What happens when a 767 lands just a little bit too hard....

LouB747, what kind of camera do you use? Nice shots.

 

I'd love to see and hear the reactions of passengers on this flight, haha!

http://www.airliners.net/photo/0289429/L/

Looks pretty mean from the back (different 747 of course).

http://www.airliners.net/photo/255145/L/

 

Cool article on Boeings AOG:

http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_ca2.html

Looks like they can do a lot of fixing in the field.

 

I wish I could take credit for those. I sorta "borrowed" them off the web....

 

I think that I posted about AOG in the past. I was involved in this operation in the 1960's when so many 707's were being abused in their early introduction. I knew many structural mechanics who had to perform unbelievable improvised feats to get the airplanes repaired. They were the best in the business and they proved it time and time again. The first guys on the site of an accident had our drawings( three dimensional illustrations of the structure and systems) from which they ordered sub assemblies that were often pulled off the final or sub assembly lines and shipped out to the accident site. In one case the repair crew had to repair an Air France 707-320 on the spot due to extensive damage so they jacked the airplane up so that they could align it. They did that with piano wire and a transit, establishing a center spot on Sec 41 and one on Sect. 48 and then got the trailing edges of the wing tips properly aligned with the centerline and the tail points and locked everything in place with wooden fixtures. Then they removed all the damaged items and rebuilt it and flew it in 30 days.Many of these hotshots were instructors in the mechanics training program that I designed and supervised. The days when the 707's went into service they challenged the pilots who were changing many ingrained prop era habits to jet procedures and a lot of airplanes were banged up.

 

I hadn't thought about the spare engine pod on the 747 in a while but it was an integral installation when 747 engines were having their troubles. Lou, if you are ever in Seattle or Everett please get in touch with Spasso or me. Maybe we could get you a hot dog.
Switches

 

When the fifth engine is added, is it normal practice to run the engine, or was it just hanging there? I would think a non-running engine would produce a huge amount of drag. Maybe no problem at cruise, but I would think it could perhaps be more trouble during take off/climb? Very interesting the fifth pod was designed in from the beginning. Do all 747's have this or was it more an option to make a particular aircraft capable of engine ferry?

 

Thanks, gotcha.

Absolutely! My understanding too. I could be wrong, but they always struck me as coming from a "duh, why didn't we think of this sooner!" moment..... IIRC, they initially only went upwards - "Guarding" the flow on the upper surface.... Another "duh" moment when someone realized they may as well do the same for the underside.

I'm sure it's more complex than that, but APB sounds like an interesting operation - "Common sense" tells me that as long as the structure can support it, it's a damn good way to increase lift with little downside (?)

S-w-e-e-t!

Wives? Mistresses? Friends? [Or is that a complete no-no?]

Looking forward to comments on Nathan's post - Interesting stuff indeed!

Cheers,
Ian

 

Bob, we've got Lou's feedback on "preferred" engines, but unfortunately no experience with RR. How about you? [Personally, as a mere punter, I always "liked" seeing RR on the motors, but I have no idea how they're regarded in the industry?]

Thanks again guys,
Cheers,
Ian

 

it seems the preproduction engines were specified by RR or did they come in later after PW stepped in to help correct the initial engine issues... or am I thinking about another model that had preproduction engine issues with RR as well

 

From the 707 days with the Conway to the Rolls that were installed on the 747 the Rolls engines were always thought to be a very good engine. The Conway was stiffer but heavier (and that's why) and gave good service. On the 747 nobody complained about the RR as far as I can remember. In the past, all engine makers have had a few problems with their products but the worst in my memory , of course, were the Wrights that were wrong. GE has certainly come to the fore and their gas turbines have proved to be excellent. It amazes me to see the original gas producers from years ago that were three feet in diameter now driving 13 foot diameter fans. Marvelous advances in gas turbine technology and the realization of the tremendous torque in the gas turbines.
Switches

 

The initial installation was to put a" bullet nose " fairing on the intake and simply haul the engine to were it had to be. Again, one must compare the cost of the drag on the carrier aircraft to the cost of freighting the engine on another airplane plus the down time of the airplane that was needing the engine. They had it all figured out.

