Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Penalty because of missing seals

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Penalty because of missing seals

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 19th Nov 2008, 09:37
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Penalty because of missing seals

Guys,

thanks so much, appreciate your answers.

My question: missing one seal(just an example!!) and in the MEL you got the note:

Takeoff and landing : no penalty
Climb: -635kg

How do you handle this? Any formulas in your head? which tables do you use and is in my example the climb limit weight reduced??

Talking about the 737

Cheers and

Bye

OD
Olendirk is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2008, 09:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ? ? ?
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you are climb limited during your TO calculation, you have to subtract 635Kg to the climb limited weight.
Henry VIII is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2008, 11:33
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil

MEL ?

more likely to be found in the CDL i would think...if i understand you correctly!
plain-plane is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2008, 12:31
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Position info not valid
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe this came about after some tests from Boeing which proved that the lift/stall features of the wing changed significantly with various seals missing/damaged on the slats. I think there was an in flight occurance which triggered this investigation.
whatbolt is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2008, 12:31
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Jap sorry, meant the CDL
Olendirk is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2008, 19:40
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This is a weight penalty. It means that you must calculate the performance as though the airplane weighed that much more. It doesn't perform as well, and will perform as though the airpalne were heavier. This is simply a way of applying a performance penalty in a manner that allows an easy calculation.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2008, 19:59
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,847
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
If it a standard Boeing-type CDL, it would normally mean that no performance decrements need to be applied for TO and landing but enroute climb performance would suffer. The operating ceiling at a particular instant needs to be calculated using the actual aircraft mass + 635Kg. As I understand it...
FullWings is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2008, 23:33
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by whatbolt
I believe this came about after some tests from Boeing which proved that the lift/stall features of the wing changed significantly with various seals missing/damaged on the slats. I think there was an in flight occurance which triggered this investigation.
Sounds unlikely for something where you're only applying a clean config penalty. Perhaps the WUSS-to-slat seal, maybe. I'm more tempted to guess that it's being applied only to the clean config because the basic drag is much lower, so the delta due to the missing seal is proportionally greater. With all the mess of gear and high lift devices dangling in the wind, it may not be as significant.

Also, if you were suffering stall characteristics changes, and yet not adjusting speeds to account for stall speed changes ... again, sounds a bit odd.
Mad (Flt) Scientist is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2008, 02:33
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Penalty because of missing seals
Guys,

thanks so much, appreciate your answers.
I have a Lockheed TriStar Service Digest from the 1976 with all 32 pages decated to Fuel Conservation. Here are some of the fuel penalties from the artical, for missing/damaged seals:

Slats - Missing chord wise interslat seal 5,040 to 5,970 gal per year.
Cargo Door - five square inch effective leak 11,750 gal per year.
Passenger Door - five square inch effective leak 11,750 gals per year.
glhcarl is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2008, 04:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have a Lockheed TriStar Service Digest from the 1976 with all 32 pages decated to Fuel Conservation. Here are some of the fuel penalties from the artical, for missing/damaged seals:

Slats - Missing chord wise interslat seal 5,040 to 5,970 gal per year.
Cargo Door - five square inch effective leak 11,750 gal per year.
Passenger Door - five square inch effective leak 11,750 gals per year.
That's referencing the economic penalty...or in other words what it cost extra to have the seal missing.

What's in discussion here is the performance penalty associated with the missing seal.
SNS3Guppy is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2008, 04:29
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Room 757
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If I remember correctly the RJ calls for an increase of 1 or 2% trip fuel if seals are missing. No performance penalty. Could be wrong.

rcl
rcl7700 is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2008, 14:38
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's referencing the economic penalty...or in other words what it cost extra to have the seal missing.

What's in discussion here is the performance penalty associated with the missing seal.
If there is a performance penalty it will be spelled out in the CDL.
glhcarl is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2008, 15:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: ? ? ?
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Regardless of the place where to fing the figure (CDL of course, I guess MEL was a mistake) or the historical remembering, the question was : "How do you handle this? Any formulas in your head? which tables do you use and is in my example the climb limit weight reduced??"
Henry VIII is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.