|
Post by herkpilot on Mar 20, 2009 22:58:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Mar 21, 2009 8:56:09 GMT -5
They're planning to restore a Starliner to flight conditions... ...with a glass cockpit. They're insane, those Germans. Well, beside the obvious debacle of the cockpit, I'm glad a Starliner will soon take flight again... though it will be a toss about the engines, seen that their favorite fuel does not exist anymore... I hope ( living near Germany) to be able to see her fly for real, one day.
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Mar 21, 2009 15:37:11 GMT -5
I enjoyed reading Captain Rand's website very much...and will have to return to the Blog again....but I was unable to find anything on the Starliner there. With or without a glass cockpit. Other than the picture on the top of the page. The only one I know of currently being restored to flying status is the one in the hands of the Lufthansa Techs in Maine. And she is supposed to make her first flight in October 2010. Now I have found a WSJ article where they indeed line out that the cockpit will need to be modernized to pass the modern standards...bummer laitshappeninghere.com/?p=439If their Ju-52 D-AQUI in which I have flown is any indication the Lockheed will be as close to her original state as possible while getting the required pass from the authorities. And if all goes well will join the Ju-52 on the circuit so that a flight in the Starliner is certainly in my future plans. I'll certainly plan a trip home to the Fatherland when she is out and about.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Mar 21, 2009 16:10:31 GMT -5
Hi,
I've heard that Lufthansa is adding a glass cockpit to their Starliner...
|
|
|
Post by herkpilot on Mar 21, 2009 20:17:05 GMT -5
Sorry- I just checked Rand's blog and the starliner entry is gone. Check again in a day or so- this has happened before. Roundy saved the last three Starliners from the scrapman and was trying for years to restore one to flight status. After spending almost everything he had and filing for bankruptcy, Lufthansa came to the rescue. They have built a hanger and have a full time staff working on the aircraft. Yes, unfortunately they are installing a glass cockpit-but they intend to put the plane to work in modern skies. We'll at least get to see and hear the last and greatest of the piston airliners. Just google "Lockheed Starliner" and several sites should lead you to the whole story Rand's site (he flies B767) and another airline pilot's (Dave -flys the electric jet) site flightlevel390.blogspot.com/ both show the real world workings of the flight deck and how far we've come from "steam gauges" and VOR/DME. Hy
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Mar 22, 2009 10:20:50 GMT -5
It's a shame having a glass cockpit on a Starliner ( or other plane of that era for that), yet concessions to secure fight must be done, in the modern skies. Real flight is not FS, where if you crash you press a button and can retry with no other damage than a loss of free time. I am curious though, almost all the sources of the times seem to be completely on the same page about the fact that the power plants of the Starliner were extremely prone to give problems, even more than the engines used on the L-1049. Is it possible that 150Hp more power from the same kind of engine can grant all those troubles? What about the DC7C, then? And what about the reliability of the 3700Hp version of the same engine ( I guess a 3400Hp + ADI)? That and, as already stated in my previous post, I'm still wondering where is Lufhtansa going to take the 115/145 octane fuel to feed the 3400Hp R-3350, now that it is not available anymore?
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Mar 22, 2009 11:23:39 GMT -5
Hi,
The DC-7C had similar problems. The increase in problems from the earlier DA series engines was only one of degree - the DA's still had plenty of problems. Some say the EA's were better than the DA's but it varied by airline. Some even replaced their DA's with EA's, I think.
From the FAA Certification for the Starliner:
NOTE 4. The Wright compound 988TC18EA-2 engine is eligible for use with grade 100/130 and 108/135 fuel at the following ratings with automatic rich mixture settings only for all operations including cruise:
With low impeller gear ratio 6.46:1 Maximum continuous: (Sea level) 44.0 in.Hg., 2600 rpm (2380 hp) (Straight line manifold pressure variation with altitude to 9400 ft.) 41.5 in.Hg., 2600 rpm (2450 hp) Takeoff (2.75 minutes): (Sea level) 51.0 in.Hg., 2900 rpm (2880 hp) (Straight line manifold pressure variation with altitudes to 8500 ft.) 48.0 in.Hg., 2900 rpm (2950 hp)
With high impeller ratio 8.67:1 Operation with grade 100/130 and 108/135 fuel is not permitted.
When using the above grade fuel and power ratings, the airplane weight limitations are as follows: Landing: 123,000 lbs. Takeoff: 139,500 lbs. at fwd. C.G., 141,700 lbs. at aft C.G. Maximum zero fuel weight: 117,000 lbs.
