Subject: Boeing 747-300

From: [email-masked] (Jerry Anderson)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 10:41:51 CST

Is the Boeing 747-300 the largest commercial passenger aircraft
in the world?  Is the -300 the latest version, or are there
newer, possibly larger stretched versions of the 747?

I've heard Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas and Airbus all have plans
in the works for Really Big Planes in the 600-700 passenger,
7500-8000 mile range.  Does anyone know if these planes are
really going to get built, or is this the usual "if we can
pre-sell a couple of hundred, maybe we'll really build it?"
Does anyone have model numbers, specs (passengers, range), or
projected delivery dates?  These numbers come from memory, and
I have no faith in them at all:

    Company             Model    Delivery
    -------             ------   --------
    McDonnell-Douglas   MD-11    1993
    Airbus              AE-400   1994
    Boeing              777      1995-6

--
[email-masked]                     Jerry Anderson
                                          Kansas State University
vox: (913) 532-6936                           Telecommunications
fax: (913) 532-7114                       Manhattan  KS  66506

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Swartz)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:40:20 GMT

>newer, possibly larger stretched versions of the 747?

The 747-300 is simply a -200 with an Extended Upper Deck, which allows
greater seating.  The only 747 model currently being produced is the
747-400, which shares the same fuselage dimensions as the -300 version
and visually is quite similar, the most noticeable difference being
winglets at the wingtips and subtle engine differences.  Internally,
the -400 is a *very* different aircraft, including a two-person cockpit
and new, more powerful, and more fuel efficient engines.  MGTOW is up
to at least 870,000 from 833,000 for the -200/-300 models and range is
substantially increased as well.

Unless the Russians have something which I've missed, the 747-400 is
easily the largest commercial passenger aircraft in terms of number of
seats and payload.  Its range is also the greatest of anything now in
service, though the Airbus A340 will exceed it once it enters service
next year.

>pre-sell a couple of hundred, maybe we'll really build it?"

No manufacturer (well, except for Airbus) would build a new aircraft
just for grins.  If they have tangible demand in the form of orders
they'll build it, if not, they won't.  Given the current state of the
airline industry major new orders aren't likely in the near future.

>    McDonnell-Douglas   MD-11    1993

All three of these are much smaller than what you're thinking of.
Here are the important parameters for these three plus the 747-400
for comparison.  Seating is for a "typical" three-class cabin and
service is the date of first service; MGTOW is in US pounds.

    Mfr.      Type      MGTOW    seating  service
    Boeing    747-400   870,000    430     1989
    MacDAC    MD-11     618,000    250     1991
    Airbus    A-340     559,000    230     1993
    Boeing    777       515,000   ~220     1995

In the 600+ passenger market, Boeing has talked about both further
stretches of the 747 and an entirely new aircraft, sometimes using
the N650 moniker.  McDonnell-Douglas has most recently talked about
the MD-12 -- once yet another stretch of the MD-11 -- as a new and
much larger aircraft, also in the 600+ passenger category.  Airbus
has said that if there is demand and/or if Boeing builds such an
aircraft, Airbus will build one too.  The name A600 or maybe A2000
seems vaguely familiar though I can't locate any references.

-- 
Karl Swartz		|INet	[email-masked]		
1-415/854-3409		|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
    QUAYLE IS A BOZOE	|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025, USA
"I never vote for anyone.  I always vote against."  (W. C. Fields)

---

From: Helen Trillian Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:26:36 -0500

Karl> == Karl Swartz <[email-masked]> 

[....]

 Karl>     Mfr.      Type      MGTOW    seating  service
 Karl>     Boeing    747-400   870,000    430     1989
 Karl>     MacDAC    MD-11     618,000    250     1991
 Karl>     Airbus    A-340     559,000    230     1993
 Karl>     Boeing    777       515,000   ~220     1995

I hadn't thought the B777 was going to be in between the 757 (~200) and
767 (~250) passengers. I thought it was going to fill the niche between
the 767 and the 747 -- about the size of the old 747SP in number of
seats. The 777 is a widebody as wide as the 747's (3-4-3 seating in
economy) and was meant to fill the market left wide open by the L-1011
and DC-10 trijets (one big reason why it has optional folding wingtips:
to fit into a DC-10 gate).

