HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:07:54 GMT
	<airliners.1993.89@ohare.Chicago.COM>
Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc.
X-Submission-Message-Id: <HROSE.93Jan21120751@rocza.eff.org>
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:32:06 PST

Michael> == Michael Weiss <weiss@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> 


 Michael> In article <airliners.1993.71@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>Also, where did this international stuff come from?  United planned
>to use the 777 to replace the DC-10 on *domestic* routes, with the
>747-400 and 767 (both -200 and -300) used for long international
>routes.

 Michael> This had me wondering something.  Clearly, aircraft with long
 Michael> ranges (such as the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown
 Michael> directly from the US to any nation, so delivery is no more
 Michael> complicated than flying to the appropriate country.  What
 Michael> about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737?  How
 Michael> do they get from the US to, say, the middle east?  Are their
 Michael> ranges just long enough to make it from New York to London?

There are several answers to this. The first is that trips to Europe are
usually hopped through Gander, (Newfoundland? -- in any case,
Northeastern Canada) which is alot closer to Europe than any of USA. The
second, which can be combined with the first is the use of fuel
bladders. Rip out the seats (or even not) and put a whole lot of fuel.
Makes up for the lack of passengers and their luggage, and gives a
whoooooole lot of range. Another (slightly sillier) option that British
Airways used once between a flight from LHR (London-Heathrow) to SYD
(Sydney, Australia) was to only allow 50 people on board, and ship their
luggage on another flight. It went non-stop, though. :-)

Once the aircraft get to, say, Europe, it can make as many stops as it
needs to get to the middle east or former Soviet Union (who recently
certified the 737 for operation inside its borders by its member
countries) because it's (mostly) over land!

--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose             	<hrose@kei.com, hrose@eff.org>
Kapor Enterprises, Inc.            	email eff@eff.org for EFF Info
Electronic Frontier Foundation          Flames to: 
Systems and Networks Administration	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: news on the Boeing 777
X-Submission-Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:54:30 GMT
Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc.
X-Submission-Message-Id: <HROSE.93Jan21165428@rocza.eff.org>
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:47 PST


Copyright 1993 by UPI
Reposted with permission from the ClariNet Electronic Newspaper
newsgroup clari.news.aviation.  For more info on ClariNet, write to
info@clarinet.com or phone 1-800-USE-NETS.

 From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
 Newsgroups: clari.news.aviation,clari.biz.products,clari.biz.top
 Subject: Boeing begins major assembly for 777

	SEATTLE (UPI) -- Boeing Co. said Thursday it has started major
assembly of its first new aircraft in more than a decade -- the 777
jetliner, which is slated for delivery in a little more than two years.
	Boeing said employees began work on the first 777 airplane wing at
the 777 Division near Everett, Wash., by installing about 5,100
fasteners on a 105-foot-long structure that will become the front spar
in the plane's left wing.
	``This marks the start of one of an airplane's major stages -- the
wing assembly,'' said Dale Hougardy, vice president. ``Meeting this
program milestone is a significant step in helping us deliver a quality
airplane on schedule to our airline customers.''
	The spars act as major supports to strengthen the whole wing
structure, with each wing containing two tapered aluminum spars.
	The 777 is wide-body airliner midway in size between the 747 jumbo
jet and the mid-range 767, with seating for 305 to 440 passengers.
	Final assembly of the first airplane will begin in late 1993, with
rollout in March 1994. First delivery to United Airlines will take place
in May 1995.
	Boeing said it has received 118 firm orders and 95 options for the
plane, which is believed to have a price tag of about $120 million per
craft.
	The 777 is expected to cost Boeing at least $4 billion in development
and initial-production costs.
	Boeing also admitted earlier this month that it had talked with
German manufacturer Daimler Benz about building a ``super jumbo jet''
with capacity for 600 to 800 passengers. Analysts believe that project
would cost $10 billion to get off the ground.
	For the first nine months of last year, Boeing earned $1.29 billion,
or $3.69 a share, compared with $1.16 billion, or $3.39 a share, in the
year-ago period. Nine-month revenues were $22.69 billion, compared with
$21.56 billion.


