HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Aha!  The three-man 767 rears its ugly head...
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 07:27:49 GMT
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
X-Submission-Message-Id: <CKD.93Jan6022747@loiosh.eff.org>
Date: 06 Jan 93 01:06:31 PST

KS> == Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM>

 KS> They agreed that none of the United 767s have a three-person flight
 KS> deck, including the second 767 built (N601UA; the first is still with
 KS> Boeing) which one of the guys had been on recently.

The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing
Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time).
Unfortunately I don't have anywhere near enough influence to get a look at
the cockpit layout...

Just for kicks, I looked it up in JP; here's the pertinent info.

N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code), msn
22233, line number 1 (duh), built in '81, delivered 0981, uses a pair of PW
JT9D-74RDs, configuration is listed as "prototype", and remarks are "Boeing
Co./ US Army AOA program".

The AOA (Airborne Optical Adjunct) program modifications include a "growth"
along the top of the fuselage, with some sort of hatchway about where first
class would have been.  I'm not really familiar with the program and don't
have a good back index of AvLeaks to look it up in...

(Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby;
the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon [see
AWST 4 Jan 1993 pp 22-23]; UPS has launched the 767 cargo variant.)

--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:37:16 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
X-Submission-Date: 6 Jan 1993 13:27:11 GMT
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1iemnfINNdg4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>

driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes:

>This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky".  It started by saying
>that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans
>went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the
>747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake.

Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the
US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had
the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned
up the world marker...alas it was vice versa.
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: dseelema@zeus.UWaterloo.ca (Alek Seelemann)
Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:57:06 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Submission-Message-ID: <C0Htr7.669@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:52 PST

In sci.aeronautics.airliners article  
<airliners.1993.18@ohare.Chicago.COM> you wrote:
> Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet  
Race, it's the
> US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would  
have had
> the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would  
have cleaned
> up the world marker...alas it was vice versa.

DeHavilland was aware of metal fatigue. Why the heck they designed  
square windows (sharp corners == stress concentration == engineering  
no-no #1) is a mystery. Boeing cleaned up because the 707 was so  
over-designed it could (and did, once) perform barrel rolls. Very  
confidence inspiring!

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: dseelema@zeus.UWaterloo.ca (Alek Seelemann)
Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:57:06 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Submission-Message-ID: <C0Htr7.669@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:49 PST

In sci.aeronautics.airliners article  
<airliners.1993.18@ohare.Chicago.COM> you wrote:
> Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet  
Race, it's the
> US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would  
have had
> the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would  
have cleaned
> up the world marker...alas it was vice versa.

DeHavilland was aware of metal fatigue. Why the heck they designed  
square windows (sharp corners == stress concentration == engineering  
no-no #1) is a mystery. Boeing cleaned up because the 707 was so  
over-designed it could (and did, once) perform barrel rolls. Very  
confidence inspiring!
From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners
Date: 6 Jan 93 23:01:21 GMT
Organization: Chicago Software Works
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:59:34 GMT
X-Submission-Message-ID: <1993Jan6.225934.12649@ohare.Chicago.COM>

In article <airliners.1993.18@ohare.Chicago.COM> gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes:

>>This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky".  It started by saying
>>that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans
>>went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the
>>747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake.

>Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the
>US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had
>the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned
>up the world marker...alas it was vice versa.

At the time I believe SST was a generic term for a super-sonic
transport.  Obviously the episode is referring to Concorde.

As for the rest, I suspect most would agree that the 707 marked the
real beginning of the jet transport's "infancy;" de Havilland's Comet
was most assuredly a significant contributor but even before the metal
fatigue problems came up was really more an "embryonic" stage, if you
want to stick with the wording.  Range and capacity limits kept it
from really igniting the jet transport market.

It's interesting to speculate what would have happened had Boeing gone
first.  Given the round windows of the Stratoliner Boeing might never
have run into the fatigue problem.  If they had, I suspect Douglas
would have been in a far better position than de Havilland to jump in
and clean up, assuming they hadn't jumped *too* quickly.  Perhaps
Lockheed as well, had they not spent their momentum from the Connie on
a turboprop.

