From news Fri Jan 1 18:29:26 1999 Path: ditka!daver!news.he.net!pulsar.dimensional.com!dimensional.com!chippy.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: sammy@monmouth.com Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 Organization: Monmouth Internet Message-ID: <76en91$p3r$2@news.monmouth.com> References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 01:59:04 GMT >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 thought Boeing undercut MDs price, and that thats how they won the order. Thought the MD-95 was going to be the winner had Boeing not done that. Sammy From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:36 From: Vince Lanza Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Hello, My father is a retired 35 year TWA veteran, giving me quite a bit of insight into their operations and I have always been a big aviation fan, so let me try to answer some of your questions. James Matthew Weber wrote: > > 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. An ongoing concern with TWA is "right sizing" the fleet with the route network. That is one of the main reasons the L-1011's and 747's are gone. They were too big for TWA to fly profitably anymore. They also were getting old and very expensive to operate. The only small short haul aircraft that TWA has are old DC9-10/20 and 30's. These are not the most efficient aircraft to operate. That is where the 717 comes in. New technology, fuel efficiency and lower maintanence and similarity with an aircraft type that TWA already flys. The 318 comes in for the longer routes that demand greater frequency, and frequency is a thing that Southwest has proven to be effective. As for the 318 being a new aircraft type, TWA is buying into the A320 family of aircraft and will be phasing out the DC9/MD80 family. On TWA press release web page they discuss that the number of aircraft types will remain basically the same with the retirement of the 727's by the end of 1999. Since the end of the DC9/MD80 product lines is near it makes sense to invest in a newer aircraft with a broad family offering simplifying maintenance and training later on. Another note on the mixed order is that the 717 can be delivered much sooner than the 318's or any other narrow body airbuses. TWA needs the planes now and I am confident that if TWA could get the airbuses as soon as the boeings, the 717 probably would not have gotten the order. > 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. TWA has become an all P&W airline, with the 318 and A320 family that will continue. Of course the 717's will not have P&W engines, but they will account for a smaller share of the fleet. Also by choosing the engines for the 717's they are covering the order of engines that would have gone on the 330's, this way everyone is happy. > 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. The A318's also a have a somewhat wider cabin than 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. TWA's on-time performance has been number 1 the past three months, and within the top 3 I believe for the rest of the year. Start flight performance is up and schedule completion is higher than it has ever been. As newer, less maintenance needy aircraft come online, these should improve even further. > 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. Of course TWA has seen some rough times. Many a time TWA has been written off as dead or on the verge and it clings to life. No one can see into the future of course and TWA's biggest obstacle right now is getting better contracts from its workers. Contracts that will allow the airline to pay them more while working more efficiently and trimming the fat. If good contracts get signed and the yield management gets going, TWA will be on its way. Also TWA has recently payed down some loans that will add $100 million to the bank. > 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 can't really comment on that. > 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. Some thoughts to add to your thoughts. Vince From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:37 From: "greg" Subject: Re: DC-8 spoilers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM All the DC-8 series had airbrakes,ground spoilers, From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:38 From: checkmy@sig.gov (Ray Clawson) Subject: Re: DC-8 spoilers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Reply-To: checkmy@sig.gov On 29 Dec 98 03:12:31 , "Hans Jakobsson" keyed the mic for the PA system and announced in perfect English: >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? I don't know about DC8's from the factory(that was a long time ago) or any 70 series 8's, but, I am currently flying various 50's, 61's, 62's, and 63's. The spoiler system on the 8 does not operate as a speed brake system in flight(there is a placard on the handle that says something to the effect,"Do not operate in flight"). The outboard spoilers operate in conjunction with control wheel movement when the landing gear is down to provide more controllability in slow flight(flight regimes with the gear down). The spoilers are armed for landing on the before landing check list. With main tire spin-up, the spoilers will extend on landing. The spoilers can be manually deployed if there is something "not right" with the main gear wheel spin-up or on a rejected takeoff. The inboard engines on the 50-60 series 8's can be reversed in flight to serve as speed brakes. Power can be used up to maximum continuous(I have never used them past "idle reverse"). The gear and flaps must be retracted to use this feature. Speed must be less than 300 knots when coming out of inflight reverse. The airplane shakes a lot when using in flight reverse, it's no telling what is going on out on the pylons. Most dc8 pilots(including myself) avoid using the inflight reverse. Ray Clawson DC8 Captain -- Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. Cardinal Wolsey (1475?-1530) The reply field has been changed to foil spammbots. My email address is dc8ray at airmail dot net I don't know if this works or not but it makes me feel better. From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:39 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: the use of titanium in commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:12 AM 12/29/98 +0000, you wrote: >>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 Actually I suspect the largest amount of Titanium was probably used on the SR-71. It is a Titanium Aircraft. Titanium is a very difficult metal to machine, hence it tends to be utilized in places where extreme performance is required, and justifies the very high fabrication costs. I believe the fan disks in most large tubo fan engines are titanium (at least the one that flew out of a CF6 that caused the Sioux City crash landing was)..I doubt there is a lot of titanium in most civilian aircraft outside the engines. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 Gulf Computers Inc. From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:40 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: the use of titanium in commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I doubt there is a lot of titanium in most civilian >aircraft outside the engines. Perhaps, though the 777 is an exceptional aircraft in many ways. I was surprised to find out how much titanium it uses -- and composites. The landing gear (mains, can't remember about the nose gear) have a lot of it in major structural areas. Parts of the flattened tailcone are also titanium, specifically the piece with the hole for the APU exhaust. The seat rails are titanium in the flex zones, providing greater strength where heavier monoliths (galleys, lavs) might be located while keeping the standard mounting for seats. I think parts of the engine pylons are also titanium. The 777 uses significantly more titanium in the airframe than the 767, at least the 767-200/300, which in turn probably uses more than the 757 and 737. I don't know about the 747, or non-Boeing airliners, though I'd agree that the SR-71 (and other Blackbirds) probably win the "most titanium" sweepstakes. -- 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 Jan 4 22:20:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:41 From: "greg" Subject: Re: the use of titanium in commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM 747 uses more.The 777 uses alot of composites. From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:42 From: "Sunil Gupta" Subject: 747-300 blended wing-body joint Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I noticed something interesting when I was doing some research for a 747 model. I found a picture of an Air India 747-300 with the leading edge wing to body joint blended as all 747-400's have. After looking at some more photo's I've seen at least one ANA -300 with the blending, but all other -300's have the 'classic' style wing to body joint (of course this includes KLM's converted -200's) When did Boeing start making these changes on the 300's? This just adds one more complication in trying to model a 747-300!!! Thanks! Sunil From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:43 From: "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" Subject: B777-300/B777-300ER??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Hello guys..... pardon me if this has been discussed before.... and any help appreciated.... SIA recently took delivery of 2 B777-312s. However, in their statements, it was stated that they were B777-312IGW. Is there such a model (B777-300IGW)??? I thought that so far, there are only 3 variants of the B777??? The -200, -200ER, and the -300??? And I suppose SIA uses RR Trent 892 engines for their B777-312s??? Best Regards Lee Tze Yen, Bob 01/01/1999 0109h -- Congratulations to SIA for having taken delivery of their second Boeing 777-312 Jubilee (9V-SYB) on 18 December 1998. From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:44 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is there such a model (B777-300IGW)??? I thought that so far, there are >only 3 variants of the B777??? The -200, -200ER, and the -300??? It would of course be a 777-300ER since Boeing changed the clumsy IGW suffix to ER, but there's no such model either way, at least not in Boeing's opinion. Their web site lists three models: model MGTOW (min - max) ----- ----------------- 777-200 506,000 - 545,000 777-200ER 580,000 - 656,000 777-300 580,000 - 660,000 It's pretty clear that the base -300 is built around the -200ER as far as MGTOW and thus wings, engines, and landing gear. Boeing mentions a longer-range derivative of the 777-300 as being under study, but so far the larger 777 has ended up being mainly an intra-Asia aircraft, where the range of the current -300 is quite sufficient. -- 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 Jan 4 22:20:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:45 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Seat mile costs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:12 AM 12/29/98 +0000, you wrote: >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 ... It is kind of a stretch, but with some effort you can extract it from the data published in Avweek's Source book each January in the major airline profiles. It is an effort because it is published on an airline by airline basis, sou have to find a carrier with the right fleet mix. Alternatively, the data is probably contained in an airlines annual report to the share holders. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 Gulf Computers Inc. From kls Mon Jan 4 22:20:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jan 99 22:20:46 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Re: Seat mile costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UniPhone MP In article , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >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 ... The closest I have seen to *real* figures are the ones published in Air Transport World. Each month they publish representative figures for three similar types, breaking down the costs and listing sample size (and the all important average stage length). Also included are resale values. This is the only available data I have seen that isn't "filtered" by manufacturer or airline. John -- John Vincent Lombardi uniphone@home.com San Francisco, CA uniphone@compuserve.com From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:26 From: Ted Perez Subject: Drop tanks! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: tedperez@hotmail.com Hello again everyone. I keep reading about aircraft manufacturers struggling to extend the range of their aircraft, and i was just wondering why not use drop tanks? After all, if the plane can ferry an engine under the wing (making the plane appear to have five!), then why not drop tanks? Keep up the great-to-read posts! ted perez (from the Philippines!) From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:27 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: CFM56 on military 707s? (was: Re-engining 747s) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Stephen H. Westin wrote: > 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. The problem with the E-8 J-STARS is that putting CFM56s on them would block part of the radar scan pattern. Hence, they have to stay with lower bypass engines. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 13 02:13:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:28 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: CFM56 on military 707s? (was: Re-engining 747s) 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 29 Dec 98 03:12:22 , in , Stephen H. Westin wrote: >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... The 7 E-3 AWACS planes operated by the Royal Air Force as the Sentry AEW1 have CFM-56s 2A2s, the E-3 being based on a 707 airframe rather than 717/KC135 types. Also CFM powered are the five KE-3As operated by the Royal Saudi Air Force (used as tankers rather than surveillance aircraft) and presumably (no pictures or other data other than construction numbers to hand) also the 4 E-3As operated by France. The 18 operated by NATO would appear to be TF33 powered, but these are older, being built between 1981-84, as opposed to 1989-90 for the RAF ones. USAF AWACS planes, including E3-Bs, were all built before even the NATO planes, so all are (AFAIK) TF33 powered. I also have a picture of a US Navy E-6A with CFCM-56s - these were built new, but many of the E-8s were built using old civilian 707-300 airframes, so have JT3D/TF33 engines. -- John Wright From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:29 From: the_singer@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: UA 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion The standard "limit" for engine reliability pertaining to ETOPS operation is 0.02/1000 hours (Basic). The B777 figures are suggesting all engine manufacturers are well below that requirement; more impressively the figures quoted are for Basic+Non Basic. Perhaps it is time for the authorities to impose tougher limits for future ETOPS capable aircraft? The data provided in Marc's response did not include the higher rated thrust engines. Is their reliability worse? Does anyone have scheduled departure time reliability data for the engine manufacturers? -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:30 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >>Is there such a model (B777-300IGW)??? I thought that so far, there are >>only 3 variants of the B777??? The -200, -200ER, and the -300??? > >It would of course be a 777-300ER since Boeing changed the clumsy IGW >suffix to ER, but there's no such model either way, at least not in >Boeing's opinion. Their web site lists three models: > > model MGTOW (min - max) > ----- ----------------- > 777-200 506,000 - 545,000 > 777-200ER 580,000 - 656,000 > 777-300 580,000 - 660,000 > >It's pretty clear that the base -300 is built around the -200ER as far >as MGTOW and thus wings, engines, and landing gear. Boeing mentions a >longer-range derivative of the 777-300 as being under study, but so far >the larger 777 has ended up being mainly an intra-Asia aircraft, where >the range of the current -300 is quite sufficient. To the best of my knowledge, there is a higher gross weight B777-300 in addition to the planned B777-300X. However, I don't know the exact MGTOW, and I don't know if Boeing has a special designation for the aircraft. The certification of this version is delayed due to the delay of the PW4098 (98K lb thrust) engine certification. The first aircraft is expected to be delivered to Korean Air, the only customer at this time, by September. I doubt SQ's new -300 has MGTOW as high as the aforementioned aircraft. From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:31 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Unorganized Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" wrote: > Is there such a model (B777-300IGW)??? No there is only the B777-300 and the projected B777-300X > I thought that so far, there are > only 3 variants of the B777??? The -200, -200ER, and the -300??? Right till today with the B772X and 773X on the drawing boards > And I suppose SIA uses RR Trent 892 engines for their B777-312s??? 9V-SQA to 9V-SQF (B777-200IGW) are Trent 884's 9V-SRA to 9V-SRD (B777-200IGW) are Trent 892's 9V-SYA and 9V-SYB(B777-300) are Trent 892'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 Wed Jan 13 02:13:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:32 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Europainstitut Basel Hi all, the suffix "IGW" seems to be used inofficially (by airlines and possibly also by Boeing) for B777s certified to Increased Gross Weight operations, meaning the aircraft is externally similar to the "normal" version but is in its documents certified to fly with higher weights than the base model. I'm not familiar with the structural requirements for a 777 to become an "IGW" model, but I recall having read proud announcements of at least two airlines already operating a number of base model 777s that they were taking over their first IGW 777s. These airlines were Emirates, who circulated this message in the press upon taking delivery of their (if my brains remember it right) fourth 777-200 A6-EMG, thus making A6-EMD/E/F normal 777s. I also recall that British Airways once mentionned taking delivery of IGW 777's, and in the back of my mind I also wonder if Cathay Pacific did not also at least consider to follow this approach. Note that IGW does not necessarily mean that there is more fuel capacity nor that the maximal range is augmented over the base model. Higher weights can just mean that you get a more favourable trade off between payload restrictions applying and fuel quantity required when you're flying on route segments approaching the range/payload limits of the aircraft. No aircraft goes the maximum range with maximal load, as you would for sure exceed the MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight) and thus compromise operating safety when you try to do so (ok, some guys tried before, and not all got away with it, but that's a different story). And also remember that it certifying existing types to higher weights is not a new story at all. The MTOW for B747-200Fs and for B747-400Fs (just as an example) could be raised some way down the production process. I definitely recall that Luxemburg based cargo operator Cargolux was VERY proud to be the first airline to receive a 747 with a MTOW above 320'000 metric tons (and a maximal payload of above 100'000 metric tons) when they took delivery of their first new B747-200F in the early eighties. At this time, the B747-200 had been around for over 10 years. If I find out more about the above mentionned 777 IGW customers, I'll post a follow-on, but this will not be possible before mid January. Hope it helps, and have a nice weekend Lukas Lusser From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >the suffix "IGW" seems to be used inofficially (by airlines and possibly >also by Boeing) ... Given that it's used by Boeing in press releases, on their web site (see http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777-200/product.html), and various other places, I'd say it's pretty official, though recently they did say thay were changing the 777-200(IGW) model designation to 777-200(ER). >Note that IGW does not necessarily mean that there is more fuel capacity >nor that the maximal range is augmented over the base model. Perhaps not in general terms, but the only aircraft currently in production for which Boeing has used the designation is the 777-200(IGW) and one of its distinguishing features, relative to the base model of the 777-200, is an added center fuel tank. The wings and landing gear also have structural reinforcements, and some portions of the wing skin may be of heavier gauge. The higher fuel capacity and gross weight imply greater maximum range. >Higher >weights can just mean that you get a more favourable trade off between >payload restrictions applying and fuel quantity required when you're >flying on route segments approaching the range/payload limits of the >aircraft. True, though the primary reason for the IGW's existence is greater range. >And also remember that it certifying existing types to higher weights is >not a new story at all. The MTOW for B747-200Fs and for B747-400Fs (just >as an example) could be raised some way down the production process. In many cases you can even upgrade an older aircraft to the newer MGTOW. But not always, and you can't (usually) upgrade one model to another. You can buy a 777-200 with a 506,000 lbs MGTOW and subsequently upgrade it to as high as 545,000 lbs, but you can't turn it into a 777-200(IGW), just as you can't upgrade a 747-100 into a 747-200B. Boeing still offers both models of the 777-200 because there is a (limited) market for the less capable non-IGW model. Not a very big market, perhaps, but United ordered a few more for domestic use last year. That's the only non-IGW order I'm aware of since the IGW became available, but once the Asian financial crises eases there could be orders from that region for regional routes where the 777-300 is too large. -- 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 Jan 13 02:13:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:34 From: "greg" Subject: Re: 707 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I didnt know they had slats.I know they used kruegers. From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:35 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 707 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. Marc Schaeffer wrote: > 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. I have recently built CFD models of the KC-135 and 707-320C, so I think I have this figured out. Here is my take: 1) The 367-80 had a swept trapezoidal wing with a small inboard trailing edge chord extension and a root trailing edge fillet. The wing airfoils were NACA 63, 64 and 65-series with modified camber lines. Span is 130'. I can't tell if the 367-80 started life with leading edge devices, though it had them later in life. 2) The C-135 series has almost the same wing, but the span is slightly greater (130' 10"), as the fuselage is wider. There are two Kruger flap panels inboard of the inboard pylon, two inboard of the outboard pylon and four on the outboard wing. There are no Krugers outboard of the inboard pylon or at the wing root. 3) The 707-120 series also has the same wing. Span is listed as being the same as the C-135 (130' 10"). This seems strange, as the 707 has a wider fuselage than the C-135. 4) The 720 had a glove added over the root leading edge area, to increase the wing's drag divergence Mach number. Otherwise, the wing is the same as the 707-120. 5) The 707-320 introduced a extensively modified wing. The planform now has a trailing edge "Yehudi", where the chord is extended inboard. Span is also increased to 145' 8.5". Two more Kruger panels added inboard of each pylon, increasing spanwise coverage. 6) The 707-320C had a leading edge droop added outboard of the outboard pylon. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Jan 13 02:13:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:36 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: 707 wings 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 29 Dec 98 03:12:20 , in , Marc Schaeffer wrote: >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. The picture I have of the 367-80 on its first flight certainly shows no sign of leading edge slats or flaps. It was though equipped with small inboard ailerons, larger outboard ailerons, and spoilers. (and flaps of course...) This aircraft was also used for many tests of wing configuration, including fixed slats at various angles, blown flaps, and later seems to have been fitted with normal retracting leading edge slats. Its wingspan was 129ft 8in. The initial production 707-100s had leading edge Kreuger flaps 12 feet long inboard of the outboard engines. The 100B had additional Kreuger type flaps and a revised inboard leading edge. The -300 had a larger wingspan, 142ft 5in cf. the 130ft 10in of the 100/200. The "Advanced 707-300B" wing was even longer with a span of 145ft 9in. The 300B also introduced "additional and wider leading edge flaps, and revised trailing edge flaps", and the wing leading edge outboard of the outer engines was extended by five inches forward. It also had curved wingtips. (mostly from Peter M. Bowers Boeing Aircraft since 1916") -- John Wright From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:37 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: the use of titanium in commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin James Matthew Weber wrote: > Titanium is a very difficult metal to machine, hence it tends to be > utilized in places where extreme performance is required, and justifies > the very high fabrication costs. That is actually a sort of "urban legend" left over from the 60s. Titanium requires *different* procedures to machine and particularly to weld, however it is not significantly more expensive to work with given a machine shop that has experience with both steel and titanium. In fact, titanium can be significantly cheaper than steel in some applications and when you factor in all the costs associated with making and using the part. -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:38 From: Frank Jenkins Subject: Re: the use of titanium in commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Savantics Inc. Reply-To: fjenkins@Savantics-Inc.com Karl Swartz wrote: > ...... The > seat rails are titanium in the flex zones, providing greater strength > where heavier monoliths (galleys, lavs) might be located while keeping > the standard mounting for seats. ...... I was told by an engineer who worked on the 777 that the reason for using titanium in the flex areas was for corrosion resistance (higher likelihood of spilled fluids), but the added strength may have been a reason also. Frank From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:39 From: airbearzln@aol.com (AirBearZln) Subject: re: the use of titanium in commercial aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I dont know if you all would consider aerobatic aircraft as "commercial", but most of the state-of-the-art aerobatic monoplanes use a good deal of Ti, esp. in the landing gear. All the recent Sukhois use Ti main gear. All three gear legs on my Zlin are also. From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:40 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: Seat mile costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I believe it is actually necessary to filter the published "actual" data, much of which does not make sense (for instance negative maintenance costs if a lot of warranty claims are paid or credited in the quarter) and some of which is driven by very carrier specific circumstances (different seating configurations, prices of the aircraft, sector lengths, fuel prices, cost allocations, block hours reported as flying hours or v.v.). The manufacturers' data is probably reasonable to compare their own aircraft (and may be on the web-site or in brochures that the PR departments can give you). When manufacturers show their aircraft as having seat-mile costs 8% less than the opposition, it may be true under the specific rules used for the comparison but not in the real world. Since maintenance costs vary by age, the answer may never be known! One guide is that if, for instance, B737-700/800 and A320 are both selling well, the airlines must believe that the units costs are fairly close. If they were not, the aircraft would go out of production. The importance of cargo is great for many non-US airlines. If you credit cargo revenue as a cost off-set, it transforms the relative seat-mile costs of a wide-body compared to a narrow-body. This is one reason why the B767 sold better internationally than the B757. [Range is obviously also important]. Sorry if this sounds negative! The question is a good one, but like many good questions, the answer is quite difficult! Antoin Daltun From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:41 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: DC-8 spoilers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Ray Clawson wrote: > The inboard engines on the 50-60 series 8's can be reversed in flight > to serve as speed brakes. Power can be used up to maximum > continuous(I have never used them past "idle reverse"). The gear and > flaps must be retracted to use this feature. Speed must be less than > 300 knots when coming out of inflight reverse. The airplane shakes a > lot when using in flight reverse, it's no telling what is going on out > on the pylons. Most dc8 pilots(including myself) avoid using the > inflight reverse. I was only on a DC-8 flight once where this was used. The pilot said he had just been given a new clearance for approach (into Dallas) and wanted to take it, as we could cut some time. But he had to make a rapid descent. He warned everyone that there would be a whole lot of moving and shakin going on, and lots of noise. He was right, but we sure did loose altitude fast. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ home email- stauffer@gte.net work email- stauffer@htc.honeywell.com From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:42 From: "Steven" Subject: Re: DC-8 spoilers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The Air Canada DC-8-63 that crashed after a aborted landing in Toronto was caused by the First Officer deploying the ground spoilers in-flight instead of arming them on final. The aircraft landed very hard and one of the engine/pylon combination tore off the wing. The shear off bolts didn't work as designed and the skin tore off under the wing. The Captain, unaware of the extent of his problems, initiated a go around. When the aircraft was circling for another approach, the wing exploded and the aircraft dived into the ground at high speed. Steven From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:43 From: epsinger@aol.com (EPSinger) Subject: 727 v-speeds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Anybody have 727-200 V-speeds that they could email or post? Thanks Evan Singer From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:44 From: niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (niels sampath) Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: L1011500 Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article vinlan19@flex.net "Vince Lanza" writes: > > TWA has become an all P&W airline, with the 318 and A320 > family that will continue. Has the PW6000 been officially offered on the 319/320/321? -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:45 From: ITRADE@prodigy.net Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , Vince Lanza wrote: > The 318 comes in for the longer routes that > demand greater frequency, and frequency is a thing that > Southwest has proven to be effective. As for the 318 being a The high frequency issue is related to the 717, not to the Airbus 318 according to Gitner. > new aircraft type, TWA is buying into the A320 family of > aircraft and will be phasing out the DC9/MD80 family. On TWA > press release web page they discuss that the number of > aircraft types will remain basically the same with the > retirement of the 727's by the end of 1999. Since the end of > the DC9/MD80 product lines is near it makes sense to invest > in a newer aircraft with a broad family offering simplifying > maintenance and training later on. If simplifying maintenance is such an issue, then why does TW just run with an airbus family only or a boeing family only??? Why didn't they consider then buying the 717 and the MD-90 or A-319/320/321s? Since TW will receive 24 MD-83s next year, you can hardly discount the longevity or presence of additional MD aircraft. > TWA has become an all P&W airline, with the 318 and A320 > family that will continue. Of course the 717's will not have > P&W engines, but they will account for a smaller share of > the fleet. Also by choosing the engines for the 717's they > are covering the order of engines that would have gone on > the 330's, this way everyone is happy. 50 aircraft is not a small number when your fleet is under 250. > TWA's on-time performance has been number 1 the past three > months, and within the top 3 I believe for the rest of the > year. Start flight performance is up and schedule completion > is higher than it has ever been. As newer, less maintenance > needy aircraft come online, these should improve even > further. Unfortunately, wait until the december figures come out. Rich -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:46 From: "S.L." Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin Vince Lanza wrote: > TWA's on-time performance has been number 1 the past three > months, and within the top 3 I believe for the rest of the > year. Start flight performance is up and schedule completion > is higher than it has ever been. As newer, less maintenance > needy aircraft come online, these should improve even > further. The last sentence is a great theory, but in my years of air travel it has been the exact OPPOSITE of what I've observed. I've been delayed, rerouted, stuck in airports, and stranded FAR more often by new aircraft than I have by old birds needing maintenance. I have a number of examples, but as long as I may live, I will NEVER forget the night in DFW when not one but TWO MD-90's (less than 6 months in the fleet at the time) were unable to depart to get me home. The only "old bird" delay that comes to mind was waiting a couple of hours while a 727 was getting a new cockpit instrument in FLL (and much of that time was waiting for the part to be ferried in!). -- Stephen Lacker Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas at Austin slacker@arlut.utexxas.edu (Remove the extra 'x' to mail me) From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:47 From: jyl7806@kcmetro.cc.mo.us Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com>, > 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. TW is not a regional. The different mission theory is only valid if TW management has finally accepted a truism of this industry...frequency is king. This is an important point. Its roots actually go back to deregulation and its effect on the airlines. Essentially speaking, its very hard to build market share on a particular route if you go there once or twice a day (assuming the particular route is of a critical mass.) Ask Vanguard. Instead of saying "We're going to dominate the MCI-LAS route," they have shell-gamed their route structure trying to find a paying one. Airlines that were essentially the high-tempo carriers pre-78 are the carriers today that are dominant. AA and DL come to mind immediatly. They parlaid their initial advantage into market dominance. Their route structure, a/c and host of other little advantages allowed them to weather the storm. This aircraft order tells me that TW's management has finally pounded it through that sending 5 MD-8xs into SEA isn't working, when everyone else sends 10. You are then forced to fill your a/c with low-yield pax. This starts the vicious circle the airline finds itself today. 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. The fact that the A318 is a new a/c to TW is startling. However, TW now wants to use it on thick routes in a high tempo manner. The nice part about both the 717 and 318 is their direct operating costs (in the long term.) We've been over the highly complex nature of short term OCs so I'll try to distill my argument. Basically, TW will try to use its small, efficent a/c to run high tempo ops. For ex. STL-SEA 12 times a day instead of 4. The 717 will do the same, except for shorter legs. In this case, ground turnaround time is important, because Lambert isn't getting any bigger soon. Therefore, since you can't double your bank size, you're going to have to launch more banks. I don't know how many banks TW launches and recovers a day, but if anyone cares, I'll find out. Related to the different nature of the Airbus point, this might point to a A340 buy in the near future. I've always been a proponent of 340 as a good replacement for the 74 on the long range stuff. > 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. Freight lift is a problem. Point taken. > 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. I would say "historically poor." TW's recent dispatch reliably has been pretty good. Moreover, these statistics mean nothing other than a baseless measure the Feds use. In the words of P.J O'Rourke, comparing waxed apples to waxed oranges. If anyone wants to know how to trip an ACARS, email me... or don't ;-) My point is that the numbers can and are cooked. > 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. My personal take on this is that TW is talking more poor than it actually is. None of us (presumibly) has read the 10Ks of TW. There is a very good reason that TW would try to hide as much $$ as possible. Contract negotiations. 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 its true that TW didnt want the 330 while they had the 76, the 330 order did serve to keep TW's foot in the door with AI, and with AI's traditional willingness to change aircraft type within an order, as a stick to use with Boeing. > 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. As I noted eariler, I doubt TW is playing used car salesman (except WRT the contract negotiations.) I could be wrong. > I have another post in the works that provides some insight into why > neither aircraft is selling very well, and probably never will. And that one re: the 717 and 318 is good, too. > my thoughts anyway. Me too. Justin -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:48 From: Robert Dorsett Subject: Tex Johnston dead. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM AOPA Pilot reports that Tex Johnston is dead, at age 84, of complications from Alzheimers. -- 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 Jan 13 02:13:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:49 From: brewersnl@aol.comih8spam (BrewersNL) Subject: Re: 747-300 blended wing-body joint References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >After looking at some more >photo's I've seen at least one ANA -300 with the blending Could that ANA -300 possibly have been a 747-400D? The Domestic (Short Range) version of the 747-400 does not have winglets. Join the Milwaukee Brewers e-mail list by sending an e-mail to: milwbrew-subscribe@egroups.com From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:50 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: 747-300 blended wing-body joint References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Sunil Gupta wrote: > I noticed something interesting when I was doing some research for a 747 > model. I found a picture of an Air India 747-300 with the leading edge wing > to body joint blended as all 747-400's have. After looking at some more > photo's I've seen at least one ANA -300 with the blending, but all > other -300's have the 'classic' style wing to body joint (of course this > includes KLM's converted -200's) > > When did Boeing start making these changes on the 300's? The 747-400-style wing/body fairing was made standard for all 747 models from line number 704 in June, 1998 and on. It is also available as a modification kit. To further complicate your life, you ought to know that a small change to the dorsal (vertical) fin fairing was instituted on 747-400s from December 93 and on. There is a slightly differenct, but noticable change where the vertical fin meets the top of the fuselage. Again, this is also available for retrofit. Hope this helps Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:51 From: Sergio Marques Subject: Re: 747-300 blended wing-body joint References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: instituto de Telecomunicacoes Reply-To: marques@everest.lx.it.pt Sunil Gupta wrote: > I noticed something interesting when I was doing some research for a 747 > model. I found a picture of an Air India 747-300 with the leading edge wing > to body joint blended as all 747-400's have. After looking at some more > photo's I've seen at least one ANA -300 with the blending, but all > other -300's have the 'classic' style wing to body joint (of course this > includes KLM's converted -200's) How do you know it's a -300? Boeing made a special version of the 747-400 for ANA. I think they have the -300 wings on a -400 fuselage and an improved main landing gear to cope with the high-cycle regime of Japan's domestic short-haul flights. Since they don't have the wingtips, a lot of people think these aircraft are 747-300. Hope this helps! Sergio From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:52 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: 747-300 blended wing-body joint References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , Sunil Gupta wrote: >I noticed something interesting when I was doing some research for a 747 >model. I found a picture of an Air India 747-300 with the leading edge wing >to body joint blended as all 747-400's have. After looking at some more >photo's I've seen at least one ANA -300 with the blending, but all >other -300's have the 'classic' style wing to body joint (of course this >includes KLM's converted -200's) > >When did Boeing start making these changes on the 300's? Someone had asked this question before. At that time, I didn't know the answer. However, after some "research," I noticed that all the -300s with the -400 wing-body fairings have the CF6-80C2 engine which are also the engine used on the -400. However, I don't believe ANA has any -300. You must have mistaken ANA's -400D (domestic version that does not have the winglets but can later be retrofitted for long-haul ops) with the -300. THAI and Varig also have this type of 747-300. From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:53 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Stand-by instruments (was external inspection) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com M. Jones wrote: > >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 ... How would breaking the glass of the VSI give you an alternate static source in a pressurized aircraft? From kls Wed Jan 13 02:13:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Jan 99 02:13:54 From: felton@Princeton.EDU (Phil. G. Felton) Subject: Re: Stand-by instruments (was external inspection) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University In article , "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" wrote: > >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 ... Well it wouldn't work in a pressurized plane anyway. I'd be surprized if all the instruments on the modern planes were all electric. Even on a light plane like a Cessna there are vacuum driven gyros and elect driven gyros to prevent total system dropout in case of a power failure. There's usually an alternate static source provided (external static ports do get blocked in icing conditions sometimes). Of course you have to recognize when you need it! Phil. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:10 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: 747 EUD CG change. Stab change? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Someone asked me if Boeing enlarged the horizontal stab on the 747 when they extended the upper deck to compensate for the CG change. I don't think the stab was changed. I figure that considering the high weight of all the fuel that could be in different places affecting the CG that the extra weight of the extended upper deck really is relatively small. Does anyone know? Was there any stab change or did they recalibrate the trim's zero setting? Thanks, Matt Student Pilot Seattle, Washington '90 240SX... 'tis the season for oversteer! I love getting high...Cessna 172. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:11 From: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (niels sampath) Subject: Re: 707 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: L1011500 Reply-To: niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article dave@amiwest.com "David Lednicer" writes: > > 3) The 707-120 series also has the same wing. Span is listed as being > the same as the C-135 (130' 10"). This seems strange, as the 707 has a > wider fuselage than the C-135. Interesting. Just a guess...but perhaps the slightly wider 707 fuselage was only with regard to the -upper- lobe of the double bubble cross-section and not the lower lobe where the wings are faired-in/attached ? Note the C-135 series doesn't have the lobe `crease' so maybe all the expansion was above the floor line. -- -Niels (for e-mail replies you -might- have to replace 'nospam' with 'lofgren') From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:12 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 707 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > Interesting. Just a guess...but perhaps the slightly >wider 707 fuselage was only with regard to the -upper- lobe of the >double bubble cross-section and not the lower lobe where the wings >are faired-in/attached ? Note the C-135 series doesn't have the >lobe `crease' so maybe all the expansion was above the floor line. According to diagrams in a book on the C-135 which I saw a while back, you're right, the extra four inches of width in the 707's fuselage is entirely in the upper lobe. The lower lobe of the 707 is identical to that of the C-135. -- 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 Sun Jan 17 02:37:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:13 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: 707 wings References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet David Lednicer (dave@amiwest.com) wrote: : 2) The C-135 series has almost the same wing, but the span is slightly : greater (130' 10"), as the fuselage is wider. There are two Kruger flap : panels inboard of the inboard pylon, two inboard of the outboard pylon : and four on the outboard wing. There are no Krugers outboard of the : inboard pylon or at the wing root. Maybe I'm missing something. How can a panel be inboard of an outboard pylon without being outboard of the inboard pylon? Gerry K8EF -- Gerry From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:14 From: tjarko@dutlbcz.lr.tudelft.nl (Tjarko de Jong) Subject: Re: Drop tanks! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Delft University of Technology On 13 Jan 99 02:13:26 , Ted Perez wrote: >I keep reading about aircraft manufacturers struggling to extend >the range of their aircraft, and i was just wondering why not use >drop tanks? After all, if the plane can ferry an engine under >the wing (making the plane appear to have five!), then why not >drop tanks? The fuel capacity does not limit the range of the plane in most cases the limitation is the Maximum Take-Off Weight. For a large part payload and fuel are interchangeble. Tjarko From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:15 From: arch6@mail.inlink.com (arch) Subject: Re: Drop tanks! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: McK&A In article , tedperez@hotmail.com wrote: > I keep reading about aircraft manufacturers struggling to extend > the range of their aircraft, and i was just wondering why not use > drop tanks? After all, if the plane can ferry an engine under > the wing (making the plane appear to have five!), then why not > drop tanks? First, fix your reply to reply once, you've posted five times. [Moderator's note: He only posted once. Perhaps your news server is having a problem. -- Karl] Drop tanks are a design, operations and maintenance nightmare. Design: Drag on a station pylon is very big (undesirable, minimizes payback). Conformal tanks reduce some drag but increase effective cross-section. All tanks require stressed attachment points and plumbing for: effective filling (residual fuel and partial fill hazards) effective draining (residual fuel and cg) effective transfer (drops-wings-(tail)-main bags, what order?) emergency dump (time, control and cg) Fire (detect, suppress, jettison?) Fire (extra fuel, skin thickness, vulnerability (also to ground vehicles)) Non-tank aircraft have over-designed landing gear and other "extra" weight. Operations: Now which aircraft have that configuration? How to shuttle aircraft through dispatches to the one or two routes that really need this gas. How to get tanks up/down loaded effeciently when not needed. Pilot training (normal and emergency) Maintenance: relays, wires, pressurization storage, shipping, prepositioning and relocation of tanks people quals to up/download (currency) corrosion control From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:16 From: megazone@megazone.org (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Drop tanks! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe tedperez@hotmail.com shaped the electrons to say: >I keep reading about aircraft manufacturers struggling to extend >the range of their aircraft, and i was just wondering why not use >drop tanks? After all, if the plane can ferry an engine under >the wing (making the plane appear to have five!), then why not >drop tanks? 1. Cost. Drop tanks are VERY expensive. You have to engineer them to withstand the stresses of flight - then you throw them away. You'd have to have a supply of them available at all of your airports. 2. Risk. Military aircraft sometimes suffer seperation failures. Drop tanks are not fool-proof. 3. Liability. Where do you drop them? This is only even an option on over-water flights. And believe be all kinds of ecological groups would be all over this idea with rabid lawyers. And what if the odds bite you and you manage to drop a tank on a boat? And if you mean just adding external tanks - not *drop* tanks: 4. Drag. When you start hanging things externally you add a good deal of drag. You may carry more fuel and gain range - but you'll burn more fuel per mile, and your seat-mile costs will go *up*. -MZ -- Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me.. Join ISP/C Internet Service Providers' Consortium "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 781-788-0130 Hail Discordia! From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:17 From: "Si Zarco" Subject: Re: Drop tanks! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Ted Perez wrote in message ... >I keep reading about aircraft manufacturers struggling to extend >the range of their aircraft, and i was just wondering why not use >drop tanks? After all, if the plane can ferry an engine under >the wing (making the plane appear to have five!), then why not >drop tanks? Well, I would assume (from my chronically limited knowledge of aeronautics/aerodynamics - that's why I came here) that to add a tank of sufficient capacity to have any decent effect on the range of the aircraft would increase drag to such an extent that it would counter fuel economy to the extent that it's presence would become academic. Not sure though. -- Si Deadline? What Deadline? szarco@nofuckinspamglobalnet.co.uk ICQ:732738 From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:18 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Drop tanks! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom Ted Perez (tedperez@hotmail.com) wrote: : I keep reading about aircraft manufacturers struggling to extend : the range of their aircraft, and i was just wondering why not use : drop tanks? After all, if the plane can ferry an engine under : the wing (making the plane appear to have five!), then why not : drop tanks? Why drop the tanks? In other words, why not use external fixed/permanent tanks? (Fire danger?) Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:19 From: "Scott" Subject: True Air Speed? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Short and Sweet. Can anyone tell me how to work out TAS for IAS? What other info is required? Thanks in advance. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:20 From: emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) Subject: SR111 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Has it been made public yet what killed the passengers of SR111? Was it impact, smoke inhalation or drowning? Is it possible that SR111 hit the water like the Eastern L-1011 hit the Everglades swamp, meaning that the emergency (real this time) distracted the crew? From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:21 From: "Russ Farris" Subject: Re: DC-8 spoilers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp I noticed the discussion about DC-8 inflight reverse. As a former DC-8 pilot with about 4,500 in type, I can count on one hand the times I used it! But effective however. ALL series, from the -11 to the -73 used inboard reverse inflight, not just the -50s and 60s. Since the DC-8 did not use wing spoilers as speedbrakes, reverse was required to meet emergency descent requirements. In fact with an inboard reverser inop, the MEL had an altitude restriction for this very reason, which I can't remember off-hand (too many airplanes flown since). Long live the mighty DC-8! Russ Farris From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:22 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Note that IGW does not necessarily mean that there is more fuel capacity >nor that the maximal range is augmented over the base model. Higher >weights can just mean that you get a more favourable trade off between >payload restrictions applying and fuel quantity required when you're >flying on route segments approaching the range/payload limits of the >aircraft. No aircraft goes the maximum range with maximal load, as you >would for sure exceed the MTOW (Maximum Take Off Weight) and thus >compromise operating safety when you try to do so (ok, some guys tried >before, and not all got away with it, but that's a different story). I am going to take issue with that statement. If you look at the 777-200 base versus the 200IGW/ER model, there is a very large difference in available MGTOW. 777-200 has an MGTOW is 545,5000 pounds. The IGW/ER is now available up to 648,000 pounds. However a much interesting figure is Maximum Landing Weight, or MLW. The 777-200 MLW is 445,000 pounds. Early -200IGW/ER's were also 445,000 pounds, although that has subsequently been increased to 460,000 pounds. Even then there was an increase in empty weight of about 3000 pounds between the -200 and the IGW/ER variant. If the MGTOW goes up and landing weight doesn't, the only thing the extra MGTOW can be used for is fuel carriage. If the only thing you can use the extra MGTOW for is fuel carriage, how can it not be for extra fuel carriage? Until the sector length is such that the fuel burn exceeds the spread between MLW and MGTOW, some versions of the IGW/ER aircraft will actually have less lift capacity than the standard 200. (Higher empty weight, and same landing weight as standard -200). James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 Gulf Computers Inc. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:23 From: mike@dizzydev.com (Mike Schmitt) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Boeing still offers both models of the 777-200 because there is a >(limited) market for the less capable non-IGW model. Not a very big >market, perhaps, but United ordered a few more for domestic use last >year. That's the only non-IGW order I'm aware of since the IGW became >available, but once the Asian financial crises eases there could be >orders from that region for regional routes where the 777-300 is too >large. Karl -- Do you know what UAL 777 airplanes are IGW versus not? Did UAL use the N-numbers sequentially, i.e. 760-780 for the standard lot, and 781-790 for the IGWs? Or are they randomly scattered? Cheers, Mike From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:24 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Do you know what UAL 777 airplanes are IGW versus not? Did UAL use >the N-numbers sequentially, i.e. 760-780 for the standard lot, and >781-790 for the IGWs? Or are they randomly scattered? In most cases, when UA orders a batch of aircraft, they have started with 1 within the chosen registration sequence, with aircraft numbered in production (not necessarily delivery) sequence. If someone else is using the registration, they just skip it, as opposed to AA and DL (for example) who keep the number but alter the suffix. Thus, UA's 767-222 fleet is registered N601UA thru N620UA, skipping N616UA which was presumably used at the time by someone else. N606UA was the first to be delivered because it was UA's sixth 767 off the production line -- N601UA is worn by line number 2 (LN 1 was retained by Boeing) even though it was delivered later due to its participation in the flight test program. With the 777, UA did things a bit differently. Their launch order was for 34 (plus 34 options), and they picked the N7xxUA range, but decided to use the *last* 34 numbers, perhaps so one plane would wear N777UA. They registered the first aircraft to be *delivered* as N777UA, then started at the beginning of the sequence (N766UA) and numbered them in delivery sequence from there, skipping the already-used N777UA. Even accounting for N777UA, this means they're not in production order, since UA's first four planes were part of the flight test program. Those four were registered in their planned delivery order, coming, in jumbled, order after the first six deliveries and thus registered N771UA thru N774UA. Fortunately, these were still before the first IGW so you can just remember that the first sixteen aircraft (N766UA thru N781UA) are non-IGW and not have to worry about the order within the sub-fleet unless you're really into trivia, in which case you'd better memorize the following list: reg msn ln dely --- ----- -- ---- N766UA 26917 8 5/95 first completed revenue svc (DEN-ORD) N767UA 26918 9 5/95 N768UA 26919 11 6/95 N769UA 26921 12 6/95 N770UA 26925 13 7/95 N771UA 26932 3 11/95 N772UA 26930 5 9/95 N773UA 26929 4 1/96 N774UA 26936 2 3/96 first 777 built for a customer N775UA 26947 22 1/96 N776UA 26937 27 4/96 N777UA 26916 7 5/95 first delivery; first revenue svc (LHR-IAD) N778UA 26940 34 7/96 N779UA 26941 35 7/96 N780UA 26944 36 8/96 N781UA 26945 40 9/96 The IGWs start with N782UA, and continue in delivery (and construction) sequence up thru N799UA. Then it gets weird, because UA ordered more of them, and of course the initial order had run out the top of the N7xxUA series. The next one after N799UA is N704UA, then N705UA. They'll most likely go in sequence from there, possibly with gaps. I think all of the IGWs are due before the first non-IGW, so there should be a clean break, but even if true now, things could change. Since most airlines only bought the non-IGW version until they could get the IGW, they also tend to have them in distinct blocks. BA, for example, has their 777-236 models as G-ZZZA thru G-ZZZE, while the IGWs are G-VIIA up to at least G-VIIM plus, for some reason, G-RAES. -- 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 Sun Jan 17 02:37:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:25 From: "Diego T" Subject: A 320 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TIN Hallo guys! my name is Diego, i'm a young co-pilot in the A320. I'd like to know if some of you "Old Eagle" have a strange filling with the FMGS. According to me, some time the system il very lazy, it take several seconds to react at a change in the FCU. It's normal? And if it's so, why is so slow to react? My laptop is faster! Thank-you. diego From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:26 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: CFM56 on military 707s? (was: 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 Stephen H. Westin wrote: > 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. That's part of the reason why USAF bought ex-civilian 707s to convert to E-8s. Introducing something new is much easier than converting something old in such a large institution. Most of the E-8s (including the prototype) are ex-Qantas 707s. Cheers David From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:27 From: Greg Locock Subject: Re: the use of titanium in commercial planes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: limited Reply-To: glocock@my-dejanews.com S.L. wrote: > James Matthew Weber wrote: > > Titanium is a very difficult metal to machine, hence it tends to be > > utilized in places where extreme performance is required, and justifies > > the very high fabrication costs. > > That is actually a sort of "urban legend" left over from the 60s. > Titanium requires *different* procedures to machine and particularly to > weld, however it is not significantly more expensive to work with given > a machine shop that has experience with both steel and titanium. In > fact, titanium can be significantly cheaper than steel in some > applications and when you factor in all the costs associated with making > and using the part. I agree - in applications I have used it in Titanium components typically cost around 20% more than the equivalent part in stainless steel. This is a roundabout way of saying that for my parts the machining cost was the largest part of the piece cost. As to the difficulty of machining - a modern machining centre handles TiAl6V4 with ease - the short chip lengths make it easier than steel. If you can machine Unbrako bolts then you can machine Ti. The biggest problem for small projects is getting the bar-stock in a reasonable size. -- Cheers Greg Locock Interested in efficient electric wheel-motors? Have a butchers at http://www.tip.csiro.au/Machines/papers/iwscem/ It's the best in the world! I know, cos I designed the easy bits. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:28 From: agtabby@aol.com (Agtabby) Subject: re: the use of titanium in commercial aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I read once in an aviation mag that the DC-7 was the first commercial aircraft to use titanium. Has anyone else seen this? Andrew From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:29 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , epsinger@aol.com (EPSinger) wrote: >Anybody have 727-200 V-speeds that they could email or post? The vary for each takeoff depending on Gross Weight, Power Setting, Flap Setting, Pressure Altitude, Temperature, Runway Slope and Obstructions. Ron From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:30 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >From: epsinger@aol.com > >Anybody have 727-200 V-speeds that they could email or post? There are several speeds, and they all vary significantly with weight. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:31 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I agree with your proposition that people should be considered first... and it is principally for our (people's) future that I am concerned.... continuous dumping of petroleum products (whether a couple of quarts of used auto oil dumped in back yards, gallons of seepage from storage facilities, or thousands of gallons of atomized jet fuel) being dispersed over the earth for a hundred years can hardly produce a positive environment for my children's children....Mind's eye sees the gradual evolution of man's physiology trying to accommodate the long term attack of all the pollutants we casually dismiss as "necessary" for today's activities (in the instant case, dumping fuel as an inconclusive intervention aimed at a nebulous safety benefit for a few hundred folks) leaving us looking like one of the alien creatures created for "Star Trek". The rational mind cries out for a more judicious approach (not forgetting that other creatures may be equally important to earth's long term prospects). In the spirit of Bluecoat (and the holiday season) my thought was that we could all advocate a position on this subject some where between the extremes.... that dumping in some cases might be absolutely the correct policy, but that we should move far from the current tendency to dump anytime a temp or pressure climbs above the yellow, or anytime an engine gives indications below 100%...or where landing weights might be marginally exceeded. Please note that these remarks are my personal point of view and may not be consistent with my employers stated or intended policy... Happy Holidays to all!!!! From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:32 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 23 Dec 98 03:53:00 , Driftwood Media Services wrote: >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. Mr. McHugh would rather land a plane full of people over the max landing weight just becasue JET-A *may* not evaporate an *may* cause some environmental harm?? Landing above max landing weight is dangerous. There is a reason planes have this operating limitation. Landing above the max landing weight is not SAFE. The pilot has the resposibility with the saftey of the flight. I hope he far better likes the idea of a plane landing, the gear collapsing, and ALL that jet fuel buning, and killing a bunch of people. What about the environmental impact of that?? From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:33 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: 737 Operational Manual References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 29 Dec 98 03:12:32 , "Niel Solomon" wrote: >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. maybe boeing will sell you one. if not, try some of the aeronautical universities. they may have training programs for aircraft such as the 737. Maybe they could sell you one. Jeff From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:34 From: peter neville gurnell Subject: Re: 737 Operational Manual References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Canada Internet Direct, Inc. Niel Solomon wrote: > 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. Boeing would seem like a logical choice. But you should buy the aircraft first. They come with it free. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:35 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 29 Dec 98 03:12:29 , JF Mezei wrote: >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 ? These are airspeeds. How fast the plane travels across the ground doesn't mean much. You want to know how fast the air travels over the wing. >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 ? It wouldn't appear to be inop. If the static pressure trapped inside the system was the same as the current outside static pressure, everything would appear normal. You would only notice an invalid reading when the static pressure changes from what is trapped inside the system. >I was under the impression that reaching V1 and V2 speeds is a critical phase >of any takeoff. Is this really the case ? yup. V1 is the desicion speed. It is calculated on various factors such as runway length, airplane configuration, airport elevation, temperature, pressure, and airplane weight. If something bad happens before this speed, take off is to be aborted. Once you hit this speed, you are COMMITTED to taking off. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:36 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 23 Dec 98 03:52:41 , JF Mezei wrote: >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 ? I gues they don't *HAVE* to, but many do. If you learn to fly in the civilian world, you will start with a simple, single engine plane, very possibly a Cessna >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 ? Well, an airspeed indicator isn't a fancy indicator. On an airliner, it may be some fancy electronic display, but small planes will have all the same basic flight instrucments. When you start to fly, you don't just "fly by the seat of yor pants". Flying small planes has the precision that large transport planes do. You're still taught to climb out at certain airspeeds (Vx or Vy), and are certainly taught to hit specific target airpeeds while on approach to landing. >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 ? Again, GPS would provide a ground speed, and this isn't meaningful during a takeoff roll. Besides, it may not be accurate enough. I certainly would not rely on it. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:37 From: John van Veen Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services JF Mezei wrote: > 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. Hmmm, perhaps the flight engineer should be brought back as a Flight Systems Engineer. > 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 ? You cannot fly by the seat of your pants if you do not have external reference for the eye balls. At least that is the way it is explained to me. > 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 ? You would think that knowing the throttle setting and having some basic idea of the condition of the aircraft would give you a ball park figure for the air speed. But having never been in the situtation that led to this thread, and hoping I never will be, I just don't know. John From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:38 From: andyweir 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 > 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. Absolutely. But read the CVR transcript for tragedy that affects us all. You can see them gradually deducing what is wrong, realising that they have no airspeed, altimeter, etc, etc. that they need help, that this and that need to be done. But what makes that crash truly scary was that despite all that, despite knowing the data and instruments were all up the Swanee, they persistently kept trying to use the autopilot. Everyone has safely put the cause down to the taping over the static ports and one of the men responsible was convicted of negligent homicide. Fair enough, but there were 27 minutes between declaring the emergency and the impact with the water. I don't know enough to blame the pilots or not for not knowing what data was supplied by the air data computer and what was not, but if pilots are so conditioned to use the autopilot they cannot abandon it and fly manually even in a screaming emergency, then we could all be in big trouble. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:39 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: seth.dillon@delta-air.com JF Mezei wrote: > 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 ? FWIW At my carrier on JT8D powered aircraft, the PNF after setting takeoff power checks and calls out "N1 greater than 80%". This is to confirm that the EPR is close and the engines are actually putting out TO power. -Seth From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:40 From: Anthony.Schlemmer@gte.net Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net Reply-To: Anthony.Schlemmer@gte.net James Matthew Weber 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. > 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. I've read a transcript of the this crash and it's unbelivable that the flight crew when doing their check list didn't even bother to enable engine anti-ice. Back on Xmas eve morning I was on a United flight from SEA to SFO in a 737 and it was one of those somewhat rare winter days when it was snowing at Sea-Tac. It had been quite sometime since I've been on a flight where we had to take-off in snow. It took some 20 minutes to de-ice the plane and then we taxied out to the runway. Before we took-off the FO ran back and did a visual inspection of the wings through the windows in the main cabin. Once we entered the runway, they locked the wheels and reved up the engines. I can understand why they rev up the engines so the crew is sure we have proper power for take-off. What a rush once the brakes are released! One thing the captain mentioned was that they were going to recycle the landing gear after take-off. I was wondering why this is done when taking off in snowy condition? Tony -- Anthony.Schlemmer@gte.net From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:41 From: felton@Princeton.EDU (Phil. G. Felton) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University In article , Larry Stone wrote: > 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 ? No, flying by the seat of your pants in IMC will gat you dead in a hurry! You are trained not to do that even in a Cessna. What you have to do is recognize that your instruments are not working correctly (not that easy without external reference), identify the problem and take the appropriate action. In the case in question switch to the alternate static source. In ground school you are presented with various scenarios but how often does a pilot see a real failed static source? Phil. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:42 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Stand-by instruments (was external inspection) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Phil. G. Felton wrote in message ... >Well it wouldn't work in a pressurized plane anyway. I'd be surprized >if all the instruments on the modern planes were all electric. Even on >a light plane like a Cessna there are vacuum driven gyros and elect >driven gyros to prevent total system dropout in case of a power failure. >There's usually an alternate static source provided (external static >ports do get blocked in icing conditions sometimes). Of course you have >to recognize when you need it! Even in the 747-400 the standby gyro is electrically powered. It can be run off the standby power system (including the battery), but so can the Capt's main CRT displays and instrument lights, the backup Flight Management Computer (a mode of the FMS-CDU), 2 of the 3 Inertial Reference Units, 1 Transponder, 1 VOR and 1 ILS. The standby Airspeed and Altimeter are driven by separate pitot and static ports than the others, and only their lights are electrical. It would take a LOT to go wrong, beyond 4 generators failing, to get to the point where only the standby instruments were available... -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:43 From: Chuanga@cris.com (H Andrew Chuang) Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services In article , niels sampath wrote: >In article > vinlan19@flex.net "Vince Lanza" writes: >> >> TWA has become an all P&W airline, with the 318 and A320 >> family that will continue. > >Has the PW6000 been officially offered on the 319/320/321? The PW6000 will not have enough thrust to power future versions of the A319/320/321. P&W is proposing to put the PW8000, a gear turbo fan, on the next generation of the A320 family. The PW8000 will share the same core as the PW6000. It still is the talk stage. Nothing is official. Technically speaking, even the PW6000 on the A318 is not official, because Airbus has not made the industrial launch of the A318. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:44 From: "ITRADE" Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp S.L. wrote in article ... > The last sentence is a great theory, but in my years of air travel it > has been the exact OPPOSITE of what I've observed. I've been delayed, > rerouted, stuck in airports, and stranded FAR more often by new aircraft > than I have by old birds needing maintenance. I have a number of > examples, but as long as I may live, I will NEVER forget the night in > DFW when not one but TWO MD-90's (less than 6 months in the fleet at the > time) were unable to depart to get me home. The only "old bird" delay Was the delay on the MD-90s due to mechanical, crew or weather problems??? The two delays that I've had this year were on older jets. On was a 737-200 where they discovered a rather nasty engine compressor problem as the flight I was supposed to take landed. The other was on one of the older 757-200s (at least 10 years old) which had a problem with the cargo door. That took at least two hours to fix. The A-319, 737-300, 737-400 and CRJ flights have all gone without a hitch. Rich From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:45 From: Vince Lanza Subject: Re: TWA and the A318 and 717 References: <36899cbc.2579276@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM ITRADE@prodigy.net wrote: > > In article , Vince Lanza wrote: [snip] > > new aircraft type, TWA is buying into the A320 family of > > aircraft and will be phasing out the DC9/MD80 family. On TWA > > press release web page they discuss that the number of > > aircraft types will remain basically the same with the > > retirement of the 727's by the end of 1999. Since the end of > > the DC9/MD80 product lines is near it makes sense to invest > > in a newer aircraft with a broad family offering simplifying > > maintenance and training later on. > > If simplifying maintenance is such an issue, then why does TW > just run with an airbus family only or a boeing family only??? > Why didn't they consider then buying the 717 and the MD-90 > or A-319/320/321s? Since TW will receive 24 MD-83s next year, > you can hardly discount the longevity or presence of additional > MD aircraft. I see your point but I don't believe that it is any secret that Boeing wants to get rid of the MD-XX/DC-9XX line and derivatives, their time is limited. I think that if TWA could have gotten the Airbus A/C sooner they would not have placed the Boeing order. Time and availability were two of the greatest factors to be considered. Also, one must remember that by the time the Airbuses start arriving, the MD-80's from the early 80's will be upwards of 25 years old and ready (possibly more than ready) for retirement. By placing the order for the 24 MD-83's TWA is able to stretch its investment in pilot training and all associated maintanence (training/parts) at the same time. As the new MD-8X aircraft age, they can be replaced with more Airbuses (all of those options TWA has) when needed. This way, TWA is covered now and into the future. > > TWA has become an all P&W airline, with the 318 and A320 > > family that will continue. Of course the 717's will not have > > P&W engines, but they will account for a smaller share of > > the fleet. Also by choosing the engines for the 717's they > > are covering the order of engines that would have gone on > > the 330's, this way everyone is happy. > > 50 aircraft is not a small number when your fleet is under 250. Granted, not small, but still smaller. > > TWA's on-time performance has been number 1 the past three > > months, and within the top 3 I believe for the rest of the > > year. Start flight performance is up and schedule completion > > is higher than it has ever been. As newer, less maintenance > > needy aircraft come online, these should improve even > > further. > > Unfortunately, wait until the december figures come out. One can only hope. Vince From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:46 From: "Niel Solomon" Subject: Airline Pilot's Reading Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM All, What publications are airline pilots likely to read/subscribe to? Please give sources or links. I enjoy reading details about flying airliners. Thank you. Niel From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:47 From: "Sunil Gupta" Subject: Re: 747-300 blended wing-body joint References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Michael F. Lechnar wrote in message ... >Sunil Gupta wrote: >> When did Boeing start making these changes on the 300's? > >The 747-400-style wing/body fairing was made standard for all 747 models >from line number 704 in June, 1998 and on. Does that mean that Boeing was still delivering -300's in June 1998? That doesn't sound right. When did the last -300 roll off the line? Sunil PS. Thanks to everyone who pointed out that the ANA 747 without winglets was a -400D. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:48 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747-300 blended wing-body joint References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The 747-400-style wing/body fairing was made standard for all 747 models >>from line number 704 in June, 1998 and on. >Does that mean that Boeing was still delivering -300's in June 1998? That >doesn't sound right. LN 704 was a 747-366 Combi, delivered to Egyptair on June 22, 1988 (reg SU-GAL), so it's right. >When did the last -300 roll off the line? The last -300 I'm aware of in LN 810, a 747-329 Combi for Sabena which made its first flight on September 5, 1990, and was delivered on the 25th of that same month (reg OO-SGD). That still wasn't the last rope-start (747 Classic, if you prefer) off the line, though I couldn't find any passenger models after that. The last one I found was LN 886, a 747-281F for Nippon Cargo Airlines, which first flew on November 4, 1991 and was delivered on the 19th (reg JA8194). -- 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 Sun Jan 17 02:37:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:49 From: "Reino F." Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I am not an expert, but I think there is empty space above cabin ceiling with some air conditioning hoses. The problem with aircraft is weight and not so much empty space. That's why the space is not used. Reino F. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:50 From: Chuck Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On large wide body aircraft there is a fair amount of space above the ceiling. Half the height of a man would be close. As for what is up there - not nearly as much as you might think. There are, of course, control cables and some wiring. For the most part there is quite a bit of unused space. Chuck From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:51 From: "Edward Lowery" <10@pobox.com> Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber of Pacific Internet What was seen in this movie is pretty accurate as to the over head features on the B747. It is largely open space for control cables and wiring. It is possible to nearly stand fully. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:52 From: "john r." Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , JF Mezei writes >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 ? Well its air distribution ducts, cabin entertainment electronics, galley power feeders and now some satcom electronics. Water tanks are below the floor as they are so heavy, heater are in the galleys and toilets . >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 ? The crew rest area is being enlarged and is on offer as a mod from Boeing but it don't think it could be taken much further forwards. Space in the forward freight is more likely to be used for a First Class sleeper zone. -- john r. From kls Sun Jan 17 02:37:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Jan 99 02:37:53 From: daspork@ibm.net Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM.NET Reply-To: daspork@ibm.net It's usually air conditioning ducts & control cables; there is alot of empty space on a bigger a/c like a 747. You won't find any water tanks though - those are under the floor behind the wall of one of the cargo pits usually. You wouldn't want a leaky water tank dripping on passengers heads... From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:48 From: kdur597268@aol.com (KDur597268) Subject: Corogard Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hello folks - I'm de-lurking here, with a question. Can anyone tell me the make-up of Corogard (sp?) paint? And is there a lot of variety in it's formulation? Do different mfgs use different paint? On another list I'm on a fellow was talking about F-100D Super Sabres being painted in Corogard - and those planes certainly don't look like the spar boxes of airliners I've seen. I'm also interested from the modeling standpoint. Thanks Ken Durling (IAV8) IPMS NorCal From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:49 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: True Air Speed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 1/17/99 2:37 AM, Scott (scott@golfmike.demon.co.uk) said: >Can anyone tell me how to work out TAS for IAS? >What other info is required? There's actually two conversions to be made. First is IAS (Indicated Air Speed) to CAS (Calibrated Air Speed). This corrects for aircraft design influences on the indicated speed through the range of speeds. This correction tends to be small (no more than 2 or 3 knots max. in the planes I fly) and a table or graph is published in the Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH). There can also be a correction for instrument error but since this is going to vary from plane to plane, you won't find it pre-published in the POH. Then there's the conversion from CAS to TAS (True Air Speed) which is a function of pressure altitude and temperature. Unfortunately, I don't have that formula. TAS=CAS as sea level at standard temperature (15C). As you climb, CAS becomes less than TAS. A higher than standard temperature increases the difference; a lower than standard temperature decreases the difference. Some examples (from my Beech Duchess manual) - note that these are IAS to TAS since Beech has already incorporated the IAS to CAS conversion into the the tables: Press. Alt. Temp. IAS TAS Sea Level Std. 152 152 Sea Level Std. +20C 148 153 Sea Level Std. -20C 156 151 8,000 Std. 146 164 8,000 Std. +20C 142 165 8,000 Std. -20C 150 163 16,000 Std. 120 153 16,000 Std. +20C 115 153 16,000 Std. -20C 124 152 -- Larry Stone lstone@wwa.com From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:50 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: True Air Speed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 17 Jan 99 02:37:19 , "Scott" wrote: >Can anyone tell me how to work out TAS for IAS? >What other info is required? Simple. IAS is indicated airspeed. This is what show on your aisrpeed indicator, and is meassurred directylr by the pitot/static system. CAS is calibrated airspeed. This is IAS corrected for installation error. This is value is obtained by looking it up in a chart in the operating handbook. TAS is ture airspeed. This is calibrated airspeed corrected for pressure altitude and temperature. To sum up, IAS is what shows on your gauge. CAS correctes the errors in IAS, and TAS corrects the CAS based on pressure, altutude, and temperature. Jeff From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:51 From: gwilson404@aol.com (GWilson404) Subject: Re: True Air Speed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk In article , "Scott" writes: >Short and Sweet. > >Can anyone tell me how to work out TAS for IAS? >What other info is required? Unfortunately the process is not so short and sweet! Essentially you need also to know the (pressure) altitude, which allows you to calculate Mach number. You then also need to know outside total air temperature, from which you can calculate the speed of sound and then TAS = speed of sound x Mach number. Hey presto! You could find the formulae in any basic aeronautics text book. Gerald Wilson From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:52 From: "Phil" Subject: Re: True Air Speed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: "Phil" Scott wrote in message ... >Can anyone tell me how to work out TAS for IAS? >What other info is required? One rule of thumb is to increase the TAS reading by 2% for each thousand feet of altitude above sea level. Phil From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:53 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: True Air Speed? 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: AOL http://www.aol.com >Can anyone tell me how to work out TAS for IAS? >What other info is required? IAS corrected for instrument error = CAS (calibrated), corrected for compressibility = EAS (equivilant), corrected for altitude & temp = TAS. The difference between IAS and CAS & EAS, is usually pretty small. There are several rough rules of thumb, I used the fisrt one: True Airspeed Example conditions: Altitude 35,000', IAS 280 knots TAT -15°C Altitude (1,000's) x 6 35 x 6 = 210 +IAS 210 + 280 = 490 + TAT 490 + (-15) = 475 KTAS OR For every 5,000' increase 10% Altitude ÷ 5 35,000 = 7 x IAS .7 x 280 = 196 +IAS 196 + 280 = 476 KTAS OR Altitude (1,000's) x 2 35 x 2 = 70 Take result as % of IAS .70 x 280 = 196 + IAS 196 + 280 = 476 KTAS OR IAS x 2% 280 x .02 = 5.6 x Altitude (1,000's) 5.6 x 35 = 196 +IAS 196 + 280 = 476 KTAS Again these are very rough, but they work for basic number crunching in your average jet airliner. For more accurate numbers, I use an ASA Pathfinder or other aviation calculator. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:54 From: "G.J.Carty" Subject: NK-144 = afterburning NK-86? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Durham, Durham, UK. I've noticed that the Kuznetsov NK-86 turbojet (as used in the Il-86 - the only turbojet-engined widebody) has 28000 lb thrust; similar to the non-afterburning thrust of the original NK-144 engine, used in the Tu-144 (later the NK-144 was 33000 lb basic, with 44000 lb in 'burner). I'm wondering, was the NK-86 just a non-afterburning NK-144, or was it a different design of engine altogether? Please send replies in e-mail! From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:55 From: m3kinnis@ccnet.com Subject: Does the Canadair RJ have thrust reversers? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service It's obvious that it doesn't have "bucket" reversers, but does it have them at all? Thanks! Gary change m3 to mc From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:56 From: JCSflyboy Subject: AA 777-200IGW Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Just a little FYI. At 10pm on the 21,Jan, AA's first 777 arrived at DFW. It will enter revenue service on March 1st, flying DFW to Tokyo/Narita (NRT). The whole month of February, it will undergo proving flights for the FAA, Pilot training flights, and will sit in the hangers at DFW and AFW so Maintenance can train on it. On February 1st, there will be a "Customer Showing" of the 777 and Eagle's new Embraer 145 Regional Jet. They will be parked at AA's new terminal "B" at DFW. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:57 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Just a little FYI. At 10pm on the 21,Jan, AA's first 777 arrived at DFW. >It will enter revenue service on March 1st, flying DFW to Tokyo/Narita >(NRT). According to a friend at AA, their first 777 service will be flight 50 DFW-LGW on March 2. The published schedules don't have DFW-NRT (AA 61) switching from an MD-11 to a 777 until March 28. -- 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 Feb 1 02:36:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:58 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com Peter Mchugh wrote: > I agree with your proposition that people should be considered first... > and it is principally for our (people's) future that I am concerned.... > continuous dumping of petroleum products (whether a couple of quarts of > used auto oil dumped in back yards, gallons of seepage from storage > facilities, or thousands of gallons of atomized jet fuel) being > dispersed over the earth for a hundred years can hardly produce a > positive environment for my children's children.... Peter, I am not sure what your aviation background is but as one with over 20 years in the airplane fixing business I can assure you that fuel dumping is a rare event. Far more common is an overweight landing and the subsequent inspections required. Dumping is an expensive proposition and is avoided if at all possible. -Seth From kls Mon Feb 1 02:36:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:36:59 From: "Unavailable" Subject: Bygone era of information available to passengers... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Is anyone familar with Part 121 operations that still feature/allow cockit video on takeoff/landing and is any carrier offering audio channels in the cabin that include ATC frequencies. It used to be very interesting and somewhat a learning process when I was learning to fly. My guess is that they yanked that priviledge with C.Y.A. concerns long ago but I thought'd ask. R.W.M. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:00 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is anyone familar with Part 121 operations that still feature/allow cockit >video on takeoff/landing and is any carrier offering audio channels in the >cabin that include ATC frequencies. Most or all of United's audio-equipped aircraft are wired for "Cockpit Communications" on one of the audio channels, usually channel 9 but it's 14 on the 747-400s and was channel 8 on the DC-8s. This is wired to the observer's headset and thus gets whatever that's tuned to, usually ATC but occasionally something odd, or a regular broadcast station if there is some big sporting event going on. The captain may elect to turn this off; I've found that they'll either have it on or enable it if requested about two-thirds of the time. I'm not aware of any other carrier which has this these days. -- 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 Feb 1 02:37:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:01 From: Marti Subject: Re: Stand-by instruments (was external inspection) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: southpaw@magiclink.com Seth Dillon wrote: > How would breaking the glass of the VSI give you an alternate static > source in a pressurized aircraft? Don O2 masks and depressurize. M. Jones From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:02 From: "Phil" Subject: Re: Stand-by instruments (was external inspection) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Reply-To: "Phil" M. Jones wrote: >You may not be aware that the flight instruments in newer transports are >electrically driven instruments; I guess the chief pilot may want to know why a pilot bashed in an EFIS screen trying to unstick a needle...Yessir, the old days are indeed gone... From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:03 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Stand-by instruments (was external inspection) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com Phil. G. Felton wrote: > In article , > "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" wrote: > > > >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 ... > > Well it wouldn't work in a pressurized plane anyway. I'd be surprized > if all the instruments on the modern planes were all electric. Even on > a light plane like a Cessna there are vacuum driven gyros and elect > driven gyros to prevent total system dropout in case of a power failure. They are usually powered off the emergency or hot battery bus. The battery must be capable of providing power to them for a min of 30 minutes. -Seth From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:04 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Jeff Meeker (jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com) wrote: : Again, GPS would provide a ground speed, and this isn't meaningful : during a takeoff roll. Besides, it may not be accurate enough. I : certainly would not rely on it. GPS speeds in automobiles are extraordinarily accurate. At aircraft speeds they are reasonable, but the mile markers go by too fast for me to click my stopwatch ):-)) to check. You're right, of course, that the ground speed isn't much use on takeoff, unless you know there's no wind! -- Gerry From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:05 From: Keith Barr Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AeroSys Engineering, Inc. Reply-To: barr@aerosys-eng.com Anthony.Schlemmer@gte.net wrote: > Once we entered the runway, they locked the wheels and reved up the > engines. I can understand why they rev up the engines so the crew is > sure we have proper power for take-off. What a rush once the brakes > are released! One thing the captain mentioned was that they were > going to recycle the landing gear after take-off. I was wondering why > this is done when taking off in snowy condition? The gear is cycled a few times to help dislodge any slush that may have been thrown into the gear linkages during takeoff, since the slush could freeze during flight, and prevent (if there were enough of it) the gear from coming back down normally. -- Keith Barr New England Airlines mailto:barr@aerosys-eng.com Block Island, RI http://www.aerosys-eng.com/barr BN-2, PA-32, PA-28 From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:06 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Jeff Meeker wrote: > >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 ? > > It wouldn't appear to be inop. If the static pressure trapped inside > the system was the same as the current outside static pressure, > everything would appear normal. You would only notice an invalid > reading when the static pressure changes from what is trapped inside > the system. I do not understand. If the static pressure trapped inside the system were enough to show a V1 speed on the pilot's gauges, shouldn't pilots have noticed that the gauges were reading V1 while the plane was iddle? If looking at the needle move until it reaches V1 is partof the responsabilities of one of the 2 pilots, shouldn't that pilot not have noticed that the needle was not moving? From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:07 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 17 Jan 1999, andyweir wrote: > > 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. > > Absolutely. But read the CVR transcript for tragedy that affects us all. > You can see them gradually deducing what is wrong, realising that they have > no airspeed, altimeter, etc, etc. that they need help, that this and that > need to be done. But what makes that crash truly scary was that despite all > that, despite knowing the data and instruments were all up the Swanee, they > persistently kept trying to use the autopilot. > > Everyone has safely put the cause down to the taping over the static ports > and one of the men responsible was convicted of negligent homicide. Fair > enough, but there were 27 minutes between declaring the emergency and the > impact with the water. I don't know enough to blame the pilots or not for > not knowing what data was supplied by the air data computer and what was > not, but if pilots are so conditioned to use the autopilot they cannot > abandon it and fly manually even in a screaming emergency, then we could > all be in big trouble. People perform as they train. This would not be the first time common training practices contributed to accidents. Following the Air Florida crash into the Potomic and several other accidents where crew failed to increase power when they should have, it was realised that pilots were always taught to make slow power adjustments and had no quick, automatic "slam it to the firewall" response to a need for more power. The training was changed, though I don't know of any close calls averted by the new training yet. If people have to practice when to fly manually this can be done as well. Didn't Airbus do something recently to make it easier for pilots to disengage their autopilots? Another point: as far as I know, the angle of attack indicator was usable on the airliner with the plugged static ports. I have heard that Navy pilots (they prefer to be called aviators) are taught to use angle of attack as the primary reference when landing. As long as the AOA is correct, the plane cannot stall, whatever the weight or airspeed. The AOA indicator, the visual glide slope, and the angled carrier deck are said to be the three inventions that made it practical to land jets on carriers, and they say it works just as well on land. Clearly, the AOA wouldn't have given the 757 the proper takeoff airspeed, but once they were in the air, AOA plus pitch attitude from the artificial horizon would let them fly level, climb, and descend safely. If there were some greater danger in using AOA I think military experience would have revealed it by now. How often does a pilot follow a malfunctioning AOA into a stall? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:08 From: Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering Anthony.Schlemmer@gte.net wrote: > are released! One thing the captain mentioned was that they were > going to recycle the landing gear after take-off. I was wondering why > this is done when taking off in snowy condition? >From the ATR FCOM: If contaminant layere is significant enough to possibly accumulate in the brake area during ground operation, brake discs may join due to icing during the flight, leading to possible tyre damages at sub- sequent landing. [..] Before Landing: If take-off has been performed on a slush contaminated runway, this slush may seize the brakes during cruise. To prevent tire damage at touchdown: in final approach, after selection of GEAR DOWN, select anti-skid OFF, then pump brakes at least 5 times an then reselect anti-skid ON. By recycling the gear after T/O you get rid of some of the slush adhering to the brake assy and prevent freezing thus eliminate the cause for brakes seizeing up in the forehand. Best regards Ralf -- Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-711-7777206 | sipple@writeme.com D-70794 Filderstadt| Anrufbeantw. +49-711-7777208| pgp key on request! From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:09 From: "R.R.B.777" Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wanadoo - (Client of French Internet Provider) Jeff Meeker a écrit dans le message ... >On 29 Dec 98 03:12:29 , JF Mezei wrote: >>Rob Montgomery wrote: >>Are V1 and V2 based on airspeed or based on a speedometer controlled by >>landing gear wheels ? > >These are airspeeds. How fast the plane travels across the ground >doesn't mean much. You want to know how fast the air travels over the >wing. I partially agree: in the calculation of takeoff speeds there are air speeds and ground speeds. However they are all converted to airspeeds as it's the primary indication. >>I was under the impression that reaching V1 and V2 speeds is a critical >>phase of any takeoff. Is this really the case ? > >yup. V1 is the desicion speed. It is calculated on various factors >such as runway length, airplane configuration, airport elevation, >temperature, pressure, and airplane weight. If something bad happens >before this speed, take off is to be aborted. Once you hit this >speed, you are COMMITTED to taking off. As you said V1 is a decision speed but it's even more an action speed: you're supposed to take appropriate maneuvers at V1 and not above. So only critical events should lead you to an aborted take off close to V1 (5kts or less) like engine critical failure,fire etc....However you are not commited to an aborted takeoff before V1. For the case of airspeeds in case of the complete loss of indications (primary and stanby) I would perform an aborted takeoff if that happens early enough (lets say 10kts before V1 or earlier) or else I would continue taking off based on the procedures without anemometric indications. Note that it's my own opinion and somebody might consider the contrary is safer. But on my part I always considered aborted takeoffs (near V1) more critical than any non critical events (fire, engine severe damage) i.e even an engine shutdown should lead to an aborted takeoff at V1 only very carefully (you have to have in mind what brought the choice of V1: obstacle limitations or runway length) R.R.B777 From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:10 From: connorse@aol.com (Connors E) Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Evan, a ball park formula is: Takeoff with Flaps 15 degrees, use the last two didgits of the GW, divide by two, add 2, then add 14. i.e. 160,000 is 60 divided by 2= 30 add 100 = 130 plus 2=132= V1,VR 132 plus 14= 146= V2 Landing Bug Speed= last two didgits of GW divide by2, plus 8=bug speed. i.e. 120,000 is 20 divided by 2= 110+8=128 again these are ball park figures which will get you within a knot or two of the actual speed. cheers, Ernie From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:11 From: Roberto Celi Subject: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Maryland, College Park A couple of weeks ago I flew from Rome to JFK on a TWA 767. My final destination was BWI, which I reached with a 24 hours delay (true to its name, isn't it? Tomorrow We Arrive...). The "Flight From Hell" included a refueling stop in Gander, which was announced as soon as we taxied off the gate at FCO (and before a mechanical problem kept us 100 feet from the gate for about 2 hrs, but that's another story). In almost 20 years of crossing the Atlantic, including many flights on 767s, I've *never* had to go through an "unscheduled" refueling stop. The reason the pilot gave us was that separations had been increased at JFK, and therefore we didn't have enough fuel to circle around waiting to land. When we got to JFK horizontal visibility seemed pretty much unlimited, and the ceiling didn't look bad at all (1000-2000 ft?). I'm 99% sure the aircraft was not a -300 or -300ER. It was almost completely full. Still, it seemed a bit unusual to have to stop at Gander. Also, the announced flight time to Gander was about 7 hrs, therefore the head winds couldn't have been much worse than usual (FCO-JFK is usually about 10-10:30 hrs). This morning I heard on the radio that there is a class action suit brought by passengers of the TWA NYC-Tel Aviv flights. Apparently, these "unscheduled" stops at Gander are so common that the plaintiffs claim that TWA should not advertise these flights as "non-stop". The radio was talking about 747s, but perhaps they meant 767s. Now, I try to avoid anything that brings me anywhere near attorneys, so I am absolutely not thinking of a lawsuit (the lawyers get all the money anyway). However, I *am* very curious to know if any other people in this newsgroup have heard of this practice, with TWA or other airlines--schedule the smaller plane, see what the load factor is, and if it's too full come up with an "unscheduled" refueling stop at Gander blaming bad weather at the final destination, or winds en route, or whatever they can come up with at the time. Doesn't the basic 767 (-200?) have the range to go FCO-JFK? Roberto From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:12 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >TWA NYC-Tel Aviv flights ... The >radio was talking about 747s, but perhaps they meant 767s. TWA has been rapidly shedding 747s over the past year or two. I'm not sure if they're still flying any, but if they are, it won't be for much longer. JFK-TLV probably used a 747 until fairly recently. >Doesn't the basic 767 (-200?) have the range to go FCO-JFK? The "basic" 767 would be a 767-200 with 300,000 lbs MGTOW, and with a decent load it almost certainly doesn't have sufficient range to fly FCO-JFK (4,284 miles, against the prevailing winds). However, TWA's 200s are all a bit more capable, with a 335,000 lbs MGTOW. That's still less than a 767-200(ER), which has a MGTOW of 351,000 lbs up to 395,000 lbs, depending mainly on how much the airline wanted to pay. Boeing claims a range of 7,655 miles for the 767-200(ER), but that's at the highest option weight. With TWA's config, I'd guess FCO-JFK would be pretty marginal. -- 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 Feb 1 02:37:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:13 From: "R.R.B.777" Subject: Re: A 320 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wanadoo - (Client of French Internet Provider) Diego T a écrit dans le message ... >Hallo guys! >my name is Diego, i'm a young co-pilot in the A320. I'd like to know if >some of you "Old Eagle" have a strange filling with the FMGS. According to >me, some time the system il very lazy, it take several seconds to react at >a change in the FCU. It's normal? And if it's so, why is so slow to react? >My laptop is faster! I think this could be due to the fact that FMGC (remember that this plane has been produced for 10 years now) is powered by the old but reliable 68000 by motorola and has only about 190k of memory, but when I was flying it I found it fast enough to perform normal operations and very ergonomic . However I think that A321-A330-A340 have more powerful processor/memory but I can be wrong . R.R.B777 From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:14 From: procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) Subject: Snowstorms and electrical charges Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK This was posted in alt.folklore.urban: >>... If you sandblast a metal object which is insulated from ground, >>expect that object to become electrified. Very cold, "dry," blowing >>snow would be expected to electrify the surface of any object which >>was composed of a non-ice material. > >I read a story in a flying magazine in which this happened to a >medium-sized airplane carrying passengers. It was descending through >a snowstorm, and after a few minutes of powdery snow blowing over it, >ZAP! there was a lightning discharge, knocking out the electrical >system and stunning the pilots. Fortunately, they recovered after a >few seconds, took the plane back up above the snowstorm and figured >out what happened. The moral of the story was "Don't fly through dry >powdery snow." Does anyone know more about this particular incident or the phenomenon in general? Daniele Procida -- The Awkward Moments http://www.moments.freeserve.co.uk/ From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:15 From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: 747 EUD CG change. Stab change? 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 Matt, I can't speak for the Horizontal stabilizers (except to say that the added weight is close to the CG so probably little or no change). The rudders however did have to be rebalanced & the gear ratio in the rudder actuator was changed. Scott From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:16 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: 747 EUD CG change. Stab change? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net MCL757 wrote: > Someone asked me if Boeing enlarged the horizontal stab on the 747 when they > extended the upper deck to compensate for the CG change. I don't think the > stab was changed. I figure that considering the high weight of all the fuel > that could be in different places affecting the CG that the extra weight of the > extended upper deck really is relatively small. Does anyone know? Was there > any stab change or did they recalibrate the trim's zero setting? Aloha, I don't think the stab. was changed in the -300 but it was changed in the -400. My "friendly" carrier did not operate the -300 but apparently was the only company to attain the -400 BACo fuel guaranty. The press at the time reported that the reason for this was that UAL had better SW due to company B-767 experience. When I pumped fuel for UAL they never told me what the CG was. The computer told me how many pounds to put in each tank. Regards, Hugh From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:17 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: 747 EUD CG change. Stab change? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams MCL757 wrote: > Someone asked me if Boeing enlarged the horizontal stab on the 747 when they > extended the upper deck to compensate for the CG change. I don't think the > stab was changed. I figure that considering the high weight of all the fuel > that could be in different places affecting the CG that the extra weight of the > extended upper deck really is relatively small. Does anyone know? Was there > any stab change or did they recalibrate the trim's zero setting? The external lines of the horizontal didn't change with the stretched upper deck. For the 747-400, provisions were made to carry fuel back there. In fact, you need the have that tank active to use the full 875,000 lb MTOW. The fuel isn't kept there for cg control, but rather it is moved into the CW tanks as soon as there is room. This is typically over by the time the airplane reaches cruise altitude. The drag benefit for keeping the cg aft is too small to justify the complexity of a fuel management system to keep the fuel back there. Mike Lechnar Aircraft Performance Engineer "If I was speaking for Boeing, I wouldn't be doing it here." From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:18 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: 747-300 blended wing-body joint References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Sunil Gupta wrote: > > Michael F. Lechnar wrote in message ... > >Sunil Gupta wrote: > >> When did Boeing start making these changes on the 300's? > > > >The 747-400-style wing/body fairing was made standard for all 747 models > >from line number 704 in June, 1998 and on. > > Does that mean that Boeing was still delivering -300's in June 1998? That > doesn't sound right. When did the last -300 roll off the line? Sorry, I meant to type 1988. Mike Lechnar From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:19 From: "Tim Lee" Subject: Re: Tex Johnston dead. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BT Internet Robert Dorsett wrote in message ... >AOPA Pilot reports that Tex Johnston is dead, at age 84, of complications >from Alzheimers. What a great loss. I remember seeing an interview with him about his 707 flight, where he barrel rolled it over Lake Washington. He'll be missed. Rgds Tim From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:20 From: mcl757@aol.com (MCL757) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >The IGWs start with N782UA, and continue in delivery (and construction) >sequence up thru N799UA. Then it gets weird, because UA ordered more of >them, and of course the initial order had run out the top of the N7xxUA >series. A new UA 777 at Everett right now is registered N204UA. Matt Student Pilot Seattle, Washington '90 240SX... 'tis the season for oversteer! I love getting high...Cessna 172. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:21 From: mike@dizzydev.com (Mike Schmitt) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 17 Jan 99 02:37:24 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >reg msn ln dely >--- ----- -- ---- >N774UA 26936 2 3/96 first 777 built for a customer >N771UA 26932 3 11/95 >N773UA 26929 4 1/96 >N772UA 26930 5 9/95 >N777UA 26916 7 5/95 first delivery; first revenue svc (LHR-IAD) Karl -- Thanks for a very informative post. What happened to line numbers 1 and 6? I thought Boeing skipped the full-scale prototype on the 777 ... is this false? Mike From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Thanks for a very informative post. What happened to line numbers 1 >and 6? I thought Boeing skipped the full-scale prototype on the 777 >... is this false? LN 1 is still owned by Boeing, though unlike 747 #1 it's a production aircraft and is certified such that it can be sold to an airline. I had heard a year or so ago that they were trying to sell it, but haven't had much luck so far. LN 6 was the first 777 for British Airways, now registered G-ZZZA and named Sir Frank Whittle. It was also the first GE90-powered 777. -- 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 Feb 1 02:37:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:23 From: "Michael F. Lechnar" Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: nams Karl Swartz wrote: > >Do you know what UAL 777 airplanes are IGW versus not? Did UAL use > BA, for example, has their 777-236 models as G-ZZZA thru G-ZZZE, while > the IGWs are G-VIIA up to at least G-VIIM plus, for some reason, G-RAES. G-RAES honors the Royal Aeronautical Society. Mike Lechnar From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:24 From: Matthew Willshee Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England Karl Swartz wrote: > Since most airlines only bought the non-IGW version until they could get > the IGW, they also tend to have them in distinct blocks. BA, for example, > has their 777-236 models as G-ZZZA thru G-ZZZE, while the IGWs are G-VIIA > up to at least G-VIIM plus, for some reason, G-RAES. This was in honour of the Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) - the UK professional institution for Aeronautical Engineers. Pictures of the plane were in the society's literature when BA took delivery. -- Matthew Willshee E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge, CB3 0DS : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:25 From: malc@mci2000.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: B777-300/B777-300ER??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 17 Jan 99 02:37:24 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >Since most airlines only bought the non-IGW version until they could get >the IGW, they also tend to have them in distinct blocks. BA, for example, >has their 777-236 models as G-ZZZA thru G-ZZZE, while the IGWs are G-VIIA >up to at least G-VIIM plus, for some reason, G-RAES. G-RAES used to be G-ZZZN, and G-VIIA used to be G-ZZZF *and* N5002E, although at least one source shows the -236B's and -236IGW's fairly well mixed up with the vanilla 236's. But the reason for the G-RAES registration was, I believe, to commemorate some kind of anniversary of or award from the Royal Aeronautical Establishment, the RAE... Malc. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:26 From: paul@monarchcom.net Subject: Re: 737 Operational Manual References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "Niel Solomon" wrote: > 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. If you have trouble finding 737-specific technical documents (and I'm afraid you will), you might try paying a visit to a local pilot's shop. You can probably find such a store at a general aviation airport near you. Typically they will carry training materials for people studying for their transport- category certificate. Some of these are devoted to aircraft systems that apply to most modern passenger aircraft. In particular, Jeppesen prints a book called "Transport Category Aircraft Systems" by T. Wild that appears to have all sorts of interesting technical nuggets. I haven't bought it (yet), but I remember seeing detailed sections with diagrams about things like hyraulic fluid routings, autopilot mechanisms and lavatory systems (!). Unfortunately, Amazon and B&N will only sell you this book on 5-week backorder. If you find a source for real Boeing documentation, be sure to let the newsgroup know! Paul PP-ASEL -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:27 From: k_ish Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom "Reino F." wrote: > I am not an expert, but I think there is empty space above cabin ceiling > with some air conditioning hoses. The problem with aircraft is weight and > not so much empty space. That's why the space is not used. > Reino F. The other threads are accurate. A little more info; on the 747 over the wing area there is also a very large plenum / blower assembly that distributes and circulates air through the air conditioning system. The air conditioning packs are under the floor, and the "missing" windows in the overwing area are where the ducts go up the cabin walls to the plenum. Also, above the aftmost left door (door 5L) is an equipment rack that contains the FDR and CVR. On narrowbody aircraft, there is only about 3-6" inches between the ceiling panel and fuselage skin. This is taken up by insulation , hoses, wiring, etc. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:28 From: JCSflyboy Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Edward Lowery wrote: > What was seen in this movie is pretty accurate as to the > over head features on the B747. It is largely open space > for control cables and wiring. It is possible to nearly > stand fully. Sure. Hollywood always gets airplanes right. That's why all Hollywood cockpits are the size of your average bedroom. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:29 From: bill@onward-net.com (Bill Urban) Subject: Ground handling Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Onward Inc. Hello all, I have some questions about ground handling of large a/c. I know that the nosewheel tiller, the rudder, and the brakes may all be used to control direction on the ground at various speeds. But I still wonder about some of the particulars: * Does the nosewheel caster, so that the tiller returns to center when released? Does it lock on center so you don't have to worry about the tiller being off-center when you land? * On rollout, what combination of rudder and asymmetric braking is used to steer, and when does nosewheel steering take over? * Finally, what is the physical arrangement that (I think) lets you use the same pedals to control the rudder and the two sides' brakes? It seems at least that the sense is correct on this user interface, i.e. left rudder pedal -> left turn and asymmetric left brake -> left turn as well. Thanks for any input, Bill Urban bill@onward-net.com From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:30 From: "Ron" Subject: Re: SR111 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. EMTGX wrote in message ... >Has it been made public yet what killed the passengers of SR111? >Was it impact, smoke inhalation or drowning? >Is it possible that SR111 hit the water like the Eastern L-1011 hit the >Everglades swamp, meaning that the emergency (real this time) distracted >the crew? No, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board has not completed their investigation. There has been some speculation that the fire in the cockpit was so intense that it actually drove the crew out of the cockpit, but there has been nothing official on that yet. The poor crew really had their hands full, cockpit on fire, #2 engine off-line, electrical problems...etc. It's no wonder that the plane crashed. Ron From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:31 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: SR111 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM EMTGX wrote: > Has it been made public yet what killed the passengers of SR111? No definitive answer yet. However, here is a snippet from their december news release: As information on safety deficiencies comes to light throughout this investigation, the information will be passed on to the regulators, the manufacturers, and to the operators. For example, TSB investigators have noted that in some other MD-11s, some wire insulation above the forward right and left passenger doors had been chafed. Although it is not known what relationship, if any, this wiring had with the cause of the accident, this information was provided to the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration of the United States). The FAA in turn issued an Airworthiness Directive (AD) to all operators of MD-11 aircraft requiring them to inspect the area, to report their findings to the FAA, and to correct any deficiencies encountered. (you can access the stuff at http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng , and click on the Swissair 111 icon on the bottom left, new releases are about 1 per month). > Was it impact, smoke inhalation or drowning? There was no indication that there was smoke in the cabin. (at least initially). However, almost all bodies were in pieces. (DNA was used to group bodyparts into "bodies"). From this, I would assume that impact was the culprit. Consider that parts of the tail were foundon top of the cockpit. > Is it possible that SR111 hit the water like the Eastern L-1011 hit the > Everglades swamp, meaning that the emergency (real this time) distracted > the crew? Last altitude was about 9500 feet at 21:26. Impact was at 21:31. Shortly after last altitude report, plane started to turn right instead of left (to align to 06 runway). At 21:26, there was the call for emergency and "must land immediatly". Without instruments and with overhead stuff melting onto pilots, my *guess* is that the decided to ditch in the ocean and they probably turned right into a circle because they may have used the lights from boeys/towns as indication of ground.5 Minutes to drop 10k feet means 2000k feet per minute which is reasonable. They probably misjudged their descent rate vs altitude and they hit the water while still descending, hence the total destruction of plane into pieces and why tail would end up near the nose. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:32 From: "Federico Wilhelm" Subject: operation manual Airbus 321 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: TIN Where can I get on the Web, the official operation manual for a A 321? Federico. From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:33 From: Saba Subject: Info needed ??!! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: J.P. Morgan & Co Saw this program sometime back about worst airline crashes ever. This is about a KLM jet on takeoff crashing into a BA or TWA ( i don't remember ) jet which was taxiing to the other end of the runway because inavailability of taxiways or something - killing some hundreds of people. I don't remember the circumstances leading to that event, which airport it is, whose fault it is etc.. Please give me some info on this if you can. TIA From kls Mon Feb 1 02:37:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 01 Feb 99 02:37:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Info needed ??!! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Saw this program sometime back about worst airline crashes ever. >This is about a KLM jet on takeoff crashing into a BA or TWA ( i don't >remember ) jet which was taxiing to the other end of the runway because >inavailability of taxiways or something - killing some hundreds of >people. That would be a PA (as in Pan American) 747 which was taxing; the KLM aircraft was also a 747. The accident occured on March 27, 1977 at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, killing 583 people in total. All 234 passengers and 14 crew aboard KL 4805 (a 747-206B registered PH-BUF and named "The Rhine") were killed. Of 380 passengers and 16 crew aboard PA 1736 (a 747-121 registered N736PA and named "Clipper Victor"), 326 pax and 9 crew were killed. -- 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 Feb 8 02:49:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.military Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:10 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: NK-144 = afterburning NK-86? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics "G.J.Carty" writes: > I've noticed that the Kuznetsov NK-86 turbojet (as used in the Il-86 - > the only turbojet-engined widebody) has 28000 lb thrust; similar to the > non-afterburning thrust of the original NK-144 engine, used in the > Tu-144 (later the NK-144 was 33000 lb basic, with 44000 lb in 'burner). > I'm wondering, was the NK-86 just a non-afterburning NK-144, or was it a > different design of engine altogether? But the NK-144 isn't a turbojet; it's a low-bypass turbofan. This was one of the mystifying designe decisions in the design of the Tu-144; the bypass presumably made the engines more efficient at low speeds, but sacrificed high-speed efficiency to do so. -- -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 Feb 8 02:49:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:11 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >>Just a little FYI. At 10pm on the 21,Jan, AA's first 777 arrived at DFW. >>It will enter revenue service on March 1st, flying DFW to Tokyo/Narita >>(NRT). > >According to a friend at AA, their first 777 service will be flight 50 >DFW-LGW on March 2. The published schedules don't have DFW-NRT (AA 61) >switching from an MD-11 to a 777 until March 28. Here is a quote of the last paragraph on the 777 from the January issue of Flagship news, page 5. "Both 777s will begin DFW-London Gatwick service on March 2, and, less than a month later, commence DFW-Narita service on March 28. These are the first of 11 triple sevens that will come online in 1999." Ron From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:12 From: jcastle@eden.com (Joe Castleman) Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gyrofrog Communications JCSflyboy wrote: >On February 1st, there will be a "Customer Showing" of the 777 and >Eagle's new Embraer 145 Regional Jet. They will be parked at AA's new >terminal "B" at DFW. Take 2, that is!! I flew up there a couple of weeks ago to see the 777. It was supposed to be a big event, but the plane was stuck in Seattle with software problems. I did still get to see the RJ and Terminal B, though... -- Joe Castleman -- jcastle@eden.com Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.eden.com/~jcastle Austin, Texas U.S.A. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:13 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I was visiting Everett earlier this week, and there was another AA 777 parked between the main hangars and the paint hangar. It looked like it was a few weeks away from delivery. Didn't get the tail number. BTW, in AA livery, it was a little more difficult to identify as a 777, at first. I wasn't sure it was until I got closer to it. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:14 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: Snowstorms and electrical charges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 01 Feb 99 02:37:14 , procida@cardiff.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: >This was posted in alt.folklore.urban: > >>>... If you sandblast a metal object which is insulated from ground, >>>expect that object to become electrified. Very cold, "dry," blowing >>>snow would be expected to electrify the surface of any object which >>>was composed of a non-ice material. Flying through anything (clouds, dust, smoke, etc) can generate a static builup. That is why planes will have little static discharge wicks to disipate the built up charge. I suppse if the build up was more than the wicks could handle, some sort of electrical disturbance could occur. Jeff From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:15 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Snowstorms and electrical charges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Well, true to a point- Yes, dry blowing snow can build up a static charge. My friend who grew up on a ranch in Colorado learned at a very early age to never touch a metal fence in cold, windy, dry conditions! Aircraft can build up a static charge from snow, rain, or just the friction of the air across the fuselage. That's why people jump from a hovering helicopter- they never touch the helicopter and ground simultaneously until the helicopter lands. It's also why you see a grounding wire attached to planes as soon as they taxi to the gate. Aircraft are equipped with devices to drain off static buildup in flight, so the airplane story is urban legend as you state. The devices look like 2-4 short pieces of wire dangling from the trailing edges of the ailerons, rudder, etc. Even rain can cause static to build up. This can cause interference with radios and navigation equipment. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:16 From: meandgp@eskimo.com Subject: cabine chimes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever Not having crewed or trained beyond the Instrument level as a Private Pilot, could any of you point out the myriad of bells/chimes one typically hears on a normal Part 121 flight. I am aware obviously of the flight attendant call button noise but is the initial chime heard while still climbing the 10k or first clearance altitude? From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:17 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Does the Canadair RJ have thrust reversers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. m3kinnis@ccnet.com wrote: > It's obvious that it doesn't have "bucket" reversers, but does it have > them at all? Yes, the CF34s on the RJ do have reversers. Being a turbofan, when the reversers are activated, the aft part of the fan cowl slides aft, exposing cascade vanes. At the same time, blocker doors in the fan exit duct close and force the fan flow out through the cascades. -- 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 Feb 8 02:49:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:18 From: GWLF17A@prodigy.com (Brian Clouse) Subject: Re: Does the Canadair RJ have thrust reversers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Company 1-800-PRODIGY The RJ most certainly does have reversers, of the cascade variety typical of high-bypass turbofan installations. On the 50-seat model now in service, with the GE CF34-3A1 engines, actuation takes the form of the aft part of the outer cowl translating aft, with the cascades (resembling venetian blinds) translating with it. Simultaneously, a set of blocker doors pivots down from the outer flowpath of the fan cowl, blocking most of the fan duct. Fan discharge air hits the blocker doors and passes through the cascades, exiting at a forward-and-outward angle which provides reverse thrust. Since the core still produces forward thrust, there is a lot of leakage, and the fan air doesn't go directly forward, reverse thrust is only about 40% of takeoff thrust, but that still does the trick. At some airports (i.e. where the window glass is strong enough to take a flying pebble), RJ pilots even use reverse thrust to back away from the gate. The 70-seat version entering service next year, with the new CF34-8C1 engines, will have a new and much simpler nacelle design with fixed cascades and no blocker doors. Instead, the translating cowl will have turning chutes integral with its structure, and will translate far enough that the chutes will block most of the fan duct. The core cowl will have a much greater slope outward than on the current engine, so no blocker doors are required. Brian Clouse From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:19 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Re: Does the Canadair RJ have thrust reversers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The Canadair RJ's use blocker doors and cascade vanes for thrust reserser and is powered by 14th stage bleed air off the engines. Hope this helps David From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:20 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re:Corogard References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Is it related to coroless... an anti rust coating used in the North Sea and sold by Eastwood for auto hobbyists????? From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:21 From: Greg Newbold Subject: Unscheduled Stops (Was TWA Fuel Stop at Gander) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: GregN@concentric.net USAirways flies FCO-PHL. Do they have any history of unscheduled stops? Greg From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:22 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >In almost 20 years of crossing the Atlantic, including many flights on >767s, I've *never* had to go through an "unscheduled" refueling stop. >The reason the pilot gave us was that separations had been increased at >JFK, and therefore we didn't have enough fuel to circle around waiting >to land. I would find this somewhat disingenous. Long delays on landing are very rare these days, because your flight acquired its landing slot at JFK before departure from FCO. Because it is such a long flight, it acquires the slot very early, whereas a flight from say BOS would not attempt to acquire a landig slot until shortly before departure, and could easily be delayed in obtaining a a slot. The Atlantic is travelled so heavily that major errors in wind conditions are now pretty rare. The end result is I'd probably be willing to be money that they knew they there was a high probability of landing at Gander long before they left FCO. No airline likes to hand out information that will not be greeted with enthusiam, mis and non-information is the hallmark of all airlines. My experiences with TWA were so bad in that regard I ceased flying them many yeas ago. BTW there is another common meaning for TWA, Try Walking Across.... >This morning I heard on the radio that there is a class action suit >brought by passengers of the TWA NYC-Tel Aviv flights. Apparently, >these "unscheduled" stops at Gander are so common that the plaintiffs >claim that TWA should not advertise these flights as "non-stop". The >radio was talking about 747s, but perhaps they meant 767s. More than likely, JFK-TLV and LAX-LHR are comparabe distances, and even TWA's 747-100's flew that one every day, although it was usually at or very close to MGTOW. TWA's 767 were bought in the past to fly from the East Coast, or STL to Europe. As a result they didn't buy the highest possible weight (it costs more to buy and usually results in higher landing fees as well. If you don't need it, why spend the money). >Doesn't the basic 767 (-200?) have the range to go FCO-JFK? Basic 767-200 is quoted as about 4500 miles, which say it can probably make FCO-JFK only with severe payload restrictions. In answer to your other questions, It has been reported that DL MD-11's on the LAX-HKG run were a pretty common sight at Taipei, Pan AM's 747SP's on the LAX-SYD run were seen at Auckland with surprising frequency, and prior to the 747-400, NW's winter flights on the LAX-SEL run frequently had to put down at ANC for Fuel. It was always delicate, and from personal experience that decision was not made until just before departure. It depended upon exactly how many people showed up for the flight, and cargo load.. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >More than likely, JFK-TLV and LAX-LHR are comparabe distances ... Pretty close. JFK-TLV is a bit longer, 5662 miles vs 5471 miles for LAX-LHR. >TWA's 767 were bought in the past to fly from the >East Coast, or STL to Europe. Actually, TWA's original 767s were bought for domestic flying, before the higher weight ER version was even available. -- 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 Feb 8 02:49:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:24 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 1 Feb 1999, Roberto Celi wrote: > A couple of weeks ago I flew from Rome to JFK on a TWA 767. My final > destination was BWI, which I reached with a 24 hours delay (true to its > name, isn't it? Tomorrow We Arrive...). The "Flight From Hell" > included a refueling stop in Gander, which was announced as soon as we > taxied off the gate at FCO (and before a mechanical problem kept us 100 > feet from the gate for about 2 hrs, but that's another story). > > In almost 20 years of crossing the Atlantic, including many flights on > 767s, I've *never* had to go through an "unscheduled" refueling stop. > The reason the pilot gave us was that separations had been increased at > JFK, and therefore we didn't have enough fuel to circle around waiting > to land. When we got to JFK horizontal visibility seemed pretty much > unlimited, and the ceiling didn't look bad at all (1000-2000 ft?). I'm > 99% sure the aircraft was not a -300 or -300ER. It was almost > completely full. Still, it seemed a bit unusual to have to stop at > Gander. Also, the announced flight time to Gander was about 7 hrs, > therefore the head winds couldn't have been much worse than usual > (FCO-JFK is usually about 10-10:30 hrs). A 1,000 to 2,000 foot ceiling may not seem bad at all but it's bad enough to require an alternate destination in the flight plan. Also, keep in mind that the flight planning is being done about 12 hours before the planned arrival and the weather can change considerably between then and actual arrival. Obviously I have no details but it may well have been that the weather was forecast to be a lot worse and that it was quite some distance to a legal alternate. No airline likes to make unscheduled fuel stops (they do cost money) so I'm sure if it could have been avoided, TWA would have. -- Larry Stone lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:25 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA The FAA allows what is called a "planned redispatch." Essentially, the flight is dispatched to an intermediate field, though fuel is loaded to get to final destination under most foreseeable circumstances. If the fuel is above a certain preplanned quantity at the redispatch point, the flight continues to the final destination; if not, it lands for refueling. I suppose it's possible TWA et al cannot load enough fuel to make it past the redispatch point (Gander, in your example) with a near-full passenger load... -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:26 From: brewersnl@aol.comih8spam (BrewersNL) Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) >>TWA NYC-Tel Aviv flights ... The >>radio was talking about 747s, but perhaps they meant 767s. > >TWA has been rapidly shedding 747s over the past year or two. I'm not >sure if they're still flying any, but if they are, it won't be for much >longer. JFK-TLV probably used a 747 until fairly recently. TWA no longer flies 747s. Their last 747 flight was either to or from TLV (I think, anyway), and the plane was retired just under a year ago (mid February, 1998). The lawsuit is because sometimes TWA would put a 747-100 on the route (which does not have the range to go TLV-JFK, with winds and such) instead of a 747-200 (which could make it). Join the Milwaukee Brewers e-mail list by sending an e-mail to: milwbrew-subscribe@egroups.com From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:27 From: alexnieves1@juno.com Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At the time that the passengers flew the route, TWA was using 747s. Middle East routes and Honolulu were the last routes to switch from a 747 to a 767. Shortly after changing the TLV route to a stopping flight, they switched to the 763 and made it nonstop. The 763 has plenty of range to make this flight. I think that the unscheduled stop was only there with the 747. -- Alex Nieves alexnieves1@juno.com From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:28 From: gg1@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion > This morning I heard on the radio that there is a class action suit > brought by passengers of the TWA NYC-Tel Aviv flights. Apparently, > these "unscheduled" stops at Gander are so common that the plaintiffs > claim that TWA should not advertise these flights as "non-stop". The > radio was talking about 747s, but perhaps they meant 767s. It was 747s. TWA stopped flying 747s about a year ago. JFK-TLV was the last route to use them. The stops in question weren't at Gander but at Shannon. Incidentally, TWA was also using this as a crew change point as well. The last several months of the 747 several trips a week were shown in CRSs as having a techinical stop at SNN, but not all of them. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:29 From: navion1217@aol.com (Navion1217) Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > However, I *am* very curious to know if any other people in >this newsgroup have heard of this practice, with TWA or other >airlines My father used to fly A310's for Pan Am, and they used to do a similar thing all the time on the London-Detroit flight. They would actually file their flight plan for Montreal. Then during the flight they would evaluate their fuel situation and if it was favorable, they would refile and redispatch for Detroit. Otherwise, they landed at Montreal for fuel. I'm not sure exactly how often they had to, but the fact that they routinely filed for Montreal says something. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:30 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: TWA & regular "unscheduled" refuelings in Gander References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 01 Feb 99 02:37:11 , Roberto Celi wrote: >A couple of weeks ago I flew from Rome to JFK on a TWA 767. My final >destination was BWI, which I reached with a 24 hours delay (true to its >name, isn't it? Tomorrow We Arrive...). The "Flight From Hell" >included a refueling stop in Gander, which was announced as soon as we >taxied off the gate at FCO (and before a mechanical problem kept us 100 >feet from the gate for about 2 hrs, but that's another story). > >In almost 20 years of crossing the Atlantic, including many flights on >767s, I've *never* had to go through an "unscheduled" refueling stop. If you had said you flew out of Denver or some other high elevation city on a hot, summer day in a full plane, I certainly would not be the least bit surprised. >The reason the pilot gave us was that separations had been increased at >JFK, and therefore we didn't have enough fuel to circle around waiting >to land. When we got to JFK horizontal visibility seemed pretty much >unlimited, and the ceiling didn't look bad at all (1000-2000 ft?). I'm >99% sure the aircraft was not a -300 or -300ER. It was almost >completely full. Still, it seemed a bit unusual to have to stop at >Gander. Also, the announced flight time to Gander was about 7 hrs, >therefore the head winds couldn't have been much worse than usual >(FCO-JFK is usually about 10-10:30 hrs). Could have been lots of factors. Headwinds are one, traffic is another, althought I would think minimum IFR reserves would make that less likely. What about available runway at Rome?? Did you take off from a shorter runway than normal?? Before an airliner can takeoff, the required runway length must be caluculated. Lots of differnet factors come into this. Back to the Denver in summer scenario. Its hot and high. Two factors that REALLY reduce takeoff performance of an airplane. If the runway length required is less than the available runway, there are a few things one can do to decrease the amount of runway it takes to get airborne. You can wait for it to cool off. (not likely for a scheduled flight) Or, you get rid of weight. How?? Get rid of cargo, passaegers, or fuel. Cargo and passengers mean revenue, so they probably won't get tossed (especially PAX). So, you get rid of fuel. The plane weighs less, and can take off, but it can make it to the final destination. So you stop for fuel. >Now, I try to avoid anything that brings me anywhere near attorneys, so >I am absolutely not thinking of a lawsuit (the lawyers get all the money >anyway). However, I *am* very curious to know if any other people in >this newsgroup have heard of this practice, with TWA or other >airlines--schedule the smaller plane, see what the load factor is, and >if it's too full come up with an "unscheduled" refueling stop at Gander >blaming bad weather at the final destination, or winds en route, or >whatever they can come up with at the time. Doesn't the basic 767 >(-200?) have the range to go FCO-JFK? I don't know anything about Atlantic crossings, so I wont venture a guess. However, I *will* trust the jugement of a captain who says we need more fuel, or diverts for weather conditions. Jeff From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:31 From: navion1217@aol.com (Navion1217) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Is anyone familar with Part 121 operations that still feature/allow cockit >video I seem to remeber reading that American used to have this until the DC-10 crash at Chicago that showed all the pax their impending doom. Seems the lawyers milked that for all it was worth. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:32 From: "Roy Ellor" 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: Tesco ISP wrote in message ... >Garry Forrest writes: >>Recall that arch rivals Pratt and GE have collaborated; if they can do >>it, anyone can do it. > >Or more tellingly, GE and SNECMA. AND RR and P&W! The RR/BMW alliance is looking mighty promising for lower end powerplant these days. Wonder who is next then....? From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:33 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: 747 EUD CG change. Stab change? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Michael F. Lechnar wrote in message ... >The external lines of the horizontal didn't change with the stretched >upper deck. For the 747-400, provisions were made to carry fuel back >there. In fact, you need the have that tank active to use the full >875,000 lb MTOW. The horizontal stab tank is not _always_ required... At least in the 747-400F version, max TOGW of 875K (396,900 Kg) is available without horiz stab tanks used, full, or even installed. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:34 From: "Reino F." Subject: Re: Tex Johnston dead. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Tim Lee wrote in article ... > Robert Dorsett wrote in message ... > >AOPA Pilot reports that Tex Johnston is dead, at age 84, of complications > >from Alzheimers. > > What a great loss. I remember seeing an interview with him about his 707 > flight, where he barrel rolled it over Lake Washington. I think there was IATA air-transport meeting in Seattle, the B 707 (or Dash prototype) had a show for the delegates. The barrell roll was a shock for the spectators, Johnston was lucky not to loose his job as chief test pilot. Nowadays we see similar stunts only if "fly by wire" computers have problems... [Moderator's note: The event over which Tex rolled the 367-80 was Seattle's annual hydroplane races. Karl] Reino F. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:35 From: henning@nospam.de (Henning Curti) Subject: Re: Info needed ??!! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Hamburg -- Germany On 01 Feb 99 02:37:33 , Saba wrote: >Saw this program sometime back about worst airline crashes ever. > >This is about a KLM jet on takeoff crashing into a BA or TWA ( i don't >remember ) jet which was taxiing to the other end of the runway because >inavailability of taxiways or something - killing some hundreds of >people. It was the 1977 crash at Tenerife between a KLM 747 and a PanAm 747. IIRC both planes were rerouted from Las Palmas/Gran Canary because LPA was closed (weather conditions etc.) Extensive infos at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9575/770327-1.htm Henning From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:36 From: "Gerry K8EF" Subject: Re: Info needed ??!! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Time Warner Communications Columbus Saba wrote in message ... >Saw this program sometime back about worst airline crashes ever. > >This is about a KLM jet on takeoff crashing into a BA or TWA ( i don't >remember ) jet which was taxiing to the other end of the runway because >inavailability of taxiways or something - killing some hundreds of >people. This occurred at Tenerife in the Canary Islands. It was necessary to use the runway to taxi. The KLM 747 captain at the end of the runway said ''rolling''. The controller misunderstood (did the captain misunderstand what clearance he had? I think so) and cleared the other 747 to come out about the middle of the runway. The KLM captain almost cleared the other plane, but not quite. I don't know why I don't think the other 747 was either of the airlines you mention. Gerry K8EF gfoley@columbus.rr.com http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8427 http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263 From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:37 From: "Roy Ellor" Subject: Re: Info needed ??!! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tesco ISP try alt.aviation.disasters there is a massive debate over this going on at the moment. As much info as u r likely to need, including the KLM publicity campaign aspects... From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:38 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: Info needed ??!! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Europainstitut Basel And in to addition to what Karl Swartz wrote: If I remember correctly, weather at the time of the accident was dense fog at ground level. An excerpt of the report can be found at the aviation safety pages at http://www.aviation-safety.net/ in their archives, filed under the year 1977. The excerpt reads as follows (quote): Remarks: At 12.30h a bomb explodes in the Las Palmas passenger terminal. Because of warnings of a possible second bomb, the airport was closed. A large number of flights were diverted to Tenerife, a.o. KLM Flight 4805 from Amsterdam and PanAm Flight 1736 (coming from Los Angeles and New York). Las Palmas Airport opened to traffic again at 15.00h. Because the PanAm passengers remained on aboard it was possible to leave Tenerife at once. The taxiways were congested by other aircraft however. This meant the PanAm crew had to backtrack on Runway 12 for take-off on Runway 30. The entrance to Runway 12 however, was blocked by the KLM Boeing. The PanAm flight had to wait for almost 2 hours before all KLM passengers (except 1) had reboarded and refuelling had taken place. The KLM flight was then cleared to backtrack Runway 12 and make a 180deg. turn at the end. Three minutes later (at 17.02h) Pan Am 1736 was cleared to follow the KLM aircraft and backtrack Runway 12. The PanAm crew were told to leave the runway at the third taxiway and report leaving the runway. At 17.05:44h KLM 4805 reported ready for take-off and was given instructions for a Papa beacon departure. The KLM crew repeated the instructions and added "We are now at take-off". The brakes were released and KLM 4805 started the take-off roll. Tenerife tower, knowing that Pan Am 1736 was still taxying down the runway replied "OK ...... Stand by for take-off, I will call you." This message coincided with the PanAm crew's transmission "No ... uh we're stil taxiing down the runway, the Clipper 1736". These communications caused a shrill noise in the KLM cockpit, lasting approx. 3.74 seconds. Tenerife tower replied: "Papa Alpha 1736 report runway clear.", wereupon the PanAm crew replied: "OK, will report when we're clear". This caused some concerns with the KLM flight engineer asking the captain: "Is he not clear then?" After repeating his question the captain answers emphatically: "Oh, yes". A number of second before impact the KLM crew saw the PanAm Boeing still taxiing down the runway. The crew tried to climb away and became airborne after a 65ft taildrag in an excessive rotation. The PanAm crew immediately turned the aircraft to the right and applied full power. The KLM aircraft was airborne, but the fuselage skidded over the PanAm's aft fuselage, destroying it and shearing off the tail. The KLM aircraft flew on and crashed out of control 150m further on, sliding another 300m bursting into flames. PROBABLE CAUSE: "The KLM aircraft had taken off without take-off clearance, in the absolute conviction that this clearance had been obtained, which was the result of a misunderstanding between the tower and the KLM aircraft. This misunderstanding had arisen from the mutual use of usual terminology which, however, gave rise to misinterpretation. In combination with a number of other coinciding circumstances, the premature take-off of the KLM aircraft resulted in a collision with the Pan Am aircraft, because the latter was still on the runway since it had missed the correct intersection." Source: Flight Safety Digest July 1995(1-10)/Flight Safety Foundation + ICAO Circular 153-AN/56 (p.22-68) Human factors report on the Tenerife accident / Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) + 'Tenerife report blames KLM', FI 23.12.78 (2240); 'Tenerife: the last analysis', FI 20.01.1979 (194-196) End quote. Hope it helps, Lukas From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:39 From: "Jerry" Subject: KLM-PA Accident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SouthWind Internet Access, Inc. Saba: Tried to reply once. Not sure it went. Will try again. just a little additional on the Tenerife accident. The heavies were on the ground at this airport (Los Rodeos) after having been diverted from their intended landing at Las Palmas due to a bomb explosion there. Much delay on the ground at Los Rodeos. Everybody fuming. Both crews bumping up against crew duty time, especially KLM. After the O.K. to leave Los Rodeos, KLM decides to refuel. Trouble was, he had Pan Am blocked in. Finally, in fog, KLM was cleared to taxi the length of the runway. line up and hold. PAA was cleared to follow behind KLM and exit at the last taxiway exit. KLM called for clearance and started to roll before getting the readback complete. The Dutch First Oficer had the good sense to call this to the Captain's attention. So far so good, but again, without clearance, KLM started to roll. The First Officer held his peace this time, but the Flight Engineer wasn't so sure. He asked the Captain, who confidently declared that PAA was clear of the runway. PAA is hearing all this and getting puckered to their seats. They can't see too far ahead and aren't sure of KLM's intentions. PAA Captain remarks: "After holding us up, now HE's in a hurry!" Finally, through the fog, the PAA First Officer sees KLM's lights. They tried to clear the runway in a hard left turn but KLM had rotated and sheared right across the top of PAA. The rest, as they say....... This is probably more than you wanted to know, but thought I'd pass it along. Terrible accident. Regards, Jerry. jmax@southwind.n From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:40 From: boeing707@bellsouth.net (boeing707) Subject: airplane structural terms Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: boeing707@bellsouth.net Hi everybody. I've come across a few terms relating to the fuselage and wing structure of airplanes that I dont understand. Can somebody please define the following terms: 1. Mean Aerodynamic chord (relating to wing structure) 2. Percent of mean aerodynamic chord (%MAC) (i think this relates to wing loading) 3. Wing incidence I've also seen some blueprints for the 707 (the greatest airplane ever made :) ) and saw two abbreviations that i did not understand: 1. STA (relating to fuselage) and how are the STA numbers determined? 2. WPL (relating to wing) and how are the WPL numbers determined? I appreciate any help you may give me. Ken Smith ramp agent - USAirways (FLL) email to Boeing707@bellsouth.net "Nice goin', sweetheart," George Kennedy as mechanic Joe Patroni, talking to a bomb damaged 707 which returned all passengers and crew safely, in the movie 'Airport'. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:41 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: SR111 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:37 AM 2/1/99 +0000, you wrote: >EMTGX wrote in message ... >>Has it been made public yet what killed the passengers of SR111? >>Was it impact, smoke inhalation or drowning? >>Is it possible that SR111 hit the water like the Eastern L-1011 hit the >>Everglades swamp, meaning that the emergency (real this time) distracted >>the crew? Available evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Eastern L-1011 was essentially in a landing configuration when it went it, and it was relatively intact after impact compared to SR111. Sufficiently so that some parts were actually salvaged for re-use, and there were a number of surivors of the accident. All information to date suggests that SR111 went in at high speed, and there don't seem to be any large pieces of the aircraft left. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:42 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: SR111 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 1 Feb 1999, JF Mezei wrote: > Without instruments and with overhead stuff melting onto pilots, my > *guess* is that the decided to ditch in the ocean and they probably > turned right into a circle because they may have used the lights from > boeys/towns as indication of ground.5 Minutes to drop 10k feet means > 2000k feet per minute which is reasonable. They probably misjudged their > descent rate vs altitude and they hit the water while still descending, > hence the total destruction of plane into pieces and why tail would end > up near the nose. I'm glad you said that was a guess but IMHO, it is a very misinformed guess and is based on absolutely no public, factual information. I've heard nothing to suggest anything you've guessed at. While everything you've said is possible, my flying experieince, albeit only in light planes as a pilot, says it's pretty improbably. And while I don't want to guess, I do have to say that what I've read suggests an out-of-control impact, not a controlled flight into the water due to loss of situational awareness. I'm trying to resist flaming you but this has to be one of the most uninformed, irresponsible posts I've seen in a long time from you. -- Larry Stone lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:43 From: "Roy Ellor" Subject: Re: A/C on fire References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tesco ISP Ron Parsons wrote in message ... >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? Not in this case...the evidence is pointing to a wiring bus fire on the SR MD11. As this aircraft is much more computer-dependent than the earlier DC10, failure of systems connecting the pilot to the machine would have resulted in an airliner with a transatlantic fuel load becoming uncontrollable near the ground and travelling at speed. People live near airports,too. A full MD11 losing avionics over a town at night...that would have been one hell of a hole. From kls Mon Feb 8 02:49:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Feb 99 02:49:44 From: "Roy Ellor" Subject: Re: Mystery over 1992 El-Al crash References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tesco ISP Alan Strange wrote in message ... >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. The cargo of this freighter was, supposedly, perfumes! Honestly! Like perfume cannot be shipped by sea....??? From news Tue Feb 9 18:44:15 1999 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Silk Air flight 185 crash Message-ID: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 01:53:14 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) The current issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that Indonesia's Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission is likely to rule that the cause of the accident was suicide by the captain. There have been a number of efforts to re-enact the flifhg from based upon radar and transponder data. I quote the results directly from the Avweek article: "They lead to the conclusion that only deliberate action by a crewmember could have resulted in the steep descent profile that the 737-300 experienced before it crashed on the island of Sumatra, according to persons familiar with the tests." From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:45 From: "Ricardo Teixeira" Subject: A320 FMGS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa Does anyone knows where can i find an A320 FMGS simulator for PC ??? I would apreciate any answer Ricardo Teixeira From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:46 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: honeywell Reply-To: stauffer@htc.honeywell.com Okay, I'll take a crack at all but one. boeing707 wrote: > Hi everybody. > I've come across a few terms relating to the fuselage and wing > structure of airplanes that I dont understand. Can somebody please > define the following terms: > 1. Mean Aerodynamic chord (relating to wing structure) This is for a wing which has a planform which is NOT a rectangle. The chord is the distance from the leading (front edge) of the wing at any distance from the fuselage measured parallel to the centerline of the aircraft, to the trailing edge. A rectangular wing would have its chord equal everywhere along the wing. One could compute an average geometrical chord with simple geometry on a non-rectangular wing. The mean aerodynamic chord would be very similar to this geometrical average chord for all practical purposes. > 2. Percent of mean aerodynamic chord (%MAC) (i think this relates to > wing loading) This is the location of the center of gravity. Rather than refer to station, to be defined below, it is referred to a percentage of chord because this number has a great deal to do with the stability of the aircraft. Lets say an aircraft has a chord of five feet. Lets say the center of gravity for longitudinal (fore/aft) balance is at a point one foot back from the leading edge. The CG is then at 20% of chord. The aircraft will go unstable if a different weight distribution moves the CG back beyond a certain critical percentage of the chord, depending on the airfoil, the tail, and other design features of the aircraft. > 3. Wing incidence We mentioned above that the chord is the line from the forward most extension of the leading edge to the very trailing edge. Not only is the distance important, but the angle between this line and the centerline of the aircraft is important. The airfoil must be at a certain angle to the oncoming air at a given condition of flight. If the wng has no incidence, the fuselage now points upward at various "angles of attack". We can keep the fuselage level during flight by making the wing have the proper angle to the air by adding the necessary "wing incidence." > I've also seen some blueprints for the 707 (the greatest airplane ever > made :) ) and saw two abbreviations that i did not understand: > 1. STA (relating to fuselage) and how are the STA numbers determined? This is an old shipbuilding convention. A ship or an aircraft has three reference axes. The planes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis are are called 'stations'. These are just reference planes when we talk about drawings, etc. While no one FORCES the designers and draftsman to do this (and there have been aircraft that do NOT use this convention), the convention even from the earliest days of building ships by lofting (drawings) has been that the stations are measured from the very nose of the ship or plane. So STAtion 100 means the station is located 100 inches from the extreme nose. Aircraft designers usually use inches for measurement, shipbuilders (I think) still use feet. > 2. WPL (relating to wing) and how are the WPL numbers determined? > I appreciate any help you may give me. You got me on WPL -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis home web site- http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ home email- stauffer@gte.net work email- stauffer@htc.honeywell.com From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:47 From: Scott Jacobson <75706.2201@compuserve.com> Subject: re: airplane structural terms 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 STA: This refers to fuselage station measurements. Fuselage stations is a measurement in inches (for Boeings anyway, might be metric for Airbus) from a zero point (usually near the nose). Commonly used to detemine weight & balance for an aircraft, or to tell a loader where to place a given piece of cargo, etc. MAC: Mean Aerodynamic Chord. As you know, for an ordinary aircraft to fly the center of balance must be between the leading and trailing edges, otherwise the plane will be out of balance and fall on it's nose or tail. Easy enough to measure on a straight wing where the leading & trailing edges are parallel. But on a swept wing airplane it's a different story!! So MAC weight & balance formulas are developed for each type of aircraft and give you a balance point as a percentage of the mean chord of the wing. Scott From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:48 From: Keith Barr Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AeroSys Engineering, Inc. Reply-To: barr@aerosys-eng.com boeing707 wrote: > Can somebody please define the following terms: > 1. Mean Aerodynamic chord (relating to wing structure) > 2. Percent of mean aerodynamic chord (%MAC) (i think this relates to > wing loading) >From ASA's "Flight Engineer Test Prep 99": The MEAN AERODYNAMIC CHORD (MAC) is the average distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the wing. The MAC is specified for an aircraft by determining the average chord of an imaginary wing which has the same aerodynamic characteristics as the actual wing. LEMAC stands for LEADING EDGE of MEAN AERODYNAMIC CHORD. Its position is expressed in inches aft of the datum. CG of Gravity (CG) of swept wing aircraft is normally calculated as a percent of MAC. For example, if MAC is 141.5" and the CG is at 22.5%, the CG is at 31.84" aft of LEMAC. > 3. Wing incidence This is the angle the wing is mounted at on the fuselage. > 1. STA (relating to fuselage) and how are the STA numbers determined? STA is the station number, normally in inches aft of the datum used for weight and balance determination. -- Keith Barr AeroSys Engineering, Inc. & New England Airlines mailto:barr@aerosys-eng.com Broomfield, CO & Block Island, RI http://www.aerosys-eng.com/barr BN-2, PA-32, PA-28 From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:49 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Here are some answers to your questions: 1. Chord is an imaginary straight line drawn through the wing from the leading edge to the trailing edge. Since the wing tapers, the mean chord is an average length and position. The aerodynamic chord is a rather complicated calculation (as opposed to the geometric chord). 2. %MAC refers to where the center of gravity falls along the chord when the aircraft is loaded. There is a forward MAC and aft MAC limit, and the CG must fall between these points. 3. Wing incidence is the angle (viewed from the side) that the wing is attached to the fuselage. In other words, if the leading edge were held in one place and the trailing edge were moved up or down, the angle of incidence would be changing. Obviously, most wings are securely bolted to the fuselage, and the AI is fixed (except for the Boeing Tiltrotor). An "all flying" horizontal tail would be an example where angle of incidence is variable. BTW, angle of attack is the angle the wing is meeting the airflow. If you were to suddenly pull the aircraft nose-up, angle of attack would increase, while angle of incidence would stay the same (unless the pull-up tore the wings off) :-) 4. STA is "station", also can be FS for "fuselage station". This is the coordinate system used to locate items or points on the aircraft. FS0 is usually at the nose, or just ahead of the nose. It the goes in inches back to the tail. Inside an aircraft structure, you will often find ribs, beams, etc. marked with the station number. One complication is on "stretch" aircraft. In order to keep station numbers consistent between models (a certain gizmo is always at FS1200 regardless of model), some manufacturers come up with screwball station number systems to accomodate the stretch. 5. WPL- I think you mean WBL, which is Wing Butt Line (no, a butt line is not the Rockettes)! BL0 is the centerline of the fuselage. Boeing uses LBL and RBL for left and right of centerline in inches, but WBL's on the wing. Douglas uses negative numbers to the left and positive to the right, with no Wing BL's. Vertical coordinates are the Water Line (WL). On a 747, WL200 is the top of the cabin floor, which places WL0 slighly below the tires. IIRC, Douglas places WL0 at the window line, and uses positive or negative coordinates. Like lots of other aircraft stuff, FS, BL, and WL is from the nautical / shipbuilding industry. Ken Ishiguro From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:50 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. > 1. Mean Aerodynamic chord (relating to wing structure) This is actually an aerodynamic term. It refers to a special spanwise defined as: (b/2) / MAC = 1/wing area * / c^2 dy / (-b/2) where b is the wingspan and c is the local chord. The MAC is used as a datum length for calculating pitching moments and is also a datum to which the aerodynamic center of the wing is referred. > 2. Percent of mean aerodynamic chord (%MAC) (i think this relates to > wing loading) No, this is actually a way of referring to the aircraft's center of gravity location. > 3. Wing incidence This is the angle of pitch that the wing is attached to the fuselage at. > 1. STA (relating to fuselage) and how are the STA numbers determined? Stations (STA) are measurements in the axial direction from some given reference location. These measurements, on Boeing aircraft, are made in inches. In a true interpertation, fuselage station (FS) 732 is 732 inches aft of the reference. The nose on the basic 707 is at station 130. However, the 707 came in various body lengths. When Boeing stretched the fuselage to these lengths, they introduced a region of the fuselage that is all identified by the same station number. For example, on the 707-120, the nose moved forward 80 inches (the wing box stays at the same FS location). Hence, the nose is really at FS 50 (130-80), but in the Boeing system, the nose is still at station 130, and from station 620, for the next 80 inches, locations are 620A, 620B, etc. There are also wing, horizontal tail, etc. stations, which are measured in some local axis system. Wing stations on the 707 are measured along the forward spar in the wing chord plane (as near as I can determine). > 2. WPL (relating to wing) and how are the WPL numbers determined? > I appreciate any help you may give me. Are you sure you're not looking at WBL, not WPL? WBL is the wing buttline, measured spanwise in the wing chord plane system. WBL 0 is at fuselage BL 6.65 on the 707-120. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:51 From: "David Fielding" Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home The chord of a wing refers to an imaginary line drawn through its airfoil at any section, from the leading edge to the trailing edge. The mean chord is an average of this line over the span of the wing. It is useful for determining the angle of the wing in relationship to the rest of the plane, and the air moving past it. The percent of MAC refers to a distance from the leading edge of the wing; often used to locate the center of gravity, or center of lift of a wing. For instance, the lifting force of a given wing might center a third of the way back from the leading edge, or 33% of Mean Aerodynamic Chord. Wing incidence is the angle of the wing MAC in relation to the centerline of the aircraft; it is a fixed figure, rivetted into the structure of the plane (although a few planes were made with variable-incidence wings). A separate matter is angle of attack, which is the angle between the MAC and the relative wind, or air moving past the wing. Angle of attack is a changing figure, based on speed, weight, control input, and other factors. Hope this helps. David Fielding dfield@epix.net Wish me luck on the Instrument written... From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:52 From: JCSflyboy Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Reply-To: jsflyboy@airmail.net Ken Ishiguro wrote: > I was visiting Everett earlier this week, and there was another AA 777 > parked between the main hangars and the paint hangar. It looked like it > was a few weeks away from delivery. Didn't get the tail number. This one's 'N' number should be "N7AC". From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:53 From: "john r." Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: silence In article , Ken Ishiguro writes >BTW, in AA livery, it was a little more difficult to identify as a 777, >at first. I wasn't sure it was until I got closer to it. Two ways to recognise a 777, on the ground the flight deck windows are smaller than any other twin, relatively. In the air the long thin wings stand out. -- john r. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Followup-To: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:54 From: gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Silk Air flight 185 crash References: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet James Matthew Weber (jmweber@goodnet.com) wrote: : The current issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that : Indonesia's Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission is likely to : rule that the cause of the accident was suicide by the captain. : There have been a number of efforts to re-enact the flifhg from based : upon radar and transponder data. I quote the results directly from the : Avweek article: : "They lead to the conclusion that only deliberate action by a : crewmember could have resulted in the steep descent profile that the : 737-300 experienced before it crashed on the island of Sumatra, : according to persons familiar with the tests." Was a CVR recovered from this aircraft? -- Gerry From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:55 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Snowstorms and electrical charges References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley Ken Ishiguro wrote: >Yes, dry blowing snow can build up a static charge. My friend who grew >up on a ranch in Colorado learned at a very early age to never touch a >metal fence in cold, windy, dry conditions! Aircraft can build up a >static charge from snow, rain, or just the friction of the air across >the fuselage. > >Aircraft are equipped with devices to drain off static buildup in >flight, so the airplane story is urban legend as you state. I finally dug out the magazine where I read the story about the airplane that had a huge static discharge after flying into dry blowing snow. It was _Flying_ magazine, July 1994, column "I Learned About Flying From That" by Matthew Nash, who was the copilot. Here are some excerpts: "On an overcast night in late December we were flying on a scheduled flight from Lynchburg, Virginia, to Pittsburgh in a Swearingen Metroliner III. ... We plunged into the overcast at 17,000 ... Dry ice crystals hissed across the windshield abrasively like blown sand, and the captain switched on the recognition lights." Then suddenly: "For only a moment, the long nose of the Metro flared with a brilliant, searing light. Then with a deafening roar, there came a tremendous explosion of light, like a massive flashbulb exploding right outside the windshield. The cockpit got dark and everything got very quiet. "To say that we were stunned is an understatement. We were floored, and for a dazed second we charged ahead with numbed senses, only dimly aware that the engines continued to run and the plane was still flying. ... "The captain was screaming something but I couldn't hear him -- the headset I now wore was useless. Then the cockpit lights flickered on and just as quickly went out again. In that second, I caught some gibberish in the headset. The lights, radios, every electrical thing clicked on again. Then went out. ... [captain turns off all generators, resets them, turns back on, climbs out of the overcast] "Subsequent inspection of the airplane revealed a hole the diameter of a pencil where the electrical charge had penetrated the radome. ... I have only heard of this phenomenon happening one other time ... in very rare instances the charge is so huge and can build up so quickly, the entire airplane can actually become a static wick." -- Katie Schwarz "There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs." -- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass" From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:56 From: JCSflyboy Subject: Re: cabine chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Reply-To: jsflyboy@airmail.net meandgp@eskimo.com wrote: > Not having crewed or trained beyond the Instrument level as a Private Pilot, > could any of you point out the myriad of bells/chimes one typically hears > on a normal Part 121 flight. I am aware obviously of the flight attendant > call button noise but is the initial chime heard while still climbing the > 10k or first clearance altitude? You guessed it! The chime you hear a few minutes after takeoff, is the Captain cycling the seat belt sign off/on quickly. This is to let the Flight Attendants know that the flight is climbing thru 10,000 feet and the "sterile cockpit" period is over. And of course, it happens in reverse on descent. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:57 From: "R.R.B.777" Subject: Re: cabine chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Wanadoo - (Client of French Internet Provider) meandgp@eskimo.com a écrit dans le message ... >Not having crewed or trained beyond the Instrument level as a Private Pilot, >could any of you point out the myriad of bells/chimes one typically hears >on a normal Part 121 flight. I am aware obviously of the flight attendant >call button noise but is the initial chime heard while still climbing the >10k or first clearance altitude? You should hear 2 chimes during the initial climb : 1st after gear retraction (automatic) or later (manual) when the no-smoking goes off then at 10000ft (automatic) or later (manual) when the seat belt sign goes off. Everytime one of those signs goes on or off you must hear a chime. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:58 From: "Andrew Ayers" Subject: Re: cabin chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom > Not having crewed or trained beyond the Instrument level as a Private Pilot, > could any of you point out the myriad of bells/chimes one typically hears > on a normal Part 121 flight. I am aware obviously of the flight attendant > call button noise but is the initial chime heard while still climbing the > 10k or first clearance altitude? I am a Part 121 pilot and we use the cabin chime for a variety of flight phases. Be aware that each airline may have it's own policy. The first chime after takeoff is at the end of the takeoff phase, typically just after 1500ft. This is to let the cabin attendent know that the takeoff phase is complete. The next chime is passing through 10,000ft. We have another passing back through 10,000ft on the way back down and finally one just prior to landing after the gear comes down. Like I said, each airline has it's own checklist policy which would dictate when the chime is sounded, but that's the general idea. Hope that helps. -- Andrew Ayers http://members.aol.com/andrewair From kls Sat Feb 13 02:25:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:25:59 From: "Ramprat" Subject: Dash 80 query Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tesco ISP In the hope that someone may have the photographs... Boeing used the Dash 80 prototype to testbed the tailmount engine configuration adopted for the 727. Has anyone any pictures of this project (for a serious research piece)? Please reply to ellor@tesco.net Thanks! From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:00 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: U.S. Opposes Aircraft Engine Rules 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@nrk.com (David Lesher) > WASHINGTON (AP) -- The United States called on the European Union >on Tuesday to withhold new aircraft engine rules it was poised to >adopt, saying they would harm U.S. air carriers and trample on >existing international guidelines. [The EU is banning Hush Kits. Nothing said about re-engining.] > ``A thorough analysis of the situation shows that hush-kitted >aircraft perform worse that current production airplanes in terms >of fuel burn and air pollution,'' the European Union said in a >statement. > U.S. officials and U.S. airlines object for a variety of >reasons, including the claim that the European Union is attempting >to spur sales by Airbus Industries, the European airplane >consortium. > However, Airbus itself opposes the EU rules. [NW and FedEx are upset] > U.S. airlines are buying hundreds of new planes and installing >hush kits on older models because the federal government has >required that all jets operating in the country meet more stringent >noise standards known as Stage 3 as of Jan. 1, 2000. Wonder if this will ship the balance toward re-engining?? How about price of used airframes? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:01 From: James Matthew Weber 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 At 02:49 AM 2/8/99 +0000, you wrote: > wrote in message ... >>Garry Forrest writes: >>>Recall that arch rivals Pratt and GE have collaborated; if they can do >>>it, anyone can do it. Perhaps, but so far there are NO applications for the product and it isn't clear there will ever be any anyway. As long as the program doesn't obvious take sales money away it is harmless. the ones that did compete haven't done as well. >>Or more tellingly, GE and SNECMA. The CFM product put them in markets neither had been active in previously, so it was a win/win. GE/RR had a very short life. It ended up aimed at markets they were both active in. >AND RR and P&W! The PW6000 and PW8000 programs suggest that IAE may be headed for the rocks. It looks aimed squarely at the V2500. >The RR/BMW alliance is looking mighty promising for lower >end powerplant these days. Again, another problem for IAE. BR family impinges on the low end of the v2500 market. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 When traveling +61 411 749244 From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:02 From: Adam Keys Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... 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 Navion1217 wrote: > >Is anyone familar with Part 121 operations that still feature/allow cockit > >video > > I seem to remeber reading that American used to have this until the > DC-10 crash at Chicago that showed all the pax their impending doom. > Seems the lawyers milked that for all it was worth. I flew on an AA DC10 in May 1986 - this had a cockpit view of the take off (and I think landing) and the crew communications on one of the sound channels. Slightly disconcerting to be flying into Dallas having heard the crew being warned about wind shear conditions. Adam From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:03 From: "Reino F." Subject: Johnston's 707 roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM The modetor made a comment that test pilot Tex Johnston made a barrell roll during Gold Cup race for hydroplanes. Very important for Boeing were airline managers who were in a boat watching the show. Johnston said in a TV interview that "I was just selling aeroplanes, the barrell roll was my idea". More info about 1955 event: http://www.seattletimes.com/news/lifestyles/html98/altwats_110398.html "He did the roll in front of 200 000 people and representives of all the airlines in the world". Reino F. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:04 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: Does the Canadair RJ have thrust reversers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of OzEmail/Access One Pty Ltd, Melbourne, Australia What is the minimum runway length for a CRJ at MTOW? Kendell Airlines in Australia has just ordered a heap of them and, besides replacing some half empty BAe 146s, will upgrade some routes currently operated by Saab 340s. Cheers David From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:05 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: first toilet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: apl I would guess that the first aircraft (fixed wing, not airship) to carry a toilet was a passenger carrier, and hence within the purview of this newsgroup. Does anyone know which one it was? From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:06 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: External inspection Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 1 Feb 1999, JF Mezei wrote: > > It wouldn't appear to be inop. If the static pressure trapped inside > > the system was the same as the current outside static pressure, > > everything would appear normal. You would only notice an invalid > > reading when the static pressure changes from what is trapped inside > > the system. > > I do not understand. If the static pressure trapped inside the system > were enough to show a V1 speed on the pilot's gauges, shouldn't pilots > have noticed that the gauges were reading V1 while the plane was iddle? > If looking at the needle move until it reaches V1 is partof the > responsabilities of one of the 2 pilots, shouldn't that pilot not have > noticed that the needle was not moving? Read the comment you replied to (quoted above). An airspeed indicator indication is a function of the static pressure and the ram-air pressure from the pitot tube. As long as the trapped static pressure equals the current outside pressure, then the airspeed indicates correctly (which was have been the case while the plane was on the ground). It's only when the outside pressure is different from the trapped pressure that you have an indication error. Note that this is very different from when static pressure is OK and the pitot tube is blocked (trapped ram-air pressure) in which case the airspeed indicator acts like an altimeter. -- Larry Stone lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:07 From: Matthew Willshee Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England JF Mezei wrote: > I do not understand. If the static pressure trapped inside the system > were enough to show a V1 speed on the pilot's gauges, shouldn't pilots > have noticed that the gauges were reading V1 while the plane was iddle? Assuming incompressible flow, Bernoulli's equation tells us that: p + 0.5 * rho * V * V = p0 p is static pressure - "barometric pressure" rho is density V is speed p0 is stagnation or total pressure - the pressure you would measure in the air if you slowed it to a stop. 0.5 * rho * V * V is called the dynamic pressure. It is the difference between static and total pressure due to the motion of the air. A pitot tube has two parts - a forward pointing tube brings the air to rest (relative to the plane) and hence the pressure in it is total pressure p0 - a hole pointing at right angles to the direction of travel measures the static pressure p. Subtract p from p0 and you get dynamic pressure 0.5 * rho * V * V - from which you can extract speed (given density which is a function of altitude and temperature, hence IAS versus TAS discussions elsewhere in the group). So now we tape over the static ports - obviously while the plane is on the ground!. We fix our reading of static pressure to sea level atmospheric pressure. Any change in this before takeoff will be negligible so the static ports read the correct pressure on takeoff. There is no airspeed indication problem. At altitude though, our trapped pressure is too high so we calculate dynamic pressure too low and underestimate airspeed. Obviously, it would be much easier to spot taped over dynamic ports, as this value pressure changes as we accelerate. Air is not incompressible, so there are some inaccuracies in using Bernoulli but the argument will be the same in principle with compressible flow. -- Matthew Willshee E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge, CB3 0DS : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:08 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Gerard Foley wrote: > GPS speeds in automobiles are extraordinarily accurate. At aircraft > speeds they are reasonable, but the mile markers go by too fast for me to > click my stopwatch ):-)) to check. You're right, of course, that the > ground speed isn't much use on takeoff, unless you know there's no wind! The average error on a GPS system actually goes down at higher speeds. The small deviation due to SA and natural phenomena is more significant at low speeds. During takeoff, if your airspeed indicator has failed, the pilots should notice this and abort, shouldn't they ? But in flight, if they fail, they should be able to use a GPS. While the altitude may be close to a 1000m (3000feet) off from barometric altitude, (I have seen it at 800metres off), you can use it to monitor if your are fairly stable or dropping altitude (or climbing). And you may not be able to directly calculate indicated airspeed from the true ground speed, but you should be able to get a good idea based on weather reports and perhaps radio contact with nearby planes on the same track. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:09 From: navion1217@aol.com (Navion1217) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > Another point: as far as I know, the angle of attack indicator >was usable on the airliner with the plugged static ports. I have >heard that Navy pilots (they prefer to be called aviators) are >taught to use angle of attack as the primary reference when landing. I don't think the B757 (or any other airliner) gives the pilot direct indications of the AOA. The sensor is used by the stall warning system, not to drive a cockpit gauge. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:10 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info On 01 Feb 99 02:37:06 , JF Mezei wrote: >I do not understand. If the static pressure trapped inside the system >were enough to show a V1 speed on the pilot's gauges, shouldn't pilots >have noticed that the gauges were reading V1 while the plane was iddle? >If looking at the needle move until it reaches V1 is partof the >responsabilities of one of the 2 pilots, shouldn't that pilot not have >noticed that the needle was not moving? The needle WOULD be moving. Remember, the STATIC port is blocked. Ram pressure is still comming in from the pitot tube. Jeff From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:11 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics JF Mezei writes: > I do not understand. If the static pressure trapped inside the system > were enough to show a V1 speed on the pilot's gauges, shouldn't pilots > have noticed that the gauges were reading V1 while the plane was iddle? No. There are two ports involved: one is a tube facing forward and measuring ram air pressure, which depends (to first order) on airspeed. This presumably wasn't blocked. The second port is needed because planes don't stay at a constant altitude: as outside static air pressure declines with altitude, the ram air pressure (as absolute pressure) declines. To correct for this, the airspeed indicator has a static port open to the non-pressurized atmoshpere outside the plane and registers the pressure *difference*. I believe that this static port was blocked, giving a normal airspeed indication on the ground, but progressively stranger readings as the plane climbed. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:12 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >From: "P. Wezeman" >Another point: as far as I know, the angle of attack indicator >was usable on the airliner with the plugged static ports. The AOA vane is used for input for stall warning, but there is no direct AOA indicator on most transport jets. I understand that American wanted to add AOA indicators to it's aircraft after the Cali accident. It may have helped in this accident too. From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:13 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: posted via: CyberRamp.net, Dallas, TX (214) 343-3333/(817) 461-8484 for info What about speeds like Vx, Vy, Vfe, etc.?? Are these calculated for the 727, or is it a simple book lookup value like it is in a single engine Cessna?? Jeff From kls Sat Feb 13 02:26:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.usa-canada,rec.travel.misc Date: 13 Feb 99 02:26:14 From: "Stephen Gilkes" Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: <01be437e$76988580$0502b5ca@default> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Zeus wrote ... > Could anyone tell me where in Nevada or Arizona the large surplus >commercial aircraft stoage air field is? Is it possible to visit this >facility? > I know of the obsolete military aircraft storage air field at >Davis-Monthan AFB (out of Tucson), but I understand there is a separate air >field for redundant commercial planes somewhere. The place you're thinking off is the Evergreen Air Centre at Marana (now designated the Pinal Air Park) in Arizona. When I was In Arizona last year I could see the tails of the planes in the distance from Interstate 10 north of Tucson. Funnily enough, there is a very good article about the Centre in this month's Airways magazine. Unfortunately, a footnote to the article clearly states that there is **absolutely** no public access or tour are offered. A real shame because I'd love to have a look around. Stephen From kls Mon Feb 22 03:29:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Feb 99 03:29:08 From: "ITRADE" Subject: Re: Silk Air flight 185 crash References: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services Corp Gerard Foley wrote in article ... > James Matthew Weber (jmweber@goodnet.com) wrote: > : The current issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that SNIP > : "They lead to the conclusion that only deliberate action by a > : crewmember could have resulted in the steep descent profile that the > : 737-300 experienced before it crashed on the island of Sumatra, > : according to persons familiar with the tests." > > Was a CVR recovered from this aircraft? >From what I remember of the investigation report, one of the pilots reportedly got up and got out of his seat. He may have even gotten out of the cockpit. Soon after, unexplicably, the CVR was shut off. The FDR continued to run. It was suspected that the suicidal pilot turned the CVR off. Rich From kls Mon Feb 22 03:29:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Feb 99 03:29:09 From: "Edward Lowery" <16@pobox.com> Subject: Re: Silk Air flight 185 crash References: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Subscriber of Pacific Internet The Cockpit Voice Recorder and Flight Data Recorder were recovered. = They were no useful information because the power had been removed prior = to impact. It is believed that the circuit breaker was pulled on both = boxes. Edward Lowery lowery@pobox.com From kls Mon Feb 22 03:29:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Feb 99 03:29:10 From: "Dave Pullan" Subject: Re: Silk Air flight 185 crash References: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NBTel Internet Gerard Foley wrote in article ... > James Matthew Weber (jmweber@goodnet.com) wrote: > : The current issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology reports that > : Indonesia's Aircraft Accident Investigation Commission is likely to > : rule that the cause of the accident was suicide by the captain. > Was a CVR recovered from this aircraft? I read the CVR ceased mysteriously, along with the FDR about 30 sec before the a/c supposedly started its descent, poss due to ct breakers pulled. Also read happened on the exact anniversary (20 year?) on the death of the capt's airforce buddies in some midair. Dave Pullan From kls Mon Feb 22 03:29:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:29:11 From: "Dan Rupp" Subject: Re: Silk Air flight 185 crash References: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services, Inc The cockpit voice recorder was aledgedly disconnected from the cockpit in the minutes before the crash. The last sound recorded was a sort of thump, similer to possibly the flight captain hitting the copilot with a fire extinguisher, gun butt, or axe. Some pilots in Indonesia carried guns, as it was legal and there was the constant threat of terrorists. Dan Rupp CrashPages.Com - Plane crashes on the net. http://www.crashpages.com/ From kls Mon Feb 22 03:29:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:29:12 From: skipmacd@aol.com (SkipMacD) Subject: Re: first toilet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I would guess that the first aircraft (fixed wing, not airship) to carry >a toilet was a passenger carrier, and hence within the purview of this >newsgroup. Does anyone know which one it was? Up until the time of the Boeing Clipper (1939) toilets on airliners were little more than holes in the bottom of the fuselage. The firsr aerial "water closet" was designed by Wellwood C. Beale for inclusion on this aircraft when Pan Am took delivery. An interesting sidelight was that they had to change toilet paper brands from one that was .010" thick to a brand .003" thick to get it to work properly!!! Source:Conquest of the Skies- A History of Commercial Aviation in America; Carl Solberg; 1979, Little, Brown, and Company. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:12 From: "Dan Rupp" Subject: Re: first toilet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Prodigy Services, Inc Andrew Goldfinger wrote in message ... > I would guess that the first aircraft (fixed wing, not airship) to carry >a toilet was a passenger carrier, and hence within the purview of this >newsgroup. Does anyone know which one it was? Ford TriMotor...maybe. Dan Rupp CrashPages.Com - Plane crashes on the net. http://www.crashpages.com/ From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:13 From: "David Fielding" Subject: Re: first toilet References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Andrew Goldfinger wrote in article ... > I would guess that the first aircraft (fixed wing, not airship) to carry > a toilet was a passenger carrier, and hence within the purview of this > newsgroup. Does anyone know which one it was? I'm not sure if it was the first, but the Ford Trimotor had one. When you lifted the lid, you got to look directly out the bottom of the plane, bombardier-style. I presume that it was quite drafty, and that any evacuated matter (note genteel euphemism) was allowed to fall to earth somewhere along your route. And you thought airport NOISE was a problem. David Fielding -- dfield@epix.net From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:14 From: dursel@cancom.net (Doug Ursel) Subject: 727 Barrel Roll in Late 70's Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here In the late 70's a passenger carrying 727 accidently did a barrell roll and an uncontrolled dive to approx. 3000 ft. This occured somewhere around Detroit. I believe it was the result of an uncommanded spoiler extention on one side only. Does anyone remember the specific details? *** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) *** From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:15 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: Johnston's 707 roll References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net Aloha, Right! The rest of the story wuz "Tex" was called on the carpet by the CEO of Boeing for this stunt. But they did sell a billion dollars worth of airplanes. My aircraft commander did the same stunt at Marana butt he forgot to tell us to sit down and strap in. Hugh From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:16 From: Puranjai Dass Subject: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This question is directed towards experts in Aircraft Performance & Airframe Pressurization (sorry for sending such a long email):- I work for a regulatory authority and I am helping senior investigators who are writing a report on a depressurization incident involving a B737-500. They requested me to graph the variation of both the actual aircraft altitude and the cabin pressure altitude with time by extracting data from the ATC transcript. I need some help on this graph. The details of the incident are as follows:- " The aircraft was cleared by Approach Control to descend from FL 370 to FL 350 then re-cleared to descend to 10,000 ft. At FL 360 the F/O called "one to go". Just below FL 360 the Master Warning sounded and the Left Bleed Trip-Off light came on. The F/O reached for the QRH. 15 to 20 seconds later the Right Bleed Trip-Off Light illuminated. The F/O operated the Trip Reset button, then turned to the Captain who was putting on his oxygen mask. The F/O donned his mask. The cabin altitude warning (an intermittent horn) sounded at 10,000 cabin altitude and this was silenced by the F/O operating the horn cutout. He then armed the passenger oxygen switch. The aircraft cabin altitude continued to climb. Approaching a cabin altitude of 14,000 ft the Captain ordered manual deployment of the passenger oxygen masks. At about FL340 in the descent both bleed lights extinguished and the duct pressures returned to a normal reading. An emergency descent was initiated. The F/O selected manual mode of the pressure controller and manually operated the outflow valves to the closed position. A duct overheat illuminated at about the halfway point during the descent. This was extinguished after reference to the checklist. The aircraft was leveled out at 5,000 ft. The descent from cruise level to this altitude lasted approximately 15 minutes. The cabin outflow valve was opened at 5,000 ft. The aircraft was now 100 nm from the destination and continued to descend for a visual approach and landing." As a result of this incident a passenger suffered permanent ear damage. The senior investigators believe that the pressure differential was maintained at 8.65 psi (by the safety relief valves) some time after the F/O manually closed the outflow valve (passing 34,000 ft) until the a/c reached the 5,000 ft altitude when the outflow valve was re-opened. If we assume the pressure differential reached 8.65 psi when the a/c was at say 31,000 ft then the cabin altitude would be 4,000 ft (using standard atmosphere calculations). My problem is - how do you express negative cabin pressure altitudes since the cabin pressure was definitely below sea level when the a/c reached 5,000 ft. As far as I know all the pressure equations are based on altitudes of sea level and above. Negative altitudes are not a reality of life, are they? I would be very grateful if the experts could help me out. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:17 From: Steve Lerner Subject: 727 Maintenance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Hello, Can anyone tell me what the ratio of flight hours to maintenance hours (or is it the other way around) for any dash # 727 is? I was discussing this with a friend today, and neither of us has a clue. Thanks in advance to all who reply. Steve Lerner From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:18 From: "RampRat" Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Tesco ISP john r. wrote in message ... >In article , Ken Ishiguro writes >>BTW, in AA livery, it was a little more difficult to identify as a 777, >>at first. I wasn't sure it was until I got closer to it. > >Two ways to recognise a 777, on the ground the flight deck windows are >smaller than any other twin, relatively. >In the air the long thin wings stand out. Another one... main gear bogeys carry six tyres and not four like the 767. Until the newer Airbus variants come online it is unique in this configuration for a Western manufactured aircraft. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:19 From: Tim Vasquez Subject: Re: cabine chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:25 AM 2/13/99, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM wrote: >You should hear 2 chimes during the initial climb : 1st after gear >retraction (automatic) or later (manual) when the no-smoking goes off then >at 10000ft (automatic) or later (manual) when the seat belt sign goes off. On two recent Delta MD-88 flights I noticed that the chimes consistently sounded when passing through 16,000 ft rather than the 10,000 ft that I had expected. This was according to my GPS (accuracy within 1500 ft). I do remember on the Key Airlines 727-100's (which I flew very frequently several years ago) they were always set for 10,000 ft. Tim Vasquez Norman, OK http://www.weathergraphics.com/ From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:20 From: Ralf.Sipple@t-online.de (Ralf Sipple) Subject: Re: cabin chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering Andrew Ayers wrote: > phases. Be aware that each airline may have it's own policy. The first chime but it's interesting how different airlines do this and that. > after takeoff is at the end of the takeoff phase, typically just after > 1500ft. This is to let the cabin attendent know that the takeoff phase is > complete. we used to cycle the no smoking sign passing 5k (transition altitude in Germany), the FAs then made the no-smoking-reminder-announcement. One day one of our bosses had the idea to simply let them make this announcement 3 minutes after takeoff. That saved the first chime. >The next chime is passing through 10,000ft. We have another 10k seat belts off > passing back through 10,000ft on the way back down and finally one just leaving cruising altitude, at the latest passing 10k: saet belts on (they really give us so much freedom in the way of operating this airplane ;-) ) > prior to landing after the gear comes down. Like I said, each airline has we believe our FAs are capable of recognising the rumbling noise of the gear coming down and thus also omit this chime now. Viele Gruesse, Ralf -- Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-711-7777206 | sipple@writeme.com D-70794 Filderstadt| Anrufbeantw. +49-711-7777208| pgp key on request! From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:21 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: cabin chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Generally, the first chime comes at gear up. This 'used' to mean it was okay to smoke, and it was time for the Flight Attendants to get up and start work. Now, of course, there's no smoking. The next chime is generally linked either to the flap retraction, or the aircraft passing 10,000'. In either case, it is assumed that it's reasonably okay for us mere mortals to get up and wander the aircraft. After several recent accidents, it is still ->strongly<- recommended that you spend most of your time in your seat belted in. During descent, the chiming is reversed; the Fasten Seat Belt sign comes on at 10,000', and the No Smoking sign is cycled at gear down. TheFNG From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:22 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 13 Feb 1999, Navion1217 wrote: > > Another point: as far as I know, the angle of attack indicator > >was usable on the airliner with the plugged static ports. I have > >heard that Navy pilots (they prefer to be called aviators) are > >taught to use angle of attack as the primary reference when landing. > > I don't think the B757 (or any other airliner) gives the pilot direct > indications of the AOA. The sensor is used by the stall warning system, not to > drive a cockpit gauge. Seems pound foolish to have an AOA sensor but just use it for stall warning when with a proper display it can be used for stall avoidance. Do airline pilots have some objection to AOA displays that I'm not aware of? I would think that since so many are ex-military that they would be strong advocates of the devices. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:23 From: felton@Princeton.EDU (Phil. G. Felton) Subject: Re: External inspection References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University In article , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: > I believe that this static port was blocked, giving a normal airspeed > indication on the ground, but progressively stranger readings as the > plane climbed. Agreed that the airspeed would read correctly on/near the ground but the clue should have been that the altitude didn't change as they climbed also the rate of climb/descent would show some strange effects too. Phil. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:24 From: Rob Wells Subject: Model of Flight Technical Error. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre G'day, I'm posting the following query from a colleague, as I thought someone here might have an answer for him. TIA, Rob W. (-: ----- Begin Include ----- When an aircraft is trying to level off it is likely that the aircraft may slightly overshoot the level. Later, when maintaining the level, there will be minor vertical movements, of perhaps +/- 100 feet, which the (auto-)pilot of the aircraft cannot eliminate. I believe that these errors are called flight technical errors. Does anyone have a model for simulating flight technical errors in an RVSM scenario? The model is needed for simulating TCAS events in RVSM airspace. Garfield Dean. ----- End Include ----- From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:25 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: True Air Speed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. > On 1/17/99 2:37 AM, Scott (scott@golfmike.demon.co.uk) said: > Can anyone tell me how to work out TAS for IAS? According to the Pratt & Whitney handbook, to get from IAS, you first correct for airspeed position error - this gives Calibrated Air Speed (CAS). Then, you apply compressibility corrections to get Equivalent Air Speed (EAS). Finally, you apply a density correction to get True Air Speed (TAS). The CAS to EAS to TAS correction is necessary due to how airspeed indicators work. They measure the difference between total pressure and static pressure, to get dynamic pressure. They then assume density to be a constant to produce airspeed. However, density changes with Mach number (hence EAS) and altitude (hence TAS). To make the corrections, you need to know local sonic velocity, altitude and temperature. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Feb 22 03:30:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:26 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: True Air Speed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA A quick estimate method is to add 2% of IAS for each 1000' of altitude to get TAS. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:27 From: Rob Wells Subject: Re: True Air Speed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EUROCONTROL Experimental Centre G'day, With these three values floating around for an aircraft's speed, which value do ATC controllers use? The displays at the German ATC centre at Karlsruhe showed a value in knots if I remember correctly. 'Avahappy, Rob W. (-: P.S. Thanks for the useful info about IAS, CAS and TAS. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:28 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Airframe profitability Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc*@cmdnet.lu I wonder if anyone has exact data on when the different airframes B707 - B777 and A300 - A340 reached/will reach the program profitability. IIRC the B737NG series will reach it at 800 produced frames. 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 Mon Feb 22 03:30:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:29 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: News Item (Hanscom) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org C. D. HANSCOM WITH GLENN L. MARTIN COMPANY Mr. C. D. Hanscom, Harvard graduate and recently Instructor of Aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is now Chief Engineer of the Glenn L. Martin Company, succeeding D. W. Douglas, who has resigned. [from Aerial Age Weekly, April 19, 1920] So that's where Hanscom AFB, Mass. (aka Bedford Airport), gets its name. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:30 From: andyweir Subject: 737 approach speeds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I would be grateful for the help of 737 operators on this. As I understand it, the NTSB had test-flights carried out as part of the investigations into UAL 585 737 crash at Colorado Springs in 1991 and that of USair 427 near Pittsburgh in 1994. They showed that 190 knots, the speed being used by US427 on its approach (it was at 6000 feet when the upset occurred) was not fast enough for the ailerons to counteract the effects of a rudder hardover. I read that many airlines, or pilots on their own initiative, added 10 knots to their approach speed so as to ensure full aileron authority in the event of a rudder hardover. I realise approach speeds will vary according to different circumstances, but does anyone out there know whether 737s are still being flown at higher speeds on final approach than before the NTSB info came out? If so, is it just according to the tastes of the airline's chief pilot, or is it more rigorous than that? Thanks in advance, A Weir From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:31 From: "Sunil Gupta" Subject: Re: CFM56 on military 707s? (was: Re-engining 747s) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM John Wright wrote in message ... >Also CFM powered are the five KE-3As operated by >the Royal Saudi Air Force (used as tankers rather than surveillance >aircraft) and ... The Saudia Air force also operates 6 E-3A's with CFM-56 engines. At least one of these flew with full US markings for a short period of time. The only way to identify that it was Saudi AF was the tiny serial number on the tail! Sunil From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:32 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa On 13 Feb 1999, Ken Ishiguro wrote: > 3. Wing incidence is the angle (viewed from the side) that the wing is > attached to the fuselage. In other words, if the leading edge were held > in one place and the trailing edge were moved up or down, the angle of > incidence would be changing. Obviously, most wings are securely bolted > to the fuselage, and the AI is fixed (except for the Boeing Tiltrotor). > An "all flying" horizontal tail would be an example where angle of > incidence is variable. On the Boeing Tiltrotor the wing incidence is fixed and the engines with their rotors tilt. There were earlier designs, some American, some Canadian, and perhaps one Japanese, where the entire wing tilted. The Vought Crusader carrier based fighter, still used with the French Navy until the naval version of the Rafale is operational, has a variable incidence wing. This allows it to increase wing incidence for landing and take-off while keeping the fuselage horizontal for good pilot visibility over the nose. The incidence changing mechanism was lighter than the longer landing gear needed without it to accommodate landing with nose up. The Martin XB-51 also had variable incidence. There is a homebuilt aircraft design, called I believe the FreeWing, that uses wings with variable incidence differentially for roll control, and collectively for lift control (you can't really say that the wings control pitch since the fuselage stays aligned with the relative wind). Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:33 From: emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Also you will want to read the wonderful picture book DESERT AIRLINERS. I have read it dozens of times and it never fails to haunt and captivate. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.usa-canada,rec.travel.misc Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:34 From: mga707@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: <01be437e$76988580$0502b5ca@default> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , "Stephen Gilkes" wrote: > The place you're thinking off is the Evergreen Air Centre at Marana (now > designated the Pinal Air Park) in Arizona. When I was In Arizona last year I > could see the tails of the planes in the distance from Interstate 10 north > of Tucson. There are also commercial aircraft stored at Kingman AZ and Mojave CA, as well as at Marana. AFAIK, no public access to either facility, although one can see most of the aircraft from outside the perimeter. Side note: The Davis-Monthan "boneyard" tours are now being handled by the nearby Pima Air and Space Museum. Mike -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:35 From: baejs3201@aol.com (BAEJS3201) Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Can anyone tell if you can get out to the aircraft storage in Mojave CA,and is the any Convair 880/990's still out there. thank David From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.usa-canada,rec.travel.misc Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:36 From: "D. A. Ling" Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: <01be437e$76988580$0502b5ca@default> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: About as disorganized as I can be (You should see my house) Reply-To: take out the words and use numbers Stephen Gilkes wrote: > The place you're thinking off is the Evergreen Air Centre at Marana (now > designated the Pinal Air Park) in Arizona. When I was In Arizona last year I > could see the tails of the planes in the distance from Interstate 10 north > of Tucson. They used to (maybe still) store planes at Mojave and Kingman as well. There are some in Vega$, too From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.usa-canada,rec.travel.misc Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:37 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: <01be437e$76988580$0502b5ca@default> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Europainstitut Basel Hi all, there are several places where you can see old aircraft parked - most of them are within driving distance from Phoenix (PHX), Arizona. A general note: Most of these storage facilities are anything but "deserted junkyards" They ususally belong to firms that earn their money by storing, maintaining, rebuilding or parting out old airliners, and access to their premisses is generally a "scarce good". Some of the parts lying around may still be worth more money than your entire two week vacation in the Western US costs, and the facilities' customers (aka the owners of the planes) are not at all amused by the idea of tourists and souvenir-hunters walking and climbing around their planes! So: Always ask for permission to access any such site, never climb, i.e. break into one, take a no for a no, and bring along your tele-lenses for the latter case. The storage airports are: -> Already mentionned by Stephen: Pinal Air Park (aka "Marana") on I-10 from PHX to Tucson (TUS). Private operation run by Evergreen International. As they are also rebuilding and scrapping aircraft, they do not give access to visitors anymore. Official reasoning: "Our customers do not want to have pictures of their derelict old planes appearing in the press - if we'd let you in, we'd loose some of our customers." A point that's hard to counter... But a little footnote, though: They used to give access - provided you had arranged for a visit well in advance - until about 7 years ago, but then the ramper who always guided visitors in his spare time died, and no one else showed the same spirit and dedication to enthusiasts as he did. -> Tucson International Airport: Some airliners are in storage on the Western edge of the airfield. Some pictures are possible from the fence, and occasionally you may find someone who is willing and able to give you access to one or two of the storage ramps. No guarantee, though, especially as the airport is at the same time an active international airport. -> Avra Valley (between Tucson and Pinal Air Park). A few Convairliners, DC-4s and L-749 (among them the active MATS Constellation) are usually parked near the north end of the airport. I found that access was possible as recently as 1998 - check with the duty officer before walking into the airfield. -> Chandler Memorial Airport, 10 Miles south of PHX, 2-3 Miles east of the I-10: Mainly DC-4, DC-6, DC-7 that were used as freighters and firebombers, occasionally some Lockheed Hercules. Check in the office in the westernmost hangar before accessing the ramp. -> Goodyear, Arizona (West of PHX). DC-10s waiting for conversion to DC-10F and/or MD-10F Freighters. No access to the storage ramp, but limited possibilities to shoot some tele shots from a distance. -> Kingman, Arizona (circa halfway between Flagstaff, Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada). Many commuter airliners, some B737, L1011s, B727 etc., mostly for parting out. Occasionally limited access to the ramp, some planes parked really close to one of the old-fashioned, low fences. Best time for some snap shots with the camera in the late afternoon (sun in the back). -> Las Vegas McCarren International Airport. Several ramps with stored airliners at the western edge of the airport. No access, but limited possibilities for viewing and photos from the perimeter. Planes usually parked very "thightly". -> And finally: Mohave Airport, northeast of Los Angeles / Palmdale: Convair 880s, Convair 990s, B707, B747, L1011s, some junked B737, L188, B727 etc. Acccess can be arranged through the airport management at a cost of US$ 20 per 20 minutes, but for that amount the airport even provides you with a air conditioned minivan including driver. Hope it helps, there are of course many more airfields, e.g. in Texas and New Mexico, where airliners are being stored, but I never visited these - yet ; - ) Lukas Lusser jetstream swiss aviation magazine at http://www.jetstream.ch/ Bird Publishing's Ultimate Aviation Marketplace at http://www.bird.ch/ From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:38 From: hpahpa@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: SR111 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Is it possible that it hit the ground or would the destruction only have come from impact with water? hanspeter Amend -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: SR111 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Is it possible that it hit the ground or would the destruction only have >come from impact with water? Since the aircraft impacted in open water some distance from the nearest bit of land, it's highly unlikely that the destruction came from impact with ground. -- 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 Feb 22 03:30:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:40 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.cyberramp.com (Jeff Meeker) >What about speeds like Vx, Vy, Vfe, etc.?? Are these calculated for >the 727, or is it a simple book lookup value like it is in a single >engine Cessna?? The terms Vx and Vy are not used in transport category aircraft. The max flap speeds are, or course, different for each flap setting. The flap speeds for a basic 727-200 are: 230, 215, 205, 185, 185, 175 (KIAS) for flaps 2, 5, 15, 25, 30, 40, respectively. Some 727's have a flap 20 position, and most operators do not use the flap 40 position. Some 727-200 Advanced have higher flaps speeds, e.g. 245 for flaps 2. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:41 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: What's up above the cabin ceiling ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net Aloha, In the UAL B-747-400 there is a crew rest area in the aft overhead. The door locks to this area were "FUBAR" so some of the PAX entered this area for some "inflight intertainment". Hey! Whatta do I don't know? Regards, Hugh From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:42 From: onyxman@hotmail.com (CDaCosta) Subject: Re: Unscheduled Stops (Was TWA Fuel Stop at Gander) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Back in the mid-80's I was on a Sabena 747 flying BRU-JFK that had to make a technical stop (fuel) in Gander. Anyway, that's what we were told by the crew. Prior to the stop, the Captain told us that the headwinds were so strong that, at one point in the flight, we were only moving forward at about 200mph. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:43 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Ground handling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Bill Urban wrote in message ... > >I have some questions about ground handling of large a/c. > >I know that the nosewheel tiller, the rudder, and the brakes may all be >used to control direction on the ground at various speeds. But I still >wonder about some of the particulars: > >* Does the nosewheel caster, so that the tiller returns to center when >released? Does it lock on center so you don't have to worry about the >tiller being off-center when you land? (All answers based on 747-400) Nosewheel does not caster. Nosewheel steering is always active on the ground (using a strut extension sensor), controlled by the rudder pedals and overridden by the tiller when used. It doesn't "lock" on center, but the rudder is essentially centered when rolling down the runway. The tiller is not used on takeoff roll. >* On rollout, what combination of rudder and asymmetric braking is used >to steer, and when does nosewheel steering take over? Rudder pedals are used, which control rudder and nosewheel steering. Rudder is effective down to 80 knots or so. Tiller is not used on the landing roll until at taxi speed (<10 knots, normally). Asymmetric braking is not normally used. >* Finally, what is the physical arrangement that (I think) lets you use >the same pedals to control the rudder and the two sides' brakes? It seems >at least that the sense is correct on this user interface, i.e. left >rudder pedal -> left turn and asymmetric left brake -> left turn as well. When the bottom of either rudder pedal is pressed, the rudder and nosewheel steering are moved toward that side. The pedal is hinged at the bottom so that brakes are applied on one side of the airplane when the top of the rudder pedal on that side is pressed. --------------------- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:44 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Ground handling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The nosewheel tiller is spring loaded to center when on the ground. It locks centered on gear retraction, so landing with the tiller out of neutral is not a problem. There is always a small amount of nosewheel steering with rudder pedal ( 6 degrees on 767 and 7 on 757 ) to allow for takeoff and landing without using the tiller. This also allows for automatic rollout on autopilot for autolandings as the autopilot will move the rudder pedals. The tiller is usable at any speed after touchdown but wouldn't be a good idea until slower because of overcorrecting and a wild ride! The tiller will override rudder pedal nosewheel steering ( if the rudder pedals are full right and the tiller is moved left the plane will go left. Differential braking is available and can be used to hold the centerline but is not the best way (it causes tire wear). From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:45 From: JCSflyboy Subject: Re: Ground handling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Yes, most tiller's return to center. During the T/O and Landing rolls, the tiller is locked-out until the Airspeed is 60 knots or less. So, if your IAS is 60 or more, the rudder is used for directional control. Nosewhell brakes? They don't exist on large aircraft. Only the main gear has the brakes. The brakes are at the top of each rudder pedal. They require some "toe pressure". During normal taxi operations, you shouldn't even need to use differential braking. That is, if your controlling your taxi-speed properly. Of course, you gotta do what's necessary to make certain turns. The brakes also get hot pretty quick. So, the more you use them on your way to the runway, the better your chances for some hot brakes. That's why you may see an airliner take-off and climb out with the wheels down. The wheels and brakes have to be below a certain temperature before they are retracted into the wheelwell. From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:46 From: boeing707@bellsouth.net (boeing707) Subject: Re: Ground handling References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: boeing707@bellsouth.net In regards to your question, here are some answers about gound steering: 1. In ground steering, the nose gear automatically goes to neutral position (in relation to the centerline to the airplane) when the tiller is released. The return can be quite pronouced such as in the case of the 707/727/737 in that if the tiller is released during a 30 or 40 degree turn of the nosegear, the airplane will snap back to a straight taxi so quick somebody standing can get knocked down to the floor. (thats one of the reasons we tell you to remain seated until we stop at the gate!) I dont know about Douglas or Airbus equipment but I would assume they are very much the same. 2. on rollout, rudder and asymmetrical braking AND engine thrust is used for directional control as needed. there is to my knowledge no set rules for what you use and how much; this is used at the discretion of the PF (pilot flying). in some cases, you can also use asymmectrical REVERSE engine thrust, and i have seen it done in a few instances, but this is rare. 3. the physical arrangement of rudder pedals/brakes ('toe brakes') is this: the rudder is controlled by pushing either rudder pedal in the desired direction. the brakes are actuated by pushing the tops of the rudder pedals with your toes (hence the name toe brakes). they can be actuated by pushing the tops of either pedal as desired or both at the same for stopping. 4. sorry for going out of order, but i believe Boeing recommends not attempting to steer the airplane (at least in the case of the 737, i dont know about other models) over 60 knots IAS. I am told that some airplanes 'lock out' nosewheel steering over a certain speed. Hope this helps. Ken Smith USAirways - FLL email Boeing707@bellsouth.net From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:47 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re[2]: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Thank you for this reply.... I have only enough aviation experience to be suspicious now and then that a variety of agendas influence aviation policy and decisions... and only one of the agendas is safety. I hope your suggestion that fuel dumping is rare is on target (there may be an unintended pun in there somewhere?)... though where I work I get complaints reasonably often that aircraft have "dumped" over private property.... and often the complaints do not have to do with "blue ice". Tailwinds!! From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:48 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Seanet Online Services, Seattle WA Dumping may be rare in commercial operations, but is much more common in Navy carrier operations. Very often fuel is dumped to get the airplane down to max arrested landing weight (of course, the amount is much less than with a 747...). -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:49 From: "Ron" Subject: THE BIG WAIT... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. I was on a United Airlines flight from Denver to Los Angeles last night. The flight took off on time, landed on time, took the high speed exit from runway 25L and then we sat on the high speed taxiway for about 45 minutes. No explanation from the cockpit or flight attendants. The passengers were P.O'd to say the least. Does anyone know what could cause the airplane to sit on a high speed taxiway between 25L and 25R for 45 minutes? There was a small amount of cross-traffic taking off on 25R, but not a lot, only 8 planes over a period of 45 minutes. There was plenty of time for ground control to allow us to cross 25R between the planes taking off. Anyone else have this frustrating experience? From kls Mon Feb 22 03:30:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Feb 99 03:30:50 From: Keith Barr Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AeroSys Engineering, Inc. Reply-To: barr@aerosys-eng.com Adam Keys wrote: > I flew on an AA DC10 in May 1986 - this had a cockpit view of the take off (and > I think landing) and the crew communications on one of the sound channels. > Slightly disconcerting to be flying into Dallas having heard the crew being > warned about wind shear conditions. This is one of the main reasons most all airlines do not feature cockpit communications anymore. The average passenger doesn't always understand what is being said, and the misinterpretation of what has been heard might cause fear, panic, or questioning of the flight crew. Nobody likes a back seat driver. Warnings such as the ones given for wind shear are a daily occurrence in the lives of most airline pilots, and are respected, but rarely call for doing much more than carrying a few extra knots to the runway, and being more critical of maintaining a stabilized approach. -- Keith Barr AeroSys Engineering, Inc. & New England Airlines mailto:barr@aerosys-eng.com Broomfield, CO & Block Island, RI http://www.aerosys-eng.com/barr BN-2, PA-32, PA-28 From news Tue Mar 2 19:14:09 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Embraer announces new aircraft Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Message-ID: <7bc5b1$sl8$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> References: <36CCF54F.F8B43F04@emirates.net.ae> <19990220160517.05254.00000789@ng100.aol.com> <7b3lsp$r4g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b6ql2$lm9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 01:53:01 GMT dickfish2000@my-dejanews.com wrote: > Everybody seems to be forgetting the new Dornier 728 now being developed in > Germany. Both LH Cityline and Crossair have said they will buy 60+ each. > (formal announcements at Paris?) > The funny thing is the new Embraer and the BRJ-X look just lime the 728, but > both of those aircraft mat be just 'paper aircraft' launched to stall the > Dornier project which has a major head start. Well, the initial poster asked for "available" aircraft, and the 728 certainly isn't available now. Nor has it even been launched. The statements from LH CityLine and Crossair, you may recall, weren't orders, or even letters of intent, they were "statements of interest in ordering". It's now the better part of a year later, and they still haven't been turned into firm orders. Crossair is said to be unhappy with the direction the project is taking in terms of engine selection and fuselage cross-section. LH CityLine has ordered CRJ-700s and even though it has said this is only a temporary measure until the 728JET is available, it has yet to place an actual signature on a dotted line with FD. Meanwhile, Fairchild Dornier is said to be in talks with ATR to merge the 728 and AIRJET projects. So overall, I'd say that the putative headstart of the 728 is nebulous at best. And BAe has now revamped the Avro RJ with new engines. This is such a low-cost program compared to the all-new competition, as well as offering the advantage of an instant family of 70, 85, and 100-seat models (whereas the 528 and 928 siblings of the 728 won't be available until much later; ditto for the ERJ-190 sibling to the ERJ-170) that it may well steal much of their thunder. (For details on the RJX see http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/146feature_rjx.html). 