From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:13 From: richard@wretched-z.demon.co.uk Subject: Why no Tristars? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 923267237 nnrp-08:16489 NO-IDENT wretched-z.demon.co.uk:194.222.133.224 X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: wretched-z.demon.co.uk Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they just _go_ somewhere? Richard. From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:14 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust24.tnt2.plano.tx.da.uu.net In article , "Paul MacDougall" wrote: >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... The FMC will complain if you tune the wrong frequency for the selected runway, but doesn't check the course set in. There are a number of aeronautical myths about what will happen with various amounts of misset course but no hard data that I know of. Once on the Loc, the FMC does drop the DME/DME or VOR/DME updating and uses the LOC. Some of the myths and scares you might hear date from very early versions of FMC software and may or may not have any value on any particular version. Ron From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:15 From: Luitbert@t-online.de (Luitbert Schindhelm) Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news02.btx.dtag.de 922828224 32598 081398114-0001 990330 21:10:24 > 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... Well I do not exactly know the Avionics system of a B757 works. But generally, an ILS station will give you only one Radial (and that should lead you directly to the runway). It does not matter which course you have selected, it is only a good practice to dial in the correct course. But this has only an informational value and does not affect then accuracy of the indication. It is only important, as you said, that you have dialled in the correct frequency. That is by the way on of the differences to VOR stations, where it is essential that you also set the correct Radial if you want to reach your destination. Regards Luitbert N.B. What is an AOM? From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:16 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: gte.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust88.tnt1.huntington-beach.ca.da.uu.net On 30 Mar 99 01:53:19 , "Paul MacDougall" wrote: >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 AFAIK, there is no setting of the front course by the pilot. You tell the FMS you want to execute a certain approach and it will auto tune the correct frequency and present you with the correct final approach course. __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:17 From: "Si Zarco" Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.147.86 Yes, you still get the localizer and GS, the GS would be fine and the localizer would centre but you would need to know what direction you had to be heading in. If you offset it by 10 degrees, it may prove to be more dangerous as you may not notice it, although you would realise on 80 degrees as when you were flying 'down' the arrow, the localizer would just fly across your HSI. I think. (hey, I'm here to learn, not teach!) -- Si Awfully sorry, I'm an English posh git, anyone for Tea? szarco@nofuckinspamglobalnet.co.uk ICQ:732738 From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:18 From: Ralf Sipple Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost Paul MacDougall wrote: > 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... sorry, don't know, but I have a similar question: Today I was flying an ATR72. We were cleared ~30 nm from FCO to intercept the localizer 16L and as the the indication this far far out is often somewhat inreliable I decided to follow the extended centerline with LNAV. I monitored the ILS indication on the captain's CRT (in the ATR you have either RNAV or conventional NAV indication, but not both) and confirmed by that that I was precisely on LOC and GS. Closer to the field I switched my display to L/V (conventional NAV). This caused the LNAV mode to go off, the AP was in basic lateral mode (maintain bank). I armed APP. The course selector was set 50 deg off to the right fron the correct course (162deg). As I was already precisely on LOC and GS they both captured immediately. But then the unexpected happened: The A/C banked sharply to the right (the direction the course selector was pointing to) and came off the LOC to the right. I then turned the course selector to the correct approach course and the AP re-intercepted the LOC. It appeared to me that the AP used the set course as an initial value for a heading which may be appropiate to follow the LOC (in this case it wasn't). I once discussed a maater with a B737 captain. He said that his company rules called for flying an approach with the ND in APP mode. He said he likes to keep the ND in MAP mode to improve situational awareness. The reason for the rule to have APP mode displayed is that he couldn't see the course dialed in MAP mode. However, the deviation signal from the localizer (opposed to VOR) is completely indepent fom the selected course. Has anyone tried similar things? How does your plane behave? Viele Gruesse, Ralf -- Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-711-7777206 | sipple@gmx.de D-70794 Filderstadt| Anrufbeantw. +49-711-7777208| pgp key on request! From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:19 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: Bob_Mann@RWMann.com Tarver Engineering wrote: > >Hugh Dickson wrote: > >> Aloha, The 777 tail cone was called a "boat tail" and > >> was supposed to add to lateral stability. Hugh > > Tom Turton wrote in message ... > > 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. Actually, as I recall, the MD-8X tail (tale?) was termed a "beaver tail", and was an area rule fix, to reduce drag and meet guaranteed fuel burn and performance. - Bob Mann -- - R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. > Airline Industry Analysis Port Washington, NY 11050 > tel 516-944-0900, fax -7280 mailto:Bob_Mann@RWMann.com > URL http://www.RWMann.com/ From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:20 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /icX/ck2CCJJg+Fgv4roxUr2P/bZr/h9ntDdno5WpH8= Mike Kotas wrote: > 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, This method is easier, Airbus planes all have the top corner of the rearmost side cockpit window cut off. Don't know if this is intended to be a distinguishing feature of Airbus or not. However you must be careful as the russian IL96 I think it is which is a copy of the A300 also has this feature. When the russians copy something they copy everything it seems. Trevor Fenn trevfenn@erols.com From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:21 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 >careful as the russian IL96 I think it is which is a copy of the A300 >also has this feature. When the russians copy something they copy >everything it seems. If the Il-96 is supposed to be a copy of the A300, it must have been copied by Russians who had double vision -- the Il-96 has four engines while the A300 is of course a twin. The Il-96 is actually derived from the Il-86, which was developed in the early 1970s, around the same time as the A300. It undoubtedly benefited from the A300, but the less-efficient Soviet engines and other requirements of the Soviet manufacturing and operating environment made it much less than a straightforward copy. (Howard Moon's book "Soviet SST" has some excellent insights on how the Soviets aggressively copied many details of Western designs while melding them into their own requirements.) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:22 From: sharam@cadence.com Subject: Delta L-1011 Fuel Dump by DFW Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.224.230.191 Anyone know the details on this? Apparently there was an inflight engine shutdown due to engine fire with the crew declaring emergency and proceeding with a fuel dump. I think it was a far east flight. Thanks, -- Sharam Namazi Cadence Design Systems 425.990.1263 From kls Tue Apr 6 11:46:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Apr 99 11:46:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Delta L-1011 Fuel Dump by DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Anyone know the details on this? Apparently there was an inflight engine >shutdown due to engine fire with the crew declaring emergency and proceeding >with a fuel dump. Sounds like a simple engine failure, possibly a compressor stall, during takeoff. While not exactly normal, it happens from time to time. >I think it was a far east flight. I don't think Delta operates any Far East flights out of DFW, and even if they did, I doubt the L-1011 would have the range to fly them. The longest mission I'd expect a DL L-1011 to be flying from DFW would be to Honolulu, if that. It might also have been a DFW-PDX/LAX flight which was continuing across the Pacific (with an MD-11). -- 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 Apr 19 02:21:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:21:56 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: A330NG Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc**@cmdnet.lu Following the launch of the A340NG the next logical step seems to launch the A330NG. Some questions : Can the modified A340NG wing be mounted with two big twins, just like it is possible with the A330/40. One could assume so but I can't get confirmation of this anywhere. If two beefed Trents (or similar) could be mounted on the NG wings, what about the ground clearance ? Are the new legs tall enough to provide sufficient clearance for Trent 800s or PW 4Ks such as mounted on the 777 ? As you may have guessed this is more a what-if-game than a confirmed rumour. I am well aware that other considerations must be taken into account, but would appreciate any constructive comments on the two items mentioned above. ------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Schaeffer ---- Luxembourg ---- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders Owner ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon Apr 19 02:21:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 19 Apr 99 02:21:57 From: Robert Johnson Subject: Re: 767 Landing Gear References: <7f8u3g$ghr$1@ultra.sonic.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-005casfrap200.dialsprint.net Dean: This is a question better asked on the sci.aeronautics.airliners or misc.transport.air-industry newsgroups. Robert Johnson Dean wrote: > I had posted this eariler but it seemed to have disapeered. Anyway > > I was wondering why the landing gear on the 767 is slanted forward and not > back like most other planes. The two front wheels are lower (lots) than the > back and it seems even a big flare on landing would barly leave the tires > level. Why is it only on the 767? Two of the four main geas on the 747 are > extreme example of the opposite as the back tires droop alot. Thanks for > any imput, I was just curious. > > George From kls Mon Apr 19 02:21:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:21:58 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 11:46 AM 4/6/99 +0000, you wrote: > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and >it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the >US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I >never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall >from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they >just _go_ somewhere? Some have been converted to freighters, but I suspect most have been quietly junked. The problem is the tri-Star went out of production before the D10 did (which was helped by KC10 tanker program), and there was a follow on to the D10. That makes the L1011 an Orphan. Most are least 20 years old now, and that makes them expensive and difficult to maintain. A 767-300ER has range that is longer than an L1011-500, comparable capacity and much lower operating costs. Very bluntly, it ceased to be economically attractive to operate L1011's. There was an upgrade program for -200's to give them a better engine, to make them into -250's, but there were not a lot of takers. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 From kls Mon Apr 19 02:21:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:21:59 From: emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com My guess is - They didn't build as many of them to start. - They stopped making them early on (so now all the tristars are pretty old). - They didn't have a derivative like the DC-10 had with the MD-11. - They never sold much in Europe in the first place (BA had many, but most other carriers went with A300's and DC-10's) It's all too bad since there never was a man-made object more beautiful than a tristar's tail... ------------------- General Tso "Mr. Osato believes in a healthy chest" Helga Brandt From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:00 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: red.weeg.uiowa.edu On 6 Apr 1999 richard@wretched-z.demon.co.uk wrote: > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and > it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the > US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I > never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall > from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they > just _go_ somewhere? Last year I was driving by the Rochester, Minnesota, airport and I saw a Tristar land. This was rather a large plane for that airport, so I got off the highway to get a closer look. By the time I got there it had taxied to the terminal and a several limousines were taking the disembarking passengers. The plane was "Saudia", painted in white and green. I suppose it was bringing people to the Mayo Clinic. Can those planes fly direct to the middle east from Rochester? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:01 From: boeing707@bellsouth.net (boeing707) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.77.209.143 Reply-To: boeing707@bellsouth.net Re your question on L-1011s The L-1011 was a superior airplane in its day, but like the 707, its getting old. In the US, Delta and TWA are the majors who still operate them. I believe Delta is going to retire them as they get their new 777's. I dont know what TWA has planned for them. Eastern also flew L-1011's. American Trans Air also flies them in the US. I'm sure there are other charter and cargo operators that fly them. Air Canada and Air Transat in Canada also have L-1011's. In Europe, I think the only operators left are British Airways (I think they still operate them but I may be wrong...at least they did at one time!). German charter operator LTU also flies them. South America, I know Faucett flies them and I'm sure there are others though I cant think of them at the moment. Middle East, at one time Gulf Air was flying L-1011's though I dont know if theyre still operating them. Pacific Rim, Cathay Pacific (I think theyve retired theirs by now) and All Nippon Airways. Oh, in the US I think also Hawaiian still has some. These of course are not the only operators but gives some kind of overview that the 1011 is still around, albeit getting kind of scarce. Ken Smith Ft Lauderdale, Florida boeing707@bellsouth.net From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >In the US, Delta and TWA are the majors who still operate them. TWA stopped flying the L-1011 over a year ago. >Air Canada and Air Transat in Canada also have L-1011's. Air Canada got rid of theirs a long time ago, though Air Transat was still flying them last year and may still have them. >In Europe, I think the only operators left are British Airways (I >think they still operate them but I may be wrong...at least they did >at one time!) Long gone. >German charter operator LTU also flies them. Nope, they've been gone for a while. >Pacific Rim, Cathay Pacific (I think theyve retired theirs by now) and >All Nippon Airways. Both are long gone. >Oh, in the US I think also Hawaiian still has some. They were replaced by DC-10s leased from American a few years ago. -- 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 Apr 19 02:22:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:03 From: "James Liddell" <937904@accglobal.net> Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: ICAN.Net Customer NNTP-Posting-Host: pucc4-15.puc.net wrote in message ... > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and > it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the > US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I > never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall > from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they > just _go_ somewhere? Oh yeah they went somewhere alright, been bought up by airlines like AirTransat, AmericanTransAir, AirOps, ect, mostly euro and North American Charter outfits, some have been converted to freighters. Then of course there's OSCs Pegasus Launching Vehicle, and the operation blessing flying hospital. And Delta has been holding on to its fleet. There are some other airlines out there with em, like TAAG Angola (Ex TAP bird) and InterChile From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:04 From: y_fournier@hotmail.com (Knightmare) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 8 Apr 1999 21:58:05 +0100, dela228.deckpoint.ch X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 NNTP-Posting-Host: dela228.deckpoint.ch On 06 Apr 99 11:46:13 , richard@wretched-z.demon.co.uk wrote: > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and >it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the >US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I >never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall >from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they >just _go_ somewhere? > >Richard. A Saudi Arabian L-1011 Tristar regularly comes here in Geneva, Switzerland. They still fly. Yannick Geneva, Switzerland Momentarily grounded flight sims pilot :-) <<<<>>>> Website : http://Fast.to/knightmare ICQ# : 3169168 From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:05 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.220.207.58 richard@wretched-z.demon.co.uk wrote: > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and > it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the > US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I > never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall > from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they > just _go_ somewhere? In the US, Delta and ATA still fly TriStars. But yes, TriStars are getting harder to fly on. As are DC-10s, for that matter, but there are still many more DC-10s around. Why? For one, many more DC-10s were built than TriStars. Lockheed ceased production in the early 1980s, but support is still available (if you mean parts etc). Second, most TriStars were relatively short-range, and so were replaced by big twins sooner. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:06 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics richard@wretched-z.demon.co.uk writes: > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and > it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the > US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I > never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall > from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they > just _go_ somewhere? Well, production ceased a long time ago: I believe long before the end of the DC-10. Since there was no way to update a fleet with similar airplanes, I think the L-1011 became the odd one out in various fleets, so it was sold off faster than the DC-10 or 747. They are now following the 707 and DC-8 (and now the 727) down the food chain, used by charter operators and such. I don't think they're popular as freighters, as are the 727, DC-10, and older 747, perhaps because there just never were that many of them. Last I knew, Delta was still flying them, but I think they are leaving soon. BTW: How can the Tristar be L-1011 if the old Constellation was L-1049? Do Lockheed model numbers run in reverse? -- -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 Apr 19 02:22:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:07 From: avondale7468@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.125.220.90 > I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I > never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall > from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they > just _go_ somewhere? There are certainly some left in Europe, Icelandic carrier Air Atlanta have a number on charter work and there are some others working charter routes out of the UK too. It was never all that common an aircraft with European operators, or even that common compared to DC10's and B747's. British Airways and Air Portugal were the main European users and both have disposed of their fleets for reasons of operating economics. Incidentally Delta have also stopped using the L1011 on the Atlantic, so most visits from now on are likely to be from Canadian operators such as Air Transat. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:08 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Crosswind landings in 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool092-pm3.ds32-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net I was at ORD today waiting for my connecting flight. The weather was very windy, (about 25 gusting to 40) and I was watching a long stream of aircraft making landings. There are two methods of making a crosswind landing. One is to crab into the wind and track the runway centerline. Right before touchdown the crab is cancelled to remove sideloads on the MLG. The second method is to do a forward slip so that the slip rate cancels the crosswind component. (This is also called the "wing low" method). I am accustomed to the crabbing method being used on airliners. However, I noticed that the 777's were using the sideslip method. Why is this method used on the 777's and no other types? (All the 777's I saw landing were UA- is it peculiar to UA training)? Thanks! Ken From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:09 From: "Terry Bowker" Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 16 Apr 1999 13:48:53 GMT, 32.101.120.98 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 Organization: IBM Global Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.101.120.98 The shape of the tail-cone was changed to reduced induced drag. On the 767 it was discovered that the airflow around the tail-cone was stagnant because of its round shape. Boeing then designed the 777 tail to smooth out the stagnant airflow. Cheers Terry From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:10 From: jdwill68@aol.com (JDWill68) 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 Trevor wrote: >When the russians copy something they copy >everything it seems. There's a story that after WWII Stalin ordered the Tupolev Bureau to copy the B-29 from an example interned in Siberia-the plane had flown to Siberia after running low on fuel during a bombing raid on Japan. While reverse-engineering the plane they found a small hole drilled in one of the wings. They couldn't discern any reason for the little hole, but, mindful of Stalin's order to produce an exact copy, every single Tu-4 produced had the same hole in the exactly same place. James From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:11 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: titan.xtra.co.nz 923470806 475854 203.96.152.5 (7 Apr 1999 07:40:06 GMT) Organization: Daedalus Consulting NNTP-Posting-Host: estelle.paradise.net.nz In article , Karl Swartz wrote: >The Il-96 is actually derived from the Il-86, which was developed in >the early 1970s, around the same time as the A300. It undoubtedly >benefited from the A300, but the less-efficient Soviet engines and other My understanding is that the Il-86's engine layout is a Boeing copy -- Boeing actually provided data on the use of podded engines in exchange for details on working with titanium for the 747 landing gear. Prior Russian transports had rear or wing-root mounted engines. (The Il-76 heavy transport also has podded engines -- I think that's the earliest one that did.) -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:12 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: ID'ing aircraft [Re: AA 777-200IGW] References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: OiaAxEsg2ioD6MnDFQ21u4tIj1F/+ivcVwUujLqv4og= Karl Swartz wrote: > >careful as the russian IL96 I think it is which is a copy of the A300 > >also has this feature. When the russians copy something they copy > >everything it seems. > > If the Il-96 is supposed to be a copy of the A300, it must have been > copied by Russians who had double vision -- the Il-96 has four engines > while the A300 is of course a twin. That's quite true of course. At that time the Russians had no suitable high bypass ratio engines so the Russian Airbus has four low bypass engines. If you ever have a chance to see one take a look along the window line, the windows also sweep up towards the tail just as they do on the Airbus. Trevor Fenn From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:13 From: procida@cf.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 923215609 9177 62.136.160.164 (4 Apr 1999 08:46:49 GMT) Organization: Posted through the Joint Cardiff Computing Service, Wales, UK NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-36.name2.dialup.pol.co.uk Stephen H. Westin wrote: > Did you know that some French crews speak French to French > ATC? Why is that remarkable? Daniele Procida From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:14 From: Ralf Sipple Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sipple Aviation & Engineering NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost Stephen H. Westin wrote: > '87-'90. Did you know that some French crews speak French to French > ATC? don't US crews speak English to US ATC? The French are very nationalistic and very rarely speak English in ATC comm. You also often can hear Italian crews speak Italian to Italian ATC. The same in Spain. Viele Gruesse, Ralf -- Ralf Sipple | Fax +49-711-7777206 | sipple@gmx.de D-70794 Filderstadt| Anrufbeantw. +49-711-7777208| pgp key on request! From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:15 From: ctill@mindspring.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: Delta L-1011 Fuel Dump by DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.8b.89 Reply-To: ctill@mindspring.com >I don't think Delta operates any Far East flights out of DFW, and even >if they did, I doubt the L-1011 would have the range to fly them. The >longest mission I'd expect a DL L-1011 to be flying from DFW would be >to Honolulu, if that. DL has operated a daily L-1011-500 nonstop between DFW and HNL for many years. I believe that when DL first opened its PDX hub to Asia, at least one route was served by an L-1011-500. From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:16 From: "Paul MacDougall" Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.igs.net 923459068 19202 206.248.53.148 (7 Apr 1999 04:24:28 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: IGS - Information Gateway Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ttyb18.simcoe.igs.net Thanks for the replies guys.... I have been on the B757/B767 for about two years and yes you do have to dial in the localizer frequency and the front course heading manually. the FMC will not autotune it... I have been in a situation where the wrong front course heading was dialled in and the airplane did not capture the localizer, even though you could see it on the ADI display.... no I didn't watch it go through the localizer, used heading select to correct and then realized that the wrong front course was set in. So I go back to my original question, why didn't it capture? the system obviously needs the proper heading to capture. the AOM (aircrew operating manual) doesn't say much, so I wondering about the inner workings Paul From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:17 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > >What is an AOM? Aircraft Operating Manual. TheFNG From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:18 From: b757dc9@aol.com (B757DC9) Subject: Re: how does the ILS really work on the B757/767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Take it from a guy who flies the 757/767, the FMC DOES NOT tune the ILS. The pilot manually sets the course and frequency on the ILS tuner box. There is no warning from the FMC if you set them wrong. If you set the wrong course, the airplane and autopilot doesn't care. It just chases the needle when in LOC or BCRS mode. Just like what happens when the course is miss-set on an aircraft with an analog HSI. On the next generation FMCs, ( B777/744) the FMC does indeed tune the ILS. And thats the facts, Jack. From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:19 From: paul117@mindspring.com (Paul) Subject: Re: Concorde fuel dump question-- References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.0a.9a Reply-To: sandpiper@my-dejanews.com Thanks for the answers, fellows! I assumed they dumped the fuel but I didn't think of the weight stress scenario. I recall reading that dumped fuel on the ocean evaporates rather quickly and does minimal ecologicl damage. I guess 400,000 lbs. of fuel is a mere drop in the bucket of the ocean. On the other hand it can't do much good but there doesn't seem to be any alternative under the circumstances. From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:20 From: Frank Jenkins Subject: 747 "smoke" trail Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 923510479 226 206.184.163.161 Organization: Savantics Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: fjenkins.vip.best.com Reply-To: fjenkins@Savantics-Inc.com A couple of days ago, I was looking at a 747-400 pass over my house at about 5000 feet on landing vectors to SFO. While watching, I noticed a white stream of smoke or mist starting to come from the tailcone area. This continued for a short period of time, leaving a 10-15 airplane-length trail in the sky. I assume this smoke had something to do with the APU. However, I have watched a *lot* of jets and never seen this before. Does anyone have a possible explanation? Frank Jenkins From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:21 From: Andrew Goldfinger Subject: 747 sold for salvage Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: houston.jhuapl.edu 924009917 2265 128.244.47.118 (13 Apr 1999 13:25:17 GMT) X-Newsreader: Nuntius Version 1.2 Organization: apl The current issue of Aviation Week (April 12) has an advertisement (page 78) for a 747 being sold "as is, where is" for salvage due to accident damage. It is a 747-400 serial number 26400. Does anyone know the history of this aircraft, what accident occurred, and where it is? From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:22 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 sold for salvage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >The current issue of Aviation Week (April 12) has an advertisement (page >78) for a 747 being sold "as is, where is" for salvage due to accident >damage. It is a 747-400 serial number 26400. Does anyone know the >history of this aircraft, what accident occurred, and where it is? It's a PW4096-powered 747-4B6, registration HL7496, delivered to Korean Air Lines in June of 1996. Last August (I don't know the exact date), it was operating KE 8702 NRT-SEL. After diverting to Cheju due to bad weather, it eventually continued to Seoul. Apparently the #1 thrust reverser did not deploy and it veered to the right at about 90 kts. It ran off the runway, whereupon the outboard left main landing gear became mired in mud and was torn off. The aircraft then veered to the left and the remaining three main landing gear posts were sheared off in a drainage ditch. 18 injuries though no fatalities; about $100 million in damage to the aircraft. -- 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 Apr 19 02:22:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:23 From: "Bruce O'Neel" Subject: Arthur Raymond Died Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 15 Apr 1999 10:26:26 +0100, isdcul7.unige.ch X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Hi, This week's Economist (10 April) has a nice obituary on Arthur Raymond. Arthur Raymond led the design team which designed the DC3 and other Douglas aircraft. He also was a founder of RAND corp. bruce -- Reality is 80m polygons - Alvy Ray Smith Bruce O'Neel - beoneel@mindspring.com http://homepage.iprolink.ch/~bioneel/beo/beo.html From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:24 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: incident at SFO with United 747-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet jdhil (jdhil@worldnet.att.net) wrote: : night, IFR departure in a 747-400. : The a/c lost #3 just after lift off. : 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. If the simulator is any good, what's the difference? The frequent hands on landing of the ''real'' airplane when there is no emergency gives no more experience with the response to the emergency than the simulator does. I hope we are not proposing that we shut down #3 every once in a while on a night takeoff from SFO with passengers just for training! -- Gerry From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:25 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: incident at SFO with United 747-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 922906970.499.72 K8TBLZBRT84A0D091C usenet1.supernews.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.145.132.160 jdhil wrote in message ... >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. It is rumored that the KAL 801 crash had a captain at the controls that had never manually landed a 747. The French claim that the 747 is too busy to operate with only two aircrew. The FE also plays an important role where the bar gets too rowdy. :) John From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:26 From: "Si Zarco" Subject: Re: incident at SFO with United 747-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.147.86 >Comments?? He was bloody lucky to clear the mountain. -- Si Awfully sorry, I'm an English posh git, anyone for Tea? szarco@nofuckinspamglobalnet.co.uk ICQ:732738 From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:27 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 X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: Another Optus Customer NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.53.36.185 Stephen H. Westin (westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu) wrote: > Don't 747's operate from Canberra? No, it's not an international airport. There have only been a few Qantas test flights, and Air Force 1. The runway is getting an extra 400m added, with international flights to commence in October 2000. Cheers David From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:28 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:53 AM 3/30/99 +0000, you wrote: >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. I just spent several weeks flying around the top end of Australia in a light aircraft, and the restrictions on taxiway/parking areas according to the CASA book are strictly weight, there is no allowance at all in the book for how it is spread out. Many taxiways are only rated for 5730kg (about 12,500 pounds), if you exceed the magic number, the pencil pushers don't care how the weight is spread, you are breaking the regulations, and will be prosecuted! Reminds me of an experience a few days ago. I had a TSO'd GPS, and a flight attendant was telling me I couldn't turn it on in the aircraft (on the ground!)! (Even though the GPS in question was clearly certified for Aircraft use, and the agency that makes such approvals will issue them based on an FAA TSO without futher discussion). I don't remember the exact figure, but my recollection is the manual tells you at Canberra, if you weigh over 30,000kg, you MUST use the runway ends to turn around, full stop. That is simply the regulatory mentality in that part of the world. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 When traveling +61 411 749244 From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:29 From: "Blue Max" Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.15.02 I believe the Secret Service has its own designaated C-5.. Not positive but I believe it is true... Blue Max From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:30 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 922817448 11107 129.116.176.203 (30 Mar 1999 18:10:48 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Don Stauffer wrote: > 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? By almost any measure you choose, it was the Pratt & Whitney R-4360. This was a 4-row radial with 7 cylinders per row, and was used in aircraft such as the B-36, B-50, KC-97, and Boeing Stratocruiser, as well as many of the "Guppy" cargo haulers built on Stratocruiser airframes. It displaces 4,360 cubic inches, and in various forms delivers over 3500 horsepower. There was allegedly a program in the works to develop a turbo-compound version of it for the B-36, but this was shelved because the B-36 would have to have been converted from pusher to tractor layout to sufficiently cool the engines, which would have been capable of around 5000 HP each. The turbo-compound version of the Wright R-3350 (which used 3 exhaust gas driven power-recovery turbines that couple power back to the crankshaft- a sort of half-turboprop half-piston engine design) produced about as much power as the R4360's that were built, but this was a notoriously persnickety and complex engine that drank oil by the gallon, and had a significantly smaller displacement at 3350 cubic inches. It was used in the Douglas DC-7C and in Lockheed Super Constellations and Starliners. > 2) what is the largest aircraft piston engine still in production? Sorry, I don't know that one! Steve Lacker, Applied Research Laboratories slacker@arlut. uutexxas.eduu (make the doubles singles to reply) From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:31 From: "John Mackesy" Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: Melbourne PC User Group, Australia NNTP-Posting-Host: b3-58.melbpc.org.au Don Stauffer wrote in message ... > 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? (1) Probably the P&W R4360 Wasp Major ("Corncob") used on B36, C124, C/KC97/Stratocruiser. There was an amazing device known as the XR7750 (5,000+ HP!), but I don't think it ever flew. (2) At a guess, I'd say the Russian/Polish version of the R1820 Cyclone. There's a PZL Dromader aircraft (fire bomber) that flies by my place occasionally - magnificent sound, esp. with a full load. John Mackesy (Mt Evelyn, Victoria, Australia) From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:32 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool019-max9.ds24-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net OK, I will take a first stab at this. I'm not 100% sure of my answers- here goes, feel free to correct me or not post this if better info is provided- 1) The P&W R-4360. A 4360 cubic inch radial set up as four banks of 7 cylinders. Called a "corncob" engine by some, for obvious reasons. Powered the B29, B50, B36, Spruce Goose, etc. 2) In the Western world, probably a Continental or Lycoming 550 cubic inch flat-opposed six cylinder, various configurations such as geared output, fuel injection, turbocharging, etc. Could be something available in the ex-Soviet bloc I am not aware of (for example, the radial that powers the Sukhoi competition aerobatic plane). Ken From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:33 From: Adam Keys Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Which Online Net Usenet Service NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.168.102.122 Reply-To: adam.keys3@which.net I presume you are really interested in single engine with its own propeller unit. However if you cast your net a little wider you will get int o the realms of coupled engines. For example the Bristol Brabazon with eight Bristol Centaurus engines of 2500 hp each, coupled in pairs through a single propeller, thereby giving 5000 hp through a single propeller unit. I am sure the Wright Compounds came in at a greater bhp for a single engine. Anyway I will have a root through various books and see what I can find. That said I am sure that somebody else on this group will have the definitive answer. Adam From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:34 From: pschrand@hotmail.com (Peter) Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.2b.b4 Reply-To: pschrand@hotmail.com You might try buying a book by Herschel Smith called A History of Aircraft Engines. It covers everything having to do with aircraft engine history and is available from Sunflower University Press in paperback. He has a chapter devoted to odball engines, and the largest engines. The largest, acording to Smith, was the Rolls-Royce Vulture. 