-- 
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com		
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Re: Everything you wanted to know about tires, and were afraid to ask...
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:19:17 GMT
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan6.221917.15933@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 06 Jan 93 23:56:42 PST

In article <airliners.1993.9@ohare.Chicago.COM>, rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
|> The following is from _Landing Gear Design Handbook_, by Norman S.
|> Currey, January 1982 ...
|> ... For further reading on
|> this subject, reference should be made to "Prerotation of Landing
|> Gear Wheels," by H.F. Schippel, SAE Journal, Volume 52, No. 10,
|> October 1944 ...
|> ... From SAE Journal, December 1963 ...
Typical usenet discussion, eh?  We go on for days while the
answers were provided 10, 30, and 50 years ago.  <:^)

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org)

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: The Len Morgan Collection
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:52:37 CST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212310252.AA01630@rascal.ics.utexas.edu>
Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:05 PST

I ran across an advert in the latest _Airliners_.  Seems that Len Morgan's
daughter is selling a whole bunch of aviation-related memorabilia.  I sent
off my SASE, and received the list today: well over 1000 book (non-fiction
and fiction), all aviation-related, many out of print.  Reasonable pricing on 
most.  P&H is $2.50 for the first book, $1.50 for each additional book.

She's also selling artifacts, such as Concorde travel kits, fighter sticks, 
and artwork: a bit more pricy.  No "interesting" items, such as operations 
manuals, alas.

To get a list, send a "long" SASE to:
	Kathy Morgan Criddle
	The Write Stuff
	2729 Northridge East
	Clearwater, FL  34621
Their fax number is 813-789-6746.

Stick $0.75 in postage on it: the lists are quite long (9 pages).

For those who are unaware, Len Morgan writes a column in FLYING.  He's also
written a variety of books.  He retired from Braniff as a 747 captain 
sometime in the late 70's or early 80's.  He's one of the last of the real 
old-timers. 


Caveat: nuttin' to do with them.  It's an impressive collection, though, 
a detailed literature history of aviation, starting with works from the 
1930's.





--
Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!rascal.ics.utexas.edu!rdd


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners
Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:57 PST

mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy) writes:
>I think Canada was the first to develop a commercial jet airliner...
>
>However, it was the project was killed off by the government...

You're undoubtedly thinking of the A.V. Roe Canada Ltd (Avro) C102
Jetliner.  It missed the honors of first jetliner by less than a
month -- de Havilland's Comet first flew on July 27, 1949, while
the Jetliner's maiden flight was August 10, 1949.

The aircraft was designed for short- to medium-range routes, maybe
a 0th generation DC-9 or 737, though I don't have any more detailed
performance numbers.  In any case, the Canadian government ordered
Avro to cease work on the aircraft during the early fifties to
concentrate on the CF-105 Arrow fighter for the Korean War, much to
the chagrin of Howard Hughes, who wanted to buy Jetlines for TWA.

There's an article on Hughes and the Jetliner in the Fall 1990 issue
of Airliners, though it's more anecdotes about Hughes than about the
aircraft.

--
Karl Swartz	|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com		
1-415/854-3409	|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
		|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
 Send sci.aeronautics.airliners submissions to airliners@chicago.com
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Aha!  The three-man 767 rears its ugly head...
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 02:33:12 GMT
	<airliners.1993.12@ohare.Chicago.COM>
	<airliners.1993.13@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
X-Submission-Message-Id: <CKD.93Jan6213310@loiosh.eff.org>
Date: 06 Jan 93 23:56:44 PST

KS> == Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM>

 ckd> The aforementioned first 767 was last seen (by me anyway :) at Boeing
 ckd> Field, looking kinda lonely (it's been sitting there a fairly long time).

 KS> I'm surprised it's been that long -- I thought it had been involved
 KS> with the AOA development fairly recently.

Well, it's been there the last few times I've been up to BFI, going back to
at least December 1990 (I remember because I was looking at it and fell on
my rear end due to an icy parking lot at the Museum of Flight :).

Of course, I just could have been there on the days it wasn't flying, but
it never seemed to have moved at all.

 ckd> N767BA, Boeing 767-200 (that's right, 00, a reserved customer code) ...

 KS> I thought that code interesting as well.  The info I have says that 20
 KS> is supposed to be the code for Boeing itself, including prototypes.

They've probably changed that since the 707 days, rightly (IMHO) deciding
that it made more sense for the prototype to be the 7x7-x00.

 ckd> Other notes on the 757/767: the 757 prototype, N757A, was sitting nearby

 KS> It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire,
 KS> er, fly-by-light system quite soon now.  Were there any signs of
 KS> activity?

