How Boeing steered tanker bid

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services. In 26 years
of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly
use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

In 26 years
of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.

No gyros could get ugly fast.

I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem with
the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
Basically trouble in the E&E bay is nearly as bad as losing both wings...
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m.../article.jhtml

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message ...
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Further assurance of maintaining proper attitude can come from
dedicated power sources. In the last five minutes of the 1998 tragedy
of Swissair Flight 111, with a raging electrically stoked fire
spreading from the attic space in the cockpit, the two pilots had no
attitude reference at all—not even a turn needle or turn coordinator
to fall back on. They saw inky blackness on the outside and black
primary flight displays [PDFs] inside the cockpit. The standby ADI,
even if it had been working, was located near the bottom center of the
instrument panel. It was poorly lit and even more difficult to see
while wearing smoke masks.

The Swissair jet's standby was lost because it had been hooked to a
vulnerable hot battery bus. When it failed, the powerless gyro started
to spin down. Therein lies a vital object lesson in redundancy:
Standby instruments need their own batteries, so that a loss of
generated power doesn't take down the sole fallback attitude
reference.

"sid" wrote in message
om...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly
use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Further assurance of maintaining proper attitude can come from
dedicated power sources. In the last five minutes of the 1998 tragedy
of Swissair Flight 111, with a raging electrically stoked fire
spreading from the attic space in the cockpit, the two pilots had no
attitude reference at all-not even a turn needle or turn coordinator
to fall back on. They saw inky blackness on the outside and black
primary flight displays [PDFs] inside the cockpit. The standby ADI,
even if it had been working, was located near the bottom center of the
instrument panel. It was poorly lit and even more difficult to see
while wearing smoke masks.

Yep, old Marky Ostendorf modified the airplane such that there was a half
assed exension cord in the cieling carrying 55 Ampres of AC derived from the
battery bus.

The Swissair jet's standby was lost because it had been hooked to a
vulnerable hot battery bus. When it failed, the powerless gyro started
to spin down. Therein lies a vital object lesson in redundancy:
Standby instruments need their own batteries, so that a loss of
generated power doesn't take down the sole fallback attitude
reference.

None of that mattered when the magnetic contacter triped bac in and th arc
tracing wire bundle burned an 18 feet long hole in the fuse; including
cutting the doubler at dorr #1. Writing about a case of manslaughter by way
of gross negligence is no reflection whatsover WRT Boeing, or AI airplanes.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly
use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

No, it does not. An AC gen on each engine and the APU.
The eng gens are referred to as an IDG. (integrated drive
generator) The constant speed transmission and gen are
in one 'package.'

JK

In 26 years
of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.

No gyros could get ugly fast.

I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem
with
the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly
use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

No, it does not. An AC gen on each engine and the APU.
The eng gens are referred to as an IDG. (integrated drive
generator) The constant speed transmission and gen are
in one 'package.'

No my idiot, the 767's AC generators have a variable frequency excitation
instead of the old DC style ecitation such that no constant spee
transmission is required.

Doesn't this Knoyle retard ever get anything right?

Perhaps this will help:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:

Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
alone. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.


I know...ain't life a bitch John

--

-Gord.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly
use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on
DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

No, it does not. An AC gen on each engine and the APU.
The eng gens are referred to as an IDG. (integrated drive
generator) The constant speed transmission and gen are
in one 'package.'

No my idiot, the 767's AC generators have a variable frequency excitation
instead of the old DC style ecitation such that no constant spee
transmission is required.

If so, why is the IDG so much bigger than your basic generator alone?
Same goes for a VSCF.

What the hell are you talking about "old DC style excitation?" Is that
meant to be a 'new' tarver classic? I suppose you wouldn't want to
'splain how the PMG is wired into the circuit?
If you're somehow referring to the old brush type generators that
we got rid of way back in the '70s, you're *still* way off base!!!
....and to think I've been drawing you a picture (twice) up on
your page for all of these years!
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

Actually, I'm very disappointed in the way you blew the opportunity
to explain to the folks how the ADGs and/or HMGs are incorporated
into the ETOPS 767s.

Doesn't this Knoyle retard ever get anything right?

Perhaps this will help:
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:

Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
alone. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.


I know...ain't life a bitch John

--

-Gord.


Like I posted before, you can continue posting that little snippet
untill the cows come home. Doesn't bother me a bit since it is
such a good example of your [dishonest] selective snipping.
You lack the character to include my response to Gord.

Jimmy

Tarverisms from the past:
That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine and the APU.
It would be unsafe to operate a transport any other way.
and
I did not say anywhere that most jets do not have AC generators. Some are
DC only, but I have no problem with bert boy, his immaginary friends, and
the two other idiots that run with him making fools of themselves once
again.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly
use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

I think you meant to say 2 AC generators, one on each engine.
The 3rd and identical AC generator is on the in-flight capable APU.


In 26 years
of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.

No gyros could get ugly fast.

No gyros. All attitude information comes from the IRU's.


I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem with
the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.

My point when I stated that the 767 E&E is below the forward galley and
lavatories.

--
Ron

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

I think you meant to say 2 AC generators, one on each engine.
The 3rd and identical AC generator is on the in-flight capable APU.

Sure;

In 26 years
of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.

No gyros could get ugly fast.

No gyros. All attitude information comes from the IRU's.

Which are also AC feeding a battery.

I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem
with
the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.

My point when I stated that the 767 E&E is below the forward galley and
lavatories.

Surely you mean below the flight deck.