"Keith Willshaw" wrote:
| "Brett" wrote in message
| news | "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?)