Subject: Re: hydraulic problems with DC-10's??

From: Christopher Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:03:12 -0500

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

 Karl> Probably the best general interest discussion of the DC-10 and
 Karl> all its problems is in The Sporty Game, by John Newhouse (Alfred
 Karl> A. Knopf, New York, 1982).  Chapter 5 in particular goes into
 Karl> great detail, though it of course predates the Sioux City crash.

Other good books on the subject include Moira Johnston's _The Last Nine
Minutes_ (which, being 1976, only discusses the Turkish Airlines
Ermenonville crash and the Windsor "incident" which foreshadowed it) and
John Nance's _Blind Trust_ (1986, also predating Sioux City).  (The
latter discusses many other air safety issues and incidents, including
the Air Florida crash in Washington, DC in 1982.)

_The Sporty Game_ tends to show its age in other areas as well; the dire
predictions of market failure for the 747, 757, and 767 have not quite
been borne out by intervening events :)

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Swartz)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 11:50:42 GMT

> Karl> A. Knopf, New York, 1982).

>been borne out by intervening events :)

The 757 was doing rather weakly for quite a while, however.  The huge
orders in the past few years from American, United, and United Parcel
have contributed mightily to the 757's success.

I recently re-read this book and one thing I found fascinating was the
discussion of the 757 and how it was the wrong aircraft -- it should
have had about 30 fewer seats, which is what everyone wanted.  Everone
except British Airways, that is, and Boeing wanted desperately to sell
to BA in the hopes of keeping the UK out of Airbus.  They won the
battle, as it were, but lost the war.  In more ways than one, since
not only did the UK link up with Airbus (despite BA's purchase of the
757) but Boeing was left without a well-positioned replacement for the
727 ... and Airbus *did* develop one, in the form of the A-320.

All of this was particularly interesting as I was reading it right as
United announced their A-320 order, rejecting Boeing's offerings as
either too big (the 757) or inadequate on a variety of counts (the
737-400) for the intended job of replacing the 727-200.  Fascinating
to see how decisions made 15 years ago are still so clearly relected
in today's market.

I'm *still* surprised that Boeing hasn't made much noise (maybe none)
about plugging this obvious hole by offering a 757-100 or whatever --
a shortened 757 like the original proposal and a real replacement for
the 727-200.  Even with United it never seemed to come up, instead all
the discussion focussing on a massively stretched and pulled and re-
designed 737-600.  True, a 757 is more expensive (~ $45 million versus
$30 - 35 million) but the changes embodied in the 737-600 would surely
have added tremendously to the price.

-- 
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] (Greg Wright)
Date: 01 Dec 92 00:13:23 PST

>have added tremendously to the price.

 I think that you will find that every attempt at a shortened version
of one of our planes has had limited success. Take the 747SP for example.
Airlines tend not to like the sorted versions very much. In $/seat or $/mile
these versions are too expensive to run. There is a real problem having
too much engine or wing with them. We find it is better to stretch if
anything....

Greg

-- 
 ________Greg Wright____________     "I struggle to be brief     
| [email-masked]  |     and become obscure."         
|     [email-masked]       |                             
|____uunet!bcstec!gregory_______|               NOT A BOEING SPOKESPERSON.

---

From: [email-masked] (Noah Cole)
Date: 01 Dec 92 23:15:21 PST

>Greg

How many airlines use 747SP's today? I have a poster from Popular Mechanics
that was around the arrival of the 747-400 with a drawing of a United
747SP and it said that the 747SP set a record flying from Payne Field, Washington to South Africa.  Was that SAA? Who flies the 747SP Today and on what routes?

-Noah Cole
--
Noah Cole		"Outside is America,		     [email-masked]
Macalester College	and also the car park"	            [email-masked]
St. Paul, MN 55105    	- Bono, 27 December 1989      [email-masked]
612-696-7388 		 	Dublin	            [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Karl Swartz)
Date: 02 Dec 92 03:49:49 PST

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Noah Cole) writes:
>747SP and it said that the 747SP set a record flying from Payne Field,
>Washington to South Africa.  Was that SAA? Who flies the 747SP Today
>and on what routes?

