From kls Thu Jan 6 00:47:56 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:25:59 From: "M. Kranz" Subject: Re: Strange 707 at Burbank References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.02.59 Tim Pearson wrote: [snip] > 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... I can't tell you from first-hand experience, but I have seen a United DC-8-55 panel diagram which depicted switches to control the ejector position, as well as ejector position lights. Now, whether the switches were labled "RET/EXT" or "AUTO/EXT" or what have you, I don't remember. But they certainly were controlled by the crew. I would guess that at the least, the ejectors extend when reverse thrust is selected, since the reverser buckets are integral to the ejectors. --Matt -- Matt Kranz /// Houston, Texas Go Purdue! * Fly CoEx! * Drive VR6! From kls Thu Jan 6 00:47:57 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:00 From: cpovey@mindspring.com (Colin Povey) Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: 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: d1.56.0d.1d marlin zorsky wrote: >two engines vers three. line maintance is mostly engines, one less & >wing engines are easier to service. In addition, a 727 requires three flight crew, instead of two, as do all current aircraft. Colin From kls Thu Jan 6 00:47:58 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:01 From: "Mike and Sherley Nichols" Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news3.atl 946952870 216.78.252.204 (Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:27:50 EST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.252.204 marlin zorsky wrote in message ... > two engines vers three. line maintance is mostly engines, one less & > wing engines are easier to service. Never posted a reply before, so here goes. Previous poster was correct in stating that the 757 wasn't really a good replacement aircraft, and was in fact a new "category" aircraft. A320 and 737-800 are true 727 replacements. Flying for a major carrier that soon will have a bunch of -800s, I wish to some extent that we had purchased the Airbus. The cockpit is far larger (with 2 jumpseats plus space; the -800 cockpit is much more cramped). The Airbus has a larger cockpit, large flight-attendant-friendly galley (I have yet to talk to a FA that didn't despise the -800 galley), wide aisle and wide spacious seats (wide by narrowbody standard, at least). Boeing seems to have merely stretched and slightly prettified a 30 year old design. As a matter of fact, you still have to manually bring the generators on line when starting engines, just so the overhead panel could still be called a 737! The Wall Street Journal also had an article about how airline bean counters, but not passengers, like the 737-800. On the flip side, Boeings are always fun to fly, and I am a bit leery of an aircraft that continually causes the pilot to wonder what it is doing now?! From kls Thu Jan 6 00:47:59 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:02 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >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. I heard a different rumor...I heard that the 727 was nixed because it was choking 757 sales. TheFNG From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:00 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:03 From: spagiola@my-deja.com Subject: Re: A330 vs. B767 References: 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 Brute! wrote: > 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. You're probably thinking of the A330-300. The A330-200, on the other hand, is very similar in passenger capacity to the 767-400. So if you want to make useful comparisons, you can compare the 777-200 to the A330-300, and the 767-400 to the A330-200. Stefano Pagiola --- My opinions alone Longtime MacOS and NeXTSTEP user, reluctant Windows NT user, future From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:01 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:04 From: dbromage@fang.omni.com.au (David Bromage) Subject: Re: Qantas B777 or A340 Order? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: Another Optus Customer NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.28.90.2 David B. (bradford@iinet.net.au) wrote: : 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? Nothing has been decided yet, but most likely 777s. They say they're "considering" the A340 to get the best price from Boeing. The 747-200s and SPs are due for retirement within 5 years, but the -300s will continue flying for a while yet. Cheers David From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:02 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:05 From: "Russell Short" Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity 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: p14-max2.syd.ihug.com.au Karl Swartz wrote in message ... > >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. I'll hazard my guess then, which is to say that the increased requirement for space due to the double-slotted flaps of the A321 (compared to the single-slotted flaps of the other models) ate into the back of the fuel tank...? Russ. From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:03 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:06 From: "Matt777" Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity 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: dialup-209.245.162.70.seattle1.level3.net I noticed that the 757-300 has less fuel capacity than the 757-200 (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-300/product.html). 11,490 gallons compared to 11,526. I figure it is due to the larger models thicker wing structure which reduces the volume of the wing and it is probably the same with the Airbus. -- Matt Seattle, Washington From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:04 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:07 From: Mary Shafer Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM "P. Wezeman" writes: > 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? This was in the Atlantic Monthly and can still be accessed, I believe. The author is the son (or possibly the grandson) of the man who wrote the definitive book on how to fly an airplane ("Stick and Rudder"). Their surname is Langewiesche (the elder is Wolfgang and I think the Atlantic author is Richard). I read this same article and was similarly surprised by the claim, so I did a little looking around. I checked the FAA, NTSB, and a couple of non-US accident databases. I have been able to find no case of the emergency oxygen system on an airliner saving a single life or the absence of one causing a fatality. That Aloha Air 737 was too low for it to be needed, as I recall (it occurred right after takeoff, at the beginning of the beverage service, which starts at 10,000 ft MSL). The two cargo door losses depressurized the airplanes slowly enough that the emergency descent got them down before anyone died of hypoxia or anoxia. The closest I could come to an emergency O2-related accident was one where the masks didn't drop as they should have, and there were no fatalities. I've got a query into a friend at the FAA, though. However, there are two important caveats to make. The first is that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The second is that complex accidents (say, for example, where the aircraft broke up in flight and fell to the ground) are excluded; the O2 may have kept someone alive long enough to die from the ground impact, for example, but there's no evidence of this. The DC-10 at Paris that crashed when the cabin floor collapsed onto the control cables, jamming them, because of a decompression in the cargo compartment, is an example. It was just high enough for the pressure differential to cause the structural failure, but not for long enough for supplemental O2 to do anything more than keep passengers conscious all the way to the ground, if (and that's a big _if_) the masks deployed and the passengers were able to overcome g forces and don them. Airliners usually fly long flights at or below 40,000 ft. Although the time of useful consciousness is fairly short, death takes quite a bit longer. The emergency descent will get the airplane down into breathable air long before people run out of O2. Obviously, the amount of O2 in the air increases constantly through the descent, stringing out the time of useful consciousness. After all, it's something like more than twice as long at 30,000 ft as it is at 40,000 ft. Of course, there have undoubtedly been cases where the bottled O2 on board an airliner has saved a life, but this isn't the mass emergency "masks will deploy" O2 system but just a standard O2 bottle and mask, carried for individual use. The O2 is there for people having heart attacks or difficulty breathing or some other problem that O2 will help. That is, it's there for an individual emergency, not an aircraft emergency. None of this applies to military aircraft, particularly the aircraft with canopies, not windows. There are innumerable cases of the O2 system (either in normal or emergency mode) saving all aboard. However, the assumption is that the pressurization is going to fail, as the US military requires fighter and attack crew to use O2 throughout the flight. Aircraft with canopies have latches that hold the canopy down to the canopy rail, with a tube that fills with air and seals the gap. A faulty latch or leaky tube can render a cockpit unpressurizable, which is why the crew of such aircraft are on O2 all the time. In addition, there's an O2 bottle in every ejection seat, to tide the crew over during the freefall until the baro altimeter takes control and throws the crewmember out of the seat and opens the parachute at about 15,000 ft MSL. In more extreme cases, with aircraft cruising high enough that there are other dangers, the crew wear pressure suits, even though the cockpit is pressurized as described. -- Mary Shafer http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html shafer@rigel.dfrc.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA Lead Handling Qualities Engineer, SR-71/LASRE NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA For non-aerospace mail, use shafer@ursa-major.spdcc.com please From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:05 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:08 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> 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? > That Aloha Air 737 was too low for > it to be needed, as I recall (it occurred right after takeoff, at the > beginning of the beverage service, which starts at 10,000 ft MSL). Not quite. They had just leveled off at their cruise altitude, though that was only at FL240 so the air wasn't too thin. They immediately donned their oxygen masks and began an emergency descent at 4000 fpm or so. (This actually led to a suggestion by the NTSB that the FAA issue an Operations Bulletin reminding operators of the admonishment in the 737 FCOM to "limit airspeed as much as possible and avoid high manuvering loads" if structural integrity is in doubt. Clearly, in this case there was plenty of doubt about the remaining structural integrity!) The Aloha 737 was equipped with a manifold-based oxygen system for depressurization emergencies, and this was severed so it obviously did not help. Had there been oxygen generators (the sort which triggered the ValuJet crash), I suppose they might have helped some passengers. -- 28 Apr 1988; 737-297 N73711; AQ 243 ITO-HNL (details from Macarthur Job's Air Disaster, volume 2) >The two cargo door losses depressurized the airplanes slowly enough >that the emergency descent got them down before anyone died of hypoxia >or anoxia. The 747 over the Pacific was climbing between 22,000 and 23,000 feet at the time of the initial event. Again, not all that high, but with a 10 x 15 foot hole I doubt that the rate of depressurization could be characterized as "slowly." The pilots donned their oxygen masks but found no oxygen -- the supply and fill lines for the flightcrew oxygen, as well as the supply line for the passenger oxygen system, ran below the cabin floor and had been severed in the vicinity of the missing cargo door. -- 24 Feb 1989; 747-122 N4713U; UA 811 HNL-AKL (details from NTSB report NTSB/AAR-90/01) Pete mentioned "over Canada" in conjunction with the DC-10 cargo door, so presumably he was referring to the 1972 Windsor, Ontario incident and not the 1974 crash near Paris. Those accidents initiated at about 12,000 feet and 12,000-13,000 feet, respectively, both low enough for hypoxia to not be an issue. I can't find anything which mentions whether or not the emergency oxygen systems were deployed in either accident, but in the Windsor case an emergency descent was NOT executed because the pilots were afraid of losing what little control they had. In the Paris case, 77 seconds elapsed between decompression and impact, so even if oxygen had been a factor, it wouldn't have been one for long. -- 12 Jun 1972; DC-10-10 N103AA AA 96 BUF-LGA -- 03 Mar 1974; DC-10-10 TC-JAV; TK 981 ORY-LON (details from Macarthur Job's Air Disaster, volume 1, and from The DC-10 Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Technology, and Society) -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:06 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:09 From: kts@socrates.berkeley.edu (Katie Schwarz) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: agate.berkeley.edu 946962547 11517 128.32.25.13 (4 Jan 2000 05:09:07 GMT) Organization: University of California at Berkeley NNTP-Posting-Host: socrates.berkeley.edu P. Wezeman wrote: > 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. It was the Atlantic, and the author was William Langewiesche, son of the _Stick and Rudder_ author. You can read it online at http://www.theatlantic.com//issues/98mar/valujet1.htm -- Katie Schwarz "There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs." -- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass" From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:07 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:10 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com In article , "P. Wezeman" writes: >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? I would not doubt the statement. Drop down oxygen systems do not supply oxygen under pressure. Above approximately 25,000 feet, oxygen needs to be supplied under pressure, otherwise the hemoglobin will not absorb the oxygen present. The flight crews will have quick donning masks that will supply the oxygen under pressure. The mask will actually inflate the lungs and the user will have to forcibly exhale. It was noted at the High Altitude and Flight Physiology training at ADW, that unless the crew already was using oxygen, the best outcome of an explosive decompression at high altitudes (35,000 feet+) would be the crew would gray out during the process of donning the masks. Of course, the worst outcome is the crew taking longer than the few seconds of useful consciousness they have to don the masks and blacking out. This is the reason that above 25,000 feet, if one crew member leaves the flight deck, the remaining crew member is required to use supplemental oxygen. Above 35,000 feet, regardless of number of crew members on the flight deck, one crew member must utilize supplemental oxygen. If you are on an aircraft when the overhead masks deploy, go ahead and quickly pull the mask fully down (this starts the oxygen flow) and place the mask over your nose and mouth. If this occurs at high altitude, just plan on waking up with a slight headache after the crew has completed the emergency descent. Garrr From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:08 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:11 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0817.cvx17-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net "P. Wezeman" wrote: > 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? In the specific 3 instances you mention, decompression happened at breathable altitudes. O2 was unnecessary. Sorry, can't answer your main question...but I can't recall any passenger fatalities or even serious injuries caused by hypoxia after decompression of a commercial airliner. (This of course excludes things like the Payne Stewart incident). Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:09 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:12 From: "Ben Wright" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 946985004 24.192.49.222 (Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:23:24 EST) Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.192.49.222 Reply-To: "Ben Wright" I've often wondered if perhaps decompressing the aircraft to put out a fire, starving the fire of oxygen, would work? The passengers using the masks for a while. Could even open the the front and back doors while unpressurised to clear the atmosphere :-) Ben From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:10 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:13 From: "BAP" Subject: UAL Carago Door Mishap References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 1 Jan 2000 20:23:00 GMT, 32.101.177.217 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.101.177.217 Reply-To: "BAP" > Aloha, The UAL incident had nothing to do with wiring. What was the cause of the UAL mishap? From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:11 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:14 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: UAL Carago Door Mishap References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >> Aloha, The UAL incident had nothing to do with wiring. >What was the cause of the UAL mishap? >From the NTSB summary (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/DCA/89A027.htm) of the accident report, the probable cause was as follows, though as noted below I believe this is obsolete: The sudden opening of the improperly latched forward lobe cargo door in flight and the subsequent explosive decompression. Contributing to the accident was a deficiency in the design of the cargo door locking mechanisms, which made them susceptible to inservice damage, and which alowed the door to be unatched, yet to show a properly latched and locked position. Also contributing to the accident was the lack of proper maintenance and inspection of the cargo door by United Airlines, and a lack of timely corrective actions by Boeing and the FAA following a previous door opening incident. This page references report NTSB/AAR-90/01, however. My copy of this report, dated 16 Apr 1990, states in section 1.12 that the cargo door had not been recovered from the ocean floor. I know that the door was subsequently recovered, and that the report was substantially revised as a result of that evidence, exonerating United Airlines as I recall, but possibly placing partial blame on the electrical closing mechanism of the cargo door. Hugh's comment may be based on the earlier version of the report. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:12 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:15 From: "gedlingjr" Subject: Air India Hijack Registartion Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 4 Jan 2000 17:56:17 GMT, 10.250.101.2 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.250.101.2 Does anyone know waht the registration of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane was please could someone tell me - than From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:13 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:16 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Air India Hijack Registartion References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Does anyone know waht the registration of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane VT-EDW -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:14 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:17 From: stevemouse Subject: Balconies? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.113.20.242 Please can somebody solve a problem that has been bothering me for a long time? Some time ago I saw a film, set in the early days of transatlantic flight. Some of the story took place on a plane going from England to America. It had cabins, and 'public' areas. At one point a couple got well wrapped up and went out onto a little balcony behind the wing. I remember it was very noisy and windy! Is it really possible that such a plane existed? Or was the film set in a hypothetical future. It was certainly presented as though this was quite normal. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:15 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:18 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Some time ago I saw a film, set in the early days of transatlantic >flight. Some of the story took place on a plane going from England to >America. It had cabins, and 'public' areas. At one point a couple got >well wrapped up and went out onto a little balcony behind the wing. I >remember it was very noisy and windy! Are you sure that was a plane and not a Zeppelin? I think some of them did have something resembling what you describe, and the engine struts and other structure might resemble a bit of wing. It sounds pretty far-fetched for a fixed-wing aircraft. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:16 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:19 From: "Daniel P. B. Smith" 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: typhoon1.gnilink.net 947121817 151.203.19.105 (Wed, 05 Jan 2000 20:23:37 EST) NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.19.105 In article , James Weber wrote: > 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. Airbus has been running some ads lately, notably one in The Wall Street Journal, _strongly, strongly implying_ that four-engine airliners are safer than two-engine craft. "When you're flying over water in remote locations... you really want to be between four engines," or words to that effect. Very interesting. First time I can remember an aircraft company making a competitive safety claim in an advertisement. I wonder if they have any statistics to back it up? -- Daniel P. B. Smith current email address: dpbsmith@bellatlantic.net "Lifetime forwarding address:" dpbsmith@alum.mit.edu From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:17 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:20 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > Airbus has been running some ads lately, notably one in The Wall Street > Journal, _strongly, strongly implying_ that four-engine airliners are > safer than two-engine craft. "When you're flying over water in remote > locations... you really want to be between four engines," or words to > that effect. Very interesting. First time I can remember an aircraft > company making a competitive safety claim in an advertisement. They've also gotten some unprecedented heat not only from Boeing but from some airlines about the ads. It definitely tramples some long- standing industry taboos. > I wonder if they have any statistics to back it up? It's what sales- and marketing-types call FUD -- fear, uncertainty, and doubt. If you read carefully, they don't actually make any claims about safety. What you psychologically *want* versus what you really need may be very different things. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:18 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:21 From: "mark" Subject: landing technique Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: University of New South Wales X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: max314115.servers.unsw.edu.au Hi, Anyone knows what kind of final approach landing technique does airliners adopt? Power for glidepath and attitude for speed or vice versa.....? Mark From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:19 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:22 From: "Ben Wright" Subject: Is there automatic gain control on a 747 voice recorder? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 946985162 24.192.49.222 (Tue, 04 Jan 2000 22:26:02 EST) Organization: BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.net.au) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.192.49.222 Reply-To: "Ben Wright" If there is then loud noises could desensitize the microphone. If there isn't then soft noises during quiet times could be missed. Ben From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:20 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:23 From: "partman" 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 X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 946865269 24.64.102.55 (Sun, 02 Jan 2000 18:07:49 PST) Organization: @Home Network Canada X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.64.102.55 Reply-To: "partman" "V12" wrote in message ... > > 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. Ii agree with the engine time/cycle stagger but nor because the airlines "doesn't trust" the manufacturer - what a load of BS that is. From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:21 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,aus.aviation,misc.transport.air-industry Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:24 From: Ken Ishiguro Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: pool0030.cvx6-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net Russell Short wrote: > 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. Although I will not doubt your facts, cancer clusters can occur with no cause ever found. One good epidemiological question- is there an elevated tumor rate among FE's of other airlines? Among Qantas FE's not flying a specific type of aircraft? > 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*. See above. > *Note: secondary information gathered from the wife. > > I know where *not* to carry my mobile phone.... Here in the U.S., the person who did the study linking cancer to EMF admitted several months ago he falsified the data, and was promptly dismissed. He admitted there was *no* correlation in his studies. Did this news get to Oz? It was a big flap here for a few days. Although, I would honestly limit my exposure to mobile phone RF out of a concern for cataracts, not tumors. Ken Ishiguro From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:22 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:25 From: james matthew weber Subject: Re: QF Flight Engineers Dying? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Russell Short wrote: > 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.... Radiation a distinct possibility, but generated by the aircraft, I think not.. If you understood a little about electric and magnetic field theory, you would understand that much of what you have said borders on absurd. At 400hz, the human body is probably more transparent to electric fields and magnetic fields than glass is to light.. That says that such fields would penetrate the body from one end to the other, so if the cause was in fact the 400hz fields produced by aircraft systems, I would expect them to turn up in everyone who works in the cockpit, and be uniformly distributed through the body. Even in a good conductor, the skin depth at 400hz is in meters, so Electric and magnetic field shielding for 400hz on an aircraft is not a practical option. You don't route vast amounts of power through the cockpit either. HIgh power devices are controlled by contactors (relays), the high power wiring and high power devices are not in the cockpit, the controls for it are. Translation: No good source for large fields in the cockpit either. Until or unless you are prepared to have an epidemiologist, who is experienced in identifying risk factors, looking at these cases, this is speculation that may have very little basis in fact. Did the Flight Engineers smoke? Did they consume alcohol? Any of them ever use Benzene, TCE or similar as a solvent or cleaner? Has anyone calculated the lifetime radiation exposure (which is a well known carcinogen) as a result of jet travel (and potential increased risk)? There are are well established risk factors. Did you know that the exposure the cockpit crew gets in Concorde on an hourly basis (it often exceeds 2 mrem per hour) often exceeds what a nuclear generating plant worker is permitted on an hourly basis!). A study done for the FAA concluded that on average, aircrew get more occupational radiation exposure than nuclear power plant workers! The higher you fly the worse it gets. A trip from Los Angeles to Sydney on a 747 is roughly equivalent to 2 chest X-rays. A career of flying at 1000 hours per year produces a sizable ionizing radiation exposure.. There is no shortage of potential causes that have well established links to cancer, so why insist that there is a link to a source whose relationship with cancer is notable for its absence? Until or unless the facts are investigated by a competent epidemiologist, these claims are highly speculative, and as I have just pointed out, operating an aircraft at 39,000 feet for a living carries a significant occupational Ionizing Radiation exposure, which is well established and well understood carcinogen. (British Airways actually limits Concorde flight crew to 500 hours per year as a result, and Concorde is actually equipped with a Radiation alarm.) Were you aware that QANTAS pilots and first officers also have unusually high rates of skin cancer? I'll give you a hint. Pilots tend to get it on the left arm, first officers tend to get it on the right arm. Is it related the fields generated by the aircraft? Very unlikely, the arms in question however regularly get a good healthy dose of sunshine especially if they crew wears short sleeves. UV from the sun is another well known and understood cause of skin cancers. At this point we have almost 50 years experience with people living and working in electric and magnetic fields far higher than mobile phones (Police and Military walkie Talkies produce higher fields than mobile phones, as do most radar's) and aircraft cockpits... These people have not been dying left and right from brain tumors, and if there was a substantial risk, I'd expect to have seen it by now. The evidence that non ionizing radiation, at levels that do not produce thermal effects, cause cancer or tumors is notable for its absence! (The studies claiming a link between high voltage transmission lines and cancer have been thoroughly discredited). From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:23 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:26 From: rdd@netcom.sucks.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Question on 767 elevators. 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 , ME Incorporated wrote: >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. It was never clear to me whether this discussion was based on accurate information. I.e., was the DFDR report for COMMAND input or actual elevator POSITION? If the latter, my understanding of the system suggests this does not make much sense. There's a command override function in the 757 (assuming that the model applies to the 767) that allows for a control column to "override" a stuck column. After that point, the input comes from the sole remaining column. The highly oversimplified operations manual diagrams do not suggest that there are two independent channels to the elevator actuators. Any 767 maintenance types out there who can clarify this? -- 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 Thu Jan 6 00:48:24 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:27 From: ADent1@aol.com Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.14.54.12 In article , jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) wrote: > 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). A major point brought up in the accident report was that the AP would _NOT_ automatically disengage while in GA mode or LAND mode under 400 ft. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:25 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:28 From: "drb" Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.iinet.net.au 946730966 10629 JBQXRI@203.59.84.85 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: reggae-19-85.nv.iinet.net.au Donald Mamula wrote in message ... > FWIW -- UA no longer operates the "Airshow" inflight tracking system. When did this start happening? I flew on a Qf 747-200 a month or so ago, and that "Airshow' system was running just fine. Of course, it could be a totally different design/manufactuer. drb From kls Thu Jan 6 00:48:26 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 06 Jan 2000 01:26:29 From: Matthias Bludau Subject: Re: SR111 entertainment system? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Customer of UUNET Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.225.13.160 Robert Dorsett wrote: > 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. Considering the way the SWR MD-11 entertainment system went into those aircraft, this approach seems to be a little bit odd to me. Matthias From kls Sat Jan 8 13:38:57 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:38:57 From: andyweir Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I seem to remember a story about a United executive boasting about his airline's safety performance at a dinner, only to find the next day that one of his had crashed. This would have been the late 50s. The memory is vague. But legend had it that this incident led to the practice of airlines never attempting to compete with each other on safety claims. Does anybody remember the correct details, or is it in fact urban myth? AW From kls Sat Jan 8 13:38:58 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:38:58 From: John van Veen 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: bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net 947359461 12500 12.73.163.53 (8 Jan 2000 19:24:21 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.73.163.53 Daniel P. B. Smith wrote: > Airbus has been running some ads lately, notably one in The Wall Street > Journal, _strongly, strongly implying_ that four-engine airliners are > safer than two-engine craft. "When you're flying over water in remote > locations... you really want to be between four engines," or words to > that effect. Very interesting. First time I can remember an aircraft > company making a competitive safety claim in an advertisement. I guess AirBus has forgotten that Boeing makes a 747. John From kls Sat Jan 8 13:38:59 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:38:59 From: james matthew weber Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Matt777 wrote: > I noticed that the 757-300 has less fuel capacity than the 757-200 > (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-300/product.html). 11,490 gallons > compared to 11,526. I figure it is due to the larger models thicker wing > structure which reduces the volume of the wing and it is probably the same > with the Airbus. I'd be surprised. The wings on the two aircraft are in fact the same, and difference in fuel capacity is minuscule, .4% (36 gallons out of 11,500). I suspect the same to sample variation between aircraft is that large. That looks to me more like an inconsistency in how the capacity was calculated, i.e. conversion of of liters to gallons, or cubic whatever to whatever, rather than anything else. -- James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:00 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:00 From: Brute! Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cmnws01.we.mediaone.net 947189776 24.130.54.35 (Thu, 06 Jan 2000 12:16:16 PST) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.130.54.35 There is a big feature on the A320 family in the new issue of Airliners magazine. You can't miss it, the word "A320" is on the cover in big letters. :) Airliners is a nice bi-monthly that compliments Airways. If you don't read it, you should. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:01 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:01 From: "BAP" Subject: Re: UAL Cargo Door Mishap References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 7 Jan 2000 04:11:51 GMT, 32.101.177.198 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Reply-To: "BAP" NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.101.177.198 Thanks. I knew about the originally listed cause and was unaware that the report had been revised. Seems the press did a fine job of reporting the original cause without similarly reporting the revision. What a surprise. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:02 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:02 From: Petrus Lundqvist Subject: Re: B737-400 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: peppe.net NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-152.dyn.arenanet.fi > 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. Right.. But when they say 2050 nm, do they mean "the plane can fly from routes from an airport 2050 nm away from another and still have 45 minutes worth of reserves" or do they mean "the plane can take off, fly 2050 nm on absolutely optimal speeds and altitudes, run out of fuel at 36000 feet and then glide down and BARELY make the target airport, which is 2050 nm away from the takeoff". Also, the fact that the Boeing homepage for the 737-400 lists two different versions but only one range which seems strange. It says: "The basic airplane gross weight is 138,500 pounds (62,820 kg), with an optional high-gross-weight version of 150,000 pounds (68,040 kg). Fuel capacity is 5,311 gallons (20,105 L), expanding to 6,295 gallons (23,825 L) with two optional tanks." How can both have a range of 2050 nm "with 148 passengers" when one version has 20% gallons more fuel? Seems weird. > 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!. Hehehe, yeah.. Well, it's not surprising that they knock the results in the direction which sells more planes, of course. But it seems a bit weird to list ranges which are not even close to realistic in a real environment. Cheers, Peppe From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:03 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:03 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: B737-400 range References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Also, the fact that the Boeing homepage for the 737-400 lists two different >versions but only one range which seems strange. It says: >"The basic airplane gross weight is 138,500 pounds (62,820 kg), with an >optional high-gross-weight version of 150,000 pounds (68,040 kg). Fuel >capacity is 5,311 gallons (20,105 L), expanding to 6,295 gallons (23,825 L) >with two optional tanks." >How can both have a range of 2050 nm "with 148 passengers" when one version >has 20% gallons more fuel? Seems weird. It's not really that weird. Obviously the HGW version will have the greatest range. The extra weight is only useful for range, since the maximum landing weight (MLW) only goes up by 3,000 lbs, and that's probably the same as the increase in the empty weight of the plane. Effectively, then, you're asking them to tell you it has less range if you don't put as much fuel aboard. Boeing (and any other manufacturer) typically offers a variety of options which can affect range. For the 737-400, there're aren't just two MGTOW options but a range of them, priced accordingly. Likewise, while you'll get CFM56 engines, you have a choice of the exact model and the thrust rating. Looking at the 737-500, the MGTOW range runs from 115,500 lbs to 133,500 lbs. Southwest chose a relatively low 120,000 lbs for their planes, because they use them on relatively short routes and didn't need the range. They might have chosen higher-thrust engines, though, because they have a lot of hot-and-high flying out of PHX and LAS and would therefore want the takeoff performance. It's not feasible or reasonable for Boeing to list the range of every incremental option, though if you're thinking of buying a 737 I'll bet they'll work with you to determine the range in your environment. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:04 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:04 From: "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Organization: Cygnus Solutions, Cambridge, UK NNTP-Posting-Host: masala.cygnus.co.uk Mary Shafer writes: > However, there are two important caveats to make. The first is that > the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The second is that > complex accidents (say, for example, where the aircraft broke up in > flight and fell to the ground) are excluded; the O2 may have kept > someone alive long enough to die from the ground impact, for example, > but there's no evidence of this. I know this is crossing over into space and urban legend, probably, but wasn't there evidence of exactly that in the space shuttle explosion? It's not the same as an airliner O2 system, I know. - Huge -- The 20th Century brought unprecedented increases in worldwide numeracy and literacy and incredible advances in technology, science and mathematics. It was also the only century in the past or in any reasonable predictable future apparently to contain only 99 years. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:05 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:05 From: "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Organization: Cygnus Solutions, Cambridge, UK NNTP-Posting-Host: masala.cygnus.co.uk glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) writes: > I would not doubt the statement. Drop down oxygen systems do not supply > oxygen under pressure. Above approximately 25,000 feet, oxygen needs to > be supplied under pressure, otherwise the hemoglobin will not absorb the > oxygen present. I think you misunderstand partial pressure: the body is quite happy with 100% O2 @ 0.21 Bar or 50% O2 @ 0.42 Bar or 21% O2 at 1 Bar - it really makes no difference. I thought the point of passenger O2 systems is they let you breath a higher %age of O2 at ambient pressure, thus giving enough partial pressure to stay alive (even if not conscious). According to the www ;-) "To convert from pressure to height, just remember two rules: 1.Sea level pressure is about 1000 mb; 2.For every 5.5 km increase in height, the air pressure decreases by a factor of two." So at a typical cruise of 11km (36,300ft) you get 0.250 Bar ambient, so you need about 80 %O2 or better to stay conscious. Your statement would be OK if it said "above 50,000 feet" where even 100% O2 at ambient isn't enough. - Huge -- The 20th Century brought unprecedented increases in worldwide numeracy and literacy and incredible advances in technology, science and mathematics. It was also the only century in the past or in any reasonable predictable future apparently to contain only 99 years. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:06 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:06 From: upallnite Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: WReNphoon2 947169209 10.0.2.7 (Thu, 06 Jan 2000 06:33:29 PST) Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.2.7 You know, that brings up an interesting question. If it were possible to extinquish a cabin fire by de-pressurizing the cabin, how many passengers would be "expendable" (read: sucked out) in order to possibly save the aircraft with the remaining passengers? The old utilitarian "most good for the most people" tenent? Any training done (outside of philosophy class) based on that type of no-win situation? * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free! From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:07 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:07 From: wb8foz@panix.com (David Lesher) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.4 (NOV) Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex Reply-To: wb8foz@nrk.com (David Lesher) glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) writes: >This is the reason that above 25,000 feet, if one crew member leaves the >flight deck, the remaining crew member is required to use supplemental >oxygen. Above 35,000 feet, regardless of number of crew members on the >flight deck, one crew member must utilize supplemental oxygen. A) I sat in the jump seat on a long Pacific Rim 747-400 flight recently, and neither crew member was masked. I thought we were at 350 but must check my notes. B) When does the "catcher-mask" rule apply? C) I was sure I saw a bottle in the side pouch, with gauge; has the Aloha incident changed the rules for cockpit O2 so it now has to be local storage, perhaps? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:08 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:08 From: james matthew weber Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Ben Wright wrote: > I've often wondered if perhaps decompressing the aircraft to put out a fire, > starving the fire of oxygen, would work? > The passengers using the masks for a while. > Could even open the the front and back doors while unpressurised to clear > the atmosphere :-) Indirectly it does. Virtually every inflight fire that was survived (such as the AC D9) gets much much worse AFTER the aircraft lands. Passengers are far more likely to die in the fire on the ground, than in the air! Cargo compartments are often almost sealed, and in these fires tend to smolder unless there is an oxygen supply (as as the case for Valujet). The fire usually takes off once the cargo door is open, and it gets a good supply of oxidizer to work with... -- James Matthew Weber (623) 587 7514 . Fax (623) 434 7598 From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:09 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:09 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 947177628 24.201.66.97 (Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:53:48 EST) NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.201.66.97 Someone asked whether there was any accident where ogygen generators/supply would have save lives. In the summer of 1999, that small plane with the famous golfer is perhaps an example. While the true cause may never be known, assuming proper behaviour by pilots, they were not able to don the oxygen masks in time. But such incidents are rare, aren't they ? Have they ever considered changing the whole "oxygen" thing with just ample supply of clean air ? Should there be a fire/smoke in the cabin, by stopping the cabin ventilation system and just feeding air through such masks, would this not provide the passengers with breathable air and would this not leave the fire with less oxygen to burn/survive ? (or at least slow it down). In other words, don't recycle any cabin air, and feed passengers only fresh air from outside through a mask, at a pressure similar to what the individual air vents would supply. Since it was shown that in most accidents, passengers die from smoke inhalation, shouldn't that be more of a priority than to provide a few minutes' worth of oxygen during a descent ? From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:10 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:10 From: Peter Coe Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 947199513 224 petercoe@206.184.139.136 X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.3 (NOV) Organization: Speedpick Reply-To: Peter Coe NNTP-Posting-Host: shell5.ba.best.com glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) writes: >This is the reason that above 25,000 feet, if one crew member leaves the >flight deck, the remaining crew member is required to use supplemental >oxygen. Above 35,000 feet, regardless of number of crew members on the >flight deck, one crew member must utilize supplemental oxygen. I presume this is an FAA rule. I have been in the cockpit a number of times on British registered aircraft when the plane and crew have met either or both these criteria, and have never seen the oxygen mask in use. In fact I have never seen it available - i.e. sitting next to the seat which makes me wonder just how quickly it could be put on. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:11 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:11 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /Kw5eGhQ7o8TMWc4EkNc5jd5VER9s7nIxLsCKmXKRHiLbPmaqastLyzZbpjeCafj20P2ZJ+IP+9L!CVav/d7Zm8L9cUIamWP4wRElTgZN85mk4vE27K916DkWc9I2XxTD Mary Shafer wrote: > The two cargo door losses depressurized the airplanes slowly enough > that the emergency descent got them down before anyone died of hypoxia > or anoxia. Aloha, The UAL HNL cargo door plane depressurized so fast that ALL the interior composite honeycomb panels "delamed". SL press. within, much less press. without. I did the insurance inspection as a UAL mech. at SFO. The blood on the interior was chilling to me. > The O2 is there for people having heart > attacks or difficulty breathing or some other problem that O2 will > help. That is, it's there for an individual emergency, not an > aircraft emergency. Often used for "white knuckle" pax. "Placebo"? Also used as a "walkaround" bottle. Note nylon strap attached to some bottles with "two turns of one inch masking tape". Regards, Hugh From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:12 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:12 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /Kkf2O2igkHn0eNM52QmcP9aDBNG30aXMEw8JoWynlqXgDLZCbRjbMy+9AE1MbACFaQZ5HWOQT2M!3xiP5MRuJCUk8VHAr7MDA9nkuPc8B2Lswo3rq6lt/sUicmsUT2VJ GLPILOTSRV wrote: > If you are on an aircraft when the overhead masks deploy, go ahead and > quickly pull the mask fully down (this starts the oxygen flow) and place > the mask over your nose and mouth. If this occurs at high altitude, just > plan on waking up with a slight headache after the crew has completed > the emergency descent. Aloha, Pax should yank on the oxygen hose to start the flow of oxygen as stated on the safety cards. Bayonet pins are attached to the hoses by lanyards. A firm yank on the hose will insure that the pin is removed from the supply valve to start the flow. It is not unusual for pax to don masks and not start the flow of oxygen. Hugh From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:13 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:13 From: "Ben" Subject: Dash 7 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.online.no 947366540 130.67.200.76 (Sat, 08 Jan 2000 22:22:20 MET) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Organization: Telenor Online Public Access NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.67.200.76 Can anyone help me with drawings of DHC 7, I'm working on a raido controlled model of the aircraft, but useful drawings are hard to get. B.E From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:14 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:14 From: Michael Carley Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Reply-To: yelracjm@maths.tcd.ie stevemouse writes: >Some time ago I saw a film, set in the early days of transatlantic >flight. Some of the story took place on a plane going from England to >America. It had cabins, and 'public' areas. At one point a couple got >well wrapped up and went out onto a little balcony behind the wing. I >remember it was very noisy and windy! >Is it really possible that such a plane existed? Or was the film set in >a hypothetical future. It was certainly presented as though this was >quite normal. I don't know about that one but I do remember reading that one of Sikorsky's first planes had a walkway on the back so that passengers could go for a walk and get some fresh air during the flight. -- ``Permitt not your schollars to ramble abroad, especially lett them not soe much as peepe into a tavern or tipleing house'' (Provost Loftus). My return address has the user name reversed. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:15 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:15 From: RJ Carpenter Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: rqgFCLRbcXpTla38z9QzMtnxUJ2AfrKlgVMAGVAU3Ik= Reply-To: rcarpen@micron.net Didn't some of Sikorski's one-off pre-WW1 transports have promenade decks? Their range would have been completely inadequate for transatlantic. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:16 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:16 From: stevemouse Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.113.20.242 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) wrote: > Are you sure that was a plane and not a Zeppelin? I think some of them > did have something resembling what you describe, and the engine struts > and other structure might resemble a bit of wing. Maybe that is what it was! Looking back I can't remember for sure, I just assumed it was an airplane. Thanks - I shall be able to sleep at last. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:17 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:17 From: wzman1@aol.com (WZMan1) Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >I saw a film, set in the early days of transatlantic >flight. Some of the story took place on a plane going from England to >America. It had cabins, and 'public' areas. At one point a couple got >well wrapped up and went out onto a little balcony behind the wing. I >remember it was very noisy and windy! > >Is it really possible that such a plane existed? Or was the film set in >a hypothetical future. Possibly a futuristic extrapolation, combining the oceanliner characteristics of airships with the potential of the airplane. Obviously, the visionary who dreamt of this didn't envision increases in speed and altitude that would make such such a concept imposible. From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:18 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:18 From: "Ian" Subject: IL96M Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 Organization: DCI HiNet NNTP-Posting-Host: h7.s229.ts32.hinet.net Do somebody know if the aircrafts have been received by Aeroflot.... Also...who know about the flying experience of the plane.... Thanx for answering Ian From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:19 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:19 From: stevec01e@aol.com (STeveC01e) Subject: Re: Aircraft Components References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >It will >involve the fatigue testing of carbon fibre structural components. .... >construct the component in our labs but the size of the component is >restricted by our test jigs, ie an axial length of 30cm. It sounds like you are doing coupon specimen testing and you need a design of a test specimen. However, you also mention "components" as in actual aircraft parts. Can you be more specific? Its been many years, but I had experience as a fatigue engineer but didn't test any small parts. I was involved in testing some composite rotor blades. Steve C~ also at > jscole@fedex.com From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:20 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:20 From: "Richard Isakson" Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com I think I can help you with a bit of history. From 1974 until 1980 I worked in Boeing's aerodynamic staff and I was involved in some of this. The three engine 727 had two problems. It couldn't meet stage three noise requirements and it had really high fuel flows (we had just gone through the mid 70's fuel "crisis"). The logical thing to do was replace the three engines with two high by-pass engines. Boeing spent a lot of money on testing but it didn't work. There was no way to keep the wing wake out of the engine inlets and, on a high by-pass engine, that caused a compressor stall. The idea was so seductive that Boeing tried it four more times. It still didn't work. Later, Lockheed tried it twice and I believe someone else tried it once. It doesn't work. That led to the 757. Let's take the 727 body, cockpit and landing gear and develop a new wing and tail and put the big engines on the wing. Later, we can grow the airplane into this niche up here that nobody's filling right now. Great idea except that nobody wanted the airplane. We're in a recession and there are airplanes parked all over the deserts. Then along came Frank Borman and Eastern Airlines. They were willing to order enough airplanes to launch the program. BUT, they didn't want the airplane that was being offered. They wanted that big airplane that was to come along later. Faced with either canceling the program or changing the airplane, Boeing redesigned the airplane and launched the bigger 757 with the common 767 cockpit section. That left a hole in Boeing's line, the 727 replacement. The group I worked in reinvented the wheel 50 times in the next two years trying to shrink the Eastern airplane back down to a 727 size. The simple fact is airplanes don't shrink very well. They grow very nicely but they don't shrink worth beans. You're trying to use a common wing that's just too big, landing gear that's too heavy, different engines and a new tail. It just doesn't work economically but we tried over and over and over. At this point, it was kind of funny because Aviation Week was actually anticipating our group's next move. They must of had spies over in Sales. It's only now that the 737 has finally grown into what the 757 was suppose to be. Rich Isakson From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:21 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:21 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 In article , Richard Isakson wrote:>I think I can help you with a bit of history. Nice summary. One little quibble, though. >Then along came Frank Borman and Eastern Airlines. They were >willing to order enough airplanes to launch the program. BUT, they >didn't want the airplane that was being offered. They wanted that big >airplane that was to come along later. Everything I've read says it was British Airways who pushed the 757-200 to be as big as it is, and that Eastern actually wanted something a bit smaller, though perhaps not as small as the original design. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:22 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:22 From: "John M. Hunt" Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.ipa.net 947198437 25004 206.153.204.87 (6 Jan 2000 22:40:37 GMT) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Organization: Internet Partners of America NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-87.roge.ipa.net ps2727@aol.com (PS2727) wrote: > 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. This brings up another of my pet gripes. Why can't the Flight Management System simply announce in a very bossy voice "The aircraft is seriously out of longitudinal trim" Surely this would get the attention of anyone, at least to the point where they would start verifying some of their assumptions. My great enthusiasm for audio verbal warnings is even further enhanced by the fact that the programming of the computer for such purely audio generation couldn't possibly introduce any hazards into the really critical control coding. It should also be the world's easiest software to debug, as the consequence of faulty code would simply be audio garbage, immediately recognizable on the very first test. Programming in native tongues could also provided at little cost, offering some much needed help to those who are, especially in an emergency, not too comfortable with English. John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:23 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:23 From: james matthew weber Subject: Re: Qantas B777 or A340 Order? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM David Bromage wrote: > Nothing has been decided yet, but most likely 777s. They say they're > "considering" the A340 to get the best price from Boeing. I think it is clear from the current management, and a number of decisions already made that this decision is likely to be made almost entirely on price. So don't be surprised if the airline goes shopping for relatives of the Ugly Sisters..... From kls Sat Jan 8 13:39:24 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 08 Jan 2000 13:39:24 From: Adam Keys Subject: Re: Another Seaplane Question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nclient3-gui.server.which.net 947212539 25290 194.168.103.38 (7 Jan 2000 02:35:39 GMT) Organization: Which Online Usenet Service Reply-To: adam.keys3@which.net NNTP-Posting-Host: p263-bantam-gui.tch.which.net To add to the list of flying boats with retractable floats there was the Blohm und Voss BV 222 and 238, Dornier Do 26, Blackburn B20, Kawanishi E11K1, Consolidated Coronado, Consolidated XP4Y-1 (the floats retracted up to the wings, but not into them) and Martin Mariner (version dependant). Cheers Adam From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:12 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:12 From: afwtul1@aol.com (Afwtul1) Subject: Re: IL96M References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Do somebody know if the aircrafts have been received by Aeroflot.... >Also...who know about the flying experience of the plane.... I know very little about Russian aircraft, so please forgive me if I ask a basic question, what and how do you tell the difference between a IL-96 and a IL-96M? The reason I ask is that, I've got some pictures of a Aeroflot IL-96 (RA-96007) and another IL-96 in Aeroflot colors but with POCCNR in gold lettering (N and R written backwards) with the registration CCCP-96005 taken at Alliance-Fort Worth Airport (AFW) in 1993. Jim From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:13 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:13 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: IL96M References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > I know very little about Russian aircraft, so please forgive me if I ask > a basic question, what and how do you tell the difference between a > IL-96 and a IL-96M? The Il-96-300 has Soloviev PS-90A engines and a 240,000 kb MGTOW. Il-96M has Pratt and Whitney PW2337 engines with MGTOW increased to 270,000 kg. The Il-96T is a freighter version of the Il-96M, with higher-thrust PW2340 engines but the same MGTOW. I don't think there is just an Il-96, with no suffix. You'd have to look at the engines to tell the difference, unless it has the designation painted on the nose like the ones I've seen. Also, the Il-96-300 has been around for a while, whereas the Pratt-powered versions are quite new. I'm not even sure any are in service yet. > The reason I ask is that, I've got some pictures of a Aeroflot IL-96 > (RA-96007) and another IL-96 in Aeroflot colors but with POCCNR in gold > lettering (N and R written backwards) with the registration CCCP-96005 > taken at Alliance-Fort Worth Airport (AFW) in 1993. According to JP Airline Fleets 93/94, those were both Il-96-300 testbeds. (Last year's JP shows them in a 26/40/173 seating config, in regular revenue service.) -- 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 Jan 18 05:24:14 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:14 From: Oliver Pritzkow Subject: Re: IL96M References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 947956856 2076319 171.224.219.161 (16 [16963]) NNTP-Posting-Host: abe0dba1.ipt.aol.com (171.224.219.161) Ian schrieb: > Do somebody know if the aircrafts have been received by Aeroflot.... > Also...who know about the flying experience of the plane.... I made a picture of those airplane in autumn 99. Look at my Berlin airport orientated site under 'Focus Berlin': http://fly.to/flying-archive or http://verkehr.freepage.de/flying-archive From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:15 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:15 From: "Alan Erskine" Subject: Antonov AN-124 and An-225 questions Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.mpx.com.au 947576861 10731 198.142.37.176 (11 Jan 2000 07:47:41 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Optus Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: ocmax4-176.dialup.optusnet.com.au I'm new to this group, so please excuse me if it's inappropriate to ask this in this group, but I have a couple of questions that I can't find in any of my (very few) relevant books or on the net. How much do these aircraft cost to keep running on a per hour basis? This would included fuel, maintenance and crew pay. If someone knows how much the C-5 or the 747-xxf cost, that would be acceptable. Thank you very much in advance. Yours sincerely Alan Erskine tdbear@mpx.com.au From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:16 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:16 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 and An-225 questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California > If someone knows how much the C-5 or the 747-xxf cost, that would be > acceptable. The answer for those two planes is going to be quite different from the answer for the Antonovs since the latter have Ukrainian engines which are maintenance hogs. The An-124s have bunks for the maintenance teams which fly along with them. At times, some are grounded because the engines don't last very long and they can't build replacements quickly enough. -- 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 Jan 18 05:24:17 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:17 From: Andrew Norreys Subject: CAA Accident Analysis methods Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 Organization: Chromalloy UK Ltd Can anybody tell me if there is a web site detailing the methods in which the CAA (or FAA) monitor and/or measure statistically, failure criterion and situations on engines and components, perhaps using weibull modulus or other stats techniques? Help would be appreciated -- Andrew Norreys From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:18 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:18 From: "Russell Short" Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs 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: p29-max54.syd.ihug.com.au John van Veen wrote in message ... > Daniel P. B. Smith wrote: > > Airbus has been running some ads lately, notably one in The Wall Street > > Journal, _strongly, strongly implying_ that four-engine airliners are > > safer than two-engine craft. "When you're flying over water in remote > > locations... you really want to be between four engines," or words to > > that effect. Very interesting. First time I can remember an aircraft > > company making a competitive safety claim in an advertisement. Airbus has pulled the ad from circulation (at least for now). Airline resentment was extremely high - especially for airlines considering using A330-200/300s over the North Pacific or in overwater situations. The A300/310 line might not attract passenger airline customers any longer, but the A330 certainly does and operators were suitably upset. Not to mention a legion of airline safety experts who thought they were watching decades of work go down the drain by one irresponsible act of advertising terrorism. I feel sorry for the probably majority of Airbus employees who would have shaken their heads that their employer would be so irresponsible. These things happen, however, and it probably won't be the last time if we all know advertising companies as we do. I haven't seen sex sell airplanes yet... oh hang on... yes I have. Saab used to run ads for their turboprops with a chick with nothing but boxer shorts and boxing gloves on. Tall blonde if I remember correctly. > I guess AirBus has forgotten that Boeing makes a 747. Either that or they forgot they produce the A330. Russ. From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:19 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:19 From: "Matt777" Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 947378524 209.245.166.77 (Sat, 08 Jan 2000 16:42:04 PST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.245.166.77 james matthew weber wrote in message ... >Matt777 wrote: >> I noticed that the 757-300 has less fuel capacity than the 757-200 >> (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757-300/product.html). 11,490 gallons >> compared to 11,526. I figure it is due to the larger models thicker wing >> structure which reduces the volume of the wing and it is probably the >> same with the Airbus. > >I'd be surprised. The wings on the two aircraft are in fact the same, and >difference in fuel capacity is minuscule, .4% (36 gallons out of 11,500). >I suspect the same to sample variation between aircraft is that large. The 757-300 has a 15,000lb higher takeoff weight than the -200. The wing spars must be very slightly thicker in some places (specifically the center wing section) explaining the lower fuel capacity. If the reason was sample variation I think Boeing would know that and just put the same fuel capacity on the website for the -300 as the -200. >That looks to me more like an inconsistency in how the capacity was >calculated, i.e. conversion of of liters to gallons, or cubic whatever to >whatever, rather than anything else. I don't think so. I have assembled 747-400 wings and a couple 777 wings and there are thickness variations. -- Matt Seattle, Washington From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:20 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:20 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu james matthew weber wrote: > Marc Schaeffer wrote: > > Can somebody please tell me why the basic fuel capacity on the A318, > > A319 and A320 is 23860 liters and 'only' 23700 liters on the A321. > > What are you going to use it for. My question was not focussing on the resulting smaller range but on the technical reason of the different capacities. I know that the differences are marginal. I think that the various replies gave a good overview on what might be the reasons. Marc From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:21 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:21 From: Marc Schaeffer Subject: Re: A32X fuel capacity References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: http://surf.to/orders Reply-To: marcmsc@cmdnet.lu Karl Swartz 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. > > Litters? Do they use kittens and/or puppies for fuel?! :-) Too l'ill sleep ... ;) > >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, That is correct as far as I know Indian is the sole company who has ordered it. > Do they offer it on the A319? I'd guess not. Airbus does offer this feature on the A319 according to the A32X sales book. It reduces the ACN (Aircraft Classification Number) from: 33 to 17 for the A319 at smallest MTOW 40 to 22 for the A319 at highest MTOW 40 to 22 for the A320 at smallest MTOW Marc From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:22 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:22 From: "Barry Kabello" Subject: Split Elevator? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wsFGyEoW2MVwSp93m8SZcGaFMIKLJWWRvcayC3PpM9XhpcU8CX/a1F0uAIc7aqmTMekQWgFWTMg!bdpO+nS25iWiK8/eeOwAVcqOQ3oLykEjEVFKUbLlMaDF3qKAhPri/Sd+VmVQ1vj/7IIo4C8= X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to Boeing? Thanks, Barry From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:23 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:23 From: "Grant Lynde" Subject: In-flight medical emergencies (was Re: Cabin Depressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 947390318 206.173.59.208 (Sat, 08 Jan 2000 19:58:38 PST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.173.59.208 Hugh Dickson wrote in message ... >> The O2 is there for people having heart >> attacks or difficulty breathing or some other problem that O2 will >> help. That is, it's there for an individual emergency, not an >> aircraft emergency. > >Often used for "white knuckle" pax. "Placebo"? Also used as a >"walkaround" bottle. Note nylon strap attached to some bottles >with "two turns of one inch masking tape". The O2 bottle is indeed used for passengers having breathing difficulties. I was on an international flight recently where a person on the plane with a history of severe asthma was having an attack triggered by a cold, exacerbated by the low PaO2 provided by an airplane at altitude. The medical kit on the airplane (a UA 777)consisted of a cheap stethescope (I had mine), a bp cuff, some bandages, and subcutaneous epinepherine (which would only be useful for a bee sting or someone with an anaplalactic allergic reaction). All I could do was give this person some O2, ask the FA's to ask the pilots to descend altitude to increase the FiO2, and expedite the approach into IAD. I was horrified by my inability to do much more than hold this person's hand and reassure her!!! Her blood O2 saturation on the ground with the O2 was 88% (for non-medical types, normal is >96%, 94% if you're a old and are a heavy smoker. 88% buys an admission to the hospital with continuous medical observation.) I am appauled that any airplane, especially international, lacks the ability to provide licenced physicians with even basic medications to treat inflight emergencies. On an up note, UA was extremely appreciative and acknowledged my intervention very appropriately. I wrote a letter back to the medical director who informed me that they are currently upgrading their medical equipment on all their planes to be able to provide ACLS support for persons in need (ACLS stands for Advanced Cardiac Life Support which consists of the abiltity to perform CPR + shock someone and provide the appropriate medications for someone who is suffering a heart attack or other life-threatening situations which would compromise one's ability to breathe). All-in-all, I don't think I will ever fly again without my trusty ACLS drugs and intubation equipment. From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:24 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:24 From: Art & Janet Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net 947394829 26939 12.79.33.251 (9 Jan 2000 05:13:49 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.79.33.251 Are you sure it wasn't the WC Field's movie where he goes out onto the balcony of the aircraft, his daughter corrects him that aircraft don't have balconies, and he chastises her that its his story, she doesn't have to have a balcony on her plane, but there's one in his? From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:25 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:25 From: "J P McLaughlin" Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com stevemouse wrote in message ... > Some time ago I saw a film, set in the early days of transatlantic > flight. Some of the story took place on a plane going from England to > America. It had cabins, and 'public' areas. At one point a couple got > well wrapped up and went out onto a little balcony behind the wing. I > remember it was very noisy and windy! I believe that was a scene from the 1930s-era film 'Things to Come.' It was entirely fictitious, and set in the future. From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:26 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:26 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: tundra.ops.attcanada.net 947437318 142.194.55.43 (Sun, 09 Jan 2000 17:01:58 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.194.55.43 Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >Everything I've read says it was British Airways who pushed the 757-200 >to be as big as it is, and that Eastern actually wanted something a bit >smaller, though perhaps not as small as the original design. And to illustrate that things come full circle, BA now says the 757 is too big for its needs and will be replaced by A320 and derivatives. Brian From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:27 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:27 From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 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 jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) writes: > >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. > > I heard a different rumor...I heard that the 727 was nixed because it was > choking 757 sales. Well, we've gotten a different story from someone who was inside Boeing at the time. I recall that AA was eager to re-engine all their 727's with dual high-bypass engines, but Boeing convinced them that it wasn't worth the trouble. I suspect that AA saw some of the data about wing wake ingestion and such. So they bought MD-80's to replace the 727's. What's clear is that the 757 missed the mark as a 727 replacement, giving an opportunity to the MD-80 and A320 series. -- -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 Jan 18 05:24:28 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:28 From: "Jim Brookbank" Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 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 Interesting stuff. Does this explain why the 757 started at a series 200 and there was never a series 100? Regards Jim From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:29 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:29 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 31 Dec 1999, JWizardC wrote: > 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). Not on all aircraft models in all modes of flight. The A300 AFS did not originally disengage AP in response to stick force. (See my article posted earlier.) Most other models do, except (I believe) the B767. I would welcome any information on the B767 AP behaviour in response to manual force on the controls. Regards, Pete Mellor From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:30 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:30 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 31 Dec 1999, JWizardC wrote: > 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' There is no warning of AP moving trim from neutral on the A300. (Again, see my earlier posting about the Nagoya crash.) Pete Mellor From kls Tue Jan 18 05:24:31 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 18 Jan 2000 05:24:31 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Trim Activated by the Autopilot Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Reply-To: Pete Mellor On 8 Jan 2000, John M. Hunt wrote: Dear John, > This brings up another of my pet gripes. Why can't the Flight > Management System simply announce in a very bossy voice "The aircraft > is seriously out of longitudinal trim" Your suggestion is very similar to the reaction of one of my colleagues after I had delivered a seminar to the Centre on the Nagoya crash. His suggestion was that a permanently visible display would have done the job. In fact, there *is* a permanently visible indication of the stabiliser position on the A300, but it is in the form of a mechanical pointer attached to the trim wheels on the central console, requiring the crew to look down and slightly aft to view it. (It is not illuminated.) An audible warning of the type you suggest would (IMHO) be feasible and highly specific in terms of the warning information given to the crew. The movement of the THS by the use of the electrical trim by one of the crew (activated by a thumb switch on the control wheel) is annunciated by a "whooler" (a totally specific "owl-hoot" sound, completely unlike any other audible annunciation in the cockpit) if the THS movement persists for more than a second or so. According to the Nagoya accident report, this was suppressed in the case of THS movement by the AP at the request of the CAA on the grounds that it would occur frequently during "normal" automatic go-around and distract the crew! The notion that a warning could be given in precisely those circumstances where a dangerous out-of-trim configuration is developing (and that this would be easily detectable by a sophisticated automatic flight system) does not appear to have occurred either to the certificators or to the certificatees. Amazingly, the joint efforts of a number of expert people, all acting with the best of intentions, has resulted in a botched design with a critical feature interaction and no annunciation of the dangerous configuration to which it can give rise. I remain steadfast in my conviction (pace PBL) that this constitutes a critical design fault, and that it was only a matter of time before it caused a fatality. Pete Mellor From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:12 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:12 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: accident report on a disk crash Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California Sometime during the latter half of 15 January, my mail/news server began suffering major disk problems. It took a while to patch things back together enough to restore limited mail service, but the real fix was to completely upgrade the entire machine, both hardware and software. (The software was getting a bit creaky anyway, and had some minor Y2K bugs.) Setting up the new machine and all of the services it needed took a while, and then the scripts used to moderate sci.aeronautics.airliners required some modifications to work with software that had six years of improvements. We're finally back on the air, or should be so long as this batch of articles goes out successfully. It'll take a bit to work down the backlog of articles, however. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:13 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:13 From: bizfixer@aol.comspamo (Bizfixer) Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com rwi@whidbey.com commented on unsuitability of a 2-engine version. I add thte following bit of history. --- Saw your interesting letter to one of the airliner newsgroups dtd. 08 Jan. You apparently bailed out in 1980 when there was no suitable engine for a 727 'bijet'. The engine choices at the time, as studied by Lockheed & Boeing were 747 class "heavies" and required complex pylons and fuselage extension. Perhaps that's why wing wake problems. (It obviously didn't affect engines #1 & #3 in -100 or -200 configs.) In 1986, we (Volpar Aircraft) had both companies' data and were looking at the high bypass CFM56-5, which was an easy fit, plenty of power, and required no fuselage extensions. Engineering analyses showed no wake problems, but we ran out of $$ before wind-tunnel testing. The Chinese loved the idea (a co-production deal), but insisted that we imprison their personnel after hours. Boeing didn't want to cooperate (in spite of potential spares business) and top execs simply said, "We build new planes, not improve old ones." Lockheed was buried in other projects and simply not interested, perhaps based on their prior studies. I think it would have worked. Further comment? Hokie bizfixer@aol.com From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:14 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:14 From: "Matt777" Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 948208878 209.245.172.100 (Tue, 18 Jan 2000 07:21:18 PST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.245.172.100 Jim Brookbank wrote in message ... >Interesting stuff. Does this explain why the 757 started at a >series 200 and there was never a series 100? Didn't Boeing offer a shorter 757... a 757-100, but no one wanted it. -- Matt Seattle, Washington From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:15 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:15 From: Brute! Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cmnws01.we.mediaone.net 948253560 24.130.52.50 (Tue, 18 Jan 2000 19:46:00 PST) Organization: MediaOne-Road Runner, Western Region X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.130.52.50 On 18 Jan 2000 05:24:26 , "Brian Maddison" wrote: >Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>Everything I've read says it was British Airways who pushed the 757-200 >>to be as big as it is, and that Eastern actually wanted something a bit >>smaller, though perhaps not as small as the original design. > >And to illustrate that things come full circle, BA now says the 757 is too >big for its needs and will be replaced by A320 and derivatives. Guess BA won't be buying the 757-300. Gawd that thing is UUUUUUGLY. It looks like a pencil on wings. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:16 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:16 From: Matt Weber Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM >Well, we've gotten a different story from someone who was inside >Boeing at the time. I recall that AA was eager to re-engine all their >727's with dual high-bypass engines, but Boeing convinced them that it >wasn't worth the trouble. I suspect that AA saw some of the data about >wing wake ingestion and such. So they bought MD-80's to replace the >727's. They didn't buy them. MD80 sales were pretty soft at the time, so both AA and TWA got 'deals' from MD that were basically, try the airplane on a 'walk away' lease. Lease price was in large part based upon the operational cost saving between the MD80 and the 727 it was replacing. AA liked the results, and bought more. TWA may have liked them, but as the incredible shrinking airline, they really didn't need anything that cost money, or expanded capacity. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:17 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:17 From: David Lednicer Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Analytical Methods, Inc. NNTP-Posting-Host: orion.amiwest.com Richard Isakson wrote: > It couldn't meet stage three noise requirements So it seemed, but Raisbeck has managed to get light and medium weight 727s to meet Stage 3 with simple changes to the flap and slat schedules. For heavier weight 727s, exhaust mixers must be added, but the aircraft still meets Stage 3. > There was no way to keep the wing wake out of the engine inlets and, > on a high by-pass engine, that caused a compressor stall. So it would seem, but Douglas managed to get V2500s to work on the MD90 (V2500s and CFM56s were the engines often considered for 727 reengining). How did they do it? While we're on the subject, the Valsan reengining with JT8D-209s works quite well. I think there is another ingredient to what killed the 727. A 727-300 was offered in the mid-1970s. It would have had stretched fuselage, JT8D-200 engines, a modified wing and four wheel leg landing gear. United showed interest, but in the end declined to order it. This led Boeing to develop an all new aircraft, which became the 757. ------------------------------------------------------------------- David Lednicer | "Applied Computational Fluid Dynamics" Analytical Methods, Inc. | email: dave@amiwest.com 2133 152nd Ave NE | tel: (206) 643-9090 Redmond, WA 98052 USA | fax: (206) 746-1299 From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:18 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:18 From: "jtarver" Subject: Re: Split Elevator? 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) Barry Kabello wrote in message ... > I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side > down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move > independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot > has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split > rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to > Boeing? The split elevator design on the Boeing 767 airplane is a means of compliance with a CFR 14 Part 25 requirement. Some sort of redundancy is the rule for aircraft controls and instrumentation. With the elevators split due to a rigging jam one of the elevators would be expected to remain neutral and the other would provide sufficient elevator control for level flight. Some roll moment would need to be cancelled with ailerons. John From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:19 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:19 From: Doug Holik Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com 948620322 4758050 209.156.144.28 (23 Jan 2000 09:38:42 GMT) Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: iplsb102-28.splitrock.net Barry Kabello wrote: > I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side > down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move > independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot > has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split > rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to > Boeing? You probably saw them doing a test of their control surfaces, this is standard before launch. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:20 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:20 From: "Thomasson, Sonja K" Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsa.telia.net 949160922 62.20.252.78 (Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:48:42 CET) Organization: Telia Internet X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.20.252.78 Barry Kabello wrote: > I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side > down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move > independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot > has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split > rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to > Boeing? On Dc-9 and MD80 it could happend because of the wind during groundstop or taxi. The elevators are free and are controlled by a control tab from both pilots, if one side is stuck they can operate the control tab from the other side. In the cockpit, their is a torque tube under the floor witch the pilot could overide in case of one system is stuck. Split Rudder means that the rudder is operated from diff hydraulic systems. Anders From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:21 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:21 From: "Mike and Sherley Nichols" Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news4.atl 949270927 216.78.253.54 (Sun, 30 Jan 2000 17:22:07 EST) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.78.253.54 Barry Kabello wrote: > I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side > down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move > independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot > has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split > rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to > Boeing? Which particular aircraft did you see. I will assume that it was the DC-9 or some variant (MD-80/90 series). That in fact is a normal condition for the aircraft. The elevator is not even hydraulically powered (except for full forward elevator to facilitate stall recovery) except for the MD-90. The elevators are only faired during takeoff roll as speed and airflow pick up. Mike Nichols MD-88 pilot p.s. the ailerons aren't hydraulically powered either! From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:22 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:22 From: CAMPBELL RON Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.rdc1.ab.home.com 949716540 24.64.16.80 (Fri, 04 Feb 2000 18:09:00 PST) Organization: @Home Network Member NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.64.16.80 Barry Kabello wrote: > I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side > down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move > independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot > has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split > rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to > Boeing? Yes most modern airliners have split controls (ailerons, rudder and elevator) but they are only split when the disconnects( i.e pitch etc) is pulled. This is a dual system and vary according to aircraft. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:23 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:23 From: "Paul Villery" Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsr1.maine.rr.com 950044770 24.25.179.8 (Tue, 08 Feb 2000 16:19:30 EDT) Organization: RoadRunner Portland, Maine X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.25.179.8 In many large aircraft each yoke will be tied to one aileron, and one elevator. Then both yokes are inter-connected with a clutch system. Thus, all the controls and yokes move in harmony under normal circumstances. In the cokcpit are a couple of handles, Pitch Disc. and Roll Disc, that disengage the respective clutches. If the captains side elevator gets jammed the crew can pull the Pitch Disc. handle and the F/O is still able to control the aircraft using his elevator. The MD-80 (and perhaps other aircraft?) does have a slightly odd system, where the elevators are synched on takeoff by briefly pulling the yoke all the way back while the throttles come up. I'm not sure on the specifics in that application. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:24 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:24 From: hnlute@optcamel.com (Howard N. Lute) Subject: Re: In-flight medical emergencies (was Re: Cabin Depressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Optimum Computer Services X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.12 Reply-To: hnlute@optcamel.com NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.df.a8.53 In article , glynde@qwestinternet.net says... > I was on an international flight recently where a person > on the plane with a history of severe asthma was having an attack > triggered by a cold, exacerbated by the low PaO2 provided by an airplane > at altitude ... > All-in-all, I don't think I will ever fly again without my > trusty ACLS drugs and intubation equipment. Bless you! I am a heart patient and a frequent flier on both domestic and international flights, I keep my nitro bottle affixed around my neck and fingers crossed every mile. Again, my thanks for thinking of us... friend, Lute -- Howard and Kelly Lute He: Electronics Instructor, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber She: Patient eBay Name = kell eBay Rating = 466 optcamel@ix.netcom.com or hnlute@optcamel.com Pirate Radio Web Page = http://pw1.netcom.com/~optcamel/camel2.html From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:25 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:25 From: cpovey@mindspring.com (Colin Povey) Subject: Re: In-flight medical emergencies (was Re: Cabin Depressurization) References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Reply-To: cpovey@mindspring.com NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.01.bd A quick note: I am not a physician, but am a basic level Emergency Medical Technician. While on a Delta red-eye from LA to Tampa a couple of years ago, about 4:00AM, the pilot turned on the lights, and came on the PA, asking if there was a physician or nurse aboard. When no one answered, I identified myself to a flight attendant as an EMT, and asked if I could help. We had a woman aboard who had passed out three time in the last hour. I assessed her condition, took some history, and determined that she was probably just suffering from low blood sugar levels, as she hadn't eaten in 48 hours, since she was suffering from nausea caused by a cold or the flu.. After confering with the pilot, we decided not to divert, but to have paramedics meet the plane upon arrival. On this aircraft, there were two medical kits: The flight attendents had a limited one, with band aids, aspirin, motion sickness pills, etc. The pilot had a more sophisticated one under his control, which contained a stethoscope, bp cuff, and about 10-15 drugs, mostly cardiac I believe (basic EMT's don't dispense drugs), but I am not sure of exactly what was in the kit. Delta was not as generous as United was to the passenger below, mailing me (spelling my name wrong and calling me a MD!) a coupon for $50 my next Delta flight. Colin From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:26 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:26 From: Tim Long Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: monger.newsread.com 947407544 209.239.238.48 (Sun, 09 Jan 2000 03:45:44 EST) Organization: VCNet - Internet Access of Ventura Country (vcnet.com) NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.239.238.48 Hugo 'NOx' Tyson wrote: > Mary Shafer writes: > > However, there are two important caveats to make. The first is that > > the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The second is that > > complex accidents (say, for example, where the aircraft broke up in > > flight and fell to the ground) are excluded; the O2 may have kept > > someone alive long enough to die from the ground impact, for example, > > but there's no evidence of this. > > I know this is crossing over into space and urban legend, probably, but > wasn't there evidence of exactly that in the space shuttle explosion? > It's not the same as an airliner O2 system, I know. This is not urban legend. Aviation Week and Space Technology published an article after the crew compartment had been recovered and studied. Based upon the video and radar data, NASA calculated the G forces the crew had likely experienced during the explosion. Their conclusion was that the forces were not enough to have killed or even seriously injured the crew. In the recovered cabin section of the shuttle, a few of the emergency oxygen bottles that are apparently stored by the cockpit seats were in the 'on' position, which would have only occurred if at least one member of the crew were conscious after the explosion. Because of the damage to crew cabin upon impact with the water, NASA was unable to determine whether pressurization was lost during the explosion or not (likely, though). If pressurization had been lost, the crew would have lost consciousness within about 15 seconds, even with the oxygen (not enough pressure in the vicinity of 50-60 thousand feet). If pressurization was not lost, the crew could have been conscious all the way down to the water. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:27 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:27 From: rdd@netcom.sucks.com Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization 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 , GLPILOTSRV wrote: >This is the reason that above 25,000 feet, if one crew member leaves the >flight deck, the remaining crew member is required to use supplemental >oxygen. Above 35,000 feet, regardless of number of crew members on the >flight deck, one crew member must utilize supplemental oxygen. Not exactly. http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-121.txt (2) When operating at flight altitudes above flight level 250, one pilot at the controls of the airplane shall at all times wear and use an oxygen mask secured, sealed, and supplying oxygen, in accordance with the following: (i) The one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask at or below the following flight levels if each flight crewmember on flight deck duty has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that the certificate holder has shown can be placed on the face from its ready position, properly secured, sealed, and supplying oxygen upon demand, with one hand and within five seconds: (A) For airplanes having a passenger seat configuration of more than 30 seats, excluding any required crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of more than 7,500 pounds, at or below flight level 410. (B) For airplanes having a passenger seat configuration of less than 31 seats, excluding any required crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less, at or below flight level 350. And: http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-91.txt Sec. 91.211 Supplemental oxygen. (a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry-- (b) Pressurized cabin aircraft. (1) No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry with a pressurized cabin-- (ii) At flight altitudes above flight level 350 unless one pilot at the controls of the airplane is wearing and using an oxygen mask that is secured and sealed and that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude of the airplane exceeds 14,000 feet (MSL), except that the one pilot need not wear and use an oxygen mask while at or below flight level 410 if there are two pilots at the controls and each pilot has a quick-donning type of oxygen mask that can be placed on the face with one hand from the ready position within 5 seconds, supplying oxygen and properly secured and sealed. (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, if for any reason at any time it is necessary for one pilot to leave the controls of the aircraft when operating at flight altitudes above flight level 350, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an oxygen mask until the other pilot has returned to that crewmember's station. To wit: 1. Don't need to wear oxygen under FL410 if you have quick-donning masks. 2. If anyone leaves the cockpit above FL350, a remaining pilot needs to go on oxygen. Full text at the URLs. Yes, the rules are real, and yes, crews tend to obey them. So when you note the captain stretching his legs halfway through a flight, feel confident that the first officer is on oxygen. -- 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 Thu Feb 10 05:03:28 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:28 From: "Chris Dahler" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization 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: /bCCZG/fsKa9GaZx5m/89WnL3Wtv6V7p6o8HoMEx9+givLRo6zkw6XkjKkjqpgM10yrmQXwbKs4F!uRv7Byy+rhql+TqM4mX2nTMbYoDy+jeHbJbV9WlIoliJkqzlPn7o/z0xr4i8N7ZX1Jm4CYWChjxq X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 > >This is the reason that above 25,000 feet, if one crew member leaves the > >flight deck, the remaining crew member is required to use supplemental > >oxygen. Above 35,000 feet, regardless of number of crew members on the > >flight deck, one crew member must utilize supplemental oxygen. Right rule, wrong altitude. One crewmember has to use supplemental oxygen at all times when the flight is above 41,000. > I presume this is an FAA rule. I have been in the cockpit a number of times > on British registered aircraft when the plane and crew have met either or > both these criteria, and have never seen the oxygen mask in use. In fact > I have never seen it available - i.e. sitting next to the seat which makes > me wonder just how quickly it could be put on. I don't know about British rules compared to FAA rules. I can say that in everyday practice, the reality is that very few crewmembers will actually put the mask on when the other pilot heads to the restroom. Unless, of course, the FAA is on board! As to the location, most O2 masks in the cockpits of modern airliners are flush-mounted in a little compartment somewhere near the pilot's knee. The next time you are in the cockpit, look around near the jumpseat, and you'll see a little greenish hose that seems to loop out and in a compartment that has two red tabs sticking out of it. If you pinch both of those two red tabs together and pull, you'll hear a loud hiss as the two flaps of the compartment pop open and you realize you are holding the O2 mask. As an extra bonus, you get to spend the next 15 minutes trying to figure out how in the world to get the mask back in that compartment and how to get those two flaps closed! The action of grabbing the mask and putting it on really takes no more than 2 or 3 seconds. Chris From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:29 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:29 From: Tuomo Takkula Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nyheter.chalmers.se 947446346 13185 129.16.226.89 (9 Jan 2000 19:32:26 GMT) Organization: Dept. of CS, Chalmers, Sweden X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.44/Emacs 19.34 NNTP-Posting-Host: muppet38.cs.chalmers.se JF Mezei writes: > Since it was shown that in most accidents, passengers die from smoke > inhalation, shouldn't that be more of a priority than to provide a few > minutes' worth of oxygen during a descent ? I think I read somewhere that humans absorb a lot of toxical materiak from the air already through their skin. One probably does not need to inhale the stuff to get poisoned to death. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:30 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:30 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 8 Jan 2000, upallnite wrote: > You know, that brings up an interesting question. If it were possible > to extinquish a cabin fire by de-pressurizing the cabin, how many > passengers would be "expendable" (read: sucked out) in order to > possibly save the aircraft with the remaining passengers? The old > utilitarian "most good for the most people" tenent? Any training done > (outside of philosophy class) based on that type of no-win situation? Well, there was the case of the Australian warship whose captain was faced with the choice of flooding the bowels of the ship with carbon dioxide (with the consequence of certainly killing three of his crew who had gone down to fight the fire, although it was highly likely they were already dead) with the alternative of losing the ship, and a lot more of his crew. (Not the kind of choice I would like to face!) This was reported in the press last year. Regarding utilitarianism, I (amateur philosopher!) have always thought that it provided a faultless ground for public hanging: 20,000 people get a good day out, and one chap gets inconvenienced for 1/10th of a second! Pete Mellor From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:31 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:31 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM I have sat in the jump seat of an airliner at 45,000 feet. Neither of the crew wore masks. Pete Mellor From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:32 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:32 From: "P. Wezeman" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: flood.weeg.uiowa.edu 947488365 15808 128.255.56.25 (10 Jan 2000 07:12:45 GMT) Organization: The University of Iowa NNTP-Posting-Host: green.weeg.uiowa.edu On 8 Jan 2000, upallnite wrote: > You know, that brings up an interesting question. If it were possible > to extinquish a cabin fire by de-pressurizing the cabin, how many > passengers would be "expendable" (read: sucked out) in order to > possibly save the aircraft with the remaining passengers? The old > utilitarian "most good for the most people" tenent? Any training done > (outside of philosophy class) based on that type of no-win situation? Unless you are going to blow a hole in the fuselage with a linear shaped charge or some such it is a moot point. Airliner doors are designed so that the pressure holds them closed, so they can't be opened as long as there is a pressure difference. Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist "Carpe Cyprinidae" From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:33 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:33 From: Pete Finlay Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization 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 , Peter Coe writes >glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) writes: >>This is the reason that above 25,000 feet, if one crew member leaves the >>flight deck, the remaining crew member is required to use supplemental >>oxygen. Above 35,000 feet, regardless of number of crew members on the >>flight deck, one crew member must utilize supplemental oxygen. > >I presume this is an FAA rule. I have been in the cockpit a number of times >on British registered aircraft when the plane and crew have met either or >both these criteria, and have never seen the oxygen mask in use. In fact >I have never seen it available - i.e. sitting next to the seat which makes >me wonder just how quickly it could be put on. It is a FAA rule. Doesn't apply as far as the CAA are concerned. We *only* ever use the masks for things like smoke in the flight deck or cabin, or if we depressurize, not as a matter of routine. On a commercial aircraft under CAA rules, there must be a mask available for every seat in the flight deck. They are nearly always quick-donning masks, and we can put them on in seconds. On Concorde, you have to be able to demonstrate that you can put the mask on (from a standing start!), breathe and talk within 11 seconds. 747 Classic masks are usually able to be put on a bit quicker because they are not pressure breathing masks, which Concorde's are. When you sat on the flight deck, the masks were there, they just probably didn't point them out to you. I think that they should have done so. I know we point out the masks if we have anyone sitting on the flight deck. -- Pete Finlay From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:34 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:34 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler In article , Peter Coe writes: >I presume this is an FAA rule. Sec. 135.89 Pilot requirements: Use of oxygen. Section 121 for air carriers is slightly different. The altitudes for manditory use of supplemental oxygen is higher (FL410). Garrr From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:35 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:35 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler In article , wb8foz@panix.com (David Lesher) writes: >) I sat in the jump seat on a long Pacific Rim 747-400 flight >recently, and neither crew member was masked. I thought we were at >350 but must check my notes. When I replied to the posting, I was under the impression that FAR 121 rules regarding oxygen requirements were the same as the FAR 135 rules I am more familiar with. I went to the FAA's website to check and it appears that the FAR 121 rule is FL410. Sorry for any confusion. Here is the FAR 135 source. Sec. 135.89 Pilot requirements: Use of oxygen. (a) Unpressurized aircraft. Each pilot of an unpressurized aircraft shall use oxygen continuously when flying-- (1) At altitudes above 10,000 feet through 12,000 feet MSL for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration; and (2) Above 12,000 feet MSL. (b) Pressurized aircraft. (1) Whenever a pressurized aircraft is operated with the cabin pressure altitude more than 10,000 feet MSL, each pilot shall comply with paragraph (a) of this section. (2) Whenever a pressurized aircraft is operated at altitudes above 25,000 feet through 35,000 feet MSL, unless each pilot has an approved quick-donning type oxygen mask-- (i) At least one pilot at the controls shall wear, secured and sealed, an oxygen mask that either supplies oxygen at all times or automatically supplies oxygen whenever the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 12,000 feet MSL; and (ii) During that flight, each other pilot on flight deck duty shall have an oxygen mask, connected to an oxygen supply, located so as to allow immediate placing of the mask on the pilot's face sealed and secured for use. (3) Whenever a pressurized aircraft is operated at altitudes above 35,000 feet MSL, at least one pilot at the controls shall wear, secured and sealed, an oxygen mask required by paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section. (4) If one pilot leaves a pilot duty station of an aircraft when operating at altitudes above 25,000 feet MSL, the remaining pilot at the controls shall put on and use an approved oxygen mask until the other pilot returns to the pilot duty station of the aircraft. Garrr From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:36 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:36 From: glpilotsrv@aol.com (GLPILOTSRV) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler In article , "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" writes: >I think you misunderstand partial pressure: the body is quite happy with >100% O2 @ 0.21 Bar or 50% O2 @ 0.42 Bar or 21% O2 at 1 Bar - it really >makes no difference. At my training at Andrews, the class viewed a video of tests on the affects of sudden loss of pressurization. A variety of drop down masks were utilized in the tests. In none of the tests did the subject remain conscious after donning the mask. The instructor explained that above approximately 25,000 feet, the body will not absorb the oxygen unless it is supplied under pressure. The video seem to back his assertion. He did not, however, state how much pressure would be needed. Garrr From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:37 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:37 From: luisma@spainmail.com Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.235.73.30 "Hugo 'NOx' Tyson" wrote: > So at a typical cruise of 11km (36,300ft) you get 0.250 Bar ambient, > so you need about 80 %O2 or better to stay conscious. > Your statement would be OK if it said "above 50,000 feet" where even > 100% O2 at ambient isn't enough. Agree. To be exact, the crew masks, when used in "O2 mixed to air" mode do control the mixing percentage. Above 34000 ft, even if used in this mode, they supply pure Oxygen to the crew. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:38 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:38 From: "Paul Villery" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsr1.maine.rr.com 949349084 24.25.179.8 (Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:04:44 EDT) Organization: RoadRunner Portland, Maine X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.0810.800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.25.179.8 >A) I sat in the jump seat on a long Pacific Rim 747-400 flight >recently, and neither crew member was masked. I thought we were at >350 but must check my notes. > >B) When does the "catcher-mask" rule apply? It is an FAA reg, but it's the most often ignored rule in the book. I'm sure that none of us could wait to sit in a cockpit for 9 hours with a hot, sticky, rubber mask stuck to one's face. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:39 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:39 From: "Brian Maddison" Subject: Re: IL96M References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: cabot.ops.attcanada.net 948244457 142.194.54.132 (Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:14:17 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.194.54.132 Afwtul1 wrote in message ... >The reason I ask is that, I've got some pictures of a Aeroflot IL-96 >(RA-96007) and another IL-96 in Aeroflot colors but with POCCNR in gold >lettering (N and R written backwards) with the registration CCCP-96005 >taken at Alliance-Fort Worth Airport (AFW) in 1993. That's RUSSIA in Cyrillic script - ie. the president's plane. And CCCP = SSSR which was the Soviet Union's ICAO prefix. Brian From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:40 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:40 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: /bQNubp9pSAzpAb2rGi933zcysYduG/y4/XfHMgOLYZKuDIbxK7Bh8dQI221DoGvnxv1oTegeeRm!H6m7jRVh48fn0x3ehv4VUk1Zbc7GjkiyCkPT5GTeExovmgqdqTBw56D5qac3E/vrIDoqAWWgTg== X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 > Most other models do, except (I believe) the B767. I would welcome any > information on the B767 AP behaviour in response to manual force on the > controls. The autopilot fights you, but it won't disengage no matter how much force is applied. However, the trim is inhibited from moving in a direction opposite to control column force. Boeing has always designed aircraft like this: in the older aircraft with the trim wheels, the wheels were stopped by a mechanical lock. If the trim was activated and then the control column was moved in the opposite direction, a very loud bang was the result as the lock whacked into place, stopping the wheels. Quite annoying. The 757/767, of course, has no wheel and thus no noise, but the lockout is the same philosophy. On another note concerning this thread about audible warnings: Boeing does include a warning. If the trim is not within a predefined takeoff range (defined on the trim position tape as a green band), the takeoff warning aural will sound as the power is advanced. Obviously, this only works on takeoff. For other regimes of flight, part of the problem that you and others aren't taking into account is that it would be rather difficult to create an aural warning for a wide trim variance. Depending on the aircraft's weight and speed and the way the CG is distributed at the moment, the trim will vary all over the place. On the 757, I've seen it from almost at full AND to almost full ANU at various times during various flights. It's fine to speculate on having an aural saying "Trim" or something like that, but where are you going to define the limits of the warning? It would be practically impossible. Chris From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:41 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:41 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 It's been a couple o' years, but I seem to remember having a 'bitchin betty' in the Brasilia that complained about everything, including (I think) the trim. TheFNG From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:42 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:42 From: stevemouse Subject: Re: Balconies? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.113.20.243 In article , Art & Janet wrote: > Are you sure it wasn't the WC Field's movie where he goes out onto the > balcony of the aircraft, his daughter corrects him that aircraft don't > have balconies, and he chastises her that its his story, she doesn't > have to have a balcony on her plane, but there's one in his? No, it definatly wasn't a comedy. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:43 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:43 From: hnlute@optcamel.com (Howard N. Lute) Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 and An-225 questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Optimum Computer Services X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.12 Reply-To: hnlute@optcamel.com NNTP-Posting-Host: cf.df.a8.53 In article , kls@ohare.Chicago.COM says... > > If someone knows how much the C-5 or the 747-xxf cost, that would be > > acceptable. > > The answer for those two planes is going to be quite different from the > answer for the Antonovs since the latter have Ukrainian engines which > are maintenance hogs. The An-124s have bunks for the maintenance teams > which fly along with them. At times, some are grounded because the > engines don't last very long and they can't build replacements quickly > enough. What's the problem with the design? What kind of problems exist? Thanks friend, Lute -- Howard and Kelly Lute He: Electronics Instructor, Terrible Mechanic, Worse Plumber She: Patient eBay Name = kell eBay Rating = 466 optcamel@ix.netcom.com or hnlute@optcamel.com Pirate Radio Web Page = http://pw1.netcom.com/~optcamel/camel2.html From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:44 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:44 From: "Fred van Steenderen" Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 and An-225 questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news1.xs4all.nl 948968494 8814 194.109.182.49 (27 Jan 2000 10:21:34 GMT) Organization: XS4ALL Internet BV X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 NNTP-Posting-Host: s340-isdn561.dial.xs4all.nl AN124-100 Cost ACMI (Aircraft,Crew, Maintenance,Insurance) approx. US$ 5,500.= per block hour Fuel burn when fully loaded is 15,000 kilos 1st hour 13,000 kilos 2nd hour thereafter 11,000 kilos/hour At current European/USA fuel prices boils down to US$ 4,500/hour. Navigation Fees are in average US$ 800/hour So it is basically approx. US$ 11,000/Block Hour excl. Landing/Handling Fees. However, the Air Speed is only 378 knots so it takes more hours as well to get to places. I.E. B747-200 cruises at about 490 knots. However, for real big outsized stuff it is the only Commercial Aircraft about and it is a good alternative in peak seasons when there are no B747 Freighters available. Cannot really compare to the C5 as they don't fly commercially. Of the AN225 Myria there were only one and a half plane built when the Russian Space shuttle project was scrapped. These ones are both at Kiev. They still hope to find Western funding for special (space) projects. They have a project designed to launch Space Crafts by far cheaper while in an high altitude flight because you don't these huge rockets as from the ground. People have shown interest but nobody put up the money solar. Hope this answers some of your questions. From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:45 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:45 From: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) Subject: Fuselage flex? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net 948423329 7431 12.74.12.107 (21 Jan 2000 02:55:29 GMT) Organization: AT&T WorldNet Services X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Reply-To: jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.74.12.107 Been riding some of United's 727s lately and couldn't help but notice that on every one the emergency floor lighting strip separated from the floor a good inch or so in height just behind row 14 (just in front of the first window exit) at altitude. I watched the last one throughout the flight and it gradually returned to floor level upon initial descent. No separation while on the ground. Question - what causes this? Also on a recent trip to Pima, I was told that the design of the Connie's fuselage was intended to provide additional lift. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks jmaddaus@usa.net From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:46 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:46 From: Richard Cochran Subject: Re: 2 Vs 4 engines - CFM56 Engineering Dept Costs References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.b7.09.68 wrote: > 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. Not exactly what you were thinking of, but... UAL 232, July 19, 1989, Sioux City, Iowa. The uncontained failure of engine #2 on a DC-10 caused hydraulic failure and loss of control authority, leading to a fatal crash. This would not have happened if the plane had been a twin, with no center engine. The risk of problems due to uncontained engine failure goes UP as you add engines, while the risk of total loss-of-thrust goes down. A simplistic exercise in statistics says that, assuming all the probabilities are small, adding a third engine diminishes safety unless three times the probability of an incident caused by an uncontained failure is lower than the square of the probability of a loss-of-thrust incident. For a fourth engine to pay off, four times the probability of an uncontained failure causing problems has to be smaller than the cube of the probability of loss-of-thrust. As the probability of loss-of-thrust gets smaller and smaller, those squares and cubes get very very tiny, and it's hard to keep the uncontained failure probability low enough to pay off. For any given set of failure probabilities, there is an optimum number of engines, and adding more engines hurts safety. --Rich From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:47 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:47 From: jwizardc@aol.com (JWizardC) Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Just to throw another level of confusion, I'd like to throw another item into the V1 discussion. V1, as you already know, is defined as the speed at which there is no longer enough runway to stop safely on the pavement. When I give groundschool, I teach that the Pilot Not Flying should call "V1" at 3 - 5 knots before the computed V1. This gives another couple of seconds leeway. The B777/B747-400 aircraft will automaticly call "V1" at a speed between V1-10 and V1 depending on customer options. By the way, US certification requires the aircraft to be stoppable on the runway (not counting any clearway or extended runway) with only two seconds between event recognition and rejection. JAA requires three seconds. As a result of this 'minor' difference, some US aircraft are rumored to be certified at a lower gross weight by the EU. TheFNG From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:48 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:48 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 Where did you get the definition of V1. You are not correct. V1 is the fastest speed from where you can safely stop on the runway............ You also have to be careful about setting a procedure of calling V1 prior to the actual speed, how are you accounting for the accelerate go situation especially when combined with close-in obstacles???? The European rules are somewhat different but there again so are the FAA rules for the two aircraft that you mentioned. Aircraft within Europe are usually certified to the same gross weights as those operating for US carriers, but with the differences in Vspeeds, there may be differences in the performance limited weights See YA. John From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:49 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:49 From: calburton@aol.com (Cal Burton) Subject: Re: Aircraft emissions techie question References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL Canada http://www.aol.ca X-Newsreader: Session Scheduler In article , Clunk writes: >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. Certainly refiners' performance in removing sulphur from fuels has a direct bearing on SO2 emissions, which is what I believe Mr. Zunk alluded to. In any event, I just want to point out that "avgas", aviation gasoline, is the fuel that powers aircraft piston engines. It is extremely low in sulphur content due to its manufacturing process (something to do with alkylation units abhoring sulphur). Moreover, the volume of avgas combusted near Gatwick and Heathrow must be considerably less than the volume of turbine fuel. Jet A1, on the other hand, is a middle distillate fuel likely burned in much higher quantity around these airports. It also has a considerably higher sulphur content, which can vary from refiner to refiner, according to the manufacturing process. Whether or not aviation sources are considered in the study, as stated by Mr. Felton in a previous post, I was not able to confirm by a quick look at the URL. Not sure I understand, though, how the aviation sector could be excluded when measuring SO2 content near major airports. Cal (new to this newsgroup & thread, not a "techie", and not a Brit) From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:50 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:50 From: "Alain Mengus" Subject: Fragmentation Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 948484692 1463 193.250.40.98 (21 Jan 2000 19:58:12 GMT) Organization: Wanadoo, l'internet avec France Telecom X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 NNTP-Posting-Host: xplessis-bouchard-1-1-98.abo.wanadoo.fr Hello, I'm looking for information concerning the fragmentation of the intercontinental markets (Pacific, Atlantic, Asia-Europe, ...), as well as stories of the operator of the market. I don't have many information about NWA on Pacific for example. Thanks for help, Regards, Alain Mengus From kls Thu Feb 10 05:03:51 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 10 Feb 2000 05:03:51 From: "Gavin" Subject: Altitude sickness Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news8.svr.pol.co.uk 948015643 30476 62.136.100.214 (16 Jan 2000 09:40:43 GMT) Organization: Customer of Planet Online X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-86.handy.dialup.pol.co.uk Does travelling on a plane for a long time 9 hrs help you acclimatise to higher mountains e.g. Breckenridge due to cabin pressure ? From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:38 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:38 From: FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be (Filip De Vos) Subject: 747 fuel consumption Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Organization: University of Ghent, Belgium NNTP-Posting-Host: eduserv1.rug.ac.be Over on sci.space.policy, the comparison of long-distance aerial travel with ballistic transport, and with putting people in orbit, has again come up. In order to inject some hard facts into the debate (!), can somebody tell me the fuel consumption of a 747 on the Chicago-Narita run? Just fuel burn per hour would be great, but actual fuel consumption block to block would be even better! I recall having made a similar calculation a while ago, using posted figures for one of the 737 marques, and this came to about 4 litres of kerosine, per 100 kilometer, and per passenger. A metric of the amount of fuel burnt per kilogram of payload was also used. Anybody has figures on 747-400F or MD11F ? -- Filip De Vos FilipPC.DeVos@rug.ac.be There are plenty of ways to empty a solar system. -- John S. Lewis -- From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:39 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:39 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >tell me the fuel consumption of a 747 on the Chicago-Narita run? Just fuel >burn per hour would be great, but actual fuel consumption block to block >would be even better! Hopefully someone will give you better numbers, but a few years ago I flew LAX-LHR aboard a 747-238B. The pilots posted the following info: 762,710 lbs takeoff weight 257,400 lbs of fuel (48,418 US gallons) Block time was about 9.5 hours, so if we landed with about 10% reserves (probably high) then we burned about 24,385 lbs or 4,587 gallons of fuel per hour. ORD-NRT would be a 747-400, which is significantly more fuel- efficient, so treat that as an upper bound. -- 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 Mar 3 23:25:40 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:40 From: elysium Subject: Peculiar marking Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 196.40.50.51 This is one of those ' everything you always wanted to know about, but were too afraid to ask ' type questions ; All TWA aircraft I've seen recently have a matt black paint stripe about one third span about 3 ft wide running chordwise on the top of each wing. Why ? Ice detection ? It just seems a little bit retro' sitting on a 767 ? Anybody know the story behind this ? TIA elysium -- coopcte@sol.racsa.co.cr Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:41 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:41 From: Pete Mellor Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM On 10 Feb 2000, Pete Finlay wrote: > It is a FAA rule. Doesn't apply as far as the CAA are concerned. We > *only* ever use the masks for things like smoke in the flight deck or > cabin, or if we depressurize, not as a matter of routine. On a > commercial aircraft under CAA rules, there must be a mask available for > every seat in the flight deck. They are nearly always quick-donning > masks, and we can put them on in seconds. On Concorde, you have to be > able to demonstrate that you can put the mask on (from a standing > start!), breathe and talk within 11 seconds. 747 Classic masks are > usually able to be put on a bit quicker because they are not pressure > breathing masks, which Concorde's are. > > When you sat on the flight deck, the masks were there, they just > probably didn't point them out to you. I think that they should have > done so. I know we point out the masks if we have anyone sitting on the > flight deck. The flight that I wrote about (cruising at FL450) was Cathay Pacific. I do not know which authority regulates them. (No doubt I'm about to learn! :-) Of the many occasions I have occupied a jump seat, only once was the oxygen mask pointed out to me. (This was when a BA pilot kindly arranged for me to fly on an A320 to Inverness and back, to give me a demonstration of its control system's capabilities.) He gave me a thorough safety briefing before take-off. This included the location and use of the oxygen mask. (Yes, there is a mask for every seat including jump seats, and mine was located in a box a mere couple of feet at most from the seat - easily reachable and donnable.) He also pointed out the safety escape ropes and how to open the window in order to deploy them. Given that an ancient motorcycle accident deprived me of the use of my left arm, I might not have been too successful at escaping from the window on the ground, but I am sure the oxygen mask would have posed no problem even with one arm! Regarding the escape ropes, in at least one hijack years ago, the crew used these to escape as soon as the aircraft touched down at its first destination. The crew of the Afghani aircraft at Stanstead adopted the same tactic. This obviously makes sense, since the aircraft won't be going anywhere else without a crew. It made me wonder why they did not do this earlier (except that there might have been a hijacker in the cockpit training a gun on them). Pete Mellor From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:42 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:42 From: JF Mezei Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 950494381 24.201.66.156 (Sun, 13 Feb 2000 21:13:01 EST) NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.201.66.156 GLPILOTSRV wrote: > affects of sudden loss of pressurization. A variety of drop down masks > were utilized in the tests. In none of the tests did the subject remain > conscious after donning the mask. The instructor explained that above > approximately 25,000 feet, the body will not absorb the oxygen unless it > is supplied under pressure. That is perhaps an overgeneralisation. Humans have climbed Everest (8800m or about 28.6k feet) without oxygen masks. Of course, the main difference is that the climb is gradual and the climbers must acclimatize to the lowering pressures as they climb, something which you can't do when a plane depressurises is a short amount of time. At that altitude, you have about 1/3 the oxygen available, and you tend to breathe 4 times as fast to compensate (when you're acclimatised). From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:43 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:43 From: "John R. Weiss" Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization 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 > Unless you are going to blow a hole in the fuselage with a > linear shaped charge or some such it is a moot point. Airliner doors > are designed so that the pressure holds them closed, so they can't > be opened as long as there is a pressure difference. True for the passenger doors, but not for the cargo doors... -- John Weiss Seattle, WA remove *nospam* from e-mail address for reply From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:44 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:44 From: gbeaman@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: sapphire.mtt.net 950638402 142.176.73.178 (Tue, 15 Feb 2000 14:13:22 AST) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Organization: Business Internet Reply-To: gbeaman@bigfoot.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.176.73.178 "P. Wezeman" wrote: --cut-- > Unless you are going to blow a hole in the fuselage with a >linear shaped charge or some such it is a moot point. Airliner doors >are designed so that the pressure holds them closed, so they can't >be opened as long as there is a pressure difference. > You don't need to open doors etc (and can't anyhow)...the pressurization system provides a function called 'dump' which dumps the cabin pressure. -- Gord Beaman PEI, Canada From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:45 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:45 From: gbeaman@pei.sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: sapphire.mtt.net 950821685 142.176.74.185 (Thu, 17 Feb 2000 17:08:05 AST) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230 Organization: Business Internet Reply-To: gbeaman@bigfoot.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.176.74.185 upallnite wrote: >You know, that brings up an interesting question. If it were possible >to extinquish a cabin fire by de-pressurizing the cabin, how many >passengers would be "expendable" (read: sucked out) in order to >possibly save the aircraft with the remaining passengers? The old >utilitarian "most good for the most people" tenent? Any training done >(outside of philosophy class) based on that type of no-win situation? > It's certainly no problem to depressurize an a/c, the pressurization controls in the cockpit have a selection called 'dump' which opens both the normal outflow valve and the emergency outflow valve to dump the internal pressure down to the outside pressure. How much good (or harm) it'd do I have no idea. -- Gord Beaman PEI, Canada From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:46 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:46 From: shopisle@aol.com (Shopisle) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com The previous writer was incorrect. 100% o2 is inadequate above a certain altitude unless delivered under pressure. I cannot quote an exact level but its around 25/30 m feet. There is a higher level , I think around 50m+ where body pressurization is required to sustain life. Cockpit crew o2 systems are pressure delivery types for the reasons stated above. Also note passenger masks dilute o2 with cabin air. Shoppersisle.com From kls Fri Mar 3 23:25:47 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 03 Mar 2000 23:25:47 From: rdd@netcom.com (Robert Dorsett) Subject: Re: Cabin Depressurization 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 , Chris Dahler wrote: >I don't know about British rules compared to FAA rules. I can say that in >everyday practice, the reality is that very few crewmembers will actually >put the mask on when the other pilot heads to the restroom. Unless, of >course, the FAA is on board! Goes to the professionalism of the airline and the example set by the captain. Those that don't enforce this border on professional (if not criminal) incompetence. When I was a child and teenager, I accumulated ~600 jumpseat hours on a variety of aircraft on a foreign, third-world carrier. I was always impressed by the professionalism of the crews, particularly in this regard. >The action of grabbing the mask and putting it on really takes no more than >2 or 3 seconds. After problem identification. By that point, you could well be out. R. -- Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation rdd@netcom.com aero-simulation@cactus.org "Bother," said Pooh when his engine quit on take-off. From news Thu Mar 9 19:27:49 2000 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!uunet!nyc.uu.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!cyclone.swbell.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.he.net!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: Ed McBride Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: 09 Mar 2000 10:41:45 -0800 Organization: Wybron, Inc. Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Please note that my areas of expertise are mechanical engineering, engineering mechanics, and some classical physics. I have essentially no background in aeronautical, electrical and a bunch of other stuff. I am a consulting engineer in Colorado Springs with a client who wants to track a few objects using on-board accelerometers and gyroscopes that communicate with a central processor. The objects are confined to an area of roughly 25 meters square, and a height of no more than 5 meters above ground. It is necessary to know the location of each object within about 0.1 m, over a time period of a half hour or so. The objects can move at speeds up to 10 m/s, and can experience accelerations up to 2-3 g (20-30 m/s^2). The objects can also rotate at angular velocieies up to a few rev/s. (10-15 rad/s). The cost of the system cannot exceed something like $2,000 per object. My investigations indicate that there at least two major problems: 1. Accelerometers have output errors that will, through random walk, lead to large position errors in a relatively short time. 2. In order to track using accelerometers, it is necessary to know orientation very accurately. I can't find anything that even comes close. But I keep hearing that people take off in an airplane, fly across country, and know where they are within a foot or so. The only explanation I can come up with is that these airplanes must be "re-zeroing" rather often. I obviously have about a zillion questions. Can anyone please either explain to me what's going on, or point me to a reference that will help me figure things out? TIA, Ed McBride, P.E. From news Fri Mar 10 11:33:17 2000 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news.shore.