24 cylinders and 1845hp. It was a failure and later replaced by two smaller engines. From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:35 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 923681199 nnrp-13:320 NO-IDENT pegase.demon.co.uk:158.152.238.141 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/16.451 Organization: Janet, me and our cats in our little cottage NNTP-Posting-Host: pegase.demon.co.uk Reply-To: news@pegase.demon.co.uk On 30 Mar 99 01:53:20 , in , Don Stauffer wrote: >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? The largest piston engine produced for an aircraft was probably the Lycoming (surprise, surprise) XR-7755, although it may not count since "no application was ever announced" according to Bill Gunston. He says this was the "biggest one-unit piston engine and one of the heaviest aero-engines of all time". It was run at 5,000 hp in 1944 and "aimed at 7,000hp". This was designed under a US Army contract of 1941, but only built as a prototype. The largest to go into service may well have been the P&W R-4360 Wasp Major, which gave up to 3,750 hp. If the turbo-compound version had been proceeded with, it would have been not far short of 5,000hp. One might also claim (as a British person) the Bristol Centaurus 20, which powered the Brabazon. Two Centaurus engines were ganged together giving 4,720hp, with a total capacity of 6,540 cu.in. Purists might say this was *two* engines though, not one. and it only flew in prototype form... >2) what is the largest aircraft piston engine still in production? Don't know. -- John Wright From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:36 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust136.tnt8.minneapolis.mn.da.uu.net lou@cadence.com wrote: > IIt seems surprising there are still relatively easy 7% improvements laying > around. I have a running argument with a former boss of mine. Now, neither of us are professional aerodynamicists, he is an EE, I a physicist, and we specialize in avionics. So I suppose both of our opinions are worth as much as we are paid for them :-) But we both study aero avocationally. Anyway, he contends that almost all that can ever be known about airfoil and wing design performance is already known, and that only the onesy-twosey percent improvements can be hoped for now. I maintain we still, in this day and age of numerical models and supercomputers still do not completely understand how to make air do exactly what we want it todo. There may be revolutionary designs that could give big jumps in performance yet to be discovered. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:37 From: drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology NNTP-Posting-Host: all-night-tool.mit.edu In article , lou@cadence.com writes: > 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? The TE wedge is a somewhat more sophisticated version of the Gourney flap. Preston Henne, formerly of Douglas, did an even more sophisticated design which he called the "Divergent Trailing Edge". This was in an AIAA paper about 5 years ago. These things dramatically improve transonic airfoil performance, PROVIDED the airfoil has little aft camber to begin with. I suspect the 747 airfoils have relatively little aft camber, which wasn't in vogue quite as much back then. Hence, the TE wedge is beneficial. The 777 airfoil would see little if any benefit, since it has a large aft camber to begin with. One drawback of the TE wedge is that it increases the airfoil's pitching moment quite a bit. This is certainly an important consideration in a large plane like the 747, which would likely see a significant added structural twist from the wedge. As with all aeronautical things, it's a tradeoff. Mark Drela First Law of Aviation: MIT Aero & Astro "Takeoff is optional, landing is compulsory" From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:38 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: gte.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust148.tnt5.huntington-beach.ca.da.uu.net On 30 Mar 99 01:54:01 , lou@cadence.com wrote: >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? I too was surprised to see such a large percentage improvement quoted. The wedge was used on the MD-11 from nearly the first ship delivered. Boeing apparently didn't learn of the great benefit until they "borrowed" some of Douglas' engineers from Long Beach just prior to the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger. On the MD-11 the wedge is exactly that. Instead of the trailing edge of the wing control surfaces ending in a triangular "point," the trailing edge was designed to be a constant thickness of about an inch over the aft-most 6 inches or so of the chord. The extra thickness is below the natural chord line. I don't remember the specific details of the concept, but I think the idea is to direct the airflow downward locally, rather than straight back. In essence the camber of the wing is increased right at the trailing edge for an overall increase in total lift produced by the wing. I'm told of a side benefit of the swirling air coming off the upper and lower surfaces of the wedge actually imparting forces in a forward direction on the aft surface of the wedge, resulting in less fuel being used to push the plane through the air. A similar idea is used in the outflow valve, wherein the expelled air is directed in an aft direction, resulting in "recovered thrust." __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:39 From: ea621@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard J. W. Lavictoire) Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The National Capital FreeNet NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet5.carleton.ca Reply-To: ea621@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard J. W. Lavictoire) (lou@cadence.com) writes: > 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". Other folks who know more about this can confirm it. I believe the Convair 990 Coronado had them. This was a big improvement over the Convair 880 but still was not enough to make the it cost effective. They say she was a pretty bird tho. -- Today is the tomorrow you were worried about yesterday. From kls Mon Apr 19 02:22:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 19 Apr 99 02:22:40 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com lou@cadence.com wrote: > Does anyone know what this wedge is, and the basic idea behind > it? Why is it only being introduced now? The trailing edge wedge is just as the name implies; a wedge added to the lower surface trailing edge. This was developed at Douglas by Rob Gregg and Preston Henne in the 1980s and was originally called a "divergent trailing edge". Their idea was to create a faired-in Gurney flap. A Gurney flap is a very small (1-3% of airfoil chord) tab, mounted normal to the surface on the lower surface trailing edge. The Gurney flap was developed in the 1970s by Bob Liebeck of Douglas, in conjunction with auto racer Dan Gurney. As you can see, this was all originally developed (and patented) by Douglas engineers. I know that Boeing tested a divergent trailing edge on a 737 in the early 1990s, but reported that all it did was increase the lift produced at a given angle of attack. Hence, Boeing has not been very interested in the technology until as of late, when they acquired McDonnell Douglas. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thu Apr 29 22:10:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:00 From: petit@mail.cern.ch (Patrick PETIT) Subject: a318 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: sunnews.cern.ch 925219397 8779 (None) 137.138.55.142 X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7 Organization: CERN - European Organization for Nuclear Research NNTP-Posting-Host: pccme01.cern.ch Airbus Industrie has formally launched the A318. A total of 109 orders and commitments have been received from customers including Air France, Egyptair, ILFC and TWA. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:01 From: "Frank Muenker" Subject: Are cargo planes generally old ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: Posted via the Nacamar Network NNTP-Posting-Host: blackice.living-source.com Hi, I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally very old. I've seen lots of 727, DC10-30, 747-100 and even DC-8/707, but hardly ever any new aircrafts. Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? This observation might be wrong, but if not: is there any logical explanation ? Thanks Frank Muenker From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:02 From: jamesr@u.washington.edu (J. Rymsza) Subject: Mach Wave Elimination Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nntp6.u.washington.edu 925155906 34552 (None) 140.142.17.40 Organization: University of Washington, Seattle NNTP-Posting-Host: homer23.u.washington.edu I read an interesting web article concerning mach wave elimination of jet noise. Mach Wave Elimination reduces substantially the noise in the downward direction (towards people). A researcher at the Univ. of CA, Irvine named DIMITRI PAPAMOSCHOU has been involved, for many years in jet noise reduction research. Are there others involved in the newsgroup who are familar with his and this reseach? At what stage is the research? Are there prototypes and commercial applications? -Jim -- James A. Rymsza (jamesr@u.washington.edu) Architect - UW Design Services .......... Box 352215 (work) 221-4325 (fax) 543-4117 .......... From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:03 From: "Benoit" Subject: Re: A330NG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UUNET Benelux (post does not reflect views of UUNET Benelux) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Reply-To: "Benoit" NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-149-219.uunet.be > Can the modified A340NG wing be mounted with two big twins, just like it > is possible with the A330/40. One could assume so but I can't get > confirmation of this anywhere. What for ? if you increase the capacity you will have two aircraft on one market segment (A330NG and A340-200/300) and same for range. Financially speaking it is not very easy to amortize. I remind you the A340NG are to compete with 747, Boeing claiming that its customers use it for the range not for the capacity From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:04 From: Clunk Subject: Re: A330NG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 925109804 139.134.103.115 (Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:56:44 EST) Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.103.115 > Can the modified A340NG wing be mounted with two big twins, just like it > is possible with the A330/40. One could assume so but I can't get > confirmation of this anywhere. As a strategy it is certainly appealing. Airbus might be able to create a A330-500 with a pair of big twins like the B777 if 215 minute ETOPS becomes the way of the future. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:05 From: emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) Subject: 707 window thoughts Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The movie Bullitt is of course famous for its car chases, but I had forgotten that the last third takes place at SFO, with a lot of ramp action and fabulous shots of vintage Pan Am 707's. For me, the reason why the 707 is still unparalleled in elegance is that long straight row of evenly spaced windows. More recent airliners (as well as the pistons before) have irregular window patterns. My question is, when a window seems to be "missing" in a modern jetliner, is it dictated by interior design (restroom perhaps) or by structural necessity (bulkhead...) I understand that structural necessity must be the reason for the A300's slightly angled window line... General Tso From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:06 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >BTW: How can the Tristar be L-1011 if the old Constellation was >L-1049? Do Lockheed model numbers run in reverse? Two points, Aircraft model numbers are market desiganations, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in rationality where marketing is involved. Secondly, the Connie existed in a number of forms. The original is a 749, the most common and early Super is the 1049, however this is a 1249 and even a 1449 which I think was the Starliner (a turbo prop version). There is however almost a decade between the last Connie be built and the first l1011. The Electra is L188, which comes long after the Connie! James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >and even a 1449 which I think was the Starliner (a turbo prop version). I don't recall either an L-1449 nor a turbo-prop Connie. The Starliner was the L-1649, which I think had turbo-compound engines. Is that what you were thinking of? -- 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 Apr 29 22:10:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:08 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 924541885 8458 129.116.176.203 (19 Apr 1999 17:11:25 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and >it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the >US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I >never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall >from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they >just _go_ somewhere? I've read the responses with interest, as I've always considered the L-1011 to be one of those vastly superior products that was beaten in the marketplace by a greatly inferior product (the DC-10) for various reasons. I like the currently-used slang for this phenomenon: to be "Betamaxed" (anyone who's seen a Beta videotape side-by-side with a VHS tape knows that the VHS format is inferior, yet it succeeded while Beta flopped). I guess one could also use terms like "Microsofted" or "Intel'ed" or "Honda'ed"with equal accuracy :-) >From what I've read, the L-1011 was indeed superior to the DC-10 in construction and certainly in terms of its field record since the VAST majority of the airframes produced are still flying today, though many are as freighters. One thing that hurt it, though, was that since it was solidly built (and thus a bit heavy) it had to be *shortened* to produce an extended range version (the L-1011 500) whereas the DC-10 was actually lengthened. This wasn't attractive to buyers. I've never heard anyone say it outright, so it may be wrong, but my gut feeling is that the L-1011 is designed to a completely different philosophy than the DC-10. Walking around and aboard a -1011, one gets an impression of tremendous solidity. It looks like its built to LAST, with many features seemingly over-designed and thus a bit bulky compared to a DC-10. This would tend to be borne out by its service record too. Several L-1011's have survived incidents that might have brought down a DC-10 (such as one which lost the fan disk on its #2 engine- a similar failure to that which caused the Sioux City DC-10 crash). Unfortunately, the penalties paid for over-building (increased weight, decreased payload and range) are far more visible on the bottom line of an airline's accounting system than the statistical odds of better survivability. Also, the Rolls-Royce RB211 debacle hurt the L-1011 by delaying its launch, raising doubts about its viability, and giving the competing DC-10 a leg up on orders. Unfortunately for Lockheed, they were married to the RB.211 and there was no altertnative engine, so a delay in the engine meant bad news for the whole airframe (Hmmm! Good thing no one built an airplane around the GE-90 or history might have repeated!) -- Stephen G. Lacker (slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu) <- convert to normal email format to mail to me. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:09 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >majority of the airframes produced are still flying today, though many are >as freighters. I don't think many L-1011s are flying as freighters -- the DC-10 seems to have done much better even in that regard, unfortunately. (I much prefer the L-1011 to the DC-10.) The first freigher conversion other than a few for the RAF sat unsold for quite some time. Kalitta has a few, the only other cargo L-1011s which come to mind. >it had to be *shortened* to produce an extended >range version (the L-1011 500) whereas the DC-10 was actually lengthened. The DC-10-30/40 (long range versions) have the same fuselage as the original, though I believe they have a slightly greater wing span. As for the L-1011-500, I had always been under the impression that lack of higher-thrust RB.211s was the problem, not anything inherent in the L-1011's design. -- 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 Apr 29 22:10:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:10 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley NNTP-Posting-Host: socrates.berkeley.edu Stephen H. Westin wrote: >richard@wretched-z.demon.co.uk writes: > >> The question is: having travelled in the >> US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I >> never see a Tristar these days. > >Last I knew, Delta was still flying them, but I think they are leaving >soon. You might enjoy the book _Frequent Flyer_ by Bob Reiss, a journalist who spent many hours riding in the cockpit of a Delta TriStar and interviewed hundreds of people involved with different aspects of flight: pilots, air traffic controllers, dispatchers with their weather maps, Lockheed designers (there's a chapter on the TriStar/ DC-10 development race), flight attendants, baggage handlers (in the chapter on labor-management relations), Delta executives who bought and financed the planes, mechanics doing various levels of overhaul, ticket price analysts. I thought it was a very good overview of the airline industry for the general reader. -- 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 Thu Apr 29 22:10:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:11 From: mike paterson Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC Marconi avionics The Royal air Force use them as A-A tankers and for long distance trooping flights ie Brize Norton, Oxfordshire to the Falkland Islands. The British Caladonian used them up to a few years ago for charters. I flew in one from Macarran (Las Vegas) airport to the UK. Mike From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:12 From: keenan@idirect.moc (Martin Keenan) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 21 Apr 1999 22:36:49 -0400, ts3-1h-46.idirect.com Organization: Evil geniuses for a better tomorrow X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 NNTP-Posting-Host: ts3-1h-46.idirect.com richard@wretched-z.demon.co.uk writes: > Sorry if this is an obvious question: I've checked the FAQ and > it doesn't seem to be there. The question is: having travelled in the > US, Europe and Asia, I see plenty of DC10's and older 747's, but I > never see a Tristar these days. Why is that? Did the marque fall > from commercial favour or dod Lockheed withdraw support....or did they > just _go_ somewhere? As other posts have mentioned, Delta still flies the L-1011. I was in Atlanta last September, and saw lots of them -- although other posts here have indicated that they are now being replaced by B-777s. Martin Keenan Reverse letters in "moc" to respond From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:13 From: KND Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. Reply-To: kndbrd@primenet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-55-090.scf.primenet.com EMTGX wrote: > It's all too bad since there never was a man-made object more beautiful > than a tristar's tail... I would disagree. I think that the most beautiful tail on an aircraft was, is and will always be on the Lockheed Constellation (L49, L749, L1049, L1649). After that I would have to say the Airspeed Ambassador. There is something about a triple tail that can't be duplicated by the monolithic structures of today's aircraft, efficient though they may be. BTW, ask any "Connie" pilot why it took a real man to fly a "Connie"! -- K.N> "Jack" David, Airline Training Center, AZ From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:14 From: n102da@aol.com (N102DA) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The fleet list at "home.earthlink.net/~tristar500" is pretty accurate. I talked to the webmaster and he said he has an update almost ready to post. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:15 From: alistair@caribsurf.com (Alistair Gale) Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: S.P.E.C.T.R.E X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Reply-To: alistair@caribsurf.com NNTP-Posting-Host: news.newsdawg.com In the Caribbean, BWIA still uses the L1011 -- alistair From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:16 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 26 Apr 1999 16:11:39 +0100, lusser.euro.unibas.ch Organization: Europainstitut Basel Hi Ken, as Karl already pointed out in his reply, most of the operators you remember were once correct, but most of them got rid of their 1011's over the last 3-4 years. Here's some more info to bring readers up to date on their fate: The list is not complete, but for a complete overview, let me point you to Bill Harm's airliner census at http://www.bird.ch/bharms/ which is actually rather up-to-date and contains also info on demised aircraft. Now for the promised lenghty talk on the L-1011's fate: Delta still flies both the "long" version in the form L-1011-1s and L-1011-250s and the "short" L-1011-500. The 500s used to be flying accross the Atlantic until about two years ago, when practically all of the L-1011 services to Europe were replaced by B767-300s. This was when Delta could strike a deal and take over a whole bunch of pre-owned Gulf Air B767-300s (all of them ER = Extended Range aircraft) which the former operator had to dispose of due to a unforseen fall in revenues in the wake of the crisis in Asia. TWA got rid of their last L-1011s about a year ago, along with their last B747s. It's called "restructurring". A few of them were still in storage at Kingman, AZ, in December 98, lacking some vital parts. In additon to American Trans Air, who recently started adding preowned L-1011-500s to its fleet of L-1011s of the -1/-50/-100 family, American International flies a bunch of L-1011-200s, among them some former British Airways aircraft that were converted to freighters. Two more were/are actually in passenger configuration. American International (aka/formerly Connie Kalitta, recently acquired by Kitty Hawk) intends to retire from the passenger business, so these two might no longer fly today (at least N109CK still flew in December 98). Arrow Air (recently acquired by Fine Air) and Fine Air of Miami also fly the L-1011 as freighter. Tradewinds International used to have at least one airworthy L-1011 Freighter (and some more waiting for conversion), of which I do not know by haert what the status is (Karl, any info?). In the Caribbean, BWIA British West Indian Airlines still flies the L-1011-500, also on services to the US and Canada. Air Canada - to dwell a bit on the statement that they were "long goners" - actually disposed of its L-1011-1/-50/-100s and its L-1011-500s quite some time ago, in the early 1990s. Later, one of these very same aircraft (C-FTND) returned to Air Canada for a while. It's been disposed off by now. Air Transat, a Canadian Charter operator, maintains a noteable fleet of Tristars on vacationer's flights to the Beaches in the Caribbean, the Casinos in Nevada, and to Europe. Since last year, they even fly the L-1011-500. One of those is currently leased out to French Airline "Star Air" in a very eye-catching livery. In addition to that, Royal Aviation, another independent Canadian charter and domestic operator, still owns the L-1011 and may occasionally fly it - at least while they are not on lease to ChileInter. The Tristars got more and more under pressure from newer Airbus A310 and Boeing 757 aircraft. Turning to Europe, there still are some L-1011 operators there, but none of them in the scheduled business. British Airways got rid of their L-1011s now really a long time ago: The L-1011-500s already left the airline in the first half of the 1980s (!) and were converted into transport/tanker aircraft with the Royal Air Force, where they still fly today. The L-1011-1s and -200s could last be seen around 1990. British Airtours, later renamed Caledonian Airwyays, flies some L-1011-1s/-200s to date. Still in the UK, charter operators such as Peach Air (current) and Classic Airways (using a L-1011 appropriately registered G-IOII, but ceased flying in fall 1998) are to be mentionned among the more recent users of the L-1011. Air Atlanta Icelandic also ownes a fleet of ageing L-1011s, among them former Cathay aircraft. While one or two of them actually fly for Air Atlanta Icelandic, the rest is available for lease. Two years ago, for example, Iberia used two Air Atlanta L-1011s (one of them in full Iberia colors!) to cover aircraft shortages. Staying in the cool Scandinavian climate, Novair in Sweden operates some three L-1011s on charters, including weekly transatlantic flights to Florida. A sole L-1011-500 flies with Air Luxor/Air Madeira in Portugal - that's all that is left on the protuguese register of TAP Air Portugals fleet of Tristars. LTU - once one of the major L-1011 customers in Europe - used the Tristar untill ca. 1995/96, L-1011-500s. Last year still, one of their L-1011-1s, registration D-AERP painted over, could still be observed parked in Tucson, AZ. Maybe it's still there... There are not many Tristars left in the rest of the World, as Saudia retired their L-1011-200 fleet a few months ago. Before anyone corrects me: Two L-1011-500s (HZ-HM5 and -HM6) do still fly in Saudi colors, but these are in fact aircraft belonging to the VIP fleet of the King of Saudi Arabia. Another "royal" L-1011, the L-1011-500 of King Hussein of Jordania, is up for sale due to the King's death earlier this year. Apparently, it the family consideres it an invitiation to bad luck would its members continue using the plane in its previous role after the rulers death. Royal Jordanian Airlines itself is just about getting rid of all of its L-1011-500s by now. Gulf Air in the United Arab Emirates had retired its L-1011s already in the early 1990s, but pressed back a few of them into service when the economy and traffic to Asia boomed in the mid 90s. This intermezzo came to an end, and not only the 1011s, but also some 767-300s left the fleet after the crisis in Asia developed in 1997 (see above, Delta). In Asia, the L-1011 is virtually gone. One is/was occasionally flown by an independent Thai (Thai Airways, NOT to be mixed up with Thai International Airways!) carrier and its affiliate in Cabodia (Air Kampuchea was/is used as name). The current state of the operations is unknown, this operation might well be terminated by now. Comments welcome. Furthermore, Air Lanka still flies one L-1011-100 and two L-1011-500s - the 500s still fly scheduled transcontinental passenger services to Europe wherever the Airbus A340s of the airline are too big. In South America, the situation is also rather dull. Faucett is no longer operative, and there L-1011s (very early prodiction models from Eastern Airlines stock) are junk. One is currently (as of March 99) in the process of scrappig at Miami International Airport. This leaves us with ChileInter that seasonally operates 1-2 L-1011s from Royal Aviation, Canada, stock. That's all I can think of when talk comes to current L-1011s, hope it helps Lukas Lusser Editor, Jetstream Swiss Aviation Magazine at http://www.jetstream.ch/ Bird Publishing's Ultimate Aviation Marketplace at http://www.bird.ch/ A Guide to Russian Airliners at http://www.bird.ch/russians/ From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:17 From: Alex J Nieves Subject: Re: Why no Tristars? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Wow...where have you been? TWA, AC, Ba, LTU, ANA, CX, and HA have retired theirs already. TWA's were replaced by 757s, AC by 767's and A340s on some routes, BA's were replaced by 767s, LTU's by 330s, 767s, and other types, ANA by 777, 767, CX by the 330 and 777, and HA by the DC-10. (All those are from previous information...the types may be wrong, but those L10s have been replaced) Delta is replacing their L10's with mostly 767s. Since 777's will be going on some 767 routes, then you can say that the L10's are being replaced by 777's also. Air Transat and American Trans Air both fly the L10s. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about what the L10s were replaced with. aLex alexnieves1@juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:18 From: "Mark Rogers" Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 NNTP-Posting-Host: h208-147-57-25.ncal.verio.com Ken Ishiguro wrote in article ... > > There are two methods of making a crosswind landing. One is to crab > into the wind and track the runway centerline. Right before touchdown > the crab is cancelled to remove sideloads on the MLG. The second method > is to do a forward slip so that the slip rate cancels the crosswind > component. (This is also called the "wing low" method). There is really only one method in a swept wing jet. The aircraft is crabbed into the wind until the flare. At that point, the nose is pointed straight down the runway with rudder, and the unwind wing is slightly lowered to stop the drift associated with the rudder input. Essentially, it's the "slip" method, just applied once the aircraft has entered the flare. If the slip is applied early (as in light aircraft), the aerodynamics of the swept wing coupled with possible spoiler deployment (for roll assistance with the aileron input) will create a significant increase in sink rate. Even when the slip is performed in the flare, a sink rate develops; this is simply countered by slightly delaying when the thrust is reduced to idle, and with a small amount of pitch. > I am accustomed to the crabbing method being used on airliners. > However, I noticed that the 777's were using the sideslip method. Why > is this method used on the 777's and no other types? (All the 777's I > saw landing were UA- is it peculiar to UA training)? The same techniques are used on the 777 as any of the other airlines. Perhaps because the 777 is so much heavier than most of the other types, the "crabbing" method was not as readily apparent. --Mark Rogers From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:19 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com Ken Ishiguro wrote in message ... > I am accustomed to the crabbing method being used on airliners. > However, I noticed that the 777's were using the sideslip method. Why > is this method used on the 777's and no other types? (All the 777's I > saw landing were UA- is it peculiar to UA training)? The 747-400 (and, I assume, the 777) will land with a 5 degree sideslip when doing an autoland approach, if the required crab angle is >10 degrees. The airplane can land with the crab angle or sideslip applied, or both. When manually flown, many 747 pilots prefer to use the crab, to reduce the possibility of an engine pod strike (which can occur with 10 degrees of bank angle on landing). -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:20 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.airmail.net (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America X-Newsreader: Forte Agent i1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: !Z(;O1k-WretK7@ (Encoded at Airnews!) On 19 Apr 99 02:22:08 , Ken Ishiguro wrote: >I am accustomed to the crabbing method being used on airliners. >However, I noticed that the 777's were using the sideslip method. Why >is this method used on the 777's and no other types? (All the 777's I >saw landing were UA- is it peculiar to UA training)? Hmmmmm... Very surprising. unless there is something diferent about the 777, I would think they would us the crab method as opposed to a side slip (wing low). The crab method is preferrable for an airliner becasue it is *much* more comfortable to the passengers. Also, the wing low method could cuase problems with long wings and engines mounted on the wing (like the outboard engines on a 747) Any 777 pilots care to comment?? Jeff From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:21 From: Swee Mok Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, US NNTP-Posting-Host: legume186173.nuts.nwu.edu I've only perform forward slips on a Cessna and I have never felt it on a large plane - it's suppose to really bother passengers on an airliner. Anyway, the only significant difference I can think of is the large 777's MLG with 6 wheels each. Maybe it is to reduce stress, since if a bad (last minute yaw) is executed, the MLG would incur much greater stress (especially twisting) than a 4 wheels version. If UA 777s are the only ones doing it, then maybe they know more tricks about the 777s as they are the launch customer. You know, maybe they did it for fun :-) (since you were watching them !) From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:22 From: "Damon Marcus Lewis" Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: the-man.mit.edu Ken Ishiguro wrote in message ... >I am accustomed to the crabbing method being used on airliners. >However, I noticed that the 777's were using the sideslip method. Why >is this method used on the 777's and no other types? (All the 777's I >saw landing were UA- is it peculiar to UA training)? Another poster noted that the side slip is not done in most circumstances with transport aircraft for fear of catching a wing. I recall hearing that the 777 has a much higher dihedral so there is more clearance for the massive engines. This would result in a higher clearance for the wingtips also. So, since the tips are so high up, would that allow the 777 to use the side slip method while other airliners cannot? (BTW, I'm no expert on this, just a hypothesis.) Damon Lewis From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:23 From: Luitbert@t-online.de (Luitbert Schindhelm) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news06.btx.dtag.de 924721316 30631 081398114-0001 990421 19:01:56 Ken Ishiguro wrote: > I am accustomed to the crabbing method being used on airliners. > However, I noticed that the 777's were using the sideslip method. Why > is this method used on the 777's and no other types? (All the 777's I > saw landing were UA- is it peculiar to UA training)? as far as I know, it depends on the Airline (and maybe on the Pilot) which method will be preferred. The big disadvantage of crabbing into the wind is, if the pilot cancelles crabbing to early, the aircraft may leave the runway, and if he is to late, the aircraft may not have a landing gear any more. (However, the B747 can tilt the wheels of the main landing gear, so that the aircraft can touch down with a crab angle). The second method, the sideslip, might be the better method, especially when the crosswind is very strong. However, it looks a bit freightening to the passengers. Regards Luitbert From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:24 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > >There are two methods of making a crosswind landing. One is to crab >into the wind and track the runway centerline. Right before touchdown >the crab is cancelled to remove sideloads on the MLG. The second method >is to do a forward slip so that the slip rate cancels the crosswind >component. (This is also called the "wing low" method). One would have to lower the upwind wing when the "crab is cancelled", otherwise the plane would drift off centerline. It's really the same technique, just a matter of when the slip is established. Landing in a crab is poor techinque, and is only done when sideslip is not sufficient. One can only lower the wing so far before a wing or engine pod gets scraped. At that point if drift is not arrested, crabbing is all you have left. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:25 From: "Chuck" Subject: Re: 767 Landing Gear References: <7f8u3g$ghr$1@ultra.sonic.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 This is my understanding: Originally the 767 was to have a straight main landing gear strut similar to the 757. It was found that the aircraft weight was not distributed over a large enough area though and could not use some runways. A bow was added to the struts to make them further apart. Doing this required tilting the trucks in the way you describe to get them into the wheel wells. This is the story I have heard, it sound reasonable. Chuck From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:26 From: "John Vincent Lombardi" Subject: Re: 767 Landing Gear References: <7f8u3g$ghr$1@ultra.sonic.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.rdc1.sfba.home.com 924724826 24.5.220.95 (Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:00:26 PDT) Organization: UniPhone MP X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.220.95 In article , Robert Johnson wrote: >> I was wondering why the landing gear on the 767 is slanted forward and not >> back like most other planes. The two front wheels are lower (lots) than the >> back and it seems even a big flare on landing would barly leave the tires >> level. Why is it only on the 767? Two of the four main geas on the 747 are >> extreme example of the opposite as the back tires droop alot. Thanks for >> any imput, I was just curious. In case this question hasn't been answered: The gear configuration on 767 was designed to maximize rear cargo hold capacity. The gear retracts slightly forward, stowing the trucks as far forward as possible. When retracted, the trucks are actually parallel with the keel beam. This results in the strange toe down configuration (and also makes the 767 very sensitive to the slightest crab at touchdown). The front tires always contact the ground first and leave last. The 777 has the same setup, but the trucks are hydraulically motored tail down during extension. If you watch closely, you can see the trucks being motored toe down during the retraction cycle. Hope this helps, John -- John Vincent Lombardi uniphone@home.com San Francisco, CA uniphone@compuserve.com From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:27 From: "John McLaren" Subject: Re: 767 Landing Gear References: <7f8u3g$ghr$1@ultra.sonic.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /Kp2lug2z4ajmx29SZ2fXm76o6onVRuVP22AzaCH3h4H1sb+54asGQgYQ7F2qaOHpsKw+94TDcO+!ALiDLoPBD0/V6hNpO168iY4Pf+1WeXX2O/egXWyNsA8Fhn95zuLYVoLsHzI= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155 When the 767 was being designed the main gear was going to retract exactly perpendicular into the wheel well. The second customer, American Airlines had a requirement to operate the 767 at Laguardia. The original landing gear design would have imposed a weight penalty at Laguardia since the runway is partially(?) built on a pier over the water. In order to get a reasonable weight on the runway Boeing had to spread out the weight footprint. The landing gear had to be moved wider apart and more aft from the nose gear. The main gear strut has a bend in it to move the gear outboard and aft. I believe the attachment point on the wing was also moved slightly but I am not sure. At any rate, the design was far enough along that Boeing didn't want to relocate the wheel well. So to get the more aft mounted gear to retract into the original wheel well the gear has to be tilted to fit. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:28 From: "Sunil Gupta" Subject: Re: 767 Landing Gear References: <7f8u3g$ghr$1@ultra.sonic.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: JDuwWXtt0niA2204wBevewgCLS08e0+pEgwo2Zm4Bbg= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Robert Johnson wrote in message ... >> I had posted this eariler but it seemed to have disapeered. Anyway >> I was wondering why the landing gear on the 767 is slanted forward and >> not back like most other planes. (Fact) This was done so that the trucks could fit into the belly. (Speculation) The design of the wing on the 767 forced the designers to make the main gear retract forward (relative to the long axis of the wing) and in. So if you take two pencils and use one as the strut and the other as the truck and then simulate a retraction, you'll see that when the gear retract forward and in, the truck will be lined up perfectly along the axis of the aircraft. Sunil From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:29 From: n102da@aol.com (N102DA) Subject: Re: Delta L-1011 Fuel Dump by DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >DL has operated a daily L-1011-500 nonstop between DFW and HNL for >many years. Delta has never operated a -500 on the DFW/HNL trip. Not even as an equipment swap. L1011-250s only. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:30 From: dorfman@netcom.com (Merlin Dorfman) Subject: Re: Arthur Raymond Died References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: ICGNetcom X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Bruce O'Neel (bruce.oneel@obs.unige.ch) wrote: : Hi, : This week's Economist (10 April) has a nice obituary on Arthur : Raymond. Arthur Raymond led the design team which designed the DC3 : and other Douglas aircraft. He also was a founder of RAND corp. We have lost several aviation industry notables recently-- Lee Atwood and T Wilson as well. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:31 From: m3kinnis@ccnet.com Subject: Re: 747 sold for salvage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Verio Northern California's Usenet News Service NNTP-Posting-Host: shell1.ncal.verio.com >>The current issue of Aviation Week (April 12) has an advertisement (page >>78) for a 747 being sold "as is, where is" for salvage due to accident >>damage. It is a 747-400 serial number 26400. Does anyone know the >>history of this aircraft, what accident occurred, and where it is? Ooo, this is UGLY. Check out http://www.n-w.de/top/oops/kal/kal.htm for some photos. Gary change m3 to mc From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:32 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: 747 sold for salvage References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: > >The current issue of Aviation Week (April 12) has an advertisement (page > >78) for a 747 being sold "as is, where is" for salvage due to accident > >damage. It is a 747-400 serial number 26400. Does anyone know the > >history of this aircraft, what accident occurred, and where it is? > It's a PW4096-powered 747-4B6, registration HL7496, delivered to Korean > Air Lines in June of 1996. Last August (I don't know the exact date), > it was operating KE 8702 NRT-SEL. After diverting to Cheju due to bad > weather, it eventually continued to Seoul. Apparently the #1 thrust > reverser did not deploy and it veered to the right at about 90 kts. I understood that thrust reversers were to save wear on the tires and brakes, and that the airplane should be flown so as to allow the brakes to stop.it. -- Gerry From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:33 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: AA 777-200IGW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 924548648.545.49 K8TBLZBRT841AD091C usenet1.supernews.com Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.145.132.26 Terry Bowker wrote in message ... >The shape of the tail-cone was changed to reduced induced drag. On the 767 >it was discovered that the airflow around the tail-cone was stagnant because >of its round shape. Boeing then designed the 777 tail to smooth out the >stagnant airflow. You will find on further investigation that drag and stability are directly related. John From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:34 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.220.207.58 ea621@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Richard J. W. Lavictoire) wrote: > > 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". > > Other folks who know more about this can confirm it. > I believe the Convair 990 Coronado had them. This was a big improvement > over the Convair 880 but still was not enough to make the it cost effective. Sorry, no, the CV-990's speed pods were an entirely different thing. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. Check out my web site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:35 From: "steve podleski" Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 924544267.667.58 KHQZIQS5S0C8AD177C usenet1.supernews.com Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.119.12.138 > Anyway, he contends that almost all that can ever be known about airfoil > and wing design performance is already known, and that only the > onesy-twosey percent improvements can be hoped for now. I maintain we > still, in this day and age of numerical models and supercomputers still > do not completely understand how to make air do exactly what we want it > todo. There may be revolutionary designs that could give big jumps in > performance yet to be discovered. For example, laminar flow over much of the wing or shockless flow or minimal losses to shocks or polymer injection to reduce drag due to viscosity.... From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:36 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Trailing edge wedge? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:22 AM 4/19/99 +0000, you wrote: > >lou@cadence.com wrote: >> IIt seems surprising there are still relatively easy 7% improvements laying >> around. > >I have a running argument with a former boss of mine. Now, neither of >us are professional aerodynamicists, he is an EE, I a physicist, and we >specialize in avionics. So I suppose both of our opinions are worth as >much as we are paid for them :-) But we both study aero avocationally. > >Anyway, he contends that almost all that can ever be known about airfoil >and wing design performance is already known, and that only the >onesy-twosey percent improvements can be hoped for now. I maintain we >still, in this day and age of numerical models and supercomputers still >do not completely understand how to make air do exactly what we want it >todo. There may be revolutionary designs that could give big jumps in >performance yet to be discovered. I think the failure to produce any product at this point that is dramatically better than any other product, and the extreme difficulty Airbus is having in producing A3XXX with a 15% direct operating cost improvement over the 747-400 is almost prima facia evidence of the truth in the above statements. If you look at the current generation of 747 engines, RB211-524G/H, PW4056 and CF6-80C2, there isn't much difference among them in price, thrust, weight or fuel consumption. I'd be reluctant to say that it is ALL known, but I think events of the last decade suggest that within the current materials and regulatory envirornment, there is not a lot of room left for improvements. While there have been some fairly dramatic improvements, like the GE90, they were achieved by making trade offs that are relatively well known and well understood (The GE90 weighs about 1500kg more than the big Trent ). I suppose the corollary to that is that most of the designs are produced using computer assisted designs, and the underlying codes are probably surprisingly similiar. This tends to limit creativity considerably. It means no really bad designs get out the door, but probably no inductive leaps forward either..... James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:37 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wObnc/3LO6ZlknmqxfgBuFhBpMvMi6sYzeKVK81CcKFeRAcDXX6ru3vA4zG9BHuZLkbICTw1Wnt!agJx7ryU5Bvz9ZCUCSz4DzLTCqu8UFi5u8Ust/HHquMzgxSnmQ== I want to thank all the respondees. I have Gunston's book, but was just checking to make sure there were no others that got by him. I am not counting as a single engine ones where the crankcases were seperate but geared together. If the reduction/combining gear was physically part of the block or crankcase, however, such as an H engine, I am counting it. Looks like Gunston has indeed covered the largest engine ever pretty well. Looks like the largest contemporary engine is a bit more uncertain. I am going to write PZL- I suspect if there is a large engine still produced in Eastern Europe PZL is probably the mfg. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:38 From: Frank Jenkins Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 924629875 231 206.184.163.161 Organization: Savantics Inc. Reply-To: fjenkins@Savantics-Inc.com NNTP-Posting-Host: fjenkins.vip.best.com Steve Lacker wrote: > > Don Stauffer wrote: > [snip] > 2) what is the largest aircraft piston engine still in production? The largest engine certified by the U.S. FAA is probably the Canadian Orenda V-8, with 600 c.i. and 600 hp. They are marketing it as a replacement for small turbines in corporate twins and ag-planes. The Falconer V-12 has the same displacement and power as the Orenda, but it is not certified and is only flying in some homebuilt scaled P-51 Mustang replicas. Frank From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:39 From: KND Subject: Re: Largest piston engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. Reply-To: kndbrd@primenet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-55-090.scf.primenet.com Ken Ishiguro wrote: > > OK, I will take a first stab at this. I'm not 100% sure of my answers- > here goes, feel free to correct me or not post this if better info is > provided- > > 1) The P&W R-4360. A 4360 cubic inch radial set up as four banks of 7 > cylinders. Called a "corncob" engine by some, for obvious reasons. > Powered the B29, B50, B36, Spruce Goose, etc. A slight correction- all the above is correct except that the B-29 was powered by the Wright R-3350. The B-50 did have the R-4360. -- K.N> "Jack" David, From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:40 From: mneely@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: C5 Galaxy at SFO? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.238.228.42 In article , "Blue Max" wrote: > I believe the Secret Service has its own designaated C-5.. Not positive but > I believe it is true... This is false. The Secret Service does use the C-5 to transport its limos and other equipment, but does not have a specific aircraft set aside for that purpose. Mike From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:41 From: Gilles Tatry Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 924544011 16870 164.138.141.53 (19 Apr 1999 17:46:51 GMT) Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 NNTP-Posting-Host: tls3-53.abo.wanadoo.fr Stephen H. Westin wrote: > '87-'90. Did you know that some French crews speak French to French > ATC? Didn't you know that French is one of the four ICAO official languages, as well as Russian, Spanish... and English? Gilles Tatry From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:42 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 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 procida@cf.ac.uk (D.M. Procida) writes: > Stephen H. Westin wrote: > > > Did you know that some French crews speak French to French > > ATC? > > Why is that remarkable? Because the official air traffic control language is English. Lufthansa pilots speak English to German controllers, for example. This is important for a couple of reasons: not only do you want to avoid controllers switching languages and possibly blurting something in the wrong language at a critical moment, but you also want everyone to know what's going on. Most pilots in that French airspace had no clue what instructions were given to those French crews I heard, nor what their responses were. Not to mention avoiding issues of national pride: at one point, Quebec wanted to force all ATC to use French, for example. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:43 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Bygone era of information available to passengers... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None X-Newsreader: Forte Agent a1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: !bpmE1k-VlR%tWC@W`9"H$gAp (Encoded at Airnews!) On 19 Apr 99 02:22:14 , Ralf Sipple caused to appear as if it was written: >Stephen H. Westin wrote: >> '87-'90. Did you know that some French crews speak French to French >> ATC? > >don't US crews speak English to US ATC? Yup. And, for example, Japanese crews speak English to Japanese ATC. >The French are very nationalistic and very rarely speak >English in ATC comm. You also often can hear Italian crews >speak Italian to Italian ATC. The same in Spain. This is technically considered A Bad Thing. You see, ATC comms are not only for the benefit of the aircraft specifically addressed, but also any other aircraft in the area. So that a group of aircraft in an approach pattern all know what's going on, and can predict what instructions they can expect when their turn comes around. Nationalism has nothing to do with it. Malc. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:44 From: Frank Jenkins Subject: Re: incident at SFO with United 747-400 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 924629298 231 206.184.163.161 Organization: Savantics Inc. Reply-To: fjenkins@Savantics-Inc.com NNTP-Posting-Host: fjenkins.vip.best.com Gerard Foley wrote: > > jdhil (jdhil@worldnet.att.net) wrote: > : [snip] > The rest of the currency is maintained in the simulator. > > If the simulator is any good, what's the difference? > [snip] >From what I read, the simulator *wasn't* good at simulating the response of the aircraft with the engine out and the ailerons (rather than the rudder) used to compensate. Apparently there was a lot of stall buffet and stick shaking. United is planning on upgrading the simulator responses, and you can bet that all the 747 pilots will get lots of practice handling that particular engine-out procedure. Frank From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:45 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Real life ETOPS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool269-cvx.ds37-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net Question- Does anyone know what the longest duration ETOPS an actual revenue flight has encountered after an engine shutdown? What was the original route and the diversion airport? Just wondering. Ken From kls Thu Apr 29 22:10:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:10:46 From: "John Gunnar Enebak" Subject: Flying birds Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.online.no 924674780 130.67.183.192 (Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:06:20 MET DST) Organization: Telenor Online Public Access X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.183.192 You fill a cargo plane with 20 tons of birds, and fly 500 knots at 10.000 feet with the birds sitting on the floor of the plane. Suddenly all the birds start flying around inside the plane. Will the plane then loose 20 tons of weight and start a climb? Sincerely John G. Enebak From kls Thu Apr 29 22:11:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:11:54 From: Big Kahuna Subject: Small cockpit available Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: UMK-Kihei Hi, I'm an techno-artist and looking for a small jet cockpit, like from a crash, but needs to be in good shape. Anyone knows where I can find stuff like that? Must be in Europe. Jeroen From kls Thu Apr 29 22:11:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:11:55 From: "Galen L. Hinshaw" Subject: Silk on the Concorde? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news12.ispnews.com 924698842 206.100.246.101 (Wed, 21 Apr 1999 08:47:22 EDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.100.246.101 A co-worker of mine asked me a very thought-provoking question. It seems his son gets extra credit if he can to answer this question correctly. "Why is silk used on the nose of the Concorde?" A few of our theories involve anti-static properties, heat dissipation, radar compatability, and erosion resistance. Can anyone answer this one with proof? Not looking for WAG's or suppositions. Please reply directly to this address. Galen H. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:11:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:11:56 From: David Yeh Subject: Books on airline disasters? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 unoff BETA 970731; AIX 4.2] Organization: University of Virginia NNTP-Posting-Host: node7.unix.virginia.edu Can someone recommend a good book on airline disasters? I know there are a couple out there, but I can't get all of them, so I'm looking to get one of the better ones. I'm mainly interested in modern jet aircraft. Thanks, dave From kls Thu Apr 29 22:11:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:11:57 From: "PBattle" Subject: b737 rudder Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.214.0.166 It seems there are different definitions about what rudder reversal is out there. Defining it would help to clear up misconceptions. From kls Thu Apr 29 22:11:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:11:58 From: Marilu & Bjarne Jensen Subject: Q: Boeing 727 FCT Manual Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.225.35.139 Gents, Is revision 5 of nov. 1, 1985 the last revision to the B727 TCM ? Regards Bjarne Jensen CGN From kls Thu Apr 29 22:11:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:11:59 From: timma Subject: Oxygen Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.169.1 Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft without oxygen masks?? From kls Thu Apr 29 22:12:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:12:00 From: "Peter Weingard" Subject: CWS Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; Name="Message Body" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I was reading in regard to the Eastern 401 accident, that the autopilot had a setting called "Control Wheel Steering." My understanding of this feature was, unlike the 'Command" position, is that the autopilot would control certain aspects of flight, while other aspects of flight were controlled by steering column inputs. So for example, the AP could be set to hold an altitude, and heading could be steered by use of the yoke. If I have this right, what could be the possible benefit to this set up? Why not set all of the control inputs using the controls on the AP panel? From kls Thu Apr 29 22:12:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 Apr 99 22:12:01 From: 73115.1041@compuserve.com Subject: Re: FedEx MD-10 Rollout References: <7d154q$h2j$2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <7d31lk$4cp@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: news.newsdawg.com spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: >AFAIK, there are *no* visible difference between the MD-10 and the DC-10F. >The only differences are internal: ie 2-man crew, and associated improvements >to the avionics (basically, installing the MD-11 avionics suite). Just a minor clarification... The MD-10 is NOT using the MD-11 avionics suite. The MD-10 will be getting a VIA based system, similar to that installed on the 777 (AIMS) and the 737NGs as well as flat panel displays. The MD-11 is an older CRT system. The confusion arises because the new system will look & feel (display formats, CDU pages) the same, allowing for a common type rating. Ken From kls Thu Apr 29 22:12:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 29 Apr 99 22:12:02 From: nw1@gte.net (Neil Wagner) Subject: Re: FedEx MD-10 Rollout References: <7d154q$h2j$2@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <7d31lk$4cp@chronicle.concentric.net> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: gte.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust148.tnt5.huntington-beach.ca.da.uu.net On 30 Mar 99 01:53:49 , spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: >AFAIK, there are *no* visible difference between the MD-10 and the DC-10F. If you have a clean view of the left side of the fuselage forward of the wing, you'll see the MD-10 has the same outflow valve as the MD-11 --- 2 pieces with a vertical split line versus the weird 3-piece arrangement of the DC-10. Otherwise, I think you're right that there are no other visible differences. >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? I think the idea was to keep the basic airframe as untouched as possible, only going in where they had to for the upgraded systems (and added cargo door if converting from a passenger plane). __________________ Neil - nw1@gte.net From kls Thu Apr 29 22:12:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:12:03 From: "Si Zarco" Subject: Re: loss of glideslope References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.147.86 What's the diff between a CAT 1, 2 or 3? -- Si Awfully sorry, I'm an English posh git, anyone for Tea? szarco@nofuckinspamglobalnet.co.uk ICQ:732738 From kls Thu Apr 29 22:12:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 29 Apr 99 22:12:04 From: Polically.Incorrect@nswpull.telstra.net (thebeast@telstra.net) Subject: Re: ETOPS 240 mins References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nswpull.telstra.net 922794037 203.35.207.171 (Tue, 30 Mar 1999 21:40:37 EST) Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.35.207.171 Michael & Iain Butler wrote: >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. It depends on the forecast weather and the minimums the the particular operator requires for ETOPS. Most ETOPS operators only require the "Adequate" airfields to be above landing minimas and not the higher alternate minima. An interesting aside, to operate into Easter Island, only one aircraft can operate within it's PNR at one time. That is, if one aircraft is departing Easter Is. it must pass it's PNR before an aircraft operating into Easter Island can pass it's PNR. Just in case the runway is blocked by one of them then the other would have nowhere to go. From kls Wed May 12 02:48:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:29 From: "Bill Herman" Subject: Concorde's Engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 925664456.893.45 FC4FGIW.C7A2FD844C usenet1.supernews.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.68.122.47 I don't regularly read this group, so sorry if this has been asked previously... Do the Concorde's Olympus engines use some form of afterburner while flying supersonic? A friend of mine doesn't think so, but I don't see how that plane can fly at Mach 2 without reheat. I thought the F-22 was considered to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly beyond Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. Thanks for your help. Bill Herman From kls Wed May 12 02:48:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 12 May 99 02:48:30 From: dcoon@olg.com (David Alan Coon) Subject: Whatever happened to Tupelov TU-144 SST "Charger"? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: audrey2.cais.com 926187775 205.252.104.105 (Sat, 08 May 1999 14:22:55 EDT) X-Newsreader: Trumpet for Windows [Version 1.0 Rev A] Organization: http://www.davidcoon.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.252.104.105 I have some questions about the Tupelov Tu-144 SST (Nato Designation as "Charger")--the Russian Concorde Is it true that the Brtish/French "stole" the Drop Nose design innovation idea from the Russians? Even though design work did not start on the Tupelov Tu-144 until years after the Concorde, the Tu-144 flew first (partly because Russia benefited from design innovations of the Concorde). How many of these "Russian Concordes" still survive today? I know of at least 2, one is at the Monino AF Museum aviation musem outside Moscow and another is being tested by NASA. I read on the web that at least four of these remain in open storage, but what is the total number of these things still in existance? Are these the only surviors or are there more? What is the status of the 1982 model NASA was suposedly going to use as an SST Testbed? Were the tests ever conducted? Where were they conducted? In Russia? In the US? Someone once told me that there was talk of reviveving the Tu-144 for the Asian Market? Is this true I have been able to find lots of pictures of different Tu-144s but not too much info about NASA tests. Here are some specs I Downloaded from http://alpha1.fsb.hr/~ah951096/avi/tupolev.html Tupolev Tu-144 "Charger" 1968 Passenger aircraft, crew 3-4 Description: Tu-144 is a four-engine supersonic jet aircraft. The fuselage is narrow with long, pointed nose that lowers for better view during takeoffs and landings. Large tail fin is triangular with curved leading edge. Low-set wings are delta-shaped with slightly curved leading edges. The four engines are mounted side-by-side under the fuselage. The two pairs of air intakes are set somewhat apart, while the engine exhausts are close together (that is also the main visual difference between Tu-144 and "Concorde" in which the engines are mounted in distinctive pairs). Tricycle landing gear with nose wheel set very far from the front of the aircraft is retractable. The world's first supersonic passenger aircraft, Tu-144 was first flown on December 31, 1968 (the "Concorde" was flown on March 2, 1969). The aircraft was developed in very short period of time (the project was started several years after "Concorde") and borrowed most of the design ideas from "Concorde". However, such rapid development had its effects - several Tu-144 prototypes severely crashed and the aircraft was never used commercially because of its poor reliability and high costs associated with enormous fuel consumption. Nevertheless, on January 8, 1969, Tu-144 made its second flight which lasted 50 minutes. In the May of 1970, the aircraft made its first supersonic flight setting the world speed record for its class at 2150 km/h (Mach=1.89) at the altitude of 16300 m. The record was later improved to 2430 km/h (Mach=2.14) at the altitude of 17000 m. Tu-144 made its first passenger flight on December 26, 1975, from Moscow to Alma-Ata to Moscow. Very few other flights were made and the project was abandoned after the crash at the Le Bourget airshow in France (the cancellation of the project was not surprising because Tu-144's main purpose was being the world's first supersonic passenger jet and its actual use as a people hauler was never seriously considered). Data for Tu-144: Wingspan: 24.7 m Length: 55.0 m Height: 10.5 m Engines: 4xNK-144, 127.5 kN of thrust each Payload: 108-135 passengers Takeoff weight: 130000 kg Max. takeoff weight: 150000 kg Max. speed: 2430 km/h Ceiling: 20000 m Takeoff distance: 1900 m Landing distance: 1500 m Range: 6500 km Photos of this aircraft are at: http://www.bird.ch/Russians/Tu144/TU144P01.html http://students.db.erau.edu/~bahremaa/aircraft/mil/tu-144/tu-144.jpg -- Dave Coon Statistician dcoon@olg.com http://www.davidcoon.com From kls Wed May 12 02:48:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 12 May 99 02:48:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Whatever happened to Tupelov TU-144 SST "Charger"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Here are some specs I Downloaded from >http://alpha1.fsb.hr/~ah951096/avi/tupolev.html ... >Description: ... The description you found has a lot of errors or at least questionable comments. A far more believable source is Howard Moon's excellent book Soviet SST: The Techno-Politics of the Tupolev-144. Its a bit hard to find but worth the effort if you have any interest in this aircraft. Yes, they copied a lot from Concorde, but there's also a significant amount of unique engineering in the Tu-144. -- 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 May 12 02:48:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:32 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Books on airline disasters? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.220.207.58 David Yeh wrote: > Can someone recommend a good book on airline disasters? I know there are > a couple out there, but I can't get all of them, so I'm looking to get one > of the better ones. I'm mainly interested in modern jet aircraft. I heartily recommend Macarthur Job's three "Air Disaster" books. Very clear and detailed examinations of a number of "landmark" air disasters. The books are arranged basically chronologically, so if you're mainly interested in more recent crashes, start with number 3 and work back. Each book has individual chapters on each crash, and each chapter can be read by itself, so the order you get them in does not matter. You can order them from World Transport Press or the Airways Collection. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Wed May 12 02:48:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:33 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Books on airline disasters? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of California, Berkeley NNTP-Posting-Host: socrates.berkeley.edu David Yeh wrote: >Can someone recommend a good book on airline disasters? I know there are >a couple out there, but I can't get all of them, so I'm looking to get one >of the better ones. I'm mainly interested in modern jet aircraft. Two that I thought were very good: _Destination Disaster_ (1976) by Paul Eddy -- about the 1974 crash of a DC-10 in Paris when a cargo door blew out and the plane became uncontrollable. Very thorough background, covering the entire history of the Douglas Company, its merger with McDonnell and the effects on corporate culture, the competition with Lockheed, the earlier "dress rehearsal" accident and the ineffective attempts by the FAA and McD-D to fix the problem. Lots of comparison to other aircraft types and other safety issues, such as deep stalls of T-tail aircraft; I learned a lot about the history of the airline industry from this book. _Beyond Aviation Human Factors_ (1995) by Daniel E. Maurino -- chapters on several different airline accidents attributed to "pilot error", and analysis of the systems that failed to prevent the error. -- 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 May 12 02:48:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Books on airline disasters? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >_Destination Disaster_ (1976) by Paul Eddy -- about the 1974 crash of >a DC-10 in Paris when a cargo door blew out ... Digging further into the DC-10's sordid history, there's The DC-10 Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Technology, and Society, edited by John H. Fielder and Douglas Birsch. It covers all three crashes in which the design of the aircraft played a key role (1974 Paris, 1979 Chicago, and 1989 Sioux City) as well as both dress rehearsals for the 1974 crash and various related issues. If you can read French, I suspect Le Pilote est-il coupable? by Michel Asseline would be fascinating. Asseline was the captain of the A320 which crashed at Habsheim. I have a copy of the book but, alas, can't read it. :-( Macarthur Jobs' three books, as mentioned elsewhere, are excellent and very readable, yet they go into great detail. -- 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 May 12 02:48:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:35 From: emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) Subject: Re: Books on airline disasters? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The book "AVIATION DISASTERS" by David Gero is by far the best I've read. It covers 230 accidents that resulted in heavy casualties, with clear explanations of the causes and conditions. It's available (as are many others) from the airliners catalog. (http://airliners.viamall.com) ------------------- General Tso "Mr. Osato believes in a healthy chest" Helga Brandt From kls Wed May 12 02:48:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:36 From: lwise@nike.heidelberg.edu (leon wise) Subject: Re: Books on airline disasters? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Depending on why you want such a book, that might determine which book to search for. Below are four from my collection...... AIR DISASTERS by Stanley Stewart from Barnes and Noble It covers 11 different airline disasters from the older British Comet through the Tenerife 747 disaster to the Korean shootdown. THE FINAL CALL: Why airline disasters continue to happen. Written for popular consumption. COLLISION COURSE: The Truth About Airline Safety by Nader and Smith It questions the government's role, or lack of it, in airline accidents. Ralph Nader, remember him? JUST IN CASE by Johnson It's really a passenger's guide to airplane safety and survival. Or what to do to protect yourself when you travel by air. If I had to pick just one, it would be the AIR DISASTERS book. If you wish you can try their on-line service via the internet. Good luck! Leon Leon Wise, Ph.D.,76 Prospect St.,Tiffin, OH 44883,(419) 447-6420 lwise@nike.heidelberg.edu From kls Wed May 12 02:48:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:37 From: "Douglas Maclean" Subject: Re: Books on airline disasters? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 925901076 1NNUCNF1GE613C393C gxsn.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: GXSN NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.230.19 David Yeh wrote in message ... > Can someone recommend a good book on airline disasters? I know there are > a couple out there, but I can't get all of them, so I'm looking to get one > of the better ones. I'm mainly interested in modern jet aircraft. You will find several at http://www.airlinebiz.com/books/ doug From kls Wed May 12 02:48:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:38 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330NG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc**@cmdnet.lu Clunk wrote: > As a strategy it is certainly appealing. Airbus might be able to create a > A330-500 with a pair of big twins like the B777 if 215 minute ETOPS > becomes the way of the future. This A335, if launched, might in the long term be the successor of the A343, 207 minutes ETOPS will help for sure. ------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Schaeffer ---- Luxembourg ---- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders Owner ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Wed May 12 02:48:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:39 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330NG References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc**@cmdnet.lu Benoit wrote: > > Can the modified A340NG wing be mounted with two big twins, just like it > > is possible with the A330/40. One could assume so but I can't get > > confirmation of this anywhere. > > What for ? if you increase the capacity you will have two aircraft on one > market segment (A330NG and A340-200/300) and same for range. It will be a political decision for Airbus. If airlines will prefer twins to operate even of 7000nm sectors, the A335 may be the answer. Better sell a twin than not selling a quad (A343). > Financially > speaking it is not very easy to amortize. Granted. > I remind you the A340NG are to > compete with 747, I never put any doubt on this. All I asked is if an A330NG can be easily developed from the A340NG. ------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Schaeffer ---- Luxembourg ---- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders Owner ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Wed May 12 02:48:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:40 From: rcteller@aol.com (RcTeller) Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I agree, the evenly spaced windows are very pleasing to the eye in comparison to otherwise. MD-80's still do a good job of this too!! Paul From kls Wed May 12 02:48:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:41 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent a1.5/32.451 Organization: Little to None On 29 Apr 99 22:10:05 , emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) caused to appear as if it was written: >My question is, when a window seems to be "missing" in a modern jetliner, is it >dictated by interior design (restroom perhaps) or by structural necessity >(bulkhead...) I'm told that many of these (such as those on the 767-300 forward of the wing) are the locations of ducting and conduits... >General Tso Malc. From kls Wed May 12 02:48:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:42 From: jcastle@eden.com (Joe Castleman) Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Organization: Gyrofrog Communications NNTP-Posting-Host: t2-140.eden.com emtgx@aol.com (EMTGX) wrote: >My question is, when a window seems to be "missing" in a modern jetliner, is it >dictated by interior design (restroom perhaps) or by structural necessity >(bulkhead...) I've read that the gap is where an air duct is routed within the wall of the fuselage, between the floor and ceiling. ---- Joe Castleman -- jcastle@eden.com Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.eden.com/~jcastle Austin, Texas U.S.A. From kls Wed May 12 02:48:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:43 From: roberts975@aol.com (RobertS975) Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >My question is, when a window seems to be "missing" in a modern jetliner, is >it >dictated by interior design (restroom perhaps) or by structural necessity >(bulkhead...) >I understand that structural necessity must be the reason for the A300's >slightly angled window line... On a 757 or 767, the row of missing windows is essentially where they have mated the front end of the fuselage to the mid section etc. It is definately related to the structure. From kls Wed May 12 02:48:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:44 From: pschrand@hotmail.com (Peter) Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: pschrand@hotmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.34.7e On the Boeing aircraft I'm familiar with, air ducts going up the sidewall block out some windows. If you have a windowless seat where one would expect a window, and lots of air noise, that is the reason. Lavatories may block others. From kls Wed May 12 02:48:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:45 From: jim1indc@aol.com (Jim1inDC) Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Recently I sat next to a "missing window" on both a 737-300 and a 747-(200?) and could hear, on both, the unmistakable ROAR of air headed from below to the overhead air conditioning. I've noticed that most Boeing (and many Airbus', as I recall) have this 'missing window' arrangement, and that it's usually near the leading edge of the wing. Perhaps the compressed air from the engines is fed to the packs, which might be close to the engines to reduce ducting length (and thus weight). And this air is then sent on the shortest path to the overhead AC vents (again to save weight). On the Lufthansa 747-400, on the other hand, the upperdeck on the aircraft's right has the second and next-to-last cabin windows plugged. The two solitary windows are for the lavs... Spacious, and you can stand there and look out. You can't sit there and look out, though. Grins. So it seems that "windows that never were" can be for A/C. Plugs are usually for galleys, lavs and the like. Jim Brevard jbrevard at various... aol hotmail yahoo ba-ld etc. From kls Wed May 12 02:48:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:46 From: "Ian M Rimmer" Subject: Re: Oxygen 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 > Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft > without oxygen masks?? The aircraft is pressurised! From kls Wed May 12 02:48:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:47 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Oxygen Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 10:11 PM 4/29/99 +0000, you wrote: >Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft >without oxygen masks?? There is a vast difference between oxygen requirement in a heavy exercise situation as opposed to sitting down doing essentially nothing in an aircraft. Human lungs are designed to support reasonably high levels of exertion, which translates into addition capability at low demand, just as an aircraft at low weight can fly higher than one at MGTOW. The net effect is that lung capacity is about 3 times what is normally required (many people survive and live fully functional lives after one lung has been removed as a result of cancer for instance). That suggests that survival is possible, although exercise tolerance would be greatly reduced, at atmospheric pressures down to at least 1/3 atmosphere (about 10 inches of mercury, or 335 millibars). 12,000 feet under normal circumstances is about 19 inches of mercury. People actually live at altitudes well in excess of this in South America and in the Himalayas in the Asian Sub continent. Altitudes in excess of 12000 feet can be a problem for people with respiratory diseases who has greatly reduced lung function. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 From kls Wed May 12 02:48:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:48 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com It has been a long time since I have been to through the flight physiology and altitude chamber training at ADW. However, if I recall correctly, the body is capable of operating up to about 15,000 feet without supplemental oxygen. Of course, a person's physical condition is a factor in how high or how long the individual can operate before hypoxia sets in. In addition, again if I recall correctly, the magic number for operating with supplemental oxygen not under pressure is 25,000 feet. Above this altitude, the oxygen must be supplied under pressure in order for the hemoglobin to absorb the oxygen. The time of useful conciousness at high altitudes, (41,000 feet for example) without supplemental oxygen under pressure is a matter of seconds. Hope my numbers are correct. If not, am sure someone in the newsgroup can correct my long term memory. G. Lee From kls Wed May 12 02:48:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:49 From: "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.2 Organization: Cygnus Solutions, Cambridge, UK NNTP-Posting-Host: masala.cygnus.co.uk timma writes: > Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft > without oxygen masks?? Partial pressure is what's important; arrange that what's in your nose is 90% O2 at 0.25 bar, say, and you're fine. So long as the O2PP > 0.2. - Huge From kls Wed May 12 02:48:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:50 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /Kw5eGhf7ETxl5+Lw0ga1Iq75wTs0073zI6K+Hi4myApMF/yix9tuOX10zjQAvRuUCZokQSVvZ/k!NSV9vCy7aUBMwdumHOPYnvU1gnumacGTHPluM7pOQB5XNyYG timma wrote: > Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft > without oxygen masks?? The cabins are pressurized. An air compressor compresses the air until it has the same pressure as about 8000 ft altitude. One will not die, BTW, at 12,000 feet from lack of oxygen, at least for the duration of an aircraft flight, but for an unacclimatized person it is not very healthy. An interesting problem- even with oxygen masks one cannot breath above about 45,000 feet. When it was announced that the Concorde was going to be flying at 60,000 feet, I wondered how in the world they could maintain a breathable atmosphere if a cabin window blew. Turns out the compressor for cabin pressurization is so strong it can maintain a breathable cabin altitude even with two windows gone! -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Wed May 12 02:48:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:51 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.1 (NOV) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@nrk.com (David Lesher) timma writes: >Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft >without oxygen masks?? A) You're breathing air, not O2. B) You survive because the cabin is pressurized to higher pressure/lower altitude. Now, if/when the pressurization fails, you DO use the mask and do breath O2. That works because of "partial pressure"... Let's say sea level air is 30% O2. So its partial pressure is one Atm * 0.3[pp]. You get .3Atm's worth of O2. So you can go up to an altitude where you have .3Atm * 1[pp] and get the same results. (Now, figuring out what altitude gets you .3 Atmospheres is left as an exercise for the student...) -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Wed May 12 02:48:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:52 From: az944@lafn.org (Herb Feldman) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: zook.lafn.org 925514793 541 192.168.23.42 (30 Apr 1999 23:26:33 GMT) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net timma wrote: > Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft > without oxygen masks?? Normally, airliners have their cabins pressurized to 8,000Ft., regardless of how high above 8,000Ft the plane flys. As a general question of high can someone go with out oxygen, climbers have have reached the top of Mt Everest (29,000Ft) without supplemental oxygen. From kls Wed May 12 02:48:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:53 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >As a general question of high can someone go with out oxygen, climbers have >have reached the top of Mt Everest (29,000Ft) without supplemental oxygen. And, according to a friend who considered the climb, even those who climb Everest *with* oxygen suffer some degree of permanent brain damage from the oxygen starvation. -- 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 May 12 02:48:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:54 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: Oxygen 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 925690391 23540 209.213.228.33 (3 May 1999 00:13:11 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings NNTP-Posting-Host: ts1-33.odyssey.on.ca timma wrote in article ... > Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft > without oxygen masks?? Two ways: 1. Oxygen doesn't stop at 12,000 ft. It gets thinner (lower partial pressure) with altitude, gradually from sea level up. The human body can, to some extent, get used to operating with less oxygen, particularly if given enough time. After all, there are people in South America and Asia who live all their lives at 10,000 feet or higher. The effect of oxygen loss is gradual, so most people can briefly be fully functional above 12,000 ft without extra oxygen (speaking from personal experience here). 