HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme)
Subject: Re: Safety and design rankings (was Re: Flight controls)
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:43:16 GMT
	<airliners.1992.138@ohare.Chicago.COM>
	<airliners.1992.144@ohare.Chicago.COM>
	<airliners.1992.163@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Mpls. MN, USA.
X-Submission-Message-Id: <HOYME.92Dec16124316@schrodinger.src.honeywell.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:00:44 PST


In article <airliners.1992.163@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
> 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 believe the winglets issue on the 777 was also complicated by the
folding wing option.  Which no one has ordered -- even those airlines
who originally expressed interest in the option.  Has development on the
folding wing stopped??  I had heard that Boeing was getting tired of the
investment required to keep the option open while not receiving any
orders for it.

>>The FMS's used on these airplanes are generally done by Honeywell, except
>>that Boeing's using Smiths Industries for the 737, for some reason.

> Boeing recently made a substantial change to the FMS on new 737s, and
> offers a retrofit kit for older new-generation 737s.  I believe this
> was a replacement ... perhaps away from Smiths?  Having observed the
> trials and tribulations of friends with MGs and their Smiths electrics
> I'm not enthusiastic about a Smiths FMS!  :-)

Me too!  But then, I *am* biased on this issue.  :-)  However, I do not
believe that the part of Smiths that supports cars and the part that
designs avionics has a whole lot to do with each other.  I suspect (but
do not know for certain) that Boeing's choice of Smiths might be related
to trying to get some competition in this area.

Ken Hoyme                    Honeywell Systems and Research Center
(612)951-7354                3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
Internet: hoyme@src.honeywell.com

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Errata (Re: A320 sidestick description + references)
X-Submission-Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 20:55:35 CST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212150255.AA13063@cactus.org>
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:13:24 PST


I thought I had caught most of these, but someone pointed them out:

1.  A "daN" is a deca Newton, or 2.248 lbs.  Airbus's main redeeming feature
is that it's gone SI.

2.  The "thumb-override" design means the guy with the *slowest* thumb will
win, in the final estimation, not the fastest.  Then again, if we really 
did have a thumb-war, the next guy would be fast to hit it again; I believe
that's what I was thinking when I originally wrote the sentence.  Apologies
for any confusion this caused.

3.  The comments on the necessity of applying back-stick in a turn were 
ambiguous.  I was using as an example a situation of an airplane, straight 
and level.  Suppose you're in a conventional airplane.  You want to turn. 
You'd turn the wheel.  This causes the airplane to bank.  However, this 
decreases the net lift vector, which means the airplane will also descend.  
To counteract this effect, you'd apply slight back-stick, to command up-
elevator, thus a greater angle of attack, thus more lift, to maintain level 
flight in the turn.  It's all very coordinated, very natural.  

On the A320, one would simply use the stick to command a yaw.  The system
automagically applies the appropriate elevator correction to maintain the
ancipated flight-path.  If the pilot were to command any pitch-up, the 
airplane would CLIMB in the turn.

This takes place in "Normal" law, the default flight mode.  This is not
"normal" as in "conventional": that's the "Direct" law, which is also the
landing mode, so as to allow the pilot to handle a cross-wind landing and
flare properly. 



If there are any more ways I can make this more confusing, please let me know.
:-)




---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Subject: Re: Northwest cancels Airbus
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:37:14 GMT
Organization: Boeing
X-Submission-Message-Id: <BzBzA3.EC@bcstec.ca.boeing.com>
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:19:49 PST

In article <airliners.1992.110@ohare.Chicago.COM> hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme) writes:
           
        [much deleted material about the NWA/Airbus cancelations]

>....    (But then, NWA is already
>deeply in debt to Airbus, since they decided to buy A320s based on a
>dynamite financing package that Boeing could not match.) 

