Did you miss my questions in 1359?

You don't have to worry about this. The planes don't go straight from the computer to the factory to carrying passengers. There's quite an extensive amount of flight testing done with the first few planes off the assembly line. The test pilots are verifying that the plane meets the design specs and are also checking the flight characteristics. That first plane off the assembly line will probably never carry passengers for any airline.

One of those first prototypes is used for destructive testing and is subjected to forces that far exceed anything the plane would experience in normal flight.

Boeing test flights are done in Washington state and Boeing has its own fields for this use. The airplanes are equipped with a lot of extra equipment for measuring various parameters during the test phase. I don't know about parachutes (pretty sure they don't have them), but the planes definitely don't have ejection seats.

I don't know about the engineers being on board, but it wouldn't surprise me. No girlfriends, but they do bring along a cat and a duck.

No, I actually typed a pretty lengthy reply to that one and now I see that it's not here, which means that I had it ready to go and never hit Submit Reply, and I know exactly why: my wife came in to the room and wanted me to put up the laptop. So, I made my last entries (which I clearly remember, since I made comments about Grand Cayman) and after scanning for typos I put the laptop away...but didn't take that important last step.

Well, it's like the guys always say to me when I misdeal at our poker games: "It's a good thing you don't have a job that requires attention to detail."

Maybe I need a checklist for this thread...

Anyway, I'll try to recreate my previous answer. Too bad because the one I did was probably the finest piece of prose yet itt.

I had to make one more comment on this because I just noticed this stat in your question, which is about an order of magnitude wrong. In cruise flight, the 767ER will use around 12,000 lbs/hr of fuel at the most, which is about 1800 gallons/hour or 30 gallons/minute. And this is total, so it's about 15 gallons/minute per engine.

Sigh, looking forward to the recreation

Hey N 82 50 24, here's my 2nd attempt to answer this one. I'll try to remember to actually hit Submit Reply this time. BTW, is your name a significant latitude?


The only real noticeable difference from the pilots' perspective is during an engine failure. Rear mounted engines have less of a problem due to asymmetric thrust. With wing mounted engines, the thrust line has a longer moment arm about the C.G. and requires more rudder to compensate when one motor isn't running.

I remember when Delta was experiencing problems with the P&W engines on the 757 fleet and they had the engineers from Pratt & Whitney working on it. Delta even parked a bunch of 757s for extended periods (this was early this century). At the time, I wasn't flying the 757 so I just exercised a variant of my life philosophy (which is: "There is no problem so big that it can't be run away from.") by ignoring it, figuring they'd have it worked out by the time I got to the 757. Turns out I was right...I haven't heard of any problems with these engines since I've been on the plane. (We also have a lot of 757s with GE engines.)

The 777 does have tremendously powerful engines and the performance stats are based on worst-case for takeoff, i.e. engine failure at V1 when the plane is at its heaviest and slowest. I've heard that the engines are so powerful that during a V1 engine failure, it's necessary to actually reduce power on the good engine because the asymmetric thrust is greater than the rudder can handle.

Even on the flight you mention, I wouldn't be surprised if they use reduced thrust for takeoff, as we try to do on most flights (exception: we use full thrust for icing conditions or if windshear is reported) to prolong the life of these incredibly expensive engines.

Those island flying companies don't have the FAA oversight that we have in the U.S. so you don't know the quality of the pilot training/checking, maintenance program, or requirements for their dispatchers (if any). They may be excellent, but how can you know? At least in the U.S. (and most "first world" countries) there is some agency verifying compliance with certain standards. And with the major U.S. airlines the compliance goes beyond the minimum required.

I'm not trying to criticize them -- I'd fly on them if I was on vacation -- but it's just a different ballgame with on-demand charter flying.

My wife likes to go someplace in the Caribbean every year and we try to go somewhere new each time (it was Punta Cana last year). We went to Grand Cayman about 4 years ago and she still has a picture on the refrigerator of her holding a 4 foot stingray during our visit to Stingray City. Great place!

Heh, I get that a lot. It's actually my first initial, my birth year, my parents' birth years and the year two of my grandparents were born.

Followup... does that happen automatically or does the pilot need to react? What sort of reaction time is required to avoid going off the runway?

