From news Fri Jul 9 13:23:37 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: and the winner is..... Message-ID: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 19:25:43 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) It has been announced that the engine contract for the 777-200/-300X has gone to General Electric. I suspect there are several reasons this has happened: 1). By most accounts, the GE90 core is probably good for about 120,000 pounds thrust. The GE90 can get to the required 110-115,000 pound thrust needed for these aircraft much more easily than the Trent, and it was clear that a PW4000 design was a stretch to get to the PW4098.Any larger engine was going to be a major exercise, and if Boeing wanted an early in service date, a problem as well. My guess is Boeing is about to come after the A340-500/600 with a vengeance, and a competitive in service date was a requirement. GE can probably get there sooner and probably at lower cost than either RR or PW. It is equally clear that there will probably be a need for larger engines, and even at 110,000 to 115,000 pounds there is still some growth left in the GE90. It is doubtful that there would be anything left in a 110,000 pound Trent 800. 2). Fuel economy. The intended market for the 777X is very long range, and the GE90 is the most fuel efficient engine in the sky today, and GE promises further improvements in the 1-2% range. On an ultra long range aircraft Fuel economy is serious business, and a 2% advantage in fuel burn over a 7000 mile sector is BIG revenue over the life of the airframe. 3). While the GE90 had a serious weight penalty relative to the competition, as the thrust on the PW engines and on the RR engines has been increased, this penalty has diminished. In fact the PW4098 and GE90 weights are only a few hundred pounds different, and a very large portion of the weight advantage the Trent 800 enjoyed over the GE90 has also disappeared. The combination of early delivery, good fuel economy, and competitive engine shipset weight is tough to argue with. The reported problems with the A340-500, and the improvements in the Asian Economy suggest that 777X launch with an in service date very close the A340-500/600 is probably very near. It will obviously raise the bar on the A3XX as well, as Airbus will have to offer a substantial direct cost improvement relative to the 777X family, as opposed to the 747-400. The problem with very long running programs is the goal posts tend to get moved, and I suspect that is part of the A3XX problem. My guess is that if A3XX is not lauched before 777X, A3XX will never be launched in anything resembling the current form.. No doubt all of this is causing a certain level of anxiety at Airbus Industries... My opinions anyway.. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:10 From: jcb@interlog.com (Jeff Bowen) Subject: Airbus A310 question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Organization: Interlog Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 209-20-11-166.dialin.interlog.com I was on a commercial (charter with Royal Airlines) flight to and from St. Martin from Toronto (I know, a tough job but someone had to do it). The plane was (I believe) an Airbus 310 (seating capacity of 265). I noticed below each wing were three (I think it was three) "pods" which looked somewhat like solid canoes which each came to a flat edge at the rear where they protruded beyond the back edge of the wing. Does anyone know what the heck those "thingies" are? I'm not an engineer or an aircraft expert, but am just curious. Also, each of them had a metal tube sticking out the rear from that flat edge. What were _those_? Thanks for any information. Jeff Bowen Toronto, Canada From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:11 From: JF Mezei Subject: Boeing naming convention for 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 931549382 207.253.114.182 (Fri, 09 Jul 1999 15:43:02 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.114.182 For other aircraft, it seems that Boeing has no problem giving each derivative its own name. Why does this seem so different for the 777 where the 200 and 300 will have many many derivatives. Why can't Boeing name them the 400, 500 etc ? Is it affraid of running out of numbers prior to the end of this family ? It is pretty hard to know what a 777-200 and 777-300 are. I thik there was the basic model, the IGW model, the ER model, and now an "X" model to come. Any more I forgot ? Seems strange that this strange naming convention applies only to the 777. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:12 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >It is pretty hard to know what a 777-200 and 777-300 are. I thik there >was the basic model, the IGW model, the ER model, and now an "X" model >to come. Any more I forgot ? There are only two current flavors of each size, since the ER is just a newer named for what used to be called the IGW. The X variants are, for now, just a placeholder until there's a need for an official name, just as the 777 itself was once known as the 767-X. >Seems strange that this strange naming convention applies only to the >777. It doesn't. The 767-200 and -300 come in both regular and ER versions, and as noted above there have been X variants of the 767 in the past. The 747-300 was originally just another variant of the 747-200B, called the 747-200B(EUD) until they decided it deserved to be a new series. -- 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 Sat Jul 10 02:33:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:13 From: Joe Pelliccia Subject: F100s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Bates College NNTP-Posting-Host: pc3002.bates.edu Got a ride on a US AIRWAYS Fokker 100 this weekend going from Chattanooga to Charlotte and it got me to thinking about the 'recent' battles between Boeing (717) and Airbus (A318) for the 100 seat market. If this is such a hot market that both airframe manufacturers feel they have to participate, how come Fokker's F100 didn't sell well when it was the only product in this niche? Am I missing something important here? -- Joseph G. Pelliccia PP-SEL Department of Biology "A beginning is a very Bates College delicate time" Lewiston, ME 04240 Frank Herbert (207) 786-6107 Dune jpellicc@abacus.bates.edu From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:14 From: "Anthony Rassias" Subject: Convair CV990 "Coronado" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 930895567 210.84.5.155 (Fri, 02 Jul 1999 16:06:07 EST) Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: slsdn41p27.ozemail.com.au Recently I read that, until the advent of the Concorde, the Convair CV990 was the fastest civil aeroplane. I am now curious and looking for any information on the type - performance and specifications, production numbers, dates etc. Were the strange fairings on the upper surface of the wings used to break up shock waves created by flying at high subsonic speeds - or did they serve some other purpose? Anthony Rassias. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:15 From: "Tim Lee" Subject: Re: Airbus A300-600R References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: BT Internet X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: host212-140-6-210.btinternet.com >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. I'll think you'll find that the A300-600R doesn't have any outboard ailerons - instead, it has a large ASA (all speed aileron), which is the panel you saw. Both droop for flap effect on landing, although it's the differential between them which provides roll control. Rgds Tim From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:16 From: JF Mezei Subject: Landing gear vs float planes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 930540638 207.96.207.17 (Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:30:38 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.96.207.17 A while ago, I read that one of the bigger challenges for the A3XX project is the landing gear. -weights a lot -is huge (takes up a lot of space in the cargo area) -spreading weight so plane doesn't destroy runways and tarmac. If they were to make the A3XX into a flotplane/flying boat, obviously, it would no longer need such a heavy duty landing gear, thus solving many of the above problems. Would making the A3XX (or similar size plane) a floatplane be fairly easy from a structural point of view ? Or would the strengthening of the structure and belly to allow the plane to land in water result in a much heavier plane than if it had conventional landing gears ? (I realise that the market for such a plane would be even more limited since only cities with a half decent port could accomodate it and it would make connections rather difficult, but I still wonder from a structural point of view if it would work). From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:17 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /KtlGUkdb1ydq/NRJHg1IUQku5J5+QnmEUQgk0unDn6Dpib9hDNju9THvZNzybIQQl0RkeGxtzw3!fnYkVsU+jwRe6XadRiv6RadrAu8lolecqmeR9irLwtOH9GneAftDVcvyt5gAHBngss4ncEXwhG5v!F5QJmDlROuy/su4= X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 In article , tpearson@chunkstyle.com (Tim Pearson) wrote: >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. I suspect that you are looking at anticorosion paint in the vicinity of the lavatory service panel. Ron From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:18 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: OCl+tofY4KsgBDhist7fnGMyKV8BAI3u6nEvJihMjug= Tim Pearson wrote: > 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 a painted surface which surrounds the forward lavatory service point. It usually can be seen on all 707's 727's and 737's which have bare metal in that area. I guess it's to offer some corrosion protection against leaking blue juice. Trevor Fenn From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:19 From: Bogie Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.cd.ad.f8 In article , Tim Pearson wrote: > 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. If only it was that simple...its actually a painted area of the bare metal skin around the lavatory service panel to keep any leaking fluid from corroding the skin (nasty stuff!). There is a similar area around the aft service panel but is usually to low to be seen. Tom From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:20 From: "Robert Brand" Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 930798695 9301 12.74.78.238 (1 Jul 1999 03:11:35 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.74.78.238 Most likely the Oxygen service door. Inside is you can service the Crew and Pax O2 also gages that show the pressure of the 2 systems. Bob Brand From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:21 From: "Jerry" Subject: Re: Twin Engine Jets to Hawaii (was United Airlines food) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: amdint.amd.com 930674796 29391 163.181.63.131 (29 Jun 1999 16:46:36 GMT) Organization: AMD X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: dodgers.amd.com R W Walker wrote in message ... >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". This is the popular term, but the technical term is: Extended Twinjet OPerationS (OPS for short). /JW From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:22 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 6/25/99 1:33 AM, JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca) said: >If engine #2 is almost always the first one to be started in commercial >operations , how come it was called "#2" and not "#1" ? I don't know for sure but probably because numbering them from left-to-right is more inuitive since that's the direction we read (in English and most "Western" languages). -- Larry Stone lds11@cornell.edu http://www.enteract.com/~lstone/ From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:23 From: tpearson@chunkstyle.com (Tim Pearson) Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 25 Jun 1999 08:04:23 -0800, chunkstyle.com Organization: Running With Scissors, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: chunkstyle.com JF Mezei asks: > If engine #2 is almost always the first one to be started > in commercial operations , how come it was called "#2" and > not "#1" ? Because the starting sequence isn't the criterion by which engines are numbered. The custom comes from the fact that in Western cultures, we read from left to right -- a concept which extends to a general perception that "left comes before right." Maybe El Al and the IDF do things differently. :^) Oddly enough, it's just the opposite on ships; everything is numbered backward, with engine or smallboat #1 being to star- board. The reason for this isn't clear to me, but I suspect that it has to do with the fact that on a ship, one is able to physically turn around and look aft, while a pilot doesn't have that luxury...and so a forward-oriented frame of reference is used aboard aircraft by default. -Tim -- "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 Sat Jul 10 02:33:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:24 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Engine start sequence 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 930330053 4175 129.116.176.203 (25 Jun 1999 17:00:53 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Mike Hall wrote: > 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? It can, and usually *does*. Ditto the 727. Both these planes, and esp. the 37, were originally intended to serve small and not necessarily well-equipped fields. Self-start capability was a must, whereas larger planes at the time (707s and DC-8s) didn't always have APUs. > because the pilot claimed he couldn't start wihout a SNAFU EPU? Can't > these planes start on their APUs/whatever alone? Probably he said " I can't start with a SNAFU'd APU" I was recently on a 727 flight with the same problem- the pilot announced that we'd be at the gate for a few more seconds in order to start an engine since the APU was not operable. -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:25 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: netcom15.netcom.com In article , JF Mezei wrote: >If engine #2 is almost always the first one to be started in commercial >operations , how come it was called "#2" and not "#1" ? There have been some lovely rationalizations in this thread, but in reality, for most modern jet airplanes, it really doesn't make any difference what order the engines are started in. Boeing operations manuals (Boeing originals) typically specify 1-2-3-4. Company manuals may very well deviate. The argument about pneumatic duct path is weak (we're talking about turbines with enough air pressure to run an air conditioning system and keep 400 hot passengers cool--it can handle turning an outer engine). The bit about not wanting to start the left engines first near the gate is weak, too-- engines are usually started after the push-back is complete, not before. The number of airplanes that push back with reverse thrust is typically limited to those with rear-mounted engines, and, to my knowledge, the DC-9/MD-8x series is the only ones that really do this. So that blows the "risk to ground personnel" argument out of the water. Reality is that the start order is usually dictated by the prejudices and experiences of the chief pilot of the airline. If he started 3-4-1-2 on a DC-8 or Electra or whatever, likely that *tradition* will survive. It's the same thing that lends to four INS's in a 747, or 8 HSI's, or whatever. Tradition, which becomes fact and company policy. Now, no doubt there are exceptions to this, in which there are valid non- sequential start sequences, but they are the exception. Just my $0.02 worth. Cheers, 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 Sat Jul 10 02:33:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:26 From: Michael P Nixon Subject: Re: Engine start sequence References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 25 Jun 99 01:33:04 Mike Hall writes: >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? They normally do start them solely with an on-board APU, however, occasionally a problem will arise of which the pilots aren't aware until start-time. THEN they discover that they need a GPU. Mike __ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:27 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM It appears from an article in this week's Aviation Week that Airbus may be heading for some serious challenges. Many of you are no doubt aware that Singapore Airlines has exercised an option for 10 777-200ER's, and Boeing is taking all of SQ A340-300's including 2 that have not even been delivered essentially in trade. According to Aviation Week, there are several issues at work. SQ apparently now has serious concerns about their A340-500's. Most of you are equally aware that SQ ordered the A340-500's for a specific mission, LAX-SIN in the Northern Hemisphere winter. It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. If Airbus cannot make the aircraft fly the mission it was bought for by the time of delivery, I suspect SQ will refuse to accept the aircraft. To say this would be damaging to Airbus is perhaps the understatement of the year! While Airbus has called the result evidence of a price war, SQ management says it can better characterized as a business class war... The decision to replace the A340-300's on the routes to Europe is far more interesting. The profits in the airline business today are largely driven by how well you can sell the premium cabins, especially the business class cabin. An analysis based upon BA's recent decision to expand this cabin at the expense of economy suggests that the revenue from the business class cabin can in fact be higher than First and Economy combined! SQ customers are apparently not all that happy with the A340 cabin. They want more headroom, and more space (cabin width). While Airbus likes to advertise there is no center seat (and there isn't one), it turns out to be largely an academic exercise in the Business class cabin. The middle seat in a 777 or 747 is only filled if the cabin is more than 80% full. Not a very common event. According to the article, SQ customers are willing to take their chances with center seat to get the additional cabin width and headroom the 777 and 747 offer (and remember SQ operates all 3 types, so the issue isn't the service, or the seats themselves, it is obviously something about the aircraft itself).. According to SQ management, the premium customers are also keenly interested in getting to the destination as quickly as possible, and are complaining about the A340's cruise speed. Whether it is true, or SQ is saying it to turn up the heat on Airbus is hard to say. It is certainly true that the trip to Europe in an A340 from Singapore will take longer than it will in a 777 or a 747... The run to Europe from Singapore in an A340 is nearly an hour longer than it is in a 747, or a 777. It is extra travel time, and it complicates connections within Europe. Airbus Aircraft are traditionally not 'high flyers'. This is also causing SQ a certain amount of pain. Flights to Europe generally depart in the late afternoon and early evening, and are at or very near MGTOW. The trip goes out of over the Bay of Bengal, which often has nasty weather (thunderstorms) in the early evening. Very bluntly, at high weights, the 777 and the 747's can fly a lot higher, giving the crew more choices about how to avoid weather (and provide a better ride for the passengers). The other operational issue is the routes from SE Asia go over India on the way to Europe or the Middle East. A300/A310's are very popular regional aircraft often transiting India on the way to or from the Middle East or destinations on the sub continent, couple that with the normal long haul traffic out of SE Asia , and it tends to make the altitudes where these aircraft live very congested, so unless you are lucky, or can fly above FL350, (which is very hard to do in an Airbus at realistic operating weight), you may well get shoved down at a very unattractive altitude, like FL260. FL260 does ugly things to fuel burn on a route that doesn't have a lot of margin to begin with, and may force a technical landing. The ability of the 777 and 747 to reach the higher altitudes at high weights is very useful, and may make the difference between being forced to make a technical landing in Europe with high costs, and substantial delays, or an ontime arrival. I think SQ has just sent the folks at Airbus a very blunt wake up call. I think Airbus engineers and the RR engine people are going to be putting in a lot of overtime in the next year or two. The need to assign engineering resources to the A340-500/600 program that were planned for the A3XX probably means a further delay in the A3XX launch. On the other hand, if the reports about the A340-500 are true, and Airbus doesn't get them fixed before the first delivery, I am not sure how many customers will be interested in signing up for A3XX... I freely admit I have not been convinced of the merits of the A3XX program from the start..... From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:28 From: JF Mezei Subject: Reality check. MD11 (SR-111) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 930803010 207.96.232.30 (Thu, 01 Jul 1999 00:23:30 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.96.232.30 Found an interesting letter about the Swissair 111 crash at the (Canadian) Transportation Safety Board, dated december 1998. http://bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/about/emergency/Safety_Advisory/esafety_swiss.html Essentially, in inspecting MD-11s in 2 maintenance facilities they found chaffed wires in certain areas and found it necessary to issue an AD requiring MD11 operators to make checks. Question: is the nature of this letter very routine (eg: such problems commonly found) or would it describe a more serious situation ? And about chaffed wires: would finding wires in such condition be common on any plane of age similar to MD-11 fleets or would such a problem generally be associated with much older planes from the 70s ? From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:29 From: M Subject: Re: some background on AA 1420 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.32.fb An interesting bit of trivia...the accident a/c, N215AA, was the same aircraft O. J. Simpson used on his departure from LAX the night his ex-wife and Ron Goldman were killed. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:30 From: "MindSpring User" Subject: Digitized Flight Manuals Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.45.0a.fd Is anyone out there familiar with companies that produce "digitized" flight manuals for existing aircraft types? Such software may be loaded onto a PC, and can be used for mission planning (i.e., take-off distance, cruise speed, landing roll, etc) just like a paper flight manual. Thanks, Lance From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:31 From: "James Fu" Subject: 4-point Landing Gear Aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 930864845 18552 208.251.57.188 (1 Jul 1999 21:34:05 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Reply-To: "James Fu" NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.251.57.188 Why is it that pilots of aircraft with 4-point landing gear systems (nose, center, and one each main) sometimes deploy only the nose and main points, and not the center? Naturally, aircraft like the MD11, DC10, and A340 are the referenced aircraft here. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:32 From: Nick Funk Subject: Large Commercial Jet Glide Ratio? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: dfw-read.news.verio.net 931390460 204.0.236.17 (Wed, 07 Jul 1999 23:34:20 GMT) Organization: Verio NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.0.236.17 I am looking for information concerning the Glide Ratio for larger Commercial jets or Large prop aircraft. Any information is greatly appreciated!!!! Thanks, Nick Funk PA28-180 From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:33 From: Keith Larson Subject: Reliability of ETOPS aircrafts in the North Pacific... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: plato.harvard.edu 931475192 32339 128.103.8.12 (8 Jul 1999 23:06:32 GMT) Organization: Harvard University Someone said that the latest generation of ETOPS Aircraft (A330 & B777) & their engines (PW 4000, RR Trent, GE80) now fully comply with the safety objectives of FAR 25.1309 (probability of double engine failure < 10 exp -9 per flight hour), in areas of operation where the mean diversion time remains less then 120 minutes (North Atlantic, Central Atlantic, Indian Ocean, Central Pacific). OK, but what about areas of operation where the mean diversion time is longer, namely the North Pacific? From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:34 From: wmg@sparky.skypoint.net (William Mac Gree) Subject: ALPA/ATA proposal may not comply with FAR 25.1309... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. I have learned that the proposition of the FAA concerning the extension of ETOPS supposed a limit In flight Shut down (IFSD) of 0.019 per 1000 hours, which is slightly bellow the actual performances of the latest generation of ETOPS aircrafts. What I'd like to know is if this measure complies with FAR 25.1309 considering the longer mean diversion time over the North Pacific routes ? From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:35 From: "Paul Hedding" Subject: Ford Air Transport Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: National Aircraft Service X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 NNTP-Posting-Host: news.newsdawg.com I would like to know what aircraft Ford Motor Company has in their fleet. I would also like to know whether the engineering work on those aircraft are performed in house or contracted out. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Paul Hedding, Aerospace Engineer email: nasi@tc3net.com National Aircraft Service, Inc. voice:(517) 423-7589 Tecumseh, Michigan Fax: (517) 423-7806 From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:36 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: What's happening at the top end of the market... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.goodnet.com 931047191 209.54.54.17 (Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:13:11 MDT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.54.54.17 If you have read my previous post, you know the current press reports say the A340-500 is about 6.5 tonnes overweight. For SQ if this problem doesn't get fixed, it will get very ugly. The A340-500 was purchased for a specific mission, LAX-SIN against prevailing winter winds. At the time the purchase was being negotiated, the requirement was reported as 200 revenue passengers. Other analysis suggestd a break even load factor of 90%, which is troubling in and of itself. Some of you may remember that AA actually refused to accept MD11's because they couldn't fly the mission they were ordered for, so such a decision from SQ would hardly break new ground. If the aircraft remains overweight, each 100kg in weight costs 1 passenger, so if the aircraft ends up more than 2 tonnes overweight, it will be impossible to make money with it, assuming all things are equal. If the RR Trent 500 comes in as little as 1% over predicted fuel burn, or even a little overweight, the same thing happens. A combination of an overweight aircraft, and even a slight shortfall in engine performance would be catastrophic. For instance a 1% fuel economy problem with the current weight problem would mean the loss of 40% of the passenger load. (I wouldn't mind traveling on an A340 with a maximum passenger load of 120.......) I suspect SQ would object very strongly to being forced to fly them that ways however... RR thinks the overweight problem can be addressed with more engine thrust, which is certainly true to a certain extent, but the extra weight will cost fuel burn which reduces payload unless you can make a corresponding increase in both MGTOW and MLW. That however increases the fuel costs and the in transit fees and landing fees for the aircraft which obviously erode the margins How much is payload worth... The Arithmetic suggests the result can be staggering over the life of the aircraft. One of the reasons BA likes the 777 so much is it turned out to be about 400kg under weight. Let's look at how much that 400kg is worth. If we assume it is cargo, and we can get on average $1.75 per kg in revenue for it (given how the 777 is deployed today, this is probably a realistic number), and you fly a round trip per day, that 400kg is worth $1400 per day. Assuming you fly the aircraft 80% of the days it is the fleet, over the 20 year life of the airframe that is $8 million...The savings in fuel over the life at current US prices for Jet A is about another half million. I leave it to the readers to figure out just how much 6.5 tonnes would reduce the revenue over the life of the aircraft. It is probably enough to guarantee the operator could never make money with it... The other interesting bit in the current Avweek is how Boeing plans to increase the range of the 777 and word on the 747 variants. The current plan is to allow for up to 3 pallet mounted fuel tanks, each of which could hold up to 1850 gallons... The traditional problem with fitting tanks to increase the range of aircraft, is the tanks and associated hardware become a permanent part of the airframe, and increase the empty weight accordingly. I.E. you pay for the ability to carry the fuel, even if you don't need to carry it because the weight of the tanks and the space they occupy comes out of cargo lift and space. The pallet allows most of the airframe wieght and space to recovered if you don't need the additional fuel capacity. Without the tanks fitted, the basic 777-200x is claimed to capable of an 8750nm operation with 300 passengers, at a 14% lower ASM cost than the A340-500. The 200X is claimed to be 55,000 pounds lighter than the A340-500. If true, it would give a sizeable fuel burn advantage to the 777 even with the 777's oversize engines that are required for certification, and would imply a substantially lower fuel burn (and reduced operating cost for the 777) for the 777. For some airports, the new 777's could be painful.. wingspan has gone up 11.5 feet... At this point both the A340-500 and 777-200X are not a lot more than paper airplanes, so I tend to view the claims as interesting, but I wouldn't want to bet a lot of money on how accurate they turn out to be when and if the aircraft come into service. A couple of 747 variants are in the winds again. Boeing claims to have prospective customers. The trailing edge wedge modifications have been flight tested on an Asiana 747-400. The enhanced 747-400, possible the ER, would have a 930,000 pound MGTOW, and is claimed to be capable of JFK-HKG or SIN-LHR with a full commercial payload in all weather conditions. The other 747 variant referred to by Avweek as the -400X involves a plug in the wingroots, and a fuselage plug compelled with a new undercarriage and a 1,043,000 MGTOW. Boeing claims an improvement in direct operating costs of 10% relative to the current 747-400. No doubt these claims are all aimed at damaging the opportunities for the A3XX. I think there is one safe bet, if both the 747-400X and A3XX are built, I doubt Airbus will ever sell enough A3XX's at a reasonable margin to recover the R&D costs. I don't think Boeing will make money either, but they would be looking at an R&D bill that is likely to be a LOT lower, so the level of pain involved is likely to be less. To be brutally honest, the usefulness of either aircraft is suspect if 777-200X and -300X goes ahead, and ETOPS gets extended to 207 minutes. Given the choice between a carrier operating an A3XX or 747-400X twice a day, and another carrier operating another widebody, be it an A330-200X or 777-200X four times a day, or a carrier operating A 747 or A3XX via a hub, or less than once a day, versus daily operation with a smaller widebody non-stop, The monsters lose. That has certainly been the experience on the Atlantic. As the aircraft to do this have started to become available on the Pacific, it seems to be happening there as well. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:37 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 930349820 207.253.105.77 (Fri, 25 Jun 1999 18:30:20 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.105.77 "David R. Hendrickson" wrote: > Take Off Warning, Ram Air inlets, the NextGen's overwing hatches...lots > of systems look at the air/ground condition of the aircraft... I am very curious about overwing exits being made conditional of the squat switches. What happens when a plane lands on its belly with gears not retracted ? (or if gears become detached from the plane) ? ? ? ? Does this mean that overwing exists will not function ? I would have thought that cabin pressure alone was sufficient in preventng them from being opened during flight. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:38 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0069.cvx18-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net Two other systems controlled by the squat switch: On MD-8x, the strobe lights are controlled by air/ground mode. Watch them taking off or landing at night. Air/ground is used for subtle functions such as starting rewind on the VTRs in the inflight entertainment systems. Ken From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:39 From: jthorn@davinci.thp.univie.ac.at (Jonathan Thornburg) Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Universitaet Wien (Vienna, Austria) / Institut fuer Theoretische Physik In article , James Matthew Weber wrote: > 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. I'm not wild about some of Airbus's GUIs, but blaming their computer systems for this sort of accident (with the implication that less-computerized designs are free from similar problems) is just plain wrong: As David Davidson noted (12 Oct 1998) in article ), > A Piedmont 737-200 had a very similar accident. The crew landed too fast > on a wet runway. The airplane didn't settle down and didn't get the > weight-on-wheels signal or wheel spinup. The reversers wouldn't deploy > and the spoilers didn't come up by themselves. Guess what? No computers > involved, just a bunch of relays and switches. -- -- Jonathan Thornburg http://www.thp.univie.ac.at/~jthorn/home.html Universitaet Wien (Vienna, Austria) / Institut fuer Theoretische Physik "The first strike in the American Colonies was in 1776 in Philadelphia, when [...] carpenters demanded a 72-hour week." -- Anatole Beck From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:40 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >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. Hmmm. The B727 has a squat switch linkage on the L/H MLG and it and EVERYTHING else runs through the Landing Gear Accessory Unit ; I mean everything, from flaps positions to anti-ice (or something like that). If any thing goes wrong, you change the LGAU and OpTest. I don't know much about B737's -- but may get to learn soon. Steve Cole From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:41 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 930327914 3076 129.116.176.203 (25 Jun 1999 16:25:14 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu James Matthew Weber wrote: > 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. Absolutely true. Trivia from a co-worker who used to work on simulators for a large Ft.Worth based :-) aircraft company : one of the indicators of how "dangerous" an opponent is in a dogfight is his "energy state." Experienced fighter pilots can judge their opponent's energy state and catch him when he's low (low energy state means that a hard maneuver is not possible). Of course, planes like the F-14 Tomcat announce their energy state to the whole world by the angle of their swing-wings :-) -- Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:42 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 930328665 3622 129.116.176.203 (25 Jun 1999 16:37:45 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Gregory Travis wrote: > 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. Thrust F is produced by causing a mass M of air to undergo an acceleration of A meters/second/second in a direction toward the rear of the airplane. F=MA. Burning and heating, are not strictly required at all. releasing compressed air from a scuba tank ( or a balloon for that matter) produces thrust, and the only thing happening there is expansion and cooling. However, since sustained thrust requires a constant energy input, it is much more convenient to burn the fuel on board the airplane than to store all the energy in compressed air prior to flight ... at least for everything except toy water rockets ;-) If the inlet structure and its capturing of the shockwave from the moveable spike causes an acceleration of air within the intake structure, then I see no reason why it couldn't be regarded as "producing thrust." True, you must have an engine running behind the intake to drive the process, but if the rearward acceleration of air occurs within the inlet, then I see no reason not to say "the inlet produces thrust." This does NOT imply that I understand the physics behind it :-) -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:43 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 930329229 3622 129.116.176.203 (25 Jun 1999 16:47:09 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Pete Finlay wrote: > The main nuclear deterrent from the 1950s to the 1966 was the Avro > Vulcan, which was a missile platform. Did the Vulcans actually go out of service THAT long ago? The Vulcan and the B-58 are two of my favorite designs. They both had a very short service life. > Interestingly enough, the Vulcan used RR Olympus 201 (later 301) > engines, Isn't it more correct to say that the Vulcan used BRISTOL Olympus engines, since it was built prior to the RR/Bristol merger? ;-) The more I learn about the history of Bristol and RR turbine engine development, the clearer it becomes that RR gained a lot of expertiese through that merger... and then ignored it until very late in the development of the RB.211 when a retired Bristol engineer was called back to consult on the project and undertook a major re-design. -- Stephen G. Lacker slacker at arlut dot utexas dot edu sglacker at texas dot net From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:44 From: Jeff the informer 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: 193.113.139.190 > 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 Concorde has only ever been to Luton twice for private charters. A Concorde prototype has never been to Luton nor Stansted Jeff Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:45 From: Merlin Dorfman Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: netcom14.netcom.com Pete Finlay wrote: > 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. Somehow I have it in my head that the Concorde's engines are "Bristol Olympus." Not true? Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:46 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 , James Matthew Weber writes >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. Not so, I'm afraid. Typically, the aircraft will proceed to Lands End after departure, and then head for BGI on a direct routing. It goes nowhere near the French, Spanish or Portuguese coasts. > My guess is >they stay subsonic until well clear of the heavily populated European >areas, which would mean flying subsonic for about 700 miles. It's probably sub-sonic until past Lands End, which is about 300 n.m. at a guess. That's only about 100 n.m. further than it's normal acceleration point when it goes to JFK. > 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. Your figures a a bit out. A 747 does LGW-BGI in about 9 hours to 9hrs 30 mins. The actual track distance from LGW - BGI is about 4,500 - 4,600 n.m. (I've haven't got the exact figures to hand, but will look them up next time I'm at work). LHR-BGI is considerably further than LHR-IAD by about 1000 n.m., and accounts for the 4 hour trip in Concorde. -- Pete Finlay From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:47 From: "David R. Smith" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Hewlett Packard Laboratories NNTP-Posting-Host: hpldrs.hpl.hp.com John wrote: > 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. An article in Wings or Airpower a few years ago described this happening to the Grumman F11F Tiger. From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:48 From: jchase@neo.rr.com (Joseph E Chase) Subject: Re: cooncorde expansion References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: dustdevil.neo.rr.com 930364406 24.93.185.140 (Fri, 25 Jun 1999 22:33:26 EDT) Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online -- Northeast Ohio The BAC web site calls it 10 inches From kls Sat Jul 10 02:33:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Jul 99 02:33:49 From: "columbia" Subject: Re: cooncorde expansion References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nnrp4.clara.net 930957746 195.8.75.214 (Sat, 03 Jul 1999 00:22:26 BST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.8.75.214 I heard that the aircraft stretches by a few cm. I believe there are lines on the aircraft that can be seen to lengthen in supersonic flight. How true it is I'm not sure. All the best columbia From news Sat Jul 10 07:13:17 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> From: JF Mezei Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: and the winner is..... References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:51:18 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) James Matthew Weber wrote: > > It has been announced that the engine contract for the 777-200/-300X > has gone to General Electric. I find it interesting that for the 777 family, it was seen as an advantage to have multiple engine suppliers. Why would Boeing now go for a single exclusive engine supplier for a derivative of the 777 ? Is such an annoucement more of a "so far, GE has committed to produce the engine for this derivative" or "GE will be the only supplier of engines for this derivative and has an exclusivity contract with none of the other 777 engine manufacturers allowed to compete for this 777 derivative". How does this change the purchase of an aircraft ? If an aircraft has one engine brand (exclusive), does this mean that the airline signs a single contract with Boeing which includes engines (with Boeing dealing with engine manufacturer) or does the airline still have to negotiate separately with the engine manufacturer as it does when many types of engines are available ? From news Sat Jul 10 07:13:17 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: H Andrew Chuang Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: and the winner is..... Organization: Concentric Internet Services Message-ID: <378683B4.4E5F25E3@cris.com> References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:51:41 GMT Matt: Sounds like you're doing a promo for GE. ;-) While many of your points are valid, I think they are a bit exaggerated. IMHO, the single biggest advantage that GE has is its deep pocket. In addition, GE's engine services have matured and well-established that any after-market contracts can easily be packaged with the aircraft orders. Neither P&W nor R-R can compete on this front. Since Boeing has to be able to convince existing non-GE B777 operators to by the GE90-powered B777X, nicely-packaged after-market contracts can help the marketing process, especially to smaller operators. I won't be surprised that initially a lot of the orders will go through GE Capital Aviation Services. If GE does deliver, the GE90-powered B777 will rule. If GE doesn't, Boeing once again will leave a hole for Airbus to attack (previously, they left the B727-replacement market unattended for too long). James Matthew Weber wrote: > > It has been announced that the engine contract for the 777-200/-300X > has gone to General Electric. > > I suspect there are several reasons this has happened: > > 1). By most accounts, the GE90 core is probably good for about 120,000 > pounds thrust. The GE90 can get to the required 110-115,000 pound > thrust needed for these aircraft much more easily than the Trent, and > it was clear that a PW4000 design was a stretch to get to the > PW4098.Any larger engine was going to be a major exercise, and if > Boeing wanted an early in service date, a problem as well. My guess is > Boeing is about to come after the A340-500/600 with a vengeance, and a > competitive in service date was a requirement. > > GE can probably get there sooner and probably at lower cost than > either RR or PW. It is equally clear that there will probably be a > need for larger engines, and even at 110,000 to 115,000 pounds there > is still some growth left in the GE90. It is doubtful that there would > be anything left in a 110,000 pound Trent 800. > > 2). Fuel economy. The intended market for the 777X is very long range, > and the GE90 is the most fuel efficient engine in the sky today, and > GE promises further improvements in the 1-2% range. On an ultra long > range aircraft Fuel economy is serious business, and a 2% advantage in > fuel burn over a 7000 mile sector is BIG revenue over the life of the > airframe. > > 3). While the GE90 had a serious weight penalty relative to the > competition, as the thrust on the PW engines and on the RR engines has > been increased, this penalty has diminished. In fact the PW4098 and > GE90 weights are only a few hundred pounds different, and a very > large portion of the weight advantage the Trent 800 enjoyed over the > GE90 has also disappeared. > > The combination of early delivery, good fuel economy, and competitive > engine shipset weight is tough to argue with. > > The reported problems with the A340-500, and the improvements in the > Asian Economy suggest that 777X launch with an in service date very > close the A340-500/600 is probably very near. > > It will obviously raise the bar on the A3XX as well, as Airbus will > have to offer a substantial direct cost improvement relative to the > 777X family, as opposed to the 747-400. The problem with very long > running programs is the goal posts tend to get moved, and I suspect > that is part of the A3XX problem. My guess is that if A3XX is not > lauched before 777X, A3XX will never be launched in anything > resembling the current form.. > > No doubt all of this is causing a certain level of anxiety at Airbus > Industries... > > My opinions anyway.. From news Sat Jul 10 20:13:23 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: and the winner is..... Message-ID: <378a8c2b.1060222@news.goodnet.com> References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 02:13:56 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 12:51:18 GMT, JF Mezei wrote: >James Matthew Weber wrote: >> >> It has been announced that the engine contract for the 777-200/-300X >> has gone to General Electric. > >I find it interesting that for the 777 family, it was seen as an >advantage to have multiple engine suppliers. Why would Boeing now go for >a single exclusive engine supplier for a derivative of the 777 ? Several reasons. As Andrew Chuang has pointed out, the 777 has been a blood bath for the current engine suppliers. I don't think any of them are in a hurry to repeat the experience. At least the 747,L1011, D10 and A300/310 family all used essentially the same engines, so the world wide market for that engine class was probably close to 10,000 While there is some commonality in engine families, I have to wonder just how interchangeable the parts are between a PW4098 and a PW4052. I suspect there is a lot of commonality in how the engine is put together, and how it does things, probably far less commonality in the actual parts used. The 777 engine is not used in any other aircraft, and with only 2 per aircraft, total market to date is probably not much more than 1000 engines. Lots of R&D money chasing a relatively small market. Good for airlines, bad for engine makers. I doubt the engine makers are excited about doing this again, in fact GE declined to offer an engine in the 95,000-103,000 pound class and let RR have the AA 777 order as a result. GE probably couldn't see anyway to make money. GE also walked away from the A340-500/600 program. I don't think there has ever been an official comment, but it is pretty clear they were unconvinced they could make money on it. 777X engine would probably require a billion+ USD investment by PW, probably only a couple hundred million by RR, and probably less than a hundred million by GE. My belief is the first 5 years of 777X are likely to produce only a few hundred orders, so if you try to spread the required investment to bring 3 engines to market across 500 engines with an effective $2 billion R&D cost (cost of R&D and interest on the money over the period), that is about 4 million USD per engine. That is a big piece of the price tag. The initial 777X engine from GE will be 115,000 pounds, as I pointed out, that translates to essentially an all new engine for PW, for RR it isn't clear they can get 115,000 pounds out of the Trent 800. 110,000 pounds probable, more than 115,000 pounds, not likely. the GE90 appears to have some growth left however (probably not much,but some is a whole lot better than none!).. If 777X is really intended to be the A340-500/600 killer, than an early entry to service date is a key consideration, and GE is clearly in a much better position to deliver that. Only certifying one engine and aircraft combination will improve the in service date, and hold down the costs, both very desirable features. >Is such an annoucement more of a > "so far, GE has committed to produce the engine for this derivative" > >or > > "GE will be the only supplier of engines for this derivative and > has an exclusivity contract... > with none of the other 777 engine > manufacturers allowed to compete for this 777 derivative". Rather than commenting directly, I will let those interested read the Boeing statement. It is at: http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/1999/news_release_990706a.html While RR or PW are probably free to offer such a product, it isn't likely they would choose too. If RR or PW wishes to build an engine, and pay Boeing the NRE to integrate it, and get it certified, I am sure Boeing will be quite willing. It is a lot a money, and without official Boeing sanction, hard to sell. Big risk, so I doubt it is going to happen. This has happened in the past. RR paid to have the 747SP certified with RB211's as part of a deal with Iran Air for RR engines. Only a handful were ever built (and none of them ended up with Iran Air!)