 

Bob, do you remember the wisdom of the day back in the 1970s - that turboprops would really be a better choice than a jet for airline service? There was a big enthusiasm for this, but as it turned out the big turbofans ended up dominating the market. Great reliability and fuel efficiency - plus the smoothness and lack of prop noise.

 

yes, I do remember the turboprop supporters including an air force general who insisted that turboprops be put on the B-47 to insure a smooth transition from props to pure jets. Then I also remember the horrendous gearbox problems that killed that scenario. Allison, however, did get a good engine/gearbox combination and established a reliable and efficient start to the viable turbo prop. Look at the Lockheed Electra based Navy patrol Orion. The Russians with great help from the Germans produced the greatest turboprop ever in the Bison that was almost equal to the B-52 in performance. There are many turboprop powered airplanes today that fill that unique slot where they do really well like the C-130, Pilatus,etc. The P&W PT6 has certainly proven its capabilities beyond a doubt on many aircraft. I can't remember all the model numbers and military designations right now and I should look them up again but I still can point to the pictures.

 

Interesting as always.

I guess I could do the research, but in short, did Allison go from planes to trucks/cars or vice versa do you know?

Dunno how much you guys follow F1, but we know a lot of it's technology comes from the aircraft guys. It continues today of course.

The Boeing "tapered wingtips" -v- winglets debate got me thinking that right now we're seeing front wing endplates evolve - They were solid, vertical, plates - Analogous to winglets even if in *serious* ground effect. Some of the F1 guys are now "opening" those endplates - I have no idea if the thinking's related, but hopefully interesting

I'll try and find some pix.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The Russians with great help from the Germans produced the greatest turboprop ever in the Bison that was almost equal to the B-52 in performance.

Yup - great airplane. It is still rather retro-cool to see clips of one going with those big contra-props rotating around REAL slow.

But, of course - as you say - it was just not a B-52.

 

The TU-95.
Huge contra-rotating props that made BIG noise heard miles away, especially in the thick air on take-off.
A fast turbo-prop with excellent range

 

No doubt!

But, this required fairly serious modifications to the standard plane, no? Or could they all do it was the question.

"Standard" on Lou's freighters maybe?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Unless I'm missing something (very likely ), the downtime isn't going to change regardless of how the new motor gets to it, surely?

Cheers,
Ian

 

Yes, it could change depending on how long it takes to find an way to get the new engine to the dead A/P.
Availability and positioning of an airplane that can actually carry that engine can vary quite a bit.

 

Gentlemen, with great respect - I think we may be confusing the Soviet airplanes given the NATO names the Bison and the Bear.

I believe that the turbo-prop was code named Bear, where the four-engine jet was Bison.

Will post what I have in the morning -


Good night, all.

James

 

You are correct, Spasso. Airlines keep their airplanes flying as many hours as they can squeeze in a day. I remember years ago when 707 was down there was a mad scramble to get in the air again. I don't think that has changed. Many times a spare engine could be flown directly to the sick airplane within a very short time. Now engine reliability has greatly improved and repair capabilities are wide spread and closer But the airlines still keep 'em flying as many hours per day as they can. A dead airplane don't make no money.

 

Understood.

Again, understood.

But, for example, if BA needed an engine in SFO can they simply bolt it onto passenger flight 285 (from LHR and one I know well), and get it there?

Or do they need to bolt it onto one of Lou's specialized freighters? If so, why not just pop it inside?

Cheers,
Ian

 

carrying an engine on the outside has more to do with cargo door configuration and the pallet that it would need to be carried on... those dimensions quickly get larger than std containers etc, where as fitting it to a pylon is a few mounting bolts in near fully functioning form allowing for an easier quicker exchange

 

Understood. Can 'any old' (passenger carrying) 747 do it though? Or, does it need to be a Lou special? I know he said he's flown planes that could do it, but cargo haulers are very different, as we now know from the above....

Cheers,
Ian