 Karl> In the 600+ passenger market, Boeing has talked about both
 Karl> further stretches of the 747 and an entirely new aircraft,
 Karl> sometimes using the N650 moniker.  McDonnell-Douglas has most
 Karl> recently talked about the MD-12 -- once yet another stretch of
 Karl> the MD-11 -- as a new and much larger aircraft, also in the 600+
 Karl> passenger category.

McDonnell Douglas has put a hold on the MD-12 for lack of financing
(lets face it, would *you* get into bed with a company that produced the
DC-10?). 

 Karl> Airbus has said that if there is demand and/or if Boeing builds
 Karl> such an aircraft, Airbus will build one too.  The name A600 or
 Karl> maybe A2000 seems vaguely familiar though I can't locate any
 Karl> references.

Only Airbus would create a plane just to compete with Boeing. Just
imagine, Europe, your tax money is going to support the egos of a bunch
of political types. And inciting fear in any airliner fan. What a
worthwhile task.

--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose                     <[email-masked], [email-masked]>
Electronic Frontier Foundation          email [email-masked] for EFF Info
Kapor Enterprises, Inc.                 Flames to: 
Systems and Networks Administration     [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Swartz)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 07:20:12 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> Helen Trillian Rose <[email-masked]> writes:
Karl> == Karl Swartz <[email-masked]> 

>seats.

Sorry, that was a typo.  The correct number should be 290.  Note,
though, that I said a *three* class configuration, since the topic
was long-range aircraft.  A 757 is in the 185 to 195 range with only
two classes; 250 is the right ballpark for a two class 767-300.  The
smaller 767-200 is just over 200 with two classes, not much bigger than
the 757.  With three classes, a 767-200 is aroung 165 to 170 while the
767-300 is about 210 to 220.

In the case of the 777, the only numbers I have handy are for United's
two class configuration, which has 38+325 for a total of 363 seats.  I
tried to extrapolate from that number and the ratio of seats on United's
two and three class 767-200s.

>The 777 ... was meant to fill the market left wide open by the L-1011

True, though it ended up significantly larger than either.  (Using the
United configs again, 363 seats vs. 298 on a DC-10-30 with a below-deck
galley.)

As for the foldings wingtips, nobody has yet ordered them.  I wonder
just what they intend to do with all those not-quite-big-enough gates?!

>(lets face it, would *you* get into bed with a company that produced the

I doubt the DC-10 has much to do with it, since the MD-11 has been
selling well enough.  They simply found themselves in a Catch-22: they
couldn't raise the cash without any firm orders and couldn't get any
firm orders without a reasonable expectation of the financing falling
into place.  Their poor financial condition of course means they can't
finance it themselves as Boeing could, which greatly complicates the
whole matter.

Actually, even if they had the financing they probably couldn't get
the orders given the current economic situation, and this is exactly
what they've said in their announcement of delaying the MD-12.

>Only Airbus would create a plane just to compete with Boeing.

Hmmm ... seems to me McDonnell-Douglas with the DC-10 and Lockheed
with the L-1011 were pretty bullheaded about going ahead simply to
compete with each other, knowing full well that with the orders split
neither one could really succeed!  8-)

-- 
Karl Swartz	|INet	[email-masked]		
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 [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 22:15:02 PST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jerry And
>newer, possibly larger stretched versions of the 747?

No, actually, I believe the 747-400 is currently the largest production
passenger aircraft in the world.  Wingspan of 211' and max takeoff weight
of 870,000lb, I believe.  Not that I do Everett products...  :-)

>projected delivery dates?

The Boeing and the Airbus offerings in this market seem to both hover
around 600 seats and 7,000 mile range.  Takeoff weights in the million
pound plus range.  The anticipated market, as described by John Hayhurst,
Director of New Large Airplane Division, is only a couple hundred airplanes
TOTAL.  From my knothole, it looks like a prestige fight.  But there are a
lot of interesting questions that must be answered before anyone will build
one of these monsters.

>            These numbers come from memory, and

Rightly so.  :-)

>    Company             Model    Delivery

I think you'll find that the MD-11 has been delivering since 1990.  Very
nice airplane overall.  My writer flew on one to Europe, he liked it
better than the 767.  :-)  It is probably the MD-12 that you have in mind.
It is on hold until somebody comes up with $2Begabucks to finance the
development.

>    Airbus              AE-400   1994

You may be thinking of the A-340, which should certainly be delivering by
then.  I think it is the A-350 that is the number being kicked about for
their UHCA (Ultra High Capacity Aircraft).

