Date: 28 Sep 97 20:59:09 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terrell D. Drinkard) References: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
Hi Karl, Here is another one. In article <airliners.1997.2193@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Burkhard & Birgit Domke <email@example.com> wrote: > >Another reference stated that further extending the upper deck >(-500/-600) would aggravate the problem of (instable, asymmetric) >vortices being shed by the hump at low speed/high alpha, deteriorating >airflow around the tail. Anyone to confirm/deny/comment that? Not as far as I can recall. We didn't want to extend the upper deck too far for a couple of reasons. One, we'd lose the drag benefit if the hump were pushed any farther aft. Two, the passenger to lower deck volume ratio would have gotten screwed up and we'd have lost a lot of revenue cargo capacity. -- Terry firstname.lastname@example.org "Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has more lawyers than sense."