=======
OK, so how many of *you* are going to be out in Seattle for the B777
rollout next March? Anyone out at Boeing Commercial Airplanes able to
get some passes to this thing? :-) 

--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose             	<hrose@kei.com, hrose@eff.org>
Kapor Enterprises, Inc.            	email eff@eff.org for EFF Info
Electronic Frontier Foundation          Flames to: 
Systems and Networks Administration	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Nose-down attitude
X-Submission-Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 03:31:11 GMT
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
X-Submission-Message-Id: <ntfarky@Unify.Com>
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:07 PST

	Last week, while various combinations of our news server
	and network were in shambles, Geoff Miller wrote...

> The fuselage of the DC-8 has a pronounced nose-down attitude on the ground,
> which is especially noticeable with the stretched Super 60 and -70 models.
> Does anyone know the reason for this?  It occurs to me that the designers
> might have had the possibility of a fuselage stretch in mind, ...

	Without knowing actual engineering history, I'd note that the
	DC-8 is among the more long-legged airliners and would speculate
	that these could be reasons for that choice:

	1.  Safety:  Having a nose-down attitude on the ground reduces
	    the wing's AOA on landing rolls.  This puts more weight on
	    the gear, which enables better braking action...
		[braking force = coefficient of friction * vertical force]
	    and the difference probably is most significant on wet,
	    icy, or snowy runways.  The same effect helps directional
	    stability as well as braking.

	2.  Economics:  A shorter nose gear is lighter.  In the DC-8's
	    case it probably translates to either (a) ability to carry
	    a couple extra paying passengers or (b) leaving behind a
	    proportional amount of fuel, which reduces gross weight
	    some more.

	3.  Safety (minor):  A nose-down attitude improves visibility
	    over the nose slightly for taxiing, admittedly a very minor
	    effect though.


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


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: howp@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Airliner Accident Book Recommendations?
X-Submission-Date: 25 JAN 93 23:34:11 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
X-Submission-Message-Id: <25JAN93.23341105@skyfox>
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:06 PST

     I just finished reading _Unfriendly Skies_ by Captain X, and I've also
more or less read through _Blind Trust_ by an author whose name I've forgotten.
I found the first book to be somewhat opinionated and, well, not that 
informative.  It came across as more of a list of complaints from a
pilot than a source of interesting information.  The second book was 
fairly good, but many of the accidents described were from the seventies, with
only a few from the early eighties (it was published in 1986). 
     I've read _Freefall_, the story of the Air Canada 767 that ran out of fuel
over Manitoba because there was a burnt out diode (or something) in the fuel
gauge system and the crew couldn't convert from metric to Imperial units (!!). 
This book was good, but it was about an accident that happened in 1983 so it's
a bit old.

     Does anybody have any recommendations about good books concerning airliner
accidents (particularly recent ones)?  I'm not a morbid person, but I do find
the stories and descriptions of airplane problems/crashes/accidents/
near-misses/etc. to be quite vivid and interesting (when well written).  They
give insights into various aspects of technology and the human element...sort
of like a good episode of Trek :) 

Thanks.

Peter How, Grad Stud.
ISAS
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK
CANADA

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: weiss@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss)
Subject: Domestic Aircraft
X-Submission-Date: 21 Jan 93 04:44:20 GMT
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles
X-Submission-Message-Id: <9184@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:53:50 PST


In article <airliners.1993.71@ohare.Chicago.COM> kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes:
>Also, where did this international stuff come from?  United planned
>to use the 777 to replace the DC-10 on *domestic* routes, with the
>747-400 and 767 (both -200 and -300) used for long international
>routes.

This had me wondering something.  Clearly, aircraft with long ranges (such as
the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown directly from the US to any
nation, so delivery is no more complicated than flying to the appropriate
country.  What about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737?  How
do they get from the US to, say, the middle east?  Are their ranges just long
enough to make it from New York to London?
-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  weiss@seas.ucla.edu   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   izzydp5@oac.ucla.edu  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ 

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Subject: Re: I saw it!!!  (New Ua 747-400)
Followup-To: rec.travel.air
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:11 PST

[Note that followups have been directed to rec.travel.air, which seems
about the most likely home for discussions about paint schemes and the
like.  Any *technical* comments about all this are quite welcome in
sci.aeronautics.airliners -- please edit the newsgroup of any posts as
appropriate.]

Tonight I saw a 757-222 at LAX (N573UA) in the new, "malevolent skies"
scheme.  Hard to tell for sure as it was not well lit, but the grey
did not seem as dark as I had expected.

One thing that *did* strike me is how complex the painting must be of
the tail with those stripes.  Sounds expensive -- railroads used to
use stripes liberally for safety reasons until they started thinking
about the cost of masking it all and simplified the schemes.  Today
what few stripes are left are on easy-to-mask surfaces.

Anyway, getting back to airliners, it seems to me that the all-white
"color scheme" so popular in recent years has the decided advantage of
being cheap.  While a scheme like United's new one may be different,
is it really cost effective?!  To add to the expense, the old one had
five colors and the new has at least seven.  This does not sound like
a brilliant move at a time when they're cutting both deliveries and
personnel; unlike Air India, with what must be the world's most
expensive paint scheme with its intricate decorations around each
window (at least on early 747s), United tries to turn a profit.

Of course there's also the expense of paint at all.  This seems a hot
debate -- the stuff adds weight (something like half a ton for a 747
as I recall) and hides cracks (which was disussed in detail during the
analysis of the Aloha 737 incident a few years ago), but on the other
hand it helps protect surfaces from corrosion and the like, and in
particular I believe Airbus insisted on paint on the non-aluminum
sections of American's A300-600Rs.  (An increasingly significant
amount of composites are appearing -- except for early A300s the
entire vertical stabilizer of all Airbus models is made from composite
materials.)

One other factor in favor of paint may be found in a comment I read
long ago on rec.aviation, namely that aircraft which were going to go
unpainted mere manufactured with slightly thicker aluminum in the
skins.  I find this a bit hard to believe, and the fact that airlines
such as Eastern went from paint to no paint suggests it isn't all that
necessary, though I don't have any hard evidence.

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM (Geoff Arnold @ Sun BOS - R.H. coast near the top)
Subject: Re: Domestic Aircraft
X-Submission-Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:32:05 GMT
Reply-To: geoff@tyger.East.Sun.COM
Organization: SunSelect
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jmfllINN4d5@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 93 12:32:02 PST

In article 89@ohare.Chicago.COM, weiss@edison.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Michael Weiss) writes:
##This had me wondering something.  Clearly, aircraft with long ranges (such as
##the 767, 747, DC-10, etc., etc.) can be flown directly from the US to any
##nation, so delivery is no more complicated than flying to the appropriate
##country.  What about the shorter-range aircraft, like the 727 and 737?  How
##do they get from the US to, say, the middle east?  Are their ranges just long
##enough to make it from New York to London?

That's what Iceland is for! (Apologies to my many Icelandic friends....)

---
Geoff Arnold, PC-NFS architect, Sun Select. (geoff.arnold@East.Sun.COM)


Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: gregc@clif.ypsi.mi.us (Greg Cronau)
Subject: Re: Terror at 41,000'
X-Submission-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:38:24 GMT
Organization: Chaos & Confusion, Entropy Division
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan25.233824.29410@clif.ypsi.mi.us>
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:47:07 PST

In article <airliners.1993.98@ohare.Chicago.COM> ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes:
>
>[Long story about 727 near disaster deleted]

Interesting. I seem to remember a newspaper story sometime around the late
70's early 80's, about either a 707 or DC-8 that rolled out at altitude,
I believe it was attributed to windshear, and didn't recover untill it was
down to about 2-3000 ft. Same procedure, it had to drop flaps and gear to
get the speed under controll. The plane went supersonic. I'm fairly certain it
was a DC-8 because I distinctly remember the article stating that they had
to reverse thrust on the 2 inboard engines(!!!!) to get their speed down.
Anybody remember this one?