We here at Boeing also like to think that the Northwest, and the United,
purchase of the A320 were both driven by financial considerations only.
Not true.  The plain facts are that the A320 flies higher, faster, and
farther than the competing Boeing 737-400 while carrying a heavier load and
burning less gas to boot.  That isn't fuel per seat, that is trip fuel.
Northwest's decision, as noted by their VP of Finance a couple of months
ago, was based on superior performance and a higher acquisition cost than
that of the 737.  United came to pretty much the same conclusion.  

None of the above is intended to make little of the financial implications
of each of those deals, just put it in a technical frame of reference.

-- 
Terry
drinkard@bcstec.boeing.com
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: philip@rainbow.mentorg.com (Philip Peake)
Subject: Re: Airbus safety (was Re: TWAs Status)
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:11:36 GMT
Followup-To: 
Organization: Mentor Graphics
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1992Dec11.181136.2160@news.mentorg.com>
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:32 PST

In article <airliners.1992.130@ohare.Chicago.COM>, rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:
|> 
|> >If all new pilots were taught nothing but the side stick,
|> >how long would the old arangementy last - and if the old arangement
|> 
|> Why should pilots be taught nothing but a unique, *proprietary* side-stick 
|> design that no pilot had any experience with before four years ago, and which 
|> is only one of a variety of other possible designs?  

You are avoiding the question - read it again, the operative word is "if".
I really don't think that a side-stick qualifies as "*proprietary*" does it ?
Does Airbus hold patents on some aspect of it ? (I don't know the answer to
this one - but if that IS true, then the result would be proprietary, and
would deserve to fail).

Changing the subject slightly, the world's safest aircraft (Concorde) uses
technology which was new, and for a time unacceptable to various licensing
authorities - it didn't have a MECHANICAL link between the stick and the control
surfaces - only hydraulic. There was *much* concern over this, and lots of
reaction from the pilots and safety mob - they almost won, and the Concorde almost
had to be produced with a mechanical linkage, which no FULL CREW would be able
to budge one mm if they all tried together - in fact, the linkages would probably
have failed, before it would have been possible to move a control surface, when
moving at full speed.

As I said, it has proved to be the worlds' safest aircraft.
Presumably, had a few airlines other than BA and Air France used them, someone
would have flown one or two of them into the ground, and we would be arguing
(or would have been arguing) about the safety of aircraft with no mechanical
backup systems.

Technology changes, old interfaces eventually HAVE to give way as they begin to
fit less and less well with the new technologies.

I don't seem to have noticed any raving about the TGV, the latest versions of
which achieve speeds comparable to that of aircraft, and use a side-stick ...
(yes, I know, French again ...) There is MUCH more prior art in train design,
and they can write off considerably more people than even a fully loaded 747/400
if something goes drastically wrong.

Philip


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: hydraulic problems with DC-10's??
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:21:35 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
X-Submission-Message-Id: <x4tbh4s@Unify.Com>
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:34 PST

Several people:
	lhe@sics.se (Lars-Henrik Eriksson)
	drinkard@bcstec.ca.boeing.com
	weiss@turing.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss)
write about the question of whether slats do or don't improve Cl (coefficient
of lift), in addition to affecting stall speed (critical angle of attack)...

	I'd surmise that slats should increase Cl at any given AOA.
	The reason should be that they should delay boundary layer
	transitions (laminar-to-turbulent, turbulent-to-detached),
	increasing the wing area that's working efficiently.  It's
	also true that this allows using a higher AOA, as noted by
	Lars-Henrik Eriksson; deployment of slats (and flaps too)
	DOES increase the AOA at which the wing achieves max Cl.

	An exaggerated example of this is adding a jib to a sailboat
	that formerly had only a mainsail.  Adding even a small jib
	improves the main's Cl substantially.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: Karl Swartz <kls@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Subject: archive of articles (and other stuff) now available
X-Submission-Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 4:40:07 PST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <m0n1y2r-0000SCC@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:47:56 PST

A first pass at an Airliners ftp archive is now available on
ftp.eff.org, thanks to Helen Rose <hrose@eff.org>.  Access is via the
usual anonymous ftp; the following files are in the /pub/airliners
directory:

    archive-1992.Z  (187393 bytes)

	A compressed mail folder of the first 160 articles
	posted to sci.aeronautics.airliners.  (The last was
	dated December 14, 1992.)

