AF1 range/route/refueling?

[David Lesher]

Re: Turkey Dinner Tour

Now, http://gc.kls2.com/ says the Great Circle distance KADW->BGW
is 6200m, and AF1 has a published range of ~~7300 miles.

But Great Circle would have taken them across multiple countries,
including those evil fried potato folks; so I'd assume they did
not use that route.

I'd also assume they would never get near trouble without large
reserves.

Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[tscottme]

David Lesher > wrote in message
...
> Re: Turkey Dinner Tour
>
> Now, http://gc.kls2.com/ says the Great Circle distance KADW->BGW
> is 6200m, and AF1 has a published range of ~~7300 miles.
>

I assume that AF1 didn't land anywhere in Europe or there would be
messages from 908 plane spotting dweebs announcing the details. What a
bunch of losers.

--

Scott
--------
Monitor the latest efforts of "peaceful Muslims" at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[David Lesher]

"tscottme" > writes:

>David Lesher > wrote in message
...
>> Re: Turkey Dinner Tour
>>
>> Now, http://gc.kls2.com/ says the Great Circle distance KADW->BGW
>> is 6200m, and AF1 has a published range of ~~7300 miles.
>>

>I assume that AF1 didn't land anywhere in Europe or there would be
>messages from 908 plane spotting dweebs announcing the details. What a
>bunch of losers.

Hence my query. Canary Islands, maybe? Perhaps an airbase but that
would be hard to conceal...


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Ragnar]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
> capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.

Why would you doubt that?

[David Hartung]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> "tscottme" > writes:
>
> >David Lesher > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Re: Turkey Dinner Tour
> >>
> >> Now, http://gc.kls2.com/ says the Great Circle distance KADW->BGW
> >> is 6200m, and AF1 has a published range of ~~7300 miles.
> >>
>
> >I assume that AF1 didn't land anywhere in Europe or there would be
> >messages from 908 plane spotting dweebs announcing the details. What a
> >bunch of losers.
>
> Hence my query. Canary Islands, maybe? Perhaps an airbase but that
> would be hard to conceal...

If I recall, AF1 has inflight refueling capability.

[Gene Storey]

It's only a 15 hour flight via the Med (the long way) from DC, so
I would assume a 747 can do that easily. We used to fly to Saudi,
and only refueled up in Maine so we had enough fuel for alternates
once we got to England. That was in a 707 type, and they needed
about 15k lbs of fuel for weight and balance. Talk about a
squirrely airplane! Get below 15k and that pig was all over the sky...

I used to joke that we might have to have everyone cram forward
to get the nose down (especially Fat-Jake to 300 lb Chief :-)

[David Lesher]

"Ragnar" > writes:


>>
>> Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
>> capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.

>Why would you doubt that?


A friend was on a KC10 that got refueled twice en-route to Africa.
He vividly described the number of PX's who lost their lunch into
the issued barf bags. The only reason for the refueling was proficiency
practice for the crew.

I doubt the AF1 crew practices that aspect that all that often, and
in fact don't know it's ever been used. I'll let BUFDVR etc comment
but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Gene Storey]

"David Lesher" > wrote
>
> [snip]
>
> but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days.

It's easier than flying formation. I once had a co-pilot who fell
asleep during the contact. I was kind of half-paying attention to our
position, and just mentioned that we were closing a bit, and nothing
happened, so I looked at him and he was asleep! My fear was that
he would kick the rudder, so I called a break-away (chop the
throttles, speed-brakes, and nose over at about -2 g's all in
one move). That woke everybody up! Hee.

[Jim Herring]

tscottme wrote:

> I assume that AF1 didn't land anywhere in Europe or there would be
> messages from 908 plane spotting dweebs announcing the details. What a
> bunch of losers.

One news report said a British Airways plane saw AF1. The pilot radioed "is
that Air Force 1". AF1 responded "no, we're a Gulf Stream". After a pause
the BA pilot said "Okay". :)

--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ragnar]

"David Lesher" > wrote in message
...
> "Ragnar" > writes:
>
>
> >>
> >> Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
> >> capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.
>
> >Why would you doubt that?
>
>
> A friend was on a KC10 that got refueled twice en-route to Africa.
> He vividly described the number of PX's who lost their lunch into
> the issued barf bags.

One anecdotal example of wussy passengers does not mean air refuelling is
either dangerous or rare.

> The only reason for the refueling was proficiency
> practice for the crew.

So? The only way to get air refuelling proficiency is to do it.

