|
|
| Re: Boeing jet to break distance record (73781) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (74295) | |
Re: Boeing jet to break distance record |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Nov 10 16:47:37 2005, in response to Re: Boeing jet to break distance record, posted by WillD on Thu Nov 10 14:30:41 2005. Query: Although freight lines are buying new airplanes, they are still flying some DC-8's in freight service. How do they do that? Are all these re-engined models? The DC-8 by today's standards is a gas hog, even with newer engines. But they don't replace it (and it still needs a flight engineer, unlike the MD-10 conversions that eliminated that crew member on the DC-10). |
|
|
| (74305) | |
Re: Boeing jet to break distance record |
|
|
Posted by cortelyounext on Thu Nov 10 17:56:30 2005, in response to Re: Boeing jet to break distance record, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Nov 10 16:43:08 2005. I enjoyed both WillD's and your contributions to this thread. In most cases, the military -135 fleet has been retrofitted with the GE/SNECMA CFMs. Along with avionic upgrade packages (i.e., Pacer CRAG), that reengine was arguably one of the better military contracts in recent memory. In hindsight, the drawback was the CFMs were bought sans thrust reversing. The earlier "block" CFMs were rated at 26,000 lbs static thrust sea level but trimmed back to 22,000 lbs - that initial rating is higher than the original F-15/16 P&W/GE F-100 engines in full afterburner, yet is eerily silent which attests to the fact that 80% of the power, depending on flight regime, comes from the compressed airflow rather than the combusted exhaust. The earliest models of the CFM had a problem with the Power Management Controls kicking in and out during approach thrust settings, so pilots on four engine aircraft sometimes flew with the inboards advanced and the outboards retarded to decrease spool up time; later models the PMCs were adjusted. As to brand, many airlines opted for the Aero V2500s for their Airbus A-320 family, a good engine in its own right, but I think most chose the CFMs, my preference. |
|
|
| (74307) | |
Re: Boeing jet to break distance record |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Nov 10 18:07:28 2005, in response to Re: Boeing jet to break distance record, posted by cortelyounext on Thu Nov 10 17:56:30 2005. Thanks for your contribution too!"The earliest models of the CFM had a problem with the Power Management Controls kicking in and out during approach thrust settings, so pilots on four engine aircraft sometimes flew with the inboards advanced and the outboards retarded to decrease spool up time;" I read about an Airbus A300 crash years ago where both engines flamed out on final approach to the runway because the Fuel Management System set them to idle and then choked off the air (fuel mixture was too rich). Subsequently the software's bugs were fixed. What can you add to this? Is this related to what you're talking about? |
|
|
| (74308) | |
Re: Boeing jet to break distance record |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Thu Nov 10 18:19:44 2005, in response to Re: Boeing jet to break distance record, posted by Peter Rosa on Thu Nov 10 12:59:26 2005. Fourth, they are non-union if I recall correctly.True, but their pay scales are comparable to other, unionized airlines. Better non unionized airlines such as Jet Blue and Southwest pay competitively with unionized airlines. |
|
|
| (74365) | |
Re: Boeing jet to break distance record |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 10 23:40:07 2005, in response to Re: Boeing jet to break distance record, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Nov 10 12:45:41 2005. Southwest's unionized.Their original game plan was to fly to non-major airports (like McArthur) to avoid the high landing fees. They usually go into major airports (like EWR) when other carriers fall by the wayside . . . |
|
|
| (74374) | |
Re: Boeing jet to break distance record |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Nov 11 00:09:41 2005, in response to Re: Boeing jet to break distance record, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 10 23:40:07 2005. You are correct in regard to airport selection. Southwest was quick to capitalize on airline failures and snapped up gates when they became available. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||