• Home
  • Aircraft
    • Proud to fly a Turboprop: Q400 vs ATR72
    • Spicejet unveils the Q400s
  • FlightDeck & Systems
    • Airbus A320 Experience
    • Boeing’s MAX, Southwest’s 737
    • Cockpit Design: EPR v/s N1 indication
    • Evolution
    • Winglets and Sharklets
  • Training
    • A320 FFS LOFT Session
    • IGRUA
    • Aerospace Engineering in India: the Gaps
    • NFTI: Rising to the Top, and how
  • Out Of the Blue
    • Captain Dad and kid First Officer
    • GPS to the rescue!
    • Iran Air 743: Landing Without Nose Gear
    • LOT 767 Gear Up Landing
    • Love is in “the air”
    • Cathay’s Young Cabin Crew!
  • In Photos
    • Aero India 2011
    • Aero India 2009
  • Projects
    • General Aviation Flight Simulator
    • Airbus Tech
      • About PAT
      • AIRCON/PRESSURIZATION/VENTILATION
      • COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
      • ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
      • FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
      • FUEL SYSTEMS
      • HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS
    • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go!
  • People
    • Radka Máchová
  • About

The Flying Engineer

~ Technically and Operationally Commercial Aviation

The Flying Engineer

Monthly Archives: December 2011

What the Sharklets could mean for Indigo.

28 Wednesday Dec 2011

Posted by theflyingengineer in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

A320, aerodynamic efficiency, aerodynamic surfaces, Airbus, aircraft wings, boeing 747 400, engine thrust, Fuel Savings, Indigo, Sharklets, winglet, Winglets

Despite the advances in other areas, Airbus lagged behind when it came to wingtip devices. The conventional and all too familiar wingtip fences that we see on the Airbus A300s, A310s, A320s and the A380s did their job, but a scope for improvement always existed. The Airbus A330s and the A340s broke from the norm by employing conventional winglets, similar to the ones seen on a Boeing 747-400.

On the 30th of November 2011, when the first ever A320 to be produced: MSN 0001 took to the skies, this wingtip complacency was relegated to a page in history. With the first flight of an A320 with “Sharklets”, the Airbus lingo for winglets, Airbus was ready to give to the world a much awaited confirmation and assurance of a winglet that will finally make its way to production aircraft.

Vortices which result at the tips of wings as a result of the pressure difference that exists between the upper and lower surfaces of the wings induce a drag which reduces the wing’s aerodynamic efficiency. Winglets are small , nearly vertical aerodynamic surfaces which are designed to be mounted at the tips of aircraft wings. A properly designed winglet impedes these vortices, shifting them instead further up to the tip of the winglet, resulting in much weaker vortices. As a result, the induced drag is significantly reduced, improving the lift to drag ratio of the new compound wing structure.

An increased lift to drag ratio implies lesser engine thrust requirement for a desired amount of lift, which directly relates to fuel savings. Like other winglets, these Sharklets bring with them a bundle of realistic promises, the biggest of which is a 3.5% fuel saving over 3000NM-long flying sectors, and around 1% fuel saving over 500NM long sectors, in comparison to A320s flying with the conventional wingtip fences.

For an A320 operator like Indigo, which deploys its A320s on a mix of medium haul international and short haul domestic routes, the savings can be huge. Based on the flight schedule, Indigo can comfortably deploy one A320 on the Bangalore-Mumbai-Singapore-Mumbai-Bangalore pattern every day. Fuel cost at Bangalore and Mumbai have been approximated to be the same.

Projected savings on a single A320. Fuel Prices as of Dec 25th, 2011. 3% fuel savings (assumed) used for 2000NM and 1% fuel savings (Airbus data) for 500NM.

With this pattern, the same A320 operating with Sharklets can save about US$400,000 per annum on fuel related costs.

According to John Leahy of Airbus, the price for the winglet will be similar to the forward fit, of around US$950,000, although the retrofit kit could add to the cost, though not substantially. A pair of Sharklets attached to an A320 flying the above pattern can pay back for itself in 2.5 years. Six A320s in Indigo’s fleet (INA-INF) are 5 years old. If Indigo plans to get rid of aircraft around 5 years old, a potential US$ 1M is saved by the airline, per aircraft.

But these are not the only savings. Either the revenue payload can be increased by 500kgs, or the range can be extended by 100NM at the original payload. The increased lift to drag ratio of the wing will result in higher available takeoff weights, notably from obstacle-limited runways, and where runway performance is not limiting, operators could profit from a reduction in average takeoff thrust (with consequent savings in engine maintenance costs by around 2%). The Sharklets lend the aircraft a better takeoff performance and rate-of-climb, higher optimum altitude, higher residual aircraft value, and greater safety margins in the event of an engine failure.

All these mean money for the operator.

MIN and MAX Acceleration Height

19 Monday Dec 2011

Posted by theflyingengineer in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

I was asked today by a very good first officer for a “5 star” airline the difference between Minimum Acceleration Height and Maximum Acceleration Height as seen on RTOW charts. For example, the RTOW chart for an A319 with the IAE V2522-A5 engines from Bangalore’s old HAL Airport (VOBG) shows a min and max acceleration height of 436ft and 1333ft, for a departure from runway 09. What does this mean?

Opening Airbus A319 FCOM 2.02.10 describes the acceleration height as that which “ensures that the net flight path clears the highest obstacle by at least 35ft when accelerating in level flight to Green DOT (Maximum lift to drag ratio speed in clean configuration) speed after engine failure, in the most adverse of conditions.” That can only be the minimum acceleration altitude. The acceleration altitude never goes below 400ft. Anything above 400ft is to ensure operational minimum acceleration height.

So what is the maximum acceleration height in that case?

A take off has four segments: First, Second, Third, and Final.

First Segment: from 35ft AGL to Gear Retraction, with takeoff thrust at V2 minimum.

Second Segment: from gear retraction to acceleration height, at V2 minimum, with take off thrust.

Third Segment: from acceleration height to reaching green dot speed. This segment must end at a maximum of 10 minutes from the start of the take off roll.

Final segment: A climb at green dot speed till 1500ft AGL with MCT (Maximum Continuous Thrust).

What determines the maximum acceleration height are the following:

a) A minimum of 1.2% climb gradient when above the acceleration height.

b) Green Dot speed must be reached 10 minutes after starting take off roll.

For this, you must construct the path backward.

1. Determine the time taken for the aircraft to accelerate from V2 to GDOT with a) Single Engine TOGA b) Worst case RTOW c) 1.2% climb gradient. Call this “t1“.

2. Determine the time taken for initiation of take off roll to attaining V2 with one engine failing at V1. (35ft above the ground). Call this “t2“.

3. Determine the time taken for aircraft to completely retract gear, from 35ft above the ground (First Segment). Call this “t3“. The height attained in this first segment may be considered height “h1“. All this is with one engine inoperative, with the other generating TOGA thrust.

4. The time remaining for the second segment is “t4” = (10 – (t1+t2+t3)). 10 minutes is considered as that is the maximum duration for which a single engine may be operated at TOGA. Note that the worst case assumption is for a take off at TOGA, with worst case RTOW (Heaviest), and engine failure at V1. With these parameters of physics, the climb gradient is calculated for the second segment at V2. With the climb gradient, the height attained in time t4 is “h2“.

5. Thus, with the height the aircraft attains, above the ground, at the end of the second segment, with TOGA thrust on one engine, other engine inoperative at V1, and the worst and heaviest weight restricted by the runway, is the maximum acceleration height.

If a pilot attempts to climbout beyond the maximum acceleration height maintaining V2, the live engine may exceed the 10 minute TOGA limit, risking engine failure and consequently total loss of thrust, before the Green Dot Speed is reached.

737MAX’s Cockpit Design, Jacobson’s “flair”

14 Wednesday Dec 2011

Posted by theflyingengineer in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

boeings, flightdeck, jacobson, southwests, vertical height

Twitter was abuzz with the news of Southwest becoming the launch customer for the 737MAX. That piece of information is sufficient to finalize certain aspects of the 737MAX’s design. The Flightdeck. Read here to know more: http://theflyingengineer.com/flightdeck/boeings-max-southwests-737/

I also was fascinated by the Jacobson’s flare,  ”A practical and very tolerant technique for establishing a consistent landing flare that does not rely on the pilot’s perception of vertical height”. This method is slowly gaining popularity for its obvious benefits. You may read more on this on the “official” webpage: http://www.jacobsonflare.com/

A good weekend!

11 Sunday Dec 2011

Posted by theflyingengineer in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a Comment

This weekend was pretty relaxed, with nothing much taking up my time. The weather was great, and it still is. Saturday evening was made brilliant with a nice lunar eclipse, and a nice ride to the airport to see planes land and pick up my dad.

Enjoy a nice read of the way in which I use my GPS on board: a nice way to both kill time and learn something: http://theflyingengineer.com/out-of-the-blue/gps-to-the-rescue/

I am somehow fascinated by Indigo’s culture: when the airline sees something worthwhile, they actually implement it. I heard from an Indigo pilot that they have regular safety information bulletins issued, which touch upon any and every topic that is of interest to flight safety. Some may laugh and most may not read it, but it is there to be read.

The issue of incorrect  FMS weight entries has been bothering me. A simple ZFW entry taking the place of TOW or GW can be the simple oversight that may lead to an incident, serious incident, or even an accident. How to safeguard against these errors is something that’s worth pondering on.

Fatigue is probably a contributory factor, and this fatigue needs to somehow be determined. Imagine, if the fatigue of a crew member’s can be gauged, the level of awareness, or oversight can appropriately be increased to prevent errors. Imagine a first officer knowing that his captain is stressed, or fatiugued: he can keep a closer eye on what the captain is doing. But then again: what is both crew members are stressed?

FMS weight entries: Weighing the consequences of simple errors!

Have a nice weekend, everybody!

A320 Sharklets, a legal tussle.

05 Monday Dec 2011

Posted by theflyingengineer in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a Comment

Not long after the first flight of the “sharklet” equipped A320 did Airbus go public with the news of it suing Aviation Partners for demanding royalties for the Airbus’s “sharklets“.

The sharklets are very similar to the patented blended winglet design of Aviation Partners Inc. Infact, Airbus in 2009 was evaluating the Aviation Partners Inc’s winglets on MSN0001, the same A320 that flew on the last day of November on its maiden flight with the winglets.

Thompson Reuters has an article here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/02/airbus-wingtip-idUSN1E7B10U220111202

This news has come right when I was in the middle of my A320-B738 comparison for fuel burn and other figures. I am glad to have laid my hands on relevant documentation!

A very kind and very experienced Boeing 767 captain sent me a mail with comments on my LOT 767 article, providing his insight into the turn on events on the 1st of November based on his knowledge of, experience on the airplane. His comments shall be posted soon.

Have a nice evening, and good night!

LOT767, EPR,N1, Sharklets, Peter Collins, and Wireless pushback headsets.

04 Sunday Dec 2011

Posted by theflyingengineer in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a Comment

Its been one long week!

Mood: Listening to “Pink Bullets”.

My first post in December. I had spent a good deal of the week trying hard to find out the way in which 732 pilots couple their GPS to their SP-77 autopilot. The Boeing 732 has so many variations that its very tough to document this bird.

An article on the Polish LOT 767′s gear up incident has been penned. Pretty proud to state that it is a comprehensive, detailed article, based on available information. You may enjoy the read here: http://theflyingengineer.com/out-of-the-blue/lot-767-gear-up-landing/

You may also read an article on the EPR vs N1 that clears some doubt about the two, right here: http://theflyingengineer.com/flightdeck/cockpit-design-epr-vs-n1-indication/

The A320′s flight with its so called “sharklets”  grabbed my attention, as it did others. Whats interesting is that MSN1, the A320 that had the honour of trying out the new winglets, had tried out other types of winglets before. That is for me to document, as is the evaluation of the 3.5% saving against the 737-800 winglet. Friends of mine who fly the winglets -800 will soon be providing me with the relevant data. The aim is to evaluate the fuel burn of the A320 non-winglet against the 738 non-winglet, and then apply a 3.5% fuel saving on the A320 non winglet version over a flight of 3000NM. If this fuel burn is anything better than the 738: well done. The assembly of A320 MSN 1′s winglets may be viewed here: (The YouTube video was deleted by Airbus)

http://videos.airbus.com/video/iLyROoaf2foB.html

The first flight of the A320 with winglets is kind of emotional, and may be enjoyed here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvx73ch3of0

It was interesting to see Flight Com’s offering of a wireless system for wing walkers, the pushback operator and the crew, ensuring clear and quick communications during a push back. It can allow the pushback operator to concentrate on the pushback without watching the wing walkers. while the wing walkers can immediately talk to the operator in case the aircraft is potentially going to clip something. More details may be seen here: http://flightcom.net/solutions/ground-support/marshalling.php

There is someone that all should be inspired by: Peter Collins. He gets invited to flight test aircraft and write articles on them. Read his Antonov 158 experience here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/in-focus-a-flight-test-of-antonovs-an-158-regional-jet-364992/

Have a nice Sunday, people! And a great week ahead!

The Flying Engineer’s tweets

  • A beautiful flight at Bijapur: Post the crazy winds, and long wait! wp.me/pRsSu-nQ 3 weeks ago
  • Flying over the Office of the Deputy Comissioner, Karwar wp.me/pRsSu-nF 1 month ago
  • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go! wp.me/pRsSu-nC 1 month ago
  • Air Asia: Hiring Indian Captains and First Officers wp.me/pRsSu-nd 1 month ago
  • Powered Para Gliding! wp.me/pRsSu-n0 1 month ago
  • Radio Etiquette wp.me/pRsSu-mX 1 month ago
  • Peeling away ten Thousand dots, for British Airways' first A380! wp.me/pRsSu-mS 1 month ago
  • Flying just 200ft over the heart of Bangalore! wp.me/pRsSu-mG 1 month ago
  • A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn't quite right. wp.me/pRsSu-mv 1 month ago
  • Welcoming the Day wp.me/pRsSu-mp 1 month ago
Follow @TheFlyingEnggnr

Blog archives of The Flying Engineer

  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,824 other followers

Recent Posts!

  • A beautiful flight at Bijapur: Post the crazy winds, and long wait!
  • Flying over the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar
  • Making a Lynx Micro Headset Charger on the Go!
  • Air Asia: Hiring Indian Captains and First Officers
  • Powered Para Gliding!
  • Radio Etiquette
  • Peeling away ten Thousand dots, for British Airways’ first A380!
  • Flying just 200ft over the heart of Bangalore!
  • A330 Production Ramps up, but Patrick Piedrafita isn’t quite right.
  • Welcoming the Day

Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: Chateau by Ignacio Ricci.