From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:23 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Windshield blow out Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.rdc1.tx.home.com 938785396 24.7.225.16 (Fri, 01 Oct 1999 06:43:16 PDT) Organization: @Home Network X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.225.16 Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. Thanks, Dave From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:24 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: 737-400 Vortex generators References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: agate-ether.berkeley.edu 937892433 1284 128.32.25.13 (21 Sep 1999 05:40:33 GMT) Organization: University of California at Berkeley NNTP-Posting-Host: socrates.berkeley.edu Ernie Fidgeon wrote: >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 Speaking of vortex generators, I noticed during a couple of 737 rides recently that they were slightly different on different planes. One plane had more of them, in a more complex pattern, than the other. Is this a difference between different models of 737? Or are the vortex generators an after-market addition to the wing? When did vortex generators first become common on airliners? -- Katie Schwarz "There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs." -- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass" From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:25 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 737-400 Vortex generators References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com The vortex generators on transport wings are there for two purposes. On some aircraft, such as the 767, there are just a few VGs, located at roughly midspan. They are there to improve the stick force characteristics beyond intial buffet (this sentence is a quote form a 1985 Boeing "Airliner" magazine article). They do this by shedding a vortex that reenergizes the boundary, delaying local boundary layer separation. On other transport wings, the VGs have been used to alleviate shock-induced separation at cruise speeds. While not a transport, the Learjet 23 is an example of this. The VGs on this aircraft eliminate shock-induced separation on the aileron, getting rid of "aileron buzz". I do not know the rationale for the VGs on the wings of 737s. I do know that the VG patterns on the 737-100/200 wing is different from that on the 737-300/400/500 wing. My guess from viewing the patterns is that they are there to improve low speed handling (reason #1 above). ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sun Oct 3 17:38:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:26 From: burkhard.domke@pace.de (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: 737-400 Vortex generators References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: WiNShuttle, DFN - Deutsches Forschungsnetz eV NNTP-Posting-Host: p14.b.shuttle.de On 16 Sep 99 16:42:50 , Ernie Fidgeon wrote: >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. Vortex generators are used to re-energize sluggish boundary layer flow by trailing vortices as a means to prevent separation. Lift performance is improved for a given AoA only if there would have been separated areas without VGs to begin with. Likewise, VGs impose a small drag when used in non-separated areas, but in turn prevent considerable drag rise and lift losses associated with flow separations. Commonly, VGs are installed as an afterthought to fix unforeseen separation and buffeting problems. A vortex generator may also serve as an aerodynamic wing fence (Vortilon). regards, Burkhard From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:27 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: silence In article , Jonathan Fox writes >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. Oxygen is charged in many parts of the world, it is the FAA that has some objection to it. I think it is much safer than transporting and installing a number of cylinders to bring the pressure up. If you have twenty cylinders on the pax system and it has been used you will have to change four or five to bring the pressure up. That is four or five system breakdowns, cylinder removal and refit in the freight hold with all the risks of removal, fitting and transit. Whereas with charging there is only one connection and no system breakdown. Here at BA we have a number of oxygen charge trolleys fitted with 3 heavy industrial cylinders. Procedures do not allow charging when fuelling or with pax on board. -- john r. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:28 From: "Michael & Ngaree Besse" Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 28 Sep 1999 17:35:53 +1000, ae02060.powerup.com.au X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: ae02060.powerup.com.au Jonathan Fox wrote: > 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. The external Oxy service panel is an option on most Boeing a/c. On earlier models (before 1980) this included crew & pax oxy, but as all newer a/c use oxy generators for the pax oxy the panel is now only for crew oxy. I can tell you that a lot of airlines (including QANTAS) do use this system for filling the crew oxy bottle. As someone who is often required to fill up crew Oxy bottles, I can assure you that it is a lot easier to top up using the external charging panel, then it is to remove, refill, & replace a bottle. The risk of explosion is very small given that only persons given the appropriate training, and using the correct procedure carry out this task. Michael Besse From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:29 From: jefftay@netcom.ca (Jeff Taylor) Subject: CV-990 Aft Fan Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: tor-nn1.netcom.ca 938298621 207.181.93.184 (Sat, 25 Sep 1999 18:30:21 EDT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 Organization: Netcom Canada NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.181.93.184 I would like information or possibly some pictures of the CV990 Aft Fan Engine. This would be the General Electric CJ805-23. I have read that it was a civlian J-79 from the F4 Phantom and other Military Aircraft. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:30 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: tire gas .... 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 why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, instead >of air ? Many are air inflated. The advantage of Dry Nitrogen is that it will not oxidize the rubber compounds or anything else inside the tire. CO2 would work, except that at cruise altitudes. the temperature of -45C and tire pressure would liquify it. Dry Air is almost as good as Nitrogen. You want the filler to be dry to avoid corrosion problems on the rims and valves as well. Contrary to other comments, Nitrogen offers no real weight advantage (The difference in weight between an air filled tire and a Nitrogen filled tire is literally a few grams! James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:31 From: marlin zorsky Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.axxsys.net 937534920 208.158.189.160 (Thu, 16 Sep 1999 22:22:00 EDT) Reply-To: marlin@reefnet.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.158.189.160 nitrogen is not effected by temperature as much as regular air and will keep near the same pressure at altitude & different airfields. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:32 From: "Robert Wright" Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >can someone tell me why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, instead >of air ? I believe it's for fire protection. If you have to abort a takeoff or make an emergency overweight landing and possibly blow tires or turn brakes red-hot, you want an inert gas in the tires sitting next to those brakes. There's probably an actual incident somewhere that this is based on, but I can't think of it right now.... From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:33 From: Guido Frey Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: olaf.komtel.net 937562949 29771 212.7.130.157 (17 Sep 1999 10:09:09 GMT) Organization: KomTel GmbH NNTP-Posting-Host: asgaard-1-67.ip.foni.net "Dr.Deepthi Attygalle" schrieb: > can someone tell me why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, instead > of air ? There will be not so many problems with rust when using nitrogen. Also in case of hard braking the tires will be deflates vi a melting fuse. The resulting "air" stream will be directed to the brake discs to cool them down. In case of using air or even pure oxygene, the risk of a brake fir is muich higher. Hope this might help. Best regards, Guido Frey From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:34 From: l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Netcom NNTP-Posting-Host: bsg-ma1d-163.ix.netcom.com In "Dr.Deepthi Attygalle" writes: > >can someone tell me why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, >instead of air ? Nitrogen will not absorb any moisture. Last thing you would want at touchdown would be a chunk of ice in the tires. (Sort of "out of balance.) If we were at a miltary airport and nitrogen was unavalable, we could use air from one of their special compressors - triple filtered and dehydrated (circa mid 60's). Lou. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:35 From: saccani@omen.net.au (Paul Saccani) Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: demeter.omen.net.au 937625425 726 203.55.58.243 (18 Sep 1999 03:30:25 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: ttye114.asp.omen.com.au On 16 Sep 99 16:42:37 , "Dr.Deepthi Attygalle" wrote: >can someone tell me why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, instead >of air ? Reduces the risk of fire. RPT aircraft have been lost due to tyres overheating and catching fire in the wheel wells shortly after take off. A swiss air DC-9 crash in the sixties comes to mind. AFAIK, this has never happened with a N2 filled tyre. If the tyre is smouldering or whatever, and bursts, air will rush past it at high velocity, increasing the fire, whilst N2 will tend to put it out. Fusible pressure plugs are also used to safely vent tyres if overheating, usually incorporating an overpressure burst disc for overpressure protection as well. Cheers Paul Saccani Perth, Western Australia. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:36 From: "Allan" Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: AT&T Internet Service NNTP-Posting-Host: 07.gate1.iwakuni.attmil.ne.jp Dr.Deepthi Attygalle wrote: > can someone tell me why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, instead > of air ? Nitrogen is an inert gas with a low coefficient of expansion. It handles the cold soak condition a lot better than air. Rgds AMD From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:37 From: austerj1@ozemail.com.au Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 937583693 203.108.208.53 (Sat, 18 Sep 1999 01:54:53 EST) Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia Reply-To: austerj1@ozemail.com.au NNTP-Posting-Host: sladl3p37.ozemail.com.au One of the problems with this sort of epidemiological research is the extremely slow rate of growth of some brain tumours. While 30 years is probably outside the range of most tumours, 10 years of growth certainly isn't unheard of. The CSIRO in association with Telstra did some research right here in Oz which did show a digital mobile phone/cancer link. The "targets" were cancer-susceptible mice, so the relevance to humans still has to be proven. Release of the results was masterfully managed by a PR firm to create the minimum impact (the results were NOT what was expected by Telstra, as you can imagine). Comment by people more knowledgable than myself suggested that some characteristic of the pulsing of digital phones was more likely the culprit than the actual level of radiation. I'm sure there are other risks of being an FE that exceed the risk from EMF. Coop From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:38 From: "john r." Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: silence The stories I have heard about this are to do with low frequency, high power transmission systems. The 747 Flight Engineer does sit next to P6 panel but most of the higher power AC distribution is low down, by his legs. Much of this started with a long storey in the New Yorker some years ago about a New England town with a high power cable through the town and an abnormal number of brain tumours along its path. Although such fields are known to slow cell division there was no link established to date that I know of. It is now accepted in the UK that primary schools should not have power pylons alongside or overhead. Mobile phones are something else, putting yourself next to a radiating RF field for a long time is asking for trouble.. -- john r. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:39 From: "Geoff Breach" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM robert wright wrote: > Don't most FE's eventually become first officers and captains ... No, they do not. FE and Pilot are completely different career paths that don't often intersect. G From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:40 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: The Greater Columbus FreeNet Chris Hall (hall@airborne.demon.co.uk) wrote: : I would have thought that magnets in the headset speakers : clamped to the cranium posed a far greater threat. (than fields from an instrument panel).. Aren't a lot of superstitious people wearing magnets to ward off cancer (or evil spirits?)? -- Gerry From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:41 From: bungles Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 25 Sep 1999 00:39:55 +1000, 203.30.219.123 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.30.219.123 Russell Short wrote: > 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). Hmmm.....add to this all the chemicals that ground engineering staff are exposed to, and you would expect them to be dying even earlier...they work around the F/E's panel (P4 for all those interested) too. Doesn't seem like it. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:42 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 > >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 Yes, they are physically identical from a component standpoint. That is what I discovered this week. How, may I ask, did you manage to look at the nameplate? >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. The 4090 is basically a "throttle bend", designed to be run with more fuel, which translates to more power from the turbine and a higher rotational speed, hence a higher pressure ratio in the compressor. Materials are a bit different due to higher temperatures and I would assume the cases are designed heavier to withstand greater loads in the event of damage, and that would account for the higher weight. They also introduced some new compressor airfoil design methods into the later PW4000 models, but I think these just missed the 4090 and got picked up by the 4098. These new techniques led to differently shaped stator and rotor airfoils which are supposed to reduce separation and increase the compressor efficiency. Some initial growing pains on the 4164/68, but they worked fairly well on the 4098. RSW From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:43 From: th89cz@my-deja.com (Matthias Klaus) Subject: Re: A310 (ex Boeing naming convention for 777) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: OUI 1.9 Pro Organization: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany Reply-To: th89cz@my-deja.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.225.12.175 In article , spagiola@my-deja.com wrote: > 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, that not right. The Airbus A310-200 started as three-crew airplane, then, at about 1984, the cockpit was totally redesigned to 2-crew configuration. In fact, most, if not all A310 actually in service at FedEx are 3-crew aircraft. BTW, the first A310 ever to be built, S/N 162 (formerly owned by Swissair), is also operated by FedEx.. Matthias -- Matthias Hamburg, Germany From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:44 From: "Benoit" Subject: Re: A310 (ex Boeing naming convention for 777) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: UUNET Benelux (post does not reflect views of UUNET Benelux) Reply-To: "Benoit" NNTP-Posting-Host: uu212-190-10-187.unknown.uunet.be If I well-remenber the first batch of AFR A310-200 was a 3 crew cockpit. It was a special request due to unionist problem. I think some of them are stocked in Chateauroux and it is impossible to sell them due to this specification. I will try to find you the proof From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.misc,rec.aviation.piloting Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:45 From: "Craig Beaty" Subject: Canadair RJ Max X-Wind Component? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 27 Sep 1999 13:08:44 -0600, pm3-23.ppp161.webzone.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Organization: Craig Beaty Flight Training - Tulsa NNTP-Posting-Host: pm3-23.ppp161.webzone.net Anyone know what the maximum demonstrated crosswind component is for the Canadair RJ (forget the model name)? I've got a friend who says it's only like 5 knots. Absurd! Got to be more like 15-25, or they would be foolish to make a jet like that. The RJ is based on the Challenger, pretty much, but you would think they would beef up the gear because of the longer fuselage and thus larger side loading moments induced during wind crab crosswind landings. I've got lunch or something riding on this so anyone who knows about the Canadair RJ please help. I could look it up in Jane's but I'll try here first. Thanx. -- Craig Beaty CFI ASE IA Tulsa, OK From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:46 From: "Lee Tze Yen, Bob" Subject: L1011 engine No 2 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Don't know if this has been discussed before... if it has... please e-mail me privately regarding the source of information..... I am building a model of N31029 (the only L1011 painted in the new TWA colours), and I noticed from my photo references that there is a small root fairing just below the bottom No 2 engine nacelle lip. I searched through all available photo references on the web, and I noticed that some L1011s have this root fairing, while some do not, and it's not according to some specific aircraft type pattern. Can someone enlighten me as to which L1011s were fitted with them, and which were not, and why??? Best regards Lee Tze Yen, Bob 19/09/1999 2058h From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:47 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 10:52 AM 9/17/99 +0000, you wrote: >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. Problem is probably worse than that actually. The hallmark of the 747SP is very low operating weight at the end utlra long haul cruise, which often got them up higher than their full size relatives at end of cruise on extreme long haul operation. It wasn't hard for an SP get past 40,000 feet in those conditions, the QF aircraft on the LAX-SYD runs often did. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:48 From: H Andrew Chuang Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts006d09.har-ct.concentric.net K Quek wrote: > > >-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. While many airlines (especially those in the Far East) chose the A300/310 because of the cargo advantage that the A300/310 has over the B767, KLM actually chose the B767 to replace the A310 because they felt they didn't need the extra cargo capacity the A310 planes offered. > 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) Singapore's B777 order did take place after SQ was searching for an A310 replacement. However, the B777 order was not an A310 replacement. Singapore is still actively looking for an A310 replacement. The A330-100 will definitely not economical enough for SQ's usage. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:49 From: "john r." Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: silence You will hear, and feel, all the crackle you want if you have Concorde go over you with reheat on at takeoff. It does a good job, if that's the right word, even with reheat off. After it goes over my house it rumbles away into the distance for quite a while. The VC10 was the same. Something to do with mixing of high speed exhaust gasses. -- john r. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:50 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 937530999 207.161.189.87 (Thu, 16 Sep 1999 20:16:39 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 "R.F. Kay" wrote: > 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? I'm not sure about the theoretical performance numbers, likely in the order of a 5-7% lift improvement though. Interestingly, on the A320 if a winglet is removed (due damage etc) there is a 5% range hit and a requirement to carry something like 2000lbs less fuel on that wing due to the lost lift. -- EF "But... I don't think of you." Howard Roark From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:51 From: "M. Jones" Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" R.F. Kay wrote: >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? They're not winglets (according to a UAL captain I asked). They're nav/com antennae. M. Jones From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:52 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >They're not winglets (according to a UAL captain I asked). They're nav/com >antennae. He's half right -- they aren't winglets. Airbus calls 'em wing fences. Regardless of what they're called, they're there for aerodynamic reasons though they may have antennae components embedded in them. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:53 From: "Gilles Tatry" Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 938030900 20872 193.250.225.142 (22 Sep 1999 20:08:20 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom NNTP-Posting-Host: btoulouse-1-2-142.abo.wanadoo.fr A320 Configuration Deviation List: If the lower part of one (out of the two) wing tip fence is missing, the crew have to apply the following penalty: - Maximum take-off and go-around weights reduced by 2% - Fuel consumption increased by 0.7% If one (out of the two) wing tip fence is fully missing, the crew have to apply the following penalty: - Maximum take-off and go-around weights reduced by 4% - Fuel consumption increased by 1.4% Gilles From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:54 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Boeing historian? 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 937579414 24134 129.116.176.203 (17 Sep 1999 14:43:34 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Bob McKelvey 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? An excellent, very readable, book on this subject is "Boeing Aircraft since 1916" by Peter M. Bowers. Without giving away the whole plot, basically 717=KC135 (modern misnamed adopted Douglas product notwithstanding ;-) -- Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:55 From: p Subject: Re: Boeing historian? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.00 <$MG+tocp5U9R72yScjymFMD4hq> Organization: . In article , Bob McKelvey writes >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 Boeing 707, 720 and C-135 by Tony Pither, published by Air-Britain ISBN 0 85130 236 X 485 pages of all you could possibly want to know! -- pete From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:56 From: "Trigger" Subject: Re: Boeing historian? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0872.cvx12-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net You can try: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/ >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 Sun Oct 3 17:38:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:57 From: "Russell Short" Subject: Re: Boeing historian? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: The Internet Group Ltd NNTP-Posting-Host: p39-max40.syd.ihug.com.au Karl Swartz wrote in message ... > >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. And, FWIW, was called the "720" out of respect for the chief of United Airlines Pat Patterson. Patterson initially refused to order the 707, choosing instead the DC-8, due to his intense dislike for the Boeing Company. He also did not like the numbers "707". Hence, when United turned up to order 29 of the domestic version of the 707, Boeing simply renumbered the aircraft 720. Russ. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:58 From: John Wright Subject: Re: Boeing historian? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 937681697 nnrp-10:8557 NO-IDENT pegase.demon.co.uk:158.152.238.141 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 Organization: Janet and me and our dog and cats at home in our little cottage Reply-To: news@pegase.demon.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: pegase.demon.co.uk On 17 Sep 99 10:52:40 , in , Karl Swartz wrote: >>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. You mean the 717-100 surely? [Moderator's note: Yes, the 717-100 is the KC-135. Karl] -- John Wright From kls Sun Oct 3 17:38:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:38:59 From: malc@cwix.com (Malcolm Weir) Subject: Re: Boeing historian? 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: !a88C1k-X'WrXY8A9`26B7+7V (Encoded at Airnews!) On 17 Sep 99 10:52:40 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) caused to appear as if it was written: >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.) What about the US Navy's E-6 fleet? Weren't (aren't) they new build B707s with CFM-56s? Malc. From kls Sun Oct 3 17:39:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 17:39:00 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 >What about the US Navy's E-6 fleet? Weren't (aren't) they new build B707s >with CFM-56s? I did a bit of digging and yes, they are 707 (not KC-135 aka 717-100) airframes and, so far as I can tell, were built with CFM-56 engines. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sun Oct 3 18:18:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 18:18:22 From: "Robert Blakely" Subject: Aquaplaning speed Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: University of Queensland NNTP-Posting-Host: dyn-14-25.dialin.uq.net.au Could somebody give me the formula for determining aquaplaning speed. From kls Sun Oct 3 18:18:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 18:18:23 From: "davidwells" Subject: Airfoil surface finish Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I am having difficulty finding information on the benefits of improved surface finish on airfoils in gas turbine engines (ie. fan blades and compressor blades and vanes). Also, someone has suggested that there may be an optimum limit (around 12 micro-inches) for airfoils beyond which SFC won't improve. I have tried AIAA but without much success - does anyone have any ideas where such information can be obtained ? Are any of the airlines trialing processes such as Rem Chem and/or Rosler vibratory finishes for the SFC benefits ? From kls Sun Oct 3 18:18:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 18:18:24 From: Gemini25@webtv.net Subject: UAL Viscounts? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WebTV Subscriber NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Did United Airlines operate Vickers Viscounts in the 1960's & 70's? If so, did they use 700 or 800 models? And, when did they stop using the Viscounts? Any help would be appreciated. Please email me at gemini25@webtv.net Jim From kls Sun Oct 3 18:18:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 18:18:25 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UAL Viscounts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Did United Airlines operate Vickers Viscounts in the 1960's & 70's? If >so, did they use 700 or 800 models? And, when did they stop using the >Viscounts? United acquired a number of Viscounts on 1 June 1961 as part of the merger with Capital Airlines. They were all 745D models so far as I can determine, though Capital had at least one other model which left the fleet before the merger. Scaning the histories, it looks like all of them left the fleet in 1968 or early 1969, so last service probably was in 1968. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sun Oct 3 18:18:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Oct 99 18:18:26 From: airnig@bigfoot.com (N.Smith) Subject: Selcal HF Technical info ???? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news4.svr.pol.co.uk 938159333 6820 62.136.93.221 (24 Sep 1999 07:48:53 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 Organization: Customer of Planet Online NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-93.viramune.dialup.pol.co.uk Does anyone know the specs for the multi tone selcal signal used on HF, and the way it is composed into two tone bursts from a 4 letter code ??? Many thanks Nigel Smith airnig@bigfoot.com From kls Sun Oct 3 18:18:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 03 Oct 99 18:18:27 From: "BAP" Subject: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3187 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 8 Sep 1999 05:04:10 GMT, 166.72.122.4 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Reply-To: "BAP" NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.72.122.4 I have a need for a copy of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3187, which concerns modifications to the galley elevator between the main deck and upper deck of 747-400s. I was not able to locate a database of Service Bulletins on Boeing's web site. Can anyone provide me with a copy, or inform me as to how I might obtain a copy, of this Service Bulletin? Thanks in advance. Brad Patterson bapatterson@ibm.net From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:37 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: CV-990 Aft Fan 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 939049865 8297 129.116.176.203 (4 Oct 1999 15:11:05 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Jeff Taylor wrote: > I would like information or possibly some pictures of the CV990 Aft > Fan Engine. This would be the General Electric CJ805-23. I have read > that it was a civlian J-79 from the F4 Phantom and other Military > Aircraft. Not a J-79, but definitely a J-79 derivative. Actually, it seems like quite a clever idea- definitely a quicker way to concoct a turbofan from an existing turbojet than adding a spool. However, I assume it was probably considerably less efficient or had some other deficiency compared to "front-fan" engines. The CV-880's engines were closer to J-79s- basically a J79 minus the afterburner. There are pictures and information on all 3 (including good views of the J-79's variable incidence stator system) in Gunston's "Encyclopedia of Aircraft Engines." -- Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:38 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: CV-990 Aft Fan 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 jefftay@netcom.ca (Jeff Taylor) writes: > I would like information or possibly some pictures of the CV990 Aft > Fan Engine. This would be the General Electric CJ805-23. I have read > that it was a civlian J-79 from the F4 Phantom and other Military > Aircraft. I understand that the GE engines for both the 880 (pure jet) and the 990 (fan) were based on the J-79 core. The Dassault-Brequet Falcon came with smaller GE aft-fan engines at one point or another, dubbed the "Fanjet Falcon" for a while. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:39 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: L1011 engine No 2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com The fairing you are looking at is called a "Frisbee Fairing", named after its developer. The fairing is designed to eliminate a flow separation that occured in that area and in doing so, it reduces the noise in the aft cabin. It was originally only fitted to L1011-500s. The separation that it eliminates is caused by the relatively thick boundary layer on the fuselage encountering a region of increasing (adverse) pressure in front of the "pylon" below the #2 engine inlet. Without the fairing, the adverse pressure gradient would be too steep for the boundary layer to stay attached and it would separate, forming a necklace vortex around the "pylon". The fairing makes the gradient less steep and eliminates the separation and associated vortex. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Oct 5 03:14:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:40 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: "crackle" 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 939049585 8297 129.116.176.203 (4 Oct 1999 15:06:25 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu I hadn't heard that sound, literally, for 10 years. Then, weekend before last, I went to a Confederate Air Force show (no, the 3 B-17's they had there together did NOT produce the sound ;-) and there was an F-16 flight demonstration at the conclusion. The pilot was on the burner a *lot* during the exhibition, and we all heard plenty of "crackle." I immediately remembered this thread, and thought " Oh, YEAH! Now I remember... " -- Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:41 From: Steve Howie Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Biled heids 'r us NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.104.96.81 Karl Swartz wrote: >>They're not winglets (according to a UAL captain I asked). They're nav/com >>antennae. >He's half right -- they aren't winglets. Airbus calls 'em wing fences. >Regardless of what they're called, they're there for aerodynamic reasons >though they may have antennae components embedded in them. If you are interested in seeing a very detailed view of these 'fences', take a look at http://www.skyservice.com/photographs/img0024.jpg This shows a close-up view of the wingtip of an A320 operated by Skyservice, a Canadian charter company. The HF antennae are quite visible. 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 Tue Oct 5 03:14:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:42 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Steve Howie wrote: >This shows a close-up view of the wingtip of an A320 operated by >Skyservice, a Canadian charter company. The HF antennae are quite >visible. If you're refering to the four "wires" trailing from the winglet (plus another four trailing the outer half of the aileron), you're looking at static discharge wicks, not HF antennae. The only thing I see in the picture that appears to be an antenna is the fin sticking up from the top of the fuselage. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:43 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 939074412 207.161.189.87 (Mon, 04 Oct 1999 17:00:12 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 "M. Jones" wrote: > R.F. Kay wrote: > >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? > > They're not winglets (according to a UAL captain I asked). They're nav/com > antennae. They are winglets. The actually vertical fence is made from graphite/epoxy composite structure and is bolted onto the wingtip. The tip assy is Aluminum construction housing the Nav lights and strobes. In the config I see I am not aware of any antennae. Further, the "wires" sprouting from the TE of the fence are static discharge wicks. -- EF "But... I don't think of you." Howard Roark From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:44 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Airbus winglets References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 939074470 207.161.189.87 (Mon, 04 Oct 1999 17:01:10 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 Gilles Tatry wrote: > A320 Configuration Deviation List: Thx for the clarification. I had not looked in the MEL recently and your data is definitely the right stuff. Cheers -- EF "But... I don't think of you." Howard Roark From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:45 From: "Philip J. Kuhl" Subject: Re: UAL Viscounts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: OFj2NbHMVhVNlQvhOKmtaElibzPg6ktTjZx9OBjS/Oo= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3155.0 United Air Lines' system timetable taking effect December 1, 1968 still shows a lot of Viscount service -- not to mention the DC-6 operating into and out of Ely and Elko, Nevada. I would assume the final service date for the Viscount would have been in 1969 because the system timetable of August 1, 1969 shows no Viscount service. At that time I was living on the outskirts of Rochester, New York and recall reading a newspaper article about the last United propeller service into the city -- a Viscount. In the late 1960s United made much of the introduction of the Boeing 737 as allowing it to retire its propeller fleet (ignoring that DC-6 which soldiered on for years). Interestingly enough, they couldn't do that with the Caravelle which United was also operating at the time. The Caravelle was equipped with all first class seating (no coach) and thus was employed more on routes carrying a high percentage of business travellers. United in those days even offered "men only" executive flights -- times have certainly changed! Philip J. Kuhl Arlington, Virginia PJKuhl@erols.com From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:46 From: "John R. Weiss" 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 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: jrweiss.seanet.com Depends on the airline. Relatively few American airlines employ Professional Flight Engineers any more (mine -- Atlas Air -- is one of those few). Most of them employ "2nd Officers" that are pilots performing Flight Engineer duties while awaiting "upgrade" to the 1st Officer's, and subsequently Captain's, seat. -- John Weiss Seattle, WA remove *nospam* from e-mail address for reply From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:47 From: Michael P Nixon Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 03 Oct 99 17:38:39 "Geoff Breach" writes: >robert wright wrote: >> Don't most FE's eventually become first officers and captains ... > > No, they do not. FE and Pilot are completely different career paths >that don't often intersect. This is not necessarily true. It used to be VERY common in that most FEs became first officers. However, today, with fewer and fewer aircraft requiring FE positions, it seems that mostly captains, who have reached their 60th birthday and are thus no longer able to be captains, are filling the FE positions. Professional FEs (those who never become first officer or captains) are out there, but still rare. 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 Tue Oct 5 03:14:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:48 From: "Rod Lovell" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 939029457 203.108.161.170 (Mon, 04 Oct 1999 19:30:57 EST) Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 NNTP-Posting-Host: slcam3p30.ozemail.com.au Geoff Breach wrote in article ... > robert wright wrote: > > Don't most FE's eventually become first officers and captains ... > > No, they do not. FE and Pilot are completely different career paths > that don't often intersect. Depends on which country you are talking about. Your statement is correct for Oz, but in the States, I believe the original statement is true. Rod Lovell. "V1....Oops!" From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:49 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 10/3/99 5:38 PM, Geoff Breach (firstname@lastname.com.au) said: >robert wright wrote: >> Don't most FE's eventually become first officers and captains ... > > No, they do not. FE and Pilot are completely different career paths >that don't often intersect. Perhaps in Australia. Although once true in the United States, I know of no airline that hires FEs today just to be FEs. It's an entry level pilot position and there are so few of them left that at least at some carriers of those that even still have three seat airplanes, many new-hire pilots start in the right seat (First Officer). -- Larry Stone lstone@enteract.com http://www.enteract.com/~lstone/ From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:50 From: "John Mazor" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: NiC3RQxHBEYIii+dC3g3rl9rgC7auAiPNJJKs9S0+l8= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Geoff Breach wrote in message ... >robert wright wrote: >> Don't most FE's eventually become first officers and captains ... > > No, they do not. FE and Pilot are completely different career paths >that don't often intersect. I see you are posting from Australia? Perhaps that is so for your airline, but in the U.S., career FEs are a rarity. Sitting side saddle is seen by most aspiring pilots here as a temporary career stopover point. From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:51 From: "jtarver" Subject: Re: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3187 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 2-00188123c1ebef45d08386f3220847854db9c26006eb7284f4b1 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: (protected and logged) BAP wrote: > I have a need for a copy of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3187, which > concerns modifications to the galley elevator between the main deck and > upper deck of 747-400s. I was not able to locate a database of Service > Bulletins on Boeing's web site. > > Can anyone provide me with a copy, or inform me as to how I might obtain a > copy, of this Service Bulletin? Buy it from Boeing like an honest customer. Boeing does not give away engineering, Service Bulletins are sold and are intellectual property. John From kls Tue Oct 5 03:14:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 05 Oct 99 03:14:52 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3187 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 939073974 207.161.189.87 (Mon, 04 Oct 1999 16:52:54 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 BAP wrote: > I have a need for a copy of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3187, which > concerns modifications to the galley elevator between the main deck and > upper deck of 747-400s. I was not able to locate a database of Service > Bulletins on Boeing's web site. > > Can anyone provide me with a copy, or inform me as to how I might obtain a > copy, of this Service Bulletin? You could try Boeing Customer support directly. However, if you are a 3rd party, perhaps one of your customers can supply it to you. There are copyright and usage limitations. -- EF "But... I don't think of you." Howard Roark From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:20 From: MCLELLAN Alexander Subject: Sabena's last 747-300 flight Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM SABENA organises a last flight with its last Boeing 747-300. When Saturday, 30 October 1999 at 12h00 Regards Alex. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:21 From: BobMcK@webtv.net (Bob McKelvey) Subject: Boeing historian? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WebTV Subscriber NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Thanks...to all respondents to my original "Boeing historian?" query...lots of fine suggestions of books and internet sites, plus information from personal experience, from several knowledgeable readers of this ng. Regards, Bob McKelvey From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:22 From: James Dees Subject: Re: A310 (ex Boeing naming convention for 777) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news4.atl 939029941 216.78.34.103 (Mon, 04 Oct 1999 05:39:01 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.34.103 Matthias Klaus wrote: > that not right. The Airbus A310-200 started as three-crew airplane, > then, at about 1984, the cockpit was totally redesigned to 2-crew > configuration. In fact, most, if not all A310 actually in service at > FedEx are 3-crew aircraft. BTW, the first A310 ever to be built, S/N 162 > (formerly owned by Swissair), is also operated by FedEx.. All of FedEx's A310's are 2 man crews. Same type rating as the A300's. Later JD From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:23 From: th89cz@my-deja.com (Matthias Klaus) Subject: Re: A310 (ex Boeing naming convention for 777) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: OUI 1.9 Pro Organization: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany Reply-To: th89cz@my-deja.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.225.10.24 In article , "Benoit" wrote: > If I well-remenber the first batch of AFR A310-200 was a 3 crew > cockpit. It was a special request due to unionist problem. up to the S/N in the 350's the A310 always was built with 3-crew cockpit. The entry point for the so-called "Porsche" 2 crew Cockpit, was somewhere around 350. > I think some of them are stocked in Chateauroux and it is impossible > to sell them due to this specification. I will try to find you the > proof The only aircraft in Air France or even in Air Inter Colors, which I saw in Chateauroux in last June, were A300B2/4 aircraft, which are, AFAIK, waiting to be converted to freighters. Matthias -- Matthias Hamburg, Germany From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:24 From: Scott Peterson Subject: Last Convair 990 Flight? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.d9.cc The Los Angeles Times had an article this morning about a TV show wanting to crash a jet airliner into the Southern California Desert. There was a picture. If anyone's interested, let me know and I'll post it to one of the binary groups. The show, which will be called "Jumbo Jet Crash: The Ultimate Safety Test" wants to crash a Convair 990 into a dry lake in San Bernardino County in California. The show would be televised during ratings sweeps. The county fire department is designing a training exercise around this. The produces tried to give the show an air of legitimacy by involving NASA, but they declined. The FAA is cooperating with misgivings. The plane, which has not flown since 1983 would be loaded with explosives and pyrotechnic equipment and flown from Mojave airport to Dale Lake, a dry lake bed in So. Calif. The plane would be flown by a crew of three until about five miles from the impact site. They would then parachute from the plane and it would be guided to the target by remote control. Environmentallists are upset at the idea since the explosion could destroy government protected tortoises and rare plants in the area. Airpower Aviation of West Los Angeles is the firm that applied to the FAA for approval. They recently bought the 990 for $150,000. Under their application the plane would take off from Mojave Airport at 5:00PM on November 4 for the half hour flight to the crash site. Scott Peterson A fault tolerant system must report the faults even as it tolerates them. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:25 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: A330-100? References: <37bef8ad.3215926@news.goodnet.com> Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.220.207.58 H Andrew Chuang wrote: > Singapore's B777 order did take place after SQ was searching for > an A310 replacement. However, the B777 order was not an A310 > replacement. Singapore is still actively looking for an A310 > replacement. My understanding (from SQ sources) is that SQ's intention was indeed to replace A310s with 777-200s, counting on traffic growth to keep load factors up. But the Asian crisis meant traffic declined, so that the 777-200 would have been too large for most routes, so the A310s were retained and a search for a replacement continues. Stefano Pagiola -- All opinions are my own. http://www.geocities.com/spagiola/self.html Visit Smiliner: The BAe 146/Avro RJ site at http://www.geocities.com/spagiola/smiliner.html From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:26 From: "BAP" Subject: Re: Boeing Service Bulletin 747-25-3187 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Reply-To: "BAP" jtarver wrote in message ... > Buy it from Boeing like an honest customer. Boeing does not give away > engineering, Service Bulletins are sold and are intellectual property. Well I'd love to. Contacted Boeing to do just that and was told to get it from my "normal" supplier. Since I don't have a "normal" or any other supplier, I am at a loss. Hence my message. Any more useful ideas for me? Thanks. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:27 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: Windshield blow out Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 05:38 PM 10/3/99 +0000, you wrote: >Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's >windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. IIRC, The windshield was replaced, however when it was replaced, the wrong size nuts/bolts were used, they were undersize, and eventually slid through though the holes, causing the windshield to popout, and the captain partially out with it. The aircraft did make a safe landing, and the captain survived the incident, with some abraisions and frost bite. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:28 From: Leo Kok Subject: Re: Windshield blow out 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: Bombardier Aerospace "David G. Davidson" wrote: > Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's > windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. traced to some faulty installed bolts on the windshield...it came unstuck also pilot almost got sucked out...he wasn't strapped in... two immediate things happened 1) CAA went to mandate pilots be strapped in during flight...most were doing it but this made it official 2) new guidelines in the design of windows, surrounds and pressure shells in event of full transparency loss.... FAR/JAR 25.365(e-2) Admt -72 / Change 13 -- Leo J.J. Kok PHONE: (416)375-3363 Bombardier Aerospace FAX: (416)373-7361 Structures Research & Development Email: lkok@dehavilland.ca 123 Garratt Blvd., MS N18-06 Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5 http://www.aerospace.bombardier.ca From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:29 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.rdc1.tx.home.com 939046094 24.7.225.16 (Mon, 04 Oct 1999 07:08:14 PDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Organization: @Home Network NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.225.16 In article , "David G. Davidson" wrote: > Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's > windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. I found it. Here's the URL. http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/gbjrt/gbjrt.htm From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:30 From: "john r." Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: silence In article , David G. Davidson writes >Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's >windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. As I understand it the wrong replacement bolts were used, they were the next size down but the same length. The correct nuts were used, unfortunately they are the same pitch and will hold on the smaller threads, just. In climb, with the stress of pressurisation on the whole window surface building up, the minimal grip of the nuts on the smaller threads was overcome and out went the window and nearly the Captain as well. An engineering strike at the time was a major factor, the bolts being obtained by an engineer who did not normally do the job. A storeman also pointed out they were wrong but was ignored. -- john r. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:31 From: rwa@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Robin Allen) Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 5 Oct 1999 16:16:16 GMT, penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 (NOV) NNTP-Posting-Host: penelope.ecs.soton.ac.uk In "David G. Davidson" writes: >Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's >windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. The accident was investigated by the UK AAIB. The report is available at the URL: http://www.open.gov.uk/aaib/gbjrt/gbjrt.htm Cheers, Robin Allen. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:32 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: agate-ether.berkeley.edu 939414737 27185 128.32.25.13 (8 Oct 1999 20:32:17 GMT) Organization: University of California at Berkeley NNTP-Posting-Host: socrates.berkeley.edu David G. Davidson wrote: >Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's >windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. There's a chapter on this in _Beyond Aviation Human Factors_ by Daniel E. Maurino, James Reason, Neil Johnston, and Rob B. Lee. (I have no idea how easy to find this book might be; I read it in the university engineering library.) It happened on June 10, 1990, at 17,300 feet. The captain was sucked halfway out of the plane, was caught by the cabin crew, and remained there until the copilot had landed the plane; he suffered broken bones and frostbite. Just before the flight, the windscreen had been replaced and secured with the wrong size bolts. The chapter goes into great detail on exactly what happened the night before, all the steps that the maintenance manager went through that led him to use the wrong bolts while following what seemed to him to be conscientious procedures. -- Katie Schwarz "There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs." -- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass" From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:33 From: "Angus Doss" Subject: Re: All-Cargo aircraft's lack of fire suppression 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 > 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 Where was the shipping manifest to present to the fire crew? Did they land at an airport with CRFF equipment or a non-rated facility? Bill Doss From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:34 From: Michael P Nixon Subject: Re: Aquaplaning speed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 03 Oct 99 18:18:22 "Robert Blakely" writes: >Could somebody give me the formula for determining aquaplaning speed. (s) = (mu) mulitipled by the square root of (p) where s equals speed, mu equals the coefficient of friction, and p equals the tire pressure. __ 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 Sun Oct 17 23:29:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:35 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: Aquaplaning speed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wq5/eZqoNbrU+D6WdqiRE8+vxpN5sRhk+4UajYlgPt1qt8Wnljy57fc7U+NcIFSKZPWq0C2JI47!mKM014R3GyWReIaFTfLd3XH82pjCcckWDDidO3TcEZLwpIvWlS+laQClB8s1AwXx+gGR84zvPwva!kSdIHdxpqf4= X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 In article , "Robert Blakely" wrote: >Could somebody give me the formula for determining aquaplaning speed. In knots, it is 9 times the squarefoot of tire pressure in psi. Not exact, but close. Ron From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:36 From: "Smurf" Subject: Re: Aquaplaning speed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Could somebody give me the formula for determining aquaplaning speed. 8.6 times the square root of the tire pressure........ From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:37 From: "PsychoPat" Subject: Re: Aquaplaning speed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: draco.tiscalinet.it 939083306 12868 212.123.81.241 (5 Oct 1999 00:28:26 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Tiscali Spa NNTP-Posting-Host: rm1-1129.tiscalinet.it Robert Blakely wrote in message airliners.1999.1076@ohare.Chicago.COM... > Could somebody give me the formula for determining aquaplaning speed. For the dynamic aquaplaning the formula is: V=9 * square root of tire pressure where 9 is the a costant due to the density of the liquid. if you put the tire pressure in P.S.I you'll get the speed in kts! this formula gives you the "critical dynamic aquaplaning speed". good luck! From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:38 From: av8rmike@aol.com (AV8RMike) Subject: Re: Aquaplaning speed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The old formula for hydroplaning was 9 times the square root of the tire pressure in PSI. I've since heard that there's a updated formula that the FAA is promoting, but I don't remember what it is. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:39 From: "Steven Nicolaou" Subject: Re: Aquaplaning speed References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 12 Oct 1999 15:27:33 -0200, nic-pm02-l06.spidernet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: nic-pm02-l06.spidernet.net Go to the following link for a good explanation of aquaplaning (hydroplaning) including the equation. http://www.airapps.com/articles/hydropln.html Steven. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:40 From: "Phillip Byrd" Subject: Re: UAL Viscounts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d8.c0.70.4a In 1963 I flew a United Viscount from Memphis to Philadelphia, with stops in Nashville, Knoxville, and Washington National. It was my first ever flight on an airplane with four engines. As a 14 year-old, I thought it was pretty neat, especially with all the stops along the way. I was in college in Denver in the late 1960's and remember seeing two white DC-6's parked at Stapleton and operating which were used by United for pilot training. And I remember seeing those DC-6's in United livery making the Elko and Ely runs. There were no scheduled flights into Stapleton using the Caravelle, as the plane wasn't suitable for high altitude fields. But once in a while there would be a Caravelle on the ground for training, and occasionally an equipment change in Chicago or Detroit would put a flight into Denver on a Caravelle. Once my girlfriend was returning to Denver from Detroit, and lucked into a flight on a Caravelle. I was very dissappointed that she was completely unimpressed with her good fortune. I just got to see it on the ground. She got to fly in that marvelous machine and she didn't even notice! I often wonder where those Viscounts and Caravelles are today. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:41 From: "Douglas Maclean" Subject: Re: UAL Viscounts? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 939376029 1NNUCNF1GEB7EC393C gxsn.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: GXSN NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.147.235.126 On another group this link to an ex Capital airlines Viscount pilot who was there when United and Capital airlines merged. http://www.lexitech.com/bobrich/fly10.htm Doug From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:42 From: Henry Law Subject: Business-only flights (was: UAL Viscounts?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: None In article , Philip J. Kuhl writes >the Caravelle which United was also operating at the time. The Caravelle >was equipped with all first class seating (no coach) and thus was employed >more on routes carrying a high percentage of business travellers. United in >those days even offered "men only" executive flights -- times have certainly >changed! Times certainly have changed in that respect but I'm interested to note that the idea of first-class-only (well, actually business-class-only) flights seems to have reappeared. The article I read quoted research that suggested that business people were tired of paying n times more than the people towards the back of the plane for things that weren't in the end getting them to their destination any quicker. The solution that was being mooted was business-class only flights, departing at better times (and more frequently??), leaving the cheapskates (c'est moi) not just in the back of the plane but actually still in the departure lounge! Anyone with industry knowledge care to comment on this idea? I know nothing but I'd be surprised to find that there really was a business case (doh!) for this kind of thing, bearing in mind the higher cost of running the smaller planes that would operate a service like that. Henry Law <>< hjl@thelaws.demon.co.uk Manchester, England From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:43 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Business-only flights (was: UAL Viscounts?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Times certainly have changed in that respect but I'm interested to note >that the idea of first-class-only (well, actually business-class-only) >flights seems to have reappeared ... The solution >that was being mooted was business-class only flights, departing at >better times (and more frequently??), leaving the cheapskates (c'est >moi) not just in the back of the plane but actually still in the >departure lounge! The obvious example of this is Concorde. There have been a few examples of carriers which only offer a premium class of service, usually with dismal results. MGM Grand Air comes to mind. They operated F-only DC-8s on the JFK-LAX routes for a few years before giving up. (They also had some 727s in a similar config, but I think they only flew charter work.) Midwest Express is a notable exception, offering solely business class on the fleet of DC-9s (including a few MD-80s). They don't charge a premium over the full-fare Y of the majors, which no doubt is part of their success. United has had something a bit closer to what you're describing in terms of better schedules within a large carrier, though still with a mix of cabins. Seven of their 747-400s have a 36/123/142 (301 seats) instead of the 18/80/320 (418 seats) that had been standard on the rest of the fleet. In addition to JFK-NRT, which has high demand for premium seats, these aircraft were used on ORD-NRT when it was restricted to 6x weekly, and on ORD-HKG when it operated 3x weekly. The relatively few Y seats mostly went for full fare, so for the most part you had to pay a lot to fly non-stop. The cheapskates got to stop at SFO or LAX. Last I looked they were still flying ORD-NRT, amongst other routes, but they'll be converted to be like the rest of the fleet this winter, with the new 18/84/270 (372 seats) config. With the sligtly larger number of premium seats in the new config, combined with ORD-NRT going to 2x daily and ORD-HKG going to daily, there are now enough premium seats available on the non-stops to satisfy demand without the hassle of a separate sub-fleet. Proposals for the 777-200X and really long range uses of the A340-500, on routes such as SIN-LAX, are planned for similarly skewed configs with the cheapskates getting to stop somewhere. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:44 From: "Robert Wright" Subject: Re: CV-990 Aft Fan 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 >Jeff Taylor wrote: >> I would like information or possibly some pictures of the CV990 Aft >> Fan Engine. This would be the General Electric CJ805-23. I have read >> that it was a civlian J-79 from the F4 Phantom and other Military >> Aircraft. > >Not a J-79, but definitely a J-79 derivative. Actually, it seems like >quite a clever idea- definitely a quicker way to concoct a turbofan >from an existing turbojet than adding a spool. However, I assume it was >probably considerably less efficient or had some other deficiency >compared to "front-fan" engines. The CV-880's engines were closer to I think the aft-fan arrangement would have given rise to considerable interference drag due to its proximity with the lower surface of the wing. Also, the airflow coming along the outer surface of the core would be somewhat "dirtier" than if it hit the fan directly after sitting around at 35,000 feet, minding its own business, blissfully unaware of the monstrous set of airfoils bearing down on it. With a front fan, you also get the added benefit that the fan blades can sling rain, hail, gravel, etc. towards the outside, possibly missing the core and reducing damage to the high compressor and turbines, or cutting down on the amount of water being sucked into the combustor. I don't think that effect was really appreciated until well into the 1980's, however. RSW p.s. "The Road to the 707", by William Cook, has some discussion of the GE aft-fan/Convair arrangement and some of the problems it encountered, along with one profile drawing of the PW JT3D, GE aft fan, and JT3C (the turbojet precursor to the JT3D). From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:45 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: L1011 engine No 2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM David Lednicer wrote on Tue Oct 5 12:41:55 1999:- > The fairing you are looking at is called a "Frisbee Fairing", named > after its developer. ... Is there any connection with the famous circular throwing toy, or was that named (as I have heard) after Ma Frisbee's pies (which "threw better than they ate")? :-) Pete Mellor ------------------------------------------------------------------------- From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:46 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: L1011 engine No 2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news-read1.qis.net 939174477 209.150.114.46 (Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:47:57 EDT) Reply-To: frednerk@erols.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.114.46 David Lednicer wrote: > The fairing you are looking at is called a "Frisbee Fairing", named > after its developer. The fairing is designed to eliminate a flow > separation that occured in that area and in doing so, it reduces the > noise in the aft cabin. It was originally only fitted to L1011-500s. > > The separation that it eliminates is caused by the relatively thick > boundary layer on the fuselage encountering a region of increasing > (adverse) pressure in front of the "pylon" below the #2 engine inlet. > Without the fairing, the adverse pressure gradient would be too steep > for the boundary layer to stay attached and it would separate, forming a > necklace vortex around the "pylon". The fairing makes the gradient less > steep and eliminates the separation and associated vortex. Sounds good but if I recall correctly it is a Frakes Fairing. Trevor Fenn From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:47 From: Bob Mann Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. Reply-To: RWM@RWMann.com Perhaps this has been stated before; if not, the Space Shuttle boosters and main engines produce the loudest, most distinct crackle, due to (as others suggest) transonic/supersonic exhaust flow mixing. - Bob Mann -- R.W. Mann & Company, Inc. > Airline Industry Analysis and Consulting Port Washington, NY 11050 > tel 516-944-0900, fax 516-944-7280 mailto:info@RWMann.com > URL http://www.RWMann.com/ From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:48 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: 737-400 Vortex generators References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news-read1.qis.net 939174107 209.150.114.46 (Tue, 05 Oct 1999 21:41:47 EDT) Reply-To: frednerk@erols.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.114.46 Katie Schwarz wrote: > When did vortex generators first become common on airliners? Back in the fifties when Boeing built the 707 or there abouts. Trevor Fenn From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:49 From: "Robert Wright" Subject: thrust lever question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have a question about how power is set in various manufacturers' airplanes, specifically reverse. I know that in Boeing airliners, the thrust lever is pushed forward to increase power, and pulled back to decrease. There are separate levers on the thrust levers that are moved to deploy the reversers, and then the thrust lever is pushed forward again to advance power. Is this how it is done on Douglas and Airbus airplanes, or do they use a different scheme? Does anyone know about the L-1011? Also, I know that in the past, before FADEC, it was possible to overboost the engines by pushing the thrust levers all the way to the forward stop, rather than setting a specific EPR or N1. Is this still possible on any type of airliner? Is the rear stop idle, or cutoff? Thanks for any information. Robert S. Wright rswright@alumni.princeton.edu "Rome didn't build an empire by holding meetings, they built an empire by killing everyone who opposed them." From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:50 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: tire gas .... 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 l.a.ram@ix.netcom.com (Louis A. Ramsay) writes: > Nitrogen will not absorb any moisture. > > Last thing you would want at touchdown would be a chunk of ice in > the tires. (Sort of "out of balance.) Not to mention that pressure would be reduced by the water vapor that no longer contributed. -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 Sun Oct 17 23:29:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:51 From: "Fred" Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: Cyrix Corporation NNTP-Posting-Host: 147.5.204.216 >Nitrogen is an inert gas with a low coefficient of >expansion. It handles the cold soak condition a lot >better than air. Yes it is relativity inert. But it is about as close to ideal gas as air, so PV=nRT still. So same coefficient of expansion. > Nitrogen will not absorb any moisture. Same as air (80% N2). Absorption of moisture is function of relative humidity or partial pressure of water vapor and hence temperature only - not type of gas. >nitrogen is not effected by temperature as much as >regular air and will keep near the same pressure at >altitude & different airfields. See PV=nRT above. Again effected same as air. PV=nRT P - pressure V - volume n - number (amount) of gas R - fudge factor to make the units work out T - temperature So for aircraft, V - fixed for the most part n - fixed unless the tire needs fixing so you basically have: P = T Raise the temp and the pressure goes up. Independent of the type of gas. Air, at the temperature and pressures we normally see, including aircraft tires, is VERY close to an ideal gas. -- Fred From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:52 From: "J. W. Dawson" Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net 939171551 9034 209.130.164.110 (6 Oct 1999 00:59:11 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 209-130-164-110.nas-1.apv.frontiernet.net > Reduces the risk of fire. RPT aircraft have been lost due to tyres > overheating and catching fire in the wheel wells shortly after take > off. A swiss air DC-9 crash in the sixties comes to mind. I could be mistaken but I think it was a Swissair Caravelle. Anyone got the definite answer? JD From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:53 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Reduces the risk of fire. RPT aircraft have been lost due to tyres >> overheating and catching fire in the wheel wells shortly after take >> off. A swiss air DC-9 crash in the sixties comes to mind. >I could be mistaken but I think it was a Swissair Caravelle. Anyone got the >definite answer? It sounds like SR 306, a Caravelle III (registration HB-ICV) which crashed on 4 September 1963 shortly after departing ZRH on a ZRH-GVA-FCO flight. The Zurich airport was closed due to fog, but the captain taxied the aircraft up and down the runway with the engines at high power (with the brakes holding it back) to clear the fog somewhat using jet blast. Unfortunately, this procedure also overheated the brakes leading to damage on the port main landing gear which started a fire. The first volume of Macarthur Job's excellent Air Disaster series has a chapter on this accident. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:54 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: tire gas .... References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >> can someone tell me why aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen, instead >> of air ? The primary reason is it is required by an AD, as I recall. The second reason is this answer. >"Dr.Deepthi Attygalle" schrieb: > Also in >case of hard braking the tires will be deflates vi a melting fuse. The >resulting "air" stream will be directed to the brake discs to cool them >down. In case of using air or even pure oxygene, the risk of a brake fir is >muich higher. Steve Cole From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:55 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Hot Wheels Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: red.weeg.uiowa.edu I read in an article somewhere that heat buildup in the tire sidewalls can be a significant problem for airliners, I suppose because they want the landing gear to be as small and light as possible for a given load. According to the article, if a plane at near maximum weight had to taxi for a long distance on a hot day, they might have to wait for the tires to cool before takeoff in case they had to abort the takeoff and brake to a stop on the remaining runway: otherwise the heat from the brakes added to already hot tires could cause the tires to fail. Is this correct? If so, do they ever spray water on the tires during runup to cool the tires faster? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:56 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Selcal HF Technical info ???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.rdc1.tx.home.com 939046628 24.7.225.16 (Mon, 04 Oct 1999 07:17:08 PDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Organization: @Home Network NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.225.16 In article , airnig@bigfoot.com (N.Smith) wrote: > Does anyone know the specs for the multi tone selcal signal used on > HF, and the way it is composed into two tone bursts from a 4 letter > code ??? SELCAL doesn't care about radio frequency. It's input comes from a HF or VHF rcvr in the audio freq range. The freqs for the letters are (all in HZ) A 312.6 B 346.7 C 384.6 D 426.6 E 473.2 F 524.8 G 582.1 H 645.7 J 716.1 K 794.3 L 881.0 M 977.2 P 1083.9 Q 1202.3 R 1333.5 S 1479.1 From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:57 From: "Gary Watson" Subject: Re: Selcal HF Technical info ???? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 939248154 24.64.102.55 (Wed, 06 Oct 1999 15:15:54 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 N.Smith wrote in message ... > Does anyone know the specs for the multi tone selcal signal used on > HF, and the way it is composed into two tone bursts from a 4 letter > code ??? You might want to contact ARINC as they provide the Selcal feature around the world. I think they have a website. -- Gary Watson From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:58 From: "David G. Davidson" Subject: Re: Mysterious Boeing Panel References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.rdc1.tx.home.com 939334546 24.7.225.16 (Thu, 07 Oct 1999 15:15:46 PDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Organization: @Home Network NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.225.16 In article , "Michael & Ngaree Besse" wrote: > The risk of explosion is very small given that only persons given > the appropriate training, and using the correct procedure carry out this > task. The only accident I've heard of involving O2 servicing was on a Delta 727. Delta uses the "remove bottle, service and replace" method. Personally, if it was my airplane I'd want the external panel. No chance of leaks from breaking the lines and even less chance for accidents caused by O2 escaping into the E&E compartment. IMHO. From kls Sun Oct 17 23:29:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:29:59 From: "Paul Rasmussen" Subject: Delta Shuttle fleet Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news3.mia 939175468 209.214.151.86 (Tue, 05 Oct 1999 22:04:28 EDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.214.151.86 I've noticed some recent posts concerning Delta's plans for its shuttle fleet. This release on the PR Newswire ends the speculation: "Delta Shuttle will introduce a fleet of 16 new, quiet Boeing 737-800 Stage III aircraft... in July 2000. The aircraft will be equipped with new, ergonomically advanced seats that feature four-way adjustable headrests, more personal space on-board, battery-saving Empower(TM) system for laptop computers, new easy-access telephones, and seatback hooks for hanging jackets. The cabin also will provide each passenger with 30 percent more overhead bin space. The noise footprint at 70 decibels is one-twelfth of the Delta Shuttle's current B-727-200. The new aircraft also will burn 35 to 40 percent less fuel." From kls Sun Oct 17 23:30:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:30:00 From: Subject: Re: Airfoil surface finish References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.ce.53 davidwells wrote in message ... >I am having difficulty finding information on the benefits of improved >surface finish on airfoils in gas turbine engines (ie. fan blades and >compressor blades and vanes). >snip Most production engine components I am familiar with have surface finishes in the 16 to 32 mircoinch range. 32 is not to difficult to achieve with normal production methods, 16 usual requires an abrasive flow operation (like Extrude hone) or hand finishing/polishing and is more expensive to achieve than a 32 finish. I have seen some fluidized bed arrangements which use a powered abrasive media which could offer a lower cost method of improving the finish. There is a point of diminishing returns with regards to surface finish. There is a definite improvement going from 32 to 16 which is why a lot of components are polished to a 16 finish. However, after a period of service, parts tend to get rougher due to ingestion of sand and dust. Going for a surface finish much below 16 provides only a very short term improvement - great for passing a test cell performance calibration but not much else. Mark Johnston Sr Development Engineer LT101 engine project AlliedSignal Engines Phx, AZ LT101 From kls Sun Oct 17 23:30:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:30:01 From: Art & Janet Subject: Re: Airfoil surface finish References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 939263436 18171 12.79.34.85 (7 Oct 1999 02:30:36 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.34.85 davidwells wrote: > I am having difficulty finding information on the benefits of improved > surface finish on airfoils in gas turbine engines (ie. fan blades and > compressor blades and vanes). You probably won't be able to find this type of info in any public literature. This type of process is used by numerous engine manufacturers, and it is very proprietary, as are the methods of achieving the finish (although within the industry everyone knows everyone else's business) -A.W. Utay From kls Sun Oct 17 23:30:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:30:02 From: drela@mit.edu (Mark Drela) Subject: Re: Airfoil surface finish 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 , "davidwells" writes: > I am having difficulty finding information on the benefits of improved > surface finish on airfoils in gas turbine engines (ie. fan blades and > compressor blades and vanes). > > Also, someone has suggested that there may be an optimum limit (around > 12 micro-inches) for airfoils beyond which SFC won't improve. There is a minimum roughness height below which the turbulent skin friction is essentially the same as on a perfectly smooth wall (see Schlichting or White). This height is about 4 in wall units: + h = h u* / nu = 4 u* = shear velocity = Ue sqrt(Cf/2) nu = kinematic viscosity Ue = BL edge velocity Cf = turbulent skin friction coefficient So the wall is effectively smooth when the height/chord ratio is 4 nu h < ---------- -- sqrt(Cf/2) Ue or equivalently h 4 1 - < ---------- --- x sqrt(Cf/2) Rex - Mark Drela - MIT Aero & Astro From kls Sun Oct 17 23:30:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Oct 99 23:30:03 From: JF Mezei Subject: Flaps and aircraft climb performance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wagner.videotron.net 939009493 207.253.114.121 (Sun, 03 Oct 1999 23:58:13 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.253.114.121 In the Cali 757 crash, there was some discussion on the effect of the flaps and that if they had retracted quicker/earlier, it may have helped the plane climb faster and perhaps avoid the contact with the mountain. In the flying skidoo (CRJ) incident at Fredericton (Canada), the CRJ aborted a landing (go around) but did not retract flaps and increase thrust (they were at idle) quickly enough, and as a result, it stalled while trying to climb. I had been told that flaps allowed a wing to produce additional lift at slower speeds. If that were the case, how come retrcating flaps would be a priority in a go-around situation (or in the case of Cali, trying to climb VERY quickly from a low-speed approach situation) ? In a go around situation, what is wrong with keeping the flaps down, putting thrust to maximum and only retract flaps once the speed and altitude have started to rise ? From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:41 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: Strange 707 at Burbank Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: inet16.us.oracle.com 941250311 18526 139.185.10.100 (30 Oct 1999 02:25:11 GMT) Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: sfeigin@us.oracle.com NNTP-Posting-Host: polaris.us.oracle.com I saw a very strange looking 707 yesterday at the Burbank airport. I glanced out the window and saw a 707 with enormous winglets taxi by. Not the little fences like on an A320, but 6 or 7 foot tall winglets like on a 747-400. The fuselage lettering said something like "Stage III 707" and the was an emblem with the letters "SI" on the tail. The engines were the old pure turbojet type, not the later turbo fans. Anyone know what I saw, and why it was built? I can't imagine there is much economic value left in ancient 707s. -- Stuart Feigin This message has nothing to do with Oracle Corporation. I do not represent them in any way. From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:42 From: "Sunil Gupta" Subject: 777 engine tow-in Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: guzZFj2OurNbmwwLZgPnESkxsTra7YscIhI4HGanbPk= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Does anyone know why the engines on the 777 toe-in? I've never seen this on any other airliner. TIA ______________________________ Sunil Email: sunilgupta@erols.com Web Site: http://www.erols.com/sunilgupta From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:43 From: "Dr.Deepthi Attygalle" Subject: an all electric aircraft .... Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM the airbus home page talks of "One such development is the study of electrohydraulic actuators (EHA) which could lead to an all-electric aircraft. They have already been tested on the Iron Bird and in flight. " can someone explain .... do they mean that there will no longer be hydraulic systems ? Prasanna From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:44 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? 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 940262415 26348 129.116.176.203 (18 Oct 1999 16:00:15 GMT) Organization: Applied Research Laboratories - The University of Texas at Austin NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu Scott Peterson wrote: > The show, which will be called "Jumbo Jet Crash: The Ultimate Safety > Test" wants to crash a Convair 990 into a dry lake in San Bernardino > County in California. Pathetic. Calling the 990, about the size of a DC-9, a 'Jumbo' is pretty silly. Wantonly destroying one is ridiculous. Of course, they bought it so they can pretty much do whatever they want with it :-( Even if it happens, I doubt it will be the "last flight of a 990." I believe NASA still owns one and their fleet of old-timers tends to get used, if infrequently, for a very long time. -- Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:45 From: Tom Turton Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Raytheon ITSS I know Scott was just reporting what he read, but does anyone else note the irony here... a show called, "Jumbo Jet Crash: The Ultimate Safety Test", and they are going to crash a what, Convair 990?!?! Why not a report on "Modern Minivan Safety Test", and crash some old VW Vanagon's? What is the link between "jumbo jets" and a Convair 990 (more the size and vintage of a B-707)? Of course, Scott provided the network's answer....Sweeps Week! Why don't they just show Executive Decision, or one of the later Airplane disaster movies? From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:46 From: Scott Peterson Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.ca.57 Scott Peterson wrote: >The Los Angeles Times had an article this morning about a TV show >wanting to crash a jet airliner into the Southern California Desert. >There was a picture. If anyone's interested, let me know and I'll post >it to one of the binary groups. As a followup, this as apparently been put off until early next year. Scott Peterson Lord, make me to be the person that my dog thinks I am." From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:47 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Fairchild-Dornier 328JET Selling Points Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: green.weeg.uiowa.edu Reply-To: "P. Wezeman" When I first read about the 328JET in Aviation Week it seemed like something of a stop-gap, a minimal jet conversion of the 328 turboprop that could be ready quickly until a purpose-built jetliner of that size, which would be faster and have greater fuel efficiency, was available. Now I see that they are selling a lot of the planes. What do the customers like about them? How does the 328JET compare to other regional jetliners of the same size? The 328JET seems to be violating the unwritten rule that successful jet aircraft should be designed from scratch as jets. The only other propeller-to-jet conversion that reached production status that I know of was the Yak-15 fighter, and perhaps the Supermarine Attacker, which used the wing and landing gear from the Spiteful. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:48 From: David Lednicer Subject: L1011 engine No 2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com Pete Mellor wrote: > Is there any connection with the famous circular throwing toy, or was > that named (as I have heard) after Ma Frisbee's pies (which "threw > better than they ate")? :-) Story I heard was that it was named after the aero guy at Lockheed who thought up the fairing. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:49 From: "W-A-A" Subject: American Airlines L1011 ??? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.flash.net 940375911 38.30.141.74 (Tue, 19 Oct 1999 18:31:51 CDT) Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.30.141.74 In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's for only a few summer months. I saw these aircraft at DFW when I lived in Dallas, and failed to take any pictures of them. The tails were painted light gray, but without the "AA". Does anyone know the story behind these odd step-children in American's fleet? Why did they arrive? Can anyone produce a photo? From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:50 From: QuantMan@aol.com Subject: Re: Business-only flights (was: UAL Viscounts?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >United in >those days even offered "men only" executive flights -- times have certainly >changed! My father, Robert Burstein, was an attorney at the Bureau of Enforcement of the Civil Aeuronautics Board from 1949 until his retirement in 1969. Those were the days when many civil servants, like my father, were top Depression-era graduates who had gone to Washingotn because that's where the best jobs were. My father firmly believed that the Civil Aeronautics Act required that airlines not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc., etc. I vividly recall his coming home one evening in the early 1960's with a story about a very irate woman who stopped by his office that day to complain about UA's "men only" flight from Chicago to Wasington. He called some people at UA who told him that there was another flight at the same time that the woman could have flown on, but it turned out that the "alternative" flight was a DC-6 while the men-only flight was an all first class Viscount. While I don't know the precise communications which were used, I do remember that my father felt that this was discrimination against women which was prohibitted by the Civil Aeronautics Act, and after a few phone calls, UA dropped the all-male flights. Alan Burstein From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:51 From: daa@rmi.net (david avery) Subject: Re: Business-only flights (was: UAL Viscounts?) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: den-news1.rmi.net 940315836 166.93.219.82 (Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:50:36 MDT) Organization: RMI.NET X-Newsreader: EmTec News for OS/2 [version: 4.6e] NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.93.219.82 In message , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >>Times certainly have changed in that respect but I'm interested to note >>that the idea of first-class-only (well, actually business-class-only) >>flights seems to have reappeared ... The solution >>that was being mooted was business-class only flights, departing at >>better times (and more frequently??), leaving the cheapskates (c'est >>moi) not just in the back of the plane but actually still in the >>departure lounge! > >The obvious example of this is Concorde. > >There have been a few examples of carriers which only offer a premium >class of service, usually with dismal results. MGM Grand Air comes to >mind. They operated F-only DC-8s on the JFK-LAX routes for a few years >before giving up. (They also had some 727s in a similar config, but I >think they only flew charter work.) MGM Grand started out with the 3 Viscount Air 727-100s. Those were configured as all F class - 32 seats total - 4 compartments of 4 seats ( 2 facing 2), 2 compartments of 2 seats, and the rest (14 seats) were individual swivel recliners. after a few years of success on the LAX-JFK scheduled service plus sports team and concert tour charters, they got 3 DC-8s which were 3 cabin aircraft, front was individual swivel recliners, middle was sleepers, and aft was 10 rows of 2x2 F class type seats. shortly after they started the DC-8 service, desert storm started and airtravel dropped and put them out of business. but much of the operation lives on a Champion Air Dave Avery daa@rmi.net United Airlines Simulator Support From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:52 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Business-only flights (was: UAL Viscounts?) 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] In article , Philip J. Kuhl writes >the Caravelle which United was also operating at the time. The Caravelle >was equipped with all first class seating (no coach) and thus was employed >more on routes carrying a high percentage of business travellers. United in >those days even offered "men only" executive flights -- times have certainly >changed! For a number of years when both jets and prop aircraft were being flown on the same routes there was a premium for flying in jets. In fact, I think this was the introduction of first class to flying. Up to the 1930's, if I recall correctly, all rail travel in the US was nominally one class, with the Pullman service being just a charge for the berth or seat. Then the coach fare was reduced (from 3.6 cents per mile to 2 cents per mile?) and the old higher fare continued to be charged for Pullman (in addition to the charge for berth, roomette or what have you) as first class. The air fares were generally made to equal the rail Pullman fares, but I think it was all one class until the jets. It was a big question when the two classes were in the same airplane as to what the premium bought you. -- Gerry From kls Sat Oct 30 17:55:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 30 Oct 99 17:55:53 From: "scooter" Subject: A320 flight-deck panel measurements Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Oregon Public Networking X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: pm3-040.efn.org If ANYONE has dimensional data on the interior flight-deck panels and sub-panels (overhead, glareshield, forward instrument, and center pedestal panels) PLEASE get in touch with me. Even outline dimensions for the entire panels themselves would help. Even if you might know someone who has access to CAD drawings or any source for this info, I would greatly appreciate it. I would even be willing to pay for the info If I knew it were accurate. Thanks in advance Scott Ashburn scott_a@efn.org From kls Fri Nov 5 00:03:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:03:55 From: "Steven Nicolaou" Subject: Re: L1011 engine No 2 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 26 Oct 1999 00:56:21 -0300, nic-pm03-l13.spidernet.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: nic-pm03-l13.spidernet.net > Sounds good but if I recall correctly it is a Frakes Fairing. According to "Giant Jetliners" by Guy Norris and Mark Wagner, it is in fact called a "Frisbee Fairing" named after its designer, Lockheed chief engineer Lloyd Frisbee. The fairing improved aerodynamic efficiency over earlier models which suffered from air stagnating at the faring between the inlet and the fuselage. Steven. From kls Fri Nov 5 00:03:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:03:56 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wmC6AWrogxuShQdN65o6x0ijULu8jAg9vsp7u/9/ZXuvpLX5smum6pRLrirDzHIqyJzdoMt/vTz!JILaTkjHWUYaWeRY0JUbFUL42HAbZbIYln5tfERf5Q7SiVrzz5KDXjsfbezX9a32gSUhSY20WE3+!rQf7EUE8 X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 In article , "W-A-A" wrote: >In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's >for only a few summer months. I saw these aircraft at DFW when I lived >in Dallas, and failed to take any pictures of them. The tails were >painted light gray, but without the "AA". Does anyone know the story >behind these odd step-children in American's fleet? Why did they >arrive? Can anyone produce a photo? I think you might have seen American Trans Am. Ron From kls Fri Nov 5 00:03:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:03:57 From: skiea3b@earthlink.net Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust90.tnt1.broken-arrow.ok.da.uu.net Reply-To: skiea3b@earthlink.net W-A-A wrote: > In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's > for only a few summer months. I saw these aircraft at DFW when I lived > in Dallas ... I don't know of any 1011's but AAL leased 2 747-SP's until the MD-11's came on line (around fall 91). They fly from DFW-NRT Jeff From kls Fri Nov 5 00:03:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:03:58 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I don't know of any 1011's but AAL leased 2 747-SP's until the MD-11's >came on line (around fall 91). They fly from DFW-NRT They bought both of them, from TWA, in the second half of 1986 for the DFW-NRT route. They were sold in 1990 but leased back until early 1993. Once the MD-11s started coming on-line, they moved to Atlantic routes. I'm pretty sure they were regulars on JFK-LHR for a while. I've never heard of American operating an L-1011. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Nov 5 00:03:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:03:59 From: ctill@mindspring.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: a5.f7.a2.ac Reply-To: ctill@mindspring.com >In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's >for only a few summer months. News to me. I wonder if they were ex-HA L10s that were being displaced by the D10s that AA leased to HA. From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:00 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Fairchild-Dornier 328JET Selling Points References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news-read1.qis.net 941373352 209.150.110.47 (Sun, 31 Oct 1999 07:35:52 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.110.47 Reply-To: frednerk@erols.com "P. Wezeman" wrote: > When I first read about the 328JET in Aviation Week it seemed > like something of a stop-gap, a minimal jet conversion of the 328 > turboprop that could be ready quickly until a purpose-built > jetliner of that size, which would be faster and have greater fuel > efficiency, was available. Now I see that they are selling a lot > of the planes. What do the customers like about them? How does the > 328JET compare to other regional jetliners of the same size? The main selling point would be that the travelling public has an aversion to propellors Trevor Fenn From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:01 From: sammyk8@hotmail.com Subject: Re: Fairchild-Dornier 328JET Selling Points References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: News Xpress 2.01 Organization: Monmouth Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: bg-tc-ppp925.monmouth.com > The 328JET seems to be violating the unwritten rule that >successful jet aircraft should be designed from scratch as jets. >The only other propeller-to-jet conversion that reached production >status that I know of was the Yak-15 fighter, and perhaps the Supermarine >Attacker, which used the wing and landing gear from the Spiteful. I could be wrong, but, isn't the Embraer ERJ-145 based on a previous prop design? Look how popular IT is! Sammy From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:02 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Fairchild-Dornier 328JET Selling Points References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >I could be wrong, but, isn't the Embraer ERJ-145 based on a previous prop >design? Look how popular IT is! The fuselage, including the cockpit, is derived from the EMB-120 Brasilia. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:03 From: m3kinnis@ccnet.com Subject: Re: Fairchild-Dornier 328JET Selling Points References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nuq-read.news.verio.net 941518844 204.247.248.254 (Tue, 02 Nov 1999 05:00:44 GMT) Organization: Verio NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.248.254 P. Wezeman typed: > When I first read about the 328JET in Aviation Week it seemed >like something of a stop-gap, a minimal jet conversion of the 328 >turboprop that could be ready quickly until a purpose-built >jetliner of that size, which would be faster and have greater fuel >efficiency, was available. Now I see that they are selling a lot >of the planes. What do the customers like about them? Here's a guess: Perhaps one doesn't have to wait as long to take delivery of a 328JET vs. a Canadair and Embraer. Anyone know how much a 328JET costs to purchase/operate vs. Canadair and Embraer? Gary change m3 to mc From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:04 From: "Clunk (Bernhard Zunk)" Subject: Re: Fairchild-Dornier 328JET Selling Points References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 941613666 139.134.228.173 (Wed, 03 Nov 1999 18:21:06 EST) Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.228.173 The 328 on which the 328JET is based was very advance in terms of having a very light weight carbon composite fuselage and was in case designed to be very fast for a turboprop to jet standards so that it could mix in with jet landing patterns. Compared to Embraers EMB135 it has a lower cruise of M0.7 as opposed to M0.78 but compensates by having a faster climb rate due to its low weight and wings. Also there is a 44 seat 428JET growth option now. From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:05 From: Tom Digby Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 941425316 235 bubbles@206.184.139.150 NNTP-Posting-Host: shell18.ba.best.com Scott Peterson wrote: > The Los Angeles Times had an article this morning about a TV show > wanting to crash a jet airliner into the Southern California Desert. > There was a picture. If anyone's interested, let me know and I'll post > it to one of the binary groups. It was before my time, but people at one time staged train wrecks. They would lay track out into the middle of a field somewhere, charge admission to watch, and crash two steam locomotives into each other head-on. I don't know if they loaded the trains with gunpowder and such, but they might well have. I don't know whether such events drew opposition from train-lovers and whatever environmentalists existed back then. -- Tom Digby bubbles@well.com http://www.well.com/~bubbles/ From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:06 From: Scott Peterson Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.da.6a Steve Lacker wrote: >Pathetic. Calling the 990, about the size of a DC-9, a 'Jumbo' is pretty >silly. Wantonly destroying one is ridiculous. Of course, they bought it >so they can pretty much do whatever they want with it :-( Actually it was closer to a DC-8. A bit larger, if I remember correctly. Plus, I thought the NASA one crashed years ago and was never replaced. Scott Peterson I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy... From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:07 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Plus, I thought the NASA one crashed years ago and was never replaced. NASA actually owned three 990s over the years, and a fourth is related to NASA's 990 fleet. Here they are by MSN and registration: msn 01 (N711NA) Named Galileo, this aircraft was leased from Convair then purchased for $2.5 million. It was equipped with 13 optical-glass viewing ports along the upper fuselage and was used on various scientific missions including eclipse observation flights. It was based at the Ames Research Center at Moffet Field, California until lost in a mid- air collision on 12 April 1973. msn 37 (N712NA) Named Galileo II, this and another ex-Garuda 990 (see next entry) were acquired by California Airmotive in June 1973 for NASA. It was equipped in similar manner to NASA's first 990. It was lost after an aborted takeoff at March AFB, California on 17 July 1985. msn 04 California Airmotive acquired two ex-Garuda 990s, with one presumably intended as parts. While being ferried to the US, this one suffered major damange during a landing accident at Guam, where it ended up being salvaged for parts. msn 29 (N713NA,N710NA,N810NA) NASA bought this 990 in 1975 for a mere $250k, including a spare engine. It served various roles between stints in storage before being equipped, in 1991, with a space shuttle main landing gear for test purposes. In 1995, after the tests were completed, it was parked at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards AFB, where it remains. (This info is primarily from Jon Proctor's "Convair 880 & 990" book, volume one of the excellent Great Airlines 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 Fri Nov 5 00:04:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:08 From: Joseph David Farrell Subject: Egypt Air 990 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: P7V8CGUWIh7aa0OTnLUZcYb0q7SeI6iix9R4vI8wa0g= X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 Organization: Benefits Litigation Concepts Reply-To: erisajd@erols.com OK - this is for the AE's out there. Scenario - Pilots distracted - i.e., one of them gets uop and goes potty after they reach cruise. One returns, while the other pilot is opeing the door, there is upset from wake turbulence or some other unsteady air - The elevator trim then goes uncommanded into a dive, say into a full down deflection to govern an upset that was not that serious. The autopilot fights it until either the pilot is clicked off by a pilot or the autpilot gives up and releases it. At that point there is a big negative G. The pilots hands coming off the yoke if they were on it at all when he was reaching back to open the door. The pilot off his feet smashes into the ceiling. The pilot in his seat, hopefully with his belt on, struggles to put his arms down and finally, after whatever it takes, with redout problems, gets his hands on the the yoke and pulls up. At this point we have FULL nose down trim. Cruise in a 763 is mach .84, with .86 the barber pole max IAS. This a/c then exceeds the never exceed speed, and continues to accelerate. At transsonic and even slower speeds there is the phenomenon of mach tuckunder, where as the a/c speeds up the swept wing configuration brings the nose down. The nose down is now compounded by mack tuckunder, and the on question is how fast did it get [i.e, supersonic or merely transonic] and was the tail big enough at say mach .95 to bring the nose up with full down trim? The second question is how much time does it take to reach and unrecoverable airspeed, and the final question is did the pilots simply pull the wings off when that happened? This type of scenario explains the entire observed issues, high rates of descent, and the working transponder in a 20,000 fpm descent rate until one of two things occurred, the a/c broke apart from the overspeed or the pilots simply pulled too hard and pulled the wings off from the G's - either of these explain the powered transponder and the high rates of descent - the second one actually to fit the facts better since it allows for the wings and stabilzers to shear off and the airframe to remain powered until it completely breaks up from the G forces. I'd like to hear thoughts from anyone having aeronautical engineering experience or education on the facts? Anyone know the design specs of the 767 enough to know what speed mach tuck under is not recoverable - there is such a speed? Joe From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:09 From: "samsmart" Subject: Re: "crackle" References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.c8.19 Bob Mann wrote in message ... >Perhaps this has been stated before; if not, the Space Shuttle boosters >and main engines produce the loudest, most distinct crackle, due to (as >others suggest) transonic/supersonic exhaust flow mixing. Similar to that of a 'top-fuel' drag racer. The nitro-methane/alcohol mix they use is highly flammable. From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:10 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: 777 engine tow-in References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.mb.home.com 941386116 24.108.105.50 (Sun, 31 Oct 1999 08:08:36 PST) Organization: @Home Network Canada NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.108.105.50 Sunil Gupta wrote: > Does anyone know why the engines on the 777 toe-in? I've never seen this on > any other airliner. Most commercial a/c and even turboprops have a slight toe-in of the intake. This is down as a result of local flow characteristics and in some instances to provide a thrust line that reduces impingement of the exhaust stream on the horizontal tail during rotation of the a/c. I cannot recall other specific reasons. cheers -- EF From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:11 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: 777 engine tow-in References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com Sunil Gupta wrote: > > Does anyone know why the engines on the 777 toe-in? I've never seen > this on any other airliner. Actually, every airliner's engines are mounted with both toe and pitch. According to Boeing design practice, toe is set to minimize SFC. Sometimes, toe is also set by the need to improve engine-out handling qualities. As an example, the JT9Ds on a 747-100 have 2 degrees of toe-in and no pitch, but the inlet centerline has -4 degrees of pitch. The PW4000s on a 777 have 2 degrees of toe-in. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:12 From: "Thaddeus J. Beier" 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: typhoon-la.pbi.net 941572093 216.102.153.252 (Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:48:13 PST) Organization: Hammerhead Productions Reply-to: thad@hammerhead.com robert wright wrote: > >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. I've been wondering if anybody ever considered building a three engine airplane, with all of the engines on the wing. Now, I recognize that this is going to be funny looking, but work with me for a minute. You'd mount the single engine substantially farther out the wing than either of the two engines on the other side, so the thrust and weight moments could be not too far off. You'd probably be carrying some sideload on the tail, but you can build an tail with some lift at zero angle of attack that would have very little more profile drag than a symetrical tail, although there would be some added induced drag. Perhaps there would be some odd responses in different corners of the flight envelope, but modern computerized flight controls could hide those. You'd have a plane with more than two engines, but with less weight and complexity than a four engine plane, and you'd have all the engines on the wings (where they belong). You might place the single engine on the port side, so that there'd only be one engine on the side where jetways attach to the airplanes. I've been a fan of asymetrical airplanes, like Rutan's ARES and spectacular Boomerang. I think that they could work here, too. thad From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:13 From: don@news.daedalus.co.nz (Don Stokes) Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: titan.xtra.co.nz 941372569 10675403 203.96.152.26 (31 Oct 1999 12:22:49 GMT) Organization: Daedalus Consulting NNTP-Posting-Host: shelley.paradise.net.nz In article , Stuart Feigin wrote: >I saw a very strange looking 707 yesterday at the >Burbank airport. I glanced out the window and saw >a 707 with enormous winglets taxi by. Not the >little fences like on an A320, but 6 or 7 foot >tall winglets like on a 747-400. The fuselage >lettering said something like "Stage III 707" and >the was an emblem with the letters "SI" on the Ah, that's QSI/Burbank's bird. They've been doing hushkits and stuff for the B707 for a while. I had a long chat with them at Farnborough last year, and the mentioned the winglet -- they's had some last minute teething problems so didn't have the winglets installed at the time. Got a good look at the engine hushkits though. >tail. The engines were the old pure turbojet >type, not the later turbo fans. They are fans. What you were looking at is the QSI hushkit. They're standard-issue JT3Ds, but the bypass flow is ducted all the way around to the tailpipe, like on the JT8D (737-200/727/DC-9 engine), and a mixer in the tailpipe to bix the flows and cut noise. A set of clamshell style reversers close behind the mixer. The inlet is heavily modified for sound suppression as well, and apparently makes inlet flow more efficient. The guy I was talking to reckoned the kit actually improved fuel burn by about 3%. >Anyone know what I saw, and why it was built? I >can't imagine there is much economic value left in >ancient 707s. You'd be surprised. Last time I looked, a 707 could be got for about $.5-$1M. That's a lot less than $50M+ for a new plane of more or less equivalent capacity (say 757, A321), and still a lot cheaper than "modern" types secondhand. And if you're using them for executive transport duties or overnight cargo, the fuel burn doesn't really bite you as much as it would for frequent passenger services. But the capital cost of modern airliners is the main thing keeping the old birds in the air. (Posted & mailed) -- don From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:14 From: Trevor Fenn Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news-read1.qis.net 941373597 209.150.110.47 (Sun, 31 Oct 1999 07:39:57 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.110.47 Reply-To: frednerk@erols.com Stuart Feigin wrote: > I saw a very strange looking 707 yesterday at the > Burbank airport. I glanced out the window and saw > a 707 with enormous winglets taxi by. Not the > little fences like on an A320, but 6 or 7 foot > tall winglets like on a 747-400. The fuselage > lettering said something like "Stage III 707" and > the was an emblem with the letters "SI" on the > tail. The engines were the old pure turbojet > type, not the later turbo fans. Are you sure the engines were the "old pure turbojet type"? There is a project under way to certify a conversion of the 707 to Stage III noise compliance using Pratt & Whitney JT8D-219 engines as fitted to the MD-8x series aircraft, maybe this is the plane you saw. Trevor Fenn From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:15 From: b.domke@coruscant.b.shuttle.de (Birgit & Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Organization: WiNShuttle, DFN - Deutsches Forschungsnetz eV NNTP-Posting-Host: p43.b.shuttle.de That probably was the same hush-kitted and winglet-fitted 707 displayed at this year's Paris Air Show. The one I saw had JT3D (TF33) turbofan engines, though. From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:16 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com Stuart Feigin wrote: > I saw a very strange looking 707 yesterday at the > Burbank airport. I glanced out the window and saw > a 707 with enormous winglets taxi by. Not the > little fences like on an A320, but 6 or 7 foot > tall winglets like on a 747-400. The fuselage > lettering said something like "Stage III 707" and > the was an emblem with the letters "SI" on the > tail. The engines were the old pure turbojet > type, not the later turbo fans. > > Anyone know what I saw, and why it was built? I > can't imagine there is much economic value left in > ancient 707s. The aircraft you saw was Burbank Aeronautical II's 707 testbed. It has winglets, modeled on those flown on a USAF KC-135 many years ago. It also has their Stage III engine nacelles, which look like the nacelles found on DC-8-62s and -63s. The aircraft you were looking at was one of the ones sold to the People's Republic of China in 1972. How do I know all this? I am working on the project and was down in Burbank a week and a half ago. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:17 From: siegman@stanford.edu (AES) Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 Organization: Stanford University NNTP-Posting-Host: siegmanpbook.stanford.edu > An engineering strike at the time was a major factor, the bolts being > obtained by an engineer who did not normally do the job. A storeman also > pointed out they were wrong but was ignored. This is sure reminiscent of the time some decades back when a United ??? lost *all three engines* over water somewhere S of Miami. IIRC in this case the storeman was away somewhere, so the mechanic doing maintenance on the engines went behind the counter himself and got three oil pressure sensors (?) off the shelf, not realizing that he also needed to go to another shelf to get the O-rings that were needed on the sensor units. Fascinating business, aviation -- what tiny causes can lead to big problems. From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:18 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >This is sure reminiscent of the time some decades back when a United ??? >lost *all three engines* over water somewhere S of Miami. That was an Eastern (not United) L-1011, reg N334EA, operating EA 855 MIA-NAS on 5 May 1983. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:19 From: "Ron" Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 940304435 209.178.183.229 (Mon, 18 Oct 1999 20:40:35 PDT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.178.183.229 I'm not a mechanical engineer, but it scares me that correct operation of this 'hold the window in place' mechanism is THAT depended upon a single bolt size. Size 9 bolt equals perfectly normal operation, size 8 bolt equals total disaster. Seems like a pretty thin margin. Ron From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:20 From: Martin Plath Subject: Re: Windshield blow out References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news06.btx.dtag.de 941151446 1134 320003795367-0001 991028 22:57:26 Organization: T-Online > In "David G. Davidson" writes: > >Does anyone have any information on the BA BAC1-11 that had the captain's > >windshield blow out? I'd really like to see an accident report. I recently found a description of the accident in "Emergency. Crisis on the Flight Deck" (Chapter "The Falling Feeling") by Stanley Steward, Airlife Publishing LtD., Shrewsbury, 1989 German Translation : "Emergency..." Kösler Verlag Köln 1994 ISBN 3-924208-18-2 Tschüß, Martin Plath From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:21 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: Flaps and aircraft climb performance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 10/17/99 11:30 PM, JF Mezei (jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca) said: >I had been told that flaps allowed a wing to produce additional lift at >slower speeds. If that were the case, how come retrcating flaps would >be a priority in a go-around situation (or in the case of Cali, trying >to climb VERY quickly from a low-speed approach situation) ? > >In a go around situation, what is wrong with keeping the flaps down, >putting thrust to maximum and only retract flaps once the speed and >altitude have started to rise ? Short answer: a little bit of flaps adds lift and is what is used for take-off; a lot of flap adds a lot more drag and is what is used for landing. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to climb with flaps fully extended. Most light planes use no flaps for take-off. -- Larry Stone lds11@cornell.edu http://www.enteract.com/~lstone/ From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:22 From: Don Stauffer Subject: Re: Flaps and aircraft climb performance References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: +r2ablpeLHB3PaNnkyWJ6u8A2oZKFtn2tPgts8cuLKFOlwOXrwoplSiD67Xx6+CwDbcxHme+kgfs!1BjRbrkXA+YeyGR7Culclg/fUJViS+r6BwzQn3YCy72dpy+MWw== The problem with leaving flaps down is that, while they do increase the maximum lift coefficient, they increase the drag coefficient even more. When the plane is already at a high angle of attack (and hence high drag state), the extra drag from the flaps may mean the aircraft is either unable to accelerate at all, or only VERY slowly. Since immediate retraction of flaps decreases the maximum lift, most planes require a judicious decrease in flap setting, a few notches at a time. Particularly the last few degrees of flaps cause LOTS of drag, so it is very important to get to the next-to-last notch as soon as possible, then slowly retract from there. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:23 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon.mbnet.mb.ca 940289640 207.161.189.87 (Mon, 18 Oct 1999 18:34:00 CDT) Organization: MBnet Networking Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.161.189.87 "P. Wezeman" wrote: > I read in an article somewhere that heat buildup in the tire > sidewalls can be a significant problem for airliners, I suppose because > they want the landing gear to be as small and light as possible for > a given load. According to the article, if a plane at near maximum > weight had to taxi for a long distance on a hot day, they might have > to wait for the tires to cool before takeoff in case they had to > abort the takeoff and brake to a stop on the remaining runway: otherwise > the heat from the brakes added to already hot tires could cause the > tires to fail. I believe there is a max temp limit on the brakes for retraction after takeoff. Also, brake performance drops as temp goes up. So, the wait is also required for this in case of an RTO. -- EF From kls Fri Nov 5 00:04:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 05 Nov 99 00:04:24 From: "Robert Wright" Subject: Re: Hot Wheels 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 >According to the article, if a plane at near maximum >weight had to taxi for a long distance on a hot day, they might have >to wait for the tires to cool before takeoff in case they had to >abort the takeoff and brake to a stop on the remaining runway: otherwise >the heat from the brakes added to already hot tires could cause the >tires to fail. > Is this correct? If so, do they ever spray water on the >tires during runup to cool the tires faster? I'm not sure, but I did once talk to a captain who said that on very heavy takeoffs, particularly out of places like Honolulu which involved some long taxiing, he would leave the gear down longer than normal after takeoff. This allowed the airflow more time to cool the brakes and also allowed the airplane to build up more speed before gear retraction. (The first thing that happens is that the main gears doors OPEN, to allow the gear back in, increasing drag.) I don't know if this is standard procedure, or just one captain's style. RSW From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:31 From: jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) Subject: Re: CV-990 Aft Fan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /w/U290ScLRZOHDrhdVW1/i3HlMJyBxdqNikvN3cOHRfVCgjNvWuzaIgfyvzMP2c340gVG78CWVW!n+80L5O7r5K3iv19LovRyFj1huwUDve12JOG87gPShjkOTUNYsFtoW8Wc9Kq0ZrO2j8fOg+yJzF7!j+aGy1btbtI= X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 In article , "Robert Wright" wrote: > I think the aft-fan arrangement would have given rise to considerable >interference drag due to its proximity with the lower surface of the wing. >Also, the airflow coming along the outer surface of the core would be >somewhat "dirtier" than if it hit the fan directly after sitting around at >35,000 feet, minding its own business, blissfully unaware of the monstrous >set of airfoils bearing down on it. With the engine in question, the aft fan was completely inclosed within the cowling. Only the larger diameter overall gave it away compared to the non-fan version on its predecessor. Ron From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:32 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cabot.ops.attcanada.net 941851115 142.194.55.96 (Sat, 06 Nov 1999 01:18:35 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.194.55.96 Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >msn 29 (N713NA,N710NA,N810NA) > NASA bought this 990 in 1975 for a mere $250k, including a spare > engine. It served various roles between stints in storage before > being equipped, in 1991, with a space shuttle main landing gear for > test purposes. In 1995, after the tests were completed, it was > parked at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards AFB, > where it remains. > Actually it's at Mojave. Was presented to the airport by NASA, although why MHV would want *another* CV jet I don't know. If this is the one they intend to use, seems a bit churlish to treat a gift that way to say the least. Brian From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:33 From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Subject: Re: Last Convair 990 Flight? 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] Tom Digby (bubbles@shell18.ba.best.com) wrote: > Scott Peterson wrote: > > The Los Angeles Times had an article this morning about a TV show > > wanting to crash a jet airliner into the Southern California Desert. > > There was a picture. If anyone's interested, let me know and I'll post > > it to one of the binary groups. > It was before my time, but people at one time staged train wrecks. They > would lay track out into the middle of a field somewhere, charge admission > to watch, and crash two steam locomotives into each other head-on. I > don't know if they loaded the trains with gunpowder and such, but they > might well have. I don't know whether such events drew opposition from > train-lovers and whatever environmentalists existed back then. It was an annual event at the Minnesota State Fair. I probably saw it in 1922. The engines were diamond stacked, probably 4-4-0's. The throttles were opened at each end of the track, the enginemen left as the trains started, and there was a lot of noise and steam and smoke and everything. I would be surprised if the same show were not put on at a number of other state fairs. If there was environmentalist opposition I wasn't old enough to know about it. There must have been quite a few thousand Civil War era locomotives around. -- Gerry From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:34 From: "Ian" Subject: A330 vs. B767 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: DCI HiNet X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 NNTP-Posting-Host: h249.s227.ts32.hinet.net I really wonder know if anybody know which aircraft will most likely be pick as the replacement of BA's B767-300ER or LH's aging A300. According to the German magazine Flug Revue,LH seem a likely buyer of B767-400ER...but they haven't bought Boeing's new planes for a while... And will BA choose Airbus???They are so nationalism these days on enging picking..and RR seem very suitable to A330-200.But in other hand,BA is still the most loyalty supporter of B777,and many desigh ideas of 767NG are from B777. Thanks for your answering. From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:35 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wsFG3i+gzS8z8hxbPH22GNGs6sJfEaiGe3IMPIY4saAvbw2/aVKSPNw1Q1kKdvjX9IoUB2/30at!gZXp3mOorzPTJ2Xh3UV0672j8zz2Pkn8TbMhMc5kg4dN5e7XFGI= Chuck Till wrote: > >In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's > >for only a few summer months. > > News to me. I wonder if they were ex-HA L10s that were being displaced > by the D10s that AA leased to HA. Aloha, HA never operated L10s. Still use the former AA -10s. Hugh From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:36 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wzbxY5C34TLNPGTIn7O/kM+Xrj5kdY98MOxu+7rz1B0qd4TuV92v+3/m/hTjTExCNq9qIq2PsRM!sLwGh5Lv+vDl5P0YQC4ybKh5Z2HIgoW/qhs4XZjo//8kbfVXXQ== W-A-A wrote: > In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's > for only a few summer months. I saw these aircraft at DFW when I lived > in Dallas, and failed to take any pictures of them. The tails were > painted light gray, but without the "AA". Does anyone know the story > behind these odd step-children in American's fleet? Why did they > arrive? Can anyone produce a photo? Aloha, UAL operated six L-10s that we got from PAA when we bought their Pacific division. We got rid of those suckers as soon as we could. I think they went to ATA and Delta. Hugh From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:37 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Aloha, UAL operated six L-10s that we got from >PAA when we bought their Pacific division. We got >rid of those suckers as soon as we could. The question was about AA, not UA. Anyway, UA didn't get rid of their L-1011s all that quickly -- some lasted more than three years. I know they flew LAX-SFO-OSA, but that only accounts for two of them. I don't know what other routes they flew though some of the SFO-NRT trips seem like a good bet, and perhaps beyond OSA/NRT. >I think they went to ATA and Delta. LTU got one of them, the other five went to Delta. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:38 From: "Gary Watson" Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 941856160 24.64.102.55 (Fri, 05 Nov 1999 18:42:40 PST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Organization: @Home Network Canada Reply-To: "Gary Watson" NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.64.102.55 Stage III technologies also had a GII at the NBAA in Atlanta with hush-kitted Spey engines. Thee is another hush kit builder in Colorado called Really Quiet who have a rather bizarre looking modification when the mixer shroud slides back 5 feet to the end of the ejector tube during take off and landing. Gary Watson From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:39 From: "Simo Lallukka" Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Reply-To: "Simo Lallukka" NNTP-Posting-Host: k123u3hel.dial.kolumbus.fi David Lednicer wrote in message ... > Stuart Feigin wrote: > > I saw a very strange looking 707 yesterday at the > > Burbank airport. I glanced out the window and saw > > a 707 with enormous winglets taxi DC 8 operator Cargolion: - B-707: The Boeing 707 freighter is meeting most of the cost and performance criteria of the DC-8. The two major disadvantages of the B-707 are ICAO Chapter III noise regulations and its remaining life expectancy. Although there are some projects engaged in certifying a hush kit for the B-707 to meet ICAO Chapter III noise regulation standards (Burbank in mid 1998), this hush kit will be about three to four times as expensive as the hush kit for the DC-8-62FH. Simo Lallukka From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:40 From: m3kinnis@ccnet.com Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nuq-read.news.verio.net 941846080 204.247.248.254 (Fri, 05 Nov 1999 23:54:40 GMT) Organization: Verio NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.247.248.254 Robert Wright typed: > I'm not sure, but I did once talk to a captain who said that on very >heavy takeoffs, particularly out of places like Honolulu which involved some >long taxiing, he would leave the gear down longer than normal after takeoff. >This allowed the airflow more time to cool the brakes and also allowed the >airplane to build up more speed before gear retraction. (The first thing >that happens is that the main gears doors OPEN, to allow the gear back in, >increasing drag.) I don't know if this is standard procedure, or just one >captain's style. Back in the mid-70's, I saw a TWA L-1011 takeoff from LAS 19L. He must have been a mile from the airport before he raised the gear. I wondered why he did that -- perhaps hot wheels. Gary change m3 to mc From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:41 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: red.weeg.uiowa.edu On 5 Nov 1999, Robert Wright wrote: > I'm not sure, but I did once talk to a captain who said that on very > heavy takeoffs, particularly out of places like Honolulu which involved some > long taxiing, he would leave the gear down longer than normal after takeoff. > This allowed the airflow more time to cool the brakes and also allowed the > airplane to build up more speed before gear retraction. (The first thing > that happens is that the main gears doors OPEN, to allow the gear back in, > increasing drag.) I don't know if this is standard procedure, or just one > captain's style. Why are the brakes hot at take-off? I thought it was the tire sidewalls that overheated. As it seems to me from watching, the plane taxis out using throttle to control speed, then stops from taxi speed and uses brakes to hold during run-up, then releases brakes and moves onto runway, and may stop once on runway before starting take-off run. Brakes are used twice or so at taxi speed, a fraction of their capacity. Is this incorrect? Do pilots have to"ride" the brakes to control taxi speed? Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:42 From: Jeff Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc2.tx.home.com 941873884 24.4.31.4 (Fri, 05 Nov 1999 23:38:04 PST) Organization: @Home Network NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.4.31.4 If you have a long taxi-out, then a great way to control brake temperature is with a slow taxi speed. A common practice at my aairline is "If delaying gear retraction to cool brakes, one minute of airborne cooling equates to approximately 10 minutes of ground cooling." In the Operation Manual of each airliner is a "Brake Cooling Procedure after Aborted Takeoff". It has a chart that you follow starting with your Gross Weight (take-off weight), then the indicated airspeed that you started the abort, the pressure altitude, and the outside air temperature. I'll give you an example for a 767-300ER: Your Gross Weight=320,000 and you abort the t/o at 120 knots. The Pressure altitude is 3,000ft. It's 80F outside. The brake cooling time would be 48 minutes before you can attempt another take-off. Usually, while your waiting, you do not set the parking brake. If the waiting time is more than 60 minutes, Maintenance (a mechanic) is required to check it out. From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:43 From: prglgw@aol.com (Prglgw) Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk Apsolutely, leaving the gear down a little longer after takeoff can be a perfectly normal procedure, my last aircraft in particular, L1011, has quite weak brakes, and a long taxi will certainly heat them up, that being said the brake indicators read false high, and can be a little misleading, it is quite normal for the brakes to be top of the green after landing, and then creep into the yellow during taxi to the gate, although we are told by Maint. that they are really not that hot. Still, re takeoff better to err on the side of saftey, remember Nationair! From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:44 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >> . . . if a plane at near maximum >> weight had to taxi for a long distance on a hot day, they might have >> to wait for the tires to cool before takeoff in case they had to >> abort the takeoff Quite true. But it is to allow the BRAKES to cool, not the tires. They have to wait to cool off the brakes after any landing or heavy taxi(taxiing is usually not a problem for brake temp--brake wear, yes). This is important in quick turn-arounds or a/c that fly short hops, as island jumpers such as JAL or in Hawaii. >I believe there is a max temp limit on the brakes for retraction after >takeoff. Also, brake performance drops as temp goes up. I'm not sure if the Flight Manual has crew check brake/tire temp before retraction. Gear retraction is automatic--in sense, crew has no time to ponder the issue. Most large a/c have provisions for cooling tires in wheel well and heat detectors in case one does ignite. Hot brakes will effect braking performance. So, a wait before takeoff is good planning for a possible RTO(Rejected Take-off). Steve Cole From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:45 From: "n1" Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 9 Nov 1999 21:37:21 GMT, 10.250.101.2 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.250.101.2 P. Wezeman wrote in message ... > I read in an article somewhere that heat buildup in the tire >can be a significant problem for airliners It can be a problem, usually on landing although this has basically been iraddicated by the use of multiple wheel low pressure tires reducing the individual wheel and tyre loads. The problem during taxying is more to do with brakes overheating, sometimes you need to wait a few minutes after taxy to allow them to cool down before commencing the take off run, brakes overheating is the main cause of u/c fire on a few older a/c and to a lesser degree on the newer ones. Neil / Engineer / England From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:46 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Hot Wheels References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The brakes on any large aircraft can and do absorb incredible amounts of energy. Meanwhile, aircraft tires are filled with nitrogen instead of air. This prevents tires expanding with the heat, as well as being incapable of supporting fire. If the crew believes that the tires are hotter than they like (almost no planes have any way to measure tire/brake/wheel temperature), they will generally leave the landing gear extended for a short while after takeoff. Although that increases the drag significantly, as well as limiting the airspeed they can fly, it dramaticly decreases the time required for the wheels and tires to cool. Incidently - the wheels are equipped with 'fuze plugs' that melt when the wheels get hot enough to present a possible hazard. TheFNG From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:47 From: tocopherol@my-deja.com Subject: `Black Boxes' Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.95.128.6 Why is it that magnetic tapes are used in `black box' recorders? Why are solid-state technologies not used? Is it because of fragility issues? Cost? Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:48 From: jrlh@webtv.net Subject: Black Box (data & voice) relay to central storage points Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WebTV Subscriber NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net I anticipate the usual "cost" factor to be the excuse why NTSB does not require in-flight black box data on commercial airliners be designed for instantaneous and automatic relay to designated land storage points for accessibility - rather than depending upon independent self-contained boxes on board that must be fetched for analysis in the event of crashes (at least on trans-oceanic flights). Seems flight personnel and traveling public should be interested in forming pressure groups to demand requirement of this. Benefits too numerous to mention here. Comments please? From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:49 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 > >I've been wondering if anybody ever considered building a three >engine airplane, with all of the engines on the wing. Now, I >recognize that this is going to be funny looking, but work >with me for a minute. Actually, we did take a peak at this one! >You'd mount the single engine substantially farther out the >wing than either of the two engines on the other side, so >the thrust and weight moments could be not too far off. You'd Until you lost an engine. You'd have to design for a worst-case scenario - losing the one engine set way out on one waing, so you'd need a huge tail to deal with that. If you put two somewhat larger engines in close to the fuselage you could have a smaller tail and therefore less drag and weight. Then there's manufacturing. Having one engine hung way out presents a very different set of vibration responses and structural characteristics than two engine places evenly along the span, if I understand correctly. (Anyone here work on the A330/340 wing? That would be the best example.) You'd either have to design and manufacture two totally different wings, leading to more complexity, higher part count, and spare parts headaches, or you'd have to design a win to handle either two engine in one set of mounts or a single engine in a third location. This would be an interesting challenge, but not conducive to minimal weight and expense. Also, you'd then have to design your wing profile differently, since the engine nacelle interacts quite a bit with the wing in modern jets which have the engines hung up very close to the wings. >Perhaps there would be some odd responses in different >corners of the flight envelope, but modern computerized >flight controls could hide those. There's a limit to what you can do with computers. >You'd have a plane with more than two engines, but with >less weight and complexity than a four engine plane, and >you'd have all the engines on the wings (where they belong). >You might place the single engine on the port side, so that >there'd only be one engine on the side where jetways attach >to the airplanes. I think in the end it would just be cheaper and easier to go with four engines, or else bite the bullet and go for ETOPS. Before anyone asks, yes, we did look at twin fuselages with a third engine between them. Have a nice day. RSW From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:50 From: Carl Peters Subject: Re: 2 vs 4 engines: R&D costs too much ? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Imagine the asymmetric thrust with the single port engine out. This would be worse than a 4 engine airliner with two engines out on one side - 50% of the thrust is provided asymmetrically in the latter, while 67% is provided in the tri-jet. You would, thus, need a larger (heavier) fin and rudder to compensate. Granted, the engine configuration on the two engine side would have one engine fairly inboard, but the asymmetry would be more dramatic than current twin or 4 engine a/c. Another flaw would be the expected poor public acceptance - folks tend to favor symmetry in design. Carl Peters From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:51 From: "Jerry" 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: amdint.amd.com 943026297 4872 163.181.63.131 (19 Nov 1999 15:44:57 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: AMD NNTP-Posting-Host: dodgers.amd.com Your points are all excellent and I'm glad you also added the reference to Burt Rutan's ARES. If economics was the *only* reason to choose a particular design, I think your ideas are very good. The problem is that both Boeing and the airlines also ask other questions such as "do the passengers like it and what will the passengers think". We live in a symmetrically perceived world, even if it is at times asymmetrical. That said, while I would love to fly in *any* novelly designed aircraft, a lot of passengers might balk and say "where's the fourth engine - somebody forgot to put the last engine on the left wing". Infantile and idiotic, yes. But those infantile and idiotic assertions come from passengers with money to purchase tickets. --- I am really sorry to see both the L-1011 and the DC-10/MD-11 go. I don't recall *any* incident of a double engine out scenario on either a DC-10 or an MD-11. But it *has* happened twice on the L-1011, both Eastern Airlines aircraft; fortunately for the comfort of the pilots, the last remaining engine was #2 (tail) so no asymmetrical thrust issues to deal with on landing. One was flying from the Caribbean and lost all three engines (due to some maintenance procedural error with engine oil, I think). By some miracle, they were able to restart #2 and landed safely in Miami. The other was back in the 1970's when an EA L-1011 on a maintenance ferry flight (to repair an inop #1 engine) from Mexico City to Miami was cleared to take off with only #2 and #3 engines working. [Apparently, without pax and with no cargo and light fuel load, the "book" says you can ...] Engine #3 catches fire 10 minutes after departure and the aircraft makes a (very hard) emergency landing back in Mexico City (and proceeds to break several tires on landing...) My point is that, I like the idea of that third engine --- losing one engine on a twin means you cannot lose one more. And I am a huge fan of the 777 but this is my only caveat with this magnificent aircraft. My $0.02, /JW From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:52 From: rhay10@scu.edu.au Subject: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.31.76.254 If you were an airline running a CFM56 fleet B737 / A320 etc. and you wanted to buy a wide bodied Airbus would the A340 cominality (sp?) with the CFM56 be much of an advantage when compared to the greater fuel burn etc. of a 4 engined aircraft? Richard Hay Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Sun Nov 21 23:56:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 21 Nov 99 23:56:53 From: "Johan Stck" Subject: Fuel economy Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: Enator NNTP-Posting-Host: 147.13.129.196 Hello! Normal automobile crusing speed is abt 90 - 100 km/h. However, if your main concern is getting the most km out of every litre of petrol, I believe the optimum speed is around 70 km/h. What about passenger aircraft? Normal cruising speed seems to be abt. 750 km/h, but is there a similar lower "economy speed" for passenger aircraft? //Johan From kls Fri Dec 3 02:09:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:09:57 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 11:56 PM 11/21/99 +0000, you wrote: >I really wonder know if anybody know which aircraft will most likely be pick >as the replacement of >BA's B767-300ER or LH's aging A300. >According to the German magazine Flug Revue,LH seem a likely buyer of >B767-400ER...but they haven't bought Boeing's new planes for a while... >And will BA choose Airbus???They are so nationalism these days on enging >picking..and RR seem >very suitable to A330-200.But in other hand,BA is still the most loyalty >supporter of B777,and many desigh ideas of 767NG are from B777. >Thanks for your answering. BA seems to be focused on down sizing, and at the moment, the 767-300ER's aren't flying the long haul mission they were purchased for. They have in fact become almost exclusively a short haul aircraft. Under normal circumstances, I think BA would sell them and take them out of the fleet, however RR powered 767's are kind of rarity, so the resale value is likely to low unless you can sell them to an RR powered 747-400 operator who is already looking after a fleet of RB211-525G/H's, even then, enthusiasm is likely to be low. The engines don't make fuel guarantees, and hot section life has become a very real problem. I haven't seen anyone opt for the G/H-T upgrade for the 767 either, on the other hand, BA operates almost all of the RR powered 767's in the world anyway! BA needs the A330-200 like they need another hole in their head. It flies a very similar mission to the 777-200, and BA has already made a large commitment to the 777, so it is a move that carries large training and spares costs for an aircraft whose mission and capability is not a lot different than 777. It is another aircraft marginally larger than the 767-300, but with very long range, and the 767's today don't fly long hauls. An A330-300 would be more useful to them, but they don't need the additional capacity that the A330 brings either, in fact they are trying to shed capacity. A300 B2/B4 replacement has become a sore subject as well. There really isn't one. The A300 was well designed for service within Europe, and to be honest, it really isn't good for much else. As the borders have come down, and ATC delays have climbed, the usefulness of a wide body short haul aircraft in Europe becomes increasingly suspect. The train gets more attractive by the day! The A300-600 is a more capable aircraft, and the A330 is a reasonable replacement, as LH often uses them on reasonably long haul services (Middle East, Indian Sub Continent). My opinions anyway. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Fri Dec 3 02:09:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:09:58 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.mb.home.com 943318282 24.108.105.50 (Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:51:22 PST) Organization: @Home Network Canada NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.108.105.50 Ian wrote: > I really wonder know if anybody know which aircraft will most likely be pick > as the replacement of > BA's B767-300ER or LH's aging A300. > According to the German magazine Flug Revue,LH seem a likely buyer of > B767-400ER...but they haven't bought Boeing's new planes for a while... > And will BA choose Airbus???They are so nationalism these days on enging > picking..and RR seem > very suitable to A330-200.But in other hand,BA is still the most loyalty > supporter of B777,and many desigh ideas of 767NG are from B777. > Thanks for your answering. Having recently flown on Air Canada's brand new A330 with RR engines I can only say it was a dream flight. The economy seats were very comfortable, and in cruise the engine noise was no louder than idle on the ground (in fact I thought we had some kind of problem when they throttled back to cruise after the climb). Also, the air conditioning was very quiet. I could carry on a normal conversation with no problem. Ambient noise was probalby in the 70-75 dB range (sat in row 35 window seat). Cheers -- EF From kls Fri Dec 3 02:09:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:09:59 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmscX@cmdnet.lu Ian wrote: > I really wonder know if anybody know which aircraft will most likely be pick > as the replacement of > BA's B767-300ER or LH's aging A300. > According to the German magazine Flug Revue,LH seem a likely buyer of > B767-400ER...but they haven't bought Boeing's new planes for a while... Some months back one of LH's VP announced to the press that Airbus has no craft to replace the A300-600s, he also stressed that the B767 is the most likely replacement. From inside LH I know that there is no A306s replacement decision being planned for the next 2 years. They will even be getting 2 used A306s shortly. From inside Airbus I know that they are currently working very hard on the A300 replacement. After the shortened A330-100, which used the A330 wing, a new idea has emerged which is to reduce the wingbox of the A330 and clip the wings off. Kind of reverse A340-600 wing. It is no secret that Boeing is working on potential B767NGs, which are basically shortened B767-400, but having all the new gadgets of the B764. When ordering the A32X British announced that they will stay with Boeing for the widebodies, except for the B747/A3XX market. > And will BA choose Airbus??? THey did it twice, so if the price is right and the market justifies a new type, it is possible, but I will still put my money on Boeing for that one. > They are so nationalism these days on enging > picking..and RR seem > very suitable to A330-200.But in other hand,BA is still the most loyalty > supporter of B777,and many desigh ideas of 767NG are from B777. That is right, and the existing B767 experience and the still growing B777 fleet may point towards the B767NG Marc http://surf.to/orders From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:00 From: "Nico seine" Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 1 Dec 1999 02:30:22 GMT, 32.101.50.232 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.101.50.232 It all depends as you said on engine preferences. Many airlines are now changing to A330 on the Atlantic runs as the capicity for cargo is higher then on the B767. A LH ordering a B767-400 would be unusual as they already have the A340 which has a very high level of communality with the A330, so maintenance and pilot training will be very cheap. But who knows, it all depends how desperate Boeing is in selling some more 767-400's, and may be the 767-400 is cheaper on the shorter flights then A330 ?. Air France has B767 and B777, but recently selected A330 as it has the commality with the A340, which is bigger then between 767-400 and 777. BA going for A330 would reduce their pilot training costs by a factor of 80% if the pilots would come from the A320 fleet, so that would be one reason. my 0.2 cents info, Nico. From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:01 From: Larry Stone Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 11/21/99 11:56 PM, Hugh Dickson (hnlhugh@pixi.com) said: >Chuck Till wrote: >> >In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's >> >for only a few summer months. >> >> News to me. I wonder if they were ex-HA L10s that were being displaced >> by the D10s that AA leased to HA. > >Aloha, HA never operated L10s. Still use the >former AA -10s. Hugh I can't quote dates or anything but prior to getting the ex-AA DC-10s, HA most definitely operated L1011s. -- Larry Stone lds11@cornell.edu http://www.enteract.com/~lstone/ From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:02 From: ctill@mindspring.com (Chuck Till) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? 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.f7.86.a9 >> News to me. I wonder if they were ex-HA L10s that were being displaced >> by the D10s that AA leased to HA. >Aloha, HA never operated L10s. Still use the >former AA -10s. Hugh HA acquired 5 L10s in 1985 (from ANA, if I recall correctly). There were a few other L10s in the fleet until 1994, when HA decided to replace them with D10s from AA. From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:03 From: LeeTWash Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com 943349756 362433 209.156.112.52 (23 Nov 1999 09:35:56 GMT) Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com Reply-To: LeeTWash@aol.com NNTP-Posting-Host: krldb103-06.splitrock.net Hugh Dickson wrote: > Aloha, HA never operated L10s. Still use the > former AA -10s. Hugh Excuse, me I'm just cruising thru but HA did have some L1011's in its fleet back about 5 years ago. I've been on one SEA to HNL in that time frame. I'm about 95% sure they are gone and replaced by DC-10's which I believe did come from AA. AQ as far as I know has never had anything bigger than its current fleet of 737s (at least in recent years) although they are threatening to run one or more new 737-700's to the islands from Oakland. From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:04 From: afwtul1@aol.com (Afwtul1) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's >for only a few summer months. I saw these aircraft at DFW when I lived >in Dallas, and failed to take any pictures of them. The tails were >painted light gray, but without the "AA". Does anyone know the story >behind these odd step-children in American's fleet? Why did they >arrive? Can anyone produce a photo? > Just tracked this original post down, anyway I'm a aircraft mechanic for AA, and rest assured we had no L1011's leased, barrowed, or stolen. Now as reference to your gray tails, at that time as in now, the only silver tails we have are the DC-10's and 727's all others are gray. Now could you possibly have seen and the time frame is right, one of the "white top" DC-10's we had leased. I believe they were ex-Delta/ex-Western, but not sure of that. I did find a pic of it, its white with the AA on the tail but when you had seen it, the stickers may have been taken off already (or not yet put on). If you like I can send you the pic. Jim New to this group so please excuse the double posting. From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:05 From: tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: brokaw.wa.com 943750334 28798 206.63.42.26 (28 Nov 1999 00:52:14 GMT) Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus NNTP-Posting-Host: blv-ux100-ip26.nwnexus.net In article , Hugh Dickson wrote: > Aloha, HA never operated L10s. Still use the > former AA -10s. Hugh HA did indeed operate TriStars in the mid-80s. I was operations manager for HA at SEA in 1986. The L1011 fleet was leased from Boeing Equipment and had been previously operated on shorthauls in Japan by ANA. HA had them modified to support the trip across the pond, but they were a load planning nightmare. HA insisted on packing 366 seats on those birds. Had to sharpen my weight and balance pencil frequently, especially in winter when headwinds on the west bound trip lengthened flight times to over 5 hours. Tom Benedict tbenz@halcyon.com From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:06 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com Hugh Dickson wrote: > > Chuck Till wrote: > > >In the early 90's, American operated two (leased or borrowed) L1011's > > >for only a few summer months. > > > > News to me. I wonder if they were ex-HA L10s that were being displaced > > by the D10s that AA leased to HA. > > Aloha, HA never operated L10s. Still use the > former AA -10s. Hugh Hawaiian Airlines DID operate L-1011s - they retired them when they picked up the ex-AA DC-10s. I know because I rode one Seattle to Honolulu in c.1993. The aircraft were previously used by a Japanese airline and still had a lot of dual language signs. Additionally, after a little while in cruise, I noticed that you could see where the Japanese registration had been painted over on the wing upper surface. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:07 From: Tim Pearson Subject: Early 727 Crashes Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Running With Scissors, Inc. I recall that there was a series of crashes early in the Boeing 727's service life. I remember one in particular, a United airplane crashing at Salt Lake City in 1965; the plane hit the ground flat, short of the runway threshold. As I understand it, these crashes were the result of pilots' flying the airplane like a recip, kiting them in over the fence with low power...and then not being able to correct a high sink rate in time because of the engines' spool-up interval. The solution (again, IIRC) was to train pilots to maintain a high power setting on final while keeping the airspeed down with flaps and speed brakes. Perhaps someone can elaborate on this and correct me if necessary. I've always wondered why there wasn't an earlier series of similar accidents involving the 707 and DC-8. The pilots for all three types were drawn from the same general pool of former recip drivers, and the engines of all three planes had the same general response characteristics. What was new and unique about the 727 that made low power on final such a deadly pitfall? -Tim From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:08 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Checking weight and balance Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 944193115 11544 128.32.25.13 (3 Dec 1999 03:51:55 GMT) Organization: University of California at Berkeley NNTP-Posting-Host: socrates.berkeley.edu Are the weight and center of gravity of an airliner calculated solely from what's supposed to be on board and how much it's supposed to weigh, for example, counting the passengers and multiplying by a standard weight? Is there any means of sensing the weight directly? Since the "Gimli Glider" took off with the wrong weight of fuel, its weight (of the whole plane, that is) must not have been measured directly. -- Katie Schwarz "There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs." -- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass" From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:09 From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" Subject: ?Smoke puffs from tires I used to see when 707's landed? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: typhoon1.gnilink.net 943709332 151.203.19.51 (Sat, 27 Nov 1999 08:28:52 EST) Organization: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Barbara Havers NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.19.51 Reply-To: dpbsmith@bellatlantic.net > > P. Wezeman wrote in message ... > > I read in an article somewhere that heat buildup in the tire > >can be a significant problem for airliners > > It can be a problem, usually on landing although this has basically been > iraddicated by the use of multiple wheel low pressure tires reducing the > individual wheel and tyre loads. The problem during taxying is more to do > with brakes overheating, sometimes you need to wait a few minutes after > taxy to allow them to cool down before commencing the take off run, brakes > overheating is the main cause of u/c fire on a few older a/c and to a lesser > degree on the newer ones. We flew on a 707 in the late fifties, and at the time I was very struck by the incredible speed at which the beasts came screaming in for a landing, the way they chewed up most of those huge runways before coming to a reluctant stop, and what certainly APPEARED to be puffs of smoke coming from the tires when they made contact. It would come in, the tires would touch two or three times before making firm contact, and on each of those touches a little cloud or burst of SOMETHING greyish would come up from the tires. Was it REALLY smoke? What was really happening? -- Daniel P. B. Smith email: dpbsmith@bellatlantic.net "Lifetime forwarding" email address: dpbsmith@mit.alum.edu From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:10 From: "Jack Pease" Subject: Aircraft emissions techie question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Nacamar Group Plc. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.52.73.30 Reply-To: "Jack Pease" Don't suppose anyone can help me with a technie question. NOx emissions rise with engine power. NOx is saved if a pilot selects 85% thrust on take off rather than 100% thrust, and presumably save fuel, so why isn't this done all the time if the engines have enough in reserve??? Does it reduce ambient noise if a plane shoots down the runway on 100% power then thrusts down once over the airport boundary, or is it better to be 85% thurst all the way but lower on the airport boundary? Modern engines produce more NOx than old ones, but why do the authorities claim that PM10 emissions are dropping hugely when it appears there are not emission factors for this pollutant? Why is SO2 considered irrelevent when if you plug in SO2 into the UK national emissions database (http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/naei/ ) do you get two dirty great red splodges over Gatwick and Heathrow? Where is this SO2 coming from, given that avgas is a light distallate?? IS there anybody out there who can give an independent and authoritative answer on these questions? MTIA Jack From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:11 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 11:56 PM 11/21/99 +0000, you wrote: >If you were an airline running a CFM56 fleet B737 / A320 etc. and you >wanted to buy a wide bodied Airbus would the A340 cominality (sp?) with >the CFM56 be much of an advantage when compared to the greater fuel >burn etc. of a 4 engined aircraft? The CFM56 is part of the A340 problem in the first place. The A340 was supposed to use the v2500 super fan, however IAE got cold feet, and left the A340 without an engine. The CFM56 on the A340 involved a BIG stretch, and BIG stretches to a design tend to do ugly things. The CFM56 on an A340 and the one on a 737 have about as much in common as JT9D-3 has with a JT9D-7Q, which is not a whole lot. In the past such commonality has been attractive. Most D10 operators who later bought 747's, bought the 747's with GE engines, and there isn't a lot of difference between a CF6-50 on a D10-30 and CF6-50 on a 747 classic. Most airlines who bought the A340 did so for one of two reasons: 1). They wanted the extreme range, but didn't have the load to justify a 747-400. Interestingly enough, many A340's are being removed from the ultra long haul missions they were purchased for. According to Singapore Airlines at least, SQ doesn't like the airplane all that much and neither do the passengers. 2). They had long over water segments, and wanted 4 engines either because they couldn't live with 120 or 180 minutes ETOPS, or political considerations. Most of the people making decision about regulations started in the business in the days of the Constellation and DC6/DC7, when engine lifetime was maybe 2000 hours. Some CFM56's and RB211-535's have now been on the wing for more than 30,000 hours!!! These engines are incredibly reliable relative to the engines of 40 years ago. Engine commonality just wasn't part of the decision process, its way down the list of important considerations, especially since the only engine you can have on an A340-200/300 is a CFM56. Perversely, a 4 engine aircraft is less likely to get you where you are going than a 2 engine most of the time. Engine failure is more likely on a 4 engine aircraft because there are more engines (D10's have to turn back because of engine failures less often than 747's, even though 747 engines are more reliable, the problem is the 747 engine needs to be at least 33% more reliable)... James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:12 From: Ernie Fidgeon Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.mb.home.com 943316551 24.108.105.50 (Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:22:31 PST) Organization: @Home Network Canada NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.108.105.50 rhay10@scu.edu.au wrote: > If you were an airline running a CFM56 fleet B737 / A320 etc. and you > wanted to buy a wide bodied Airbus would the A340 cominality (sp?) with > the CFM56 be much of an advantage when compared to the greater fuel > burn etc. of a 4 engined aircraft? If you do your own engine mtce and already are familiar with the CFM, it would be an advantage to do this. In addition, IMHO the CFM family of engines is extremely operation friendly and very reliable compared to other types available. Also, for its size, the 4 engined A340 is extremely efficient. The fan area is smaller than othe 4 engined beasts and offers drag benefits therein. -- EF From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:13 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 > >One was flying from the Caribbean and lost all three engines >(due to some maintenance procedural error with engine oil, >I think). By some miracle, they were able to restart #2 >and landed safely in Miami. If I remember correctly, the first engine to be shut down was #2, at the first sign of low oil pressure. When the #1 engine then showed the same symptoms, the crew (2 captains and an F/E - it was some poor guy's checkride!) assumed bad instrumentation. Then the #3 light came on, confirming their belief. Until the #1 engine quit. Then the #3 quit. They spent a while trying to restart #2 with an incorrect procedure or something, finally figured it out just before committing to ditching, and got the #2 restarted. It still had a lot of oil, since it was shut down almost immediately upon first sign of trouble, and got them to the airport. I think it seized up just as they turned off, though, and actually had less oil at that point than either of the other two engines had when they quit. ETOPS rules specifically state that you can't have the same maintenance crew do both engines. That's probably a response to this incident, which was caused when the same O-ring was left off a chip detector in the oil system of all three engines. A lot of airlines also replace one engine as their first act upon receiving a new twin, just in case someone at the factory screwed up. RSW From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:14 From: H Andrew Chuang 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: Concentric Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: ts003d07.har-ct.concentric.net Jerry wrote: > I am really sorry to see both the L-1011 and the DC-10/MD-11 > go. I don't recall *any* incident of a double engine out > scenario on either a DC-10 or an MD-11. Early this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that a China Airlines' MD-11 had a double engine surge soon after take off. Fortunately, it was a test flight without payload. Otherwise, it could have been a disaster. Since it was not a revenue flight, this incidence was not widely known. From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:15 From: "Kostas Farmakis" 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: medousa.forthnet.gr 943744024 29934 212.251.95.96 (27 Nov 1999 23:07:04 GMT) Organization: FORTHnet S.A. X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp899.ath.forthnet.gr > My point is that, I like the idea of that third engine --- > losing one engine on a twin means you cannot lose > one more. And I am a huge fan of the 777 but this > is my only caveat with this magnificent aircraft. I mostly agree. The third engine was added back on these days to provide additional thrust for the widebodies. As technology was going forward the extra thrust came from the two engines so the third could be eliminated from the designs. Along with the thrust improvement came the safety improvement. Thats why we can reliably fly with two engines. Losing both of them is a horrible scenario but statistics show that losing two engines in a 777or A330 or whatever is more unlikely to happen than losing three engines those days in a DC-10 or a L-1011 Anytime... Kostas From kls Fri Dec 3 02:10:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Dec 99 02:10:16 From: jcastle@io.com (Joe Castleman) Subject: Re: CV-990 Aft Fan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: hiram.io.com 943416951 3818 208.2.106.17 (24 Nov 1999 04:15:51 GMT) Organization: Gyrofrog Communications X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: aus-as3-017.io.com jrp59@gte.net (Ron Parsons) wrote: >With the engine in question, the aft fan was completely inclosed within >the cowling. Only the larger diameter overall gave it away compared to the >non-fan version on its predecessor. Yep, from most angles, it just looks like larger-than-normal engine pods. When viewed from directly in front, the engine intake looks like two concentric circles. The smaller circle is the intake of the jet engine itself; air is routed around the engine to the aft-fan; and another nacelle encapsulates the whole thing. If you can track down a picture taken from the front, you can see this. Or, maybe you'll be lucky enough to see an actual CV990 up close. (I've only seen one CV990 "in person" in my life. This was more than 20 years ago, at a transportation museum in Lucerne, Switzerland. I think that at the time it may have been a new display, as I remember some people working on it.) ---- Joe Castleman -- jcastle@io.com Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.io.com/~jcastle Austin, Texas U.S.A. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:34 From: emtgx@aol.com (General Tso) Subject: SR111 entertainment system? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com On a recent documentary on he Discovery Channel, the fire aboard SR111 was attributed to the wiring in the "now banned entertainment system." Also the United Honolulu cargo door mishap was also blamed on wiring. I wasn't aware that such conclusions had been officially reached, or that an entertainment system installed on MD-11 has been banned. Comments? General Tso From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:35 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Another Seaplane Question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: red.weeg.uiowa.edu What was the cabin noise level like in cruising flight in one of the pre-war Boeing 314 or Short Empire trans-Atlantic flying boats? Was it too loud to carry on a conversation easily? If information on noise is not available, how much sound insulation (if any) did the planes have and how did it compare to that on the later piston airliners? I have flown on a Lockheed Constellation and a Douglas DC-7 and as I recall these were reasonably quiet. Of course these planes needed thermal insulation at high altitudes and this would have damped the noise even if there was no soundproofing as such. Has anyone ridden on one of the surviving Martin Mars water bombers or on Kermit Week's Short Sunderland? I came across some information about my earlier seaplane question: why did some seaplanes like the Short Empire, Sunderland, and Martin Mars use wingtip floats for stability on the water while others such as the Dornier DO-X, Martin China Clipper, and Boeing 314 used sponsons for the same purpose? In reading about the 314 I found that the sponsons on that aircraft just did not work all that well; they did not provide enough righting moment to keep the wing tips out of the water under all circumstances. This is not surprising when you consider how short their moment arm was compared to tip floats. So it seems that floats are the better solution, at least for aircraft with longer wing spans. Floats can also be retractable as on the Saunders-Roe Princess and some others. I believe there was a small amphibian, similar to the Republic SeaBee, where the end of the wing folded down so the wing tip was the float. I would be interested to know if float pylons can act as winglets to improve the efficiency of the wing. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:36 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: DTD 547 and 746 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmscI@cmdnet.lu The De Havilland Comet Mk1 had a skin made out of DTD 546 and DTD 746. It is reported that these were aluminum zinc alloys. I would appreciate any verified information on the metallurgical composition of these alloys. TIA Marc Schaeffer, Luxembourg - marcmsc@cmdnet. The DE HAVILLAND COMET website: http://surf.to/comet From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:37 From: "John M. Hunt" Subject: Trim Activated by the Autopilot Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.ipa.net 945141314 6135 206.153.204.83 (14 Dec 1999 03:15:14 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Organization: Internet Partners of America NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-83.roge.ipa.net In glancing over some of the old Flight Safety Foundation accident reports, as well as Macarthur Job's three books, I have noted a number of disasters which were at least partly caused by autopilot actuated extreme trim on the elevator. All involved stalls near the ground, the control difficulty arising from an attempt by the pilots to physically override the autopilot by pronounced forward stick force, with the autopilot responding by introducing extreme nose up trim. All were on modern aircraft, not geriatric 727s or such. To compound matters, sometimes meddlesome autothrottle activity joined in the battle of wits. In most instances the pilots were exquisitely blind to any concern over trim position. I am simply unable to understand, in today's sophisticated world of computer controlled everything, why anyone would design a system which would permit such a flagrant conflict of control authority, and particularly, one which would necessarily leave the aircraft in an outrageously untrimmed condition. I can see modest justification of an autopilot permitting a very small amount of tweaking of flight path by gentle assistance from the pilots, presumably to permit refinement in precision of capture of the glide slope or ILS during the early phases of instrument approach. Even then it seems unlikely that human skill could compete with or refine the actions of a modern autopilot (needless to say, I am not talking about WW II era junk). What exactly is the reason for deliberately designing a system that doesn't, at any one time, have a single master in control of aircraft desired flight path and related control actions? It seems a bit implausible that any competent designer would even remotely flirt with such a design. Where am I wrong? John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:38 From: afwtul1@aol.com (Afwtul1) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > Now as reference to your gray tails, at that time as in now, the only silver >tails we have are the DC-10's and 727's all others are gray. Oops, forgot, back than we also had 2 747SP's. (silver tails) Jim From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:39 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /Kp2luuwVcrrrn4Y0P9UaFiqwWQJPLfIhQQpuuwv3OFU1+QydeYuMhT6KzxPy+bqPZYeqTQkyfAA!co7ss4c32TE58k4UwfrJdKqhHxNDRv6xzfnsHWz3FL+H1WxPbZ2G Aloha, I stand corrected. Thank you all. I didn't move to hnl until '92 and apparently failed to notice the 1011s over the yrs. on my many visits here. Mahalo, Hugh From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:40 From: "Iceman" Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? 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: 1cust212.tnt2.panama-city.fl.da.uu.net Does any US flag carrier still operate the EXPENSIVE L10's? Or had the MD11 replaced them all. TriStars were very nice, fom a pax perspective. Flew in one DFW-PHX back in 86 I think. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:41 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:41 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Does any US flag carrier still operate the EXPENSIVE L10's? Delta still flies a decent number of them, though the fleet is dwindling rapidly. TWA got rid of their last one a year or so ago. The only other US majors which flew them in significant numbers were Eastern and Pan Am, both long gone. United got six from Pan Am in 1986, but they only lasted a few years. Amongst smaller passenger carriers in the US, I think American Trans Air still has a few, and I regularly see some painted for Pleasant Hawaiian Holidays. That's it so far as I can think of. >Or had the MD11 replaced them all. For the domestic missions, Delta is replacing them with the 767-300 and soon the 767-400. Internationally, Delta switched to the MD-11 and the 767-300(ER), depending on loads and range. The MD-11 doesn't have the needed range with a decent load for the Pacific, though, so it's being replaced by the 777-200(ER) in that market. TWA replaced their L-1011s with 767-300(ER)s (international) and smaller aircraft like the 757-200 and MD-80 (domestic). No MD-11s to be seen. -- 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 Dec 17 01:57:42 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:42 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: +r4CDntatxlazfrCuymczTz7KPWRLFtJbD0bnMF0szhm/bcB/PTjzo84vLeqbb0tD/ldiDBI/wkK!5lPtoQndvc8CG8WTpm6fVSn9f1Foub5aLviazKfvMWdQ15cWbKt3 Ernie Fidgeon wrote: > rhay10@scu.edu.au wrote: > > If you were an airline running a CFM56 fleet B737 / A320 etc. and you > > wanted to buy a wide bodied Airbus would the A340 cominality (sp?) with > > the CFM56 be much of an advantage when compared to the greater fuel > > burn etc. of a 4 engined aircraft? > > If you do your own engine mtce and already are familiar with the CFM, it > would be an advantage to do this. In addition, IMHO the CFM family of > engines is extremely operation friendly and very reliable compared to other > types available. Also, for its size, the 4 engined A340 is extremely > efficient. The fan area is smaller than othe 4 engined beasts and offers > drag benefits therein. Aloha, When I worked for UAL I put in a transfer request for the engine shop so I could work on CFMs. Years passed and I asked why my transfer did not go through. NO REMOVALS. They had six mechs. working on the engines and did not need any more. The only work being done on the engines were engineering inspections to figure out how many hours could be had out of the motors. UAL used to "time change" the motors at 20,000 hrs. Freight operators used to wait until failure at about 25,000 hrs IIRC the core on the CFMs used to be the same butt the 737 models had smaller fans to reduce the "vacuum cleaner" effect. As an aside: a UAL stretch eight flew a charter from Bombay, India to Houston, TX. They had enough fuel left to fly to SFO. The company offered to fly the pax to SFO, cover expenses, grant a plaque, and free ticket home. NO takers. LONG legs. Yea SNECMA! Regards, Hugh From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:43 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:43 From: burkhard.domke@pace.de (Burkhard Domke) Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: crusher.de.colt.net 944835047 1086 62.96.200.90 (10 Dec 1999 14:10:47 GMT) Organization: Colt Telecom GmbH X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: h-62.96.200.90.host.de.colt.net On 03 Dec 99 02:10:12 , Ernie Fidgeon wrote: >rhay10@scu.edu.au wrote: >> If you were an airline running a CFM56 fleet B737 / A320 etc. and you >> wanted to buy a wide bodied Airbus would the A340 cominality (sp?) with >> the CFM56 be much of an advantage when compared to the greater fuel >> burn etc. of a 4 engined aircraft? > >If you do your own engine mtce and already are familiar with the CFM, it >would be an advantage to do this. In addition, IMHO the CFM family of >engines is extremely operation friendly and very reliable compared to other >types available. Also, for its size, the 4 engined A340 is extremely >efficient. The fan area is smaller than othe 4 engined beasts and offers >drag benefits therein. Two large engines should yield less overall drag than 4 smaller engines and also weigh and cost less, but then wing weight will be considerably lower with 4 engines due to a more favourable load distribution and inherently enhanced flutter resistance. Hard to compare though, because wing area is a function of the number of engines installed to begin with (takeoff considerations, much higher wing loadings possible with number of engines going up), this in turn having a major impact on cruise (altitude) capabilities (initial cruise ALT of 777 much better than A340's FL270 at max weight). Burkhard Domke Berlin, Germany From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:44 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:44 From: Erik Verheijden Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com 945008460 212.120.80.176 (Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:21:00 MET) Organization: @Home Network NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.120.80.176 > > Perversely, a 4 engine aircraft is less likely to get you where you are > going than a 2 engine most of the time. Engine failure is more likely on > a 4 engine aircraft because there are more engines (D10's have to turn > back because of engine failures less often than 747's, even though 747 > engines are more reliable, the problem is the 747 engine needs to be at > least 33% more reliable)... I couldn't agree more. It seems like abusing statistics when stating that a 4 engine a/c has twice the chance of an engine failure that a two engine a/c has. A closer look at statistics tells us that of all recent incidents/accidents to large airliners, the number of engines on the a/c wouldn't have made a difference in a single case. Safety in a/c design is all about statistics. A mishap is allowed every couple of million flight hours. Adding engines (why not use 6 to be on the safe side?) does not affect the rate at which break-ups, fires and decompressions occur. Those statistics involve to many factors to simply improve by adding engines. Erik Verheijden. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:45 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:45 From: MJ Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.cyberhighway.net 944242433 7389 209.161.61.59 (3 Dec 1999 17:33:53 GMT) Organization: CyberHighway NNTP-Posting-Host: ts8-44.rpt.cyberhighway.net Reply-To: rmjones@cyberhighway.net Jack Pease wrote: > Don't suppose anyone can help me with a technie question. > > NOx emissions rise with engine power. NOx is saved if a pilot selects 85% > thrust on take off rather than 100% thrust, and presumably save fuel, so why > isn't this done all the time if the engines have enough in reserve??? Safety is the primary concern. Assume an engine is lost at or just above V1 (the speed at which you either abort or continue a take-off if an engine is lost). If your remaining engine(s) is only at "85%" (your value) you must take the added step of throttling up the remaining engine(s) to 100%. While the new generation of engines spool up much faster than previous, it still takes time. This could mean the difference between the situation being a non-event or a marginal event. Further, there are still a significant number of birds out there that are short on thrust, and eat up an awful lot of real estate in any case. Based on what I know of NOx production from gas turbines in general, I also suspect that the higher NOx production over a shorter period of time (assuming a throttle-back after reaching a safe altitude) would roughly equal the total NOx produced by a low-power departure. At least, the difference would not be great. Then, you have the added CO emissions likely brought on by reduced firing temps of a lower-power departure. In a low-power departure, you would be trading NOx for CO. Add in the need to clear the runway as quickly as is reasonably possible to allow for more ops (ten seconds or so per departure would really add up over hundreds, or thousands, of operations per day), plus the added time aircraft would sit idling, doing no useful work, but still emitting to some degree) and you begin to see why full-power departures are GENERALLY desireable. > Does > it reduce ambient noise if a plane shoots down the runway on 100% power then > thrusts down once over the airport boundary, or is it better to be 85% > thurst all the way but lower on the airport boundary? Yes, in terms of lessening the impact for the most people, it makes sense to depart at maximum performance, and then throttle back when safe. > Modern engines produce more NOx than old ones, but why do the authorities > claim that PM10 emissions are dropping hugely when it appears there are not > emission factors for this pollutant? I don't completely understand your question. Are you saying that PM10 is not tested for from aircraft engines? In any case, yes PM10 production from aircraft engines is much less than w/ previous generations. Remember what a B-707 looked like on departure? You don't see that plume of particulate matter (including PM10) like you used to. That is a result of much better combustion efficiency, of course. Which is why NOx produced per-engine is up, of course. > Why is SO2 considered irrelevent when if you plug in SO2 into the UK > national emissions database (http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/naei/ ) do > you get two dirty great red splodges over Gatwick and Heathrow? Where is > this SO2 coming from, given that avgas is a light distallate?? Somebody else would be in a better position to answer that one (I think I know, but am just not certain enough!) To further discuss your concern re: NOx production, dry-low NOx combuston systems suitable for use in aero engines (read: relaible enough) are probably not too many years away. The bugs are being worked out in aero-derivatives used in industrial applications (like power generation and pipeline compression). While the teething pains have been considerable with the first generation of products, the second generation designs are much more reliable and operate satisfactorily over a wide range of power settings. Not quite there yet for use in aero engines, but getting close. Between the risks of higher emissions levels (primarily NOx) or catastophic 'combustor rumble' I'll take the higher emissions (for now) anyday! > IS there anybody out there who can give an independent and authoritative > answer on these questions? Don't know about the authoritative part (just applying what I know as a pilot, mechanical engineer and power-plant guy) but definitely independent! Cheers, MJ From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:46 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:46 From: Guido Frey Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: olaf.komtel.net 944317792 19872 212.7.130.179 (4 Dec 1999 14:29:52 GMT) Organization: KomTel GmbH NNTP-Posting-Host: 179.130.fl1.ip.foni.net Jack Pease schrieb: > Don't suppose anyone can help me with a technie question. > > NOx emissions rise with engine power. NOx is saved if a pilot selects 85% > thrust on take off rather than 100% thrust, and presumably save fuel, so why > isn't this done all the time if the engines have enough in reserve??? Does > it reduce ambient noise if a plane shoots down the runway on 100% power then > thrusts down once over the airport boundary, or is it better to be 85% > thurst all the way but lower on the airport boundary? Dear Jack, at Lufthansa German Airlines so called Runway Weight Charts are actually used. These Charts show how much takeoff power can be reduced for a given runway, takeoff mass, outside air temperature, runway condition and barometric pressure. By these charts the required thrust setting will be determined before every takeoff. The procedure is normally used for every takeoff except under the following conditions: Runway is covered with snow, slush, ice or standing water; antiskid system is inoperative; windshear is suspected etc. The advantage of the procedure is: reduced pollution, longer engine life and thereby reduced maintenance costs. The disadvantage is: More noise for the airport sourroundings (lower climb angle as reduction is limited by 50 feet screen height over the departure end of the runway, the required minimum climb gradient dual and single engine for the flown departure route and the accelerate stop distance for an engine failiure at V1). I do not know if this a good answers for that part of your question. But in case you need more details, just drop me an e-mail. Best regards, Guido From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:47 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:47 From: felton@Princeton.EDU (Phil. G. Felton) Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cnn.Princeton.EDU 944770169 7948 128.112.34.116 (9 Dec 1999 20:09:29 GMT) Organization: Princeton University NNTP-Posting-Host: pgfelton97.princeton.edu In article , "Jack Pease" wrote: > Why is SO2 considered irrelevent when if you plug in SO2 into the UK > national emissions database (http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/naei/ ) do > you get two dirty great red splodges over Gatwick and Heathrow? Where is > this SO2 coming from, given that avgas is a light distallate?? Bear in mind that these are estimates based on usage, not measurements. Also aviation fuel is specifically excluded in the calculation process so the red splodges can not be due to aero sources (instead presumably due to heavy road traffic). Phil. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:48 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:48 From: Erik Verheijden Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.dbsch1.nb.nl.home.com 945002582 212.120.80.176 (Sun, 12 Dec 1999 13:43:02 MET) Organization: @Home Network NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.120.80.176 Jack Pease schreef: > > Don't suppose anyone can help me with a technie question. > > NOx emissions rise with engine power. NOx is saved if a pilot selects 85% > thrust on take off rather than 100% thrust, and presumably save fuel, so why > isn't this done all the time if the engines have enough in reserve??? Does > it reduce ambient noise if a plane shoots down the runway on 100% power then > thrusts down once over the airport boundary, or is it better to be 85% > thurst all the way but lower on the airport boundary? To answer part of your question, many take-offs are made at less than 100% (derating). The main reason for this is engine wear. A jet engine consumes much more fuel at lower altitudes. A take-off and climb with lower thrust settings may not save fuel at all: the airplane spends more time at low altitudes with a high fuel flow. Erik. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:49 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:49 From: Clunk Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsfeeds.bigpond.com 945007311 139.134.52.220 (Mon, 13 Dec 1999 01:01:51 EST) Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com) NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.134.52.220 Jack Pease wrote: > Why is SO2 considered irrelevent when if you plug in SO2 into the UK > national emissions database (http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/naei/ ) do > you get two dirty great red splodges over Gatwick and Heathrow? Where is > this SO2 coming from, given that avgas is a light distallate?? SO2 emissions are a function of the oil refineries perfromace not the engine manufacturer. Bernhard Zunk From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:50 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:50 From: James Matthew Weber Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM At 03:14 AM 10/5/99 +0000, you wrote: >On 03 Oct 99 17:38:39 "Geoff Breach" writes: >>robert wright wrote: >>> Don't most FE's eventually become first officers and captains ... >> >> No, they do not. FE and Pilot are completely different career paths >>that don't often intersect. > >This is not necessarily true. It used to be VERY common in that most FEs >became first officers. However, today, with fewer and fewer aircraft >requiring FE positions, it seems that mostly captains, who have reached >their 60th birthday and are thus no longer able to be captains, are >filling the FE positions. Professional FEs (those who never become first >officer or captains) are out there, but still rare. Depends upon the Airline. On many US carriers, the career path is in fact the same. Starting in the 1970's, I think AA would not hire an FE if he couldn't fly, so most of them on the 727 became pilots if they lasted long enough. At other carriers, such as BA and QF, they used 'Professional' flight engineers, and there is no career path into the right or left seat. AT least at QF now, as the FE requiring aircraft come out of service, they have the option of being retrained as First Officers, and apparently a good number have been trained. James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:51 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:51 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Expensive Desktop Paperweights X-Newsreader: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Reply-To: Pete Finlay In article , Michael P Nixon writes >This is not necessarily true. It used to be VERY common in that most FEs >became first officers. However, today, with fewer and fewer aircraft >requiring FE positions, it seems that mostly captains, who have reached >their 60th birthday and are thus no longer able to be captains, are >filling the FE positions. Professional FEs (those who never become first >officer or captains) are out there, but still rare. Only rare in America. AFAIK, *most* of the F/E's in the States are frustrated pilots, waiting their chance to jump into the co-pilot's seat. In Europe, and in particular the UK, professional Flight Engineers were and are the norm, with a very small percentage going on to pilot training. -- Pete Finlay From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:52 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:52 From: "Erika" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.mpx.com.au 944863526 23853 198.142.212.114 (10 Dec 1999 22:05:26 GMT) Organization: Optus Internet X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 NNTP-Posting-Host: sdcax43-114.dialup.optusnet.com.au Reply-To: "Erika" > 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). IY may be so ,but i know a QF engineer who is on the net all the time hes home here in Sydney...wants more electronic punishment,eh. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:53 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:53 From: "Andre" Subject: Question on 767 elevators. Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.EUnet.pt 944581214 193.126.12.146 (Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:40:14 WET) Organization: EUnet Portugal customers news server X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1161 NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.126.12.146 What conditions can cause a elevator split operation in flight? From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:54 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:54 From: "Robert Wright" Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 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 >Under normal circumstances, I think BA would sell them and take them out of >the fleet, however RR powered 767's are kind of rarity, so the resale value >is likely to low unless you can sell them to an RR powered 747-400 operator >who is already looking after a fleet of RB211-525G/H's, even then, >enthusiasm is likely to be low. The engines don't make fuel guarantees, and >hot section life has become a very real problem. I haven't seen anyone opt >for the G/H-T upgrade for the 767 either, on the other hand, BA operates >almost all of the RR powered 767's in the world anyway! I think there was a problem with the strut on the 76RR. Initially someone missed a load path, and it was then corrected late in a very expensive manner, in terms of cost and weight. So the engines burn a little too much fuel, and the airplane's empty weight is kind of high. When I was at Boeing there was talk of designing a new strut, but probably only if RR built the Trent 600, which would probably mean a new strut anyway. >A300 B2/B4 replacement has become a sore subject as well. There really >isn't one. The A300 was well designed for service within Europe, and to be >honest, it really isn't good for much else. As the borders have come down, >and ATC delays have climbed, the usefulness of a wide body short haul >aircraft in Europe becomes increasingly suspect. The train gets more >attractive by the day! I think the bigger wing on the 767 also gives it better climb performance. I have heard, but never confirmed, that it can frequently be difficult to get clearances to higher altitude in some areas of Europe, so I suppose if you can take off and get very rapidly to altitude in a small space you eliminate a hassle and don't have to cruise along at 18,000 feet for 500 miles. From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:55 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:55 From: "Robert Wright" Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 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 >But >who knows, it all depends how desperate Boeing is in selling some more >767-400's, and may be the 767-400 is cheaper on the shorter flights then >A330 ?. I think the 767-400 is pretty much always cheaper to operate at a given distance than the A330. It's a smaller airplane overall, with smaller engine (in terms of weight and frontal area=drag). Of course, the A330 has a lot more room for cargo and fuel, so it will always have a capacity and range adcantage. The 767 is about as stretched as it's going to get, and there's not much extra range to be had either. So, as usual, the choice comes down to the specifics of the airline's needs. If you want very tight control of seat/mile costs and don't need extreme range you go with the 767. If, however, you are looking for the same size (passenger count) airplane but need every bit of range you can get, you go for the A330. >BA going for A330 would reduce their pilot training costs by a factor of >80% if the pilots would come from the A320 fleet, so that would be one >reason. I'm not sure where this figure comes from. 80% compared to what? Do you mean BA could spend 80% less training pilots next year if they bought A330s, or that they could spend 80% less training A330 pilots than they would training 767 pilots? Will the 767-400 not have commonality with the other 767s in this regard, or have so little commonality than transition from 767-300 to 767-400 would cost fives times as much as transitioning from A320 to A330? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course, you can't get a 767-400 with RR engines right now.... From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:56 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:56 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmscY@cmdnet.lu Ernie Fidgeon wrote: > Having recently flown on Air Canada's brand new A330 with RR engines I > can only say it was a dream flight.[SNIP] I could carry on a normal conversation > with no problem. > Ambient noise was probalby in the 70-75 dB range (sat in row 35 window > seat). My Airbus documents show for the A330-300 the following dBSIL at M.82 and 35Kft : Front of cabin 62 dB then decreasing till 56dB in the middle of the cabin with again 62 dB at the back. So at row35 you were most probably at 60dB or so. Marc http://surf.to/orders From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:57 From: CptKrell@aol.com Subject: First thing you do is R&R an engine on a new plane? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sorry I accidentally deleted the sender's ID on a recent post, but in reference to the same mechanic team not being allowed to work on more than one powerplant on the same aircraft because the same "mistakes" might be made in duplicity, the following quote was rendered: "A lot of airlines also replace one engine as their first act upon receiving a new twin, just in case someone at the factory screwed up." The only airline I know of that ever did this was Maude Friggard's Storm Doors, Drain Gutters, Asphalt Paving and Airlines Co. Evidently, this writer is a former employee of MFSDDGAP&Air. Jack From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:58 From: afwtul1@aol.com (Afwtul1) Subject: Re: CV-990 Aft Fan References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >If you can track down a picture >taken from the front, you can see this. The American Airlines, C.R. Smith Museum in Fort Worth Texas has a section with many photo's of AA's 990's. > Or, maybe you'll be lucky enough >to see an actual CV990 up close. I was up at Mojave in July of 1997, and there was a 990 there. In fact, in the pictures I have, its registration number is N990AB. >When viewed from directly in front, the engine intake looks like two >concentric circles. The smaller circle is the intake of the jet engine >itself; air is routed around the engine to the aft-fan; and another >nacelle encapsulates the whole thing. My claim to 990 fame is that while attending Texas Aero Tech at Love Field in Dallas (1989), the school had 2 CJ-805's we got to work on and borescope. Of course these were nowhere functional, but since the school had been closed for 5 or 6 years now, wonder what could have happened to these engines? Jim From kls Fri Dec 17 01:57:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:57:59 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: A32X fuel capacity Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmscY@cmdnet.lu Can somebody please tell me why the basic fuel capacity on the A318, A319 and A320 is 23860 litters and 'only' 23700 litters on the A321. Also why is the four wheel bogie option not offered on the A321. At least the A32X sales book which I have has this information ... Just curious, Marc http://surf.to/orders From kls Fri Dec 17 01:58:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:58:00 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Can somebody please tell me why the basic fuel capacity on the A318, >A319 and A320 is 23860 litters and 'only' 23700 litters on the A321. Litters? Do they use kittens and/or puppies for fuel?! :-) One possibility is that the A321's higher weight requires additional structure in the wing and/or landing gear which takes space used by fuel tankage on the smaller models. It could also simply be that some structures are sufficiently weight- limited to render additional fuel tankage on the A321 useless. Finally, it could be the result of larger engines. For the 747-400, Boeing lists a lower fuel capacity with GE engines than with PW or RR. This is due to different structures changing the shape of the available fuel tankage and/or the need to keep fuel away from hot sections of the engines, the location of which varies between each design. Similarly, looking at the CFM56 engines for the A320 family, the CFM56-5A series is usually used on the A319/A320, whereas the A321 requires the CFM56-5B series (also an option for the smaller models). These engines are 3.5" longer and 275 lbs heavier, either of which could take away fuel capacity on the A321 (and smaller models using the CFM56-5B series engines). >Also why is the four wheel bogie option not offered on the A321. At >least the A32X sales book which I have has this information ... It was a special for Indian Airlines. I don't know of anyone else who ordered it, and I got the impression that Airbus didn't like having to do it for IA. Like the single 757-200 Combi, it may have been something the sales critters sold but the rest of the company would prefer to forget. Do they offer it on the A319? I'd guess not. -- 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 Dec 17 01:58:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:58:01 From: ice Subject: 7x7-EFIS question Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: CIX - Compulink Information eXchange X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 trialware NNTP-Posting-Host: 5300-tele-1-cluster.221.ip-pool.cix.co.uk How well does the 757/767 conform to the ideal descent profile with VNAV engaged with strong tail winds? I have heard FLCH is a better tool in such circumstances? Also do you HDG SEL onto the LOC, or LNAV? I assume because of Map Shift you HDG SEL.. thanks ed CPL/IR 737-200 From kls Fri Dec 17 01:58:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:58:02 From: donrm@sr.hp.com Subject: What Is This Thing Flapping Around? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nirvana.sr.hp.com 944766629 18464 15.4.41.65 (9 Dec 1999 19:10:29 GMT) Organization: Agilent Technologies, Sonoma County NNTP-Posting-Host: mtleng12.sr.hp.com While watching a documentary on air safety the other night, I saw a two-engine widebody airliner rotating on takeoff with what appeared to be an HF antenna drogue chute wildly whipping around in the tail vortices. Is this normal practice to leave these deployed during airport operations? Or was I seeing something else? Don Montgomery Santa Rosa, CA donrm@sr.hp.com From kls Fri Dec 17 01:58:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 17 Dec 99 01:58:03 From: "Phil C" Subject: This weeks caption oops Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: yeppa.connect.com.au 944989250 14872 202.165.73.34 (12 Dec 1999 09:00:50 GMT) Organization: Always looking for work X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: per4-34.vianet.net.au Reply-To: "Phil C" http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/caption.html real cruncher - enjoy bet he did not !!! -- http://members.tripod.com/~philcleaver/list.html From kls Fri Dec 31 02:08:57 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:08:57 From: Petrus Lundqvist Subject: B737-400 range Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: peppe.net NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-157.dyn.arenanet.fi Hey, I've read in several places that the Boeing 737-400 has a range of about 2050 nm, or 3800 km. What does that mean exactly? The range circle drawn on the Boeing website for the 737-400 centers on Boston but doesn't reach the west coast of the USA. This should correctly be about 2050 nm but does this mean 2050 nm after take off, and then cruising at 35000 feet and running out of fuel after 2050 miles, or does it mean 2050 miles including takeoff, approach, landing.. Does it include reserves and if so, then how much? Cheers, Peppe From kls Fri Dec 31 02:08:58 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:08:58 From: "BJ" Subject: Good 'ole 727 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-001flpcitp304.dialsprint.net What is happening to the 727? I love that aircraft, and can't stand the obvious replacement, the MD-9X. That plane looks like it might crack in half at any time. And any aircraft I dont trust, I don't fly. MD has really screwed with the concept of streching fueselages to the point of idiocy. Hell half the PAX sit ahead of the wings! Why did Boeing quit producing the 727?????? Stupid. Stopped it in the prime of it's life. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:08:59 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:08:59 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > What is happening to the 727? I love that aircraft, and can't stand the >obvious replacement, the MD-9X. There are two aircraft which might fit the "MD-9X" designation -- the MD-95 (since renamed 717-200) and the MD-90-30. The former is far too small to be a reasonable 727 replacement. The MD-90-30 might fit the bill, but with 109 delivered and only five more to be built (Boeing is no longer taking orders for this aircraft), it's hardly an obvious 727 replacement at this point. One could quite reasonably argue that the A320 has been the most direct replacement for the 727, and it has sold quite well. Boeing entered the 727 replacement market rather late, with the 737-800, another solid seller. (The predecessor of that plane, the 737-400, came up a bit short on both seats and range for many airlines.) > Why did Boeing quit producing the 727?????? Stupid. Stopped it in the >prime of it's life. They stopped producing it because they weren't getting enough orders to justify keeping the production line open. The orders had dried up due to the 757, which could carry more payload further for less money. In retrospect, the fact that the 757 was a bit bigger than the 727-200 left an opening for Airbus to introduce the A320, but the question was not whether the 727 was going to be replaced but rather what aircraft was going to do the job. -- 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 Dec 31 02:09:00 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:00 From: SDBK@webtv.net Subject: Poly-X Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: WebTV Subscriber NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.webtv.net Can someone describe the wiring previously used in airliners called Poly-X. TIA From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:01 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:01 From: "O'NEEL Bruce" Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-to: bruce.oneel@obs.unige.ch General Tso writes: > On a recent documentary on he Discovery Channel, the fire aboard SR111 was > attributed to the wiring in the "now banned entertainment system." Also the > United Honolulu cargo door mishap was also blamed on wiring. I wasn't aware > that such conclusions had been officially reached, or that an entertainment > system installed on MD-11 has been banned. Comments? Well, it's pretty much banned on the SwissAir MD11 flights I've been on. Business class now has the normal economy class screen, and First, according to SwissAir, has individual players which plug into the laptop sockets. For more details I poked around starting at http://www.swissair.com/about/media/sr111/index.htm. SwissAir has filed a complaint against both "Interactive Flight Technologies Inc., the supplier of the inflight entertainment system carried aboard the aircraft, Hollingsead International, the company which installed the system, and Santa Barbara Aerospace, the company which certificated it. The complaints are a precautionary measure taken to ensure that the plaintiffs retain a right of recourse: this right would otherwise have lapsed one year after the accident." You are correct though that no official conclusions have been reached. I tried http://bst-tsb.gc.ca but my version of netscape and their site aren't happy together today. To the best of my recall, this model of flight entertainment system was only installed on SwissAir MD11 and 747 airplanes, so, given that SwissAir has banned them from their planes no one is currently using them. cheers bruce -- Reality is 80m polygons - Alvy Ray Smith Bruce O'Neel phone: +41 22 950 91 22 (direct) INTEGRAL Science Data Centre +41 22 950 91 00 (switchb.) Chemin d'Ecogia 16 fax: +41 22 950 91 33 CH-1290 VERSOIX e-mail: Bruce.Oneel@obs.unige.ch Switzerland WWW: http://isdc.unige.ch/ From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:02 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:02 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /w5MH7TpItiZn/7yL9KTu67X9CqO/gUccNG9wERdV0Nd7ylrYMy6fbj3GFd3IzfjMaRKGWUuXGSd!szM7K0E78/OAjZCjXd00xWfgDircKP7ZNlz/2sYj2E5HwC8Hdkw= General Tso wrote: > On a recent documentary on he Discovery Channel, the fire aboard SR111 was > attributed to the wiring in the "now banned entertainment system." Also the > United Honolulu cargo door mishap was also blamed on wiring. I wasn't aware > that such conclusions had been officially reached, or that an entertainment > system installed on MD-11 has been banned. Comments? Aloha, The UAL incident had nothing to do with wiring. Hugh ex UAL From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:03 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:03 From: "jtarver" Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 2-00188123c1ebef45d083ffef8b574b765369c26006eb7284f4b1 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: (protected and logged) General Tso wrote ... > On a recent documentary on he Discovery Channel, the fire aboard SR111 was > attributed to the wiring in the "now banned entertainment system." Also the > United Honolulu cargo door mishap was also blamed on wiring. I wasn't aware > that such conclusions had been officially reached, or that an entertainment > system installed on MD-11 has been banned. Comments? FAA issued an AD banning passenger entertainment systems on all MD-11 airplanes operated by US carriers. The justification given was passenger entertainment systems are not consistent with the electrical design of the type. John From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:04 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:04 From: Donald Mamula Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 Organization: Institute for Advanced Thought Reply-To: mamula@oz.net On 17 Dec 99 01:57:34 , emtgx@aol.com (General Tso) wrote: >On a recent documentary on he Discovery Channel, the fire aboard SR111 was >attributed to the wiring in the "now banned entertainment system." Also the >United Honolulu cargo door mishap was also blamed on wiring. I wasn't aware >that such conclusions had been officially reached, or that an entertainment >system installed on MD-11 has been banned. Comments? FWIW -- UA no longer operates the "Airshow" inflight tracking system. They have not officially said it was for safety reasons, but every time you fly on an aircraft equipped with the system, they now say that the system is "unavailable" today. The source of this info are two friends who are UA international FA's - information provided independently from each, who are usually reliable sources. IMO (and opinion alone) UA feels that there may be enough of a connection to warrant this move as a precautionary measure. Your own conclusions may vary. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:05 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:05 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >FWIW -- UA no longer operates the "Airshow" inflight tracking system. True. >IMO (and opinion alone) UA feels that there may be enough of a connection to >warrant this move as a precautionary measure. Your own conclusions may >vary. The facts, according to people I know who work for United, are that the system was disabled due to overheating of certain components. It was a safety measure, but SR 111 had nothing to do with it. United is every intention of bringing the system back as soon as possible since it is very popular. -- 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 Dec 31 02:09:06 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:06 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? 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 emtgx@aol.com (General Tso) writes: > On a recent documentary on he Discovery Channel, the fire aboard > SR111 was attributed to the wiring in the "now banned entertainment > system." Also the United Honolulu cargo door mishap was also blamed > on wiring. I wasn't aware that such conclusions had been officially > reached, or that an entertainment system installed on MD-11 has been > banned. Comments? The entertainment system was banned on MD-11s registered in the U.S., as I recall; as there aren't any of those planes with that system, it's somewhat symbolic. One theory was that this would force removal of the system on any plane SR sells to a U.S. carrier. I'm not sure that the system has definitely been blamed; as the TW800 crash wasn't definitely traced to wiring, but has resulted in various inspections and suh. -- -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 Dec 31 02:09:07 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:07 From: rdd@netcom.nospam.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.b7.09.67 In article , General Tso wrote: >On a recent documentary on he Discovery Channel, the fire aboard SR111 was >attributed to the wiring in the "now banned entertainment system." Also the >United Honolulu cargo door mishap was also blamed on wiring. I wasn't aware >that such conclusions had been officially reached, or that an entertainment >system installed on MD-11 has been banned. Comments? The October 4 issue of Aviation Week notes, page 23, that the previous week the FAA banned the type of system in use on SR111 in US-registered MD-11s. The system is an In-Flight Entertainment Network System, built by Interactive Flight Technologies of Phoenix. The article notes that all installed systems (15) have been deactivated. -- 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 Fri Dec 31 02:09:08 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:08 From: "ME Incorporated" Subject: Re: Question on 767 elevators. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 20 Dec 1999 14:47:40 -0600, 216-119-138-43.ipset18.wt.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Organization: World Trade Network, Inc. (WT.net) NNTP-Posting-Host: 216-119-138-43.ipset18.wt.net Andre wrote ... > What conditions can cause a elevator split operation in flight? There was much discussion on this subject after the EgyptAir flight. If one pilot pushes his control yoke forward, and the other yoke is pulled back, then the elevators will split in the direction required. This is to compensate for a loss of ailerons and/or rudder control. If the Captain pushes forward, and the FO pulls back, then the elevator on the left side will tilt down, while the elevator on the right side will tilt up, causing the plane to roll to the right. It effectively turns them into elevlons. (Is this the right word/spelling?) Combination elevators and ailerons. Quite common on the last few fighter models. (F14, F15, F16, FA18, etc..) and other planes. Oh, and I suppose that someone would bring this up. A mechanical and/or electrical problem *could* cause it, but it would be uncommanded. I assumed that you meant a commanded split. 8^) -- Flying is easy... Buying (cheap) tickets, that's hard. -MikeyB From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:09 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:09 From: "jtarver" Subject: Re: Question on 767 elevators. References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 2-00188123c1ebef45d083ffef8b574b765369c26006eb7284f4b1 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: (protected and logged) Andre wrote ... > What conditions can cause a elevator split operation in flight? Jammed rigging; or operators pushing in opposite directions. (50 # force) John From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:10 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:10 From: james matthew weber Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Marc Schaeffer wrote: > Can somebody please tell me why the basic fuel capacity on the A318, > A319 and A320 is 23860 litters and 'only' 23700 litters on the A321. What are you going to use it for. 23,700 liters is about 42,000 pounds, and that's should be about 8-9 hours worth in these aircraft. Are there any places you are even likely to ferry the aircraft that need more than 8 hours range? I doubt it. Look at it another way. What is the spread between MGT. and MLA. That pretty much identifies the maximum payload circumstances, and anything in excess of that has to come out of payload. On an A320-200 for instance, MGT. is 168,900, MLA is 142,200, so any fuel carriage beyond 27,700 pounds eats into payload. If you fill the tanks, you take a 15,000 pound hit in payload, and on an aircraft like an A320, that would be a very large piece of the total lift. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:11 From: tbenz@halcyon.com (Tom Benedict) Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: brokaw.wa.com 945528201 18836 206.63.42.18 (18 Dec 1999 14:43:21 GMT) Organization: WinStar NorthWest Nexus NNTP-Posting-Host: blv-ux100-ip18.nwnexus.net In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > >Also why is the four wheel bogie option not offered on the A321. At > >least the A32X sales book which I have has this information ... > > It was a special for Indian Airlines. I don't know of anyone else who > ordered it, and I got the impression that Airbus didn't like having to > do it for IA. Like the single 757-200 Combi, it may have been something > the sales critters sold but the rest of the company would prefer to > forget. Do they offer it on the A319? I'd guess not. I assume that IA specified the 4 wheel bogie because of runway and ramp strength limitations in the sub-continent. I recently read that the market for western aircraft Russia (and the rest of the former Soviet Union I suppose) is limited by the many airports whose runways and ramps cannot tolerate the concentration of weight presented by many of the single bogie western jets. So even if they did have economies strong enough to afford Boeing or Airbus, they have many locations where they can't be used due to this infrastructure limitation. Once Russia's economy and government become stable I predict that western airframe mfrs will do whatever is necessary to their products to open these new markets. Tom tbenz@halcyon.com From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:12 From: "Garfield" Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.chello.be 945529806 195.162.198.186 (Sat, 18 Dec 1999 16:10:06 MET) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: Chello Usenet Service NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.162.198.186 Marc Schaeffer a écrit dans le message ... >Can somebody please tell me why the basic fuel capacity on the A318, >A319 and A320 is 23860 litters and 'only' 23700 litters on the A321. the capacity of fuel for the A321 is less than a 319 or a 320 because the fan of the engine is more bog than the others, the the the thrust is bigger JP From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:13 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >the capacity of fuel for the A321 is less than a 319 or a 320 because the >fan of the engine is more bog than the others, the the the thrust is bigger Nope, at least not going by numbers for AW&ST's Source Book. Looking at the IAE V2500 engines, all versions have a maximum envelope diameter of 67.5" and maximum envelope length of 126". For the CFM56, there is more variation, but all versions for the A320 family (including the A319 and A321) are 72" in diameter. The A320 and A319 can use the -5A series engines which are 98.9" long whereas the A321 requires one of the -5B series engines which are longer (102.4") due to an additional low-pressure compressor stage, but the same engines can be fitted to the A319 and A320 as well. The engines fitted to the A321 have higher thrust ratings, of course, but I see no reason why that should reduce fuel capacity unless the higher thrust requires substantially augmented structure. -- 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 Dec 31 02:09:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:14 From: Brute! Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cmnws01.we.mediaone.net 945451381 24.130.54.35 (Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:23:01 PST) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.130.54.35 On 17 Dec 99 01:57:55 , "Robert Wright" wrotd: >>who knows, it all depends how desperate Boeing is in selling some more >>767-400's, and may be the 767-400 is cheaper on the shorter flights then >>A330 ?. > > I think the 767-400 is pretty much always cheaper to operate at a given >distance than the A330. It's a smaller airplane overall, with smaller >engine (in terms of weight and frontal area=drag). Of course, the A330 has >a lot more room for cargo and fuel, so it will always have a capacity and >range adcantage. The 767 is about as stretched as it's going to get, and >there's not much extra range to be had either. So, as usual, the choice >comes down to the specifics of the airline's needs. If you want very tight >control of seat/mile costs and don't need extreme range you go with the 767. >If, however, you are looking for the same size (passenger count) airplane >but need every bit of range you can get, you go for the A330. The A330 is almost the exact same size as the 777-200, whereas the 767, even the -400, is notably smaller. So I think the comparison isn't very fair. We should be comparing the A330 to the 777. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:15 From: James Weber Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.uswest.net 945455954 63.225.195.158 (Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:39:14 CST) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.195.158 > I think the bigger wing on the 767 also gives it better climb >performance. I have heard, but never confirmed, that it can frequently be >difficult to get clearances to higher altitude in some areas of Europe, so I >suppose if you can take off and get very rapidly to altitude in a small >space you eliminate a hassle and don't have to cruise along at 18,000 feet >for 500 miles. I don't know about Europe, but it happens over the 'golden triangle' in the USA frequently (Chicago,New York, Washington), where being able to go directly to FL410 gets you over the traffic jam. A low weight 767 can and does that. An Airbus aircraft gets up there only in someone's dreams... From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:16 From: Ron Parsons Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /K0ZEBMKJU6aSchTv8Hu0Jx0ikxaG78EI3dTkaBI8G/U+xxgzIVabPhBgk8A5xlK66kp7cWbDiZs!/wWKePk0t+2696nKPIEv0/NNNoRDNQS/p3VoxVpYcC9Y6SBS2C8ryXi/vTkxnu5bW+Y= In article , "Robert Wright" wrote: > I'm not sure where this figure comes from. 80% compared to what? Do >you mean BA could spend 80% less training pilots next year if they bought >A330s, or that they could spend 80% less training A330 pilots than they >would training 767 pilots? Will the 767-400 not have commonality with the >other 767s in this regard, or have so little commonality than transition >from 767-300 to 767-400 would cost fives times as much as transitioning >from >A320 to A330? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course, you can't get a >767-400 with RR engines right now.... Our transition from 767-200 to 767-300 was one session at the slides. Both with GE engines. Later when the Company reversed course and bought 757's, this time with RR engines, it was two hours looking at walk around slides. I'd doubt the 767-400 would warrant much more than either of those. -- Ron From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:17 From: "Russell Short" Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: The Internet Group (Sydney) NNTP-Posting-Host: p26-max14.syd.ihug.com.au Robert Wright wrote ... > Of course, the A330 has a lot more room for cargo and fuel, so it will > always have a capacity and range adcantage. We should clarify which A330 version we are talking about. The A330-200 has a belly volume of 4,803 cu ft. The B767-400ER has a belly volume of 4,905 cu ft, or 2.12% more volume. This 2.12% difference is roughly equal to one LD-2 container. Of course the longer A330-300 has room for 6 more LD-3 sized containers compared to the A330-200. If we work with Airbus and Boeing configurations for their respective A330-200 and B767-400ER models, we find the following: First class passenger on airplane 5.4 cu ft of baggage space Business class passenger on airplane 5.4 cu ft of baggage space Economy class passenger on airplane 3.6 cu ft of baggage space Airbus A330-200. 253 3-class pax (12/36/205). 12 First = 64.8 cu ft 36 Business = 194.4 cu ft 205 Economy = 738 cu ft TOTAL = 997.2 cu ft = 7 LD-3 containers (rounding up) Each LD-3 container has 153 cu ft internal volume. This means that the A330-200 is capable of carrying a maximum of six pallets with a full three-class passenger load. The remaining volume is limited to 2 LD-3 containers and bulk. Boeing B767-400ER. 245 3-class pax (20/50/175). 20 First = 108 cu ft 50 Business = 270 cu ft 175 Economy = 630 cu ft TOTAL = 1008 cu ft = 9 LD-2 containers (rounding up) Each LD-2 container has 124 cu ft internal volume. This means that the B767-400ER is capable of carrying its maximum of five pallets with a full three-class passenger load. The remaining volume is limited to 9 LD-3 containers and bulk. For any comparable two-class load comparison of the A330-200 v B767-400ER, the cargo capability of the airframes differs even less. The A330-200 is limited to five pallets with a two-class interior (and full pax); and the B767-400ER is able to carry its maximum of five pallets in any realistic two-class configuration involving 2-2-2 business seating and 2-3-2 economy seating. Of course, this sort of capacity is irrelevant if you are trying to achieve a maximum range for passengers scenario. Obviously the larger 36,750 (139,100 L) fuel capacity of the A330-200 compared to 24,140 USG (91,370 L) for the B767-400ER goes a long way to it have a longer range. As such the A330-200 has a 52% higher fuel capacity, but burns more fuel due to higher thrust engines, greater frontal drag and heavier weights as outlined by Robert. Not many people in the world are game enough to claim that the A330-200 has both lower trip and direct operating costs compared to the B767-400ER over any range. Of course, the perceived advantage of the A330-200 is its side-by-side LD-3 capability and ultimately wider payload/range scenarios. Boeing is, of course, considering further fuel capacity and MTOW increases to the B767-400ER to help combat this problem. Two methods will be approached: (a) the use of two LD-2 positions for removeable fuel storage - an event that does not significantly reduce cargo capacity with three-classes over 6,000nm+ ranges; and (b) the use of the tailplane and outer wing for fuel storage. And, not to be left out, the B767-400ER has a 27ft wingspan advantage. No, I'm not trying to sell this airplane, I'm trying to casually point out with simple arithmetic that perceptions aren't always beneficial. For instance, Airbus calculates the 6,400nm range of the A330-200 based on a Mach cruise speed of 0.80, but markets the airplane as 0.82 capable (which it is, but with a fuel burn increase). > The 767 is about as stretched as it's > going to get, and there's not much extra range to be had either. So, as > usual, the choice comes down to the specifics of the airline's needs. If you > want very tight control of seat/mile costs and don't need extreme range you > go with the 767. If, however, you are looking for the same size (passenger > count) airplane but need every bit of range you can get, you go for the A330. This seems like a fair analogy to me. Of course this is complicated by fleet commonalities, politics and dealer's bargains. > >BA going for A330 would reduce their pilot training costs by a factor of > >80% if the pilots would come from the A320 fleet, so that would be one > >reason. They say that 72% of statistics are made up on the spot. Surely this is one of those times? > I'm not sure where this figure comes from. 80% compared to what? Do > you mean BA could spend 80% less training pilots next year if they bought > A330s, or that they could spend 80% less training A330 pilots than they > would training 767 pilots? Will the 767-400 not have commonality with the > other 767s in this regard, or have so little commonality than transition > from 767-300 to 767-400 would cost fives times as much as transitioning from > A320 to A330? That doesn't make sense to me. Of course, you can't get a > 767-400 with RR engines right now.... Not only this, but BA, although removing three dozen B757s from its fleet, still plans on operating the airframe for another ten years. BA only ordered their last two B757s in August 1998. The B757/767 are, of course, common type rated. And, to make matters even more interesting, the B767-400ER can be delivered with a B777 cockpit layout and philosophy, which would enhance mixed fleet flying for BA widebody types (B764/777/744). Pilots can be dual-type rated for Boeings same as they can for Airbusses, it just takes a day or two longer in the simulator for pilots to earn the qualification. At a major international airline, the sort of narrowbody/widebody separation for pilots would no doubt prove handy in contract negotiations and keeping short and long-haul pilots in separate parts of the company. Russ. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:18 From: Steve Lacker Subject: Re: Another Seaplane Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ns3.arlut.utexas.edu 945445912 29972 129.116.176.203 (17 Dec 1999 15:51:51 GMT) Organization: I only wish.... NNTP-Posting-Host: roadrunner.arlut.utexas.edu P. Wezeman wrote: > Floats can also be > retractable as on the Saunders-Roe Princess and some others. I > believe there was a small amphibian, similar to the Republic SeaBee, > where the end of the wing folded down so the wing tip was the float. Not exactly a "small amphibian," but perhaps the most famous of all: The Convair PBY Catalina has floats such as you describe. -- Stephen G. Lacker sglacker at texas dot net From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:19 From: "Antoin Daltun" Subject: Re: Another Seaplane Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > What was the cabin noise level like in cruising flight > in one of the pre-war Boeing 314 or Short Empire trans-Atlantic > flying boats? Was it too loud to carry on a conversation easily? I made some short flights in the Sunderland when it was in Ireland under Charlie Blair's ownership. Noise was reasonable, but the aircraft was being flown very conservatively. I am sure it would have been worse in normal operation and that a long multi-stop flight would have been wearing, even with a moderate noise level. Antoin Daltun From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:20 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:20 From: "Allen Hope" Subject: Re: Another Seaplane Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: ozemail.com.au 945668128 210.84.4.204 (Mon, 20 Dec 1999 16:35:28 EST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Organization: OzEmail Ltd, Australia NNTP-Posting-Host: slsdn57p12.ozemail.com.au P. Wezeman wrote ... > What was the cabin noise level like in cruising flight > in one of the pre-war Boeing 314 or Short Empire trans-Atlantic > flying boats? Was it too loud to carry on a conversation easily? > If information on noise is not available, how much > sound insulation (if any) did the planes have and how did it compare > to that on the later piston airliners? I have flown on a Lockheed > Constellation and a Douglas DC-7 and as I recall these were > reasonably quiet. Of course these planes needed thermal insulation > at high altitudes and this would have damped the noise even if > there was no soundproofing as such. Has anyone ridden on one of > the surviving Martin Mars water bombers or on Kermit Week's Short > Sunderland? I dont have any objective data, but the S25 Sunderland flying boat was bloody loud! Definitely worse than a DC-4. Flew the S25 once SWA - LHI - SWA in 1972. Twice SWA - LEC - SWA in 72/74 and once SWA - RTH. SWA = Sydney Water Airport (Rose Bay), LHI = Lord Howe Island, LEC = Lake Eucumbene Authorised Alighting Area & RTH = Rathmines (former) Airforce Base, Lake Macquarie. Aircraft were VH-BRC & BRF operated by AFBS (Ansett Flying Boat Services), a subsidiary of Airlines of New South Wales, a subsidiary of Ansett Airlines. SWA - LHI were regular airline services, the others were AHSA (Aviation Historical Society of Australia) charters. After nearly 4 hours enroute (to LHI) I had a buzzing in the ears for days afterward, normal conversation was impossible, both upstairs and down. While the pax cabin had interior lining, the cockpit (which is not much smaller than upstairs on a B742) and other parts of the aircraft had none. I dont think there was much insulation behind that lining. Weight was always a real problem on the S25's. Allen From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:21 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:21 From: "BJ" Subject: Re: Another Seaplane Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: sdn-ar-002flpcitp330.dialsprint.net Go for a ride in a open coucpit aicraft and you are close to the noise level in the 314. Earplugs are definetly recommended. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:22 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:22 From: James Weber Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.uswest.net 945455629 63.225.195.158 (Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:33:49 CST) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.6/32.525 NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.195.158 On 17 Dec 99 01:57:44 , Erik Verheijden wrote: >A closer look at statistics tells us that of all recent >incidents/accidents to large airliners, the number of engines on the a/c >wouldn't have made a difference in a single case. I would disagree. I think there is a reasonable chance the loss of the Lauda Air 767 might have been avoided had it been a 4 engine aircraft, however that is probably the only case. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:23 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:23 From: afwtul1@aol.com (Afwtul1) Subject: Re: First thing you do is R&R an engine on a new plane? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >"A lot of airlines also replace one engine as their first act upon >receiving a new twin, just in case someone at the factory screwed >up." > >The only airline I know of that ever did this was Maude Friggard's >Storm Doors, Drain Gutters, Asphalt Paving and Airlines Co. > >Evidently, this writer is a former employee of MFSDDGAP&Air. I'd have to agree with Jack, I've pulled many a acceptence checks on 767's, and the last thing I can think of an airline doing is pulling off a perfectly good 6-8 million dollar engine and putting another one on. Beside's if the original poster is not aware, engines when there new or overhauled spend some time in the test cell, then there hung on the wing and run up again by the mechanics, then at the airline I'm at, they usually make a domestic run, or the first 60 mins of an ETOPS flight must remain over land. Jim From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:24 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:24 From: cpovey@mindspring.com (Colin Povey) Subject: Airliner Safety Stats Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Reply-To: cpovey@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.0c.18 Folks, Looking to find airliner safety stats by model. I have had no trouble finding them via airline, country, region, etc. but cannot seem to find them by model (727, 737, A320, etc.) Thanks for any help. Colin From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:25 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:25 From: "Dennis R. Jenkins" Subject: 747 Request Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Reply-To: dennisjenkins@earthlink.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust200.tnt9.melbourne.fl.da.uu.net G'day, I am an author in the States that has been asked to write a book (100-page, softcover) on the history of the Boeing 747. No problems there, as I have a fairly decent archive of historical material. What I am missing, are photos ... I have found a few airliner photographers over here that have graciously allowed me to use their material, but I am looking for other 747 photos worldwide ... the book only covers the "early" models (-100/200/300/SP). If anybody is willing and able ... please contact me directly. Best Regards, -dj From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:26 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:26 From: "David B." Subject: Qantas B777 or A340 Order? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.iinet.net.au 945444093 12812 JBQXRI@203.59.71.78 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.71.78 Hello all; I heard that QF is going to be making a decision before the end of the year on whether there going to choose the B777 or A340 to cover that 'gap' between their 767-300's and 747-400's. Does anyone have any inkling on what they'll choose? -- David R. Bradford bradford@iinet.net.au 279256 From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:27 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:27 From: Brute! Subject: Re: American Airlines L1011 ??? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cmnws01.we.mediaone.net 945451256 24.130.54.35 (Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:20:56 PST) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.130.54.35 On 17 Dec 99 01:57:41 , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrotd: >>Or had the MD11 replaced them all. > >For the domestic missions, Delta is replacing them with the 767-300 and >soon the 767-400. Internationally, Delta switched to the MD-11 and the >767-300(ER), depending on loads and range. The MD-11 doesn't have the >needed range with a decent load for the Pacific, though, so it's being >replaced by the 777-200(ER) in that market. It depends where the departure and destination points are. I live near LAX and see JAL, China Eastern and Korean Airlines MD-11s all the time. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:28 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:28 From: "Smurf" Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Safety is the primary concern. Assume an engine is lost at or just > above V1 (the speed at which you either abort or continue a take-off if > an engine is lost). If your remaining engine(s) is only at "85%" (your > value) you must take the added step of throttling up the remaining > engine(s) to 100%. You are wrong my friend, there is no requirement for a crew to increase power on the remaining engines following an engine failure. The takeoff weights and speeds are based on the reduced power. As for V1, while you quoted the regulations, industry is heading towards having V1 as an action speed and not a decision speed. bye. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:29 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:29 From: "M. Jones" Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: "rmjones@cyberhighway.net" Thanks for the clarification. Mike Jones From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:30 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:30 From: Ron Parsons Subject: Re: 7x7-EFIS question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /bQNubPTKFZDysmxbhMB4Ji3wOVYFCI7xtnQ74WwhB0ifBAheS4arnXhXiH+LdnXJm7ZSbNXFt2D!AdHESy5FwIDFBlsxWF+2u8eFcbKsfarV5hx7egwja+EuZlTnLObwVcgsw/o/dpAApwo= In article , ice wrote: >How well does the 757/767 conform to the ideal descent profile with >VNAV engaged with strong tail winds? I have heard FLCH is a better >tool in such circumstances? It depends on the accuracy of your descent winds. When they are uplinked just before descent with an accurate profile the profile works out pretty well. However, you do have to know what you are asking the aircraft to do, for example a 757 descending into San Jose, Cost Rico and using the MEA's as at or above limits needs about 1/4 speedbrake and throttles idle to get down. >Also do you HDG SEL onto the LOC, or LNAV? I assume because of >Map Shift you HDG SEL.. Old instructors whose mothers were scared as children by midnight tales of the dreaded map shift always teach HDG SEL, but the aircraft is going to stay locked on heading with no anticipation in that mode until the LOC needle is way, way in. Not good on parallel runway intercepts. Most days at DFW, a HDG SEL intercept on a visual day will see the aircraft cross the spine road before it gets back on its side of the airport. However an LNAV intercept at a high angle will begin to turn before there is any LOC movement at all. -- Ron From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:31 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:31 From: "John Vincent Lombardi" Subject: Re: 7x7-EFIS question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 945469860 24.5.220.95 (Fri, 17 Dec 1999 14:31:00 PST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) Organization: UniPhone MP NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.5.220.95 In article , ice wrote: > How well does the 757/767 conform to the ideal descent profile with > VNAV engaged with strong tail winds? I have heard FLCH is a better > tool in such circumstances? Well, garbage in, garbage out. If the forecast winds in the descent are accurate, and have been entered in the box, the descent profile will be right on. If, on the other hand, the top of descent winds aren't representative of those encountered in the descent and no descent forecast winds have been entered, some speed or drag corrections might need to be made. Using FLCH in the descent will provide a constant speed, thrust idle descent without regard to any vertical navigation restraints. The two modes are complementary, but only VNAV will provide descent planning with calculated top of descent point and crossing restrictions taken into account. > Also do you HDG SEL onto the LOC, or LNAV? I assume because of > Map Shift you HDG SEL.. Most often, HDG SEL is used to join the LOC because that phase of flight usually entails radar vectors. LNAV can be used to join as well. LNAV is sometimes used when the join up is fairly far out on finals. Flying inbound on the LNAV LOC course is much smoother with less hunting. The important thing to remember is to transition to LOC before reaching MDA ;-). Hope this helps, John -- John Vincent Lombardi uniphone@home.com San Francisco, CA uniphone@compuserve.com From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:32 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:32 From: "Chris Dahler" Subject: Re: 7x7-EFIS question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: /bV2/51RwjsFHpdZ6X6B/nUbxWKKxAgqVv0Hm6/1kh60BxS36vt8zglABgah/pwndTiRGl35kLK2!SQN2ppm71KfuTr130gO6lxs5ZyYE3nw1zMX1XaUi7AZvipZsEyiwnOsWnDOr8g4+IpMb2qo+vQ== X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 > How well does the 757/767 conform to the ideal descent profile with > VNAV engaged with strong tail winds? I have heard FLCH is a better > tool in such circumstances? It's basically the same as with any other computer operation: garbage in, garbage out. The DES page has a FORECAST selection which allows you to enter up to four different altitudes in the descent with the forecast winds at those altitudes. It also allows you to enter the expected altitude for activating engine anti-ice. If all this info is entered prior to the descent and the wind forecasts weren't wildly inaccurate, VNAV does a pretty good job in any wind situation. If you decline to enter this info (it is not required), then you are basically hoping the winds don't change much on the way down. In this case, the FMC will compute a top of descent point based on the winds at your cruise altitude only and assume the winds will remain the same all the way down. VNAV can get a little screwy then. FLCH, of course, just pulls the throttles to idle and maintains whatever airspeed you dial into the speed window through pitch alone. > Also do you HDG SEL onto the LOC, or LNAV? I assume because of > Map Shift you HDG SEL.. It depends on how far I am from the airport when ATC turns me onto the localizer. If I'm much more than 15 miles from the runway, I'll arm LNAV and let it fly the extended centerline initially, mainly just to avoid the swings of the localizer so far out. The extended centerline is rarely more than a dot off the center of the localizer, and it's usually right on center. It's not so much a result of a map shift that one uses HDG SEL to intercept a localizer course, it's more just a result of ATC providing vectors, and there is no way to tell the FMC to just fly a heading. Chris email: dahler at bigfoot dot com From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:33 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:33 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM John M. Hunt asks: > Where am I wrong? IMHO, John, you are absolutely right. You might find the following article of interest, in which I describe my experiences this year for the Safety Critical Systems Club newsletter. Regards, Pete Mellor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Nagoya Case Introduction A case for damages has been brought by the survivors and over 200 of the relatives of those killed in the crash of an A300 at Nagoya airport, against Airbus Industrie and China Airlines jointly and severally. In July 1998, I was invited by Koga & Partners of Tokyo to appear as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs. The decision to become involved could be described as a ``no brainer''. Apart from my wish to assist the victims, I rapidly found that the analysis of the accident posed a fascinating intellectual challenge. In this article, I summarise the accident sequence and explain the reasons behind my testimony, which emphasised the role of the design of the automatic flight system (AFS). The Crash On the evening of 26th April 1994, China Airlines Flight 140 (an Airbus A300B4-622R) from Taipei (Taiwan) to Nagoya (Japan) was on final approach. The first officer (F/O) was the pilot flying (PF). Both autopilots (AP) were disengaged and the F/O was flying manually, but following the ``glide slope'' beam down to the threshold of runway 34. This beam was being tracked by the instrument landing system (ILS), and guidance was provided by the flight director (FD) bars on the primary flight display (PFD) screen. The captain had advised the F/O also to look outside and use visual cues to guide his approach. Flaps were extended and the landing gear was down. Landing check list had been completed, including the programming of a ``go-around'' altitude of 3,000 feet. (This routine step was to ensure that, in the unlikely event of the crew having to abort the landing, the APs could be engaged and would then fly the aircraft up to this safe altitude with minimal action by the crew.) The landing was proceeding normally. Then (at a height of around 500 feet) the F/O touched the go-around lever (GO-lever) below the hand-grip of the thrust lever, where his left hand was resting. This was presumably an unintentional action, and its cause is a mystery. The AFS went into go-around (GA) mode. The engines began to spool up automatically, and the flight path levelled off, departing from the glide slope. The captain reacted in surprise and told the F/O to ``Disengage it'', and to ``Push down'' (push forward on the control column to lower the nose), presumably in order to regain the glide slope. At this point, one of the crew engaged both APs. This was another mysterious action. It is likely that the F/O did it, but this cannot be determined from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). The AFS was already in GA mode, and so the AP began to take the aircraft up to the pre-programmed height of 3000 feet. The F/O continued to push forward on the control column. At the level of modification of the AFS software on that aircraft, while the AFS was in GA mode, the pilot could override the APs by force on the controls (so moving the elevators). However, the APs remained engaged, and issued ``autotrim'' commands to move the trimmable horizontal stabiliser (THS) in the nose-up sense, opposing the nose-down commands of the F/O. In less than 20 seconds, the THS reached its extreme nose-up position, in which it remained even after the F/O disengaged the APs a few seconds later. The aircraft was now grossly ``out of trim''. Unless the F/O exerted great force continuously on the column, the nose would rise sharply. The ``angle of attack'' (AOA or Alpha: the angle between the aircraft and the air through which it is moving) increased to over 12 degrees, and ``Alpha Floor'' protection was activated. This increases power automatically if the aircraft comes near to stalling, but the thrust of the engines increased the nose-up moment, and the aircraft began to ascend. The captain took over control and, alarmed by the force required to push the column forward, decided to go around. The aircraft shot up to over 1700 feet, but it was still out of trim, and its pitch angle reached 52 degrees nose-up before it stalled, and came down out of control to pancake on to the ground next to the runway threshhold. Of 271 souls on board, all but 7 perished. To the end, the pilots seem to have remained unaware that the aircraft was out of trim. The Causes Like most accidents, the Nagoya crash was the end result of a complex sequence of events, involving both human error and system design. The pilots made mistakes at several levels. The F/O unintentionally touching the GO-lever was apparently a ``slip''. Their errors of procedure might have included engagement of APs while in GA mode. (Pilots are trained to rely on the A300 AFS as much as possible, and the F/O might have instinctively engaged APs when things started to go wrong. Note that this is speculation!) The crew also did not follow the procedure to get out of GA mode, even though this is routinely done at the end of a real go-around, and they had actually discussed this procedure earlier in the flight. When executing the final deliberate go-around, they withdrew the flaps too rapidly, contrary to go-around procedure, so increasing the tendency to stall. However, their main mistakes were due to lack of knowledge. They did not know that the AP would oppose attempts to override it. (The F/O might even have engaged APs without the captain being aware.) They did not know that the aircraft was out-of-trim. (They could very easily have corrected this, either by using the trim wheels which move the THS manually and also disengage the APs, or by first disengaging APs with the instinctive disconnect button and then operating the electrical trim switch. Both button and switch are conveniently mounted on the control column.) The design of the AFS also played a crucial role. The philosophy of Airbus is stated in the Flight Operations Manual (FOM), as follows: ``The design philosophy of the A300-600 includes the use of the latest technology to reduce pilot operational workload, thus subtly changing the bias of his task from that of operator to that of monitor. Inherent in this philosophy is the use of autopilot from just after take off to, if necessary, the end of the landing roll-out.'' The APs can always be disengaged deliberately. Also, the pilot can override the AP by exerting considerable force on the controls, but this does not automatically disengage the AP, which ``fights back''. This ``feature interaction'' can leave the aircraft out of trim. Also, the movement of the THS by the AP is not accompanied by the audible warning (``whooler'') which is given if the pilot moves the THS continuously using the electrical trim switch. In the original design of the A300 AFS, automatic AP disengagement by force on the controls was not enabled in any flight mode or at any height. However, after three ``out-of-trim'' incidents (none resulting in a crash), the AFS software was modified. First, automatic AP disengagement was enabled in flight modes other than LAND mode below 400 feet and GA mode. A second modification enabled automatic AP disengagement in GA mode above 400 feet. Warnings were inserted into the FOM that the prolonged use of override in pitch could leave the aircraft out of trim. China Airlines had not implemented the second modification. (This was only ``Recommended'', not ``Mandatory''.) Also, it seems that the pilots had not received training in a simulator which was capable of reproducing the interaction between pilot override and AP. The purpose of the override facility is variously stated in the FOM and other documents to be to make small corrections to assist in capturing the glide slope beam during landing approach, or to allow the pilot to correct an uncommanded control surface movement resulting from AP malfunction. Neither of these justifications for retaining the override facility while not enabling automatic AP disengagement by control force makes sense. Certainly since the first modification to the AFS software permitted disengagement in LAND mode above 400 feet, the first justification fails, since both glide slope and localiser beams are captured during the approach well above that height. The second justification fails since a far simpler design solution to the potential problem would be to disengage the AP. The Case Sources of information on the crash included the official accident report and a video produced by Airbus, of a reconstruction of the accident sequence in a simulator and a description of nine ways in which the crew could have recovered the flight after the unintentional operation of the GO-lever. In July 1999 I appeared in the District Court of Nagoya for direct examination by the plaintiffs' counsel. In September I returned for cross-examination by the defendants' counsel. The preparation was intense, and each hearing was like a five hour viva, although the translation of all exchanges from or to Japanese afforded a little respite and thinking time. The other expert witness for the plaintiffs was Barry Schiff, a retired airline pilot and instructor with an impressive list of publications on air safety. He dealt mainly with the contribution of pilot error to the accident. My testimony emphasised the role of the design of the AFS. I presented a model of system failure in which a latent design fault is activated by a particular combination of environmental circumstances, the internal state of the system and operator action (which may include operator error). If no corrective action is taken, the resulting failure can cause an accident. The interaction between pilot override and the response of the AP constitutes (I claimed) a fault in the design of the AFS. Counsel for the defendants raised several objections, which I tried to rebut:- Objection: Not to allow AP disengagement by force was a deliberate design decision, and so cannot be considered to be a ``fault''. Rebuttal: Inadequate specification of functions is a common source of system failure. International standards recognise this and define failure as a departure from ``required'' function, not from ``specified'' function. Objection: To allow AP disengagement by force would have courted the opposite risk of accidental disengagement, as occurred in the crash of Eastern Airlines flight 401 in Florida in 1972. Rebuttal: The opposition of the pilot's override commands by AP on the A300 leads immediately to a hazardous configuration. The disengagement of the AP on EAL 401 merely permitted a descent to begin, and the crew did not detect it for 5 minutes (due to other factors). The two accidents are not comparable. An uncommanded AP disengagement can occur for other reasons (e.g., equipment failure) and during landing the PF must have both hands on the controls in order to be able to resume control instantly. Objection: The interaction could not have been foreseen. Rebuttal: It should have been detected by a hazard analysis. Whether foreseeable or not, it is still a fault. It was actually known about after the first ``out-of-trim'' incident (in France, March 1989). Objection: The three previous incidents show that the problem can easily be overcome by a competent pilot. Rebuttal: These incidents actually show that pilots cannot be relied upon to understand the interaction of AP with override, and that the fault should have been corrected immediately. In the third incident (Moscow, February 1991) in particular, the flight came within a hair's breadth of disaster, and the two experienced Lufthansa pilots were still unaware of the cause of their problem when interviewed on the ground later. Objection: The warning notices in the FOM and in service bulletins should have alerted all pilots to the possibility of the out-of-trim condition. Rebuttal: A notice in the manual is an inadequate protection against a critical design fault. It is useless unless reinforced by training. This was ``an accident waiting to happen''. It was only a matter of time before a crew who did not understand the interaction stumbled over it with fatal consequences. Objection: (The ``64 thousand dollar question''!) ``Would you not agree that, at the time of the accident, all systems were behaving as specified?'' Rebuttal: ``They were behaving as specified, but not as required to ensure the continued safe flight of the aircraft!'' Conclusion In summary, I testified that the main cause of the accident was the manifestation of a design fault in the AFS, where:- - the latent design fault was the feature interaction whereby the pilot can override the APs while the APs remain engaged and oppose the override, - the environmental conditions were that the aircraft was at a certain height, - the internal state was that APs were engaged with the AFS in GA mode, - the operator action was the prolonged attempt by the F/O to override APs in pitch, - the system failure was the aircraft becoming out-of-trim, and - the crew did not take appropriate corrective action since they were unaware of the out-of-trim configuration (which occurs without any audible warning). As a result of the Nagoya crash (and well before the case was brought), mandatory Airworthiness Directives have been issued by the DGAC and FAA requiring modification of the AFS software on all A300 and A310 models to allow automatic AP disengagement if the pilot applies more than 15Kg force on the controls in any mode of flight and at any height. The case continues. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:34 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:34 From: ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com I think the answer to your question lies in the task given the designers of autoflight systems. If one parameter is to allow for pilot input while autopilots are engaged this would not be a problem. Unfortunately pilots sometimes don't fully understand the implications of "helping" the autopilot in its job. Most airplanes I have flown have cautions about overriding autopilot inputs and to disconnect it if its not doing what you want. The elevator trim movement by the autopilot looks at only one thing: it seeks to relieve pressure on the actuator by trimming the stabilizer so that the elevator is faired to the stab. If the actuator is holding constant down elevator to maintain level flight it will trim the stab to relieve the force and unload the actuator. Now if the pilot applies up pressure the autopilot will add down trim in an attempt to help unload the actuator which is now fighting the pilot input. If it continues, the trim continues to run until it hits the limit. This is the scenario in a few of the accidents and the solution is to train the pilots accordingly. Unfortunately in some cases the pilots did not even know the autopilot(s) were on. This seems amazing until you see how these things work. There is little warning sometimes and requires constant attention to keep up with the mode of operation. Whether its a design flaw is a matter of opinion but I think we have taken a giant step backward in safety by complicating the task rather than by simplifying it. From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:35 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:35 From: "Chris Dahler" Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: +r4CDj5gjL7WwT9dd5njfauGG7/T6RllooEC343G3aTtb9Y3lCuF0Rv9of0oMxneVAF4SvKHxFJO!MGoTcYf7y0pVvJ2cnmvl154qY30QCgXadt/QexuvFcl890qyh6+O6yBVpO+UlBBPS0N2i1chRQ== X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 > the control difficulty arising from an attempt by the pilots to > physically override the autopilot by pronounced forward stick force, > with the autopilot responding by introducing extreme nose up trim. [snip] > battle of wits. In most instances the pilots were exquisitely blind > to any concern over trim position. In a case such as you described here, the pilots would also have to be exquisitely blind to the fact that the autopilot was still connected while they were attempting to manipulate the controls. At least in the 757/767, the autopilot ceases to have any control over the trim when it is disconnected, and I cannot envision a scenario in which a pilot would ever intentionally try to hand-fly the airplane with the autopilot still hooked up. > I am simply unable to understand, in today's sophisticated world of > computer controlled everything, why anyone would design a system which > would permit such a flagrant conflict of control authority, and > particularly, one which would necessarily leave the aircraft in an > outrageously untrimmed condition. They don't design systems like this. When one disconnects the autopilot, the conflict of control authority ceases. The pilot should never be attempting to manipulate the controls with the autopilot hooked up. > What exactly is the reason for deliberately designing a system that > doesn't, at any one time, have a single master in control of aircraft > desired flight path and related control actions? It seems a bit > implausible that any competent designer would even remotely flirt with > such a design. No one designs aircraft like this. The pilot remains the "master in control" of the aircraft, and if the autopilot doesn't do something he wants, he either reprograms the autopilot or he disconnects it and hand-flies the aircraft. Some aircraft (notably Airbus) are designed with extreme flight envelope limit protection software that will prevent a pilot from, for example, stalling the aircraft, but one does not normally operate an aircraft in such a regime, and it could be argued that if a pilot allowed his flight path to deteriorate to this point to begin with, he probably needed some help from his friendly autopilot anyway. Chris From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:36 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:36 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com While I cannot necessarily speak from any real authority on this subject, I think I can shed a little light on it. The reason that autopilots have large trim capability is because they have little control authority. Generally, an AFCS will be able to command movement of 10-25% of total elevator and aileron/spoiler travel. The theory is that if the autopilot were to go totally bananna-bonkers- bozo, it would not be able to send the aircraft into a zoom climb or barrel roll. Autoflight systems generally use two types of pitch trim. First is 'mach trim', which compensates for airplanes' tendancy to nose down or 'mach tuck' as airspeed increases and the Center of Lift moves aft on the wing. The second is just a normal, low-speed trim, usually just a different actuator than the one(s) the pilots use. In any case, any time the autopilot trims the aircraft away from 'neutral' (e.g. hands-off) trim, there is some form of indicator to warn the pilots that it is happening. The manuals I have read all say the same thing: 'hold the controls tightly and disengage the autopilot and autopilot trim. Be prepared for large control forces to be required to maintain flight path control' TheFNG From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:37 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:37 From: Carl Peters Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM While you point out a few accidents due to a common cause, remember that the logic behind this system can not be that bad, as thousands of flights are competently flown with the same aircraft types daily. Your critique should be directed toward the pilots who do not understand the system and its logic. These problems are not just with recent modern aircraft, such as the Airbus family, but has been occurring for decades in general aviation aircraft, too. A single rule was violated, one that has been taught ever since the advent of autopilot control - you can have only ONE pilot flying the aircraft, be it machine or person. The pilots in the aforementioned accidents, such as from Mr. Job's three (excellent) books, did not understand fully how the autopilot worked, and tried to become a 'second' pilot, instead of working with the machine versus depressing the single button that would have instantly turned it off. While my first perusing of these accidents made me first lay blame toward a certain manufacturer in its approach to control logic, further thought showed that the system performed exactly as the manufacturer said it would, as was outlined in training. The mistake was simply the pilots' lack of system mastery. They violated a quite old rule - only one pilot. Carl Peters From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:38 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:38 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Okay, guilty by sin of omission. Yes, the pilots can disengage the autopilot(s) any time by simply applying force to the controls (pitch or roll). TheFNG From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:39 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:39 From: "John Nichols" Subject: Aircraft Components Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.mpx.com.au 945476582 15547 198.142.188.138 (18 Dec 1999 00:23:02 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Optus Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: camax1-138.dialup.optusnet.com.au Next year I will be commencing my final year engineering thesis. It will involve the fatigue testing of carbon fibre structural components. I can construct the component in our labs but the size of the component is restricted by our test jigs, ie an axial length of 30cm. Therfore, I am trying to find drawings and/or plans which show enough detail which will allow me to reconstruct the component. I have a number of "cut-away" drawings but they often don't show things such as hard points, and none of them show dimensions. The plan need not be of a carbon fibre member, just as long as the dimensions fit our equipment. Can anyone help with a source? Web or book is fine. Cheers John From kls Fri Dec 31 02:09:40 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 02:09:40 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Cabin Depressurization Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: red.weeg.uiowa.edu Following the ValueJet fire and crash in Florida there was an article published in a magazine, it might have been the Atlantic Monthly, in which the author stated that at any given time there was a maximum atainable level of safety in aviation. There was a point of diminishing returns in adding safety features and equipment, since the safety equipment could itself malfunction, as had happened in the case of the ValueJet. The author also stated that emergency oxygen systems on airliners had never saved a single life. Is this true? Any counterexamples? I know of at least three explosive decompressions where most of the passengers survived: the DC-10 where the cargo door blew out over Canada, the Aloha Air 737 where the top of the forward fuselage came off, and the 747 that lost a cargo door over the Pacific. Did oxygen systems help in any of these cases? thank you, Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:11 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:11 From: "V12" Subject: Re: First thing you do is R&R an engine on a new plane? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I'd have to agree with Jack, I've pulled many a acceptence checks on > 767's, and the last thing I can think of an airline doing is pulling off > a perfectly good 6-8 million dollar engine and putting another one on. We do it all the time, for engine stagger. DFW/Delta From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:12 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:12 From: james matthew weber Subject: Re: B737-400 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Petrus Lundqvist wrote: > I've read in several places that the Boeing 737-400 has a range > of about 2050 nm, or 3800 km. What does that mean exactly? The > range circle drawn on the Boeing website for the 737-400 centers > on Boston but doesn't reach the west coast of the USA. This should > correctly be about 2050 nm but does this mean 2050 nm after take > off, and then cruising at 35000 feet and running out of fuel after > 2050 miles, or does it mean 2050 miles including takeoff, approach, > landing.. Does it include reserves and if so, then how much? The answer is such a range quotation doesn't mean much. Most aircraft are capable of carrying far more fuel than they are likely to ever be able to actually put on board due to weight limitations. This is further complicated by the fact that the manufacturer may offer differing maximum takeoff weight, which increases the possible fuel carriage. For instance Boeing offers a high weight 737-400 option that increases the range to almost 2400nm, and still others may fit additional tanks in the belly for even more range with reduced payload. I have been on a 737-400IGW that spent almost 5 hours airborne, flying from Phoenix, AZ. to Philadelphia, and then took a 1 hour weather delay at PHL and was still legal. Generally the range is quoted at optimum conditions in still air, and often involves serious payload penalties. How serious a payload penalty you are prepared to pay in no small part determines the range. For instance if you would like to fly a 777-200ER with a 656,000 pound MGTOW and only carry a crew , you can get more than 20,000km as Boeing did several years ago. With a realistic load, the limit in such an aircraft is more like 12000 km. The best way to look at realistic range is to look at the spread between Maximum Gross Takeoff Weight and Maximum landing weight. Divide by average fuel consumption per hour, multiply by typical cruise speed and you have still air range at maximum payload. If you do this on a 747-400 you end up with about 5500 statute miles. You can obviously fly much further if you can carry the fuel, and are prepared to exchange fuel for payload. For instance the QF 747-400's that fly LAX-SYD (which is about 7500 statute miles), typically can only carry about 3500kg of freight. This is much much less than Boeing quotes, and it happens because the roughly 2500 miles worth fuel had to come out of payload. Boeing quotes the 747-400 as having a 8400nm range. at economy cruise that is about 17 hours. If you work backward from the fuel required, such an activity will take 135,000 pounds or so out of the lift capacity. That means you would probably have a hard time doing it in an empty airplane if it had a passenger interior fitted!. -- James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:13 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:13 From: james matthew weber Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "Brute!" wrote: > On 17 Dec 99 01:57:55 , "Robert Wright" wrotd: > >>who knows, it all depends how desperate Boeing is in selling some more > >>767-400's, and may be the 767-400 is cheaper on the shorter flights then > >>A330 ?. > > > > I think the 767-400 is pretty much always cheaper to operate at a given > >distance than the A330. It's a smaller airplane overall, with smaller > >engine (in terms of weight and frontal area=drag). Of course, the A330 has > >a lot more room for cargo and fuel, so it will always have a capacity and > >range adcantage. The 767 is about as stretched as it's going to get, and > >there's not much extra range to be had either. So, as usual, the choice > >comes down to the specifics of the airline's needs. If you want very tight > >control of seat/mile costs and don't need extreme range you go with the 767. > >If, however, you are looking for the same size (passenger count) airplane > >but need every bit of range you can get, you go for the A330. > > The A330 is almost the exact same size as the 777-200, whereas the > 767, even the -400, is notably smaller. So I think the comparison > isn't very fair. We should be comparing the A330 to the 777. Huh??? length wingspan wing area MGTOW mlw 777-200 209 200 4600 545,000 445,000 767-400 201 170 2800 450,000 335,000 A330-300 209 198 3900 478,000 395,000 A330-200 194 198 3900 507,000 397,000 777-200ER 209 200 4600 656,000 470,000 If we compare the shrunken A330-300 (which isn't selling very well) to the no longer available base model 777-200 perhaps ... In terms of actual passenger capacity there is little difference between the A330-200, which is what seems to be selling the best, and the 767-400. There is a large difference in range, and the A330 probably has a substantial advantage in freight lift. I don't think anyone would serious suggest a comparison between an A330 and a 777-300. -- James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:14 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:14 From: RJ Carpenter Subject: Re: Airliner Safety Stats References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: FS6GPWRzs37D9E/3XvPilfqA5uUhSsPHgkYNTvlQp7c= Reply-To: rcarpen@micron.net Colin Povey wrote: > Looking to find airliner safety stats by model. http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm But this fellow has a severe definition of accident/incident. He even blames one model for a food-poisoning death!!! Bob C. From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:15 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:15 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Airliner Safety Stats References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >But this fellow has a severe definition of accident/incident. He even >blames one model for a food-poisoning death!!! It's a good site for raw data, but I agree, his definitions for picking what to count and what not to count renders the statistics meaningless. Only accidents with passenger fatalities count. Thus, the 747 is dinged for the food-poisoning death you mention and the 757 is dinged because a passenger walked in one door and out the other side, falling to his death through a gap between the aircraft and the galley service truck, yet the Aloha 737 which tore open over Hawaii doesn't count in the stats because the only fatality was a flight attendant, and crew don't count. Weird. -- 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 Dec 31 17:11:16 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:16 From: andyweir Subject: Airliner Safety Stats References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit What you want is the AirClaims data. AirClaims produce the stats for the insurance industry from a variety of sources, and sometimes out of date copies can be had. Current ones are available at very high cost indeed from their offices near Heathrow. As the notes to the tables emphasise, however, the data do not permit any statistically valid comparison of the relative safety of different aircraft types. There is too much variation in the causes of crash that cannot be related to the design or manufacture. The most that can be done, in terms of safety comparisons by type, is to compare different generations of jet, e.g. the early narrow-bodies versus the later wide-bodies. It is only by taking very broad categories like that that you generate sufficient numbers for the outcomes to be statistically significant. AW From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:17 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:17 From: marlin zorsky Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.axxsys.net 946673728 208.158.189.167 (Fri, 31 Dec 1999 15:55:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.158.189.167 Reply-To: marlin@reefnet.com two engines vers three. line maintance is mostly engines, one less & wing engines are easier to service. From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:18 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:18 From: "Russell Short" Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: The Internet Group (Sydney) NNTP-Posting-Host: p26-max14.syd.ihug.com.au Erika wrote ... >> 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). > >IY may be so ,but i know a QF engineer who is on the net all the time hes >home here in Sydney...wants more electronic punishment,eh. Seriously, having now spoken to the wife of a dead QF flight engineer, I am more surprised that more hasn't been done to shield these people from electromagnetic radiation. The poor woman is convinced that her husband was a slow victim of radiation in the cockpit. Of the 13 flight engineers that died at QF over a period of six years (one had been retired for six months, another for a year), ALL had tumours develop in the front lobes of their brain, suggesting that the electromagnetic radiation came from directly in front and/or above*. *Note: secondary information gathered from the wife. I know where *not* to carry my mobile phone.... Russ. From kls Fri Dec 31 17:11:19 1999 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Dec 99 17:11:19 From: Tim Pearson Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Running With Scissors, Inc. "Gary Watson" writes: : Thee is another hush kit builder in Colorado called Really Quiet : who have a rather bizarre looking modification when the mixer : shroud slides back 5 feet to the end of the ejector tube during : take off and landing. Sounds like the arrangement that was employed by the early, turbojet- powered DC-8s. They had a translating ring that operated exactly as you describe, and did double duty as a target-type thrust reverser. I've always been curious about the operation and rigging of these DC-8 noise attenuators. It's never been clear to me whether they were manually operated or automatic, and if the latter, whether they moved strictly as a function of throttle position or if there were other criteria (say, landing gear down). -Tim