I believe United still has the largest fleet, with the ten 747SP-21s
which were acquired from Pan Am in February, 1986.  They also got a
-27 in that deal (originally owned by Braniff) but it was sold just
a few months ago.  (One reference I have shows Pan Am as having had
a grand total of 13 747SPs -- I think they had another two ex-Braniff
planes but I'm not sure.)

United first used the 747SPs on the trans-Pacific routes.  Currently,
they are used primarily for flights to South America, from JFK and
perhaps other US airports.  There's also a daily SFO-JFK round-trip.
They also tend to show up as fill-ins on random other 747 flights --
I have often flown on them SFO-ORD when they subbed for the 747-100
scheduled for the flight, and I've seen them in LHR as well.

American had a pair of 747SP-31s (built for TWA) acquired for their
DFW-NRT route.  The MD-11 is now used on that route; AA last used
their pair of SPs for JFK-LHR before retiring them last summer.

QANTAS and South African each have a pair, not surprising how far away
they are from most everything.  I think QANTAS bought theirs for SYD-
SFO or perhaps LAX, though I think the US routes are now all 747-400
or 767-300(ER).  South African actually owns five but seems to lease
them out fairly regularly.

After United and South African, Air China (mainland), China Airlines
(Taiwan), and Air Mauritius probably have the largest fleets with four
each.  I see the CAL ones at SFO on occasion.  The Air Mauritius
planes, three of which are leased from South African, are used on
routes to LHR and probably other European cities from Mauritius which
is in the Indian ocean.

Beyond that, the operators are pretty random -- Oman has one and the
United Arab Emirates have two, all of which are listed as being used
for Royal Flight.  Saudia and Korean each have a pair.  Others are
tucked away in various obscure places which I haven't yet stumbled
upon, or have and have since forgotten.

Oh yes, it was a South African 747SP delivery that held a record for
longest flight (time or distance or both) for a jetliner or some such.
That may still stand but I wouldn't be too surprised if a 747-400 had
subsequently established a new record.

---

From: [email-masked] (Robert Jacobson)
Date: 02 Dec 92 03:49:50 PST

As a frequent air traveler, I find the 757 to be positively the most
uncomfortable aircraft now flying.  One can begin with the ubiquitous
TV monitors hanging from the ceilings every few rows, which cannot be
dimmed or turned off even on a red-eye, and progress to the remarkable
number of seats that can be squeezed into row upon row of stifled
passengers.  It may be a technical feat, but I know instruct my travel
agent to pass on any flight requiring me to take a 757.  Yeck.

Bob Jacobson

---

From: Christopher Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Dec 92 13:18:57 PST

RJ> == Robert Jacobson <[email-masked]> 

 RJ> As a frequent air traveler, I find the 757 to be positively the
 RJ> most uncomfortable aircraft now flying.  One can begin with the
 RJ> ubiquitous TV monitors hanging from the ceilings every few rows,
 RJ> which cannot be dimmed or turned off even on a red-eye, and
 RJ> progress to the remarkable number of seats that can be squeezed
 RJ> into row upon row of stifled passengers.  It may be a technical
 RJ> feat, but I know instruct my travel agent to pass on any flight
 RJ> requiring me to take a 757.  Yeck.

What airlines are you flying?  The 757's monitors *are* turned off on
most of the flights I've seen (except for the coast-to-coast nonstops,
where they're on for the movie and/or the "video magazine").  The seat
pitch seems to be better than the predecessor 727-200s usually have
(especially if you get the right seats; the NW 757s have four large
doors per side instead of 3 large doors and two overwing exits, making
for a number of seats with immense legroom).

The 757 isn't a widebody, but (to me anyway) it has many of the best
features of widebodies (it only lacks the second aisle for use in
getting around meal carts :).

(What aircraft *are* you flying on, if you're not on 757s?)