I guess I meant... are little planes less safe? Let's say Delta flew around some Cessnas in the US. Would that be higher risk than flying on a 777 on an overseas flight?

Yea, people love that place. Very cool sandbar. Hopefully you two come back!

Thanks for the retyped response

Okay, another few questions...

1) Do you notice differences flying a plane that has a supercritical airfoil? Particularly at low speeds? Are there different rules about AOAs? Does it handle turbulence any differently or are the decreased boundary layer benefits only applicable to air moving quickly in the proper direction (ie, over the wing from the front)?

2) Given the chance, would you have volunteered to be on-board the first 787 flight? Not as a pilot, just as a passenger.

3) What are those leather toolbox-like bags that I always see on pilots' luggage? Usually they have stickers and such. I am assuming some sort of documentation stuff.

Nothing happens automatically when the engine fails. It's up to the pilot to take action. On an engine failure at V1, the pilot will notice the airplane begin to yaw towards the failed engine due to asymmetric thrust and, just as you would correct for a car starting to veer off the road, the pilot will maintain directional control using the rudder. This action needs to be timely, especially if operating the plane near maximum takeoff weight. The yawing, if not corrected, will cause an increase in drag as the airframe itself presents more cross-section to the airflow. If heavy, this increased drag may make a climb impossible.

We practice V1 cuts under all conditions and when the airplane is heavy on a hot day it demands precise technique to eke out a shallow climb (100-200 ft/minute).



I don't consider small airplanes less safe. They are simpler in design and operate at lower speeds, which means things won't go bad quite as quickly if you have a problem. However, the one thing I greatly prefer about jets is the reliability of the jet engine vs. the piston engine. In a sense, a piston engine is almost literally beating itself to death...so much motion among the parts. In a jet, everything is just spinning. As long as it's well lubricated it has a very hign MTBF (mean time between failure).

It's kind of the same reason that I have more concern on a helicopter than a fixed wing aircraft -- the helicopter has so many moving parts thrashing about. The rotor hub assembly is a marvel of engineering and pretty complicated. I've heard it said that a helicopter doesn't actually fly, it simply beats the air into submission.

But, as D10, will probably note, my concern is born of ignorance about those machines. They fascinate me and I'd love to get the add-on to my license.

There's not really a noticeable difference in feel. The supercritical airfoil allows flight at higher Mach numbers by delaying and decreasing the strength of shock waves on the wing. It's the optimum design for the high speed regime.

These wings have a tendency to induce Dutch Roll and for that reason we have yaw dampers on the plane. If we didn't have them, you'd probably start feeling airsick due to the rolling motion.

As for AOA, there's no different considerations here. Every wing has a characteristic Angle of Attack at which the wing will stall. We strive to never get close to this point and that's why we have minimum speeds for each flap setting. (Adding flaps changes the shape of the wing and the stall speed decreases as a result.)

For example, minimum clean speed (no flaps or slats) is going to be around 210 kts (+/- 10 kts or so, depending on weight), so as we approach that speed when slowing, the flying pilot asks for "Flaps 1", which puts out the leading edge slats and 1 degree of trailing edge flaps. The Flaps 5 speed might be 180 kts, and so forth.

I don't think so. I'd gladly go on a Space Shuttle mission, but I don't see the upside to being on the first flight of anything, especially as a passenger.

Are you talking about our flight bags? Those contain all the charts and company publications that we're required to carry, as well as a flashlight. New York based 767 pilots are required to carry charts for almost the whole damn world and it's a source of much grumbling among the pilots. It's gotten to the point where I don't even have room for my headset in my bag, but I've got en route charts for the Pacific and airport charts for Tokyo. Plus, the darn thing is getting heavy!

If you see a flight bag with a sticker that says "MORE COWBELL", that might be me.

WOXO misses nothing, sir.

Except "submit reply" buttons

Also, I was talking about the flight bags. They look like a pain in the ass to lug around.

WOXOF,

Yet another drink offer?

You sir, are a fraud. You come to us masquerading as an altruistic-minded professional aviator seeking perhaps to unlock the mysteries and secrets of your world for those of us constrained to the ground.