2. (But you probably already knew this). In a pressurized airplane, the air in the cabin is at a higher pressure, as in the atmosphere at lower altitudes. Typically, commercial aircraft cabins rarely exceed an 8,000 ft pressure altitude. Pressure altitude means the air pressure is the same as outside air at this height. BW From kls Wed May 12 02:48:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:55 From: "Jerry" Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: amdint.amd.com 926035259 11635 163.181.63.131 (7 May 1999 00:00:59 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: AMD NNTP-Posting-Host: dodgers.amd.com timma wrote in message ... >Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in aircraft >without oxygen masks?? The human body, while in a sitting position and not under forces of acceleration can function quite well on the oxygen that exists up to 14,500 feet. Many people in excellent physical shape and people used to very high altitudes (people who live in the Andes and Himalayas) are adapted to being able to function on reduced oxygen at even higher altitudes. All aircraft that operate commercially and carry passengers for service MUST provide means for emergency oxygen if the aircraft service ceiling is above 14,500 feet. If the aircraft does not provide this, they are limited to altitudes no higher than 14.5. Over the years, there have been a few depressurization incidents on jet aircraft that occurred shortly after takeoff where the masks did NOT drop. The reason why they didn't is that, below 10,000 MSL you don't need them. Over and out, /JW From kls Wed May 12 02:48:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:56 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? 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 X-Trace: lv5usMnUfTd9TyNmtqNZXfikDt1dMd4qDNmi5s6pGkM= Frank Muenker wrote: > I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally > very old. > I've seen lots of 727, DC10-30, 747-100 and even DC-8/707, but hardly ever > any new aircrafts. Not always, UPS buys 767 and 757 freighters fresh from the production line. Trevor Fenn -- ÐÏࡱá From kls Wed May 12 02:48:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:57 From: terenz@dircon.co.royaume-uni Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: reader.news.dircon.net 925464095 5200 194.112.32.19 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: newsread3.dircon.co.uk On 29 Apr 99 22:10:01 , "Frank Muenker" wrote: >I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally >very old. >I've seen lots of 727, DC10-30, 747-100 and even DC-8/707, but hardly ever >any new aircrafts. >Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning >fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? >This observation might be wrong, but if not: is there any logical >explanation ? Several. Some of them are not used all that much (2 flights a day 6 days a week) such as for courier companies (FedEx, UPS, etc.) so it doesn;t make too much sense to tie up all that capital in newer planes when you can get there old ones for next to nothing. Freight tends to be cheaper too with more volumetric efficiency and no catering/cabin crew costs. I guess the relative yields are quite good and unless you are taking on long-distance hauls (such as trans oceanic), a newer aircraft makes little sense. replace royaumeuni with the abbreviation of the U_nited K_ingdom of England, Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland to reply From kls Wed May 12 02:48:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:58 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 10:10 PM 4/29/99 +0000, you wrote: >I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally >very old. >I've seen lots of 727, DC10-30, 747-100 and even DC-8/707, but hardly ever >any new aircrafts. >Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning >fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? >This observation might be wrong, but if not: is there any logical >explanation ? A surprisingly large component in the cost of most aircraft is capital costs. While older aircraft are more expensive to operate because of fuel consumption, and maintenance, these costs are associated with operating hours. Many cargo aircraft don't fly the hours of their passenger counterparts, however the capital cost side is fixed, no matter how much of how little you fly the aircraft, you have to pay off the loans or make the lease payments. The result is the lower capital cost of spending 25 million USD for a 747-100 can offset a lot of fuel and maintenance costs against a 140 million USD 747-400F. (115 Million USD pays for a lot of fuel and maintenance).... James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 From kls Wed May 12 02:48:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:48:59 From: "Douglas Maclean" Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 925481290 1NNUCNF1GE634C393C gxsn.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: GXSN NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.230.52 Generally down to the low purchase price. As many cargo aircraft are not as heavily utilised as passenger aircraft then the operating economics can be very influenced by purchase price and apyments. Some operators such as FedEx and Cargolux buy brand new. Fedex mixes converted passenger aircraft and brand new aircraft such as the MD11. Cargolux are a big operator of all new B747 - 400s. From kls Wed May 12 02:49:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:00 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Some operators such as FedEx and Cargolux buy brand new. Fedex mixes >converted passenger aircraft and brand new aircraft such as the MD11. FedEx has relatively few large jets which they bought new. About two-thirds of their MD-11s came from MD, but the rest came from AA with more of those coming as AA gets their 777s. Their A300-605F fleet came straight from Airbus, though their A310s are all former passenger aircraft. 15 of their 727-200s were bought new, including the last 727 built, but the vast bulk of their 727 fleet came from passenger carriers. Their huge fleet of propellor aircraft all appear to have been bought new. >Cargolux are a big operator of all new B747 - 400s. I think they'll be 100% 747-400F in the near future. There's an article about them in the latest AW&ST. Atlas Air is also a large 747-400F operator, having just excercised two options to bring their total up to 12, five of which have already been delivered. The bulk of the Atlas fleet consists of 747-200F models, only one of which was actually built as a freighter. Singapore, Cathy Pacific, and Korean are also 747-400F operators. Lufthansa has both 747-200F and MD-11F freighters which were built as freighters. (Korean still has some MD-11Fs but they're converted from passenger aircraft.) There are plenty of built-new freighters out there if you know where to look, but they tend to be the exception because of the economics, as others have pointed out. -- 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 May 12 02:49:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:01 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? 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 Most passenger aircraft have a fairly high average daily utilisation, say, 8-10 flying hours for a short-haul aircraft, 12-14 for long-haul. This means that they benefit sufficiently (in money terms) from lower fuel consumption, low maintenance costs, to be able to pay the higher ownership (or lease) costs of more efficient, more high technology newer aircraft. Also passengers react badly to en route stops, so that passenger airlines benefit in their revenue from flying B747-400s, A340-300s, etc, on long routes which older aircraft , such as B747-200, DC-10, cannot operate non-stop. Since most short-haul cargo is from a city to a night-time hub and back again (once), a typical B727 may only fly 3-5 hours per 24 hour period. So the advantage a new aircraft offers is less in money terms(although external noise, reliability are still issues). The cost of a used B727, even after hush-kiting, is only a fraction of a new aircraft, so it makes sense to keep using them as long as possible. Old A300s are a good replacement and help the noise problem. On longer sectors, the utilisation of freighters is close to passenger aircraft, sometimes higher as freight does not object to arriving at unsocial hours, so there is quite a good market for B747-400F and MD-11Fs. The long-range of the B747-400F also allows it to fly direct routings where older aircraft would need circuitous routings, say Europe or US-Japan via Alaska. Antoin Daltun From kls Wed May 12 02:49:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:02 From: wile.e.coyote@ACME.com (Wile.E.Coyote) Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 925495196.095.99 WULKD1.YIBD17CFD0C usenet1.supernews.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Organization: ACME Products Test Facility Reply-To: W.E.C@ACME.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.208.189.23 Well, one explanation : Cargo does not eat, complain or require stew`s. Therefore, after a plane is too "beat up" to take pax, they convert it to freighter, and haul cargo until the end of its useful life. BUT you might have seen older ships, with retrofitted ENGINES. Therefore getting the better performance / fuel consumption. When it comes to maintenance cost, you are right, the older itgets the more money it costs. Also, usually the older ships require 3 man cockpits., But that is not too bad, as you usually need a loadmaster, which then will be done by the flight engineer. But to set off the maintenance cost, consider the lower acquisition cost of the airplane. Old ships are cheap, and require less investment / loan or lease payments. That saved money can be used to maintain the fleet, and so if it is cheaper to maintain the old goose, than to finance a new ship (including training necessary for your crews) then just keep the old one. Plus, cargo as i mentioned above, doesn`t care for the "looks" as passengers do. Hope this helps. W>E>C From kls Wed May 12 02:49:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:03 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 925496347 17093 129.116.176.203 (30 Apr 1999 18:19:07 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Frank Muenker wrote: > I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally > very old. Not always true. The last 14 or so 727's ever built (circa 1984) were built without windows and were delivered direct to Federal Express. Brand new freighters. Since then, a number of other A/C have been available as off-the-line freighters- notably the 747-400F, 757F, MD-11F, and one or more of the Airbus planes as well. > Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning > fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? No. Freighters have a compltely different utilization schedule. They spend FAR fewer hours per day in the air than do passenger A/C. Its also simply not true that age correlates with maintenance cost. An airframe that has a long life expectancy but with only moderate (or outright poor!) fuel efficiency can still be highly profitable as a freighter. The DC-8 falls into that category- apparently they are REALLY rugged airframes- and so they are tremendously popular as freighters. Their low maintenance cost and low initial cost, amortized over many years of service, offset their higher fuel burn. -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Wed May 12 02:49:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:04 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent a1.5/32.451 Organization: Little to None On 29 Apr 99 22:10:01 , "Frank Muenker" caused to appear as if it was written: >I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally >very old. >I've seen lots of 727, DC10-30, 747-100 and even DC-8/707, but hardly ever >any new aircrafts. >Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning >fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? >This observation might be wrong, but if not: is there any logical >explanation ? This probably better belongs in misc.transportation.air-industry, but a quick explanation is that cargo tends to complain less if it's delayed due to a mechanical, and you can more easily cancel or postpone flights that aren't full enough to be economical to operate. >Frank Muenker Malc. From kls Wed May 12 02:49:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:05 From: Martijn Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.casema.net 925552169 26792 212.64.10.69 (1 May 1999 09:49:29 GMT) Organization: Casema Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 4dyn69.utr.casema.net Frank Muenker schreef: > I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally > very old. > I've seen lots of 727, DC10-30, 747-100 and even DC-8/707, but hardly ever > any new aircrafts. Here at Amsterdam Airport schiphol they tend to be a mix of old and new, for example SIA and Asiana are using B747-400F, KLM uses it's B747-300SF's (the only two in the world), at least one of those being a B747-206 with added Side Cargo Door / Stretched Upper Deck, making it a B747-306. Martinair uses one B747-200F (one of the last two "classic freighters" to roll off the production line), as well as two MD-11F's. In addition to those three, as the need arises, complemented by 2 B747-200C's and 4 MD-11CF's. Then we have - of course - ElAl with their old B747-100F's, these days complemented by Polar/Atlas B747-100/200/400's. > Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning > fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? > This observation might be wrong, but if not: is there any logical > explanation ? One explanation could be that for most (passenger oriented) airlines cargo is still something that isn't considered much. Most of the time they use their bellyspace or use a combi. When such an airline considers buying a fullfreighter they tend to use old(er) aircraft just because this "little cargo operation" shouldn't cost too much... :-( So they buy a surplus a/c, if it's not already a freighter (or convert a/c from the passenger fleet when they are replaced by new a/c, see above KLM example), have it converted and go flyin'... HTH, Rgds Martijn From kls Wed May 12 02:49:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:06 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >at least one of those being a B747-206 with added Side Cargo > Door / Stretched Upper Deck, making it a B747-306. No, if it was built as a 747-206 and subsequently had the stretched upper deck retrofitted, then it's a 747-206B(SUD). It's only a 747-300 if it was built with the longer upper deck, unless it's a 747-400 or a 747-146B(SR/SUD). -- 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 May 12 02:49:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:07 From: sammyk8@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Organization: Monmouth Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: bg-tc-ppp896.monmouth.com Its my understanding that Cargo jets arent used as much as passenger ones...therefore extending their life even more. There are plenty of new cargo jets, there are UPSs 757 and 767 Package Freighters (pure freighters from the factory), and they just put in a order with Airbus for A300 Freighters (60 at least i think) i believe, and then there is FedEx, they have new MD-11s and i believe the ones they ordered were built as pure freighters...not sure if the Airbuses FedEx has were ordered from the factory or converted...i think they were factory converted, but i'm sure i'll be corrected one way or another. Sammy From kls Wed May 12 02:49:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:08 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 925691991 23540 209.213.228.33 (3 May 1999 00:39:51 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings NNTP-Posting-Host: ts1-33.odyssey.on.ca Frank Muenker wrote in article ... > Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning > fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? > This observation might be wrong, but if not: is there any logical > explanation ? Yes, operating costs can be higher on older aircraft. There are 2 other economic considerations however, in their favour. Cargo aircraft are more likely to fly full, thus lowering the cost per ton carried. Some passenger operations still fly partially full on occaision, and must calculate the price per seat to cover expenses in these cases. However, in short range North American operations lately, this isn't much of a factor. The big factor is purchase price. This turns into a financing cost that the cargo operator must factor in when setting his rates. A big savings in finance costs can more than offset the hourly direct operating costs. This is especially true for a small or new carrier, that might be stuck with higher interest rates. BW From kls Wed May 12 02:49:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:09 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 3 May 1999 16:36:19 +0100, lusser.euro.unibas.ch Organization: Europainstitut Basel Hi Frank, true - many dedicated cargo planes have been converted from passenger planes after they already had a rather long career carrying people with the big lines. This is especially true for numerous Boeing 727s and the many surviving DC-8s of the -60s (and the CFM conversted 70s) series that serve with the well known integrators in the US. Small fleets of "preowned" Jets of the first and second generation (i.e. Boeing 707 / DC-8 up to DC-9-30s, Boeing 737-200s) early Widebodies such as the L-1011, DC-10, Boeing 747-100/200 do also fly with cargo companies around the world, i.e. in the Caribbean, in South America, in Africa. On the other hand, there definitely are large numbers of "new" freighters flying - new meaning aircraft that were built and delivered as cargo planes. Just to give you some examples: Integrators also use large fleet of newly built freighters along the converted former passenger planes: - FedEx: Airbus A300-600s, MD-11s - UPS: Boeing 757s, Boeing 767s Many freight forwarders also use "state-of-the-art" equipment, mostly Boeing 747-400 Freighters (which have a short upper deck comparable to earlier Boeing 747s, but winglets and all the other features of the dash 400), MD-11s, Airbus A300-600s, Boeing 757s. Examples: - Singapore Airlines: Boeing 747-400F (commonality with large fleet of Passenger 747-400s!) - Cargolux: Boeing 747-400F, with some just up for delivery within the next months - CityBird (Belgium) Airbus A300-600F - Cathay Pacific: Boeing 747-400F - Air France: Boeing 747-400F (along with some -200F that were already built as freighters) - Lufthansa: MD-11 (just being delivered) - Challenge Air Cargo: Boeing 757 - Asiana: Boeing 767-300F, Boeing 747-400F The reasons behind the operators choice are numerous: a) Converted passenger planes Older, converted passenger planes might be less economic to operate in terms of fuel consumption, at least if they are really used up to their maximal gross weight. If they fly "light", i.e. if they fly on relatively short sectors compared to the transcontinental or intercontinental range the planes were initially built for, or if they just carrying voluminous, but light cargo such as garments, cigarettes, they might well be competitive enough to earn their living. In addition to operating cost, do not forget capital cost: A thirty year old Boeing 727 can be acquired or leased for a much lower price than a shiny new Boeing 757 freighter. In addition to the lower cost of acquiring the aircraft, the low price tag means that the owner won't go broke if it has the plane sitting idle for a few days while it waits for new contracts. This is especially true with the real oldies such as Douglas DC-3s, DC-6s and Convair Liners (yes, some of them still fly!) which might still pay off even if they only have one flight a month or so. b) New freighters Factors that speek for an acquisition of a brand new freighter can be: - Commonality with an already existing fleet of passenger aircraft of the same type - Possible use of the aircraft as convertible passenger/freighter or as combi aircraft - Need for large fleets of a common aircraft type (integrators!) - Requirement for the long range or high payload of state-of-the-art aircraft. - Noise and pollution regulation (an issue especially in Europe). So you see, we cannot easily say that freighters are always old aircraft. Depending on the need and the structure of the operator, of the type of service intended and of capital available, a carrier may choose pre-used, converted old passenger planes or newly built high-tech freighters. Hope it helps Lukas Lusser Editor, Jetstream Swiss Aviation Magazine at http://www.jetstream.ch/ Bird Publishing's Ultimate Aviation Marketplace at http://www.bird.ch/ A Guide to Russian Airliners at http://www.bird.ch/russians/ From kls Wed May 12 02:49:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:10 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Are cargo planes generally old ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics "Frank Muenker" writes: > I recently noticed on various trips that cargo planes seem to be generally > very old. > I've seen lots of 727, DC10-30, 747-100 and even DC-8/707, but hardly ever > any new aircrafts. > Shouldn't cargo airplanes have the same problems/calculations concerning > fuel consumption, maintenance costs, etc. ? No. Cargo planes almost all fly much less than an airliner. Think about it: most airliners are in the air from 6:00AM to 12:00PM, or as much of that time as can be managed with stopovers, airport restrictions, etc. A FedEx 727 basically makes one run a night. Charter freighters sit idle until needed. What that means is that direct operating costs (fuel, maintenance, etc.) for a freighter are low relative to the fixed cost of owning the airplane. So buying an older, cheaper plane that burns more fuel and demands more maintenance makes a lot of sense. And maintenance-related delays of an hour or two are generally much less critical when the payload doesn't get bored, need to eat or go to the bathroom, etc. Not to mention that with slower accumulation of hours, major maintenance is less of an issue. It may be possible to buy an old airliner that, by passenger standards, is pretty close to demanding major maintenance, but fly it for years in charter cargo service before that number of hours comes up. The same tradeoffs apply, actually, to military planes: the KC-135 will live beyond its 50th birthday in service, partly because the planes are flown so little compared to airliners. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Wed May 12 02:49:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:11 From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Virgin and Y2K Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 925844543 15257 12.74.12.141 (4 May 1999 19:02:23 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.74.12.141 The following is quoted from the The Union Leader May 1st, 1999 (Manchester, NH). It is the first I have seen of possible ATC Y2K concerns and would seem to me to take this thing to a higher level. (AP) Virgin Atlantic Airways said Friday it will ground its 25-plane fleet on New Year's Eve - to give its employees a special night off, not because of any concern that computers will malfunction due to Y2K problems. "On the night itself, our passengers themselves were telling us they would rather be with their loved ones than in a 747 over the Atlantic. Our employees agreed," said Virgin spokesman Paul Moore. Most arilines are expected to keep flying on New Year's Eve, although many are weighing a reduction in overseas flights because of uncertainty about how computers in some foreign countries and airports will handle the switchover from 1999 to 2000. I've seen airlines cutting back some flights on certain holidays (United from SAT to ORD on Good Friday for one), but I have never heard of a day off except during strikes. Is there more to come from other carriers? John S. Maddaus jmaddaus@usa.net From kls Wed May 12 02:49:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:12 From: ctill@mindspring.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: Delta L-1011 Fuel Dump by DFW References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: ctill@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.93.bb n102da@aol.com (N102DA) wrote: >Delta has never operated a -500 on the DFW/HNL trip. Not even as an equipment >swap. L1011-250s only. Ah hum ... how far back do you go? From kls Wed May 12 02:49:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:13 From: jhilt@offline.no (John Hilt) Subject: Re: b737 rudder References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.online.no 925658795 130.67.224.218 (Sun, 02 May 1999 17:26:35 MET DST) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Organization: Telenor Online Public Access Reply-To: jhilt@remove-c2i.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.224.218 G'day PBattle! On 29 Apr 99 22:11:57 you wrote: >It seems there are different definitions about what rudder reversal is out >there. Defining it would help to clear up misconceptions. A rudder reversal is a rudder movement in the opposite direction of pedal movement. -- - JH - http://home.c2i.net/jhilt 04/30/99 Remember, in DriveSpace no one can hear you scream. From kls Wed May 12 02:49:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:14 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: b737 rudder 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 925690577 23540 209.213.228.33 (3 May 1999 00:16:17 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings NNTP-Posting-Host: ts1-33.odyssey.on.ca PBattle wrote in article ... > It seems there are different definitions about what rudder reversal is out > there. Defining it would help to clear up misconceptions. In the broadest sense, it means a reverse in the reaction of the aircraft to rudder pedal inputs. Usually, designers worry about aerodynamic effects, such as stalling of the vertical stabilizer or aeroelastic deformation of the vertical surfaces, that make the apparent response to pedal deflection reversed. In the most recent discussions of 737 problems, people are talking about a possible failure within the hydraulic system that moves the rudder, that could make the rudder move the opposite direction of what the pilot intended. BW From kls Wed May 12 02:49:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:15 From: "Edward Lee" Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Organization: SEEDNet News Service NNTP-Posting-Host: t199-130.dialup.seed.net.tw >A couple of days ago, I was looking at a 747-400 pass over my house at >about 5000 feet on landing vectors to SFO. While watching, I noticed a >white stream of smoke or mist starting to come from the tailcone area. >This continued for a short period of time, leaving a 10-15 >airplane-length trail in the sky. I assume this smoke had something to >do with the APU. However, I have watched a *lot* of jets and never seen >this before. I've been on an B747-400 full loaded taking off from LAX for Taipei, Taiwan, the mist generated from the wing due to high moisture and high differential pressure between the upper and lower surface of the wing were so intense that I couldn't see through it. I guess it might be the same thing that you saw coming out from the big jet. Edward Lee Pilot, China Airlines From kls Wed May 12 02:49:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:16 From: "Roland Hering" Subject: need the rolling moment of diff. aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: Aachen University of Technology / Rechnerbetrieb Informatik NNTP-Posting-Host: s4m007.dialup.rwth-aachen.de Hi, does anyone know some maximum rolling moments (Cl max) of different aircraft. I'm a student of the Technical University Aachen and doing some research in the field of wake vortex. For this reason I need for different types of aircraft the maximum rolling moment a pilot can generate by putting the ailerons to maximum deflection. I need this numbers for take of, cruise and landing configuration. I also would be happy for even getting some ideas who else I could ask! (For example the aircraft companies didn't gave me any information!!!) Thank you in advance Roland Hering please answer me by e-mail: roland.hering@post.rwth-aachen.de From kls Wed May 12 02:49:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 May 99 02:49:17 From: "Andre" Subject: 777 mtow Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: EUnet Portugal customers news server NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.126.5.125 Can somebody tell me the new revised maximum MTOW for the 777 that Boeing is thinking of to compete with the A340 500/600? From kls Mon May 24 01:52:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:03 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Our good friend Otto (the pilot) does a sideslip during a crosswind landing. I assume it's to keep those 199'11" ("They're NOT 200') wings from plowing the tarmac on touchdown. TheFNG From kls Mon May 24 01:52:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 24 May 99 01:52:04 From: D_A_Ling Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: I'm disorganized Reply-To: take@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, out@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, the@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, words@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, and@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, use@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, numbers@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com Mark Rogers wrote: > There is really only one method in a swept wing jet. The aircraft is > crabbed into the wind until the flare. At that point, the nose is pointed > straight down the runway with rudder, and the unwind wing is slightly > lowered to stop the drift associated with the rudder input. Essentially, > it's the "slip" method, just applied once the aircraft has entered the > flare. Note to those who read this - he made it sound EASY. IT AIN'T. It's strictly a trained thing and it DOES take quite a bit to get used to it. The only missing thing is the reason that "big stuff" doesn't do it like little stuff - if a "large" aircraft did it the way light aircraft do it, the swept wingtip would drag the runway (not at all acceptable). From kls Mon May 24 01:52:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 24 May 99 01:52:05 From: D_A_Ling Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: I'm disorganized Reply-To: take@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, out@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, the@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, words@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, and@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, use@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com, numbers@xyzzy.cs.boeing.com Swee Mok wrote: > I've only perform forward slips on a Cessna and I have never felt it on a > large plane - it's suppose to really bother passengers on an airliner. > Anyway, the only significant difference I can think of is the large 777's > MLG with 6 wheels each. Maybe it is to reduce stress, since if a bad (last > minute yaw) is executed, the MLG would incur much greater stress (especially > twisting) than a 4 wheels version. If UA 777s are the only ones doing it, > then maybe they know more tricks about the 777s as they are the launch > customer. You know, maybe they did it for fun :-) (since you were watching them !) The Gimli Glider proved that a large jet CAN be slipped successfully. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:06 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The truth is that there is a wide variation in pilot technique used in large airliners. Most do not apply a slip until close to the ground for passenger comfort, but then some do not apply any slip at all and land in the crab. I have seen pilots begin the slip as high as 300 feet but the passengers do notice something different. In all cases that I have witnessed it is much more preferable to touch down in a forward slip with the longitudinal axis aligned with the runway and a wing low than to land in the crab. The fact that these airlplanes handle it so well speaks well for the manufacturers; they make sturdy airplanes. Its a diffucult thing to do well and consistently but sometimes I wonder if a few hours in a Piper Cub would serve to refresh the technique better than a fancy simulator. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.travel.air Date: 24 May 99 01:52:07 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com Any good pilot who performs sideslip landings regularly can compensate for the sink rate by adding power (or, in some cases, control the sink rate through the use of a sideslip). It doesn't really matter whether it's an Aeronca Champ, an A-6, or a 747-400 (all of which I fly or have flown). They can all be sideslipped for crosswind landings. The 747-400 even introduces a sideslip _well_ before the flare when necessary during autolands in crosswinds (even with only 3 engines running!)... -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Mon May 24 01:52:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:08 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >From: Swee Mok >I've only perform forward slips on a Cessna and I have never felt it on a >large plane - it's suppose to really bother passengers on an airliner. You're confusing a forward slip with a side slip. A crosswind landing is a side slip maneuver. A forward slip is a much more aggressive maneuver. It is used on light airplanes to increase drag and increase sink rate without changing configuration. In a side slip the longitudinal axis of the airplane is aligned with the flight path and, in the case of a crosswind landing, the runway centerline. Very mild, standard crosswind technique. Mike ATP, B727, DC9 and soon to be 757/767 From kls Mon May 24 01:52:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:09 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.airmail.net (Jeff Meeker) writes: > On 19 Apr 99 02:22:08 , Ken Ishiguro wrote: > >I am accustomed to the crabbing method being used on airliners. > >However, I noticed that the 777's were using the sideslip method. Why > >is this method used on the 777's and no other types? (All the 777's I > >saw landing were UA- is it peculiar to UA training)? > Hmmmmm... Very surprising. unless there is something diferent about > the 777, I would think they would us the crab method as opposed to a > side slip (wing low). > The crab method is preferrable for an airliner becasue it is *much* > more comfortable to the passengers. Also, the wing low method could > cuase problems with long wings and engines mounted on the wing (like > the outboard engines on a 747) My understanding is that side slip (wing low) was routinely used until the advent of the 707, which brought the prospect of scraping an engine if landed wing-low. Airline pilots needed careful retraining to use sideslip. With modern twins like the 777, it might be that wing-low could make a comeback. In my previous job, part of my route to work went directly under an approach path to DTW; it was fascinating to watch the airliners facing one way, but traveling another. They definitely used sideslip. -- -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 May 24 01:52:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:10 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: 777 mtow Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:49 AM 5/12/99 +0000, you wrote: >Can somebody tell me the new revised maximum MTOW for the >777 that Boeing is thinking of to compete with the A340 500/600? There two products that seem to be on the table. The 777-300X, which will probably end up at about 700,000 pounds IF it ever gets built. Engines are kind of a problem for it, as it will need a 120,000 pound thrust, and the only engine capable of growth to that level is the GE90. At the moment GE doesn't seem very interested. There is another aircraft that is a sort of 4 engine 777, and all information on that is based upon 'leaks' that have occurred over the past 4-5 weeks, so what is out there is mostly speculation. That aircraft is reported to be about 1,050,000 pounds MGTOW in the basic version, and around 1,100,000 pounds in the extended range version. It would presumably be powered by 4 engines in the 7580,000 pound class, which already exist, and were used on the 777-200 (non-ER variant). This would provide an obvious R&D cost advantage over the A3XX, which at least based upon current information, will need a 72,000-75,000 class engine(which does not exist). I suspect as much as anything else, this is Boeing retaliating for the A3XX. Boeing has had to compete against a 'vapor ware' aircraft for some time, however, now the A3XX will have to compete with an equally real aircraft that promises even lower operating costs than the A3XX. My person belief is that neither will actually be built. The R&D Costs on the A3XX coupled with a treaty with the USA on launch aid makes A3XX a very painful exercise for Airbus. The Boeing design will be slightly less so because Boeing expects to cannibalize a lot of 777 and 747 engineering to produce the beast. The bind is A3XX is probably going to end up costing something on the order of 10-15 billion USD to develop, and I doubt the market will exceed a few hundred (you usually sell more, Boeing has sold lots of 747's, but there have been 4 versions, and each has required a substantial capital investment to create) during the period you need to recover the R&D costs. The current market puts an upper limit on the value of A3XX (and the Boeing competitor) at about 200 million USD. By the time you have recovered the R&D costs, and paid interest on the money (and Airbus now must raise 67% of the money privately), the 10-15 billion USD will be more like 20 billion USD, so that puts an R&D component in the cost of 80 million USD per copy. That doesn't leave much to actually build the aircraft with, or for margin....IF by reusing technology Boeing can save a few billion USD on the R&D costs, the effect can be substantial. If you forecast a market of 250 aircraft, each billion you take out of R&D is about 2 billion USD in total cost, so at the end of the day. each billion you can reduce the R&D costs by should reduce the cost of the aircraft about 8 million USD. Even with a several billion R&D cost advantage, it isn't clear to me that the Boeing product will be appreciably more economically viable than A3XX. The Europeans could abrogate the treaty, however that would almost certainly set off a trade war the likes of which have not been seen for a very long time. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 From kls Mon May 24 01:52:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:11 From: kpayne1@neo.lrun.com (kevin88) Subject: Question for the ole time engineers... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: dustdevil.neo.rr.com 926258787 24.93.246.205 (Sun, 09 May 1999 10:06:27 EDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio I am the vice president of the North East Ohio Storm Chasers (NEOSC) organization which has been operated out of Akron, Ohio for the past 3 years. We have been researching weather from our point of veiw working together with meteorologists out of southern Florida and now have come to a point in time where help is essential. Simply put, I think that there is a lot of relevant data associated with aeronautics research that has never been looked at in the realm of meteorology. This is the data that I need at this time. Back in the late 60's or early 70's (was it?) I know that Northrop, Hughes, and G.E. Ft. Wayne were all trying to make a progression from the bubble (or liquid) type instrument clusters on their airplanes to the electronically driven clusters that we see today in most aircraft. From what I gathered from educational TV (sorry, as it is my only source) these clusters had a tendancy to malfunction or act unpredictably at certain altitudes with the original designs. The data that I'm looking for specifically is what altitudes did this behavior start/stop and what exactly was done to fix this bug? And if there was any other related phenomena please feel free to add it at will. Thanks for your time, -- Kevin88 kevin88 at neo.lrun.com http://home.neo.lrun.com/neosc/ North East Ohio Storm Chasers - VP "Not the Twister, core punching wanna-be, that say's cut at the end of a take." From kls Mon May 24 01:52:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:12 From: "Andrew van der Plas" Subject: Engine start sequence Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.nl 927306896 pluto:3667 NO-IDENT vdplas.demon.nl:195.173.254.228 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: vdplas.demon.nl Why do aircraft usualy start first engine 2 and then engine 1, on a two-engined airplane. Is there a specific reason for this, or is this because of history. Andrew van der Plas. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:13 From: Paul Schuricht Subject: cooncorde expansion Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Southampton University NNTP-Posting-Host: moe.aero.soton.ac.uk Hi, Can anyone tell me how much Concorde lenghtens by in flight due to the aerodynamic heating from travelling at Mach 2.2. Thanks Paul From kls Mon May 24 01:52:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 May 99 01:52:14 From: dcoon@olg.com (David Alan Coon) Subject: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://www.davidcoon.com Several new aircraft were planned by Soviet Industry before the breakup of the Soviet Union. The Tupelov TU-204 was oringally planned for 1992. This aircraft is similar to a B-757--Planned with Soloviev D-90A Turbofans rated at 35,275lbs of thrust. The Ilyushin Il-114 was orignally planned for 1990 (It ls quite Similar to the BAe ATP, powered by 2,500HP Twin Props, 60 passenger, airstairs door). Yugoslavia was scheduled to help with production of the Il-114. Were these aircraft ever produced, or did the breakup of the Soviet Union halt their production? -- Dave Coon Statistician dcoon@olg.com http://www.davidcoon.com From kls Mon May 24 01:52:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 24 May 99 01:52:15 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: Whatever happened to Tupelov TU-144 SST "Charger"? 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 926818910 17227 209.213.228.7 (16 May 1999 01:41:50 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings NNTP-Posting-Host: ts1-7.odyssey.on.ca David Alan Coon wrote in article ... > I have some questions about the Tupelov Tu-144 SST (Nato Designation as > "Charger")--the Russian Concorde Is it true that the Brtish/French > "stole" the Drop Nose design innovation idea from the Russians? The Fairey FD2 used a droop nose long before either the Concorde or TU-144. Late 1950s, I think. I think the concept of Russians "stealing" Western designs is way over-played. Its more a case of asking several different groups of professionals with similar skills and available technologies similar questions ("design me an airliner that does ..."), and getting similar answers. I've worked in light aircraft design for 25 years, and I'm always amazed at the similar results different design groups arrive at without copying each other. Did Piper copy the Mooney Model 20? Are twin Cessnas all developed copies of the Piper Apache? No, they are just the same answers to the same question. BW From kls Mon May 24 01:52:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:16 From: "J. W. Dawson" Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net 926564118 33500 209.130.164.108 (13 May 1999 02:55:18 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 209-130-164-108.nas-1.apv.frontiernet.net Edward Lee wrote in message ... >>A couple of days ago, I was looking at a 747-400 pass over my house at >>about 5000 feet on landing vectors to SFO. While watching, I noticed a >>white stream of smoke or mist starting to come from the tailcone area. >>This continued for a short period of time, leaving a 10-15 >>airplane-length trail in the sky. I assume this smoke had something to >>do with the APU. However, I have watched a *lot* of jets and never seen >>this before. > >I've been on an B747-400 full loaded taking off from LAX for >Taipei, Taiwan, the mist generated from the wing due to high >moisture and high differential pressure between the upper and >lower surface of the wing were so intense that I couldn't see >through it. I guess it might be the same thing that you saw >coming out from the big jet. I believe you are seeing APU smoke. I've watched a lot of planes myself and I have noticed this from time to time. I don't know if it's a characteristic of a particular model of APU or if it's just an occasional effect with no particular connection with the hardware. Perhaps it's a bit of smoke due to leftover fuel burning off from the last shutdown or a bit of oil burning off from a leaky seal. Having seen a "torching" APU start a few times on the ground I've wondered if the smoke might be from a similar situation inflight. J.W. Dawson From kls Mon May 24 01:52:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:17 From: jetdoc57@aol.comnopams (JetDoc57) Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Sorry I'm not quoting the original posting, but I assume that you all know what a contrail is. It is a cloud, formed by the right combination of humidity in the air and the low pressure created by an aerodynamic surface. They are usually formed in the low pressure area on top of the wing, but not always. Fighter jets usually form little contrails when they maneuver, and 747's are so huge that you can expect a contrail to form on various parts, if the humidity is just right. Modern day combustors are as close to 100% efficient as can be measured, so I doubt anyone saw smoke coming from the engine of a 747. Now, I did see a helicopter engine pump 7 liters of oil through its rear bearing in about 30 seconds when someone plugged all the scavenge lines. That made an enormous cloud of white smoke (flammable) that filled the test stand. jetdoc57 - Software Consulting for: Aerothermal simulation of turbomachinery Real-time embedded applications From kls Mon May 24 01:52:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:18 From: "John McCurdy" Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 I don't think you could get a condensation trail off the tail of a 747, but I could sure be wrong. I wonder if it was because they were starting an APU? It seems to me that the APU of a 747 exhausts out the tail cone. When I first read you note I thought they were possibly jettisonning or venting fuel, but that would have come from the wingtips and would have looked light condensation, probably. I agree with your APU theory. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:19 From: "Andrew van der Plas" Subject: Oxygen-bottle Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.nl 927306964 pluto:3725 NO-IDENT vdplas.demon.nl:195.173.254.228 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: vdplas.demon.nl Is there pure oyygen in an oxygen-bottle or is it just compressed air. Why then call they this an oxygen-bottle and not a air-bottle. Andrew van der Plas From kls Mon May 24 01:52:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:20 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: titan.xtra.co.nz 926549917 2155049 203.96.152.5 (12 May 1999 22:58:37 GMT) Organization: Daedalus Consulting NNTP-Posting-Host: estelle.paradise.net.nz Jerry wrote: >All aircraft that operate commercially and carry passengers >for service MUST provide means for emergency oxygen if the >aircraft service ceiling is above 14,500 feet. Hmmm. I seem to recall a safety card in an HS748 which stated that the 748 didn't have emergency oxygen, and in the event of depressurisation, expect the cabin to fog up and the aircraft to drop like a rock ... do not be alarmed ... -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 From kls Mon May 24 01:52:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:21 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >And, according to a friend who considered the climb, even those who >climb Everest *with* oxygen suffer some degree of permanent brain >damage from the oxygen starvation. I had not heard of this, but I certainly wouldn't doubt it. At high altitudes, oxygen needs to be supplied with a pressure breathing mask so the oxygen is absorbed. A pressure breathing mask forcibly inflates the lungs and the user must forcibly exhale to evacuate the lungs of carbon dioxide. Gary From kls Mon May 24 01:52:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:22 From: jchase@neo.rr.com (Joseph E Chase) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: dustdevil.neo.rr.com 926565714 24.93.185.246 (Wed, 12 May 1999 23:21:54 EDT) Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio Aircraft cabins are pressurized to the equivalent of 8000 feet. Many ground-based activities take place beyond this altitude, and people tolerate them well if in good health (Examples- much of the Boy Scout camp at Philmont in New Mexico, where thousands of healthy teenagers hike with their middle-aged dads; many Rocky Mountain ski slopes; the top of Trail Ridge Road in Rocky Mountain National Park, where I have walked unprotected at 13,200 feet- but felt less than lively!) Mountain climbers routinely function higher, although as another poster pointed out, the risks to brain function are nasty as you near 20,000 feet. The brain function of anyone who plans to climb this high may be in question BEFORE the trip. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:23 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : >As a general question of high can someone go with out oxygen, climbers have : >have reached the top of Mt Everest (29,000Ft) without supplemental oxygen. : And, according to a friend who considered the climb, even those who : climb Everest *with* oxygen suffer some degree of permanent brain : damage from the oxygen starvation. A good friend of mine, Donald F Updike, spent the year 1925 at 17,000 feet in the Chilean Andes managing a copper mine, in an experiment to see if such operation was economically feasible. It was not. Besides altitude, the snow was 30 feet deep, so they were living in tunnels even outside the mine. -- Gerry From kls Mon May 24 01:52:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:24 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) In article Don Stauffer writes: >The cabins are pressurized. An air compressor compresses the air until it >has the same pressure as about 8000 ft altitude. The cabin gets pressurized by the fact that air enters the cabin faster than air leaves the cabin. Air entering the cabin is a direct function of altitude and engine power. The higher you get, the less air you get from the engines. The actual cabin altitude is controlled by one and sometimes two outflow valves. These are controlled by a pressurization controller, which is a analog or digital computer that is designed to keep the cabin at either a selected or programmed altitude. There is much more on the subject in the sci.aero.airliners archives. There is no compressor sitting around measuring and compressing the cabin air. R. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:25 From: Marc Schaeffer <"marcmsc$$$"@cmdnet.lu> Subject: Re: Oxygen - Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: "marcmsc$$$"@cmdnet.lu Don Stauffer wrote: > An interesting problem- even with oxygen masks one cannot breath above about > 45,000 feet. When it was announced that the Concorde was going to be flying > at 60,000 feet, I wondered how in the world they could maintain a breathable > atmosphere if a cabin window blew. Turns out the compressor for cabin > pressurization is so strong it can maintain a breathable cabin altitude even > with two windows gone! Absolutely correct, I asked one of my colleagues who is a retired Concorde pilot, here his reply : The design case requirement for Concorde was to be able to sustain the loss of two cabin windows ( their size was in fact decreased in Production model to meet this!) and for the condition to be survivable. By survivable is approximately meant that should the failure occur at maximum cruise altitude (ie 60000ft) then the cabin altitude should not exceed 24000ft and the flight crew and passengers be provided with adequate oxygenation during the period necessary to descend to a safe altitude (eg around 10000ft).This is really the same sort of requirement that applies to all airliners that cruise at altitudes where oxygen is necessary for survival. To meet this sort of requirement a pressure failure drill is drawn up which involves the crew donning oxygen masks and setting the aircraft up on a predefined profile (passenger oxygen masks are auto deployed as in all airliners where necessary). The drill is proven and tested and in the case of Concorde it had to be shown that the crew could be breathing oxygen within 5 seconds, and a special mask was made to meet this requirement as most others take rather longer to get on and flowing. Because the cabin altitude might peak to very high altitude the crew masks are pressure breathing masks - that means oxygen is forced into the lungs at a modest pressure and the crew are specially trained in their use. This also applied to the VC10 incidentally as its max. cruise was 43000ft where the medics decided pressure breathing was advisable although the pressure in the VC10 masks was a little less. In short the Concorde is provided with the same level of safety as any other airliner but to meet the requirement required some special equipment and procedures were necessary because of the higher altitudes involved. The cabin is provided with two pressure controllers (you will find only one on all other airliners) and the normal max. differential pressure is around 10.7 psi which gives a cabin altitude of 6000ft at 60000ft - without any unintended holes (like windows gone!) in the hull. -- Marc Schaeffer ---- Luxembourg ---- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders Owner ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders From kls Mon May 24 01:52:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:26 From: evmoore@bellsouth.net (Eric Moore) Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.214.1.91 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >As a general question of high can someone go with out oxygen, climbers have > >have reached the top of Mt Everest (29,000Ft) without supplemental oxygen. Climbers on Everest usually acclimate at base camp (~18,000') for five weeks! (Guess they read a lot of books). This increases the red blood cell count (for improved 02 capture ). Besides Oxygen starvation at this altitude, there is the problem of edema (in its many forms) due to low atmospheric pressure. Renal and pulmonary functions can adjust over this period. The problem with rapid decompression at high altitudes ( >25,000' ) is compounded by the effects of gases in tissues and the blood stream coming out of solution rapidly due to the high pressure gradient between the body and the exterior. If the aircraft doesn't descend quickly after sudden decompression, passengers (and crew) may suffer from decompression sickness, stroke, and respiratory failure -- irrespective of supplemental O2. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:27 From: "greg" Subject: JOHN TRAVOLTA HAS A 707 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 926475630 156.46.193.72 (Tue, 11 May 1999 21:20:30 CDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.193.72 He bought a former quantas 707-138..Last -100 series off he lot..N707JT From kls Mon May 24 01:52:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:28 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 926518549 13951 129.116.176.203 (12 May 1999 14:15:49 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Jim1inDC wrote: > Recently I sat next to a "missing window" on both a 737-300 and a 747-(200?) > and could hear, on both, the unmistakable ROAR of air headed from below to the > overhead air conditioning. I've noticed that most Boeing (and many Airbus', as > I recall) have this 'missing window' arrangement, and that it's usually near > the leading edge of the wing. I've noticed that many versions of the MD-80 have a single missing window on the left-hand side near the front of the coach section. Coincidentally, this is above the point where the ground AC duct plugs into the aircraft... ;-) -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Mon May 24 01:52:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:29 From: "Matt727" Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 The Air Conditioning Packs are located under the center wing section on Boeing Aircraft (and Airbus too I think). Where there are no windows there are air risers for the Air Condiditoning. >On a 757 or 767, the row of missing windows is essentially where they have >mated the front end of the fuselage to the mid section etc. It is >definately related to the structure. The fuselage frames where the the body joins are are not so big that a window has to be omitted because of them. -- Matt (Boeing 747 Wingline) Seattle, Washington Fly safe, fly Boeing... on Alaska and Continental Airlines. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:30 From: Seth Dillon Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.fb.0c Reply-To: bdillon1@mindspring.com Jim1inDC wrote: > So it seems that "windows that never were" can be for A/C. Plugs are usually > for galleys, lavs and the like. As Jim noted the missing windows (not plugs) are usually just fwd of the wing L/E on Boeing (not former McD/D) aircraft. The area between the aft wall of the fwd bag bin and the front spar od the wing center section is used for the a/c pack plenum and from there the ducts carrying conditioned air run up the sidewalls to the outlets in the cabin overhead. The 727 is unique in that it uses a bunch of small ducts that run up each side wall and are routed between the former and the window frame to outlets just below the overhead bins, in addition to the big center overhead duct which runs the length of the cabin. The air for the gasper system (eyeball vents) comes straight from the pack discharge vent, bypassing the mix chamber (so it is always cold) and runs through seperate ducts which run along the length of the cabin just above the window line. This duct has connections with flexible hoses running to the PSU's over each seat to provide the passenger with a source of individually controlled cold air. -Seth From kls Mon May 24 01:52:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:31 From: "Andrew van der Plas" Subject: ICAO Doc 4444 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.nl 927307036 pluto:3750 NO-IDENT vdplas.demon.nl:195.173.254.228 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: vdplas.demon.nl Where on the net can I find something about standard RT. I am having discussions with collegues about standard RT. It should be in ICAO Doc 4444. Andrew van der Plas From kls Mon May 24 01:52:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:32 From: tsk1577@catbert.ucdavis.edu (Timothy Kono) Subject: Re: need the rolling moment of diff. aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0] Organization: University of California, Davis Roland Hering (roland.hering@post.rwth-aachen.de) wrote: > does anyone know some maximum rolling moments (Cl max) of different > aircraft. A moment? Shouldn't that be Cm? Isn't Clmax the max lift coefficient? From kls Mon May 24 01:52:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:33 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Flying birds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /K49oBeQV3SHRKRdgO4+L7PY3A4Drdd+eBW8WR+de0y216ddtyMpQXWakSLiBREU8Z8OLFva8jcS!Gx7mv3+dgA+ymrJAgZFTQ7Xtgnu5SgJbdXwDOv9axa7pm0/m John Gunnar Enebak wrote: > You fill a cargo plane with 20 tons of birds, and fly 500 knots at > 10.000 feet with the birds sitting on the floor of the plane. > > Suddenly all the birds start flying around inside the plane. Will the > plane then loose 20 tons of weight and start a climb? If one were to measure the pressure under a heavier than air flying object one will find that the downwash exists that eventually creates a slightly higher pressure on any surface below the object. Now, in free air that field extends theoretically to infinite distances. However, in a completely enclosed container, the integration need only be carried out over the cabin floor. When the birds are in flight, the pressure on the floor will be somewhat above ambient, so the plane will weigh the same. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Mon May 24 01:52:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:34 From: Matthew Willshee Subject: Re: Flying birds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Cambridge, England NNTP-Posting-Host: piemontite.chu.cam.ac.uk John Gunnar Enebak wrote: > You fill a cargo plane with 20 tons of birds, and fly 500 knots at > 10.000 feet with the birds sitting on the floor of the plane. > > Suddenly all the birds start flying around inside the plane. Will the > plane then loose 20 tons of weight and start a climb? No - because the birds are held up whilst flying around the plane by a pressure difference across their wings. This leads to a pressure force on the floor of the plane that is higher than that on the roof. The weight of the birds is felt through this pressure force. Each bird's weight is spread out over a very large area as a very small increase in pressure, so you can't detect the pressure rise. Matthew Willshee -- Matthew Willshee E-Mail: mjw44@cam.ac.uk Churchill College, Cambridge, CB3 0DS : 96mjw@eng.cam.ac.uk From kls Mon May 24 01:52:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:35 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Flying birds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 925496764 17093 129.116.176.203 (30 Apr 1999 18:26:04 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu John Gunnar Enebak wrote: > You fill a cargo plane with 20 tons of birds, and fly 500 knots at > 10.000 feet with the birds sitting on the floor of the plane. > > Suddenly all the birds start flying around inside the plane. Will the > plane then loose 20 tons of weight and start a climb? What a funny mental image.... ;-) The answer is "no". The plane, the air it holds, and the birds within constitute a "closed" system. The amount of mass within the closed system is constant, save for the fuel being burned and ejected out the back of the engines (and yes the plane DOES climb as the fuel burns off...) When the birds start flying, no mass is added to or removed from the system, therefore its weight is unchanged. Put another way (and TREMENDOUSLY over-simplified)- when the birds are sitting still, their weight is transferred to the plane through their feet. When they start flying, their wings exert a downward force on the air under their wings, causing the air to move downward. The downward moving air will at some point strike the fueslage, and exert a force on the fuselage exactly equivalent to the weight of the bird. -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Mon May 24 01:52:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:36 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: Flying birds 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 925690762 23540 209.213.228.33 (3 May 1999 00:19:22 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings NNTP-Posting-Host: ts1-33.odyssey.on.ca John Gunnar Enebak wrote in article ... > You fill a cargo plane with 20 tons of birds, and fly 500 knots at > 10.000 feet with the birds sitting on the floor of the plane. > > Suddenly all the birds start flying around inside the plane. Will the > plane then loose 20 tons of weight and start a climb? Oh please. This is so old. No the airplane doesn't lose weight. The birds are supported by the air in the cabin, which in turn is supported by the airplane. Similarly, the earth doesn't get lighter everytime a plane takes off. Rockets are another matter, because they actuall can leave the atmosphere. So, to make the plane lighter, you would have to place each bird on a tiny rocket, open a window, and launch into space. However, this is probably not a politically correct thing to do. BW From kls Mon May 24 01:52:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:37 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics "Bill Herman" writes: > I don't regularly read this group, so sorry if this has been asked > previously... > > Do the Concorde's Olympus engines use some form of afterburner while flying > supersonic? Yup. Reheat is used for takeoff and supersonic flight. -- -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 May 24 01:52:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:38 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:48 AM 5/12/99 +0000, you wrote: >I don't regularly read this group, so sorry if this has been asked >previously... > >Do the Concorde's Olympus engines use some form of afterburner while flying >supersonic? A friend of mine doesn't think so, but I don't see how that >plane can fly at Mach 2 without reheat. yes and no. The afterburners or reheat as the Brit's call it is used to get the aircraft off the runway, and to accellerate from high transonic to about Mach 1.7. At that point the drag drops off, and acceleration from mach 1.7 to cruise (about mach 2.05) is done with the afterburners off. In other words you can cruise with the burners off, but you cannot get to cruise without them. > I thought the F-22 was considered >to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly beyond >Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a >plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. Actually some versions of the F14 with GE engines can do it as well, and the Concorde design is a lot older than 20 years. James Matthew Weber 1 602 315 6520 Fax 1 602 638 1316 From kls Mon May 24 01:52:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:39 From: julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com (Julian Fitzherbert) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.cwomnes.net 926533352 10091 134.32.5.76 (12 May 1999 18:22:32 GMT) Organization: Schlumberger Geco-Prakla NNTP-Posting-Host: eriskay.gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com Reply-To: julian@gatwick.geco-prakla.slb.com In article , "Bill Herman" writes: >Do the Concorde's Olympus engines use some form of afterburner while flying >supersonic? A friend of mine doesn't think so, but I don't see how that >plane can fly at Mach 2 without reheat. I thought the F-22 was considered >to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly beyond >Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a >plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. Somebody will probably give a better technical description but if not .. Afterburners are used at takeoff and to go supersonic. However once at, or near to, supersonic cruise they are not required. In supersonic cruise a lot (I don't recall how much) of thrust comes not only from the engine but also the intake and exhaust system. This means that the increasing speed increases the thrust and Concorde actually wants to go faster than the crews allow her to. To prolong airframe life they limit her to M2.0 but she could go faster. M2.2+ (a bit) so the SR-71 nothing to worry about. However, if an engine shuts down during supersonic cruise then the flight becomes subsonic. Atlantic crossings sometimes have to divert to the Azores in such a case as the fuel remaining may be insufficient to complete the crossing subsonically. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:40 From: "Tim Cable" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: UltraNet Communications , an RCN Company http://www.ultranet.com/ NNTP-Posting-Host: www.lumberins.com The only times that Concorde uses reheat is on takeoff and for the transonic acceleration. The total time in reheat is about 15 minutes, most of which is when accelerating from .95 (subsonic cruise) to M1.2, the period of maximum drag. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:41 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: black.weeg.uiowa.edu On 12 May 1999, Bill Herman wrote: > I don't regularly read this group, so sorry if this has been asked > previously... > > Do the Concorde's Olympus engines use some form of afterburner while flying > supersonic? A friend of mine doesn't think so, but I don't see how that > plane can fly at Mach 2 without reheat. I thought the F-22 was considered > to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly beyond > Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a > plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. The Concorde uses its afterburners to takeoff and to accelerate to cruising speed, but maintains its cruising speed without them. The exhaust velocity of a straight turbojet like the Concorde's Olympus provides very good propulsive efficiency at Mach 2. A great deal of the progress in jet engines has been in making them shorter and lighter for the same thrust. A fighter plane with supersonic cruise without afterburners could have been built in the 1960's if they had chosen to do so; it would have been like a de-rated SR-71 or F-108, both of these being Mach-3 jets designed at that same time. Such a plane would of course not have been anything like as effective as the F-22. The weight of the engines would have cut into the useful load and without stealth technology it would have been more vulnerable to missiles. Still, it could have been done, but the planners at that time did not realize how much of an advantage it would be to have a tactical plane that could carry out its entire mission at, say, Mach 1.5, slow enough to maneuver but fast enough that opposing aircraft would need afterburners to keep up, and thus quickly use up their fuel. The closest to this was probably the Canadian Avro Arrow which would have probably gone about Mach 1.5-1.8 at full military power with the Orenda Iriquois engines originally intended for it. This was a dedicated interceptor rather than a maneuvering fighter. Note that the F-22 uses a low-bypass turbofan rather than a straight turbojet, the turbofan being more efficient at its cruise speed of Mach 1.5. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Mon May 24 01:52:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:42 From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: Netcom Bill Herman (hermanwc@fuse.net) wrote: : Do the Concorde's Olympus engines use some form of afterburner while flying : supersonic? A friend of mine doesn't think so, but I don't see how that : plane can fly at Mach 2 without reheat. Your friend is correct. Concorde *is* equipped with Afterburners, but they're used only for brief periods (takeoff and transonic acceleration). The use of Afterburners roughly DOUBLES the specific fuel consumption. Concorde wouldn't have the range to cross the Atlantic if their use were required for cruise. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:43 From: "Christian.Schulz" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sls7ag.stgl.sel.alcatel.de 927100774 4166 149.204.59.204 (19 May 1999 07:59:34 GMT) Organization: Alcatel SEL NNTP-Posting-Host: sls0m5.stgl.sel.alcatel.de In Air France's onboard magazine of march'99 (sadly I didn't t fly with the concorde) there was an interesting article of the flight development of the concorde. Regarding the afterburners, they are used during takeoff, then shut off and if I recall correctly briefly turned on again to go through the sound barrier. The remainder of the flight they are not used. Another interesting flight aspect was the airplane's constant gain of altitude during the whole flight, due to the fuel consumption and better efficiency at higher altitudes. This is unique because "normal" airliners are required to maintain a constant flight level. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:44 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #2 Organization: The MITRE Corporation NNTP-Posting-Host: m24335-mac.mitre.org In article , "Bill Herman" wrote: >I don't regularly read this group, so sorry if this has been asked >previously... > >Do the Concorde's Olympus engines use some form of afterburner while flying >supersonic? A friend of mine doesn't think so, but I don't see how that >plane can fly at Mach 2 without reheat. I thought the F-22 was considered >to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly beyond >Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a >plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. The Concorde does in fact cruise without afterburner. It turns out that the components of drag for a supersonic aircraft are at a local maximum at the speed of sound (makes sense - initial generation of the shock wave would require lots of power). However, once past Mach 1, the wave drag is dramatically reduced. What this means is that both the F-22 and Concorde need an afterburner to get through Mach 1, but do not require afterburners to maintain a supersonic speed. As for the Concorde, remember, it's a pretty light plane, only carries 100 pax, carries lots of fuel in its delta wings, and has four engines to move it. The F-22, of course, only has two engines. Despite this, the Concorde can barely make it across the Atlantic, and sometimes has to stop in Boston on the westbound leg to refuel if headwinds or even minor delays occur. ed ---- Ed Hahn / ehahn@mitre.org / +1 703 883-5988 The above statement is solely an opinion of the author, and does not express a position or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really. From kls Mon May 24 01:52:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:45 From: "Tom Furnivall" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 926785046 5018 62.188.150.102 (15 May 1999 16:17:26 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom NNTP-Posting-Host: userca34.uk.uudial.com Reply-To: "Tom Furnivall" I believe that Concorde uses reheat to accelerate above Mach 2 and then shuts down the reheat and sustain a speed above mach 2. On a normal flight from Heathrow to New York Concorde will be climbing above the Bristol Channel and when it reaches mach 1.7 at the western end the afterburners are shut down. By the time cruising altitude above 50,000 ft is reached mach speed will be around 2.2. But an aircraft designed 30 years before the F-22 was capable of supercruise (no afterburner Mach 1+). The English Electric Lightning was capable of Mach 1 flight at military power. Fuel economy and range was not the Lightning's strength however because of the fact that it only carried enough fuel to fly for around 12 minutes in afterburner. The Lightning was still an excellent example of British aircraft design - and 30 years ahead of the US. --- Tom Furnivall tom.furnivall@dial.pipex.com tom@tfurnivall.freeserve.co.uk http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/qn31/ From kls Mon May 24 01:52:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:46 From: "Michael Want" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 927391302 27675 62.188.130.198 (22 May 1999 16:41:42 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Organization: UUNET NNTP-Posting-Host: userab99.uk.uudial.com Hi Bill, I'd recommend that you try and get hold of the ITTV Video on the Concorde - it's five hours and thoroughly good stuff. Once they get beyond a certain Mach number (can't remember which, off the top of my head) they do in fact turn the afterburners off. The plane still continues accelerating up to its Mach 2 cruise speed even with afterburners off. As you say, a pretty impressive achievement for something designed so long ago. Mike From kls Mon May 24 01:52:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:47 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Aerospace merger tree Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: Another Optus Customer NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.53.36.185 Does anybody have an up to date merger tree for the great aerospace companies of the past? There are so few left these days, it would be interesting to know how they were formed. Cheers David From kls Mon May 24 01:52:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 24 May 99 01:52:48 From: Tim Hatfield Subject: Triangular Symbols on A-319 ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Re-post from rec.aviation.misc ... --- Recently while on a United flight from Chicago to LAX, a friend of mine noticed a simple triangle symbol on each wall of the main cabin. The symbols were repeated further towards the front of the cabin. Each pair was directly opposite each other, but there were no other markings (letters, numbers etc.) The model of aircraft was an Airbus A-319. Being curious types we were trying to figure out what these things meant. They weren't marking emergency exits, as they were in the wrong rows. Other ideas we came up with were marking the wings (but then why were there 2 pairs ?), or some sort of marker for hidden electrical wires or circuitry. Obviously this isn't all that important, but to settle our bet, does anyone have any clue as to what these could be ? Do they have any significance, or are they just something that some bored kid stuck on the walls one day ? From kls Fri Jun 4 00:58:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:58:57 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: some background on AA 1420 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Most people have probably heard by now that AA 1420 (DFW-LIT) overran the runway and crashed while landing on runway 4R in bad weather Tuesday night at about 1150pm local time. Most reports say that 8 out of 139 passengers and 1 of 6 crew (the captain, who was flying at the time) were killed, though the FAA's preliminary report has the tally at 14 passenger fatalities. (http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/q_0602_n.txt) The accident aircraft was N215AA (msn 49163 / ln 1111), a DC-9-82 delivered to American on August 1, 1983. It was the ninth MD-80 to be delivered to AA and was equipped with JT8D-217A engines. There's no reason to believe that there was anything wrong with the aircraft at this point -- this is just info for those who care. Investigators expect to interview the first officer tomorrow (Friday) so there may be some early theories by the weekend. It appears that the initial focus will be on why the pilots attempted to land just as a thunderstorm crossed the airport, with moderate winds during the approach but gusts of 87 knots recorded about the time of the landing and accident. A key question will be whether the pilots had current weather info. More details are at http://www.amrcorp.com/news/littlerk.htm which American has been updating regularly. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Jun 4 00:58:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:58:58 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.220.207.58 "Christian.Schulz" wrote: > Another interesting flight aspect was the airplane's constant gain of > altitude during the whole flight, due to the fuel consumption and > better efficiency at higher altitudes. This is unique because "normal" > airliners are required to maintain a constant flight level. Of course, now that SR-71s are no longer flying, there's no-one for Concordes to run into at their altitudes. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Fri Jun 4 00:58:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:58:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Of course, now that SR-71s are no longer flying, there's no-one for >Concordes to run into at their altitudes. The U-2 and its derivatives also routinely fly at those altitudes and above. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:00 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.220.207.58 ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: > As for the Concorde, remember, it's a pretty light plane, only carries > 100 pax, carries lots of fuel in its delta wings, and has four engines > to move it. The F-22, of course, only has two engines. Despite this, > the Concorde can barely make it across the Atlantic, and sometimes has > to stop in Boston on the westbound leg to refuel if headwinds or even > minor delays occur. True enough as far as it goes, but it does sound like you're underestimating the achievement. Concorde might have twice the number of engines that the F-22 has, but its engines-to-pax ratio is a whole lot better. And those passengers will be sitting in shirt-sleeve comfort eating fancy foods, not strapped into a G-suit breathing O2 through a mask and peeing through a tube. Besides, what's the F-22's range in supersonic cruise? Could it cross the Atlantic at M=2 (without refuelling)? Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:01 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights Reply-To: Pete Finlay Hi Ed; In article , Edward Hahn writes >As for the Concorde, remember, it's a pretty light plane, only carries >100 pax, carries lots of fuel in its delta wings, and has four engines >to move it. The F-22, of course, only has two engines. Despite this, >the Concorde can barely make it across the Atlantic, and sometimes has >to stop in Boston on the westbound leg to refuel if headwinds or even >minor delays occur. Where did you get this from? AFAIK, Concorde doesn't really have a problem making it LHR-JFK or JFK-LHR. In the winter, Concorde flies direct from LHR - BGI, which is about a 4 hour flight. If it can do that, then the 3 to 3½ hours to/from JFK should be no problem. I can't recall hearing of a B.A. Concorde recently putting in to BOS on the way to JFK regards -- Pete Finlay From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:02 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Oxygen - Concorde 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 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com The 747-400 has 2 cabin pressure controllers, though only one is active at a time. The second one automatically takes over if the first fails. Normal pressure differential is 8.9 psi. The Eros full-face masks for the cockpit crew on the 747-400 also have an "Emergency" positive-pressure setting that can be used if necessary. I believe that type of mask is available on other aircraft, too. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:03 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 927578885 355 129.116.176.203 (24 May 1999 20:48:05 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu James Matthew Weber wrote: > > I thought the F-22 was considered > >to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly beyond > >Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a > >plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. > > Actually some versions of the F14 with GE engines can do it as well, and > the Concorde design is a lot older than 20 years. Minor nitpick: I'm pretty sure you mean the F-15, not the F14. As for the F-15, yes the most recent version with GE powerplants can indeed supercruise. I'm not sure about the B-1 Lancer either- I don't *think* it can actually supercruise, but one of the B-1 tactics to evade pursuing fighters is to stay supersonic (at treetop altitudes, BTW) until the fighters run out of fuel trying to keep up. That capabiltiy is probably simply because it has a lot more fuel reserve than a fighter :-) -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:04 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 927579286 355 129.116.176.203 (24 May 1999 20:54:46 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Mark Mallory wrote: > Your friend is correct. Concorde *is* equipped with Afterburners, but > they're used only for brief periods (takeoff and transonic acceleration). > > The use of Afterburners roughly DOUBLES the specific fuel consumption. > Concorde wouldn't have the range to cross the Atlantic if their use were > required for cruise. Well, in the case of the Concorde this is true. However, if you REALLY want to go fast (like the SR-71) then afterburners become increasingly efficient. I forget the exact numbers, but during a typical SR71 mission profile (in the area of Mach 3) the turbine section of the engine is only producing about 20% of the effective thrust. The variable-geometry inlet and the afterburner section produce the greatest portion of the thrust. -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:05 From: mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) Subject: Re: Oxygen - Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: Netcom Marc Schaeffer ("marcmsc$$$"@cmdnet.lu) wrote: : The design case requirement for Concorde was to be able to sustain the : loss of two cabin windows ( their size was in fact decreased in : Production model to meet this!) and for the condition to be survivable. (snip interesting stuff) The cabin windows on Concorde are each about the size of a large postcard (4" by 6" or so). I suspected the reason was to limit the pressure loss during a high-altitude decompression. However, it's doubtful that the loss of a WINDSHIELD would result in an equally survivable condition. Presumably, they've gone to great lengths to ensure this can virtually never happen (or is at least much less likely to happen than the loss of one of the roughly *one hundred* cabin windows). From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:06 From: jchase@neo.rr.com (Joseph E Chase) Subject: Re: Concorde Expansion References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: dustdevil.neo.rr.com 927598868 24.93.185.246 (Mon, 24 May 1999 22:21:08 EDT) Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio It expands by 10" (source- www.british-airways.com) From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:07 From: "Cass Alexander" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 927790546 139.134.75.1 (Thu, 27 May 1999 17:35:46 EST) Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.75.1 Bill Herman made the following astute observation regarding Concorde in a recent posting: > (SNIP) I thought the F-22 was considered >to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly beyond >Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a >plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. which raises the obvious question of why the Brits never contemplated using it as a look down missile launching platform. Could it be that at THAT speed and given the state of late '60's electronics, there was a real possibility that Concorde would simply shoot itself down ;) From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:08 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Christian.Schulz (Christian.Schulz@alcatel.de) wrote: : Another interesting flight aspect was the airplane's constant gain of : altitude during the whole flight, due to the fuel consumption and better : efficiency at higher altitudes. This is unique because "normal" : airliners are required to maintain a constant flight level. Subsonic transcontinental aircarft prefer to use higher altitude as the weight diminishes if ATC will permit it. -- Gerry From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:09 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >: Another interesting flight aspect was the airplane's constant gain of >: altitude during the whole flight, due to the fuel consumption and better >: efficiency at higher altitudes. This is unique because "normal" >: airliners are required to maintain a constant flight level. > >Subsonic transcontinental aircarft prefer to use higher altitude as the >weight diminishes if ATC will permit it. True, but they do it in steps. My first intercontinental flight was LAX-LHR on a 747. We started at FL 350, then several hours into the flight requested and were cleared for a climb to FL 390. In contrast, Concorde more or less continuously climbs (at a very slow rate) from its initial cruise altitude to its final altitude. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:10 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Airliner for personal use? (was: JOHN TRAVOLTA HAS A 707) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 "greg" writes: > He bought a former quantas 707-138..Last -100 series off he lot..N707JT I read this some time ago, and immediately thought "What overkill! That much airplane for one person!". But that set me thinking: what old airliner would I like to adapt for my personal transport, given the money? Some criteria I keep in mind are: o Uniqueness and imagination o Availability (obviously somewhat at issue with the first criterion) o Speed o Range (after all, what good is having your own airplane if you wind up on JAL for that weekend trip to Bangkok?) o Economy (both operating and purchase price: no new A340s need apply) (this just to satisfy the engineer's drive for optimization) Some candidates: o 707: + Readily available + Proven airframe + Service no problem + Good cruising speed (a bit faster than many later planes) + Range - Fuel consumption - Old avionics Of course, if one could persuade Boeing to upgrade to E-6 specs and get the necessary certification for the CFM56's etc., that would reduce fuel consumption and update the avionics a bit; the Navy even talks of upgrading to a cockpit adapted from the 737NG. The CFM56's would also have performance ramifications: the claim for the E-6 is not that it's faster or has longer range, but that its *altitude ceiling* is increased. o 720 + 707-like, so service, etc. should work + Higher altitude capability through reduced weight + Higher cruising speed. I know the 720 has wing-root fairings to increase Mach number compared to the 707-100, but did the 707-300 surpass this? + Reduced payload not a problem, as we only are taking along a few close friends, right? - Rarity: might be hard to find a flyable one o Convair 990 + Uniqueness + Range + Possibly cruising speed + Engine commonality with the J-79 might help maintenance - Uniqueness: there seems to be only one 990 left in flying condition (at most). o DC-8 + Range + Available with CFM56 engines for better fuel economy + Still widely used, so service no problem o Vickers VC10 + Short runway performance (after all, we want to fly *anywhere*, right?) + Looks. I have long considered the VC-10 to be the most graceful of airliners. Well, at least until I saw the unpainted Comet prototype on Marc Schaeffer's Web site... + Uniqueness + Possibility of retrofitting with 2 more modern engines? The RB211 started its flight testing on the modified left pylon of a VC10, replacing two of its original engines - Fuel consumption (worse than the 707 in its day, I believe) - Rarity: I think all the flyable VC10s are owned by the RAF. Maintenance would probably be a real challenge o Various newer/smaller aircraft. The 727, DC-9, 737 would all fit in here. I suppose Caravelle also would. Range probably wouldn't be a problem, as payload would be light and there would be room to fit extra tanks. But then, most of these have already been used as personal aircraft. o Bigger aircraft (DC-10, Tristar, MD-11). Well, that really *would* be wasteful, wouldn't it :)? P.S. I also read that Travolta is qualified to fly the thing himself! What fun! -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:11 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: JOHN TRAVOLTA HAS A 707 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 X-Trace: Z70TPoLSlixD7bLMbzP3uI6F1bgddNXP/2obDIajj10= greg wrote: > He bought a former quantas 707-138..Last -100 series off he lot..N707JT That's QANTAS not quantas!!!!!! It's not a word, it's an acronym. Trevor Fenn -- ÐÏࡱá From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:12 From: gfroseth@aol.com (GFroseth) Subject: Re: JOHN TRAVOLTA HAS A 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Thought I read in Airliners magazine that he has a 720, not a 707. GFro, MDT From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:13 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.airmail.net (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: JOHN TRAVOLTA HAS A 707 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America X-Newsreader: Forte Agent i1.5/32.451 On 24 May 99 01:52:27 , "greg" wrote: >He bought a former quantas 707-138..Last -100 series off he lot..N707JT Why the heck we he need or want something so old and big (and that proably sucks fuel like ther is no tomorrow) He already has a Gulfstream (GII or GIII), and is type rated in it. Must be nice to have money. If I hit the lotto, i think I'll get a GV Jeff From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:14 From: Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 927548236 mail2news:10956 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk Reply-To: Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article dcoon@olg.com "David Alan Coon" writes: > Several new aircraft were planned by Soviet Industry before the breakup of the > Soviet Union ... The Tu-204 has been delivered to a few customers. I've seen a pair of Air Cairo examples in Cairo...not sure where they fly them to. Someone else may clarify the IL-114 status but I have seen photos of one in Uzbekistan AL markings. -- Niels From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:15 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com David Alan Coon wrote: > Were these aircraft ever produced, or did the breakup of the > Soviet Union halt their production? Both are in production, but at a very slow rate. The Tu-204 has its Russian certification and several have been delivered to Russian airlines. A PW2037 powered version is in the long, drawn out process of getting FAA certified. Occasionally, news comes out that another Il-114 has left the production line. I think I remember hearing that it too had gotten its Russian certification. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Jun 4 00:59:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:16 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: titan.xtra.co.nz 927584842 2821744 203.96.152.5 (24 May 1999 22:27:22 GMT) Organization: Daedalus Consulting NNTP-Posting-Host: estelle.paradise.net.nz In article , David Alan Coon wrote: >Several new aircraft were planned by Soviet Industry before the breakup of the >Soviet Union. Both are flying, and presumably still available. The Tu-204 is available with RB211-535 engines and Collins avionics; not sure if anyone outside the former Soviet bloc has bought any though. -- Don Stokes, Networking Consultant http://www.daedalus.co.nz +64 25 739 724 From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:17 From: IA Stuart Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Absolutely no organisation evident X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 <$iwZD4iQFnk2oQgOK$QeB$COvf> In article , David Alan Coon writes >Several new aircraft were planned by Soviet Industry before the breakup of the >Soviet Union ... >Were these aircraft ever produced, or did the breakup of the >Soviet Union halt their production? I think the D-90 version did enter production and service, but there is also a version of the Tu204 with Rolls-Royce engines (RB211-535E4's). Just entered service with Cairo Aviation, after about 6 years of intermittent flight testing. -- Iain Stuart Gas Turbine Maverick From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:18 From: "Henry's Cat" Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Henry's Cat Motor Sport X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: p569-60.wantree.com.au Reply-To: "Henry's Cat" David Alan Coon wrote in message ... > Several new aircraft were planned by Soviet Industry before the breakup of > the Soviet Union ... Both aircraft are real! The Tu-204 (FF 2/1/89) is available in many models including the -120 and -220 which are powered by the 757-300's RB211-535 engines of 43,100lb thrust. (RB211 FF: 14/8/92) As at 1996 (the date of the book I got all this from) 10 were in service and 28 more were on order. Ilyushin anticipates about 350 Il-114s will be needed to replace old planes, such as the An-24, in the fleets of Aeroflot's successors. The 114 seats 64 pax and is indeed powered by twin 2500shp turboprops as you said. An export version uses engines from P&W Canada. FF 29/3/90. The Il-114 is built in Moscow and Tashkent (Uzbekistan) while some components are sourced from Romania, Poland and Bulgaria. Source: Gerard Frawley: The International Directory of Civil Aircraft 1997/98 cheers Neil From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:19 From: Rueckerl@t-online.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Tobias_R=FCckerl?=) Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 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 X-Trace: news04.btx.dtag.de 927966739 29335 0408007610-0001 990529 08:32:19 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Tobias_R=FCckerl?= Yes, the TU-204 is flying and entered passenger service this month with Russian Transeuropean airline on the Moscow-Madrid run. They operate the aircraft with the excellent Perm PS-90A engines. The Il-114 will enter the certification process shortly with PW127 engines. The aircraft looks like an ATP, but it has much better performance, even with the russian engines. If you are more interested in this and other russian types, please contact me: administration@aircraft-agency.de From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:20 From: spagiola@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Whatever happened to Tupelov TU-144 SST "Charger"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.220.207.58 "R W Walker" wrote: > I think the concept of Russians "stealing" Western designs is way > over-played. Its more a case of asking several different groups of > professionals with similar skills and available technologies similar > questions ("design me an airliner that does ..."), and getting similar > answers. > > I've worked in light aircraft design for 25 years, and I'm always > amazed at the similar results different design groups arrive at > without copying each other. Did Piper copy the Mooney Model 20? > Are twin Cessnas all developed copies of the Piper Apache? No, > they are just the same answers to the same question. s.a.a. veterans will recall a fierce debate along precisely these lines in about 1993. Check the archives for the various pro and con arguments. [Moderator's note: http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html is where you'll find the archives. Karl] Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:21 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: Whatever happened to Tupelov TU-144 SST "Charger"? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 25 May 1999 15:43:14 +0100, lusser.euro.unibas.ch Organization: Europainstitut Basel to my knowledge, the following Tu-144 exist or existed until recent times: CCCP-77106: On display at museum in Moskau Monino CCCP-77108: On display at museum in Samara Smys(lenska?) airport - sorry, don't have the name at hand CCCP-?????: On display at Ulyanovsk Aviation Museum CCCP-77112: Stored with Tupolev at Moscow Zhukovsky Airport CCCP-77115: Stored with Tupolev at Moscow Zhukovsky Airport (all in full Aeroflot colors). RA-77114: Current with Tupolev/Boeing/NASA joint research project, based Zhukovsky. CCCP-77113 which was also stored for many years at Zhukovsky (a.k.a. Ramenskoye Test Base) has been broken up shortly before the MosAero Show of 1997, with its tail lying on its side and the centerbox with wings and main landing gears still attached present in front of Tupolev's hangar (quite a sad sight) in August 1997. You'll find some pictures of some of the planes mentionned above on my Guide to Russian Airliners at http://www.bird.ch/russians (as some nice guy already pointed out in the specs you downloaded - thanks!) Correcting the latter source: There are two known crashes of Tu-144s. The first one appeared during a presentation of the airliner at the Paris Air Show in 1973 involving CCCP-77102. The official reason given (by the French) is that one of the characteristic canard wings aft the cockpit broke loose, punctured the fuel tank and led to an explosion. Rumors that a French "spy plane" that wanted to do some shooting of the competitor came too close and thus forced the crew to engage in an evasive manoeuver leading to a loss of controll over the aircraft are persistent. These rumors seem at least not to be contrary to the video tapes of the fatal flight which show a sudden and very abrupt leveling off of the climbing plane. Some seconds later it looks like the entire fuselage of the plane starts breaking apart just in front of the wing (due to stress?), immediately followed by an explosion (is there some web source where the footage can be accessed?). After modifications, the Tu-144 did seemingly fly (more or less) regularily for awhile: First on pure mail flights from Moscow to Alma Ata (today's Almaty, Kasachstan), from 1975 to 1977. According to my sources, the 144 then went into passenger service for a short period. On May 23, 1978, a second crash occured - following an onboard fire on a test flight of CCCP-77111 - which led to the retirement of the "Concordsky". The last scheduled flight is reported to have taken place on June 1, 1978. All this information has of course to be based on good faith regarding the objectivity of the sources. These are actually (as I don't speak Russian) aviation encyclopediae and type books printed in the 70s and 80s in the German Democratic Republic (Eastern Germany) - In as far as the information they contain is verifyable, the books seem to be technically correct (no lies, but some ommissions, if you get the picture), so I assume the info is as reliable as it can get without speaking to insiders at Tupolev... ; o ) Hope it helps, and have a nice day Lukas Lusser editor, jetstream Swiss Aviation Magazine at http:www.jetstream.ch/ Bird Publishing's Ultimate Aviation Marketplace at http://www.bird.ch/ A Guide to Russian Airliners at http://www.bird.ch/russians/ From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:22 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com PS2727 wrote: > The fact that these airlplanes handle it so well speaks well for the > manufacturers; they make sturdy airplanes. Its a diffucult thing to do > well and consistently but sometimes I wonder if a few hours in a Piper > Cub would serve to refresh the technique better than a fancy simulator. I contend that a few hours in a glider would be better than in the Cub... :-) -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:23 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com D_A_Ling wrote: > Note to those who read this - he made it sound EASY. IT AIN'T. It's > strictly a trained thing and it DOES take quite a bit to get used to > it. The only missing thing is the reason that "big stuff" doesn't do it > like little stuff - if a "large" aircraft did it the way light aircraft > do it, the swept wingtip would drag the runway (not at all acceptable). In the 747 (and 737, I believe) the outboard engine pod will hit the runway before the wingtip; in the 747 that's at about 10 degrees AOB. I suppose that with enough angle of bank the wingtip will hit first, but that would be more bank than any sane pilot would ever intentionally land with... Also, a "large" aircraft does it _just_ like a light aircraft -- rudder to align the airplane with the runway, opposite aileron to keep it from turning, add power to maintain desired sink rate. As I said before, it works just as well with an Aeronca Champ, A-6, or 747-400, as long as the AOB isn't more than 10 degrees. After 9 degrees AOB, the 747 needs a bit of crab to help (and the 747 lands well in a crab, unlike the other two). BTW, it ain't all that hard. Just like any other aspect of flying, once you practice a procedure enough, it becomes second nature. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA ex A-6 pilot current Aeronca Champ and 747-400 pilot Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:24 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com Stephen H. Westin wrote: > In my previous job, part of my route to work went directly under an > approach path to DTW; it was fascinating to watch the airliners facing > one way, but traveling another. They definitely used sideslip. "Facing one way, but travelling another" implies a crab, not a sideslip. The slip is used to align the fuselage with the forward vector (approach path and/or runway). FWIW, the first few crosswind landings in a 747 were _very_ disconcerting for me because the cockpit is _so_ far upwind in the crab! Like everything else in flying, though, I am getting used to it... -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:25 From: jsmeeker@NOSPAMPLEASE.airmail.net (Jeff Meeker) Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America X-Newsreader: Forte Agent i1.5/32.451 On 24 May 99 01:52:09 , westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) wrote: >In my previous job, part of my route to work went directly under an >approach path to DTW; it was fascinating to watch the airliners facing >one way, but traveling another. They definitely used sideslip. If the plane is not going directly in the direction the nose is pointed, then it is in a crab. Its flight path will be folllowing the center-line of the runway, but the nose will be pointed into the wind. As far as needing careful retrining, it really would not be that bad, because a crab method is eventually switched to a "wing low" attitude just prior to the mains hitting the runway. Its really a matter of when the side slip is "put in" Jeff From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:26 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Crosswind landings in 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool344-cvx.ds1-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net I was the one who started this thread, and the wide variety of responses are interesting and appreciated. In retrospect, the sideslip crosswind 777 landings probably looked more dramatic than they really were, due to those long wings. As far as preferred technique, I live and fly in the LA area, which often gets Santa Ana winds during the fall months. I prefer the sideslip method to the crab method. As airspeed decreases on approach, many light aircraft become very "soggy" and in gusting conditions you can even run out of aileron or rudder authority. It's much easier to get a feel for how much control travel you are "using up" if you use the sideslip technique. Crabbing, you may not find out until it's too late. :-) Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:27 From: John Vincent Lombardi Subject: Re: Triangular Symbols on A-319 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.rdc1.sfba.home.com 927735890 24.5.220.95 (Wed, 26 May 1999 09:24:50 PDT) Organization: UniPhone MP X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.220.95 In article , Tim Hatfield wrote: > Recently while on a United flight from Chicago to LAX, a friend of mine > noticed a simple triangle symbol on each wall of the main cabin. The > symbols were repeated further towards the front of the cabin. Each pair > was directly opposite each other, but there were no other markings > (letters, numbers etc.) The model of aircraft was an Airbus A-319. The triangles mark the optimal position for visually checking wing contamination. They were adopted after the FAA required visual checks prior to departure in icing conditions. It helps the copilot look a little less foolish whilst fumbling around the passengers for a useful view. John -- John Vincent Lombardi uniphone@home.com San Francisco, CA uniphone@compuserve.com From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:28 From: Michael Badge Subject: Re: Triangular Symbols on A-319 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: perki.connect.com.au 927871407 24035 210.8.1.88 (28 May 1999 06:03:27 GMT) Organization: Customer of Connect.com.au Pty. Ltd. NNTP-Posting-Host: acc4-ppp88.mel.enternet.com.au Reply-To: micb@hotmail*nonspam*.com Tim Hatfield wrote: > Recently while on a United flight from Chicago to LAX, a friend of mine > noticed a simple triangle symbol on each wall of the main cabin. The > symbols were repeated further towards the front of the cabin. Each pair > was directly opposite each other, but there were no other markings > (letters, numbers etc.) The model of aircraft was an Airbus A-319. The B737-300/400 (and probably others) have a small triangle marker just below the overhead bins marking the the 3rd row window behind the aft overwing exit marking the area (I won't tell you exactly where in case you're tempted to look for it :))where a window is located beneath the carpet. This window allows the pilots to verify directly that the main landing gear is down and locked if the indications up the front are not conclusive. There's another one up the front for the nose gear. There is a light in the wheel well for night time drama's as well. I don't know about Airbus though. Michael. From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:29 From: =?iso-8859-1?B?UmH6bCBTb3Nh?= Subject: RE: ICAO Doc 4444 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit RT Procedures are on ICAO Annex 10, on ICAO Document 9432 Radiotelephony Manual, on UK CAA CAP 413 Radiotelephony Manual (see the CAA web page at http://www.nats.co.uk/srg/) and on FAA Airmans Information manual (AIM). Regards. Raul Sosa raulsosa@retemail.es From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:30 From: "Cass Alexander" Subject: Re: ICAO Doc 4444 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 927791218 139.134.75.1 (Thu, 27 May 1999 17:46:58 EST) Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.75.1 Andrew, If you have no success on the net, try contacting the webmaster@airservices.gov.au for advice about the public availability of the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) and the Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS), both of which have extensive sections on correct air-ground phraseologies. As I recall, Icao does publish some of their documents in electronic form, but the last time I enquired, the charges were based on a one-off fee of around $150 U.S. for the disk. Member States, presumably, can afford such premiums :) From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:31 From: "Douglas Maclean" Subject: Re: ICAO Doc 4444 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 928085563 1NNUCNF1GE6D6C393C gxsn.com Organization: GXSN X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.230.214 Try the Civil Aviation Authority ( London) They publish the booklet CAP452 with standard phraseology. From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:32 From: stephan@lac.inpe.br (Stephan Stephany LAC-CC) Subject: Flaps & spool up Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Concerning a jet airliner in final approach, is there such a thing as an automatic partial spool-up when flaps are deployed (I mean, if you deploy the flaps beyond some degree there's something like an autothrottle that spools up the engines to a given minimum rpm)? Thanks for the answers, 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 Fri Jun 4 00:59:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:33 From: gtwister@wku.campuscw.net (George M. Gumbert III) Subject: Short DC-8? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CampusCWIX X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: s14-pm62.snaustel.campuscwix.net Does anybody know if Douglas ever considered making a shorter, lighter version of the original DC-8 like Boeing did in evolving the 720 from the 707? This could have swayed DC-8 operators like Eastern and United away from the 720 as well as put even more pressure on Convair (as if things were not tough enough for them). George From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:34 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail 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 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com The APU of a 747 is normally shut down before takeoff. In some circumstances it may be left on to run one of the air-conditioning packs at low altitude, but it should not be emitting any visible smoke. Just look at the 747s at the gate. Most of them probably have their APUs running, with no visible smoke. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:35 From: "toto" Subject: What's the weight of 747-400? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Internet Group Ltd X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: p290-tnt3.akl.ihug.co.nz What is the approximate weight of 747-400 (without fuel)? What fuel load can it carry? What weight of payload can it carry? I went to Boeing web site but I'm still not sure how these weights are different. Please tell me... From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What's the weight of 747-400? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What is the approximate weight of 747-400 (without fuel)? >From http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747-400/product.html, 398,780 lbs is the typical operating empty weight. That's airframe with no fuel or payload. The exact weight depends on the engines selected as well as the interior fitments and other options. >What fuel load can it carry? It depends on which engine type the aircraft has and whether it has the optional fuel tanks in the horizontal stabilizers. Boeing's page lists fuel capacity in gallons, but I'm guessing you want weight. As a rule of thumb, a gallon of Jet A weighs about 6.7 lbs. That's very rough as it depends on temperature and exact fuel composition, but it's a decent first approximation. Combining that with the Boeing data: engine gallons lbs ------ ------- ------- PW4000 57,285 383,810 CF6-80C2 57,065 382,336 RB.211-524 57,285 383,810 >What weight of payload can it carry? Fully optioned, maximum gross takeoff weight is 875,000 lbs. Taking out the typical OEW and 383,810 lbs of fuel leaves 92,410 lbs of payload. You can trade off some fuel for increased payload; AW&ST's Source Book lists the cargo capacity of a 747-400 (passenger model) as 155,720 lbs. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:37 From: ref@realtime.net (ref) Subject: Re: Flying birds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Real/Time Communications - Bob Gustwick and Associates In article , Steve Lacker wrote: > >John Gunnar Enebak wrote: >> You fill a cargo plane with 20 tons of birds, and fly 500 knots at >> 10.000 feet with the birds sitting on the floor of the plane. >> >> Suddenly all the birds start flying around inside the plane. Will the >> plane then loose 20 tons of weight and start a climb? > >What a funny mental image.... ;-) > >The answer is "no". > >The plane, the air it holds, and the birds within constitute a "closed" >system. Open or closed, it doesn't matter. When the birds are flying, they're not attached to the mass of the airplane in any way. Suppose you're looking at a boat. Its weight causes it to sit X inches into the water. Now see 100 lbs. of birds flying over it, hovering just off the boat's deck. Would it sink deeper into the water? No, of course not. Now suppose a big hatch closed over the boat and the birds, still hovering, were now enclosed under the cover. Would the boat suddenly become "heavier" and sit deeper into the water? Of course not. Same thing with the birds in the plane. Ron M. From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:38 From: "Robert Blakely" Subject: Re: Flying birds References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Queensland X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: dyn-13-105.dialin.uq.net.au If a bird flew in through an open window, would the weight of the plane increase. From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:39 From: "Johan Stck" Subject: scrapping airliners Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Enator X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: 147.13.129.196 Hello, At a recent tour "inside" Arlanda airport (Stockholm) I saw a couple of airliners that probably will never fly again. One was a romanian Tupolev that has a damaged nosegear due to some landing mishap. The other was a Tristar belonging to some bancrupt company that was obviously severely cannibalized for parts. How (by whom) are planes like these scrapped? Are there special companies that travel to these planes and scrap them? Old ships I believe are usually towed to their final destination where they are scrapped, but what abt. planes? Planes are difficult to tow.... Are they kept "just about in flying condition" in order to fly somewhere to be scrapped, and if so, to where? Johan Stck From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:40 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Aerospace merger tree References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com David Bromage wrote: > > Does anybody have an up to date merger tree for the great aerospace > companies of the past? There are so few left these days, it would be > interesting to know how they were formed. Its getting too complicated for just one tree... However, I stumbled across a neat figure showing how Aerospatiale came to be: http://www.helis.com/timeline/aerospatiale.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Fri Jun 4 00:59:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:41 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Aerospace merger tree References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /K+neRvd5Gz02RpFUFf4j6333L3PEoxsN4ZN4UpKnH6FLHeDFV9tbxiLnO3/DKTsBuK72ed79vBm!d0VJUrafR6tuDVewoMd0iumgCnPgdfwgoGbQXxo8yAjX8gXXZTY= David Bromage wrote: > Does anybody have an up to date merger tree for the great aerospace > companies of the past? There are so few left these days, it would be > interesting to know how they were formed. I agree. That is a neat thread idea that David has asked for. Someone want to put it up at a web site? I sure don't have the info. I am still sore, as an ex-employee of McDonnell Douglas, of the loss of that company. I now get a pension check from our competitor, the dark side of the force! -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Fri Jun 4 00:59:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Jun 99 00:59:42 From: "Mark Newman" Subject: Glide Slope Alterations? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.mr.net 927495051 17550 137.192.58.215 (23 May 1999 21:30:51 GMT) Organization: MRNet X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: ply11-215.nas.mr.net Greetings, Do major airports ever change their glide slopes or other landing setups? I live underneath one of the approaches to MSP (where the airliners are about 20-25 sec from touchdown) and last year, during an extended period of low overcast conditions, I noticed that the airliners were noticeably lower than normal, enough to get under the clouds. Not that I minded; it was a splendid view! If the approach altitudes were changed, wouldn't this create problems for general aviation (there are several GA airports close to MSP)? Granted, pilots based here could be informed, but what of the occasional visitor who for some reason doesn't hear about altitude restrictions and finds himself flying formation with a 757? Thanks, Mark Newman From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:23 From: cp@panix.com Subject: Landing in 35mph crosswind Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.panix.com 928509320 2522 166.84.0.226 (4 Jun 1999 15:15:20 GMT) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net Recently landed at Albuquerque during very unusual weather conditions: dry, no storms visible, but 35 mph crosswind, which was blowing at 90 degrees to the runway so far as I could judge by looking at a wind sock as we taxiied in to the terminal. The approach was memorable, as the land below moved past the aircraft diagonally, as a result of the plane turning into the wind. Touchdown involved the aircraft touching one rear wheel, then the other, finally wrestling the plane into a line parallel with the runway, followed by a fairly severe correction after the nosewheel was down. There was a five-second interval before the captain applied reverse-engine braking. While I admired the ability to land a 727 under these conditions, I wondered if a 90-degree 35-mph crosswind is considered borderline conditions for landing (bearing in mind total absence of thunderstorms or other evidence of conditions liable to cause wind shear). The captain came on the intercom twice, before the landing, notifying passengers of wind conditions (which is how I know it was a 35-mph cross wind--he said so.) Safe? Unsafe? Fairly safe? It was certainly the most difficult-seeming landing I've experienced in my last 100 or so air trips. From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:24 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Short DC-8? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.192.143.151 gtwister@wku.campuscw.net (George M. Gumbert III) wrote: > Does anybody know if Douglas ever considered making a shorter, lighter > version of the original DC-8 like Boeing did in evolving the 720 from > the 707? This could have swayed DC-8 operators like Eastern and > United away from the 720 as well as put even more pressure on Convair > (as if things were not tough enough for them). I don't recall any consideration of a shorter DC-8, unless you count the original DC-9 proposal, which was for a four-engined aircraft that looked very much like a DC-8 (I don't recall if it would have kept the DC-8's fuselage, and since I'm travelling cannot check Terry Waddington's excellent DC-9 book). In the early years of the DC-8, Douglas offered five different models, but all had the same fuselage length: DC-8-10 (original delivery version), -20 (higher gross weight), -30 (first longer-range version), - 40 (RR conway engines), and -50 (fan engines). Stefano Pagiola --- My opinions alone Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:25 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Short DC-8? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: titan.xtra.co.nz 928497098 3314422 203.96.152.5 (4 Jun 1999 11:51:38 GMT) Organization: Daedalus Consulting NNTP-Posting-Host: estelle.paradise.net.nz In article , George M. Gumbert III wrote: >Does anybody know if Douglas ever considered making a shorter, lighter >version of the original DC-8 like Boeing did in evolving the 720 from >the 707? This could have swayed DC-8 operators like Eastern and >United away from the 720 as well as put even more pressure on Convair >(as if things were not tough enough for them). I believe the early DC-9 concepts were basically scaled-down -8s, with Douglas considering selling Caravelles to those wanting something smaller. Douglas overstretched itself in designing the -8; it just didn't really have the design and manufacturing capability to spit out umpteen different airframe models. Up until the DC-9 came out, they built only one basic jet airframe model, albeit with various different engines hanging off it. Boeing's multitudes of models also cost it a lot; if Boeing had sold only as many 707s as Douglas sold DC-8s, it wouldn't have broken even. Much of the red ink was caused by the development of variants -- but doing so built market share in a game where airlines needed to be convinced that Boeing was really serious about selling airliners this time, instead of just doing a bare minimum of modifications to military designs as they had been in the past. -- don From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:26 From: Olivier Plaut Subject: Re: Flaps & spool up References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 4 Jun 1999 11:04:06 +0100, 129.194.98.220 Organization: Institut de =?iso-8859-1?Q?m=E9decine=20l=E9gale?= > Concerning a jet airliner in final approach, > is there such a thing as an automatic partial > spool-up when flaps are deployed (I mean, if > you deploy the flaps beyond some degree there's > something like an autothrottle that spools up > the engines to a given minimum rpm)? No. On approach, your autothrottle is generally set to maintain a given speed and it doesn't depend on the position of the flaps. If your autopilot is set on approach or rate of descent, when you extend flaps, you'll see the autopilot "playing" with the trim and throttle to adjust both parameters. Olivier From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:27 From: engrc@cae.ca (Robert Courteau) Subject: Re: Flaps & spool up References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: dns3.cae.ca 928501359 12180 142.39.71.12 (4 Jun 1999 13:02:39 GMT) Organization: CAE Electronics Ltd. Stephan Stephany LAC-CC wrote: > Concerning a jet airliner in final approach, > is there such a thing as an automatic partial > spool-up when flaps are deployed (I mean, if > you deploy the flaps beyond some degree there's > something like an autothrottle that spools up > the engines to a given minimum rpm)? Well, yes and no. Most tranports have a low/high idle system , which increases the minimum engine power setting when in approach configuration, to ensure the engine acceleration time from idle to max go-around is within reasonable limits (i.e. below 10 seconds), giving better response in case of a late go-around decision. This only spools up the engine if it was sitting at idle to start with - which would not normally be the case during approach. Turbofans have very sluggish spoolup response at low rpms, so increasing the idle setting by 5% can reduce the idle-to-max spoolup time by some 30%. This system is part of the engine control system - not the autothrottle. Robert Courteau From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:28 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Flaps & spool up References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The automatic spool up is usually tied to landing gear extension. "Approach Idle" is the term used for higher idle with the gear down. Its not a large change and if I wasn't looking for it I would probably not notice the change (assuming I was at idle power anyway!). This only concerns the idle setting and would be transparent if the throttles were above idle as they usually are. Paul From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:29 From: Michael P Nixon Subject: Re: Flaps & spool up References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Not directly. When you extend the flaps, everything else remaining the same, the airplane will want to slow down, so the throttles will spool up the engines in order to maintain the pre-selected airspeed. However, you usually decrease the airspeed bug setting with just about every flap extension. Mike From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:30 From: James Dees Subject: Re: What's the weight of 747-400? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news2.atl 928563266 216.78.38.59 (Sat, 05 Jun 1999 02:14:26 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.38.59 toto wrote: > What is the approximate weight of 747-400 (without fuel)? > What fuel load can it carry? > What weight of payload can it carry? OK, these aren't exact, and mostly from memory,, but here goes. All for Cargo BTW. Max TOGW for a 400 is roughly 875,000 pounds. Max Zero Fuel Weight is around 660,000 lbs. The Basic Operating Weight is somewher earound 360,000 lbs. So, Figure a max payload of somewhere around 300,000 lbs. And a max fuel weight near 200,000 lbs... Again, i don' work with many 744's (unfortunite, i love the planes). hope this helps James Dees From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:31 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 12:58 AM 6/4/99 +0000, you wrote: >>Of course, now that SR-71s are no longer flying, there's no-one for >>Concordes to run into at their altitudes. > >The U-2 and its derivatives also routinely fly at those altitudes and >above. Actually U2/TR1's and Concorde's are not likely to run into each other. A recent article in Avweek pegged typical U2 cruise at 65,000+ feet, Concorde rarely reaches 60,000, and IF it gets there, it is literally only for a few minutes at the very end of cruise. I doubt you would ever find a Concorde up where SR71's used to live either. However 55,000 feet is not beyond the ability of many current fighter aircraft, and my recollection is some LearJet's could cruise at 51,000 feet. As a side note, U2/TR1 fuel consumption with the GE engines at 65,000 is actually LOWER than at ground idle, so they have good reason to want to be up there. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:32 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 12:59 AM 6/4/99 +0000, you wrote: >Bill Herman made the following astute observation regarding Concorde in a >recent posting: > >> (SNIP) I thought the F-22 was considered >>to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly >beyond >>Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a >>plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. > >which raises the obvious question of why the Brits never contemplated using >it as a look down missile launching platform. > >Could it be that at THAT speed and given the state of late '60's >electronics, there was a real possibility that Concorde would simply shoot >itself down ;) Two points. The achievement with the F22 (and some F14 have the ability as well) is to be both supersonic with afterburners off, and remain a highly maneuverable weapons platform. The peak drag on most aircraft is in high transonic to low supersonic regime, so cruising there is the most difficult. Concorde has a reputation for being relative un maneuverable in this regime. In fact the flight plans require that the acceleration from M.9 to M1.,7 be pretty much straight line. Any degree of maneuverability at mach 1+ requires surprising high G loads. For instance a 10 degree bank at Mach 2 will give you a turning rate of about .3 degrees per second. A weapons platform with the maneuverability of Concorde would be the proverbial sitting duck. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:33 From: greg@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , Steve Lacker wrote: >Well, in the case of the Concorde this is true. However, if you REALLY >want to go fast (like the SR-71) then afterburners become increasingly >efficient. I forget the exact numbers, but during a typical SR71 mission >profile (in the area of Mach 3) the turbine section of the engine is >only producing about 20% of the effective thrust. The variable-geometry >inlet and the afterburner section produce the greatest portion of the >thrust. I've always wondered about that. How does the >INLET< produce thrust? >From what I can see, the engines on the SR-71 consist of a fairly routine turbojet that's surrounded by a fairly routine ramjet. At high speed, much (all?) of the air entering the engine inlet is bypassed around the turbojet core (by the large diverting pipes arranged radially around the turbojet casing) and to the afterburner section. In the latter, the incoming air is simply mixed with fuel and the resultant is burned, producing thrust. No moving parts. greg -- gregory travis | [MS Vice President] Brian Valentine characterized Linux as greg@littlebear.com| "momentum without a lot of design wins" - www.idg.net From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:34 From: fidgeon@pangea.ca (Ernie Fidgeon) Subject: Re: Triangular Symbols on A-319 ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: pumpkin.pangea.ca 928547249 21112 207.161.114.236 (5 Jun 1999 01:47:29 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Pangea.CA, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: dock10-00-28.ner.pangea.ca On 04 Jun 99 00:59:28 , Michael Badge wrote: >The B737-300/400 (and probably others) have a small triangle marker just >below the overhead bins marking the the 3rd row window behind the aft >overwing exit marking the area (I won't tell you exactly where in case >you're tempted to look for it :))where a window is located beneath the >carpet. This window allows the pilots to verify directly that the main >landing gear is down and locked if the indications up the front are not >conclusive. There's another one up the front for the nose gear. >There is a light in the wheel well for night time drama's as well. > >I don't know about Airbus though. The viewing port for gear does not exist on an Airbus. The visual inspection gig is the reason for the markers. EF Whether you think you can or you can't - you are right. Henry Ford From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:35 From: scott fohrman Subject: re KLM Cargo 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 927322655 16813 12.76.70.51 (21 May 1999 21:37:35 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.70.51 The two aircraft in question (PH-BUH and PH-BUI) are SUDs converted over to 747SFs. But..... The conversion process we (Boeing Wichita) used on them is STCed as the 747-300SF conversion as our DAS staff determined that a -300 conversion would be almost identical. It was a royal pain though to complete a mod on top the added SUD in the 41 section. From kls Sat Jun 5 02:09:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Jun 99 02:09:36 From: "Martin Chiew" Subject: Aircraft "Weighing"? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.101.49.230 Hi all, Just a thought, why don't aircraft manufacturers design utilise the landing gear, or tyres in the landing gear to find out the aircraft weight as opposed to working out rough passenger weights, and fuel, etc? Wouldn't it be more accurate for the plane to weigh itself, and then you could use the rough (is it 200lb p/pax) passenger weights for redundancy? Or is it too inaccurate to do so? By doing so (I don't know how they would do it, air pressure in the tyres, something in the landing gear struts?) you could get the aircraft's sprung weight (the unsprung weight is highly unlikely to change!). Cheers, Justin From news Fri Jun 4 18:15:00 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail Message-ID: From: IA Stuart Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Subject: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Organization: Absolutely no organisation evident Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999 00:31:53 GMT In article , David Alan Coon writes >Several new aircraft were planned by Soviet Industry before the breakup of the >Soviet Union. The Tupelov TU-204 was oringally planned for 1992. This >aircraft is similar to a B-757--Planned with Soloviev D-90A Turbofans >rated at 35,275lbs of thrust. Snipped >Were these aircraft ever produced, or did the breakup of the >Soviet Union halt their production? I think the D-90 version did enter production and service, but there is also a version of the Tu204 with Rolls-Royce engines (RB211-535E4's). Just entered service with Cairo Aviation, after about 6 years of intermittent flight testing. ------------------------------------------------------ Iain Stuart Gas Turbine Maverick From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:21 From: sascha@manuel.franken.de Subject: IL96 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.147.188.18 Hi, anybody aware of a web page that has some performance details on the IL96? Thanks Sascha Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:22 From: mturner@sparky.skypoint.net (Michael Turner) Subject: Re: Twin Engine Jets to Hawaii (was United Airlines food) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. >economic health of the American airline industry and, at the same time, it is >responsible for aviation safety. Conflicts of interest have arisen in the past. >Are we seeing such a conflict now? > >It would be interesting to see any research done that shows a >substantial increase in the reliability of current engine design over the >reliability of the engines on aircraft such as the B-747. > >Does anyone know the real meaning of ETOPS? I have seen it referred to, I think Hi jim, i'm glad to reply to your question concerning engine reliability: Actual in flight engine shutdowns: RR Trent: 0.004/1000 hours PW 4000: 0.007/1000hours GE 90: 0.010/1000 hours Since fifteen years, the FAA (among others), has established a process of ongoing reliability monitoring of the ETOPS fleet carried out by a group of experts (PSRAB), which lead to regular improvements in engine reliability. The latest generation of ETOPS Aircraft (A330 & b777) and their engine (PW 400, RR trent, GE80) now fully comply with the safety objectives of FAR 25.1309 (probability of double engine failure <10e-9 per flight hour), in areas of operation where the mean diversiion time remains less than 120 minutes ( North Atlantic, Central Atlntic, Indian Ocean, Central Pacific). Truly, Michael Turner From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:23 From: Brad Crosier Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 5 Jun 1999 15:54:20 -0800, 207.67.93.53 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.67.93.53 Gregory Travis wrote: > I've always wondered about that. How does the >INLET< produce thrust? My understanding is it's a bit of a misnomer. The inlet doesn't actually produce thrust, but it does act as a compressor (with no moving parts, save the "spike," which moves fore and aft). The spike triggers a sonic shockwave, which is reflected down through the inlet. As airflow crosses a shockwave, it's velocity decreases and it's pressure increases - the same as when it goes through a compressor stage of the turbine engine. -- BTC Tri-Guy From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:24 From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.7 Organization: Teleport NNTP-Posting-Host: news.newsdawg.com On 05 Jun 99 02:09:32 , James Matthew Weber,jmweber@goodnet.com says... >Two points. The achievement with the F22 (and some F14 have the ability >as well) is to be both supersonic with afterburners off, and remain a >highly maneuverable weapons platform... >James Matthew Weber I think James has in mind the idea of dogfighting at supersonic speeds. At those speeds, I suspect that lock on, launch and run is more practical.... Brian Whatcott Altus OK From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:25 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I believe the F-14D or Super Tomcat is capable of transonic flight without afterburners. I thought the re-engined version, which produces 1/3 more pound of thrust, was to allow for carrier launch without afterburner, thereby needing less fuel for the mission. (Reduced air to air refueling.) I believe the Concorde at cruise flies a constant isotherm. G. Lee From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:26 From: w_keller@gmx.de (Wolfgang Keller) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.228.229.2 Gregory Travis wrote: > How does the >INLET< produce thrust? My fluid dynamics classes were quite some time ago, but something I still remember is: F = m_dot * (v_2 - v_1) Where F is the thrust generated by some kind of air-breathing engine (positiv in the direction opposite to v_1 and v_2), m_dot is the air flow through the engine (approximation: fuel mass set to 0), v_2 is the exhaust speed and v_1 the speed at the inlet. Now, if we only take the inlet itself, v_2 is smaller than v_1, because the air is slowed down. Thus, the inlet can not produce thrust, it always generates drag. To generate thrust, you need to accelerate air, not slow it down. Regards, -- Wolfgang Keller Zu Risiken und Nebenwirkungen von Junkmail lesen Sie de.admin.net-abuse.mail und fragen sie Ihren Postmaster oder Provider From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:27 From: andyweir Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message text written by INTERNET:airliners@chicago.com >Where did you get this from? AFAIK, Concorde doesn't really have a >problem making it LHR-JFK or JFK-LHR. In the winter, Concorde flies >direct from LHR - BGI, which is about a 4 hour flight. If it can do >that, then the 3 to 3½ hours to/from JFK should be no problem. >I can't recall hearing of a B.A. Concorde recently putting in to BOS on >the way to JFK I do recall vaguely a kerfuflle about 18 months ago over a Concorde declaring a Pan over London because it was short on fuel, as well as rumours that ATC always gives Concorde a straight-in approach to LHR because fuel is tight. Am I also right in recalling that Concorde is exempted from rules regarding its ability to make an alternate airport to Heathrow? Anyone out there with the facts? AW. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:28 From: cp@panix.com Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.panix.com 928795648 25203 166.84.0.226 (7 Jun 1999 22:47:28 GMT) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.nfs100.access.net James Matthew Weber wrote: > Actually U2/TR1's and Concorde's are not likely to run into each other. > A recent article in Avweek pegged typical U2 cruise at 65,000+ feet, The Proteus, currently under development at Scaled Composites, is specifically designed to fly for long periods at 60,000+ feet, where it will serve as a telecommunications platform. Eventually there may be multiple Proteuses across the US and South America, circling over cities for which they will provide Net access. When I spoke to one of the people at Scaled Composites in connection with an article I was writing, he emphasized the fact that at 60,000 feet, Proteus will be well out of the way of civilian air traffic. Foolishly I didn't think to mention Concorde. However, as I recall, Concorde reaches peak altitude only over oceans--correct? From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:29 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #2 Organization: The MITRE Corporation NNTP-Posting-Host: m24335-mac.mitre.org In article , Pete Finlay wrote: >Where did you get this from? AFAIK, Concorde doesn't really have a >problem making it LHR-JFK or JFK-LHR. In the winter, Concorde flies >direct from LHR - BGI, which is about a 4 hour flight. If it can do >that, then the 3 to 3½ hours to/from JFK should be no problem. > >I can't recall hearing of a B.A. Concorde recently putting in to BOS on >the way to JFK Well, I personally witnessed this a few years ago at BOS. It was a rainy evening across the east coast, and I imagine that the arrival delays into JFK made a diversion necessary. Admittedly, this could also have happened with other types of aircraft. OTOH, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the endurance (i.e. time aloft) of a Concorde is near the bottom of the ladder among transatlantic jet transports in service today. ed ---- Ed Hahn / ehahn@mitre.org / +1 703 883-5988 The above statement is solely an opinion of the author, and does not express a position or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:30 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #2 Organization: The MITRE Corporation NNTP-Posting-Host: m24335-mac.mitre.org In article , spagiola@my-dejanews.com wrote: >ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >> As for the Concorde, remember, it's a pretty light plane, only carries >> 100 pax, carries lots of fuel in its delta wings, and has four engines >> to move it. The F-22, of course, only has two engines. Despite this, >> the Concorde can barely make it across the Atlantic, and sometimes has >> to stop in Boston on the westbound leg to refuel if headwinds or even >> minor delays occur. > >True enough as far as it goes, but it does sound like you're >underestimating the achievement. Concorde might have twice the number >of engines that the F-22 has, but its engines-to-pax ratio is a whole >lot better. And those passengers will be sitting in shirt-sleeve >comfort eating fancy foods, not strapped into a G-suit breathing O2 >through a mask and peeing through a tube. Besides, what's the F-22's >range in supersonic cruise? Could it cross the Atlantic at M=2 (without >refuelling)? True enough. :-) However, the F-22 cockpit is pressurized, and given a suitable accessions to mission readiness, I imagine that a F-22 pilot could eat in shirt sleeves without the oxygen mask (although they won't ever fit a proper lav system on board). Unfortunately, I believe the F-22 pilots have a different mission in mind, thus necessitating the lack of a smoked salmon appetizer, etc. (I have no idea what the F-22's unrefueled range in super-cruise is. However, I note that the L-M website still claims that the F-22 is "the first aircraft" to possess supercruise capability.) BTW, engines-to-pax ratio is an interesting figure-of-merit... :-) ed ---- Ed Hahn / ehahn@mitre.org / +1 703 883-5988 The above statement is solely an opinion of the author, and does not express a position or implied warranty by the MITRE Corporation. Really. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:31 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Could it be that at THAT speed and given the state of late '60's >>electronics, there was a real possibility that Concorde would simply shoot >>itself down ;) The F-104 is generally given credit with being the first airplane to do that. The story goes that a pilot was performing a strafing run during a demo. The pilot then descended, accelerated, and flew thru it's own stream of .50 cal shells. AAaahhh SH*T! TheFNG From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:32 From: "Tim Cable" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: sqoUtnDRmA+B3F5zsCwkBT8NN89f/mHv2wDSzAfAHzk= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Actually Concorde climbs an descends based on the OAT, not purely based on the weight. The trend is to climb throughout the flight since they are assigned a block altitude of FL500 through FL600. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:33 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg-ma2-230.ix.netcom.com In "Andrew van der Plas" writes: >Why do aircraft usualy start first engine 2 and then engine 1, on a >two-engined airplane. > >Is there a specific reason for this, or is this because of history. I believe it actually started in history as the passenger doors are usually on the left side so the right-hand engines could be started even if the passenger stairs were still up against the aircraft. Lou. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:34 From: fidgeon@pangea.ca (Ernie Fidgeon) Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: pumpkin.pangea.ca 927590634 12318 207.161.114.176 (25 May 1999 00:03:54 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Pangea.CA, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: dock09-00-16.ner.pangea.ca During routine mtce on A320's we usually start No1 first cuz it says No1 (GRIN).... winds can playa role, but then we usually aim into the headwind when possible. EF Whether you think you can or you can't - you are right. Henry Ford From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:35 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: Engine start sequence 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 927590923 23933 209.213.228.108 (25 May 1999 00:08:43 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2-36.odyssey.on.ca Andrew van der Plas wrote in article ... > Why do aircraft usualy start first engine 2 and then engine 1, on a > two-engined airplane. > > Is there a specific reason for this, or is this because of history. Standard rule of thumb for fixed wing: first start the engine you can hear (but not see). Then start the engine you can see (but not hear over the first engine). On twin engine helicopters without EPU assist, we always alternate which engine starts first, on the theory that battery-only start is more likely to result in an engine over temp on start, due to slow engine acceleration. The second engine starts quicker, with generator assist from the running engine. In thoery, this evens wear and tear between the two engines. BW From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:36 From: "Chris Maybury" Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: tor-nn1.netcom.ca 927693037 207.181.78.54 (Wed, 26 May 1999 00:30:37 EDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: Netcom Canada NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.181.78.54 When I flew light twins it was routine to start whichever engine had the shortest cable between its starter and the batteries. This would give the least resistence hence delivering the most punch to the starter. After that engine was running its generator could be used to replenish the batteries if it had been a hard or cold start before starting the second engine. On the Dash 8 I now drive we start #2 first as its on the opposite side from the Main & Baggage Door. This allows us to disconnect such things as ground heat/air, even GPU and support the airplane on #2 while last minute items are completed. The larger jets with air starters have similar reasons for start sequence. Often the aircraft is designed so that the engine which is most practical to start first has the shortest air supply hose path. It's the only engine that will solely be started from air off the APU. On all the other engines there will be some assistance from the already started engines even if left at idle power. I hope this helps. -- Cheers... Chris Maybury From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:37 From: "Cass Alexander" Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 927790828 139.134.75.1 (Thu, 27 May 1999 17:40:28 EST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.75.1 Andrew, Engine two (at least on a twin) is on the starboard side of the aircraft, away from the pax entry door(s). Starting #2 first allows last minute access to and from the aircraft by ground crew without risking engine ingestion. Historic, you bet. The danger was even greater in the propr era. Cass Alexander From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:38 From: eplukas@agt.net (Ed Lukas) Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.telusplanet.net 928047688 161.184.96.219 (Sun, 30 May 1999 01:01:28 MDT) X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit) NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.184.96.219 >Why do aircraft usualy start first engine 2 and then engine 1, on a >two-engined airplane. There are various reasons The ones that i can think of are 1/ Engine nearest the battery or the External Power receptacle usually gets started first because less electrical line loss on the shortest length of battery cable during engine cranking (100-300 amps) 2/ Engine on the command-pilot's side because in the case of prop aircraft - the pilot can ensure that no ground crew are near the propellers when they start.Opposite side engine may not be visible to pilot sitting on the opposite seat. 3/ Particular fuel loading or fuel cross-over procedure may require a particular engine to be started first. *** 4/ Passenger doors are usually on the left; the right engine (#2) starts first in case of a last minute passenger rushing to board the aircraft does not run into a rotating propller or the ground crew does not run into the prop during last minute baggage loading. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:39 From: PSLEIGHT Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 12 Jun 1999 23:16:11 GMT, vip-206-77.vip.uk.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: vip-206-77.vip.uk.com Andrew van der Plas wrote in message ... >Why do aircraft usualy start first engine 2 and then engine 1, on a >two-engined airplane. As far as i know the reason for this is that passengers will always board the aircraft from the port (left) side which is where the left engine located (numbered as No1 on a twin jet or No1 and 2 on a four engine aircraft). To reduce time needed to start engines and provide air con, the No 2 engine is started as there is no risk of injury of pax running into the props or being sucked into the engine intakes. Generallty the No 2 engine is started from pneumatics from the APU and the No 1 from cross feed from the air supplied by the No 2 engine on a twin engined aircraft. Except for concorde which doesn't have an APU or some prop aircraft, in their cases external air start is required. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:40 From: "Benoit" Subject: A Concorde flight from New York made an emergency landing Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: UUNET Benelux (post does not reflect views of UUNET Benelux) Reply-To: "Benoit" NNTP-Posting-Host: pool02b-194-7-80-41.uunet.be LONDON (AP) _ A Concorde flight from New York made an emergency landing Sunday at Heathrow Airport because of suspected hydraulic problems that could have affected the steering of the jet on the ground. British Airways flight 002 landed safely at about 5 p.m. London time, moved off the runway easily and was towed to the terminal without incident, said British Airways spokesman Iain Burns. The plane took off from New York's Kennedy airport at 8:45 a.m. EDT. Fire and emergency crews met the aircraft, which landed 15 minutes early, and a nearby road was closed, but all 97 passengers got off the plane normally when it reached its docking port at the terminal. ``All those on board will be offered a free Concorde return trip ticket between London and New York for any inconvenience,'' Burns said. -- Benoît ------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:41 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: What's the weight of 747-400? 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 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com toto wrote in message ... > What is the approximate weight of 747-400 (without fuel)? It varies, but our freighters' BOW run around 158,000 Kg. > What fuel load can it carry? 163,000 Kg > What weight of payload can it carry? Maximum TOGW is 396,900 Kg. Max Zero-fuel weight is 288,000 Kg. That makes max payload about 128,000 Kg. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:42 From: "Scott E. Farleigh" Subject: Re: Oxygen-bottle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bell Laboratories, Denver Reply-To: sef@lucent.com NNTP-Posting-Host: rebecca.dr.lucent.com Andrew van der Plas wrote: > Is there pure oyygen in an oxygen-bottle or is it just compressed air. > > Why then call they this an oxygen-bottle and not a air-bottle. I was a U.S. Navy Parachute Rigger back in the mid to late 70's. If the bottle was Green and said "Oxygen" then it was fill with pure oxygen. The were no "air" bottles used in Naval Aviation. Only oxygen was used for breathing (depending upon the oxygen regulator it may have been diluted in the regulator), aircraft tires were filled with nitrogen and floatation equipment used carbon dioxide. Scott E. Farleigh (formerly PR-2) ------------------------------------------------ Parachute Riggers bury thier mistakes From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:43 From: Brad Crosier Subject: Re: Oxygen-bottle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 3 Jun 1999 06:22:53 -0800, 207.67.93.86 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.67.93.86 Andrew van der Plas wrote: > Is there pure oyygen in an oxygen-bottle or is it just compressed air. > > Why then call they this an oxygen-bottle and not a air-bottle. It is pure oxygen. "Aviators Breathing Oxygen," to be specific, as opposed to medical oxygen. The difference being the the medical oxygen has some moisture in it, whereas the aviation does not (to prevent corrosion and freezing problems). It's not called an air bottle because it isn't. -- BTC Tri-Guy From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:44 From: "PSLEIGHT" Subject: Re: Oxygen-bottle References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 12 Jun 1999 23:19:47 GMT, vip-206-77.vip.uk.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: vip-206-77.vip.uk.com Andrew van der Plas wrote in message ... >Is there pure oyygen in an oxygen-bottle or is it just compressed air. > >Why then call they this an oxygen-bottle and not a air-bottle. An oxygen bottle on aircraft consists of pure liquid oxygen. Although most modern aircraft have only oxy bottles for the flight crew, the pax have to make do with oxygen generators which use a chemical reaction to produce the oxygen requried. Although when the777 was design an oxygen generation system was proposed similar to that used on the space shuttle. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:45 From: luisma@spainmail.com Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.235.73.30 wb8foz@nrk.com (David Lesher) wrote: > timma writes: > >Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in > >aircraft without oxygen masks?? > Now, if/when the pressurization fails, you DO use the mask and > do breath O2. That works because of "partial pressure"... Well, to be exact, if ypou are a passenger, you breath a mixture of O2 and cabin air. The mixing ratio is controlled through two valves in the mask, one for oxygen, another for the air. If you are a crew member, you may control the mixture ratio and the other conditions of what you are breathing. --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:46 From: luisma@spainmail.com Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.235.73.30 az944@lafn.org (Herb Feldman) wrote: > Normally, airliners have their cabins pressurized to 8,000Ft., > regardless of how high above 8,000Ft the plane flys. Disagree. The cabin is pressurized as low as possible, for the passenger comfort: 8000 ft is the maximum, according to ICAO. In the DC-9, for example, the fuselage was at the maximum differential pressure (except for a 500 ft margin that allows small height variations) --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:47 From: luisma@spainmail.com Subject: Re: Oxygen References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.235.73.30 Don Stauffer wrote: > timma wrote: > > Can anyone tell me how we survive breathing oxygen above 12K in > > aircraft without oxygen masks?? > The cabins are pressurized. Ok > An air compressor compresses the air until it > has the same pressure as about 8000 ft altitude. I am afraid no. In transport pressurized aircrafts, the air is taken ("bleed") from the engine axial compressor, thus causing a decrease in the engine thrust. Only in small, piston-engine-powered aircarfts, the pressurisation air is taken from specific compressors. --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==-- ---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.--- From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:48 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Oxygen 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 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com Pressure breathing is only necessary above a cabin altitude of 30,000' or so. Below that, the partial pressure of 100% oxygen at ambient pressure (or just enough above ambient for delivery) is sufficient. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:49 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Oxygen - Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 20.3 Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics mmallory@netcom.com (Mark Mallory) writes: > The cabin windows on Concorde are each about the size of a large > postcard (4" by 6" or so). I suspected the reason was to limit the > pressure loss during a high-altitude decompression. > > However, it's doubtful that the loss of a WINDSHIELD would result in an > equally survivable condition. Presumably, they've gone to great lengths > to ensure this can virtually never happen (or is at least much less likely > to happen than the loss of one of the roughly *one hundred* cabin windows). Well, the first protection that comes to mind is that there are two windshields at cruise: the droop snout has an outer windshield to smooth high-speed aerodynamics. This presumably protects the real windshield, which is only exposed when the nose is dropped for takeoff and landing, and is presumably what holds the air in. The chances of a foreign object penetrating both is probably vanishingly small. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:50 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Oxygen - Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent a1.5/32.451 Organization: Little to None NNTP-Posting-Host: !cd*C1k-V^JThe cabin windows on Concorde are each about the size of a large >postcard (4" by 6" or so). I suspected the reason was to limit the >pressure loss during a high-altitude decompression. > >However, it's doubtful that the loss of a WINDSHIELD would result in an >equally survivable condition. Presumably, they've gone to great lengths >to ensure this can virtually never happen (or is at least much less likely >to happen than the loss of one of the roughly *one hundred* cabin windows). As you probably know, Concorde uses two separate "windshields". The first is a retractable monster that is used in cruise and which is not part of the pressure vessel. The second is the cockpit window proper. At low speed, the heatshield part is retracted, since it impairs visibility somewhat. Malc. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:51 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Oxygen - Concorde References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , "John Weiss" writes: >The Eros full-face masks for the cockpit crew on the 747-400 also have an >"Emergency" positive-pressure setting that can be used if necessary. I >believe that type of mask is available on other aircraft, too. The Eros mask has a normal and 100% percent setting. However, above 30,000 feet (I think), the mask will automatically supply 100% oxygen under positive pressure. At lower altitudes, this option can be selected or deselected. All of the corporate jets I have flown over the past 11 years have had the Eros mask. It is very quick to don and works very well. Wouldn't want to be at altitude without one. G. Lee From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:52 From: "jdhil" Subject: Re: Landing in 35mph crosswind References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 928723668 8940 12.72.57.48 (7 Jun 1999 02:47:48 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.57.48 Safe. The wing low (one rear wheel first) is a common way to land in a crosswind. If you ever take flying lessons, this is the most likely technique you'll learn. For the obvious reasons, this technique isn't used on an aircraft with wing pylons (like the DC-8, 707, 747 etc.). The delay is to get the aircraft straight on the runway before using the reverse thrust. I'm not qualified on the 727, but I suspect 35kts is in the upper range of the aircrafts normal limitations. jd From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:53 From: "steve" Subject: Re: Landing in 35mph crosswind References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: ffd-ca6-02.ix.netcom.com Albuquerque has both east-west and north-south runways which are long enough for airliners. Unless a runway was closed for maint. there is no excuse for him to land witha 90% crosswind. Even if a runway was closed, with such strong crosswinds they should have halted the maint. and opened the runway. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:54 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Landing in 35mph crosswind References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com There is no regulation about the maximum crosswind landing. Each airplane is certified with a maximum 'demonstrated' crosswind. 35 knots is pretty much the maximum most manufacturers recommend. ...on the 'other' hand, the 707's max demonstrated is -->50<-- knots. I've seen the films. TheFNG From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:55 From: "J. W. Dawson" Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net 929032077 34448 209.130.164.67 (10 Jun 1999 16:27:57 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 209-130-164-67.nas-1.apv.frontiernet.net John Weiss wrote in message ... > The APU of a 747 is normally shut down before takeoff. In some > circumstances it may be left on to run one of the air-conditioning packs > at low altitude, but it should not be emitting any visible smoke. Just > look at the 747s at the gate. Most of them probably have their APUs > running, with no visible smoke. I believe the original issue was spotting smoke on arrival over the destination and APU's are normally started sometime during the approach. Exact timing varies from carrier to carrier and type to type. "Smoke" can have a different appearance depending on sun angle, smoke composition, humidity, etc. At low altitudes and normal temperatures condensation clouds from the pressure change of the aircraft passing through humid air commonly dissipates in seconds, as does jettisoned fuel. Smoke lingers. And, having spend a good deal of time on airport ramps around running APU's I can attest that they actually tend to be about as smoky as your average diesel engine, maybe a little less - it just isn't particularly thick and is often not noticeable - but it's certainly there. On the other hand, when gas turbines light off there is often a puff of lighter smoke - sometimes a lot more than a puff. RB211's seem to be prone to smoky starts (having watched many L1011's belch a big blue-white cloud when starting) and the versions used on 757's often emit a puff at start-up and smoke after shut-down. I've been told that this smoke is most commonly due to engine lubricating oil that seeps through seals and burns off as the fuel lights off and the engine heats up. It's normal and not at all uncommon. An APU is just a small gas turbine and I believe that "burn-off" smoke is what's occasionally briefly seen coming from the tail of descending airliners. Cheers! JD From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:56 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com Oooops, my goof - the westernized Tu-204 is powered by RB211-535s, not PW2037s. -- 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 Fri Jun 18 01:39:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:57 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Tupelov TU-204, Ilyushin Il-114 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Oooops, my goof - the westernized Tu-204 is powered by RB211-535s, not >PW2037s. True, but there was talk at one point of putting PW2000s on the Tu-204 as well. It wouldn't have been the PW2037 since the '0' indicates it's for a Boeing application. Possibly PW2337, same as used on the Il-96M, though I think they might have been higher thrust (e.g., PW2x40) for the Tu-204. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:58 From: bartscher@aol.com (Bartscher) Subject: Re: re KLM Cargo 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >The two aircraft in question (PH-BUH and PH-BUI) are SUDs converted >over to 747SFs. But..... The conversion process we (Boeing Wichita) used >on them is STCed as the 747-300SF conversion as our DAS staff determined >that a -300 conversion would be almost identical. What exactly is the difference between a 747 SUD and a 747-300? I had thought that the SUD was a marketing designation for what later turned into the -300. Were there actually -200SUD aircraft that differed in some manner? Thanks, Eric Bartsch bartscher@aol.com From kls Fri Jun 18 01:39:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:39:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: re KLM Cargo 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What exactly is the difference between a 747 SUD and a 747-300? I had thought >that the SUD was a marketing designation for what later turned into the -300. You're thinking of the 747-200 EUD, which was redesignated the 747-300. The SUD term was applied to 747-200s which were built with the smaller hump and subsequently modified to -300 (aka EUD) spec. An exception is a pair of 747-146B(SR)(SUD) aircraft built for JAL which, despite the SUD designation, appear to have been build with the extended (er, stretched) upper deck. >Were there actually -200SUD aircraft that differed in some manner? AFAIK, the differences between a 747-200B(SUD) and a 747-300 are very small or non-existent, assuming you're comparing aircraft with the same engine models and equivalent weights. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:00 From: jbtex@aol.comkeinspam (JbTex) Subject: Squat interlock Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I once heard pilots talking about a "squat switch" in the main landing gear of airliners. They mentioned that it prevented the deployment of the thrust-reversers until the landing aircraft's weight settled onto the landing gear. If this is true, are the armed spoilers also kept retracted by this switch, or must they deploy prior to the full "squat"? Also, are there other systems controlled by squat/not-squat status? Thanks From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:01 From: greenguy01@aol.com (Greenguy01) Subject: Re: Flaps & spool up References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I think that the pilots could have the auto-throttles activated and as flaps are deployed, the speed decreases and the auto-throttles spool up the engines to make up for the extra drag. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:02 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Aerospace merger tree References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.192.143.151 dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) wrote: > Does anybody have an up to date merger tree for the great aerospace > companies of the past? There are so few left these days, it would be > interesting to know how they were formed. I have a chart that shows the origins of British Aerospace. If there's interest, I can post it once I return home (I'm travelling in India right now). The short version is: ALL British Aerospace companies ---> BAe Stefano Pagiola --- My opinions alone Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:03 From: "steve podleski" Subject: Re: Aerospace merger tree References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 929028439.041.47 KHQZIQS5S0CD5D177C qube-02.us-ca.remarq.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: Posted via RemarQ Communities, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.119.12.213 Don Stauffer wrote in message ... > I am still sore, as an ex-employee of McDonnell Douglas, of the loss of > that company. I now get a pension check from our competitor, the dark > side of the force! ...or the Boerg resistance is futile... From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:04 From: "Smurf" Subject: Re: scrapping airliners 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 On Friday 04th June wrote: > How (by whom) are planes like these scrapped? Are there special > companies that travel to these planes and scrap them? There are various companies in the world that specialize in scrapping old aircraft, some of them are type specific, the rotatables are usually stored for onward sale, the fuselage is then sold for basic scrap metal value. In some cases that aircraft are flown to a specific destination for scrapping, the airports around Davis Monthan AFB in the USA spring to mind. In Europe you can see these operations in Ostende, Manston and Shannon. See YA. John From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:05 From: "Douglas Maclean" Subject: Re: scrapping airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 928579391 1NNUCNF1GE69CC393C gxsn.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: GXSN NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.230.156 Unfortunately they usually get treated like any other scrap metal. They are often sold to a scrap metal dealer who simply tears them up after all the useful parts have been removed. I once saw almost all of the British Airways VC10 fleet destroyed in this way. Sad sight. From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:06 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: scrapping airliners References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >The >other was a Tristar belonging to some bancrupt company that was >obviously severely cannibalized for parts. > >How (by whom) are planes like these scrapped? Are there special >companies that travel to these planes and scrap them? Well, around these parts, we scrap our aircraft with Memphis Group. I'm not even sure where they park them, but the Memphis Group takes them and cannibalizes them. While inspecting an ole B727-100 [N106FE], we discovered an extraordinary amount of corrosion. Due to costs and questionable future of the B727 fleet(fire detection & cargo door AD's and noise restrictions), it was decided to scrap it. It was at a well-known west coast overhaul facility and they offered to buy it for spare parts. So, that is where it will end its career. Then there is always long term storage in Arizona. Steve Cole From kls Fri Jun 18 01:40:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jun 99 01:40:07 From: "Clunk(Bernhard Zunk)" Subject: Re: Short DC-8? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 929513189 139.134.102.196 (Wed, 16 Jun 1999 16:06:29 EST) Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.102.196 Don Stokes wrote: > Boeing's multitudes of models also cost it a lot; if Boeing had sold > only as many 707s as Douglas sold DC-8s, it wouldn't have broken even. > Much of the red ink was caused by the development of variants -- but > doing so built market share in a game where airlines needed to be > convinced that Boeing was really serious about selling airliners this > time, instead of just doing a bare minimum of modifications to military > designs as they had been in the past. I seems that boeings propensity for producing many models might be a problem in competion with airbus: For instance Airbus A310 Boeing B767 Airbus A318,319,320,321 Boeing B717,B737,some B757 Airbus A330/340-200/300 Boeing B767,B757,B777 Airbus A340-500/600 Boeing B777 B747 Boeing has 5 Basic airframes in production Airbus 2 (4 if you count the low volume A310 and also the A340-500/600 series as seperate although the A330/A340 has much commonality across the 200/300/500/600 range. From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:40 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: Twin Engine Jets to Hawaii (was United Airlines food) 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 929913704 9635 209.213.228.149 (20 Jun 1999 21:21:44 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings NNTP-Posting-Host: ts3-5.odyssey.on.ca Michael Turner wrote in article ... > >Does anyone know the real meaning of ETOPS? > > Hi jim, i'm glad to reply to your question concerning engine reliability: serious stuff snipped. I was told it stands for "Engines Turning Or Passengers Swim". BW From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:41 From: Vallier-Horiuchi Subject: Aeroflot inflight fire Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: front7m.grolier.fr 930164166 28417 195.36.155.179 (23 Jun 1999 18:56:06 GMT) Organization: Club-Internet (France) NNTP-Posting-Host: reims-3-179.club-internet.fr Who has heared about an emergency landing of an aeroflot aircraft in Karachi during the night of 21-22 June? The pilot had called the air traffic controller with the engine nb 1 on fire... Thanks to mail to: vallier@club-internet.fr From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:42 From: tpearson@chunkstyle.com (Tim Pearson) Subject: Mysterious Boeing Panel Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 23 Jun 1999 14:25:28 -0800, chunkstyle.com Organization: Running With Scissors, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: chunkstyle.com I've noticed that Boeing 707s and 727s have a trapezoid-shaped, beige-colored fiberglass or plastic panel on the lower aspect of the right side of the forward fuselage, between the flight deck and the forward galley service door. It's shaped like this: /---------------------- / | | | |______________________| Forward ---> What's the purpose of this panel, and why doesn't the 737 have it? Thanks, Tim Pearson -- "Every man should own a Browning. The details that follow that First Commandment are a matter for doctrinal squabbling and potential schism." -- Dave Garrett From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:43 From: mturner@sparky.skypoint.net (Michael Turner) Subject: Re: IL96 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. On 18 Jun 1999 sascha@manuel.franken.de wrote: > anybody aware of a web page that has some performance details on > the IL96? You will find a few informations on http://www.acworld.com/aircraft.html IL96 Medium to long range, widebody with four engines. One model, manufactured by Ilyushin. Over 12 units built/ordered. Maximum payload 300-350 seats. IL96 Built: 1989-1998>. Configurations: passenger, freighter. Variants: 300 standard, M long fuselage, T freighter. Conversions: none. Values: USD $60-$75 million. Are you generally interessed in four engines planes ? From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:44 From: "Vikas A. Tipnis" Subject: DC-3 markings circa 1960 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 930023852 24010 12.78.104.9 (22 Jun 1999 03:57:32 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.78.104.9 Does anyone out there have access to pictures of Indian Airlines' DC-3 markings circa 1960? Thanx From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:45 From: Art & Janet Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 929760355 13642 12.79.32.178 (19 Jun 1999 02:45:55 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.32.178 "J. W. Dawson" wrote: > John Weiss wrote in message ... > > The APU of a 747 is normally shut down before takeoff. In some > > circumstances it may be left on to run one of the air-conditioning packs > > at low altitude, but it should not be emitting any visible smoke. Just > > look at the 747s at the gate. Most of them probably have their APUs > > running, with no visible smoke. > > I believe the original issue was spotting smoke on arrival over the > destination and APU's are normally started sometime during the approach. > Exact timing varies from carrier to carrier and type to type. Garrett (Alliedsignal) APU's, with the exception of the ETOPS variety such as the 331-500 (B777), are not started or run except on the ground. The ETOPS variety normally is not run in the air except in the case of single engine ops. > On the other hand, when gas turbines light off there is often a puff of > lighter smoke ... > I've been told that this smoke is most commonly due to engine lubricating > oil that seeps through seals and burns off as the fuel lights off and the > engine heats up. Nope, the puff is excess fuel that doesn't combust. If oil starts seeping by the seals, it means an unscheduled engine removal. -- Art awutay@worldnet.att.net your mileage may vary From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:46 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: 747 "smoke" trail 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 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com J. W. Dawson wrote in message ... > I believe the original issue was spotting smoke on arrival over the > destination and APU's are normally started sometime during the approach. > Exact timing varies from carrier to carrier and type to type. The 747 APU is normally started after landing. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:47 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Squat interlock Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:40 AM 6/18/99 +0000, you wrote: >I once heard pilots talking about a "squat switch" in the main >landing gear of airliners. They mentioned that it prevented >the deployment of the thrust-reversers until the landing aircraft's >weight settled onto the landing gear. If this is true, are the >armed spoilers also kept retracted by this switch, or must they >deploy prior to the full "squat"? Also, are there other systems >controlled by squat/not-squat status? I think you can get the spoiler to come to the 'in flight' detent with out the sqat switches, but that isn't automatic. On Boeing Aircraft at least, it is possible to deploy reverse thrust, brakes, and spoiler/speed brakes at any time (although it may not be easy to do so, it can be done). However at least on an A320 this is not the case, and this lead to the loss of a Lufthansa A320 at Warsaw a few year ago in what should have been a non-event. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:48 From: "David R. Hendrickson" Subject: Re: Squat interlock 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: Eskimo North (206) For-Ever NNTP-Posting-Host: riffraff.ndip.eskimo.net JbTex wrote: > I once heard pilots talking about a "squat switch" in the main > landing gear of airliners. They mentioned that it prevented > the deployment of the thrust-reversers until the landing aircraft's > weight settled onto the landing gear. If this is true, are the > armed spoilers also kept retracted by this switch, or must they > deploy prior to the full "squat"? Also, are there other systems > controlled by squat/not-squat status? Thanks though i've worked on '27s and '57s, the following is for newer '37s, mostly NextGens': 737's have the squat switch in the right main gear well with a cable running down the right leg to the scissor link. for the TR's you can electronically fake a jacked plane being on the ground by putting the #1 and #2 Air/Ground Override systems on the PSEU (Prox Switch Electronic Unit, formerly EGADS; Electronic Gear and Door System) in the Ground mode. the plane thinks it's on the ground. the PSEU is in the forward EE bay, forward of the nose gear. you can make some systems on a plane that's on it's gear think it's in the air by using the reverse of the above. the armed ground spoilers are kept retracted by the squat switch. you must remove the bolt from the cable at the scissor and pull the cable down to deploy them (if on jacks...), the electronic trick doesn't work. some systems look at the condition of the six air/ground prox switches (2 on each gear). others look at a combination of everything. on the FMC in the cockpit, you can't get into the mainenance screens if the plane's not in Ground mode. Take Off Warning, Ram Air inlets, the NextGen's overwing hatches...lots of systems look at the air/ground condition of the aircraft... hope this helped... dave -- David R. Hendrickson riffraff@eskimo.com http://www.eskimo.com/~riffraff Microsoft has announced that shipment of Windows 2000 has been postponed to the first quarter of 1901. From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:49 From: byrd@sgi.net (Stephen H. Bradford) Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.sgi.net 929846770 209.166.130.100 (Sat, 19 Jun 1999 22:46:10 EDT) Organization: Stargate Industries, LLC. JbTex wrote: > I once heard pilots talking about a "squat switch" in the main > landing gear of airliners. They mentioned that it prevented > the deployment of the thrust-reversers until the landing aircraft's > weight settled onto the landing gear. If this is true, are the > armed spoilers also kept retracted by this switch, or must they > deploy prior to the full "squat"? Also, are there other systems > controlled by squat/not-squat status? Yes, you are correct. On some aircraft the auto-spoilers are enabled by the main gear squat switch and maybe backed up by a nose gear squat switch and on the 737, a partial wheel spin up with the radio altimeter reading less than 10 ft. This is to allow auto-spoiler and thrust reverser deployment in the event of landing on a very slick or snow covered runway. Other systems include engine idle and wing anti-icing deactivation. On Boeing and Mcdonald aircraft, a squat switch controls auto-scheduled depresurization, nose-wheel steering activation and auto-brakes. On the more advanced aircraft,757, Airbus, the squat switch controls many computer functions. An air mode transfer failure on takeoff, (the airplane still thinks it's on the ground) can cause some very strange indications and computer problems. The aircraft must return and get the swith fixed. A ground school instructor once told me that the squat switch on the 737-200 does "33 wonderful things" He was the only one who could remember them all. Thats why we have troubleshooting checklists. Steve From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:50 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Squat interlock 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 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com JbTex wrote in message ... > I once heard pilots talking about a "squat switch" in the main > landing gear of airliners. They mentioned that it prevented > the deployment of the thrust-reversers until the landing aircraft's > weight settled onto the landing gear. If this is true, are the > armed spoilers also kept retracted by this switch, or must they > deploy prior to the full "squat"? Also, are there other systems > controlled by squat/not-squat status? There are or can be "squat switches" in the main and nose gear. The 747-400 has both. They control or limit activation of nosegear and body gear steering, taxi lights, IFF, engine reversers, landing spoilers, flight/ground idle, gear retraction, and many other functions. In military fighter aircraft, ordnance arming is also inhibited on the ground via those switches. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:51 From: "R W Walker" Subject: Re: Squat interlock 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 X-Trace: mur2.odyssey.on.ca 929912889 9635 209.213.228.149 (20 Jun 1999 21:08:09 GMT) Organization: Skywalker Pangalactic Holdings X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 NNTP-Posting-Host: ts3-5.odyssey.on.ca JbTex wrote in article ... > I once heard pilots talking about a "squat switch" in the main > landing gear of airliners. They mentioned that it prevented > the deployment of the thrust-reversers until the landing aircraft's > weight settled onto the landing gear. If this is true, are the > armed spoilers also kept retracted by this switch, or must they > deploy prior to the full "squat"? Also, are there other systems > controlled by squat/not-squat status? See alt.diasters.aviation for a good discussion of squat switches, wheel speed detectors (or spinup sensors), and their effect on spoilers, flaps, throttles, etc. The designers have tried about every combination you could think of. Of course, the most important system interlock controlled by squat switches, on just about every aircraft that has them, is landing gear retraction. BW From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:52 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Airplanes with retractable gear have squat switches to avoid retraction when on the ground. If the handle is raised on the ground and the switch is in the "ground" mode, the gear will not retract. On larger planes the squat switch is used for many things. One example that comes to mind is that window and pitot heaters (and water drain masts) operate on low power when on the ground and switch to high power inflight. Each design is different but some systems need to know when the plane is on the ground. When spoilers are armed for automatic deployment they can be triggered by wheel spin-up or the squat switch, or thrust reversal. From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:53 From: "Frank Muenker" Subject: Airbus A300-600R Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via the Nacamar Network X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: blackice.living-source.com Hi, recently on a trip with an Airbus A300-600R I noticed that the highspeed ailerons are being used as (landing) flaps during touchdown. Steering only happens by the outer ailerons. Is there any other aircraft using this procedure ? Greetings Frank From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:54 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: re KLM Cargo 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Karl Swartz (kls@ohare.Chicago.COM) wrote: : AFAIK, the differences between a 747-200B(SUD) and a 747-300 are very : small or non-existent, assuming you're comparing aircraft with the same : engine models and equivalent weights. I have a vague recollection of someone saying that the fairing between the wing and fuselage was changed for the 747-300 and the variation carried through to the 400, -- Gerry From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:55 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit At 01:39 AM 6/18/99 +0000, you wrote: >Message text written by INTERNET:airliners@chicago.com >>Where did you get this from? AFAIK, Concorde doesn't really have a >>problem making it LHR-JFK or JFK-LHR. In the winter, Concorde flies >>direct from LHR - BGI, which is about a 4 hour flight. If it can do >>that, then the 3 to 3½ hours to/from JFK should be no problem. Depends upon how much of the trip is supersonic. The direct routine to BGI would take them over/near heavily populated areas along the coast of France, and very close to Spainish/Portughese resort areas. My guess is they stay subsonic until well clear of the heavily populated European areas, which would mean flying subsonic for about 700 miles. That would also account for the time difference in travel time. Based upon the 4 hour flight, and distance to BGI only being 4000 miles. The run from LHR to Dulles used to be about 3hours 20 minutes, and is 3600 miles. The trip to BGI is 400 miles further, and take 40 minutes more, which means somehow that 400 miles is covered at about 600mph. >>I can't recall hearing of a B.A. Concorde recently putting in to BOS on >>the way to JFK It usually won't, instead BA will limit passenger carriage. In the last several years load factors have not been very good, so this has probably been invisible when it does happen., >I do recall vaguely a kerfuflle about 18 months ago over a Concorde >declaring a Pan over London because it was short on fuel, as well as >rumours that ATC always gives Concorde a straight-in approach to LHR >because fuel is tight. Am I also right in recalling that Concorde is >exempted from rules regarding its ability to make an alternate airport >to Heathrow? Anyone out there with the facts? Under the best of circumstances Concorde does not have a lot of fuel on the way in, and it does indeed get special handling from ATC on the way end. I think the standing joke is 30 minutes after arrival in the London area, you will be on the ground. The only question is will it be a landing or a crash due to fuel exhaustion... The longest delay I have even seen was a single trip around the holding pattern, and that happened only once. My recollection is fuel reserve is typically on the order of 30 minutes upon arrival, and that is all. I am compelled to point out that there are in fact several airports in the greater London Area that are literally only a few minutes flying time where Concorde could land. Heathrow, Gatwick, and Luton (A Concorde Prototype used to live at Luton and may still), and perhaps Stanstead as well. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:56 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 01:39 AM 6/18/99 +0000, you wrote: >On 05 Jun 99 02:09:32 , James Matthew Weber,jmweber@goodnet.com says... >>Two points. The achievement with the F22 (and some F14 have the ability >>as well) is to be both supersonic with afterburners off, and remain a >>highly maneuverable weapons platform... >>James Matthew Weber > >I think James has in mind the idea of dogfighting at supersonic speeds. >At those speeds, I suspect that lock on, launch and run is more >practical.... Not likely. What supercruise does for you is to get to the point of engagement and back faster without running out of fuel. Most fighters with just internal fuel storage cannot fly supersonic very long, so ingress/egress are sub sonic. That makes you a target for a longer period of time, and give the opposition more time to send up the 'reception committee'. Afterburners do horrible things to SFC. I doubt any pilot who plans on surviving would go into a dogfight with the burners off. Dogfighting converts aircraft kinetic energy into high G maneuvers, so to survive you want maximum possible available energy at all times. Otherwise you run out of kinetic energy, which limits both speed and maneuverabilty and turns you into the proverbial sitting duck. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:57 From: greg@sherrill.kiva.net (Gregory Travis) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM In article , Brad Crosier wrote: >Gregory Travis wrote: > >> I've always wondered about that. How does the >INLET< produce thrust? > >My understanding is it's a bit of a misnomer. The inlet doesn't >actually produce thrust, but it does act as a compressor (with no moving >parts, save the "spike," which moves fore and aft). The spike triggers >a sonic shockwave, which is reflected down through the inlet. As >airflow crosses a shockwave, it's velocity decreases and it's pressure >increases - the same as when it goes through a compressor stage of the >turbine engine. That's my understanding as well. That sounds like a straightforward ramjet engine and that's the mode that I believe the SR-71's engines operate in at speed. The inlet doesn't produce thrust. Thrust is produced, as it always is, by expanding air by heating it (by burning fuel) and directing that expanded air out rearward. greg -- gregory travis | [MS Vice President] Brian Valentine characterized Linux as greg@littlebear.com| "momentum without a lot of design wins" - www.idg.net From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:58 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Little to None X-Newsreader: Forte Agent a1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: !^Zr61k-XiZVN;3FV&,(F;\Jn (Encoded at Airnews!) On 18 Jun 99 01:39:27 , andyweir caused to appear as if it was written: >>Where did you get this from? AFAIK, Concorde doesn't really have a >>problem making it LHR-JFK or JFK-LHR. In the winter, Concorde flies >>direct from LHR - BGI, which is about a 4 hour flight. If it can do >>that, then the 3 to 3½ hours to/from JFK should be no problem. >I do recall vaguely a kerfuflle about 18 months ago over a Concorde >declaring a Pan over London because it was short on fuel, as well as >rumours that ATC always gives Concorde a straight-in approach to LHR >because fuel is tight. Am I also right in recalling that Concorde is >exempted from rules regarding its ability to make an alternate airport >to Heathrow? Anyone out there with the facts? I would note that a Concorde loitering over southern England in one of the stacks would be A Bad Thing from an environmental standpoint. The things are noisy, and I would suspect that it is in everyone's best interests to get it from the Bristol Channel to parked on the ground in the shortest practical time... Malc. From kls Fri Jun 25 01:32:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:32:59 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Reply-To: Pete Finlay In article , Cass Alexander writes >Bill Herman made the following astute observation regarding Concorde in a >recent posting: > >> (SNIP) I thought the F-22 was considered >>to be a great technological achievement because of its ability to fly >beyond >>Mach 1 at military power (no afterburner). It's hard to believe that a >>plane designed 20+ years prior to the F-22 already had that capability. > >which raises the obvious question of why the Brits never contemplated using >it as a look down missile launching platform. I think that there was no perceived need for such a beast. From about 1959 to 1965, BAC were involved in the design and testing of the BAC TSR-2, which was to have been a supersonic bomber for the RAF. It wasn't considered as a look down missile launching platform, but rather a supersonic bomber. It had a sustained speed of between 0.9M and 1.1M at 200 ft., and 2.05M+ at altitude, and a range of 2,700km (with underwing tanks). Impressively, it had a climb rate of about 16,000 fpm at sea level. The (then) Labour government cancelled the project in 1965 for political reasons after ordering F1-11 aircraft to replace it (the order for the F1-11s was subsequently cancelled). The main nuclear deterrent from the 1950s to the 1966 was the Avro Vulcan, which was a missile platform. It carried the Blue Steel nuclear missile, which initially had a range of 100 n.m. at a speed of 2.5M. The Vulcan was the high level deterrent, with the TSR-2 being the planned low level counterpart. In 1966, the first Polaris subs were commissioned for the Royal Navy, and they took over the role as Britain's main nuclear deterrent, and the Vulcan's role was changed to a low level nuclear and conventional strike one. By the time Concorde was on the drawing boards and production line, Britain had no need for a supersonic, high level missile platform. Interestingly enough, the Vulcan used RR Olympus 201 (later 301) engines, and the TSR-2 used RR Olympus 22R - 320 engines. Concorde uses the RR Olympus 593 engines, which were developed using the experiences gained from the earlier types. regards -- Pete Finlay Boeing 747 Senior Flight Engineer please delete the zzz in the email address to reply From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:00 From: John Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 930164086 27408 12.73.163.123 (23 Jun 1999 18:54:46 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.73.163.123 JWizardC wrote: > >Could it be that at THAT speed and given the state of late '60's > >>electronics, there was a real possibility that Concorde would simply shoot > >>itself down ;) > > The F-104 is generally given credit with being the first airplane to do that. > The story goes that a pilot was performing a strafing run during a demo. The > pilot then descended, accelerated, and flew thru it's own stream of .50 cal > shells. I thought it was something along the lines of a Navy Crusader that did that. It happened during the late 1950's or early 1960's off the Atlantic coast. Remember the story and pictures either in Life magazine and/or the newspaper. Don't remember much else. John From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:01 From: "George" Subject: Picture of John Travoltas 707 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Sonic,Santa Rosa CA,http://www.sonic.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 NNTP-Posting-Host: d99.nas16.sonic.net There was a thread here about his 707. I found a pic of it at http://www.citicom.com/~jimmymac/.sidewalk/.brimages/rareplanes/travolta707.jpg George From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:02 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 929748555 207.253.103.247 (Fri, 18 Jun 1999 19:29:15 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.103.247 If engine #2 is almost always the first one to be started in commercial operations , how come it was called "#2" and not "#1" ? W From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:03 From: "Ken" Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Reply-To: "Ken" NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-209.246.180.88.atlanta1.level3.net Louis A. Ramsay wrote in message ... > In "Andrew van der Plas" writes: > >Why do aircraft usualy start first engine 2 and then engine 1, on a > >two-engined airplane. > > > >Is there a specific reason for this, or is this because of history. > > I believe it actually started in history as the passenger doors > are usually on the left side so the right-hand engines could be started > even if the passenger stairs were still up against the aircraft. New large commercial aircraft, such as the B777, start both engines simultaneously - for economic reasons. Rgds Ken From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:04 From: Mike Hall Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: GEC-Marconi PSLEIGHT wrote: > Andrew van der Plas wrote in message ... > >Why do aircraft usualy start first engine 2 and then engine 1, on a > >two-engined airplane. To diverge slighltly, why can't a 737 start *at all* without external help? I recently got delayed on a Chicago-Memphis leg (North West) because the pilot claimed he couldn't start wihout a SNAFU EPU? Can't these planes start on their APUs/whatever alone? Mike From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:05 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >To diverge slighltly, why can't a 737 start *at all* without external >help? I recently got delayed on a Chicago-Memphis leg (North West) >because the pilot claimed he couldn't start wihout a SNAFU EPU? Can't >these planes start on their APUs/whatever alone? He probably said *with* (not without) a SNAFU *APU* (not EPU). SNAFU is short for Situation Normal, All F***ed Up. In other words, they couldn't self-start with an inoperative APU. BTW, either it was a 737 or on Northwest, but not both since NW doesn't have any 737s. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:06 From: "Mike Ellmer" Subject: video system in the cockpit? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news08.btx.dtag.de 928692554 11337 0406528389-0001 990606 18:09:14 Organization: T-Online X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Hi In a German TV magazine there was a story that all airliners have to get a video system in the cockpit, so the pilots can check whats going on in the cabin and (!) to give them a view outside to the engines etc. I can't belive that this is true. They even told that this type of system has to be installed onboard every airline-aircraft going to the US from about 2002. Anybody heard something about this too and can tell me the true story? MIKE From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:07 From: "PSLEIGHT" Subject: Re: 707 window thoughts References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 12 Jun 1999 23:26:51 GMT, vip-206-77.vip.uk.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: vip-206-77.vip.uk.com Steve Lacker wrote in message ... > >Jim1inDC wrote: >> Recently I sat next to a "missing window" on both a 737-300 and a 747-(200?) >> and could hear, on both, the unmistakable ROAR of air headed from below to the >> overhead air conditioning. I've noticed that most Boeing (and many Airbus', as >> I recall) have this 'missing window' arrangement, and that it's usually near >> the leading edge of the wing. > >I've noticed that many versions of the MD-80 have a single missing >window on the left-hand side near the front of the coach section. >Coincidentally, this is above the point where the ground AC duct plugs >into the aircraft... ;-) The air conditioning packs on most modern jets are located to the rear of the leading edge of the wing. So that are from the mixer which takes air from the air con packs and the recirculation fans can reach the overhead distrubution ducts, there is a need for riser ducts. These rise from the mix manifold to the distrubution duct that runs the length of the mid section of the aircraft. Unfortunately the riser ducts of such as width that they need to be hidden from view by the trim of the cabin interior and also require windows to be obscured. The hissing noise is indeed the air being supplied by the air con packs. If it wasn't for this air con noise the pressurisation would fail due to lack of air in flow so bare that in mind if you are stuck by a blank window.... From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:08 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: cooncorde expansion References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool344-cvx.ds1-ca-us.dialup.earthlink.net Paul Schuricht wrote: > Can anyone tell me how much Concorde lenghtens by in flight due > to the aerodynamic heating from travelling at Mach 2.2. I have a video about Concorde, and a pilot talks about this. It expands about six inches, and the floor and cabin structures are designed to accomodate this. Apparently, during the flight test program, the FE stuck a binder between the edge of his panel and a bulkhead during cruise. Once they landed, the binder was stuck tight, and they had to wait until the next supersonic flight to get it out. Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Jun 25 01:33:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 25 Jun 99 01:33:09 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: cooncorde expansion References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc!!!@cmdnet.lu Paul Schuricht wrote: > Can anyone tell me how much Concorde lenghtens by in flight due > to the aerodynamic heating from travelling at Mach 2.2. Its Mach 2.0 (originally 2.02) for the airline use to be more precise. Here the reply from a former Concorde captain : The expansion of Concorde as it heats up is a matter of inches ... the gap between the flight engineers table and the adjacent bulkhead is there in the cruise, and not there when on the ground. Interestingly the thermal characteristics are sufficient to measurably affect the longitudinal stability of the aircraft. -- Marc Schaeffer ---- Luxembourg ---- mailto:marcmsc@cmdnet.lu The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet The AIRCRAFT ORDERS website: http://surf.to/orders Owner ORDERS MAIL-LIST: http://www.eGroups.com/list/orders