>    Boeing              777      1995-6

Pretty close.  March '95 sticks in my mind for some reason, but I'm not
that familiar with the 777's schedule.  My wife probably knows...  :-)

Terry
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Ken Hoyme)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:35:39 GMT

(I posted this yesterday, but our mailer had problems with finding where
to send for this moderated newsgroup.  I have been told this has been
fixed.  I see that other follow-ups have occured as well, but there is
some information in here that wasn't covered.  Rather than editing this,
I am sending it on as originally written.)

> service, though the Airbus A340 will exceed it once it enters service

According to the "Commercial Airliners of the World" section of the
21-27 October 1992 issue of Flight International, the largest Russian
transport is the Ilyushin II-86 Camber with a maximum seating of 350. I
noticed that the max. seating estimates for the other airplanes were for
sardine configurations, so I have to assume that this is not a 3-class
estimate.  (Ex: 747-400 with max seating of 660??  That's cramped!)

>     Boeing    777       515,000   ~220     1995

My data for the 777-200 is 3-class seating of 320, with a stretch
version planned with 3-class seating in the 360-390 range.  United
ordered the 320 seat version according to AvWeek Oct. 22, 1990.

According to AvWeek Nov. 4, 1991, the A-340-300 will have a 3-class
seating configuration of 295, and the A340-200 will be shorter with 262
seats.

> seems vaguely familiar though I can't locate any references.

Boeing is considering three configurations for their "New Large Airplane
(NLA)" A 747 stretch, a double deck 747 and a totally new double decker.
3 class seats range from 484-612.  See AvWeek Jan 6, 1992 for a
description of these options.  

An Oct. 28, 1991 AvWeek article covers Airbus's studies on large
airplane configurations.  That article confusingly talks about the
ASX-700, but shows an artists concept with an A2000 on the tail.  600
3-class seats in a double deck configuration.  

I have also heard that Boeing will build theirs if Airbus launches.  I
suspect both are eying the market and hoping to delay the investment as
long as possible, given the current economic climate.  If one decides
the go-ahead, the other will have to launch defensively to prevent the
other from capturing the market.  I hope this won't be another fiasco
like the DC-10/L-1011 developments, where each captured enough of the
market to keep the other from making any money.  Lockheed got out of the
business, and some have questioned whether MDAC has ever really
recovered from that.

Ken

---
Ken Hoyme                    Honeywell Systems and Research Center
(612)951-7354                3660 Technology Dr., Minneapolis, MN 55418
Internet: [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Weiss)
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:47:07 GMT

>newer, possibly larger stretched versions of the 747?

Well, Boeing no longer makes the -300; I personally saw the last -300 being
built in mid-September of 1991.  The -300 has been replaced by the -400, which
has few fuselage changes.  The upper deck is the same size.  Basically, the
only "major" change is the addition of upper-surface winglets.

In my aero classes, we were taught that winglets are supposed to reduce the
trailing vortices and downwash from the wings.  However, according to my
cousin, who used to work for Lockheed's Skunk Works, the winglets have a cost
in drag that is roughly equivalent to the gain, and therefore is more a
marketing ploy than anything else.  Go figure.

>pre-sell a couple of hundred, maybe we'll really build it?"

Airbus is truly working on the plane, and hopes to knock Boeing out of the
747 sales.  However, Boeing has a history of being the best aircraft in the
world in terms of maintenance; Airbus apparently makes planes that are almost
as difficult to repair and inspect as McDonnell-Douglas.

McDonnell-Douglas has basically dropped out of that race, to my knowledge,
apparently because they require such a large amount of capital.

>I have no faith in them at all:

Try 1992.  The MD-11 was certified in October of 1991.  I saw about a dozen of
them at DFW this summer.  They are pretty much a DC-10 with upper and lower
winglets.

>    Airbus              AE-400   1994

Sounds about right.  Well, they were talking about '93, but that likely means
1994.  Supposedly, it will compete directly with the 747.

>    Boeing              777      1995-6

I would guess sooner, simply based upon the information I have heard.  I could
very well be wrong, though.
-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  [email-masked]   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   [email-masked]  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Swartz)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 11:01:51 GMT

>>7500-8000 mile range.

>TOTAL.  From my knothole, it looks like a prestige fight.