Your motives have suddenly become quite transparent to those of us keeping tally. It seems your ulterior motive behind this fascinating thread is to keep yourself in free drinks no matter where in the world you may alight.

Yah, still waiting for the p.m. when you're in Vegas.

ever been to this airport?

I've never seen this one, but I see that it's on the island of Saba and is only 1300 ft long...too short for airline jets, though I'd have loved to land there in my old Grumman Yankee.

Cockpit video of a landing there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIuS4qx9WE4

Satellite view:


http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=17%C2%B038'40 .85%22,+-63%C2%B013'14.73%22&sll=17.64531,-63.218819&sspn=0.006687,0.013078&ie=UTF8&ll=17.645 31,-63.218164&spn=0.006687,0.013078&t=h&z=17

In order to obtain the SOC from the FAA manuals had to be combined and NW and DL pilots (as well as F/A's) had to make changes so that both groups now use common procedures. How much of a hassle was that? Which group (NW or DL) had to make more changes?

All true! It's funny you mention the rotor hub, because one of my most memorable experiences with this helicopter was back when I worked on them as a mechanic and I was changing the main transmission for the first time. It gets pulled out by hoisting up the rotor hub with some of the flight controls and about 1,000 lbs of transmission hanging off of it. There were a lot of nervous mechanics standing around at that point because there were just so many little parts that would be holding up a lot of weight and it didn't look like they were designed for it. Then I remembered that every time we take off we're basically lifting at the same point with not only the weight of the transmission but the entire helicopter suspended below it. It was an interesting new perspective.

And I'll never forget the first time I sat in the back of one as it was being run up to full speed. I was almost sure the helicopter was going to rip itself apart. 3000+hp doing nothing but spinning 100lb blades around feels incredibly violent.

But they achieve safety just like any other aircraft. Parts that are engineered to handle way more stress than they'll ever actually see with conservative overhaul schedules and redundancy everywhere possible.

More questions...

1) Do you foresee any possibility of a shift in engine technology? Are there any commercial aviation applications of technology like pulsejets and ramjets? I saw that you mentioned an emergency ram generator but I mean as a primary means of propulsion. As you say, turbofan jet engines are more reliable due to less stress on the parts -- and something like a pulsejet could even further reduce moving parts. And ramjets might be a way to explore a return to supersonic jet travel although admittedly I don't know much about how it would perform on a cost/mile to operate. In the case of a ramjet (or scramjet in this case) I would be assuming a combination approach of some sort.

2) Outside of Delta, which are your favorite air carriers based on overall quality of experience?

3) I know that when I switch from manual to automatic cars I sometimes get confused when I'm not thinking and I step for the clutch or something like that. Same thing when I switch to driving on the left in Cayman. Do you ever get confused going from car to plane? Confused might be the wrong word but have you ever momentarily caught yourself doing the thing you'd do in the other?

4) Is the quasi-circular white line in the middle of turbofan engine intakes a way to spot a fan not centered correctly or whatever the term would be? If so, is it your job to look for that? And does the person looking at it get tested in a simulator?

It was a huge effort far above my pay grade. The changes have been implemented in a phased approach with home study for the pilots before the effective date of the changes. It's been a pretty smooth, painless transition.

As to which side made more changes, it depends on who you ask. I am hopeful that they took the best from both sides.

when you're on the ground what do you use to steer the plane? is it the rudder pedals?

how about when you land- what do you use for manual braking? do you push both rudder pedals down for braking? is there a worry that you'll push one pedal more than the other and aircraft will veer a bit?

woxof,

obligatory thanks, kudos, etc.

I am a newb who needs a new hobby ( not really but let's assume I do ). I've kicked the idea of getting a pilot license since college, and probably should have done it before 2001 when I had the chance. What's the best and efficient (financially, safety-wise, as well as quickest) way of achieving this?

From what I understand everyone starts with a single engine license, then with enough flight hours gets the 'fly-by-instruments' instruction, then what? Can you take a jet class after that? For general aviation, do I need to get certified for every equipment I want to fly?

Thanks in advance.

Sidetrack but funny related story:

There's more here:

http://ojar.com/view_18339.htm

In this case the use of "bloody" was literal I suppose.