DC9/MD80 FAMILY
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: France
Age: 47
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello guys,
I must admit that I was very busy the last few days
... However, I noted your informative answers for what I thank you 
! ...
WHBM I had heared that Douglas had problems in managing its finances and its industrial organization ... The proof is that the DC9 series that was a commercial success after the merger with McDonell, was the cause of the failure of Douglas and its acquisition by the McDonell. Indeed, the production units of DC9 -10 did not arrive to follow the pace of orders generated by the sales teams 
... Regardless of the manufacturer , it seems that the rules for certification of an aircraft in the 1950s / 60s did not have the same high standards as those of today, as Douglas could afford to modify its models on fundamentals as aerodynamics, through the likings flights aircraft of first series and returns made by client companies on this issue ... Anyway , we can say that a plane is never finished industrially, because unfortunately with accidents and incidents that inevitably occur after the first commercial operation , the recommendations of the institutes investigation and the authorities of the International Aviation, lead to subsequent changes in aircraft series 
...
I may be skipped this part of the history of civil aviation after the Second War by focusing too much on the age of the Jets
... I always found sad the scrapping of planes, and if I had been president of an airline , I would do my best to create a Heritage Museum which would have preserved each representative models of my fleet , in linking with the history of development of my company ... I must say that ' there were many conversions aircraft requisitioned for War , particularly DC3 ... They had to be proven by the conditions quite brutal in the military ... and you finally confirm what I thought , that the global aircraft fleet was still mostly made up of aircraft piston engines into the 60s. The question remains as to why manufacturers Boeing and Douglas have started to produce long -haul Civilian jets rather than medium and short-haul 
?! ! ...
Dear Tonytaile , would you have the extreme kindness to answer to my technical questions a little above on the DC -9, why not taking advantage by our readers
? ! ...
I must admit that I was very busy the last few days
... However, I noted your informative answers for what I thank you ! ...WHBM I had heared that Douglas had problems in managing its finances and its industrial organization
... The proof is that the DC9 series that was a commercial success after the merger with McDonell, was the cause of the failure of Douglas and its acquisition by the McDonell. Indeed, the production units of DC9 -10 did not arrive to follow the pace of orders generated by the sales teams ... Regardless of the manufacturer , it seems that the rules for certification of an aircraft in the 1950s / 60s did not have the same high standards as those of today, as Douglas could afford to modify its models on fundamentals as aerodynamics, through the likings flights aircraft of first series and returns made by client companies on this issue ... Anyway , we can say that a plane is never finished industrially, because unfortunately with accidents and incidents that inevitably occur after the first commercial operation , the recommendations of the institutes investigation and the authorities of the International Aviation, lead to subsequent changes in aircraft series ...I may be skipped this part of the history of civil aviation after the Second War by focusing too much on the age of the Jets
... I always found sad the scrapping of planes, and if I had been president of an airline , I would do my best to create a Heritage Museum which would have preserved each representative models of my fleet , in linking with the history of development of my company ... I must say that ' there were many conversions aircraft requisitioned for War , particularly DC3 ... They had to be proven by the conditions quite brutal in the military ... and you finally confirm what I thought , that the global aircraft fleet was still mostly made up of aircraft piston engines into the 60s. The question remains as to why manufacturers Boeing and Douglas have started to produce long -haul Civilian jets rather than medium and short-haul ?! ! ...Dear Tonytaile , would you have the extreme kindness to answer to my technical questions a little above on the DC -9, why not taking advantage by our readers
? ! ...
WHBM I had heared that Douglas had problems in managing its finances and its industrial organization ... The proof is that the DC9 series that was a commercial success after the merger with McDonell, was the cause of the failure of Douglas and its acquisition by the McDonell. Indeed, the production units of DC9 -10 did not arrive to follow the pace of orders generated by the sales teams...
Old adage from those times ...... "The best aircraft would be - designed by Lockheed, built by Boeing, and with sales & marketing by Douglas". They did let the commercial side get ahead of the rest of the business.
The other issue with Caravelle was that. like the Trident, it was too closely matched to the national carrier. AF wanted a short range machine capable of serving destinations as far as the then French colony of Algeria.
The meant it lacked range other operators needed.
My lasting memory of the type was of a Sterling VI-R in either 74 or 75 self powering off a stand at Manchester rather than the conventional push back. Nearly blew the speccies of the pier!! .
The meant it lacked range other operators needed.
My lasting memory of the type was of a Sterling VI-R in either 74 or 75 self powering off a stand at Manchester rather than the conventional push back. Nearly blew the speccies of the pier!! .
Yan104
The 32 was the smallest 9 that I flew...had first/ business cabin then added an economy section.
The 33f was a freighter ..mainly used between Rome/Milan/paris/Manchester to our base in Zurich.
The 34 was a Balair aircraft..all tourist...and greater fuel capacity ..used for charter and the nicest IMHO of the 30 series.
The 51 flew as though it had a higher wing loading and possibly a different fuselage / wing angle. It would run out of elevator if you weren't carefull. Some of the guys would give a burst of thrust in the flare...personally I would take the power off a little bit early and wind the elevator trim back whilst easing the stick fwd. I used to do a late flare and stuff the stick fwd at the last moment but was asked to decease as it frightened some of the guys...always got a soft landing.
The 81 was a different kettle of fish, lovely wing and floated for ever if you were too fast. Wasn't as positive as the 51, and seemed to waffle through the air with a higher pitch attitude on approach.
Ours had a HUD for the skipper for auto land and worked on memory of last 1700?ft on approach..no platforms.
All had APUs.
Fire was in the overhead panel out of the old Munich. Eventually extinguished although crew weren't sure as whole cockpit covered in ash. Electrical isolation drill sequence off loaded most systems whilst keeping the emergency battery power selector on which is where the fire was.
Austrian captain did an excellent job, burnt his hand whilst doing a 180 and landing downwind. There is a report in German.
It was only when the CC opened the cockpit door that they realised that the fire had been fully extinguished...and landing was made without external references.
We used to fly them around like glider tow planes...SOP ..landing config at 400ft...simple if you are adequately trained...
http://www.smokeinthecockpit.com/lis...slation-fi.pdf
English translation of parts of the report.
At 08:55 the MD 81 crew reported runway in sight. However, due to the massive smoke emission the outside as well the heads down visibility of the instrumentation was lost over and over again. Right before outer marker the pilot in command resumed control and requested the “Final” checklist. Little later the PIC had to hand the controls back to the co- pilot again, because he lost outside visibility over and over again and was unable to see the airspeed indication. The co-pilot was unable to open the cockpit window. With the airspeed information of “150” by the co-pilot, the PIC resumed control. The co-pilot tried to increase the visibility of the PIC by means of wagging the checklist.At the Middle Marker the PIC indicated that he could see the airspeed indication only very vaguely in the 4 o’clock position, which roughly corresponds to an airspeed of 150 kt. In the final phase before touch down he requested the co-pilot to again improve his visibility by wagging the checklist.
The PIC stated that during roll out the outside visibility was lost completely and full braking had to be applied.
The 33f was a freighter ..mainly used between Rome/Milan/paris/Manchester to our base in Zurich.
The 34 was a Balair aircraft..all tourist...and greater fuel capacity ..used for charter and the nicest IMHO of the 30 series.
The 51 flew as though it had a higher wing loading and possibly a different fuselage / wing angle. It would run out of elevator if you weren't carefull. Some of the guys would give a burst of thrust in the flare...personally I would take the power off a little bit early and wind the elevator trim back whilst easing the stick fwd. I used to do a late flare and stuff the stick fwd at the last moment but was asked to decease as it frightened some of the guys...always got a soft landing.
The 81 was a different kettle of fish, lovely wing and floated for ever if you were too fast. Wasn't as positive as the 51, and seemed to waffle through the air with a higher pitch attitude on approach.
Ours had a HUD for the skipper for auto land and worked on memory of last 1700?ft on approach..no platforms.
All had APUs.
Fire was in the overhead panel out of the old Munich. Eventually extinguished although crew weren't sure as whole cockpit covered in ash. Electrical isolation drill sequence off loaded most systems whilst keeping the emergency battery power selector on which is where the fire was.
Austrian captain did an excellent job, burnt his hand whilst doing a 180 and landing downwind. There is a report in German.
It was only when the CC opened the cockpit door that they realised that the fire had been fully extinguished...and landing was made without external references.
We used to fly them around like glider tow planes...SOP ..landing config at 400ft...simple if you are adequately trained...
http://www.smokeinthecockpit.com/lis...slation-fi.pdf
English translation of parts of the report.
At 08:55 the MD 81 crew reported runway in sight. However, due to the massive smoke emission the outside as well the heads down visibility of the instrumentation was lost over and over again. Right before outer marker the pilot in command resumed control and requested the “Final” checklist. Little later the PIC had to hand the controls back to the co- pilot again, because he lost outside visibility over and over again and was unable to see the airspeed indication. The co-pilot was unable to open the cockpit window. With the airspeed information of “150” by the co-pilot, the PIC resumed control. The co-pilot tried to increase the visibility of the PIC by means of wagging the checklist.At the Middle Marker the PIC indicated that he could see the airspeed indication only very vaguely in the 4 o’clock position, which roughly corresponds to an airspeed of 150 kt. In the final phase before touch down he requested the co-pilot to again improve his visibility by wagging the checklist.
The PIC stated that during roll out the outside visibility was lost completely and full braking had to be applied.
Last edited by blind pew; 12th Oct 2013 at 19:52.
The other issue with Caravelle was that. like the Trident, it was too closely matched to the national carrier. AF wanted a short range machine capable of serving destinations as far as the then French colony of Algeria.
The meant it lacked range other operators needed .
The meant it lacked range other operators needed .
The very first two Caravelle operations were SAS, 26 April 1959, Copenhagen-Munich-Vienna-Athens-Istanbul-Beirut, and Air France, 12 May 1959, Paris Orly-Rome-Athens-Istanbul.
Varig of Brazil got their first in 1959 as well, and put them on Rio to New York (via various points along the way, of course).
As the last Caravelle I ever saw airborne, in the early 1990s, was Syrian, operating Copenhagen-Berlin SXF (where I saw it on finals)-Athens-Damascus, this all lasted for a long time.
Sterling of Denmark were the all-time winners, they used their Caravelles for years on holiday flights from Copenhagen to points as diverse as Bangkok, Los Angeles, Santo Domingo, Rio de Janeiro, etc. Sterling seem to have been the only operator to do passenger Caravelle flights across the Atlantic. The routing of the LAX flights was Copenhagen-Keflavik-Gander-Omaha-LAX !!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: at work
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you taxi out to 24R, just beyond the military apron is an old transport aircraft, I don't know what type, but was told by my oppo it was a Caravelle.
Stand to be corrected.
Stand to be corrected.
As you taxi out to 24R, just beyond the military apron is an old transport aircraft, I don't know what type, but was told by my oppo it was a Caravelle.
Stand to be corrected.
Stand to be corrected.