That's an *awful* lot of cash to dump down a hole simply for bragging
rights.  I suppose that's part of "being sporty" but there's also a
real market there -- the Pacific Rim, which is where nearly all the
growth is in the airline industry and which requires those kind of
range figures.  The load potential is there too, if not now then well
well within the next 10 to 20 years.

One aircraft that could punch a major hole in this market would be the
next generation supersonic transport.  (HSCT?  I can't pick the right
acronym out of my bowl of alphabet soup today ...)  *If* built, and at
least for now that is a very big if, this too would be aimed directly
at the Pacific Rim market.  The studies I've seen for this bird seem
to be aiming at the mainstream market and not just a very tiny high-
priced market like the Concorde.

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Swartz)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 11:31:58 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Michael Weiss) writes:
>built in mid-September of 1991.  The -300 has been replaced by the -400 ...

[ Moderator's note: When I started reading this I thought "oh no, yet
  another answer to the same question ... time to play moderator and
  turn on the squelch."  But there were some interesting points
  further down.  If you think we're beating a dead horse or would
  somehow like to see the thread split, please send suggestions to me
  at [email-masked]. ]

>marketing ploy than anything else.

I've seen this comment before, either on sci.aeronautics or perhaps on
rec.aviation.  Would anyone care to provide a more scientific discourse
on the subject for the benefit of the rest of us?

>as difficult to repair and inspect as McDonnell-Douglas.

I've heard some comments about Airbus maintenance being exorbitantly
expensive.  In particular, one comment I heard was that they are very
unforgiving about substitution of equivalent parts and gold-plate the
prices of Genuine Airbus Parts.

I have not previously encountered negative comments regarding
McDonnell-Douglas products in this context, however, and in fact have
heard that the DC-10 is rather well-liked because it's somewhat like
a big Chevy V-8 -- solid, and easy to fix when it breaks.  (Problems
with the design of the hydraulics notwithstanding.)

Seems to me that Lockheed, the L-1011 in particular but perhaps the
Electra in its time as well, tended toward somewhat more finicky
products that compensated by giving better performance.

Again, any more concrete comments on the subject would be welcomed.

>apparently because they require such a large amount of capital.

With regard to the MD-12, MacDAC seems to remain in the race nearly as
much as Boeing and Airbus, though their ability to carry through with
an actual aircraft is certainly less certain given their finances.  In
any case all three are paper planes until the airlines get themselves
into better financial shape.

>    Airbus              AE-400   1994
>
>Sounds about right.  Well, they were talking about '93, but that
>likely means 1994.  Supposedly, it will compete directly with the 747.

That would be the A-340, which is well along in its test program and
looks likely to make its scheduled first delivery (to Lufthansa) in
the first quarter of 1993.  It competes with the 747 in the sense
that it is a long-range aircraft, in fact exceeding the range of the
747-400 by a little bit, but it's somewhat smaller, on the order of
two-thirds the size.  In that sense it competes more closely with the
MD-12.

>>    Boeing              777      1995-6
>
>I would guess sooner, simply based upon the information I have
>heard.  I could very well be wrong, though.

It is indeed due the first half of 1995.  This seemed an inordinately
long gestation, but at launch time Boeing still had its hands full
with the 747-400, and was also painfully aware of the delays in the
747-400 program due to an over-ambitious schedule.  They simply did
not have the resources to commit to an earlier delivery.

The extra time has not at all been leisurely, however.  Boeing is
using many new design techniques with the 777, for example doing all
the mockups in computers.  (Actually a mockup *was* built of the nose
section, but more as a check on the computer models rather than of
the fit of the parts.)  There is also an aggressive commitment to
delivering an aircraft that's ready for service from day one, without
a substantial period of teething problems in operation.  This is an
area of some controversy in that they are striving for ETOPS rating
at initial delivery.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Dorsett)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 06:45:43 CST

Michael Weiss wrote:

>747 sales.  

Airbus is not working on the plane.  It has no launch customers, and has
not committed resources to it.  It is in a very preliminary concept stage, 
which is being heavily hyped, as part of the marketing effort.  It's a major
step: the failure OR success of the airplane can easily damage the consortium,
if they figure the market wrong.