...Several carriers were interested in putting JT9D-7R/Q engines on SP's. PW wasn't interested in picking up the costs, so it didn't happen. > >How does this change the purchase of an aircraft ? I doubt it does 737's have been available only with CFM engines for almost 20 years now. > >If an aircraft has one engine brand (exclusive), does this mean that the >airline signs a single contract with Boeing which includes engines (with >Boeing dealing with engine manufacturer) or does the airline still have >to negotiate separately with the engine manufacturer as it does when >many types of engines are available ? you still buy the engines from the engine maker, but I am sure the agreement with Boeing also guarantees very competitive pricing. One of the reasons for such a deal to try for economies of scale as PW had with the JT3,JT8 and JT9 families, and GE/SNECMA has had with the CFM56 family. From news Sun Jul 11 10:15:37 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: "Pardave Lehry" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry References: Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues Message-ID: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 15:46:53 GMT Organization: Shore.Net/Eco Software, Inc; (info@shore.net) > It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes > overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. > The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new > engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines > rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. > The aircraft may be overweight by 6.5 metric tonnes, but Airbus can no doubt shave those off very easily and quickly. As for engine reliability "out of the box," it's true that they have fuel problems, but with today's modern technology and modern construction techniques and materials, engines are very very reliable and often do make their quota for fuel burn. Yes, they may have problems such as blades cracking (General Electric GE-90), but Rolls Royce has learnt their lesson to trust the titanium blades for their first stage fan after the saga that occured with the RB211 for the L1011. > If Airbus cannot make the aircraft fly the mission it was bought for > by the time of delivery, I suspect SQ will refuse to accept the > aircraft. To say this would be damaging to Airbus is perhaps the > understatement of the year! > Even if SIA were to refuse delivery, I'm sure there are other airlines out there that would take those airplanes faster than Boeing's surplus of cancelled orders from Asian carriers sitting in Phoenix. Speaking of Asian carriers, I'm just curious why they have cancelled their Boeing orders and not their Airbus orders. Korean Airlines is the only airline that has cancelled all of their orders. > SQ customers are apparently not all that happy with the A340 cabin. > They want more headroom, and more space (cabin width). While Airbus > likes to advertise there is no center seat (and there isn't one), it > turns out to be largely an academic exercise in the Business class > cabin. The middle seat in a 777 or 747 is only filled if the cabin is > more than 80% full. Not a very common event. > The blame of headroom and more space in the cabin should not be placed on Airbus. When an airline orders an aircraft from Airbus or for that matter, Boeing, they specify what the interior should be like. Each airliner that comes of the assembly line from Seattle and Toulouse are different because each airline specifies a different configuration. The companies offer different configurations and if the correct configuration isn't offered, I'm sure the companies would do whatever it takes to offer the correct configuration. I've travelled on economy class and business class in Air Canada's A340's and there is a major difference. The seating is wider in business class than economy class. There is also much less leg room in economy (I'm 6' and it was tight). > Airbus Aircraft are traditionally not 'high flyers'. This is also > causing SQ a certain amount of pain. Flights to Europe generally > depart in the late afternoon and early evening, and are at or very > near MGTOW. The trip goes out of over the Bay of Bengal, which often > has nasty weather (thunderstorms) in the early evening. Very bluntly, > at high weights, the 777 and the 747's can fly a lot higher, giving > the crew more choices about how to avoid weather (and provide a better > ride for the passengers). > The A340 has a maximum cruising altitude of 39,000 feet. The Boeing 747 has a cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. Both aircraft have a maximum altitude of 41,000 feet. So whether the A340 will clear the bad weather or not is cause for concern. Why Airbus seemed to go with CFMI's CFM-56 engines for the A340 is still unclear to me. Those engines have a thrust rating of something like 34,000 pounds, which is why it takes forever for the A340 to climb to cruise altitude and then get to its destination. It would be a wise decision on behalf of Airbus to go with a much more powerful engine, something like the PW4000 series, which is the same engine found on the 767's. Pardave Lehry AVSIM Reviewer SATCO Controller 1 YYZ ARTCC Westwind Airlines YVR Assistant Hub Manager Aircraft Maintenance Engineer From news Sun Jul 11 23:14:17 1999 From: houtex@wt.net (ME Incorporated) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 12 Jul 1999 01:29:51 -0400 Organization: World Trade Network, Inc. (WT.net) Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> Path: ditka!news.mv.net!News.Destek.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!198.138.0.5!newshub.northeast.verio.net!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway I'm sorry to post a question about a computer aircraft simulator in these newsgroups, but it does have something to do with Real Life (tm), and I have to know! I was flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, which is supposed to be pretty realistic when it comes to the flight models of the 737-300. I noticed that the higher you go, the lower the Maximum Mach needle was. This needle shows the fastest your aircraft is designed to go in terms of Mach (speed of sound), and moves according to air density (I guess.) If your indicated airspeed is near or exceeds this marker needle, you may be in trouble. In real life this is bad. In a simulator, well, reset! At 19000 feet, you can go almost 400kts (or faster?), but at 33000, you can't quite get to 300Kts without having the "overspeed" warning show up. Is this realistic? It makes sense, given that the density of the air is less, and I think I remember that the speed of sound is slower due to the lower air density, so therefore, the maximum mach would be at a slower Kts reading. I am not a physics major, but wouldn't it be faster to fly at the lower altitude in real life? I can't see any difference in fuel consumption in the simulator, but then again, it's a (to be honest) crude simulation. Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save the time, and turn around the aircraft faster? This would allow the airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more paying passengers per aircraft per day. (Provided, of course, fuel consumption stays constant at cruise.) Obviously, there might be a safety issue at the lower altitude, but that's for another discussion if my simple little theory is correct... Or is the simulator just screwed up? Just wondering... and thanks in advance! -- "Flying is easy... buying the tickets, that's hard." -MikeyB From news Mon Jul 12 02:13:50 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: jleipol1@tampabay.rr.com (John T. Leipold) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 12 Jul 1999 04:14:17 -0400 Organization: RoadRunner - TampaBay Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> ME Incorporated wrote in message news:7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net... > I'm sorry to post a question about a computer aircraft simulator in these -snip- > I am not a physics major, but wouldn't it be faster to fly at the lower > altitude in real life? I can't see any difference in fuel consumption in > the simulator, but then again, it's a (to be honest) crude simulation. > > Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save > the time, and turn around the aircraft faster? This would allow the > airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more > paying passengers per aircraft per day. (Provided, of course, fuel > consumption stays constant at cruise.) > The simulation is not that far off. Yes flying at a lower altitude will allow the A/C to fly a bit faster but not enough to make much difference trips made per day. The turbines are even less efficient at higher altitudes, but fuel consumption is much lower. The higher the flight, the less drag and that is the biggest factor with fuel consumption. I knew a former Braniff pilot who told me that on flights between DFW and HOU they would get as high as possible and then start into an immediate descent. From news Mon Jul 12 08:15:08 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.idt.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: cwo3@herald.infi.net (Mike in Miami) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 12 Jul 1999 09:44:22 -0400 Organization: InfiNet Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <3789F068.3D56@herald.infi.net> References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> ME Incorporated wrote: > > I'm sorry to post a question about a computer aircraft simulator in these > newsgroups, but it does have something to do with Real Life (tm), and I have > to know! > > I was flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, which is supposed to be > pretty realistic when it comes to the flight models of the 737-300. > > I noticed that the higher you go, the lower the Maximum Mach needle was. > This needle shows the fastest your aircraft is designed to go in terms of > Mach (speed of sound), and moves according to air density (I guess.) If > your indicated airspeed is near or exceeds this marker needle, you may be in > trouble. In real life this is bad. In a simulator, well, reset! > > At 19000 feet, you can go almost 400kts (or faster?), but at 33000, you > can't quite get to 300Kts without having the "overspeed" warning show up. > Is this realistic? It makes sense, given that the density of the air is > less, and I think I remember that the speed of sound is slower due to the > lower air density, so therefore, the maximum mach would be at a slower Kts > reading. > > I am not a physics major, but wouldn't it be faster to fly at the lower > altitude in real life? I can't see any difference in fuel consumption in > the simulator, but then again, it's a (to be honest) crude simulation. > > Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save > the time, and turn around the aircraft faster? This would allow the > airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more > paying passengers per aircraft per day. (Provided, of course, fuel > consumption stays constant at cruise.) > > Obviously, there might be a safety issue at the lower altitude, but that's > for another discussion if my simple little theory is correct... > > Or is the simulator just screwed up? > > Just wondering... and thanks in advance! > > -- > > "Flying is easy... buying the tickets, that's hard." > -MikeyB We are talking indicated airspeed here and therein lies the confusion. As you go higher, air density drops and the speed displayed on the airspeed indicator (a pitot-static instrument) drops. One of the many functions of both manual and installed flight computers is to correct the imdicated airspeed for temperature and altitude to arrive at "true" airspeed. This is useful for flight planning and performance analysis. The airspeed indicator itself will display the mach (or knots) limitations referenced to the indicated airspeed so the pilot can simply maintain his speed within limits without any mental gymnastics to do the conversion in real time. If you are at FL290, indicating 250 knots you are traveling quite a good deal faster in terms of true airspeed (if I had my trusty E-6B here with me, I'd do the conversion for you but alas...). But the indicator may show 270 knots as VNE.... Hope that helps... Mike in Miami From news Mon Jul 12 08:15:09 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!bstnma1-snf1!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.idt.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: houtex@wt.net (ME Incorporated) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 12 Jul 1999 10:14:22 -0400 Organization: World Trade Network, Inc. (WT.net) Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <7mcsob$oki$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> John T: That seems like a good "trick" the descent. I'll have to try that one in the sim! Mike in Miami: So, what we're saying is that without a GSI, the Sim's panel is screwed up, sorta. I think I can switch a GSI on, though. Both: Thanks for your answers! -- "Flying is easy... buying the tickets, that's hard." -MikeyB ME Incorporated wrote in message news:7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net... > I'm sorry to post a question about a computer aircraft simulator in these > newsgroups, but it does have something to do with Real Life (tm), and I have > to know! > > I was flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, which is supposed to be > pretty realistic when it comes to the flight models of the 737-300. > > I noticed that the higher you go, the lower the Maximum Mach needle was. > This needle shows the fastest your aircraft is designed to go in terms of > Mach (speed of sound), and moves according to air density (I guess.) If > your indicated airspeed is near or exceeds this marker needle, you may be in > trouble. In real life this is bad. In a simulator, well, reset! > > At 19000 feet, you can go almost 400kts (or faster?), but at 33000, you > can't quite get to 300Kts without having the "overspeed" warning show up. > Is this realistic? It makes sense, given that the density of the air is > less, and I think I remember that the speed of sound is slower due to the > lower air density, so therefore, the maximum mach would be at a slower Kts > reading. > > I am not a physics major, but wouldn't it be faster to fly at the lower > altitude in real life? I can't see any difference in fuel consumption in > the simulator, but then again, it's a (to be honest) crude simulation. > > Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save > the time, and turn around the aircraft faster? This would allow the > airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more > paying passengers per aircraft per day. (Provided, of course, fuel > consumption stays constant at cruise.) > > Obviously, there might be a safety issue at the lower altitude, but that's > for another discussion if my simple little theory is correct... > > Or is the simulator just screwed up? > > Just wondering... and thanks in advance! > > -- > > "Flying is easy... buying the tickets, that's hard." > -MikeyB > > From news Mon Jul 12 14:35:08 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.idt.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: Aspen20@worldnet.att.net (RWS) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 12 Jul 1999 15:59:35 -0400 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <01becca0$9cc459e0$LocalHost@user> References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> There are o so many speed when taking flying. Common question: How fast does your jet go? Common easy answer to general public: None, - make up a number and sound sure of your self. Definitions: Mach number - the ration of TRUE AIRSPEED to the speed of sound True Airspeed - airspeed of an aircraft relative to undisturbed air. True airspeed is equal to equivalent airspeed multiplied by (po/p) Indicated airspeed - means the speed of a aircraft as shown on its pitot static airspeed indicator calibrated to reflect standard atmosphere adiabatic compressible flow at sea level uncorrected for airspeed system errors. Calibrated airspeed - means the indicated airspeed of an aircraft, corrected for position and instrument error. Calibrated airspeed is equal to true airspeed in standard atmosphere at sea level. Groundspeed - if there is zero wind Groundspeed equals True airspeed. As you go up in altitude on MS flight sim, your indicating less because there's less air molecules ramming into the pitot tube (part of airspeed indication system). These molecules are spread thin at high altitudes (thin air). For packman to eat 100 molecule per minute he needs to move much faster when the molecules are spread out so thin. So to maintain the same true airspeed you will see a much lower indicated airspeed at high altitudes. at 10,000ft 325 Knots indicated = about 350 Knots True Airspeed at 20,000ft 325 Knots indicated = about 460 Knots True Airspeed at 35,000ft 270 Knots indicated = about 485 Knots True Airspeed or about M.82 - M.83 With regards to fuel, low altitude and climb power can produce four times the fuel flow as high altitude cruise. The old learjets burn the same rate of fuel on the ramp at ideal as cruising at 45,000 feet. There fuel flows in the low altitude climb displayed that they would be dry in 30 minutes. After climbing to 45,000 in under 10 minutes they had a few hours of fuel. hope this helps, Falcon 50 driver > Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save > the time, and turn around the aircraft faster? This would allow the > airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more > paying passengers per aircraft per day. (Provided, of course, fuel > consumption stays constant at cruise.) > From news Mon Jul 12 14:35:08 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.idt.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 12 Jul 1999 15:59:31 -0400 Organization: Netcom Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <7mdh7v$4i0@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com> References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> In >I knew a >former Braniff pilot who told me that on flights between DFW and HOU >they would get as high as possible and then start into an immediate >descent. About the sdame as we used to do in a 720 between SEA and GEG (Spokane). We would file for FL260 or FL240 (depending on direction) and, as soon as we got that altitude, we would request lower ro start the approach. Lou. From news Mon Jul 12 17:15:53 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: efidgeon@videon.wave.ca (Ernie Fidgeon) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 12 Jul 1999 19:14:27 -0400 Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <378A7429.534463C5@videon.wave.ca> References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> Others have replied to explain the airspeed physics. Turbine engine thermodynamics says that efficiency of an ideal gas turbine cycle is a function of the total difference in air temperature between the intake air and the exhaust stream. Therefore, high altitudes with low outside air temperatures provide for efficiencies far higher than lower altitudes. Second as noted, total drag is reduced at high altitudes allowing for lower fuel burn coupled with higher cruise speeds, both from reduced parasite drag and profile drag (wings are designed for cruise mach number/AOA idealization). Third, for west to east travel the jet streams can be utilized for increased ground speeds. This would be really great if we traveled west to east only! :) Fourth, travel at altitudes upwards of thirty thousand feet is more comfortable as the local weather effects are below the aircraft for the most part, especially thunderstorms and hail. Fifth, travel at lower altitudes subjects the airframe to higher loads from turbulence (higher density air, thus higher forces due to larger delta V) which leads to less comfort and higher maintenance costs (fatigue). Also, climbing to higher altitudes requires a higher fuel load than your low altitude scenario which actually reduces bending fatigue on the wings as the fuel is burned from the inner wing out. A low altitude scenario with less fuel would give increased wing bending fatigue and additional flexure during turbulence, hastening the fatigue. Sixth, in the event of a loss of power and forced landing, the higher altitude gives the pilots more opportunity for alternate airports to glide into. Seventh, existing traffic demographics has most turboprop aircraft working at you suggested altitude. This would make routing/patterns a challenge to say the least with the rabbit overtaking the tortoise! Also, if we did this, our utilization would go up as a result of shorter turn times, increasing workload on the crews, and cycling the airframe more, both of which lead to higher operations costs. The crews can only fly so much and the airframes would require checks more frequently, which would require more aircraft. For example, airlines that operate the 737 on short haul low alt. (28K max alt.) for example have utilizations of up to 11 hrs a day in some cases, resulting in the need for additional aircraft to account for the shorter C check/D check periods, unless they take the lost revenue hit. Eighth, you wouldn't be able to see as far and enjoy the glory of flight so much! (GRIN) Ninth, the flight attendants wouldn't have as much time to clean up during descent!! (GRIN) Sorry, couldn't resist the last two. Hope this helps, EF ME Incorporated wrote: > I'm sorry to post a question about a computer aircraft simulator in these > newsgroups, but it does have something to do with Real Life (tm), and I have > to know! > > I was flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, which is supposed to be > pretty realistic when it comes to the flight models of the 737-300. > > I noticed that the higher you go, the lower the Maximum Mach needle was. > This needle shows the fastest your aircraft is designed to go in terms of > Mach (speed of sound), and moves according to air density (I guess.) If > your indicated airspeed is near or exceeds this marker needle, you may be in > trouble. In real life this is bad. In a simulator, well, reset! > > At 19000 feet, you can go almost 400kts (or faster?), but at 33000, you > can't quite get to 300Kts without having the "overspeed" warning show up. > Is this realistic? It makes sense, given that the density of the air is > less, and I think I remember that the speed of sound is slower due to the > lower air density, so therefore, the maximum mach would be at a slower Kts > reading. > > I am not a physics major, but wouldn't it be faster to fly at the lower > altitude in real life? I can't see any difference in fuel consumption in > the simulator, but then again, it's a (to be honest) crude simulation. > > Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save > the time, and turn around the aircraft faster? This would allow the > airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more > paying passengers per aircraft per day. (Provided, of course, fuel > consumption stays constant at cruise.) > > Obviously, there might be a safety issue at the lower altitude, but that's > for another discussion if my simple little theory is correct... > > Or is the simulator just screwed up? > > Just wondering... and thanks in advance! > > -- > > "Flying is easy... buying the tickets, that's hard." > -MikeyB From news Tue Jul 13 06:24:18 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!howland.erols.net!peerfeed.news.psi.net!nntp.psi.com!news.govnews.org!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: drholik@ameritech.net Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 13 Jul 1999 08:29:34 -0400 Organization: Ameritech.Net www.ameritech.net Complaints: abuse@ameritech.net Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <378B2E93.9E7B58DB@ameritech.net> References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> --------------B973BA6E9822A2547F1E9FCD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The "speedometer" for lack of a better term, shows what's called "Indicated Air Speed" (IAS) in knots. When you ascend the atmosphere gets less dense, the higher you go the more space between air molecules, so the Indicated air speed reads lower even though you're not slowing down. What you really want to look at is your Mach speed indicator, it will provide a true reading. Most aircraft cruise between Mach .80-.90. Also, remember that your airspeed and your groundspeed are always going to be different. If you fly west, you're flying against the prevailing winds so your airspeed reads higher and your groundspeed gets lower. If you fly East, you're flying with the winds so your airspeed will be lower than your groundspeed. Example... flying from Indianapolis to Oakland takes 4:00 hours flying from Oakland to Indianapolis takes only 3:30 hours, because of the winds. Usually, if your flying at say Mach .84 going west, your groundspeed will be about 500 knots if you fly at Mach .84 going east, your ground speed would be usually about 580+ knots( i've seen almost 700 knots before with a good tailwind) It all depends on the winds. So don't be fooled you really are going faster than 300 knots. ( i wondered this once upon a time also) ME Incorporated wrote: > I'm sorry to post a question about a computer aircraft simulator in these > newsgroups, but it does have something to do with Real Life (tm), and I have > to know! > > I was flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, which is supposed to be > pretty realistic when it comes to the flight models of the 737-300. > > I noticed that the higher you go, the lower the Maximum Mach needle was. > This needle shows the fastest your aircraft is designed to go in terms of > Mach (speed of sound), and moves according to air density (I guess.) If > your indicated airspeed is near or exceeds this marker needle, you may be in > trouble. In real life this is bad. In a simulator, well, reset! > > At 19000 feet, you can go almost 400kts (or faster?), but at 33000, you > can't quite get to 300Kts without having the "overspeed" warning show up. > Is this realistic? It makes sense, given that the density of the air is > less, and I think I remember that the speed of sound is slower due to the > lower air density, so therefore, the maximum mach would be at a slower Kts > reading. > > I am not a physics major, but wouldn't it be faster to fly at the lower > altitude in real life? I can't see any difference in fuel consumption in > the simulator, but then again, it's a (to be honest) crude simulation. > > Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save > the time, and turn around the aircraft faster? This would allow the > airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more > paying passengers per aircraft per day. (Provided, of course, fuel > consumption stays constant at cruise.) > > Obviously, there might be a safety issue at the lower altitude, but that's > for another discussion if my simple little theory is correct... > > Or is the simulator just screwed up? > > Just wondering... and thanks in advance! > > -- > > "Flying is easy... buying the tickets, that's hard." > -MikeyB --------------B973BA6E9822A2547F1E9FCD Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The "speedometer" for lack of a better term, shows what's called "Indicated Air Speed" (IAS) in knots.  When you ascend the atmosphere gets less dense, the higher you go the more space between air molecules, so the Indicated air speed reads lower even though you're not slowing down.  What you really want to look at is your Mach speed indicator, it will provide a true reading.  Most aircraft cruise between Mach .80-.90.  Also, remember that your airspeed and your groundspeed are always going to be different.  If you fly west, you're flying against the prevailing winds so your airspeed reads higher and your groundspeed gets lower.  If you fly East, you're flying with the winds so your airspeed will be lower than your groundspeed.  Example... flying from Indianapolis to Oakland takes 4:00 hours flying from Oakland to Indianapolis takes only 3:30 hours, because of the winds.  Usually, if your flying at say Mach .84 going west, your groundspeed will be about 500 knots  if you fly at Mach .84 going east, your ground speed would be usually about 580+ knots( i've seen almost 700 knots before with a good tailwind) It all depends on the winds. So don't be fooled you really are going faster than 300 knots.  ( i wondered this once upon a time also)

ME Incorporated wrote:

I'm sorry to post a question about a computer aircraft simulator in these
newsgroups, but it does have something to do with Real Life (tm), and I have
to know!

I was flying in Microsoft Flight Simulator 98, which is supposed to be
pretty realistic when it comes to the flight models of the 737-300.

I noticed that the higher you go, the lower the Maximum Mach needle was.
This needle shows the fastest your aircraft is designed to go in terms of
Mach (speed of sound), and moves according to air density (I guess.)  If
your indicated airspeed is near or exceeds this marker needle, you may be in
trouble.  In real life this is bad.  In a simulator, well, reset!

 At 19000 feet, you can go almost 400kts (or faster?), but at 33000, you
can't quite get to 300Kts without having the "overspeed" warning show up.
Is this realistic?  It makes sense, given that the density of the air is
less, and I think I remember that the speed of sound is slower due to the
lower air density, so therefore, the maximum mach would be at a slower Kts
reading.

I am not a physics major, but wouldn't it be faster to fly at the lower
altitude in real life?  I can't see any difference in fuel consumption in
the simulator, but then again, it's a (to be honest) crude simulation.

Wouldn't it make sense for the airliners to fly at the lower altitude, save
the time, and turn around the aircraft faster?  This would allow the
airlines to use less aircraft, less crews, and make more money with more
paying passengers per aircraft per day.  (Provided, of course, fuel
consumption stays constant at cruise.)

Obviously, there might be a safety issue at the lower altitude, but that's
for another discussion if my simple little theory is correct...

Or is the simulator just screwed up?

Just wondering... and thanks in advance!

--

"Flying is easy... buying the tickets, that's hard."
-MikeyB

--------------B973BA6E9822A2547F1E9FCD-- From news Fri Jul 16 14:14:51 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.belnet.be!news.tvd.be!pula.financenet.gov!gateway From: ei7gm@amsat.org (Paul Kearney) Newsgroups: gov.topic.transport.air,rec.travel.air,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Flight Levels and Speed Date: 16 Jul 1999 15:45:19 -0400 Organization: Ireland On-Line Approved: robomod@govnews.org (Spam Filter) Message-ID: <378f7d2f.2200954@news.iol.ie> References: <7mbtp0$ab7$1@sys14.hou.wt.net> houtex@wt.net (ME Incorporated) wrote: : : Or is the simulator just screwed up? : : Just wondering... and thanks in advance! The MACH V AIRSPEED GRAPH iS CURVED LIKE (BUT NOT EXACT LIKE) THE SINE WAVE OF 0 TO 90 DEGREES AND THEN FROM 23456+- FEET (ON A STANDARD DAY) BUT IT WILL BE LINEAR BACK TOWARDS AXIS OF THE GRAPH | \ | \ | \ | \ LINEAR | \ | \ |---------------------------23456FEET | ... | .. CURVED AREA | .. | .. | .. --------------------------- 0 FEET AIRSPEED --> *** remove nospam for real address *** I used to be on packet but i'm alright now. From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:11 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:33 AM 7/10/99 +0000, you wrote: >Recently I read that, until the advent of the Concorde, the Convair CV990 >was the fastest civil aeroplane. I am now curious and looking for any >information on the type - performance and specifications, production >numbers, dates etc. Were the strange fairings on the upper surface of the >wings used to break up shock waves created by flying at high subsonic >speeds - or did they serve some other purpose? The funny fairings are a direct result of the speed of the 990. It was close enough to supersonic that the Whitcomb area rule had significant impact. In very simple terms, sudden changes in the effective cross section of the airframe greatly increase transonic and supersonic drag. This leads to the more familiar 'coke bottle' or wasp waist appearance of many fighters of the 1950's and 1960's. The fuselage will be thinner at the wing roots and thicker before and after to reduce the suddenness of the cross section changes. The big ugly fairings on the trailing surfaces of the wings are referred to as speed bullets and provide a transitional cross section. Without the speed bullets the 990 could not achieve the speeds promised. In fact the 990 had a lot of trouble meeting the contractual specifications. The 990 was a commercial disaster for Convair. There weren't all that many made, and I suspect Convair management forgot that when you enter into a commercial contract, if you have cost overruns, the customer isn't going to eat them, you are. I don't know if there is an official figure of not, but my recollection the 990 program ran up losses of several hundred million dollars. It marked Convair's exit from the ranks of commercial aircraft manufacturers. They continue to make parts of aircraft (like the D10 fuselage), but not complete aircraft. In addition, the wing of the 990 infringed on some patents, and Convair ultimately had to pay still more millions in the Patent infringement suit which followed... James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:12 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com Anthony Rassias wrote: > Recently I read that, until the advent of the Concorde, the Convair CV990 > was the fastest civil aeroplane. I am now curious and looking for any > information on the type - performance and specifications, production > numbers, dates etc. The "Great Airliners, Volume I; Convair 880 & 990" by John Proctor is a pretty definitive source. > Were the strange fairings on the upper surface of the > wings used to break up shock waves created by flying at high subsonic > speeds - or did they serve some other purpose? The "Kuchemann Carrots" were there to improve the area distribution and reduce wave drag. Unfortunately, their wetted area produced sufficient drag to counteract the wave drag decrease. Some 990s also have extensive fairings on the pylons and nacelles, developed by John Kutney of GE. These too reduced wave drag by improving the local area distribution. -- 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 Jul 22 23:30:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:13 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg-ma1b-68.ix.netcom.com In "Anthony Rassias" writes: >Recently I read that, until the advent of the Concorde, the Convair CV990 >was the fastest civil aeroplane. I am now curious and looking for any >information on the type - performance and specifications, production >numbers, dates etc. Were the strange fairings on the upper surface of >the wings used to break up shock waves created by flying at high >subsonic speeds - or did they serve some other purpose? Those fairings were appropriately called "shock bodies" and were also used to house fuel tanks. Lou. From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:14 From: M Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.30.f5 Both...they were for shock wave intervention and also held fuel. It's sister ship, the 880, got its name for the max speed in fps and maybe the 990 did, too. From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:15 From: ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: top.mitre.org 932676258 4 128.29.113.228 (22 Jul 1999 20:44:18 GMT) X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.0 Beta #2 Organization: The MITRE Corporation NNTP-Posting-Host: m24335-mac.mitre.org In article , "Anthony Rassias" wrote: >Recently I read that, until the advent of the Concorde, the Convair CV990 >was the fastest civil aeroplane. I am now curious and looking for any >information on the type - performance and specifications, production >numbers, dates etc. Were the strange fairings on the upper surface of the >wings used to break up shock waves created by flying at high subsonic >speeds - or did they serve some other purpose? The Convair 990 was designed to cruise at 990 km/h (hence the name). I don't have other specs handy, but it was supposed to compete with B707s and DC8s. Something like 40 total were produced (obviously a major commercial failure). The fairings on the trailing edge of the wing were known as "Kuechemann Carrots" - and were added on to reduce unacceptable wave drag in the original design. A trans-sonic aircraft like the CV990 generates wave drag due to compressibility effects. It contributes to total drag, but is separate and distinct from parasitic drag ("skin friction") and induced drag (caused by lift). The shape which has the least theoretical wave drag is a double-ogive shaped body (i.e. looks like two .22 caliber rifle shells back-to-back). As it turns out, this theoretical minimum can be approached by an arbitrarily shaped body which has the same cross-sectional area as the double-ogive. This is known as the "Area Rule". The original design for the CV990 had a normal shaped wing and fuselage. Unfortunately, it was designed before the area rule was well-understood. When the CV990 has poor performance due to excessive wave drag, the "Kuechemann Carrots" were added to bring the aircraft cross-section profile in-line with the Area Rule. Aircraft designed after the Area Rule was worked out have incorporated this shape in a much more graceful manner. 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 Thu Jul 22 23:30:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:16 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: 50 years of jet aircraft Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc...@cmdnet.lu Just to let you know that on 27-Jul-49 John Cunningham made the first ever flight with a civil jet aircraft. The craft was the de Havilland Comet Mk1 frame 06001 registered G-5-1. 50 years already. To learn more about the first civil jet aircraft, just drop in at http://surf.to/comet Regards, Marc Schaeffer From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:17 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.goodnet.com 931875811 207.98.135.192 (Tue, 13 Jul 1999 07:23:31 MDT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.98.135.192 On Sun, 11 Jul 1999 15:46:53 GMT, "Pardave Lehry" wrote: >The aircraft may be overweight by 6.5 metric tonnes, but Airbus can no doubt >shave those off very easily and quickly. If it was so easy, why is the A340-300 still 4 tonnes overweight? If it was so easy, it wouldn't attract any press coverage either. It isn't easy, and 14,300 pounds is a lot of weight to come out of 350,000 pounds or so at this stage. It is painful, and it is likely to VERY expensive if it can be done at all. > As for engine reliability "out of the box, I never said ANYTHING about reliability. >" it's true that they have fuel problems, but with today's modern >technology and modern construction techniques and materials, engines are >very very reliable and often do make their quota for fuel burn. For this application, often isn't good enough, and some engines NEVER make guarantees. Most of the RB211-524G/H-T upgrade contracts involve a final settlement for Fuel economy guarantees never met on the original engine. >Even if SIA were to refuse delivery, I'm sure there are other airlines out >there that would take those airplanes faster than Boeing's surplus of >cancelled orders from Asian carriers sitting in Phoenix. I'd like to know where in Phoenix these aircraft are located. There are no aircraft storage areas in the Phoenix area. If the A340-500 cannot fly the SQ mission, I think it is more likely to be a stampede to cancel the A340-500 orders than a rush of prospective buyers. > Speaking of Asian >carriers, I'm just curious why they have cancelled their Boeing orders and >not their Airbus orders. Korean Airlines is the only airline that has >cancelled all of their orders. Other than simply saying the statements are grossly inaccurate, I will leave them. >> SQ customers are apparently not all that happy with the A340 cabin. ....... >The blame of headroom and more space in the cabin should not be placed on >Airbus. When an airline orders an aircraft from Airbus or for that matter, >Boeing, they specify what the interior should be like. And I am sure that if Airbus had bee able to provide a cabin that could be configured with the same head room that SQ's 747 and 777's have, they would have. The exact shape of the fuselage, and where you place the cabin floor as well the fuselage diameter has a big impact on head room. The narrower A340 body is likely to cause headroom problems in the A/B and J/K seats, especially if you make the cabin floor relatively high in the fuselage to increase freight carriage. As I pointed out SQ passengers get to compare the 747,777 and A340 cabin because SQ operates all 3 types, so to suggest it is a problem of SQ's making is absurd ... >The A340 has a maximum cruising altitude of 39,000 feet. Let me know where I can find an A340 (or any other Airbus aircraft for that matter) at FL390 in revenue service . It is an altitude that cannot be attained at ANY realistic operating weight, let alone MGTOW. By contrast, a 777-200 can go directly to FL390 at MGTOW. >The Boeing 747 has a cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. Both aircraft >have a maximum altitude of 41,000 feet. What reference did you get that information out of? FL390 is fairly common at end of cruise on long haul 747-400 services. Depending upon weight and model, cruise could be anything from FL250 (747-100 at MGTOW) to FL410 (747-400 or SP at low weight).. You can go higher than that if you want and if the weight is low enough. It usually isn't attractive, but I have been in 767's and 747SP's above 41,000 feet. I believe the maximum certificated altitude on the 747 is 45,000 feet, you are never likely to get there in revenue service however. >So whether the A340 will clear the bad weather or not is >cause for concern. Why don't you try telling that to an SQ captain who just took off from Singapore for Europe in his A340-300 at MGTOW and is now out over the Bay of Bengal on a typical afternoon or early evening. >Why Airbus seemed to go with CFMI's CFM-56 engines for >the A340 is still unclear to me. Bad decision by Airbus to build an airplane for a limited market, without an iron clad commitment for an engine to power it, or designing an aircraft around an engine that didn't exist and required a thrust level that no in production engine delivered. I think this is called a self inflicted wound.... Then try to find out all you can about the IAE V2500 SuperFan. >... It would be a >wise decision on behalf of Airbus to go with a much more powerful engine, >something like the PW4000 series, which is the same engine found on the >767's. They did, it is called an A330... Because it is a twin, it is unsuitable for many of the missions the A340 was sold for. A340 was specifically designed to avoid ETOPS restrictions which A330 has. For someone with such impressive credentials, your comments are strange indeed... From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:18 From: Michael & Iain Butler Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chaos NNTP-Posting-Host: p6-max2.wlg.ihug.co.nz James Matthew Weber wrote: > (large snips) > SQ customers are apparently not all that happy with the A340 cabin. > They want more headroom, and more space (cabin width). While Airbus > likes to advertise there is no center seat (and there isn't one), it > turns out to be largely an academic exercise in the Business class > cabin. The middle seat in a 777 or 747 is only filled if the cabin is > more than 80% full. Not a very common event. > > According to the article, SQ customers are willing to take their > chances with center seat to get the additional cabin width and > headroom the 777 and 747 offer (and remember SQ operates all 3 types, > so the issue isn't the service, or the seats themselves, it is > obviously something about the aircraft itself).. I can't see how cabin width affects passenger space. Surely the only thing impacting the passenger is seat width and pitch. Has SQ chosen a different seat for the A340 from that in the 777? If so what are the relavant seat pitches and widths? I agree the centre seat argument is a non-starter as about 60% of the seats in both aircraft are on the sides rather than the centre where neither have a centre seat. > According to SQ management, the premium customers are also keenly > interested in getting to the destination as quickly as possible, and > are complaining about the A340's cruise speed. Whether it is true, or > SQ is saying it to turn up the heat on Airbus is hard to say. It is > certainly true that the trip to Europe in an A340 from Singapore will > take longer than it will in a 777 or a 747... This I can believe as being a major marketing problem. No body wants to spend an extra hour in the air unless there is some other advantage. (more likely time of the flight rather than cost for a Business Class passenger) -- Mike Butler Wellington NZ Tip CD Lab/Terrier New Zealand Dog Agility on the Web Ben BC X http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~mbutler/nala/ From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:19 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d16.har-ct.concentric.net Pardave Lehry wrote: > The aircraft may be overweight by 6.5 metric tonnes, but Airbus can no doubt > shave those off very easily and quickly. Don't be so sure. The A340-300E is 8 metric tons more heavier than originally planned (275 vs. 267). > Yes, they > may have problems such as blades cracking (General Electric GE-90), but > Rolls Royce has learnt their lesson to trust the titanium blades for their > first stage fan after the saga that occured with the RB211 for the L1011. Composite material technology has matured significantly since the late '60s when R-R first developed a composite fan for the RB211. > Even if SIA were to refuse delivery, I'm sure there are other airlines out > there that would take those airplanes faster than Boeing's surplus of > cancelled orders from Asian carriers sitting in Phoenix. I don't believe there are that many new Boeings in the desert or at Boeing's site. At the peak, there were some 30-plus unsold Boeing planes, but I believe most, if not all, have been placed with other carriers. > Speaking of Asian > carriers, I'm just curious why they have cancelled their Boeing orders and > not their Airbus orders. Korean Airlines is the only airline that has > cancelled all of their orders. Who told you that there weren't cancelled Airbus orders? Asiana, Korean, ANA, Garuda, Thai, Singapore, Cathay etc., all had cancelled or deferred Airbus orders. You heard more about cancellations of Boeing orders, because Boeing has a larger share of widebody market in East Asia. Thus, they are more vulnerable. > The blame of headroom and more space in the cabin should not be placed on > Airbus. When an airline orders an aircraft from Airbus or for that matter, > Boeing, they specify what the interior should be like. Each airliner that > comes of the assembly line from Seattle and Toulouse are different because > each airline specifies a different configuration. While a lot of interior fixtures are airline specific. Headroom is aircraft specific. > The A340 has a maximum cruising altitude of 39,000 feet. The Boeing 747 has > a cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. Both aircraft have a maximum altitude > of 41,000 feet. So whether the A340 will clear the bad weather or not is > cause for concern. Maybe not to you. It's a concern for many airlines. > Why Airbus seemed to go with CFMI's CFM-56 engines for > the A340 is still unclear to me. Because Airbus designed the A340 to require engines of that thrust class. > Those engines have a thrust rating of > something like 34,000 pounds, which is why it takes forever for the A340 to > climb to cruise altitude and then get to its destination. It would be a > wise decision on behalf of Airbus to go with a much more powerful engine, > something like the PW4000 series, which is the same engine found on the > 767's. The PW2000 and RB.211-535 (on the B757) were probably good candidates. But they were too heavy for Airbus's requirements at that time. Lufthansa was very interested in a SuperFan version of the V2500. But P&W said the technology was not ready at the time. From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:20 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: titan.xtra.co.nz 931740105 5113464 203.96.152.5 (12 Jul 1999 00:41:45 GMT) Organization: Daedalus Consulting NNTP-Posting-Host: estelle.paradise.net.nz In article <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca>, Pardave Lehry wrote: >> SQ customers are apparently not all that happy with the A340 cabin. >> They want more headroom, and more space (cabin width). While Airbus > >The blame of headroom and more space in the cabin should not be placed on >Airbus. When an airline orders an aircraft from Airbus or for that matter, >Boeing, they specify what the interior should be like. Each airliner that It always seemed to me that the Airbus widebodies seem to have their floor very much higher in the fuselage than Boeing aircraft, hence a lower ceiling, or at least, the fuselage curves over the window seats much more sharply -- that reduces the space around the window seats and reduces space for the overhead bins. I guess it's simply to make room for cargo in standard containers while retaining a circular fuselage. >The A340 has a maximum cruising altitude of 39,000 feet. The Boeing 747 has >a cruising altitude of 37,000 feet. Both aircraft have a maximum altitude >of 41,000 feet. So whether the A340 will clear the bad weather or not is 747 service ceiling is more like 45,000 feet -- I've certainly been higher than 41,000' in the things. 777's service ceiling is quite a bit lower -- 39,300' for the -200 and 36,400' for the -300 (according to www.boeing.com). (Oddly enough, www.boeing.com says of the 747-400's altitude capability, "34,700 feet (10,580 m) - all versions". I guess the freighter & domestic versions have lower ceilings than the stock long range airliner version.) >cause for concern. Why Airbus seemed to go with CFMI's CFM-56 engines for >the A340 is still unclear to me. Those engines have a thrust rating of >something like 34,000 pounds, which is why it takes forever for the A340 to >climb to cruise altitude and then get to its destination. It would be a >wise decision on behalf of Airbus to go with a much more powerful engine, >something like the PW4000 series, which is the same engine found on the >767's. The PW4000s are heavier and drag more (and therefore need to burn more fuel), and they're more expensive. -- don From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:21 From: Russell Short Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: PLANESMART > http://travel.to/planesmart NNTP-Posting-Host: max314133.servers.unsw.edu.au Pardave Lehry wrote: > Even if SIA were to refuse delivery, I'm sure there are other airlines out > there that would take those airplanes faster than Boeing's surplus of > cancelled orders from Asian carriers sitting in Phoenix. Speaking of Asian > carriers, I'm just curious why they have cancelled their Boeing orders and > not their Airbus orders. Korean Airlines is the only airline that has > cancelled all of their orders. Airbus and Boeing orders have been cancelled, with Boeing the hardest hit because the largest airplanes, the 747-400 and 777-200/300 have taken a beating. Korean has NOT cancelled all their orders. Most have just been deferred. > The blame of headroom and more space in the cabin should not be placed on > Airbus. When an airline orders an aircraft from Airbus or for that matter, > Boeing, they specify what the interior should be like. An airline has no control over the radius of the fuselage. It is here that the Airbus machine has a couple of inches less head room due to the greater curvature of the wall compared to the 777. The 777 head room down the aisles is also greater, as is under the overhead bins. Most airlines have the same overhead bins. To increase the height of the A340 headroom one must effectively remove space from the overhead bins. > The A340 has a maximum cruising altitude of 39,000 feet. At what weight? The 747 and 777 can get to their optimum cruise altitudes faster, which is the point of the argument. > So whether the A340 will clear the bad weather or not is cause for concern. SQ must be imagining it... > Why Airbus seemed to go with CFMI's CFM-56 engines for > the A340 is still unclear to me. Those engines have a thrust rating of > something like 34,000 pounds, which is why it takes forever for the A340 to > climb to cruise altitude and then get to its destination. It would be a > wise decision on behalf of Airbus to go with a much more powerful engine, > something like the PW4000 series, which is the same engine found on the > 767's. Which would not only ruin engine commonality at airlines, but also increase maintenance, fuel and overhead expenditure, virtually surrendering the market to the 777. Russ. From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:22 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> 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 "Pardave Lehry" wrote: > > SQ customers are apparently not all that happy with the A340 cabin. > > They want more headroom, and more space (cabin width). > > > The blame of headroom and more space in the cabin should not be > placed on Airbus. When an airline orders an aircraft from Airbus or > for that matter, Boeing, they specify what the interior should be > like. Each airliner that comes of the assembly line from Seattle and > Toulouse are different because each airline specifies a different > configuration. The companies offer different configurations and if > the correct configuration isn't offered, I'm sure the companies would > do whatever it takes to offer the correct configuration. You're right as far as seat comfort and legroom goes, but headroom and cabin width ARE pretty much set by the aircraft design, and there's little airlines can do about that. Well, they could get more headroom by cutting back on overhead storage bins, but that would also be unpopular. It's interesting that Boeing seems to have lucked out on cabin width in this instance, while being at a definite disadvantage in the narrowbodies with their narrower cabin compared to the Airbus narrowbodies. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:23 From: "Tim Lee" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: BT Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: host5-171-231-148.btinternet.com Hang on a minute, James! James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes >overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. >The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new >engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines >rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. Frankly, 6.5 tons is not a huge amount - not at this stage of development, anyway. Believe me, more was shaved off the A340-200 before EIS... and RR have never delivered an engine that doesn't do as advertised. Especially in reliability terms - go ask BA what they think of the GE90 on 777 - they love it so much that they are dumping it in favour of Trent on the new order. >SQ customers are apparently not all that happy with the A340 cabin. >They want more headroom, and more space (cabin width). While Airbus >likes to advertise there is no center seat (and there isn't one), it >turns out to be largely an academic exercise in the Business class >cabin. The middle seat in a 777 or 747 is only filled if the cabin is >more than 80% full. Not a very common event. Well, it's pretty common on most other airlines - I was on a BA744 the other day, and people were being bumped out of Club World into First. Also, the A340 cabin consistently beats the Boeing products every time in all classes of service on every independent survey I've ever seen! >According to the article, SQ customers are willing to take their >chances with center seat to get the additional cabin width and >headroom the 777 and 747 offer (and remember SQ operates all 3 types, >so the issue isn't the service, or the seats themselves, it is >obviously something about the aircraft itself).. > >According to SQ management, the premium customers are also keenly >interested in getting to the destination as quickly as possible, and >are complaining about the A340's cruise speed. Whether it is true, or >SQ is saying it to turn up the heat on Airbus is hard to say. It is >certainly true that the trip to Europe in an A340 from Singapore will >take longer than it will in a 777 or a 747... This strikes me as a negotiating ploy - I would guess that SQ are holding out for some sort of deal - either a discount on their existing order, or a good buy from AI on the next - so they are making AI work a bit. Happens all the time! >The run to Europe from Singapore in an A340 is nearly an hour longer >than it is in a 747, or a 777. It is extra travel time, and it >complicates connections within Europe. The 747 is a quick aircraft, but I doubt this is true for the 777, which has a stated cruise of 30kts less than A340. >Airbus Aircraft are traditionally not 'high flyers'. This is also >causing SQ a certain amount of pain. Flights to Europe generally >depart in the late afternoon and early evening, and are at or very >near MGTOW. The trip goes out of over the Bay of Bengal, which often >has nasty weather (thunderstorms) in the early evening. Very bluntly, >at high weights, the 777 and the 747's can fly a lot higher, giving >the crew more choices about how to avoid weather (and provide a better >ride for the passengers). Prove this one, please! AI aircraft have a similar climb rate to the 777, and the 747 climb performance can be dismal... Also, no-one can convince me that any aircraft in commercial use can climb over a cu-nim cloud - they can peak at over 60,000ft..... >The other operational issue is the routes from SE Asia go over India >on the way to Europe or the Middle East. A300/A310's are very popular >regional aircraft often transiting India on the way to or from the >Middle East or destinations on the sub continent, couple that with the >normal long haul traffic out of SE Asia , and it tends to make the >altitudes where these aircraft live very congested, so unless you are >lucky, or can fly above FL350, (which is very hard to do in an Airbus >at realistic operating weight), you may well get shoved down at a very >unattractive altitude, like FL260. AI products do this without problem - VS toc is typically 39,000 on the HKG-LHR with a 340. Do we work for Boeing by any chance? Rgds Tim From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:24 From: Lukas Lusser Subject: Re: IL96 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 13 Jul 1999 15:19:21 +0100, lusser.euro.unibas.ch Organization: Europainstitut Basel may I point you to some pictures and information on the Ilyushin 96-300 and the upcoming stretched Ilyushin 96M (passenger) and Ilyushin 96T (freighter) respectively at http://www.bird.ch/russians/ then select - after entering the site - the Il-96 from the "index of russian aircraft types", or go directly to http://www.bird/ch/russians/il96/il96p01.html. Hope it helps, and have fun Lukas Lusser Jetstream Swiss Aviation Magazine at http://www.jetstream.ch/ A Guide to Russian Airliners at http://www.bird.ch/russians/ From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:25 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: and the winner is..... References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 931801553.385.47 K8TBLZBRT84C1D091C qube-01.us-ca.remarq.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: Posted via RemarQ, http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.145.132.193 JF Mezei wrote in message <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca>... >James Matthew Weber wrote: >> >> It has been announced that the engine contract for the 777-200/-300X >> has gone to General Electric. > >I find it interesting that for the 777 family, it was seen as an >advantage to have multiple engine suppliers. Why would Boeing now go for >a single exclusive engine supplier for a derivative of the 777 ? The risk of a single supplier has been reduced in the equation relative to when these high thrust engines were introduced. There was once the possibility that only RR would deliver such an engine in a timely manner. >Is such an annoucement more of a > "so far, GE has committed to produce the engine for this derivative" GE and Boeing have become much closer with GE's entry at Shannon House and the BBJ Partnership. >If an aircraft has one engine brand (exclusive), does this mean that the >airline signs a single contract with Boeing which includes engines (with >Boeing dealing with engine manufacturer) or does the airline still have >to negotiate separately with the engine manufacturer as it does when >many types of engines are available ? An Airline would need to foot the Engineering and Certification Bill for another engine manufacturer to be offered. John From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:26 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: and the winner is..... References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. JF Mezei wrote: > I find it interesting that for the 777 family, it was seen as an > advantage to have multiple engine suppliers. Why would Boeing now go > for a single exclusive engine supplier for a derivative of the 777 ? > Is such an annoucement more of a > "so far, GE has committed to produce the engine for this derivative" > or > "GE will be the only supplier of engines for this derivative and > has an exclusivity contract with none of the other 777 engine > manufacturers allowed to compete for this 777 derivative". The latter. GE basically said they wouldn't do an engine for the 777X unless they had exclusivity. While the Boeing press release doesn't technically give then exclusivity (probably to avoid alienating the other engines makers), in practice that's what it boils down to. > How does this change the purchase of an aircraft ? Well, it needn't. The 737 has done pretty well selling with only one engine. On the other hand, it might become an issue if a 777 operator with engines other than GE is looking at the 777X. Having to consider bringing in a whole new engine type might open the door for them to look at other options as well, since the benefits of commonality would be that much lower (remember -- we were told earlier that one reason Boeing is producing the 737-900 is precisely to dissuade current 737 operators who don't already have 757s from looking at the competition when they're looking for a larger aircraft). Then again, BA already HAS switched engine suppliers for 777s (from GE to RR) even without being forced to. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:27 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Airbus A310 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 931652137 207.161.189.87 (Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:15:37 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 Jeff Bowen wrote: > I noticed below each wing were three (I think it was three) "pods" which > looked somewhat like solid canoes which each came to a flat edge at the rear > where they protruded beyond the back edge of the wing. > > Does anyone know what the heck those "thingies" are? I'm not an engineer or > an aircraft expert, but am just curious. Also, each of them had a metal tube > sticking out the rear from that flat edge. What were _those_? You were looking at flap track fairings. Under the wing trailing edge resides the mechanical linkage that extends and deflects each flap, typically two or more "tracks" per flap. To reduce drag (and improve aesthetics) a fairing is fitted around the track and linkage (canoe fairing is a typical pseudonym!). You may have noticed they deflected as the flaps deployed, as they are linked to them so as to get out of the way of the linkage and flaps as they change positions. The metal tube you saw was likely the fuel jettison tube(s). I'm not sure how many the A310 have, but typically one per wing. Each wing is a fuel tank, and in the event of a landing required soon after takeoff, the weight of the aircraft must be reduced to land safely (the maximum landing weight is less than the maximum takeoff weight primarily because of the vertical load limits on the gear and fuselage, and because the approach speeds and landing run out distance are also limiting factors). This is achieved by "dumping" fuel from the wing tanks. No worries, the system is grounded etc and the vapor disperses quickly with little environmental impact. Incidentally, the fairings are typically manufactured using graphite and fiberglass composite materials. These materials have favorable strength to weight properties over metals, and they do not corrode or crack in the same manner as metals. Cheers EF From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:28 From: "Pardave Lehry" Subject: Re: Airbus A310 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 10 Jul 1999 20:21:45 GMT, pm49s33.intergate.bc.ca X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: pm49s33.intergate.bc.ca > I was on a commercial (charter with Royal Airlines) flight to and from St. > Martin from Toronto (I know, a tough job but someone had to do it). The plane > was (I believe) an Airbus 310 (seating capacity of 265). > > I noticed below each wing were three (I think it was three) "pods" which > looked somewhat like solid canoes which each came to a flat edge at the rear > where they protruded beyond the back edge of the wing. > > Does anyone know what the heck those "thingies" are? I'm not an engineer or > an aircraft expert, but am just curious. Also, each of them had a metal tube > sticking out the rear from that flat edge. What were _those_? Those "thingies" contain the screwjacks for the flaps. The screwjacks are really long threaded rods that contain what's called a gimble nut. This nut travels along the threaded rod everytime the flaps are extended or retracted. Hope that helps. Pardave Lehry AVSIM Reviewer SATCO Controller 1 YYZ ARTCC Westwind Airlines YVR Assistant Hub Manager Aircraft Maintenance Engineer From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:29 From: "Tim Lee" Subject: Re: Airbus A310 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: BT Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: host5-171-231-148.btinternet.com As a former AI engineer, this is an easy one! The big plastic structures are simply the aerodynamic covers for the mechanism that drives the flaps - you'll have noticed on landing that as the flaps went down, these "canoe fairings" - so your description was a good guess - as they are know in the biz, bent down with them - they cover the flap tracks, simply rails down which the flaps run. The metal pipes you refer to are one of two things (I was on A330/340, not A310, so am not 100% familiar with the aircraft) - they are either simply static dischargers (to discharge static electricity to the atmosphere), or more likely, they are water drains, to stop condensation sitting in the canoe fittings, and rotting the structure. Hope this helps! Tim From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:30 From: zigman Subject: Re: Airbus A310 question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Lazy B Jeff Bowen wrote: > I noticed below each wing were three (I think it was three) "pods" which > looked somewhat like solid canoes which each came to a flat edge at the rear > where they protruded beyond the back edge of the wing. > > Does anyone know what the heck those "thingies" are? I'm not an engineer or > an aircraft expert, but am just curious. Also, each of them had a metal tube > sticking out the rear from that flat edge. What were _those_? Those are called Kuchmann' bodies and the house the flap tracks and actuators. Basically they store the drives etc which drive the flap motion. The tube you see sticking out is probably the torque tube that deploys and retracts the flaps. Russian aircraft (military and small passenger jets) in particular are famous for using Kuchhmann bodies to store their landing gear in. Hope that helps!! From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:31 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 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 JF Mezei wrote: > For other aircraft, it seems that Boeing has no problem giving each > derivative its own name. hy does this seem so different for the 777 > here the 200 and 300 will have many many derivatives. Why can't > Boeing name them the 400, 500 etc? Is it affraid of running out of > numbers prior to the end of this family ? It's hard to know when to break out a new number, and when to simply add a modifier ("extended range"). On the 727 and 737, different series numbers were given to different fuselage lengths, and then to the New- Generation models (that had a new wing along with various other improvements). Within a series, "advanced" was once used to denote higher gross weight versions. On the 747, the switch from series 100 to 200 was made even though gross weight improvements were the major change. Then -300 was used belatedly for the extended upper deck version, which had been known as the -200EUD until just before roll- out. The -400 added EFIS, an improved wing, and various other improvements, so a new series number was well-justified. But then the cargo version became the -400F despite its lack of an extended upper deck (the precedent from the -300 would have suggested a new series designation). And of course, there's also the SP in the mix. The 757 and 767 went back to changing series designation according to fuselage length, and within that using modifiers for extended-range models. > It is pretty hard to know what a 777-200 and 777-300 are. I thik there > was the basic model, the IGW model, the ER model, and now an "X" model > to come. Any more I forgot? Seems strange that this strange naming > convention applies only to the 777. The 777 follows the same convention as the 757 and 767, except that for a while "IGW" (Increased Gross Weight) was used instead of "ER" -- I now understand that Boeing is using ER again (so that IGW=ER). As for X, that's just a temporary designation, to be used until a formal launch decision is made. At that point, these models will presumably get their own designation, but whether that's some variation on -200/- 300 or something like -400/-500 will depend on certification issues and marketing decisions. A more pertinent criticism is whether modifiers like ER and IGW are terribly useful? Since there are several flavors of ER on both the 767 and 777, the designation itself doesn't tell you much. If you follow the logic of calling one model the "ER", then the next one ought to be the "RER" (REALLY extended range) or something similar. Followed maybe by RRER as your clever engineers keep squeezing more performance out of the basic model. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:32 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >It's hard to know when to break out a new number, and when to simply >add a modifier ("extended range"). On the 727 and 737, different series >numbers were given to different fuselage lengths, and then to the New- >Generation models ... Both the second and new generations triggered a new series -- note that the 737-500 has essentially the same fuselage length as the 737-200 but with all of the second generation enhancements introduced on the 737-300. >A more pertinent criticism is whether modifiers like ER and IGW are >terribly useful? Since there are several flavors of ER on both the 767 >and 777, the designation itself doesn't tell you much. I don't know about the 767s, but there are significant differences between a 777-200 and a 777-200ER. The latter has stronger landing gear and wings plus a center fuel tank, amongst other things. Within each sub-series upgrading from the lightest to the heaviest can be as easy as a paper upgrade, but you cannot upgrade a 777-200 to a 777-200ER. -- 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 Jul 22 23:30:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:33 From: "Henry's Cat" Subject: Re: 4-point Landing Gear Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Henry's Cat Motor Sport Reply-To: "Henry's Cat" NNTP-Posting-Host: p567-130.wantree.com.au James Fu wrote in message ... > Why is it that pilots of aircraft with 4-point landing gear systems (nose, > center, and one each main) sometimes deploy only the nose and main points, > and not the center? Naturally, aircraft like the MD11, DC10, and A340 are > the referenced aircraft here. Maybe they don't need the centre main when the a/c isn't heavily loaded. In the DC-10-30 use of the centre main for takeoff was optional, and Air NZ flightplans specified whether it was to be down or not. Neil From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:34 From: "Red Baron" Subject: Re: 4-point Landing Gear Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 932086103 27751 12.78.121.33 (16 Jul 1999 00:48:23 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.78.121.33 James Fu wrote in message ... >Why is it that pilots of aircraft with 4-point landing gear systems (nose, >center, and one each main) sometimes deploy only the nose and main points, >and not the center? Naturally, aircraft like the MD11, DC10, and A340 are >the referenced aircraft here. Usually this means it is different version of the A/C as in the case of the DC10 it is a DC-10-10 whereas the DC-10-30 is heavier due being intercontinental and thus requiring the extra gear. Hope this helps Peter j.schlaf@worldnet.att.net From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:35 From: saccani@omen.net.au (Paul Saccani) Subject: Re: 4-point Landing Gear Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: demeter.omen.net.au 932295011 16528 203.55.58.27 (18 Jul 1999 10:50:11 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Omen Internet in Perth, Western Australia Reply-To: safer.roads@iname.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ttye26.dugite.omen.com.au On 10 Jul 99 02:33:31 , "James Fu" wrote: >Why is it that pilots of aircraft with 4-point landing gear systems (nose, >center, and one each main) sometimes deploy only the nose and main points, >and not the center? Naturally, aircraft like the MD11, DC10, and A340 are >the referenced aircraft here. Weight. Usually, all gear is down for take off, unless TOW is low. By the time the destination is reached, fuel burn means the landing weight is less, and so the extra gear is not required. Only the long range DC-10 had the extra gear, BTW. It is not uncommon for MTOW to exceed MLW, BTW. Why bother having the extra MTOW gear and then stowing it for landing? Reduces wear and tear etc... So it is usual for the extra gear not to be used for landing, and a decision on it's use for take off is done on the basis of the TOW. This will often be specified on the printout the crew recieve with the company flight plan. From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:36 From: "Tim Lee" Subject: Re: 4-point Landing Gear Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: BT Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: host5-171-231-148.btinternet.com James Fu wrote in message ... >Why is it that pilots of aircraft with 4-point landing gear systems (nose, >center, and one each main) sometimes deploy only the nose and main points, >and not the center? Naturally, aircraft like the MD11, DC10, and A340 are >the referenced aircraft here. Think you'll find that the choice is not there - I can assure you that the A340 CLG (centre line gear) is fitted to each and every A340, and extends and retracts with the mains - every time. The DC-10 pilot has no choice either - some variants have it, some don't - if they do, the crew are stuck with it. It all depended on the MTOW (max take-off weight) of the aircraft. BTW, the A340 CLG hardly touches the ground with the aircraft empty.... not a well known fact, but if you ever see one empty (zero fuel) you may even see daylight under it. It's just there to deal with the extra weight of the A340 over the A330 (the main gears are identical for the 256 ton MTOW A340 and the A330, although the 271 ton MTOW A340 has a beefed up MLG). I guess that the later variants have even more highly beefed MLGs - I left my job as a landing gear engineer on A330/340 before these heavies were developed.... Rgds Tim From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 4-point Landing Gear Aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Think you'll find that the choice is not there - I can assure you that >the A340 CLG (centre line gear) is fitted to each and every A340, and >extends and retracts with the mains - every time. The DC-10 pilot has >no choice either - some variants have it, some don't - if they do, the >crew are stuck with it. Not true for the DC-10 and MD-11. The DC-10-10 and -15 lack the center post while the -30 and -40 have it, as do all models of the MD-11. Use of the center post, on aircraft so equipped, is optional, however. This has come up in the newsgroup a few times in the past -- you might wish to peruse the archives (http://www.chicago.com/airliners/archives.html). Beyond that, JAL had some DC-10-40(D) aircraft which were converted from normal -40 models by removing the center main gear, amongst other things, and may also have some which were built that way. The attachments and other parts were still there so they could be converted back to standard -40 configs including the full complement of landing gear. -- 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 Jul 22 23:30:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:38 From: Jeff Subject: Re: some background on AA 1420 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America NNTP-Posting-Host: !`a@g1k-YDPo;og (Encoded at Airnews!) M wrote: > An interesting bit of trivia...the accident a/c, N215AA, was the same > aircraft O. J. Simpson used on his departure from LAX the night his > ex-wife and Ron Goldman were killed. Hi. I work for AA at DFW. Sorry, but I have a hard time believing this. I'm just wondering, how you found this out? Do you work for AA, NTSB, or the FAA?? Thanks, Jeff From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:39 From: M Subject: Re: some background on AA 1420 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.37.86 jsflyboy@nospamairmail.net, your host couldn't be found for a response, but regarding your finding it hard to believe N215AA (flight 1420 at LIT) was the "OJ a/c the night of the murders, it was revealed during the trial through the testimony of the captain. From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:40 From: Keith Larson Subject: Diversion without fatalities ! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: plato.harvard.edu 932589499 1618 128.103.8.12 (21 Jul 1999 20:38:19 GMT) Organization: Harvard University As many people remain convinced that a diversion due to an engine failure might never occur, allow me to remind them of an Air France 777 flight from Brazil to Paris on July 1, 1998 where one engine shut down and the jet flew smoothly for more than an hour to a safe landing in Tenerife, Portugal. In that case, all backup systems worked flawlessly. This fact is tremendous evidence of the technical reliability of the latest generation of airplanes but it's also evidence of the crew's competency... and luck. Neither human error nor any other kind of technical problems occured during the diversion. Furthermore, the diversion happened near Tenerife airport, the area of operations was largely optimal with still-air conditions and perfect airworthiness. Every thing happened as if they were in the simulator! You won't believe me, but it's the single scenario that Boeing engineers cited as an answer to the pilots unions which expressed some doubts about ETOPS diversion time extension over the North Pacific... Note: For some other good stuff, see ETOPS related news on the pilot unions' website : http://etops.freeservers.com/ From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:41 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: What's happening at the top end of the market... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 931649896 207.253.103.168 (Sat, 10 Jul 1999 19:38:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.103.168 James Matthew Weber wrote a very interesting comperison of the 777 and 340 and 747's futures. With the Asian crisis basically over (or close to), I am wondering of the super duper extra-long range 777 or 340 will remain in demand. One Asian traffic starts to increase again, won't airlines turn to the 747 again instead of the smaller 777 or A340 ? From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:42 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: What's happening at the top end of the market... 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 jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) wrote: > How much is payload worth... The Arithmetic suggests the result can be > staggering over the life of the aircraft. One of the reasons BA likes > the 777 so much is it turned out to be about 400kg under weight. Let's > look at how much that 400kg is worth. If we assume it is cargo, and > we can get on average $1.75 per kg in revenue for it (given how the > 777 is deployed today, this is probably a realistic number), and you > fly a round trip per day, that 400kg is worth $1400 per day. Assuming > you fly the aircraft 80% of the days it is the fleet, over the 20 year > life of the airframe that is $8 million...The savings in fuel over the > life at current US prices for Jet A is about another half million. Careful here. From the perspective of someone deciding how much to pay for an airplane, what matters is the PRESENT VALUE of the future flow of benefits, not the total undiscounted value of this flow. So, using your hypothetical figures, 400kg extra cargo, at $1.75/kg, twice a day (=$1400/day), on 80% of days(=$409000/year), for 40 years is actually worth $5.5 million once you discount it at 5% (less, with a higher discount rate, more with a lower one). That's lower than the $8.6 million that you get without discounting. That's point one. Point two is that it's simply incorrect to then add the "fuel savings" -- there are no fuel savings since you've made up for the lower weight by adding cargo; that's what we just calculated. You can either have fuel savings (lighter airplane, extra payload not used) or additional cargo revenue (extra payload IS used), but not both. Obviously, you pick whichever is higher, in this case the cargo. It would be legitimate to add fuel savings for those days that you do not in fact carry extra cargo. Is that what you were suggesting? Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2366/smiliner.html From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:43 From: "Frank Muenker" Subject: Re: Airbus A300-600R References: 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 Tim Lee schrieb in Nachricht ... >>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. > >I'll think you'll find that the A300-600R doesn't have any outboard >ailerons - instead, it has a large ASA (all speed aileron), which is the >panel you saw. Both droop for flap effect on landing, although it's the >differential between them which provides roll control. Ah, yes, right, it didn't have outboard ailerons. But then I'm wondering, isn't the effect there that you'll get varying flap effect ? E.g., if the pilot has to make a major roll correction due to a gust then one of the ailerons will be almost leveled up, thus providing less lift. Shouldn't that affect the landing speed ? Thanks Frank From kls Thu Jul 22 23:30:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 22 Jul 99 23:30:44 From: Arne Stuermer Subject: SIA, B777 vs A340, GE Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Student @ RWTH Aachen Reply-To: Arne.Stuermer@post.rwth-aachen.de NNTP-Posting-Host: s4m123.dialup.rwth-aachen.de The recent activities over at Boeing on the 777 derivatives and SIAs exercising of options with Boeing on the twin jet while phasing out the A340s are indeed very significant actions. After all it was SIA that canceled its MD-11 orders a little less than a decade ago and went with the Airbus A340 instead, after the McDonnell Douglas tri-jet turned out to be somewhat overweight and under performing. With the current rumors of A340-500/-600 weight problems, Im sure Im not the only one remembering this... This time around fleet commonality could be a factor for SIA. Since most aircraft suffer from weight problems at some stage during their development Im sure Airbus will be able to shave off much of extra tonnage on their A340NGs, but with the performance margins so tight on SIAs SIN to LAX routes much work needs to be done. An interesting new twist to this story is the talks between Airbus and Pratt on potentially offering the geared fan PW8160 engine on the aircraft as early as 2003, despite the exclusivity agreement with Rolls Royce for the Trent 500. This engine would bring A340-500/-600 performance back on par with the 777Xs. Definitely will be interesting to see how this situation develops... On the related topic of Boeing going with GE as the exclusive engine supplier on all 777s with 318,000kg (700,000lbs) gross weight and up: According to articles in Flight International, GE was only going to develop an engine for the 777Xs if it was selected as sole source supplier. This and the offer of financial support towards the development of the airframe is certain to have played a role in Boeings decision to drop Pratt and Rolls' bids to power the 777 in addition to the technical and timing issues posted here previously. ******************** Arne Stuermer e-Mail : Arne.Stuermer@post.rwth-aachen.de ******************** From kls Fri Jul 23 04:18:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Jul 99 04:18:17 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Short news items and comments Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.goodnet.com 932681051 209.140.135.34 (Thu, 22 Jul 1999 15:04:11 MDT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.140.135.34 According to this week's flight international: Airbus Industries has agreed to offer the CFM56-5 engine as option on the A318, in addition to the PW6000. It looks like Air France was probably the driving force, but no doubt there are others. The PW6000 has no commonality with engines powering any existing Airbus Aircraft, which makes the costs of adding the 318 to an existing A319/320/321 fleet considerably higher because of training and spares. The CFM56 makes the A318 more attractive to operators already flying this family with the CFM56 (and probably ticks off PW considerably)... Several 777 operators are apparently not very happy about the decision to use the GE90-115B to power 777X. In particular United, Cathay and BA have expressed displeasure. My own view is the market for the 777X is sufficiently narrow, that I cannot see a multiple engine supplier situation being economically viable for the engine makers. The 777 engine market is already awash with red ink. A further investment of close to a billion dollars (which would be the likely price tag for RR, PW and GE to all offer a 115,000 pound thrust engine, although probably half of that is for PW's costs), spread over perhaps 500 engines doesn't look very attractive. Obviously the carriers would like multiple engine choices, with pricing that reflects the volume production of a single engine provider. Airbus has denied the A340-500 is overweight, however they do admit that they have asked the partner companies to study a 7 tonne increase in the MGTOW... It claimed that would result in a 200nm range increase. Something doesn't quite add up here. 7Tonnes on a 747-400 is almost 400nm, so obviously a lot of that weight is not going to be fuel.. Boeing is considering a 767-300ERX. Essentially a 767-400 with a -300 fuselage, coupled with an increase in long haul economy crusie from m.80 to m.82, with a 12000km range. Obviously the A330-200 is in the cross hairs, although I think it is a bit late for that... From kls Fri Jul 23 04:18:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 23 Jul 99 04:18:18 From: "Matt727" Subject: Re: and the winner is..... References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 For Pratt and Rolls to make an engine that has all that power it would be too expensive for them considering the relatively small amount of these planes that may be sold (in comparison to the current 777 that has sold like crazy). The GE has already been run at 125,000lbs of thrust in its current configuration. It is a "bigger" engine. Designed for the future of the 777. -- Matt Student Pilot Seattle, Washington Fly Boeing on Alaska Airlines. 91' 240SX SE From kls Fri Jul 23 04:18:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 23 Jul 99 04:18:19 From: gb Subject: A/C accumulated time? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cubacola.tninet.se 932654138 18163 195.100.6.254 (22 Jul 1999 14:35:38 GMT) Organization: Telenordia NNTP-Posting-Host: du254-6.ppp.algonet.se Hi! I was reading about certain aircrafts accumulating wery high number of in-air time. What's the usual procedure/numbers and when are aircrafts to be scrapped? Typical example was 73' L-1011 Tristar with 51,951 hours and 25,691 cycles. That's 6 years of non-stop flying! (That particular aircraft was one of the first built and suffered explosive decompression in '95, and was scrapped) From kls Fri Jul 23 04:18:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 23 Jul 99 04:18:20 From: megazone@megazone.org (MegaZone) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe Michael & Iain Butler shaped the electrons to say: >I can't see how cabin width affects passenger space. Surely the >only thing impacting the passenger is seat width and pitch. Has 1. IF the cabin is narrower the airline may be forced to use a narrower seat, say 17", to have the same number of seats. A wider cabin could allow 18" seat widths. 2. Curvature matters if you are sitting against the wall, and it usually works such that a narrower cabin means a higher floor and thus a greater curve to the wall. I'm 6'6" tall, and it makes a LOT of difference to me if the wall has me bent sideways. -MZ -- Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me.. Join ISP/C Internet Service Providers' Consortium "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 781-788-0130 Hail Discordia! From kls Fri Jul 23 04:18:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 23 Jul 99 04:18:21 From: "Matt727" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Tim Lee wrote in message ... >Hang on a minute, James! > >Frankly, 6.5 tons is not a huge amount - not at this stage of >development, anyway......... Not a huge amount? If you say so.... >>The run to Europe from Singapore in an A340 is nearly an hour longer >>than it is in a 747, or a 777. It is extra travel time, and it >>complicates connections within Europe. > >The 747 is a quick aircraft, but I doubt this is true for the 777, which >has a stated cruise of 30kts less than A340. 747 Mach .85 777 Mach .84 A340 Mach .82, but it has to go slower for the long range. I'm sure Airbus has quoted the 340s speed in knots at a different altitude in order to make the numbers look like the airspeed is faster. Ground Speed and Airspeed are two different things and the way they compare varies with altitude. >>Airbus Aircraft are traditionally not 'high flyers'. This is also >>causing SQ a certain amount of pain. Flights to Europe generally >>depart in the late afternoon and early evening, and are at or very >>near MGTOW. The trip goes out of over the Bay of Bengal, which often >>has nasty weather (thunderstorms) in the early evening. Very bluntly, >>at high weights, the 777 and the 747's can fly a lot higher, giving >>the crew more choices about how to avoid weather (and provide a better >>ride for the passengers). > >Prove this one, please! AI aircraft have a similar climb rate to the >777, and the 747 climb performance can be dismal... Also, no-one can >convince me that any aircraft in commercial use can climb over a cu-nim >cloud - they can peak at over 60,000ft..... It has nothing to do with how fast it can climb... it is about wing loading. As you go higher the air gets thinner. So if you are at MTOW in a A340 you cant climb way up high because the thin air wont support the aircraft. Now, if you have a big Boeing wing you can go right on up. That is how it works. Wing loading and air density at altitude. >>The other operational issue is the routes from SE Asia go over India >>on the way to Europe or the Middle East. A300/A310's are very popular >>regional aircraft often transiting India on the way to or from the >>Middle East or destinations on the sub continent, couple that with the >>normal long haul traffic out of SE Asia , and it tends to make the >>altitudes where these aircraft live very congested, so unless you are >>lucky, or can fly above FL350, (which is very hard to do in an Airbus >>at realistic operating weight), you may well get shoved down at a very >>unattractive altitude, like FL260. > >AI products do this without problem - VS toc is typically 39,000 on the >HKG-LHR with a 340. Sure, maybe at a LOW aircraft weight. The A340 has the same wingspan as the 777, but the mean chord is way less therefore creating a wing with less area. (I hope no one at Airbus reads this... then they would know how to make a good airplane! (a bigger wing also adds fuel capacity!) >Do we work for Boeing by any chance? ........and where do you work? -- Matt Student Pilot Seattle, Washington Fly Boeing on Alaska Airlines. 91' 240SX SE From kls Fri Jul 23 04:18:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 23 Jul 99 04:18:22 From: Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 932727472 mail2news:15775 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk Organization: Myorganisation X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.30 Reply-To: Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes >overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. >The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new >engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines >rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. You mean `rumoured' not reported as fact. If the Airbus retort to these rumours this week is true... that the 6.5 tonne overweight rumour stems merely from future development version projections of the 340 and is -not- related to the -500, -600 `as is' programme, then the rumour is a red herring. It is a Sporty Game tho isn't it? Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal on the 777X. -- Niels From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:21 From: kdur597268@aol.com (Ken Durling) Subject: L-1049G external lights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Hello folks - Am wondering if anyone has access to a Connie E&M or IPM manual and can give me a scan or a precise description of all the running lights on the 1049G. Did the tip tanks have position lights, was there a strobe and where, anti-collision, etc. This is for the purpose of doing an accurate lighted model. I have 5 or 6 reference books on the Connie, and none of them seems to give this info. TIA Ken Durling IPMS NorCal PPSEL Just Plane Crazy http://hometown.aol.com/kdur597268/myhomepage/profile.html From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:22 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 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 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >A more pertinent criticism is whether modifiers like ER and IGW are > >terribly useful? Since there are several flavors of ER on both the > >767 and 777, the designation itself doesn't tell you much. > > I don't know about the 767s, but there are significant differences > between a 777-200 and a 777-200ER. The latter has stronger landing > gear and wings plus a center fuel tank, amongst other things. Within > each sub-series upgrading from the lightest to the heaviest can be as > easy as a paper upgrade, but you cannot upgrade a 777-200 to a > 777-200ER. Point taken. But my understanding is that the heaviest available current "ER" versions are quite a bit heavier than the earliest ones. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that bringing earlier builds up to the best currently-available standard would certainly involve more than just a paper upgrade. So the question comes back: at which point do you switch designators? 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Point taken. But my understanding is that the heaviest available >current "ER" versions are quite a bit heavier than the earliest ones. Boeing's web page lists the MGTOW range for the 777-200(ER) as being from 580,000 lbs up to 656,000 lbs. UA has some of the first ones built and theirs are all good for 632,500 lbs -- not the heaviest, but a lot closer to the top of the scale than to the bottom. >Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that >bringing earlier builds up to the best currently-available standard >would certainly involve more than just a paper upgrade. So far as I know, it really is just a paper upgrade as far as the airframe is concerned. You might need to upgrade engine thrust, but the AW&ST Source Book has identical physical dimensions and weights for the range of 777 engines from any given engine manufacturer so I'd guess that even that is little more than a paper upgrade -- you'd need to change the programming of the FADECs or something similar. -- 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:24 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Short news items and comments 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 jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) wrote: > According to this week's flight international: > Boeing is considering a 767-300ERX. Essentially a 767-400 with a -300 > fuselage, coupled with an increase in long haul economy crusie from > m.80 to m.82, with a 12000km range. > Obviously the A330-200 is in the cross hairs, although I think it is a > bit late for that... Oh, I don't know. I think a 767-300ERX as described would be quite attractive, and may also give a boost to the so far less-than-stellar 767-400 sales. As things stand now, the 767-400 is a bit of an orphan, being sufficiently different from the existing 767s that commonality isn't a strong selling point. Give airlines the option of pairing new - 400s while also upgrading their existing 767-300s (or moving up a size notch, if they're also operating long-range 757s, for example) and it would become much more attractive. 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:25 From: "Anthony Rassias" Subject: Re: re KLM Cargo 747s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 933158239 210.84.6.216 (Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:37:19 EST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia NNTP-Posting-Host: slsdn28p24.ozemail.com.au Gerard Foley wrote in message ... > 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, 747-200 and 300 wing to body fairings are the same as each other. The fairing design was changed for the 747-400 to reduce drag and for the same reason the wing to body fairing on the 747SP was also different. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:26 From: wmg@sparky.skypoint.net (William Mac Gree) Subject: All-Cargo aircraft's lack of fire suppression systems! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. There is still much oppositions to the ETOPS diversion time extension. I'm quite amazed because I used rely heavily on ETOPS flights and it has proved to be quite safe up to 180 minutes. Many opponents argue about the number of engines, which is quite ridiculous since the most significant risk is fire rather than the engine failing. That's why a single argument has really impressed me and made me a little more unwilling: the cargo aircraft's lack of fire suppression systems ! I didn't think about it before but now it's clear that, in the case of federal Express flight 1406 in september 1996, its close proximity to an airport at which it could make an emergency landing was critical to saving the lives of its crew and jumpseat riders when a fire broke out in the aircraft's main cargo deck while it was 200 miles from its destination. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:27 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: 50 years of jet aircraft 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 marcmsc...@cmdnet.lu wrote: > Just to let you know that on 27-Jul-49 John Cunningham made the first > ever flight with a civil jet aircraft. The craft was the de Havilland > Comet Mk1 frame 06001 registered G-5-1. 50 years already. Yep. Unfortunately, the Comet itself didn't quite make it to its 50th birthday, the last operational one having been retired early this year. Shame they couldn't keep her going just a little longer. Unless you count the Nimrods as Comets, that is. 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:28 From: "ME Incorporated" Subject: 727 Reversers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Organization: World Trade Network, Inc. (WT.net) NNTP-Posting-Host: 216-119-138-115.ipset18.wt.net Howdy all. I wanted to know if there's a website out there that explains how the Boeing 727 reversers work? I understand reversers in general. Clamshells are easiest of all to explain. The Cascades on, say, a DC10 are also fairly easily understood (by me anyway. Don't want to speak for all. 8^) BUT, the 727's reversers seem to be quite unique, a mixture of these two technologies. I keep looking, but maybe I've not picked up the right rock... Thanks in advance for any info you can give me! -- From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:29 From: "Brian and Bobbi Newkirk" Subject: Re: 777 mtow References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Andre wrote in message ... >Can somebody tell me the new revised maximum MTOW for the >777 that Boeing is thinking of to compete with the A340 500/600? Sure, In about three week's the guys down on ramp six should be ending that part of the flight test program at Edwards for NASA it should be available in @ 4 weeks after the data tapes have been evaluated From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:30 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues 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 Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) writes: > Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX > have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal > on the 777X. Then perhaps AA, UAL, BA, and CX are ready to commit to firm orders for the 777X powered by a hypothetical engine from a different manufacturer? As I understand it, all manufacturers are leery of building a bigger engine for this plane. None believes that the market is big enough for three competitors. Boeing coaxed GE into making the plunge by offering exclusivity, which might make it pay. The choice isn't between three engines or one: it's between one engine or no airplane. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:31 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Frankly, 6.5 tons is not a huge amount - not at this stage of >development, anyway. Believe me, more was shaved off the A340-200 before >EIS... and RR have never delivered an engine that doesn't do as >advertised. Especially in reliability terms - go ask BA what they think >of the GE90 on 777 - they love it so much that they are dumping it in >favour of Trent on the new order. Vary interesting comments, except that they are inaccurate. Ask almost any RB211-524G/H operator. Every 524G/H-T contract contains a final settlement for the fuel economy short fall on the original engine. RR has been paying penalties to almost every operator (QF, BA, CX....) from day zero. The 524G/H NEVER made fuel economy guarantees. BA made lot noise about the GE90, I am convinced it was a PR Campaign. When you check mechanical dispatch reliabliity and compare the RR, PW and GE powered 777 fleets, guess which one was has the best mechanical dispatch reliability? The GE powered fleet. Obviouslly if the GE90 was so terrible it would have impacted Mechanical Dispatch reliability, wouldn't it? Obviosly the reliability on the GE engine cannot be materially worse than the PW or RR engine. >The 747 is a quick aircraft, but I doubt this is true for the 777, which >has a stated cruise of 30kts less than A340. What reference did you get that out of? In long haul flight, the 777 cruises at M.84-.84 An A340-500/600 maybe. Certainly not for an A340-200/300, which is the only A340 in service today. Some documents show the A340-200/300 may in long range economy cruise be 70kts slower than either 777 and 747. The 777's cruise speed was a major selling point against the A340-200/300 >>Airbus Aircraft are traditionally not 'high flyers'. This is also >>causing SQ a certain amount of pain. Flights to Europe generally >>depart in the late afternoon and early evening, and are at or very >>near MGTOW. The trip goes out of over the Bay of Bengal, which often >>has nasty weather (thunderstorms) in the early evening. Very bluntly, >>at high weights, the 777 and the 747's can fly a lot higher, giving >>the crew more choices about how to avoid weather (and provide a better >>ride for the passengers). > >Prove this one, please! AI aircraft have a similar climb rate to the >777, and the 747 climb performance can be dismal... Also, no-one can >convince me that any aircraft in commercial use can climb over a cu-nim >cloud - they can peak at over 60,000ft..... The issue isn't rate of climb, it is ceiling for a given weight. Most Airbus aircraft cannot make FL390 even empty! Boeing learned the importance of this early one with the 747, and each version of the 747 has had improved high weight altitude capability. At MGTOW a 747-100 can reach only 25,000 feet. A 777-200 can go directly to FL390 at MGTOW. This can be extremely useful in both getting over weather, and getting over traffic. Clouds tops may indeed reach 60,000 feet, but there aren't may up there. Over the Bay of Bengal, there is a lot more cloud in front of you at FL250 than there is at FL370, so there is less to 'dodge' Have you ever been on a high weight Airbus aircraft and checked the cruise altitude? Most Airbus aircraft use a supercritical wing that was optimized for lower altitudes than the Boeing wing. The good news is an Airbus aircraft generally suffers a lower fuel burn penalty for a less desireable altitude. The bad news is if the weather isn't good, an Airbus is a lot more likely to have to go around rather than over the weather. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:32 From: Terry Schell Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Florida State University NNTP-Posting-Host: nmccarrell.psych.uwf.edu Michael & Iain Butler wrote: > I can't see how cabin width affects passenger space. Surely the > only thing impacting the passenger is seat width and pitch. Has > SQ chosen a different seat for the A340 from that in the 777? > If so what are the relavant seat pitches and widths? Mathew was talking about headroom problems. As a pressurized tube, the fuselage is most efficient with a circular cross-section. If the diameter is too small, the designers must start reducing headroom from the passenger cabin or the cargo cabin... the former may be uncomfortable and the latter is downright costly. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:33 From: Steve Howie Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Biled heids 'r us NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.104.96.14 Tim Lee wrote: >Frankly, 6.5 tons is not a huge amount - not at this stage of >development, anyway. Believe me, more was shaved off the A340-200 before >EIS... and RR have never delivered an engine that doesn't do as >advertised. Especially in reliability terms - go ask BA what they think >of the GE90 on 777 - they love it so much that they are dumping it in >favour of Trent on the new order. Hmm ... wonder what's going to happen to the GE overhaul facility in Wales if thats the case. Didn't GE set the place up to specifically service the GE engines BA bought? Scotty -- Steve Howie root@127.0.0.1 Netnews and Listserv Admin 519 824-4120 x2556 University of Guelph "If it's not Scottish it's CRRRRAAAAAAAPPPPPP!" From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:34 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 932765231 207.253.110.72 (Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:27:11 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.110.72 Don Stokes wrote: > (Oddly enough, www.boeing.com says of the 747-400's altitude capability, > "34,700 feet (10,580 m) - all versions". I guess the freighter & > domestic versions have lower ceilings than the stock long range airliner > version.) I sent a message a while back to Boeing about this since I have flown on a 747 much higher than that. Their response is that this was the INITIAL CRUISING ALTITUDE. Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if anyone could provide a comparison for 777, 340 and 747: -initial cruising altitude -ideal cruising altitude midway -maximum cruising latitude (essentially: pressurisation capability, correct ?) Without the above data, one is comparing apples and oranges and comparing altitude capabilities of the 340 vs 777 is pointless with improper comparisons. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:35 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 932765561 207.253.110.72 (Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:32:41 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.110.72 spagiola@my-deja.com wrote: > You're right as far as seat comfort and legroom goes, but headroom and > cabin width ARE pretty much set by the aircraft design, and there's > little airlines can do about that. Well, they could get more headroom > by cutting back on overhead storage bins, but that would also be > unpopular. On the other hand, one can contend that bin design is perhaps more important than fuselage width. On older planes, the centre bins seem to "hang" from the ceiling, while in the 777, they are integrated into the ceiling thus providing better head room and spacious feeling. I suspect that many similar tricks can be played with the side bins where the design can make a bigger difference than fuselage height. As well, some airlines are publicising the fact that they are replacing overhead bins in their aircraft to add capacity. That would seem to indicate that airlines do have a certain amount of flexibility to affect the interior design. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:36 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services Niels Sampath wrote: > > James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... > >It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes > >overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. > >The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new > >engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines > >rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. > > You mean `rumoured' not reported as fact. So, do you mean Flight International is not credible? ;-) Well, I actually have heard this from the customer's side. I don't always believe everything I read in Flight International or Aviation Week & Space Technology. However, in this case, since I have heard it from other sources, I think the report is credible. > If the Airbus retort to these rumours this week is true... > that the 6.5 tonne overweight rumour stems merely from future > development version projections of the 340 and is -not- related > to the -500, -600 `as is' programme, > then the rumour is a red herring. > It is a Sporty Game tho isn't it? What Airbus is doing is called damage control. Airbus has always been quite good at not leaking development problems to the media, partly because it's not a publicly listed company. Tell me, other than from what I told you in these forums, how often have you heard about the A340-300E payload/range problems that Airbus had to increase the certified MTOW from 267 metric tons to the current 275 tons? 8 tons translate roughly to 80 passengers! It's not an insignificant increase of TOW. (Also, the two MTOW numbers that I quoted are easily verifiable.) It seems history is repeating itself in less than 5 years. > Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX > have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal > on the 777X. Hmmm... Now, you think FI is credible. ;-) In the FI report, I believe BA was reportedly to be concerned not displeased. (Quote: "... the airline has not yet formulated a view on the likely impact of the exclusivity deal on its own fleet planning strategy...") UA's protest is quite meaningless because UA's preferred engine supplier, P&W, would offer a whole new engine. Thus, no matter what, UA would not have engine commonality if they choose to order the B777X. No doubt airlines don't like sole source. However, what does Boeing's competitor has to offer? An A340-500/600 with a sole-source engine supplier, too (at least for the time being)! Ask yourself, what's more expensive to operate: two different fleets with similar engine or same type of fleet with two different engines? Also, if you have read AW&ST, some airlines said they were more concerned with payload/range capabilities than what engines are offered on the 777X. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:37 From: "Mike Kotas" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: d4.dialup.seanet.com Someone earlier mentioned about who has not taken aircraft deliveries from Boeing. First off, Boeing flies a majority of the un-delivered planes too Marana Arizona. I don't know what planes down there have been delivered or not, but I can tell you this, an ex-Asiana 747-400 was just flown up to Everett a few days ago to start being worked on for Air Namibia. Also, Boeing is currently storing 2 Korean 777-300's, 2 Saudi 777-200's and a Saudi 747-400 in Everett. anyways....who ever said losing 6.5 metric tons is not a problem must not know much about aircraft (no offense). Especially at the stage of where the A340-500 is in its design, losing that much weight will be a huge task...I hope Airbus hasn't started ALL there tooling. Also, don't forget that the added weight causes range and payloads penalties which will cause the A340-500 to fall short of SQ's expected goals Per the topic of headroom, as many people before me have stated, headroom is aircraft dependent. Airlines do not have a choice of different types of overhead bins and stowage units, except ofcour if they decided to retrofit there own design onto the aircraft, and we all know that's highly unlikely. Thanks, Mike Kotas www.seanet.com/~mikeymike From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:38 From: "Tim Lee" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: BT Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: host5-171-227-160.btinternet.com Matt727 wrote in message ... >Tim Lee wrote in message ... >>Hang on a minute, James! >> >>Frankly, 6.5 tons is not a huge amount - not at this stage of >>development, anyway......... > >Not a huge amount? If you say so.... Not particularly, no. Have a look at the weight of seat back video systems (Virgin are even looking at gyms, for god's sake!), and this puts a slightly heavy airframe in perspective. In any case, have a look at Airbus' press release on this subject. >>>The run to Europe from Singapore in an A340 is nearly an hour longer >>>than it is in a 747, or a 777. It is extra travel time, and it >>>complicates connections within Europe. >> >>The 747 is a quick aircraft, but I doubt this is true for the 777, which >>has a stated cruise of 30kts less than A340. > >747 Mach .85 >777 Mach .84 >A340 Mach .82, but it has to go slower for the long range. Since I wrote this, I checked up. Compare the BA flight time LHR-LAX by 744 with the VS time on the same route (340). >>Prove this one, please! AI aircraft have a similar climb rate to the >>777, and the 747 climb performance can be dismal... Also, no-one can >>convince me that any aircraft in commercial use can climb over a cu-nim >>cloud - they can peak at over 60,000ft..... > >It has nothing to do with how fast it can climb... it is about wing loading. >As you go higher the air gets thinner. So if you are at MTOW in a A340 you >cant climb way up high because the thin air wont support the aircraft. Now, >if you have a big Boeing wing you can go right on up. That is how it works. >Wing loading and air density at altitude. I still refer to the original mailing - the original comment implied that the Airbus would have to either fly around a cu-nim, or not fly, because it couldn't climb over the top. I repeat that since cu-nims top out at 60k +, nothing on the civil market could overfly it, so rate of climb is academic in this case. I think you'll find in any case that most aircraft finish the cruise at a higher altitude than they started it for the reason you quote, Boeing included. >>AI products do this without problem - VS toc is typically 39,000 on the >>HKG-LHR with a 340. > >Sure, maybe at a LOW aircraft weight. So how heavy is a 744 after the run from HKG to LHR? >The A340 has the same wingspan as the 777, but the mean chord is way less >therefore creating a wing with less area. (I hope no one at Airbus reads >this... then they would know how to make a good airplane! (a bigger wing >also adds fuel capacity!) But the AI wing has a higher aerodynamic efficiency (l/d ratio). The Boeing wing is hardly SOTA - it was orginally put together for 707, and has changed little, except in size, since. >>Do we work for Boeing by any chance? > >........and where do you work? I work in consultancy - not with AI. By profession, I am a Chartered Engineer, and a member of the Royal Aeronautical Society. Tim. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:39 From: "John Vincent Lombardi" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 933036252 24.5.220.61 (Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:44:12 PDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Organization: UniPhone MP NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.220.61 In article , Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) wrote: > James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... >>It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes >>overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. >>The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new >>engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines >>rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. > > You mean `rumoured' not reported as fact. > If the Airbus retort to these rumours this week is true... > that the 6.5 tonne overweight rumour stems merely from future > development version projections of the 340 and is -not- related > to the -500, -600 `as is' programme, > then the rumour is a red herring. > It is a Sporty Game tho isn't it? > > Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX > have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal > on the 777X. The "objective" reports you sight are hardly so, having been spun by Flight International to suit their readership. You need to ask yourself whether the "displeasure" would be as extensively reported if RR was the monopoly holder and not GE. If the Trent had been chosen, the monopoly would have been just as real, but by default rather than by contract. On the same note, I notice that the French Government has stepped in to hang the CFM56 on the A318. Are the British taxpayers up to the task? Maybe the US government can cough up a few million to help PW onto the 777? On the A340 issue, the tone of the article suggested to this reader that FI isn't quite ready to back away from their earlier report. The belated Airbus rebuttal seems just a bit contrived. John -- John Vincent Lombardi uniphone@home.com San Francisco, CA uniphone@compuserve.com From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:40 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 11:30 PM 7/22/99 +0000, you wrote: >In "Anthony Rassias" writes: >>Recently I read that, until the advent of the Concorde, the Convair CV990 >>was the fastest civil aeroplane. I am now curious and looking for any >>information on the type - performance and specifications, production >>numbers, dates etc. Were the strange fairings on the upper surface of >>the wings used to break up shock waves created by flying at high >>subsonic speeds - or did they serve some other purpose? > >Those fairings were appropriately called "shock bodies" and were >also used to house fuel tanks. They were called speed bullets, and I seriously doubt they carried fuel. They were added because in testing the aircraft failed to achieve the speeds that were promised by Convair to purchasers. The reason was transonic drag made worse by the sudden change in effective cross section. They are in fact a concession to the Whitcomb Area rule developed in the 1950's. In simple terms, as the aircraft speed approaches Mach 1, sudden changes in aircraft cross section greatly increase the drag. This leads to the familiar coke bottle, or wasp waist on many fighers of the 1950's. The fuselage diameter is large just before and just after the wing to reduce the change in effective cross section. The Speed bullets on the back of the wings provide a transitional cross section between the wing trailing edge, and the fuselage. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Those fairings were appropriately called "shock bodies" and were >>also used to house fuel tanks. >They were called speed bullets ... "Anti-shock bodies" is the term used in Jon Proctor's book, and in other materials I've read. I've also seen the "Kuchemann's Carrots" term used for them. >... and I seriously doubt they carried fuel. A total of 1,144 US gallons on the 30-5 models (mainly AA) or 1,606 US gallons on the 30-6 and 30-8 models. Each one also had a fuel discharge nozzle in the trailing pod tips. -- 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:42 From: Merlin Dorfman Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: netcom15.netcom.com Edward Hahn wrote: > The Convair 990 was designed to cruise at 990 km/h (hence the name). This is going back a lot of years but my recollection is that the Convair 990 was originally designated the 600, but it was considered a poor PR move to have a later airplane with a lower number. So it was re"named" the 990. Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> The Convair 990 was designed to cruise at 990 km/h (hence the name). > This is going back a lot of years but my recollection is that the >Convair 990 was originally designated the 600, but it was considered >a poor PR move to have a later airplane with a lower number. So it >was re"named" the 990. Right. While the 990 moniker equaled the aircraft's cruising speed of 615 mph, converted to km/h, it was applied when Convair was still aiming for a 635 mph cruising speed, which would have made it the 1022. Most likely, the marketoons just figured 990 sounded like a logical step up from the 880. -- 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:44 From: scottp4-remove-this-to-reply@mindspring.com (Scott Peterson) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.c0.ac James Matthew Weber wrote: >The 990 was a commercial disaster for Convair. There weren't all that >many made, and I suspect Convair management forgot that when you enter >into a commercial contract, if you have cost overruns, the customer >isn't going to eat them, you are. I don't know if there is an official >figure of not, but my recollection the 990 program ran up losses of >several hundred million dollars. Part of the problem as well, was that Convair management bet that Boeing and Douglas would not be able to produce economically feasible aircraft using turbojets. They decided to design the 990 to use early fanjets and were locked in to an exclusive deal with GE after GE assured them that they had the patents on the technology. As expected, the engines were late and early versions were uneconomical and unreliable. Also Pratt and Whitney did an end around on the GE patents and produced a competing product much faster than was expected so their hoped-for advantage never really materialized. >It marked Convair's exit from the ranks >of commercial aircraft manufacturers. They continue to make parts of >aircraft (like the D10 fuselage), but not complete aircraft. This is a farce itself with involving TWA, Howard Hughes and Convair's insisting on designing aircraft that everyone (except Howard Hughes) told them no one would buy. In the end not even he could buy them. It not only meant the end of Convair's commercial aircraft division, it lead to Convair being unable to avoid being absorbed by General Dynamics. The irony is that Convair had a major portion of the shuttle and short route market with the 240/340/440 series. Had they build on their expertise and brand loyalty in these areas there's a good chance they could have taken away Boeing's hugely profitable 727 and 737 lines with competing designs. Oh well. Scott Peterson First snow, then silence. This thousand dollar screen dies so beautifully. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:45 From: scottp4-remove-this-to-reply@mindspring.com (Scott Peterson) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.c0.ac ehahn@mitre.org (Edward Hahn) wrote: >The Convair 990 was designed to cruise at 990 km/h (hence the name). Not a chance! The original model numbers were the 880 and the 600. The change was simply to bring the model numbers in line with each other. >A trans-sonic aircraft like the CV990 generates wave drag due to >compressibility effects. It contributes to total drag, but is separate >and distinct from parasitic drag ("skin friction") and induced drag >(caused by lift). Trans-sonic? Sorry, the 990 was the fastest subsonic transport aircraft but that's all. Scott Peterson First snow, then silence. This thousand dollar screen dies so beautifully. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:46 From: avondale7468@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" 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: 194.125.148.44 In article , "Anthony Rassias" wrote: > Recently I read that, until the advent of the Concorde, the Convair > CV990 was the fastest civil aeroplane... >From the book by Jon Proctor recommended by an earlier poster which is indeed well worth having, after initial failure to meet 620 mph speed guaranteed to clients, some aerodyanic cleaning up was undertaken. The cv990 was then rated at 595 mph and the cv990a at 621 mph. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:47 From: "Andrew van der Plas" Subject: Re: F100s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.nl 931649152 pluto:22046 NO-IDENT vdplas.demon.nl:195.173.254.228 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: vdplas.demon.nl > Got a ride on a US AIRWAYS Fokker 100 this weekend going from > Chattanooga to Charlotte and it got me to thinking about the > 'recent' battles between Boeing (717) and Airbus (A318) for the > 100 seat market. If this is such a hot market that both airframe > manufacturers feel they have to participate, how come Fokker's > F100 didn't sell well when it was the only product in this niche? > Am I missing something important here? The Fokker 100 was to expensive. They sellers couldn't sell enough airplanes to make it worthwhile and because of our loosy governement, Fokker went bankrupt. It was the biggest mass layoff since WW II. If only the governement spent $ 250 million dollars, 5000 workers would still have jobs. Apperently two guys are still trying to start again the Fokker production, but both of them have already said that it is almost impossible. A pitty for the whole world, that such a beautifull airplane-builder went bankrupt. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:48 From: "Steven" Subject: Re: F100s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.i1.net 931707624 207.230.58.128 (Sun, 11 Jul 1999 10:40:24 CDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.230.58.128 > Got a ride on a US AIRWAYS Fokker 100 this weekend going from > Chattanooga to Charlotte and it got me to thinking about the > 'recent' battles between Boeing (717) and Airbus (A318) for the > 100 seat market. If this is such a hot market that both airframe > manufacturers feel they have to participate, how come Fokker's > F100 didn't sell well when it was the only product in this niche? Fleet compatibility is a big issue here. Airlines have a large investment in maintenance/flight crew training and spares, and is much cheaper and easier to integrate B717's into a fleet of DC-9's and MD-80's than introducing a completely new type from a different manufacturer. -- Steven From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:49 From: ctill@mindspring.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: F100s 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.f7.80.3d Fleet commality was a drawback from the airlines' perspective; Fokker didn't make anything larger than the F-100. Also, some operators were probably scared away by reduced residual values of Fokker aircraft in the residual market if Fokker hit financial trouble, which it did. I have read speculation that Fokker offered such a low price to American for the 75 F-100s that that financial trouble was nearly assured. On the other hand, I don't know that Fokker management had much choice at the time. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:50 From: w_keller@gmx.de (Wolfgang Keller) Subject: Re: F100s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.228.230.42 Joe Pelliccia wrote: > If this is such a hot market that both airframe > manufacturers feel they have to participate, And Bombardier, and Fairchild-Dornier... > how come Fokker's > F100 didn't sell well when it was the only product in this niche? It sold quite well, at least for an aircraft made by such a small company as Fokker. A fine aircraft imho, I definitely preferred the BA F100 over AF's A320 and LH's 737 when I had to travel Munich-Paris regularly a few years ago. I also remember some very positive comments from swissair officials (afaik the launch customer), and Lufthanse and Crossair really regret that they bought Avro RJs instead of Fokkers. The problem was iirc that Fokker wasn't able to get the cost below the price the airlines were willing to pay, and the DASA, who bought Fokker, didn't manage to do that either so they went bancrupt. 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:51 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: F100s 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 Joe Pelliccia wrote: > Got a ride on a US AIRWAYS Fokker 100 this weekend going from > Chattanooga to Charlotte and it got me to thinking about the > 'recent' battles between Boeing (717) and Airbus (A318) for the > 100 seat market. If this is such a hot market that both airframe > manufacturers feel they have to participate, how come Fokker's > F100 didn't sell well when it was the only product in this niche? > Am I missing something important here? Who said the Fokker 100 didn't sell well? It, and its Fokker 70 little brother, were selling quite well indeed. Just look at the AA and US fleets alone. What killed Fokker was high production costs, not lack of sales. If you lose money on every sale, selling a lot isn't so great... And by the way, the Fokker 70/100 were NOT the only products in that niche. BAe was also there selling BAe 146s and Avro RJs -- which it is still doing, having brought its costs under control much more effectively than Fokker. 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:52 From: avondale7468@my-deja.com Subject: Re: F100s 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: 194.125.148.30 In article , Joe Pelliccia wrote: > Got a ride on a US AIRWAYS Fokker 100 this weekend going from > Chattanooga to Charlotte and it got me to thinking about the > 'recent' battles between Boeing (717) and Airbus (A318) for the > 100 seat market. If this is such a hot market that both airframe > manufacturers feel they have to participate, how come Fokker's > F100 didn't sell well when it was the only product in this niche? A few reasons include lack of commonality with other aircraft in operators fleets, a big selling point for Airbus today and with Boeing to a lesser extent. The BA 146 has had the same problem in the US. Even when the F100 was introduced it may have been that the true competitor for the F100 turned out to be s/h B737/200's and to a lesser extent B111's and Dc9's/Md's,available at givaway prices then. Incidentally the 717 has not sold well yet either, with only one or two orders for a long time when in the MD stable and the 318 has yet to be proved. The F100 strange door decision also went down badly with some operators, making loading allegedly difficult. Hopes of selling well in Indonesia, where a lot of F28's went, proved illusory and it presumably did not help that lead European operator of F100, Air Europe went belly up. A pity because it was/is a nice aircraft. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:53 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: and the winner is..... References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 932766145 207.253.110.72 (Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:42:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.110.72 Matt727 wrote: > crazy). The GE has already been run at 125,000lbs of thrust in its current > configuration. It is a "bigger" engine. Designed for the future of the > 777. Is it correct to conclude that the other guys lost the race and now that GE will command a huge lead over the 90k pound guys, there is little chance of the other guys ever catching up and as a result, future 777s will all be GE engined since the others will have dropped out of the race ? Or will the market for smaller 777s remain big enough for Boeing to continue production of the older models which can be engined by R&R , PRATT as well as GE ? From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:54 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: and the winner is..... References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> 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 spagiola@my-deja.com wrote: > > How does this change the purchase of an aircraft ? > > Well, it needn't. The 737 has done pretty well selling with only one > engine. On the other hand, it might become an issue if a 777 operator > with engines other than GE is looking at the 777X. Following up my own post, last week's Flight reports that several non- GE 777 operators (eg AA, CX) are quite upset about the decision to give GE exclusivity on the 777X. 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 Sat Aug 7 01:22:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:55 From: NICKERSON PETER Subject: F28 Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 932860214 24.66.238.236 (Sat, 24 Jul 1999 16:50:14 PDT) Organization: @Home Network Member NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.66.238.236 I noticed yesterday for the first time what appear to be "clamshell" spoilers at the rear of a Fokker F28. The clamshells when closed look like a tailcone, but there appear to be two acutators on each side of the a/c to open the spoilers. Because the F-28 has no reverse thrusters, I assume these are some form of speed brake? Anyone? From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:56 From: "Philip J. Kuhl" Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: t0UkjVPI+pN4KG1ZSOC9oWMNcDX/m5ww53tqZ2Q90b0= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 My understanding, and I'll gladly be corrected by those more knowledgeable, is that the total amount of time on the airframe is not so important if the appropriate maintenance is kept up. I believe this leads to so much of the aircraft being replaced over time that little, if any, of the aircraft is "original" after a given number of years. I vaguely recall from decades past that after an airliner had been in service for about seven years in the U.S. essentially all of its parts had been replaced. Can anyone else comment? Philip J. Kuhl Arlington, Virginia PJKuhl@erols.com From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:57 From: wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.3 (NOV) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@nrk.com (David Lesher) NNTP-Posting-Host: netcom13.netcom.com gb writes: >I was reading about certain aircrafts accumulating wery high number of >in-air time. What's the usual procedure/numbers and when are aircrafts >to be scrapped? >Typical example was 73' L-1011 Tristar with 51,951 hours and 25,691 >cycles. That's 6 years of non-stop flying! Cycles is of as much concern as hours in pressurized aircraft. Triva: as of the model's 50th anniversary, the known high-time DC-3 (I think PBA owned it) had 10.3 years logged. Wonder how long it's gone since. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:58 From: "Anthony Rassias" Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 933157040 210.84.6.216 (Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:17:20 EST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia NNTP-Posting-Host: slsdn28p24.ozemail.com.au Air time in itself isn't the life determining factor as much as the number of pressurisation cycles the aircraft has undergone in its life. Aloha Airlines Boeing 737-297 registration N73711 had 33,726 flying hours and an astonishing 85,300 cycles (at the time the second hightest number of cycles in the worldwide 737 fleet) when involved in a catastophic fuselage failure incident between Hawaii and Maui....think about it...that's 24 minutes per cycle. Of course the salt air and humidity didn't help either. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:22:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:22:59 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? 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 gb wrote: > I was reading about certain aircrafts accumulating wery high number > of in-air time. What's the usual procedure/numbers and when are > aircrafts to be scrapped? > Typical example was 73' L-1011 Tristar with 51,951 hours and 25,691 > cycles. That's 6 years of non-stop flying! I don't think those are very typical numbers for a TriStar -- that's only about 2 hours per flight! It is not uncommon to find long-range widebodies such as the 747 built in the early '70s to have accumulated close to 100,000 hours by now. I recall that two 747s (a Korean freighter and a TWA -100) went over the 100,000 mark a few years back. When you fly 8-10 hours at a time, hours pile up fast. Compare that to the DC-3 generation: the high-time DC-3 had about 85,000 hours when it finally retired after some 50 years of service. At the time it was the highest-time airliner ever, but the 747 generation is far outstripping those numbers. Anyway, there's no particular "procedure" or typical time for an aircraft to be scrapped. As it gets older, maintenance becomes more expensive. At some point, parting out becomes more attractive than continued operation. Where that point is depends on a wide variety of factors -- operating costs (eg fuel prices, salaries, etc), market conditions for new and used aircraft, traffic, and so on. 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 Sat Aug 7 01:23:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:00 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 02:33 AM 7/10/99 +0000, you wrote: >Pete Finlay wrote: >> The main nuclear deterrent from the 1950s to the 1966 was the Avro >> Vulcan, which was a missile platform. > >Did the Vulcans actually go out of service THAT long ago? The Vulcan and >the B-58 are two of my favorite designs. They both had a very short >service life. I am quite sure it lasted much longer than that. I saw one crash at the Glenview Naval Air Station in the 1970's, and the RAF used one to attack (with no real sucess) the airport at Port Stanley in the Falklands War (1982). James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (480) 638 1316 From kls Sat Aug 7 01:23:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:01 From: john@nospam.demon.co.uk (John Wright) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 931621872 nnrp-04:7712 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 Reply-To: news@pegase.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: pegase.demon.co.uk On 10 Jul 99 02:33:43 , in , Steve Lacker wrote: >Pete Finlay wrote: >> The main nuclear deterrent from the 1950s to the 1966 was the Avro >> Vulcan, which was a missile platform. > >Did the Vulcans actually go out of service THAT long ago? The Vulcan and >the B-58 are two of my favorite designs. They both had a very short >service life. No, the Vulcan was in service to the 1980s - they were used to bomb Port Stanley airport during the Falklands conflict in 1982. At the end of that year they were finally retired as bombers, although some lasted till 1983 in the reconnaissance role. What happened in 1966 is that they ceased to be the main British nuclear deterrent, so in effect from that date they had a mission change. The Royal Navy took over the nuclear deterrent role with Polaris missile carrying submarines. Also, only the B2A variant actually carried the Blue Steel stand off missile - the B1s and B2s carried free fall weapons. >> Interestingly enough, the Vulcan used RR Olympus 201 (later 301) >> engines, 101s in the B1, 201s or 301s in the B2. >Isn't it more correct to say that the Vulcan used BRISTOL Olympus >engines, since it was built prior to the RR/Bristol merger? ;-) Absolutely, and they would still insist on calling it a Bristol engine to this very day. A good friend of mine who works in Derby says that the people in Derby refer to the company as Royce's (as they always did), while the people at Bristol still think of themselves as a separate company. Not to mention Barnoldswick, which is still regarded as Rovers. >The >more I learn about the history of Bristol and RR turbine engine >development, the clearer it becomes that RR gained a lot of expertiese >through that merger... and then ignored it until very late in the >development of the RB.211 when a retired Bristol engineer was called >back to consult on the project and undertook a major re-design. Sir Stanley Hooker, the engineer you refer to, worked for Royces on the Merlin/Griffon superchargers from 1938 onwards, revolutionising the performance of these engines by improvements in the performance of the superchargers and air inlets. He was then very influential in the design of the Welland and Derwent, which powered the Meteor - the first RAF jet fighter, and also the Nene - not greatly used in Britain but which was the basis of the engine used in the MiG-15 and MiG-17 and Avon turbojets, and the Clyde and Dart turboprops. After a row with Sir Ernest Hives then chairman of R-R, (over the location of turbine engine manufacture - Hooker was at Barnoldswick, Hives at Derby) Hooker left Rolls-Royce in 1948 and went to Bristol Engines, having a large hand in the Olympus and Pegasus engines. He returned to Rolls-Royce from retirement when the RB-211 was going pear shaped in late 1970 - again it was his influence that started the RB-211 on the way to being the world class engine it is today. Never underestimate the worth of Sir Stanley Hooker in the British aero-engine industry... If you can find the biography of him "Not Much of an Engineer" by Bill Gunston, it will tell you much more. -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..." From kls Sat Aug 7 01:23:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:02 From: david@theguests.prestel.co.uk (David W Guest) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Organization: SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals Research & Development The Vulcan did not go out of service until the mid 80's - their first active service was the Falklands War. The nuclear deterent task was relinquished a long time ago (late 60's?) when the submarines took over. I think Vulcans had a nuclear capability until they were retired. It's not right to compare the Vulcan and B52 'cos the mission requirements were very different but I will never forget a Mildenhall display at which both appeared. The B52 was almost out of site as it did it's fly-by's and turns and I think the Vulcan probably didn't leave the airfield perimeter except for landing (and then not by much!). The Vulcan was an amazing aircraft to see displayed "hard". David From kls Sat Aug 7 01:23:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:03 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 Steve Lacker writes: > Pete Finlay wrote: > > The main nuclear deterrent from the 1950s to the 1966 was the Avro > > Vulcan, which was a missile platform. > > Did the Vulcans actually go out of service THAT long ago? I don't think so. Wasn't the Vulcan the heavy bomber of choice in the Falklands back in '82? As I recall, each had to convoy with about 10 tankers to achieve the needed range from Ascension... Ah, the Solway Aviation Museum () seems to have a Vulcan used in the Falklands, flown to the museum for retirement in '83. And from the Vulcan Index, at , "The last operational Vulcan squadron was 50 sqn based at Waddington. They disbanded on the 31st of March 1984. The aircraft they used were sold to museums or sent to the fire dump." The story of the Falklands missions is at -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Sat Aug 7 01:23:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:04 From: "Mik" Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 932115734 17220 62.188.135.186 (16 Jul 1999 09:02:14 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Reply-To: NNTP-Posting-Host: userao70.uk.uudial.com Merlin Dorfman wrote in message ... >Pete Finlay wrote: >> 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. > > Somehow I have it in my head that the Concorde's engines are >"Bristol Olympus." Not true? Indeed true. In 1960 Bristol Aero-Engines merged with Armstrong Siddeley Motors Ltd to form BSEL, and in 1966 BSEL was aquired by Rolls-Royce. The Olympus engine was then developed by what was the Bristol Engine Division of Rolls-Royce. The Bristol Olympus was designed in 1949 with a design thrust of 9570lb, on its first ever run produced 10,000lb, the Mk 101 fitted to the Vulcan B1 produced 11,000lb, the Mk 201 for the Vulcan B2 produced 17,000lb, and the reheated 593 version (Concorde) has produced 40,000lb. Source : "Not Much of an Engineer" by Sir Stanley Hooker. Mik From kls Sat Aug 7 01:23:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:05 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /w/U24RAyECrfa661OvPhamEQcJsu7Cj3hISrzr+KfnqIf98kQ+cl2GIghtnIQe84jyOQgcKwyD0!otMBBPrJgoGJwzHAAGFXSzRejJW7Y+NJWIObVstp7njbE+ZrKsA= I am working on a book on internal combustion engines ( I am including turbines as ICs). I have a chapter of comparisons of modern engines for various applications. Horsepower figures into many of the comparisons. I wish to use thrust horsepower (thrust times velocity) for the turbojets/turbofans. Can I use max thrust and cruise velocity together? That is, can modern turbofans develop max thrust at normal cruise speeds? -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Sat Aug 7 01:23:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:06 From: wmg@sparky.skypoint.net (William Mac Gree) Subject: The ghost of the TWA's flight 800 ! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. Some funny stuff on ETOPS extension: The new inquiries about TWA's flight 800 has revealed that the explosion was due to a great default which concerns 80% of Boeing's fleet : the lack of fire suppression systems ! Many unions have quickly reacted to link it with the already discussed ETOPS diversion time extension to 207 and 240 minutes. The proposal is based on the premise that fire suppression systems can contain an onboard fire for 222 minutes, which is already not sufficient in the case of a 4 hour diversion and especially, not sufficient when there are NO fire suppression systems !!!! From kls Sat Aug 7 01:23:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 07 Aug 99 01:23:07 From: hafer@nc.com (Rob Hafer) Subject: BBJ Customers Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 933049179 210 209.233.186.69 X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.233.186.69 I think I may have seen this somewhere already, but who are buying these BBJ's (IMHO...a slick looking aircraft for those that can afford it). Is the Airbus equivalent (319-based, I think) still a threat to this new endeavor for Boeing? From news Mon Aug 16 15:05:48 1999 From: "GEORGES" Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Delta sells its entire 727 fleet Organization: Kévin Message-ID: <01bee8bf$4d24af80$397d9ec2@default> References: <7deia9$dvt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 20:51:29 GMT Path: ditka!news.mv.net!News.Destek.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!128.230.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.shore.net!not-for-mail You know that Delta and Air France are doing an alliance. Air France is selling its old B737-200 and the company want to buy lots of future A318 (100 seats aircraft) spagiola@my-dejanews.com a écrit dans l'article <7deia9$dvt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > Delta has sold it entire fleet of 119 Boeing 727-200s to United Technologies > Corporation, who will convert them to freighters for re-sale. About 20 727-200 > aircraft will be retired in 1999, and the rest will follow between 2000 and > 2005. The agreement gives Delta flexibility in accelerating or delaying > retirement dates. From kls Mon Aug 16 19:02:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 19:02:51 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: All-Cargo aircraft's lack of fire suppression systems! References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > the cargo aircraft's lack of fire suppression systems ! Huh? FedEx aircraft do have a fire suppression system. But it is only for the Hazardous cargo Containers(Haz-Cans) only. There are portable fire bottles that are hooked to the Haz-cans and the flight crew manually actives them. The cargo decks have a fire detection. All of this is changing since recent Flight 800. > in the case of >federal Express flight 1406 in september 1996, >. . . . when a fire broke out in >the aircraft's main cargo deck. True. The fire originated on the main cargo deck, towards the aft end of the aircraft. After landing safely, the emergency crew could not figure out how to enter the aircraft with all the containers in the way. For some reason they did not know to cut a hole in the fuselage. When they were informed that this flight carried hazardous material, they exited the aircraft and waited for haz team. After 45 minutes, the fire burned through the fuselage and the tail section broke off. The hazardous material turned out to be contaminated blood products. The suspected source of the fire was a medical equipment that supposedly was not properly purged of flamable fuels. But the flight crew carried out their emergency procedures and saved the aircraft just to watch it burn on the ground. Steve Cole From kls Mon Aug 16 19:02:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 19:02:52 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Boeing's web page lists the MGTOW range for the 777-200(ER) as being >from 580,000 lbs up to 656,000 lbs. UA has some of the first ones built >and theirs are all good for 632,500 lbs -- not the heaviest, but a lot >closer to the top of the scale than to the bottom. Actually AvWeek shows the base -200 has an MGTOW of 545,000 pounds And Unless UA paid for some substantial mods, I doubt their 'A' models have been upgraded to 632,500. That was in fact the initial MGTOW on the 'B' Model. >So far as I know, it really is just a paper upgrade as far as the >airframe is concerned. You might need to upgrade engine thrust, but >the AW&ST Source Book has identical physical dimensions and weights >for the range of 777 engines from any given engine manufacturer so >I'd guess that even that is little more than a paper upgrade -- you'd >need to change the programming of the FADECs or something similar. There is in fact a 4,000 pound difference in empty weight between the A and B versions. That is a lot of paper! The Change from A to B also involved strengthening several areas of the aircraft (about 4000 pounds of metal), however the upgrade from any B configuration certified weight to a higher B configuration weight requires a check payable to Boeing, and in return you get a Floppy from Boeing that updates the FMS. For instance the GE powered BA 777-200ER's were purchased with MGTOW well below the 632,500 pounds available at the time. Many charges are weight based, and unless you are operating the aircraft at extreme range, the additional weight may not translate into revenue, as payload will be limited by landing weight rather than takeoff weight. My recollection is these BA Aircraft are certified at about 590,000 pounds. Emirates had the certified weight of their 777-200ER's reduced. On their route system they didn't need the full weight, and it reduces the transit charges over some countries on the route system. Increases from 632,500 pounds to the current 656,000 pounds were apparently accomplished by changing the CG limits rather by structural changes, this has the effect of reducing structural loads, so that one really is paper. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Mon Aug 16 19:02:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 19:02:53 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Boeing's web page lists the MGTOW range for the 777-200(ER) as being ^^^^ >>from 580,000 lbs up to 656,000 lbs. UA has some of the first ones built >>and theirs are all good for 632,500 lbs -- not the heaviest, but a lot >>closer to the top of the scale than to the bottom. >Actually AvWeek shows the base -200 has an MGTOW of 545,000 pounds True, but we were discussing the ER, aka the B model, not the base -200. While UA does have the first airline-owned base -200s produced (Boeing still owns WA001), they also have some of the first B models off the line, and the first PW-powered examples. Hmmm ... UA's oldest 777-222(ER) is N787UA and is LN 43. (It's not the first one delivered to UA, however, since it was part of the flight test program.) The first 777-200(ER) is G-VIIA, LN 41. I'm not sure whether or not LN 42 is an ER. >And Unless UA paid for some substantial mods, I doubt their 'A' models >have been upgraded to 632,500. We weren't talking about their A models, which are at 545,000 lbs MGTOW, tops for that version. So far as I know, Boeing does not offer an A=>B upgrade. >That was in fact the initial MGTOW on the 'B' Model. Perhaps in some really early documentation, though I just checked one Boeing document I have which predates first flight of even the A model and it says 580,000 lbs MGTOW for the B model. The first ER built was actually delivered with a 590,000 lbs MGTOW and, as noted above, the second or third started off at 632,500 lbs. >There is in fact a 4,000 pound difference in empty weight between the A >and B versions. That is a lot of paper! True, but again, we weren't talking about upgrading an A to a B. From an earlier post in this thread: Within each sub-series upgrading from the lightest to the heaviest can be as easy as a paper upgrade, but you cannot upgrade a 777-200 to a 777-200ER. >My recollection is these BA Aircraft are certified at about 590,000 pounds. Right. >Emirates had the certified weight of their 777-200ER's reduced. My reference (JP) says 632,500 lbs for their ERs (and 545,000 lbs for their A models). -- 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 Aug 16 19:02:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 19:02:54 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Regarding FADECs, see the bottom of the message. On 7 Aug 1999, Karl Swartz wrote: > >Point taken. But my understanding is that the heaviest available > >current "ER" versions are quite a bit heavier than the earliest ones. > > Boeing's web page lists the MGTOW range for the 777-200(ER) as being > from 580,000 lbs up to 656,000 lbs. UA has some of the first ones built > and theirs are all good for 632,500 lbs -- not the heaviest, but a lot > closer to the top of the scale than to the bottom. > > >Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that > >bringing earlier builds up to the best currently-available standard > >would certainly involve more than just a paper upgrade. > > So far as I know, it really is just a paper upgrade as far as the > airframe is concerned. You might need to upgrade engine thrust, but > the AW&ST Source Book has identical physical dimensions and weights > for the range of 777 engines from any given engine manufacturer so > I'd guess that even that is little more than a paper upgrade -- you'd > need to change the programming of the FADECs or something similar. Not quite. My understanding is that the FADEC, together with its software, is supplied by the engine manufacturer, and is in nothing to do with the airframe manufacturer. This makes sense, since the FADEC is intimately bound up with the design of the engine. Even if (as is very likely) the writing of the FADEC software is subcontracted to a specialist software house, it would be written to the engine manufacturer's specification. This is one of the reasons (I guess) why it is rather difficult to obtain details of the design of FADECs, and of FADEC software. If the engine manufacturer needs to upgrade the FADEC software to match an upgraded model of the engine to deliver increased thrust, then I agree that this would be less of a problem than the modifications to the engine hardware, but (I hope!) would still involve considerable additional testing to meet the certification requirements. The airframe manufacturer would need to take account of any changes to the interfaces between the FADEC and the thrust control levers, autothrust, engine start-up controls, and cabin air supply controls (and any other means by which the aircraft systems affect the engine function). I would guess that modifications to the FADEC would be made in such a way as to minimize any changes to these interfaces. Pete Mellor, CSR, City Univerity, London. ---------------------------------------- Two guys arguing in a pub:- 1st guy: "Your arguments are just a load of pedanticness!" 2nd guy: "You mean 'pedantry'." 1st guy: "Yeah! See what I mean?" From kls Mon Aug 16 19:02:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 19:02:55 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> So far as I know, it really is just a paper upgrade as far as the >> airframe is concerned. You might need to upgrade engine thrust, but >> the AW&ST Source Book has identical physical dimensions and weights >> for the range of 777 engines from any given engine manufacturer so >> I'd guess that even that is little more than a paper upgrade -- you'd >> need to change the programming of the FADECs or something similar. >Not quite. My understanding is that the FADEC, together with its software, >is supplied by the engine manufacturer, and is in nothing to do with the >airframe manufacturer. My comment was unclear, the intent being that you would buy the engine upgrade (possibly a paper one) from the engine manufacturer, but that it might nevertheless be a paper/software upgrade. I was specifically thinking of the three different models of smaller PW4000s used by United: 767-300 PW4052 747-400 PW4056 767-300(ER) PW4060 They're all physically the same. I had the impression that UA could actually swap one for another and twiddle a few bits to give it the right thrust level, presumably including some extra payments to Pratt and lower life of some components. That way, if an AOG 767 could get a 747-400 engine if that was the only spare available, or vice versa. -- 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 Aug 16 19:02:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 19:02:56 From: Andrew Muir Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Boeing Company Karl Swartz wrote: > >Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that > >bringing earlier builds up to the best currently-available standard > >would certainly involve more than just a paper upgrade. > > So far as I know, it really is just a paper upgrade as far as the > airframe is concerned. You might need to upgrade engine thrust, but > the AW&ST Source Book has identical physical dimensions and weights > for the range of 777 engines from any given engine manufacturer so > I'd guess that even that is little more than a paper upgrade -- you'd > need to change the programming of the FADECs or something similar. If there was a structural upgrade, it would be reflected in the empty weight. If the empty weight doesn't increase, odds are that there is only a paper upgrade to achieve higher gross weight. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:27:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:27:57 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 07:02 PM 8/16/99 +0000, Karl Swartz wrote: >They're all physically the same. I had the impression that UA could >actually swap one for another and twiddle a few bits to give it the >right thrust level, presumably including some extra payments to Pratt >and lower life of some components. That way, if an AOG 767 could get >a 747-400 engine if that was the only spare available, or vice versa. According to the PW advertising, all you do is change the FADEC and name plate, I suspect the same is true of the GE90-76B and -82B and -85B. I know all the RR RB211-524G and H engines are now identical. They didn't start that way, but they are now. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Mon Aug 16 22:27:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:27:58 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: F100s 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 >Fleet commality was a drawback from the airlines' perspective; Fokker >didn't make anything larger than the F-100. Also, some operators >were probably scared away by reduced residual values of Fokker >aircraft in the residual market if Fokker hit financial trouble, which it >did. I have read speculation that Fokker offered such a low price to >American for the 75 F-100s that that financial trouble was nearly >assured. On the other hand, I don't know that Fokker management >had much choice at the time. gives entry to a huge number of pages concerning the Fokker bankruptcy. There seem to have been many factors in the collapse of Fokker. The simple summary is that the costs were much too high relative to the prices which were obtained in the market, and this was particularly true of the American Airlines order. At the end, the Dutch Government seem not to have believed that DASA would cease funding Fokker, or if they did, they were prepared to stand aside without trying to extend Fokker's life further. Given the new generation of regional jets from Bombardier and Embraer, as well as the A318 and B717, it is hard to see what a revived F100 or F70 would now have to offer customers, even taking the development money as spent. Bombardier have built an empire on the basis of buying badly run companies with good products on which the development money has already been spent and buying them cheaply with government support. I think it is significant that (so far as I know) they did not make a serious effort to buy Fokker. Antoin Daltun. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:27:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:27:59 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: F100s 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 >Even when the F100 was introduced it may have been that the true >competitor for the F100 turned out to be s/h B737/200's and to a lesser >extent B111's and Dc9's/Md's,available at givaway prices then. The B737-500 was also a strong competitor. Antoin Daltun From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:00 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: F100s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmscX@cmdnet.lu avondale7468@my-deja.com wrote: > A few reasons include lack of commonality with other aircraft in > operators fleets, a big selling point for Airbus today and with Boeing > to a lesser extent. The BA 146 has had the same problem in the US. There was a project for a F130 but it never saw daylight. That would have been a 'nice' family F70/100/130. But of course the A320 and B737 had the advantage of attacking the market from the higher end, attracting the big carriers. -- 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 Aug 16 22:28:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:01 From: w_keller@gmx.de (Wolfgang Keller) Subject: Re: F100s 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: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.228.230.109 wrote: > And by the way, the Fokker 70/100 were NOT the only products in that > niche. BAe was also there selling BAe 146s and Avro RJs -- which it is > still doing, having brought its costs under control much more > effectively than Fokker. I don't think that they will sell too many of them anymore after the experience Crossair and Lufthansa had to make with theirs. Had Lufthansa purchased Fokkers F70/F100 instead of those #*@§$%& RJs, it might have bought Fokker another few years to get their cost under control and LH would have got aircraft that perform as specified. And it would have been less costly for LH in the long run. 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 Mon Aug 16 22:28:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:02 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: F100s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0389.cvx18-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net Andrew van der Plas wrote: > The Fokker 100 was to expensive. They sellers couldn't sell enough airplanes > to make it worthwhile and because of our loosy governement, Fokker went > bankrupt. It was the biggest mass layoff since WW II. > > If only the governement spent $ 250 million dollars, 5000 workers would > still have jobs. Apologies in advance- this will sound totally American in attitude. A reputable company with a long heritage had a good-looking plane which was being built at a loss, had no fleet commonality, etc. Private entrepeneurs are having difficulty reviving the company. So, why is a government that chooses not to subsidize a sinking ship "lousy"? Sounds like your government has lots of wisdom or luck. And if these 5000 people still had jobs, what would they be doing if the company couldn't sell it's product? Just my opinion. Ken Ishiguro From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:03 From: Erik Verheijden Subject: Re: F100s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com 934443434 212.120.80.176 (Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:37:14 MET DST) Organization: @Home NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.120.80.176 Andrew van der Plas schreef: > The Fokker 100 was to expensive. They sellers couldn't sell enough airplanes > to make it worthwhile and because of our loosy governement, Fokker went > bankrupt. It was the biggest mass layoff since WW II. A big problem has been the dollar/ dutch guilder exchange rate. The airplanes were sold, of course, for a certain amount of dollars. The value of 1 dollar was about 3.60 guilders in 1984. Ten years later the dollar was only worth 1.55 guilder. As far as I know most of the airplanes were sold for a reasonable price in dollars. But with the value of the dollar that low and salaries and taxes as high as they are in the Netherlands there was no way left to make money. To illustrate high taxes: we pay about $4.25 for each gallon of unleaded automotive fuel. I have heard more complaints about the door configuration of the F100. I believe the B717 has only one main passenger door as well? Erik Verheijden. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:04 From: JF Mezei Subject: Anodized planes ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 934091326 207.253.103.213 (Sun, 08 Aug 1999 01:48:46 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.103.213 Bicycles and airplanes use a lot of similar technologies. Both need to be strong and light. One example is bicycle wheel rims. Most are high tech aluminium (and some now carbon-fibre). For rims and other parts, anodisation is often used. It not only provides a very long lasting and clean finish, but, i am told, also strengthens the aluminium. (is that true ?). Has this ever been considered for an aircraft ? I realise that the anodisation process would have to be done during the construction, but the finish would be very hot, long lasting, and very light (no paint needed). Would the change in characteristics of the aluminium sheets from the anodisation process improve the aircraft or make the aluminium less flexible and more likely to crack after many cycles ? From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:05 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium NNTP-Posting-Host: eduserv1.rug.ac.be Scott Peterson (scottp4-remove-this-to-reply@mindspring.com) wrote: > Part of the problem as well, was that Convair management bet that > Boeing and Douglas would not be able to produce economically feasible > aircraft using turbojets. They decided to design the 990 to use early > fanjets and were locked in to an exclusive deal with GE after GE > assured them that they had the patents on the technology. As > expected, the engines were late and early versions were uneconomical > and unreliable. > Also Pratt and Whitney did an end around on the GE patents and > produced a competing product much faster than was expected so their > hoped-for advantage never really materialized. Can you tell us some more about those fanjet patents? Are you referring to GE's aft-fan design? If so, then the 'end-run' of P&W would be to build a two-axis powerplant, with the fan in front. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:06 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmscX@cmdnet.lu Edward Hahn wrote: > The Convair 990 was designed to cruise at 990 km/h (hence the name). I > don't have other specs handy, but it was supposed to compete with B707s > and DC8s. Something like 40 total were produced (obviously a major > commercial failure). CV 990 37 produced CV 880 65 produced A commercial disaster ... -- 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 Aug 16 22:28:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:07 From: htoet@aol.com (HToet) Subject: DC-7C Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com.au Can anyone please give me the inside cabin measures of the Douglas DC-7C ( the well known Seven Seas) Thanks Hans From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:08 From: boeing707@bellsouth.net (boeing707) Subject: WN 737 landing lights Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 934295545 26007 12.77.159.64 (10 Aug 1999 14:32:25 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.77.159.64 Reply-To: boeing707@bellsouth.net I work for USAirways in FLL. Recently, I have seen Southwest 737 (models -300/-500 and the -700) landing lights blinking on and off during their approach. Have only seen it on Southwest. The entire set of landing lights on the wings alternately blink on and off. Then when the airplane nears the inner marker, the blinking stops and the lights are on steadily. I have also seen this on a few Falcon 30's and Lears, but WN is the only airline I've seen this on. Can anybody give me the story on the blinking landing lights? And, doesnt it lower the life of the lamp? Thanks Ken Smith boeing707@worldnet.att.net Ft Lauderdale, FL From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:09 From: Neville Hodges Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: Etisalat The "doors" you have mentioned are speed brakes, very effective I might add! The Bae-146 shares a similar arrangement. Some operators actually used them when landing at light weights to allow the aircraft to approach with the engines spooled up. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:10 From: "Goran Carlsson" Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 934133742 23309 195.163.74.206 (8 Aug 1999 17:35:42 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: Telenordia NNTP-Posting-Host: sdu206-74.ppp.algonet.se > Because the F-28 has no reverse thrusters, I assume these are some form > of speed brake? You are correct. It is a very effective speedbrake that can be used at all speeds. If the speed is high, the speedbrake will retract some. The same type of speedbrake is used on the Fokker-100. Goran From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:11 From: "Ian Stapleton" Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nclient11-gui.server.virgin.net 934224772 1429 194.168.67.44 (9 Aug 1999 18:52:52 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Virgin Net Usenet Service NNTP-Posting-Host: p44-kingfisher-gui.tch.virgin.net Several aircraft have similar devices, basically, when "closed" they deflect all the exhaust thrust from the engine back over and under the wing: acting as a basic reverse thrust in order to break the aircraft on landing. They are a lot simpler to fit to aircraft than having a reverse thrust capability on the engine itself as this is more expensive and makes the engine have more moving parts therefore increasing the number of points for a possible engine related failure in the aircraft. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:12 From: engrc@cae.ca (Robert Courteau) Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: dns3.cae.ca 934285763 3104 142.39.71.12 (10 Aug 1999 11:49:23 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 Organization: CAE Electronics, Montreal This tailcone speed brake is also on the F100. The most noticeable feature of this system is that it deploys at approx. 100 ft radalt when pre-armed, so you see this "thing" start to move a few seconds prior to touchdown. I always wondered why you would want it before landing; is this to limit balooning on the flare? Robert Courteau From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:13 From: Erik Verheijden Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com 934442460 212.120.80.176 (Thu, 12 Aug 1999 09:21:00 MET DST) Organization: @Home NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.120.80.176 Indeed, that is the speedbrake. A handle on the pedestal is used to select the speedbrake anywhere between 0 and 60 degrees (to either side). The control system will set the speedbrake to an angle corresponding to the selection made below 190 kts. Above 190 kts, the speedbrake will deploy partially, providing a constant decelleration of 0.1 G down to 190 kts. Also, when either power lever is moved forward to, or over the detent (a go-around situation) the speedbrake will automatically close. Regards, Erik Verheijden. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:14 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 934033240 207.161.189.87 (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 08:40:40 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 "Philip J. Kuhl" wrote: > ... I vaguely recall from decades > past that after an airliner had been in service for about seven years in the > U.S. essentially all of its parts had been replaced. Cycles are important as well. Not all the parts are replaced. The Fuselage skins may be replaced over time if enough cracking or corrosion is present. the wing skins cannot be replaced, only reinforced where local fatigue problems arise. Many of the "units" like gear, pumps etc are replaced. EF From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:15 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.goodnet.com 934045631 209.54.54.224 (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:07:11 MDT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.54.54.224 On 07 Aug 99 01:22:56 , "Philip J. Kuhl" wrote: >My understanding, and I'll gladly be corrected by those more knowledgeable, >is that the total amount of time on the airframe is not so important if the >appropriate maintenance is kept up. I believe this leads to so much of the >aircraft being replaced over time that little, if any, of the aircraft is >"original" after a given number of years. I vaguely recall from decades >past that after an airliner had been in service for about seven years in the >U.S. essentially all of its parts had been replaced. Replaced, no, however at a D check, the aircraft is essentially taken apart. The problem is parts are expensive. Have you ever priced the cost of your car if you were to assemble it from spare parts? The finished product has to be price competitive, once you have bought the product, you are stuck, and spare prices may not be so attractive. In theory, you can keep replacing parts, however technology changes, and between the cost of the parts, and the poor operating economics, at some point it will cost more to fix than it is worth, or the operating costs get very high. For instance if the price of Jet A were to double (which has almost happened at least once), a large number of 747-100/200's would probably cease flying. A 747-100 at high weight with early PW engines burns about 25% more fuel than a GE CF6 747-400 to carry fewer passengers and cargo. Today that extra fuel may cost $5,000 per flight, or perhaps $200,000 per year. If price of Jet-A Doubles that cost doubles, and that may be enough to move the operation from profit to loss. At some point the aircraft is no longer economically attractive to operae, and that is usually the point you take the aircraft apart and sell the parts that may be valuable still. This has already happend to a fair number of early 747's. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:16 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Stefano Pagiola writes:- > Anyway, there's no particular "procedure" or typical time for an > aircraft to be scrapped. As it gets older, maintenance becomes more > expensive. At some point, parting out becomes more attractive than > continued operation. Where that point is depends on a wide variety of > factors -- operating costs (eg fuel prices, salaries, etc), market > conditions for new and used aircraft, traffic, and so on. As Oliver Hunkin said in his excellent television programme on reliability, the ideal machine has a defined life-time after which all of its parts wear out simultaneously. He pointed out that the examples of Victorian steam engines which are still in working order in museums are there because they were grossly over-engineered. This discussion reminds me of the story about Henry Ford sending two reesarchers around all the scrap-yards in America to report back on which part had failed and so caused the vehicle to be scrapped. When they produced their report, Ford asked if there was any part which they had found to be still intact on all of the scrapped vehicles. "Yes." they said. "The transmission spline interconnection key." (or some such obscure part). "Right!" said Ford. "We gotta find a cheaper way to make that damn key!" (An apocryphal story, I'm sure, but the philosophy it expresses has some logic behind it.) Pete Mellor, CSR, City University. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:17 From: Dean Wilkinson Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: skin01.micron.net 934680846 207.70.43.101 (Sat, 14 Aug 1999 19:34:06 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.70.43.101 Reply-To: razor@micron.net And often instead of parting out an older plane, it is sold to a third world country where it continues to operate in airspace that is not controlled by a strict agency like the FAA or the CAA. I read an amusing story of a Nigerian air cargo 707 that landed in Amsterdam, and was found to be in such poor condition that the local authorities impounded it and ordered its destruction to ensure it could not be flown in their airspace again. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:18 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Vulcans' service life (was Re: Concorde's Engines) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 7 Aug 1999, James Matthew Weber wrote: > At 02:33 AM 7/10/99 +0000, you wrote: > >Pete Finlay wrote: > >> The main nuclear deterrent from the 1950s to the 1966 was the Avro > >> Vulcan, which was a missile platform. > > > >Did the Vulcans actually go out of service THAT long ago? The Vulcan and > >the B-58 are two of my favorite designs. They both had a very short > >service life. > > I am quite sure it lasted much longer than that. I saw one crash at the > Glenview Naval Air Station in the 1970's, and the RAF used one to attack > (with no real sucess) the airport at Port Stanley in the Falklands War > (1982). Oh dear! You mean the joke at the time had no basis in fact? Q: What have Mr.Spock's mother and the landing strip at Port Stanley got in common? A: The've both been f***ed by Vulcans! Pete Mellor, CSR, City University. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:19 From: Art & Janet Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 934037191 10578 12.79.33.113 (7 Aug 1999 14:46:31 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.33.113 James Matthew Weber wrote: > I am quite sure it lasted much longer than that. I saw one crash at the > Glenview Naval Air Station in the 1970's, and the RAF used one to attack > (with no real sucess) the airport at Port Stanley in the Falklands War > (1982). I grew up in Glenview and had a chance to see this aircraft many times (flying, static, and in bits), It was stationed at GNAS on a reciprocity agreement betwen the US and Great Britain for training. The day of the crash, the pilot, realizing he couldn't control the aircraft, deliberately put the plane into a garbage dump north of the base to avoid hitting a housing development. It was errie playing baseball at a local park during the summer and having this shadow come over the field at about 1000 feet. I'd look up and very quietly gliding across the sky was the Vulcan . At low power, the aircraft was quiet. Art -- Art & Janet awutay@worldnet.att.net your mileage may vary From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:20 From: Merlin Dorfman Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: netcom12.netcom.com Stephen H. Westin wrote: : And from the Vulcan Index, at : , "The last : operational Vulcan squadron was 50 sqn based at Waddington. They : disbanded on the 31st of March 1984. The aircraft they used were sold : to museums or sent to the fire dump." Call me crazy, but I recall seeing a Vulcan at Dulles Airport, Washington, DC, USA, maybe in the late '80s or early '90s? Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:21 From: cjf@fl.net.au (Chris Furse) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 11 Aug 1999 03:48:26 +1000, a6-p53.syd.fl.net.au Organization: Customer of First Link Internet Services, Sydney, Australia Not Much to do with Concorde Engines But: Flying a RAAF Sabre out of Butterworth in the mid '60's I chased a B2 Vulcan. He was high in the contrails, probably at about 45,000ft, I was flying below the cons at about 38,000 ft. When I pulled up to illuminate him with my gunsight radar(for a simulated sidewider shot) he immediately broke into a maximum rate turn. After about 10 three sixties I was at 52,000 ft (way beyond my safety equipment capability), he was not only about 10,000 ft higher than me, but had also done 11 three sixties. There I was, a hot shot fighter pilot and this wacking great delta winged bomber not only perceived my radar but out turned me to the extent that he could have taken me out. But he only carried Blue Steel not Sidewinders. During Indonesian confrontation with Malaysia most military aircraft from Australia travelled well to the west of Indonesia to get to Butterworth etc. The Vulcans went Darwin Singapore direct at about 20,000 or below cruising at 0.95mach minimum. Even today that is fast. Very difficult to catch On the other hand later at Empire Test Pilot School I found that Vulcan was considered to be a " Large Triangular Aircraft which didn't much care which corner pointed into wind" Regards' Chris Furse. From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:22 From: cjardine@wctc.net (Chris Jardine) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 NNTP-Posting-Host: hyper2-163.wctc.net On 16 Aug 99 19:02:53 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: >True, but we were discussing the ER, aka the B model, not the base -200. >While UA does have the first airline-owned base -200s produced (Boeing >still owns WA001), they also have some of the first B models off the >line, and the first PW-powered examples. Just a little side note here. I was recently at an airport for my FAA Class 3 physical and saw a magazine at the airport that had WA001 up for sale. There was no price in it, but, it seemed to indicate that Boeing was in a 'dealing mood' to sell this one. Chris Jardine Chris Jardine CJ Electronics cjardine@wctc.net http://www.wctc.net/~cjardine/ From kls Mon Aug 16 22:28:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Aug 99 22:28:23 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Just a little side note here. I was recently at an airport for my FAA >Class 3 physical and saw a magazine at the airport that had WA001 up >for sale. There was no price in it, but, it seemed to indicate that >Boeing was in a 'dealing mood' to sell this one. Boeing has had a "for sale" sign on WA001 for a while now. The trouble is, they *aren't* in a dealing mood -- I don't know how much they want for it, but apparently it's a lot closer to a brand-new one than you'd expect. In a similar vein, United has a need for some 777s dedicated to domestic flying, with two-class configs instead of the three-class international config on all their current 777s. Even at a comparable weight, Boeing wants a premium for a B market 777 over an A market version, which for now is all United needs. Since Boeing hasn't built an A market 777 in a while now, you'd think they'd just offer a paper-limited ER (the B market plane) in order to keep their production line flowing smoothly. This is what they did when United recently ordered domestic 767-300s -- but for the 777, Boeing would rather dust off the old drawings and put a blip in their production flow (and forgoe the possibility of selling an upgrade in the future) than make a deal. United was even willing to pay a bit more, but Boeing wants nothing of it. It's stupid if you ask me. -- 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 news Sat Aug 21 17:13:28 1999 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!not-for-mail From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Newsgroups: misc.transport.air-industry,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: A330-100? Message-ID: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Organization: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. Approved: mtai@ckdhr.com (misc.transport.air-industry moderation account) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 23:15:53 GMT The current issue of Flight International discusses a 200 seat derivative of the A330-200, the A330-100. It a matter of removing about 18 feet of fuselage. This makes the aircraft almost identical in length to a 767-300ER. I have to be honest, and say I've looked at the numbers, this doesn't seem like a very attractive product. The basic problem is the airframe is derived from the basic A330 airframe which is designed to carry 500,000 pounds or so off the runway, by contract the MGTOW on a 767-300ER is 412,000 pounds, and the A310-100 is likely to have an empty weight between 50,000 and 60,000 higher than the 767-300ER. That is a lot of extra weight to fly with. you generally strengthen airframes when you stretch them, but I don't know anyone who weakens them when they shrink, and rarely are the wings or other lift and control surfaces altered. The result is Empty weight on the shrunken product is often not appreciable less than on the basic product.. Empty Weight A330-300 262,000 pound A330-200 266,000 pounds ( 15 foot shrink,probably the big issue is the extra fuel tank) A320 90,000 pounds A319 88,000 pounds (12 foot shrink) 737-300 72,000 pounds 737-500 70,000 pounds (8 foot shrink) Fokker F100 54,000 pounds Fokker F70 50,000 pounds (14 foot shrink) On the other hand stretches are not nearly as painful: 737-700 84,000 pounds 737-900 91,000 pounds (28 foot stretch) A320-100 90,000 pounds A321-100 106,000 pounds (23 foot stretch) 767-200 187,000 pounds 767-300 194,000 pounds (21 foot stretch) Seems to cost about 400 pounds per foot to stretch, but when you shrink, you only get about 200 pounds per foot back! The A330 will probably use the CF6-80E family, or Trent 700 family, or PW4000 family, although a geared fan like the proposed 8160 is a possibility. What that suggests is the airframe is a lot heavier, and the engine specific fuel consumption is likely to be very similar to the CF6, RB211 and PW4000's used on the 767ER, so you don't save much money on fuel for the engines, but you do have to pay to carry the extra weight. The market for such a product has to be very limited, so don't look for any engine manufacturer to commit to a multi-billion USD R&D programme to build a anything even remotely resembling an all new engine for the product. There appear to be only three advantages in this product versus a 767-300ER. 1). Cockpit/engine commonality with existing A330 2). Modest Range improvement (about 600 miles) 3). Increase in freight carriage on short and medium haul (The A330-200 has a very high maximum landing weight, almost 400,000 pounds). Max 767-300ER payload (MLW-Empty Weight) is 117,000 pounds, A330-100 I estimate at 135,000 pounds OF these item 1 is perhaps the most attractive. I cannot think of a lot of places where the difference in range opens many markets, and almost by definition a very long, thin route probably doesn't produce a vast amount of freight. In return, for all of the missions you don't need the extra range , or the extra freight lift relative to a 767-300ER, you get to carry 50,000+ pounds of extra weight! This sort of reminds me of the 747SP, horrible operating economies, but capable of flying missions no other aircraft could, except that with the A330-100 only the horrible operating costs are likely to be the case. The 767-200ER already has comparable range. It would looks to me like this aircraft may be a paper response to another paper aircraft, the 767-300ERX, which is still likely to have a substantial empty weight advantage over the A330-100. Maybe I missed something here, but this is a product that just look very attractive? From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:36 From: "A.C." Subject: MD80 v MD88 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com What are the technical differences between the MD80 and MD88? From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD80 v MD88 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >What are the technical differences between the MD80 and MD88? The term "MD-80" encompases as many as five MD-8x variants -- the MD-81/82/83/87/88. All are externally identical except the MD-87, which is 17 feet 5 inches short and has a taller tail. The MD-81/82/83 (properly DC-9-81/82/83 according to the type certificate) differ only in maximum takeoff weight, with higher- rated engines as you go up and, in the case of the MD-83, added fuel tankage to take advantage of the extra weight capability. The MD-88 is simply an MD-82 (or, in the high-gross-weight version, an MD-83) with an updated, glass cockpit instead of the old round gauges of the MD-81/82/83. -- 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 Aug 27 03:07:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:38 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Can you lock an airliner? 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 Here's a stupid question: do airliners have the equivalent of an ignition key? What about door keys? Locking an airplane might be useful as an additional line of defense beyond airport fences, guards, etc. Especially when planes are stored for a significant period of time. Not that anyone is likely to sneak off with, say, a 747 from LAX in the middle of the night, but one would like to guard against vandalism, pilferage, and sabotage. I recall an incident some years back where some mischievous folks videotaped themselves inside a BA 747 late one nigth at the off-heathrow maintenance facility. But then imagine the chaos when someone locks the keys inside... -- -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 Aug 27 03:07:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:39 From: Robin Johnson Subject: Re: cabin chimes References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >I am a Part 121 pilot and we use the cabin chime for a variety of flight >phases. Be aware that each airline may have it's own policy. The first chime >after takeoff is at the end of the takeoff phase ... I noticed on a recent trip imvolving sevaral airlines that the interpretation of the banning of electronic noisemakers varies enormously. Perhaps the second chime should mean to passengers that it's OK to fire up their notebooks! (or perhaps now that No Smoking is redundant, the sign could be replaced with No Electronic Gadgets! From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:40 From: "Ian W McAndrew" Subject: How solid is a 737? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Organization: BT Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: host5-99-53-184.btinternet.com How solid is a 737? This seemingly odd question is brought about by the fact that for the first time in about 35 years flying - in light aircraft as a pilot in the RAF Volunteer Reserve whilst at University, military aircraft (fighter and coastal command) as nominal pilot -i.e I was allowed to fly them for a while - I was well and truly frightened by a descent, approach and landing at Catania Airport in Sicily on an Air Malta flight about 4-5 weeks ago. There were a lot of strorms over southern Italy and we descended through the bottom part of a large cu-nim. I could see we were approaching it so told my wife that it would get a bit bumpy but not to worry. Well it was - a cabin attendant who was trying to get back to her seat was thrown into the lap of a passenger! When we got under the cloud, the cabin lights went out or were switched off, which made the lightning flashes around us all the more interesting. We were down to about 2 or 300 feet, with flaps and wheels down (still bumping around quite dramatically) and I confidently expected to see the runway any second, so was somewhat startled to see the sea appear below us. I was even more concerned when we turned right and all I could see in that direction was sea and behind us back on land, fields. The pilot then banked hard left and then continued to descend. My reassuring comments to my wife ceased at this point, which made her all the more frightened! Just as my concerns disappeared, to be replaced by plain fright, we crossed the coast again, at less than 100 feet, and probabaly a few seconds later (though it seemed minutes) the airfield appeared. The landing, considering the turbulent circuit, was surprisingly soft, but the braking was hard and prolonged and we used up almost all the runway, so I assume that the pilot had come in faster than usual to improve control. In retrospect, the pilot appears to have carried out a low level circuit, with the downwind leg close to the runway, presumably because of the poor visibility in the thunderstorm. That would seem to explain the turn away from the airport, the short finals and the absence of a discernible base leg. Going back to the original question, anyone have any views as to how dangerous (if at all) a situation this was. Ian From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:41 From: saccani@omen.net.au (Paul Saccani) Subject: Re: A/C accumulated time? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: demeter.omen.net.au 935056691 16224 203.55.58.229 (19 Aug 1999 09:58:11 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Omen Internet in Perth, Western Australia Reply-To: safer.roads@iname.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ttye100.asp.omen.com.au On 16 Aug 99 22:28:16 , Pete Mellor wrote: >This discussion reminds me of the story about Henry Ford sending two >reesarchers around all the scrap-yards in America to report back on >which part had failed and so caused the vehicle to be scrapped. When >they produced their report, Ford asked if there was any part which they >had found to be still intact on all of the scrapped vehicles. "Yes." >they said. "The transmission spline interconnection key." (or some >such obscure part). "Right!" said Ford. "We gotta find a cheaper way to >make that damn key!" > >(An apocryphal story, I'm sure, but the philosophy it expresses has some >logic behind it.) Not apocryphal at all. The component was the crankshaft & bearings. Ford ordered a redesign for cost reduction, if practical. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:42 From: Art & Janet Subject: Re: WN 737 landing lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 934887060 16288 12.79.32.89 (17 Aug 1999 10:51:00 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.32.89 boeing707 wrote: > I work for USAirways in FLL. Recently, I have seen Southwest 737 > (models -300/-500 and the -700) landing lights blinking on and off > during their approach. Have only seen it on Southwest. > The entire set of landing lights on the wings alternately blink on and > off. Then when the airplane nears the inner marker, the blinking stops > and the lights are on steadily. > I have also seen this on a few Falcon 30's and Lears, but WN is the > only airline I've seen this on. > Can anybody give me the story on the blinking landing lights? > And, doesnt it lower the life of the lamp? The pulsating light concept has been available on general aviation aircraft for many years (see Pulselight corp) The concept is based on studies which show higher pilot awareness of the flashing lights than a steady beam. Motorcycle and train lights also use his concept. As for life, the bulb actually lasts a lot longer if it is pulsed. The filament stays cooler and stronger because the intermittent heatup (instead of continuous current) prevents the filament from getting too soft which would allow it to vibrate to failure. -- Art & Janet awutay@worldnet.att.net your mileage may vary From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:43 From: slenz@aon.at (Siegfried Lenz) Subject: Re: WN 737 landing lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.chello.at 934925339 195.34.148.159 (Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:28:59 MET DST) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Chello Austria On 16 Aug 99 22:28:08 , boeing707@bellsouth.net (boeing707) wrote: >I work for USAirways in FLL. Recently, I have seen Southwest 737 >(models -300/-500 and the -700) landing lights blinking on and off >during their approach. Have only seen it on Southwest. >The entire set of landing lights on the wings alternately blink on and >off. Then when the airplane nears the inner marker, the blinking stops >and the lights are on steadily. This system is called PULSELITE (R) by precise flight (http://www.preciseflight.com) and is supposed to improve both visibility of the aircraft and lamp life. I have but once seen an a/c equipped with (and using :-) pulselight and I had the impression that it was much more conspicuos than steady landing lights. (most probably the reason all "hazard warning" lights, be it on a police car or on an annunciator panel are blinking) I tried to get it installed on our airline aircraft but interest in such matters is not easy to form in an airline..... From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:44 From: Dean Wilkinson Subject: Re: WN 737 landing lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: skin01.micron.net 935036692 209.19.147.113 (Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:24:52 MDT) Reply-To: razor@micron.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.19.147.113 boeing707 wrote: > I work for USAirways in FLL. Recently, I have seen Southwest 737 > (models -300/-500 and the -700) landing lights blinking on and off > during their approach. Have only seen it on Southwest. > The entire set of landing lights on the wings alternately blink on and > off. Then when the airplane nears the inner marker, the blinking stops > and the lights are on steadily. > I have also seen this on a few Falcon 30's and Lears, but WN is the > only airline I've seen this on. > Can anybody give me the story on the blinking landing lights? > And, doesnt it lower the life of the lamp? Blinking landing lights are used for enhanced visibility for collision avoidance, especially in the daytime. Blinking landing lights are much easier to see against ground clutter or a hazy sky at much greater distances than a steady landing light. In fact, the Navy found that placing bright steady lights on a warship could make it disappear visually against the horizon since they essentially matched the brightness of the background sky and eliminated the silhouette of the ship. The same can happen to an airplane, so blinking is a good way to enhance visibility. As long as the current through the landing light filaments is ramped up and down rather than being abruptly started and stopped, and the current doesn't go all the way to zero, the Tungsten filaments are not stressed in a way that can reduce their life, and in fact the lower overall power dissipation can actually extend their life. Tungsten-Halogen lamps die mostly because of evaporation of the Tungsten which makes the filaments thin and brittle. The Halogen helps return the Tungsten atoms back to the filament where they are redeposited. Thermal shock is one of the biggest causes of failure since it can cause the filament to shatter, so as long as the blinking keeps that filament from cooling or heating too abruptly, it shouldn't hurt. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:45 From: "Barry Kabello" Subject: Re: WN 737 landing lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /bGnt8oHzsN2MLrUELuEPMJBNGNfwEnQHX1pfMqURMSsoB1CDIdnuHvqWbTf/x58cI3sC6PaGAtR!DFvpfLncR+YsNizXTJF8zb0snBsagdPllzAFd2L/oXtORSW9l7flJDZ8ISN7Akf06yFKjnq6 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 boeing707 wrote in message ... > I work for USAirways in FLL. Recently, I have seen Southwest 737 > (models -300/-500 and the -700) landing lights blinking on and off > during their approach. Have only seen it on Southwest. > The entire set of landing lights on the wings alternately blink on and > off. Then when the airplane nears the inner marker, the blinking stops > and the lights are on steadily. > I have also seen this on a few Falcon 30's and Lears, but WN is the > only airline I've seen this on. > Can anybody give me the story on the blinking landing lights? > And, doesnt it lower the life of the lamp? I've seen the same thing on Southwest 737s approaching Dallas Love...but not all of them? Around here, perhaps it helps separate Love traffic from DFW traffic when the airspace starts to get tight? I'm curious to hear an explanation too... And while we're on the subject of landing lights: I very often see airliners approaching DFW with varying combinations of their landing lights on or off. Is this to help the control tower get a visual on a specific aircraft? Or is it simply burned out landing lights on these planes? Thanks, Barry Dallas, TX From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:46 From: COMP1001 Student Subject: Boeing 737 new gen nav systems Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: School of Computer Science, UNSW NNTP-Posting-Host: oboe18.orchestra.cse.unsw.edu.au I work in the pacific, while crossing the 180 meridian flying from such places as nadi to tonga, syd to tonga, on various occassions i have had the powers come back, unwarranted turn and loss of flight plans. operating procedures now dictate that we go "hdg select" 10 miles prior to the 180 and resume the fmc flight plan 10 miles after crossing the 180. i would appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me as to why this happens, i know that similar problems can occur on gps machines. -- thanku From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:47 From: "Gerard M.Foley" Subject: Landing a 747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: viper 935017292 24.31.174.48 (Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:01:32 EDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Road Runner Columbus NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.31.174.48 I have posted the results of some research on a photograph that appeared on the net showing a 747 landing at Hong Kong KaiTak in what appears to be an unusual attitude: http://members.xoom.com/gerryf/kaitak.html Gerry K8EF http://home.columbus.rr.com/gfoley/eclipse.html http://members.xoom.com/gerryf/ http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8427 http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pollock/263 From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:48 From: scottp4-remove-this-to-reply@mindspring.com (Scott Peterson) Subject: Re: Convair CV990 "Coronado" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.c3.05 FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) wrote: >Can you tell us some more about those fanjet patents? Are you referring to >GE's aft-fan design? If so, then the 'end-run' of P&W would be to build a >two-axis powerplant, with the fan in front. My original source of information was my Father who was an engineer with them. He started with Consolidated in 1940 and retired from General Dynamics in 1976. There is one major book on the Convair jets that talks about this. But you've got it right, it was basically switching the location of the fan. Scott Peterson Does virgin wool come from fast sheep? From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:49 From: jkrocker@magic.mb.ca (Jon Krocker) Subject: FEDEX or UPS cockpit fight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.total.net 935112667 207.161.153.42 (Thu, 19 Aug 1999 21:31:07 EDT) X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Organization: TotalNet Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.153.42 My brother related a story he had heard on the news about a month or two ago. He said that during a FEDEX or UPS flight a person occupying the jumpseat went nuts and attacked the pilot/copilot with a hammer. Apparently this attack lasted about half an hour!! and the pilot/copilot actually managed to safely land the plane. During the fight the a/c was rolled in an attempt to subdue this crazy guy. This all sounds unlikely and I tryed the NTSB database for any occurence but found nothing. Anybody hear anything? TIA -- Jon Krocker jkrocker@magic.mb.ca/http://www.total.net/~jkrocker Aus des Weltalls Ferne, Funken radiosterne, Quasare und Pulsare -Kraftwerk. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:50 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: FEDEX or UPS cockpit fight References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >My brother related a story he had heard on the news about a month or two >ago. He said that during a FEDEX or UPS flight a person occupying the >jumpseat went nuts and attacked the pilot/copilot with a hammer. That would be FM 705, a DC-10-30F flying MEM-SJC on 7 April 1994. Off- duty second officer Auburn Calloway boarded the aircraft with two claw hammers, two sledgenammers, a spear gun with spear, and a hunting knife, and proceeded to use as many of them as he could against the flight crew. >I tryed the NTSB database for any occurence but found nothing. The NTSB entry can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/ATL/94A077.htm but it just says "go ask the FBI" and a search of http://www.fbi.gov/ turned up nothing of interest. However, there's a synopsis at http://www.airsafe.com/journal/issue4.htm#hammer and a more complete description as part of Calloway's appeal can be found at http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/june97/97a0184p.06.html There's also a radio transcript, which only provides a small glimpse of what was going on, at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2970/FDX705.HTML Finally, Dave Hirschman wrote a book about the incident entitled "Hijacked: The True Story of the Heroes of Flight 705." -- 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 Aug 27 03:07:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:51 From: Bogie Subject: Re: 727 Reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.cd.ac.66 In article , ME Incorporated wrote: > Howdy all. I wanted to know if there's a website out there that explains > how the Boeing 727 reversers work? > > I understand reversers in general. Clamshells are easiest of all to > explain. The Cascades on, say, a DC10 are also fairly easily understood (by > me anyway. Don't want to speak for all. 8^) > > BUT, the 727's reversers seem to be quite unique, a mixture of these two > technologies. I keep looking, but maybe I've not picked up the right > rock... I know of no website but I can tell you some info about them. The 727 reverser is simply an enclosed clamshell similar to the DC-9/MD-80 series. The clamshells are enclosed inside the tailpipe and when operated, direct the engine thrust forward through the cascade vanes you can see on the outside. They are controlled pneumatically using engine bleed air to drive two actuators located on either side in "canoe" fairings. When the clamshells are deployed, a cam in the pylon allows for limited thrust advancement operated by the reverse levers themselves (the regular thrust levers are "locked out"). Hope this helps. Tom From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:52 From: casuall@aol.com (Casuall) Subject: Re: 727 Reversers References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com the subject of thrust reversers is simple. a 727uses a variation of the clam shell. " but some of the new noise abaitement stuff is different" but the 727 uses as you put it a type of cascade vanes to direct the flow of air. if you are still interested the two main types of tr's are exhoust like the 727 and fan air like the dc10. i dont know of any sites that explain how they work but you may try an aviation encyclopedia From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:53 From: Martijn Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: reader2.casema.net 934964749 12673 212.64.10.119 NNTP-Posting-Host: 4dyn119.utr.casema.net Ian Stapleton schreef: > > Several aircraft have similar devices, basically, when "closed" they deflect > all the exhaust thrust from the engine back over and under the wing: acting > as a basic reverse thrust in order to break the aircraft on landing. They ^^^^^ I hope you meant: brake ;-) > are a lot simpler to fit to aircraft than having a reverse thrust capability > on the engine itself as this is more expensive and makes the engine have > more moving parts therefore increasing the number of points for a possible > engine related failure in the aircraft. As far as I know all Fokker jet designs (F28, F70 & F100) were equipped with both the speedbrakes as well as thrustreversers so it wasn't a question of making the design simpler. Maybe the wing coudn't support speedbrakes or Fokker found it more efficient on their design to put them on the tail... Regards Martijn From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:54 From: Gary Neff Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 18 Aug 1999 09:01:26 PST, 206.163.58.66 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.163.58.66 Ian Stapleton wrote: > Several aircraft have similar devices, basically, when "closed" they deflect > all the exhaust thrust from the engine back over and under the wing: acting > as a basic reverse thrust in order to break the aircraft on landing. They > are a lot simpler to fit to aircraft than having a reverse thrust capability > on the engine itself as this is more expensive and makes the engine have > more moving parts therefore increasing the number of points for a possible > engine related failure in the aircraft. No speedbrake, that I know of, particularly on the F28, performs this function. References please. Gary From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:55 From: Bob Weinheimer Subject: Re: F28 Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 935111803 13238 12.79.49.23 (20 Aug 1999 01:16:43 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.49.23 Neville Hodges wrote: > The "doors" you have mentioned are speed brakes, very effective I might add! > The Bae-146 shares a similar arrangement. > > Some operators actually used them when landing at light weights to allow the > aircraft to approach with the engines spooled up. Air Wisconsin used to bring Bae 146s into Charleston. One day as one approached I happened to look up and see the "doors" open as it passed over. At that point the plane was about 3 miles from touching down, those who know more than I do about actually flying the things can estimate the altitude. -- Bob Weinheimer Charleston, West Virginia rmweinheimer@worldnet.att.net From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:56 From: "M. Jones" Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" Karl Swartz wrote: >I was specifically thinking of the three different models of smaller >PW4000s used by United: > > 767-300 PW4052 > 747-400 PW4056 > 767-300(ER) PW4060 > >They're all physically the same. I had the impression that UA could >actually swap one for another and twiddle a few bits to give it the >right thrust level, presumably including some extra payments to Pratt >and lower life of some components. That way, if an AOG 767 could get >a 747-400 engine if that was the only spare available, or vice versa. Maybe, maybe not. This is speculation on my part. I'm not sure how P&W does things, but I do know how other GT manufacturers handle this situation. You MAY be able to de rate a higher thrust version for use where lower is required if you were willing to give up some efficiency, but I'd be somewhat surprised if you could go the other way. For max efficiency, a turbine engine likes to be at as high a firing temp as the current state of materials allows. For air-cooling, that currently means about 2300 deg. F. (1260 deg. C.), and that is pretty much where all the manufacturers are these days. This carries through to part-load operation as well. In cruise, a high firing temperature is still desirable from an efficiency standpoint. It is inefficient to have an engine with too much thrust for the desired mission; at cruise you are backing it down too far for maximum efficiency. This goal of matching desired thrust to the mission is very often accomplished within a given engine family by using turbine (referring to the specific component, and not the engine as a whole) inlet nozzles of specific flow area. Smaller flow-area nozzles decrease the maximum possible mass flow through the core, but do allow you to fire appropriately in cruise for max efficiency. Changing these out would typically be a multi-hour field operation. Compressor guide vanes (variable-geometry stator elements which tailor flow to a specific compressor stage in order to improve compressor efficiency and surge margin at part load) are controlled as a matter of course by the engine controls and can be varied to provide some of the same effect as changing turbine nozzles, but only over a relatively narrow range, and only to lower thrust. (i.e. they would normally be scheduled to provide max thrust, but they could be closed somewhat compared to optimum to reduce thrust for a given firing temp.) So two engines of the same family (same core) might have very different thrust ratings because of internal differences. Anybody know for sure how P&W does it? Mike Jones From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:57 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 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 > ... for the 777, Boeing would rather dust off the old drawings and put > a blip in their production flow (and forgoe the possibility of selling > an upgrade in the future) than make a deal. United was even willing to > pay a bit more, but Boeing wants nothing of it. It's stupid if you ask > me. Airbus are said to have soured their relationship with KLM in parallel circumstances. KLM had a fleet of A310s with the three-crew cockpit. They were interested in buying more and wanted the same cockpit for standardisation. Meanwhile production was standardised on the later two-crew model and Airbus would not disrupt arrangements just for KLM. This may be a legend rather than proven fact, but they are one of very few major European airlines which never again selected Airbus (so far) Antoin Daltun From kls Fri Aug 27 03:07:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:58 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Airbus are said to have soured their relationship with KLM in parallel >circumstances. KLM had a fleet of A310s with the three-crew cockpit ... >... may be a legend rather than proven fact KLM did have a fleet of ten A310-203 aircraft, all pretty early models with the oldest being the tenth A310 off the line as far as I can tell. The very first A310 came with a two-crew cockpit, however, and I'd be very surprised if any were built with an FE position. I've certainly never heard of such a beast. FedEx has at least a few of the ex-KLM A310s, but they underwent some major work during the conversion to freighters and any non-standard cockpit would surely have been changed to match the other aircraft in FedEx's Airbus fleet. -- 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 Aug 27 03:07:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:07:59 From: slenz@aon.at (Siegfried Lenz) Subject: Re: F100s References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.chello.at 934925699 195.34.148.159 (Tue, 17 Aug 1999 23:34:59 MET DST) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Chello Austria On 16 Aug 99 22:27:58 , "Antoin Daltun" wrote: >Bombardier have built an empire on the basis of buying badly run companies >with good products on which the development money has already been spent and >buying them cheaply with government support. I think it is significant that >(so far as I know) they did not make a serious effort to buy Fokker. Well, they have the 70-seat Canadair Jet to sell and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to buy Fokker 50/60 rights as the Dash 8/Qx00 series seems to be the better overall choice. Airlines that chose Fokker over Avro still wait to regret the deal, but maybe it was really too many "small" customers without poor chances for big orders, as pointed out in another msg in this thread. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:00 From: "Peter Russell" Subject: Re: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 934064922 1NNUCNF1G8D20C393C gxsn.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: GXSN NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.141.32 You should not mix thrust and horsepower, they are not the same thing. Many aero-engines have industrial versions with ratings in shaft horse power which is comparable. Max thrust is not available at cruise conditions. -- PeteR From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:01 From: curta@iac.net (Curt Austin) Subject: Re: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ocoee.iac.net 934066352 24605 199.6.62.107 (7 Aug 1999 22:52:32 GMT) Organization: Austin Image NNTP-Posting-Host: dy062107.iac.net In article , Don Stauffer wrote: > I am working on a book on internal combustion engines ( I am including > turbines as ICs). I have a chapter of comparisons of modern engines for > various applications. Horsepower figures into many of the comparisons. > I wish to use thrust horsepower (thrust times velocity) for the > turbojets/turbofans. > > Can I use max thrust and cruise velocity together? That is, can modern > turbofans develop max thrust at normal cruise speeds? The thrust at cruise is much much lower than at takeoff conditions. A rough guide to the power of an aircraft engine comes from considering how much power the turboprop/helicopter or marine/industrial versions of the same engine can develop. I think this is often about the same horsepower as the takeoff thrust in pounds. Hopefully, someone with this data can respond with better numbers. Curt Austin, Cincinnati http://www.austinimage.com/ http://www.flyingbytes.com/ From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:02 From: Goran Begicevic Subject: Re: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 934117224 17513 195.100.5.242 (8 Aug 1999 13:00:24 GMT) Organization: TIDAX AB NNTP-Posting-Host: du242-5.ppp.algonet.se Hmmm...this tends to be a bit complicated calculation. Energy(Joule)=Force(Newton)*distance(meter) Power(Watts)=Energy(joule)/time(seconds) One horsepower(mumbo-jumbo unit) = 746 Watts Now using simple calculations would mean that jet engine spooling up on takeof doesn't produce any power, beacuse brakes are applied and airframe aint going anywhere. In reality, engine is moving air in- and out from engine heating it up, thus doing the work. Measuring power on ordinary piston-engines is straightforward procedure of attaching them to engine-dyno. Jet engine is more complicated. You could attain approximate HP-figure of jet engine by measuring how many 1000HP piston-engines you need to push same aircraft trough air at same speed. Unfortunately, this gets fuzzy beacuse propellers ain't that efficient at higher speeds. Your approach of measuring HP/figure as thrust*distance is wrong, beacuse airframe with less drag will have higher speed with same thrust applyed, inducing false results. In my opinion, one of few reliable ways of measuring this is finding out what's drag-figure for an airliner at speed on full throttle, and multiplying it with airliners speed, divided with number of engines. Just my 5 cents, correct me if i'm wrong. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:03 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: green.weeg.uiowa.edu On 7 Aug 1999, Don Stauffer wrote: > I am working on a book on internal combustion engines ( I am including > turbines as ICs). I have a chapter of comparisons of modern engines for > various applications. Horsepower figures into many of the comparisons. > I wish to use thrust horsepower (thrust times velocity) for the > turbojets/turbofans. > > Can I use max thrust and cruise velocity together? That is, can modern > turbofans develop max thrust at normal cruise speeds? No, they cannot: the maximum thrust is maximum take-off thrust, and is produced only at low speeds. For a typical modern turbofan with a bypass ratio of about 5 to 1 the maximum cruise thrust is about two thirds take-off thrust. The power delivered to the jet efflux is the same at both speeds, but since kinetic energy increases with the square of speed, for a given power the change in velocity for the air flowing through the engine, and hence the thrust, is greater at low speed. Some of the newer engines such as those used on the Boeing 777 have bypass ratios of 8 or 10 to 1, and the reduction in thrust at cruise speed would be greater. Conversely, for a straight turbojet, static thrust and cruise thrust are about the same. There is another consideration if you want to give the actual thrust horsepower produced in airline use. Subsonic jetliners, with flaps and slats retracted, are designed to fly at a maximum indicated airspeed of about 250 knots. They reach their cruise true airspeeds of mach .75 to .85 at their cruising altitude of 35,000-45,000 feet, where air density is one fourth or one fifth of what it is at sea level, and engine thrust is reduced proportionately. Actual cruise thrust is about one fifteenth or one eighteenth of the aircrafts weight, the ratio being the same as the aircraft's lift to drag ratio. At some point in the flight the thrust horsepower will be at a maximum, I suspect at a fairly low altitude. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:04 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0553.cvx18-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net Don Stauffer wrote: > I am working on a book on internal combustion engines ( I am including > turbines as ICs). I have a chapter of comparisons of modern engines for > various applications. Horsepower figures into many of the comparisons. > I wish to use thrust horsepower (thrust times velocity) for the > turbojets/turbofans. Seems to me thrust * velocity will only provide an approximate figure. Useful horsepower is extracted for generators, bleed air, etc. and never makes it out the exhaust stream. The internal combustion analog would be crankshaft horsepower versus dyno horsepower (applied to the driving axle). Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:05 From: psagdeo@aol.com (Psagdeo) Subject: Re: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com No, I am afraid not. Max thrust is static thrust, that is, at zero aircraft velocity. Cruise speed is at cruise altitude, anywhere between 30000 to 40000 feet. The thrust at that altitude and speed is about 20% of the Max thrust. Please check any standard book on Aircraft Propulsion for basic equations and definitions. Books published by AIAA, and those by Saravanamuttoo and others are excellent resources. Hope this helps. Pradip Sagdeo From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:06 From: felton@Princeton.EDU (Phil. G. Felton) Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Princeton University NNTP-Posting-Host: pgfelton97.princeton.edu In article , david@theguests.prestel.co.uk (David W Guest) wrote: > The Vulcan did not go out of service until the mid 80's - their first > active service was the Falklands War. The nuclear deterent task was > relinquished a long time ago (late 60's?) when the submarines took > over. I think Vulcans had a nuclear capability until they were > retired. Yes, I recall doing a consultancy job on an RAF base in England and seeing Vulcans distributed around the airfield. At a certain time they started up their engines but stayed on the ground, I was told that it was part of the readiness procedure (the UK only had a 4 minute warning time). This would be early 80's. Phil. > It's not right to compare the Vulcan and B52 'cos the mission > requirements were very different but I will never forget a Mildenhall > display at which both appeared. The B52 was almost out of site as it > did it's fly-by's and turns and I think the Vulcan probably didn't > leave the airfield perimeter except for landing (and then not by > much!). The Vulcan was an amazing aircraft to see displayed "hard". I'll never forget seeing one fly up a valley in mid-Wales, I was on top of the hill and the Vulcan was below me! The noise as it powered up out of the end of the valley was most impressive. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:07 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 07 Aug 99 01:23:03, Stephen H. Westin says... >And from the Vulcan Index, at >, "The last >operational Vulcan squadron was 50 sqn based at Waddington. They >disbanded on the 31st of March 1984. The aircraft they used were sold >to museums or sent to the fire dump."... If I remember, Waddington must have been quite close to Scampton, home of the immortal 617 Dambusters Vulcan squadron in Lincolnshire ....they used to run VHF radio checks between 'em, didn't they? Brian Whatcott Altus OK From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:08 From: keenan@idirect.moc (Martin Keenan) Subject: Re: Vulcans' service life (was Re: Concorde's Engines) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 17 Aug 1999 07:49:03 -0400, liv2ham-1.idirect.com X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Organization: Evil geniuses for a better tomorrow NNTP-Posting-Host: liv2ham-1.idirect.com > I am quite sure it lasted much longer than that. I saw one crash at the > Glenview Naval Air Station in the 1970's, and the RAF used one to attack > (with no real sucess) the airport at Port Stanley in the Falklands War > (1982). I recall seeing an airshow appearance of a Vulcan Tanker (with two Tornados) at the Canadian International Airshow in Toronto in 1986. I think that the operational Vulcans were retired at about this time, but the Display Vulcan (can't recall the serial offhand) continued to fly until the 1992 airshow season. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:09 From: Robin Johnson Subject: Re: Concorde's Engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM > Call me crazy, but I recall seeing a Vulcan at Dulles Airport, >Washington, DC, USA, maybe in the late '80s or early '90s? Would that be for the Air & Space Museum? From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:10 From: "euskalnews" Subject: cessna citation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: Euskaltel NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.8.64.141 I,m very interested in getting info about the performance of C. Citation V or VII. Take off , climbing , approach... speeds. I would thank a lot if anyone send me something or tell me about some url. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:11 From: mturner@sparky.skypoint.net (Michael Turner) Subject: CAPA denounces the 1st safety downgrade in a 15 year process of continuous improvement! Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: SkyPoint Communications, Inc. The CAPA policy statement has raised a major technical safety problem in ATA's proposal to extend ETOPS diversion time. They point out the fact that the proposal suggests a limit In Flight Shut Down (IFSD) of 0.019 per 1000 hours, which is slightly bellow the actual performances of the latest generation of ETOPS aircrafts. If we also consider the longer mean diversion time over the North Pacific routes, this restriction is therefore not sufficient to restore compliance to the safety requirements of FAR 25.1309 From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:12 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 10:28 PM 8/16/99 +0000, JF Mezei wrote: >Bicycles and airplanes use a lot of similar technologies. Both need to >be strong and light. > >One example is bicycle wheel rims. Most are high tech aluminium (and >some now carbon-fibre). > >For rims and other parts, anodisation is often used. It not only >provides a very long lasting and clean finish, but, i am told, also >strengthens the aluminium. (is that true ?). Yes, but there is a very important BUT.... Anodization can only be done with essentially Pure aluminum and only after the part is in it's final configuration, it probably cannot be done with aluminium Alloys, which are used in aircraft. The process involves dumping the finished item in hot, concentrated sulfuric acid as the positive terminal. The Acid Attacks the exposed aluminum until it is completely covered in a thick layer of oxide. Unfortunately you can only get away with that with essentially pure aluminium... Pure aluminium has poor structural strength, so while anodizing it will harden it, it would still lack the strength required to build structural parts.. If you attempt to machine the part after anodization, the oxide layer cracks because it is hard and brittle, making the anodization process worthelss. This would make things like bending parts, and riveting them in place effectively impossible. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:13 From: Richard Mlynarik Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "Arches" Organization: ITS Preservation Society NNTP-Posting-Host: cardoon.adoc.xerox.com JF Mezei wrote: > Bicycles and airplanes use a lot of similar technologies. Both need to > be strong and light. > > One example is bicycle wheel rims. Most are high tech aluminium (and > some now carbon-fibre). > > For rims and other parts, anodisation is often used. It not only > provides a very long lasting and clean finish, but, i am told, also > strengthens the aluminium. (is that true ?). No. It's false. Like nearly everything in the bicycle industry, anodization is a cosmetic and technically useless (in fact, technically harmful) operation driven solely by marketing. > Has this ever been considered for an aircraft ? I realise that the > anodisation process would have to be done during the construction, but > the finish would be very hot, long lasting, and very light (no paint > needed). > > Would the change in characteristics of the aluminium sheets from the > anodisation process improve the aircraft or make the aluminium less > flexible and more likely to crack after many cycles ? The latter. This is well known and well-studied. The brittle anodized layer facilitates crack formation and propagation. Fatigue kills airframes. If there were a dollar to be saved the mettalurgists of the aircraft industry, who know more about aluminium than anybody else, would have latched on this long ago. Anodized bicycle parts -- wheel rims in particular -- suffer from such embrittlement. Unlike airliners, the overwhelming majority of bicycles are not used intensively or anywhere near their design limits. Those of us who do ride more than average or who weigh more than average and have ridden for years are well aware of the many technical problems of the bicyling industry and the outright nonsense which is foisted upon ignorant and largely uncaring consumers. There have been hundreds of messages over the years hashing and rehashing this on rec.bicycles.tech. The best informed ones are from Jobst Brandt jbrandt@hpl.hp.com author of The Bicycle Wheel.) From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:14 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 934922803 207.161.189.87 (Tue, 17 Aug 1999 15:46:43 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 Anodizing is typically used as a barrier to corrosion and a pretreatment for subsequent paint or adhesive bonding. It does not increase the mechanical properties of aluminum. EF From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:15 From: cas42879@aol.com (Cas42879) Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I think back when Convair was first building the 880 (or maybe the 990) they were planning on marketing it as something called the "Golden Arrow" . I believe that they were planning on having it anodized a gold color - but decided not to go ahead with plans due to difficulty in controling color matches between different batches of aluminium. I think some of the first ones sold (or maybe a demonstrator) carried on the "gold" theme with some of the interior fittings. There is a book out on the 880 and 990 (not sure of the publisher) that goes into some detail. Memory fails. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:16 From: drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology NNTP-Posting-Host: nerd-xing.mit.edu In article , JF Mezei writes: > Bicycles and airplanes use a lot of similar technologies. Both need to > be strong and light. > > One example is bicycle wheel rims. Most are high tech aluminium (and > some now carbon-fibre). > > For rims and other parts, anodisation is often used. It not only > provides a very long lasting and clean finish, but, i am told, also > strengthens the aluminium. (is that true ?). No. This is done purely for marketing. The hard anodization on bike wheel rims actually weakens them. The anodization layer is aluminum oxide which is extremely hard and brittle, and cracks wherever the aluminum is highly stressed, typically around the spoke holes. The bottom of each crack is a preferential site for corrosion and further fatigue cracking of the underlying aluminum. Compare the Mavic MA-40 (anodized) and MA-2 (plain) rims, which are otherwise identical. The MA-40 is much more prone to cracking and premature failure. Oh yeah, the oxide layer also degrades braking because it inhibits heat conduction to the rim. This is one instance where the typical consumer is willing to pay more for a "feature" which looks high-tech, but which actually degrades the performance of the product in all aspects. - Mark Drela - MIT Aero & Astro From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:17 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0095.cvx18-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net Many of the individual bits and pieces of an aircraft are anodized. The internal structure is usually coated with a chromate primer (the pea soup green stuff). It's tough and resists corrosion. Anodization does change the surface of the part. However, it must be done to the entire part. In the case of skins, the sheet would have to be anodized, and during the process of forming, bending, drilling, and riveting the skins, the anodize would probably crack. Also, anodize is an electrical insulator, which is not good when you want the fuselage to be electrically bonded. The usual process for external skins is to use Alclad sheets. Alclad is aluminum alloy coated with almost pure aluminum. The outer aluminum forms a thin "crust" of aluminum oxide, which protects the aluminum beneath. For other parts, a process called Alodyne is used. The aluminum is chemically etched, and the Alodyne is painted on. It chemically converts the surface and makes it more corrosion resistant. Alodyne is usually gold or greenish in color, and M-D for one used it extensively. A last note about anodize is it would be difficult to repair once installed. Ken Ishiguro From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:18 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d11.har-ct.concentric.net Steve Howie wrote: > Tim Lee wrote: > >Frankly, 6.5 tons is not a huge amount - not at this stage of > >development, anyway. Believe me, more was shaved off the A340-200 before > >EIS... and RR have never delivered an engine that doesn't do as > >advertised. Especially in reliability terms - go ask BA what they think > >of the GE90 on 777 - they love it so much that they are dumping it in > >favour of Trent on the new order. > > Hmm ... wonder what's going to happen to the GE overhaul facility in > Wales if thats the case. Didn't GE set the place up to specifically > service the GE engines BA bought? No, it isn't just for BA's GE engines. In fact, the facility maintains GE's competitors' engines. It was part of GE's plan to become the world's largest after-market engine service provider. Many questioned the deal at the time when BA ordered the GE engines. However, now GE Engine Services account for half of GE Aircraft Engines revenue, and more than half of the income (i.e., it's a more profitable operation than selling engines). In retrospect, both GE and BA came out winners in that deal. Do also remember, BA's switch to the Trent wasn't strictly technical. The switch allowed BA to not pay R-R a hefty payment for cancelling RB.211-powered B747-400s. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:19 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d11.har-ct.concentric.net Mike Kotas wrote: > Someone earlier mentioned about who has not taken aircraft deliveries from > Boeing. First off, Boeing flies a majority of the un-delivered planes too > Marana Arizona. I don't know what planes down there have been delivered or > not, but I can tell you this, an ex-Asiana 747-400 was just flown up to > Everett a few days ago to start being worked on for Air Namibia. Also, > Boeing is currently storing 2 Korean 777-300's, 2 Saudi 777-200's and a > Saudi 747-400 in Everett. The Korean Air's undelivered B777-300s (I believe four in total) is not because the customer cannot take the aircraft. It's because the aircraft/engine has not been certified (or has just completed certification) due to engine certification problems. They are scheduled to be delivered to Korean Air September. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:20 From: jmweber@goodnet.com (James Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.goodnet.com 934043516 209.54.54.224 (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 09:31:56 MDT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.54.54.224 On 07 Aug 99 01:22:30, Stephen H. Westin wrote: >Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels Sampath) writes: >> Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX >> have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal >> on the 777X. > >Then perhaps AA, UAL, BA, and CX are ready to commit to firm orders >for the 777X powered by a hypothetical engine from a different >manufacturer? > >As I understand it, all manufacturers are leery of building a bigger >engine for this plane. None believes that the market is big enough for >three competitors. Boeing coaxed GE into making the plunge by offering >exclusivity, which might make it pay. The choice isn't between three >engines or one: it's between one engine or no airplane. GE demanded the exclusivity actually. In fact I think RR was the only vendor who didn't. But the underlying issue of the product not being able to support 3 engine makers is probably accurate. Best guess is the market in the first 5 years for a 777X is on the order of a few hundred, and it would cost almost a billion dollars to build all 3 engines, most of which would fall on PW, as they really need an all new engine. For RR it is major work. The bad news for Boeing in the RR offering is that it is a big stretch to get there, and leaves essentially nothing left in the core for further growth. No matter how you look at it, 400 engines sharing a billion USD R&D cost, that with financinng costs and time value of money puts the cost at more like 2 billion, puts an R&D price tag of $5 million per engine.. OUCH!! By almost all accounts the GE90 is capable of providing the 115,000 pounds thrust, and then some. It is probably the only offer that was also capable of providing an engine with an in-service date that would be competitive with the A340-500/600. It also offers better fuel economy than the RR or current PW products. On an ultra long range aircraft, fuel economy is a major issue. GE also has a much better developed service/support organization to look after the engine, which should reduce the pain that non-GE operators see if they buy the aircraft. My own belief is GE got the business in part because the other choices were not especially viable in the eyes of Boeing... PW was almost certain to have problem with In-Service Date, RR didn't provide any growth capability, which would effectively lock the aircraft into a 1999 configuration indefinitely. My views anyway. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:21 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM A few comments on airbus cruise altitudes (I forget exactly who made the original comments):- > >>Airbus Aircraft are traditionally not 'high flyers'. This is also > >>causing SQ a certain amount of pain. Flights to Europe generally > >>depart in the late afternoon and early evening, and are at or very > >>near MGTOW. The trip goes out of over the Bay of Bengal, which often > >>has nasty weather (thunderstorms) in the early evening. Very bluntly, > >>at high weights, the 777 and the 747's can fly a lot higher, giving > >>the crew more choices about how to avoid weather (and provide a better > >>ride for the passengers). > > > >Prove this one, please! AI aircraft have a similar climb rate to the > >777, and the 747 climb performance can be dismal... Also, no-one can > >convince me that any aircraft in commercial use can climb over a cu-nim > >cloud - they can peak at over 60,000ft..... > > The issue isn't rate of climb, it is ceiling for a given weight. Most > Airbus aircraft cannot make FL390 even empty! ... > Have you ever been on a high weight Airbus aircraft and checked the > cruise altitude? Most Airbus aircraft use a supercritical wing that was > optimized for lower altitudes than the Boeing wing. The good news is an > Airbus aircraft generally suffers a lower fuel burn penalty for a less > desireable altitude. The bad news is if the weather isn't good, an > Airbus is a lot more likely to have to go around rather than over the > weather. In 1995(?) I was in a Singapore Airlines A330 en route from Singapore to Hong Kong. We spent much of the time well over 40,000 feet. (I think we reached 45,000 at some point.) I know what the altitude was, since I was in the jump seat looking over the pilot's shoulder (and, yes, I do know enough about the instrument layout in the A320/330/340 cockpit to know that I was looking at the right display! :-) I made some notes. I don't have them to hand right now, but I'll check. Pete Mellor, CSR, City University. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:22 From: "BAP" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 7 Aug 1999 16:28:59 GMT, 32.101.176.195 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Reply-To: "BAP" NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.101.176.195 Problem with the A340-500 is that a fuel economy guarantee penalty is essentially meaningless to the airlines. The almost sole reason to buy this airplane is for the range. If the fuel burn is higher then promised, the aircraft will be unable to make the promised range. A fuel consumption penalty won't really help the airline that has to make a technical stop while enroute from LAX-SIN. Same problem with weight. The heavier the aircraft, the higher the fuel burn. Since the airlines will be using this airplane near its range limits, an increase in MGTOW isn't going to help since range will be affected. The bottom line is that if the A340-500 can't make it year-round non-stop from LAX to BKK, SIN, and KUL, it will be dead on the drawing board. If they build it and it doesn't make the range, no one will buy it (unless they give them away for the same price as a 200 series). From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:23 From: Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk (Niels) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 934055679 mail2news:17627 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.30 Organization: Myorganisation Reply-To: Niels@nospam.demon.co.uk In article showie@uoguelph.ca "Steve Howie" writes: > Tim Lee wrote: > >Especially in reliability terms - go ask BA what they think > >of the GE90 on 777 - they love it so much that they are dumping it in > >favour of Trent on the new order. > > Hmm ... wonder what's going to happen to the GE overhaul facility in > Wales if thats the case. Didn't GE set the place up to specifically > service the GE engines BA bought? Although the `Cripple-Seven' nickname did stem from them (for whatever valid/invalid reasons), they aren't getting rid of/replacing the GE-777s they paid/contracted for so they still need that place. In the end, the Welsh facility is GEs baby with/without BA anyway, AFAIK. -- Niels From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:24 From: Niels@lofgrenspam.demon.co.uk (Niels) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 934055689 mail2news:17631 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.30 Organization: Myorganisation Reply-To: Niels@lofgrenspam.demon.co.uk In article chuanga@cris.com "H Andrew Chuang" writes: > Niels Sampath wrote: > > James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... > > >It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes > > >overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. > > >The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new > > >engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines > > >rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. > > > > You mean `rumoured' not reported as fact. > > So, do you mean Flight International is not credible? ;-) > > Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX > > have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal > > on the 777X. > > Hmmm... Now, you think FI is credible. ;-) In the FI report, `FI'? H, despite your little smileys it appears you are trying to disparage me by comparing/attributing things I haven't said (again). Note who mentions `FI' above. Only you. Express your facts/opinions but please don't create and then embellish those of others just to shore up your own soapbox. -- Niels From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:25 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 934068209 207.253.105.40 (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 19:23:29 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.105.40 re: lower ceiling on A340 vs B777 since 777 has wider fuselage. Considering that much space is wasted ABOVE the cabin ceiling, I really wonder if the cabin ceiling on the A340 must really be lower than on the 777. I do understand the issue of the walls next to windows being more at an angle on the A340 than on the 777, but I do not understant why anyone would want to claim that the ceiling in the middle of the cabin would be lower on the A340. Are there any facts to back this up ? From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:26 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 934070002 207.253.105.40 (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 19:53:22 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.105.40 James Matthew Weber wrote: > Airbus aircraft cannot make FL390 even empty! Boeing learned the > importance of this early one with the 747, and each version of the 747 > has had improved high weight altitude capability. At MGTOW a 747-100 can > reach only 25,000 feet. A 777-200 can go directly to FL390 at MGTOW. >From the boeing web site: Initial cruise altitude: 777-200 39,300 feet (11,975 m) MGW 36,600 feet 777-300 36,400 feet (11,095 m) So, if you are talking about long range aircraft, then the 777's initial cruise altitude is about 36.5k feet. I don't consider the 777-200 (without ER/MGW) to be a long range aircraft. Also, the Boeing web site states that all 747s have an initial cruise altitude of 34.7k feet. (perhaps they refer only to currently produced 747s). As well, the Airbus web site now includes the maximum cruise speed. So while the optimum cruise speed for the 330 and 340s is 0.82 , the maximum is stated at 0.86 Altitude information is not provided by Airbus. And as far as no commercial airline being able to fly over cumulus couds at 60k feet. What about the Concorde ? From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:27 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues 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: ![;%u1k-XJdk"?=@W`9"H$gD$ (Encoded at Airnews!) On 07 Aug 99 01:22:38 , "Tim Lee" caused to appear as if it was written: >>>The 747 is a quick aircraft, but I doubt this is true for the 777, which >>>has a stated cruise of 30kts less than A340. >> >>747 Mach .85 >>777 Mach .84 >>A340 Mach .82, but it has to go slower for the long range. > >Since I wrote this, I checked up. Compare the BA flight time LHR-LAX by 744 >with the VS time on the same route (340). Sorry, Tim, but the airlines pad their flight times a bit, making objective comparisons difficult. BA, VS, and NZ all use B744s on that route, and have published times of 11:00, 11:10, and 11:20. Compare instead LHR-LAX on VS7 compared with VS23. The former is a B744, the latter an A340, and the published time is 25 minutes longer for the A340. (11:35 vs. 11:10). To round out the numbers, UA's B777s do the trip in 11:10, and AA's B767 lumbers in just slower than the A340 at 11:40. Malc. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:28 From: "John Weiss" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: <3787a1a2@newsfeed.intergate.ca> 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 JF Mezei wrote in message ... > I sent a message a while back to Boeing about this since I have flown on > a 747 much higher than that. Their response is that this was the INITIAL > CRUISING ALTITUDE. > > Therefore, I would greatly appreciate if anyone could provide a > comparison for 777, 340 and 747: For the 747-400: > -initial cruising altitude Generally between 29,000' and 35,000', depending on gross weight. With a takeoff at max gross T/O weight (396,800 Kg or 875,000 lb), usually 29,000' > -ideal cruising altitude midway Step climb to optimum flight level in 2,000' or 4,000' increments. Generally 35,000' to 41,000', depending on initial gross weight and length of flight. > -maximum cruising latitude (essentially: pressurisation capability, > correct ?) 45,100', which is max FAA certified operating pressure altitude, a function of pressurization. -- John R. Weiss Seattle, WA Remove *NOSPAM* from address for e-mail reply From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:29 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: and the winner is..... References: <378b4c77.738432@news.goodnet.com> <3786502F.97056DB3@videotron.ca> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d11.har-ct.concentric.net spagiola@my-deja.com wrote: > > spagiola@my-deja.com wrote: > > > How does this change the purchase of an aircraft ? > > > > Well, it needn't. The 737 has done pretty well selling with only one > > engine. On the other hand, it might become an issue if a 777 operator > > with engines other than GE is looking at the 777X. > > Following up my own post, last week's Flight reports that several non- > GE 777 operators (eg AA, CX) are quite upset about the decision to give > GE exclusivity on the 777X. Stefeno, read the article carefully. CX said the deal is not welcomed, but they have yet to evaluate the impact. BA's comment was similar. Only AA voiced their "displeasure." UA's protest by ordering nine PW4000-powered B777 was irrelevant because P&W's offering for the B777X was a brand new engine. If anything they should protest, they should do it to P&W not Boeing. Right from the beginning, Boeing's C-market B777 (i.e., the B777X) would require engine in the 110k-lb-thrust range. P&W knew about it. They decided the market was too small to be a concern, and doing a derivative engine was technically and financially less risky. Thus, P&W was out of the race from day one. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:30 From: Hanoono@aol.com Subject: Airbus A329 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Can you tell me about the proposed Airbus A329 From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:31 From: JF Mezei Subject: Airline decisions on aircraft purchases Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 934090952 207.253.103.213 (Sun, 08 Aug 1999 01:42:32 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.103.213 Over the time I have participated in many never-ending Airbus vs Boeing debates in and in other news: forums. What I have realised is that there is a lack of hard factual information and this results in a lot of speculation and rumours and statements based on incomplete information. This may be undesirable but inevitable in newsgroups. However, when I see stories such as Singapore being unhappy about the speed of its A340s, or that the fact that the A340 *may* not fly as high as the 777, it makes me wonder if airlines make aircraft choices with about as much hard information as what we see in these newsgroups ? In the heydays of the mini-computers, I saw how 2 manufacturers competed for a sale by smearing the other manufacturer with all sorts of stories, most of which were not true. I found both sides lacking any real understanding of the other side's products. When Singapore bought its 340s, is it conceivable that it was not aware of the true characteristics of the A340 such as "efficient" and "max" cruising speeds, as well as information such as fuel costs when flying at max speed ? Would they not have real formulas to calculate operating costs for a flight depending on its load of pax and cargo and required range? I suspect that an airline will get a bunch of its engineers to learn about each potential plane. How much do these engineers get to know about the plane ? Would Singapore engineers have known about the true speed of the A340 and any range/cost penalty if they flew it faster ? I also suspect that accountants get a bigger say than engineers and put little weight on the engineering aspects and a lot more weight on financing/acquisition costs, delivery schedules, availability of a plane that fits their capacity needs and perhaps maintance/commonality issues. I also have a feeling that political aspects are also given heavy weight in the decisions. So my question is: Considering the information that is publicly available on the net from both manufacturers, how much more performance/technical information do airlines get when they consider a purchase ? Doe airlines get to calculate real numbers on performance/costs, or do they just get "ballpark" numbers from the manufacturer (ex: " our aircraft costs 1.2% less to operate than our competitor") and beleive those numbers ? Also, in the Singapore example, if the 340s did not perform as advertised, wouldn't Singapore get financially compensated for this ? Wouldn't such compensation make the accountants happy with the financial performance of the aircraft ? From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:32 From: Merlin Dorfman Subject: Constellations at Oxnard? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: netcom13.netcom.com Driving through Oxnard, Calif., a couple of weeks ago, I noticed several old aircraft at an airport west of Highway 101. There were a couple of Lockheed Constellations and what seemed to be a C-46, among others. There is nothing in my tour book about an air museum at the Oxnard airport. Does anybody know about these aircraft? Who owns them? Are they flyable? Are they ever open for public viewing? Merlin Dorfman DORFMAN@COMPUTER.ORG From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:33 From: James Robinson Subject: Re: 50 years of jet aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typ11 934031030 208.151.219.197 (Sat, 07 Aug 1999 09:03:50 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.151.219.197 Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Just to let you know that on 27-Jul-49 John Cunningham made the first > ever flight with a civil jet aircraft. The craft was the de Havilland > Comet Mk1 frame 06001 registered G-5-1. 