way that a catastrophic failure prevents you from discovering the nature of the catastrophic failure. Discovering what went wrong is the main reason we have CVR's and FDR's. It strikes me as somewhat stupid to allow them become useless when you need them the most! Comments? My thoughts anyway. 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 Oct 5 00:27:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 98 00:27:15 From: "John Keane" Subject: MD-11 Stall speeds 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 am looking for MD-11 stall speeds. Does anyone have this data available? Any information would be -much- appreciated. Thanks! John Keane From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:05 From: Phil Dunn Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Circumnavigation Education Expedition Do you think this could be condensation instead of shock wave? I have flown lots of supersonic formation and you don't see shock waves. You can feel them though. But as the pressure gets very low, you can see transient condensation of water and this appears like shock wave. Much like the stuff you see coming off the wing with high lift configuration entering high humidity area. And shock wave formation will kill lift aft of it pretty suddenly, no? From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:06 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: Silk Air and SR 111 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 James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >While I will concede that a 737-300 and and MD-11 don't have a lot in >common other than being jet aircraft, I am compelled to notice that both >the Swiss Air Aircraft and the Silk Air aircraft crashed, and in both >cases, the FDR and CVR ceased operation well before impact. The lack of >the CVR and FDR data will no doubt impair the investigation. In the case of Silk Air the CVR stopped six minutes before the DFDR and that alone provides information as to the cause. >I have not heard any good explanations about why the Silkair units >stopped functioning, and at this stage, there aren't any good reasons >(but some plausible theories) about why they ceased operating on SR111. The leading theory is that the Captain pulled the circuit breakers. He had reason to be emotionally unstable and a new milti-million dollar life insurance policy. Yes, the policy paid. >I had always been lead to believe that these devices were operated in a >fashion to allow them to operate under catastrophic failure conditions. >Apparently this isn't the case. Did the FDR and CVR cease operating in >the Air Canada 767 that made a dead stick landing at Gimli? For what reason would these devices stop for the Air Canada 767? In what way do you see the Gimily Glider as a catastrophic failure? >Perhaps it is time that some type of backup power system be mandated for >these devices so they can run for at least a few minutes after an >electrical failure. Given that almost all current jetliners are totally >dependent upon electricity for many functions, it seems to me that it >may not be such a good idea to design the FDR and CVR in such a way that >a catastrophic failure prevents you from discovering the nature of the >catastrophic failure. Discovering what went wrong is the main reason we >have CVR's and FDR's. It strikes me as somewhat stupid to allow them >become useless when you need them the most! The failure of both boxes at the same time in itself is a source of information. A basic understanding of how these systems work would help you see that what you are suggesting is of little value. The idea of a CVR that continues to operate is at least popular enough that it might happen in the future. John From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:07 From: "Jim" Subject: Re: Silk Air and SR 111 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. In the case of the Silk Air flight, the speculation is that the recorders may have been intentionally shut off (breakers pulled). In the case of the MD-11, there is some speculation that the pilots may have moved a switch in the cockpit as part of the "Smoke From the Air Conditioning System" checklist. This switch removes power from a bus in order to help the pilot determine which bus/air conditioner is causing the smoke problem. This is a four position rotary switch, with the twelve o'clock position being the "Normal" position. The checklist calls for the pilots to start rotating the switch in a clockwise fashion in order to isolate the problem. The 3 o'clock position removes power from one of the busses and air conditioners, if the problem persists, the pilots are to move it to the 6 o'clock position which restores the first bus and removes power from a second bus...etc...etc...etc until the problem is isolated and the pilots can tell which bus is causing the problem. It turns out that the FDR and CVR are connected to the bus that is powered off at the 3 o'clock position. The big question is: Did the FDR and CVR go off-line because the pilots moved the switch (as they were supposed to) or did they go off line because of a massive electrical failure on-board the aircraft? You can bet the the Canadian NTSB is searching for the answer to that one. A recent news report said that they have recovered the FADEC (digital engine controller - a computer) from one of the engines. The FADEC contains a memory chip. They are sending it to a laboratory where they will try to read the memory chip to glean information about what was going on with the engines during the last six minutes of flight. This may help fill in some of the void left by the absence of data from the FDR during that time period. Jim From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:08 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) 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: AOL http://www.aol.com >I cannot imagine anything worse that a crash landing, on fire, fully >fueled, probably flying blind, partially disabled and in the dark - the >choice to dump fuel seems like the most obvious given the circumstances. I don't think fuel is dumped to avoid a fire during the crash. It is to get the aircraft down to its maximum landing weight to avoid overstressing and breaking the aircaraft structure... You don't want landing gear struts going through the wing tanks on touchdown.. Matt in Seattle Student Pilot To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who fly, the sky is home. From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:09 From: Anonymous lo14 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: mail2news@nym.alias.net On 05 Oct 98 00:27:07 jmaddaus@NO-SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) wrote: >Also, I remember reading an article dealing with the amount of outside >air vs. recirculated air that is available throughout the ac. I don't >know whether this is true for all aircraft types, but the >generalization was that the cockpit is approximately 90% ventilated >from the outside, while first class is 50% and coach is down to 20%. It's true for the MD-11, although the amount of new air introduced does not vary with the seating. It only varies with the total number of passengers on board; you don't need as much new air on an empty airplane as you do on a full one. >My question then is can a pilot control the amount of new air vs. >recirculated air in the cabin/cockpit, does it really vary (and this >may simply be because of placement of intakes, vents, etc. and can a >pilot completely shut off outside air entering the cabin in case of a >fire? The "economy mode" just reduces the amount of outside air, it doesn't shut it off. Turning off the airconditioning "packs" would stop new air from entering the airplane, but would also stop the pressurization. And any air the passengers could breathe would also support a fire; the oxygen masks passengers get mix ambient air (and smoke) with oxygen. Only the crew has masks which exclude smoke. Some *cargo* compartments depend on a lack of oxygen to snuff out a fire, but no passenger compartment can do that. That's because those cargo compartments are inaccessible in flight. You fight passenger cabin fires with fire extinguishers. From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:10 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 David Lesher wrote: > But retrofitting THAT will be very costly. The FAA would not even > get behind upgrading the existing ?5-7? channels scribed on > stainless ribbon system still in wide use in 737's.... It is one thing to say that retrofitting existing aircraft is too costly, but it is another to prevent enhancing the systems so that new aircraft would have more redudant systems. The FARs already stipulate that the recorders must stop on their own within a certain amount of time following a crash. All that is needed is for engineers to be tasked to handle events when power is lost prior to the crash so that the recorders can continue to make recordings of whatever is left. (just because power is cut to the recorder does not mean that power has been cut to the rest of the aircraft, and it also does not mean that power is all cut at the same time, hence by having the recorder continue for a small while, it could record the sequence in which equipmenty had total failure and by stopping at the actual impact time, it gives investigators the exact time of the crash (something which they lack for SR111, they can only guess at). From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:11 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 Evan McElravy wrote: > Does this mean you would consider the 757 to > be a flop? As the 757 has sold very bad in the early years, I read once that Boeing will never (although I would say later) make a profit out of the program. Any comments from inside Boeing on when they started making money with this ship ? -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:12 From: Veit Subject: Re: Seeking info on SF340 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: TU Braunschweig, Germany There is a maintenance manual on CD-ROM which is published by SAAB. For detailed information, try to contact the SAAB people in Washington or Linköping(Sweden) on their homepage: http://www.aircraft.saab.se/ They probably will help you. From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:13 From: Lars Johansson Subject: Re: Seeking info on SF340 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Linköping University, Sweden apollo_4@my-dejanews.com wrote: >I am desperately seeking any info available on the Saab/Fairchild SF340. My This aircraft, soon to be discontinued, is manufactured in Linköping, Sweden, about 3 miles from my current location. They have a website at www.saab.se or, to go directly to civilian aircraft, try www.aircraft.saab.se. -- Lars From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:14 From: "Philippe CHESNEL" Subject: Re: Delta fuel / delta payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Thomas Buro a écrit dans le message ... >I am searching for the sensivity data of fuel burn to payload for >aircraft. How much fuel (kg) is burned more, when one kg of payload is >added to the aircraft. E.g. for a range of 1000 km, 5000 km and 10.000 >km. Has anyone this data for actual aircraft types. That data is called K, the fuel transport coefficient ( translated from french, maybe there is another english expression). For example, when K=1.4, it means that you have to fuel 1.4 Tons (or Kg or lbs etc.) at the gate, to get 1.0 Tons (or Kg ....) over the arrival airport: so, clearly, you burn 400 Kg to transport 1 Ton of fuel (or payload, cause in that term, fuel and commercial payload is the same, some load to transport). I hope my explanation was clear ! Now a real example: for a B767, for a 7200Km flight, ( a 8H42 flight time), the K is 1.357. For an A340 (the aircraft I'm flying), I could have for you a lot of accurate datas, but approximately, K=1.5 for a 13 hours flight, 11500 Km. For a 1000Km range, K is about 1.050. K is not linear to the range, but more probably parabolic, and is function of the air distance (the ground distance corrected by the effective wind), or the flight time. In general, the consumption is not a linear function of the weight of an aircraft. But K, in fact, linearizes that function. So it MUST be used only locally, after a complete computation of the trip fuel (with non-linear manufacturer curves), to compute easily a SMALL variation of payload, or to get the extra-fuel to take to have a given reserve at the arrival. That the common use of that K in airlines operations. Regards. From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:15 From: tlm@delphi.com Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Geno Rice writes: >On the subject of the flying boats, I read a novel a few years back that >took place on one of them. The author wrote that the engines were >servicable during flight and that one of the duties of the engineer was >to climb inside the wing to attend to the engines (for example, oiling). >Is this true? If so, can you imagine the combination of cold, heat, and >noise that the poor man would have had to endure! This was pretty typical up through the 30s, for both long-range multi-engine aircraft, and for rigid airships (zeppelins). At least the mechanic you mention had interior access to the engines from the wings. Engineers aboard Zeppelins and the big German R-Bombers of the Great War had to climb around open rigging/struts. Not for the acrophobic! My uncle recalls engine access in-flight aboard the USAF's big 4-engine prop transports. Ed R. From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:16 From: TJH Subject: Re: RTO Decision made by the computer References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Mythical Animals Reply-To: skygodtj@ayeteetee.net Computers never fail never fail never fail never fail never <"yank" ...unplugged> Having a computer MAKING my decisions for me? Uh, does the name HAL mean anything... ok it was only a movie, but the idea stands, there were(are) human pilots before there were autopilots and computers... Thanks to "computers", a handful of our 757's won't even 'start' come Jan 1, 2000. As to warnings, we already have them. Engine fire, we get a fire bell, which is inhibited between 0' and 400' on takeoff after nose strut extension to prevent pilot distractions during rotation; Engine failure(flameout, no fire), no bell, but Crew Warning System beeper, also after 400' on takeoff... If an engine failure occurs PRIOR to liftoff(nose strut extension), but AFTER 80kts(hi-speed regime now, Boeing's terminology)we are to reject and stop. What else did you have in mind? TJH, B757 IP PHX.AZ From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:17 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Subject: Re: RTO Decision made by the computer 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 Thomas Buro writes: >On a conference about the design of human-machine systems, i.e. Cockpit >design the issue of Rejected take off was discussed. A professor could >mathematically prove that decisions shortly before V1 is reached are >better made by a computer. The scenario was: one engine failure, no >further problems etc. In case of engine failure and a wrong decision of >the pilot the computer would fly the aircraft. Given a fixed number of variables, a computer can perform almost any task better than a human. The difficulties arise when the variables are subject to interpretation. Do you abort after a loud noise? When did the takeoff roll start? How confident do you feel you can actually stop? A number of incidents in the 1980s brought forth a realization that an incident at or before V1 doesn't *have* to mean you stop. Sometimes, it's better to take off. That judgement is what we pay pilots the big bucks for. >What do professional pilots think about that issue? Would you like such >a system, which is taking control or would you like to have warnings >from the computer what is the better decision ? (How should such a >warning look like) NASA (Ames, I believe) had a performance-based indicator system for this purpose. Check the tech reports server. -- 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 Oct 7 02:49:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:18 From: "Jim Sokoloff" Subject: Re: RTO Decision made by the computer References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: D. E. Shaw & Co., L.P., but I speak only for myself. Thomas Buro writes: > On a conference about the design of human-machine systems, > i.e. Cockpit design the issue of Rejected take off was discussed. A > professor could mathematically prove that decisions shortly before > V1 is reached are better made by a computer. The computer's decision can only be "proven" better in the context of the information it is being fed. Feed it bad data that a human would correctly interpret, and I can "mathematically prove" that a human will fly better. Humans are better at judgement than computers; we're less sensitive to blindly following bad data. > The scenario was: one engine failure, no further problems etc. In > case of engine failure and a wrong decision of the pilot the > computer would fly the aircraft. > What do professional pilots think about that issue? Would you like > such a system, which is taking control or would you like to have > warnings from the computer what is the better decision ? I'm a (private) pilot AND a computer programmer, and you can bet that I would rather a human be making the top-level decisions about whether or not to reject a takeoff. Computers are good at some things (fly by wire, and doing math quickly), but give me a good old-fashioned gray/bald head up front, please.. :-) ---Jim From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:19 From: JJonsson@ix.netcom.com (Jon Jonsson) Subject: Re: RTO Decision made by the computer References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom On 05 Oct 98 00:26:49 , Thomas Buro wrote: >On a conference about the design of human-machine systems, i.e. Cockpit >design the issue of Rejected take off was discussed. A professor could >mathematically prove that decisions shortly before V1 is reached are >better made by a computer. The scenario was: one engine failure, no >further problems etc. In case of engine failure and a wrong decision of >the pilot the computer would fly the aircraft. Couple of questions/comments: 1. Which conference was this data presented at and will a proceedings be made available? 2. What assumptions were made in calculating the coefficient of friction? I am assuming that this system had a COF input to make it's "decision" How was this done? 3. The conditions as presented were one engine out and the failure had NO effect on the other engine? Did the mathematician then simply do an analysis of whether the computer was better than the crew at determining whether their was sufficient runway length to stop the aircraft? 4. Was any reference made to the work done over a decade ago at NASA on the TOPMS? From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:20 From: Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: RTO Decision made by the computer References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering In sci.aeronautics.airliners Thomas Buro wrote: > design the issue of Rejected take off was discussed. A professor could > mathematically prove that decisions shortly before V1 is reached are > better made by a computer. The scenario was: one engine failure, no Experience in many accidents has shown that pilots tend to abort the T/O even at speeds slightly above V1. Asked, why they had done this, they didn't have an explanation or stated something like "#3 had failed, so I suspected that #4 had failed too". I think that there is a psychological barrier. One doesn't want to take off with an unhealthy plane. Men want to keep their feet on the ground. I predict, that most pilots don't want a computer to decide whether to abort or continue a take off. On the other hand, there aren't many exceptions to the rule "before V1 stop, after V1 go". I have no doubt that AI wouldn't hesitate to build such a device in its planes to make them more "pilot proof". I think that such device could assist the commander in making his decision by not just saying "ding, ding, ding" but give a more distinct warning like "engine 2 flameout, everything else ok. Please continue". Viele Gruesse, Ralf -- 2-Zimmer-DG-Wohnung in Greven bei Muenster/Westf. zu vermieten: http://home.t-online.de/home/ralf.sipple/whg_greven.html Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-2571-549327 | sipple@writeme.com D-48268 Greven | Anrufbeantw. +49-2571-549326 | pgp key on request! From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:21 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM PS2727 wrote: > I agree that the maneuver should not have been done in that setting, but > my point is simply this- The Airbus approach to automation does not, in > my opinion, merge well with the way transport pilots have operated > aircraft. Strange as it may seem, there are many situations in airline > flying where crews revert to stick and rudder skills to save a rapidly > deteriorating situation. Assuming that bringing the nose down was actually the best way to get the aircraft to gain altitude and that in that accident, the computer was actually trying to get aircraft to gain altitude. What is wrong then with the pilot telling the aircraft "I want to go up" and then the aircraft calculating that in the current situation, the best way to go up is to actually bring the node down ? Or pilot asking the aircraft to turn left and the computer calculating that the best way to acheive this is to reduce thrust on one engine, work the rudder, elevators and ailerons. Obviously, it is a question of trust. That pilot probably did not trust the computer and thought that the computer was going nuts by doing the opposite of what it wanted it to do. But if the pilot were aware of what sort of logic it uses to calculate the best way out of a situation and the pilot realised that the computer was actually looking at more parameters than he could look at and hence calculating a better solution, perhaps the pilot would learn to be more comfortable with the system and learn to trust it. From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:22 From: "John Vincent Lombardi" Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Having thus checked the statistics, your assertion that the A320 family >has a higher hull loss rate than the 737 does not appear to be factual. >If you have more accurate statistics which demonstrate otherwise, I'm >sure the group would love to see them. Karl, Although I can't argue with the numbers, you are incorrectly mixing aircraft of different generations together to support your claims. Using your figures, the A320 does have a significantly higher hull loss rate than its contemporary, the 737-300/400/500. The figures you used are skewed by the inclusion of first generation transports such as the 737-100/200 series. Some would even argue that the A320 is a generation ahead of the 300/400/500 and therefore should be safer still. Instead the numbers show a significant increase in hull losses per departure. The fact that the A320 has done slightly worse than the 737-100/200 is cause for concern. With all the "advancements" incorporated in the A320 to make it safer, it is no better than a transport some 30 years old, operated in a more hostile ATC environment, with dated systems and archaic avionics. Early 737's had no GPWS, no EGPWS, no windshear alerting or prediction, no moving map, no EFIS, no flight path protections, no autoland, no CAT II, no flight management system, no autothrottle, no ACARS, no color weather radar. Some have argued that the A320 suffers from a generational "learning curve" just as the first jets did. The fact is, the A320 should be measurably safer than its contemporaries and it is not. John Lombardi From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Although I can't argue with the numbers, you are incorrectly mixing >aircraft of different generations together to support your claims. Using >your figures, the A320 does have a significantly higher hull loss rate >than its contemporary, the 737-300/400/500. The post to which I was responding said: Fact is: the A320 family has a larger number of hull-loss accidents per million departures than does its competitor the B737 series. Check the statistics... It didn't say 2nd generation 737, 737s of similar vintage, or anything else. I didn't pick the comparison, I just checked that statistics on the comparison that was proposed. (I didn't have the split of 1st and 2nd generation 737 hull losses readily available, unfortunately.) >The figures you used are skewed by the inclusion of first generation >transports such as the 737-100/200 series. Some would even argue that >the A320 is a generation ahead of the 300/400/500 and therefore should >be safer still. Instead the numbers show a significant increase in hull >losses per departure. I agree with all of that, including the argument that the A320 family should be significantly better than the 2nd generation 737, but isn't. But once again, I didn't pick the fight. >Early 737's had no GPWS, no EGPWS, no windshear >alerting or prediction, no moving map, no EFIS, no flight path >protections, no autoland, no CAT II, no flight management system, no >autothrottle, no ACARS, no color weather radar. I know of some 737-300s built this year (and possibly even 737-700s) that lack many of those features or at least have them disabled -- no flight path protections, no autoland, no FMS, no ACARS, maybe more. Despite that, their operator has never lost a plane or life. Instead of technology, Southwest believes in good pilots who are fully in the loop. >Some have argued that the A320 suffers from a generational "learning >curve" just as the first jets did. The fact is, the A320 should be >measurably safer than its contemporaries and it is not. I couldn't have said it better. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:24 From: "Michael Weiss" Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Microsoft Corp. Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >Model Rate Events Flights >----- ---- ------ ------- >Airbus A320 0.77 4 5.2M >Boeing 737-100/200 0.72 34 47.1M >Boeing 737-300/400/500 0.47 11 23.5M >Looking at http://aviation-safety.net/database/103.htm, I find listed a >total of 85 hull losses for the 737, a rate of 1.20 per million flights >or about 4% higher than the A320 family rate. Based on this information, I think it would be most interesting to see a couple of other statistical perspectives. It appears that the "event" rate on the 2nd generation 737 is significantly lower than on the A320. Therefore, it would be very interesting to scatterplot the hull losses with the age of the aircraft. Barring that, it would be nice to compare the hull losses of the 2nd generation 737 to the A320, as the ages would likely be a closer match overall. -Michael From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:25 From: brewersnl@aol.comih8spam (BrewersNL) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Looking at http://aviation-safety.net/database/103.htm, I find listed a >total of 85 hull losses for the 737, a rate of 1.20 per million flights >or about 4% higher than the A320 family rate. Some of those hull losses were landing accidents (runway overshoots, veering off the runway, etc), and not actual "crashes". From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:26 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Looking at http://aviation-safety.net/database/103.htm, I find listed a >>total of 85 hull losses for the 737, a rate of 1.20 per million flights >>or about 4% higher than the A320 family rate. >Some of those hull losses were landing accidents (runway overshoots, veering >off the runway, etc), and not actual "crashes". Nobody claimed the accidents were anything other than hull losses -- you introduced the "crashes" term. In any event, the A320 stats also include several overruns, so unless you want to claim that one aircraft is more likely to overrun than the other, it shouldn't make a lot of difference. Beyond that, your implication that overruns should not be counted in an analysis because they're "not actual 'crashes'" leads to some bizarre conclusions. Does LH 2904 (Warsaw) not count as an A320 crash because it was a landing overrun, even though two people died, the aircraft was destroyed, and significant issues with the A320 were brought to light? That sure sounds like a crash to me, by any reasonable definition of the term, and it's most certainly a hull loss. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:27 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Karl Swartz wrote: > There have been six A320 family hull losses to date, all involving the > A320 (no A319 or A321 has been lost): ... > 22-Mar-1998 PR 137 RP-3222 A320-214 3 Bacolod, PH I didn't hear about this last one. Can you give me some information about it? > Having thus checked the statistics, your assertion that the A320 family > has a higher hull loss rate than the 737 does not appear to be factual. It isn't, but as you know, comparing hull-loss statistics between the A320 and all models of the 737 are misleading. First of all, the A320 is a much newer airplane than the 731/2. This in and of itself makes a big difference, if one doesn't even take into account the fact that older aircraft tend to get farmed off to airlines that don't have the same maintenance procedures as the big Western airlines. (I'll never forget the 727 I flew from Nepal to Delhi in March, 1997. Bought used from JAT, you could see bullet holes in the fuselage that had been repaired! I refused to get on the plane until I learned that Lufthansa did the maintenance for Royal Nepal). But then again, I've read that several of the hull loses seem to be due to pilots who weren't used to the A320's FBW system, so maybe it balances out. What would be relevant is to break down the numbers by airline. Then we could see where the biases are. > >What Id like to know is why Euro press jumped on every possible MD-11 > >glitch lately, but no reports were made on Sabena A340 landing gear > >collapse last week... > > Because after 229 people were killed on a Swissair MD-11, the MD-11 is > news. The A340 hasn't earned itself the limelight. I think this is the only reason for it. When the FedEx MD-11 crashed at Newark last year, I didn't see a peep out of any newspapers, except for the NY Times in a small blurb. People dead in airplane crashes sell newspapers. Lots of people dead in airplane crashes sell lots of newspapers. -- Joseph Edward Nemec Operations Research Center nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:28 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> 22-Mar-1998 PR 137 RP-3222 A320-214 3 Bacolod, PH >I didn't hear about this last one. Can you give me some information >about it? Compiled from various sources: The No. 1 engine's thrust reversers apparently failed to deploy on landing. The asymmetric thrust caused the aircraft to depart the runway, but after returning the No. 2 engine to forward thrust the aircraft was steered back onto the runway. The ground spoilers also did not deploy because the No. 1 engine was not reduced to idle thrust. The aircraft overran the runway and hit a row of houses before coming to rest near a highway 650 feet beyond the end of the runway. >It isn't, but as you know, comparing hull-loss statistics between >the A320 and all models of the 737 are misleading. First of all, >the A320 is a much newer airplane than the 731/2. This in and >of itself makes a big difference ... True, but as noted in another message, I didn't pick the comparison, I just checked the record against what was claimed to be fact. >What would be relevant is to break down the numbers by airline. Then we >could see where the biases are. That would be interesting, too, though I don't have the data in a form which is amenable to that sort of analysis, just as I don't have the breakdown of 1st generation vs 2nd generation 737 hull losses. One anecdotal observation that has been made on numerous occasions is that three of the first four A320 hull losses involved experienced crews from well-respected carriers, not the sort of poorly-trained crews from third-world airlines, often flying ancient aircraft, which unfortunately bring about the end of far too many 737s, DC-9s, etc. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Oct 7 02:49:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Oct 98 02:49:29 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: BIG GE-90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu patrick_lambourne@my-dejanews.com wrote: > What thrust is needed from the engines for the proposed Airbus 3XX, and would > the existing/proposed GE-90 be sufficient? The proposed engines for the A3XX are the RR Trent 900 and the PW/GE 7200, with thrust ranging from 289kN (for the -50) to 352kN (for the -200), the beefed GE-90 would thus be an overkill. > I know that airlines can use the same engines in the 767 and 747-400, could > the same scenario apply for the 777 and A3XX? At least the low rated Trent 875/877 could share some commonality with the Trent 900. HTH, -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:06 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 JF, I think you are correct in that its a matter of trusting the new stuff, but my point is that in a crisis situation it human nature to revert to a "normal" way of doing things. Or to put it another way "old habits die hard". Ponder this, in a Cat 3 landing ( low visibility requiring full autoland ), pilots are trained to react to the autopilot not following the ILS system down to the runway. The resulting GoAround is to be flown on the autopilot, which has just malfunctioned causing said GoAround. Am I the only person who sees the folly in this ? Sometimes the magic breaks, and its nice to know that when I turn it off, its really off! Viva la disconnet button!!! From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:07 From: jmaddaus@NO-SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: How much "rust" is tolerated and landing light question? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO-SPAMusa.net OK number one, flying UAL from Denver to San Antonio in an older 737S. First I noticed that the top (couldn't see the bottom) of both ailerons were nice shiny metal. Thought that was an odd area to be replaced. Then as flaps were extended for take-off I noticed rust stains running back approximately in the middle of the flap. As we flew along, I reminded myself that most of the ac is not made from steel. On landing, the source became clear. Looked to be coming from perhaps a steel cover plate (screwed or riveted in place) on the flap and rust stains were evident all around it. Also on deploying the air brakes, the undersides of those showed rust stains as well particularly at hinge points and hydraulic actuator connection points. This implied some corrosion to me. Now my questions. Did I actually see rust and are steel cover plates used? If so how much is tolerable? Assuming that it was at least surface rust, reminds me of my car rusting out due to salt air. Has UA ever used 737s in Hawaii? Would surface rust on steel parts imply possible corrosion with aluminum parts as well (salt air also did a number on my parents aluminum screens at home)? Number two, UA flight from San Antonio to Chicago. As our 733 arrives, I notice a hole in the starboard wing root where a landing light lens used to be. As it came closer, I see the remnants of what looked like yellowed plexiglass shards. The pre-flight picked it up and before long, both pilots were looking at it and trying to get a mechanic. I knew my connection was shot at O'hare but hung around a bit to see the outcome. Apparently, they found a local company that was going to make a temporary metal patch for the hole and it flew on a couple of hours late. Now my questions, I am assuming that the plane flew in at least part of the way with that condition. What could have happened had the pilots either not noticed it (and it was almost missed by the 1st officer until he decided to take a second look) or decided to fly anyway? What's behind that light and would the aircraft have flown any differently? Just curious, John S. Maddaus From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:08 From: jmaddaus@NO-SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: More 737 problems? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO-SPAMusa.net Enough is enough. I'm channel surfing and I hit MSNBC which of course is discussing what else. Before I turn to the next channel, the little headline banner appears on the bottom with a blurb that the FAA is ordering repairs to 737s. So I hang around through two newscasts and not a word is mentioned. Anyone have a clue, rudder, wiring, something new? Thanks, John S. Maddaus From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:09 From: Tom Turton Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing 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 Phil Dunn wrote: > Do you think this could be condensation instead of shock wave? Wouldn't have any condensation up around cruise altitudes - too cold and dry. > I have flown lots of supersonic formation and you don't see shock waves. > You can feel them though. No doubt true enough if you are blowing through Mach 1; what the earlier poster was probably referring to was 'local' Mach greater than 1 over the wing, but the aircraft was probably still at cruise Mach (between 0.8-0.9 I'd guess). > But as the pressure gets very low, you can see transient condensation of > water and this appears like shock wave. > > Much like the stuff you see coming off the wing with high lift > configuration entering high humidity area. Yes, but again, you'd need high humidity and you have to really 'work' the air to get the low pressure, either by dropping flaps or pulling a high angle of attack. Normal cruise shouldn't produce either of these. > And shock wave formation will kill lift aft of it pretty suddenly, no? Don't think that's true, but alas, I've forgotten too much of my high speed aero! Drag will certainly increase, but again I think you are talking about fully developed shock waves at and above cruise Mach = 1.0. The small Mach waves shouldn't cause any drastic effects. I never saw them myself, but I've heard others remark on this same effect that the original poster mentioned - a 'wave' sort of dancing around mid-wing and best seen when the sun is on the opposite side of the viewing window. ---Tom Turton From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:10 From: "J. W. Dawson" Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Rochester N.Y. (716)-777-SURF Phil Dunn wrote in message ... >Do you think this could be condensation instead of shock wave? > >I have flown lots of supersonic formation and you don't see shock waves. >You can feel them though. > >But as the pressure gets very low, you can see transient condensation of >water and this appears like shock wave. > >Much like the stuff you see coming off the wing with high lift >configuration entering high humidity area. > >And shock wave formation will kill lift aft of it pretty suddenly, no? I have to admit, I was a bit puzzled about it myself. But no, not condensation. What I saw looked like - this doesn't describe it very well but I can't think of a better description - more like a ripple would appear in glass, with a definite edge to it. And it wasn't in the glass of the window, either. But there was no whiteness or gray fuzziness that you would get from condensation. Now, as to lift effects... well, I don't claim to be an expert on aerodynamics but I understand what you're stating and it's got me scratching my head, too. But is local supersonic flow that uncommon? I seem to have read that it isn't all that unusual but to what extent and what shock configuration you might get is beyond my limited knowledge. Regards, Jerome (HatCat) From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:11 From: hatcat@frontiernet.net (J. W. Dawson) Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier Internet Rochester N.Y. (716)-777-SURF Clive Leyman wrote in message ... > Yes, I've seen that as well, once on a VC10 flying the Atlantic in the >afternoon , and once on a Raytheon (nee BAe) 125 flying to Toulouse early >morning. On both occasions the sun was low and shining through both cabin >windows. Finally! I've caught sight of shockwaves over the years and, when I mentioned it, I got treated like I was claiming an Elvis sighting. Though I haven't seen one in a while, I can recall on several occasions seeing them above the wing of 727's during cruise. Why this plane and seldom, if ever, on others, I don't know. Most often it was when the sun was shining relatively low from the opposite side of the aircraft. J. W. Dawson (HatCat) From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:12 From: "Russell Farris" Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp Phil Dunn wrote in article ... > Do you think this could be condensation instead of shock wave? > > I have flown lots of supersonic formation and you don't see shock waves. > You can feel them though. > > But as the pressure gets very low, you can see transient condensation of > water and this appears like shock wave. > > Much like the stuff you see coming off the wing with high lift > configuration entering high humidity area. > > And shock wave formation will kill lift aft of it pretty suddenly, no? I disagree. An aircraft operating in the transonic range (about Mach .65 and above) has a shock wave on the wing, about 1/3 to 1/2 back on the wing. The airflow ahead of the wave is supersonic, the shock wave itself is the transition, and behind is subsonic flow. Any text on high speed aerodynamics tells you this. I have seen the wiggly line of the shock wave on two occasions...in 1973 on a Delta 727 and 1984 on a Western 727. It was exactly as our friend described. One fascinating thing was when we banked, it moved aft, as the wing loading went up, just as I learned in school. At some point the shock wave will disrupt lift, either as speed is increased or bank angle increases. I remember remarking to my seat mate about seeing the shock wave, and he turned white! He felt a little better after I explained to him it was perfectly normal.To see it is a rare privilage, like the Green Flash and Blue Jets. Russ Farris, Boeing 767 First Officer, US Airways From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:13 From: crosby@ip110.theatrium.net (Charles Crosby) Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: <6vbp13$4bi$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM J. W. Dawson wrote: > Though I haven't seen one in a while, I can recall on several occasions > seeing them above the wing of 727's during cruise. Why this plane and > seldom, if ever, on others, I don't know. Most often it was when the sun was > shining relatively low from the opposite side of the aircraft. It may have something to do with the 727's relatively high cruising speed. AFAIK, of subsonic passenger aircraft, only the 747 and Citation X go (slightly) faster. I've seen the phenomenon on an MD-80, flying South in the late afternoon, as you say, with the sun low on the other side. Charles Crosby From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:14 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: <6vbp13$4bi$1@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Though I haven't seen one in a while, I can recall on several occasions >> seeing them above the wing of 727's during cruise. Why this plane and >> seldom, if ever, on others, I don't know. >It may have something to do with the 727's relatively high cruising >speed. AFAIK, of subsonic passenger aircraft, only the 747 and >Citation X go (slightly) faster. The Convair 990A is the fastest subsonic airliner, though I don't know how it compares to a Citation X. Boeing's web pages also imply the 707 is faster than the 727, cruising at 607 mph versus 570-605 mph for the 727. They don't list speeds for the newer aircraft, but I thought the 777 was nearly as fast as the 747 and thus might beat the 727. (According to John Proctor's Convair 880 & 990 book, the 990A has a maximum cruise speed of 621 mph while the 880's top cruise is 610 mph -- so even the 880 beats the 727.) While it's clear that you were talking about normal cruise speeds, the DC-8 has gone faster -- it's one of only three airliners to have flown faster than Mach 1, the other two of course being Concorde and Tu-144, having done so in a test flight on August 21, 1961. (Some claim the China Air 747SP which went into a dive over the Pacific on February 19, 1985 exceeded Mach 1, but the evidence doesn't support that claim.) It's not likely that many readers will have an opportunity to sight a shock wave above the wing of an 880 or 990A, or a supersonic DC-8, though! -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:15 From: Jim Crowder Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Reply-To: MC@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, 1W-82@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com This process is recognized in the experimental aerodynamics business and is call a sunlight shadowgraph. It can be a very convenient way to document the location and extent of the wing shock wave system. All commercial jet transports operate at a high enough Mach number (.75 to .85) so that the the flow over the front part of the wing accelerates to a local Mach number of 1.2 to 1.4. This kind of flow usually can only decelerate through a shock wave. The shock wave can be pictured as a surface standing perpendicular to the wing and running approximately spanwise. Often the shock wave over the inboard part of the wing will split into two shock waves going off in different directions. When rays from the sun are arranged to be parallel to the shock wave surface a strong shadow is cast onto the wing which is easily visible. It is relatively rare for an airliner to be coincidently traveling at the optimum time, place and direction, so most of time sunlight shadowgraph viewing is much less distinct. When an airplane is flying in smooth air the shadowgraph should be essentially stationary. In rough air it will jiggle back and forth as the wing loading and the local Mach number fluctuates. I remember one flight where I observed the shadowgraph slowing moving forward and back a distance of about 3 feet over a 10 minute period. When I asked the crew about this, they were surprised that I could tell, but they were trimming the airspeed to hold a constant altitude as they flew through smooth updrafts and downdrafts caused by wavy jet stream winds. I have published a description of this in an AIAA paper, number 90-1273, titled Flow Visualization in Flight Testing. From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:16 From: Alan Browne Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Solutions Reply-To: abrowne@SPAMX.sympatico.ca Phil Dunn wrote: > Do you think this could be condensation instead of shock wave? > > I have flown lots of supersonic formation and you don't see shock waves. > You can feel them though. > > But as the pressure gets very low, you can see transient condensation of > water and this appears like shock wave. I agree: I have often seen condensation form in sheets over a wing, and occasionally in sharply defined patterns that could be interpreted as a shock wave. Since the density of water vapour can vary greatly as the wing flies through it, these patterns tend to pop into view, disappear and pop back. Alan. From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:17 From: Krish Chilukuri Subject: Re: BIG GE-90 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TWC Road Runner, San Diego, CA patrick_lambourne@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article , > James Matthew Weber wrote: > > I know that airlines can use the same engines in the 767 and 747-400, could > the same scenario apply for the 777 and A3XX? The 777 is way too large. The A3XX is likely to need four 65,000lbf engines. From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:18 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern 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) The 707-400 series was powered by RR. BOAC, Lufthansa, Air India at least bought numbers of these. The RR-powered DC-8s only scored TCA (Air Canada) I think From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:19 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The RR-powered DC-8s only scored TCA (Air Canada) I think The DC-8 Series 40 was powered by RR Conway engines. TCA (later Air Canada) launched this series with an order for four DC-8-41 models, plus five options, but Alitalia and Canadian Pacific also purchased RR-powered DC-8s, CP buying the DC-8-43 while Alitalia took both -42 and -43 versions. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:20 From: "Bruce O'Neel" Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Geneva Joseph Edward Nemec writes: > I think this is the only reason for it. When the FedEx MD-11 crashed > at Newark last year, I didn't see a peep out of any newspapers, except > for the NY Times in a small blurb. People dead in airplane crashes > sell newspapers. Lots of people dead in airplane crashes sell lots of > newspapers. As a US person who lives in Geneva, something that many from the US might not realize is that in spite of how often you hear about it in the news, Geneva is a small place. Geneva the city has 160k people, and the whole canton (think state if you're in the US) has approx 400k people according to: http://heiwww.unige.ch/switzerland/region/geneva/index.htm Very small. Now, some of those people could have lived in other Swiss cantons or in the area of France which borders Geneva, but, still, this is a small community for a city. 229 people touches a fair fraction of those people pretty easily, ie, you knew someone, or one of your friends knew someone, or someone doesn't show up at the next gathering of people you get together with, etc. At least in this area this is one of the reasons why it gets a lot of press. cheers bruce -- Bruce O'Neel phone: +41 22 950 91 22 (direct) INTEGRAL Science Data Centre +41 22 950 91 00 (switchb.) Chemin d'Ecogia 16 fax: +41 22 950 91 33 CH-1290 VERSOIX e-mail: Bruce.Oneel@obs.unige.ch Switzerland WWW: http://obswww.unige.ch/isdc/ Moore's Law does not apply to backhoes -- Aaron Goldberg From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:21 From: Tuomo Takkula Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden "John Vincent Lombardi" writes: > Although I can't argue with the numbers, you are incorrectly mixing > aircraft of different generations together to support your claims. Using > your figures, the A320 does have a significantly higher hull loss rate > than its contemporary, the 737-300/400/500. > > The figures you used are skewed by the inclusion of first generation > transports such as the 737-100/200 series. Some would even argue that > the A320 is a generation ahead of the 300/400/500 and therefore should > be safer still. Instead the numbers show a significant increase in hull > losses per departure. Slowly, slowly. You repeatedly used the term "significant" to make a point, whereas the data you make your claim on contains only four samples. To argue about significance in this context is not at all justified. If you insist on doing comparisons on unsatisfactory data, then one might perhaps have a look at the incident/mile ratio comparing matching years of operation for the 737 and the 320 line, but even that does not have any statistical evidence. The bottom line is, that one probably has to wait 20 years until any "significant" comparison can be made. My 2 Öre Best regards Tuomo Takkula -- There are three kinds of mathematicians around. The first kind is able to count and second isn't. From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:22 From: alexnieves1@juno.com (Alex J Nieves) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Don't forget guys, as the A320s were pioneers, so were the classic 737s. While Boeing has redone the 737s twice, the A320 hasn't been redone. If you check the A319s and the A321s, you can see that the A320s flaws have been ironed out, as none of the A319s and A321's have had any crashes. -- Alex Nieves alexnieves1@juno.com From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:23 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM John Vincent Lombardi wrote: > The figures you used are skewed by the inclusion of first generation > transports such as the 737-100/200 series. Some would even argue that > the A320 is a generation ahead of the 300/400/500 and therefore should > be safer still. Instead the numbers show a significant increase in hull > losses per departure. I disagree. The A320 is still young enough that its V1.0 beta version hull losses are still squewing the statistics big time. If at all, you should be comparing it against the first 10 years of the 737-100/200s or the DC10. The A320 had a very bad start. And statistics would probably show that its startup was worse than other planes'. But what counts is the safety of an aircraft TODAY. Once an aircraft has been debugged and stops falling out of the sky, should it still be considered unsafe ? If a manufacturer does release a plane which does need lots of debugging (A320 and DC-10 come to mind), it is only normal that buyers be weary of subsequent product introduction from the same builder, but once a product has received good enough testing, should its past continue to haunt it? Airbus certaintly suffered a lot because it released a plane without adequate testing and debugging. Boeing learned from this and made sure quality control was top priority when it released the 777, the first new plane Boeing built after Airbus introduced the A320. But so did Airbus since it seems that Airbus' subsequent new products (A340 and A330) seem to have had a pretty good startup (certaintly less controversial than the A320). From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Once an aircraft has been debugged and stops falling out of the sky, >should it still be considered unsafe ? Only if it has in fact been "debugged." You mention the DC-10 -- McDonnell Douglas refused to ackowledge that there were any problems with the cargo door until the Windsor incident, and even then they dragged their feet. The vulnerability of the DC-10's hydraulic system still hasn't been fully acknowledged, though the cutoff valve installed in the DC-10 (and MD-11) after UA 232 crashed in Sioux City helps a bit. Airbus has similarly been loath to acknowledge any problems with the A320. As far as I know, the only changes that have come out of any of the A320 crashes came from LH 2904, the Warsaw landing overrun, and I'm not sure Airbus actually acknowledged real problems even in that case. >Airbus certaintly suffered a lot because it released a plane without >adequate testing and debugging. Boeing learned from this and made sure >quality control was top priority when it released the 777 ... Quality control has little to do with it. The DC-10 cargo door could have been built with the utmost of quality, but the design itself was still crap and the highest quality implementation of it would still be vulnerable. I'm not aware of any Airbus crashes in which manufacturing quality has been an issue. If anything, Airbus has done a better job of consistently producing aircraft with minimal manufacturing problems than has Boeing. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:25 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Arne Stuermer wrote: > a Lufthansa A320 in Warsaw, Poland. This was a hull loss > on landing, after spoilers and thrust reversers could not be deployed > during a landing on a wet runway. Apparently aquaplaning was an issue, > prompting the planes computers yo not get the necessary all-wheels > down signal necessary for this deployment. A Piedmont 737-200 had a very similar accident. The crew landed too fast on a wet runway. The airplane didn't settle down and didn't get the weight-on-wheels signal or wheel spinup. The reversers wouldn't deploy and the spoilers didn't come up by themselves. Guess what? No computers involved, just a bunch of relays and switches. Let's get off this "the Airbus is a terrible airplane with all it's computers taking over for the pilot" line. It's wearing thin. Dave From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:26 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. >Early 737's had no GPWS, no EGPWS, no windshear >alerting or prediction, no moving map, no EFIS, no flight path >protections, no autoland, no CAT II, no flight management system, no >autothrottle, no ACARS, no color weather radar. >I know of some 737-300s built this year (and possibly even 737-700s) >that lack many of those features or at least have them disabled -- no >flight path protections, no autoland, no FMS, no ACARS, maybe more. >Despite that, their operator has never lost a plane or life. The Air Inter A320 that crashed had no GPWS, certainly no fault of the airplane or the manufacturer. Dave From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:27 From: "Wayne" Subject: Re: Delta fuel / delta payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: OzEmail Ltd. If it's any help Thomas, a rule of thumb I use for the B747(classic)is:you will burn all of your additional fuel in 28hrs. ie. on a 7hr flight if you add 1000kgs to flight planned fuel(assuming ZFW remains as planned),you will arrive at destination with only 750kgs.Obviously this applies to aircraft gross weight increases.So on a 9hr flight,if I needed an additional 5000kgs to be avbl at destination to cover say,a 30 min holding req,I would load an additional 6700kgs for departure so as to arrive with 5000kgs. I was taught this many years ago by an old bold pilot and it seems to tie with info provided on the computer fuel plan.On every flight plan I use info is given on changes to burn corresponding to LMC's to aircraft gross weight. ie."additional fuel used xxxx with every 1000kgs increase/decrease in aircraft gross weight. I must stress this is ONLY rule-of-thumb,handy for working out rough figures and expectations. Now,before you guys out there jump up and down about using rules of thumb,let me make it clear.. When accurate data is presented ie.on the fuel flight plan,that is to be used. -- Kind regards Wayne From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:28 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Delta fuel / delta payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services "Philippe CHESNEL" wrote: >Thomas Buro a écrit dans le message ... >>I am searching for the sensivity data of fuel burn to payload for >>aircraft. How much fuel (kg) is burned more, when one kg of payload is >>added to the aircraft. E.g. for a range of 1000 km, 5000 km and 10.000 >>km. Has anyone this data for actual aircraft types. > >That data is called K, the fuel transport coefficient ... Very interesting posting. Thank you. Most A340 flights are long-range, so I imagine there would be few routes where it is worth while uplifting excess fuel to save fuel uplift at the next stop. With shorter flights, there are probably plenty where it is worth doing. Are there any other factors taken into these calculations, like higher engine maintenance costs due to higher power usage for example? Robin From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:29 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: Silk Air and SR 111 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services James Matthew Weber wrote: > I had always been lead to believe that these devices were operated in a > fashion to allow them to operate under catastrophic failure conditions. > Apparently this isn't the case. Did the FDR and CVR cease operating in > the Air Canada 767 that made a dead stick landing at Gimli? As I recall the RAT was deployed and worked well enough for a dead stick landing? John From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:30 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Silk Air and SR 111 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Jim wrote: > The big question is: Did the FDR and CVR go off-line because the pilots > moved the switch (as they were supposed to) or did they go off line because > of a massive electrical failure on-board the aircraft? You can bet the the > Canadian NTSB is searching for the answer to that one. If that critical the four digital inputs of this switch should be written to the FDR as well. Does someone in this forum have an idea of the number of I/Os which are written on the FDR on an MD11 ? -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:31 From: John van Veen Subject: Dead stick landings. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services How many jet airliners have been dead sticked successfully besides the 737 and 767? Supposedly they all were during certification, at least as I understand the process. Perhaps this subject has been kicked around, if so excuse the question and let's move on. John From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:32 From: "Lee sung-gun" Subject: Boeing 747 autopilot Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Korea Telecom where can I get the sensor or Blockdiagram about the Boeing 747 auto-pilot ? Anyone knows it please email me. If anyone possess files about Boeing 747 send me a file, I will pay for it. From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:33 From: Craig 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: PSINet Anonymous lo14 wrote: > On 05 Oct 98 00:27:07 jmaddaus@NO-SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) wrote: > >Also, I remember reading an article dealing with the amount of outside > >air vs. recirculated air that is available throughout the ac. I don't > >know whether this is true for all aircraft types, but the > >generalization was that the cockpit is approximately 90% ventilated > >from the outside, while first class is 50% and coach is down to 20%. > > It's true for the MD-11, although the amount of new air introduced does > not vary with the seating. It only varies with the total number of > passengers on board; you don't need as much new air on an empty > airplane as you do on a full one. Ah, but think of the possibilities for "Titanic 2". The evil pilot turns the air down to "economy". With only 20% of that air going to Economy (why start with facts in movies now), the passengers rush, gasping, to the 1st Class curtain where they are turned away by the evil Steward bearing a loon mallet (Mk VI, of course). Cheers...Craig --- Good manners and bad breath get you nowhere - Elvis Costello --- It's no use to blame the looking glass if your face is awry - S.J. Perelman --- People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world - Calvin (& Hobbes) From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:34 From: "Michael Weiss" 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: Microsoft Corp. MCL757 wrote in message ... >>I cannot imagine anything worse that a crash landing, on fire, fully >>fueled >I don't think fuel is dumped to avoid a fire during the crash. >... You don't want landing gear struts going >through the wing tanks on touchdown.. Matt, I think that was precisely his point. Fully fueled makes you heavier, more likely to cause the struts to puncture the wing tanks. Bad situation under the best of conditions. When you have a clearly uncontrolled flame source (as opposed to the engines, which are designed to contain their flames), that makes it far more likely to result in a fire of the kind that nobody could survive. Granted, nobody did anyway, but we have the benefit of hindsight. Michael From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:35 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 Anonymous lo14 wrote: > Some *cargo* compartments depend on a lack of oxygen to snuff out a > fire, but no passenger compartment can do that. That's because those > cargo compartments are inaccessible in flight. You fight passenger > cabin fires with fire extinguishers. In the case of the DC-9 (Valuejet), it was considered a Class-D cargo compartment which, if I remember correctly, assumes air starvation as method of extinguishing, right ? But the DC-9 also vents cabin air through holes in the cabin floor alongside the walls, and that air goes to the cargo hold (one of which is heated). So I wonder how it can starve a cago fire of air unless it stops pumping air in the cabin. From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:36 From: "SRG CAA" 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: UUNET > It should be noted that the aircraft does have a battery bus for > essential systems, and that the FDAU, FDR and CVR are part of these > systems. Not true. The CVR and/or FDR do not need (by regulation) to be connected to the Battery Bus. There is a good reason. These two equipments will not help get you home safely in the event of an emergency where the whole battery capacity is needed. JWV From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:37 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: 100th 747 for JAL Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The 100th 747 for JAL is currently in final body join. Just read in the Boeing news that a bare 737-600 fuselage, when loaded on the railroad car in Wichita, weighs 15,000lbs. A 737-800 fuselage weighs 19,000lbs. I just thought that was interesting... Also, the 767-400ER will have oval windows like the 777. This saves 500lbs per airplane. Matt in Seattle Student Pilot To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who fly, the sky is home. From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:38 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Also, the 767-400ER will have oval windows like the 777. This saves >500lbs per airplane. I just read this in AW&ST. This seems like a pretty significant change to the fuselage structure. How does it affect certification? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:39 From: jthai@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Joseph Edward Nemec wrote: > Stephen Gilkes wrote: > > 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. > > IIRC the wings never snapped. The body of the plane caved in first. Just to confirm with Mr. J. E. Nemec, all brackets designed to hold galley structures at the wing roots are to accommodate movement in the vertical direction, for example, the floor is concave in turbulence. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:40 From: Tony Schlemmer Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Global Mobility Systems, Inc. Reply-To: tschlemmer@gmswireless.com steve wrote: > Through a training film I have seen, I believe the initial strength testing > of the 747 wing flexed it in a upward direction to a load more than twice > it's designed strength and it finally shattered the spar at 37 feet. FYI They showed this on an episode of "Wings". It was one heck of an "explosion" when the wing finally broke. Tony -- Tony Schlemmer Global Mobility Systems, Inc. tschlemmer@gmswireless.com From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:41 From: "BP II" Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BP II Geno Rice wrote in message ... >JStaik wrote: >> 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. > >In fact, the B52 has a wheel at the end of each wing to prevent the tips >from striking the runway on takeoff. A friend of mine was a mechanic on the BUFF. He implied that there was only ONE bolt that attached the wing. I'M sure there were other means of support, but one bolt was all that was necessary to keep it there. Anyone? Bohdan From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:42 From: "elysium" Subject: Active Noise Cancellation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Internet Africa Anyone flown on a DC-9 with the Lord NVX system yet? Is it any good? ( Are there actually any in service yet -- maybe not ). -- >From : elysium@iafrica.com " Slow to erect, quick to topple -- A maverick gimbal ". From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:43 From: Arthur.Leung@Eng.Sun.COM (Arthur Leung) Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation In article , JF Mezei wrote: >OK, cellphones are a big no-no for on airlines. But it seems that the biggest >reason is because at altitude it "confuses" land-bases cell sites. > >However, if an airplane were to loose all power (or all radios), would it >still be feasable to use a passenger's analog cell phoen to keep in touch with >ATC/tower ? If so, should it now become part of the "drill" for pilots to >request that a pax lend a cellphone as soon as problem is discovered just in >case they may need one ? (or perhaps have aricraft equipped with one charged >cellphone that works over the frequencies used by the countries the plane is >called to travel over ? as you mention, activating more than one cell may confuse the cell switches. however, many private pilots carry a handheld aviation radio with transmit and receive capability. many of these units also have a VOR function. these are not high power units, so their range may be limited, but they probably have more worldwide coverage than your average cell phone system. -- arthur From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:44 From: Robert Tremonti Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Organization Of Anarchists Reply-To: robert_tremonti@bc.sympatico.ca JF Mezei wrote: > OK, cellphones are a big no-no for on airlines. But it seems that the biggest > reason is because at altitude it "confuses" land-bases cell sites. > > However, if an airplane were to loose all power (or all radios), would it > still be feasable to use a passenger's analog cell phoen to keep in touch with > ATC/tower ? If so, should it now become part of the "drill" for pilots to > request that a pax lend a cellphone as soon as problem is discovered just in > case they may need one ? (proposal to use cellular telephones for aircraft emergencies snipped for brevity only) All things considered, wouldn't it be much simpler to equip the aircraft with a standard hand-held or other portable radio unit that operates on avaition frequencies? Why bother with all the exotics of cellulars when a simple hand-held radio will do the job - including areas where there is no cellular coverage. -- R.A. (Bob) Tremonti North Vancouver, BC Canada From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:45 From: TJH Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Mythical Animals Reply-To: skygodtj@ayeteetee.net As I am at FL390, and traverse at least 5 Centers and more numerous local facilities on my way from NY to LA, I would end up leaving their airspace, and more importantly, their radar coverage before I'd even get their number dialed, which I have NO idea what their phone number, outside line, or secure, is for ATC or the 'tower', and as I don't happen to have the ability to let my fingers do the walking thru the yellow pages... it just wouldn't work TJH From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:46 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? 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 05 Oct 98 00:26:47 , in , JF Mezei wrote: >OK, cellphones are a big no-no for on airlines. But it seems that the biggest >reason is because at altitude it "confuses" land-bases cell sites. Some time ago Pilot magazine in the UK reported that an SAS DC-9 on climb out turned back and landed after the autopilot disconnected. This appeared to be coincident with a passengers cellphone ringing, although only circumstantial evidence exists to link the two events. >However, if an airplane were to loose all power (or all radios), would it >still be feasable to use a passenger's analog cell phoen to keep in touch with >ATC/tower ? If so, should it now become part of the "drill" for pilots to >request that a pax lend a cellphone as soon as problem is discovered just in >case they may need one ? (or perhaps have aricraft equipped with one charged >cellphone that works over the frequencies used by the countries the plane is >called to travel over ? Pilot has also reported the case of a single engine aircraft doing just this - getting navigational information from Stansted via cellphone after electrical failure. -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:47 From: "BP II" Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BP II There are Air Phones available on some airliners. But, they really are not necessary. If an A/C lost all possibilities for communication, all would not be lost. Even on sunny days, Airliners fly on an IFR plan this gives him the routing that he will fly, and times to expect further clearance on hand-offs. If he looses the radios, all he has to do is squawk 7600 on his transponder, which is the applicable code. If he has no XPNDR, the data block would indicated that on the controllers screen and he would automatically give priority handling. If on approach, he would wait until predetermined times and then continue his approach. Controllers are excellent at analyzing situations. If they see things, like no code from the XPNDR or no replies on the radio, they'll clear the road for him. I guess if he needed to he could use the phone. Who would know the number to O'Hare TRACON though? There must be hundred of phone numbers listed for O'Hare. Bohdan From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:48 From: BP II Subject: Re: Aircraft Service Life References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BP II Tom Furnivall wrote in message ... >What are any of these figures (in cycles, flying hours, or years) for >aircraft currently in service or production. The Concord was only supposed to be around 10k hours. I believe now that has been extended to 14K. Bohdan From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:49 From: Rueckerl@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Tobias_R=FCckerl?=) Subject: Jetstream 31 / 32EP Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ladies and gentlemen, For a project, we would be interested to get information and experiences with the Jetstream 31 or J32EP aircraft. Direct Operating Costs etc. would be very helpful. Thank you in advance Tobias Rueckerl eastwestavia@hotmail.com Fax: +44 171 691 95 95 From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:50 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 , Evan McElravy wrote: [snip] > >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. > > Only by comparison to the 737 was the MD-80 "only mildly successful." 1,200 > sold is hardly a mild success. At least two of you are disagreeing with me on what I considered to be a relatively neutral comment. In terms of number sold, there are only six aircraft types that have reached the 1,000-mark, namely, the B707, 727, 737, 747, MD-80, and the A320. Thus, by this measure, the MD-80 is quite successful. However, everything is relative, isn't it? In particular, there are two reasons why I consider the MD-80 to be only "mildly" successful: 1. The MD-80 had a really slow start. It had to take some marketing "ingenuity" (walk-away leases with AA) before the sales of the MD-80 took off. (AA's MD-80 fleet account for about a quarter of the MD-80 built.) 2. Before the US Deregulation, the DC-9 outsold the first-generation B737 by about a margin of two-to-one. However, Boeing was able to reverse the trend by responding to the MD-80 with the second- generation B737. The DC-9 was the market leader and later became the second best by a big margin. I simply can't label that product as a "huge" success. > Does this mean you would consider the 757 to be a flop? I won't say the B757 is a flop, but it's definitely not a success. Boeing built the B757 to replace the B727, the most successful jet liner at that time, and was confident enough to cease the B727 production soon after the B757 entered into service. The sales of the B757 was lackluster until the late '80s. However, the B757 sales has not picked up in this current up cycle. It was launched almost 20 years ago, and it has yet to reach the 1,000 mark. For a narrow body, I don't think Boeing can be too proud of its B757 *marketing* (performance-wise, it's another story), especially taking into account that the B757 does not have one single competitor. Boeing simply sized the airplane wrong (at the requests of British Airways and Eastern, as it has been pointed out several time in this forum). > >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. > > I've said it before and I'll say it again: this argument doesn't wash. The > A320 was designed to be an all-around versatile aircraft to replace aging > 727s and snag orders from the 737 and, more importantly, the MD-80. The > original A320 was a little large for that task and AI produced the A319. > Just becuase an aircraft has superior perfromance doesn't mean it is an > apples and oranges comparison. Remember that the MD-80 had greater seating > capacity and range than the 733 (150/3,014sm to 126/ 2,500sm). The 737-700 > was a "catch-up" aircraft, albeit a damn fine one. Well, let's start from the beginning. Before the widebody era, Boeing had three designs to cater to three different market sectors: namely, the four-engine B707 for long haul (inter-continental) routes, the three-engine B727 for medium-haul (trans-continetal) routes, and the two-engine B737 for short hops. After the US Deregulation, there was a sudden increase in demand of short-haul airplanes that are ideal for spoke-and-hub operations. Boeing updated the B737 with a more efficient engine, but it's still a short-haul aircraft without trans-continental capabilities. If Boeing's intent at that time was to increase the range of the B737, they would have redesigned the wing, just like they did with the third-generation B737. The A320 is a medium-haul, 150-seat aircraft. It fills the B727 gap that Boeing had left open when they marketed the B757 as the B727 replacement. Airbus was smart enough to spot the opening and built the A320. The A320 has never been a *direct* competitor of the B737 just like the B727 has never competed directly against the first-generation B737. (Similarly, the A321 is not a direct competitor of the longer-range B757 even though the two designs have similar capacities.) In addition, the majority of the second-generation B737 in the market are the -300 which is a much smaller aircraft than the A320. The similarly-sized A319 did not enter into service until a few years ago. The only overlap is the A320 and the B737-400, but only in terms of capacity. The -400 has a shorter range capability which I can't emphasize enough. With a larger wing, it's not a big surprise that the A320-sized -800 is the best-selling B737NG model, because most of the -800s have been ordered to replace the B727! From kls Mon Oct 12 00:02:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Oct 98 00:02:51 From: Phil Dunn Subject: Part 25 wire bundle regs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Circumnavigation Education Expedition Does anyone know if a wiring bundle can contain wires from separate busses? For example, could an essential bus wire travel along in the same bundle with a ground-handling bus wire? tia From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:12 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: Airbus Safety 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 ... >>Once an aircraft has been debugged and stops falling out of the sky, >>should it still be considered unsafe ? >>Airbus certaintly suffered a lot because it released a plane without >>adequate testing and debugging. Boeing learned from this and made sure >>quality control was top priority when it released the 777 ... > >Quality control has little to do with it. The DC-10 cargo door could >have been built with the utmost of quality, but the design itself was >still crap and the highest quality implementation of it would still be >vulnerable. Now, now, the Douglas workers will get their feelings hurt. >I'm not aware of any Airbus crashes in which manufacturing quality has >been an issue. If anything, Airbus has done a better job of consistently >producing aircraft with minimal manufacturing problems than has Boeing. Airbus wasted much effort trying to meet the now dead RTCA DO-180 requirements. This left early models with audible Nyquist problems and certain inadaquacies in the Flight Control Computer. The new models have no such Nyquist problem and one can assume there was a change to the FCC. John From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:13 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > Only if it has in fact been "debugged." You mention the DC-10 -- > McDonnell Douglas refused to ackowledge that there were any problems > with the cargo door until the Windsor incident, and even then they > dragged their feet. The vulnerability of the DC-10's hydraulic system > still hasn't been fully acknowledged, though the cutoff valve installed > in the DC-10 (and MD-11) after UA 232 crashed in Sioux City helps a bit. Pilotics aside, would you agree that the DC10 (for as much as I don't love its interior) is now a pretty safe plane to fly ? Operators know its faults and work around them. > Airbus has similarly been loath to acknowledge any problems with the > A320. As far as I know, the only changes that have come out of any of > the A320 crashes came from LH 2904, the Warsaw landing overrun, and I'm > not sure Airbus actually acknowledged real problems even in that case. There have been MANY changes. An article in Science & Vie, April 1970 details some of the software changes (new versions) which were introduced to remove some of the most visible software glitches of the first batch of 320 delivered to AF. There were several "modification campaigns" which started in early 1989. These continued until the end of 1989, 18 months after the 320 was first commercially used. This is why I consider the first 18 months of service "debugging" of a "beta" product. > Quality control has little to do with it. The DC-10 cargo door could > have been built with the utmost of quality, but the design itself was > still crap and the highest quality implementation of it would still be > vulnerable. > > I'm not aware of any Airbus crashes in which manufacturing quality has > been an issue. If anything, Airbus has done a better job of consistently > producing aircraft with minimal manufacturing problems than has Boeing. Airbus' 320 introduced to the commercial aviation world a totally new concept of quality control: SOFTWARE. This is something which the FAA failed to realise early on (hence the 320's getting its certification before it should have) because the FAA had not had to deal with this before. From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:14 From: standaert@mail.chem.tamu.edu (Bob Standaert) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Department of Chemistry, Texas A&M University Reply-To: standaert@mail.chem.tamu.edu It is hard to conclude much about the relative safety of the A320 and 737 on the basis of statistics alone. We are (most fortunately) comparing frequencies of low probability events, and the number of events and flights is too small to produce a meaningful distinction. What follows is an illustration of the point in my typically longwinded style... I apologize for the length and hope that there is enough substance to make up for it, at least in part. Interpreting the observed frequency of improbable events is something that must be undertaken with caution. I'll add extra caution by saying I am not a statistician, only someone who has occasion to use statistics and tries to be careful with them. Let's suppose we do, in fact, know the "true" probability P that an event will occur. We can use the Poisson distribution to calculate the probability F that we will observe X events in N tries: F = [(NP)^X]*[exp(-NP)]/X! What we will find is that many values of X are reasonably possible. Taking Karl's criterion of the hull loss as the event of interest, let's work from the assumption that both airliners have an identical frequency of events, P = 1.2/Mflight. For the sake of argument, let's also lump all of the 737's together. The probability F of observing X losses in N flights is given in the table below. The "SUM" columns refer to the cumulative probability; for instance, with the 737, the chance that we would observe <70 events is 4.6%, the chance we would observe more than 100 is 4.6% (100 - 95.4), and there is a roughly 90% chance that we would observe between 70 and 100 events. For the A320, the corresponding range is 3-10. | 737 (N = 70.6M) | | A320 (N = 5.2 M) | |______________________| |_______________________| | | | | X F(%) SUM X F(%) SUM ---- ------ ------ ---- ------ ------ <70 4.6 0 0.2 0.2 70 1.2 5.8 1 1.2 1.4 71 1.5 7.2 2 3.8 5.2 72 1.7 9.0 3 7.9 13.1 73 2.0 11.0 4 12.3 25.4 74 2.3 13.2 5 15.4 40.8 75 2.6 15.8 * 6 *** 16.0 *** 56.8 * 76 2.9 18.7 7 14.3 71.0 77 3.2 21.8 8 11.1 82.1 78 3.4 25.3 9 7.7 89.9 79 3.7 29.0 10 4.8 94.7 80 3.9 32.8 11 2.7 97.4 81 4.1 36.9 12 1.4 98.8 82 4.2 41.1 13 0.7 99.5 83 4.3 45.4 14 0.3 99.8 84 4.3 49.8 15 0.1 99.9 * 85 *** 4.3 *** 54.1** 16 0.0 100.0 86 4.3 58.3 17 0.0 100.0 87 4.1 62.5 18 0.0 100.0 88 4.0 66.5 19 0.0 100.0 89 3.8 70.3 20 0.0 100.0 90 3.6 73.9 91 3.3 77.2 92 3.1 80.3 93 2.8 83.0 94 2.5 85.6 95 2.2 87.8 96 2.0 89.8 97 1.7 91.5 98 1.5 93.0 99 1.3 94.3 100 1.1 95.4 >100 100.0 In both cases, the most probable outcome (starred) is that we will observe the average number of events (P*N), but there are many other outcomes that are nearly as likely, or at least reasonably likely. As noted above, 90% of the probability falls between 70-100 events for the 737, and 3-10 for the A320, but there is still a 10% probability that we would observe event numbers outside these ranges due to chance alone! I started with the assumption that both birds have identical "true" event frequencies. We can go one step further and ask the following question: what "true" event frequencies are consistent with the observed number of events? Let's take as our criterion that the observed number of events must be within the middle 90% of the probability distribution for the "true" frequency. With a little hacking around on a spreadsheet, I came up with the following ranges (events/Mflight): 737 A320 --------- --------- 1.00-1.44 0.63-2.02 With the 737, we have a much better idea of where the "true" frequency is because we have many more data. The A320 could be significantly better, significantly worse, or (most likely) about the same. There just isn't enough experience yet to pin it down so well. I find it much more informative to discuss (or at least read while others discuss) the specifics of individual events and what they reveal. Regards, Bob --I don't speak for Texas A&M, Texas A&M doesn't speak for me, and we're both happier for it. From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:15 From: gbraun@mitre.org (Gary Braun) Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The MITRE Corporation I've also seen this effect, and it was not condensation. I have a Master's degree in Aeronautical Engineering and several of my professors have seen the shock wave (or rather the effects) as well. In order to see it, the sun has to be at your back (on the other side of the aircraft) and you have to be sitting directly over the wing in line with the transonic shock wave location. It's rather hard to see, but if you watch closely a thin "shadow" will appear along the length of the wing, moving slightly fore and aft with the local changes in angle of attack or velocity. It appears similar to viewing a shock wave with a Schlieren system on a supersonic wind tunnel. From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:16 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin J. W. Dawson wrote: > But no, not condensation. What I saw looked like - this doesn't describe it > very well but I can't think of a better description - more like a ripple > would appear in glass, with a definite edge to it. And it wasn't in the > glass of the window, either. But there was no whiteness or gray fuzziness > that you would get from condensation. Yep- localized shock wave. I've seen those little things dancing over airliner wings for years and years, and only recently heard an aerospace engineer confirm the explanation I had suspected. There is sufficient change in the density of the air around the shock that the index of refraction is changed, so it reall does *exactly* what a ripple in glass would do- bends the light waves passing through it. Its really not that farfetched- think about it. Heated air just above the hood of your car on a hot day causes visible "shimmer", so only a very minimal change in air density is required. -- 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 Oct 13 02:48:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:17 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Alan Browne wrote: > Phil Dunn wrote: > > Do you think this could be condensation instead of shock wave? > > > > I have flown lots of supersonic formation and you don't see shock waves. > > You can feel them though. > > > > But as the pressure gets very low, you can see transient condensation of > > water and this appears like shock wave. > > I agree: I have often seen condensation form in sheets over a wing, and > occasionally in sharply defined patterns that could be interpreted as a > shock wave. Nope- two entirely different phenomena, and I've seen both enough times that its quite easy to tell the difference. The condensation usually occurs at low altitude and low speed (down where the moisture is). The transparent (not translucent, or "foggy") shock wave is seen only at high altitudes and at cruise speeds. There is NO mistaking the two at all. -- 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 Oct 13 02:48:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:18 From: Alan Browne 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: Bell Solutions Reply-To: alan.browne@SPAMX.sympatico.ca SRG CAA wrote: > > It should be noted that the aircraft does have a battery bus for > > essential systems, and that the FDAU, FDR and CVR are part of these > > systems. > > Not true. The CVR and/or FDR do not need (by regulation) to be connected > to the Battery Bus. There is a good reason. These two equipments will not > help get you home safely in the event of an emergency where the whole > battery capacity is needed. This is confirmed by the report in AW&ST where as part of the SMOKE drill, the electrical buses are switched to isolate the source of smoke. During some configurations of electrical power in the drill, the CVR in one case and the FDR in another are disconnected. They are simply not critical to keeping the aircraft in flight. It is frustrating that their data is not available. The AW&ST report implied that the various configurations were not the same accross all MD-11's. Alan. From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:19 From: m.hopkins@no.spam.niwa.cri.nz (Malcolm Hopkins) 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: NIWA Reply-To: m.hopkins@no.spam.niwa.cri.nz ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >Even if there was internal battery backup for these systems, it would >be of limited use if none of the systems they were hooked up to had >lost power - no input source data would be transmitted to the Flight >Data Acquisition Unit (FDAU) or the FDR. Would it not be useful if for some reason all the inputs failed in a pattern ie: did not all fail simultaneously, this could throw some light on the nature of the failure. If this type of information could be useful then backup batteries may well be of some benefit. Malcolm Hopkins Wellington New Zealand Please remove "no.spam" from address to reply From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:20 From: TJH Subject: Re: SR111: Reality check please References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: People for the Ethical Treatment of Mythical Animals Reply-To: skygodtj@ayeteetee.net JF Mezei wrote: > I have seen some news-releases from US law firms stating that the MD11 > is capable of an emergency descent at 6000 feet per minute. Can anyone > confirm this ? If the 6000 number is not accurate, please substitute it > with the proper number in subsequent questions. 6000+ initially, settling down to stabilize at approx 3500-4500fpm at Vmo(do not exceed speed, barber pole), clean(no gear or flaps out)(B757 numbers) > If one is to make an emergency descent at 6000 feet/min, how far from > the threshold (and how high) must he level the plane to make final > approach ? The aircraft would need to be stabilized at really no more than 250 knots to allow for landing gear and flap extension by 15 miles out from the end of the runway. The more speed the airplane has the harder it will be to touchdown ON the intended point of contact. For every knot over planned touchdown speed the aircraft will travel an additional xxxx feet down the runway to run off at the end.(I'm not in calculator mode and dont recall the exact number) I do remember seeing it in a post a few days ago. Too much speed and the aircraft floats down the runway still decelerating, but still flying... > During a descent, how fast can an MD11 go in terms of airspeed ? During > an emergency 6000ft/min descent, how slow could that plane go ? How long > would it take to slow the plane from its descent speed to a speed > acceptable for landing? (in time or distance units). Normal Vmo(do not exceed speed) varies from 350knots at sea level to about 280kts at altitude(37,0000-39,000-41,000'). In a slow speed descent, the airspeed would be approx. 250kts and yield a descent rate of approx. 3,000 fpm. When would you use the low speed over the high speed descent? If you have a problem in that you suspect structural damage(collision, explosion, flight control malfunction) or have a vibration that increases with an increase in airspeed. Otherwise, in the case of a rapid decompression(loss of cabin pressure) you would do a high speed descent to get back down to a breathable altitude(10,000-12,000') as quickly as possible.(B757 numbers) TJH, B757 IP PHX.AZ From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:21 From: Alan Browne Subject: Re: SR111: Reality check please References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Solutions Reply-To: alan.browne@SPAMX.sympatico.ca JF Mezei wrote: > I have seen some news-releases from US law firms stating that the MD11 > is capable of an emergency descent at 6000 feet per minute. Can anyone > confirm this ? If the 6000 number is not accurate, please substitute it > with the proper number in subsequent questions. > > When a pilot is told that the threshold for a runway is X miles away, > does this mean that the pilot must plan to be at altitude 0 at the > threshold ? If not, how high must he be ? and how far would that > threshold be from the actual runway ? > > If one is to make an emergency descent at 6000 feet/min, how far from > the threshold (and how high) must he level the plane to make final > approach ? 