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 Mar 3 10:19:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:28 From: emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) Subject: L1011 Explosive Decompression Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com On 8/24/95 a Tristar 1 of Delta (N781DL) suffered explosive decompression near Los Angeles. No passengers were killed. Yet it was no small incident, the hull was damaged beyond repair. Were there serious injuries ? How high was the aircraft at the time of the mishap? What was the cause of the failure? From kls Wed Mar 3 10:19:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:29 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: L1011 Explosive Decompression References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >On 8/24/95 a Tristar 1 of Delta (N781DL) suffered explosive decompression near >Los Angeles. No passengers were killed. Yet it was no small incident, the hull >was damaged beyond repair. It was damaged beyond *economic* repair. The aft pressure bulkhead separated from the fuselage crown, so repairs would not have been cheap, but the aircraft was 24 years old and at that point it doesn't take a lot of damage to make the junkyard the best choice. >Were there serious injuries ? How high was the aircraft at the time of the >mishap? What was the cause of the failure? No injuries other than some minor ear discomfort; the aircraft was at FL330. See http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/LAX/95A303.htm for details. -- 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 Mar 3 10:19:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:30 From: Greg Subject: C5 Galaxy at SFO? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Order in Chaos Last weekend I say a C5 Galaxy circle over San Francisco Bay and then align itself to the landing trajectory into San Francisco International. Does anyone know why this military airlifter was going there? I see them near Travis AFB all the time, but seeing one go into SFO is a rare sight. Greg From kls Wed Mar 3 10:19:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:31 From: "John Craig" Subject: What is GSD and LD? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Does anyone know what GSD (Glide Slope Deviation) and LD (Localizer Deviation) represent? How do they appear in a Heads Up Display? Thanks for any help John Craig. From kls Wed Mar 3 10:19:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:32 From: steve@kropla.com (Steve Kropla) Subject: Re: Silk Air flight 185 crash References: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here! On 13 Feb 99 02:25:54 , gfoley@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Gerard Foley) wrote: >James Matthew Weber (jmweber@goodnet.com) wrote: >: "They lead to the conclusion that only deliberate action by a >: crewmember could have resulted in the steep descent profile that the >: 737-300 experienced before it crashed on the island of Sumatra, >: according to persons familiar with the tests." > >Was a CVR recovered from this aircraft? Yes. Both CVR and FDR had apparently been turned off while the plane was in level flight, just before it began to dive. This discovery was one of the first things that led to the development of the suicide theory. __ Steve Kropla Kingwood, Texas USA To e-mail, remove "dot" (you know which one) Help for World Travelers: http://kropla.com From kls Wed Mar 3 10:19:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:33 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Silk Air flight 185 crash References: <36c09de6.2649252@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Also seem to recall a report that the same pilot was involved in a CVR or FDR circuit breaker pulling incident months before the accident. I don't recall the details, but IIRC he was reprimanded for doing it. Speculation was it was a "dress rehearsal" for the final act. Maybe someone else recalls more details that I do. Ken From kls Wed Mar 3 10:19:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:34 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Another one... >main gear bogeys carry six tyres and not four like the 767. Until the newer >Airbus variants come online it is unique in this configuration for a Western >manufactured aircraft. That assumes the wheels are easily visible. However the tail empenage on the 777 is unique among Boeing designed Aircraft in that it is NOT circular (looks very similar to an MD-80). James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 When traveling +61 411 749244 From kls Wed Mar 3 10:19:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:35 From: Niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: L1011500 Reply-To: Niels@lofgren.demon.co.uk In article nospamta!_ellor@tesco.net "RampRat" writes: > >Two ways to recognise a 777, on the ground the flight deck windows are > >smaller than any other twin, relatively. > >In the air the long thin wings stand out. > > Another one... > main gear bogeys carry six tyres and not four like the 767. Until the newer > Airbus variants come online it is unique in this configuration for a Western > manufactured aircraft. In the air or when parked at a distance with the main gear hidden I always look for the squared off tail cone. -- Niels Sampath From kls Wed Mar 3 10:19:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 99 10:19:36 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Probably the easiest way to recognize a 777 is the knife-edge tail at the rear of the plane. The APU exhaust exits to the side where as just about every other Boeing and Airbus plane has a rounded tail resulting in the APU exhaust exiting directly aft! Mike Kotas Passenger Seat Engineer From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:00 From: Andrew Oliva Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WorldWide Access - Midwestern Internet Services - www.wwa.com I've heard the squared off tail called a "Beaver Tail" insert your own joke here.....! Andrew From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:01 From: RampRat Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW 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 James Matthew Weber wrote in message news:airliners.1999.247@ohare.Chicago.COM... > >>Another one... >>main gear bogeys carry six tyres and not four like the 767. Until the newer >>Airbus variants come online it is unique in this configuration for a Western >>manufactured aircraft. > >That assumes the wheels are easily visible. However the tail empenage on >the 777 is unique among Boeing designed Aircraft in that it is NOT >circular (looks very similar to an MD-80). All valid but the post did refer to one parked up!!! There also seems to be a pronounced slope towards the cockpit area on the upper fuselage, much more noticeable than on the 767. As an industry employee and childhood enthusiast, has anyone else experienced that sadness that aircraft no longer seem to posess their distinctive features? After all a 767, 777, A330 and even (for us myopic types) A300/310 all look much the same; whereas a 727 or DC8-63 were instantly recognisable even from some distance! Technology may be evolving towards ideal configurations but that magical quality has lately been lost to those of us who loved the classic ships of the 60s to the 80s. From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:02 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net Aloha, The 777 tail cone was called a "boat tail" and was supposed to add to lateral stability. Hugh From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:03 From: sammy@monmouth.com Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Monmouth Internet In article , "Mike Kotas" wrote: >Probably the easiest way to recognize a 777 is the knife-edge tail at the >rear of the plane. The APU exhaust exits to the side where as just about >every other Boeing and Airbus plane has a rounded tail resulting in the APU >exhaust exiting directly aft! Speaking of exiting to the side..why exactly did boeing choose to go that route? Was it a aerodynamics issue? Or what? Sammy From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:04 From: paul117@mindspring.com (Paul) Subject: Concorde fuel dump question-- Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: sandpiper@my-dejanews.com Two weeks ago a British Airways Concorde took off from JFK but had to return due to some non-radio-transmitted problem. I saw it come back in from the Atlantic Ocean for landing. I was very curious about whether the fuel is dumped before landing as not doing so would seem to be a major safety risk. I'm sure someone here knows the answer to this question and I would like to thank you in advance. From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:05 From: jdeitch@spamsucks.bellsouth.net (Jonathan N. Deitch) Subject: Re: L1011 Explosive Decompression References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>On 8/24/95 a Tristar 1 of Delta (N781DL) suffered explosive decompression near >>Los Angeles. No passengers were killed. Yet it was no small incident, the hull >>was damaged beyond repair. > > It was damaged beyond *economic* repair. The aft pressure bulkhead > separated from the fuselage crown, so repairs would not have been cheap, > but the aircraft was 24 years old and at that point it doesn't take a > lot of damage to make the junkyard the best choice. Didn't it go to Lockheed for some kind of testing? Or was that another '1011 years ago? - Jonathan SPAM filter engaged - remove spam munge when you reply ! -- jdeitch@litz.spamsucks.org From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:06 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: End of the line for 747? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Another Optus Customer Reposted FYI. Any comments? [ Article crossposted from misc.transport.air-industry ] [ Author was EMTGX ] [ Posted on Wed, 03 Mar 1999 03:41:27 GMT ] I read in this week's ECONOMIST that production of the 747 is likely to stop when the engine for the extended range 777 is developped, and that the 747 is much more costly to operate than the 777. I thought that, for all practical purposes, the 747-400 was a new plane. Is it that uneconomical? Also, beside shear range, aren't there routes that will not be practical for a twin because of etops restrictions? ------- General Tso From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:07 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >My problem is - how do you express negative cabin pressure altitudes >since the cabin pressure was definitely below sea level when the a/c >reached 5,000 ft. As far as I know all the pressure equations are based >on altitudes of sea level and above. Negative altitudes are not a >reality of life, are they? They certainly ARE a fact of life. I carry a pocket altimeter, and I don't think you can takeoff in most pressurized aircraft without doing so, but you have to be close to sea level before you can get a below sea level altitude. The aircraft is usually pressurized at the start of, or just before, the takeoff roll. That way you discover if all the hatches were closed and door seals are OK BEFORE takeoff. Much less painful to discover the airplane won't pressurize while it is still on the ground. Usually the cabin altitude drops 100 feet or so below actual altitude, although I have been in some Airbuses and some very old 727's that went a lot further than that... James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 When traveling +61 411 749244 From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:08 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Puranjai Dass wrote: > The cabin altitude > warning (an intermittent horn) sounded at 10,000 cabin altitude and this > was silenced by the F/O operating the horn cutout. He then armed the > passenger oxygen switch. The aircraft cabin altitude continued to climb. > Approaching a cabin altitude of 14,000 ft the Captain ordered manual > deployment of the passenger oxygen masks. Is it an urban myth that oxygen masks automatically deploy ? How come they required manual intervention to be deployed when just about every safety briefing to pax mention "will automatically deploy in the unlikely event of a de-pressurisation" ? ? > Negative altitudes are not a > reality of life, are they? There are a few areas on earth where ground is significantly below sea level (a few hundred feet). There is an area in California USA like that. From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:09 From: "K Hall" Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Pavilion Internet USENET Server Negative pressure altitudes do exist. The pressure law can be extended below sea level to give an equivalent altitude. Most mechanical altimeters will read down to negative 10,000 feet. Negative pressure altitude represents a static pressure in excess of 1013 millibars (ISA sea level pressure) and therefore a height below mean sea level. Assuming the cabin differential of 8.65 psi you quote, at 31,000 feet the cabin pressure would have been 12.82 psi. This represents a cabin altitude of 3,730 feet. By the time the aircraft had reached 5,000 feet the cabin pressure would have increased to 20.88 psi. This is equivalent to approximately 10,000 feet below mean sea level. The high pressure would not in itself cause ear damage, but the sudden pressure reduction resulting from opening the outflow valves at 5,000 feet might. In summary, if you have difficulty in expressing negative cabin altitudes, try expressing them in terms of cabin pressure instead. The cabin altitude is only an equivalent altitude after all, not an actual one. Hope this helps Kevin Hall From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:10 From: meandgp@eskimo.com Subject: Quality Control of Delivered Airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever I'm a resident of Everett, Washington living near the wide body assembly plant for Boeing. Does anyone know the regulations/company policy regarding test flying before delivery? I see several heavy aircraft in the Airline livery but never see any flight testing conducted. Is their a shakeout proceedure before the Airlines accept delivery? Also if flight testing is done to green airplanes how can they simulate center of gravity issues without a full pax load/or cargo. Doesn't that figure in to MAC/LMAC/CG performance? Finally how can alumigrip or imron paint be applied to green aircraft in such a damp invironment of the Northwest? From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:11 From: "RampRat" Subject: caravelle accidents 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: Tesco ISP I am looking for any data that may be available on crashes involving Caravelle and Super Caravelle aircraft (apart from those damaged in war etc). can anyone offer pointers to this; and a complete listing of operational or disposal data for the type? From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:12 From: kbfrancis@aol.com (KBFRANCIS) Subject: Re: Does the Canadair RJ have thrust reversers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >What is the minimum runway length for a CRJ at MTOW? depends on temps, altitudes and other such factors but 5000-6000 ft will usually get the job done From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:13 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: ARJ? References: <14655-36D46AC1-60@newsd-213.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <19990224183703.24039.00002834@ng145.aol.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion "Brian Maddison" wrote: > >(Avro was the name of one of the companies that now is BAe. AFAIR the 146 > >was originally a Hawker-Siddeley product) > > > De Havilland actually did the initial design before H-S was formed. That's > why 146s were originally Hatfield builds. Avro is just a marketing thing, > that original company never had anything to do with the 146 although the RJ > is now built at Woodford which I suppose qualifies it for the Avro name. Not quite. DH was already Hawker Siddeley by the time the 146 was designed, and the 146 was initially known as the HS.146. Later, HS became part of BAe, so the aircraft became the BAe 146. It's correct that the 146 was initially produced at Hatfield, in the same building used for the DH Comet. By the time the Avro name was adopted, however, construction had shifted to Woodford, near Manchester, which I suppose did make the Avro name slightly more appropriate. But essentially, you're right that Avro was just a marketing name. Note that at one point, the Avro RJ was being marketed by a company that called itself "Avro International". Now, after the AI(R) interlude, this aircraft is being marketed by BAe Regional Aircraft, and "Avro RJ" is just a model name, with no suggestion that "Avro" is the builder's name. Confused? 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 Thu Mar 11 03:54:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:14 From: "Peter Mchugh" Subject: Re: cabin chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reference to seat belts provokes a soapbox comment.... About 60% of all non-fatal, Part 121 accidents in the last 10 years are related to turbulence (or turbulence like events)...all but a couple of the injuries which define these "accidents" were to passengers (or cabin crew) not wearing seatbelts.... and in most cases, the seat belt sign was illuminated. As those of you who are Captains hear the words often used during climb in conjunction with turning off the seatbelt signs.... " I've just turned off the seat belt signs and you are free to get up and move about the cabin.... though, as we do in the cockpit, when you are in your seat we recommend that you keep your seatbelt loosely fastened about you...." you might reflect on the philosophy suggested by the words "free to get up and move about the cabin..."! I am a strong advocate of different words..."I've just turned off the seat belt sign. Please remain in your seat with your belt securely fastened unless you have a physiological need to visit the lavatory". And as an aside, it is not so much the individual who ignores the seatbelt sign I'm most interested in protecting ... its the others who are injured when some inconsiderate person is launched, by turbulence, wake or abrupt maneuver, down the aisle to crash into and injure an unsuspecting but compliant passenger. BTW, I know of only two turbulence instances where passengers wearing seatbelts were injured in conjunction with seat belt failure. OK, I've gotten this off my chest....thanks From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:15 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: cabin chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM While I am sure someone will prove me wrong, but in my experience (in Canada), pilots will chime twice once we are next in line for takeoff (eg: FAs, take your seats now !), and also on final approach. During flight, single chimes are usually associated with the fasten-seat-belt sign being turned on, but I have not noticed a chime when they turn it off. From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:16 From: Gary Neff Subject: Re: cabine chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Tim Vasquez wrote: > On two recent Delta MD-88 flights I noticed that the chimes consistently > sounded when passing through 16,000 ft rather than the 10,000 ft that I > had expected. This was according to my GPS (accuracy within 1500 ft). Maybe your GPS was setting the chimes off. :-) Gary From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:17 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net Aloha, Almost correct. Boeing does not use an all flying tail but they do use a jack screw to move the horizontal stab. The "diesel eight" had a similar system but you had to move the "suitcase handles" on the pedestal. There was an "AD" on the Boeing system that called for a paper towell to be inserted in the braking mechanism of the jack screw to remove grease and moisture. A real "hi-tech" fix. Regards, Hugh From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:18 From: djdumas@banet.net Subject: Re: airplane structural terms References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM Global Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services hi, STA numbers are measured in inches from an imaginary reference line called the datum line. This line can be anywhere on the aircraft and is often actually somewhere in front of the aircraft( reason being to make weight an ballance calculations easier. The measurements left and right on the wings are measured from the center line of the aircraft. Hope this helps you out Dave From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:19 From: Mark Tader Subject: Re: What is GSD and LD? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Does anyone know what GSD (Glide Slope Deviation) and LD (Localizer > Deviation) represent? How do they appear in a Heads Up Display? Glideslope deviation is the vertical deviation from runway approach path, transmitted/recieved via VOR radio signals, and Localizer is the horizontal deviation from runway centerline. The deviations appear on the HSI's (horizontal situation indicators (the compass, if you will)) and on aircraft equiped with HUD the deviations will appear in the form of flight director command bars (pitch up/down, roll left/right) _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:20 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Correction Re: News Item (Hanscom) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org Robert Carpenter wrote: > > C. D. HANSCOM WITH GLENN L. MARTIN COMPANY > > Mr. C. D. Hanscom, Harvard graduate and recently Instructor of > Aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is now Chief > Engineer of the Glenn L. Martin Company, succeeding D. W. Douglas, who > has resigned. > > [from Aerial Age Weekly, April 19, 1920] > > So that's where Hanscom AFB, Mass. (aka Bedford Airport), gets its name. Oops, Hanscom Field is Lawrence G. Hanscom... maybe a son of C.D. From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:21 From: "Douglas" Subject: ETOPS 240 mins Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IBM Global Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services What will determine a increase from 180 mins to 240mins for ETOPS FLTS for the 777. I assume this time extension would only be needed for flts over the Pacific. Will the increase in time be solely on the data collect from engine reliability or will it be a collective input from airline flight crews and A/C manufacturers and the FAA? Thanks From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS 240 mins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What will determine a increase from 180 mins to 240mins for ETOPS FLTS for >the 777. ... >Will the increase in time be solely on the data collect from engine >reliability or will it be a collective input from airline flight crews and >A/C manufacturers and the FAA? Most parties seem to be in agreement that engine reliability isn't the primary factor at this point. More important is what happens if there is an on-board fire, someone in dire need of medical attention, or some similar problem. Obviously this applies to ALL aircraft, not just twins. ALPA (the Air Line Pilots Association, which represents pilots at 51 North American airlines including most or all US majors other than American) recently issued a press release reiterating the union's support for 207-minute ETOPS (a 15% increase above 180-minute ETOPS) on an exception basis provided certain conditions are met. Key points: The proposal would only allow the 207-minute limit to be authorized as needed on an "exception" basis, if and only if a normally available diversion airport required for 180-minute operations is not available and there is another diversion airport within the 207-minute radius. There also is a mechanism for FAA and industry review in order to keep the use of the exception to an acceptable minimum. It is ALPA's view that any further extension of ETOPS limits will require an overhaul of current rules. ALPA also got specific agreement from Boeing and ATA that the 207-minute authority would not be used as a basis to close transpacific diversionary airports, which could have been done under a 207-minute rule. Keeping those airports open will provide an available diversion not only for ETOPS emergencies, but also for any kind of inflight emergency for any model of aircraft. ATA, Boeing, and ALPA also agreed to send a joint letter to FAA Administrator Garvey asking FAA to do all that it can to ensure that those airports remain open for all long-range operations. Full text of this press release can be found at http://www.alpa.org/internet/news/NR99017.HTM >I assume this time extension would only be needed for flts over the >Pacific. The North Pacific is the major driving factor since that's where the lion's share of the potential >180 minute ETOPS traffic lies. South Atlantic flights could also benfit, however. The direct route for GIG-JNB requires 207-minute ETOPS, for example. Even this isn't sufficient for some flights over the far southern reaches of the Pacific -- EZE-AKL via the shortest distance path looks to be about 360 minutes from the nearest suitable airport at mid-point! -- 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 Thu Mar 11 03:54:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:23 From: "O'NEEL Bruce" Subject: Re: Airframe profitability References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-to: bruce.oneel@obs.unige.ch Hi, One possible source for this, for Boeing at least, is the SEC 10K reports. The most recent, ending 31/12/97 filed in 3/98 is at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/12927/0000012927-98-000007.txt US listed companies give a lot of information in the 10K and 10Q reports. Airbus, not being listed on a US stockmarket, doesn't file such reports with the SEC. Marc Schaeffer writes: > I wonder if anyone has exact data on when the different airframes B707 - > B777 and A300 - A340 reached/will reach the program profitability. IIRC > the B737NG series will reach it at 800 produced frames. On page 35: ... (400 aircraft each for the 777 and the Next-Generation 737). Additionally, a pretax forward loss of $700 million was recognized in the third quarter of 1997 for the Next-Generation 737 program. Consequently, there will be no gross profit for this program until the program- commitment accounting quantity is extended beyond the initial 400 units.... This doesn't quite answer your question though. It probably would take someone sitting down with a few years of 10Ks and a calculator and working for a while :-( Not quite related, but, on Page 65 under "You think you have IRS problems": Income taxes have been settled with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for all years through 1978, and IRS examinations have been completed through 1987. In connection with these examinations, the Company disagrees with IRS proposed adjustments, and the years 1979 through 1987 are in litigation. cheers bruce From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:24 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , "Peter Mchugh" wrote: >I hope your suggestion that fuel dumping is rare is on target (there may >be an unintended pun in there somewhere?)... though where I work I get >complaints reasonably often that aircraft have "dumped" over private >property.... and often the complaints do not have to do with "blue ice". If your complainer was able to detect the dump from the ground, then the aircraft was very low and in such need of a weight reduction that had it not dumped it might have joined him for dinner. Ron From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:25 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: Model of Flight Technical Error. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , Rob Wells wrote: >I'm posting the following query from a colleague, as I thought someone >here might have an answer for him. ... >When an aircraft is trying to level off it is likely that the aircraft >may slightly overshoot the level. Later, when maintaining the level, >there will be minor vertical movements, of perhaps +/- 100 feet, which >the (auto-)pilot of the aircraft cannot eliminate. > >I believe that these errors are called flight technical errors. > >Does anyone have a model for simulating flight technical errors in an >RVSM scenario? The model is needed for simulating TCAS events in RVSM >airspace. I was flying the Atlantic when use of RVSM began and there was much aircraft certification involved. I doubt if any of the certified aircraft would overshoot by 100 feet on an autopilot level off at cruise altitude. In the for what it's worth department, for economy the Boeing 767 and 757 autopilot has an almost imperceptible altitude change which it uses to correct small speed variations rather than have the autothrottles adjust the power. I've never seen the altitude vary more than 20 feet though. Ron From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:26 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net In article , barr@aerosys-eng.com wrote: >Adam Keys wrote: >> I flew on an AA DC10 in May 1986 - this had a cockpit view of the take off (and >> I think landing) and the crew communications on one of the sound channels. >> Slightly disconcerting to be flying into Dallas having heard the crew being >> warned about wind shear conditions. > >This is one of the main reasons most all airlines do not feature cockpit >communications anymore. The average passenger doesn't always >understand what is being said, and the misinterpretation of what has >been heard might cause fear, panic, or questioning of the flight crew. >Nobody likes a back seat driver. > >Warnings such as the ones given for wind shear are a daily occurrence >in the lives of most airline pilots, and are respected, but rarely call >for doing much more than carrying a few extra knots to the runway, >and being more critical of maintaining a stabilized approach. Actually, AA discontinued the audio monitor solely because some lawyers were plugging in tape recorders in the hope they could catch something on tape so that they could file a suit for $$. Ron From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:27 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Embraer announces new aircraft References: <36CCF54F.F8B43F04@emirates.net.ae> <19990220160517.05254.00000789@ng100.aol.com> <7b3lsp$r4g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b6ql2$lm9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion dickfish2000@my-dejanews.com wrote: > The funny thing is the new Embraer and the BRJ-X look just lime the 728 Old-timers on sci.aeronautics.airliners may recall a fierce debate about whether the fact that several soviet designs looked like various Western designs (eg Tu-134:DC-9/111, Tu-154:727/Trident, Il-62:VC-10) proved that they had been "copied." So: did Embraer and Bombardier "copy" the 728JET? ;-) 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 Thu Mar 11 03:54:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:28 From: John Clear Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On Wed, Mar 03, 1999 at 10:19:30AM +0000, Greg wrote: > Last weekend I say a C5 Galaxy circle over San Francisco Bay > and then align itself to the landing trajectory into San > Francisco International. Does anyone know why this military > airlifter was going there? I see them near Travis AFB all > the time, but seeing one go into SFO is a rare sight. Clinton was in town last weekend, and came into SFO, so it could have been one of his support planes, although the support planes are usually C-141s. Depending on where you were watching from, it also might have been going into Moffett, since they get C-5s and An-124s pretty regularly to pick up satellites. John From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:29 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Another Optus Customer Greg (gkellisSPAMKNOT@home.com) wrote: > Last weekend I say a C5 Galaxy circle over San Francisco Bay > and then align itself to the landing trajectory into San > Francisco International. Does anyone know why this military > airlifter was going there? I see them near Travis AFB all > the time, but seeing one go into SFO is a rare sight. If Air Force 1 or some other VIP jet landed soon after, then it was probably carrying a limo and some Suburbans for the Secret Service. Speaking of VIP jets, a C-32A was in Sydney recently. Cheers David From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:30 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CCCC Reply-To: hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net Aloha, Could have been the support stuff for Al Gore's visit to SFO on 3/8. The secret service used to use C-141 but maybe our next prez. needs a bigger plane. The planes used to RON at the United Air Lines Maint. Base at SFO. Hugh From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:31 From: "Andrew van der Plas" Subject: Fuel-imbalance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I fly the Fokker 50 and there is a limitation in fuel-imbalance. The imbalance increases from MTOW till 19.005 kg from a maximum difference of 150 kg to 500 kg. Could anybody explain to me why the imbalance increases with decreasing TOW. Why is there a maximum imbalance ? Does it have to do with structural limits or with aerodynamic forces ? I am curious. Regards. Andrew van der Plas From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:32 From: hpahpa@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: SR111 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Somewhere I read that the depth at the point to impact is 50m. Is there an estimate at what speed it went in? Hanspeter Amend -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.usa-canada,rec.travel.misc Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:33 From: alren@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: <01be437e$76988580$0502b5ca@default> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , mga707@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article , "Stephen Gilkes" wrote: > > The place you're thinking off is the Evergreen Air Centre at Marana (now > > designated the Pinal Air Park) in Arizona. When I was In Arizona last year I > > could see the tails of the planes in the distance from Interstate 10 north > > of Tucson. > > There are also commercial aircraft stored at Kingman AZ and Mojave CA, as > well as at Marana. AFAIK, no public access to either facility, although one > can see most of the aircraft from outside the perimeter. One of the last few issues of Aircraft magazine had a nice article on Marana. It strictly noted that - There is NO public access to the Marana facility. Renal Bhalakia. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:34 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. BAEJS3201 wrote: > Can anyone tell if you can get out to the aircraft storage in Mojave CA,and is > the any Convair 880/990's still out there. Haven't been out to MHV for about 5 years, so I can't say if the Convairs are still out there. Until about 10 years ago, you could either drive or fly into MHV and just stroll around freely. As MHV became a growing test flight center, security started getting tighter and you could fly in and stroll around but it was difficult to drive in. Then there were incidents of vandalism to the stored aircraft, and the last time I flew in and started to walk from my plane to the storage area, the airport manager drove up in a jeep and politely said that area was off limits. Ken From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:35 From: b757dc9@aol.com (B757DC9) Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com For the 757, Vx is given as "best angle" on the climb page of the FMC. It varies from about 205 to 240 depending on weight. Vy is refered to as best rate in our Aircraft Operating manual. It is 265 light, 275 med. wt., and 285 heavy. all are KIAS. Most major airline captains don't even know the distinction between the abbreviations Vx and Vy. I am not joking. --Bill. From kls Thu Mar 11 03:54:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 11 Mar 99 03:54:36 From: "Robert E. Miller" Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. A follow-up; are the leading edge slats adjusted as are the flaps, or are they just two position, open/closed? From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:30 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: TWA fleet plans Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Mike Gammon writes: >>A318 2000nm range vs 717 HGW 1800nm range is not a significant difference. >> > It is in North America! 1800 nm is 2070 sm, whereas most transcon routes in > N. America are around 2300 sm. Interestingly, 2000 nm works out to...2300 sm! > ... If the purpose of your smallish aircraft > purchase is to be able to offer nonstop service on long, thin transcon city > pairs, then clearly the 717 at 1800 nm won't cut it! Hmmmm.... yes, but if you're based in St Louis, then most of your routes to either coast will be well within the 717's range. Going from STL to the four corners of the continental US, we have: STL-SAN 1353 nm STL-SEA 1485 nm STL-MIA 928 nm STL-BOS 909 n So, TWA could easily use 717s for high-frequency routes to either coast from its hub. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. 850 N Randolph Str No.817, Arlington VA 22203, USA http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:31 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: End of the line for 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM David Bromage wrote in message ... >Reposted FYI. Any comments? > >[ Article crossposted from misc.transport.air-industry ] >[ Author was EMTGX ] >[ Posted on Wed, 03 Mar 1999 03:41:27 GMT ] > >I read in this week's ECONOMIST that production of the 747 is likely to stop >when the engine for the extended range 777 is developped, and that the 747 is >much more costly to operate than the 777. I thought that, for all practical >purposes, the 747-400 was a new plane. Is it that uneconomical? Also, beside >shear range, aren't there routes that will not be practical for a twin because >of etops restrictions? The current predication for the 747 line is to keep the line at 1/month rate. The obvious impact of the Asian Crisis along with the development of better twins has drastically lessend the economic value of the 747, (and for that reason, why Airbus keeps pushing off the A3XX IMHO), but I doubt the line will cease to exist anywhere in the near decade. There are many transpacific and transatlantic routes that Etops restricted plains can't reach but I was reading an Article in AvWeek that was talking about the Boeing Pitch to raise ETOPS limits from 180 to 210-270 minutes thereby allowing better distances for the 747. Obviously, any 4 engine plane will be more expensive to operate than twins, but we must not forget that although the 747-400 is the most advanced 747 to date, it is still being built with technologies of the 60's and 70's for the most parts where as the newer generation planes such as the 777, and the A340/A330 are all fly-by-wire systems. Mike Kotas Passenger Seat Engineer From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:32 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: End of the line for 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet David Bromage (dbromage@fang.omni.com.au) wrote: : Also, beside : shear range, aren't there routes that will not be practical for a twin because : of etops restrictions? Boeing wants a 207 minute ETOPS for that very reason, and would like the current restrictions on ETOPS relaxed greatly. -- Gerry From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:33 From: "Henry's Cat" Subject: Re: caravelle accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Henry's Cat Motor Sport Reply-To: "Henry's Cat" RampRat wrote in message ... >I am looking for any data that may be available on crashes involving >Caravelle and Super Caravelle aircraft (apart from those damaged in war >etc). >can anyone offer pointers to this; and a complete listing of operational or >disposal data for the type? 4 Sept 1963 Airline: Swissair Model: SE-210 Caravelle III Registration: HB-ICV BuNo: 147 Name: Schaffhausen The exhaust from the engines was used to disperse fog from the runway before takeoff, using high thrust settings (much higher than normal taxi thrust) and heavy braking. During the takeoff run the runway was covered in slush. Because the brakes had overheated during the fog-clearing exercise, the Caravelle's number 4 wheel (left main, inboard aft wheel) fractured at or just after the start of the takeoff roll. Because of the low grip, the wheel did not revolve and instead slid down the runway, overheating the number 4 tyre and bursting it. Hydraulic oil in the left main undercarriage leg caught fire at about this time. The takeoff seemed normal to the crew, but when the gear was retracted the fire spread to the number 3 wheel and the fuel lines, causing an explosion. The fire spread through the underfloor area and resulted in incapacitation of the flightcrew and complete loss of control. The Caravelle crashed near Duerrenasch, 19nm SW of the airport. All 80 on board were killed instantly. summarised from Chapter 3 of Air Disaster Vol 1 by Macarthur Job and Matthew Tesch http://www.ausaviation.com.au/crashbooks.htm Neil Neil From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:34 From: maxe@newsguy.com (EricMax) Subject: Re: caravelle accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Reply-To: maxe@newsguy.com X-No-archive: Yes "RampRat" wrote: >I am looking for any data that may be available on crashes involving >Caravelle and Super Caravelle aircraft (apart from those damaged in war >etc). >can anyone offer pointers to this; and a complete listing of operational or >disposal data for the type? See: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9575/610912-0.htm http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9575/600119-0.htm You might look around at some other sites listed under Incidents on my aviation page. Regards. EricMax http://extra.newsguy.com/~ericmax maxe@newsguy.com Thirty Thousand Feet - Aviation Directory From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:35 From: mba340@usa.net (ben) Subject: Re: caravelle accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Belgacom Skynet SA/NV On 11 Mar 99 03:54:11 , "RampRat" wrote: >I am looking for any data that may be available on crashes involving >Caravelle and Super Caravelle aircraft (apart from those damaged in war >etc). >can anyone offer pointers to this; and a complete listing of operational or >disposal data for the type? 19.01.60 CRV OY-KRB Scandinavian Airlines System - SAS 12.09.61 CRV F-BJTB Air France 27.09.61 CRV PP-VJD Varig 03.07.63 CRV LV-HGY Aerolineas Argentinas 04.09.63 CRV HB-ICV Swissair 06.09.63 CRV PP-PDU Panair do Brasil 17.04.64 CRV OD-AEM Middle East Airlines - MEA 15.02.66 CRV VT-DPP Indian Airlines 04.09.66 CRV VT-DSB Indian Airlines 30.06.67 CRV HS-TGI Thai International 04.11.67 CRV EC-BDD Iberia 11.09.68 CRV F-BOHB Air Inter 28.12.68 CRV OD-AEE Middle East Airlines - MEA 28.12.68 CRV OD-AEF Middle East Airlines - MEA 09.07.69 CRV HS-TGK Thai International 26.07.69 CRV 7T-VAK Air Alg‚rie 02.08.69 CRV I-DABF Alitalia 01.04.70 CRV CN-CCV Royal Air Maroc - RAM 04.01.71 CRV F-BNKI Air Inter 22.01.71 CRV XU-JTA Air Cambodge 21.11.71 CRV B- 1852 China Airlines 07.01.72 CRV EC-ATV Iberia 14.03.72 CRV OY-STL Sterling Airways xx.02.73 CRV YU-AJG Jugoslovenski Aerotransport - JAT 05.03.73 CRV EC-BID Aviaco 01.06.73 CRV PP-PDX Cruzeiro do Sul 03.07.73 CRV VT-DPO Indian Airlines 14.07.73 CRV OY-SAN Sterling Airways 13.08.73 CRV EC-BIC Aviaco 21.08.73 CRV YV-C-AVI AVENSA 11.09.73 CRV YU-AHD Jugoslovenski Aerotransport - JAT 23.09.73 CRV 7T-VAI Air Alg‚rie 29.09.73 CRV EC-BBR Iberia 05.11.73 CRV EC-BIA Iberia 22.12.73 CRV OO-SRD Royal Air Maroc - RAM 23.12.73 CRV PP-PDV Cruzeiro do Sul 25.01.74 CRV OY-KRA Scandinavian Airlines System - SAS 15.03.74 CRV OY-STK Sterling Airways 22.03.74 CRV F-BRSY Air Inter 22.06.74 CRV PH-TRH Transavia Holland 17.06.75 CRV VT-DVJ Indian Airlines 28.08.76 CRV F-BSGZ Air France 12.10.76 CRV VT-DWN Indian Airlines 09.12.77 CRV F-BYAU Aerotour 18.12.77 CRV HB-ICK SA de Transport A‚rien - SATA 12.03.79 CRV F-BHRL Air France xx.06.79 CRV 240/F-RBPR L'Armee de L'air 20.07.79 CRV HK-1778 Aerotal Colombia 12.09.79 CRV HC-BFN SAN Ecuador 19.06.80 CRV N905MW Midwest Air Charter 21.12.80 CRV HK-1810 TAC Colombia 29.04.83 CRV HC-BAT SAN Ecuador 02.07.83 CRV F-BHRS Altair Linee Aeree 18.01.86 CRV HC-BAE Aerovias 06.08.86 CRV 5N-AWK Kabo Air 27.11.86 CRV HK-2850X Aerosucre Colombia 06.01.87 CRV SE-DEC Transwede 26.04.89 CRV HK-3325X Aerosucre Colombia 29.09.91 CRV HK-3288X Aerosucre Colombia 06.05.93 CRV HK-3835X SERCA Colombia 15.03.94 CRV HK-3855 SEC Colombia 04.11.95 CRV HK-3962X Americana Colombia From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:36 From: efrem@ix.netcom.com Subject: Re: caravelle accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom RampRat wrote in message ... >I am looking for any data that may be available on crashes involving >Caravelle and Super Caravelle aircraft (apart from those damaged in war >etc). Check out "Air Disaster 1" which is a british publication, but you can get from any quality bookstore or amazon.com. It tells of a Swiss Air Caravelle flight that crashed shortly after takeoff from Zurich Airport on September 4, 1963. [Moderator's Note: It's an Australian publication, actually. The author, Macarthur Job, is a former Senior Investigator with Australia's Air Safety Investigation Branch. The third volume of this series just came out and given the quality of the first two, I can't wait until my copy arrives. -- Karl] Hope it helps. Efrem K. Sepulveda Sacramento From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:37 From: Francis.Jambon@imag.fr (Francis JAMBON) Subject: Re: caravelle accidents References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: LISI/ENSMA, Poitiers, France In article , "RampRat" wrote: > I am looking for any data that may be available on crashes involving > Caravelle and Super Caravelle aircraft (apart from those damaged in war > etc). > can anyone offer pointers to this; and a complete listing of operational or > disposal data for the type? As I remember (I may be wrong) no Caravelle have crashed. So no report ! I remember that a small aircraft (Maybe something like a Cessna 152) shoot in a caravelle body, a passenger was killed on his seat by the light aircraft engine, but the Caravelle return to airport safely. Francis JAMBON -- Francis JAMBON, LISI/ENSMA, Poitiers, France From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:38 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: ETOPS 240 mins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Karl sums up the ETOPS discussion pretty well....I can't remember which of the North Pacific routes there was a question on, but twins were only able to fly it if you considered the US air force base on Easter Island (?) as a viable alternate airport. Mike Kotas Passenger Seat Engineer From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ETOPS 240 mins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > Karl sums up the ETOPS discussion pretty well....I can't remember which of >the North Pacific routes there was a question on, but twins were only able >to fly it if you considered the US air force base on Easter Island (?) as a >viable alternate airport. That would be Midway Island. Easter Island also (barely) plugs a big hole for 180-minute ETOPS rules, but it's in the South Pacific. An example of a route which depends on it is Santiago to Papete; see http://www.chicago.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=SCL-IPC-PPT&ETOPS=180 -- 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 Mar 17 01:24:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:40 From: jcastle@eden.com (Joe Castleman) Subject: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Gyrofrog Communications RampRat wrote: >As an industry employee and childhood enthusiast, has anyone else >experienced that sadness that aircraft no longer seem to posess their >distinctive features? After all a 767, 777, A330 and even (for us myopic >types) A300/310 all look much the same[...] Also, an A320 is pretty similar to a 737. Maybe not as similar, though, as those other models are to each other. Or, how about an A321 vs. a 757? >[...]whereas a 727 or DC8-63 were instantly recognisable even from some >distance! Technology may be evolving towards ideal configurations but that >magical quality has lately been lost to those of us who loved the classic ships >of the 60s to the 80s. I've wondered about that. I guess that maybe there are only so many designs that are practical. There were some radical ideas introduced between, say, 1945 and 1975, but everything since 1975 seems to be a variation of designs from 1960 to 1975. What's left? Maybe a high-mounted wing on an airliner, like a Bae146 but larger? I suspect that they haven't tried that for a reason. Also, the 757 originally had a T-tail like the 727, and I suppose this was redesigned for some specific reason, as well. Another design I've wondered about would be a widebody airliner with a T-tail and rear-mounted engines (in fact I think there was such a plane proposed as a successor to the BAC-111). You did mention "ideal configurations," and I'll speculate that they narrowed those down to just a few. At least the similarity in designs gives us a fun challenge (well, for me anyway). For instance, an A300 has some sort of "pylons" on the underside of its wings, and the tail slopes up at a fairly straight angle (something I've noticed with other Airbuses). On the other hand, a 767 is more cone-shaped aft of the wing. A BAC-111 has a stockier tail than a DC-9, and its engines are mounted lower; an F100 has less sweep on its wing, and its engines are more forward-mounted, than a DC-9's. Also, a DC-9 doesn't have oval windows like the other two. A DC-8 I can distinguish by sound! I don't know why, as they don't seem any louder than any other plane that old, and they even have different types of engines. Yet the sound is very distinctive; high-pitched. Personally, I think it's those nostrils! ;-) Some planes you can rule out just because they aren't around anymore. That Airborne Express freighter is probably a DC-8, and not a 707, 720, CV880 nor CV990. Other planes seemingly have to be distinguished by airline: if it's British Airways, it's a Super VC10; if it's Cubana, it's an IL-62. ---- Joe Castleman -- jcastle@eden.com Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.eden.com/~jcastle Austin, Texas U.S.A. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Maybe a high-mounted wing on an airliner, like a Bae146 but larger? I >suspect that they haven't tried that for a reason. There are several reasons. One is that the high wing makes ditching an even chancier event than it already is. Another is that it makes routine maintenance on the engines (assuming they're wing-mounted) and the aerodynamic controls on the wings more difficult -- same reason why the #2 engine location on the DC-10 (and MD-11) is less desireable than the lower position afforded by the L-1011's S-duct. >Also, the 757 originally had a T-tail like the 727, and I suppose this >was redesigned for some specific reason, as well. The T-tail introduces some tricky problems for stall recovery which must be carefully avoided. It also requires more structure in the tail to handle the additional stresses. >Another design I've wondered about would be a widebody airliner with a >T-tail and rear-mounted engines (in fact I think there was such a plane >proposed as a successor to the BAC-111). Rear-mounted engines require more structural weight in the fuselage to support them as compared to putting them on the wings which provide the lift in flight and are close to the main landing gear when on the ground. It costs a lot to lug that extra weight around. The benefits are that it keeps the engine noise away from most of the passengers (a lesser problem with relatively quiet modern engines and airlines which care more about efficiency) and it makes it simpler to design an efficient wing (a problem which has been mitigated by experience and advances in CFD and aerodynamic knowledge). -- 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 Mar 17 01:24:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:42 From: Tom Turton Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here! Hugh Dickson wrote: > Aloha, The 777 tail cone was called a "boat tail" and > was supposed to add to lateral stability. Hugh Are you sure about this? When McDonnell Douglas changed the tail cone on the MD-80 aircraft from conical to boattail, I thought I heard it was because of reduced drag. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:43 From: adrian.cybriwsky@yale.edu (Adrian Cybriwsky) Subject: 777 lights question. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Yale University greetings, I have a question regarding the external lights on the 777, specifically, the ones used by singapore airlines. Imagine I am looking at one such that I see its left profile (the port side of the plane). Clearly I can see the right wingtip with its red light. And I should be able to see the strobe at the tail. And I also believe there is some sort of white light or strobe on top of the fuselage, I believe roughly at the frame that corresponds to the engines, I believe. can somebody fill me in as to the correctness of what I have noted previously, adding what flashes and, if it flashes, approximately how many times per second/minute, and perhaps any other lights that might be seen in the profile view. FWIF: i am writing a program which features a picture of a 777 and I would like to automate it so that the lights flash appropriately (previous software I have written uses GA aircraft, but I know how the lights on those work / behave). Hence my interest. regards, adrian (replies by email or to newsgroup would be great) From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:44 From: DOUG VIA Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: DOUG Seth Dillon wrote: > I am not sure what your aviation background is but as one with over 20 > years in the airplane fixing business I can assure you that fuel dumping > is a rare event. Far more common is an overweight landing and the > subsequent inspections required. Dumping is an expensive proposition > and is avoided if at all possible. what about the fuel jettison systems incorperated on many large aicraft that dump fuel prior to landing? in order to land without being over the maximum landing weight, some aircraft jettison fuel overboard into the atmosphere that all of us humans and animals breath. ASK MR. 20 YEAR AIRPLANE FIXER WHY HE CHOSE TO HIDE THAT IN HIS LITTLE B.S. LINE ABOUT HOW IT IS SO AVOIDABLE. large aircraft jettison fuel everyday, many times!!! DOUG From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:45 From: Joseph120@webtv.net (Joseph McKinley) Subject: Re: Concorde fuel dump question-- References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WebTV Subscriber The fuel has to be dumped before landing, probablly over the alantic in this case. The maxium landing wight is ussally less than the takeoff wieght. The reason for dumpiing the fuel is not always for for safty in a case for fire, but rather to limit the damage to the aircraft. Also if it is over wieght on landing its braking distance will be inceased and the initial landing will be harder than normal which could damage the landing gear and the structure. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:46 From: kbfrancis@aol.com (KBFRANCIS) Subject: Re: Concorde fuel dump question-- References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com While I do not consider myself an expert on the Concorde, it would be possible that fuel was dumped. My references quote the maximum takeoff weight of 408,000 lbs. Max landing weight is around 245,000 lbs. If they did leave JFK at max t.o. weight, they would have had to get rid of that fuel one way or another to get down to around max landing weight. I don't know the typical weights that the Concorde operates of of JFK at, but assuming they left JFK at max weight and the problem they encountered was not critical, they probably took the time to lose the fuel. Whether or not it is a major safety risk is a matter of opinion. While aircraft can land over the max landing weight, it will lead to time consuming maintenace inspections which the airline would like to avoid. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:47 From: "david A avery" Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Rocky Mountain Internet - 1(800)-900-RMII Robert E. Miller wrote in message ... >A follow-up; are the leading edge slats adjusted as are the flaps, or are >they just two position, open/closed? leading edge flaps and slats are 2 position - but they do not all deploy at once. instead of variable position they deploy in stages. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:48 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:54 AM 3/11/99, you wrote: >A follow-up; are the leading edge slats adjusted as are the flaps, or are >they just two position, open/closed? Leading edge slats are not adjustable. In fact they are often refered to as 'flaps 1'. The first detent on the flaps lever deploys the leading edge slats, and it is an all or nothing proposition on all of the aircraft I am familiar with. The effect aerodynamcally is much different than flaps, in that the slats (and the krueger flaps which are the inner leading edge slats) just 'thicken' the wing, greating increasing the low speed lift. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:49 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: 727 v-speeds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >From: "Robert E. Miller" >A follow-up; are the leading edge slats adjusted as are the flaps, or are >they >just two position, open/closed? On the 727, when you select Flaps 2, the numbers 2, 3, 6 & 7 slats extend. When you select Flaps 5, you get all the rest of the slats and krugar flaps extended. There is no intermediate position for the LED's on the 727, just extended or retracted. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:50 From: dickfish2000@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Embraer announces new aircraft References: <36CCF54F.F8B43F04@emirates.net.ae> <19990220160517.05254.00000789@ng100.aol.com> <7b3lsp$r4g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b6ql2$lm9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In article , spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: >So: did Embraer and Bombardier "copy" the 728JET? I don't know about that, but there have been several German press reports today saying that Bombardier has purchased Fairchild/Dornier. It would make a good fit: Bombardier Fairchild/Dornier 1 Has Cash Needs Cash 2 Wants Small Jet Has Small Jet 3 Talking about Building Building 90 seat Jet but needs Cash! 90 seat jet Dick -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:51 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Embraer announces new aircraft References: <36CCF54F.F8B43F04@emirates.net.ae> <19990220160517.05254.00000789@ng100.aol.com> <7b3lsp$r4g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b6ql2$lm9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: : dickfish2000@my-dejanews.com wrote: : > The funny thing is the new Embraer and the BRJ-X look just lime the 728 : Old-timers on sci.aeronautics.airliners may recall a fierce debate about : whether the fact that several soviet designs looked like various Western : designs (eg Tu-134:DC-9/111, Tu-154:727/Trident, Il-62:VC-10) proved that : they had been "copied." So: did Embraer and Bombardier "copy" the 728JET? : ;-) Actually, I think that all of the above 'copied' the Shorts design for a regional jet, which was shelved when Bombardier bought the company, and concentrated on the Challenger-derived RJ. Maybe they all copied the 737. Which, of course, was a 'copy' of the Nene-Viking. :-) -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:52 From: Robert Nielsen Subject: Re: Quality Control of Delivered Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: robert.h.nielsen@worldnet.att.net I'm not sure about your other questions, but flight testing of the Boeing wide bodies (and many of the single aisle planes as well) is conducted from Boeing Field in Seattle at the Flight Test Center. Aircraft are carefully inspected and exercised with electrical power and hydraulics before flight, but once they take off for the first time, they usually go to Boeing Field for a thorough pre-delivery flight regine. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:53 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: Quality Control of Delivered Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM There a mandatory 2 test flights that happen prior to delivery of every plane. More test flights may be necessary upon evaluation of the first two. The first flight, called the B1 flight, is the 1st Boeing test flight, where much of the systems functional tests are performed. B2, B3, and B# flights may result if internal squawks are found. The second flight is typically the C1 flight which is the Customer 1 flight. Here, as obvious, is the customers first flight prior to delivery. The customer tends to make his final pick ups and evaluations prior to ticketing! Mike Kotas Passenger Seat Engineer From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:54 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Quality Control of Delivered Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. meandgp@eskimo.com wrote: > > I'm a resident of Everett, Washington living near the wide body assembly > plant for Boeing. Does anyone know the regulations/company policy regarding > test flying before delivery? Boeing does a test flight (more if there's a problem), followed by an acceptance test flight by the customer airline. I see several heavy aircraft in the Airline > livery but never see any flight testing conducted. Is their a shakeout > proceedure before the Airlines accept delivery? Yes, there is a "laundry list" of items to check that is hundreds of items long. Also if flight testing is > done to green airplanes how can they simulate center of gravity issues > without a full pax load/or cargo. Doesn't that figure in to MAC/LMAC/CG > performance? MAC is calculated before the test flight (or any other flight), but there is usually no attempt or need to ballast the aircraft. Airframe manufacturers guarantee certain performance figures; revenue service is a much better "testbed" for this. Airliners are often delivered without seats and various items which the airline adds after delivery. BTW, most of the test flights are done at Moses Lake. Often, official FOB is Abbotford, BC (Canada) to avoid sales tax which is high in Washington. Finally how can alumigrip or imron paint be applied to green > aircraft in such a damp invironment of the Northwest? Most of the piece parts are prepainted by the subcontractor. Even major fuselage sections come from elsewhere (747 from Northrop in California, 767/777 by Kawasaki in Japan, etc). Parts fabricated by Boeing are painted on a semi-automated paint line. Final paint is done in a climate and dust controlled paint hangar (across the highway from the main hangars, next to the flight line). Ken From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:55 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Quality Control of Delivered Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley In article , wrote: >I'm a resident of Everett, Washington living near the wide body assembly >plant for Boeing. Does anyone know the regulations/company policy regarding >test flying before delivery? I see several heavy aircraft in the Airline >livery but never see any flight testing conducted. Is their a shakeout >proceedure before the Airlines accept delivery? When I took the tour at the Everett plant, they said that there are three stages of testing: by Boeing, by the airline, and by the FAA. I think the flight testing is done mostly at Boeing Field near Seattle rather than at Everett; is that right? > Also if flight testing is >done to green airplanes how can they simulate center of gravity issues >without a full pax load/or cargo. Barrels of water. -- Katie Schwarz "There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs." -- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass" From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:56 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: A330 and A340 customer lists Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc**@cmdnet.lu I have added to my website at http://surf.to/orders the customer list for the A330 and A340, all versions included. All orders till beginning of Mar-99 are included. I hope that these lists are of help to the aviation community. They will be updated on a regular basis. ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mar 17 01:24:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:57 From: David =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lyb=E4ck?= Subject: loss of glideslope References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: KTH-D I wonder how often it happens (e.g. during heavy precip., esp. snow), that you loose glideslope indication during approach. It must be a rather difficult mental switch to suddenly start using other mean of navigation during approach; can you actually continue with only localizer, dist., and radar alt, and make a cat i-iii without glideslope ? Regards, David. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:58 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 11 Mar 99 03:54:09 , "K Hall" caused to appear as if it was written: >Assuming the cabin differential of 8.65 psi you quote, at 31,000 feet the >cabin pressure would have been 12.82 psi. This represents a cabin altitude >of 3,730 feet. By the time the aircraft had reached 5,000 feet the cabin >pressure would have increased to 20.88 psi. This is equivalent to >approximately 10,000 feet below mean sea level. Or, to put it in terms that I am more familiar: 20.88psi is the pressure a SCUBA diver experiences at a depth of 13.5ft in sea water (fsw). >The high pressure would not in itself cause ear damage, but the sudden >pressure reduction resulting from opening the outflow valves at 5,000 feet >might. Hmmm... I agree that the equilibrium pressure doesn't matter, but I can assure you that 13.5fsw is quite sufficient to cause middle-ear barotrauma if you descend fast enough... i.e. if the pressure increases faster than you can relieve it through techniques such as swallowing, the Valsalva technique, the Fresnel technique (used by dive bomber pilots), and yawning. >Kevin Hall Malc. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:24:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:24:59 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com Puranjai Dass wrote: > " The aircraft was cleared by Approach Control to descend from FL 370 to > FL 350 then re-cleared to descend to 10,000 ft. At FL 360 the F/O > called "one to go". Just below FL 360 the Master Warning sounded and the > Left Bleed Trip-Off light came on. The F/O reached for the QRH. 15 to > 20 seconds later the Right Bleed Trip-Off Light illuminated. The F/O > operated the Trip Reset button, then turned to the Captain who was > putting on his oxygen mask. The F/O donned his mask. The cabin altitude > warning (an intermittent horn) sounded at 10,000 cabin altitude and this > was silenced by the F/O operating the horn cutout. He then armed the > passenger oxygen switch. The aircraft cabin altitude continued to climb. > Approaching a cabin altitude of 14,000 ft the Captain ordered manual > deployment of the passenger oxygen masks. > > At about FL340 in the descent both bleed lights extinguished and the > duct pressures returned to a normal reading. An emergency descent was > initiated. The F/O selected manual mode of the pressure controller and > manually operated the outflow valves to the closed position. A duct > overheat illuminated at about the halfway point during the descent. This > was extinguished after reference to the checklist. ... > As a result of this incident a passenger suffered permanent ear damage. > The senior investigators believe that the pressure differential was > maintained at 8.65 psi (by the safety relief valves) some time after > the F/O manually closed the outflow valve (passing 34,000 ft) until the > a/c reached the 5,000 ft altitude when the outflow valve was re-opened. > If we assume the pressure differential reached 8.65 psi when the a/c was > at say 31,000 ft then the cabin altitude would be 4,000 ft (using > standard atmosphere calculations). Something doesn't add up here. If the aircraft was cruising along and both packs tripped off the cabin would start to climb, even with the outflow valve full closed. In a perfect world that would not happen but there are a bunch of little leaks everywhere so the cabin will climb. If the cabin is climbing (psid being reduced) why would the saftey valves even be in the picture? They only open when the psid exceeds a set value. If they didn't open at altitude with both packs running, the max psid in this scenario, then they would not open during the aircraft descent and cabin climb (a reducing psid situation). If the cabin reached 14,000 ft then the flight crew is full of crap in their assertion that a psid of 8.65 was maintained. In all probability the aircraft experienced a negative pressure situation during the descent with the outflow valve cranked closed. This is when the pressure inside the aircraft is less than the pressure outside the aircraft and is concievable in an aggressive descent. The aircraft is not designed to handle this negative pressure and has a means of alleviating it. The doors. Any negative pressure will push the doors in, the upper and lower gates of the cabin doors and the whole door in the case of the cargo doors, a little, but enough to releive negative pressure. In addition many aircraft have negative pressure releife valves which open with the slightest amount of negative pressure. In my opinion, during the descent inside and out side pressure equalized and the cabin descended at the same rate as the aircraft. By my calculations the descent was at about 1600 fpm (30,000 to 5,000 in 15 minutes). I don't know and cannot speculate if that descent rate is enough to cause permanent ear damage. -Seth From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:00 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com JF Mezei wrote: > Is it an urban myth that oxygen masks automatically deploy ? How come they > required manual intervention to be deployed when just about every safety > briefing to pax mention "will automatically deploy in the unlikely event of a > de-pressurisation" ? ? There is an aneroid switch that drops the masks automatically at 14,000 ft (give or take a few) on all pressurized civil aircraft certified under the FAR's There is also a manually mask deploy switch. -Seth From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:01 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident 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: : Puranjai Dass wrote: : > The cabin altitude : > warning (an intermittent horn) sounded at 10,000 cabin altitude and this : > was silenced by the F/O operating the horn cutout. He then armed the : > passenger oxygen switch. The aircraft cabin altitude continued to climb. : > Approaching a cabin altitude of 14,000 ft the Captain ordered manual : > deployment of the passenger oxygen masks. : Is it an urban myth that oxygen masks automatically deploy ? How come they : required manual intervention to be deployed when just about every safety : briefing to pax mention "will automatically deploy in the unlikely event of a : de-pressurisation" ? ? In the cited case, the pressure was increasing. The automatic deployment would presumably be for decreasing pressure. -- Gerry From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:02 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Another Optus Customer Hugh Dickson (hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net) wrote: > Aloha, Could have been the support stuff for Al Gore's visit > to SFO on 3/8. The secret service used to use C-141 Always? They brought a C-5 to Australia when Clinton visited. The pilot took some convinging that he'd have to do a 180 at the end of the runway at Canberra as it was too heavy for the taxiway. Cheers David From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:03 From: Raytheon Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Raytheon Hugh Dickson wrote: > Aloha, Could have been the support stuff for Al Gore's visit > to SFO on 3/8. The secret service used to use C-141 but > maybe our next prez. needs a bigger plane. The planes used > to RON at the United Air Lines Maint. Base at SFO. Whenever the prez comes to LAX, a C-5 is used for the motorcade vehicles. The distinctive sound of those engines is unmistakable. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:04 From: "Al" Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Ron Parsons wrote in message ... >Actually, AA discontinued the audio monitor solely because some lawyers >were plugging in tape recorders in the hope they could catch something on >tape so that they could file a suit for $$. I thought AAL stopped using the video after AA191 accident @ ORD.. Al From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:05 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: sfeigin@us.oracle.spambegone.com Ron Parsons wrote: > Actually, AA discontinued the audio monitor solely because some lawyers > were plugging in tape recorders in the hope they could catch something on > tape so that they could file a suit for $$. Just to throw in my 2 cents, I was once on a United flight heading west out of Denver when I wished I wasn't listening to the cockpit radio. There was moderate turbulence being reported over the Rockies, and my pilot apparently chose to fly much lower than normal to avoid it. He was right, we did have a smnooth ride, but the radio traffic was disconcerting. The controller kept telling him he neded to climb, and the pilot kept trying to stay low. Eventually, the controller said something like "radar service terminated" as if to avoid liability for the impending crash. I was a bit nervous, but the non-listening pasengers just enjoyed the smooth ride. From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:06 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM United Shuttle still has the cockpit radio audio piped back to the cabin. I've flown the SFO-SEA route a couple times recently. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:07 From: Balaji.Ramanathan@ual.com Subject: Fuel Storage on Airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Hi, I found out recently that conventional submarines (as opposed to nuclear ones) have a double layered hull and the space between the two layers is used to store fuel. I am wondering if this approach is viable for airliners. Extremely rough back-of-the-envelope calculations seem to indicate that if a 747 fuselage had a double jacket with a one-inch gap for fuel, the fuel capacity can be increased by roughly 10000 gallons (about 70000 lbs). I would guess this is quite a significant amount of extra fuel and can potentially increase the range without impacting cargo storage or passenger space. What are the issues here? I am guessing that the landing gear has to be significantly strengthened and some runways would need to be lengthened/strengthened. The most important question is whether there is a major safety issue here. Belly landings would obviously not be advisable! On the plus side, I would guess that the modifications needed to make the fuselage double-jacketed would increase the structural integrity of the aircraft significantly. Any comments are welcome. Balaji Ramanathan From kls Wed Mar 17 01:25:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,rec.travel.usa-canada,rec.travel.misc Date: 17 Mar 99 01:25:08 From: psantos@shell.monmouth.com (Paulo Santos) Subject: Re: Help: Redundant Civil Aircraft Storage References: <01be437e$76988580$0502b5ca@default> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , wrote: >One of the last few issues of Aircraft magazine had a nice article on Marana. >It strictly noted that - There is NO public access to the Marana facility. No public access by surface. But you can certainly fly in. Paulo Santos From news Fri Mar 26 19:26:47 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Delta sells its entire 727 fleet Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion Message-ID: <7deia9$dvt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 02:12:22 GMT Delta has sold it entire fleet of 119 Boeing 727-200s to United Technologies Corporation, who will convert them to freighters for re-sale. About 20 727-200 aircraft will be retired in 1999, and the rest will follow between 2000 and 2005. The agreement gives Delta flexibility in accelerating or delaying retirement dates. 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 Tue Mar 30 01:53:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:09 From: RampRat Subject: Re: caravelle accidents 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 Many thanks to you all...there have been plenty of useful replies; enough to keep me occupied for a while! . From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:10 From: "Eric Langhendries" Subject: Re: caravelle accidents 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 >22.12.73 CRV OO-SRD Royal Air Maroc - RAM OO-SRD was leased to fly a flight for RAM but it was a SOBELAIR plane leased from SABENA. Both the Captain, the First Officer and the cabin crew members especially were friends and colleguese. This crash is wrongly reported as RAM in MANY MANY lists. It was ONLY the flight number who was RAM owned. Crash due to some navigational aids that were NOT WORKING ......and of course they blamed the pilots. Regards Eric (retired Sabena crew member). From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:11 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: End of the line for 747? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Gerard Foley wrote in message ... >David Bromage (dbromage@fang.omni.com.au) wrote: >: Also, beside shear range, aren't there routes that will not be >: practical for a twin because of etops restrictions? > >Boeing wants a 207 minute ETOPS for that very reason, and would like the >current restrictions on ETOPS relaxed greatly. As a 747-400 pilot who flies international routes, I question the wisdom of longer ETOPS. Though it might be a bit disturbing to lose 25% of my available engine and electrical power and 1/8 of my hydraulic pumps, I'd be a _lot_ more worried if I lost 50% of my available engine and electrical power and 1/4 of my hydraulic pumps. Why would I want to fly _longer_ over water in that condition? IMO, longer ETOPS is a matter of marketing, not safety priorities... -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:12 From: "Jerry" Subject: NOT the end of the line for the 747 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AMD >The current predication for the 747 line is to keep the line at 1/month >rate. The obvious impact of the Asian Crisis along with the development of >better twins has drastically lessend the economic value of the 747, (and for >that reason, why Airbus keeps pushing off the A3XX IMHO), but I doubt the >line will cease to exist anywhere in the near decade. There are many >transpacific and transatlantic routes that Etops restricted plains can't >reach but I was reading an Article in AvWeek that was talking about the >Boeing Pitch to raise ETOPS limits from 180 to 210-270 minutes thereby >allowing better distances for the 747. I think you mean "better distances and or routes for the 777", but anyway... I have flown on many wide-bodied aircraft including the 747 (-100, -200, and -400), the 777-200, DC-10, L-1011, and the A-300. My absolute favorites are the 747 and the 777, so don't get me wrong if I seem difficult when I critique the 777 aircraft. When Boeing, British Airways, and United Airlines were first considering the concept of designing an all new Boeing airplane back in 1988-89 to fill the capacity gap between the 767 and the 747, the propulsion systems question was a HUGE issue. The engines comprise up to 20-25% of the cost of the aircraft itself; and two very large engines are cheaper to run and maintain (and to develop and airframe for) than three or four engines for a similar sized aircraft. Airlines want the cheapest cost per seat-mile they can obtain. The 747 presents a bargain; the 777 presents an even BETTER bargain, especially for those routes that do not require the capacity of the 747. The problem is obvious. Boeing wants *very* relaxed ETOPS so it can sell airlines on the idea that "this plane can practically fly anywhere". Airlines want that extra nickel per seat-mile they can squeeze. Can some explain to me what happens on an MD-11 or a 747 when you have a very rare Double Engine Out scenario? Even then you still have one or two engines left. I understand that the engines on the 777 as well as the airplane itself were designed *not* to fail. But sooner or later down the road, a high-cycle 777 with 20 years of service might just have that happen. The odds are *very* remote. Today it is a new airplane and a beautiful one at that -- sleek, very graceful, and a pleasure to ride in. I flew up to Seattle last year just to watch some of the 777-300 testing at Boeing Field. Competition with Airbus aside, I am hoping that Boeing wasn't *too* easy with United and BA with this ETOPS deal just to fill its order book at an increase risk in safety not today, but 20 years from now. >Obviously, any 4 engine plane will be more expensive to operate than twins, >but we must not forget that although the 747-400 is the most advanced 747 to >date, it is still being built with technologies of the 60's and 70's for the >most parts where as the newer generation planes such as the 777, and the >A340/A330 are all fly-by-wire systems. Yes, but fly-by-wire systems and in-flight entertainment, etc., etc. are the least of my concerns when it comes to safety. I love to fly whenever I can and many passengers not to mention flight crews have gone their entire careers flying and never had an engine shutdown. Maybe I'm being too cautious, but today I have no problem flying on a new 777 or 747. Twenty years from now, I'll spend the extra $100 to fly on the 747 or a tri-jet for the reasons cited above. /JW From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:13 From: "jdhil" Subject: incident at SFO with United 747-400 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services March 19th's Wall Street Journal (as well as local papers) carried an unusual account of a near accident involving night, IFR departure in a 747-400. It happened last year (June, I think) on a 11:30p.m. departure SFO to Sydney. TOGW approx 840,000# (from the newspaper) with almost half in fuel weight. The a/c lost #3 just after lift off. There was a relief crew in the cockpit also. The a/c went into pre-stall buffet (shaking so the panel was "unreadable". . .try flying that at night, in the soup, with a grossed out 747 strapped to your ass. . .), the audible alarms ringing, the relief crew yelling "lower the nose, lower the nose" and then when the ground proximity warning went off, starting yelling "pull up, pull up". At any rate, the copilot (flying) proceeded to wrestle this stalled out, staggering behemoth until another ground proximity warning went off whereupon he did what they say can't be done and asked the bird for more, got it, and cleared San Bruno Mountain by a mere 100'. The story is verified by the airline (United), the FAA, and the pilot's union. The long and short of the article is the admitted utter failure of "basic flying technique" due to low generalized low pilot proficiency in landing / take off maneuvers. Some pilots were said to actually land the a/c manually only once every few months. The rest of the currency is maintained in the simulator. The Fed is drafting a rule at this time to deal with a requirement to actually land and take off using a real airplane. Comments?? jd From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:14 From: ppowondra@aol.com (PPowondra) Subject: Re: ETOPS 240 mins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >>Karl sums up the ETOPS discussion pretty well....I can't remember which of >>the North Pacific routes there was a question on, but twins were only able >>to fly it if you considered the US air force base on Easter Island (?) as a >>viable alternate airport. >That would be Midway Island. Easter Island also (barely) plugs a big >hole for 180-minute ETOPS rules, but it's in the South Pacific. An >example of a route which depends on it is Santiago to Papete; see You might be thinking of Shemya AFB out in the western end of the Aleutians. It would be on the great circle route from North America to Asia. Not the best place as an alternate, especially with a twin with an engine out - tricky cross winds and capricious weather out there. Paul From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:15 From: Michael & Iain Butler Subject: Re: ETOPS 240 mins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chaos Karl Swartz wrote: > That would be Midway Island. Easter Island also (barely) plugs a big > hole for 180-minute ETOPS rules, but it's in the South Pacific. An > example of a route which depends on it is Santiago to Papete; LAN Santiago - Papeete services stop at Easter Is. This raises an interesting question. If the airport at Easter Is is open for take-off but not landing (eg low cloud) could an ETOPS aircraft take off given that once airborne it will not have an operating airport within 180min. -- Mike Butler Wellington NZ Tip CD Lab/Terrier New Zealand Dog Agility on the Web Ben BC X http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mbutler/nala/ From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:16 From: gdlpilot@aol.com (GDLPILOT) Subject: Re: Does the Canadair RJ have thrust reversers? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The 6000' foot number is closer to it for MTOW of the high gross versions. However, close in obstacles are frequently as or more limiting than actual runway length. From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:17 From: Jay Biederman Subject: Re: Quality Control of Delivered Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: jbb@seanet.com Robert Nielsen wrote: > I'm not sure about your other questions, but flight testing of the > Boeing wide bodies (and many of the single aisle planes as well) is > conducted from Boeing Field in Seattle at the Flight Test Center. > Aircraft are carefully inspected and exercised with electrical power and > hydraulics before flight, but once they take off for the first time, > they usually go to Boeing Field for a thorough pre-delivery flight > regine. Actually, only 737s and 757s are flown from Renton Field to Boeing Field on their B1 Flight. All other flights and customer delivery is out of Boeing Field. All 747s, 767s, and 777s, make all their test flights and customer delivery from Payne Field in Everett. Jay Biederman __ Landing: A controlled mid-air collision with a planet. From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:18 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: Quality Control of Delivered Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Katie Schwarz wrote in message ... >When I took the tour at the Everett plant, they said that there are >three stages of testing: by Boeing, by the airline, and by the FAA. I >think the flight testing is done mostly at Boeing Field near Seattle >rather than at Everett; is that right? Well, that is true for the single-aisle planes. Many of the flight tests are conducted at both Renton Field and Seattle field, although lately I have seen a few of the narrow bodies up at Everett (Payne field) probably on a few hours hiatus. Specifically I have seen Southwest and Aeroflot 737's up at the Everett Flight Line (Whats an interesting aside, is that Aeroflot takes delivery of there planes out of Everett...not sure why, because at the time, ARO's 777's were already delivered) Anyways, back to the main point of discussion....having been on a few 777 flight tests, they have always performed touch and go's out at Moses Lakes, but I have never known the actual flight tests to be based at Moses Lakes. They really can't take the plane from the Everett Flight line for a few days and place it over there. Too much work would be missed by doing that. I do know that JAL does all there pilot training over at Moses Lake. I saw 2 747's and a MD-11 over there a few weeks ago when I was on a AAL 777 flight test. >> Also if flight testing is >>done to green airplanes how can they simulate center of gravity issues >>without a full pax load/or cargo. Boeing supplies to the customer a Weights and Balances manual. Now I agree that flight testing really can't be performed without the plane being painted, but I have seen flight tests to greenplanes, probably to perform checklists to other parts of the plane including functionality of the systems. You can get away with out a full pax load or cargo via weight analysis and ground tests, but I am not exactly sure on this. Thanks, Mike Kotas Passenger Seat Engineer From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:19 From: "Paul MacDougall" Subject: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: IGS - Information Gateway Services Hi guys, just wondering if anyone is familiar with the inner workings of the ILS system and how it integrates with the FMC....ie if you dial in the correct localizer frequency but mis-set the front course setting how does the system work or not work... does it matter if you mis-set it only 10 degrees verses 80 degrees....my AOM is not very helpful and I know this system has screwed a few people... thanks for you help in advance Paul From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:20 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Largest piston engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net I am working on a book on the internal combustion question, and wonder about two questions. 1) what was the largest piston engine ever used on an aircraft? 2) what is the largest aircraft piston engine still in production? -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:21 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) writes: > Hugh Dickson (hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net) wrote: > > Aloha, Could have been the support stuff for Al Gore's visit > > to SFO on 3/8. The secret service used to use C-141 > > Always? They brought a C-5 to Australia when Clinton visited. The pilot > took some convinging that he'd have to do a 180 at the end of the runway > at Canberra as it was too heavy for the taxiway. That's hard to believe, as a C-5B has less MGTOW than most 747-400s, and more wheels to carry it on. MGTOW for a 747-400F or passenger model is 800,000-875,000lb (from Boeing's web site); C-5 is 769,000 (from ). The C-5 has 28 wheels on the undercarriage, the 747 only 18. It's designed to work from a dirt runway, after all, which has rather less load-carrying capacity than reinforced concrete. Don't 747's operate from Canberra? -- -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 Mar 30 01:53:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:22 From: ebright@coil.com (Eeeb) Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ...some but never enough Reply-To: ebright@coil.com On 17 Mar 99 01:25:02 , dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) wrote: >Hugh Dickson (hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net) wrote: >> Aloha, Could have been the support stuff for Al Gore's visit >> to SFO on 3/8. The secret service used to use C-141 > >Always? They brought a C-5 to Australia when Clinton visited. The pilot >took some convinging that he'd have to do a 180 at the end of the runway >at Canberra as it was too heavy for the taxiway. GOR (General Operational Requirement) (of the C-5) included: take-off at maximum weight from a 2,44km (8,000ft) runway; landing on a 1,22km (4,000ft) semi-prepared strip; and as they have been often flown from dry dirt strips, it is doubtful it was too heavy for the taxiway if that taxiway could handle any heavys.... The 'light footprint' is accomplished by spreading out the weight over a larger number of wheels... as is shown in one of the pictures on the following page: http://www.west.net/~brianl/galaxy.htm 707s are actually worse than C-5s in the 'overweight for runway' area. -- Jim Ebright NET Security: http://www.coil.com/~ebright/ From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:23 From: Greg Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Order in Chaos Raytheon wrote: > Hugh Dickson wrote: > > Aloha, Could have been the support stuff for Al Gore's visit > > to SFO on 3/8. The secret service used to use C-141 but > > maybe our next prez. needs a bigger plane. The planes used > > to RON at the United Air Lines Maint. Base at SFO. > > Whenever the prez comes to LAX, a C-5 is used for the motorcade > vehicles. The distinctive sound of those engines is unmistakable. Gore was indeed in the Bay Area that weekend. Regarding the engines, they do sound like death approaching. A couple of C5s fly over my town per month on average on their way into Travis AFB. Greg From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:24 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Teleport On 17 Mar 99 01:25:02 , David Bromage,dbromage@fang.omni.com.au says... >Hugh Dickson (hnlhugh@worldnet.att.net) wrote: >> Aloha, Could have been the support stuff for Al Gore's visit >> to SFO on 3/8. The secret service used to use C-141 > >Always? They brought a C-5 to Australia when Clinton visited. The pilot >took some convinging that he'd have to do a 180 at the end of the runway >at Canberra as it was too heavy for the taxiway. The C-5 demonstrated soft field operations at acceptance. It can use a grass runway. Brian Whatcott Altus OK From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:25 From: "Voyager" Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: InfoStructure - Ashland, OR The Prez. came to Bakersfield CA in 92. With him was Air Force One, The Galaxie, and a Starlifter. We didn't get to see the 747 or C-5 leave, but we were viewing a B-17 at the head of the taxiway when the C-141 was leaving. The wingspan exceeded the width of the runway and when he powered up, so did a large cloud of debris. My brother and I had walked around to the runway side of the Flying Fortress (on an apron approx. 300 ft. diagonally from the runway), for a better view, we were pelted big time! Everything 45 degrees in it's wake got hit, including the Fortress which didn't make the owners to happy. But it was an awesome sight. If the 141 did that, imagine what the Galaxie did! Bill From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:26 From: "Thomas Lindberg" Subject: Re: loss of glideslope References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: ABB Sweden In my basic IFR training I was taught to abort landing if I would get an instrument failure and NEVER try to switch to another method while in a critical phase. So, if the glideslope goes out, abort, go around and do another approach using whatever works. Tom From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:27 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: loss of glideslope References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Without glideslope, a Cat I - III ILS approach cannot be continued. The options are to revert to a LOC (localizer) approach and adhere to its minimums, or to go around and start another [LOC] approach. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:28 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: loss of glideslope References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com No, a pilot would not be able to continue an ILS approach to category I, II, or III without a glideslope. However, the pilot could continue on the localizer and descend to the published Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), then continue to the Missed Approach Point (MAP), which may be either a defined fix such as a DME fix. or a timed approach from the Final Approach Fix (FAP). I do not believe that losing the glideslope happens very often. I have about 10,000 hours flying, most of which is in corporate type aircraft. I cannot recall any time that I have lost the glide slope reception once the approach has been initiated. Hope this helps. Gary From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:29 From: jimbarbourNOSPAM@mindspring.com (Jim Barbour) Subject: Re: loss of glideslope 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: MindSpring Enterprises On 17 Mar 99 01:24:57 , David Lybäck wrote: >I wonder how often it happens (e.g. during heavy precip., esp. snow), >that you loose glideslope indication during approach. I've had it happen once (in 6000 hours). Then, after we touched down, I lost all of my EFIS. This was in an Embraer Brasilia. It is especially susceptible because most of the avionics are in the nose. Add a leaky radome and let the fun begin. Many of my co-workers have experienced the same sorts of things( always in rain). The ATR 72 I fly now seems much better in this respect. Most of the radios are in racks behind the pilots. >It must be a rather difficult mental switch to suddenly start using >other mean of navigation during approach; can you actually continue with >only localizer, dist., and radar alt, and make a cat i-iii without >glideslope ? ILS minimums require glideslope info. Without g/s it becomes a non-precision approach requiring a level off at MDA(minimum descent altitude) usually a couple hundred feet higher. Jim Barbour - Reply to jimbarbour@mindspring.com From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:30 From: "David A. Domino" Subject: Re: loss of glideslope References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In article , David Lybäck wrote: > I wonder how often it happens (e.g. during heavy precip., esp. snow), > that you loose glideslope indication during approach. > > It must be a rather difficult mental switch to suddenly start using > other mean of navigation during approach; can you actually continue with > only localizer, dist., and radar alt, and make a cat i-iii without > glideslope ? In more than 30 years of flying, I have never experienced loss of glideslope information for any of the reasons you describe. Which is not to say it can't happen, only that it would be a rare occurance. And it's a good thing since there is no alternate means of completing a precision ILS approach without it. In other words there is no alternate method using any of the navaids you suggest. In some circumstances, an ILS approach may be continued as a non-precision approach if localizer-only minima are published, which would typically be substantially higher than those for a full ILS. However, if the the weather conditions actually required descent to full-ILS minima, the only possibility after loss of glidelsope would be a missed approach and diversion to an alternate airport. The point at which you would abandon the approach might vary, depending on the operating regulations under which the approach is conducted, and where in the approach procedure you happened to be at the time of the failure, but absent an improvement in the weather, you wouldn't be landing at the original destination. -- David A. Domino ddomino@csi.com From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:31 From: mike paterson Subject: Re: loss of glideslope 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: GEC Marconi avionics Glideslope on ILS is UHF whereas the localiser and Marker are both VHF. UHF is more prone to atmospheric attenuation. a good rule of thumb is that V/UHF comms are good for 200 miles at 10,000 feet. So at maximum range the UHF i.e. the Glideslope will suffer more atmospheric ( water and Oxygen) attenuation than the localiser. Mike From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:32 From: Stephan Stephany Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: INPE DOUG VIA wrote: > large aircraft jettison fuel everyday, many times!!! Sorry, I surely don't support any kind of pollution, but is jet fuel that cheap? 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 Tue Mar 30 01:53:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:33 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com DOUG VIA wrote: > Seth Dillon wrote: > > I am not sure what your aviation background is but as one with over 20 > > years in the airplane fixing business I can assure you that fuel dumping > > is a rare event. Far more common is an overweight landing and the > > subsequent inspections required. Dumping is an expensive proposition > > and is avoided if at all possible. > > what about the fuel jettison systems incorperated on many large aicraft > that dump fuel prior to landing? in order to land without being over > the maximum landing weight, some aircraft jettison fuel overboard into > the atmosphere that all of us humans and animals breath. > ASK MR. 20 YEAR AIRPLANE FIXER WHY HE CHOSE TO HIDE THAT IN HIS > LITTLE B.S. LINE ABOUT HOW IT IS SO AVOIDABLE. > large aircraft jettison fuel everyday, many times!!! Doug, Doug, Doug, You are as ignorant about transport aircraft operations as you are sarcastic. I never said most large aircraft don't have fuel jettison systems, I only stated that it is a rare event when they are used. Fuel is dumped ONLY IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, and only if the gross weight of the aircraft exceeds the max landing weight. Even then, usually an overweight landing is performed and the associated inspections, which are detailed in the maintenance manual, performed. In fact, the only reason I can see for dumping is to bring the gross weight down to a level which would ensure a safe landing for the available runway length, i.e. stopping in time. Fuel is expensive, and it is heavy. It costs money to carry extra unneeded weight around. A carrier does not load more fuel than the flight plan requires, unless it is cheaper to tanker it than purchase it locally. They damn sure don't waste it pumping it out into the sky for no good reason as you assert. I do not know where you get your information from but the source is not reliable. I doubt you will believe me, frankly I don't really care. I think your an idiot. I will not, however, let your lies go unchallanged. -Seth From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:34 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: Fuel Dump Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com From: DOUG VIA in order to land without being over >the maximum landing weight, some aircraft jettison fuel overboard into >the atmosphere that all of us humans and animals breath. > ASK MR. 20 YEAR AIRPLANE FIXER WHY HE CHOSE TO HIDE THAT IN HIS > LITTLE B.S. LINE ABOUT HOW IT IS SO AVOIDABLE. >large aircraft jettison fuel everyday, many times!!! Doug, you are wrong. Mr. 20 year airplane fixer is right. It amazes me how people like you, who don't know what the hell they are talking about, spew BS as if they are experts. From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:35 From: airfx@aol.com (AirFX) 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'm no expert on procedures and things, but assuming fuel dumping occurs at a place where humans don't normally breathe? Not often do I see someone up at 10,000 feet or wherever (with the exception of say, Colorado...but I don't think its land elevation is near 10K) breathing. Plus, unless it's relatively low, doesn't the fuel vaporize, not showering those below with flammable fluids? I'm assuming "large aircraft jettison(ing) fuel every day" would be due to emergencies, forced landings, etc., which are obviously NOT routine. This would be the case where they are jettisoning to not land overweight. Should the normal flight be completed without a hitch, fuel SHOULDN'T be needed to jettison to reduce landing weight,. Common knowledge states that planes burn fuel en-route. It doesn't take an idiot to figure that out. So, for example, the plane flying from JFK to say, Paris, would have burned enough fuel en-route that a jettison would not be needed prior to landing. I'm just regurgitating common knowledge, I know, but what I'm eventually trying to say is, you must examine the REASON why the plane is jettisoning...ever consider the possibility of an emergency? You must also realize that when you ask, and I quote, "what about the fuel jettison systems incorporated on many large aircraft that dump fuel prior to landing?" That they are there for use in emergencies. They are NOT there just simply to dump before landing as a procedure. They are there IN CASE a plane has to dump to reduce weight. Oh, and an aircraft jettisoning fuel into the "atmosphere that we breathe" is nowhere near the crap that is released into the air by the sheer multitudes of cars and busses found on this planet. (I can almost safely say automobiles and such number quite a bit more than the number of aircraft out there.) Basically, one must examine the facts before making accusations that large aircraft jettison everyday. Think of WHY. Look at the whole argument. THEN make an educated conclusion. Let the wind take you...just don't let the violins do it... From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:36 From: "Tim Lee" Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BT Internet One good reason why not can be seen on the accident report pages - the number of ramp "dings" which happen, thanks to the seeming pathological desire of airport staff to leave baggage trolleys, jetways etc etc in the wrong place. Normally, these only damage leading and trailing edges on wings, hence damage the flaps/slats rather than the tanks. Second thought - weight? Third thought - would YOU fly in a cylinder full of fuel? Regds Tim From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:37 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:25 AM 3/17/99, Balaji.Ramanathan@ual.com wrote: > I found out recently that conventional submarines (as opposed >to nuclear ones) have a double layered hull and the space between >the two layers is used to store fuel. I am wondering if this >approach is viable for airliners. > > Extremely rough back-of-the-envelope calculations seem >to indicate that if a 747 fuselage had a double jacket with a one-inch >gap for fuel, the fuel capacity can be increased by roughly 10000 >gallons (about 70000 lbs). I would guess this is quite a significant >amount of extra fuel and can potentially increase the range without >impacting cargo storage or passenger space. I doubt it is a very practical approach, for several reasons. First of all the amount of metal (weight) you need is optimal for a spherical tank (largest volume to surface ratio), long thin tanks will have a very unfavorable volume to surface ratio, so for a given volume of fuel, you will need a lot more weight. The bad volume to surface ratio causes another problem. The fuel is now all stored in direct contact with the outside surface of the aircraft.There is lots of surface area to conduct the heat away. That surface is typically exposed to very low temperatures at cruise, especially at high latitudes such as over the North Atlantic and North Pacific. I don't have exact figures for JetA, but most mid distallate fuels starts to solidify at about -45F, which is a very realistic temperature outside the aircraft at cruise. From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:38 From: ebright@coil.com (Eeeb) Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ...some but never enough Reply-To: ebright@coil.com On 17 Mar 99 01:25:07, Balaji.Ramanathan@ual.com wrote: > Extremely rough back-of-the-envelope calculations seem >to indicate that if a 747 fuselage had a double jacket with a one-inch >gap for fuel, the fuel capacity can be increased by roughly 10000 >gallons (about 70000 lbs). The fuselage weighs very roughly 100000 pounds already. Doubling the weight to add a second layer creates an awfully heavy fuel tank. The basic problem here is submarines displace a dense substance, water. Aircraft displace a light substance, air. So the weight 'cost' of a second 'fuselage' in a submarine is much easier to recover by displacing more water. Not so in airliners... ie. subs can float in their medium... airliners can't. So weight means a lot less to a sub than it means to a plane. -- Jim Ebright NET Security: http://www.coil.com/~ebright/ From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:39 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I would assume that a major reason why you could not have fuel added in between the outer skin and inner sidewall panels would be the insulation used for heating purposes. Also, the sidewall panels are not sealed like the outer skin. You would need to completely seal the sidewall panels along with adding additional circuitry for fuel pumps. Also, major circuitry for other sub systems runs in the sidewalls for various components of the plane. Also, some food for thought...how would you line the inside with all the stringers and frames running up, down, and sideways along the skin for structural support? Thoughts off the top of my head anyways! Mike Kotas Passenger Seat Engineer From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:40 From: eertink@nlr.nl (Johan Eertink) Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Aerospace Laboratory NLR Balaji.Ramanathan@ual.com wrote: : On the plus side, I would guess that the modifications needed : to make the fuselage double-jacketed would increase the structural : integrity of the aircraft significantly. It would also increase the fuselage weight significantly. I don't think it would be economical. Also, compared with submaries, an airliner has a lot of holes (doors, windows). I think leak-proofing would be a hell of a job. Johan From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:41 From: "David Fielding" Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Home Well, just a few thoughts: Submarine hulls are built very strong to withstand pressure; they use the strong structure to store fuel, too. Airplanes have their strongest structures in the wings, which is where they keep their fuel. The fuselage of an airplane is made as light as possible, to carry the design loads and last for the expected number of takeoffs/landings. They are tough, but the loads are not concentrated like the spars of a wing. Any excess weight in the fuselage structure would only subtract from the useful load of the plane. And I imagine that a double-walled fuselage, capable of holding thousands of pounds of fuel, would weigh far more than the current cigar tubes. Anyway, the airliners currently being produced don't seem to lack for fuel capacity; many spend over 10 hours in flight, on VERY long routes. How much farther do we need to go? David Fielding -- dfield@epix.net Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment. From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:42 From: airfx@aol.com (AirFX) Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Belly landings would >obviously not be advisable! Methinks the mere risk of a belly landing would be enough to scratch the idea (although it is a pretty clever one!). That and the structural strength of the aircraft may need some significant work, for 70000lbs of fuel sloshing around in the cavity may give the pilots a fun time considering the major center of gravity shifts going on...especially during takeoff... It's like one of those novelty items with the long, thin glass box that teeter totters with the water inside making waves and stuff. Imagine that as the fuselage of a 747...and all I can say is: "Motion sickness bag." But you know what, if one can engineer a way to keep this fluid from "makin' waves," I think you may be on to something! I'm no engineer, but one studying to be one...but don't take my word for it. It's more of seat-of-the-pants knowledge :0) Later! Jon From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:43 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Balaji.Ramanathan@ual.com wrote: : I found out recently that conventional submarines (as opposed : to nuclear ones) have a double layered hull and the space between : the two layers is used to store fuel. I am wondering if this : approach is viable for airliners. : Extremely rough back-of-the-envelope calculations seem : to indicate that if a 747 fuselage had a double jacket with a one-inch : gap for fuel, the fuel capacity can be increased by roughly 10000 : gallons (about 70000 lbs). I would guess this is quite a significant : amount of extra fuel and can potentially increase the range without : impacting cargo storage or passenger space. The amount of fuel an airplane can carry is fixed by the thrust of the engines and the aerodynamics of the design, as well as by the decision on how much of the maximum gross takeoff weight is to be devoted to payload. There is generally plenty of space in the wings or other convenient places for as much fuel as can be lifted economically. -- Gerry From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:44 From: "Jerry" Subject: Re: Fuel Storage on Airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AMD Balaji.Ramanathan@ual.com wrote in message ... > I found out recently that conventional submarines (as opposed >to nuclear ones) have a double layered hull and the space between >the two layers is used to store fuel. I am wondering if this >approach is viable for airliners. > > Extremely rough back-of-the-envelope calculations seem >to indicate that if a 747 fuselage had a double jacket with a one-inch >gap for fuel, the fuel capacity can be increased by roughly 10000 >gallons (about 70000 lbs). I would guess this is quite a significant >amount of extra fuel and can potentially increase the range without >impacting cargo storage or passenger space. If I recall, the design range for the 747-400 is roughly 7500 nautical miles. The Airbus A340-8000 has a design range of 8000 nautical miles. The range of these aircraft is getting to the point where one must ask the question "How far is long enough". So my first question is, without an increase in engine power -- why would you want to? Most passengers I've spoken with who have flown the super long LAX to Singapore or LAX to Melbourne routes were ready to climb out after 8 hours. That's barely halfway into the flight! I see the major thrust (literally) in design requirments to be in increasing engine power so as to increase capacity. Carrying extra fuel is important for a 20 hour flight, but my guess is that the extra cost of carrying a relief flight crew makes it cheaper for them to schedule a stop after a 12-hour leg. > What are the issues here? I am guessing that the landing >gear has to be significantly strengthened and some runways would >need to be lengthened/strengthened. The most important question is >whether there is a major safety issue here. Belly landings would >obviously not be advisable! Landing gear would absolutely need to be strengthened. I do not think lengthening runways any longer than they already are is practical. Runways cost about $2500 to $4000 per foot to build or lengthen (150 feet wide). The caveat is that Boeing would not want to have to sell an aircraft to an airline and have only 30% of its destinations be reachable because of runway length restrictions. [The IL-86 comes to mind...] Any increase in added fuel capacity must also include an increase in engine power. Otherwise, on those unplanned for emergencies where there isn't time to complete a fuel dump, our big and graceful 747 jumbo might go off the end of the runway on return to an emergency landing-- and that would be a mess..... > On the plus side, I would guess that the modifications needed >to make the fuselage double-jacketed would increase the structural >integrity of the aircraft significantly. Yes, but it would also appreciably increase the weight. A 10% increase in body stiffness would result in a 35,000 to 45,000 lb. increase in the empty weight of the aircraft. Add to that, the 70,000 lb. increase in intended extra fuel carried and we are now looking at close to a 1,000,000 lb. 747. The airlines (not to mention the FAA) would never go for that at the current rated engine power. > Any comments are welcome. Very good questions, though. I hope to see that 1,000,000 lb. 747-600 some day using the GE90 engines in use on the 777-300 right now. Boeing says there isn't enough of a market to justify the $10 billion investment in developing the Super Jumbo. They oughta know..... I just hope Airbus doesn't take a bath with the A3XX Very Large Airplane. /JW From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:45 From: gdlpilot@aol.com (GDLPILOT) Subject: Re: Fuel-imbalance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Good question - and rather unusual since it is normally given as a single value. However, I would guess that since the ability to maintain good lateral control is the determining factor, and since the amount of lateral 'force' available is a fuction of airspeed, the condition is most critical at low airspeeds since aileron effect will be less at low speeds. It is probably a case that since the minimum operating airspeeds increase with aircraft weight - consequently, the amount of aileron effect at the minimum speed is greater, at a greater weight. Therefore, the maximum allowable imbalance increases. Another way to look at it, is that the imbalance is really a function of airspeed since that determines aileron effectiveness. The higher the speed, the more imbalance you can handle. If you get very low airspeeds - such as you would have at light weight conditions - you reach have reduced aileron authority and cannot support as high an imbalance. From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:46 From: "Cathy Aplin" Subject: Research registers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit An Internet Research Register is launching in March-April 1999 sponsored by Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: an International Journal. The register is intended to cover current or recently completed research relevant to all aspects of aerospace. The database will be searchable by keyword and available to subscribers of the journal, sponsoring organisations and to anyone who registers their research with the register. Potential registrants can get further information and complete the on-line form at: http://www.mcb.co.uk/literati/research_registers/ Many thanks Cathy Aplin, Managing Editor Cathy Aplin (Ms) Managing Editor Engineering, Materials Science and Technology Division MCB University Press 60-62 Toller Lane, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD8 9BY, UK Tel: 44 (0) 1274 777700 Fax: 44 (0) 1274 785200 Email: caplin@mcb.co.uk From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:47 From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net Subject: 737 rudder news item Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net One paragraph from todays Manchester Union Leader saying that government safety experts are considering major re-design of the 737 rudder itself after an incident last month cast doubt on effectiveness of rudder system mods to date. Anyone know what the incident was? Thanks, jmaddaus@usa.net From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:48 From: jhilt@offline.no (John Hilt) Subject: No more B737 rudder problems? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Telenor Online Public Access Reply-To: jhilt@c2i.net Is this the final fix? Have we see the last of Boeing 737 rudder kicks? Let's hope so. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APA 35-99 March 18, 1999 Contact: Les Dorr, Jr. Phone: 202-267-8521 FAA Progress Report on Boeing 737 Rudder PCU Retrofits Washington -- In response to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) order to improve the already high safety record of the Boeing 737, close to 50 percent of the aircraft subject to the order now have new rudder power control units (PCUs). In addition, Boeing 737-600, -700 and -800 models are already manufactured with a redesigned unit, so almost 60 percent of the nation's 737 fleet now carries the new equipment. The redesigned PCU eliminates the possibility of a "rudder reversal" -- movement of the rudder opposite to what the crew intended -- by making reversal mechanically impossible. The FAA's latest figures, from March 1, show that 484 of 1025 U.S.-registered Boeing 737-100 through -500 models had received the new unit. "We are urging industry to continue making progress in complying with the FAA's mandate," said FAA Administrator Jane F. Garvey. "We have no plans to extend our August deadline." The FAA ordered installation of the new PCUs in June 1997 as the result of data from the National Transportation Safety Board's investigations of Boeing 737 accidents at Pittsburgh (1994) and Colorado Springs, Colo. (1991). The PCU redesign makes rudder reversal a mechanical impossibility. All 737s must have the new unit installed by Aug. 4, 1999. Until then, all older-model PCUs are checked by flight crews every 250 flight hours (about once a month) to ensure they are functioning properly. In addition to the redesigned PCU installation, the agency has ordered installation of a device that limits the amount of rudder movement during flight, making the aircraft more controllable in the event of an upset. The FAA also is requiring operators to install a new, more reliable digital yaw damper, a device that increases ride comfort by making small rudder inputs to cancel side-to-side motions. All 737s must have the new equipment by August 2000. The FAA also has worked extensively with industry to enhance pilot training and awareness of possible in-flight upsets caused by uncommanded rudder inputs. In January 1997, the FAA mandated new flight procedures and training to help pilots recognize and respond correctly to unusual aircraft attitudes. U.S. air carriers have already incorporated these initiatives into their operations and training programs. # # # -- - JH - http://home.c2i.net/jhilt "Balls" said the queen, "If I had them, I'd be king." From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:49 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: FedEx MD-10 Rollout References: <7d154q$h2j$2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <7d31lk$4cp@chronicle.concentric.net> 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: > >Thanks for the info. Is there any way to visually distinguish the > >DC-10s and MD-10s (without being on the flight deck, of course)? > > Right on top my head, I can think of at least two: the MD-11 has > winglets, and the center-engine inlet has a "bulge" on the MD-11. > (The JT9D-powered DC-10-40 has a similar bulge, but FedEX's MD-10s > are all CF6-powered DC-10s, IIRC). The MD-10s do not have either the winglets or the flared No.2 engine intakes. They also don't have the 'screwdriver' tailcone that is the other distinguishing feature of the MD-11. AFAIK, there are *no* visible difference between the MD-10 and the DC-10F. The only differences are internal: ie 2-man crew, and associated improvements to the avionics (basically, installing the MD-11 avionics suite). Winglets and tailcone are each supposed to be worth a couple of % off the fuel consumption. Anyone know why FedEx didn't add these to the MD-10 as well, given that they pretty much had to rip the airplanes up for the cargo and then the MD-10 conversion? 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 Tue Mar 30 01:53:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:50 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None On 17 Mar 99 01:24:40 , jcastle@eden.com (Joe Castleman) caused to appear as if it was written: >>[...]whereas a 727 or DC8-63 were instantly recognisable even from some >>distance! Technology may be evolving towards ideal configurations but that >>magical quality has lately been lost to those of us who loved the classic ships >>of the 60s to the 80s. > >I've wondered about that. I guess that maybe there are only so many >designs that are practical. There were some radical ideas introduced >between, say, 1945 and 1975, but everything since 1975 seems to be a >variation of designs from 1960 to 1975. What's left? Maybe a >high-mounted wing on an airliner, like a Bae146 but larger? I suspect >that they haven't tried that for a reason. Ah, but they have! The IL-76 is exactly that, and is an airliner (although I realize that Soviet military requirements probably had more to do with the design than commercial ones, so if one is to mention the IL-76, one ought to at least nod towards the C-141 Starlifter...) Malc. From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:51 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM You can always ID an Airbus plane from a Boeing plane by this method......All airplanes have antenna arrays mounted on the fuselage....these little fin like structures that are about 1 ft. in size with a slightly rearward sloping direction to them. Well all Airbus planes (at least A318 and up) have one mounted just above Door 1, while the first antenna on a Boeing plane does not show up until mid-fuselage above the wings.....Ok OK OK...albeit you probably need to be close (real close to see it) but check it out the next time you are at an airport!!!! Thanks, Mike Kotas Passenger Seat Engineer From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:52 From: rcteller@aol.com (RcTeller) Subject: Re: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I can remember living near Stuttgart Germany as an airforce brat in the mid-late 70's. I could identify most of the planes going into Echterdingen (sp?) by the sound alone. The 727's, 707's,737's, and Airbuses all sounded different at the time. I doubt any normal person could do so with consistancy today. There is a greater variety of aircraft that are all pretty much the same. Paul From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:53 From: thompson@tgsoft.com (mark thompson) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: tgsoft > Just to throw in my 2 cents, I was once on a United flight heading west > out of Denver when I wished I wasn't listening to the cockpit radio. > There was moderate turbulence being reported over the Rockies, and my > pilot apparently chose to fly much lower than normal to avoid it. He > was right, we did have a smnooth ride, but the radio traffic was > disconcerting. The controller kept telling him he neded to climb, and > the pilot kept trying to stay low. Eventually, the controller said > something like "radar service terminated" as if to avoid liability for > the impending crash. I was a bit nervous, but the non-listening > pasengers just enjoyed the smooth ride. FWIW: Obviously, I haven't heard the rest of what you did, but "radar service terminated" just means that the pilot is in an area where there is no radar coverage, and will have to make position reports to the controllers by radio, so that they will know where he is - more trouble for all involved. An airliner on a revenue flight would be kept well above the terrain by the FAA. For every spot you could be, there are assorted minimum altitudes that are allowed, all of which protect you from the ground. -mark -- -mark From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:54 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 17 Mar 1999, Stuart Feigin wrote: > Just to throw in my 2 cents, I was once on a United flight heading west > out of Denver when I wished I wasn't listening to the cockpit radio. > There was moderate turbulence being reported over the Rockies, and my > pilot apparently chose to fly much lower than normal to avoid it. He > was right, we did have a smnooth ride, but the radio traffic was > disconcerting. The controller kept telling him he neded to climb, and > the pilot kept trying to stay low. Eventually, the controller said > something like "radar service terminated" as if to avoid liability for > the impending crash. I was a bit nervous, but the non-listening > pasengers just enjoyed the smooth ride. All "radar service terminated" means is you're leaving an area where ATC has radar coverage. There is lots of legal for IFR (instrument flight rules) airspace which does not have radar coverage. In a non-radar area, separation rules change. One significant aspect of the words is it notifies the pilot that normal position reports need to be made (most position reporting is not required when the flight is being radar monitored). It is the opposite of the "radar contact" you hear usually on first call after take-off to the departure ATC facility. You will routinely hear "radar service terminated" when being cleared for an instrument approach to an airport that does not have radar to the surface (it is implied in any clearance for a visual approach). Airports served by major carriers without radar monitoring to the ground are relatively few but they do exist (some mountain airports, also I know Kona, Hawaii, which routinely sees scheduled 747 service, does not have radar to the surface). There is no way that ATC would let him fly at an illegal for IFR altitude without a lot stronger words being used. More likely, ATC's request for him to climb were based on trying to accomodate his filed altitude and/or because his current altitude did not fit in to the controller's plan as well as the higher altitude. But the Captain is in command and if you can't do what ATC wants, then they have to work something else out. -- Larry Stone lstone@wwa.com http://www.wwa.com/~lstone/ From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:55 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics "Al" writes: > Ron Parsons wrote in message ... > >Actually, AA discontinued the audio monitor solely because some lawyers > >were plugging in tape recorders in the hope they could catch something on > >tape so that they could file a suit for $$. > > I thought AAL stopped using the video after AA191 accident @ ORD.. Nope. I used to listen on AA transatlantic flights in the era '87-'90. Did you know that some French crews speak French to French ATC? -- -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 Mar 30 01:53:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:56 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM It is possible the floor of radar coverage is below the actual MEA listed for that route... IFR without radar service is legal and common (it's just that most US domestic controllers probably aren't used to it...). -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:57 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Stuart Feigin wrote: > Just to throw in my 2 cents, I was once on a United flight heading west > out of Denver when I wished I wasn't listening to the cockpit radio. > There was moderate turbulence being reported over the Rockies, and my > pilot apparently chose to fly much lower than normal to avoid it. ... > I was a bit nervous, but the non-listening > pasengers just enjoyed the smooth ride. Rest assured, you were in no danger of hitting cumulogranite! :-) Every flight on an IFR flight plan must adhere to a Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA) which ensures terrain clearance, communications, VOR reception, and usually radar coverage. MEA, of course, goes up and down along the route of flight as the variables change. But you cannot legally go below MEA. Your flight may have encountered a radar "dead zone" at your altitude, thus a temporary "radar service terminated"- or the FAA's wonderful radar system may have not been feeling well. Ken From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:58 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Stuart Feigin (sfeigin@us.oracle.spambegone.com) wrote: : The controller kept telling him he neded to climb, and : the pilot kept trying to stay low. Eventually, the controller said : something like "radar service terminated" as if to avoid liability for : the impending crash. I think ''Radar service terminated'' means that the aircraft has flown out of range, or that it is not needed any longer. If the plane is low, it will be out of range sooner. -- Gerry From kls Tue Mar 30 01:53:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:53:59 From: Tarver Engineering Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - Discussions start here! Tom Turton wrote in message ... >Hugh Dickson wrote: >> Aloha, The 777 tail cone was called a "boat tail" and >> was supposed to add to lateral stability. Hugh > > Are you sure about this? When McDonnell Douglas changed the tail cone >on the MD-80 aircraft from conical to boattail, I thought I heard it was >because of reduced drag. Bandwidth starvation, same as Hugh says. The DC-9 was a noisy airplane before the change; sitting in the back was miserable. John From kls Tue Mar 30 01:54:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:54:00 From: ebright@coil.com (Eeeb) Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ...some but never enough Reply-To: ebright@coil.com On 11 Mar 99 03:54:01 , RampRat wrote: >As an industry employee and childhood enthusiast, has anyone else >experienced that sadness that aircraft no longer seem to posess their >distinctive features? Used to be that aircraft were built by many companies... now there are really only two. This, more than converging technologies, is squeezing out different or 'innovative' designs.... as one man's innovation is another's risk. And one of the prime reasons there are only two players is the desire to be risk adverse. And beautiful innovative designs are more likely to be the product of a strong designer than the result of a corporate design philosophy :-( -- Jim Ebright NET Security: http://www.coil.com/~ebright/ From kls Tue Mar 30 01:54:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:54:01 From: lou@cadence.com Subject: Trailing edge wedge? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion In the latest issue of Av Week (8 March 99) there is an article on Boeing's plans. Included for the 747-400 is something called a 'trailing edge wedge'. Apparently this would have given fuel savings of 7% on the MD-11, and works even better on the 747. "The trailing edge wedge was great on the MD-11, but it is stunning on the 747". It seems surprising there are still relatively easy 7% improvements laying around. Does anyone know what this wedge is, and the basic idea behind it? Why is it only being introduced now? -Lou Scheffer -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Tue Mar 30 01:54:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:54:02 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net On 17 Mar 99 01:24:59 , Seth Dillon wrote: >Something doesn't add up here. If the aircraft was cruising along and >both packs tripped off the cabin would start to climb, even with the >outflow valve full closed. >If the cabin is climbing (psid being reduced) why would the >saftey valves even be in the picture? I think you missed one key statement in the original posting, viz: >> At about FL340 in the descent both bleed lights extinguished and the >> duct pressures returned to a normal reading. I read that as meaning the packs came back on. Then, at the beginning of the emergency descent, "The F/O selected manual mode of the pressure controller and manually operated the outflow valves to the closed position." If the outflow valve stayed fully closed from FL340 all the way down to 5000' with the packs running, you bet the overpressure relief valves are going to open. Seth Dillon also wrote: >If the cabin reached 14,000 ft then the flight crew is full of crap in >their assertion that a psid of 8.65 was maintained. You'll note that it wasn't the flight crew that made any reference to the relief valves, viz: (again from the original posting) >> The senior investigators believe that the pressure differential was >> maintained at 8.65 psi (by the safety relief valves) some time after >> the F/O manually closed the outflow valve (passing 34,000 ft) until the >> a/c reached the 5,000 ft altitude when the outflow valve was re-opened. I think things add up just fine. __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Tue Mar 30 01:54:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:54:03 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net On 17 Mar 99 01:25:01 , gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) wrote: >: Is it an urban myth that oxygen masks automatically deploy ? How come they >: required manual intervention to be deployed when just about every safety >: briefing to pax mention "will automatically deploy in the unlikely event of a >: de-pressurisation" ? ? > >In the cited case, the pressure was increasing. The automatic deployment >would presumably be for decreasing pressure. In the cited case, the pressure was initially decreasing. The emergency checklist in use be the crew probably required them to deploy masks manually at 14000' cabin altitude. The automatic aneroid is for those situations where the pressure loss is sudden or the crew is too busy to notice or take action about the loss of cabin pressure. In this incident, after the outflow valve was manually closed and the packs began operating again, the cabin altitude would have descended pretty quickly, maybe on the order of three or four thousand feet per minute (an educated guess, maybe more quickly). It was probably the fast cabin descent that did the damage to the passenger's ears. __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Tue Mar 30 01:54:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Mar 99 01:54:04 From: procida@cf.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) Subject: Re: B 737-500 Depressurization Incident References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK Malcolm Weir wrote: > if the pressure increases faster than you can relieve it through > techniques such as ... the Valsalva technique, the Fresnel technique (used ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ > by dive bomber pilots) ... What do these involve, please? Daniele Procida From kls Tue Mar 30 01:54:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 99 01:54:05 From: dickfish2000@spam.not (Richard Fish) Subject: Re: Embraer announces new aircraft References: <36CCF54F.F8B43F04@emirates.net.ae> <19990220160517.05254.00000789@ng100.aol.com> <7b3lsp$r4g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7b6ql2$lm9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) wrote: *Actually, I think that all of the above 'copied' the Shorts design for a *regional jet, which was shelved when Bombardier bought the company, and *concentrated on the Challenger-derived RJ. You may be right! :) I had forgotten about that program. Does anybody else remember the Shorts FJX? IIRC the slogan was " The affordable regional jet" What did 'FJX' stand for anyway? Dick From kls Tue Mar 30 01:54:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 30 Mar 99 01:54:06 From: gdlpilot@aol.com (GDLPILOT) Subject: Re: Embraer announces new aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Airplanes of a given class - designed in the same time period - tend to be similar because the technology available at the time is the driving factor in the configuration. Ever notice how few wing mounteded business jets there are? Why - well, given the size and the engines available, the aft mounted engine configuration is the one that makes sense. 727 look alikes? Given the engines available, for a given size aircraft they needed three. The DC10 and L1011. Given the engines and technology the aircraft virtually configure themselves. In some cases, like the DC9-10, the aft mounted made sense with the size of the original aircraft ... it only later grew to the size of the first 737 - and with the 737 at the time it came out, the wing mounted 'won the war of engineering'. Right now, we are at the point where, given the engines and materials to work with, the 70 to 90 seat range can go either way with pluses and minuses to each. As for the guy talking about the Shorts FJX - maybe you are right. It was only going to be 44 seats, and at the time I reviewed the original document for it back in about '87, one of our major concerns was the ground clearance (or lack of) on the engines. Would have made a great 'ramp sweep' though.