---

From: [email-masked] (Noah Cole)
Date: 02 Dec 92 13:18:58 PST

>>Washington to South Africa.  Was that SAA? Who flies the 747SP Today
(Info on ownership of 747SP deleted- it was very interesting though. Thanks)

>subsequently established a new record.

I thin k that the record was set by a Qantas 747-400 from LHR to SYD in the
summer of 1989 with the poassengers being the British Cricket Team and the
only article in the cargo was a cricket ball.

-Noah Cole

---

From: [email-masked] (David Moore)
Date: 03 Dec 92 00:40:08 PST

>subsequently established a new record.

QANTAS was crowing about their non-stop 747-400 delivery flight from
London to Sydney when I flew with them a couple of years back. I think
they were claiming records, but I do not remember for sure. Certainly, it
is a long flight.

To do it, they had to get a specially formulated (higher energy/kilo) fuel
and the crew's luggage flew separately. Naturally, the flight magazine
was silent on the question, but I imagine the crew also flew in their under-wear 
to further reduce weight.

I have no idea why they were delivering via London.

---

From: [email-masked] (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Date: 03 Dec 92 00:40:14 PST

>agent to pass on any flight requiring me to take a 757.  Yeck.

I hasten to point out that it is no fault of the airplane, or of the
manufacturer for that matter, that you have been overcrowded.  The interior
of the airplane is determined by the operator.  All the interiors.
Interiors, sometimes called 'payloads', fall in the category of 'BFE', or
Buyer Furnished Equipment.  That means that when Delta stuffs 38 rows (or
whatever the precise number happens to be) into a 757, you get a 30" seat
pitch (or a 29" or a 28"!).  Don't blame the manufacturer or the airplane.

As another illustration, take a look at American's 727-200s.  Originally
designed as a 150+ seat transport, they use it as a 129 seater.  Nice 34"
seat pitch over almost the entire airplane (the first class has it even
better).  But the American ticket typically costs more.  You pays your
money and you takes your pick.

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

---

From: [email-masked] (Terrell D. Drinkard)
Date: 04 Dec 92 22:30:32 PST

>I have no idea why they were delivering via London. 

Possibly to reproduce the MacRobertson Race of 1932 or '33.  That went from
London to Sydney, as I recall.  The Boeing 247 and the Douglas DC-2 came in
second and third behind a special build DeHavilland  racer.  That was a
remarkable period of change in the airplane industry.  However, that race
tooks a few weeks (all of this is from memory - I don't have any references
on it, or if I do I don't know where they are :-).

Just a theory...

---

From: [email-masked] (Daan Sandee)
Date: 08 Dec 92 15:50:53 PST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Terrell D. Drinkard) writes:
|> In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (David Moore) writes:
|> >I have no idea why they were delivering via London. 
|> 
|> Possibly to reproduce the MacRobertson Race of 1932 or '33.  That went from
|> London to Sydney, as I recall.  The Boeing 247 and the Douglas DC-2 came in
|> second and third behind a special build DeHavilland  racer.  That was a
|> remarkable period of change in the airplane industry.  However, that race
|> tooks a few weeks (all of this is from memory - I don't have any references
|> on it, or if I do I don't know where they are :-).

For the sake of historical accuracy, London to Melbourne, 1932.
As I remember, the DC-2 (a standard version flown by a KLM crew) came in
second (first in the handicapped class) and might have won overall if it
hadn't had engine trouble a couple of hundred miles from Melbourne.
The race took around ten days. Cruising speed, 250-300 mph. Individual
legs 1000 miles max (they couldn't fly Darwin to Sydney nonstop, had to
refuel in some awful place in the interior). As Terry says, it showed the
ongoing revolution in the airline industry.

As to the Qantas delivery, LHR-SYD was presumably the route they needed to
advertize, more so than LAX-SYD which would have been the obvious one.

Daan Sandee                                           [email-masked]
Thinking Machines Corporation
Cambridge, Mass 02142                                 (617) 234-5044