What's that bump on VB a/c?
 

Pardon my iggorance...what are those bumps on the upper rear part of the fuselage on VB 737's - Ive never noticed them until the last couple of days. Similar QANTAS machines don't have the same bulges..

Heh, heh - this reminds me, what is the definition of "fuselage". Answer - "Not many quite so big"...

Like this?

My guess is that it's some kind of satellite antenna.

It's the pay tv satellite antenna that they've been installing across the fleet, part of the new in flight entertainment units.

It's a satellite antenna.





Classic! :ok:

Does anyone know how that satelite bump effects the drag of the aircraft? I can imagine more fuel being burned?

Yep - thats the bump Aerocat.

Thanks everyone for the quick replies.

I was in a VB 737-700 (VH-VBY) with one of these on Friday. The machine was getting booted around by moderate turbulence and the satellite antenna lost the plot -- they put up a thing on the screen that says, "Due to normal aircraft movement, the TV program is temporarily unavailable."

And these things offer proof that the poorer people are, the more they spend. I was sitting in the row behind a family of three (mum, dad, and little girl). Based on demeanour and appearance, these were clearly not billionaires on holiday. Of course, there was no question that the pay TV would be bought, lest they go the duration of the 75-minute flight without TV. What blew my mind was that ALL THREE of the family members, sitting together, had to pay the $5 for the TV service.

Call it a stupid-tax, I guess.

looks to me like virgin is breaking out in zits!:}:}

those big teenage ones:E

Wow that's a big fuel penalty, if you start calculating the number of hours a day they fly. Anyone know how they figure the economics of it out? I thought the last thing you want to do in a aeroplane is increase your fuel burn. Funny how they cry green with so much other BS yet they are happy to start burning more juice.

Will the Embraer have the same problem or will they be fit flush/under the airframe?

Neville:

Like I said, the yobs pay big money for this service.

They're making a pile.

Of course don't forget the offset to the fuel burn by the $5 a pop for those that take it. From Syd Mel last week, I didn't see a single user on it.

Interesting......:suspect:

From their website virginblue.com.au

Virgin Blue Vows To Support Sir Richard Branson's Global Green Campaign
Thursday 28 September 2006: Australia's Virgin Blue has thrown its support behind Sir Richard Branson's global call to reduce aircraft fuel emissions.
The six year old airline which already operates one of the world's most fuel efficient fleets, will target up to 5% further reduction of aircraft emissions per aircraft by 2008 and will commit to work proactively with energy providers to support the development and trialling of new green fuels.
Chief Executive, Brett Godfrey, said "We wholeheartedly endorse Sir Richard's sustainable aviation vision."

"As an airline we are well aware of the complexity of the challenge - to meet burgeoning global travel demands, and reduce aircraft emissions and environmental impact at the same time."

"Naturally there's a commercial benefit to operating a fuel efficient fleet but the larger responsibility is related to climate change. It is time critical and no airline, airport, Government, regulator, environmental group or energy provider can solve it alone."

"Virgin Blue is making steps in the right direction but we believe there is more we can do."

"We are prepared to set ourselves a challenge to further reduce our own emissions and we are willing to consider investment in initiatives which support development of alternative fuel technologies or changes in aviation operational processes" he added.

"We don't profess to have all the answers, we are aiming to find a cleaner, smarter solution and we unashamedly acknowledge we are getting on the bandwagon. We are simply saying, we're committed and hope the industry climbs on as well," he said.

Virgin Blue already operates the most efficient, technologically advanced fleet in Australia with lower environmental impacts, achieved through aircraft design, new technology engines and blended winglets to contribute to lower fuel burn efficiencies.

The airline has achieved a 15% reduction in aircraft carbon emission output per aircraft following its decision in 2001 to replace its launch fleet with all new Boeing 737 Next Generation (NG) aircraft.

Under its New World Carrier strategy Virgin Blue formed a Fuel Management Group to examine aircraft fuel utilisation and greenhouse gas reductions through fuel burn efficiency.

The group has completed a comprehensive study of Virgin Blue's fuel management practices and has launched a program to achieve even greater operational efficiency through factors ranging from APU (auxiliary power unit) usage and more efficient flightpaths, to aircraft weight reduction.

As part of its company-wide commitment to protection of the environment, Virgin Blue has also introduced the first of a series of initiatives including:
* Development of minimisation and recycling strategies for office, airport and aircraft waste;
* Design of Virgin Blue's new $25-million Brisbane maintenance hangar to include eco-efficiency features such as an integrated waste management program, high efficiency lighting and 50,000 litre rainwater recycle system for aircraft washing;
* Incorporation of eco-efficiency initiatives such as environmentally sustainable development (ESD) rated products, high energy lighting, low emission paints in the airline's new offices and airport lounges;
* Development of environmental management plans for mainline ports;
* Active participation along with airport authorities, regulatory agencies and community groups to manage aircraft noise abatement;
* Implementation of eco-efficiency initiatives in partnership with Planet Ark and Lexmark;
* Recycling of desktop and laptop computers through Green PC.

In regards to the live 2air, as mentioned not everyone uses it especially on the short sectors, so its not making that much cash at the moment. All flights to and from perth are offering live2air free until further notice as the satellite signal is not reliable enough to charge the cost.

That's a REALLY BIG bump on top of the aft fuselage. 1.2% fuel burn is quite a penalty, but at least they put the bump back in an area where the boundary layer is hiding much of the added drag.

(When I was in the engine business, we would KILL for a 1.2% fuel advantage!!) :ugh:

There is no measurable penalty caused by the hump - as bizarre as that sounds

The bump, despite being rather large doesnt impact on performance at all - the only penalty is the weight of all the equipment.

strange but true

Now that's even MORE bizarre. 1.2% fuel burn due only to the WEIGHT?

How much added weight does it take to drive up fuel burn 1.2%? A LOT!

I'd need to see much more substantiation before I could buy that... :confused:

Sorry you misunderstood me

There is no 1.2% fuel burn penalty.

Now that I think about it, the bump is in about the same location as the 747SP bump, which was based on Whitcomb area ruling to reduce transonic drag. So I imagine that if it were further refined, it could be an asset to the airplane.

So now I don't understand boeingmad's numbers (post #7). :confused:

The bump is the radome, the antenna is inside it and actually moves to pick up the satellite, all but one of the fleet has had the LiveTV fit out. The E170/190 wont have it fitted.

Word is the LiveTV service cann't pick up a signal on flights from the east coast to perth and LiveTV have been given 90days to fix a number of problems including a few air returns due to LiveTV components.

To clarify the fuel penalty discussion:

The Live2Air installation adds between 450 and 550 kg to the aircraft's BEW, obviously a little more on the 800s than the 700s. This is expressed in higher ZFWs entered into the fligt plan. Typically this results in an additional burn of about 15kg on a short sector (Mel-Syd, Syd-Bne etc which are the majority of ops).

To account for aerodynamic degradation, all Live2Air flights are flight planned with a PDA (Performance Degradation Allowance) of 1.2%. This means that ON TOP OF the fuel burn resulting from the added weight the bump results in a fuel burn higher than the equivalent aircraft operating at the same (higher) weight. That puts an additional burn of 33kg on each Mel-Syd flight.