>However, Boeing has a history of being the best aircraft in the

I've heard that Airbus maintenance is highly modular, highly automated,
and very structured, with no more problems than what one might expect when
client airlines switch from one vendor's accounting/maintenance practices to 
another.  This takes time, it takes a lot of training, and it is a standard-
ization nightmare: but there's little to suggest one manufacturer's program 
is better than the other's, on its own merits.  

>Try 1992.  The MD-11 was certified in October of 1991.  

By the end of 1991, MDC had made in excess of 30 deliveries of the MD-11.
First deliveries tend to follow certification VERY quickly.

>1994.  Supposedly, it will compete directly with the 747.

The A340 should receive certification next month, with deliveries in 
January 1993.  The A330 was rolled out last month, and should be certified
by mid-1993.  These are the only two new active programs Airbus is working 
on, apart from the A320 derivatives.

>>    Boeing              777      1995-6

First flight by June 1, 1994, deliveries in 1995, based on the July 1, 1992
Flight International.

---
Robert Dorsett
[email-masked]
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Swartz)
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 10:27:58 GMT

>First deliveries tend to follow certification VERY quickly.

Having received several other submissions mentioning earlier service
dates I decided to look up the real dates for the MD-11 and hopefully
nail the lid on the debate once and for all.

date		LN   reg'n	note
----		--   -----	----
Jan 10 1990	447  N11MD	first flight
Nov  9 1990	 -   -		type certificate issued (GE CF6-80C2 engines)
Nov 29 1990	455  OH-LGA	first delivery (PR event, to Finnair)
Dec  7 1990	455  OH-LGA	actual title transfer (at Las Vegas)
Dec 18 1990	 -   -		type certificate issued (P&W PW4460 engines)
Dec 20 1990	455  OH-LGA	first revenue service (Finnair,	Helsinki-
				  Tenerife charter)
Dec 21 1990	453  N891DL	delivery of Delta's first two MD-11s, leased
		454  N892DL	  from Mitsui (GE engines; Delta's own are PW)
Jan 24 1991	456  HL7371	first delivery of PW4460 version (to Korean)
Feb  5 1991	454  N892DL	first scheduled service (DL 4049 ATL-DFW-MCO)
Feb  6 1991	453  N891DL	first scheduled int'l (LAX-NRT; arrived LAX
				  previous day operating DL 4039 ATL-DFW-LAX)
Jun 27 1991	447  N601FE	delivery of first MD-11 (to Federal Express,
				  after refitting by Aerotest in Mojave, CA)

Roughly 35 MD-11s had been delivered by the end of 1991; McDonnell-
Douglas got off to a rather slow start because nearly every one of the
early aircraft were different, including passenger, freight, and combi
versions, some with GE engines and others with Pratt and Whitney.  The
Rolls-Royce version was cancelled after the demise of Air Europe.

BTW, note that line number 447 is the first MD-11.  446 was the last
of the last of the DC-10 line, a KC-10 if I'm not mistaken.

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael Weiss)
Date: 29 Nov 92 08:04:20 GMT

>with the design of the hydraulics notwithstanding.)

All of my repair information comes from my girlfriend's brother, who works as
a maintenance guy for SkyWest (a commuter airline that operates also as the
Delta Connection in Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Phoenix, and Las Vegas
primarily).  He said that DC-10s are notorious for repairs being all-day
operations, whereas Boeing's 737-300 and -400, 747-300 and -400, 757, and 767
have self-diagnostic systems that go so far as to direct the location of the
repair instructions down to the page, turning the repairs into a half-day
operation instead.  Note that I cannot verify this information, but I see no
reason to dispute it.

>products that compensated by giving better performance.

Now there's one I should ask my cousin.  He was a test pilot for the L-1011
when he was first hired by Lockheed.

>into better financial shape.

My understanding is that the capital exists within Boeing, and can certainly
be "created" within Airbus, but MacDAC has been losing faith quickly from its
investors.  At least, that's what the LA Times seems to indicate.  Rumor had it
that if the MD-11 did not get cert back in October '91, MacDAC was going to
have to file for bankruptcy.  Again, this was LA Times info.
-- 
\ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | /
-  Michael  [email-masked]   |  School of Engineering & Applied Science  -
-   Weiss   [email-masked]  |   University of California, Los Angeles   -
/ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Raveling)
Date: 01 Dec 92 00:13:25 PST

> >with the design of the hydraulics notwithstanding.)