	Next month, hopefully, the archive will be updated
	as soon as articles are posted, but for now this is
	being done by hand when the mood strikes.  :-)
	
    boeing-code  (6726 bytes)

	A list of Boeing customer codes -- the xx part of a
	designation such as 747-2xxB.

    specifications  (1776 bytes)

	Some e-scribblings of mine showing various useful
	parameters of some airliners, from which I computed
	the power/weight ratios discussed a few weeks ago.
	Hopefully this will evolve (or be replaced) into a
	complete reference.

Again, this is a first pass, mainly to get something out for some
folks who wanted it before the holidays.  In the next month or two
real-time archives of the newsgroup will be implemented, as will
several other sites.  More reference data will be made available
as well. 

--
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: weiss@curtiss.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss)
Subject: Re: hydraulic problems with DC-10s??
X-Submission-Date: 12 Dec 92 06:43:30 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
X-Submission-Message-Id: <8905@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:06:28 PST


In article <airliners.1992.100@ohare.Chicago.COM> greg@octopus.dpsi.com (Gregory R. Travis) writes:
>This is quite muddled though, as other anti-lift devices (such as spoilers)
>will deploy at a given amount of aileron deflection.  In fact, and I don't
>have my DC-10 refs handy, I imagine that the ailerons on a -10 are locked
>in place when the flaps are up (not the case in the Chicago crash, I know)

Not true, at least in the case of the inboard ailerons.  I still can remember
back in 1984 flying a DC-10 from LAX to HON, and noting that when the inboard
ailerons deflected to a certain point, the spoilers came up, too.  I don't
remember about the outboards (at the time, the inboard ones were more
interesting to me).

>In any case, the ORIGINAL poster's position that the loss of an engine
>from a wing, considering the engine's moment and weight, would render the plane
>uncontrollable is not supported either by analysis or historic precedent.

And I stand (sit?) corrected on this issue.  It struck me as an awfully large
moment at first (and second, and third) glance, but I didn't have any actual
weight numbers to compare.  Now that I do, it makes perfect sense.
-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  weiss@seas.ucla.edu   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \
From: jebright@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James R Ebright)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re: Hysterical movie goofs
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:08:07 GMT
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 13:56:45 EST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212181856.AA06323@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>

>I was just watching a movie on TV ("Gotcha").  One of the characters
>flew to Paris, and there was the obligatory "airplane landing" shot to
>establish that he "really flew" there...
>
>...on an Air France Cargo 747.  (The side titles very clearly had three
>words, though the last was hard to read; however, the "under-nose"
>titles indicated the 747 cargo variant with a nose door.)
>
>Wonder what the in-flight meal was...
  
About eight years ago I flew LAX to CDG direct on Air Chance and it was
ACTUALLY a CARGO 747 with one cabin (appx 80 seats) of passengers.

The in-flight meal was normal US airline food...quite a let down from
normal Air Chance fare -- so much so, it prompted me to complain in writing.
(Why else fly AF except for the food?)

-- 
		Jim Ebright (james.ebright@osu.edu) 
    "Spam, eggs, sausage and spam - that's not got much spam in it."
     >>>    All kids can be educated -- even yours and mine.    <<<
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners,rec.aviation.simulators
From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Simulation software for transport category aircraft
X-Submission-Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:31:11 GMT
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: The Mitre Corporation, McLean Virginia
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1992Dec15.213111.296@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:19:48 PST

I am looking for some real-time flight simulation software for commercial
transport category aircraft, preferably public domain.  It can run on
most any kind of Unix platform (we use Sun, SGI, HP, IBM) or DOS.  It
need not have any graphical output (out the window, avionics, etc.) as
we have existing software to provide all of those functions, but it does
need a couple of things:
1) Relatively realistic (simple 6dof?) equations that can support commercial
   airliner-type flight models
2) Autoflight system including:
   a) At a minimum, inner loop auto-pitch/roll/throttle control
   b) Much better, outer loop altitude/heading/VS capture
   c) Preferably VOR/LOC/APP tracking loop
3) Flight model to go with all this

We have looked at point-mass models and they can do many things but we
need to be able to hand-fly with or without FD for certain operations.
(Obviously FD was not included in the above list because we can easily
develop that given the pitch/roll commands and other software we have.)

