![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Noel wrote:
In article xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04, wrote: I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The 757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as over $100 million." what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and software can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft? Any of their 757s/767s delivered after some date (circa 1995?) have the required stuff. That is when Boeing switched to GPS as the primary sensor and the Pegasus FMS. These birds can do true RNP and radius-to-a-fix legs (RF legs). American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they should be looking at some upgrade cost anyway. RNP 2 is not much of anything, and can be done with DME/DME in the en route environment. Containment areas for RNP 2.0 is 4 miles, centerline to edge, no different than a VOR airway. For RNAV departures the term of reference in FAA-dom is Level 1 (RNP 1.0) and Level 2 (RNP 2.0) Level 2 accomplishes little, if anything. To get into the performance-based approach game, RNP 0.3 is required just to enter the game. RNP 0.1 is where it all is going, and that simply will not happen with the 757/767 pre-Pegasus avionics. The hardware is too old and rigid. They would have to rip out the old FMSes and replace them. To get down to RNP 0.1 you need some pretty nifty software routines that will compute and estimate ANP (acutal navigation performance), you need redundancy to achieve an E10-7 target level of safety, you need the latest EGPWS (TAWS) with peaks and obstacles, and you almost certainly need at least one IRU. With three IRUs that are updated by dual, independent GPS sensors, and two (better three) independent FMSes, you have the absolutely best performing platform. When you are threading between the rocks at RNP 0.10 and possibly lose GPS, you don't want to be DEAD reckoning. ;-) (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade the USAF fleet...) The Air Force has the necessary eqippage in some of the new stuff. I doubt they will be doing much retrofitting of avionics except for special-use aircraft. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Noel wrote:
In article D0drf.15670$LB5.8392@fed1read04, wrote: (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade the USAF fleet...) The Air Force has the necessary eqippage in some of the new stuff. I doubt they will be doing much retrofitting of avionics except for special-use aircraft. Most of the USAF aircraft aren't new, and the USAF is doing a lot of upgrades to a lot of aircraft, not just special-use. I don't know much about what the USAF is doing other than a Lt COL who is at their instrument procedures group told me that performance-based RNP procedures would be limited to a small segment of USAF aircraft. I don't know what he really meant by that. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Noel wrote:
Not a lot of USAF aircraft have RNP capabilities (especially RNP-1, RNP-0.3, and RNP-0.1) yet. Perhaps the LTC was talking about present equippage or very near-term. C-5, KC-135, C-17 are all getting RNP capabilities. C-130 development program for CNS/ATM, to include, RNP-4 and below, has been delayed. E-3 and E-8 will likely be upgraded I was told by one of the avionics gurus I work with that the new fighter, F-22 is it?...will do the full nine-yards, right out of the box. I think that means autoflight roll-steering, RF legs, Baro VNAV, and all the necessary redundancies to do the most demanding RNP approach procedures. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stubby wrote:
Bob Noel wrote: In article xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04, wrote: I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The 757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as over $100 million." what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and software can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft? American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they should be looking at some upgrade cost anyway. (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade the USAF fleet...) I read USAF spends $700M per year painting aircraft. They're not in Chapter 11 nor anywhere near it. ;-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
Stubby wrote: Bob Noel wrote: In article xdcrf.15668$LB5.8651@fed1read04, wrote: I have serious doubt that the U.S. airlines will ever retrofit their legacy glass aircraft. Boeing wants a king's ransom to do that. The 757/767 fleet manager at American said, "No way, it would cost as over $100 million." what am I missing here... American's 757/767 fleet has what kind of glass? Is the architecture so tightly integrated that processors and software can't be upgraded (even as part of tech refresh)? Is there additional equipment that needs to be added? How many aircraft? American's fleet is capable of RNP-2, isn't it? If not, then they should be looking at some upgrade cost anyway. (btw - $100 million? feh - you don't want to know the cost to upgrade the USAF fleet...) I read USAF spends $700M per year painting aircraft. They're not in Chapter 11 nor anywhere near it. ;-) Right. That sounds like a lot of money but some of those paints are very special. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|