6000ft/min descent is possible, but I think you would end up at a great deal of knots and have to spend some distance bleeding the energy off. Also, from a pilots point of view, are you going to take a difficult situation and make it more difficult by adding a manouever that loses alt while increasing speed drastically? Emergency management means, among other things, keeping the variables down. When setup for the final approach, let's say 5 miles back of threshold (aprox 1600 ft alt above threshold) the aircraft needs to be at its approach speed (less than 200 kts, more like 140-160), so any speed accumulated during the mad dive needs to be dissipated before that point. During the mad dive, the pilot *could* dirty up (wheels, slats, flaps, spoilers, landing lights, RAT) to increase drag. What degree does the MD-11 system allow the pilots to manually do this? I don't know. What airspeed would result? Further, the pilot wanted to dump some large amount of fuel. This takes time and distance to accomplish. It is neccesary in order to have a safe landing weight. If the aircraft structure failed on landing, then the fire hazzard would be enormous. I noticed in AW&ST that the controllers wanted (the transcript and a/c position plot imply this) the aircraft out over the water before the fuel dump began. This may prove to have been costly in the time evolution of the event. Where is this vs. altitude? Don't know. Question: is dumping fuel really neccesary in such an emergency? Fuel dumping occurs more often than one might suspect. eg: after takeoff an inertial fails and the MEL for the flight says gotta have three. So you dump and go back. But in an emergency such as Swissair 111, would it have been safe to land fueled up, allowing that the aircraft would have required a very expensive inspection and possibly major repairs? Or would the high weight have guaranteed a massive structural failure? > During a descent, how fast can an MD11 go in terms of airspeed ? During > an emergency 6000ft/min descent, how slow could that plane go ? How long > would it take to slow the plane from its descent speed to a speed > acceptable for landing? (in time or distance units). > - - - - - - - > > We know that the plane was "viable" between 22:15 and 22:26, roughly 11 > minutes between the time the pilots started to act on Halifax and the > time the electrical system failed. We also know that the plane was able > to sustain a certain level of control after that (from the fact that the > plane made a tight circle - is that a correct assumption ?). The "tight circle" after departing land towards the ocean may have been a spiral dive. Was the XPRDR operational during this period...do we know the altitude change during the "tight circle". A spiral dive is easy to get into in any airplane when reference to the horizon is lost. In a smokey cockpit at night... (I don't know this to be the case with this flight. The 737 crash in Central America a few years ago was due to the pilots following a failed VG on the ADI. Both pilots were switched to the same VG because the other VG was failed. The crash was definitely a spiral and very fast.) <> Alan. (more questions than answers, as usual) From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:22 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM H Andrew Chuang wrote: > The A320 is a medium-haul, 150-seat aircraft. It fills the B727 gap > that Boeing had left open when they marketed the B757 as the B727 > replacement. Airbus was smart enough to spot the opening and built the > A320. The A320 has never been a *direct* competitor of the B737 just > like the B727 has never competed directly against the first-generation > B737. (Similarly, the A321 is not a direct competitor of the > longer-range B757 even though the two designs have similar capacities. Point about CAPACITY well made. However, if one were to use operating costs as a metric to compare say a 757 vs A321, or 737 (first and medium generations) and A320, would your comparisons stick ? Would it be possible that for some operators, dues to the negotiated deals, that operating a A320 would end up being more cost effective than a 1 or 2 generation 737 even though the 737 might be beter sized for the airline's capacity requirements ? From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:23 From: Alan Browne Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Solutions Reply-To: alan.browne@SPAMX.sympatico.ca > One can see this during takeoff, the wing rising as lift increases with > speed. On a -400 if you are sitting in the right seat and the airplane is near or at max gross weight, the flex in the wing is dramatic during rotation on takeoff. It almost appears (illusion) to be flexing backwards!. I would guess this takeoff flex upward to be on the order of 10 feet. Beautiful! Alan. From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:24 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Tony Schlemmer wrote: > steve wrote: > > Through a training film I have seen, I believe the initial strength testing > > of the 747 wing flexed it in a upward direction to a load more than twice > > it's designed strength and it finally shattered the spar at 37 feet. FYI > > They showed this on an episode of "Wings". It was one heck of an "explosion" > when the wing finally broke. Yet it is also possible for wings to fail with very little visible change, except on test station dials. Our offices one time were moved into the mezzinine where the F-15 wing was being static tested. We could here creaks and groans all the time. One time there was a big crack! sound. A number of us rushed downstairs. There was quite a commotion, and a couple of the cables to load pads seemed a little slack. Maybe there was some change in the position of the wing- couldn't tell. There were guys climbing all over that airframe, but we could see no damage externally. Admittedly we did not actually see the event happen, but there sure was not much difference between the appearance of the plane that morning and when we left work in the afternoon. It may have SOUNDED spectacular, but there sure wasn't much to look at. -- 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 Oct 13 02:48:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:25 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com BP II wrote: > A friend of mine was a mechanic on the BUFF. He implied that there was only > ONE bolt that attached the wing. I'M sure there were other means of > support, but one bolt was all that was necessary to keep it there. Anyone? And the bolt was called, the "(all together, folks!)" bolt. -- 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 Oct 13 02:48:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:26 From: narayana@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) 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: > >Also, the 767-400ER will have oval windows like the 777. This saves > >500lbs per airplane. > > I just read this in AW&ST. This seems like a pretty significant change > to the fuselage structure. How does it affect certification? Is there any technical explanation as to how the oval windows save weight?. Barath Narayan -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:27 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Aircraft Service Life References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I am assuming that when aircraft are sold to airlines there is an expected >service life figure. >I would be >interested in knowing which aircraft, on average have been retired 'early' True, each a/c model has a different life expectency. This could be based simply on how much structural testing was performed by the manufacturer. I don't have historical data about how well a/c are meeting these predictions, but I think the life can range from 70,000 flight hours for DC10 to 25,000 flight hours for a Bell helicopter. BELL realized that they were exposing themselves to law suites by not limiting the life of their models. They simply could not guarantee they would last indefinate like the old Model 47. So, in the 70's, they published a service life for all new manufactured helicopters. This is probably true about other manufacturers. Now, most modern a/c have life limits on major structure as a result of Fatigue Test results of full scale test articles. And it is not cost effective to continue to operate a fuselage by changing out the wing box. Steve Cole From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:28 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: How much "rust" is tolerated and landing light question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM John S. Maddaus wrote: > OK number one, flying UAL from Denver to San Antonio in an older 737S. > First I noticed that the top (couldn't see the bottom) of both > ailerons were nice shiny metal. Thought that was an odd area to be > replaced. Then as flaps were extended for take-off I noticed rust > stains running back approximately in the middle of the flap. As we > flew along, I reminded myself that most of the ac is not made from > steel. On landing, the source became clear. Looked to be coming from > perhaps a steel cover plate (screwed or riveted in place) on the flap > and rust stains were evident all around it. Also on deploying the air > brakes, the undersides of those showed rust stains as well > particularly at hinge points and hydraulic actuator connection points. I suspect that what you saw particularly at hinge points and hydraulic actuator attachment points was not rust but grease. The grease used in lubricating the moving parts of the wing/flaps/slats is a bright orangy rusty color and often after being freshly applied can be blown all over the place. remember that the airflow past slats and over flaps can be quite turbulent and fast. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:29 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: How much "rust" is tolerated and landing light question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >This implied some corrosion to me. Now my questions. Did I actually >see rust and are steel cover plates used? Possibly not. Some grease, i.e. Mobil 28, can have the appearance of rust from a distance. I've even heard mechanics tearing apart some structure for inspection and the "problem" turned out to be grease. Flap tracks and actuators are known for spitting out grease everywhere. If you were looking at a patch, then I do NOT expect it to be made of steel but rather aluminum, however, I admit I'm not familiar with that a/c and structure. I would rule out composite material. Its possible they coated the part, possibly with grease. Aluminum is more susceptible to salt environment---that is, bare, untreated aluminum. That is why most aluminum structure is primed/sealed with zinc chromate(green) and/or painted OR it is annodized. If there was steel used on the wing skin or flight controls surfaces, I would expect it to be thin stainless steel. RE: > I notice a hole in the starboard wing root where a landing >light lens used to be. >or decided to fly anyway? If this was a landing light, then the crew can not fly without it UNLESS it is so address in the Minimum Equipment List(MEL). If the MEL says one can be INOP, then and only then will the crew knowingly fly the aircraft without it. I can't address what would happen to the stucture due to the airloads against it, but I doubt the plexiglas was considered in the stress calculations of the wing's strength. Maybe it would "kill" a portion of the lift component. Steve Cole From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:30 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: How much "rust" is tolerated and landing light question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM John S. Maddaus wrote: > OK number one, flying UAL from Denver to San Antonio in an older 737S. > First I noticed that the top (couldn't see the bottom) of both > ailerons were nice shiny metal. Thought that was an odd area to be > replaced. I flew once on an AA 727, and its exterior was a mismash of new and "old" metal. Very visible. > Then as flaps were extended for take-off I noticed rust > stains running back approximately in the middle of the flap. I would speculate that what you saw was oil stains. (or de-icing fluid stains). From kls Tue Oct 13 02:48:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Oct 98 02:48:31 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: How much "rust" is tolerated and landing light question? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >OK number one, flying UAL from Denver to San Antonio in an older 737S. >First I noticed that the top (couldn't see the bottom) of both >ailerons were nice shiny metal. Thought that was an odd area to be >replaced. Perhaps they had been polished lately..? > Then as flaps were extended for take-off I noticed rust >stains running back approximately in the middle of the flap. As we >flew along, I reminded myself that most of the ac is not made from >steel. On landing, the source became clear. Looked to be coming from >perhaps a steel cover plate (screwed or riveted in place) on the flap >and rust stains were evident all around it. Also on deploying the air >brakes, the undersides of those showed rust stains as well >particularly at hinge points and hydraulic actuator connection points. Sounds like you saw the lubrication for the flap tracks. It is a rust color and can get blown out from where it belongs and onto the flaps. Since you mention seeing alot of this rust color at the hinge points, that indicates to me that it was definately lubricant you saw. >Number two, UA flight from San Antonio to Chicago. As our 733 >arrives, I notice a hole in the starboard wing root where a landing >light lens used to be. As it came closer, I see the remnants of what >looked like yellowed plexiglass shards. The pre-flight picked it up >and before long, both pilots were looking at it and trying to get a >mechanic. I knew my connection was shot at O'hare but hung around a >bit to see the outcome. Apparently, they found a local company that >was going to make a temporary metal patch for the hole and it flew on >a couple of hours late. > >Now my questions, I am assuming that the plane flew in at least part >of the way with that condition. What could have happened had the >pilots either not noticed it (and it was almost missed by the 1st >officer until he decided to take a second look) or decided to fly >anyway? What's behind that light and would the aircraft have flown >any differently? It probably didn't have much of an effect... especially since you had been flying with it in that condition already. Located behind the light are electrical wiring, bleed air ducting, and of course the front wing spar, but I don't think the airflow would displace the lights anyway. I was fueling a 737 at SEA one time when I noticed the fairing piece on the inboard edge of the inboard flaps, which keeps the airflow out of the wing to body fairing, was missing. I told the pilot who came and looked at it, and they went with it. Pilots have a MEL, which is a Minimum Equipment List, which obviously indicates if the aircraft is airworthy even with certain missing or failed equipment. Matt in Seattle Student Pilot To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who fly, the sky is home. -- EWR Tower: "NW 167, are you going around?" NW 167(an A320): "Wait um, uh, yeah, yeah I think it is...." From news Fri Oct 16 13:14:38 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Festus-der-erste@t-online.de (Lothar König) Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Swissair MD11 Crash - additional details Date: 16 Oct 1998 19:02:07 GMT Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <6u5v3e$fp5$4@news02.btx.dtag.de> References: <1998090304222900.AAA18825@ladder01.news.aol.com> <35EE3515.27A6@bigger.net> <6sltud$2an$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Richard S. Shevell schrieb: > > In article <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > bgagner@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > I seen a webpage sometime ago that had several FAA reports of > > > aviation accidents. Indeed, the MD-11, like the DC-10, has had a > > > string of incidents and mishaps in recent years. > > > If the MD-11's record since 1996 qualifies it for "a string of > > incidents" then so does that of everyone else, and I hope you enjoy > > riding the trains (which also have their problems...)" > > Thanks for setting the record straight. Until the Swissair crash, the > MD-11 has had a very safe record. This one has the feel of the Valuejet > accident, starting with smoke in the cockpit and then possibly burning > through control systems or ?. Hopefully the FDR will tell something of > the originating problem. What will happen, when all aircrafts are flying "fly by wire"?..... From news Fri Oct 16 13:14:39 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: "Bertie the Bunyip" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Subject: Re: Swissair MD-11 (SR 111, JFK-GVA) crash off Nova Scotia Date: 16 Oct 1998 19:14:52 GMT Organization: slash Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <01bdf05a$c6f96d40$65e7869f@default> References: sevnet wrote > Can this be done? Can a pilot stick his head out of the window of a plane > while it's in flight? Would the wind be enough to knock him out? I've stick > my head out of a car moving at 60mph and it was hard to take, but a plane > moving at 300mph? Well, he doens't exactly stick his head out. What you do is open the DV (direct vision or view, I can't remember which) That is the window immediatly aft of the windscreen. The airflow generally is suchthat it doesn't blow into the cockpit if this window is open. By just leaning slightly to the side, it is possible to see ahead of you through this window if vision out the forward screens are impaired. That in itself would not help in a cockpit filled with smoke, but it could help clear smoke if there was so much it was becoming like ink. I don't believe I've seen this on an emergency checklist, but it is certainly something I might try if all else was failing. Bertie From news Fri Oct 16 13:14:40 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: Joseph Edward Nemec Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: A3XX - to launch, or not to launch Date: 16 Oct 1998 19:17:39 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <361ABD37.35021FEE@mit.edu> I have to say, it is looking more and more likely to me that the A3XX will not be launched. I just don't think that they can make any money on it. They seem determined to go ahead with the project, but the numbers do not seem to add up. Airbus now admits that the development cost is going to be at least $10 billion, and I think we can be confident that this is likely to be an underestimate (perhaps a severe one). Since the European taxpayer will fund 33% of this, we can put the development cost to Airbus at $7 billion. I have yet to see Airbus come up with a large partner to share that cost. There were rumors about Lockheed-Martin, but they don't seem to have panned out. Mitsubishi Heavy also does not seem interested. Add to this the fact that AI is going to spend $2 billion of its own money, and $1 billion of the taxpayer's money to develop the A340-500/600, and one sees a heavy debt burden developing. (No wonder Noel Forgeard told the WSJ that he saw no need for a public listing of Airbus Industrie stocks --- I wouldn't want to go to shareholders with this amount of debt either!) If we figure that net margins on aircraft of the size of the A340-500/600 and A3XX are about 5-7%, then Airbus would have to sell about 350 A345/6 to recoup those development costs, and a whopping 700 A3XX to recoup those development costs. This seems to be a _very_ optimistic forecast, especially since much of the growth was projected to be in Asia. Given the fact that EVA has already canceled its LOI for 12 A345/6, Garuda has cancelled 6 772ERs, and Singapore, Korean, and Malaysian have already all canceled or deferred widebody orders, one wonders about the need for an aircraft that can carry 550 people, when orders for those that can carry 380-420 pax are being sent to dry places. I suspect that Airbus will not cancel the project, but I doubt that they will go ahead with it. I can imagine them getting some orders from BA, United, or Singapore, but I would be amazed if they got a total of 50 firm+options between them. I just don't see any economic reason for the project to go ahead. It seems to be mostly political --- part of Jean Pierson's crusade to be bigger, better, and flying farther than Boeing --- and I don't see it happening. Comments? -------------------------------------- This is a pain which will definitely linger. -- Brain, after something Pinky did. Joseph Edward Nemec Operations Research Center Room E40-149 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ No Canadians were harmed in the making of this .sig. From news Mon Oct 19 08:16:46 1998 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Newsgroups: rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Swissair MD11 Crash - additional details Date: 19 Oct 1998 14:33:31 GMT Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University Sender: westin@blynken.graphics.cornell.edu Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: References: <1998090304222900.AAA18825@ladder01.news.aol.com> <35EE3515.27A6@bigger.net> <6sltud$2an$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6smea7$muq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6u5v3e$fp5$4@news02.btx.dtag.de> Path: ditka!news.mv.net!newsfeed.wizvax.net!ulowell.uml.edu!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail Festus-der-erste@t-online.de (Lothar Kvnig) writes: > Richard S. Shevell schrieb: > > 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. > What will happen, when all aircrafts are flying "fly by wire"?..... Well, planes have been crashing because of in-flight fires for a long time; one web site gave ahistory dating back to the '40s. A fire can burn through mechanical control cables, or wires, or hydraulic lines, you know. Don't see how FBW changes the situation. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: more timely service (hopefully) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California My employer, Network Appliance (http://www.netapp.com/), got me a new laptop on which I can run Unix and all the moderation tools which I depend on. This is my first article for the group from the air, the upper deck of a 747-422 somewhere south of Hawaii to be precise. :-) (I'm on an SFO-SYD flight.) Hopefully, this will let me do a more timely job of approving articles for sci.aeronautics.airliners, which I know has been a source of some consternation for many. Thanks for your patience, and especially to those of you who have expressed appreciation for quality over quantity. I'll try to live up to your expectations. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:03 From: "Wee B C" Subject: Remote Camera Views Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber of Pacific Internet, Singapore I am wondering if there is any available equipment that supply remote video views on the external of the a/c for the air crew . Do you guys think it is of any value? Thanks for any reply. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:04 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:04 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Remote Camera Views References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I am wondering if there is any available equipment that supply remote video >views on the external of the a/c for the air crew. The 777-300 includes at least one camera as a taxiing aid. (This aircraft is the longest in service, so ground ops are a serious challenge.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:05 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:05 From: procida@cardiff.ac.uk (Daniele Procida) Subject: Internet sources sought Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK I'm making a short video film about commercial aviation and fear of flying, for which I want to use only materials available on the internet. If you have any www/FTP pointers for any of the following I'd be most grateful: ET961, 23.xi.96 (the main theme of the film) The recent Swissair and TWA disasters Footage taken from/of commercial airliners Interviews with crash investigators, official crash reports CVR/ATC sound recordings Thanks for any help. Daniele -- Used just like an ordinary toothbrush, Plus Tron emits a safe, imperceptible electronic charge which changes the polarity of your teeth from negative to positive. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:06 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:06 From: "Harun Biswas" Subject: Info on Jet engine structure Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I would appreciate some technical information Jet engine structure and performance tuning. ----- Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:07 From: Garry Forrest Subject: Re: A3XX - to launch, or not to launch References: <361ABD37.35021FEE@mit.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pepperdine University Your projected costs and margins seem to be in the ballpark -- for a competitive situation. Makes one wonder if an AI/Boeing joint venture would be of economic interest. The barriers to entry are high enough to keep out any serious competition allowing the manufacturers to jack up the margin to 747 levels, breaking even around 150 ships. Recall that arch rivals Pratt and GE have collaborated; if they can do it, anyone can do it. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:08 From: "Gilles Armstrong" Subject: Re: A3XX - to launch, or not to launch References: <361ABD37.35021FEE@mit.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Joseph, Although your maths are no doubt right, there are a few other points you do not mention: part of the point of the A3XX is to be able to offer a full family of aircraft, so as to offer complete "solutions" to airlines, thus saving on retraining etc... The extra aircraft sold will reduce the strict amount of A3XX to be sold to break even (significant knock-on effect). People like BA buy aircraft with families in mind, and it would be surprising if their recent purchase had nothing to do with a future acquisition of A3XXs. Also, the slump in orders that is happening, and will no doubt last a while, will definitely not be long enough to worry development of the aircraft. More than likely, things will be picking up again when/if the aircraft is released. Think of it as counter-cyclical investment. (by luck if not by design) I agree that they won't scrap it, but also I think they will go ahead at "European Speed" for a while, before going for it fully (probably as signs of the crisis wane). Gilles Armstrong. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:09 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services "Russell Farris" wrote: >To see it is a rare privilage, like the Green Flash and Blue >Jets. I too have seen these shockwaves, quite different from the condensation effects. I remember standing by the control tower at Farnborough during practice before the air show some time ago when a military jet did a fast low pass. The shock wave was clearly visible and extended 8-10 feet above and below the aircraft. The noise was also noticeable! I have also seen the Green Flash (from an aircraft flying from Nadi due South at dawn). But what is the Blue Jet (pardon my ignorance)? Robin Johnson From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:10 From: Scott Decker Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Enterprise Server Group Just a quick question on this over the wing subject. When working at the Carson City airport years ago, (gas jockey, I mean Fuel Delivery Engineer) I remember seeing small tabs on the tops of the wings of business jets. I was told that these were vortex generators or something like that. I seem to recall some of these on the larger i.e. 737 and up size airliners. What function do these tabs serve and is it to reduce the shock wave that's in topic? Just my PCB Layout brain wanting to know.... Thanks -- Scott Decker Enterprise Server Group CO3 Intel Corporation Ph: (503)-677-6582 E-MAIL: Scott.Decker@pii.com From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:11 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > I just read this in AW&ST. This seems like a pretty significant change > to the fuselage structure. How does it affect certification? Even if this is no direct answer to your question, I remember that the CEO of AA called the 764 a new type of aircraft. Thus commonality with the 763 and 772 must be reduced. This was one of the reasons why AA hasn't chosen the 764 so far. So the 764 seems indeed to be a lot different (gear, wing, engines, cockpit, interior, windows ...) from the classic 767s. Can we start talking of 767NG ;) -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:12 From: tjarko@dutlbcz.lr.tudelft.nl (Tjarko de Jong) Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology On 13 Oct 98 02:48:26 , narayana@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in wrote: >Is there any technical explanation as to how the oval >windows save weight?. Oval windows have less stress-concentrations then more or less square holes in the fusalage. Thus rounder window, less stress thus lighter. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:13 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion >Also, the 767-400ER will have oval windows like the 777. Question: aside from the shape change, are these windows larger or smaller? ie are they rendered oval by stretching them vertically or by squeezing them horizontally? 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 Mon Oct 26 02:59:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:14 From: dickfish2000@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Active Noise Cancellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "elysium" wrote: > Anyone flown on a DC-9 with the Lord NVX system yet? > Is it any good? I have not seen the Lord system in use but I did have the chance to experence the Ultra NVS system as installed in a Dash 8-200 (Q200) on a demo last summer. It worked very well, but I have heard from maintenance people at Horizon that the system can be hard to trouble-shoot when it fails due to poor and inaccurate documentation from Ultra. Dick -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:15 From: civetone@aol.com (CivetOne) Subject: Re: Active Noise Cancellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hi Elysium, >Anyone flown on a DC-9 with the Lord NVX system yet? >Is it any good? >( Are there actually any in service yet -- maybe not ). I've not flown with the Lord system, but I have flown on an MD-80 with the Dowty active noise reduction system. The MD-80 was an experimental aircraft and not in commercial service. The system does work and the reduction in noise was very noticable, especially at the window seats. Cheers, Gordon. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:16 From: "Miles Rømney" Subject: Re: Active Noise Cancellation References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp >Anyone flown on a DC-9 with the Lord NVX system yet? >Is it any good? >( Are there actually any in service yet -- maybe not ). Flown on Dash-8-200Q with active noise cancellation, and it really is great. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:17 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: Active Noise Cancellation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Anyone flown on a DC-9 with the Lord NVX system >yet? > Is it any good? No, but I have flown on the Dash-8"Q". The difference is quite noticeable. Horizon has both old and new Dash-8s, so now I check the tail number when boarding to see whether it's gonna be noisy or not.v Brian ----- See the original message at http://www.egroups.com/list/airliners/?start=4782 Free e-mail group hosting at http://www.eGroups.com/ From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:18 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) 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: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University Alan Browne writes: > SRG CAA wrote: > > > It should be noted that the aircraft does have a battery bus for > > > essential systems, and that the FDAU, FDR and CVR are part of these > > > systems. > > > > Not true. The CVR and/or FDR do not need (by regulation) to be connected > > to the Battery Bus. There is a good reason. These two equipments will not > > help get you home safely in the event of an emergency where the whole > > battery capacity is needed. > > This is confirmed by the report in AW&ST where as part of the SMOKE > drill, the electrical buses are switched to isolate the source of smoke. I'm curious about one point here. Presumably all airliners have similar switches and procedures for isolating and eliminating a smoke source. Plainly this procedure wasn't enough to save SR111: how often does it work in practice? Is this just some theoretical fantasy that keeps the flight crew busy while the plane is burning up? I would hope there are some success stories. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:19 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 >Would it not be useful if for some reason all the inputs failed in a >pattern ie: did not all fail simultaneously, this could throw some >light on the nature of the failure. If this type of information could >be useful then backup batteries may well be of some benefit. It also leads that the CVR should be able to record an entire flight's cockpit conversation, rather than being in a time-limited loop. Technology has come far enough that this is relatively easily accomplished. Granted it costs a lot when you demand upgrading systems in the fleet, but if more information is available to help *prevent* similar accidents, then the savings are multiplied many times over. After all, isn't this the point, to make flying safer with each passing year? From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:20 From: Freight Dog 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: Freight Dog's Anonymous Reply-To: mechgod@earthlink.net the replacement of fresh air is but just a by product of pressurization. the out flow valves are in the fwd cargo pit and the the holes these are in are about the size of your kitchen cupboard under your sink. all air flows out this hole so if a fire was in the fwd pit and the pilot did open this valve it would feed the fire. althought douglas red tab proceedures are very explicit on the subject From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:21 From: MJones Subject: 319 Dutch Roll? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Flew for the first time on a 319 yesterday, and was surprised at how often Dutch roll developed and how long it lasted. Was this bird's yaw damper not working correctly or is this common on the 319? Anybody know definitively? (Note: Definitely not intended as an AI slam: Overall I was very impressed with the 319, at least as configured by Air Canada.) Mike Jones From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:22 From: Chris PAPADOPOULOS Subject: Landing Boeing 747 pictures Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kingston University Hello, I am doing research on the use of ailerons as a means of directiona l control whilst the aircraft has main gears on the ground with both the nose up and during three point aero brakeing. I am nearing the thesis stage and am in need of a particular type of icture. I am looking for pictures of B747's at the point of touchdown showing the use of spoilers and/ or ailerons, or with one main undercarriage off the ground, or all of the above. Does anybody have any? The pictures are to be used to illustrate the use of co rols during landings for a report that I am writing. Other aircraft in the same circumstances would also be useful but B747's are prefferred. Pictures that show engine strike are a plus. or if anybody has information about a video that might show a vantig point from over the left shoulder showing a landing during rough conditions. That would also be helpful. Please email me. All picture formats link locations or video references are welcome. Thanks in advance Chris E_mail: k930359@kingston.ac.uk -- Chris Papadopoulos Kingston University tel:+44 181 547 2000 ext 4703 capapadopoulos@hotmail.com c.papadopoulos@kingston.ac.uk From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:23 From: dickfish2000@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Aircraft Service Life 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: > I am assuming that when aircraft are sold to airlines there is an expected > service life figure. If any of these figures are known I would be > interested in knowing which aircraft, on average have been retired 'early' > ie. before the number of cycles, flying hours, or years quoted by the > manufacturer was reached. And which have been retired 'late'. > > What are any of these figures (in cycles, flying hours, or years) for > aircraft currently in service or production. > > One I think I know of for the retired late list - DC-3's! Service life figures can be quoted in cycles, hours, or years/months. Often the figure is simply a value quoted by the manfacturer for commercial reasons as opposed to a true design based figure. As an aircraft matures and more data from heavy maintenance is gathered that value can be increased. Sirvice life can be a large factor in an aircraft purchase, and is used when calculating lease rates and risudual values. For example, a Dash 8 has a crack free life of 80,000 cycles with major inspection at 40,000. An EMB-120 is rated for something like 60,000 cycles, (I can't remember the exact figure)this can make a big difference. Much like buying a Honda over a Yugo, they both will get you to work but for how long. Major airframe components can have a service life, such as landing gears, normanly controlled by cycles. These are often esclated as the early gear sets go in for overehaul, often being put 'on condtion' that is with no hard time for removal. In my experence this can be false economy, as gears are only removed from aircraft when they are no longer serviceable. The repair/recertification costs can get huge for a complete gear OH when two half life shop visit could have been much less. Dick -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:24 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: Aircraft Service Life References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services "Tom Furnivall" wrote: >What are any of these figures (in cycles, flying hours, or years) for >aircraft currently in service or production. Hoghest time I know of is TWA's high-time 747, N53110, which was retired in February with 105,759 hours and 19,163 cycles. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:25 From: "BP II" Subject: Re: Aircraft Service Life References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BP II >From what I understand, there is only so much testing that can be done to estimate service life. In the case of the Concord, it gets extended if the fleet checks out around the service life time. Rob From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:26 From: BP II Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BP II >It may have SOUNDED spectacular, but there >sure wasn't much to look at. This happens a lot with acro planes. You really have to check them over on pre-purchase inspections, especially if the pilot was in the Unlimited class. Snap rolls are not to kind to longerons either. But, it is hard to find the damage sometimes. Bohdan From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:27 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM H Andrew Chuang wrote: > The A320 is a medium-haul, 150-seat aircraft. Not always, Mexicana operates F-OHMD in a 174 seat configuration. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:28 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 , JF Mezei wrote: >H Andrew Chuang wrote: >> The A320 is a medium-haul, 150-seat aircraft. It fills the B727 gap >> that Boeing had left open when they marketed the B757 as the B727 >> replacement. Airbus was smart enough to spot the opening and built the >> A320. The A320 has never been a *direct* competitor of the B737 just >> like the B727 has never competed directly against the first-generation >> B737. (Similarly, the A321 is not a direct competitor of the >> longer-range B757 even though the two designs have similar capacities. > >Point about CAPACITY well made. However, if one were to use operating costs as >a metric to compare say a 757 vs A321, or 737 (first and medium generations) >and A320, would your comparisons stick ? The foremost criterion is to meet the mission requirements. Thus, for an operator with a need of a 180-seat plane for relatively long-haul operations, the operating costs of the A321 is irrelevant because only the B757 can meet the needs. >Would it be possible that for some operators, dues to the negotiated deals, >that operating a A320 would end up being more cost effective than a 1 or 2 >generation 737 even though the 737 might be beter sized for the airline's >capacity requirements ? Obviously, what you have in mind is Air Canada's selection of the A320 that you cited in an r.t.a post. As I said in r.t.a, if a manufacturer whose new product is not more efficient than the existing products, the manufacturer will not have anything credible to market. This applies to both Boeing and Airbus! When an airline announces a new order, it is to their interest to say what's positive about the new aircraft that they have selected. For example, both Airbus and Cathay Pacific emphasized the advantage of cross-crew qualification (CCQ) when CX ordered the A340 in addition to the A330. However, when Singapore Airlines was deciding between the B777 and the A330, SQ chose the B777 even though they had a large fleet of A340 on order. For SQ, CCQ wasn't a factor, while the slightly larger B777 was claimed to be an important factor. The fact is few aircraft types have overwhelmingly dominated their competitors. Hence, both Airbus and Boeing are offering competitive products. One may be better in certain areas, while the other may be better in other areas. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:29 From: "Michael Weiss" Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Microsoft Corp. H Andrew Chuang wrote in message ... >If Boeing's intent at that time was to increase the range >of the B737, they would have redesigned the wing, just like they did >with the third-generation B737. And it looks like that wing redesign may result in an increase of 737 sales at the expense of 757s. As an example, CO has flown 757s between SEA and EWR for years, despite them rarely going full. Now that their 737-800s are starting to show up, they're replacing (effective Nov 1) the 757s with 737s on that route. [as a side note, I'm going to miss the easy access to first-class seating on that route] I wonder how many other such routes exist, and what impact that will have on Boeing profits? Clearly, it's more cost-effective for the airline, which could translate into more aircraft purchased. OTOH, the 757 is a more expensive aircraft (is the profit higher, too?) than the 737, so if it *doesn't* translate into more total aircraft purchased, it would result in a reduction of revenues (and maybe profits) for Boeing. Just some food for thought, Michael From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:30 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 [stuff about CO replacing 757s with 737-800s for EWR-SEA] >I wonder how many other such routes exist, and what impact that will have on >Boeing profits? Clearly, it's more cost-effective for the airline, which >could translate into more aircraft purchased. OTOH, the 757 is a more >expensive aircraft (is the profit higher, too?) than the 737, so if it >*doesn't* translate into more total aircraft purchased, it would result in a >reduction of revenues (and maybe profits) for Boeing. The key here is that in most cases, the airlines already have built up their 757 fleets, so Boeing isn't losing a 757 sale. The economic advantages of the 737-800 allow Boeing to sell a plane to replace the 757 when otherwise they might not have sold a plane at all. No doubt the 737-800 will cost Boeing some 757 sales, but I don't think the impact will be that great. The 737-800 isn't the first plane in this class, either. The A320 fits the same bill, efficiently flying transcon routes where the 757 is too big. UA, for example, has replaced the 757 with the A320 (and A319) on some transcons, and opened up other transcons which they never would have seriously considered with the 757. They looked at the 737-400 but found it too small and with too little range, and asked Boeing for what would become 737-800, but at the time Boeing wasn't willing so UA went to Airbus. Those are sales which Boeing never could have won with the 757, and might have gotten had they had the 737-800. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:31 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz wrote: > The vulnerability of the DC-10's hydraulic system > still hasn't been fully acknowledged, though the cutoff valve installed > in the DC-10 (and MD-11) after UA 232 crashed in Sioux City helps a bit. Could you develop a l'ill bit more. What circuits were isolated in which manner? Has the 11 the same change as the 10, or are there any additional changes made? -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> The vulnerability of the DC-10's hydraulic system >> still hasn't been fully acknowledged, though the cutoff valve installed >> in the DC-10 (and MD-11) after UA 232 crashed in Sioux City helps a bit. >Could you develop a l'ill bit more. What circuits were isolated in which >manner? An electrically-actuated cutoff valve was added to one of the three hydraulic systems in the aft cabin area. This valve closes if a drop in hydraulic pressure is detected, isolating the presumably damaged portion of the system. I don't have all my references here in the air so I can't say which one of the systems it was, but I think the DC-10 has electric pumps so even if all three hydraulic systems were compromised and the one with the cutoff was compromised on the same side of the cutoff as the engine, it would still be possible to power the remaining, isolated portion of that system, affording some degree of control. Obviously it would be better to have a design which did not route the hydraulic lines such that a single failure in a critical area could compromise all available systems. >Has the 11 the same change as the 10, or are there any >additional changes made? The same patch was applied to the MD-11, which as far as I know has essentiall the same hydraulic systems as the DC-10. (There probably are some differences in actuator sizes due to larger elevators and the like, but nothing that would constitute a significant redesign.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:33 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: Airbus Safety 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 ... >Airbus' 320 introduced to the commercial aviation world a totally new >concept of quality control: SOFTWARE. This is something which the FAA >failed to realise early on (hence the 320's getting its certification >before it should have) because the FAA had not had to deal with this >before. The Airbus A-320 introduced FAA to PLDs; and thinking that an autorouter is somehow in need of a higher standard than a compiler wasted much effort. This caused some important issues to go unaddressed, until a later date. Where this advantage to Airbus will really play out is the 100PAX competition. John From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:34 From: neville clarke Subject: Re: More 737 problems? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 00:02 12/10/98, you wrote: >Enough is enough. I'm channel surfing and I hit MSNBC which of course >is discussing what else. Before I turn to the next channel, the >little headline banner appears on the bottom with a blurb that the FAA >is ordering repairs to 737s. So I hang around through two newscasts >and not a word is mentioned. Anyone have a clue, rudder, wiring, >something new? **The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a notice October 8 of a proposed rule requiring that Boeing 737-100 through -500 series aircraft with more than 60,000 takeoffs and landings be inspected within the next 1,500 flight cycles. Planes with less flight time would have to be inspected once they reached 15,000 flight cycles or, if they are over that limit, every 3,000 cycles thereafter. In all cases, operators have to make modifications to strengthen the bulkhead, located in the cockpit, before the planes hit 75,000 flight cycles or fly a total of 12,000 trips once the rule is made final. The FAA said the changes were prompted by reports of structural fatigue cracks in some bulkheads. The barriers allow the planes to pressurize to a safe breathing atmosphere. Left untended, cracks could widen and trigger a rapid depressurization of a plane. There are 2,802 planes affected by the proposed rule, 1,130 of which are registered in the United States. The total cost of the proposed inspections would be $23,000 per aircraft, while the modifications would cost an estimated $63,000 per aircraft. The Boeing Co., which built the airliners, has already issued a service bulletin suggesting the inspections and changes. Comments on the proposed rule are due within 45 days. A final rule is expected in early 1999. Hope this story may help Neville -- Neville Clarke AIRWISE - The Independent Airport and Air Travel Guide http://www.airwise.com/ From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:35 From: cwunder@offline.no (Claus Wunderbaum) Subject: Re: More 737 problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: www.bennett.no/ Reply-To: big-john@bigfoot.com G'day John S. Maddaus! On 12 Oct 98 00:02:08 you wrote: >little headline banner appears on the bottom with a blurb that the FAA >is ordering repairs to 737s. So I hang around through two newscasts >and not a word is mentioned. Anyone have a clue, rudder, wiring, >something new? Oh yeah man, the saga goes on ... :-I ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AVflash Vol. 4, Issue 41 Monday, October 12, 1998 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MORE 737 INSPECTIONS PROPOSED -- BULKHEAD CRACKS TARGETED: The latest reaction to the ongoing challenge of what to do about aging aircraft came last week as the FAA proposed to require that high-cycle Boeing 737s be inspected for cracks in their forward pressure bulkheads. The FAA said its proposed AD was based on reports of fatigue cracking in the structures, although no accidents are known to have occurred. _________________________________________ The Air Bulletin Vol. 3 No. 1 October 7, 1998 FAA ORDERS CHECKS ON YOUNGER 737s The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expanding checks of the world's most numerous airliner to include Boeing 737-100 through 500 series jets with between 20,000 and 30,000 flight hours. Airlines were given 60 days to look for damaged insulation on wires going to the fuel boost pumps through conduits buried in the wing tanks. All previous FAA orders related to the problem applied to 737s with more than 30,000 flight hours. FAA spokeswoman Alison Duquette said the threshold was lowered after some signs of wire damage were noticed on aircraft with between 29,000 and 35,000 flight hours. In May 1998, the FAA grounded all first generation 737s with more than 50,000 flight hours for urgent checks, fearing a spark could touch off an explosion or start a fire [The Air Bulletin Vol. 2 No. 33]. The order was progressively extended, albeit with less urgency, to aircraft with lesser flight hours. The order will affect an estimated 215 US registered 737s. Though it is not mandatory for non-US registered aircraft, the order is likely to be followed by airlines outside the US for safety reasons. The FAA and Boeing engineers believe engine vibration over many thousands of hours shakes the wire in the conduit until a protective Teflon sleeve and insulation wear through. The FAA is asking airlines to replace any damaged wires if necessary and apply a second wrapping of Teflon. Newer generation Boeing 737s, the - 600, -700 and -800 series have not been affected as they do not have electrical wires running through conduits in the fuel tanks. -- - CW - "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." - Former U.S. Vice-President Dan Quayle. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:36 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: More 737 problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com What I have seen is pretty much another ageing airliner inspection. They want the aft bulkhead inspected for corrosion and wear. If this bulkhead fails, the pressurization fails, at best. TheFNG From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: More 737 problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What I have seen is pretty much another ageing airliner inspection. They want >the aft bulkhead inspected for corrosion and wear. If this bulkhead fails, the >pressurization fails, at best. At best or at worst? The 500+ people who were killed when the aft bulkhead on a certain 747 failed illustrate the worst case. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:38 From: "BP II" Subject: Re: Habsheim accident (was: Re: Airbus Safer?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BP II PS2727 wrote in message ... >I think you are correct in that its a matter of trusting the new stuff, >but my point is that in a crisis situation it human nature to revert to >a "normal" way of doing things. Or to put it another way "old habits die >hard" Tony Kern hits this subject really good in the book "Flight Discipline". If you have not read it , check it out. Bohdan From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:39 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash 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) Per NPR All Things Considered... The Dutch press and Los Angeles Times reporter Carol Williams have been looking into mysteries surrounding the 1992 El Al crash in Amsterdam. [Moderator; add date/details??] It appears the flight was carrying hazardous cargo, including chemicals used in the manufacture of nerve gas. But the flight manifest is missing. Further many hours of video tape taken by the Dutch rescue forces have been erased. Further, after reports of a "gas leak" empied the site of witnesses, residents in adjacent apartment houses report a helicopter appeared and dropped protective-suited men into the rubble; they appeared to be searching for materials, not survivers. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:40 From: robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of Southern Internet Services robinjohnson@southcom.com.au (Robin Johnson) wrote: >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) > >The 707-400 series was powered by RR. BOAC, Lufthansa, Air India >at least bought numbers of these. >The RR-powered DC-8s only scored TCA (Air Canada) I think Ops, of course there were other RR DC-8 purchasers. Robin From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:41 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 Alan Browne wrote: > This is confirmed by the report in AW&ST where as part of the SMOKE > drill, the electrical buses are switched to isolate the source of smoke. > During some configurations of electrical power in the drill, the CVR in > one case and the FDR in another are disconnected. They are simply not > critical to keeping the aircraft in flight. It is frustrating that > their data is not available. The AW&ST report implied that the various > configurations were not the same accross all MD-11's. You'll note that in the case of Valujet's burning DC-9, the FDR and CVR showed erratic behaviour during the descent. I beleive that they were missing a couple of minutes of CVR not at the end but during the descent (it restarted). I do not beleive that the pilots there were doing the checklist (the fire was well beyond that point). It was confirmed that for SR111, that the pilots turned off a lot of non essential systems (such as cabin lights, requiring the FAs to conduct their cleanup/prep with flashlights). And they stayed off. Also there was no indication that either the CVR or FDR were turned off while the pilots were doing their checklist. Shouldn't both show some time "off" while the pilots were rotating the switch which isolates the buses etc ? I find it hard to beleive that when electrical fire is suspected, that one would cycle through a list of devices, turn them off and then back on to find out whoch is the culprit. In the case of SR111, it took over 3 minutes between the time smell was detected and smoke was seen. How long would pilots have to leave a unit off before being able to confirm that it is or is not the culprit (unit=circuit=bus). Is it not more accurate to state that when an electrical fire is detected, pilots would shut off all non-essential systems period ?. Also, during the 3 minutes between initial smell and sight of smoke, could the pilots not visually identify the source of such smoke ? Or is there so much wind in the cockpit that any smoke coming out of a device would quickly be diffused ? Furthermore, considering that the ventilation system (especially in the cockpit) pushes "fresh" air in the cockpit and waste air goes down to the cargo hold and/or back to the passenger cabin, is it not logical to conclude that the presence of a small amount of smoke in the cockpit could either come from the ventilation system or from the cockpit itself ? And considering that the smoke/smell were not detected in the cabin, would it be logical to conclude that it could not have come from the ventilation system and that as such, the smoke would have had to have been generated inside the cockpit ? From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:42 From: k_ish 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: ICGNetcom JF Mezei wrote: > Anonymous lo14 wrote: > > Some *cargo* compartments depend on a lack of oxygen to snuff out a > > fire, but no passenger compartment can do that. That's because those > > cargo compartments are inaccessible in flight. You fight passenger > > cabin fires with fire extinguishers. > > In the case of the DC-9 (Valuejet), it was considered a Class-D cargo > compartment which, if I remember correctly, assumes air starvation as > method of extinguishing, right ? Don't recall if it is self extinguishing, or will not support the spread or propigation of a fire. Need to look up FAR25. > But the DC-9 also vents cabin air through holes in the cabin floor > alongside the walls, and that air goes to the cargo hold (one of which > is heated). So I wonder how it can starve a cago fire of air unless it > stops pumping air in the cabin. If we assume the self-extinguishing / air starvation method is correct, I would assume the available vent area between the cabin and cargo hold is lower than the air requirements of a sizable fire. In other words, oxygen will be consumed by the fire (and at the same time be displaced by combustion gasses) faster than it can be supplied from the cabin. In the case of ValuJet, the oxygen was supplied by the O2 generators. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:43 From: m.hopkins@no.spam.niwa.cri.nz (Malcolm Hopkins) 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: NIWA Reply-To: m.hopkins@no.spam.niwa.cri.nz JF Mezei wrote: >Anonymous lo14 wrote: >> Some *cargo* compartments depend on a lack of oxygen to snuff out a >> fire, but no passenger compartment can do that. That's because those >> cargo compartments are inaccessible in flight. You fight passenger >> cabin fires with fire extinguishers. >In the case of the DC-9 (Valuejet), it was considered a Class-D cargo >compartment which, if I remember correctly, assumes air starvation as >method of extinguishing, right ? >But the DC-9 also vents cabin air through holes in the cabin floor >alongside the walls, and that air goes to the cargo hold (one of which >is heated). So I wonder how it can starve a cago fire of air unless it >stops pumping air in the cabin. I believe the Valujet cargo hold fire was the result of incorrectly stowed aircraft emergency oxygen generators which would make any fire associated with them extremely difficult if not impossible to put out. I do not think even those oxygen removing extinguishers (Halon? or CO2) would have been of much use with a fire that is able to produce its its own oxygen. That is one of the reasons that there are very strict controls (if not bans) on the airfreighting of oxidising chemicals and substances. Malcolm Hopkins Wellington New Zealand Please remove "no.spam" from address to reply From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:44 From: Becky Dillon 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: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com JF Mezei wrote: > > Anonymous lo14 wrote: > > Some *cargo* compartments depend on a lack of oxygen to snuff out a > > fire, but no passenger compartment can do that. That's because those > > cargo compartments are inaccessible in flight. You fight passenger > > cabin fires with fire extinguishers. > > In the case of the DC-9 (Valuejet), it was considered a Class-D cargo > compartment which, if I remember correctly, assumes air starvation as > method of extinguishing, right ? > > But the DC-9 also vents cabin air through holes in the cabin floor > alongside the walls, and that air goes to the cargo hold (one of which > is heated). So I wonder how it can starve a cago fire of air unless it > stops pumping air in the cabin. The air which exits the cabin flows around the outside of the cargo compartment walls. These are made of fire retardant material. The heat in the forward cargo compartment comes from, IIRC, avionics rack cooling air exhaust, which also flows around the outside of the compartment. I believe though that there are pressure equalizing valves between the compartment and the space outside of it. The system of extinguishing is marginal at best, and would allow keep a fire to smoulder but not become a full inferno, unless an oxidizing agent was present as well, like activated O2 generators. I think the best design is that found on the 767ER and similar systems. Cargo fire detection and extinguishing. This system has two halon bottles installed. One bottle dumps the entire contents into the compartment immediatly, the other bottle then meters its contents out over a period of time to ensure continued suppression (180 minutes in the case of the ER). -Seth From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:45 From: kropla@ibmdot.net (Steve Kropla) 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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6u5v3e$fp5$4@news02.btx.dtag.de> 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: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here On 16 Oct 1998 19:02:07 GMT, Festus-der-erste@t-online.de (Lothar König) wrote: >What will happen, when all aircrafts are flying "fly by wire"?..... Probably the same thing that happened before they flew by wire. There will be mishaps, unfortunately. Sometimes design defects will only be known after a tragedy, as in the case of the Lockheed Electra and the DC-10, or procedural/training problems as in the case of the early 727s. Weather, pilot fatigue/error, fire and mechanical failure all resulted in disasters or near-disasters long before the introduction of on-board computers and flight management systems. Sad but true. Keep in mind that while Airbus may have pioneered the so-called "fly by wire" concept, they did not invent the airplane crash. These systems probably do introduce a new level of complexity into an already extremely complex system. But there is no reason to believe that they will result in anything worse than what occurred before they were created. _____________________________________ Steve Kropla Kingwood, Texas USA To e-mail, remove "dot" (you know which one) Help for World Travelers: http://kropla.com From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:46 From: "Tarver Engineering" 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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6u5v3e$fp5$4@news02.btx.dtag.de> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.supernews.com, The World's Usenet: Discussions Start Here Stephen H. Westin wrote in message ... >Festus-der-erste@t-online.de (Lothar Kvnig) writes: >> What will happen, when all aircrafts are flying "fly by wire"?..... > >Well, planes have been crashing because of in-flight fires for a long >time; one web site gave ahistory dating back to the '40s. A fire can >burn through mechanical control cables, or wires, or hydraulic lines, >you know. Don't see how FBW changes the situation. Especially with the MD-11 being a conventional airplane, like its Type Certificatation as the DC-10. Other than the GEC GMIS, have either the Airbus, or Boeing, FBW airplanes had smoke problems? John From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:47 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$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6u5v3e$fp5$4@news02.btx.dtag.de> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Especially with the MD-11 being a conventional airplane, like its Type >Certificatation as the DC-10. Good point -- the MD-11 is hardly FBW. However, it was certified from scratch and does not share a TC with the DC-10. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:48 From: jcb@interlog.com (Jeff Bowen) Subject: Airliner lights question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InterLog Internet Services Could someone say a few words to explain the conventions used in the external lights on airliners? I love watching aircraft departing and arriving Pearson airport here in Toronto while I walk my dog in the local park. We are about 20 miles from the airport. 1. I've noticed some planes still (already) have landing lights on when they pass over my park in downtown Toronto but not many. Is there some point in the checklist that these lights are turned on and off and I have just seen a pilot who forgot to turn them off or is it left entirely to the discretion of the flight crew? 2. What about the flashing and non-flashing lights on the exterior of airliners? What lights are placed where and what is their exact function? Many thanks in advance. Jeff (the guy who is curious about airplanes) From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:49 From: "Michael Weiss" Subject: Re: Airliner lights question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Jeff Bowen wrote ... >1. Is there some point in the checklist that these lights are turned on >and off and I have just seen a pilot who forgot to turn them off or is it >left entirely to the discretion of the flight crew? My understanding based on what I've read is that they are not required by the FAA for all landings, but they are used for by the airlines for all landings anyway because it's a cheap way to increase safety. My personal experience indicates consistent use below 10,000 feet. Lots of rules change at the 10K level, so it's not surprising to me. >2. What about the flashing and non-flashing lights on the exterior of >airliners? What lights are placed where and what is their exact function? There are white strobes at the wingtips, and they are used while in flight. They serve to differentiate between aircraft and stars, and make the aircraft visible from far away. There is also a green static light on the starboard wingtip, and a red static light on the port wingtip. This serves to identify to others which direction the aircraft is traveling (it's hard to tell without it whether an airplane is headed toward you or away from you). There are also red lights on the top and bottom of many fuselages, and a white one near the tailcone. Commercial aircraft also have white lights on the inboard side of each wingtip, which are used to illuminate the logo painted on the tail. I have not seen any consistency in their use; I assume, therefore, that it's entirely at the discretion of the crew whether this pair is used. Incidentally, I haven't yet observed this with other aircraft, but the MD80 appears to have the wingtip strobes switched by the nosegear. That is, when the nosegear lifts off the runway at V1 on takeoff, the strobes start flashing, and when the nosegear contacts the runway upon landing, the strobes stop. Does anyone know how common this is? From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:50 From: Alan Browne Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Solutions Reply-To: alan.browne@SPAMX.sympatico.ca JF Mezei wrote: > > OK, cellphones are a big no-no for on airlines. But it seems that the biggest > reason is because at altitude it "confuses" land-bases cell sites. > > However, if an airplane were to loose all power (or all radios), would it We've tried to use cell phones in flight from a Navajo to call the lab during flight testing of various avionics. Often it works, but very often we can hear other cell conversations, and we suspect that other cell subscribers are hearing the aircraft originating transmission. We were in effect "hopping cells". We stopped doing this because the quality of the calls to the lab were not very good in the first place, and secondly we suspect we were violating the DOC rules or the contract rules of the cell phone. Airlines prohbit cell phones mainly due to the fact that they are radio transmitters, and may have an effect on the short range receivers aboard the aircraft. In an emergency this may be a moot point... My father used to carry around a portable VHF tranceiver on his travels in his single engine plane. It also had a VOR receiver (but no bearing indication...so useless as a NAV receiver.) He carried it in case he lost his single on board XCVR. (He also carried a portable ELT in addition to the aircraft mounted ELT.) Alan. From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:51 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin > JF Mezei wrote: > >OK, cellphones are a big no-no for on airlines. But it seems that the biggest > >reason is because at altitude it "confuses" land-bases cell sites. > > > >However, if an airplane were to loose all power (or all radios), would it > >still be feasable to use a passenger's analog cell phoen to keep in touch with > >ATC/tower ? Several points: 1) Cell phone towers don't transmit "up", they transmit/recieve horizontally or at a slight downward angle. I doubt that you could even get a reliable connection whilst flying 30,000 feet *above* the towers. 2) Even if you had a decent signal path, the cell system would go bonkers trying to figure out why one phone just connected 17 towers. 3) If you were an ATC/tower official, how seriously would *you* take a phone caller who claimed to be on an aircraft you were controlling? -- 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 Oct 26 02:59:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:52 From: Jim Wolper Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISU Mathematics BP II wrote a generally good description of the rles and procedures for lost communications. > If an A/C lost all possibilities for communication [...] > I guess if he needed to he could use the phone. Who would know the number > to O'Hare TRACON though? There must be hundred of phone numbers listed for > O'Hare. A bunch of the relevant phone numbers are included in commercially available chart packages (Jeppesen) which almost all IFR pilots carry. Those operating under Part 121 of the FARs can probably call their dispatch offices, too, and probably know the number without reference. A friend who was lost comm in a King Air actually used his cell phone to call the approach controller, whose response was "Cool!" Jim Wolper ATP/PhD/CFI From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:53 From: sandyhnospam@hartingdale.com.au (Sandy Howard) Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hartingdale Internet On 12 Oct 98 00:02:47 , "BP II" w >I guess if he needed to he could use the phone. Who would know the number >to O'Hare TRACON though? There must be hundred of phone numbers listed for >O'Hare. In Australia, the ATC Centre phone numbers are listed in pilot documents for emergency contact just so that you can use a mobile. It has been done several times. Cheers Sandy Sandy Howard Sydney Australia sandyhNOSPAM@hartingdale.com.au From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:54 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM BP II wrote: > There are Air Phones available on some airliners. But, they really are not > necessary. If an aircraft's radios go down, it is pretty likely that the passenger air-phones will also be down. Hence my suggestion to ask for a PAX cell-phone with its own battery. > If an A/C lost all possibilities for communication, all would not be lost. > Even on sunny days, Airliners fly on an IFR plan this gives him the routing > that he will fly, and times to expect further clearance on hand-offs. But if it gets bad enough that even the radio has failed, chances are that the pilot might want a new routing to the nearest airport or contact the ATC. > If he > looses the radios, all he has to do is squawk 7600 on his transponder, which > is the applicable code. Good point. But he could still be needing help from ground (or at least contact them to advise to prepare for emergency). Imagine if Sioux-City had not been told about the UA 232 coming in. > I guess if he needed to he could use the phone. Who would know the number > to O'Hare TRACON though? There must be hundred of phone numbers listed for > O'Hare. You probably know the number of your airline's operation centre, and they would be able to put you in touch or relay information. (And take down your cell phones number so that the right people can re-phone you if connection is lost). From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:55 From: NO_SPAM_y_fournier@hotmail.com (Knightmare) Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EIG's student In the cabin, isn't there a reflection problem, like in cars ? (Faraday's cage ???) Yannick From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:56 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Cell phones in cockpit for emergency use ? 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 12 Oct 98 00:02:43 , in , Arthur Leung wrote: >as you mention, activating more than one cell may confuse the >cell switches. however, many private pilots carry a handheld >aviation radio with transmit and receive capability. many of >these units also have a VOR function. these are not high >power units, so their range may be limited, but they probably >have more worldwide coverage than your average cell phone system. My Icom handheld has an output power of 5.0W - and at, say, 10,000 feet I can talk to people at the same height more than 200 miles away. My GSM mobile has a power output of 1 watt - but the real problem with range in GSM is the timing delay - the TDMA scheme mandates a maximum delay which equates to a maximum of about 35km from the nearest base station. At ranges greater than that - over the sea for example - I could receive a signal from a base station but would not be able to use it because of the timing delays. (Other rules may apply for AMPS, D-AMPS, CDMA, ETACS etc. but GSM is the most widely used scheme in the world. -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:57 From: "Richard Rea" Subject: A/C on fire Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArosNet Internet Services After pondering the Value-Jet and Swissair crashes (and other similar, aircraft fires leading to loss of control) I wonder if it wouldn't be prudent to plan to "crash-land" the aircraft. The pilot would have to get down as fast as possible and in an area that would hopefully would give some measure of survivability. But going low and slow enough might give the option of continuing on to the nearest airport or else crash in control if the situation rapidly deteriorates. Is this a viable consideration? From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:58 From: Gregory L Smith Subject: Re: Boeing B-314 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Boeing Geno Rice wrote: > On the subject of the flying boats, I read a novel a few years back that > took place on one of them. The author wrote that the engines were > servicable during flight and that one of the duties of the engineer was > to climb inside the wing to attend to the engines (for example, oiling). I don't know if it is true, but I think the book you are reffering to is "Night over Water" by Ken Follett. It's been awhile since I read it but IIRC I really enjoyed the book. -- Greg Smith 737-900 Fuselage Weight Engineering Wichita, KS (316)526-3690 Gregory.L.Smith2@Boeing.com From kls Mon Oct 26 02:59:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 02:59:59 From: "Phil Dunn" Subject: Part 25 and wiring bundles and busses Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Circumnavigation Education Expedition Does anyone know if a wiring bundle can contain wires from separate busses? For example, could an essential bus wire travel along with a ground-handling bus wire? tia From kls Mon Oct 26 03:00:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 26 Oct 98 03:00:00 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: Boeing 747-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Was up with a student today (9.27). Watched a British Airways 747-400 >depart from Sea-Tac, cross BFI at about 800 ft. AGL, and then make a 180 >degree turn and return, landing downwind on Rwy. 16 at Sea-Tac. >Maneuverability of the aircraft was impressive. Told it was an >emergency landing. Anybody have any more info? I don't know anything about it, but BA brought a -400 into SEA, instead of a -200? It's been years since I've seen a BA -400 here. Anxiously awaiting info on this emergency landing... Matt in Seattle Student Pilot To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who fly, the sky is home. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:31 From: Andrew Oliva Subject: 757PF Vs DC-8 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WorldWide Access - Midwestern Internet Services - www.wwa.com Hi, I'm looking for the capacity differences between the 757 and DC-8's that UPS uses. I was at MEM[phis] a few nights ago (Yes, I do work for the competition) and saw (and heard) that a DC-8 had been substituted for one of the 57's. I assume that the DC-8's while seemingly close in capacity to the 757's have a greater range. Andrew -- http://www.cbu.edu/~aoliva ICQ# 8430076 Glider - Formerly "airplane," prior to running out of fuel. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:32 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 Trevor Fenn wrote: > H Andrew Chuang wrote: > > The A320 is a medium-haul, 150-seat aircraft. > > Not always, Mexicana operates F-OHMD in a 174 seat configuration. Andrew is right when he states that the 320 is a 150 seater. This is the pax capacity with a two class layout. You may want to note that if you use the 320 in one class layout it can seat 179 pax ! HTH, -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:33 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 >> Not always, Mexicana operates F-OHMD in a 174 seat configuration. >Andrew is right when he states that the 320 is a 150 seater. This is the >pax capacity with a two class layout. You may want to note that if you >use the 320 in one class layout it can seat 179 pax ! And Trevor is right when he suggests the A320 is (can be) a 174-seater. The key is that the nominal capacity for an airliner typically refers to a two-class config, or three-class for long-range aircraft. Airline customers don't usually care about the "pack 'em in" config with as many seats as you can stuff on the plane, though this is usualy cited separately as a charter or inclusive tour config for those sorts of operators. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:34 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Even if this is no direct answer to your question, I remember that the CEO of >AA >called the 764 a new type of aircraft. Thus commonality with the 763 and 772 >must be reduced. This was one of the reasons why AA hasn't chosen the 764 so >far. So the 764 seems indeed to be a lot different (gear, wing, engines, >cockpit, interior, windows ...) from the classic 767s. Can we start talking >of >767NG ;) I just want to add that the 764ER's glass cockpit can be configured to represent the same gauges as the "first genertaion" :-) 767s.. just the same as it works in the NG737s. There are differences, but I don't think they are as great in terms of fleet commonality as the AA CEO thinks...? Matt in Seattle, Student Pilot... My Unofficial Alaska Airlines Mailing List is at AlaskaAirlines@onelist.com -----To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who fly, the sky is home. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:35 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu Tjarko de Jong wrote: > On 13 Oct 98 02:48:26 , narayana@giasmd01.vsnl.net.in wrote: > >Is there any technical explanation as to how the oval > >windows save weight?. > > Oval windows have less stress-concentrations then more or less square holes in > the fusalage. Thus rounder window, less stress thus lighter. Even if your reply doesn't answer the question how the weight saving is achieved, your reply is technicaly correct. You may note that the most know windows are those of the De Havilland Comet, who changed from square to round after the well knows reasons ... Oh ... to conclude the best looking windows can still be found on the -few remaining - Caravelle's -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:36 From: "Ciril Thomas" Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM So my question is - if oval windows are so much better than rectangularish ones... why didn't anyone think of them before? Ciril. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:37 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: SR111 Fuel numbers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Phil Wood wrote: > According to the Boeing web page > (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/md-11/product.html), the MD-11 carries > up to 38,615 gal. (~100+ tons) of fuel, and I've read that Swissair > tankering was common from JFK ... Does this mean that it would be economically viable to transport fuel purchased in the USA to Sitzerland by air, and it would still end up costing you less than if you purchased that fuel in Switzerland ? Is it not correct to state that if you carry unnecessary fuel, you are reducing the amount of cargo you could carry on that flight ? From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:38 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM STeveC01e wrote: > I'm not able to answer your specific question, but regarding the > circumstances, I suppose if the Flight 111 had a electrical fire in a major > bus, then once the Fuel Dump was initiated, then the crew would NOT be able > to stop it IF they lost all power. There have been other comments that on the MD11, the pilots would enter the amount of fuel to keep and everything else is done automatically. There have been comments about valves shutting off automatically. Other comments about pumps used to throw the fuel out, while others mentioned it was done by gravity. It seems to me that fuel dump is used for emergencies. Right? And in emergencies, power is something which is realistically lost, right? Are the various valves designed to mechanically shut off when power is lost? I went through the FA 25.1001 and found that for turbine engines: (f) For turbine engine powered airplanes, means must be provided to prevent jettisoning the fuel in the tanks used for takeoff and landing below the level allowing climb from sea level to 10,000 feet and thereafter allowing 45 minutes cruise at a speed for maximum range. However, if there is an auxiliary control independent of the main jettisoning control, the system may be designed to jettison the remaining fuel by means of the auxiliary jettisoning control. Question: Since dumping of fuel is used for an emergency which requires the plane to land ASAP, (are there other uses?), why would the FAA want the fuel dumping system to retain enough fuel to climb and fly for 45 minutes? Is this to allow for a missed approach? Do missed approaches really take that long, do planes really climb back to 10k feet? Is the dumping of fuel something which is done in circumstances which are not actual emergencies and which require the plane to abide by congested airport queing and waiting (thus requirememt to stay in air 45 minutes) or is fuel dump done only in circumstances requiring immediate landing and thus declaring emergency which gives the plane immediate access to the runway of its choice? Question: If it allows for an auxiliary system which dumps all of the fuel, and such system has no requierement for a minimum reserve (5 minutes flight?), what's the point of the first fuel jettison system? Or is such system used only for maintenance purposes and not to be used by pilots? Question: Why does the FAA not mention a need to reduce to a bare minimum is the amount of fuel so that if the landing doesn't go too well (UA 232 comes to mind), the resulting fire will be as small as possible? Seems to me that 45 minutes worth of fuel is a lot. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is the dumping of fuel something which is done in circumstances >which are not actual emergencies and which require the plane to >abide by congested airport queing and waiting (thus requirememt to >stay in air 45 minutes) or is fuel dump done only in circumstances >requiring immediate landing ... Several years ago, a Virgin 747 departing SFO for LHR ingested some birds after takeoff and lost an engine. The most sensible thing for them to do in that case was to return to SFO. They had to dump fuel to get down to MLW but a 747 can fly reasonably well on only three engines, so there was no emergency. Once they got down to an acceptable landing weight they presumably entered the approach pattern and landed pretty much like any other flight. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:40 From: jbarnold57@aol.com (JBArnold57) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com What happens to the dumped fuel? Does much of it evaporate on the way down? Does it ever cause any particular problems on the ground (or water)? Jim Arnold From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:41 From: NO_SPAM_y_fournier@hotmail.com (Knightmare) Subject: Re: Delta fuel / delta payload References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EIG's student When I saw a documentary about a Swiss pilot and his MD-80, he said that for carrying 1000 kg of supplementary fuel he needed 100 kg of fuel... If I remember correctly. Yannick Geneva, Switzerland Website : http://home.deckpoint.ch/~yfournier ICQ# : 3169168 If replying by email, please remove NO_SPAM_ from address From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:42 From: stcho@asiana.co.rk (sun tea cho) Subject: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Inet Internet Services Recently I know that B737-400/500 dosen't have fuel dump system ? why ? thank you in advance ... From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:43 From: "John Vincent Lombardi" Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Flew for the first time on a 319 yesterday, and was surprised at how often >Dutch roll developed and how long it lasted. Was this bird's yaw damper >not working correctly or is this common on the 319? Anybody know >definitively? (Note: Definitely not intended as an AI slam: Overall I >was very impressed with the 319, at least as configured by Air Canada.) My experience is that the A319 has a Dutch roll tendency that is not well damped. It makes me wonder how the A318 will handle, with an even shorter fuselage. The A320 is better, but still rides poorly in the aft cabin in choppy air. The A321 is probably better still. I would be interested if anyone has more technical information on this problem. I had heard a theory that related to the deletion of the load alleviation system in the A319 and the reprogramming that was required. That seemed plausible at the time, but the new delivery 320's are not equipped with LAF, and there isn't a noticeable deterioration in ride quality. John Lombardi From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:44 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pangea.CA, Inc. Reply-To: fidgeon@pangea.ca MJones wrote: > Flew for the first time on a 319 yesterday, and was surprised at how often > Dutch roll developed and how long it lasted. Was this bird's yaw damper > not working correctly or is this common on the 319? Anybody know > definitively? (Note: Definitely not intended as an AI slam: Overall I > was very impressed with the 319, at least as configured by Air Canada.) I fly on A320/A319 almost every two weeks....the slight dutch roll appears quite common on both aircraft. Not really noticable unless yer looking at the wing tip. -- EF From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:45 From: "Mario Leite Fernandes" Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE 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 707-400 series was powered by RR. BOAC, Lufthansa, Air India > >at least bought numbers of these. > >The RR-powered DC-8s only scored TCA (Air Canada) I think > > Ops, of course there were other RR DC-8 purchasers. Douglas manufactured 32 Dc8-43s, the Rolls-Royce Conway powered type: 15 for Alitalia, 11 for Air Canada and six for Canadian Pacific. Second-hand users included Air Jamaica, Cargolux, Cubana, Lybian Arab, Zambia Airways, Zantop and the US FAA. I don't have the data for the Boeing 707-420, the Conway-powered 707, but you can add Varig and Israel's El Al to your list. Regards Mario From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:46 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Richard Rea wrote: > After pondering the Value-Jet and Swissair crashes (and other similar, > aircraft fires leading to loss of control) I wonder if it wouldn't be > prudent to plan to "crash-land" the aircraft. The pilot would have to get > down as fast as possible and in an area that would hopefully would give some > measure of survivability. But going low and slow enough might give the > option of continuing on to the nearest airport or else crash in control if > the situation rapidly deteriorates. Is this a viable consideration? In the US, anyway, way back in the stone age, there was a maximum landing or stall speed (I forget which, and I forget the number). As cruise speeds climbed and climbed, it seemed like this requirement became uneconomical, and was done away with. The result is that the landing speed on a modern commercial jet is so high that an off-field landing is virtually impossible without destroying the aircraft. -- 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 Nov 3 02:05:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:47 From: "C. Elberfeld" <*nospam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com> Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: *nospam*elberfeld@sprintmail.com > I wonder if it wouldn't be > prudent to plan to "crash-land" the aircraft. The pilot would have to get > down as fast as possible and in an area that would hopefully would give some > measure of survivability. But going low and slow enough might give the > option of continuing on to the nearest airport or else crash in control if > the situation rapidly deteriorates. Is this a viable consideration? In a bad cabin fire, even this may not be fast enough. Consider the 1973 VARIG 707 fire at Paris. The crew made an outstanding off airport landing with little damage to the aircraft. Nearly all the passengers, however, had already been incapactated by the dense smoke and were unable to escape. I don't know the the French safety board ever considered if it might have been better to attempt an on-airport landing where emergency services would have been available to rescue passengers and supress the fire. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:48 From: "J P McLaughlin" Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Indra's Net, Inc. -- Public Access Internet. Reply-To: "J P McLaughlin" Richard Rea wrote in message ... >After pondering the Value-Jet and Swissair crashes (and other similar, >aircraft fires leading to loss of control) I wonder if it wouldn't be >prudent to plan to "crash-land" the aircraft. Both of those a/c were descending as quickly as they thought prudent and both appear to have lost control before being low enough to consider any kind of controlled landing--airport or not. -- J P McLaughlin The Gecko Group NOTE: Change .spam to .com to reply via e-mail. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:49 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , "Richard Rea" wrote: >After pondering the Value-Jet and Swissair crashes (and other similar, >aircraft fires leading to loss of control) I wonder if it wouldn't be >prudent to plan to "crash-land" the aircraft. The pilot would have to get >down as fast as possible and in an area that would hopefully would give some >measure of survivability. But going low and slow enough might give the >option of continuing on to the nearest airport or else crash in control if >the situation rapidly deteriorates. Is this a viable consideration? A few years back a DC-10 in Europe attempting to land with a fire on board did just that. There were some survivors. The flight attendants reported that they were unable to evacuate most of the passengers due to them already being dead in their seats from smoke. For what it's worth, aircraft are constructed of two main ingredients, aluminum and PVC (polyvinylchloride). When PVC burns, it gives off chlorine gas, which was one of the gases banned for further warfare use after WWI. Flight crews are provided with smoke hoods these days and they are even available commercially for individuals, but so far not required equipment for passengers. The smell you are familiar with as electrical smoke, is overheated PVC used as insulation on the wiring. Virtually the entire cabin interior is constructed from PVC materials. Ron From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:50 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > The Dutch press and Los Angeles Times reporter Carol Williams have > been looking into mysteries surrounding the 1992 El Al crash in > Amsterdam. [Moderator; add date/details??] The aircraft crashed into an apartment (?) building on October 10, 1992 after the #3 engine separated from the aircraft, damaging the leading edge of the wing and knocking off the #4 engine in the process. I have it as 54 people killed, mostly on the ground, though I'm not sure they ever really came up with an exact number. The accident aircraft was a 747-258F, registration 4X-AXG, line number 362. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:51 From: Alan Strange Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC Marconi Avionics David Lesher wrote: > Per NPR All Things Considered... > > The Dutch press and Los Angeles Times reporter Carol Williams have > been looking into mysteries surrounding the 1992 El Al crash in > Amsterdam. [Moderator; add date/details??] I saw a programme on Tv about this , called 'Disaster' I think. It certainly should protective-suited men around the accident site, while the fire crews were told to stay back. There were also doubts as to why the pilot had not ditched in a large lake, rather than return to the airport with 2 engines missing. Altogether, VERY interesting !! Al. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:52 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , David Lesher writes >The Dutch press and Los Angeles Times reporter Carol Williams have >been looking into mysteries surrounding the 1992 El Al crash in >Amsterdam. [Moderator; add date/details??] > >It appears the flight was carrying hazardous cargo, including >chemicals used in the manufacture of nerve gas. But the flight >manifest is missing. Further many hours of video tape taken >by the Dutch rescue forces have been erased. Its always a mystery as to what it being carried on freighters, even to the airline concerned. Investigation into the loss of the South African combi 747 in the Indian Ocean by fire, on a flight from Japan to SA, was hampered by freight forwarders being uncooperative about what was actually in the containers. -- john r. From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:53 From: Subject: Re: Aircraft Service Life References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA Robin Johnson wrote: > "Tom Furnivall" wrote: >>What are any of these figures (in cycles, flying hours, or years) for >>aircraft currently in service or production. > Hoghest time I know of is TWA's high-time 747, N53110, which was > retired in February with 105,759 hours and 19,163 cycles. I recall from a PBS broadcast on the 50th aniversary of the DC3 there was one still flying in commuter service in Mass. I think it was the highest time commercial aircraft then flying in the US, but it may have been retired since then. -- Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ranck@vt.edu Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:54 From: andyweir Subject: Re: Aircraft Service Life 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 >>What are any of these figures (in cycles, flying hours, or years) for >aircraft currently in service or production. >Hoghest time I know of is TWA's high-time 747, N53110, which was >retired in February with 105,759 hours and 19,163 cycles. Japan Airlines 747 SPs were designed for very many short flights, down to 30 minutes even, because the mountainous terrain makes it economical. I read somewhere that those delivered in the mid-70s were expected to do 52,000 cycles over a 20-year period. [Moderator's note: That would be SR, not SP. The 747SP was designed for very long flights and as such would not have needed a higher cycle life than a standard 747. -- Karl] AW From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:55 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: A3XX - to launch, or not to launch References: <361ABD37.35021FEE@mit.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Gilles Armstrong wrote: > Although your maths are no doubt right, there are a few other points you > do not mention: part of the point of the A3XX is to be able to offer a full > family of aircraft, so as to offer complete "solutions" to airlines, thus > saving on retraining etc... The extra aircraft sold will reduce the strict > amount of A3XX to be sold to break even (significant knock-on effect). > People like BA buy aircraft with families in mind, and it would be > surprising if their recent purchase had nothing to do with a future > acquisition of A3XXs. No doubt what you say is correct. However, Airbus' desire to offera full family of aircraft does not offset the fact that there does not seem to be anyway to make money on it. Airlines will not buy aircraft that they do not need, no matter how technically impressive they may be. The goal of an airline is to make money, and they do that by filling enough seats on a flight to recoup the cost of the flight. If they fly airplanes half-empty, they do not make money on them. -- Joseph Edward Nemec nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:56 From: Joseph Edward Nemec Subject: Re: A3XX - to launch, or not to launch References: <361ABD37.35021FEE@mit.