Nothing at the time, but the fact that it was there when it hadn't been
before was a sign in and of itself.

 ckd> the AWACS version of the 767 is looking to be launched by Japan soon

 KS> I wonder if 767 #1 will be any sort of prototype for this program?

AvLeak didn't say, but it didn't sound like there were any plans to
prototype it; the first two airframes would presumably be used as
"deliverable prototypes" much as the 747-400 test planes were.  The planes
will be pretty much stock, sent to Wichita for strengthening of the rear
fuselage and other modifications, then returned to Seattle for the
electronics.  Of course, this all assumes that the procurement passes the
Japanese Diet.

(I don't remember which of the N books about Boeing I read this in, but
during testing of the 767's wing strength, they never found out how strong
it really was; at 117% (or so, don't remember the exact number) of rated
strength, the fuselage gave way.  I'll try to find where I read it.)
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<ckd@eff.org>   EFF #14   |   for the TV generation, Klingon) high command.
System Administrator, EFF |   Whoever takes action and can be heard wins.''
+1 617 864 0665  [CKD1]   |   --Peter da Silva <peter@ferranti.com>

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll)
Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 02:07:37 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan8.020737.21004@src.honeywell.com>
Date: 08 Jan 93 01:30:30 PST

In article <airliners.1993.2@ohare.Chicago.COM> rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
>
>"The reason for the warning, said McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company,
> ...
>"These devices, says the company, 'include, but are not limited to,'
>citizen-band radios, cellular telephones, transmitters that remotely
>control devices such as toys, and portable compact disc players.
> ...
>"Examples of these nontransmitting devices are audio and video
>recorders and playback devices, electronic games, computers and
>peripheral devices, calculators, FM receivers, televisions, and
>electric shavers.

It is very strange that CD players are considered transmitters whereas 
devices with local IF stages are not.  Do you suppose in their hunt for
a scapegoat that all they could find was a CD player?  Also, I bet
there are some electric shavers that generate much more EMI than any of
the other above mention devices.

Current opinions vary about how much EMI an avionics system is protected
against, but 200 v/m is a typical number.  One would not expect the
above devices to produce such levels.  RF getting into the radio nav aids
is another matter, but that wouldn't cause a transient change in aircraft
attitude anyway.  Unless there is more to this story, this looks like a
case of the ignorant pulling a demon out of their hat.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re: McDonnel Douglas warns against carry-on electronic devices
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:09:58 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
X-Submission-Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:40:30 GMT
X-Submission-Message-Id: <3ova28u@Unify.Com>

In article <airliners.1993.36@ohare.Chicago.COM>, barr@ash.mmm.ucar.EDU (Keith Barr) writes:
> In article <airliners.1993.34@ohare.Chicago.COM> Kevin Driscoll writes:
> 
> Wouldn't there be a change in attitude if the autopilot was engaged,
> which it obviously was, and if the navigation equipment was disturbed by RF?
> For example, if you are flying a heading of 090 to hold the 270 degree
> radial to the station, and someone in back turns on their super-powered
> Sony Nav-Mess 1000 CD player, the nav equipment, may sense that the
> aircraft is now on the 280 degree radial, and the autopilot would command
> a turn to the right to correct the situation.

	This is almost exactly the circumstance that I'd expect
	to cause an unexpected bank.  The only difference is that
	I'd suspect a high probability that the erroneous radial
	indication would be a fair bit more than 10 degrees off.

	Does anyone have research results near their fingertips
	for tests of various electronic devices in airliner cabins?


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com
From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re: The Len Morgan Collection
Date: 6 Jan 93 22:37:18 GMT
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:04:05 GMT
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan6.220405.15377@linus.mitre.org>

In article <airliners.1993.1@ohare.Chicago.COM>, rdd@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Robert Dorsett) writes:
|> I ran across an advert in the latest _Airliners_.  Seems that Len Morgan's
|> daughter is selling a whole bunch of aviation-related memorabilia.
|> ...
|> For those who are unaware, Len Morgan writes a column in FLYING.  He's also
|> written a variety of books.
Pick up the, I believe, October edition of Flying, and read Morgan's
column.  He talks about how he and his family started their little
writing/publishing/collecting/etc. business, with him writing the
first book, a reference on the P-51.  He then branched out to other
WW2 fighters, then other military planes, then finally to alot of
different types of planes.  Interesting article, as his articles
always are.

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org)
From: morse@mprgate.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power?
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:09:55 GMT
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada.
X-Submission-Date: 11 Jan 93 13:50:54
X-Submission-Message-Id: <MORSE.93Jan11135054@quark.mpr.ca>


I have been told (by someone who had a lengthy career maintaining
large military transport aircraft) that the DC-9 family of airliners
exhibit a nose-down attitude under power. This supposed behaviour is
attributed to the angle at which the engines are (or appear to be)
canted.
  At the outset, I have to admit that I find it somewhat improbable
that an aircraft would have that characteristic built in, at least if
it is pronounced. The inlets do appear to be somewhat higher than the
outlets, but at the same time, the outlets appear to be aimed parallel
to the fuselage.  Is that just an appearance or is it a result of the
nacelle or the engine actually being canted upward at the inlet? Was
that done to place the inlets in less turbulent airflow? Does all of
this result in a tendency to nose-down under power?
  If so:
	Is it a pronounced behaviour?
	Have any "mishaps" ever been attributed to this behaviour?
	Why was the aircraft designed in that manner?
  If not, then disregard above questions.

Thanks.



--
Daryl Morse                     | Voice  : (604) 293-5476
MPR Teltech Ltd. 		| Fax    : (604) 293-5787
8999 Nelson Way, Burnaby, BC    | E-Mail : morse@mpr.ca
Canada, V5A 4B5                 |        : mprgate.mpr.ca!morse@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll)
Subject: Re: Aha!  The three-man 767 rears its ugly head...
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:05:04 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan8.000504.13073@src.honeywell.com>
Date: 07 Jan 93 22:03:38 PST

In article <airliners.1993.13@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>
>It's supposed to become the flying testbed for the 777's fly-by-wire,
>er, fly-by-light system quite soon now.

Unless something has change very recently, it is fly-by-wire.  The only
fiber optics (FO) on the 777 is the non-essential ARINC 636 OLAN (FDDI).
The proposal for an FO prox system died.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Subject: Re: Economics of new vs. older planes
X-Submission-Date: 2 Jan 1993 19:53:56 GMT
Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1i4rskINNecs@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Date: 05 Jan 93 00:24:09 PST



In article <airliners.1992.203@ohare.Chicago.COM> drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes:

>For instance, lots of 727-200s parked at Davis-Monthan, and at Mojave.  

Just an aside, but when did they start storing civilian aircraft at Davis-
Monthan?  The only ones I'm aware of were the 707s acquired for their JT3Ds
(for the KC-135E reengining program), and the odd propliner confiscated in
drug busts.


>Unfortunately for 727 owners, they are stage two noise compliant.  This
>means that they will no longer be allowed to operate in the domestic US 
>after 2000 or so.  Europe is much the same.  This short economic life must
>be take into account before purchasing our hypothetical 727.

Can't they be made Stage III compliant with hush kits?  Even after adding on
this expense, it seems to me that a 727-200 would still be a pretty good
deal compared to the cost of a new or nearly-new airplane.

Also, either UPS or FedEx are reengining their 727s with Rolls-Royce Tays, 
which are Stage III compliant and more fuel efficient than the JT8Ds to boot.
The STC for this conversion might make relatively low-time 727s an even more
attractive option.



Geoff


--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller			+ + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM	+ + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: mikeh@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (michael p.herlihy)
Subject: Re: First Flights on airliners
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:23:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan7.162312.19970@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Date: 07 Jan 93 13:17:55 PST

In article <airliners.1993.18@ohare.Chicago.COM> gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
>driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll) writes:
>
>>This episode was titled "Mass Transit in the Sky".  It started by saying
>>that just after commercial jet transport's infancy (707), the Europeans
>>went for speed with the SST and the US went for size (principally the
>>747); and then the Europeans had to play catch up after making this mistake.
>
>Huh? The SST was a US project, and the Europeans started the Jet Race, it's the
>US that played catch-up, If Boeing would have been first they would have had
>the joy of discovering Metal fatigue and then De Havilland would have cleaned
>up the world marker...alas it was vice versa.
>

I think Canada was the first to develop a commercial jet airliner...

However, it was the project was killed off by the government...

-- 
It (the telephone) will unmake our work. No greater instrument of counter- 
revolution and conspiracy can be imagined --- Josef Vissarvonovich Stalin

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners