G'day
I hate to be a nitpicker, but the aircraft is a C-17 Globemaster III.
C-117 was the U.S.A.F. designation for the DC-3S (Super DC-3.)
Cheers...Chris
As I said in an earlier post, those that know three fifths of f***k all are
the keenest to criticise those that know five fiths of the entire story. But
this is a NG, and this is an excellent starting point for your fifteen
minutes of fame ! AND, lets not let the truth get in the way of a good story
eh.... :-D
johnie
I was only looking at reversing, and didn't even look at the gas generator itself. What caught my
eye was the cowl / case / pod design for reversing and all the costs involved in that.
Anyway, did some more digging, and came up with this. Worth a read, a few interesting
possibilities, cost / effectiveness wise, down the track. It is a large file, 7.2 Megabytes.
http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/1998/aiaa/NASA-aiaa-98-3256.pdf
matt webbed wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:06:55 +1000, Peter Creswick
> <ventus45@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >Be fair hoges. The C17 is not a civil airliner with standard cheap engines, it is a military
> >tactical air lifter with special expensive fancy engines,
>
> Wrong. Take a good look at the specifications for the F117 engine. It
> is a PW2040 with a military label. The fact that MTU has exactly the
> same share in the F117 as they have in the PW2000 should tell you that
> these engines have more than just a little in common.
>
> The fact that dimensionally the PW117 is the same as a 2040, has the
> same Overall Pressure ratio, same internal configuration, and same SFC
> should tell you just how 'special and fancy' the F117--PW-100 engine
> is.
"Bill Whale" <billwhale@no-spam> wrote in
news:cMVNa.3419$oN.146754@no-spam
> Runway occupancy shouldnt be a problem at 0530 hrs.
Sydney runways are pretty expensive real estate at that
time of the morning, aren't they?
There are other times when your theory could be tried
though. Sunday mid-afternoons tend to be pretty quiet,
for example. Also, any time I turn up with a full kit of
cameras and ladders and a free afternoon tends to be
dead quiet! :-)
G
On a B747-400 on the ground the outfow valves should both be fully open.
The "inlets" for airconditioning that you refer to are purely for cooling
air for the packs and do NOT enter the cabin at all. All this air does is
enter at the ram air inlet doors (which will be open on the ground), pass
over a primary and secondary heatexchanger of the pack (forced by the ACM
fan on the ground) and exits at the exhaust again (louvre grills on the
bottom). The air from the cabin comes purely from the APU pneumatics at that
point of time (no filters whatsoever by the way, cool huh!). The zone with
the most amount of cooling or least amount of heating latches the PTC to it
and does not require further trim air. The packs will try to achieve the
requirement for this zone. The other zones will require some warmer air and
will get trim air (177° nominal) mixed to them to achieve their goal. Only
two of the recirculation fans (the two upper ones) will be operating at that
time since all 3 packs will be in HI FLOW mode. If the APU is turned off at
that time (after the passengers are gone) and the last source of pneumatics
for the aircondition is gone, the packs will all be off and the two lower
recirculation fans will kick in to provide additional airflow. Its only
cleaners and mechanics (engineers) running around now and noone cares if the
aircraft gets stinkin hot and stale.
It is barely possible to describe a complex system as aircondition and
pressurization in a few words but simplified the above said is correct.
"Ben Matthes" <b--.--..-.--@no-spam> wrote in message
news:7n1lgvo2sqdh57ok8vlhmce1lr7kq132e9@no-spam
> On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 21:41:46 +1000, "ross" <catross69@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> G'dall all,
>
> another question on this topic,
> smoke from the MLG brakes - would it enter the aircrafts
> airconditioning system?
>
> Are the "inlets" on the bottom of the fusealge air intakes for the air
> conditioning? (or does all the air come of the engines?)
> And would the outflow valve be fully open when on the ground? (in my
> theory that would make ariflow through the cabin higher if aircon was
> running / pushing outside air into the cabin)
>
> I imagine there must be some air exchange happening at some point,
> otherwise the cabin air would get very stale and smelly in normal
> operations, (given that outflow valves is close to closed during the
> cruise) and having one or two aircraft doors open during turnaround
> doesn't seem to be sufficient to promote fresh air entering the cabin.
>
> any ideas?
>
> TIA
> Ben
> :-)
>
> Ben Matthes. Canberra, Australia.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Aircraft Manager, Canberra Aero Club.
> http://www.canberra-aeroclub.com.au/
> Hans Thanks nicely put .
> While on the subject how many hours do you reckon to cool down a hot
> soaked hull say parked at Cairns for 2 days ??
I have never been to Cairns in my life and can only guess (which will
probably backfire and I get flamed by various people that know it better)
but I would say that the 3 packs are fairly powerful and should get the
temperature down in a fairly short time. I'd put 10$ for 60min. I guess you
could try to solve the problem mathematically if you know that each pack
pumps out 210cuft/min. So knowing that 3 packs go flatout, calculating the
volume of the cabin, knowing the start temp and the desired temp, adding all
those extra little unknowns you could make a fairly good guess. Or easier
you could ask a lame in Cairns (which i am not) and they would tell you
right away, probably.
Brgds
Hans
"Hans Huber" <satipatthana@no-spam> wrote in message
news:beg8k9$2j9i$1@no-spam
> > Hans Thanks nicely put .
> > While on the subject how many hours do you reckon to cool down a hot
> > soaked hull say parked at Cairns for 2 days ??
>
>
> I have never been to Cairns in my life and can only guess (which will
> probably backfire and I get flamed by various people that know it better)
> but I would say that the 3 packs are fairly powerful and should get the
> temperature down in a fairly short time. I'd put 10$ for 60min. I guess
you
> could try to solve the problem mathematically if you know that each pack
> pumps out 210cuft/min. So knowing that 3 packs go flatout, calculating the
> volume of the cabin, knowing the start temp and the desired temp, adding
all
> those extra little unknowns you could make a fairly good guess. Or easier
> you could ask a lame in Cairns (which i am not) and they would tell you
> right away, probably.
>
> Brgds
>
> Hans
Hans again thanks done my back of envelope thing. (throws get rich scheme
in bin)
Re: flames on here pretty benign place really .Compared to other sections of
the "net"
Cheers and gain thanks.