> I doubt the AF1 crew practices that aspect that all that often

Your doubts are based on faulty assumptions.

>, and
> in fact don't know it's ever been used.

All flight crew on air refuelable aircraft are required to perform A/R
proficiency a set number of times per month, quarter, and year. The B747
used for the President is air refuellable and has a flight crew. Ergo, they
do A/R.

>I'll let BUFDVR etc comment
> but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days.

Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some basic
research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an
aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is
more dangerous.

[Michael Williamson]

David Lesher wrote:
>
>>>Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
>>>capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.
>
>>Why would you doubt that?
>
> A friend was on a KC10 that got refueled twice en-route to Africa.
> He vividly described the number of PX's who lost their lunch into
> the issued barf bags. The only reason for the refueling was proficiency
> practice for the crew.
>
> I doubt the AF1 crew practices that aspect that all that often, and
> in fact don't know it's ever been used. I'll let BUFDVR etc comment
> but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days.

Any aircrew flying the aircraft would have specific currency
requirements for Air Refuelling, and if the crew isn't current
in it, they won't be flying on any operational mission. As far
as getting practice, they fly many sorties without passengers
specifically to get their various currencies updated.

As for air refuelling being risky, I don't think it is all
that risky, and I do it regularly in a C-130 behind both
KC-135s and -10s. C-141s and C-5s carrying both passengers
and cargo refuel as necessary based on their mission profiles,
AFAIK.

Mike

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...

>
> Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some basic
> research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an
> aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is
> more dangerous.
>


I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.

Keith

[Ragnar]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some
basic
> > research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an
> > aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is
> > more dangerous.
> >
>
>
> I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
> that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.

Yes, in 1966. If thats the best incident that can be recalled, then my
original point is well validated.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > > Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some
> basic
> > > research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of
an
> > > aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather
is
> > > more dangerous.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
> > that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.
>
> Yes, in 1966. If thats the best incident that can be recalled, then my
> original point is well validated.
>

Not really, I only recalled that incident because it was splashed
across the world media for weeks, that hardly makes it the only
flight refuelling accident that ever happened

I found an article by MAJ CHRISTOPHER TIMBERLAKE of
Offutt AFB, Nebraska in which he stated

"Air refueling accidents represent a significant percentage of large
military
aircraft accidents simply because of the precise parameters the task
requires."

So while the risk may be low its clearly not zero.

The article is at
http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/aprmag97/apr97010.htm

Interestingly it has an image of a 747 being refulled in flight

Keith

[Kyle Boatright]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
>
> So while the risk may be low its clearly not zero.
>
> The article is at
> http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/aprmag97/apr97010.htm
>
> Interestingly it has an image of a 747 being refulled in flight
>
> Keith

A couple of factors that greatly influence the safety of inflight refueling
are weather and daylight. If you're in clear smooth weather during
daylight, the risks are minimized. I've been on KC-10's passing and
recieving gas, and can tell you that if you were sitting in the back on a
smooth day, you wouldn't know you were in a refueling operation.

Even IF AF1 was refueled inflight on this trip, the airplane has enough
range so the flight planners had the option to select a time and location
with good weather and daylight.

KB

[C Knowles]

Anything you do in an airplane has a risk above zero, even taking a dump.
The major does not back up his statement; in fact I don't see how he can. I
have been a KC-10 crew dog since 1985 and can count on my fingers the number
of aircraft that have been lost during AR. And most of those were actually
AFTER AR was complete. The risk during AR is mainly due to bad
weather/tubulence or inexperienced crewmembers. I doubt the latter was a
factor refueling AF1.

Did he take the VC-25 into Baghdad? Some media inferred he switched to a
C-17 at some point.

Curt


"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ragnar" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some
> > basic
> > > > research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss
of
> an
> > > > aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect
weather
> is
> > > > more dangerous.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
> > > that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.
> >
> > Yes, in 1966. If thats the best incident that can be recalled, then my
> > original point is well validated.
> >
>
> Not really, I only recalled that incident because it was splashed
> across the world media for weeks, that hardly makes it the only
> flight refuelling accident that ever happened
>
> I found an article by MAJ CHRISTOPHER TIMBERLAKE of
> Offutt AFB, Nebraska in which he stated
>
> "Air refueling accidents represent a significant percentage of large
> military
> aircraft accidents simply because of the precise parameters the task
> requires."
>
> So while the risk may be low its clearly not zero.
>
> The article is at
> http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/magazine/htdocs/aprmag97/apr97010.htm
>
> Interestingly it has an image of a 747 being refulled in flight
>
> Keith
>
>

[[email protected]]

A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
civilian 747 doing so.