	My dad always said that DC-10's were much easier to maintain
	than the Boeings that he also worked on at Western Airlines.
	My impression from him was that the DC-10's greatest advantage
	for maintenance was better access to components or areas needing
	maintenance.  To put it another way, the hell-hole count was
	much lower on the DC-10.  He also cited a lot of things
	that were simply more durable on the DC-10.  This is basically
	an echo of your report about being solid and easy to fix.

	  Background:  My dad worked in Western's LAX shop until he
	  retired about the time Western merged into Delta.  The Boeings
	  in question were 707's, 720's, 727's, and 737's.  Farther back
	  (1950's) he also worked for Boeing's Renton plant when they
	  were first manufacturing 707's and KC-135's.  He still did
	  occasional minor consulting jobs for Boeing until retirement,
	  typically to update quick-reference maintenance manuals.
	  He also had contacts at United's LAX shop who passed on
	  info about 747's & 767's.

------------------
Paul Raveling
[email-masked]

---

From: Christopher Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Dec 92 00:13:26 PST

KS> == Karl Swartz <[email-masked]> 

 KS> Having received several other submissions mentioning earlier service
 KS> dates I decided to look up the real dates for the MD-11 and hopefully
 KS> nail the lid on the debate once and for all.

 KS> date	 LN   reg'n	note
 KS> ----	 --   -----	----
 KS> Dec 21 1990 453  N891DL	delivery of Delta's first two MD-11s, leased
 KS> 		 454  N892DL	  from Mitsui (GE engines; Delta's own are PW)

Interesting note on these two; I was on a DL flight from CVG-BOS last
night (Thanksgiving travel :) and was looking in the seat pocket (trying
to find a DL postcard I didn't already have, actually) and noted their
"supplemental" emergency information card, which covers the aisle
lighting (red lights at exits, white elsewhere) now standard.

The card listed all of DL's jet types, with an interesting note next to
MD-11: "(except ships 891 and 892)".  After looking in JP, we realized
that these were the "odd couple" and that explained it.

(Unrelated notes: 757 BOS-CVG, 727 CVG-CLE, 727 CLE-CVG, 757 CVG-BOS,
and the outdoor viewing deck at CLE was closed (sigh) but at least the
glassed-in area was open...)

---

From: [email-masked] (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Date: 01 Dec 92 23:15:18 PST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Karl Swartz) writes:
>rights. 

It isn't just bragging rights.  Prestige has a market value.  There are
several airlines who are not out to make a profit.  The national airlines
of some oil rich countries for example, are not expected to make buck,
rather to 'carry the flag'.  Thai, as another example bought 747s some
years ago largely because of prestige.  Therefore, you have some airlines
who fly the <superlative of your choice> airplane in the world to make a
political statement.

> I suppose that's part of "being sporty" but there's also a

Most of the market you refer to can be filled with stretched 747s.  This
isn't difficult, and it is no doubt being looked at quite closely.
However, there is a practical limit to the stretch 747, and the real
question is how many airplanes above that limit can you sell?  If the
answer is pretty small (<100 airplanes maybe?) then it doesn't make any
sense to build the monster jet.  If it is an appreciable number, then it
makes sense to bypass the 747 stretch and go with an all new large
airplane.  And, as you noted, timing is a big issue.  No point in building
the thing if no one needs it for two or three years after roll-out.

>priced market like the Concorde.

Exactly.  Last word I got was ticket prices about 20% above full-price 747
coach was a target (granted that was a couple of years ago).  The HSCT is
my drool-job.  I doubt I'll ever get to work on it, but it really fires my
imagination.  Don't look for one before 2010; we seem to be a bit short on
engine and materials technology.

-- 
Terry
[email-masked]
"Anyone who thinks they can hold the company responsible for what I say has
more lawyers than sense."

---

From: [email-masked] (Gary Bisaga)
Date: 01 Dec 92 23:15:20 PST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Michael Weiss) writes:
|> 
|> All of my repair information comes from my girlfriend's brother, who works as
|> a maintenance guy for SkyWest (a commuter airline that operates also as the
|> Delta Connection in Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Phoenix, and Las Vegas
|> primarily).  He said that DC-10s are notorious for repairs being all-day
|> operations, whereas Boeing's 737-300 and -400, 747-300 and -400, 757, and 767
|> have self-diagnostic systems that go so far as to direct the location of the
|> repair instructions down to the page, turning the repairs into a half-day
|> operation instead.  Note that I cannot verify this information, but I see no
|> reason to dispute it.
Nor would I - but you're comparing apples to oranges.  The other aircraft you
mention probably have much more extensive electronic maintenance aids since
most have much more extensive avionics in general.  It wouldn't surprise me
if there was also more electronic diagnosis.

The MD-11, of course, is just as highly outfitted with electronics as any
of those others - and the FMC design is newer as well, if I'm not mistaken -
so a comparison with the MD-11 would almost certainly be different.

-- 
Gary Bisaga ([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (Harry Funk)
Date: 02 Dec 92 13:18:59 PST

>so a comparison with the MD-11 would almost certainly be different.

I agree.  There are several factors involved here:
	
	  how often does stuff break or require scheduled maintenance,
	  how well is the fault isolated by on-board or off-board
	    maintenance aiding systems,
	  how well does the documentation aid you in further isolating and
	    subsequently rectifying the fault, 
	  how difficult does the design of the aircraft make it to perform
	    the directed operations.

The MD-11 has a Centralized Fault Display System (CFDS), which serves as a
gateway to the BIT information provided by other avionics.  ARINC report
604 describes the characteristics of a CFDS system.  The 747-400 (but not
older versions of the 747, nor the 757/767) has a Central Maintenance
Computer, which takes the individual reports provided by the avionics,
merges them to form a consistent picture, which it provides to the
maintenance tech by means of a fault message.  The message is associated
with a entry point into the (paper) maintenance documentation fault tree.
Airbus has a similar system.  B777 will have a similar system.  These last
three are all (I think) ARINC Report 624 (On-board Maintenance System)
systems. 

The more advanced systems, such as those found on the B747-400, A320/340
and B777, are quite difficult to build, since a change in the design of any
reporting subsystem may affect the design/operation of the CMC.  During
flight test, when things change rapidly, the CMC changes as the sum of all
the subsystem changes (best case - worst case is that the changes
interact.)

"I am not, have never been, and hope never to be, a spokesperson for 
Honeywell."  

H.
--
Harry A. Funk     Principal Research Scientist        Voice: (612)-782-7396
Honeywell Systems and Research Center             FAX:       (612)-782-7438
3660 Technology Dr.   MS:MN65-2500           Inet:  [email-masked]
Minneapolis, MN 55418 			Bang:  <any-smart-host>!srcsip!funk

---

From: [email-masked] (Ahmed Shabana)
Date: 03 Dec 92 00:40:06 PST

>who fly the <superlative of your choice> airplane in the world to make a

While I agree with you that some airlines buy planes for prestige ( I
think the cake goes to Iran Air during the Shah days when they had several
Concordes on order), Thai is a world class airline that is profit
oriented. They have a very close relationship with KLM and are one of
the most successfull airlines in the fast growing Asian market.
Moreover they have at least 9  747's in their fleet (  6 -200, 3 -400) and an
order for 5 more -400. Such commitement to an aircraft type stems from simple
economics and not prestige.

Ahmed

--
_____________________________________________________________________
Ahmed A. Shabana	         |" Bill, now you can get rid of THAT watch"
Anderson Graduate School of Mgmt.| Omega watches commercial aired on
U.C.L.A.                         | Election day referring to Clinton's Timex

---

From: [email-masked] (Ramin Dowlati)
Date: 08 Dec 92 15:50:58 PST

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?
Q2. Are they mobile or fixed?
Q3. Do they only serve to stabilize the flight?
Q4. Why haven't they appeared on smaller aircraft?
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?

I would greatly appreciate any answers.

-Cheers

---

From: Bob Coggeshall <[email-masked]>
Date: 08 Dec 92 15:51:22 PST

|> From: [email-masked] (Ahmed Shabana)
|> Thai is a world class airline that is profit
|> oriented. They have a very close relationship with KLM and are one of
|> the most successfull airlines in the fast growing Asian market.

Thai's cabin service is reknowned, yes. But I really wonder what their
finances really look like; I've seen alot of press that portrays Thai Air
as just a quasi-private venture of the Thai military.

A thread of discussion I'd like to see is _Two_ fatal incidents
in as many months involving airbuses aborting approaches at Kathmandu.
One of them invovled a Thai Air airbus.