Hope this helps,
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Mar 22, 2009 12:30:54 GMT -5
Hmmm... I was under the impression that the 3400Hp TC R-3350 could not be operated at all with fuel less than 115/145 ( differently from its little bro rating 3250Hp who could, even if losing some of its sparkle). Glad I was wrong. Thanks for having taken the time to answer my questions.
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Mar 22, 2009 14:51:37 GMT -5
Was rereading this thread when this fact highlighted to me: The difference between impeller gear ratio for low blower and high blower is way less than I expected, seen the prohibition of using high blower with any less than 115/145 octane fuel. My question is, seen the all in all moderate loss of blower increment due to prohibition of high blower, how much performance is bound to lose the Starliner when she'll be ready to take flight again ( ceiling, speeds, whatever) seen that she will not be used as a work tool like in the past, but for commemorative trips ( hence she'll not be loaded up to the last useful milligram)? Does someone know?
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Mar 22, 2009 15:23:45 GMT -5
I don't see what aspect of safe VFR flight is going to be increased by adding the glass gauges to the Starliner. There are plenty of airplanes both commercial and private still flying on steam gauges.
As a matter of fact SWA 737 with glass gauges at least initially had the capability to display steam gauges on the glass so that crews could fly with the system they were most comfortable with.
IFR flights may be a touch safer given an advanced panel....but I doubt that the $25 Million restauration cost will be sent out into the really bad stuff.
In the end it most likely comes down to how many hurdles the officials are putting between the airplane and the skies.
As for the engines...they will do just fine on 100LL given that they will not have to work anywhere near their old maximum power. The airplane will most likely never be at more than 75% MTOW. 60 average passengers would add roughly 10500lbs to her ready to fly weight. I don't expect there will be any luggage admitted ;D
From a friend who used to fly the DC-7 for AA I know that in the early days working against the crew time limits they pushed the engines extremely hard flying west to LA...and paid for it with TBO times of 250-400 hours. When competition eased and the rules were changed a bit they backed-off on the cruise power and trippled that time. As the crews and maintainers learned the tricks to keep the engines happy they ended up with 2000 hour TBOs.
One such trick for AA was the addition of the spark analyzer which the Connies also had ( I think they had it earlier than the AA DC-7 )
|
|
|
Post by ashaman on Mar 23, 2009 11:38:48 GMT -5
I don't see what aspect of safe VFR flight is going to be increased by adding the glass gauges to the Starliner. There are plenty of airplanes both commercial and private still flying on steam gauges. As a matter of fact SWA 737 with glass gauges at least initially had the capability to display steam gauges on the glass so that crews could fly with the system they were most comfortable with. IFR flights may be a touch safer given an advanced panel....but I doubt that the $25 Million restauration cost will be sent out into the really bad stuff. In the end it most likely comes down to how many hurdles the officials are putting between the airplane and the skies. While I do agree it's hardly ideal to put a modern digital glass cockpit on a Connie ( or any other classic plane for that), and while I would have liked a lot more for clockwork gauges to be used still, as you said it has probably to do with standards and their upholding. That and the Lufthansa is planning for the plane ( I read) to fly commemorative flights all around the world, not only in Germany, so an added grain of security in flight does no harm. As for the engines...they will do just fine on 100LL given that they will not have to work anywhere near their old maximum power. The airplane will most likely never be at more than 75% MTOW. 60 average passengers would add roughly 10500lbs to her ready to fly weight. I don't expect there will be any luggage admitted ;D Commemorative flights ( inbetween maybe longer but way lighter, crew only transfer flights between an airshow and another) last a hour top and the arrival airport is the same you took off from... what kind of luggage may you need? ;D From a friend who used to fly the DC-7 for AA I know that in the early days working against the crew time limits they pushed the engines extremely hard flying west to LA...and paid for it with TBO times of 250-400 hours. When competition eased and the rules were changed a bit they backed-off on the cruise power and tripled that time. As the crews and maintainers learned the tricks to keep the engines happy, they ended up with 2000 hour TBOs. One such trick for AA was the addition of the spark analyzer which the Connies also had (I think they had it earlier than the AA DC-7) Of course, even among the turbines, engines which necks have not been wrung like a wet rag work better and longer, but the law of the market was merciless back then like it is still today. I am quite sure no one liked it to put so much stress on the equipment, especially the flying crew ( not to talk about the passengers, who were mostly unaware though, at least until a prop was feathered) whose security was on the line while flying, but they were not really given a choice, back then like today. Remains my wondering about the max ceiling and speeds in cruise reachable by the Starliner with no high blower allowed. Does anyone know?
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Mar 23, 2009 22:27:16 GMT -5
Actually, reading Lufthansa's items on the aircraft, I think they're planning on more than "Commemorative" flights. They speak in several places of having the aircraft operate much as their Junkers does on historically accurate routes during part of the year.
As well, the new EASA regulations on "Large Aircraft" requires that they have RNAV capability, something cost prohibitive with steam gauges on an aircraft of that vintage. By converting to glass, they resolve both a maintenance issue (that vintage of aircraft has problems with both availability and cost of replacement instruments) and a safety of flight issue by giving the crews a greatly enhanced situational awareness.
Believe me, I'm all for having historically accurate aircraft, however since I am currently completing my Instrument Rating in a TAA (Technologically Advanced Aircraft - i.e. Glass Cockpit), the difference when operating in a VFR environment is staggering and in an IFR environment is monumental. Not only does glass allow you to "see" things much earlier and give you additional information on both air and ground obstructions, but it gives you a much more in-depth overview of where you are and where you need to go, including figuring out when to start your descent or climb and when to initiate turns to maintain your intended route.
What Lufthansa is trying to do is restore at least one if not two aircraft to a safe and airworthy condition and put them in the best position to remain that way for the longest time possible. I allow myself to understand that some fragments that aren't seen by 90% of those whom will fly on the aircraft and see the aircraft will be changed to accomplish that and I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Mar 23, 2009 23:46:06 GMT -5
Hi Capflyer,
trust me I am well aware of what a marvel even a TAA C-172 is in todays GA fleet. Capability once reserved for only the most modern airliners and the really swanky bizjets available in a lowly 4-banger.
However VFR the only benefit you should look for is to avoid airspace boundaries and if so equipped get help to spot traffic. Your eyes should be outside not glued to the gizmos. I know they are mesmerizing but for VFR they are sometimes more of a hindrance to safe flight than they add to safety.
Most of my CFI buddies agree with me and unless a customer is buying a TAA will not fly with new private students in one of them until late in their training.
IFR...I agree nothing beats a G1000 or at least a GNS530. I recently flew a IFR flight in a friends solidly but round gauge only equipped Bonanza and could not believe how much I missed my baby's high tech.
We had a GNS430 in our Archer and now have a WAAS GNS530 in our Saratoga. Coupled with XM weather and our 330 Xponder we actually qualify for the TAA status as well.
The front office will no doubt be part of the experience...just like it is on D-AQUI. At least on the ground and it would have been nice to see that part of the airplane historically correct. I guess we'll wait and see how far from that they have to go to satisfy the authorities...I don't think a pair of nice and shiny 530s will cut it in this case but so far I have not seen any proposed panel layouts...so who knows what lind of Glass this will turn out to be.
Stefan
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Mar 24, 2009 16:12:58 GMT -5
Stefan - believe me that we agree on when/where TAA is good. When I speak of the increased situational awareness with a TAA in a VFR environment, it's the availability of 3 things to help make good VFR decisions -
1) Traffic Awareness - only takes a glance to the inset or to the MFD to see where traffic is when available and makes finding that traffic MUCH easier.
2) Airspace Awareness - as you said, much easier to identify and stay clear of it if needed or know when to start getting ahold of ATC
3) Weather Awareness (if equipped) - while you can't use it for live navigation, the NEXRAD and other weather depiction capabilities helps a VFR pilot make good, sound decisions on where to go if the weather starts to get marginal. It lets him know where the weather was and thus where to go to avoid it. The only problem with the weather depiction is that, unless the instructor trains the pilot on using it or they go with a good training program for the TAA system being used, some pilots will forget that the weather depiction (except for the lightning strike depiction when available) is commonly 5-10 minutes old and thus you should only use it for getting a "big picture" look at where you need to not be and not a "small picture" of where you can go to get through the weather.
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Mar 24, 2009 17:30:45 GMT -5
Hi CAP, glad we agree on that the VFR portion then. The hair in the back of my neck just springs up when G1000 and VFR is mentioned in one word as if that's what it now takes. I have flown with such pilots and am still glad we made it back safely ;D ;D I guess I am old school that way...think J-3 plus a 295 for the airspace As for your earlier question regarding the ceiling and speed on the L-1649A with LB only....I'll have to try that out in our sim version and see what we get.
|
|