Any information is much appreciated.

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org, 703-883-5543)

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: John DiMarco <jdd@cdf.toronto.edu>
Subject: Economics of new vs. older planes
X-Submission-Date: 	Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:32:59 -0500
X-Submission-Message-Id: <92Dec15.153313est.30980@marvin.cdf.toronto.edu>
Date: 16 Dec 92 04:19:48 PST

I understand there's an airfield in Arizona where unused airliners are parked
for extended periods. I'm wondering, considering the economic doldrums
most airline companies seem to be in, why these planes are not put into
use in lieu of buying new ones? 

The answer, I think, would depend on the difference in operating costs between
new and older planes. Could someone with a better understanding of these issues
shed some light on this? Solid numbers (eg. purchase prices of new vs. used
planes, fuel consumption differences, etc.) would be highly appreciated.

Thanks,

John
--
John DiMarco                                              jdd@cdf.toronto.edu
Computing Disciplines Facility Systems Manager            jdd@cdf.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto                                     EA201B,(416)978-1928
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Subject: Re:  REVIEW of _FMC User's Guide_
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:08:03 GMT
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 01:50:15 CST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212180750.AA15197@cactus.org>

In article <airliners.1992.178@ohare.Chicago.COM> you write:
>> The book is oriented around the Smiths Industries FMS, in use on the 737, 
>> but the author explicitly addresses differences and similarities with the 
>> Honeywell lineage, which is in use on more types of airplanes.
>
>The phrase "more types" more correctly should be "all other types" since
>the FMS on all commercial transport airplanes except the 737 are Honeywell's.

Good point!


>However, saying that there is a lineage is a bit strong.  Being a
>modern customer driven company 8^), we build the FMS that the airframer
>wants.  That is why on over half the flights where I fly the A320 jump
>seat, the pilots ask me why the A320 FMS is not as good as the Boeing
>versions.  And the answer is -- "That is the way Airbus wanted it."

The author notes that there are two major "baselines": one Boeing, the
other "European," which he lumps the MD-11, Fokker, and Airbus aircraft
into.  He explicitly notes that he's describing the Boeing baseline.





---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: palmer@icat.larc.nasa.gov (Michael T. Palmer)
Subject: Re: Airbus safety (was Re: TWAs Status)
X-Submission-Date: 11 Dec 92 17:26:55 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
X-Submission-Message-Id: <palmer.724094815@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:32 PST

rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes:

>I would also note that in fighter aircraft, there isn't the issue of 
>two-pilot "peers" having to quickly and instinctively figure out who is
>flying the airplane.  On the A320, there is no interconnect between the
>sidesticks: the captain can command a full-left in an emergency evasive
>maneuver, the F/O full-right, and the net result will be an algebraically
>added "zero."  

I believe this is incorrect, though I don't have the documentation here
right now.  My understanding is that whenever one of the sticks reaches
a critical percentage of deflection (say, 75%), it becomes automatically
the selected input device.  At this point, the other control stick is
ignored.  So it's a race.  Whoever slams their stick to the stops first
wins, and the only way for the other crewmember to override is to physically
attack the winner.  Neat, huh?

I'm not sure how sub-critical deflections are handled - they may indeed
be algebraically summed.  If any Airbus people can provide the straight
scoop, I'd appreciate it.

In the sidestick implementations used at NASA, the sticks are interconnected
("logically", really, since they are hydraulically back-driven) so that,
like in current cockpits, whoever is strongest (i.e., most scared-to-death)
wins.