[Brett]

> wrote:
| A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
| civilian 747 doing so.

At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would
even consider it an option.

[David Lesher]

"Kyle Boatright" > writes:



>Even IF AF1 was refueled inflight on this trip, the airplane has enough
>range so the flight planners had the option to select a time and location
>with good weather and daylight.

<http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/11/27/sprj.irq.bush.tic.toc/>
has the timeline.



--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[C Knowles]

$19 per gallon? What does that represent?
Curt

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
> | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
> | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
> | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
> | civilian 747 doing so.
>
> At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would
> even consider it an option.
>
>

[C Knowles]

Only military 747s have an inflight refueling capability. That includes the
VC-25 and E-4. Not sure about the Iranian 747 tankers.
Curt

> wrote in message
...
> A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
> refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
> military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
> civilian 747 doing so.
>

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote:
> | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
> | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
> | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to see a
> | civilian 747 doing so.
>
> At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline would
> even consider it an option.
>
>

Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway
but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.

Keith

[Brett]

"C Knowles" > wrote:
| $19 per gallon? What does that represent?

The actual cost of each gallon delivered to the aircraft being refueled.
It equals the price of the fuel and the average cost of delivering that
fuel to the point where it is needed.

| Curt
|
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| > > wrote:
| > | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| > | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| > | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to
see a
| > | civilian 747 doing so.
| >
| > At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
would
| > even consider it an option.

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| > > wrote:
| > | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| > | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
| > | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to
see a
| > | civilian 747 doing so.
| >
| > At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
would
| > even consider it an option.
| >
| >
|
| Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway

"crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what
the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.

| but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.

And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority
passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.

[John Hairell]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:55:02 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Ragnar" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>> Risky? Flying in and of itself is risky. Perhaps you could do some basic
>> research and check out how many times A/R has resulted in the loss of an
>> aircraft. You'll find that taking off and landing in perfect weather is
>> more dangerous.
>>
>
>
>I can think of at least one hi-profile accident and thats the B-52
>that went down at Palomares , Spain with live weapons aboard.
>

I know a guy whose father was the navigator on a KC-135 that a B-52
ran into over Kentucky in 1959. The resulting fireball dropped
wreckage over a wide area, including unarmed nuclear weapons.
All of the KC-135 and some of the B-52 crew perished. This accident
resulted in the "breakaway" procedures.

John Hairell )

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> | "Brett" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > > wrote:
> | > | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
> | > | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
> | > | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to
> see a
> | > | civilian 747 doing so.
> | >
> | > At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
> would
> | > even consider it an option.
> | >
> | >
> |
> | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway
>
> "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what
> the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.
>

Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only
available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777
may be quite large.

I have flown from the UK to Australia with stops at Bahrain andSingapore
that meant 2 crew changes each doing about 8 hours, we "cattle in the back"
were there for more than 24

> | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
> | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
> | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
> | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
>
> And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
> Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high priority
> passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
>

The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however and the cost was
considered less than the alternatives which were limited. Land planes
could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
option for flying boats.

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| > | "Brett" > wrote in message
| > | ...
| > | > > wrote:
| > | > | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
| > | > | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the
particular
| > | > | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual
to
| > see a
| > | > | civilian 747 doing so.
| > | >
| > | > At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
| > would
| > | > even consider it an option.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway
| >
| > "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be
what
| > the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.
| >
|
| Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only
| available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777
| may be quite large.
|
| I have flown from the UK to Australia with stops at Bahrain
andSingapore
| that meant 2 crew changes each doing about 8 hours, we "cattle in the
back"
| were there for more than 24

So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews
available.

| > | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
| > | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| > | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
| > | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
| >
| > And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
| > Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
priority
| > passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
| >
|
| The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however

By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat,
took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly
after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western
flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at
Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of
these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the
service and continue operations in 1940.__

http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/projects/ay1996/awc/dougherty_sj.pdf

| and the cost was
| considered less than the alternatives which were limited.

What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in
flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without
inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
willing to pay in peacetime.
Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
variations).

| Land planes
| could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| option for flying boats.

How attractive is Botwood in winter?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
>
> So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief crews
> available.
>


The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.

> | > | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In 1939
> | > | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
> | > | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted Harrow
> | > | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
> | >
> | > And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war, Imperial
> | > Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
> priority
> | > passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
> | >
> |
> | The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however
>
> By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying boat,
> took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel shortly
> after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its Western
> flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop at
> Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
> destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
> Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
> Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success of
> these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to the
> service and continue operations in 1940.__
>
> http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/projects/ay1996/awc/dougherty_sj.pdf
>

So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.