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.he.net!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: "Chuck" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 20:40:19 -0500 Organization: NASA Dryden Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Ed McBride wrote in message ... >But I keep hearing that people take off in an airplane, fly across >country, and know where they are within a foot or so. The only >explanation I can come up with is that these airplanes must be >"re-zeroing" rather often. > >I obviously have about a zillion questions. Can anyone please either >explain to me what's going on, or point me to a reference that will >help me figure things out? Aircraft do use inertial navigation systems (INS) for navigating. A INS combines an inertial reference unit that determines current position along with a navigation computer. They can provide navigation to anywhere without any external inputs. But they do typically receive updated position data from systems such as a flight management computer or GPS. Accuracy to within a foot with an IRU is not likely. Accuracy to within 2-4 nm is more like it for a system that uses laser gyros rather than mechanical gyros to stabilize the accelerometer platform. A formula that is often used to get a ruff idea of allowable drift for a given amount of time in operation is the following: 3+3T T is equal to the amount of time the system was operated in its navigation mode. If we say for example 3 hours the approximate maximum allowable drift would be 12 nm. Hope that answers some of your questions, Chuck From news Fri Mar 10 11:33:17 2000 From: "Max O. Lange" Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 09:51:01 +0100 Organization: T-Online Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Path: ditka!news.mv.net!newspeer.phoen-x.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!newsfeed.icl.net!netnews.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail Ed McBride schrieb: > But I keep hearing that people take off in an airplane, fly across > country, and know where they are within a foot or so. The only > explanation I can come up with is that these airplanes must be > "re-zeroing" rather often. there's a zillion questions you raise but only so many come in the domain of this NG. Let's start with these: - Gyroscopes are used for inertial navigation because they provide the precise angular orientation you mention. They are way too expensive for your 2$k objects, though. - People flying across country and knowing where they are to within a foot are relying on GPS, and possibly differential GPS at that. A basic GPS receiver would be within your price range but less precise than 0.1m. - For your application, it's important if you need to know the objects' locations on board the objects, or in a central control unit. In the latter case, you could probably track them optically more easily than anything else. Yours sincerely Max Lange From news Sat Mar 11 07:25:33 2000 From: Don Stauffer Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: 10 Mar 2000 10:10:41 -0800 Organization: NASA Dryden Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Path: ditka!news.mv.net!newspeer.phoen-x.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!news.he.net!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail Ed McBride wrote: > But I keep hearing that people take off in an airplane, fly across > country, and know where they are within a foot or so. The only > explanation I can come up with is that these airplanes must be > "re-zeroing" rather often. People flying across the country and knowing where they are to the nearest foot are not using inertial nav. One nm error per hour of flight used to be norm. With best units today, maybe ten times better. That is a LONG way from a foot after three or four hours. Even so, even a nm/hr unit is going to cost you far more than $2000 a copy. -- Don Stauffer in Minneapolis stauffer@gte.net http://home1.gte.net/stauffer/ From news Mon Mar 13 11:41:31 2000 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: Thad Beier Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: 13 Mar 2000 09:55:20 -0800 Organization: Hammerhead Productions Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Ed McBride wrote: > I am a consulting engineer in Colorado Springs with a client who wants > to track a few objects using on-board accelerometers and gyroscopes > that communicate with a central processor. The objects are confined to > an area of roughly 25 meters square, and a height of no more than 5 > meters above ground. It is necessary to know the location of each > object within about 0.1 m, over a time period of a half hour or so. > The objects can move at speeds up to 10 m/s, and can experience > accelerations up to 2-3 g (20-30 m/s^2). The objects can also rotate > at angular velocieies up to a few rev/s. (10-15 rad/s). The cost of > the system cannot exceed something like $2,000 per object. Inertial navigation is not the answer to your question. It's too expensive and too imprecise, by a similar couple of orders of magnitude. When some friends of mine were doing the FoxTrak hockey puck tracking system for the NHL, they had remarkably similar requirements to yours. What they used was a system of infrared LEDs on the puck, and a bunch of simple fixed IR cameras around the rink. Cheap computers watched the view through the cameras, and reported back to 2D positions; which were then combined by another computer to get a 3D position. This worked amazingly well, was inexpensive, and robust. My wife never forgave them for adulterating the sacred rubber icon; (they had to cut open pucks to insert the battery and LEDs) but it did the job. From news Mon Mar 13 11:41:31 2000 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: pkearn@eircom.net (Paul Kearney) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: 13 Mar 2000 09:56:46 -0800 Organization: Ireland On-Line Customer Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Ed McBride wrote: ::But I keep hearing that people take off in an airplane, fly across ::country, and know where they are within a foot or so. The only ::explanation I can come up with is that these airplanes must be ::"re-zeroing" rather often. The INS/IRS systems on Boeing Aircraft (assume very similar on others) use the DME(radio ground stations) to confirm and update their position as they travel. Now with GPS - the NAV systems can be updated even when out in the Atlantic/Pacific where DME may not be available. Which i suppose is ''re-zeroing'' itself. The B737 Flight Managment Computer uses DME/DME cross-bearings to confirm its location when it knows that it has 2 DME's to work with. But... your machine wont have this luxury... i take it that youre talking 3-D for your own project and therefore counting stepper-motor pulses on a known diameter wheel to indicate position change from known-origin would be useless ?? good luck with the project anyhow. paul. From news Mon Mar 13 13:31:14 2000 Path: ditka!news.mv.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.nyc.globix.net!newsfeed.sjc.globix.net!cyclone.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: inet@intellisys.net (brian whatcott) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: 13 Mar 2000 10:01:43 -0800 Organization: Teleport Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: In article , emcbride@wybron.com says... >I am a consulting engineer in Colorado Springs with a client who wants >to track a few objects using on-board accelerometers and gyroscopes >that communicate with a central processor. The objects are confined to >an area of roughly 25 meters square, and a height of no more than 5 >meters above ground. It is necessary to know the location of each >object within about 0.1 m, over a time period of a half hour or so. >The objects can move at speeds up to 10 m/s, and can experience >accelerations up to 2-3 g (20-30 m/s^2). The objects can also rotate >at angular velocieies up to a few rev/s. (10-15 rad/s). The cost of >the system cannot exceed something like $2,000 per object. >.... Can anyone please either >explain to me what's going on, or point me to a reference that will >help me figure things out? Let's see if I can explain. A client decided on the basis of some experience he thought was relevant that he would specify a navigation system used in world wide operations in an agile close range scenario. It didn't work, so you were called in to *make* his design decision work. You might point out that INS drifts a mile each hour (or less if you are lucky) unless it gets a mix from TACAN or GPS or whatever. There are other systems more resistant to maneuver- a short range equivalent to LORAN was SHORAN for example. This pinged a tracked object from several points - and the transit time and known transmitter ordinates led to well defined fixes in real time. In your case, the EM pulse transmission speed is so high at close range you have problems measuring very short pulses. So you could reasonably specify *acoustic* pingers on a selective call basis and get a real time triangulation without breaking much of a sweat, I would think. You will *certainly* get a lot of opposition to this proposal. It is after all, cheaper, simpler and ..er.. better. Brian Whatcott Altus OK From news Tue Mar 14 11:29:55 2000 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.he.net!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: gfoley@gcfn.org (Gerard Foley) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Followup-To: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 12 Mar 2000 21:30:11 -0500 Organization: The Greater Columbus Free-Net Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Ed McBride (emcbride@wybron.com) wrote: : I am a consulting engineer in Colorado Springs with a client who wants : to track a few objects using on-board accelerometers and gyroscopes : that communicate with a central processor. The objects are confined to : an area of roughly 25 meters square, and a height of no more than 5 : meters above ground. It is necessary to know the location of each : object within about 0.1 m, over a time period of a half hour or so. Sonic location sounds possible for such a task. Inertial or satellite is certainly not appropriate, since you can provide your own reference points with no difficulty. -- Gerry From news Tue Mar 14 11:29:55 2000 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.he.net!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: Chris Dahler Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 04:51:06 GMT Organization: NASA Dryden Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: > The INS/IRS systems on Boeing Aircraft (assume very similar on others) > use the DME(radio ground stations) to confirm and update their > position as they travel. > > Now with GPS - the NAV systems can be updated even when out in the > Atlantic/Pacific where DME may not be available. Which i suppose is > ''re-zeroing'' itself. Hmmm. Actually, the way navigational systems work in Boeing airplanes is not by updating the IRS's. As far as I know, once the IRS's are aligned on the ground, their position information cannot be updated until the aircraft is stationary again. Navigation is actually taking place via the Flight Management Computer (FMC). The FMC accepts navigational inputs from several sources (GPS, DME/DME, VOR/DME, IRS). The FMC chooses which position to accept based on a hierarchy. If GPS is available, that's primary. Next is DME/DME, then comes VOR/DME, and lastly comes the IRS position. In some types of setups, the FMC can be "told" what the current positional error of the IRS's is (based upon positional information from other sources like GPS), and the FMC can from then on apply a correction based upon that deviation to the lat/long info it receives from the IRS's, but the IRS's themselves cannot be realigned in flight. Now, before some avionics expert from Boeing or Honeywell or someplace flames all over me, let it be said I'm just a pilot and am just taking the information they gave me in class. I don't pretend to know all the inner workings of IRS's, beyond the fact that they are quite good at what they do. Chris From news Tue Mar 14 11:29:55 2000 Path: ditka!daver!news.sgi.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.he.net!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!nadia.dfrc.nasa.gov!not-for-mail From: westin*nospam@graphics.cornell.edu (Stephen H. Westin) Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics,sci.aeronautics.airliners Subject: Re: Inertial Navigation ??? Date: 13 Mar 2000 12:42:27 -0500 Organization: Cornell University Program of Computer Graphics Approved: shafer@sci.aeronautics Message-ID: Ed McBride writes: > I am a consulting engineer in Colorado Springs with a client who wants > to track a few objects using on-board accelerometers and gyroscopes > that communicate with a central processor. The objects are confined to > an area of roughly 25 meters square, and a height of no more than 5 > meters above ground. It is necessary to know the location of each > object within about 0.1 m, over a time period of a half hour or so. > The objects can move at speeds up to 10 m/s, and can experience > accelerations up to 2-3 g (20-30 m/s^2). The objects can also rotate > at angular velocieies up to a few rev/s. (10-15 rad/s). The cost of > the system cannot exceed something like $2,000 per object. Well, your problem sounds like typical motion capture for computer animation. You might want to look at Polhemus's electromagnetic tracking systems. See . Logitech used to market a 3D mouse based on ultrasonic tracking technology, but that seems to have been dropped. As someone else pointed out, optical tracking might wind up as the way to go. The University of North Carolina has a high-precision optical tracker, the HiBall, that might work. See . I understand that inertial navigation might not do your job. Phase-integrating differential GPS would (accuracy ~1 cm), but probably costs too much and is less effective at orientation. Ordinary differential GPS might be cheap enough, but I understand is only accurate to within ~1 m. -- -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 Mar 31 22:25:14 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:14 From: asapuntz@my-deja.com Subject: Star Alliance livery Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.188.33.221 On the afternoon of Sat, Mar 18 I saw two aircraft at Newark airport (EWR) in Star Alliance livery. One, at a gate, was an A340. The other was a twin, possibly a B767, out on the tarmac. Since this paint scheme includes multiple airlines (Lufthansa, Varig, Thai, United, ...), is there any way to know which airline is actually operating the aircraft? -- CU Andrew S. andrewsa@com.mmot.com {anti-spam: inver '.m'} Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:15 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:15 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: Star Alliance livery References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Newark airport (EWR) in Star Alliance livery. One, at >a gate, was an A340. The other was a twin, possibly a >B767, out on the tarmac. > >Since this paint scheme includes multiple airlines >(Lufthansa, Varig, Thai, United, ...), is there any >way to know which airline is actually operating the >aircraft? One reliable way is to look at the flag on the plane, or to infer the nationality from the registraion. The A340 was probably Lufthansa's, and those would wear a German flag and D-xxxx registration, while the 767 was most likely United's which would wear a US flag and Nxxx registration. (N653UA is UA's Star-painted plane, a 767-322(ER).) As I recall, the Star planes are also painted such that the first part of the plane is painted in the owner's colors. Thus, the LH A340 has Lufthansa colors on the nose, the UA 767 has United colors on the nose, etc. Given that they could change their minds, this is probably a good clue, but the flag/registration should be definitive. -- 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 Mar 31 22:25:16 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:16 From: "MJ" Subject: Convair 880/990 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.cyberhighway.net 953851387 21387 209.161.61.137 (23 Mar 2000 22:43:07 GMT) X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Organization: CyberHighway NNTP-Posting-Host: ts8-122.rpt.cyberhighway.net Anybody know of web sites detailing the Convair 880/990. Infoseek didn't have much. General Dynamics doesn't even list them as part of their history! Anybody read the book by Proctor on the series? Is it worthwhile? Thanks, MJ From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:17 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:17 From: Jens =?iso-8859-1?Q?L=FCke?= Subject: Order-LOI-option Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 952460047 22254 134.130.82.50 (7 Mar 2000 20:14:07 GMT) Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH) NNTP-Posting-Host: pluto1.grundbau.rwth-aachen.de Could someone help me out with the exact definition of an "option" or "letter of intent (LOI)" with reference to aircraft sales? As I understand it, if an option is agreed upon, the manufacturer reserves a time slot for production of the aircraft and is compensated for this by a nonrefundable percentage of the total price for the aircraft. Is this correct, and what percentage would that be typically? Also, how often does it occur that options are not converted into orders, and how far in advance of production do airlines ultimately have to declare the option an order? Just curious, Jens From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:18 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,alt.disasters.aviation Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:18 From: "MJ" Subject: Convair 880/990 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.cyberhighway.net 953851387 21387 209.161.61.137 (23 Mar 2000 22:43:07 GMT) Organization: CyberHighway X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 NNTP-Posting-Host: ts8-122.rpt.cyberhighway.net Anybody know of web sites detailing the Convair 880/990. Infoseek didn't have much. General Dynamics doesn't even list them as part of their history! Anybody read the book by Proctor on the series? Is it worthwhile? Thanks, MJ From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:19 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:19 From: JF Mezei Subject: Trans Oceanic Ground Effect ? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: weber.videotron.net 952855487 24.201.146.142 (Sun, 12 Mar 2000 05:04:47 EST) NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.201.146.142 Some of the documentaries on aviation on TV make mention of the very large ground effect floatplane built by the russians, that can carry 1000 troups. They mention that it is a very efficient mode of transport. Are such planes truly much more efficient than regular planes ? Has there ever been any consideration for using such a plane for oceanic transport ? Could the capacity (cargo/pax) of such a plane be very significantly greater than a 747 ? While the plane could only serve cities with a harbour on the ocean, could it not be a cost effective transport that might be able to steal cargo traffic from ships and regular planes ? Or would weather/waves make such a plane unreliable/unusable for such oceanic journeys ? From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:20 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:20 From: emtgx@aol.com (General Tso) Subject: Boarding Sequence Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Is the boarding sequence with which we are accustomed devised to avoid jamming the aisles with people and bags, or does it have something to do with the center of gravity of the aircraft? I have seen photos of planes tipped with their tails on the ground due to improper loading. But they load passengers starting from the back, right? From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:21 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:21 From: Chris Dahler Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /wsFG3i+8s5EW1fuEcOkkZ1jPy9FlF5f8rfE9xhhkOB2M2E0OH8vf4qDHNspj7hiT18k7H82rNU4!mIbigA28tkKqtvQv3h5aD087oo7sAhyCANxvpyfryl+iiXLFmh75Bv5KlDZRcA== > up. In order to inject some hard facts into the debate (!), can somebody > tell me the fuel consumption of a 747 on the Chicago-Narita run? Just fuel > burn per hour would be great, but actual fuel consumption block to block > would be even better! ORD-NRT on a 747-400 will burn around 280-300k pounds of fuel block to block. Using a fuel density of 6.7 pounds/gallon, that's 41,800 to 44,800 gallons. Chris From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:22 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:22 From: "John R. Weiss" Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption 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 I fly the 747-400F with GE engines. Fuel burn varies considerably with gross weight, but following figures are close for a long range, heavyweight flight: Initial burn is 3.2 Tonnes/hour/engine (13 Tonnes/hour) Final burn is 2.5 Tonnes/hour/engine (10 Tonnes/hour) Add about 10 Tonnes for takeoff and climb. ----------------- John Weiss Seattle, WA remove *nospam* from e-mail address for reply From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:23 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:23 From: Graeme Cant Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: 7 Mar 2000 11:38:24 GMT, 202.135.239.190 Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Reply-To: graemec@attglobal.net NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.135.239.190 Karl Swartz wrote: > Hopefully someone will give you better numbers, but a few years ago I > flew LAX-LHR aboard a 747-238B. The pilots posted the following info: > > 762,710 lbs takeoff weight > 257,400 lbs of fuel (48,418 US gallons) > > Block time was about 9.5 hours, so if we landed with about 10% reserves > (probably high) then we burned about 24,385 lbs or 4,587 gallons of fuel > per hour. ORD-NRT would be a 747-400, which is significantly more fuel- > efficient, so treat that as an upper bound. LAX-SYD in a 747-400 with about 390 passengers uses around 155 - 160,000kg of fuel and takes about 13 - 14hrs depending on the winds on the day. Any flight over about 8 hrs has an average fuel flow in the vicinity of 10 - 10500kg per hour, carries about 400 passengers and covers an averages about 480 knots ground speed. I make that around 29grams of fuel per passenger km. A compact car such as a Ford Taurus consumes around 12 litres/100km carrying 4 passengers (leaving aside the philosophical question of whether the driver is crew or passenger and whether we're talking city cycle or highway - YMMV). At an SG of around .72, this is around 22grams per passenger km. But of course it's hard to cross the Pacific in a Taurus, it takes up more of your life and while a lot of people like flying 747s, it's not clear whether people get any real pleasure driving a Taurus. Of course that's a non-stop flight where every extra ton on board needs about half a ton of fuel to carry it the distance. Shorter range flights are more fuel-efficient but passengers don't like travelling on them. Graeme Cant From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:24 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:24 From: "Matt777" Subject: Re: 747 fuel consumption References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 953544289 38.28.97.93 (Mon, 20 Mar 2000 01:24:49 PST) Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Reply-To: "Matt777" NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.28.97.93 According to my In The Cockpit Video of a Cargolux 747-400F they are burning 21,000lbs per hour at one point. Of course it all varies with the weight... fuel burned etc... -- Matt Seattle, Washington. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:25 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:25 From: "LETrider" Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: tw12.nn.bcandid.com 950396447 12.128.176.164 (Sat, 12 Feb 2000 16:00:47 MST) Organization: DBP X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.128.176.164 Barry Kabello wrote in message ... |I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side |down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move |independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot |has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split |rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to |Boeing? No airplane have a independent control column moving different control surfaces on any airplane. both cockpit controls actuate the same surfaces. I'm almost sure the aircraft you've seen are DC-9's and MD-XX series. in these aircraft the pilot controls are not directly linked to the elevators, instead the pitch control (up and down movement) is achieved due to control tabs located in the elevators which actually "fly" the elevator surfaces. You should have seen the weird elevator positions when the airplane is on the ground and a tailwind is blowing on the airplane. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:26 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:26 From: "I. M. Spartacus" Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 Reply-To: i_m_spartacus@hotmail.com On 10 Feb 2000 05:03:18 , "jtarver" wrote: >Barry Kabello wrote in message ... >> I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side >> down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move >> independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot >> has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split >> rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to >> Boeing? > >The split elevator design on the Boeing 767 airplane is a means of >compliance with a CFR 14 Part 25 requirement. Some sort of redundancy >is the rule for aircraft controls and instrumentation. 14 CFR 25.671? However, He is likely talking about a DC-9 series aircraft, which is not the same thing as having tandem, but disconnectable, controls. >With the elevators split due to a rigging jam one of the elevators would >be expected to remain neutral and the other would provide sufficient >elevator control for level flight. What if the one that jammed was not at neutral? From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:27 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:27 From: gbeaman@sympatico.ca (Gord Beaman) Subject: Re: Split Elevator? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: sapphire.mtt.net 954043161 142.176.114.17 (Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:59:21 AST) Organization: Business Internet X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Reply-To: gbeaman@bigfoot.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 142.176.114.17 "Barry Kabello" wrote: >I've seen several airliners taxiing around with the elevator on one side >down and the other up, or neutral, etc...in other words, they seem to move >independent of each other. I was baffled to recently hear that each pilot >has independant linkage to their own elevator. If this is true, do split >rudders work the same way? Anything other split controls? Exclusive to >Boeing? Barry this will happen occasionally when an a/c fitted with servo tabs is not in flight. the control surfaces on these a/c is operated by a small servotab operated by the cockpit controls. This servotab is located on the trailing edge of the flight control and uses the slipstream to operate the control surface. In other words, the pilots do not control the surfaces directly, they merely operate the servotabs which in turn use the slipstream to move the control surfaces themselves. -- Gord Beaman PEI, Canada From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:28 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:28 From: "J P McLaughlin" Subject: Re: Peculiar marking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 > All TWA aircraft I've seen recently have a matt black paint stripe > about one third span about 3 ft wide running chordwise on the top of > each wing. Why ? Ice detection ? > It just seems a little bit retro' sitting on a 767 ? Yes, it's one of the FAA approved methods of ice detection. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:29 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:29 From: "Kenneth Madden" Subject: Re: Peculiar marking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 952622196 38.29.92.42 (Thu, 09 Mar 2000 09:16:36 PST) Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Reply-To: "Kenneth Madden" NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.29.92.42 > All TWA aircraft I've seen recently have a matt black paint stripe > about one third span about 3 ft wide running chordwise on the top of > each wing. Why ? Ice detection ? > It just seems a little bit retro' sitting on a 767 ? Yes. This is for clear ice detection. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:30 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:30 From: Arthur Casement Subject: Re: Peculiar marking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada NNTP-Posting-Host: lager.engsoc.carleton.ca elysium wrote: > All TWA aircraft I've seen recently have a matt black paint stripe > about one third span about 3 ft wide running chordwise on the top of > each wing. Why ? Ice detection ? > It just seems a little bit retro' sitting on a 767 ? I know Canadian Airlines had these black stripes on their DC-10 wings so the pilots could tell if the slats were deployed. Could be the case here. -- Arthur Casement Aerospace Engineering Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:31 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:31 From: "J. Hillman" Subject: Re: Peculiar marking References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 954463557 12.72.57.219 (Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:45:57 GMT) Organization: AT&T Worldnet X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.72.57.219 Could it be a marked "walkway"? From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:32 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:32 From: sharat@playful.com Subject: TakeOff Thrust Setting on the B-747 Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Here's a couple of questions I'd like to submit to the readers of sci.aeronautics.airliners: Consider a Boeing 747-400 at MTOW just about to start the T/O roll with Flaps 20 degrees. Q1) What fraction of the Maximum Engine Thrust is the TakeOff Thrust at the start of the roll. Is this thrust setting held fixed through V1 and VR? Now, at rotation and possibly the earliest stages of climbout (prior to rolling in the flaps), the angle of attack (angle of incidence in the U.K) is +ve, therby increasing the lift, but also increasing the drag. Q2) If the engine thrust remains the same during rotation and initial climbout, wouldnt the increased drag result in a decrease in airspeed? Q3) If the supposition in Q2 above is correct, does the autothrottle (if at all engaged during T/O) adjust the engine thrust to maintain the speed/accelerate the aircraft to V2 (safe climb-out speed)? Finally, Q4) If the engine thrust actually increases during rotation and climbout to overcome the increased drag, doesnt it follow that the Engine Thrust at the commencement of the Ground Roll cannot possibly be the maximum engine thrust? -Sharat Chandrasekhar Airliner Enthusiast --------------------------------------------------- Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:33 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,sci.aeronautics.simulation Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:33 From: kconlin@es.com Subject: 777 Ground Maneuvering Camera System (GMCS) Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.187.12.92 Does anyone have any info on the GMCS? Color or monochrome display, display technology (CRT or LCD), approximate resolution and update rate, camera location and spectral sensitivity (visible light/IR)? I'm curious to know what it would take to simulate this system. Thanks! -- Kevin Conlin Salt Lake City "We're Canadians. We HAVE to be polite" Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:34 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:34 From: James Robinson Subject: Aircraft Life Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: tw11.nn.bcandid.com 951244671 208.170.242.145 (Tue, 22 Feb 2000 11:37:51 MST) Organization: Disorganized NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.170.242.145 When discussing old aircraft, such as 747s or DC-9s built in the '60s or early '70s, I've heard a number of people say that there are practically no original components on them. They suggest that practically everything would have been changed during maintenance over the years, from structural components to machinery and avionics. While I can understand the need for overhauls of worn mechanical components, and requalifying avionics, I know less about the need to replace structural pieces and fuselage parts. I don't see as great a need there. I am curious if this is just urban legend, or if this suggestion is truly the case. Can anyone provide some insight? From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:35 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:35 From: Stuart Feigin Subject: What did I see this time at LAS? Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: inet16.us.oracle.com 951384044 23550 139.185.10.100 (24 Feb 2000 09:20:44 GMT) Organization: Oracle Corporation. Redwood Shores, CA Reply-To: sfeigin@us.oracle.spambegone.com NNTP-Posting-Host: polaris.us.oracle.com This newsgroup was so helpful the last time I saw an unusual airliner, I thought I'd try again. Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2000 at 5:15PM I saw what appeared to be an IL-62 at Las Vegas airport, but I'm not sure. Is there anything else with a similar configuration? It looked like a stretched DC-9 with four engines in the rear. It was painted grey, with no markings I could make out. It was a few hundred yards away. I also couldn't read a reg number. When it departed, the noise shook the terminal building. Other aircraft can't even be heard over the normal sounds in the terminal, but this one dronwed out conversations. It also left a trail of black smoke. Anyone know who or what I saw? Isn't that kind of noisy jet illegal these days? Please respond via e-mail (after you remove 'spambegone from my address.) I have trouble receiving this news group. -- Stuart Feigin This message has nothing to do with Oracle Corporation. I do not represent them in any way. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:36 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:36 From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) Subject: Re: What did I see this time at LAS? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Chicago Software Works, Menlo Park, California >Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2000 at 5:15PM I saw what >appeared to be an IL-62 at Las Vegas airport, but >I'm not sure. Is there anything else with a >similar configuration? It looked like a stretched >DC-9 with four engines in the rear. It was >painted grey, with no markings I could make out. The British VC-10 is virtually identical, and the Lockheed Jetstar is a biz-jet with the same engine config though of course much smaller. All of the Il-62 I've seen in the US have been white with blue stripes -- the standard Aeroflot scheme -- but I've seen RAF VC-10s which are grey with minimal markings at Albuquerque, so I'd guess you saw a VC-10. >Isn't that kind of noisy jet illegal these days? Not if you're the guys with the guns and the bombs! :-) Stage III rules only apply to civilian aircraft. -- Karl Swartz |Home kls@chicago.com http://www.chicago.com/~kls/ |Work kls@netapp.com http://www.netapp.com/ "The average dog is a nicer person than the average person." - Andrew A. Rooney From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:37 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:37 From: Malcolm Weir Subject: Re: Antonov AN-124 and An-225 questions References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: Little to None X-Newsreader: Forte Agent a1.7/32.534 NNTP-Posting-Host: !`'m`1k-Xt^/@'=&8$$"BGkpb (Encoded at Airnews!) On 10 Feb 2000 05:03:44 , "Fred van Steenderen" caused to appear as if it was written: >AN124-100 >However, for real big outsized stuff it is the only Commercial Aircraft >about and it is a good alternative in peak seasons when there are no B747 >Freighters available. > >Cannot really compare to the C5 as they don't fly commercially. Anyone know how this compares with the A300-600ST "Beluga"? As I recall, Airbus has built more than they strictly need for their own operations, so that they can use their fleet for commercial loads from time to time. Certainly, the A300 doesn't have a huge MGTOW, but the ST sure is big! Malc. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:38 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:38 From: cask829@aol.comnojunk (CASK829) Subject: Re: Fuselage flex? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com >Been riding some of United's 727s lately and couldn't help but notice >that on every one the emergency floor lighting strip separated from >the floor a good inch or so in height just behind row 14 (just in >front of the first window exit) at altitude. I watched the last one >throughout the flight and it gradually returned to floor level upon >initial descent. No separation while on the ground. Question - what >causes this? My best guess would be that the airplane become very cold at altitude. The metal contracts and the airplane shrinks a little. Just a guess on my part though. Do I win the million Dollars? From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:39 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:39 From: Hugh Dickson Subject: Re: Fuselage flex? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: /Kp2luuwIB2rPeuIMiHMNb0blSzcBUUwYF3kvoFzbqRSbCskcdgYD6NE4rEiXo/xA9oKWuwlt3ji!P1/wN4xc2sJGyC1Gw6iGWmasX8Eq2C3JgCzjQakoECA+8OeQU6qk3AOyyA++ John S. Maddaus wrote: > Been riding some of United's 727s lately and couldn't help but notice > that on every one the emergency floor lighting strip separated from > the floor a good inch or so in height just behind row 14 (just in > front of the first window exit) at altitude. I watched the last one > throughout the flight and it gradually returned to floor level upon > initial descent. No separation while on the ground. Question - what > causes this? Aloha, Typically, trapped air. In this case it might be rubber "moisture barrier" material trapping the air. Take a look at the wallpaper some time. DC-10s were the worst for forming "bubbles" in flight but would look OK upon landing. Hugh, former UAL "paper hanger" From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:40 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:40 From: midibu@mindspring.com (Mike Weller) Subject: Re: Fuselage flex? References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Organization: MindSpring Enterprises X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 NNTP-Posting-Host: c7.ae.84.e1 On 10 Feb 2000 05:03:45 , jmaddaus@NO_SPAM.usa.net (John S. Maddaus) wrote: >Been riding some of United's 727s lately and couldn't help but notice >that on every one the emergency floor lighting strip separated from >the floor a good inch or so in height just behind row 14 (just in >front of the first window exit) at altitude. I watched the last one >throughout the flight and it gradually returned to floor level upon >initial descent. No separation while on the ground. Question - what >causes this? Interesting, but I have no idea. >Also on a recent trip to Pima, I was told that the design of the >Connie's fuselage was intended to provide additional lift. Can anyone >confirm this? Very little, but the Shorts Brothers 340 gets an appreciable amount of lift (~20 percent) from the fuselage. I find this ironic, since the Connie was one of the most beautiful aiplanes ever built. Only a mother could love the Skyvan. Mike Weller midibu@mindspring.com From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:41 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:41 From: Ron Parsons 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: /w/U290ScLRZOHOp3YSIjwAv2e3IPbivMR+VlZt9NgMeS+OHB4dwhEq3wdzYUDNy1ArJk8KrkGih!U9Vo7sFYiyngJeXfUnnKhIFKG3MHqrZKcFTFs7uqSr1HL6DRJsrczN9da9azP5ValUfsFAAB2gP4 In article , Richard Cochran wrote: >As the probability of loss-of-thrust gets smaller and smaller, those >squares and cubes get very very tiny, and it's hard to keep the >uncontained failure probability low enough to pay off. For any given >set of failure probabilities, there is an optimum number of engines, >and adding more engines hurts safety. In light planes, people have gone on and on for years trying to explain why the fatal accidents from twins are higher than those for singles. I suspect they don't wish to look at your math. -- Ron From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:42 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:42 From: Ricardo Canas 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: tilde.csc.ti.com 950548318 7814 172.24.171.45 (14 Feb 2000 17:11:58 GMT) Organization: Private NNTP-Posting-Host: mspc0830.sc.ti.com How can you add the desing to this equation ? If the design was such that all redundant controls were in similar routes, thus negating the basic safety of redundancy itself ? I think I do understand your statistical analysis, but there are more variables involved. 'Poor' design being one. From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:43 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:43 From: electra@toadmail.frog.net (Trevor Fenn) Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.abs.net 950548791 209.150.114.85 (Mon, 14 Feb 2000 12:19:51 EST) Organization: Nil NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.150.114.85 none@of.your.damn.biz (Brute!) wrote in : >On 18 Jan 2000 05:24:26 , "Brian Maddison" >wrote: >>Karl Swartz wrote in message ... >>>Everything I've read says it was British Airways who pushed the >>>757-200 to be as big as it is, and that Eastern actually wanted >>>something a bit smaller, though perhaps not as small as the original >>>design. >> >>And to illustrate that things come full circle, BA now says the 757 is >>too big for its needs and will be replaced by A320 and derivatives. > >Guess BA won't be buying the 757-300. Gawd that thing is UUUUUUGLY. It >looks like a pencil on wings. That's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, ugly is the lastest BA livery in it's various forms. Yech! Trevor Fenn From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:44 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:44 From: "John M. Hunt" Subject: Re: Good 'ole 727 References: Message-ID: Approved: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM Sender: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM X-Trace: news.ipa.net 950739743 27527 206.153.204.166 (16 Feb 2000 22:22:23 GMT) Organization: Internet Partners of America X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-166.roge.ipa.net bizfixer@aol.comspamo (Bizfixer) wrote: >rwi@whidbey.com commented on unsuitability of a 2-engine version. I add >thte following bit of history. >--- > >Saw your interesting letter to one of the airliner newsgroups dtd. 08 Jan. > >You apparently bailed out in 1980 when there was no suitable engine for >a 727 'bijet'. The engine choices at the time, as studied by Lockheed >& Boeing were 747 class "heavies" and required complex pylons and >fuselage extension. Perhaps that's why wing wake problems. (It >obviously didn't affect engines #1 & #3 in -100 or -200 configs.) > >In 1986, we (Volpar Aircraft) had both companies' data and were looking >at the high bypass CFM56-5, which was an easy fit, plenty of power, and >required no fuselage extensions. Engineering analyses showed no wake >problems, but we ran out of $$ before wind-tunnel testing. The Chinese >loved the idea (a co-production deal), but insisted that we imprison >their personnel after hours. > >Boeing didn't want to cooperate (in spite of potential spares business) >and top execs simply said, "We build new planes, not improve old ones." >Lockheed was buried in other projects and simply not interested, perhaps >based on their prior studies. I think it would have worked. There was a post in one of the groups about six months ago regarding an extensive study (possibly by NASA) regarding the possibility of fitting modern engines (presumably the CFM56 or IAE V2500) on Boeing 727s in positions 1 and 3. Apparently there was very serious concern about compressor stalling on the modern engines as a result of picturesque changes in intake air flow direction arising from wing wake in all of the various configurations. It seems likely that the ancient engines of the 727 were considerably less vulnerable to intake airflow compressor stalls than their modern considerably more exotic counterparts. If memory serves me correctly, the only really high bypass ratio rear mounted engines now flying are the IAE V2500s on some (all?) of the MD90s. Since the wing of the 727 is considerably more sophisticated than that of the DC9 family, and can operate at unusually high lift coefficients, it is probable that the wing wake intake airflow problem is inherently more severe on the Boeing 727 than on the DC9/MD80 families. John M. Hunt johnmhunt@ipa.net From kls Fri Mar 31 22:25:45 1900 Path: bounce-back Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners Date: 31 Mar 2000 22:25:45 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 >If memory serves me correctly, >the only really high bypass ratio rear mounted engines now flying are >the IAE V2500s on some (all?) of the MD90s. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I suspect the BR700-series, used on the 717 (ex-MD-95) and some biz-jets with similar engine configs, is also a fairly hihg bypass-ratio design. The L-1011, DC-10, and MD-11 also have high bypass-ratio rear mounted engines (well, engine, singular), but you clearly were thinking of those mounted on the sides of the fuselage rather than on the centerline. -- 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