-- 
Greg Cronau               | gregc@clif.ypsi.mi.us |
Computer Consultant/Joat  | gregc@edi.com         | <-- Preferred.
1405 NorthBrook Drv.      | 76407,2311 (CI$)      |
Ann Arbor MI. 48103-6166  | 313-741-0748          |

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill)
Subject: Crew Negligence?
X-Submission-Date: 23 Jan 1993 15:04:51 GMT
Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jrmqjINNm81@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: 24 Jan 93 01:17:21 PST


 In relating my story about the incident over Detroit I perhaps gave the
wrong (editorial) impression of my feelings about the crew's actions.
 I too agree that any intentional act by a flight crew that places the
passsengers in harm's way should not be condoned. My comment about the
crew "saving the day" had more to do with the quick thinking they exhibited
while in a supersonic dive from 41,000' in a Boeing 727.
 I also wish to make clear that erasing flight data recorder or cockpit
voice recorder is illegal and I don't condone either action.
John Dill
-- 
   
  Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush!

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: hoyme@src.honeywell.com (Ken Hoyme)
Subject: Re: Terror at 41,000'
X-Submission-Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:25:34 GMT
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center, Mpls. MN, USA.
X-Submission-Message-Id: <HOYME.93Jan22112534@darkstar.src.honeywell.com>
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:06:54 PST


In article <airliners.1993.98@ohare.Chicago.COM> ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill) writes:

>  The next part is part conjecture (the crew wisely erased the flight data
                                              ^^^^^^criminally??

>  A long legal battle took place between ALPA and the airline (Global Air?)
> and the F.A.A. In the end, I think the pilots were exonerated..and if you
> ask me....they saved the day!

Presuming that the first part of this "urban"-legend is true (the
breaker flip and all), I take great objections to the implication that
the pilots were heroes and that it was smart for them to "erase" the
flight data (actually, leave the engines on until the tape loop wrote
over the incident information).  This is tantamount to saying that a
person who shoots another, but then gives them first-aid and saves their
life is a 'hero'.

Airplanes are designed and certificated to operate in a specific manner.
*If* there is a way to improve fuel efficiency, the appropriate approach
is to analyze the theory using models, then validate it in research
aircraft with skilled test pilots and *no revenue paying passengers*.
Then the improvement can be certified and upgraded into the fleet as
mandated by FAA rules.  All paying passengers have the right to expect
that the crew operates the plane as designed and does not use them as
unwilling guinea pigs for ill-designed experiments.

If it is true that the crew of this plane decided to experiment with
the airplane dynamics on a revenue flight then they are criminals -- no
different from the reactor control operators at Chernobyl who decided to
'experiment' with the reactor systems leading to that catastrophe.  To
paint them as 'heroes' is a twisted view of their role.

It also drives me nuts when unions go to bat for their people when they
are so clearly in the wrong.  I think it does a great dis-service to
their credibility, and taints all members, the vast majority of which
are trying to do a good job.  (ALPA went to bat for the NWA pilots who
were FWI from Fargo to Minneapolis a few years back, too.)

Major disclaimer: My heated response is based on the assumption that the
legend about the flap-extension incident is true.  Of course, the pilots
(I believe) denied this, blaming it on the airplane.  And the lack of
flight data for the incident period made it difficult to prove.  If the
real facts of the case were that it was a failure of the airplane, and
nothing the crew did precipitated this incident, then I would heartily
argue that the crew were heroes, and ALPA had every justified right to go
to bat for them.