> | and the cost was
> | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
>
> What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft in
> flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and without
> inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
> willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
> willing to pay in peacetime.

Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.

The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
by the outbreak of war.


> Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
> costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
> variations).
>

I dont recall advocating this as a policy today, especially since modern
aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at that
point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point :)

> | Land planes
> | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
> | option for flying boats.
>
> How attractive is Botwood in winter?
>

Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
during WW2

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > So the limit would be at least 24 hours and the number of relief
crews
| > available.
| >
|
|
| The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
| 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
| to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
| sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.

Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume available.

| > | > | but in times gone by it has been used for civil aircraft. In
1939
| > | > | an Imperial Airways flying boat operated non stop across the
| > | > | North Atlantic being refuelled in mid air by a converted
Harrow
| > | > | bomber operated by Flight Refuelling Ltd.
| > | >
| > | > And within a month of the demonstration Britain was at war,
Imperial
| > | > Airways had been nationalized and the service was used for high
| > priority
| > | > passengers/cargo where "cost" was not a major consideration.
| > | >
| > |
| > | The trials pre-dated the outbreak of war however
| >
| > By a month __On 5 August 1939, The Cabot, a Short C Class flying
boat,
| > took off from Shannon, Ireland and received 1200 gallons of fuel
shortly
| > after takeoff from an Armstrong Whitworth AW-23 tanker on its
Western
| > flight to Botwood, Newfoundland. After a short ground refueling stop
at
| > Botwood, the flight continued on to Montreal, Canada, and to its
| > destination of New York City. On the Eastbound leg from Botwood, The
| > Cabot received 1,200 gallons of fuel from a tanker based at Gander,
| > Newfoundland. A total of sixteen crossings were made and the success
of
| > these trials led to a decision to add two or three flying boats to
the
| > service and continue operations in 1940.__
| >
| >
http://www.au.af.mil/au/database/projects/ay1996/awc/dougherty_sj.pdf
| >
|
| So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.

16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished before
the start of WWII.

| > | and the cost was
| > | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
| >
| > What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft
in
| > flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and
without
| > inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
| > willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
| > willing to pay in peacetime.
|
| Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
| but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
| nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.

Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that probably
had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it didn't
become part of Canada until after the war).

| The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
| trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
| by the outbreak of war.

That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the
testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during the
war.

| > Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
| > costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
| > variations).
| >
|
| I dont recall advocating this as a policy today,

Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew
endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to either
the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with
government regulators.

| especially since modern
| aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
| London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
| even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at
that
| point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
| clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
| have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
| lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point :)

I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your original
comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get
refreshment and cleaning stops along the way.

| > | Land planes
| > | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| > | option for flying boats.
| >
| > How attractive is Botwood in winter?
| >
|
| Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
| used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
| during WW2

Compared with coastal Iceland?

[[email protected]]

"Gene Storey" > wrote:

>"David Lesher" > wrote
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> but I'd always read it was somewhat risky maneuver on the best days.
>
>It's easier than flying formation. I once had a co-pilot who fell
>asleep during the contact. I was kind of half-paying attention to our
>position, and just mentioned that we were closing a bit, and nothing
>happened, so I looked at him and he was asleep! My fear was that
>he would kick the rudder, so I called a break-away (chop the
>throttles, speed-brakes, and nose over at about -2 g's all in
>one move). That woke everybody up! Hee.
>
I'll bet that the real reason for the break away didn't find it's
way onto the mission report did it?... :)
--

-Gord.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> |
> | The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you assume
> | 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a need
> | to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
> | sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.
>
> Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume available.
>

An A380 will need a bigger cabin crew so proportinately there
would seem to be little difference.

<snip>

> |
> | So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.
>
> 16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished before
> the start of WWII.
>

Hey its your data and it referred to 16 crossings having been made.

> | > | and the cost was
> | > | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
> | >
> | > What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an aircraft
> in
> | > flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and
> without
> | > inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British Government
> | > willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger be
> | > willing to pay in peacetime.
> |
> | Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is now
> | but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land in
> | nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.
>
> Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that probably
> had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it didn't
> become part of Canada until after the war).
>

Pardon !

How do sea conditions in Iceland affect land planes ?

A large swell makes putting down a flying boat rather
difficult but reall wont incommode a DC-4 much.