50 years already. To learn more > about the first civil jet aircraft, just drop in at http://surf.to/comet The first flight of a civil jet transport in North America took place fifty years ago on 10-Aug-49, just two weeks after the Comet. The Canadian-designed and built Avro Jetliner first flew over Malton (Toronto) on a one hour flight that took the aircraft to an altitude of 13,000 feet. The aircraft (CF-EJD-X) was piloted by Jimmy Orrell. This was five years before the first flight of a US-built civil jet transport, the Boeing 707, the design for which began in 1951, with the first flight in 1954. The Concorde was to see its first flight only 20 years later, in March 1969. A photo of the Avro Jetliner: http://www.odyssey.on.ca/~dmackechnie/C-102_2.jpg This was intended to be a medium range aircraft, with the production version having a capacity of 50 or 60 passengers, a cruise speed of 450 mph, and a range of 1900 miles. The prototype made a number of test and demonstration flights around North America including to New York, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles, where it became a Howard Hughes plaything for six months or so. In spite of having letters of intent from National Airlines and the US Air Force to purchase some of the aircraft, the project was cancelled to make room for the production of fighter aircraft for the Korean War. The nose section of the prototype aircraft has been preserved and is on display at the Canadian Aviation Museum in Ottawa, Ontario. From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:34 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: Re: 50 years of jet aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium NNTP-Posting-Host: eduserv1.rug.ac.be spagiola@my-deja.com wrote: > marcmsc...@cmdnet.lu wrote: > > Just to let you know that on 27-Jul-49 John Cunningham made the first > > ever flight with a civil jet aircraft. The craft was the de Havilland > > Comet Mk1 frame 06001 registered G-5-1. 50 years already. > Yep. Unfortunately, the Comet itself didn't quite make it to its 50th > birthday, the last operational one having been retired early this year. > Shame they couldn't keep her going just a little longer. Unless you > count the Nimrods as Comets, that is. I think the first aircraft able to make it to fifty will be the 707, although they are dwindling in numbers fast. Perhaps the hardier DC-8, build with three spars in the wing, will grab the 'prize'! The Caravelle is long gone. -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Fri Aug 27 03:08:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 03:08:35 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: 50 years of jet aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmscX@cmdnet.lu spagiola@my-deja.com wrote: > Yep. Unfortunately, the Comet itself didn't quite make it to its 50th > birthday, the last operational one having been retired early this year. Stefano may I correct you, the last revenue earning flight was on 09-Nov-80 with G-BDIW. The last ferry flight was that of G-BDIT on 08-Jun-81. The last active Comet XS235 Canopus flew for the RAF last on 14-Mar-97, it was ferried on 30-Oct-97 to Bruntingthorpe and each month taxi runs are made to keep the old lady in shape. Sound files of the RR Avons and pictures of this last semi-active Comet are on http://surf.to/comet > Shame they couldn't keep her going just a little longer. I agree to this ... > Unless you count the Nimrods as Comets, that is. Well kind of as the roots are from the Comet. -- 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 Fri Aug 27 14:03:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:31 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Re: DC-7C References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University NNTP-Posting-Host: lif-sci-n3-mac7.sdsu.edu I don't have the internal dimensions of the '7C, but I do have the Northern Air Cargo DC-6B dimensions and the '7C can be extrapolated from that. They are: Maximum Width: 104" Maximum Height: 83.5" DC-6B Maximum Floor Length = 65 ft. Since the DC-7C is 80 inches longer than the DC-6B, the Maximum Floor Length should be around 72 ft. Hope this helps. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ AlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/home/alcohaul.html FREEFlight Design Shop: http://www.geocities.com/~freefltdesign/ From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:32 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Airbus A329 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 935775700 207.161.189.87 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:41:40 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 Hanoono@aol.com wrote: > Can you tell me about the proposed Airbus A329 I just went to the Airbus site looking for product development news, nothing abour an A329. The A320 family includes the A320, A321, A319 and the new A318. Also, there is a derivative business jet based on the A319 airframe. EF From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus A329 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Ernie Fidgeon wrote: >Hanoono@aol.com wrote: >> Can you tell me about the proposed Airbus A329 >I just went to the Airbus site looking for product development news, >nothing abour an A329. The A320 family includes the A320, A321, A319 >and the new A318. Also, there is a derivative business jet ... The last time I heard of an A329, it was a shortened derivative of the A330, not something based on the A320. Airbus has recently been talking about an A330-100 which is an A330 shortened to provide the capacity of a 767-300. This would replace the A300/A310 in the Airbus product line and is probably what the A329 idea has turned into. It seems like it would weigh substantially more than a 767-300 while providing little additional useful capability. See the DC-8-62, 747SP, and 737-500 for examples of shortened derivatives which haven't done all that well -- they give up substantial capability without a commensurate gain in benefit. -- 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 Aug 27 14:03:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:34 From: "Peter Kuykendall" Subject: Cruise height tradeoffs? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.rdc2.occa.home.com 935786478 24.1.162.173 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 13:41:18 PDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: What? Me, organized? You must be joking! NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.162.173 I'm wondering what the tradeoffs are that have established the modern airliners cruise altitude at ~40K ft. Why not 20K or 80K instead? At first glance it would appear that doubling altitude for long haul flights would substantially reduce drag but perhaps there are mitigating factors such as increased wing area, engine size, etc. that may offset the savings? Or is it limited by time to descend after a sudden depressurization? Or maybe something else entirely? I can see that long climbs may not make sense for short flights but I would imagine that a transpacific run (for example) would be so long that the extra climb would be trivial on a 13 hour flight. Any input is appreciated. Thanks! -- Pete in Laguna Niguel, California USA Remove NOSPAM from my EMAIL address. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:35 From: "john r." Subject: Mylar sound insulation - AD to remove. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: silence I saw a brief line in last weeks New Scientist that there is a 4 year timescale to remove a type of mylar sound insulation due fire risk. It has already been implicated in a ground fire on an MD11, does anyone know any more and also what other a/c are involved. -- john r. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:36 From: Terry Schell Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Florida State University NNTP-Posting-Host: nmccarrell.psych.uwf.edu James Matthew Weber wrote: > By almost all accounts the GE90 is capable of providing the 115,000 > pounds thrust, and then some. It is probably the only offer that was > also capable of providing an engine with an in-service date that would > be competitive with the A340-500/600. It also offers better fuel > economy than the RR or current PW products. On an ultra long range > aircraft, fuel economy is a major issue. GE also has a much better > developed service/support organization to look after the engine, > which should reduce the pain that non-GE operators see if they buy the > aircraft. > > My own belief is GE got the business in part because the other choices > were not especially viable in the eyes of Boeing... PW was almost > certain to have problem with In-Service Date, RR didn't provide any > growth capability, which would effectively lock the aircraft into a > 1999 configuration indefinitely. What I don't understand is why GE wanted the exclusive contract. They have a great deal of evidence that their competitors could not bring a product to market in a timely and cost-effective fashion. GE had to realize that they could crush any offering by RR or PW because of their vastly lower development costs. If I was a GE executive I would not push an exclusive agreement which irritates your potential customers and has the appearance of anti-competitive practices... when you would eventually win all of the contracts based on your product. It would have looked a lot better for Boeing and for GE if the GE90 was *defacto* the only engine for this airframe, rather than forcing it to be the only engine with exclusive contracts. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:37 From: Robert Carpenter Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: aCrGwFP4Ch6O25qg0+a6/uxxzagxz/a971bGMIFTP6o= Reply-To: w3otc@amsat.org The sailboat industry has partially dropped anadized masts because of increasing costs. IIRC, the increased cost is due to handling the environmental polution that can be caused by the processing plant. Masts are BIG, or at least LONG. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:38 From: Lars Johansson Subject: Re: 50 years of jet aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Linköping University, Sweden NNTP-Posting-Host: euler.ikp.liu.se FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) wrote: >I think the first aircraft able to make it to fifty will be the 707, >although they are dwindling in numbers fast. Perhaps the hardier DC-8, >build with three spars in the wing, will grab the 'prize'! The Caravelle >is long gone. The Caravelle isn't *long* gone; the Swedish air force had one or two that used to arrive on final approach right outside my office window. They were retired a year or so ago. -- Lars ------------------------------------------- To reply remove the X in the email address. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:39 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 931821450 207.161.189.87 (Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:17:30 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 JF Mezei wrote: > "David R. Hendrickson" wrote: > > Take Off Warning, Ram Air inlets, the NextGen's overwing hatches...lots > > of systems look at the air/ground condition of the aircraft... > > I am very curious about overwing exits being made conditional of the squat > switches. What happens when a plane lands on its belly with gears not > retracted ? (or if gears become detached from the plane) ? ? ? ? Does this > mean that overwing exists will not function ? > > I would have thought that cabin pressure alone was sufficient in preventng > them from being opened during flight. If I recall the FARs correctly, the overwing exit must function alone. Any system that could crap out and fail the overwing is a no-no. Secondly, most overwing exits are mechanically actuated with a sensor for telling the flight crew of a seal breach prior to takeoff, and to verfiy arming of the slides. Third, most exits operate by removing inwards as the fay surface (or overlap) is on the inside. IE- the door is bigger than the cutout just like the windows so the cabin pressure acts to force the door closed against the airframe, physically preventing "opening" while pressurized. Reference of the Next Gens overwing door to the air/ground parameters may be for pilot reference only(?) or to somehow link it to the offwing slide once opened and you have a gear up/down configuration difference that would prevent the slide from blowing? I know on the A320 the slide is operated secondary to the door: after the off wing door is removed, the handle for the slide deploy is exposed on the cutout frame. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:40 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 931821690 207.161.189.87 (Mon, 12 Jul 1999 18:21:30 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 In article , James Matthew Weber wrote: > 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). I am not so sure about the Boeing T/R statement. I remember when Luada Air happened (767 T/R deploy in cruise at high altitude...messy) the cause was inadvertent deployment of the LH reverser at cruise power. Immediately, the software for the system was altered to prevent another occurence. Also, politically this was not enough to appease the public, so we actually installed a mechanical/hydraulic modification to physically prevent it as well. Can this be overidden?? EF From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:41 From: ei7gm@amsat.org (Paul Kearney) Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Organization: Ireland On-Line Reply-To: ei7gm@nospam.amsat.org NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-0591.dublin.iol.ie jbtex@aol.comkeinspam (JbTex) wrote: > 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"? *_DEPENDS_* on the aircraft but yes - spoilers have their operation modified by whether or not aircraft is "on-ground" / "not-on-ground" NOT ALL spoilers are kept retracted by this switch. During low-speed flight the spoilers are used to assist the ailerons. The spoiler lever in the cockpit will have (about) 4 positions ... DOWN - ARMED - FLIGHT-DETENT - UP (again depends on the aircraft) > Also, are there other systems > controlled by squat/not-squat status? other systems that like to know if aircraft is on-ground / not-on-ground are the standby electrical system , air conditioning , auto-brakes, steering, tcas , flight data recorder and i think the standby-hydraulics and cockpit voice recorder also look for on-ground not-on-ground signal. *** remove nospam for real address *** I used to be on packet but i'm alright now. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:42 From: saccani@omen.net.au (Paul Saccani) Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: demeter.omen.net.au 932295011 16528 203.55.58.27 (18 Jul 1999 10:50:11 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Omen Internet in Perth, Western Australia Reply-To: safer.roads@iname.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ttye26.dugite.omen.com.au On 10 Jul 99 02:33:37 , JF Mezei wrote: >"David R. Hendrickson" wrote: >> Take Off Warning, Ram Air inlets, the NextGen's overwing hatches...lots >> of systems look at the air/ground condition of the aircraft... > >I am very curious about overwing exits being made conditional of the squat >switches. What happens when a plane lands on its belly with gears not >retracted ? (or if gears become detached from the plane) ? ? ? ? Does this >mean that overwing exists will not function ? There is a crash switch on the belly. >I would have thought that cabin pressure alone was sufficient in preventng >them from being opened during flight. Only if they are a plug type door. Many are not, and are only retained by the locking mechanism (which usually incorporates a mechanism/construction to prevent opening if cabin pressure exceeds certain limits. There is also the fact that not all parts of an A/C flight will require pressurisation, and of course, during take off and landing, any pressure differential present MUST allow the doors to function (a very important error made in the L-1011 deaths in Riyadh). From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:43 From: "dlawson" Subject: Re: Squat interlock References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: tor-nn1.netcom.ca 932338670 209.146.221.92 (Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:57:50 EDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Organization: Netcom Canada NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.146.221.92 The weight-on-wheels switch (aka 'squat' switch) does enable certain circuits and their related functions. However, this will not impede the use of an emergency exit on the ground should the WOW switch not be actuated. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:44 From: "Eric Langhendries" Subject: Re: Can you lock an airliner? 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 > Here's a stupid question: do airliners have the equivalent of an > ignition key? What about door keys? Most of the time airliners have no external lock nor .....an ignition key !! But some cockpit doors can be locked. From the inside and from the outside....there is a spare key hidden in the cabin at some airlines but this I won't tell you where.... Regards Eric (retired F/A) From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:45 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Can you lock an airliner? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: silence In article , Stephen H. Westin writes >Here's a stupid question: do airliners have the equivalent of an >ignition key? What about door keys? Locking an airplane might be >useful as an additional line of defense beyond airport fences, guards, >etc. Especially when planes are stored for a significant period of >time. Not that anyone is likely to sneak off with, say, a 747 from LAX >in the middle of the night, but one would like to guard against >vandalism, pilferage, and sabotage. I recall an incident some years >back where some mischievous folks videotaped themselves inside a BA >747 late one nigth at the off-heathrow maintenance facility. The answer is no. There is no onboard security system. I guess you could say we rely on the external security system, which at Heathrow is getting ever more pervasive. Planes have been stolen. When my friend worked for the now defunct East African Airways at Nairobi they had a crew ring in from Mombassa wanting to know where their plane was. A revolutionary group had pinched it to invade Uganda from Tanzania but their pilot was inept and crash landed it at Kilimanjaro where it was found sitting sideways on the runway. A cause of great hilarity locally. Also a few planes have been quietly repossessed by creditors. >But then imagine the chaos when someone locks the keys inside... Quite... -- john r. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:46 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Can you lock an airliner? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 935775067 207.161.189.87 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:31:07 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 "Stephen H. Westin" wrote: > Here's a stupid question: do airliners have the equivalent of an > ignition key? What about door keys? I once got close up to a BAE146 and noticed it did indeed have a keyhole. I inquired to the chap touring me around and he indicated it was a lock for the door. I've not seen this on any Boeing or Airbus aircraft I've been close up to. Though, I know you can get locking doors to the flight deck. EF From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:47 From: Guido Frey Subject: Re: WN 737 landing lights References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: olaf.komtel.net 935784869 7477 212.7.130.235 (27 Aug 1999 20:14:29 GMT) Organization: KomTel GmbH NNTP-Posting-Host: asgaard-2-55.ip.foni.net Some companies have incorporated switching on landing light into their procedures in different ways. E. g.: Lufthansa German Airlines switches on landing lights as soon as passing flight level 100 during descend as there is no VFR traffic above FL100 in Germany, while the sister company Lufthansa CityLine normally only switches on recognition lights when in VFR airspace, but then switching on full landing and/or taxi lights after being cleared to land. This might explain why the airplanes you noticed are differently lighted. Best regards, Guido Frey From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:48 From: "Tarver Engineering" Subject: Re: Boeing 737 new gen nav systems References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com COMP1001 Student wrote in message ... >I work in the pacific, while crossing the 180 meridian flying from such >places as nadi to tonga, syd to tonga, on various occassions i have had >the powers come back, unwarranted turn and loss of flight plans. >operating procedures now dictate that we go "hdg select" 10 miles prior >to the 180 and resume the fmc flight plan 10 miles after crossing the >180. It sounds like a twos compliment problem and has occured for traveling over the north pole as well. >i would appreciate it if anyone could enlighten me as to why this >happens, i know that similar problems can occur on gps machines. It is a math problem, not a technology one. John From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:49 From: "M. Jones" Subject: RE: Thrust/Horsepower of modern engines References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" Curt Austin wrote: >A rough guide to the power of an aircraft engine comes from considering >how much power the turboprop/helicopter or marine/industrial versions of >the same engine can develop. I think this is often about the same >horsepower as the takeoff thrust in pounds. Hopefully, someone with this >data can respond with better numbers. The LM-5000, which is the industrial version of the GE CF6-50 (discontinued but still in service on early 747's DC-10's etc.), is rated at 47,000 SHP (ISO conditions, no duct losses). The LM-6000, industrialized CF6-80C2 is rated at 56,200 SHP. The LM-2500, equivalent to the TF-39 and CF6-6 is rated at 31,200 SHP; the '+' version, which as a zero-stage added to the compressor, among other upgrades is rated at 39,900 SHP. The RR Trent is rated at 70,470 SHP, and the RB211 is rated 39,500 SHP. The JT8D (sorry, don't know which variant) is rated at 34,000 SHP. HTH Mike Jones From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:50 From: "Eric Langhendries" Subject: Re: How solid is a 737? 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 During my 28 years as F/A for a major airline, 99% was done on long haul from DC-7C to MD-11, B707,B747 etc etc... One day I was on duty on a BRU-NCE-BRU flight and I can assure you that the B737 is a very very strong and solid airplane. After a very bumpy flight and take-off from NCE to BRU we landed safely in Brussels....As soon all pax were out we took the plane to the hangar for a special check by a team of mechanics .... NO PROBLEMS were discovered. The Captain ( a very experienced one) said : "I have never gone through anything similar..." he was an ex-mil pilot. So ...trust the B737 .....it's rock solid ! Regards Eric Ps: For the fun ....the only meal service we gave between NCE and BRU was ....picking up relief bags .....of 90% of the passengers. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:51 From: "Thomas Lindberg" Subject: Re: How solid is a 737? 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: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: ABB Sweden To me the descibed landing method seems to be a 'circling', i.e. you do the approach as to land with tailwinds(!) but instead do a (visual) turn around to land with headwinds. Reasons to do that could be missing/unserviceable approach nav aids or, in this case, still more severe cb for the headwind runway. From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:52 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: How solid is a 737? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: +4UIu9YK8Cr5kXpJKSX+ESMnQMGUyeqX81Nrw8M4XHSdyGE8MxgEe9GrWeNwFAz3CPn9QiimtAoF!6NrKyW1DO1CbKs2/XDUEh+epOmEAGOF0JSz7X2AEu5qtTi/J0w== I always thought they were hollow rather than solid :-) Sorry- sometimes I cannot help myself. Any US commercial airliner is tested quite well to various specs, including limit load factor. Further, in any aircraft there is a 'maneuvering' speed. That is the maximum speed one should fly at while in or anticipating turbulence. Below the maneuvering speed the wing will stall before it can reach the limit load factor. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Fri Aug 27 14:03:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:53 From: "Pardave Lehry" Subject: Re: How solid is a 737? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 27 Aug 1999 11:32:18 GMT, carrera.intergate.bc.ca X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: carrera.intergate.bc.ca As a maintenance engineer (basically a mechanic) on the Boeing 737, I can say that the aircraft is quite sturdy. In fact, all aircraft that are built are sent through very rigorous testing before the companies even think of putting them into service. I can cite an example here. When the Boeing 777 was being produced and engineered, Boeing did tests on the wings. What they did was they applied a lifting force in the upward direction to see what the elastic limit of the wing was. They basically took the wing to the point where the force was great enough to snap the wing in half. I don't know what the exact number was, but it was a number that was so high, it was not to be expected in even the most worse case scenario. Boeing has done similar tests on the other wings of their fleet when they were in engineering phases. Airbus does the same thing. The difference with Airbus and Boeing's wing structure is that Boeing builds their wings together, whereas Airbus machines their wings from one large piece of material, resulting in a much stronger wing structure. -- Pardave Lehry AVSIM Reviewer SATCO Controller 2 YYZ ARTCC Westwind Airlines YVR Assistant Hub Manager Aircraft Maintenance Engineer From kls Fri Aug 27 16:25:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 16:25:24 From: JF Mezei Subject: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 935788096 207.96.245.12 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 17:08:16 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.96.245.12 A recent post mentioned the R&D mega expenditures required to produce the engine for the next 777 which is a big reason only one manufacturer will build one. I am starting to wonder if the extra cost of pushing the "state of the art" limits to get the required performance on a twin is really worth all the effort ? Are we not getting to a point where conventional jet engines are reaching the top of the bell curve and any improvements will cost more and more ? On the other hand, by using 4 engines (or even 3), it allows you to use much more conventional technology which is not only cheaper for R&D but has greater market and hence more competition. Also, in the theroretical A3XX plane, what sort of power is expected out of each of the 4 engines ? Would they be using 777-class engines (90k and above) or 747 class engines (about 60k pounds, right ?) ? Also, is there a significant difference in weight for 4 medium vs 2 huge engines ? From kls Fri Aug 27 16:25:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 16:25:25 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Are we not getting to a point where conventional jet engines are >reaching the top of the bell curve and any improvements will cost more >and more ? I've not noticed any signs of that. Compare an airframe from the late 1960s to one from the late 1980s -- before Boeing put a new wing on the 737, it's performance lagged the A320 a bit but not by a huge amount given comparable (CFM56) engines. Now compare engines of roughly similar vintages -- the JT9D is a weak, thirsty, unreliable beast compared to the PW4000. The GE90 is likewise a huge leap beyond the PW4000, in only about ten years. >On the other hand, by using 4 engines (or even 3), it allows you to use >much more conventional technology which is not only cheaper for R&D but >has greater market and hence more competition. Conventional *engine* technology, but there is added complexity to the airframe, not to mention higher operating costs. Our aerodynamicists can go into detail but having two engines on a wing instead of one greatly increases the difficulty of the R&D for a four-engined aircraft compared to a twin due to aerodynamic interactions between the adjacent engines. The center-line engine required for a tri-jet introduces its own share of problems. There are all the usual CG and structural issues that come with any aft-mounted jet, plus concerns about safety when you put so many critical systems in such a small location. Besides the engine, there are all the hydraulics for the rudder(s) and elevators. Wing- mounted engines are a lot easier to isolate. >Also, in the theroretical A3XX plane, what sort of power is expected out >of each of the 4 engines ? Would they be using 777-class engines (90k >and above) or 747 class engines (about 60k pounds, right ?) ? Neither. The numbers I've seen have been in the 70k-75k range. Pratt and Rolls both have engine families which straddle that range, so you could presumably re-fan a PW4000 or RB.211/Trent and get an engine in the right class, but Airbus wanted an all-new engine so they'd get higher efficiency than they'd get from a derivative. >Also, is there a significant difference in weight for 4 medium vs 2 huge >engines ? Comparing the 747-400 and 777-200 seems reasonable. The 747-400 uses engines of about 56k lbs of thrust, versus an average of around 84k for the 777-200. That's a 50% increase in thrust. (The smallest engine I've noticed on a 777-200 is a PW4084 derated to 77k, the largest is around 92k on an ER.) Engine weights, in pounds: mfr 747-400 777-200 inc 747-400 engine 777-200 engine --- ------- ------- --- -------------- -------------- GE 9,499 16,644 75% CF6-80C2B1F GE90-85B RR 9,470 13,100 38% RB.211-524H-T Trent 884 PW 9,400 14,995 60% PW4056 PW4084 >From this small sample, it appears that weight is roughly propotional to thrust, so for a comparable total thrust, the engines of a four-engined aircraft wouldn't weight more than those of a twin. This ignores the nacelles, pylons, and other factors which might not scale so easily. -- 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 Aug 27 16:25:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 16:25:26 From: tpearson@chunkstyle.com (Tim Pearson) Subject: Re: Constellations at Oxnard? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: IRIS 935783140 209.160.43.6 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 12:45:40 PDT) Organization: Running With Scissors, Inc. Merlin Dorfman asks: > There is nothing in my tour book about an air museum at the > Oxnard airport. Does anybody know about these aircraft? There are two Connies based at Camarillo (near Oxnard) that I know of, a blue and white 1049 (actually a former USAF C-121C) and an EC-121T in USAF markings. Both are active on the airshow circuit; indeed, I've been aboard both of them. An Alta Vista search reveals that the C-121C is owned by the Constellation Historical Society, and the EC-121T by the Gloabl Aeronautical Foundation. The latter is described at http://www.ventura.org/airports/cmabis2.htm as "A historical flying museum." There's also an outfit known as Airliners Of America that operates a Martin 404. (Anybody seen that new book about the Martin 202 and 404?) Here are the addresses and telephone mumbers of all three organizations: Constellation Historical Society 7702 Woodley Avenue Van Nuys, CA 91406 (805) 484-1403 Global Aeronautical Foundation P.O. Box 2617 Camarillo, CA 93011 (805) 529-1748 Airliners Of America P.O. Box 3343 Camarillo, CA 93011 Regards, Tim -- "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 Aug 27 16:25:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 27 Aug 99 16:25:27 From: "Russell Short" Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: The Internet Group Ltd NNTP-Posting-Host: p63-max39.syd.ihug.com.au JF Mezei wrote: > I do understand the issue of the walls next to windows being more at an > angle on the A340 than on the 777, but I do not understant why anyone > would want to claim that the ceiling in the middle of the cabin would be > lower on the A340. Are there any facts to back this up ? There indeed is more headroom on the A340 compared to the 777, but you have to take out the centreline stowage bins to get it! Above the aisles, though, the 777 has more clearance. Also under the overhead baggage bins when they're shut. Russ. From kls Fri Aug 27 16:25:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 27 Aug 99 16:25:28 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: 50 years of jet aircraft References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: titan.xtra.co.nz 935793142 7394973 203.96.152.5 (27 Aug 1999 22:32:22 GMT) Organization: Daedalus Consulting NNTP-Posting-Host: estelle.paradise.net.nz In article , Filip De Vos wrote: >build with three spars in the wing, will grab the 'prize'! The Caravelle >is long gone. Not quite. ESA(?) use one for zero-G training a la the US "vomit comet". -- don From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:27 From: "Russell Short" Subject: QF Flight Engineers Dying? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The Internet Group Ltd It has arisen that 13 flight engineers flying for QF have died in the last six years of brain tumours. Another unspecified amount have had cancerous tumours removed by the various medical means available. According to a QF Senior Technical Specialist in avionics, fears have been around for years regarding electric and magnetic fields around the FE panel in the 747 Classic (and indeed other 3-crew aircraft). Forward Facing flight crews are not experiencing the same rate of death due to brain cancers leading to circumstantial evidence suggesting that being a flight engineer can indeed be a health hazard. QF has recently advertised for nine more FEs, according to one FE flying with the airline. Comments? Russell Short. From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:28 From: ebarber Subject: "crackle" Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Florida State University NNTP-Posting-Host: dingo.eng.fsu.edu I am interested in a so called phenomenom called "crackle". It was proposed some 25 years ago by a gentleman named Ffowcs-Williams, that at jet take off and periodically during flight that the engines would make a "crackling" sound. He stated that this sound was analogous to water hitting hot oil. It is said that through laboratory test, this sound was proven not to be induced by the combustion process, but was rather a characteristic of the jet (fluid) flow. Has anyone in their years of experience, actually heard this "crackle" sound? Have any postulations as to the origin of the sound if it actually exist? Heard any mention of this "crackle" in text or literature and have a possible reference other than Ffowcs-Williams 1975 paper? Any insight into this matter would be greatly appreciated. From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:29 From: phine@pacbell.net Subject: Hushed 727s Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon-la.pbi.net 936206355 207.104.100.47 (Wed, 01 Sep 1999 10:19:15 PDT) X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 2.0 Organization: SBC Internet Services Reply-to: phine@pacbell.net How close to actual 14CFR161 Stage 3 noise requirements do hushed 727s come for Takeoff, Sideline and Approach noise? Thanks in advance.................Paul From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:30 From: ctill@mindspring.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: MD80 v MD88 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Reply-To: ctill@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.80.12 >The MD-88 is simply an MD-82 (or, in the high-gross-weight version, >an MD-83) with an updated, glass cockpit instead of the old round >gauges of the MD-81/82/83. The MD-88 also has an onboard windshear detection system and increased use of composites in the airframe, compared to earlier MD-8x. From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:31 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: MD80 v MD88 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>The MD-88 is simply an MD-82 (or, in the high-gross-weight version, >>an MD-83) with an updated, glass cockpit instead of the old round >>gauges of the MD-81/82/83. >The MD-88 also has an onboard windshear detection system I imagine that can be retrofitted to most airliners, though perhaps it became standard as part of the MD-88's updated avionics as opposed to an option. It might also have just been something Delta specified and thus it appears on most MD-88s. >and increased use of composites in the airframe, compared to earlier MD-8x. Boeing doesn't mention it, and even if true it's undoubtedly something which can be applied to any of the earlier MD-8x models -- Delta's first eight MD-88s were built as MD-82s and converted, and it seems unlikely that such an airframe improvement wouldn't be offered across the board. -- 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 Sat Sep 4 11:38:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:32 From: "Peter D. Brown" Subject: 737-400 Vortex generators Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 1 Sep 1999 22:32:55 -0900, 209.165.131.219 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.131.219 Flying home from Seattle to Anchorage today I noticed that the 737 had an arc of vortex generators which began just outboard of the engine pod and perhaps at 25% of the chord then arched rearward as you went a bit farther outboard and then returned to roughly 25% just before the aileron. From the beginning of the aileron to the wingtip, there was another series of generators much further back, perhaps 40%, that ran to the tip. I presume that these most outboard series are designed to delay the stall in the vicinity of the aileron. Can anyone provide a better explanation? Pete Brown Anchorage, AK From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:33 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts002d30.har-ct.concentric.net Niels wrote: > > In article > chuanga@cris.com "H Andrew Chuang" writes: > > Niels Sampath wrote: > > > James Matthew Weber wrote in message ... > > > >It's been reported that the aircraft is currently 6.5 metric tonnes > > > >overweight, which puts it about 400nm short of the range requirement. > > > >The problem may well be worse than that. The A340-500 has a new > > > >engine, the RR Trent 500, and industry experience is that new engines > > > >rarely make fuel guarantees 'out of the box'. > > > > > > You mean `rumoured' not reported as fact. > > > > So, do you mean Flight International is not credible? ;-) > > > > Meanwhile, objective reports say that AA, UAL, BA, and CX > > > have all expressed much displeasure at the GE exclusivity deal > > > on the 777X. > > > > Hmmm... Now, you think FI is credible. ;-) In the FI report, > > `FI'? > H, despite your little smileys it appears you are trying to > disparage me by comparing/attributing things I haven't said (again). > Note who mentions `FI' above. Only you. > Express your facts/opinions but please don't create and then > embellish those of others just to shore up your own soapbox. All the reports that I have seen on the alleged AA, UA, BA, and CX's displeasure at the Boeing/GE exclusivity deal appeared *after* Flight International reported it. Some made a reference to FI, some didn't. It's very common that newspapers and other media reported aviation-related stories using Flight International and/or Aviation Week reports, because both of them are reasonably credible and knowledgeable. Most newspapers don't have the resources (both the appropriate personnel and contacts) to make this kind of reports. (Seattle Times is one of the few exceptions.) In short, it's not a coincidence that these reports all appeared after that particular issue of FI was published. You obviously don't even know the source of the reports you were referring to, then how can you claim that they are *objective*? (You did say objective, didn't you?) I admit I made the wrong assumption that you knew the source of the reports you were referring to. Obviously, you didn't. Anyway, I can't help if you felt that you were disparaged because that wasn't my intent. From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:34 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues 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] Pete Mellor (pm@csr.city.ac.uk) wrote: : A few comments on airbus cruise altitudes (I forget exactly who made the : original comments):- : > >>Airbus Aircraft are traditionally not 'high flyers'. : ... : > Have you ever been on a high weight Airbus aircraft and checked the : > cruise altitude? Yes. At the beginning of the month I was in a Lufthansa A310-300 from Frankfurt to Athens. Courtesy of the captain I was allowed to run my Garmin GPSII+. We made most of the flight at 40,600 feet. After landing I talked with the captain and found that he was aiming for 39,000 - I think the difference between standard barometer and true altitude, together with GPS error, can account for the difference. By the way, I got some pretty good pictures of the eclipse. Gerry http://members.xoom.com/gerryf/blacksea.html -- Gerry From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:35 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Singapore Airlines The A340 vs 777 saga continues 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 Terry Schell writes: > James Matthew Weber wrote: > > My own belief is GE got the business in part because the other choices > > were not especially viable in the eyes of Boeing... PW was almost > > certain to have problem with In-Service Date, RR didn't provide any > > growth capability, which would effectively lock the aircraft into a > > 1999 configuration indefinitely. > > What I don't understand is why GE wanted the exclusive contract. They > have a great deal of evidence that their competitors could not bring a > product to market in a timely and cost-effective fashion. GE had to > realize that they could crush any offering by RR or PW because of their > vastly lower development costs. But in might be a Pyrrhic victory: if, say, RR came in and took 15% of the market, it could make the difference between profit and loss for GE. The exclusivity reduces risk for GE, and I suspect that was needed to get their commitment. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:36 From: EK Subject: whoop sound in dc-9/md-80 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of Oslo, Norway X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp271.uio.no I fly frequently with SAS' DC9s or MD80s. Sometimes during pushback while the engines are starting one can hear an alarming "whoop whoop"sound over the public address system. Is this sound intended for the cabin crew? If so, what does it tell them? EK From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:37 From: iceboy@cix.co.uk (ea) Subject: TU-154M Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Team UK X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.339 NNTP-Posting-Host: 5300-tele-1-cluster.173.ip-pool.cix.co.uk I fly this 727-from-hell often from Heathrow-Sofia-Heathrow... On approach at Sofia I often experience massive thrust changes sometimes resulting negative-G.... it is scary!!! Is this because of a lack of autothrottle coupled to the ILS resulting in manual changes during the approach... these changes only occur after the a/c is established... Ed From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:38 From: "Huh?" Subject: 777 Wing spar Dimensions??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 98a8c09c.ipt.aol.com I'm sure there is no point in asking such a specific question here, but does anyone know the dimensions of the 777 wing spars. (I doubt anyone does, but I'm desperate) I'm in the process of cutting out the wing spars for my 1/45th scale R/C 777 that I am building from scratch... thanks, -- Matt Student Pilot Seattle, Washington -- Fly Boeing on Alaska Airlines. 91' Nissan 240SX SE From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:39 From: "Anthony Rassias" Subject: Re: Airbus A329 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 935915085 210.84.13.248 (Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:24:45 EST) Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: slsdn20p56.ozemail.com.au Yes, such aircraft have limited appeal, they only appeal to airlines that have large fleets of the original aircraft (for the 737-500 that is the -300 and -400 and for the A330-100 that would be the -200) AND need the superior runway performance of the shortened derivative. The airlines in this case can offset reduced efficiency against savings in parts inventories and ground/flight crew training. From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:40 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 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 "Antoin Daltun" wrote: > Airbus are said to have soured their relationship with KLM in parallel > circumstances. KLM had a fleet of A310s with the three-crew > cockpit. They were interested in buying more and wanted the same > cockpit for standardisation. Meanwhile production was standardised > on the later two-crew model and Airbus would not disrupt arrangements > just for KLM I've never heard of any A310 having a two-crew cockpit. If Airbus soured its relations with KLM, it must have been over something else. 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 Sat Sep 4 11:38:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:41 From: "robert wright" Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 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 >Maybe, maybe not. This is speculation on my part. I'm not sure how P&W >does things, but I do know how other GT manufacturers handle this >situation. You MAY be able to de rate a higher thrust version for use >where lower is required if you were willing to give up some efficiency, >but I'd be somewhat surprised if you could go the other way. I believe it is sort of a combination. As I understand it, the PW4074 and 4077 are the same, but the FADEC for the 4074 limits the fuel flow and there are probably slightly different stator vane schedules to limit airflow, as well. I'm not sure how different the 4084 and 4090 are, but the 4098 is a very different machine. It has a new compressor with extra stages, for one thing, and the burner exit area is different as well, and in fact is different from what was originally planned, due to certification problems! >For max efficiency, a turbine engine likes to be at as high a firing >temp as the current state of materials allows. For air-cooling, that >currently means about 2300 deg. F. (1260 deg. C.), and that is pretty >much where all the manufacturers are these days. This carries through I don't think this is correct. As far as I know, the 4098 has the highest turbine inlet temperature of any commercial engine in service. I don't know if I can say what it is, but it is a lot higher than 2300 F. (Like, more than 1000 degrees F hotter) >to part-load operation as well. In cruise, a high firing temperature is >still desirable from an efficiency standpoint. It is inefficient to >have an engine with too much thrust for the desired mission; at cruise >you are backing it down too far for maximum efficiency. This goal of >matching desired thrust to the mission is very often accomplished within I think if there is a small market for the smaller engines it may be worth it to the manufacturer to risk losing a few sales by having lower efficiency and thereby streamline the production system. (Fewest numbers of different configurations = fewest number of components to make and fewest number of possible mistakes.) I know several operators use higher-thrust engines derated to increase component life. I am not familiar with how ETOPS regulations take this into account. >Anybody know for sure how P&W does it? That's my take. If I get a free moment this week I'll try to walk downstairs and find the PW4000 guys.... RSW From kls Sat Sep 4 11:38:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing naming convention for 777 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >As I understand it, the PW4074 >and 4077 are the same, but the FADEC for the 4074 limits the fuel flow and >there are probably slightly different stator vane schedules to limit >airflow, as well. I'm not sure how different the 4084 and 4090 are ... If by PW4077 you mean the engine used on United's sixteen original (non-ER) 777s, it's a PW4084 run at lower thrust -- I checked out the model / serial number plate on one of them after seeing a number of debates over the matter. The PW4090 (also used by United, on the 777-200(ER)) is different, though all AW&ST's Source Book reveals is a higher dry weight (15,740 lbs vs 14,995 lbs) and higher pressure ratio. -- 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 Sat Sep 4 11:38:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 04 Sep 99 11:38:43 From: "Huh?" Subject: Re: Anodized planes ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust252.tnt4.everett2.wa.da.uu.net >......For other parts, a process called Alodyne is used. The aluminum is >chemically etched, and the Alodyne is painted on. It chemically converts >the surface and makes it more corrosion resistant. Alodyne is usually >gold or greenish in color, and M-D for one used it extensively....... I'm pretty sure alodine is extensively used throughout the industry. I've used it at Boeing and at an Maintenance facility. Anytime you fabricate a part or if there is any bare metal showing you must apply alodine, let it sit for the appropriate time, and then rinse it off. Let dry, then apply primer. -- Matt Student Pilot Seattle, Washington -- Fly Boeing on Alaska Airlines. 91' Nissan 240SX SE From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:27 From: Michael P Nixon Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Well, I've never heard a term for it, but that certainly describes what I often hear. However, I am certain that it is due to the shearing forces imparted to air molecules -- a VERY cool sound, indeed. It's similar to thunder, and how it shears the air, causing a crackling sound when the bolts are nearby, as opposed to the rumbling. But hey, jet engines cause that rumbling too! Mike __ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:28 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news-read1.qis.net 936522499 209.150.110.84 (Sun, 05 Sep 1999 05:08:19 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.110.84 ebarber wrote: > I am interested in a so called phenomenom called "crackle". It was > proposed some 25 years ago by a gentleman named Ffowcs-Williams, that at > jet take off and periodically during flight that the engines would make a > "crackling" sound. He stated that this sound was analogous to water > hitting hot oil. Sounds to me like the wonderful sound a 727 makes on a cold crisp morning. Trevor Fenn From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:29 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: +ryjt+YuE2nhKuWMdAUuCa25T44nOEehuE++Vd9rv8N/Jvmhck6fS2p//vDt9uzxfyED0jiYBN9w!5+k64adIl1E8a/6aO+HpE5Cxb6Zz8M//9vDLjuRWhPijC8wxuyY= It is my impression that by far the majority of the sound from a jet engine, except for obvious fan harmonics in high bypass engines, is due to turbulent interaction of exhaust column with surrounding air. And, yes, I believe there is a fair body of literature on this subject. It is part of the technology for developing quieter jet aircraft. Now, one theory, specifically dealing with the crackle, is that the transmission of sound through the air is subject to spectral filtering. It is frequently noted that the crackling sound is prevelant on very cold days, (we have a lot of them in Minneapolis), and that the air temperature affects both the frequency and, by temperature gradients, the actual propogation path of the sound. There has been much less published, to my knowledge, on this later subject, but I have heard some people talking of papers on the subject. Check Journal of Acoustics as a starting place, or any conferences on jet noise. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:30 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 936747581 207.161.189.87 (Tue, 07 Sep 1999 18:39:41 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 Interesting. I had thought the "crackling" noise was the result of transonic flow shearing on slower flow giving rise to the dynamic noise we hear. Just a hypothesis. Any other thoughts? EF -- EF "But... I don't think of you." Howard Roark From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:31 From: "Roy Maxwell" Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 937264951 18570 12.77.1.234 (13 Sep 1999 23:22:31 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.77.1.234 I think know the sound to which you refer. It occurred only on the old pure jet engines, not the current fan jets. The CV-880 with the CJ-805 and the DC-8-33 with JT4A engines, for example. I remember hearing it only at takeoff thrust, generally when performing a static thrust setting before takeoff roll began. I have never seen anything written on it. Roy Maxwell From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:32 From: "Clunk(Bernhard Zunk)" Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 936531533 139.134.105.247 (Sun, 05 Sep 1999 21:38:53 EST) Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.105.247 -Would the shrink involve a reduction in sheet metal guage? The 747SP certainly did. Look at the ugly tail that produced? -The A330-100 would be able to carry standard LD3 containers something a B767 cannot do (LD2) -Would this allow the elimination of the A310 / A300 from airbus production programm? Bernhard From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:33 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >-Would the shrink involve a reduction in sheet metal guage? > The 747SP certainly did. Look at the ugly tail that produced? I've never heard of the 747SP having reduced-gauge sheet metal, though that may have been done on a localized basis. Whether true or not, it has nothing to do with the 747SP's tail. I assume you are referring to the step-down in the fuselage, which isn't present on the full-sized 747s. This is due to the need for a larger vertical stabilizer (needed to compensate for the shorter lever arm) without a dramatic increase in height above ground (which might preclude use of some hangars). -- 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 Sep 16 16:42:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:34 From: Mike Epprecht Subject: A310 (ex Boeing naming convention for 777) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 7 Sep 1999 20:59:30 +0200, 196.28.150.71 X-Newsreader: Microsoft (R) Exchange Internet News Service Version 5.5.2448.0 >I've never heard of any A310 having a two-crew cockpit. If Airbus >soured its relations with KLM, it must have been over something else. Swissair was launch customer for the A310 and they had a 2 person flight deck. From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:35 From: "R.F. Kay" Subject: Airbus winglets Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Can anyone give me information/numbers concerning the winglets that the A320 family have installed - i.e. their purpose (drag reduction/fuel savings?) and how efficient this shape of winglet is compared to the Boeing shape? -- R.F. Kay rorykay@bigfoot.com From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:36 From: BobMcK@webtv.net (Bob McKelvey) Subject: Boeing historian? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WebTV Subscriber NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Can someone tell me briefly about, or direct me to a definitive site or book concerning, Boeing jets regarding historical evolution and interrelation of 707, 717, 720, and KC-135? From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:37 From: "Dr.Deepthi Attygalle" Subject: tire gas .... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM can someone tell me why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, instead of air ? Prasanna From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:38 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: Airline decisions on aircraft purchases References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts002d30.har-ct.concentric.net JF Mezei wrote: [snip] I won't comment on your other remarks, but I'll on the following. > Also, in the Singapore example, if the 340s did not perform as > advertised, wouldn't Singapore get financially compensated for this ? > Wouldn't such compensation make the accountants happy with the financial > performance of the aircraft ? Yes, I believe Airbus has to pay certain warranty payments based on the original contracts signed with SIA. Those guarantees were specific to SIA. (I strongly believe when Airbus first threatened not to support SQ's A340s if sold by Boeing, Airbus was really referring to not honoring those guarantees specific to SIA.) Although the warranty money will directly lower the operating costs, airlines do have to worry about operating logistics as well as customer reactions. Again using SIA as an example, they were able to get an extremely good deal with Boeing (i.e., won't lose money on dumping the fleet) which also help them to simplify their fleet, it's financially even more attractive to go with the B777 than staying with both the A340 and the B777. From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:39 From: Art & Janet Subject: Re: Airline decisions on aircraft purchases References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 935807051 3808 12.79.34.35 (28 Aug 1999 02:24:11 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.34.35 JF Mezei wrote: > So my question is: > Considering the information that is publicly available on the net from > both manufacturers, how much more performance/technical information do > airlines get when they consider a purchase ? Lots of stuff, such as custom performance runs tailored to the airline's flight profiles, airports, routes, etc > Doe airlines get to calculate real numbers on performance/costs, or do > they just get "ballpark" numbers from the manufacturer (ex: " our > aircraft costs 1.2% less to operate than our competitor") and beleive > those numbers ? As real as the computers can simulate (and often backed up by contractual guarantees) > Also, in the Singapore example, if the 340s did not perform as > advertised, wouldn't Singapore get financially compensated for this ? If they are smart about the contract they sign, they will > Wouldn't such compensation make the accountants happy with the financial > performance of the aircraft ? Its not clear what makes an accountant happy -- Art & Janet awutay@worldnet.att.net your mileage may vary From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:40 From: diver@poseidon.com (Poseidon Diver) Subject: Re: Airline decisions on aircraft purchases References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.primary.net 935811860 209.16.202.72 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 22:44:20 CDT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Organization: Primary Network http://www.primary.net Reply-To: diver@poseidon.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.16.202.72 Some data is basically "promised". Those book numbers are of course verified, but since there are so many factors... (Mach/ alt/ config/ temp... just to name a few) And then who can really calculate the true optimum for an airplane ? It would take forever. And then you always have to adapt to the possible ifs and whens and the other "unkunks" Even Boeing and Airbus don`t know exactly how their airplanes will perform until they flight test them. But, you are right. with the onset of computer technology the dissemination of information gets better and better, and newer performance software packages make this these tasks a lot easier for us engineers. And yes. the prospective airline customer gets a lot more information than you will get on the web. They then throw that information to thier performance engineers in research and development or flight ops engineering, and the marketing guys have dinner with the salespersons. Fleet managers, crew trainers and a lot of other persons put in their opinion, and hopefully an educated guess will establish the best compromise. PD From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:41 From: "robert wright" Subject: Re: Airline decisions on aircraft purchases 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 > >However, when I see stories such as Singapore being unhappy about the >speed of its A340s, or that the fact that the A340 *may* not fly as high >as the 777, it makes me wonder if airlines make aircraft choices with >about as much hard information as what we see in these newsgroups ? I think Singapore was a very early customer, which means they may have signed contracts and made selections before the airplane was tested, when NO ONE knew what it's actual capabilities were. All manufacturers build some leeway into their guarantees, but I know Airbus missed at least the LRC speed on the A340, and MacDac missed range on the MD-11. My old boss at Boeing said that some Boeing planes had missed a performance guarantee here and there, too, but I never did get specifics from him. (I would strongly suspect early 747's.) >When Singapore bought its 340s, is it conceivable that it was not aware >of the true characteristics of the A340 such as "efficient" and "max" >cruising speeds, as well as information such as fuel costs when flying >at max speed ? Would they not have real formulas to calculate operating >costs for a flight depending on its load of pax and cargo and required >range? Probably only predictions at the time. >I also suspect that accountants get a bigger say than engineers and put I would agree with you even more vehemently that I already do, if such were within the realm of human possibility.... >I also have a feeling that political aspects are also given heavy weight >in the decisions. See above. >Also, in the Singapore example, if the 340s did not perform as >advertised, wouldn't Singapore get financially compensated for this ? >Wouldn't such compensation make the accountants happy with the financial >performance of the aircraft ? Maybe, but there was some mention of people complaining that they were too slow and requesting other flights, which would certainly make the accountants want to switch planes. No manufacturer gives enough financial compensation to make up for empty airplanes. Also, it is entirely possible that the A340 does meet all of its guarantees (the only one I know of in which there is a question is the LRC Mach number), but turned out to be unsatisfactory to a sufficient number of passengers that SIA doesn't want them anymore. What we really need is for someone from SIA to write in and fill us in on the actual details. As arrogant as I am, even I don't claim to be able to gleen the actual details of the situation from a few scattered statements and rumors. RSW From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:42 From: "Gary Watson" Subject: Re: Airline decisions on aircraft purchases References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 937001138 24.64.102.55 (Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:05:38 PDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Organization: @Home Network Canada Reply-To: "Gary Watson" NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.64.102.55 First, did you have someone of authority at the airline tell you directly that Singapore did not like their 340s? If not then everything else is pure speculation. reading about it in anNG or magazine is not the gospel, just someone's opinion. When the 340 was first introduced there was a great deal of BS about its cruise speed. the crew I flew with at air Canada were crossing the N Pacific in the .83area - not as fast as the 747 but certainly faster than the ..78-.79 that was being thrown around by so-called experts in the media. For the second part. The manufacturers provide the potential customer with complete data analysis using their product on the routes proposed by the airline. Also many airline representatives will usually spend considerable time at the factory and with all the various departments - i.e. product support, engineering, performance. training etc. prior to anyone signing on the dotted line. this is a lengthy process taking some times 12 months prior to a decision to purchase. -- Gary Watson "In the Land of the Blind, one eye is King" gjkr 1970 From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:43 From: "Philip J. Kuhl" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nwhe0ROlBGHwEZYV4ufcIm0SaYt/m1yPXHZdiRH62VA= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 I am not a medical doctor so offer no medical opinion. But the Boeing 747 has been flying for 30 years --with flight engineers-- and one would think if there were truly a health risk associated with electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that there would be more evidence of this, and certainly something that is not limited to Qantas Airways. Similar fields also exist and have for many many decades with other aircraft, and far stronger ones exist on electrified railways, and for homes near major power transmission lines around the world -- yet there appears to be no outbreak of maladies associated with people routinely exposed to them. The governments of both the UK and the USA has failed to establish any link between EMF exposure and illness -- this in response to periodic public concerns about the use of cellular/cordless telephones, electric shavers, fluorescent lights, power lines, computer monitors, etc. The governmental research notes that there is considerably less EMF generated by direct current appliances than by alternating current. I would suspect --but do not know-- that most avionics would be powered by direct current. Philip J. Kuhl Arlington 4, Virginia PJKuhl@erols.com From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:44 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0129.cvx6-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net Well, it was big news a few weeks ago here in the US. Several studies failed to show correlation between EMI fields and cancers, and at the same time peer reviews of the original studies found problems. The author of the original study confessed to falsifying data and the study finding. It appears that much of the EMI/cancer "link" was a fabrication. Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:45 From: mga707@my-deja.com Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? 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: 63.11.146.22 In article , "Russell Short" wrote: > According to a QF Senior Technical Specialist in avionics, fears have been > around for years regarding electric and magnetic fields around the FE panel > in the 747 Classic (and indeed other 3-crew aircraft). Forward Facing flight > crews are not experiencing the same rate of death due to brain cancers > leading to circumstantial evidence suggesting that being a flight engineer > can indeed be a health hazard. If this were a cause, wouldn't other airlines with Flight Engineers also be having this problem? With all of the 727s still being flown by AA, DL, and UA, for example, you would think that they would be dropping like flies if this was true! Mike Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:46 From: "robert wright" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? 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 >It has arisen that 13 flight engineers flying for QF have died in the last >six years of brain tumours. Another unspecified amount have had cancerous >tumours removed by the various medical means available. >Forward Facing flight >crews are not experiencing the same rate of death due to brain cancers >leading to circumstantial evidence suggesting that being a flight engineer >can indeed be a health hazard. Don't most FE's eventually become first officers and captains, the "forward facing flight crew" who are not experiencing problems? It seems like these forward-facing guys would have been flight engineers at some point, and should have experienced the same exposure the current FE's are getting, unless those panels deteriorate in a very unusual manner. Does QF perhaps use professional flight engineers who are not in line for a captaincy? This would explain why any position-related problem was localized to a single type of crew member. RSW From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:47 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: +4oQ4ABqtJPlTJ6tdjaQiUeayFCOHrRBhz8/qfoKZCRJqWYfcCldX2qWggHioBhYgaIEzSoYmmj/!fGTMX6xaNIJZduNd1vuWnJDZg4B5LX5MCBOeqNnxF7n1PBrCnFU= I have paid a lot of attention in recent years to stories of health hazards of low frequency EMF, and have not exactly been overwhelmed by the evidence. I am not sure whether, in your case, you are talking about low frequency fields or RF fields. Which IS the concern? It is well known that sufficient field intensities of RF fields DO create health hazards. However, I was under the impression that certification rules addressed this. Low frequency fields is something else. Epidemiological studies on this have been full of flaws. For instance, they deal with the VOLTAGE of power lines in the vicinity, whereas the fields are a function of the CURRENT in the line, and for the same power transmission, a higher voltage line will actually be carrying LESS current, and hence produce less magnetic field. The researchers frequently do not really understand the rapid falloff in field intensity if there are multiple wires involved, in which case the exposure to appliances in the house may be a greater cause of exposure than neighborhood power lines. Now, as for avionics. About two or three years ago I did some research on low frequency fields in the avionics bay of a high end business jet. The idea was to see if we could build a magnetic compass right into an INS box. The idea was to see if by measuring the power consumption of the avionics, could we add a correction factor to the actual magnetic compass reading. I used an extremely sensitive magnetometer as a compass. Yes, I did see some compass errors depending on the amount of current being drawn on various buses. BUT, that still represents a very small magnetic field. If these small values of field were of significance, the general population is exposed to similar changing fields every time they turn around in the Earth's magnetic field. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:48 From: "Chris Hall" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 936628667 nnrp-08:15873 NO-IDENT airborne.demon.co.uk:194.222.9.66 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: airborne.demon.co.uk Although my experience of 747 Classic flight engineers panels is limited, I am an instrument engineer. I would have thought that the magnetic fields around any panel were extremely small as every instrument design has to pass a compass safe distance test. I would have thought that magnets in the headset speakers clamped to the cranium posed a far greater threat. As for the "electric" fields, do you mean electro-static voltages? As far as I can tell, the maximum voltage at an engineer's panel is 200 volts AC, around the same as the domestic UK supply. Chris Hall From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:49 From: "George S. Leaf, Sr." Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Kiva Networking NNTP-Posting-Host: usr5-34.kiva.net Recent US newspapers stories say that the fellow who provided the research of a link between magnetic fields and cellular changes faked his data and was recently fired because of it. Seems no one else could reproduce his results and they found out he threw out the data that didn't prove his point. or so the newspapers said... I would be interested to know if the duties of the flight engineer put him into more intimate contact with "hydrocarbons and asbestos dust". There is a particular brain tumor/cancer related to this type of exposure. It is showing up in garage mechanics and shipyard workers who were in contact with hydrocarbons and asbesdos dust from brake materials and from boiler insulation. George From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:50 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: 737-400 Vortex generators References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 936747844 207.161.189.87 (Tue, 07 Sep 1999 18:44:04 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 Your on the right track. My understanding is that the generator causes the local flow to rotate downwards onto the wing in the areas where separation starts from the airfoil. This downward flow delays or prevents separation and improves lift performance. Not sure what the drag impact is. I have a colleague who just finished engineering and did some vortex generator experiments with an airfoil intended for the SAE heavy lift competition. Even at his Reynolds numbers he found a significant lift improvement. cheers -- EF "But... I don't think of you." Howard Roark From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:51 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >I am starting to wonder if the extra cost of pushing the "state of the >art" limits to get the required performance on a twin is really worth >all the effort ? The problem is the R&D cost for any large project is huge now, and whether it is worth doing or not is a complex economic analysis. GE apparently thought it was. P&W thought it wasn't, on the other hand P&W has been late out of the starting blocks before, they didn't do a replacement for the JT8, and the CFM delivered their 10,000th engine not long ago as a result. RR took a middle of the road path, Trent isn't really all new, but it was certainly a big push for a derivative. >Are we not getting to a point where conventional jet engines are >reaching the top of the bell curve and any improvements will cost more >and more ? Certainly improvements in SFC are going to be very difficult from now on, but that's been the case for a long time. It seems to be an investment that GE has been more willing to make. Generally the CF6, CFM56 (and the core is made by GE), and the GE90 were fuel econonomy leaders in the class when they were introduced. The Best SFC's outside the GE90's have been pretty much stuck in the .31 range for a decade. By comparison most JT8's are around .6 At the end of the day, I doubt Boeing, Airbus, PW, RR or GE would be doing this if they didn't believe it made economic sense. >On the other hand, by using 4 engines (or even 3), it allows you to use >much more conventional technology which is not only cheaper for R&D but >has greater market and hence more competition. While you may save on R&D, you may spend on maintenance. One very large engine will generally cost a lot less to maintain than two smaller engines, and engine maintenance expenses run hundreds of dollars per hour per engine, and the parts that are not there (like another engine) cannot break either. The result is mechanical dispatch reliability on a twin is likely to better than on a tri or a twin just by reduction in the number of parts that can break! The other issues are weight and drag. An RR Trent 556 at 56,000 pounds will weigh about 10,400 pounds, or 5.4 pounds of thrust per pound of engine, with a frontal area of about 51 square feet, or about 1100 pounds thrust per square foot. A trent 895 has 95,000 pounds thrust, and weighs13,100 pounds, or about 7.2 pounds of thrust per pound of engine, and has a frontal area of 66 square feet or about 1440 pounds per square foot. The bigger engine gives you less drag, and more payload. Over the life of the aircraft a few thousand pounds is worth a truly amazing amount of money. The SFC on these two engines are almost identical, and it it likely that the maintenance costs for the two engines will be very similar. (By comparision the GE90-115 is expected to weigh about 17,000 pounds, so it will be about 4000 pounds lighter than a pair of Trent 556, and about 2500 pounds less than a pair of 56,000 pound thrust CF6's.) In addition, you don't need all of the extra plumbing and wiring and electrical/fuel, instrumentation, controls, nacelles and hydraulic systems that goes with the extra engines, so the true weight savings are likely to substantially larger. The A330/A340 gives some idea. An A340-200 weighs about 13,000 pounds less than an A330-300, of that 13,000 pounds , about 2000 pounds is engine weight. >Also, in the theroretical A3XX plane, what sort of power is expected out >of each of the 4 engines ? Would they be using 777-class engines (90k >and above) or 747 class engines (about 60k pounds, right ?) ? No one wants to use a 777 class engine because the smallest 777 engine is in fact large for the A3XX, which implies a substantial weight and probably fuel economy penalty. For example the largest CF6, the 80E variant weighs 10,700 pounds, The PW4060 weighs 9400 pounds. The smallest GE90 is over 16,000 pounds for 8000 pounds more thrust, and the PW4084 is 15,000 pounds, Tren 875 is 13,100 pounds. the problem is these engines were all designed for higher thrust, and it is like the aircraft themselves. You usually don't pay a big weight penalty to stretch, but you don't get much weight back when you shrink them! One of A3XX's and 747-400X's problems is they both need an engine where no one really builds one today, 72,000-75,000 thrust. It is sufficiently painful that GE and PW have teamed to offer engines for both projects, the GP7170 for the 747 and the GP7275 for A3XX. Neither GE or PW wants to carry the risk alone, or individually carry the R&D, and infact both engines are hybrids built from technology developed for the PW4000 and GE90 families. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:52 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wsTug5yBMb97JBH0S+WiUgezuFYP5LoqrI0zoS5moK+pE0Jew7nszKFOfQZcFR3gUs0SsoDSRjI!EDGAKKlJNVotoPB0fI8gTHoEuC3HjoNFRFeJFUBoNUabO1kcOVEp I'm old enough to have seen this question come up several times before. There was always another breakthrough that came along :-) Although my original intent was to go into propulsion, my career path led me into avionics, so I cannot be considered a propulsion pro. However, after working with many powerplant associates, I can make a number of general statements. Most propulsion guys, and many of the airframers also, claim all major advances in aviation come from new engine technology. They said it often enough, and gave me good enough examples, that I have come to believe it. Look in a current Janes. Look at the number of countries with an indigenous airframe industry. Now look in the back for the number of countries that have an indigenous engine industry. Engine advances used to come primarily from military needs and military R & D. Costs associated with such R & D, however, have risen to point where new generations of aircraft come along less frequently than generations of humans. Commercial aviation people can no longer wait for next military technology, and are starting to do much more fundamental development than previously. A good thing to understand in terms of military aviation costs is Augustine's law. Norm Augustine was a brilliant aerospace type who at one time was CEO of Martin, and at another time president of AIAA. He also sat or chaired a number of government defense advisory panels. His book was very entertaining to read, and very funny, but he was speaking truth with humor. One law said that the increasing cost of fighter aircraft showed cost of a fighter aircraft was increasing at a faster rate than the DOD budget. He predicted in some year (I forget the year) the curves would cross, and the Defense Department would only be able to buy one airplane. The Air Force and Navy would have to take turns flying it :-) Now, the whole point of this tirad is- past experience would prove the original poster wrong. BUT- remember, in the fable of the little boy who cried wolf, in the end there really was a wolf. The past is a good guidance, but is only one thing to consider. I am starting to worry that the original post may be RIGHT! -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:53 From: "LP" Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 935864422 16799 164.138.176.170 (28 Aug 1999 18:20:22 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom NNTP-Posting-Host: tntrou15-170.abo.wanadoo.fr > Also, is there a significant difference in weight for 4 medium vs 2 huge > engines ? Yes, but thing about consuption (4 engines -> more drag), about maintenance, (more failure sources) From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:54 From: "Anthony Rassias" Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 935915994 210.84.13.248 (Sun, 29 Aug 1999 18:39:54 EST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia NNTP-Posting-Host: slsdn20p56.ozemail.com.au Don't forget that a two engined airliner must have more total thrust than a four engined airliner of the same weight to cope with an engine failure. A two engined airliner hence has 50% of thrust available available where obviously the figure is 75% for a four engined airliner.(more engine thrust = more engine weight) Also the two engined airliner must satisfy ETOPS requirements (which add further to weight) From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:55 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? 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 kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > Comparing the 747-400 and 777-200 seems reasonable. The 747-400 uses > engines of about 56k lbs of thrust, versus an average of around 84k for > the 777-200. That's a 50% increase in thrust. (The smallest engine > I've noticed on a 777-200 is a PW4084 derated to 77k, the largest is > around 92k on an ER.) Engine weights, in pounds: > > mfr 747-400 777-200 inc 747-400 engine 777-200 engine > --- ------- ------- --- -------------- -------------- > GE 9,499 16,644 75% CF6-80C2B1F GE90-85B > RR 9,470 13,100 38% RB.211-524H-T Trent 884 > PW 9,400 14,995 60% PW4056 PW4084 > > >From this small sample, it appears that weight is roughly propotional to > thrust, so for a comparable total thrust, the engines of a four-engined > aircraft wouldn't weight more than those of a twin. This ignores the > nacelles, pylons, and other factors which might not scale so easily. I believe there's also a fundamental economy of scale. I remember spending time many years ago with Aviation Week's listing of all available engines; at that time, there was about a 4:1 difference in specific fuel consumption between the smallest contemporary turbofans (Williams research engines for cruise missiles etc.) and the biggest (GE CF6, as I recall). Is that still true? I suspect it is, or Boeing would have built a 4-engine (or 3-engine) 777 to get the same fuel economy with less engineering investment and risk. -- -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 Sep 16 16:42:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:56 From: "robert wright" Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? 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 > >Conventional *engine* technology, but there is added complexity to the >airframe, not to mention higher operating costs. Our aerodynamicists >can go into detail but having two engines on a wing instead of one >greatly increases the difficulty of the R&D for a four-engined aircraft >compared to a twin due to aerodynamic interactions between the adjacent >engines. These interactions can be a biggie. Four engine transports behave very differently from twins in most flight regimes. I would assume that the structures also change quite a bit, as the mass is now distributed differently along the wing, which would almost certainly affect vibration modes and flutter. Does anyone how the A330/340 wing deals with the different characteristics of two big engines in close or four medium ones spread out? (Total engines, I know there are only one or two on each wing.) >The center-line engine required for a tri-jet introduces its own share >of problems. There are all the usual CG and structural issues that come >with any aft-mounted jet, plus concerns about safety when you put so >many critical systems in such a small location. Besides the engine, >there are all the hydraulics for the rudder(s) and elevators. Wing- >mounted engines are a lot easier to isolate. At Boeing, when I worked on some studies for a new large aircraft to possibly replace the 747, we looked at twins, tris, and quads. Trijets always came out worst in terms of operating economics by a long way, largely due to the CG issues and added weight of shielding around the engine to protect airplane systems in the event of a rotor burst. >Neither. The numbers I've seen have been in the 70k-75k range. Pratt >and Rolls both have engine families which straddle that range, so you >could presumably re-fan a PW4000 or RB.211/Trent and get an engine in >the right class, but Airbus wanted an all-new engine so they'd get >higher efficiency than they'd get from a derivative. The GE-PW Engine Alliance is offering (threatening?) to build a 72K, 101-inch fan engine. I think the proposed RR Trent 900 is of similar size, but with more shafts (3, as opposed to 2). >>Also, is there a significant difference in weight for 4 medium vs 2 huge >>engines ? > > >>From this small sample, it appears that weight is roughly propotional to >thrust, so for a comparable total thrust, the engines of a four-engined >aircraft wouldn't weight more than those of a twin. This ignores the >nacelles, pylons, and other factors which might not scale so easily. Also, of course, a twin will need more overall thrust than a similar-sized quad. Of course, a quad may need a bigger vertical fin and rudder to trim out a dead outboard engine, due to the much greater moment arm. This would be a very interesting parametric study. I kind of wish I had some weights or structures experience.... From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:57 From: "Geoff Jones" Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 NNTP-Posting-Host: sims113.sims.cranfield.ac.uk JF Mezei wrote in message ... >A recent post mentioned the R&D mega expenditures required to produce >the engine for the next 777 which is a big reason only one manufacturer >will build one. The big reason for this, as far as I understand, is purely political. The big three manufacturers had all developed engines which were suitable, but for some reason, Boeing decided to sign an exclusive agreement with the manufacturer of the worst and most expensive of the three. >Are we not getting to a point where conventional jet engines are >reaching the top of the bell curve and any improvements will cost more >and more ? In respect of going towards twin engined craft, there are a few considerations. Not the least of these is sheer size. As bypass ratios become higher, the ground clearance for the engines reduces. Thinking about development costs, using two engines rather than four immediately means that you halve your sales, pushing up the unit R&D costs. Then, it is also the case that R&D expenditure is rising for each engine design, as higher efficiencies, lower emissions and higher thrusts are desired. >On the other hand, by using 4 engines (or even 3), it allows you to use >much more conventional technology which is not only cheaper for R&D but >has greater market and hence more competition. If you want the same emissions and efficiency, the development costs are still high. Using more engines means that each aircraft has to have (roughly) double the number of expensive components such as turbine blades. The cost of these is quite largely in the materials and the manufacturing, so a small reduction in development costs will far from offset this. Geoff Jones From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:58 From: chuanga@cris.com Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? 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: 152.163.197.84 In article , JF Mezei wrote: > A recent post mentioned the R&D mega expenditures required to produce > the engine for the next 777 which is a big reason only one manufacturer > will build one. > > I am starting to wonder if the extra cost of pushing the "state of the > art" limits to get the required performance on a twin is really worth > all the effort ? > > Are we not getting to a point where conventional jet engines are > reaching the top of the bell curve and any improvements will cost more > and more ? > > On the other hand, by using 4 engines (or even 3), it allows you to use > much more conventional technology which is not only cheaper for R&D but > has greater market and hence more competition. Actually, your understanding of the situation is not entirely correct. Let me use GE's earlier involvement in the A340X program as an example. When Airbus was studying what eventually became the A340-500/600, Airbus signed a six-month exclusive engine study with GE. At the end of the engine study, GE concluded that they would have to spend US$1b for a brand new engine. GE did not think the A340-500/600 market would be large enough to justify the US$1b investment, and Airbus was unwilling to foot part of the cost. Hence, GE walked away from the exclusive deal (and Rolls-Royce won the eventual competition with P&W mostly because P&W insisted on exclusivity). On the B777X, GE is expected to spend US$500m for the derivative engine development. However, GE is also going to split half of the airframe development cost with Boeing (around US$500m for GE) in order to secure the exclusivity right on the airframe. Thus, you can see, it's not more expensive to develop a big twin engine. However, the 115K-lb thrust engine is like to have only one application in the near future. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. From kls Thu Sep 16 16:42:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 16 Sep 99 16:42:59 From: Jonathan Fox Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Robert Brand wrote: > Most likely the Oxygen service door. Inside is you can service the Crew and > Pax O2 also gages that show the pressure of the 2 systems. I don't think that anyone uses the oxy service panel. It is deactivated most a/c and when a bottle is low it is either replaced or removed serviced and reinstalled. The reason is that filling oxygen bottle carries a risk of explosion and or fire and you don't want that to happen on the a/c. Jonathan Fox From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:32 From: "K Quek" Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nclient13-gui.server.virgin.net 937567181 19458 62.252.132.1 (17 Sep 1999 11:19:41 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: Virgin Net Usenet Service NNTP-Posting-Host: m1-mp1-cvx1a.ren.ntl.com >-The A330-100 would be able to carry standard LD3 containers > something a B767 cannot do (LD2) >-Would this allow the elimination of the A310 / A300 from > airbus production programm? Given that the B767 is now in use all over the world, surely the question of LD2 or LD3 containers will not be uppermost in the minds of airlines when it comes to selecting between the B767 and Airbus types. And while the A330-100 might replace the A300-600R and A310-300, there are some customers, notably Singapore Airlines, which are looking for more cost effective replacements for their A310s (although in the case of SIngapore Airlines, who knows what is going on - the 777s were supposed to have won the A310 replacement competition) From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:33 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 937579527 24134 129.116.176.203 (17 Sep 1999 14:45:27 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Karl Swartz wrote: > >-Would the shrink involve a reduction in sheet metal guage? > > The 747SP certainly did. Look at the ugly tail that produced? > > I've never heard of the 747SP having reduced-gauge sheet metal, though > that may have been done on a localized basis. I would be EXTREMELY surprized to find that the SP had thinner sheet metal. After all, it is subject to the same pressure differentials and cycle fatigue processes as a "normal" 747, and thinner sheet metal would not allow for that. -- Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:34 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> I've never heard of the 747SP having reduced-gauge sheet metal, though >> that may have been done on a localized basis. > >I would be EXTREMELY surprized to find that the SP had thinner sheet >metal. After all, it is subject to the same pressure differentials and >cycle fatigue processes as a "normal" 747, and thinner sheet metal would >not allow for that. The skin is also helping carry other structural loads which will be reduced by having a shorter fuselage. Going the other way, I vaguely recall instances of thicker gauges being used in the plugs of stretched derivatives, possibly the A321 or 737-800/900. With regard to cycle fatigue, the 747SP was likely *not* designed for the same number of cycles as a full-sized 747, since the SP's whole reason for existence was very long-range flying, which inherently leads to lower cycles. I still have no reason to believe the 747SP has thinner metal in any location, but it seems at least plausible. -- 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 Sep 17 10:52:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:35 From: Terry Schell Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Florida State University NNTP-Posting-Host: nmccarrell.psych.uwf.edu Geoff Jones wrote: > JF Mezei wrote in message ... > >A recent post mentioned the R&D mega expenditures required to produce > >the engine for the next 777 which is a big reason only one manufacturer > >will build one. > > The big reason for this, as far as I understand, is purely political. > The big three manufacturers had all developed engines which were > suitable, but for some reason, Boeing decided to sign an exclusive > agreement with the manufacturer of the worst and most expensive of the > three. Wow! Where did you hear this? Which RR or P&W engines have been developed for this thrust class? What are the political advantages you are alluding to? If you cannot answer these questions, I think you comments rate as uninformed rumor and innuendo. From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:36 From: az944@lafn.org (Herb Feldman) Subject: Re: Constellations at Oxnard? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: zook.lafn.org 935780695 13512 192.168.16.6 (27 Aug 1999 19:04:55 GMT) Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net Merlin Dorfman wrote: > Driving through Oxnard, Calif., a couple of weeks ago, I > noticed several old aircraft at an airport west of Highway 101. > There were a couple of Lockheed Constellations and what seemed > to be a C-46, among others. > There is nothing in my tour book about an air museum at the > Oxnard airport. Does anybody know about these aircraft? Who owns > them? Are they flyable? Are they ever open for public viewing? The airport is Camarillo vice Oxnard airport. Both planes fly from time to time. The C-46, as well as a number of other war birds, are owned by the local chapter of the Confederate Air Force. Their hanger is about midfield, and you can check there for a tour. The Constellation is owned by a private group located at the east end of the field, and you can check with them for a tour. Camarillo Airport has an annual open house, typically in early summer, and both planes are usually open for a tour at that time. Herb From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:37 From: Tom Gibson Subject: Re: Constellations at Oxnard? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: San Diego State University NNTP-Posting-Host: lif-sci-n3-mac14.sdsu.edu Thanks for the info on the Connies - those addresses may be useful some day. Tim Pearson wrote: > There's also an outfit known as Airliners Of America that > operates a Martin 404. (Anybody seen that new book about > the Martin 202 and 404?) Yes, I have it (called The Martinliners). Pretty darn good book, with lots of photos and details about the 202 and 404 program, as well as several programs that never happened. If Northwest hadn't had such trouble with their 202's (including the wing spar failures), Martin might have had an equal share of the piston twin market (vs Convair) or even more. Too bad they rushed it to completion (and Martin was so stubborn in many situations). Ah, what if... The Airliners of America 404 is nee-TWA, ex-private, and is painted in Pacific Air Lines colors. I flew it this May in San Diego - great plane. They also now have a DC-4, which they plan on painting in Western colors (as I remember). To reply remove the first t from my address. -- Tom Gibson Classic Airliner Page: http://members.aol.com/TGFltsim/ AlcoHauler Locomotive Page: http://members.aol.com/AlcoHauler/home/alcohaul.html FREEFlight Design Shop: http://www.geocities.com/~freefltdesign/ From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:38 From: johnmcgrew@aol.com (JohnMcGrew) Subject: Re: Constellations at Oxnard? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader In article , Merlin Dorfman writes: > Driving through Oxnard, Calif., a couple of weeks ago, I >noticed several old aircraft at an airport west of Highway 101. >There were a couple of Lockheed Constellations and what seemed >to be a C-46, among others. Also, the Confederate Air Force, which owns the C-46 has a base there. John From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:39 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Boeing historian? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 04:42 PM 9/16/99 +0000, you wrote: >Can someone tell me briefly about, >or direct me to a definitive site or book >concerning, Boeing jets regarding >historical evolution and interrelation of >707, 717, 720, and KC-135? The DASH 80 is the prototype, and emerged largely unchanged as the KC135. To compete carriers wanted 3 x 3 seatings, which forced Boeing to increase the fuselage diameter. The 707-137 is essentially the Dash 80/KC135 with the wider fuselage. The 138 was a special build for QANTAS, about 3 meters shorter to reduce weight and improve operating margins at some pacific Island locations. The willingness of Boeing to do so is what caused QANTAS to order Boeing instead of Comet, and was the last straw in the relationship with empire Airlines/BOAC. The US domestic carriers wanted a lower cost, lighter weight version of the 707 for domestic use, which lead to the 707-120, which simply became known as the 720. The original 707 was actually marginal for many routes, and the carriers asked for a larger, longer range version. The aircraft underwent substantial modifications, and a large increase in weight to produce the 707-300 and 707-400 series (300's have P&W engines, 400's have RR engines). The 717 was originally the McDonnel Douglas MD95, a low cost, 100 seat MD80 family member, renamed by Boeing as the 717. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:40 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Boeing historian? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >>Can someone tell me briefly about, >>or direct me to a definitive site or book >>concerning, Boeing jets regarding >>historical evolution and interrelation of >>707, 717, 720, and KC-135? >The DASH 80 is the prototype, and emerged largely unchanged as the KC135. There actually were quite a few changes between the 367-80 and the KC-135. The most notable was the 12" increase in upper lobe (cabin) width, from 132" on the Dash 80 to 144" on the KC-135 family. The KC-135 is also 8'3" longer, a 14" greater wingspan, and has a greatly increased MGTOW, 316,000 lbs versus only 190,000 lbs on the Dash 80. >To compete carriers wanted 3 x 3 seatings, >which forced Boeing to increase the fuselage diameter. This was a further increase from even the KC-135, to 148". >The 707-137 is essentially the Dash 80/KC135 with the wider fuselage. The 707-137 would be a 707-120 series built for Air India had any existed. (They only bought the -320 and -420 series new, and also picked up the 720 on the used market.) The 707-120 was the first 707 series. It's both longer and wider than the KC-135, which as noted above is both longer and wider than the -80. It has the same wing as the KC-135. The 707-120B is similar with JT3D turbo-fan engines instead of the original non-fan JT3C engines being the most significant change. They also had additional leading-edge flaps, an increased tailspan, and, optionally, the 720's modified wing. >The 138 was a special build for QANTAS, about 3 meters shorter to reduce >weight and improve operating margins at some pacific Island locations. Another special was the 707-220 series, built only for Braniff (as the 707-227). These were the 707-120 airframe equipped with JT4A-3 engines from the 707-320. >The US domestic carriers wanted a lower cost, lighter weight version of >the 707 for domestic use, which lead to the 707-120, which simply >became known as the 720. No, the 707-120 was the original version of the 707. The 720 is just that, the 720 (and a turbo-fan version, the 720B). It's 9 feet shorter than the 707-120 and was further lightened by using lighter gauge metal in many places. It also has a modified wing, with greater area. >The original 707 was actually marginal for many >routes, and the carriers asked for a larger, longer range version. The >aircraft underwent substantial modifications, and a large increase in >weight to produce the 707-300 and 707-400 series (300's have P&W engines, >400's have RR engines). Right, though Boeing refers to them as the 707-320 and -420 series. The 707-320 came in several variations. The original version had a greater span and other wing modifications relative to the original 707-120, plus an increased tail span, greater fuel capacity, higher MGTOW, and more powerful and efficient JT4A-3 engines. The 707-320B had even further wing refinements, which combined with JT3D-3 turbo-fan engines resulted in a 15% range increase over the 707-320. The 707-320C was originally a -320B with a cargo door and provisions for convertible use -- what's usually known as a Combi today. Later versions were built for cargo-only use. There was also a single 707-720 built, with CFM56 engines. After testing it was converted to 707-320B specifications and sold. (There are also CFM56-equipped KC-135s, the KC-135R and perhaps others. All of these were upgrades from the original PW engines.) >The 717 was originally the McDonnel Douglas MD95, a low cost, 100 seat MD80 >family member, renamed by Boeing as the 717. The 717-200 to be precise. Given the context, the original question probably refers to the 707-100, which was Boeing's designation for what is more widely known as the KC-135. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Sep 17 10:52:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Sep 99 10:52:41 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: A310 (ex Boeing naming convention for 777) 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 Mike Epprecht wrote: > >I've never heard of any A310 having a two-crew cockpit. If Airbus > >soured its relations with KLM, it must have been over something else. > > Swissair was launch customer for the A310 and they had a 2 person > flight deck. Sorry, that was a typo. What I would have said had I typed it right is that I'd never heard of an A310 with a THREE-crew cockpit. AFAIK, all A310s have 2-crew cockpits. 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