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Garry Forrest wrote: > Your projected costs and margins seem to be in the ballpark -- for a > competitive situation. Makes one wonder if an AI/Boeing joint venture > would be of economic interest. The barriers to entry are high enough to > keep out any serious competition allowing the manufacturers to jack up > the margin to 747 levels, breaking even around 150 ships. > > Recall that arch rivals Pratt and GE have collaborated; if they can do > it, anyone can do it. Boeing and Airbus did cooperate in looking at jointly developing anultra-large aircraft capable of carrying up to 800 passengers, but Boeing called it off because of the development cost. -- Joseph Edward Nemec nemecj@mit.edu http://web.mit.edu/nemecj/www/ From kls Tue Nov 3 02:05:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Nov 98 02:05:57 From: tlm@delphi.com Subject: Re: A3XX - to launch, or not to launch References: <361ABD37.35021FEE@mit.edu> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice) Garry Forrest writes: >Your projected costs and margins seem to be in the ballpark -- for a >competitive situation. Makes one wonder if an AI/Boeing joint venture >would be of economic interest. The barriers to entry are high enough to >keep out any serious competition allowing the manufacturers to jack up >the margin to 747 levels, breaking even around 150 ships. > >Recall that arch rivals Pratt and GE have collaborated; if they can do >it, anyone can do it. Or more tellingly, GE and SNECMA. Ed R. From news Wed Oct 21 10:45:48 1998 Path: ditka!daver!netnews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!newsfeed.cwix.com!192.88.144.6!news.kei.com!not-for-mail From: mweber@t140.aone.net.au (James Matthew Weber) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Why no new Jumbo anytime soon Date: 21 Oct 1998 16:51:01 GMT Organization: Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Approved: Christopher Davis Message-ID: <362dc59f.52288@news.goodnet.com> About 18 months ago I posted an article very similar to this. With the current discussion about the future of the A3XX, I think the issues raised are significant, and of interest, so I have essentially recreated that article. As the original article pointed out, the early estimates of costs by Airbus were grossly unrealistic. I think the original cost was in the 3 billion USD range, most people in the Industry believe the real cost was likely to be closer to 10 billion USD, and recent posts in this group suggest this is still an accurate assessment. If you look at the history of airliners, at this point, you market them for 5-6 years, and then have to offer a major upgrade. The 747 has undergone several such upgrades, Airbus aircraft have a similar history. While these upgrades are not as expensive as the original development costs, they are not cheap either. Realistically, if the program is going to be profitable, you need to recover the R&D costs in the first 5-6 years of delivery. Given that by Treaty, some 70% of the development costs must be met from Commercial sources, that means the real R&D cost with interest will be close to 13 billion USD. IF you assume you can sell 500 aircraft (and it is not at all clear that the market in that period is that large. (Boeing at its best only delivered about 60 747's per year) during that period, that puts an R&D cost per aircraft at about 25 million USD. If you sell fewer aircraft, the problem gets worse. For an aircraft that needs to sell for probably no more than 250 million USD, that is a big piece of the costs. For the past decade the capital cost per seat on aircraft have not gone down very much as the size of the aircraft increases. A 747-400 is not a lot less than 3 times the cost of a 737-300! Airlines want an aircraft that has lower direct operating costs. At this point, that is a difficult problem. There are only a few places you can work to reduce those costs. You can reduce the fuel burn. This is entirely within the realm of possibility. The GE90 is substantially more fuel efficient than the Trent or PW4000. (at full thrust on the ground, it is about 6%, probably less than that at cruise). This was done however with a sizeable weight penalty. A GE90 weighs some 3000 pounds (about 20%) more than a Trent! The fuel burn is such that if you make the stage long enough, the fuel efficiency more than covers the weight. Unfortunately it takes a very long stage to do it, on a 777 it happens at about 10 hours. Up that point however, the higher engine weight reduces payload, and revenue, driving costs up rather than down! The market for aircraft that are attractive to operate only on stages that are longer than 10 hours is probably rather limited, and even at that, the gain in direct costs is far less than the 10-15% that airlines are looking for. The vast majority of flights are a lot less than 10 hours duration! The other place to pick up economies is in the airframe. Unfortunately this is much easier said than done. Since the late 1970's, sufficient computer power and hydrodynamic codes have been available to allow existing airframes designed since then to be pretty much optimized within the certification limits. You can see that with the engines. Until quite recently, everyone's best engine had a specific fuel consumption of about .31. (CFM56, CF6, PW4000, RB211, Trent). The GE90 does much better, but the weight penalty is sufficiently high that it is attractive only on the longest routes. You can reduce the weight of the airframe, however composites, and other exotic materials have tended to substantially increase the costs of the aircraft. These materials are more expensive to buy, and more expensive to manufacture with than aluminum, and can be more expensive to own. As a senior manager for Singapore Airlines put it, a single minor error in servicing the fin on an A 320 costs upwards of $100,000 to fix, and wipes out the entire fuel savings from the composite fin over the entire life of the airframe. It will be expensive to make, and expensive to fix if you damage it. That is why composites and exotic alloys like Al-Li have seen such limited use to date. Obviously increased costs associated with such exotic material will eat into any direct operating costs savings they produce by increases the capital costs. Capital costs are a substantial portion of total operating costs. A thumbnail calculation put them at about .01USD per available seat mile on a 747-400 (for anyone interested, I can provide the details of the calculation). That is about 15% of typical cost per available seat mile, so increasing the capital cost is painful to airlines. Labor is a significant cost, however building airplanes has always been a labor intensive process. Processes that decrease the labor content tend to increase the capital costs however. Large gains from this area are unlikely, and given European labor laws, have tended to be problematic for Airbus. It's hard to reduce your work force. The real gains will come from changes in the certification requirements. Today we require that the airframe be unconditionally stable. We do that by making sure we have plenty of drag in the right places (a big tail and fin). It should be obvious to the most casual observer that drag and efficiency are at cross purposes. I don't see a change in the certification requirements anytime in the next 10 years however. If you can get the certification requirement changed so that unconditional stability is not required, all bets are off. I haven't seen estimates of the potential gains on the civilian side, however a comparison between the B1 and the B2 bombers is perhaps instructive. The B2 has about the same payload as the B1, longer range, and weighs about 30% less than a B1. Obviously there is considerable gold to be mined if you can get the rules changed. That isn't going to happen overnight, and no airline will buy into an aircraft that cannot be certified within the rules that are on the books today, so A3XX has to be built within current rules. The nightmare is you build the aircraft, in 10 years, the rules do change. That might be only 5-6 years into the life of the A3XX, leaving Airbus in much the same situation Lockheed ended up within the Starliner program in the late 1950's ( a turbo prop Constellation), Good airplane, but the 707 rendered it obsolete before they could deliver very many of them, and those that were delivered didn't stay in service for long! My own suspicion is that Boeing is banking on this happening, and as a result doesn't see a good reason to take the risks. Airbus wants the market, and maybe prepared to take the risks if it isn't their money at risk. However if it really is the Airbus partners at risk for about 10 billion USD, I am sure they will look long and hard at the risks. Once the rules change, it will be possible to build a far more efficient air frame. No one wants to be in a position where they have a large investment in obsolete technology when it happens however. At this point all airlines are interested in A3XX, but until or unless Airbus can clearly demonstrate that it can in fact produce the 10-15% reduction in direct operating costs with capital costs that are competitive with the 747-400, I don't think anyone will be signing on the dotted line. At the end of the day, the inability to produce the product airlines wanted at a cost that was acceptable to Boeing and the customers is what put the 747-500/600 back on the shelf. The costs for those programs were a whole lot less than the likely costs of the A3xx program. Boeing clearly has recovered the capital costs on the 747 program, and could probably afford to sell the 747 for a good deal less than the current price. Doing so would obviously put pressure on Boeing's profits, but might well be a near fatal for the A3XX program. The problems are real, and many of the risks are beyond Airbus's direct control, and one is clearly in the hands of the competition. The risks are not t trivial, and that is why none of these programs are going anywhere very fast! I'd add one other seeming unrelated comment: The capacity constraints at Japanese airports are the result of political decisions rather than technical decisions. Attempting to apply technical solutions to political problems traditionally doesn't work very well. The solution to the capacity problems at places like Narita is to solve the political problem, and add the runway capacity. It has to be less expensive than designing new airplanes! Much of the service to and from these airports isn't long haul. The 747-SR and 747-400D are used only because there isn't anything else available, not because they are well suited for the job! The A300/330-300 are well suited for that type of service, and are very popular in Asia. Boeing has never really built direct competitors for either aircraft. Most of the things you do to aircraft to give it good short haul performance are not good for long haul operation and vice versa. My thoughts and opinions anyway. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:27 From: "ShawnD2112" Subject: Re: Airliner lights question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Michael, You're pretty much spot on with the description of the lights (pardon the pun). Let me add a little explanation if I can. The red and green wingtip lights as well as the white light on the tail all work together. They're commonly referred to as navigation lights. Just like the lights on a ship, they're used together to tell which direction an aircraft is travelling at night. They can eash only be observed within specific arcs around the airplane. So, If you only see the white light, he's directly in front of you heading away. If you see the red and green, he's directly in front of you heading right at you. If you see the white tail light and a red light, he's on your right hand side, heading obliquely across your nose right to left. The red flashing lights are called beacons. Small airplanes usually have one on top of the tail. Bigger airplanes sometimes have them on top and on the bottom of the fuselage. They are supposed to be on any time the engine is in motion and are used to denote that specific fact. The flashing strobes are strictly attention getters, like you said. Since they're really annoying to other aircrew on the ground, it would not surprise me if the thing you noticed about them tied to the gear is true. I don't know if it is, but it's a great idea. Landing lights are usually only used in the pattern. They're very bright and can burn out easily so they are typically not left on for the duration of the flight. On many aircraft, they're part of the landing gear and automatically deploy and come on when the gear is lowered. On Cessna 152s, they have seperate switch and a checklist item to trun off and on. They're typically turned off when on the landing roll-out, again because they're really annoying to others on the ground. They do increase visibility immensely in the pattern. Next time, even in the daylight, notice how much sooner you see the light before you actually see the airframe. hope this helps, Shawn From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:28 From: ShawnD2112 Subject: Re: Sighted a shock wave above airliner wing References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Scott, They are indeed vortex generators. You'll see them on the tailcone of B-1s and wings of B-52s as well. Their purpose, if memory serves me right, is to induce a vortex into the flow to prevent it from seperating from the surface. In some places where the flow is likely to seperate because of extreme surface contours, the vortex generators would help keep it attached. I could be wrong on this one, but I think that's what they're for. Any input from others? Shawn From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:29 From: Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ArgoNet, but does not reflect its views Reply-To: In article , jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) wrote: >In article , "Richard Rea" > wrote: > >>After pondering the Value-Jet and Swissair crashes (and other similar, >>aircraft fires leading to loss of control) I wonder if it wouldn't be >>prudent to plan to "crash-land" the aircraft. The pilot would have to get >>down as fast as possible and in an area that would hopefully would give >some >>measure of survivability. >The smell you are familiar with as electrical smoke, is overheated PVC >used as insulation on the wiring. Virtually the entire cabin interior is >constructed from PVC materials. Some years ago there was an accident at Manchester, GB where the aircraft caught fire on the runway. The many fatalities were associated with the chemical volatiles(?) given off in the smoke... not just chlorine.. but hydrogen cyanide.. Basically immediately fatal with little more than one part lungful. Forget crawling through smoke.. it doesn't happen. Nearly all 'fire fatalities', in the home as well as in aircraft, are through poisonous gassing or, occasionally, asphyxiation, not heat. I think, (but don't know!), that smoke-hoods can be purchased by the safety-conscious traveller... Seem to recall that the 60/90 seconds of additional survivability could have prevented most if not all fatalities in the Manchester type scenario. There was much discussion about smoke hoods being made available for all souls aboard an aircraft - not just certain crew members. Cost of installation seemed to be a prohibitor.. probably still is... but is this still under discussion.. CAA/FAA.. et al..?? In the event of on-board/in-flight fire do or should the fire/gas detectors immediately release the separate oxygen/air supply as in a sudden cabin de-pressurization? Do wonder if such might have helped in the Swissair and ValueJet tragedies... Bill ZFC -- A R G O N E T ---==============--- adopt@argonet.co.uk internet provider for all / Adoption InterLink UK Acorn RISC machines / http://www.argonet.co.uk/adopt/ Tue,03 Nov 1998.12:40:08 From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:30 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE Don Stauffer wrote: > The result is that the landing speed on a modern commercial jet is so > high that an off-field landing is virtually impossible without > destroying the aircraft. Well, I'm not an expert, but a final approach (full flaps) would be something like 130 knots (or 240 km/h or 150 mph) and you still have a chance of surviving IF you find a suitable terrain and IF you escape from the flames. OK, but even a remote chance is better than nothing. I think that the point is to evaluate what your chances are. I mean that everybody has the tendency of thinking like "OK, I think I'll make it" and that prevents you of some more drastical action like preparing to crash landing the aircraft (when the situation deteriorates then it's too late...). Of course this is not an easy issue, even for an experienced crew. Stephan -- Dr. Stephan Stephany mailto:stephan@lac.inpe.br phone +55 12 345-6547 http://www.lac.inpe.br/~stephan LAC - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory INPE - Brazilian Institute for Space Research From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:31 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >The result is that the landing speed on a modern commercial jet is so >high that an off-field landing is virtually impossible without >destroying the aircraft. Figure the stall speed on an airliner(Vso) to be around 100kts depending on the weight of the aircraft. Landing speed is called Vref and =Vso x 1.3, and depending on the airline policy you fly the approach at Vref+5, so landing speeds average around 135kts plus the current wind and half of the gust. So if your stall speed at a given weight is 100kts and there is 5kts of wind gusting to 9kts, your landing speed will be 142kts. That's pretty fast to attempt an off field landing, and airplanes break real easy... Matt in Seattle, Student Pilot... My Unofficial Alaska Airlines Mailing List is at AlaskaAirlines@onelist.com ----Fly Alaska Airlines, Horizon Air, and Continental Airlines!!! From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:32 From: neville clarke Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM What is the maximum air speed at which a plane can land off-field (or on-field) without destroying the aircraft? Is there somewhere a table showing the "optimum" landing speeds of passenger jets currently in service? Thanks for any information. Neville -- Neville Clarke AIRWISE - The Independent Airport and Air Travel Guide http://www.airwise.com/ From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:33 From: Brandon Scott Durham Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Ron Parsons wrote: > In article , "Richard Rea" > wrote: > For what it's worth, aircraft are constructed of two main ingredients, > aluminum and PVC (polyvinylchloride). When PVC burns, it gives off > chlorine gas, which was one of the gases banned for further warfare use > after WWI. > > The smell you are familiar with as electrical smoke, is overheated PVC > used as insulation on the wiring. Virtually the entire cabin interior is > constructed from PVC materials. This is not true of materials which are installed by the airplane manufacturer. For the past 20 years Boeing has had stringent smoke and toxicity requirements for any material installed in the pressurized vessel. These requirements prevent materials like PVC from being used. In the tests, you simply burn a standard size of the material and then measure the optical density of the smoke, and the concentrations of key poisonous gases. Most production aircraft wiring is now ETFE or PTFE, which meet the smoke/toxicity requirements. Since these requirements are particular to the airframers (not in the FARs), they do not apply to any Post-Delivery Modifications, such as with the Swiss Air IFE system. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:34 From: terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 03 Nov 98 02:05:49 , jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) wrote: >A few years back a DC-10 in Europe attempting to land with a fire on board >did just that. > >There were some survivors. The flight attendants reported that they were >unable to evacuate most of the passengers due to them already being dead >in their seats from smoke. Can you post details? Only DC-10 crash I know of in Europe was the THY one in France in 1972-3. Terence Liow - replace royaumeuni with the abbreviation of the U_nited K_ingdom of England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland to reply From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:35 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>A few years back a DC-10 in Europe attempting to land with a fire on board >>did just that. >> >>There were some survivors. The flight attendants reported that they were >>unable to evacuate most of the passengers due to them already being dead >>in their seats from smoke. >Can you post details? Only DC-10 crash I know of in Europe was the >THY one in France in 1972-3. I know of four DC-10 losses in Europe (and no other European DC-10 accidents involving passenger fatalities): date flight reg model fatal location ---- ------ --- ----- ----- -------- 03-Mar-1974 THY 981 TC-JAV DC-10-10 346 Ermonville Forest (near Paris) 02-Jan-1976 Saudia N1031F DC-10-30CF 0 Istanbul 13-Sep-1982 Spantax EC-DEG DC-10-30CF 50 Malaga 21-Dec-1992 Martinair 495 PH-MBN DC-10-30CF 56 Faro, Portugal THY 981 was of course the cargo door failure. The Saudia accident in Istanbul was a runway excursion after a landing in fog (destroying the aircraft but causing no fatalities), Malaga was an aborted takeoff, and Faro was a botched landing after a microburst destabilized the aircraft on approach. None of these sound like what the previous poster had in mind, but at least one accident does meet that description except it wasn't a DC-10. Varig 820, a 707-345C (reg PP-VJZ) was in the landing pattern for Paris - Orly at the end of a GIG-ORY flight. A fire was reported and an emergency declared. The situation rapidly decayed and with smoke seriously limiting cockpit visibility, the pilots decided to put the plane down in a field approximately 5km short of the runway. The fuselage remained intact and ten crewmembers were able to escape, but it took 6-7 minutes for firemen to arrive. They were able to evacuate only four additional occupants, three of whom subsequently died. A total of 116 passengers and 7 crewmembers died. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:36 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) writes: > In article , "Richard Rea" wrote: > For what it's worth, aircraft are constructed of two main ingredients, > aluminum and PVC (polyvinylchloride). Not quite. Make that "metal and synthetic polymers" and you're a lot closer. Cedeing the point that most of the metal would be aluminum, there are lots of different polymers used. The seat cushions are probably urethane, with rayon, nylon, or acrylic covers. The wall and ceiling panels are probably fiber-reinforced polyester. I can't think, off the top of my head, of any significant parts that would be made of PVC. > When PVC burns, it gives off > chlorine gas, which was one of the gases banned for further warfare use > after WWI. I believe it's actually phosgene, which was used in WW I. > Flight crews are provided with smoke hoods these days and they are even > available commercially for individuals, but so far not required equipment > for passengers. I suspect that's because there are doubts about the efficacy of these devices even for the flight crews; the ValuJet crash investigation raised serious doubts that the smoke goggles in the cockpit would really be usable in a real emergency, even by a trained flight crew. Not to mention the cost and weight vs. the frequency of fire-caused fatalities other than in fire-caused crashes. > The smell you are familiar with as electrical smoke, is overheated PVC > used as insulation on the wiring. I believe aircraft use other materials for wiring insulation: PTFE for one. > Virtually the entire cabin interior is > constructed from PVC materials. Nope. Don't believe it. If you have vinyl upholstery in your car, that's PVC. Chances are that the instrument panel is covered in ABS, though, and various other plastics (polypropylene comes to mind) are used elsewhere in visible interior components. If your point is that synthetic polymers tend to emit toxic gases when they burn, that's quite true. I believe research continues on safer alternate materials, but I think that preventing and extinguishing the fire itself has a higher priority in current safety thinking. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:37 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM J P McLaughlin wrote: > Both of those a/c were descending as quickly as they thought prudent and > both appear to have lost control before being low enough to consider any > kind of controlled landing--airport or not. But this doesn't answer the initial question. In both SR111 and Valuejet cases, the pilots were still heading for an airport and acted so until they lost control. In such cases, would it not increase the survavibility rates if pilots chose to crash land ASAP instead of aiming for next airport ? I.E. would survavibility not increase if pilot crash lands before loosing control of aircraft compared to loosing control while still in the air ? But this bring up the question of the decision to lose all hope to reach airport and crash land. I guess by the time the situation gets dire enough for this decision to become obvious, it is too late anyways. My gut feeling would be to bring aircraft down ASAP to about 500 feet altitude and then make the way to the airport. If you lose control, then you don't fall from as high, if you make it to airport, then the only harm will be the fact that you flew so low.. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:38 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , stauffer@htc.honeywell.com wrote: > Richard Rea wrote: > > After pondering the Value-Jet and Swissair crashes (and other similar, > > aircraft fires leading to loss of control) I wonder if it wouldn't be > > prudent to plan to "crash-land" the aircraft. The pilot would have to get > > down as fast as possible and in an area that would hopefully would give some > > measure of survivability. But going low and slow enough might give the > > option of continuing on to the nearest airport or else crash in control if > > the situation rapidly deteriorates. Is this a viable consideration? > > In the US, anyway, way back in the stone age, there was a maximum > landing or stall speed (I forget which, and I forget the number). As > cruise speeds climbed and climbed, it seemed like this requirement > became uneconomical, and was done away with. Way back when the accident first happened and we all speculated on cause there is a post of mine that suggested that with an uncontrollable fire, loss of electrical power and smoke and restricted vision of the instruments the captain may have been trying to ditch on the water. Without a central air data computer giving reliable altimeter readings, no external landing lights, external reference he had the job in front of him and may have hit very hard. If in fact there was a fire in the pax cabin and passengers in panic moved to the front of the aeroplane , even entering the flight deck then he had real trouble. There was a case such as this in the middle east years ago and there were sixteen bodies found on the flight deck. A water landing would be a better option than into an open field. With the wing tanks empty the aircraft could float a considerable time. In the west indies some years ago a 727 ditched and some days later had to be shelled by the coast guard to sink it as a navigation hazard. cowboy -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:39 From: k_ish Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Ron Parsons wrote: > For what it's worth, aircraft are constructed of two main ingredients, > aluminum and PVC (polyvinylchloride). When PVC burns, it gives off > chlorine gas, which was one of the gases banned for further warfare use > after WWI. > > Flight crews are provided with smoke hoods these days and they are even > available commercially for individuals, but so far not required equipment > for passengers. > > The smell you are familiar with as electrical smoke, is overheated PVC > used as insulation on the wiring. Virtually the entire cabin interior is > constructed from PVC materials. Correct, decades ago. Turbine transports have requirements for flammability, as well as smoke and toxicity. This affects all non-metallic materials aboard the aircraft. The latest generation of airliners (747-400, A340, 767, 757, MD-11, 777 etc). do not have any PVC. Wiring is materials such as Teflon and Tefzel; cabin walls, luggage bins, etc. are made of carbon fiber and other composites. Carpeting, upholstery, wallpaper, etc. are also low-flammability. The only items that can be made of PVC are very small grommets, latches, and hardware- categorized under "small exempt". FAR 25.853 addresses all of this; the airframe manufacturers have standards that exceed the FARs. Older aircraft such as the 707, DC-8, 727, etc. originally had PVC wiring. Generally speaking, any items replaced (which would be most of it on a plane that old) would be with better materials. Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:40 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Cntl-Alt-Flaps 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) Wed I ended up on a A320 from ORD to DCA. {This due to a bad fuel gauge on the 727 on the previous leg, and a blown connection.} As we boarded I noted a fact worth of note -- you CAN fit FOUR technicians as well as the crew into the cockpit... No circus clowns needed. After we were seated, the captain announced he needed to "turn off the lights for a minute..." and then proceeded to reboot the entire aircraft. Not even emergency exit lighting stayed on; the only illumination was via the open door and the jetway. The fun part was the POST sequence. First the lights came back, then the LCD screens cranked down, up, down, up [One a few rows ahead stuck halfway the 2nd time; it backed up and tried again....]; meanwhile the FA call lights went into lamp-test mode, blinking away row by row. My seat neighbor discovered the call buttons were inop as we heard the engines start -- he wondered if reporting same would get the flight cancelled, and if that was good or bad... {They, and the reading lamps, started working during the taxi...} During the safety spiel, the screens retracted yet again, then reemerged. After we landed, I then told him the good news and the bad -- "Bill Gates and NT were nowhere near the airplane; but it was built by the English and the French arguing over every detail..." I think I'll stick to Boeing in the future... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:41 From: amievong@nospam.prodigy.net (AEVorKRC) Subject: Re: 757PF Vs DC-8 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: the midtown loft apartment of ceaseless self-pitying anguish On 03 Nov 98 02:05:31 , Andrew Oliva wrote: >I'm looking for the capacity differences between the 757 and DC-8's that >UPS uses. I was at MEM[phis] a few nights ago (Yes, I do work for the >competition) and saw (and heard) that a DC-8 had been substituted for one >of the 57's. I wish I remembered the details, but the DC-8-70s used by UPS have, IIRC, 18 or 19 positions, while the 757 has 14 or 15. Such substitutions weren't uncommon here - depends on the expected load. We normally got 57s at TUL, but once in a while we'd get a 727-100 or a DC-8-70. The DC-8s usually showed up around the holidays, along with C-130s, according to friends of mine at Evergreen (who handles UPS's ground ops here.) >I assume that the DC-8's while seemingly close in capacity to the 757's >have a greater range. They do, but it doesn't matter much, domestically. I don't know what the route in to/out of SDF is in regard to MEM, but the 57s that came through here ran non-stop from SDF to TUL and then continued to OKC where they parked for the day. Nothing for a DC-8 or 757 (or 727, for that matter.) KRC From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:42 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash 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: >The aircraft crashed into an apartment (?) building on October 10, 1992 >after the #3 engine separated from the aircraft, damaging the leading >edge of the wing and knocking off the #4 engine in the process. I have >it as 54 people killed, mostly on the ground, though I'm not sure they >ever really came up with an exact number. > >The accident aircraft was a 747-258F, registration 4X-AXG, line number >362. Ik can confirm that the aircraft crashed into an apartment building (a mere 600 yards from here). The date was Sunday October 4, 1992, just before dusk. The official accident report lists the number of fatalities as 3 crew, 1 'passenger' and 43 others. The latter number is indeed partly based on circumstantial evidence, and not necessarily exact. Kees de Lezenne Coulander -- C.M. de Lezenne Coulander Amsterdam-Zuidoost The Netherlands E-mail: Lezenne@CompuServe.com Aircraft Development and Systems Engineering B.V. Schiphol-Rijk, The Netherlands From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:43 From: "C.S." Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ASEL AG Reply-To: Christian.Schulz@NOSPAMalcatel.de In the german TV a report about the El-Al crash stated that many local residents near the crash site develloped in the meantime symptoms linked to radiation-exposure. The program concluded that the counterweights used by the 747 were made of uranium, and that the radiation spread around through the resulting fire. In the program, Boeings official comment was that the _actual_ counterweights are made of steel. Does anybody know which material was used to balance the earlier versions of the 747 ? From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:44 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Alan Strange wrote: > David Lesher wrote: > > The Dutch press and Los Angeles Times reporter Carol Williams have > > been looking into mysteries surrounding the 1992 El Al crash in > > Amsterdam. [Moderator; add date/details??] > > I saw a programme on Tv about this , called 'Disaster' I think. > It certainly should protective-suited men around the accident site, > while the fire crews were told to stay back. > > There were also doubts as to why the pilot had not ditched in a large > lake, rather than return to the airport with 2 engines missing. A media beat up. The aeroplane will fly on two engines so why not fly to an aerodrome and land rather than to a lake and ditch. As with any asymmetric flying the Vmca or in this case the Vmca2 must be adhered too. To slow below it means loss of rudder directional control and yaw. Applying power then to regain the speed exacebates the problem. If I recall this became the crux of his problem with an attempted go around. cowboy -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:45 From: "Tom.W" Subject: EEC Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Does anyone know where I can go on the Internet to find technical inf.. on EEC,s or FADEC systems. I did find some general inf.,but I would like more technical stuff. In particular PW305A EEC or FADEC. Please e-mail me at: Tommy.D.Wippert@worldnet.att.net From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:46 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Seaplane Design: (was: Boeing B-314) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" In order to stabilize the aircraft in an upright position when it was floating on the water, the Boeing B-314, the Martin 130 China Clipper, and the Dornier DO-X used "sponsons", short stub-wings extending sideways from the fuselage at the waterline. Other flying boats of similar size, vintage and performance, such as the Short Empire and Sunderland, used stabilizing floats at or near the wing tips for the same purpose, and Martin used tip floats on their later Mars flying boat. What are the pros and cons of the two devices, and what considerations go into a designer selecting one or the other? Thank you in anticipation, Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:47 From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Dihedral on Horizontal Tail Surfaces Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Partners of America Can anyone tell us why most (perhaps all) airliner models have noticeable tail dihedral? And why did the F4 have negative tail dihedral? - - John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:48 From: castleport@compuserve.com (MAC) Subject: UA 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com - Discussions start here! Reply-To: castleport@compuserve.com Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 engine problems? Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? Mike From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:49 From: onat@turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp (Onat Ahmet) Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kyoto University, JAPAN In "John Vincent Lombardi"'s opinion; : My experience is that the A319 has a Dutch roll tendency that is not well : damped. It makes me wonder how the A318 will handle, with an even shorter : fuselage. The A320 is better, but still rides poorly in the aft cabin in : choppy air. The A321 is probably better still. Does that mean the dutch roll tendency diminishes as the fuelage length increases? But how about the flexing of the fuselage because of the dutch roll; these should introduce some delayed rudder (fin!) input and perhaps aggravate the situation? So, perhaps the flexing offsets the advantages of a longer moment arm? Thanks for comments. -- Ahmet ONAT Kyoto Univ. Japan E-mail : onat@kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp WWW page : http://turbine.kuee.kyoto-u.ac.jp/staff/onat.html My 6 leg walker, RC airplanes & more in home page Land mines kill civilians in peacetime! Support total ban. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:50 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , fidgeon@pangea.ca wrote: > MJones wrote: > > Flew for the first time on a 319 yesterday, and was surprised at how often > > Dutch roll developed and how long it lasted. Was this bird's yaw damper > > not working correctly or is this common on the 319? Anybody know > > definitively? (Note: Definitely not intended as an AI slam: Overall I > > was very impressed with the 319, at least as configured by Air Canada.) > > I fly on A320/A319 almost every two weeks....the slight dutch roll > appears quite common on both aircraft. Not really noticable unless yer > looking at the wing tip. Dutch roll cannot be eliminated only countered by the yaw damper. The roll occurs and then the yaw damper corrects, and having applied rudder almost instantaneouly removes the application, else it cause yaw in the direction of the applied correction. The adverse yaw oscillation (dutch roll) occurs again and is corrected again. As it is a function of sweep back above a certain angle ,what you observed, developing regularly and appearing to be almost permanent, is normal. How well the yaw damper coupler worked you also indirectly commented upon. cowboy -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:51 From: "R.R.B.777" Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wanadoo - (Client of French Internet Provider) John Vincent Lombardi a écrit dans le message ... >My experience is that the A319 has a Dutch roll tendency that is not well >damped. It makes me wonder how the A318 will handle, with an even shorter >fuselage. The A320 is better, but still rides poorly in the aft cabin in >choppy air. The A321 is probably better still. In my experience, I haven't noticed a difference between the A319 and 320, surprisingly this phenomenon seemed to me more sensitive on the A321-100 (A321-200 is behaving much better though) . Is anybody having the same feeling ? R.R.B.777 From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:52 From: "Mario Leite Fernandes" Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE 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 > > >The 707-400 series was powered by RR. BOAC, Lufthansa, Air India > > >at least bought numbers of these. > > >The RR-powered DC-8s only scored TCA (Air Canada) I think > > > > Ops, of course there were other RR DC-8 purchasers. > > Douglas manufactured 32 Dc8-43s, the Rolls-Royce Conway powered type: 15 > for Alitalia, 11 for Air Canada and six for Canadian Pacific. > Second-hand users included Air Jamaica, Cargolux, Cubana, Lybian Arab, > Zambia Airways, Zantop and the US FAA. > > I don't have the data for the Boeing 707-420, the Conway-powered 707, but > you can add Varig and Israel's El Al to your list. Got the Boeing 707-420 data: Boeing built 37 Rolls-Royce Conway powered 707s - 16 for Boac, one for Cunard Eagle, three for Boac/Cunard, six for Air India, five for Lufthansa, three for Varig and three for El Al. Ghana Airways ordered two, but cancelled before delivery. Regards Mario From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:53 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: RR, PW and GE 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 03 Nov 98 02:05:45 , in , Mario Leite Fernandes wrote: > >> >The 707-400 series was powered by RR. BOAC, Lufthansa, Air India >> >at least bought numbers of these. >> >The RR-powered DC-8s only scored TCA (Air Canada) I think >> >> Ops, of course there were other RR DC-8 purchasers. > >Douglas manufactured 32 Dc8-43s, the Rolls-Royce Conway powered type: 15 >for Alitalia, 11 for Air Canada and six for Canadian Pacific. >Second-hand users included Air Jamaica, Cargolux, Cubana, Lybian Arab, >Zambia Airways, Zantop and the US FAA. > >I don't have the data for the Boeing 707-420, the Conway-powered 707, but >you can add Varig and Israel's El Al to your list. In "Boeing Aircraft since 1916" by Peter M Bowers it says 37 707-420s were built - 5 for Lufthansa (430), 17 for BOAC (16 x 436 and 1 x 465), 2 for BOAC-Cunard (436), 6 for Air India (437), 3 for Varig (441), 3 for El Al (458), and 1 for Cunard Eagle (465). -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:54 From: "a.ffrost" Subject: concorde Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I recently saw a video on the concord from 'the cockpit'. During their takeoff, the FE put all the engines to tackoff power (ie 100%), but one of the engines was held back to 98%, I think it was the right hand outboard. Can anyone explain why this procedure is done? From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:55 From: jmaddaus@NO-SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO-SPAMusa.net "Tarver Engineering" wrote: >JF Mezei wrote in message ... >>Airbus' 320 introduced to the commercial aviation world a totally new >>concept of quality control: SOFTWARE. This is something which the FAA >>failed to realise early on (hence the 320's getting its certification >>before it should have) because the FAA had not had to deal with this >>before. Interestingly, one of the SW QC efforts that I heard about years ago (sorry can't remember the source but I believe it was in a GD proposal to the Army DIVAD program citing their QC efforts on the F-16 program and what they had learned via AI) was that AI had three separate development organizations develop the same functional code. These three organizations did not know the others existed and were located in three different countries. The theory behind this was that AI would catch more bugs in critical flight control sw this way because each group would develop differently, discover different bugs, and would provide AI with better de-bugging capabilities (hence higher quality sw) when the time to integrate the sw into the hw took place. Oddly, what they found was that bugs detected during testing were very much the same across groups with few exceptions, even though the code may have been significantly different. jmaddaus@usa.net From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:56 From: "Brett L. Anderson" Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Tjarko de Jong wrote: > > Oval windows have less stress-concentrations then more or less square holes in > > the fusalage. Thus rounder window, less stress thus lighter. > > Even if your reply doesn't answer the question how the weight saving is > achieved, your reply is technicaly correct. You may note that the most > know windows are those of the De Havilland Comet, who changed from > square to round after the well knows reasons ... Oh ... to conclude the > best looking windows can still be found on the -few remaining - > Caravelle's Close Marc, but no cigar... Now you are just continuing an urban myth. The Fatal Flaw for the poor comet was a lot of poor fatigue details combined with a poor material choice. IIR the 1954 fatigue test of a Comet only made 3600 pressurization cycles before it failed at the corner of a passenger detail. BUT.. the one recovered from the ocean was determined to have initated a crack at the top corner of the ADF cutout on the airplanes centerline. This crack then grew to the forward butt splice and down into the window belt area leading to a catastrophic failure. Anyway nothing inherently wrong with square windows but the material selection and gage had better be sufficient to cover the relative stress concentration in the corner over the acceptable design life. -- Brett L. Anderson Boeing Wichita From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:57 From: Boeing707@worldnet.att.net (levelflight) Subject: CO ETOPS 757's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM i work on the ramp for USAirways in FLL. CO has recently begun flying 757's into FLL on a regular basis..3 a day. all the 757's i've seen of theirs so far are ETOPS certified (on nose gear door aft of the tow limit line) does anybody know why CO has certified these 757's as ETOPS, or were they delivered to them already certified? What ETOPS required routes are they flying with them? Are all of CO's 757s ETOPS? Or are they planning in the future to fly an ETOPS route(s) with them? appreciate all anybody can answer. We cannot find in our reservations system any ETOPS routes CO flies with the 757. Whats up here?? regards Ken Smith Ft Lauderdale, FL Boeing707@bellsouth.net "That's one nice thing about the 707. She can do everything but read." - George Kennedy as Joe Patroni, in the movie 'Airport', talking about the virtues of the Boeing 707. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:58 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: CO ETOPS 757's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >does anybody know why CO has certified these 757's as ETOPS, or were >they delivered to them already certified? What ETOPS required routes >are they flying with them? Are all of CO's 757s ETOPS? CO flies them trans-Atlantic. EWR-GLA (CO 16, and 17 return) and EWR-BHX (CO 26/27) are two such routes operated with the 757. Their oldest 757 is only about four years old, and they've been flying them across the pond for a while, so I'd guess they were delivered as ETOPS. Probably all of them, too, as they all appear to be the same config, though I can't tell for sure. I don't know if they fly them to Hawaii yet, but if not, they will soon, or at least Continental Micronesia (Air Mike) will -- the Island Hopper (HNL-GUM with eight (?) stops along the way) is supposed to switch from a 727 to a 757 within the next several years. It appears they may need at least 90-minute ETOPS on that route, and will certainly need ETOPS if they fly the planes between Hawaii and the 48 states in service. (Since Air Mike has a dedicated fleet, they could simply ferry them across.) >We cannot find in our reservations >system any ETOPS routes CO flies with the 757. You'd better check your reservations system to see what else it's missing. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Nov 20 02:30:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:30:59 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Recently I know that B737-400/500 dosen't have fuel dump system ? > >why ? The reson for fuel dump systems is because large long range aircraft carry a lot of fuel which, in normal circumstances, will be burned off during the trip, and then there will be a landing without all of that fuel on board. But, if there is a problem which requires a return to the airport, the fuel must be dumped to lower the weight of the aircraft down to the maximum landing weight to avoid bending the airplane. Widebody aircraft carry a lot of fuel which adds up to a lot of weight. If the airframe was designed to be able to cope with a landing with all the fuel on board it would be way too heavy. Smaller aircraft like the 737 don't have fuel dump systems because the fuel doesn't usually cause the aircraft to be over its maximum landing weight. The maximum takeoff weight and the maximum landing weight are much closer together on a smaller aircraft. Matt in Seattle, Student Pilot... My Unofficial Alaska Airlines Mailing List is at AlaskaAirlines@onelist.com ----Fly Alaska Airlines, Horizon Air, and Continental Airlines!!! From kls Fri Nov 20 02:31:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:31:00 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 03 Nov 98 02:05:42 , stcho@asiana.co.rk (sun tea cho) wrote: >Recently I know that B737-400/500 dosen't have fuel dump system ? > >why ? No good reason to have it. On a widebody, there is a huge difference between maximum takeoff weigh and maximum landing weight. For instance on a 777-200ER, MGTOW is 648,00 pound, MLW is 460,000 pounds. (for a 747-400 the numbers are 875,000/630,000, MD11 630,000/440,000 lbs) If an emergency occurs shortly after takeoff on a long haul, you have 188,000 pounds of fuel to get rid to get down to landing weight. 188,000 pounds would take about 11 hours to burn off. Otherwise you are looking at a vastly overweight landing. Singapore Airlines was forced into that situation with a 747-400. No serious injuries, but they ended up having to writeoff the aircraft (actually it was Boeing that ended up writing it off). On a narrow body like the 737, the difference between MGTOW and MLW is very small compared to a long haul widebody A 737-400 has a MGTOW of 138,500 pounds, and MLW of 121,000 pounds -500 has an MGTOW of 115,500 and MLW of 110,000. Even if you have to return to the field immediately after takeoff, you are looking at landing weight that is at most 10% over max.. You can often burn off the excess weight fairly quickly, there isn't much. Overweight landing is not recommended, but unlikely to do serious damage to the aircraft if you have to do it, it is at most 10% overweight, whereas a widebody could be about 35% overweight.. Airbus aircraft are a mixed bag. A300B2's are like narrow bodies, later models are like widebodies with much large MGTOW/MLW asymmetry. Weight data is from Aviation Week & Space technology 1998 Source book. Hope that answers the question. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:31:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:31:01 From: Alan Browne Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Solutions Reply-To: alan.browne@sympatico.ca sun tea cho wrote: > Recently I know that B737-400/500 dosen't have fuel dump system ? > > why ? > > thank you in advance ... If true, then probably it is able to land at full (or near enough) full fuel weight. Did the -100/-200/-300 have fuel dump capability? -anyone?- Alan. From kls Fri Nov 20 02:31:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 20 Nov 98 02:31:02 From: Patt Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: / - \ sun tea cho wrote: > Recently I know that B737-400/500 dosen't have fuel dump system ? > why ? None of the 737's (-100 thru -800) have dump systems. The airplane is capable of making an "overweight" landing, requiring a Mx inspection only. Patt From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:29 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Kees de Lezenne Coulander wrote 20 Nov 98 02:30:42 :- > I can confirm that the aircraft crashed into an apartment building (a > mere 600 yards from here). The date was Sunday October 4, 1992, just before > dusk. The official accident report lists the number of fatalities as 3 > crew, 1 'passenger' and 43 others. The latter number is indeed partly based > on circumstantial evidence, and not necessarily exact. According to the reports in the UK media at the time, the uncertainty was due to the fact that many of the occupants of the block were illegal immigrants, drifters, or others not officially known to the authorities, so that it was impossible to say who was living there. Add to that the facts that many of the bodies would have been totally consumed in the fire, and that some people who weren't actually in the block at the time might have been unwilling to come forward to identify themselves as residents. Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:30 From: saccani@pc.jaring.my Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unconfigured Reply-To: paul.saccani@online.po.my G'day, cowboy@ram.net.au wrote: >A media beat up. The aeroplane will fly on two engines so why not fly to an >aerodrome and land rather than to a lake and ditch. My understanding was that the aircraft would fly with 2 engines shut down, as opposed to 2 engines on the same side missing (at the weight in question). The associated loss of the No.3 & No.4 hydraulic systems in an extreme assymetric configuration was not considered when designing the aircraft to cope with 2 engines out on the same side. In a 2 engine out situation, the No.3 & No.4 ADP would function, even if the engine was not windmilling to power the EDP. The reduction in rudder authority from the loss of half the hydraulic systems means that the situtation you describe below would appear inevitable, considering the speed the aircraft was at when the engines departed. >As with any asymmetric flying the Vmca or in this case the Vmca2 must be >adhered too. To slow below it means loss of rudder directional control and >yaw. Applying power then to regain the speed exacebates the problem. If I >recall this became the crux of his problem with an attempted go around. Of course, please tell me how my understanding is in error. Cheers Paul Saccani Kuala Lumpur Malaysia From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:31 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash 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 20 Nov 98 02:30:43 , in , C.S. wrote: >In the german TV a report about the El-Al crash stated that many local >residents near the crash site develloped in the meantime symptoms linked >to radiation-exposure. The program concluded that the counterweights >used by the 747 were made of uranium, and that the radiation spread >around through the resulting fire. > >In the program, Boeings official comment was that the _actual_ >counterweights are made of steel. Does anybody know which material was >used to balance the earlier versions of the 747 ? When I was briefly associated with British Airways in the field of radiation protection*, the only aircraft that I was aware of in the BA fleet that used depleted uranium mass balance weights was the L-1011. BA's fleet at the time included the -100 -200 and -400 versions of the Boeing 747, not to mention 737-200, 737-400, 757, and 767 amongst a host of others. Mass balance weights are used to increase the flutter speed of an aircraft's flying controls, and as such must be matched to the control. This occasionally requires machining and other operations on them and if they are depleted uranium special facilities must be provided so this can be done safely. * An airlines involvement with radiation mostly involves the non-destructive testing of aircraft components, and radioactive isotopes carried as freight - these have special labels as approved by IATA, not to mention having to be carried in approved containers. -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:32 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , C.S. writes >In the german TV a report about the El-Al crash stated that many local >residents near the crash site develloped in the meantime symptoms linked >to radiation-exposure. The program concluded that the counterweights >used by the 747 were made of uranium, and that the radiation spread >around through the resulting fire. > >In the program, Boeings official comment was that the _actual_ >counterweights are made of steel. Does anybody know which material was >used to balance the earlier versions of the 747 ? Certainly some 747s used depleted uranium for balance weights on the outer ailerons and elevators. The maintenance manuals had procedures for removal, storage, handling ect. Dont know for the present generation a/c. -- john r. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:33 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu "C.S." wrote: > In the program, Boeings official comment was that the _actual_ > counterweights are made of steel. Does anybody know which material was > used to balance the earlier versions of the 747 ? All I know is that the Convairs 990 had counterweights made out of uranium, this was a thread just a year ago in this group. -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:34 From: ebright@coil.com (Eeeb) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ...some but never enough Reply-To: ebright@coil.com On 20 Nov 98 02:30:43 , "C.S." wrote: >In the german TV a report about the El-Al crash stated that many local >residents near the crash site develloped in the meantime symptoms linked >to radiation-exposure. The program concluded that the counterweights >used by the 747 were made of uranium, and that the radiation spread >around through the resulting fire. > >In the program, Boeings official comment was that the _actual_ >counterweights are made of steel. Does anybody know which material was >used to balance the earlier versions of the 747 ? I am sure if the counterweights were uranium, they were U-238. This is the isotope that remains after the much more radioactive U-235 is removed (and used in various atomic activities). U-238 is just as heavy and dense but is relatively cheap since it is an unwanted byproduct. U-238 also has the advantge that it is relatively inert in a radioactive sense. It would not produce burns and other symptoms of radiation exposure since it is not very radioactive. So, if the residents developed radiation exposure symptoms, it was almost certainly not from the El-Al 747's counterweights. -- Jim Ebright NET Security: http://www.coil.com/~ebright/ Spam,eggs,sausage,and Spam. That's not got much... "True peace is not merely the absence of tension: It is the presence of justice," Martin Luther King,Jr. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:35 From: hatcat@aol.com (HatCat) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Uranium does get used as a ballast weight and the 747 does use them. I don't know if that's standard on all makes and models but, in any case, the uranium used is "depleted uranium" which is not usually radioactive above measurable normal background levels. If it retains residual radioactivity, it would be of a very, very, low order. I wonder how many people exhibited symptoms before the word "uranium" got used in the media? Not that I think they had malicious intent, just that many people start imagining all sorts of ailments if a handy cause seems at hand. Regards, JD From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:36 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >What happens to the dumped fuel? Does much of it evaporate on the way down? >Does it ever cause any particular problems on the ground (or water)? They say it all evaporates. But I assure you that the dumped fuel causes less discomfort on the ground than the aircraft would if it didn't dump it to make a safe landing. Matt in Seattle, Student Pilot... My Unofficial Alaska Airlines Mailing List is at AlaskaAirlines@onelist.com ----Fly Alaska Airlines, Horizon Air, and Continental Airlines!!! From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:37 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > >I went through the FA 25.1001 and found that for turbine engines: > > (f) For turbine engine powered airplanes, means must be provided to > prevent jettisoning the fuel in the tanks used for takeoff and > landing below the level allowing climb from sea level to 10,000 feet > and thereafter allowing 45 minutes cruise at a speed for maximum > range. However, if there is an auxiliary control independent of the > main jettisoning control, the system may be designed to jettison the > remaining fuel by means of the auxiliary jettisoning control. > >Question: > Since dumping of fuel is used for an emergency which requires the > plane to land ASAP, (are there other uses?), why would the FAA want > the fuel dumping system to retain enough fuel to climb and fly for > 45 minutes? Is this to allow for a missed approach? Do missed > approaches really take that long, do planes really climb back to 10k > feet? > > Is the dumping of fuel something which is done in circumstances > which are not actual emergencies and which require the plane to > abide by congested airport queing and waiting (thus requirememt to > stay in air 45 minutes) or is fuel dump done only in circumstances > requiring immediate landing and thus declaring emergency which >gives > the plane immediate access to the runway of its choice? > >Question: > If it allows for an auxiliary system which dumps all of the fuel, > and such system has no requierement for a minimum reserve (5 minutes > flight?), what's the point of the first fuel jettison system? Or is > such system used only for maintenance purposes and not to be used by > pilots? The way that the regs are written, it sounds to me like the main concern is that thee FAA doesn't want it to be possible to dump too much fuel... so much that the aircraft runs out. I'm not sure, but I figure that the system that would dump the fuel leaving enough for a climb to 10,000 and 45 minute reserves may be a gravity dump system with just valves open, but to dump more than this a auxiliary system is neccessary. This would be the regulation that decides how high to mount the dump pipes in the tank..... according to the regs, just high enough to leave enough fuel for a go-around and some holding. I'm not 100% sure on this, but that is what it looks like to me.... To answer your other question pertaining to dumping... Fuel dumping is not a normal occurance that is taken lightly... if there is a dump, it is usually a pretty big deal. I think the standard fuel reserves are 45 minutes for any flight. I think the main aim of this reg is to prevent the design of an aircraft from enabling the dump of too much fuel and the aircraft running out of fuel. >Question: > Why does the FAA not mention a need to reduce to a bare minimum is > the amount of fuel so that if the landing doesn't go too well (UA > 232 comes to mind), the resulting fire will be as small as possible? > Seems to me that 45 minutes worth of fuel is a lot. The reg just requires the primary (?) dump system to leave this much fuel, the secondary can dump even more, but once you are below your max landing weight a safe landing is probable... of course that changes if you have no hydraulics. I think the FAA is more concerned about the aircraft having enough fuel to get to the airport than reducing the amount that will burn on a crash landing... it's all up to the Captian... Matt in Seattle, Student Pilot... My Unofficial Alaska Airlines Mailing List is at AlaskaAirlines@onelist.com ----Fly Alaska Airlines, Horizon Air, and Continental Airlines!!! From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:38 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 03 Nov 98 02:05:40 , jbarnold57@aol.com (JBArnold57) wrote: >What happens to the dumped fuel? Does much of it evaporate on the way down? >Does it ever cause any particular problems on the ground (or water)? It evaporates, eventually if the weather is warm, otherwise it can be around for a long time. Vapor pressure on JetA isn't very high, so it doesn't evaporate all that easily. It isn't gasoline. There was an incident at JFK not long ago (last month). If the weather isn't warm, it will take a long time to evaporate, and a neighborhood around JFK aparently smelled lke a jet fuel depot for a few days. Locals were NOT happy. I think it was an AA D10 on the way to the carribean that took some birds on takeoff.. You try to do it over unpopulated areas (ocean), and if you can do it from reasonable altitude, in good weather, hopefully it will disperse (it will be spread as a fine mist over a sufficiently large area that no one will notice and substantially evaporate before it reaches the ground.) Doesn't always work that way however, and yes it is a problem on the gound. Stains paint, not good for livestock, cars, houses or people or anything else. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:39 From: "Phil" Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: "Phil" JF Mezei wrote in message ... >Question: > Since dumping of fuel is used for an emergency which requires the > plane to land ASAP, (are there other uses?), why would the FAA want Or, fuel dumping may be necessary to lighten the plane enough to fly at a safe altitude. For example a 727 will fly okay on two engines, but if a second engine failure occurs during a missed approach, the a/c may sink unless fuel is dumped. Having gear and lift devices out cause enough drag to make flight quite unsafe on one engine. A single engine landing in the 727 uses only flaps 5 degrees, so a heavy airplane will use a lot of runway in addition to being unable to climb on one engine. > the fuel dumping system to retain enough fuel to climb and fly for > 45 minutes? Is this to allow for a missed approach? Do missed > approaches really take that long, do planes really climb back to 10k > feet? If the situation is really bad (nearest alternate field far away), a miss and reroute can eat up a lot of time and fuel, especially at low altitudes. So, the fuel is dumped to reduce weight, but not to an unsafe level. One must keep reasonable options available in case circumstances take a turn for the worse. Therefore some safeguarding is built in. Also, the ability to dump fuel depends on the sutuation - if there are buses being de-energized to deal with an electrical fire, some or all of the dump system may not function. Hope this helps shed some light on fuel dumping. Phil Collier From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:40 From: cowboy@ram.net.au Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question 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: > >Is the dumping of fuel something which is done in circumstances > >which are not actual emergencies and which require the plane to > >abide by congested airport queing and waiting (thus requirememt to > >stay in air 45 minutes) or is fuel dump done only in circumstances > >requiring immediate landing ... > > Several years ago, a Virgin 747 departing SFO for LHR ingested some > birds after takeoff and lost an engine. The most sensible thing for > them to do in that case was to return to SFO. They had to dump fuel > to get down to MLW but a 747 can fly reasonably well on only three > engines, so there was no emergency. Once they got down to an acceptable > landing weight they presumably entered the approach pattern and landed > pretty much like any other flight. cowboy's comment: you dump fuel because you have time to dump. It can take up to 45min plus depending on BRW. It may not be that great an emergency, a PAN maybe. If there is a genuine emergency such as an uncontrollable engine fire after take off then the aeroplane can land at max take off weight. The approach speed will still be Vref set at 1.3 Vs for the particular flap configuration used for land. The approach speed will be high but , I told way back that if the aeroplane could take off on the runway it could land on it. Charts bear this out. In a genuine emergency don't stuff around, get on the ground. if you are going to dump I was taught , over water , clear of cloud above 6000ft, and not in a holding pattern so you fly back through it. If you dump over land and the press report it you can bet your last dollar that every house wife in a four hundred mile radius will claim to be doing the washing and had it all ruined. cowboy -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:41 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca) wrote: : Question: : If it allows for an auxiliary system which dumps all of the fuel, : and such system has no requierement for a minimum reserve (5 minutes : flight?), what's the point of the first fuel jettison system? Or is : such system used only for maintenance purposes and not to be used by : pilots? : Question: : Why does the FAA not mention a need to reduce to a bare minimum is : the amount of fuel so that if the landing doesn't go too well (UA : 232 comes to mind), the resulting fire will be as small as possible? : Seems to me that 45 minutes worth of fuel is a lot. I am sure the 45 minute rule is to prevent an accidental dump from causing the airplane to crash. The second part must be based on that old theory that having two bombs on the same plane is very very improbable. Gerry -- Gerry From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:42 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: UA A321 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > The key is that the nominal capacity for an airliner typically refers to > a two-class config, or three-class for long-range aircraft. Airline > customers don't usually care about the "pack 'em in" config with as many > seats as you can stuff on the plane, though this is usualy cited > separately as a charter or inclusive tour config for those sorts of > operators. However, with quality cutting trends, one should be aware of the "worse case scenario" on an airline's particular fleet. For instance, if Plane A's config is "typically" 150 but can legally be up to 300, and plane B's config is "typically" 150 but can legally be up to 200, then there are some conclusions to be drawn: An airline operating plane A may be more tempted to cut quality/seat pitch further since its planes can do it and adding a few more seats won't push the plane near its limit. Another aspect is that when configured for 150 seats, Aircraft A might actually be more secure because of greater exit capacity compared to Aircraft B configured with same number of seats. Also, an aircraft capable of really packing them in is likely to be popular with charter carriers and may earn a poor reputation. "I flew in a 757 once with charter-air, and it was god awfull, so I'll avoid scheduled-air's 757s" syndrome for many who don't realise how much flexibility airlines have in configuring the interior. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:43 From: Louis Krupp Subject: Re: Cntl-Alt-Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet - 1(800)-900-RMII David Lesher wrote: > After we were seated, the captain announced he needed to "turn off > the lights for a minute..." and then proceeded to reboot the entire > aircraft. Not even emergency exit lighting stayed on; the only > illumination was via the open door and the jetway. > I think I'll stick to Boeing in the future... It's not just Airbus. In 1995, I was listening to channel 9 on a United 767 as we were pushed back from the gate in Paris. There was an electrical problem, and we were going nowhere. The captain turned the plane off and then back on, and away we went. Louis Krupp From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:44 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , MAC wrote: >Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >engine problems? > >Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? Perhaps you were just unlucky. The engine dispatch reliability and inflight shutdown rate of the P&W engines on UA's B777s are very similar to those on other earlier twin-engine planes. The former rate is well into the high 99% range, and the latter is comfortably below the ETOPS-required rate of 0.02 per 1,000 engine flight hours. I don't mean to say the engines are problem free (because they are not), but I don't believe there are any serious abnormalities. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:45 From: Niraj Agarwalla Subject: Re: UA 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 20 Nov 1998, MAC wrote: > Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 > engine problems? > > Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations > because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? Every new aircraft types gets a few teething problems. BA had big problems with their GE90-equipped 777s. It got to the point that BA decided on the RR engines to equip their next batch of 777s. -- Niraj Agarwalla -- niraj@shore.net -- http://www.shore.net/~niraj GO RED SOX!!!! From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:46 From: alan@nospam.com (Alan) Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CyberGate, Inc. On 20 Nov 98 02:30:48 , castleport@compuserve.com (MAC) wrote: >Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >engine problems? Sorry, Mike, I think you are just unlucky. The reliability of the UA 777 has been very good. I see eight 777's every day. Haven't had a 777 delay yet this month. Alan From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:47 From: "john r." Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , MAC writes >Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >engine problems? > >Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? I think you are so unlucky it must be your fault! I have flown twice on UA 777s and one was a flight return because the gear would not retract. -- john r. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:48 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@gte.net MAC wrote: > Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 > engine problems? > > Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations > because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? Aloha, Maybe UAL is just being careful because the 777 was certified "ETOPs" right out of the box. Regards, Hugh From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:49 From: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Subject: Re: Dihedral on Horizontal Tail Surfaces References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com To keep the control surfaces out of the wing wake/turbulence and/or hot exhaust gases, to counter the effect of anhedral or lack of dihedral on the wings. Seems logical to me. Pradip From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:50 From: stevek1957@aol.com (SteveK1957) Subject: Re: Dihedral on Horizontal Tail Surfaces References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Dihedral in both wing and tail increase the tendency for the airplane to roll due to sideslip which can agrivate Dutch Roll. The same tendency is caused by wing and tail sweep. I suspect the reason for dihedral in the airliner horizontal tails has more to do with getting the tails out of the wing wake to reduce tail buffet than increasing the roll tendency. There is usualy plenty of roll due to sideslip in most airliners. The F-4 has the anhedral in the tail to counter the dihedral in the outboard panels of the wing which were bent up for ground clearance on carrier decks. Steve Koontz Aerodynamic Stability and Control SteveK1957@aol.com From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:51 From: "Nicasio" Subject: Re: Dihedral on Horizontal Tail Surfaces References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Viva Nicaragua John M. Hunt wrote in message ... >Can anyone tell us why most (perhaps all) airliner models have >noticeable tail dihedral? And why did the F4 have negative tail >dihedral? Negative dihedral is called anhedral... MB From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:52 From: Mike Gofberg Subject: Re: CO ETOPS 757's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM CO has been using the 57 on international hauls, mainly from EWR to SNN & MAN. ETOPS certification is necessary to fly a 2-engined jet transatlantic/pacific. PS~ I just moved from MIA to the Northeast. Spent LOADS of time in FLL! Used to work for ValuJet in FLL around 1994! Take care, Mike From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:53 From: Henry Law Subject: Re: CO ETOPS 757's References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: None In article , Karl Swartz writes >CO flies them trans-Atlantic. EWR-GLA (CO 16, and 17 return) and >EWR-BHX (CO 26/27) are two such routes operated with the 757. And EWR-MAN until the loads justified a DC-10. Very uncomfortable transatlantic aeroplane for those of us over 6'3". Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 777-style cabin windows on 767-400(ER) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu "Brett L. Anderson" wrote: > Close Marc, but no cigar... Now you are just continuing an urban myth. > The Fatal Flaw for the poor comet was a lot of poor fatigue details > combined with a poor material choice. IIR the 1954 fatigue test of a > Comet only made 3600 pressurization cycles before it failed at the > corner of a passenger detail. BUT.. the one recovered from the ocean > was determined to have initated a crack at the top corner of the ADF > cutout on the airplanes centerline. This crack then grew to the forward > butt splice and down into the window belt area leading to a catastrophic > failure. Bratt at the risk of self-promoting :o) I know this all too well as I maintain the DH Comet website at http://surf.to/comet. The full YP report is on my site and the pics with the cracks you are referring to are shown as well, consider this as the starting point of modern civil aviation. It's part of the history. > Anyway nothing inherently wrong with square windows but the material > selection and gage had better be sufficient to cover the relative stress > concentration in the corner over the acceptable design life. This is right, afterwards they changed the thickness of the skin and the type of the alloy. But again those guys were pioneers ... -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:55 From: "Walter E. Shepherd" Subject: Re: Seaplane Design: (was: Boeing B-314) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: The Aerospace Corporation Reply-To: walter.e.shepherd@aero.org I'm not an aeronautical engineer... so take it for what it's worth... I would hazard a guess that sponsons and wingtip floats both add drag. Sponsons however would seem to be capable of offering some lift in return for the drag, whereas floats don't seem to do much for you in flight. Sponsons might have to be heavier to take the load... and so maybe there's a weight penalty over floats. The approach used on later versions of the PBY Catalina would seem to offer some relief on both counts... retractable wing tip floats which fold into and are countoured with the wing tip. --Walt Shepherd. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:56 From: "David Fielding" Subject: Re: Seaplane Design: (was: Boeing B-314) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Well...just from a few observations... The sponsons supposedly offered less drag, and maybe even a little lift. Boeing found in testing the 314 that the angle of attack of the stub-wings had to be increased, which had to reduce cruise speed by a few knots. They also found that the sponsons did a poor job of keeping the wingtips out of the water, which was a problem on the 314s throughout their service lives. I would guess sponsons would have less tendency to yaw the 'boat sharply if they dug into the water. On the other hand, I have heard of flying boat pilots dipping one tip float into the water to help in gentle turns at taxi speeds. Wing-mounted floats are in a better position to provide leverage against the rolling of the 'boat, having a longer moment arm; so I guess they could be smaller, offsetting the drag disadvantage of the struts necessary to mount them. It seems that as the design of large flying boats progressed, the sponsons disappeared in favor of floats below the wings. Darwin would say that wing-mounted floats were the fittest solution to the problem, which of course was no longer necessary to solve once the whole species became extinct. David Fielding -- dfield@epix.net "Anything is possible, except skiing through a revolving door" From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:57 From: MJones Subject: RE: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >As it is a function of sweep back above a certain angle ,what you observed, >developing regularly and appearing to be almost permanent, is normal. Dutch roll is by no means confined to planes with swept wings, although wing sweep on planes so configured certainly is a contributor. A high slip-roll coupling, due to wing sweep, dihedral or interference effects, an 'oversized' vert. stab. perhaps included to improve roll stability (decreasing the tendency to go off on a wing) are all possibilities. So does anybody have a good feel for what design feature(s) of the smaller 3xx variants relative to other similarly-sized craft lead to greater Dutch roll tendencies? i.e. is the wing sweep significantly greater? Is the vert. stab. significantly taller, maybe to improve roll stability? Is it shorter-coupled than a 737, say? Or is the damper algorithm less (or even too) aggressive? Mike J. From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:58 From: "Buck Danny" Subject: PBY-5A Catalina (G-BLSG) Southampton accident in July Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber of Pacific Internet Please, I search some informations about Catalina PBY-5A G-BLSG accident during last July at Southampton. THANK YOU Buck Danny jacques_eledut@pacific.net.sg From kls Mon Nov 30 03:07:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:07:59 From: "pierre salazar" Subject: crash of peruvian 737/ may98 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Club-Internet (France) please excuse my poor technical english. I'm the son of captain salazar who crashed in may 98 on his 737 over peruvian jungle.state of mainas. this carrier was hired by peruvian army to take some workers of a petroleum company (occidental petroleum)to a platform in the middle of the jungle. if somebody can help me to understand what happened to him cause information about the crash seems to be intoxicated by peruvian army.another point is what are the international laws about insurances and how much is suppose to be the amount of this. all info about this in peru seems difficult to reach.as long as this happenned already 6 months ago, i will maybe need representation of a lawyer.can anyone of you bring his help? the only details that i have about the crash are strange but maybe some of you could bring a new light to it: the plane that he was flying was one of two 737 that peruvian airforce bought to India a few weeks before and that my father bring from there till Lima.Only 1 week later he crashed at , as long as i know , 5 km of landing. the 2 flight recorders are unreadable, the investigators said.several people survived. how can i , as his son, be able to have an acces to the official report? any detail or help will be welcome many thanks From kls Mon Nov 30 03:08:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:08:00 From: stephan@lac.inpe.br (Stephan Stephany LAC-CC) Subject: External inspection Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Concerning an airliner, who is in charge of the external inspection? The PIC/1st officer or some people from ground staff? Concerning the AeroPeru 757 crash (2/10/96): "Flight 603 took off from Lima Runway 15 at 12.42h am for a flight to Santiago. Five minutes after take-off the crew reported problems with their instruments and stated they wanted to return to the airport. During the initial climb, the airspeed and altitude indications were too low. In calm winds, the windshear warning suddenly sounded. The aircraft climbed to FL130, before a return to Lima was initiated. While returning, the captain's airpeed and altitude indications were too high, causing an overspeed warning. At the same time, the co-pilot's airspeed indications were too low, triggering the stickshaker. The aircraft kept descending and impacted the water with the left wing and no.1 engine at a 10 degrees angle, at a speed of 260kts. The aircraft pulled up to about 200ft and crashed inverted. The captain's airspeed indicated 450kts and altitude 9500ft. The aircraft had flown approx. 2630 cycles. Preliminary investigation results showed that the aircraft's three static ports on the left side were obstructed by masking tape. The tape had been applied before washing and polishing of the aircraft prior to the accident flight." The crew had no clue of altitude or airspeed (also the "backup" system was inoperative), but just out of curiosity: could some pressure indicator (if there is any) of the pressurization system had given to the crew an idea of the outside pressure and (in consequence) of the real altitude? Thanks, Stephan -- Dr. Stephan Stephany mailto:stephan@lac.inpe.br phone +55 12 345-6547 http://www.lac.inpe.br/~stephan LAC - Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory INPE - Brazilian Institute for Space Research BRAZIL From kls Mon Nov 30 03:08:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:08:01 From: jmaddaus@NO-SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Re: More 737 problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO-SPAMusa.net kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>What I have seen is pretty much another ageing airliner inspection. They want >>the aft bulkhead inspected for corrosion and wear. If this bulkhead fails, the >>pressurization fails, at best. > >At best or at worst? The 500+ people who were killed when the aft >bulkhead on a certain 747 failed illustrate the worst case. Any chance this could have been a factor in Colorado Springs or US427? I know they were both relatively low, but transition to/from pressurized altitude causes stresses, correct? If a failure had occurred in the bulkhead could it have impacted primary control movement cables, hydraulics, etc. during transition? For example, in US427, bulkhead intact but severely weakened, hits wake turbulence, pilot uses rudder, stress of turbulence on ac causes bulkhead to fail completely, jams cable or cuts hydraulics? Pure speculation, but just wondering. Also, do airlines (specifically UA or US since that is what I fly mostly) inspect the floor integrity, especially over the unpressurized cargo area. I'm all for flex but it is rather disconcerting to have a 100 lb or less FA walk by and have my seat dip noticeably especially on some of the older 727/737s. Seems to happen the most to me just forward of the wing leading edge. Better start setting height requirements for 777 FAs. Most have to stand on seats to close interior overheads:) jmaddaus@usa.net From kls Mon Nov 30 03:08:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Nov 98 03:08:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: More 737 problems? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>At best or at worst? The 500+ people who were killed when the aft >>bulkhead on a certain 747 failed illustrate the worst case. > Any chance this could have been a factor in Colorado Springs or >US427? I know they were both relatively low, but transition to/from >pressurized altitude causes stresses, correct? If a failure had >occurred in the bulkhead could it have impacted primary control >movement cables, hydraulics, etc. during transition? There are undoubtedly stresses during depressurization, but without the pressure differential you're not likely to have a spectacular failure. JL 123 (the 747 I referred to) was at FL240 when it's aft pressure bulkhead failed. The large volume of air suddenly vented into the APU compartment and vertical tail literally blew the aft end of the plane apart -- a fuzzy photograph taken from the ground reveals only the barest hints of a vertical tail. Even at that, it managed to stay in the air for over 32 minutes. In contrast, UA 585 (Colorado Springs) was at about 1100 feet AGL. At that altitude, the pressure differential wouldn't have produced enough pressure to do much other than show up on some gauges. US 427 was at about 6000 feet, but that's still not a huge pressure difference. In both accidents, they splattered in less than 30 seconds. In any case, even if there hadn't been parts found some distance from the main crash site (as every other explosive decompression I can think of), there surely would have been some evidence of such a failure, and none was found. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:07 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:07 From: MJones Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote: >The crew had no clue of altitude or airspeed (also the "backup" system >was inoperative), but just out of curiosity: could some pressure >indicator (if there is any) of the pressurization system had given to >the crew an idea of the outside pressure and (in consequence) of the >real altitude? There was most likely a static source available: Break the glass of the (stand-by, in this case) ASI. You would then have AS and altitude. Yes, the pilots would have to depressurize the cabin for the instruments to give meaningful numbers. Also, the radar altimeter, which operates below 2500 ft AGL operated fine. Even if they did not do this (or I am mistaken and this is not an option on the 757 for whatever reason), somewhat understandable perhaps with all of the conflicting info they were receiving and the numerous alarms adding to the confusion, it was still a manageable situation by ignoring the ASI and airdata altimeter, setting up low-cruise power on the engines (they certainly had looked at the power instruments often enough over the years to know what approximate power setting would give a reasonable AS) and flying the horizon, either real or gyro-artificial. They even did this for a while, until the pilot again attempted to go to auto control. IFR would add some complications, but AFAIK, it was VFR. The pilot (from the cvr transcript) was hopelessly confused, the copilot apparently less so but unable to overcome the pilot's mind-set. The pilot kept insisting on enabling the autopilot and auto throttles, even though that was exactly the wrong thing to do since the data feeding the autopilot was erroneous. Likewise by asking ATC for altitude info, since that altitude info would come from the aircraft's (erroneous) Mode-C transponder, the crew showed a lack of understanding of very basic precepts. By all accounts, enough information was available to allow a safe, if white-knuckled, return. My opinion only, of course. Judge for yourself. The transcript is available at http://www.avweb.com/other/peru603.html Mike Jones From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:08 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:08 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >IFR would add some complications, but AFAIK, it was VFR. According to the transcript you refered to, the flight took off at about 42 minutes past midnight, with the final recording at 01:11:16. Hardly VFR conditions. >Likewise by asking ATC for altitude info, since that altitude info >would come from the aircraft's (erroneous) Mode-C transponder, the crew >showed a lack of understanding of very basic precepts. True, though it's a lot easier to remember that while sitting in a comfortable office than when you're in the heat of battle, over the Pacific in the dark of night, with your key instruments having gone nuts. It's also increasingly the case that flight crews are trained in managing the automation, sacrificing basic systems knowledge, so they aren't equipped to deal with what happens when those systems fail you. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:09 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:09 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote: > Concerning an airliner, who is in charge of > the external inspection? The PIC/1st officer > or some people from ground staff? >From my observations on the ramp it seems to depend on the weather, on a nice sunny day you'll see the captain braving the elements, but if it's raining or snowing look for the FO or FE to be doing it :) Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:10 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:10 From: "Galen L. Hinshaw" Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ISPNews http://ispnews.com Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote in message ... >Concerning an airliner, who is in charge of >the external inspection? The PIC/1st officer >or some people from ground staff? The PIC is responsible for the preflight walkaround. >Concerning the AeroPeru 757 crash (2/10/96): > > Preliminary investigation results showed that the > aircraft's three static ports on the left side were obstructed by > masking tape. The tape had been applied before washing and polishing of > the aircraft prior to the accident flight." The FAA 9even though this was not in the US jurisdiction) has since required that any time a static port or pitot tube is covered, that it has a high-visibilty (red) streamer attached and a notation of the condition is made in the aircraft record so as to insure its removal prior to flight. >but just out of curiosity: could some pressure >indicator (if there is any) of the pressurization system had given to >the crew an idea of the outside pressure and (in consequence) of the >real altitude? Nope. The cabin pressurization system only indicates differential pressure between the exterior and interior of the aircraft, and cabin pressure altitude. A fast-thinking flight officer could WAG at the outside altitude at best by this, but by this time he's got too many bells and horns going on to allow time for even that. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:11 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:11 From: "john r." Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Stephan Stephany LAC-CC writes >Concerning an airliner, who is in charge of >the external inspection? The PIC/1st officer >or some people from ground staff? Its both, the ground crew would have had some form of pre departure check and one of the flight crew always does a walk round. Both these checks should have found the blanks. >Concerning the AeroPeru 757 crash (2/10/96): > >The crew had no clue of altitude or airspeed (also the "backup" system >was inoperative), but just out of curiosity: could some pressure >indicator (if there is any) of the pressurization system had given to >the crew an idea of the outside pressure and (in consequence) of the >real altitude? The crew were disoriented, what info do you believe? They always had the rad alt system for altitude below 2,500ft. -- john r. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:12 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:12 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash...Uranium References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I apologize if this was already discussed, but why is uranium even used? Matt Student Pilot Seattle, Washington Favorite Aircraft: Hawker 125-800XP, 757-224, Agusta 109. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:13 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:13 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On Mon Nov 30 13:39:25 1998, hatcat@aol.com (HatCat) wrote:- > Uranium does get used as a ballast weight and the 747 does use them. I > don't know if that's standard on all makes and models but, in any case, > the uranium used is "depleted uranium" which is not usually radioactive > above measurable normal background levels. If it retains residual > radioactivity, it would be of a very, very, low order. By coincidence, in The Guardian last Friday there was an article about uranium glass. (The article mentioned one of the staff at Sizewell B as being a keen collector! :-) Apparently, the addition of a little bit of uranium oxide to the melt can produce vivid yellow, green and magenta (depending on quantity). The amounts of uranium present vary from tiny traces up to 3%. Since this was popular since early Victorian times, it presumably used non-depleted uranium. Its popularity declined after 1945 (surprise! :-). The collector in question goes around antique sales with a geiger counter looking for suitable items. Alternatively, if he is at a car-boot sale, he waits until dusk and looks for the eery glow! :-) Peter Mellor, Centre for Software Reliability, City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK. Tel: +44 (171) 477-8422, Fax: +44 (171) 477-8585 E-mail: p.mellor@csr.city.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:14 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:14 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash 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 30 Nov 98 03:07:35 , in , HatCat wrote: >Uranium does get used as a ballast weight and the 747 does use them. I >don't know if that's standard on all makes and models but, in any case, >the uranium used is "depleted uranium" which is not usually radioactive >above measurable normal background levels. If it retains residual >radioactivity, it would be of a very, very, low order. Running rapidly off topic, but you would be surprised at how much radiation comes off a piece of depleted uranium. I have one in my cupboard at work, and I can see about 50 uSv/hr gamma rays on the surface. Not exactly background. >I wonder how many people exhibited symptoms before the word "uranium" >got used in the media? Not that I think they had malicious intent, just >that many people start imagining all sorts of ailments if a handy cause >seems at hand. That's another matter, and one that is very plausible. -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:15 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:15 From: "Johan Eertink" Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: National Aerospace Laboratory NLR saccani@pc.jaring.my wrote in message ... >cowboy@ram.net.au wrote: >>A media beat up. The aeroplane will fly on two engines so why not fly >>to an aerodrome and land rather than to a lake and ditch. >My understanding was that the aircraft would fly with 2 engines shut >down, as opposed to 2 engines on the same side missing (at the weight >in question). The associated loss of the No.3 & No.4 hydraulic >systems in an extreme assymetric configuration was not considered when >designing the aircraft to cope with 2 engines out on the same side. >In a 2 engine out situation, the No.3 & No.4 ADP would function, even >if the engine was not windmilling to power the EDP. The reduction in >rudder authority from the loss of half the hydraulic systems means >that the situtation you describe below would appear inevitable, >considering the speed the aircraft was at when the engines departed. In addition, the engines coming off damaged the flaps on that side of the a/c. When the pilots lowered the flaps on approach, they only extended on the undamaged wing, causing an extreme and unexpected roll. On the health/radiation problems: The NL Parliament has ordered an parliamentary investigation on what happened _after_ the crash. Johan Eertink National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Amsterdam From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:16 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:16 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium John Wright (john@nospam.demon.co.uk) wrote: : When I was briefly associated with British Airways in the field of : radiation protection*, the only aircraft that I was aware of in the BA : fleet that used depleted uranium mass balance weights was the L-1011. : BA's fleet at the time included the -100 -200 and -400 versions of the : Boeing 747, not to mention 737-200, 737-400, 757, and 767 amongst a host : of others. : Mass balance weights are used to increase the flutter speed of an A recent article about the 747 in Airways (I think, I don't have it with me) mentionjed the use of depleted uranium in the _cowling orengine lining of the JTD9. The jumbo was plagued by lotsof engine trouble in hte early years, including _ovalisation of the engine. The use of Uranium was to combat the 'unround situation'. I do not know if that is still the case. : aircraft's flying controls, and as such must be matched to the control. : This occasionally requires machining and other operations on them and if : they are depleted uranium special facilities must be provided so this : can be done safely. I think it would be relevant to mention the version of 747 that crashed. I think it was a converted older model. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:17 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:17 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I think it would be relevant to mention the version of 747 that crashed. I >think it was a converted older model. The El Al accident aircraft was a 747-258F(SCF), registraion 4X-AXG, sn 21737, ln 362. It first flew on March 15, 1979, so it was about 13.5 years old at the time of the crash -- not real old, but not brand new, either. Early on, possibly as built, it had a 800,000 lbs MGTOW and was equipped with JT9D-7F engines. At the time of the crash it had undergone a slight upgrade to 812,000 lbs MGTOW and JT9D-7J engines, but otherwise was as built. (In particular, it was built as a freighter and not converted from a passenger model.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:18 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:18 From: Geno Rice Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet HatCat wrote: > Uranium does get used as a ballast weight and the 747 does use them. I > don't know if that's standard on all makes and models but, in any case, > the uranium used is "depleted uranium" which is not usually radioactive > above measurable normal background levels. If it retains residual > radioactivity, it would be of a very, very, low order. Depleted uranium is just as radioactive as regular uranium, it's just had the fissionable U235 removed. After all, if the U235 were significantly more radioactive that U238, it wouldn't exist in nature. And its radiation is measurable. This is not to say that it is very radioactive or dangerous. In fact, since uranium is the heaviest natural element and the world is 4 billion years old, no uranium would exist if it were highly radioactive; in fact uranium is not uncommon. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:19 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:19 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Depleted uranium is just as radioactive as regular uranium, it's just >had the fissionable U235 removed. Not quite. If you remove more highly radioactive ("fissionable") material, you can't possibly end up with something that's just as radioactive as what you started with. >After all, if the U235 were significantly more radioactive that U238, >it wouldn't exist in nature. No, it would just exist in smaller quantities (assuming you started off with equal quantities), which is exactly what is observed in nature. The folks at Los Alamos National Laboratory, who know a fair bit about radioactive materials, have a very nice periodic table of the elements on one of their web sites. The Uranium entry is at http://cst.lanl.gov/CST/imagemap/periodic/92.html Here's what they say about the nominal mix, by weight, of naturally occuring uranium, along with the half-life of each isotope: isotope natural % half-life ------- --------- --------- 238 99.28305 4.46e9 yr 235 0.7110 7.04e8 yr 234 0.0054 2.45e5 yr other 0.00055 LANL only lists the half-life for 238U (at 4.51e9 yr) so I got them from http://www.shef.ac.uk/chemistry/web-elements/nofr-radio/U.html. Depleted uranium, according to LANL, has only about 0.2% 235U. If you calculated the weighted-average half-life of the uranium in what occurs naturally, then do the same for depleted uranium, the half-life goes up by about 0.43% or 20,000 years. Not a whole lot, but it's not quite as radioactive as the natural ore. >And its radiation is measurable. Yep, LANL says "natural uranium is sufficiently radioactive to expose a photographic plate in an hour or so." -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:20 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: Cntl-Alt-Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@gte.net Louis Krupp wrote: > In 1995, I was listening to channel 9 on a United 767 as we were > pushed back from the gate in Paris. There was an electrical > problem, and we were going nowhere. The captain turned the > plane off and then back on, and away we went. Aloha, I thought it took about 20 mins. to initialize the inertial navigation system if the power was off. I learned this when I pulled to plug too soon. Not a good move on my part Regards, Hugh From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:21 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Cntl-Alt-Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AvCom Digital In article , Louis Krupp wrote: > The captain turned the >plane off and then back on, and away we went. The reason this is done is that it's often quicker to shutdown the entire airplane than to find all the circuit breakers that might be involved with resetting a system. CB's are often cryptically labeled and seldom co-located. Resetting in this manner works for all airplanes with lots of electronics; Boeing, McD, Airbus, Lockheed... none are immune. David G. Davidson http://home.earthlink.net/~tristar500 From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:22 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Cntl-Alt-Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Louis Krupp writes >David Lesher wrote: >> After we were seated, the captain announced he needed to "turn off >> the lights for a minute..." and then proceeded to reboot the entire >> aircraft. Not even emergency exit lighting stayed on; the only >> illumination was via the open door and the jetway. >> I think I'll stick to Boeing in the future... I have had to do this as a last resort on both the 747-400 and the 777 when they were first introduced. It a last resort as you can cause as many problems as you cure! Also a 777 takes near 5 min. to boot up!.. -- john r. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:23 From: m.fiddler.NOSPAM@staffs.ac.uk (Martin Fiddler) Subject: Re: Cntl-Alt-Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Staffs University, UK Hi, I was interested in your story. A couple of years ago In a similar vein: I was an an Air Lanka A340 and that also had to be re-booted (the Capt said he needed to turn the lights off for a moment). I visited the flight deck later and the pilots said they were getting an ECAM error that a fuel valve was open, even though it wasn't. Ours was a soft-reboot - the emergency lighting came on (although I'm surprised it didn't in your case: total power failure = emergency lights on I'd have thought). Interestingly, the IRSs did not need to be re-alligned - they have a separate power supply I was told. Two minutes after the reboot we were taxiing to the runway - I guess an IRS re-allign would take about 15 minutes. I posted my story somewhere, but I can't remember where. [Moderator's Note: Go to http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html and search for 'subject/Fiddler and "Air Lanka"' sans the outer quotes. -- Karl] Martin From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:24 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 30 Nov 98 03:07:45 , Niraj Agarwalla wrote: >On 20 Nov 1998, MAC wrote: >> Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >> engine problems? >> >> Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >> because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? > > Every new aircraft types gets a few teething problems. BA had big >problems with their GE90-equipped 777s. It got to the point that >BA decided on the RR engines to equip their next batch of 777s. I find this very interesting. GE now advertises the highest reliabliity of any 777 engine with the GE90, and frankly, I have never heard any complaint about the GE90 from anyone other than BA. BA is certainly not the only operator. I have to wonder if the comlaints weren't a smoke screen. If you remember UA claimed to be disappointed with the 777's reliablity, yet it turned out to be a good deal higher 'out of the box' than the 747-400. Does anyone have any actual statistics on the reliablity of the GE90 versus the RR Trent 800 and PW4000 equipped 777's? I suspect the reason for BA's return to RR was political rather than technical, just as the original decision wasn't technical. BA doesn't fly their 777's on long enough legs (nor did they buy enough MGTOW) for the GE90 to be especially attractive. Unless you are going to be routinely flying sectors longer than about 10 hours, the RR engine is the most attractive because it weighs the least (by about 6000 pounds per ship set over a pair of GE90's). From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:25 From: tjarko@dutlbcz.lr.tudelft.nl (Tjarko de Jong) Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology On 30 Nov 98 03:07:44 , Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) wrote: >In article , >MAC wrote: >>Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >>engine problems? >> >>Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >>because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? > >Perhaps you were just unlucky. The engine dispatch reliability and >inflight shutdown rate of the P&W engines on UA's B777s are very >similar to those on other earlier twin-engine planes. The former rate is >well into the high 99% range, and the latter is comfortably below the >ETOPS-required rate of 0.02 per 1,000 engine flight hours. I don't mean >to say the engines are problem free (because they are not), but I don't >believe there are any serious abnormalities. But the ETOPS rate is for in-flight shutdown, in order to keep this at an high level you might need more preventive maintanance on the ground. Or more tests. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:26 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Niraj Agarwalla wrote: >On 20 Nov 1998, MAC wrote: > >> Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >> engine problems? >> >> Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >> because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? > > Every new aircraft types gets a few teething problems. BA had big >problems with their GE90-equipped 777s. It got to the point that >BA decided on the RR engines to equip their next batch of 777s. I don't believe BA's choice of RR engines for the newly ordered B777s is solely based on problems with the GE90. On paper, the GE90 actually has better reliability numbers than the Trent 800. However, I believe that's because GE is "babying" the engines in field. BA cancelled 8 RR-powered B747-400s (IIRC) before ordering the new batch of 16 B777-200ERs. BA would have to pay RR a significant penalty for the cancelled RB.211 engine orders if they did not order the Trent for the new B777s. Furthermore, BA wanted 95K-lb thrust engines for the new high gross weight B777. RR had committed to developing the higher thrust engines a few months before BA's latest B777 order while GE was only willing to go up to 93K by updating the high-pressure compressor (which was going to be done anyway even if BA did not order the GE90). Also, BA has outsourced the B777 engine maintenance. Thus, having two engine types do not really add a lot of costs (as long as favorable maintenance contracts have been negotiated). Nevertheless, BA's switch does hurt GE90's credibility and future viability. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:27 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: UA 777 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 30 Nov 98 03:07:45 , in , Niraj Agarwalla wrote: >On 20 Nov 1998, MAC wrote: > >> Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >> engine problems? >> >> Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >> because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? > > Every new aircraft types gets a few teething problems. BA had big >problems with their GE90-equipped 777s. It got to the point that >BA decided on the RR engines to equip their next batch of 777s. There's also the point that while the GE engine is more fuel efficient than the RR (or the P&W), it is so much heavier you need a 10 hour stage to make the costs balance - did I read that in this group? I might have done. BA will thus probably find the RR engined 777 quite a bit cheaper to operate particularly if it keeps its long stages for the 747-400 -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:28 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 30 Nov 98 03:07:45 , Niraj Agarwalla caused to appear as if it was written: >On 20 Nov 1998, MAC wrote: > >> Am I right in thinking that UA is suffering high costs because of 777 >> engine problems? >> >> Out of 8 flights in the last year I have had 4 delays or cancellations >> because of engine related problems...am I unlucky or typical? > > Every new aircraft types gets a few teething problems. BA had big >problems with their GE90-equipped 777s. It got to the point that >BA decided on the RR engines to equip their next batch of 777s. Don't be too sure that the decision to go with the Trent's for the next 777's was caused by problems with the GE90's. Other factors include the dramatically lower weight (which makes the Trent significantly more economical for flights up to about 10 hours, whereupon the GE90's start becoming much cheaper), politics (keeping British jobs in a pro-labor Labour government), and possibly other issues, hypothetically commonality with the AA fleet! Malc. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:29 From: zirkball@aol.com (Zirkball) Subject: Calculating best alt Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Is there a formula airline dispatchers use for assigning best altitudes given distance between cities? Assuming a no wind situation, what would it be? It appears that for flights 100 miles apart 16-18000 seems to be the norm, for for 200NM, 22000 seems normal. Any thoughts? Zirkball From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:30 From: ki Subject: CVR Analysis Software Companies? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Interlog Internet Services Could anyone advise which are the prime organizations (US-based) that conduct cockpit voice recorder/flight data recorder analysis and accident reconstruction simulation and/or analysis? Any response to ki@interlog.com would be much appreciated. Thank-you. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:31 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@gte.net Onat Ahmet wrote: > Does that mean the dutch roll tendency diminishes as the fuelage > length increases? But how about the flexing of the fuselage because > of the dutch roll; these should introduce some delayed rudder (fin!) input > and perhaps aggravate the situation? So, perhaps the flexing offsets the > advantages of a longer moment arm? Aloha, Compare the fin on a regular 747 against a -SP. Hugh From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:32 From: johnmhunt@ipa.net (John M. Hunt) Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Internet Partners of America MJones wrote: >>As it is a function of sweep back above a certain angle ,what you observed, >>developing regularly and appearing to be almost permanent, is normal. > >Dutch roll is by no means confined to planes with swept wings, although >wing sweep on planes so configured certainly is a contributor. A high >slip-roll coupling, due to wing sweep, dihedral or interference effects, an >'oversized' vert. stab. perhaps included to improve roll stability >(decreasing the tendency to go off on a wing) are all possibilities. In reasonably direct connection with this subject, exactly how difficult is it for commercial airline pilots at the bottom end of the coordination skill/"stick and rudder" range to make multi-hour flights without assistance of the yaw damper? Is it a minor nuisance or a major distraction? Is departure with an inoperative yaw damper legal? I am, of course, referring to the swept wing fan jets, not straight wing turboprops. John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:33 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Not all long range airplanes have dump systems. The 767 and 757 are long range and yet most do not have dump capability. Only 767-300 models and then not all 300's. All aircraft must demonstrate a landing with a max fuel load anyway (even when they have a dump system) to be certified. If an overweight landing is made a maintenance inspection must be done. The FAR's describe when dump systems are required and I believe Boeing obtained a waiver to certify the 757 and 767 without such systems. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:34 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM James Matthew Weber wrote: > A 737-400 has a MGTOW of 138,500 pounds, and MLW of 121,000 pounds > -500 has an MGTOW of 115,500 and MLW of 110,000. > > Even if you have to return to the field immediately after takeoff, you > are looking at landing weight that is at most 10% over max.. You can > often burn off the excess weight fairly quickly, It would take quite a while to burn off 17,500 pounds to get down to MLW after a max weight take off. 17,500 pounds is enough to get half way across the country. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:35 From: Randy Leonhart Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Motorola CIG Alan Browne wrote: > Did the -100/-200/-300 have fuel dump capability? Yes the 100/200/300 does have fuel dump.. 100 for sure.. I seen it happen!!! From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:36 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I guess the fuel dump question didn't interest me as much as other threads until this message which raises a point I could avoid asking about... The best "field" test to determine if AVGAS has jet fuel contamination is the "white paper spot" test (my convoluted naming) where a pilot takes a drop of AVGAS and places it on a dry, clean piece of white paper...if the fuel drop evaporates there is no Jet fuel....if a visible spot remains, there is.... So the question raised is, If this test works (and it does!), and if a small bit of Jet Fuel contained in a sample of AVGAS will persist on the paper for any extended period (and it does!) then how accurate are the claims in the several Bluecoat posts that 1000s of pounds of Jet dispensed at altitude will "vaporize" before falling to earth.... I think we have overstated the propensity of kerosene to evaporate... and believe that dumping can't be as environmentally clean as suggested. I far better like the over weight landing option (when feasible) in terms of the longevity of the greater numbers of living things. From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:37 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM James Matthew Weber wrote: > > On 03 Nov 98 02:05:40 , jbarnold57@aol.com (JBArnold57) wrote: > >What happens to the dumped fuel? Does much of it evaporate on the way down? > >Does it ever cause any particular problems on the ground (or water)? > > It evaporates, eventually if the weather is warm, otherwise it can be > around for a long time. Vapor pressure on JetA isn't very high, so it > doesn't evaporate all that easily. It isn't gasoline. > > There was an incident at JFK not long ago (last month). If the > weather isn't warm, it will take a long time to evaporate, and a > neighborhood around JFK aparently smelled lke a jet fuel depot for a > few days. Locals were NOT happy. I think it was an AA D10 on the way > to the carribean that took some birds on takeoff.. Sounds like an incident at BWI some months ago, a World Airways DC-10 departed but had to return allegedly because a 14 month old child had choked on some chewing gum. Story has it that one of the dump valves failed to close prior to landing which resulted in fuel be released all the way to the ground. Now this should NEVER HAVE HAPPENED, I mean what kind of idiot gives chewing gum to a 14 month old child?? Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:38 From: Patt Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: / - \ A couple of comments regarding fuel dumping... The 727 has standpipes in the tanks, which limit the fuel dumped even if the F/E is distracted and leaves the dump valves open. It's been years, and I don't have my 727 AFM available (help!), but I recall if you dump to the standpipes, the system will dump down to around 2,200 lbs per tank (2.2 x 3 = 6.6 lbs). Taking into account unusable fuel, fuel gage error (+/- 3% allowed on Smith Ind. digital gages), minimum fuel required for go-around (pitch angle) etc., that ain't much fuel! When conditions permitted a return to the departure airport I'd tell the F/E in the event of an engine failure on take-off "surprize me how quick you can dump to 10,000 lbs, and.... I want to see kerosene on the far end of the runway when we return". That's an exaggeration, but I did want to impress on the F/E to start dumping immediately. On another note, in the summer of '88 I took off out of EWR going to AUA with a full load of pax and fuel at max T.O. weight. On climb out, one of the LE slats would not retract, necessitating a return. We called NY apch and told them we needed to dump down to landing weight and return to EWR. I expected to be vectored out over the ocean to dump, but was given a clearance to hold about 30 miles SW of EWR (over Solberg if memory serves). So... we dumped 35,000 lbs of fuel over that area. On the ground, I called NY approach control on the phone and asked why we didn't dump the fuel over water rather than over a populated area. The response from the controller was... "the EPA raises hell and will not allow dumping over water". No telling how many square miles of NJ/PA we defoliated with 35,000 lbs of jet fuel at 6,000' in a holding pattern. Patt From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:39 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Dihedral on Horizontal Tail Surfaces References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. SteveK1957 wrote: > The F-4 has the anhedral in the tail to counter the dihedral in the > outboard panels of the wing which were bent up for ground clearance on > carrier decks. You've got it backwards - the F-4 has tail anhedral to get the horizontal tail down below the wing wake during the landing approach to a carrier. The wing dihedral was added late in the game to to counter the effect of the horizontal tail anhedral on the aircraft's S&C. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:40 From: arch6@mail.inlink.com (arch) Subject: Re: Dihedral on Horizontal Tail Surfaces References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McK&A In article , stevek1957@aol.com (SteveK1957) wrote: > Dihedral in both wing and tail increase the tendency for the airplane to roll > due to sideslip which can agrivate Dutch Roll. The same tendency is caused by > wing and tail sweep. I suspect the reason for dihedral in the airliner > horizontal tails has more to do with getting the tails out of the wing wake to > reduce tail buffet than increasing the roll tendency. There is usualy plenty > of roll due to sideslip in most airliners. The F-4 has the anhedral in the > tail to counter the dihedral in the outboard panels of the wing which were bent > up for ground clearance on carrier decks. I disagree with the implication that if one has dihedral the other should counter with anhedral. The tail sections are often a combination of trade-offs in active area, coupling with the wing vortices and stall, and strong hinge-point availability. Anhedral and dihedral are just one of many trades. Dihedral, while increasing dutch roll tendencies at cruise, does increase overall stability of the system compared to horizontal or anhedral. Anhedral is more "risky" but, in the case of the F-4, allowed for a smaller vertical stabilizer and took the place of lower fuselage strakes for stability at speed. That is, the vertical projection of the combined surfaces (wingtips bent up, anhedral horizontal stab, and vertical stab) simulated a very large vertical stabilizer area and allowed the same F-4 to be short enough to "go below" on the carrier hangar deck where vertical clearance is an issue. The F-4 wingtips were bent up for supersonic stability. If there were a horizontal area clearance thing with the Navy then the whole wing would have been elevated. Additionally, weapons loading at such a low height made slinging missiles and bombs up from deck racks to weapon racks easier, except where the wing did not allow the ordies to stand up and the had to hump a weapon up while bent over. As it was the bent section of wing tip folded vertical to increase storage availability on the carrier deck and the wing tips were only dropped for the launcha and recovery phases. The F/A-18 wingtips also fold up for the same space saving reasons but the tips go full horizontal for flight. Unfortunately the F/A-18 also has missile racks on the ends of those wingtips and folding wings puts the missile and rack way up in the air (try pinning that rack or lifting up a missile to load it there). From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:41 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re-engining 747s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Atlas Air has contracted with Boeing to get two 747-200s re-engined, with the original JT9D-7J engines being replaced with CF6-50E-2s. The reason given was fleet commonality. See http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/981201/ka_boeing__1.html. To my knowledge, this is the first time a 747 is re-engined; is this correct? (ie not counting engine upgrades such as eg on Cathay's RB211-engined 747s.) Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >To my knowledge, this is the first time a 747 is re-engined; is this correct? >(ie not counting engine upgrades such as eg on Cathay's RB211-engined 747s.) I can think of two other examples, both 747-121 models, which of course were built with Pratts. One (ln 1) got a RR Trent, at least in the #2 (or was it #3?) position, while another (ln 25) got a GE90 for #2. Ok, so they were both flight testing 777 engines, but they are 747s and they have been (partly) re-engined! There are a fair number of examples of re-engining, both minor upgrades (such as the CX 747s you mention or many early 747s which ended up with newer JT9D variants) or major ones (such as the DC-8-70 series with CFM-56 engines or the RR Tay upgrades for the 727). I can only think of three cases prior to the Atlas planes, however, where jetliners underwent a major re-enginging not for efficiency but simply for convenience: * The sole 707-700 (built with CFM-56 engines) was converted to 707-320 spec, complete with old JT3D or JT4A engines. * Airbus converted at least one A330 between RB.211 and PW4000 engines. I can't remember which was first but it was a flight test aircraft for both engine types. Might have been an artifact of crashing one of the PW4000-equipped flight test planes. * One or more MD-11s were converted between GE and Pratt prior to delivery to someone in the Middle East. (I'm not certain about this example. Any others? -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Mon Dec 7 23:19:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Dec 98 23:19:43 From: roya@inair.com (Roy Ashkenaz) Subject: Seasonal/Annual equivalent head wind data Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INAIR Inc. Seasonal/Annual equivalent head wind data I have a 1992 Boeing document "Winds on United States Domestic Air Routes" which contains tabular data to compute seasonal and annual equivalent head winds along routes at specific altitudes. Boeing does not have this data on CD. They have a PCWindTemp program which did the calculations in their document - but it will obviously take some time learning how to use the program, creating the data, etc. The software license cost is reasonable ($10K), but out of my budget. Does anyone know where I could obtain similar data on CD, etc. Thanks, Roy Ashkenaz ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Roy Ashkenaz INAIR Inc. Director of QA & Test 18221 Edison Avenue email: roya@inair.com Chesterfield, MO 63005 web: http://www.inair.com phone: (314) 530-9109 fax: (314) 530-1185 From news Mon Nov 23 17:12:58 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: ILFC chooses A318 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Message-ID: <73cmcu$c8u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 23:15:55 GMT ILFC has apparently selected the Airbus A318 over the Boeing 717-200 (nee Douglas MD-95), and signed a MOU with Airbus for a possible order for up to 30. You can see an Airbus press release with more details at http://www.airbus.com/news_news.html#00240 Certainly NOT good news for the 717, which still has only the original ValuJet/Airtran order for 50, plus 5 for lessor Bavaria. Perhaps not so surprising, given that ILFC already has lots of A320-family aircraft on its roster, but still bad news. 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 Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From news Mon Nov 23 18:36:40 1998 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.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: Re: ILFC chooses A318 Date: 23 Nov 1998 16:48:17 PST Organization: Concentric Internet Services Approved: chuanga@cris.com Message-ID: <73cvoh$70s@journal.concentric.net> References: <73cmcu$c8u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> In article <73cmcu$c8u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, wrote: >ILFC has apparently selected the Airbus A318 over the Boeing 717-200 (nee >Douglas MD-95), and signed a MOU with Airbus for a possible order for up to >30. You can see an Airbus press release with more details at >http://www.airbus.com/news_news.html#00240 > >Certainly NOT good news for the 717, which still has only the original >ValuJet/Airtran order for 50, plus 5 for lessor Bavaria. Perhaps not so >surprising, given that ILFC already has lots of A320-family aircraft on its >roster, but still bad news. > Definitely not a good news for the B717. Nevertheless, the ILFC order is smaller than an earlier speculation of 50 firm + 50 options. Airbus says the aircraft will be launched earlier next year. I think they are still waiting for NW to make a commitment. The potential NW order that I heard ranges from 100 to 200 (including options) to replace around 100 DC-9-30s that NW currently operates. From dejanews Wed Dec 23 02:30:00 1998 Subject: SR111 findings From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:32:04 EDT Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Message-ID: <366fe1d5.4321589@news.goodnet.com>; Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:32:04 EDT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 913390324 209.192.160.22 (Fri, 11 Dec 1998 10:32:04 EDT) The current edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports some interesting finds in the SR111 investigation. 1). All fire damage so far seems to be in the 'crown of the aircraft above the cockpit-cabin bulkhead'. So far no evidence of heat damage has been found in the Avionics bay. 2). About 80% of the aircraft has been recovered. 3). The No 2 enginer 'was not producing power when the engine struck the water'. It isn't clear to me what the meaning of this statement. Was the engine not running at all, or was it at Flight Idle? In any event it is a somewhat surprising finding (Engines 1 and 3 were running when they hit the water). Tihs information comes from post crash examination of the engines rather than FDR or FADEC non-volatile memory data. From dejanews Wed Dec 23 02:30:00 1998 Subject: Re: SR111 findings From: tjbueld@netside.de (Thomas J. Bueld) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 16:09:34 EDT Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Message-ID: <3671A25D.4CB94CFB@netside.de>; Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 16:09:34 EDT Organization: Nacamar Group Plc. References: <366fe1d5.4321589@news.goodnet.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 913496974 209.192.160.22 (Sat, 12 Dec 1998 16:09:34 EDT) James Matthew Weber schrieb: >; The current edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports some >; interesting finds in the SR111 investigation. >; >; 1). All fire damage so far seems to be in the 'crown of the aircraft >; above the cockpit-cabin bulkhead'. So far no evidence of heat damage >; has been found in the Avionics bay. >; >; 2). About 80% of the aircraft has been recovered. >; >; 3). The No 2 enginer 'was not producing power when the engine struck >; the water'. It isn't clear to me what the meaning of this statement. >; Was the engine not running at all, or was it at Flight Idle? In any >; event it is a somewhat surprising finding (Engines 1 and 3 were >; running when they hit the water). Tihs information comes from post >; crash examination of the engines rather than FDR or FADEC non-volatile >; memory data. 3. Fuel is transfered by electrical (AC) fuel pumps to the respective engines. the center engine is mounted above the fuel tank level. so its fuel supply depends on electric (AC) power supply to the pumps, while the wing mounted engines will continue runnning by gravity fuel supply in the event of electrical power loss. In consequence a failed center engine is an indication of electrical (AC) power failure of the aircraft. From dejanews Wed Dec 23 02:30:00 1998 Subject: Re: SR111 findings From: dpullan@nb.sympatico.ca (Dave Pullan) Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:37:57 EDT Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Message-ID: <01be2628$3203a6c0$2861a4c6@dpullan.nbnet.nb.ca>; Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:37:57 EDT Organization: NBTel Internet References: <366fe1d5.4321589@news.goodnet.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 913520277 209.192.160.22 (Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:37:57 EDT) James Matthew Weber ; wrote in article <366fe1d5.4321589@news.goodnet.com>;... >; 3). The No 2 enginer 'was not producing power when the engine struck >; the water'. It isn't clear to me what the meaning of this statement. >; Could the no. 2 need an electric fuel boost pump, considering it is so above the fuel tanks while the nos. 1 and 3 are below? If so, no electrics means no fuel (or can eng driven fuel pump suction feed this far?) Dave Pullan From dejanews Wed Dec 23 02:30:00 1998 Subject: Re: SR111 findings From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:37:53 EDT Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Message-ID: ; Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:37:53 EDT Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <366fe1d5.4321589@news.goodnet.com> <3671A25D.4CB94CFB@netside.de> Sender: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 913520273 209.192.160.22 (Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:37:53 EDT) In article <3671A25D.4CB94CFB@netside.de>; "Thomas J. Bueld" ; writes: >;3. Fuel is transfered by electrical (AC) fuel pumps to the respective >;engines. the center engine is mounted above the fuel tank level. so its >;fuel supply depends on electric (AC) power supply to the pumps, while the >;wing mounted engines will continue runnning by gravity fuel supply in the >;event of electrical power loss. In consequence a failed center engine is >;an indication of electrical (AC) power failure of the aircraft. On Boeing aircraft, the manifold providing fuel under pressure to the engine is typically driven by two or more AC pumps powered by AC systems not coupled to that engine. Depending on the pump, the AC systems involved can include both primary AC busses as well as the essential power bus. On the 727, all three engines, which are mounted above the fuel tanks, have a suction-feed system, in addition to the AC pumps. The 737, 747, and DC-9 work much the same way. Now, nothing would surprise me when it comes to the DC-10 or its descendant, but I have a big problem believing that engine failure is used as an indicator of AC failure. Is your comment based on familiarity with the actual aircraft type? -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From dejanews Tue Dec 22 21:30:00 1998 Subject: Re: SR111 findings From: tjbueld@netside.de (Thomas J. Bueld) Date: 13 Dec 1998 21:52:55 EDT Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry, sci.aeronautics.airliners Message-ID: <36736749.59ABFFDF@netside.de> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 21:52:55 EDT Organization: Nacamar Group Plc. References: <366fe1d5.4321589@news.goodnet.com> <01be2628$3203a6c0$2861a4c6@dpullan.nbnet.nb.ca> X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Trace: news.shore.net 913603975 209.192.160.22 (Sun, 13 Dec 1998 21:52:55 EDT) Showing an extraction of the MD-11 Flight Operation Manual : Engine feed system "Each engine is normally supplied with fuel from its respektive main tank. Tank 1 and 3, have 3 pumps each, 1 forward and 1 aft boost pump, and 1 transfer pump. The tail engine is fed from tank 2 which contains 4 fuel pumps, 2 aft boost pumps, 1 forward boost pump and 1 transfer pump. ----Suction feed can be accomplished for the wing engines only.--- The transfer pumps supply fuel directly to the crossfeed manifold. A DC powered APU start pump is also installed in tank 2. In each tank, the pumps are all powered from different electrical buses. --- In case of a total electrical failure, the LH aft boost pump in tank 2 can be powered trom the air-driven generator (ADG)---" --- Remark for the ADG "Air driven Generator": This device is a kind of a windmilled, additional generator, which can be extended into airstream to produce AC current in case of all engine driven generators failure. The ADG is (almost) hardwired to the left hand aft fuel pump of tank 2. The ADG can be used for restarting the No.2 engine after i.e. an "All Engine Flameout" due to volcanic ash encounter or other reasons causing all engines to fail. It is not likely that the SR Pilots had time to go through the respective action checklists. Also, a failed engine is not a handicap for a save landing and might not even be noticed by the pilots, if there is a complete instrument failure or vision handicaps like smoke in the cockpit. Additional engine driven pumps (by gear) can maintain sufficent fuel pressure to the wing engines with the electric (Tank) pumps not working. BTW I am an MD-11 Captain, flying this aircraft since 1991. Dave Pullan schrieb: > James Matthew Weber wrote in article > <366fe1d5.4321589@news.goodnet.com>... > > 3). The No 2 enginer 'was not producing power when the engine struck > > the water'. It isn't clear to me what the meaning of this statement. > > > > Could the no. 2 need an electric fuel boost pump, considering it is so > above the fuel tanks while the nos. 1 and 3 are below? If so, no electrics > means no fuel (or can eng driven fuel pump suction feed this far?) > Dave Pullan From dejanews Tue Dec 22 21:30:00 1998 Subject: Re: WS Journal and SR 111 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Date: 18 Dec 1998 07:56:17 EDT Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Message-ID: <75b4vm$mok$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 07:56:17 EDT Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion References: <19981216131022.19346.00000130@ng10.aol.com> X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Dec 17 14:37:42 1998 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse@shore.net X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x12.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 138.220.207.58 X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.02 (WinNT; I) X-Trace: news.shore.net 913985777 209.192.160.22 (Fri, 18 Dec 1998 07:56:17 EDT) riverline@aol.com (Riverline) wrote: > The Wall Street Journal has an article on SR 111 in its DC16 edition. It is > very disturbing. [....] > the focus of the article is SR trained its pilots to go by a checklist, and > ignore items not on the checklist. [....] > My sense in reading the article was the SR pilots were trained and precise, > following the checklist perfectly, but failed to understand the gravity of > their situation. It's easy to second-guess after the fact. After all, we know how things turned out. The question is: with the information available to them at the time, did the pilots react in a reasonable way? From what we know of on-board conditions, it does seem that the problem seemed rather minor for some time, and then suddenly flared. Unless that sudden flaring was predictable, is it not reasonable for the pilots to try to minimize the danger of running an airplane full of passengers and fuel off the end of the runway by coming in too fast and too heavy? Now, checklists exist for a reason. It's easy to forget crucial items, especially when you're under stress. Take a look at the chapter on the BOAC 707 engine fire in McArthur Job's book on aviation disasters, for instance (Vol.1). You can't predict the forms that all problems will take, and so you can't write checklists for everything. But you can take advantage of past experience and detailed knowledge of aircraft systems to come up with checklists for many situations. Yes, pilots should deviate from checklists if the situation warrants it. Having said all that, one can certainly question whether the current approach to trouble-shooting potential fire-on-board situations is wise. Methodically switching off circuits and waiting to see if the smoke abates strikes me as very time consuming and prone to error. And indeed, some airlines have switched to a "get on the ground ASAP and then we'll talk" policy. But even that approach -- perhaps especially that -- would require checklists. So frankly, it seems to me that the WSJ is focusing on the wrong aspect. Especially since it's a safe bet that if the pilots had ignored the checklists and something had gone wrong, they'd be soberly discussing the dangers posed by cowboy pilots that don't follow industry-recognized procedures. 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 Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: most articles in newsgroup cancelled Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California I finally had a chance to dig into various logs and figure out why there are a lot few sci.aeronautics.airliners articles than there should be out there. Turns out some moron though it would be a brilliant idea to go around forging cancel requests for every message in the newsgroup (and presumably others) as a way to call some acquaintance of his/hers a pedophile. Who knows how long this batch will stay around, but you can always get them via the archives at http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html which can't be purged by global village idiots. You can also receive the group via e-mail. Send a message with "help" in the body to majordomo@chicago.com for details on how to subscribe (or unsubscribe) -- "airliners" is the list name. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:35 From: Gary Neff Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM John M. Hunt wrote: > In reasonably direct connection with this subject, exactly how > difficult is it for commercial airline pilots at the bottom end of the > coordination skill/"stick and rudder" range to make multi-hour flights > without assistance of the yaw damper? It's possible in the F-28, if you remain below 25,000 ft. Above that altitude, in turbulence, things can unravel quite rapidly. Gary From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:36 From: Dieter Scholz Subject: Re: 319 Dutch Roll? 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: University of Applied Sciences at Hamburg Reply-To: m2403019@rzbt.fh-hamburg.de John M. Hunt wrote: > ... exactly how > difficult is it for commercial airline pilots at the bottom end of the > coordination skill/"stick and rudder" range to make multi-hour flights > without assistance of the yaw damper? Is it a minor nuisance or a > major distraction? Is departure with an inoperative yaw damper legal? >From the engineering side, I say: 1.) Even jets are not alike and show different levels in the "category of effect" if yaw dampers fail. 2.) On average, I would say, loss of yaw damping is classified "hazardous". On some aircraft loss of yaw damping can even be classified "catastrophic". Of course on such aircraft failure of the yaw damper system is made "extremely improbable" by building sufficient redundancy into the system. 3.) Look into AMJ-25 §1309 ( http://www.fh-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/AMJ-25.html ) or AC 25.1309 from the FAA if you want to learn more about the relationship between "category of effect" and "probability". Take this definition as a starting point: "hazardous": An effect which results in - a large reduction in safety margins - physical distress or a workload such that the flight crew cannot be relied upon to perform their tasks accurately or completely, or - serious injury to, or death of, a relatively small proportion of the occupants. __ | -- D.| -- From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:37 From: shstrang@iamerica.net (Scott and Heather Strang) Subject: Re: 747 wing flexibility References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Intermedia iAmerica - http://www.iamworld.net >They showed this on an episode of "Wings". It was one heck of an "explosion" >when the wing finally broke. I remember that; truly awesome to see. Kinda inspires confidence in aircraft wings. BTW, how many cases are there of wings breaking off of aircraft for no apparent reason? I.E. no explosion or missle hit etc. Scott Scott and Heather Strang All work and no play is good for you helps build character. THIS TRANSMISSION TERMINATED From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:38 From: MJones Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: >>IFR would add some complications, but AFAIK, it was VFR. >According to the transcript you refered to, the flight took off at about >42 minutes past midnight, with the final recording at 01:11:16. Hardly >VFR conditions. Argh. I didn't key on the times. (Are they GMT/Zulu? That would make it 20:11, but still dark, or at best late dusk.) I have to admit assuming that this is the accident caught on video during daylight hours. Seems not to be the case. >>Likewise by asking ATC for altitude info, since that altitude info >>would come from the aircraft's (erroneous) Mode-C transponder, the >>crew showed a lack of understanding of very basic precepts. >True, though it's a lot easier to remember that while sitting in a >comfortable office than when you're in the heat of battle, over the >Pacific in the dark of night, with your key instruments having gone >nuts. I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. It didn't take me 1/2 a second to realize this mistake, and I'm only a mid-time private pilot. >It's also increasingly the case that flight crews are trained >in managing the automation, sacrificing basic systems knowledge, so >they aren't equipped to deal with what happens when those systems >fail you. Yeah, I'm probably being too hard on them. Mike Jones From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>According to the transcript you refered to, the flight took off at about >>42 minutes past midnight, with the final recording at 01:11:16. Hardly >>VFR conditions. >Argh. I didn't key on the times. (Are they GMT/Zulu? No, local. You get an "A" for effort, though! :-) >I have to admit assuming that this is the accident caught on video >during daylight hours. Seems not to be the case. You're thinking of the video of an airliner hitting the water? That almost certainly is the hijacked Ethiopian 767 which ran out of fuel and had to ditch just a mile or so short of the runway on the Comoros Islands, on November 23, 1996. >>True, though it's a lot easier to remember that while sitting in a >>comfortable office than when you're in the heat of battle, over the >>Pacific in the dark of night, with your key instruments having gone >>nuts. >I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. It didn't take me >1/2 a second to realize this mistake, and I'm only a mid-time private >pilot. You were disoriented and in a life-or-death, high-stress situation prior to and during that 1/2 second? Sorry, I'm not buying that argument. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:40 From: Rob Montgomery Subject: Re: External inspection 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 Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote: > Preliminary investigation results showed that the > aircraft's three static ports on the left side were obstructed by > masking tape. The tape had been applied before washing and polishing of > the aircraft prior to the accident flight." At the risk of sounding the fool, and admitting not to be an expert, wouldn't the prudent pilot abort the takeoff roll if airspeed indications were severly off the mark (i.e. at the cross-check)? I can't believe that any handling pilot would just eyeball the decision and rotation speeds. -- robm@null.net From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:41 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl Swartz wrote: > nuts. It's also increasingly the case that flight crews are trained > in managing the automation, sacrificing basic systems knowledge, so > they aren't equipped to deal with what happens when those systems > fail you. Before someone gets to fly those fancy automated passenger planes, doesn't he/she *HAVE* to start with small planes such as CESSNAs and progress upwards as their experience/fliying hours increase ? If that is the case, isn't flying "manual" somewhat like riding a bike, something you don't really forget ? So, when your instruments fail you on one of them fancy planes, shouldn't the pilots still be able to fly by the seat of their pants which is what they did when they started off on those small planes ? Also just curious, if the airspeed indicator is inop, shouldn't the pilot still be able to get some idea of his speed through the INS/GPS systems which would provide ground speed ? From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Also just curious, if the airspeed indicator is inop, shouldn't the >pilot still be able to get some idea of his speed through the INS/GPS >systems which would provide ground speed ? Except for a small number of aircraft with experimental systems, airliners don't have GPS. INS is more common but by no means universal, mainly installed on aircraft which are expected to stray from directly controlled airspace. I remember United having a subfleet of 727s which had INS equipment so they could fly routes like Chicago-Cancun. Given some of the remote places AeroPeru flies, they might well have had INS, but I would bet on it. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:43 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Mike, You may not be aware that the flight instruments in newer transports are electrically driven instruments; that is to say breaking the VSI or other pressure gauge might work in a light plane but will not recover the pitot-static system. These are driven by air data computers which are connected to the pitot static system. There is redundancy built in by multiple pitots, and multiple static ports. Unfortunately it looks like they were defeated by a thorough job of taping. You do have a good point in saying the plane was flyable by attitude and power. Perhaps more training for these types of situations can help. Paul From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:44 From: Gary Neff Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Galen L. Hinshaw wrote: > The PIC is responsible for the preflight walkaround. The PIC is responsible for ensuring that the preflight walk around is accomplished, not for doing it himself. Gary From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:45 From: N907AW Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: International Brotherhood of Tarver Whack-a-loons Reply-To: skygodtj@att.net Reactionary training... because of this accident, crews are being trained to set up flight based solely on aircraft pitch attitude, configuration and power settings. Eliminate all automation, fly by hand, using pitch and power settings for each phase of flight... B757, Level flt, <10,000' 250kts, clean = 5degrees of pitch, 1.2 EPR, 60% N1(Fan spd).etc... The AeroPeru crew, had they thought about it, could have used the IRS(IRU's) for speed information. As to who does the walkaround, F/O almost always does it, but if he's swamped by paperwork or cockpit setup, Captain will do the walkaround. TJ, B757 IP PHX.AZ From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:46 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:46 From: T2 Subject: Re: Part 25 and wiring bundles and busses References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here! Phil Dunn wrote: > Does anyone know if a wiring bundle can contain wires from separate busses? > > For example, could an essential bus wire travel along with a ground-handling > bus wire? not sure what you mean by "busses", but different circuits are bundled together, providing they meet certain EMI criteria. From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:47 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:47 From: "Alan R. Kahn" Subject: the use of titanium in commercial planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: "Alan R. Kahn" Can anyone please tell me how many pounds of titanium a Boeing 777 uses? Is this the largest amount of any plane? If so, what plane uses the next largest amount? Thanks, Alan Kahn. From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:48 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:48 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Airbus AD: Thrust Reverser Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I'm looking for info on the incident that caused an AD to be issued to lockout the Thrust Reverser on Pratt-powered Airbus. Apparently an Airbus experienced a T/R deployment at 4500 ft, resulting in a 120 deg roll. Let me know if there is a link on the web about this. Thanks, Steve C~ From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:49 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:49 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: > Any others? USAF bought up a lot of civilian 707s for E-8 conversion (most were originally flown by Qantas) and as trainers. Some got new engines, i.e. turbojets replaced with turbofans, and at least one for a tail transplant. Cheers David From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:50 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:50 From: "David Bradford 279256" Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wantree Development Hi Karl et al; 707-700? I've never heard of this before. Could you possibly give a bit more info about this version of the 707? Tks in advance and keep up the good work; David R. Bradford From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:51 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:51 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >707-700? I've never heard of this before. Could you possibly give a bit >more info about this version of the 707? Line number 941 (msn 21956) was built as the one-and-only 707-700, making it's first flight on November 27, 1979 wearing registration N707QT. It was to be the forerunner of a new generation of more efficient 707s equipped with CFM56 engines, but the project was killed by the 757, which offered better economics. The sole 707-700 was converted to a 707-3W6C, including engines of older, less efficient design, and delivered to the Moroccan government on March 10, 1982. While the commercial offering was all but stillborn, the plane no doubt contributed to CFM56 conversions on the KC135 and various military versions of the 707. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:52 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:52 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net On 07 Dec 98 23:19:42 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > * One or more MD-11s were converted between GE and Pratt prior to > delivery to someone in the Middle East. They would be ships 532 and 544, still being modded in Waco, TX, for Saudi Royal Flight. __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:53 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:53 From: "John McLaren" Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net > Any others? There were three 757s built for Indian Airlines with PW2000 engine that were never delivered to IA. Republic Airlines bought them with the requirement that RB211-535 engines be added. Later Republic was bought by Northwest. NWA had lots of 757s with PW2000 engines. They asked Boeing if the Republic airplanes could be modified to install PW engines for commonality! NWA did not reengine the airplanes but instead sold them and bought other new 757s with PW engines. From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:54 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:54 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmscx@cmdnet.lu spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Atlas Air has contracted with Boeing to get two 747-200s re-engined, with the > original JT9D-7J engines being replaced with CF6-50E-2s. The reason given was > fleet commonality. See http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/981201/ka_boeing__1.html. > > To my knowledge, this is the first time a 747 is re-engined; is this correct? > (ie not counting engine upgrades such as eg on Cathay's RB211-engined 747s.) Stefano, there have been 3 other 'jumbos' which were re-engined, the two AF-One and the prototype 74 [Moderator's note: Both "AF One" (VC-25A) aircraft were built with, and retain, GE engines. You're probably thinking of the E4 aircraft David Lednicer mentions. -- Karl] -- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:55 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:55 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Off the top of my head: 1) Many 707-100s were reengined from JT3Cs to JT3Ds. I think some 720s were also reengined in the same way. 2) A VC-10 had a RB.211 installed on the port side for flight test development. 3) The Caravelle "Horizon" first flew with GE aft fan engines, but was later reengined with JT8Ds. 4) A Caravelle was flown with a CFM56 on one side for development work. 5) As you mentioned, the GE 747 has flown with a GE-90 in the #2 position, but it also has flown with a CFM56 there too. 6) The #1 747 has flown with a Trent in the #2 position, as well as the PW4000. I would guess that it also has flown with a CF6. 7) P&WC's 720 has flown with a V2500 in the #3 position, as well as with a PW300 and PW500 attached to a pylon hung off the forward fuselage and also with a PW100 in the nose. 8) Allied Signal's 720 has flown with a TPE351 (the CBA-123 engine) hung on a pylon on the forward fuselage. 9) GE's 707 has flown with a CFM56 hung on the #2(?) pylon. 10) They aren't truely airliners, but the USAF's E-4 NECAP aircraft first flew with JT9Ds, but were quickly reengined with CF6s. 11) Dee Howard reengined one BAC 1-11-400 with Tays. 12) Dee Howard has reengined UPS's 727-100s with Tays. 13) Valsan was changing the #1 and #3 engines on 727s from JT8Ds to JT8D-200s. Despite the similarity in names, these engines are rather different. 14) ABX has put DC-8-62/-63 pylons and nacelles on their DC-8-61s. Not a true reengining, but still a big change. 15) The #1 MD-80 flew with both a GE UDF and a P&W/Allison propfan on the #1 pylon. 16) A 727-100 flew with the GE UDF in the #3 position. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Dec 23 03:52:56 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:56 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >1) Many 707-100s were reengined from JT3Cs to JT3Ds. I think some 720s >were also reengined in the same way. True, though I did say "where jetliners underwent a major re-enginging not for efficiency but simply for convenience" -- those 707 reenginings were clearly upgrades, not lateral moves like the Atlas 747s. (Let's not quibble about the fact that swapping a JT9D for a CF6-80 might well constitute an upgrade!) >2) A VC-10 had a RB.211 installed on the port side for flight test >development. How could I forget that one! Quite distinctive. Again, I was looking for oddball, lateral moves, not flight test aircraft, which are common enough examples of weird engine mountings. As long as you brought the subject up, there's also the aft-mounted JT8D on the 367-80, simulating the 727. I didn't see that in your impressive list. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:57 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:57 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Don't forget 727's getting 1 and 3 engines upgraded for a JT8D-7 or -17 ot a JT8D-217 or -219. I would consider this a reengine since the -7 and 17's or smaller than the 217 and 219's which requires moding the pylons. David From kls Wed Dec 23 03:52:58 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:58 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s 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: > >To my knowledge, this is the first time a 747 is re-engined; is this correct? > >(ie not counting engine upgrades such as eg on Cathay's RB211-engined 747s.) > > There are a fair number of examples of re-engining, both minor upgrades > (such as the CX 747s you mention or many early 747s which ended up with > newer JT9D variants) or major ones (such as the DC-8-70 series with > CFM-56 engines or the RR Tay upgrades for the 727). There certainly are many examples of re-engining. But it's one thing to re-engine with something substantially better (as with the CFM-powered DC-8-70); it's another to swap one engine with an essentially equivalent one (as in this case of the Atlas 747s). > I can only think > of three cases prior to the Atlas planes, however, where jetliners > underwent a major re-enginging not for efficiency but simply for > convenience: > * The sole 707-700 (built with CFM-56 engines) was converted to 707-320 > spec, complete with old JT3D or JT4A engines. Well, since you can't sell a non-certificated model (and even if it was certificated, who would buy a one-off model?) this is more than just convenience. Simply put: if Boeing wanted to sell this aircraft, they had no choice but to swap the CFMs for JT3Ds. > * Airbus converted at least one A330 between RB.211 and PW4000 engines. > I can't remember which was first but it was a flight test aircraft for > both engine types. Might have been an artifact of crashing one of the > PW4000-equipped flight test planes. They also converted one of the original A310 prototypes from GE to PW engines before selling it to Swissair, if memory serves. Both these cases, and the 707-700 case, concern test aircraft, though. There's probably a lot you need to do to these aircraft to bring them up to delivery standard anyway, so changing engines may not be as big a deal as in other cases. The main issue is that re-engining involves more than changing the hardware that's hanging off the pylon. A lot of wiring and engine controls need to be changed too. This isn't the case with minor upgrades, so they can be done easily enough, usually. If you're putting substantially better engines on, then this extra cost may be worth bearing, as on the DC-8-70. In the case of test aircraft, you're probably doing a lot of internal system changes anyway (either to rip out systems needed only for flight testing, or to bring existing systems up to production standard) so the incremental cost of also changing engine systems isn't as large. 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 Dec 23 03:52:59 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:52:59 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: Remote Camera Views References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Europainstitut Basel Karl Swartz schrieb: > The 777-300 includes at least one camera as a taxiing aid. (This > aircraft is the longest in service, so ground ops are a serious > challenge.) Hi all, not only do 777 operators use external video feed for the crew, but (some) also transmit the video images to the passengers. About a year ago, I flew an Emirates 777 to Hong Kong (yes, still the old checkerboard approach to runway 13). On that flight, I enjoyed video feeds from the forward facing camera - for the duration of the whole flight - on the personal monitor in the back of the seat in front of me and - for take off and landing - on the "big screen" in the center of the cabin (no monitors, still the old retractable silver screens with overhead movie projectors). Enjoying a forward facing view when rushing in over those skyscrapers of Kowloon was really "hot". L. Lusser Bird Publishing at http://www.bird.ch/ From kls Wed Dec 23 03:53:00 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:53:00 From: Driftwood Media Services Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: DMS Reply-To: eric@driftwoodservicesgroup.com Peter Mchugh wrote: > I think we have overstated the propensity of kerosene to evaporate... and > believe that dumping can't be as environmentally clean as suggested. I > far better like the over weight landing option (when feasible) in terms > of the longevity of the greater numbers of living things. As much as I am concerned about air travel's impact on the global environment and the need to protect natural resources in the course of day-to-day operations, I, in my admittedly less-than-politically-correct mind, cannot think of a single instance where any number of living creatures come ahead of the safety of the potentially hundreds of very real people on a jet transport. Air crews have enough to worry about, trusted with the safety of people's parents, children, loved ones, partners - the fear that EPA should wave their Magic Fine-Levying Wand shouldn't even enter their minds - their focus when they need to get back on the ground safely and quickly should be just that. Keeping people alive counts most. Eric Thompson From kls Wed Dec 23 03:53:01 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:53:01 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Peter Mchugh wrote: > So the question raised is, If this test works (and it does!), and if a > small bit of Jet Fuel contained in a sample of AVGAS will persist on the > paper for any extended period (and it does!) then how accurate are the > claims in the several Bluecoat posts that 1000s of pounds of Jet > dispensed at altitude will "vaporize" before falling to earth.... I > think we have overstated the propensity of kerosene to evaporate... and > believe that dumping can't be as environmentally clean as suggested. I > far better like the over weight landing option (when feasible) in terms > of the longevity of the greater numbers of living things. All the time I see rain that evaporates before it hits the ground. Why not Jet Fuel? It has a high velocity when it hits the air. So the surface of the droplets will evaporate rapidly. (Pummeled if you will, by the gas molecules in the atmosphere.) Something to think about anyway. John From kls Wed Dec 23 03:53:02 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:53:02 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams PS2727 wrote: > Not all long range airplanes have dump systems. The 767 and 757 are long range > and yet most do not have dump capability. Only 767-300 models and then not all > 300's. All aircraft must demonstrate a landing with a max fuel load anyway > (even when they have a dump system) to be certified. If an overweight landing > is made a maintenance inspection must be done. The FAR's describe when dump > systems are required and I believe Boeing obtained a waiver to certify the 757 > and 767 without such systems. No "waiver" was necessary. Both airplanes, at the time that they were introduced, met all of the applicable FARs for engine-out performance during approach climbs and landing climbs at all weights up to max take-off. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Wed Dec 23 03:53:03 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Dec 98 03:53:03 From: adam.keys3@mail.which.net Subject: Re: Does B737-400/500 have dump fuel system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Which Online Net Usenet Service Reply-To: adam.keys3@which.net Just a personal view - if i was in an an aircraft that had to make an emergency landing - lets say for hydraulic failure - I would prefer to get it over with ASAP and that the aircraft land with as little of the flammable stuff as possible. The fact that the aircraft is capble of landing with of landing with a more or less full fuel load is fine - but for an emergency surely you want as little of the stuff as possible. This smacks to me of BA's decision (I think) back in the 80's to take out some of the over wing exits - I think it was on 747's - as the remaining exits would still meet the legal requirements. Surely we want aircraft that offer the highest level of safety possible - not those that meet the minimum standards. I know this is the old debate over safety vs economics - but surely a tried and tested fuel dump system cannot be that expensive per passenger mile? From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:20 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:20 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: 707 wings Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc**@cmdnet.lu What were the different development steps for the 707 wings. IIRC the first versions had no leading edge slats, which first appeared on the 707Bs (?). Other than addition and modifications of slats and flaps, was the wing configuration (span, area, proportions ...) modified. If yes what series had which wings. Anyone ... ? ---------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:21 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:21 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Seat mile costs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc**@cmdnet.lu Where can I get *real* values for seat mile costs from both Airbus and Boeing. If anyone has some figures I would like to know which costs are included, what trip length it is based on ... I am aware that this is rather hot data but I would really like to see some of it ... ---------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:22 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:22 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: CFM56 on military 707s? (was: Re-engining 747s) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > The sole 707-700 was converted to a 707-3W6C, including engines of > older, less efficient design, and delivered to the Moroccan government > on March 10, 1982. While the commercial offering was all but stillborn, > the plane no doubt contributed to CFM56 conversions on the KC135 and > various military versions of the 707. As I recall from AW&ST of the time, the pylons from the 707-700 flight test aircraft were turned over to the KC-135R project. But I don't know of any military 707's with CFM56's; were/are there any? Perhaps our friends at Boeing would know... Anyway, I think of the E-8 JSTARS aircraft as the latest and best military 707, but it seems to wear old low-bypass turbofans (see for an in-flight photo). My guess is that 707's are so rare in the U.S. military compared to KC-135's that it wasn't worth the trouble to upgrade them. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:23 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:23 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Re-engining 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc**@cmdnet.lu Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Stefano, there have been 3 other 'jumbos' which were re-engined, the two > AF-One and the prototype 74 > > [Moderator's note: Both "AF One" (VC-25A) aircraft were built with, and > retain, GE engines. You're probably thinking of the E4 aircraft David > Lednicer mentions. -- Karl] Right Karl, but after checking out I found the following : Only the first two E-4A's (73-1676 and 73-1677) were actually delivered with P&W JT9D engines, but they were converted to E-4Bs with GE CF6-50E engines at a later date. The third one (74-0787), while still called an E-4A and later converted to a B, was delivered with GE engines, although it may have been originally built with the P&Ws. The fourth aircraft (75-0125) was delivered as an E-4B with the GE engines. The VC25As were built and delivered with GE engines. In would appreciate if anyone would have the conversion date of the two first ships and details on the third one. ---------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:24 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:24 From: "M. Jones" Subject: Stand-by instruments (was external inspection) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" >You may not be aware that the flight instruments in newer transports are >electrically driven instruments; that is to say breaking the VSI or >other pressure gauge might work in a light plane but will not recover >the pitot-static system ... No, I wouldn't think breaking the glass of the CRT's would work, either, :-) and that's not what I intended to convey. I was referring to the stand-by instruments, and the possibility that they are still hooked up in a 'traditional', direct fashion. I don't believe that this would be an option in the newest generation (777, et al) but may have still have been an option on the 757/767 with its combination of 'steam' gages and CRT's. Or are you saying that even the stand-by gages are driven by air-data computers? Mike J. From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:25 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:25 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >At the risk of sounding the fool, and admitting not to be an expert, >wouldn't the prudent pilot abort the takeoff roll if airspeed >indications were severly off the mark (i.e. at the cross-check)? I >can't believe that any handling pilot would just eyeball the decision >and rotation speeds. You would certainly think so, but it seems the pressures of trying to maintain schedule often seem to push this kind of rationality into the back of the aircraft, often with very unpleaseant results. When Air Florida flight 90 went down in Washington DC, the FO knew something wasn't right, but the PIC took off anyway. Didn't stay airborne for long. Early this year a CAL crew attempted a 3 engine takeoff in a 747, ( I think it was at MNL) and didn't get it right. totalled the aircraft. (They knew they only had 3 engines, it was a ferry flight to try to get the aircraft repairs. Needless to say, aircraft ended up in a lot worse shape). I doubt these are the only cases where this sort of thing has occured. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 Gulf Computers Inc. From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:26 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:26 From: Gary Neff Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Except for a small number of aircraft with experimental systems, > airliners don't have GPS. All of Horizon's Dash 8 200s are equipped with dual, quite operational, GPS systems. They, also, are all equipped with a HUD, and routinely shoot Cat III approaches. Gary From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:27 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:27 From: "M. Jones" Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" Karl Swartz wrote: >You're thinking of the video of an airliner hitting the water? That >almost certainly is the hijacked Ethiopian 767 which ran out of fuel >and had to ditch just a mile or so short of the runway on the Comoros >Islands, on November 23, 1996. Must be the one. >>I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. It didn't take me >>1/2 a second to realize this mistake, and I'm only a mid-time private >>pilot. >You were disoriented and in a life-or-death, high-stress situation >prior to and during that 1/2 second? Sorry, I'm not buying that >argument. No, but I have been in life-or-death, disorienting situations both flying and in power plant operations. You know what you know, and what you don't know can kill you and those relying on you. Pilots (not just airline pilots) absolutely must know nuances such as where a controller's altitude readout comes from and that an autopilot must have meaningful inputs for proper operation against exactly these types of situations. (Actually these are not nuances at all, but pretty basic stuff.) They must know them just as innately as they know that 2+2=4. Otherwise, flying on any given day is just a crapshoot. As a paying passenger on an airliner or riding around with a friend in a C-150 I deserve nothing less. But that's ALL that I'm arguing. I was not there, I did not know these pilots, I do not know what training they did or did not have, or what other distractions they may have been dealing with. Please forgive the possible flogging of a dead horse. I personally know too many pilots who have way too much of a 'I know enough to get by' attitude. Mike J. From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:28 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:28 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 12/23/98 3:52 AM, JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca) said: >Before someone gets to fly those fancy automated passenger planes, >doesn't he/she *HAVE* to start with small planes such as CESSNAs and >progress upwards as their experience/fliying hours increase ? Have to? No. Most do but there's no requirement to do so. I know an airline pilot who does not have a single-engine rating, only multi-engine (note though that he was a military pilot and when he converted, only qualified for multi - I do not know if he had any single-engine experience or not). >If that is the case, isn't flying "manual" somewhat like riding a bike, >something you don't really forget ? So, when your instruments fail you >on one of them fancy planes, shouldn't the pilots still be able to fly >by the seat of their pants which is what they did when they started off >on those small planes ? Those raw flying skills can get rusty pretty quickly. -- Larry Stone lstone@wwa.com From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:29 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:29 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Rob Montgomery wrote: > At the risk of sounding the fool, and admitting not to be an expert, > wouldn't the prudent pilot abort the takeoff roll if airspeed > indications were severly off the mark (i.e. at the cross-check)? I > can't believe that any handling pilot would just eyeball the decision > and rotation speeds. Are V1 and V2 based on airspeed or based on a speedometer controlled by landing gear wheels ? If controlled by airspeed, the above poster has a pretty damm good point: how come they would have been able to do the take off roll if their airspeed indicators were inop ? I was under the impression that reaching V1 and V2 speeds is a critical phase of any takeoff. Is this really the case ? From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:30 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:30 From: Kees de LezenneCoulander Subject: Re: External inspection 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 Rob Montgomery wrote: >Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote: >> Preliminary investigation results showed that the >> aircraft's three static ports on the left side were obstructed by >> masking tape. The tape had been applied before washing and polishing >> of the aircraft prior to the accident flight." > >At the risk of sounding the fool, and admitting not to be an expert, >wouldn't the prudent pilot abort the takeoff roll if airspeed >indications were severly off the mark (i.e. at the cross-check)? I >can't believe that any handling pilot would just eyeball the decision >and rotation speeds. Certainly. But blocked static ports do not give any sign of an unusual indication during the take-off roll. It is only when the aircraft gains altitude that funny things start to happen (like strange altitude indication, strange airspeed indication and strange rate of climb indication all at the same time). Considering this happened in the middle of the night during a departure out towards the sea, the crew did a pretty good job. They flew the airplane for a considerable time and were on their way back to the airport when they fell into the trap of believing the altitude the air traffic controller gave them. Of course this was just the altitude as reported by their transponder, which was also affected by the erroneous static pressure. 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 Tue Dec 29 03:12:31 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:31 From: "Hans Jakobsson" Subject: DC-8 spoilers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telenordia Hello all, It seems to me that certain types of the Douglas DC-8 is equipped with spoilers/airbrakes (Super 70 series?). I have been searching through my source material to find out if the DC-8 was supplied with airbrakes from the factory, or if this was something added later. Can anyone please shed some light over this, in particular; did the Super 62 and Super 63 have airbrakes? Kind Regards and Happy New Year, Hans Jakobsson Karlsborg/ESIA, Sweden ********************************** The Airline History Pages http://www.algonet.se/~hansj/history.htm From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:32 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:32 From: "Niel Solomon" Subject: 737 Operational Manual Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM All, I love aviation. I seem to travel in 737's a lot and want to know more about its operation. Where can I get a pilot's flying operational manual for a 737? I understand there are two levels of manuals, one is more highly technical, the other more down-to-earth with practical piloting language. I am interested in the latter. Niel From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:33 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:33 From: mba340@usa.net (ben) Subject: Re: Airbus AD: Thrust Reverser References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Club-Internet (France) >I'm looking for info on the incident that caused an AD to be issued to >lockout the Thrust Reverser on Pratt-powered Airbus. I heard something on it. This incident appeared on P&W powered A300 From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:34 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:34 From: brynen@home.com (Scott Brynen) Subject: Re: the use of titanium in commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: @Home Network Canada >Can anyone please tell me how many pounds of titanium a Boeing 777 uses? >Is this the largest amount of any plane? If so, what plane uses the next >largest amount? Could be wrong, but I think you'll find the AN-124 and 225 are the largest users of Ti From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:35 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:35 From: "Phil" Subject: Re: Calculating best alt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: "Phil" Zirkball wrote in message ... >Is there a formula airline dispatchers use for assigning best altitudes >given distance between cities? Dispatchers would consider both wind and aircraft performance at the predicted weight. Higher is better. Tailwinds are better than headwinds and crosswinds enroute. What one may see on a long flight is a planned climb to a fairly low cruise altitude (FL290 for example) followed by a climb to a higher level. Initially the aircraft will be so heavy that it can't climb way up there AND maintain enough margin above stall speed. Without a safe buffet margin, turbulence and turning could result in controllability problems...After burning off fuel, the lighter airplane can then climb to a higher and more efficient cruise altitude. The upper limit is both a matter of efficiency (reaching the tropopause) and safety (convergence of high speed and low speed buffet limits of the wings). Regarding winds, the flight may be routed to avoid a jetstream if it is in the opposite direction, or planned to use the jetstream if it is going the same way as the flight. I've seen flights go way off the great circle route in order to utilize a strong jetstream and save fuel. I've also seen flights from Chicago to Sarasota stay at FL290 to remain below a strong jetstream headwind. Hope this helps, Phil Collier From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:36 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:36 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Calculating best alt References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com When calculating best altitude, I use a formula of 10,000 feet per 100 NM up to the service ceiling of the aircraft involved. I do make adjustments for weight, temperature, and winds as necessary to yield best groundspeed. Unless I encounter very strong headwinds or temperatures much higher than standard, the above formula works for me. Gary From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:37 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:37 From: piqueme1@hotmail.com (Peter) Subject: 2 r 3 autopilots for cat III Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: piqueme1@hotmail.com Why do some catagory 3 airliners have two autopilots (Douglas), and some have 3 autopilots (Boeing)? Catagory 3 refers to airport weather approaching zero visability. From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:38 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:38 From: Thomas Buro Subject: 5000t Ekranoplan Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wuppertal I am reading an article about Ekranoplans (wing in ground effect). A project is mentioned, which is sponsored by the Us congress. The task is a feasibility study of a 5000t Wing in ground effect, for transcontinental routes. Speed up to 460 mph and 1300+ tonnes of cargo. Two Organisations are involved: ARPA: advanced research projects agency WTEC wingship technology evaluation committee. Does anybody know the outcome of this study or has information about it or the two organisations (websites, address, fax) Thanx Thomas From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:39 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:39 From: JF Mezei Subject: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Whatching the hollywood movie "Executive decision", they had a scenes above the main cabin's ceilingshowing a fair amount of unused space between the ceiling and the fuselage. (about half the ehight of a man). Obviously, this is a movie, but it made me wonder: what is really above the cabin ceiling ? Is most of the systems/wiring contained in the overhead systems or is there a lot of stuff above the actual ceiling ? I woudl assume that there would be water tanks, hot water heaters and air ducts in that space, correct ? What else is present ? On the 747-400s there are crew quarters on a second deck in the back. Could such amenities run the whole length of the main cabin or are there too many devices in that space to prevent greater use for that space ? (I am thinking in terms of providing sleeping accomodations to first class pax for instance). From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:40 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:40 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , John Wright wrote: > >There's also the point that while the GE engine is more fuel efficient >than the RR (or the P&W), it is so much heavier you need a 10 hour stage >to make the costs balance - did I read that in this group? I might have >done. BA will thus probably find the RR engined 777 quite a bit cheaper >to operate particularly if it keeps its long stages for the 747-400 As I stated in another post, BA has ordered highest gross weight version B777s which need 95K-lb-thrust engines. Thus, I think BA's new batch of B777s will be used for relatively long-haul flights. From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:41 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:41 From: "HiFlyer" Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "HiFlyer" First...I'm not sure that 'engine-related' really means the PW fans on the UA777. It might very well have to do with the aircraft electronics to the engines in regards to ETOPS. The 7777 seems to really be a flying Local Area Network...I've seen the aircraft 'fixed' multiple times by a hard boot i.e. pull all power off and start over. As far as engines overall...isn't it AF with the GE90 that has actually had the most major fail...the dual engine change this past summer out of Brazil? Jim From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:42 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:42 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu James Matthew Weber wrote: > Does anyone have any actual statistics on the reliablity of the GE90 > versus the RR Trent 800 and PW4000 equipped 777's? Sure here we go: Figures: (Oct 97 to Sep 98) for B777 IFSD (Total - Basic+Non Basic) rate per 1000 hours. PW4084 0.014 GE90 0.018 Trent 884 0.004 Scheduled Reliability (12 months to Sept 98 - percent) PW Airplane 99.15 Propulsion 99.85 GE Airplane 99.80 Propulsion 99.76 RR Airplane 98.73 Propulsion 99.87 Hope this is of help ;) ---------------------------------------------------------- Marc Schaeffer --- Luxembourg --- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders The ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:43 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:43 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (niels sampath) Subject: Re: Cntl-Alt-Flaps References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: L1011500 Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article john@guava.demon.co.uk "john r." writes: > I have had to do this as a last resort on both the 747-400 and the 777 > when they were first introduced. > It a last resort as you can cause as many problems as you cure! > Also a 777 takes near 5 min. to boot up!.. I was on a 767-300 that re-booted before engine start and then once airborne the intercom (?) chime kept sounding for the next 4 hours every 45 seconds ! Talk about annoying (it was a red-eye flight), but they said they were unable to do anything about it! I couldn't believe they couldn't have pulled some circuit breaker somewhere. Maybe it took them 4 hours to figure it out? -- -Niels From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:44 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:44 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Interestingly, one of the SW QC efforts that I heard about years ago >(sorry can't remember the source but I believe it was in a GD proposal >to the Army DIVAD program citing their QC efforts on the F-16 program >and what they had learned via AI) was that AI had three separate >development organizations develop the same functional code. These >three organizations did not know the others existed and were located >in three different countries. The theory behind this was that AI >would catch more bugs in critical flight control sw this way because >each group would develop differently, discover different bugs, and >would provide AI with better de-bugging capabilities (hence higher >quality sw) when the time to integrate the sw into the hw took place. >Oddly, what they found was that bugs detected during testing were very >much the same across groups with few exceptions, even though the code >may have been significantly different. This really shouldn't come as any surprise. The people who write software have often undergone very similar training, and tend to solve problems the same way. The result is that all solutions are likely to be built on, and contain some of the same, underlying assumptions. There is no assurance that thos assumptions are good or accurate. Earlier in my career I had a situation where two organizations had to solve the same problem. They didn't like each to the point that I'd characterize them as not being on speaking terms. When you looked at the Assmebler code produced, you would have sworn the same people wrote both. the methodology and solution were virtually identical. From kls Tue Dec 29 03:12:45 1998 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Dec 98 03:12:45 From: Michael & Iain Butler Subject: Re: Airbus Safety References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chaos John S. Maddaus wrote: > Interestingly, one of the SW QC efforts that I heard about years ago > (irrevelant bits snipped) was that AI had three separate > development organizations develop the same functional code. These > three organizations did not know the others existed and were located > in three different countries. The theory behind this was that AI > would catch more bugs in critical flight control sw this way because > each group would develop differently, discover different bugs, and > would provide AI with better de-bugging capabilities (hence higher > quality sw) when the time to integrate the sw into the hw took place. > Oddly, what they found was that bugs detected during testing were very > much the same across groups with few exceptions, even though the code > may have been significantly different. Actually this doesn't surprise me at all. The major problem in software testing is creating "abnormal" conditions to test the handling of these. No doubt all the teams managed to create pretty much the same set of test conditions and therefore found the same errors. I think AI would have got better results by having one team of developers and three teams of testers. -- Mike Butler Wellington NZ Tip CD Lab/Terrier New Zealand Dog Agility on the Web Ben BC X http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mbutler/nala/ From news Wed Dec 30 17:23:18 1998 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: TWA and the A318 and 717 Message-ID: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 00:05:38 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) I keep thinking about this, and it still makes no sense to me. A previous post to this newsgroup suggested that the aircraft fulfil different missions. While that may be possible, it doesn't deal with the fact that it is basically nonsense. Both aircraft have similar passenger capacity. The A318 certainly has longer legs, but according to the Avweek article on the 717 in the October 12 issue, you can order the 717 with a higher MGTOW and higher performance BR715 engines, which takes the range out to 1700nm. My guess is the range on the A318 is still a lot longer, but that begs the question. I cannot think of many situations where a range in excess of 1700nm does TWA or any other regional much good. What are you going to do, equip it for ETOPS and fly the pond? The weight penalty for the higher weight/longer range version of the 717 is less than 1000 pounds. I have to believe that buying that variant of the aircraft would have been less costly than the training and sparing for an all new aircraft ype, and as far as TWA is concerned, the A318 is an all new airplane. While the A318 will almost certainly weigh a good deal more, it isn't clear that is operating costs will be materially different. The published SFC figures for the Br715 are not impressive (The 21,000 pounds thrust variant of the CFM56 used on the A319 does a lot better!). If the PW6000 cannot produce an SFC competitive with the best of the CFM56's, then P&W should probably forget about building it. The only stand out difference that may be meaningful is probably in freight lift. This has always been a problem for the D9/MD80 family, and the basic diameter of the aircraft drives this issue. This was quoted as a major reason that both SAS and Alaska Airlines bought 737's. I also have to wonder about buying two airplanes with all new engines. That guarantees high training and sparing up costs, as well as problems with dispatch reliability. Given TWA's already poor on time performance, this doesn't seem like a very intelligent move. On the other hand, given TWA's difficulties in making money or a reasonable return on investment even when times are good (as in now), I am not sure TWA will be around when it comes time to deliver the A318's anyway. My own suspicion is another Bankruptcy may be in TWA's future if there is another downdraft in the industry in next couple of years. This time they may take the opportunity to cancel the outstanding Airbus Contracts. This decision looks to me more like an attempt to avoid the cancellation penalties from the old A330 contract than anything else. While it is possible that TWA plans to sell the aircraft, anyone who expects to turn a profit doing this is probably smoking something. It does happen now, and then, but it takes unusual circumstances. Given how well these aircraft are selling at the moment, TWA would be competing with Boeing and Airbus to sell, and under those circumstances, there is probably no price TWA could afford to charge that both Airbus and Boeing would not be willing to undercut. I suspect that there will be no shortage of good delivery positions available. I have another post in the works that provides some insight into why neither aircraft is selling very well, and probably never will. my thoughts anyway.