You may not be aware of it but the IFR option was downright
conventional when compared with the other options they tried.
In 1938 they tried Short-Mayo composite aircraft, which was a large
four-engined flying boat similar to the Empire design called 'Maia',
with a smaller seaplane ' Mercury' mounted on top. The 'Mercury'
was designed to carry mail over long distances but when fully laden
with fuel and mail, could not take off unassisted. Therefore the sole
purpose of 'Maia' was to take-off with 'Mercury' on its back (all engines
on both aircraft would be used for take-off), and when they got to a
suitable height they separated and 'Maia' would return to base, whilst
'Mercury' set off on its journey.


> | The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
> | trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
> | by the outbreak of war.
>
> That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the
> testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during the
> war.
>

Actually the last flight arrived in New York in Sept 1939.



> | > Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat mile
> | > costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent price
> | > variations).
> | >
> |
> | I dont recall advocating this as a policy today,
>
> Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew
> endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to either
> the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with
> government regulators.
>

AFAIK there are no regs preventing IFR for commercial aircraft but
the regulations on crew rest are pretty stringent.

> | especially since modern
> | aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying from
> | London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
> | even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at
> that
> | point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew) and
> | clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
> | have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
> | lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point :)
>
> I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your original
> comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get
> refreshment and cleaning stops along the way.
>

Not much, they get the option of stretching their legs for an hour
in the terminal. At Singapore I always head for the fitness club
on the 3rd floor and take a shower.

> | > | Land planes
> | > | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
> | > | option for flying boats.
> | >
> | > How attractive is Botwood in winter?
> | >
> |
> | Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
> | used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
> | during WW2
>
> Compared with coastal Iceland?
>

Well the idea was with IFR they didnt have to land seaplanes
at either location but could fly straight on to Montreal.

Keith

[s.p.i.]

David Lesher > wrote in message >...
> Re: Turkey Dinner Tour
>
> Now, http://gc.kls2.com/ says the Great Circle distance KADW->BGW
> is 6200m, and AF1 has a published range of ~~7300 miles.
>
> But Great Circle would have taken them across multiple countries,
> including those evil fried potato folks; so I'd assume they did
> not use that route.
>
> I'd also assume they would never get near trouble without large
> reserves.
>
> Was there an unannounced refueling stop? I know the 747B's have
> capability for in-flight refueling but doubt they would do that.


My guess is the flight was filed on a random track to
Portugal/southern Spain and then across the Med and across Turkey.
Given the time frame the eastbound NATs were active so they would have
stayed away from that elephant herd. Besides they would overfly all of
Europe that way. The best option would be to stay well south and go
feet wet immediately.
If they used a generic RCH ICAO (they could have always "borrowed" an
N number) filing it would not have raised any suspicions in the
various ACCs since lots of Reach flights are going to and fro. The
various controlling agencies would have no way of knowing that it
wasn't some scrufty 747 freightdawg from Evergreen or Polar.
A little digression. I would bet there are more than a few security
compromises in the various Middle Eastern ACCs that needed to be
considered.
A refueling just east of Spain somewhere would have been no problem
since its pretty empty out there and Santa Maria is laid back. I doubt
they would have landed anywhere because somebody somewhere would have
gotten on a phone or sent an email telling the tale of what they just
saw, although Lajes, Rota, and Torrejon are candidates I suppose. That
would have given them the fuel to get into SDA (or whatever its called
now) and back out over the Med and a join up with another tanker and
come back to the states.
I sure would like to know where the BA spotted them. My guess would be
in the crossing north-south traffic off of the west coast of Europe
since it was daylight by the time he would have been there.

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
|
| > |
| > | The crew changes took place at Bahrain and Singapore. If you
assume
| > | 12 cabin crew for each sector going non stop would result in a
need
| > | to lose space for another 24 people at least 12 of whom would need
| > | sleeping accomodation. This would be a massive overhead.
| >
| > Would it be on an A380, there appears to be plenty of volume
available.
| >
|
| An A380 will need a bigger cabin crew so proportinately there
| would seem to be little difference.

Not that much bigger.

| <snip>
|
| > |
| > | So the pre-war trial was ajudged a success.
| >
| > 16 crossing consituted the trials and I doubt they were finished
before
| > the start of WWII.
| >
|
| Hey its your data and it referred to 16 crossings having been made.

With the first one occurring August 5, the war started as far as you
would be concerned on September 3 that same year. If 16 crossing
occurred in less than 30 days, it sounds like the trials would have been
performed with the entire Imperial Airways Fleet and not the one
aircraft that they did use.

| > | > | and the cost was
| > | > | considered less than the alternatives which were limited.
| > | >
| > | > What was the cost of delivering 1200 gallons of fuel to an
aircraft
| > in
| > | > flight? What was the average cost for each passenger with and
| > without
| > | > inflight refueling, how large a subsididy was the British
Government
| > | > willing to pay in peacetime/wartime, how much would a passenger
be
| > | > willing to pay in peacetime.
| > |
| > | Its quite true that seat price was not the driving factor it is
now
| > | but I suspect that cost was still an issue and not having to land
in
| > | nothern canadian waters in a flying boat was seen as a real plus.
| >
| > Your description for landplanes included stops in Iceland, that
probably
| > had sea conditions similar to those observed in Newfoundland (it
didn't
| > become part of Canada until after the war).
| >
|
| Pardon !
|
| How do sea conditions in Iceland affect land planes ?

Pardon, your claim was that land planes could use Iceland, so could
flying boats.

| A large swell makes putting down a flying boat rather
| difficult but reall wont incommode a DC-4 much.
|
| You may not be aware of it but the IFR option was downright
| conventional when compared with the other options they tried.
| In 1938 they tried Short-Mayo composite aircraft, which was a large
| four-engined flying boat similar to the Empire design called 'Maia',
| with a smaller seaplane ' Mercury' mounted on top. The 'Mercury'
| was designed to carry mail over long distances but when fully laden
| with fuel and mail, could not take off unassisted. Therefore the sole
| purpose of 'Maia' was to take-off with 'Mercury' on its back (all
engines
| on both aircraft would be used for take-off), and when they got to a
| suitable height they separated and 'Maia' would return to base, whilst
| 'Mercury' set off on its journey.

All that to for a Government mail service.... cost not really an object
in the exercise.

| > | The data you provided indicates Imperial Airways considered the
| > | trial a success and were only prevented from extending the service
| > | by the outbreak of war.
| >
| > That depends on how you read the data presented, they continued the
| > testing after the outbreak of war and extended the service during
the
| > war.
| >
|
| Actually the last flight arrived in New York in Sept 1939.

Do you have a source for that, since 16 crossings in about 30 days by
one 1930's Short Flying Boat sounds like the trials were a service
performed by more than one aircraft I've seen quoted as being used.

| > | > Then ask yourself what $19 per gallon would do what to the seat
mile
| > | > costs of a modern airliner (airlines get upset with 30 cent
price
| > | > variations).
| > | >
| > |
| > | I dont recall advocating this as a policy today,
| >
| > Your comment was "Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew
| > endurance anyway". I don't believe would be a driving factor to
either
| > the airlines or with enough rested relief crews available, with
| > government regulators.
| >
|
| AFAIK there are no regs preventing IFR for commercial aircraft but
| the regulations on crew rest are pretty stringent.

That's why I said "enough rested relief crews"

| > | especially since modern
| > | aircraft can fly for extended periods without refuelling. Flying
from
| > | London to Singapore non-stop takes around 12.5 hours and
| > | even if there was no need to refuel the aircraft there's a need at
| > that
| > | point to swap cabin crews (they already carry extra flight crew)
and
| > | clean and re-supply the aircraft. I have been fortunate enough to
| > | have always made the trip in business class but I'm told the
| > | lavatories back in economy can be pretty grim by this point :)
| >
| > I believe I referred to them as "cattle in the back" and your
original
| > comment said they could endure 24 hours, it sounds like they get
| > refreshment and cleaning stops along the way.
| >
|
| Not much, they get the option of stretching their legs for an hour
| in the terminal. At Singapore I always head for the fitness club
| on the 3rd floor and take a shower.

The "cattle in the back" got some rest from flying.

|
| > | > | Land planes
| > | > | could stop in Iceland and Goosebay but in winter this wasnt an
| > | > | option for flying boats.
| > | >
| > | > How attractive is Botwood in winter?
| > | >
| > |
| > | Not very I'd imagine but both Pan American and Imperial airways
| > | used it pre-war and the RCAF operated Catalina from there
| > | during WW2
| >
| > Compared with coastal Iceland?
| >
|
| Well the idea was with IFR they didnt have to land seaplanes
| at either location but could fly straight on to Montreal.

That wasn't what they demonstrated, there was a landing off the coast of
Newfoundland at Botwood where they refueled the aircraft, prior to it
continuing its flight to Montreal (due to the possibility of ice during
the winter months?)

[Leadfoot]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brett" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> > | "Brett" > wrote in message
> > | ...
> > | > > wrote:
> > | > | A number of posts mentioned that 747s are capable of in-flight
> > | > | refueling. Is this correct for 'all' 747s or just the particular
> > | > | military versions (E-4) & AF1? I suspect it would be unusual to
> > see a
> > | > | civilian 747 doing so.
> > | >
> > | > At a cost greater than $19 a gallon I don't believe any airline
> > would
> > | > even consider it an option.
> > | >
> > | >
> > |
> > | Today the limit with most civil aircraft is crew endurance anyway
> >
> > "crew endurance" - they can carry relief crews, the limit would be what
> > the "cattle in the back" are willing to endure.
> >
>
> Actually crew endurance is a problem, rest facilities are usually only
> available for flight crews not the cabin crew which on a 747 or 777
> may be quite large.

The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It is an
option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building them
in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a modification
to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming many
baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)

There was a story running around the plant that two Boeing employees were
caught in a 'compromising" postion in one. They fired the man but couldn't
fire the lady. It was her lunch break.

Every British Airways 747-400 had one as well as Quantas

[Keith Willshaw]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...
>

>
> The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
> lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It is
an
> option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building them
> in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
modification
> to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming many
> baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)
>

Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft and has bunks for 8 and
seats for two.

Keith

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:47:00 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...
>
> > The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
> > lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It is
> an
> > option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building them
> > in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
> modification
> > to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming many
> > baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)
>
> Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft and has bunks for 8 and
> seats for two.

There is also a 747 crew rest area that's between first and business
class. I've forgotten which airline and which model, but the choices
are pretty much United and PanAm.

I have also seen drawings of 747 crew rest areas just aft of the
cockpit. I think this version is a post-9/11 attempt to keep the
cockpit crews completely behind an unbreachable door, as there's a
lavatory in there, too.

I suspect that crew rest facilities are, like all the other options,
airline dependent and vary greatly. I would think that structural
modifications are required for the version in the rear, but even that
might be an aftermarket add-on.

At United, being on the second crew, flying to Oz, is called "Dozing
for Dollars".

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Leadfoot]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 12:47:00 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> > news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...
> >
> > > The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the
rear
> > > lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It
is
> > an
> > > option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building
them
> > > in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
> > modification
> > > to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming
many
> > > baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)
> >
> > Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft and has bunks for 8 and
> > seats for two.
>
> There is also a 747 crew rest area that's between first and business
> class. I've forgotten which airline and which model, but the choices
> are pretty much United and PanAm.
>
> I have also seen drawings of 747 crew rest areas just aft of the
> cockpit. I think this version is a post-9/11 attempt to keep the
> cockpit crews completely behind an unbreachable door, as there's a
> lavatory in there, too.


Not post 9/11 I saw this style of Flight crew rest in 1988 when I worked at
the Boeing factory.



>
> I suspect that crew rest facilities are, like all the other options,
> airline dependent and vary greatly. I would think that structural
> modifications are required for the version in the rear, but even that
> might be an aftermarket add-on.

For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many airlines
chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with the
winglets, the FMS and the wet tail


>
> At United, being on the second crew, flying to Oz, is called "Dozing
> for Dollars".
>
> Mary
>
> --
> Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
>

[Leadfoot]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:knTxb.15767$o9.8859@fed1read07...
> >
>
> >
> > The 747-400 has a cabin crew rest area in the rear, overhead of the rear
> > lavatory's I beleive it will sleep 8 and possibly 12 comfortably. It
is
> an
> > option not every 747-400 has it although most did when I was building
them
> > in 1988-90. It has its design origins in what I beleive was a
> modification
> > to a Quantas 747 "classic" . We nicknamed it the "Sin Bin" assuming
many
> > baby pilots would be conceived there ;-)
> >
>
> Its an option that isnt fitted to all aircraft

said that

and has bunks for 8 and
> seats for two.

Never seen one with seats. Are they jump seats or passenger seats? It is
somewhat cramp up there, I could not stand fully erect and I am six feet
tall


>
> Keith
>
>

[[email protected]]

"Leadfoot" > wrote:

>
>For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many airlines
>chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with the
>winglets, the FMS and the wet tail
>
>

Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).


-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Guess who?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
news:K16yb.16632$o9.493@fed1read07...
>

>
> and has bunks for 8 and
> > seats for two.
>
> Never seen one with seats. Are they jump seats or passenger seats? It is
> somewhat cramp up there, I could not stand fully erect and I am six feet
> tall

Pass, the option is in the literature but I've not seen one either.