Ken

--
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: morse@mprgate.mpr.ca (Daryl Morse)
Subject: Re: DC-8 nose-down attitude on the ground (was: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down
X-Submission-Date: 21 Jan 93 15:38:42
Followup-To: sci.aeronautics.airliners
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, BC, Canada.
X-Submission-Message-Id: <MORSE.93Jan21153842@quark.mpr.ca>
Date: 22 Jan 93 02:59:45 PST


In article <airliners.1993.87@ohare.Chicago.COM> Geoff.Miller@Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes:

>  The fuselage of the DC-8 has a pronounced nose-down attitude on the ground,
>  which is especially noticeable with the stretched Super 60 and -70 models.
>  Does anyone know the reason for this?  It occurs to me that the designers
>  might have had the possibility of a fuselage stretch in mind, even when the
>  original version was under development.  (As an aside, I read someplace that
>  a similiar stretch of the 707 was deemed unfeasible due to the lack of extra
>  clearance during rotation for takeoff.)

A recent article in Aviation Week and Space Technology on the A340
described how the front landing gear had to be redesigned because it
was 10 inches too short. This resulted in a noticeable nose down /
tail up attitude. Interestingly enough, the nose down attitude wasn't
the reason for the change. Supposedly the tail up attitude placed the
rear doors up to 16 inches too high for the lifts on the trucks.

My question is this: How could the designers goof by 10 inches?


--
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: ditka!sgiblab!enuucp.eas.asu.edu!mcdphx!fredch (Fred Christiansen)
Subject: Re: Do DC-9s exhibit a nose-down attitude under power?
X-Submission-Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1993 16:07:57 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, RT Software
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1993Jan18.160757.27012@phx.mcd.mot.com>
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:53:47 PST

Related to DC-9's and nose-up attitude, what about DC-10's?  I recall
reading that DC-10 engines (well, maybe just the one in the tail) are
pitched.  Wasn't there the case maybe 10 years ago of a DC-10 (Florida
area?  Delta?) whose surfaces froze in some manner making it pitch
in one direction, so they applied more power to the tail engine to
compensate?  Had to get enough nose-down to land.
-- 
Fred Christiansen, Motorola, 2900 S Diablo Way, Tempe, AZ 85282  "Canajun, eh?"
fredch@phx.mcd.mot.com  ||  uunet!phx.mcd.mot.com!fredch  ||  +1 602-438-3464
  ".. I have set before you Life and Death, blessing and cursing;  therefore
      choose Life, that both you and your children may live"  Deut 30:19

Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics.airliners
From: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill)
Subject: The Rush to ORD......
X-Submission-Date: 23 Jan 1993 04:13:44 GMT
Reply-To: ak336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Dill)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
X-Submission-Message-Id: <1jqgloINN7fa@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:06:55 PST


 One of the sectors I work as a controller at Cleveland Center is a high
(24,000' to 60,000') altitude sector over southern Michigan. This sector
works a ton of inbound traffic to ORD, most of it from the east coast and
New England areas. Our biggest task is to space two constant streams of
a/c into one line before we hand them off to Chicago Center. This involves
many speed adjustments and lots of vectors...though the patient controllers
have found that speed changes are easier for both flight crews and con-
trollers. 
 The differing cruise speeds of our modern jet fleet require alot of
conjoling and pleading with the pilots. In an American Airlines rush into
ORD we have to space DC10's and B747's from JFK and Europe, with MD80's and
Fokker 100's from New York State and New England. At any rate, I thouhgt
you folks might be interested in the various cruise speeds of the different
aircraft. (If given a choice, take the faster one, and put your wife on the
slower one, so you can have a beer at the airport bar while awaiting her
flight).
 
 B747, DC10, L1011, MD11....mach 83 to mach 85
 B727, B767, A300, A320,....mach 80 to mach 82
 DC9........................mach 78 to mach 80
 MD80, B737.................mach 73 to mach 76
 FK100....(get a life!).....mach 71 to mach 74

These speeds are of course up to the flight crew...I've had B737 pilots
in a hurry go mach 80...but they burn fuel like mad.
Our job is to get the fast guys to slow down and the slow ones to speed
up...or suffer a vector off course for spacing.
 
The one I'd pick is not on the list and doesn't fly into ORD anyway, but
if you take the Concorde you'll be DRUNK when she gets there.
John Dill
-- 
   
  Don't blame me.....I voted for Bush!