-- 
Michael T. Palmer, M/S 152, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681
Voice: 804-864-2044,   FAX: 804-864-7793,   Email: m.t.palmer@larc.nasa.gov
PGP 2.0 Public Key now available -- Consider it an envelope for your e-mail

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: objects on wing tips
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:58:52 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
X-Submission-Message-Id: <j5tbpyt@Unify.Com>
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:33 PST

In article <airliners.1992.104@ohare.Chicago.COM>, dowlatir@cu1.crl.aecl.ca.crl.aecl.ca (Ramin Dowlati) writes:
> I have a few questions for any of you passenger airplane gurus.
> Several years ago, the aeropspace industry introduced vertical
> flap-like things on the ends of their airplane wings. I've
> only noticed these on 'larger' planes such Airbus, 747-400 and
> MD-11.
> Q1. What is the technical name for these flap-like things?

	Winglets.  The most common name usage was "Whitcomb winglets"
	until they became fairly common.  Many would say that Whitcomb
	was their inventor, but watching the tip feathers of large
	soaring birds suggests that Mother Nature should get some credit.

> Q2. Are they mobile or fixed?

	Fixed

> Q3. Do they only serve to stabilize the flight?

	No.  Their purpose is to reduce induced drag, which they do
	by reducing circulation in wingtip vortices.

> Q4. Why haven't they appeared on smaller aircraft?

	They have.  In fact recent times have brought some controversy
	to competitive soaring, about whether winglets should count
	for measuring sailplane wingspan.  This application uses winglets
	on airframes that weigh a few hundred pounds and carry one person,
	sometimes with about 1/4 inch of headroom for a pilot who's
	already laid out almost flat on his [or her] back.

> Q5. The ones I saw on the Airbus were shaped like a 'V'
>     and symmetric with the wing tip, ie. one leg of the 'V'
>     was above the wing and the other pointed below the wing.
>     Whereas the ones on the 747-400 looked like extensions
>     of the actually wing, but bent 90 degrees upwards.
>     Why the difference?

	The 'V' form sounds like the classic Whitcomb design.  Sailplanes
	don't use the downward-pointing winglet because ground clearance
	at the wingtips won't allow it.  The same might be true of many
	airliners, with variations.  This is just a guess:  Many need
	clearance under the wings for servicing vehicles, such as fuel
	trucks.  Having "hanging" winglets would increase the rate of
	ground damage.  Some might also have a ground clearance problem
	for landing with an engine out, where designers usually plan
	for the certification limit of 5 degrees of bank (plus rudder
	of course) to compensate for asymmetric thrust.  Finally,
	the extra winglet might require enough extra structure to
	negate most of the aerodynamic benefit it would produce.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: driscoll@src.honeywell.com (Kevin Driscoll)
Subject: Re:  REVIEW of _FMC User's Guide_
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 10:48:24 CST
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9212171648.AA18464@couqusmungus.src.honeywell.co>
Date: 17 Dec 92 13:27:34 PST

> The book is oriented around the Smiths Industries FMS, in use on the 737, 
> but the author explicitly addresses differences and similarities with the 
> Honeywell lineage, which is in use on more types of airplanes.

The phrase "more types" more correctly should be "all other types" since
the FMS on all commercial transport airplanes except the 737 are Honeywell's.
However, saying that there is a lineage is a bit strong.  Being a
modern customer driven company 8^), we build the FMS that the airframer
wants.  That is why on over half the flights where I fly the A320 jump
seat, the pilots ask me why the A320 FMS is not as good as the Boeing
versions.  And the answer is -- "That is the way Airbus wanted it."
With the differences in FMSs, it is hard to see how one manual can cover
them all.  The NW pilots I have talked to universal like the A320's FMS
manual.  You may want to order one from Honeywell pubs.  With the way
that ATAs are now piloted, I think an FMS manual is the closest thing
there is to a "pilot's guide" to the airplane.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners