Ooops! An easy thing to do with a Caravelle-we did it at Stansted once just by fuelling with the wind in the wrong direction. According to a Sterling engineer if the wind was whistling over the horizontal stabs above a certain speed then this could easily happen if the rear steps were retracted and the wing tanks were being filled. Or as in our case at Stansted if the crew were also sat down the back enjoying crewmeals!
The future’s bright – the future’s Airbus!
IF62M
Attachments:
By: KabirT - 5th February 2003 at 15:25
RE: “That ain’t no way to treat a Lady!
Yea that will be a good idea ….. I learned about this talking to a A310 engineer.
By: wysiwyg - 5th February 2003 at 14:17
RE: “That ain’t no way to treat a Lady!
Thanks Kab. Having done commercial exams in weight and balance it bothers me as a professional to have an incomplete knowledge of something that affects my day to day operation. I’m working tomorrow (thursday) so I’ll see if any of the engineers can give me a heads up.
By: KabirT - 5th February 2003 at 08:17
RE: “That ain’t no way to treat a Lady!
I’ll try to find something for you Wys.
By: wysiwyg - 4th February 2003 at 17:14
RE:
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 04-02-03 AT 05:16 PM (GMT)]Yes the geomety (but only when considered with the total moment) is the thing that’s at fault but I have never heard it referred to as a ‘magnetic problem’. Can you give me some reference (preferably internet based) so I can look into this further?
Regards
wys
By: KabirT - 4th February 2003 at 15:31
RE: “That ain’t no way to treat a Lady!
Its visible in both A320 and A321.
By: EGNM - 4th February 2003 at 14:48
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
Ah i see kab so the A321 might actually be better with the COG as the extra fuselage sections in the middle act to ballence out the see-saw – to me it dont look that way tho!
Below is a Lufthansa A321 and an Austrian (Star Allience) A320 to show the diff.
Attachments:
By: Ren Frew - 4th February 2003 at 14:15
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
So it’s not just model planes that need a fisherman’s weight glued in to the fuselage at the cockpit end ?
It’s just the sort of thing that crossed my mind when the new Airbus A340 was rolled out at Farnbourough in the summer. Just like the 757-300 as Wys says.
By: KabirT - 4th February 2003 at 13:29
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
Umm ok i’ll try….. look at the area of the fuselague section i have marked with red….now note that the A320 family has a more upright gear section…in short it stands tall! Now, see the distance between the front gear and the central gear and the central gear to the tail section. The problem lies between the gap from central section to tail section, which is why A320 can topple if there is misconfiguration…..in short this is noted as a magnetic problem….pressure on the gears not being balanced even from all the angles. This problem could have been avoided if the A320 gear would have had a smaller ground clearence like on the B737. The A320 has a great wing structure but the central gear area is a problem point.
Attachments:
By: wysiwyg - 4th February 2003 at 11:14
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
Kab, I don’t quite understand the last sentence. Can you rephrase?
By: KabirT - 4th February 2003 at 08:33
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
The A320s is a structural problem…the rear gares are not aligned perfectly hence it has few magnetic problems.
By: wysiwyg - 3rd February 2003 at 21:45
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
Lyndon, is the 320 more prone to this than the 321?
By: SOFTLAD - 3rd February 2003 at 21:21
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
The A320 is very prone to this too.We cant start boarding at the back before the front otherwise they could tip up.
Regards,
Lyndon.
By: wysiwyg - 3rd February 2003 at 20:53
RE: That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
Under certain conditions we have to be careful taking on and off passengers on the 757-300 to avoid the same result.
By: MSR777 - 3rd February 2003 at 20:19
That ain’t no way to treat a Lady
Attachments:
Sign In
February 3, 2003 at 8:13 pm