From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) Organization: Boeing Date: 29 Dec 92 22:53:49 PST References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1992.163@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: >In article <airliners.1992.144@ohare.Chicago.COM> email@example.com writes: >>I would suggest not: the former is more of a derivative, the latter more of >>a new type, with its new wing (which was designed to support the all-upper- >>deck concept, plus maybe one more derivative after that) ... Both airplanes are derivatives, actually. The MD-11 was certified under the DC-10's certification basis. >My understanding was that the 747-400 does *not* have a new wing but >rather a tweaked version of the original. I recall some statement >from Boeing regarding the lack of winglets on the 777, which noted >that the 777 had a new wing and starting from a clean slate it was >more efficient to not have them, whereas working from an existing >design as with the 747-400 it was helpful to have them. I can't speak to exactly how much of the 747-400's wing design could be considered 'new', but I do know that it was modified extensively to change the pressure distribution across the wing - particularly the inboard wing where we were seeing double shocks on the older models. >What I've seen suggests the F.100 is quite advanced, probably not far >behind the A320 and perhaps closer to the Airbus philosophy than to >Boeing's. The Fokker 100's flight deck is much more Boeing-esk than Airbus-ish. There are control columns, and the FMS is very similar to the Boeing models. The F 100 does have envelope protection, as do the Airbus airplanes, but I don't think you would find it much different from what is already flying. It is a very advanced flight deck, very clean. >> INS/PMS, conventional otherwise > >Ok, I'll risk it ... what's PMS? (We're talking about airplanes!) Could it be the Performance Management System, a la Douglas MD-80? :-) >I've always wondered just what the flight engineer really does on a >767 equipped for three flight crew. I believe QANTAS does this. >Also, some A310s lack the FFCS (Forward Facing Crew Cockpit) having >instead what I assume is a cockpit more like an older A300. All of >these are due primarily to union/labor pressures. You are quite right, three-crew cockpits are union requirements on some airlines. The flight engineer on a 767 would do the same job done on other three-crew airplanes - deal with onboard systems. All those nifty controller boxes are left behind in Seattle. :-) -- Terry firstname.lastname@example.org "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."