    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Bob Coggeshall, President
    Cogwheel Incorporated - Producers of Low-cost dial-up IP Routers
    [email-masked]
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

---

From: [email-masked] (Gregory R. Travis)
Date: 10 Dec 92 00:52:11 PST

>Q1. What is the technical name for these flap-like things?

Winglets.

>Q2. Are they mobile or fixed?

I've always seen them fixed.

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

No.

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

They have.  Look at the new Learjets or, heck, any Cessna after about
1974.

As I understand it, the winglets serve to prevent "spillage" of air
from the high-pressure area under the wing to the low-pressure area
above it.

In flight, there is a considerable difference in air pressure between the
lower side of the wing and the upper side.  Nature, being as it is, finds
this situation abhorrent and constantly tries to find ways to equalize the
air pressure between the two surfaces.  One way of doing this is to allow air
to spill out of the underside of the wing at the tip and curl upward to the
upper side of the wing.  

Unfortunately for the airline bean-counters and aerodynamicists, this
spillage of air creates strong vortices - miniature tornados lying
horizontally along the axis of the fuselage.  The vortices themselves and
the loss of pressure from the lower side of the wing both contribute to drag
and loss of lift & wing efficiency.

The "winglets" prevent the spillage up to the upper wing surface via a
physical wall.  The air escapes from the bottom surface and tries to
curl up to the upper surface and is stopped by the winglet.

There are several different winglet designs.  As I mentioned, Cessna and others
have been doing it for some time with drooped wingtips.  One can
put the barrier so that it is either hanging DOWN (Cessna) from the wing, or
so that it protrudes ABOVE the wing (Boeing) - the net effect is, roughly,
the same.

Likewise, an airplane in ground-effect flies much more efficiently because
the proximity of the wing to the ground prevents the full formation of the
wingtip vorticies and thus air spillage to the top of the wing is greatly
reduced.

The big issue is in constructing a winglet that recovers more lost lift than it
effectively destroys with added drag.

It's interesting that Airbus, I believe, is intending to offer a device which
would trail from each wingtip and employ a propeller of some sort.  The
propeller would hook to a electrical generator and produce power from the
wingtip vortices.

greg

--
Gregory Reed Travis				D  P  S  I
Data Parallel Systems Incorporated   [email-masked] (For MX mailers only!)
Bloomington, IN			     [email-masked] (For the others)

---

From: [email-masked] (Greg Wright)
Date: 10 Dec 92 00:52:14 PST

Winglets....

 Fixed on our airframes....

 They help to reduce the induced drag by preventing the wingtip
 vorticies from forming...well keep them from being as strong at
 the tips anyway. They also produce lift since they are not 
 mounted absolutly vertical. In the same vain, they produce a little
 thrust.

 The weight. Also, in theory they have big effect on the reduction of
 total drag, however, this has not been the case. The effect is small
 enough that we put them only on the long range planes. This is why
 we removed them from the wings of the 747-400D, which was made for
 short hauls..

 Same principle, just different methods. As the technology advances
 you will see many different devices designed to to the same thing.
 NASA flew a plane that had six or seven winglets, all at different
 angles to the freestream....

-Cheers

 ________Greg Wright____________     High Lift Development     
| [email-masked]  |    Aerodynamics    
|     [email-masked]       |                             
|____uunet!bcstec!gregory_______|               NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON.

---

From: [email-masked] (Christopher Davis)
Date: 10 Dec 92 16:07:18 PST

RD> == Ramin Dowlati <[email-masked]>

(Um, your software's broken....               ^^^^^^^^^^^^)

 RD> Several years ago, the aeropspace industry introduced vertical
 RD> flap-like things on the ends of their airplane wings. I've only
 RD> noticed these on 'larger' planes such Airbus, 747-400 and MD-11.

They're on smaller aircraft as well.  The Canadair Challenger bizjet and
its big brother, the Canadair Regional Jet (which makes this article
about airliners :) have them, for example.

(Side note: ComAir (The Delta Connection) has a HUGE model of the RJ in
their gate area at CVG.  [We had a long (2 hrs) connection on Delta, I
was bored, so after having some chili I walked all the way down the
concourse.])
--
Christopher K. Davis      | ``Usenet seems to run much like the Kif (or,
<[email-masked]>   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 <[email-masked]>

---

From: [email-masked] (Paul Raveling)
Date: 11 Dec 92 17:42:33 PST

> 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.

>     of the actually wing, but bent 90 degrees upwards.

	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
[email-masked]