Keith

[Leadfoot]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
>
> >
> >For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many
airlines
> >chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with the
> >winglets, the FMS and the wet tail
> >
> >
>
> Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
> actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).

The wet tail carried almost the same amount of fuel as a 737. It is simply
additional fuel to be sused and generally it is the first tank to empty



>
>
> -Gord.
>
> "You are completely focused on RPM as the
> single factor producing rotational velocity"
> -Guess who?

[[email protected]]

"Leadfoot" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many
>airlines
>> >chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with the
>> >winglets, the FMS and the wet tail
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
>> actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).
>
>The wet tail carried almost the same amount of fuel as a 737. It is simply
>additional fuel to be sused and generally it is the first tank to empty
>
>
>
Oh...you don't use it to increase economy by replacing flying
tail trim with fuel weight?
--

-Gord.

[Leadfoot]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many
> >airlines
> >> >chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with
the
> >> >winglets, the FMS and the wet tail
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
> >> actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).
> >
> >The wet tail carried almost the same amount of fuel as a 737. It is
simply
> >additional fuel to be sused and generally it is the first tank to empty
> >
> >
> >
> Oh...you don't use it to increase economy by replacing flying
> tail trim with fuel weight?

There is already a half ton of DU located in the tail for weight and balance



> --
>
> -Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Leadfoot" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many
>> >airlines
>> >> >chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight with
>the
>> >> >winglets, the FMS and the wet tail
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
>> >> actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).
>> >
>> >The wet tail carried almost the same amount of fuel as a 737. It is
>simply
>> >additional fuel to be sused and generally it is the first tank to empty
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Oh...you don't use it to increase economy by replacing flying
>> tail trim with fuel weight?
>
>There is already a half ton of DU located in the tail for weight and balance
>
>
>
I'm not talking about 'static balance', I'm talking about
'dynamic balance'. Some large airliners replace the normal
aerodynamic 'nose up trim' of the empennage with fuel weight to
increase economy during cruise operation only. This drastically
reduces the fore and aft stability of course and makes use of an
autopilot mandatory. Are you saying that that system is not used
on the these 747's?
--

-Gord.

[Leadfoot]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> "Leadfoot" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >For 747-100, -200, -300 yes. For the -400 it was an option many
> >> >airlines
> >> >> >chose. Remember the 747-400 was designed for long-range flight
with
> >the
> >> >> >winglets, the FMS and the wet tail
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Speaking of which...anyone any idea of how much this feature
> >> >> actually saves? (wet tail system I mean).
> >> >
> >> >The wet tail carried almost the same amount of fuel as a 737. It is
> >simply
> >> >additional fuel to be sused and generally it is the first tank to
empty
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Oh...you don't use it to increase economy by replacing flying
> >> tail trim with fuel weight?
> >
> >There is already a half ton of DU located in the tail for weight and
balance
> >
> >
> >
> I'm not talking about 'static balance', I'm talking about
> 'dynamic balance'. Some large airliners replace the normal
> aerodynamic 'nose up trim' of the empennage with fuel weight to
> increase economy during cruise operation only. This drastically
> reduces the fore and aft stability of course and makes use of an
> autopilot mandatory. Are you saying that that system is not used
> on the these 747's?

It's been a long time since I worked on a 747-400. It was explained to me
that the fuel in the tail was used first. It may still be that way or they
could have changed it since I left Boeing.

I'm not a pilot Just an avioncs tech who has left the industry due to a
busted knee


> --
>
> -Gord.

[[email protected]]

"Leadfoot" > wrote:

>> >There is already a half ton of DU located in the tail for weight and
>balance
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> I'm not talking about 'static balance', I'm talking about
>> 'dynamic balance'. Some large airliners replace the normal
>> aerodynamic 'nose up trim' of the empennage with fuel weight to
>> increase economy during cruise operation only. This drastically
>> reduces the fore and aft stability of course and makes use of an
>> autopilot mandatory. Are you saying that that system is not used
>> on the these 747's?
>
>It's been a long time since I worked on a 747-400. It was explained to me
>that the fuel in the tail was used first. It may still be that way or they
>could have changed it since I left Boeing.
>
>I'm not a pilot Just an avioncs tech who has left the industry due to a
>busted knee
>
>

Ok 'Leadfoot', thanks for the info...certainly a very nice a/c
that you worked. I've always admired them.
--

-Gord.