|
|
Post by Gavin Conroy on Aug 20, 2008 18:36:34 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by haughtney1 on Aug 20, 2008 19:04:32 GMT 12
Ahh the mighty 75  |
|
|
|
Post by sniff on Aug 20, 2008 20:53:08 GMT 12
Yeah, but if you turn left after entering 2L, pray that your seat number isn't followed by an A, B, or C!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 20, 2008 23:57:22 GMT 12
Very nice photos Gavin, the 757 looks great. Is it longer now than before the modifications? Or is it the same length?
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 21, 2008 13:53:29 GMT 12
same length Dave, just lots of dollars of new things.
you might think it looks longer by the bit in front of the windows but that is where the new cargo door is, just like on the old 727.
yeah there must have been a reason for no windows in the door. maybe they only make doors for freighters now and it would have cost a lot more with windows.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 21, 2008 13:57:58 GMT 12
looks like some new antenna on the top of the fuselage near the back. 2 white panels.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Aug 21, 2008 19:44:58 GMT 12
It was in Wellington on that day too, it made a low pass down the runway clean then after a few hours or so made a fantastic takeoff, obviously headed to Woodbourne. Again, I did not have my camera handy!
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 21, 2008 21:48:26 GMT 12
come to CHC baby, come to CHC
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Aug 22, 2008 9:19:43 GMT 12
I had a good look over the B757 at Wellington. Very impressive refurbishment with the capability of carrying 11 standard pallets in the full freight role 23000kg of freight.
I think the two white panels on the upper rear fuselage are part of the SATCOM fit. There are 15 ports throughout the cabin for plugging in your laptop to access the internet inflight!
The addition of internal airstairs and the crew stairs are two more innovations
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 22, 2008 12:00:18 GMT 12
Interesting stuff Paul. That is a pretty good sized payload.
So the crew can also keep up with the forum even on longhaul flights ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ostinato on Aug 22, 2008 17:54:16 GMT 12
I too had a look though the new bird the other day. To most people it wouldnt seem like much of an upgrade considering most things look the same.
Notible differences: Aft airstairs.
The floor becomes raised after the 9G cargo restraint net, what most people cant tell is the huge structual changes that had to take place. From my understanding the typical upgrades to 757 DHL etc.. are for mail runs which dont have significant loads, the RNZAF however needed the floor to be restrengthened to handle these loads.
Cockpit window can be opened from outside.
SATCOM as mentioned in the other post.
VIP suites, seen photos looks really impressive, shes pretty much NZL's Airforce one when thats gone through it. Marble looking conference tables, lie down seats.
Avionics- IFF (Military) transponder, few upgrades to the computers, the computer AIP if you will. Satelitte phone, a printer to print off weather. Lots of buttons and switches to play with.
Cargo door - duh, I heard the 757 has a very similar if not the same sized fuselage as the 727, dont quote me but the door is very very similar to the 727, panels at the same place, electrically operated with its own hyd system.
Engines - been chipped to produce a 7.5% thrust increase.
They're working on getting rapid transport pallets made up for the T56 engines so that it can be flown away, the overhead bins would have to be removed, I think the heaviest item they'll be able to carry will be a LAV gearbox.
Oh yeah they also installed a internal ladder so that the aircraft can be accessed from the avionics bay just aft of the NLG, being a pressurised section they can then climb up into the cabin and bam access into the aircraft without air stairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Aug 23, 2008 11:52:12 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 24, 2008 19:34:50 GMT 12
can anyone say exactly or pretty close to the extra weight that has been fitted. is is that the reason the engines were chipped.
what about range, still the same or if it has reduced, should we be looking at winglets more seriously
|
|
|
|
Post by conman on Aug 25, 2008 16:19:19 GMT 12
Can't imagine the number of flying hours that they do would make the addition of winglets cost/effective, you would need to be operating to a commercial airliner intensity to get the fuel savings, (although I would get them just for there aesthetic value alone)
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 25, 2008 17:57:40 GMT 12
Call me Mr Thicky if you want, but how do winglets save fuel?
|
|
|
|
Post by conman on Aug 25, 2008 18:12:57 GMT 12
They reduce drag derived from vortices generated at the wingtip, the net effect being a lower power setting to achieve a given airspeed (usually optimised for cruise speed)
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Aug 25, 2008 18:34:21 GMT 12
Induced drag can be minimized by the following means:
Increase the wing span. The effect of the wingtip vortices is greatest near the wing tips. With increased wingspan a lesser portion of the wing is in the most affected region. Increasing span with no other change would increase wing area. In practice, the wing area is kept constant by increasing the aspect ratio rather than the span.
Optimise the spanwise load distribution. If the lift is diminished towards the wingtips there is less pressure differential near the wingtips to create wingtip vortices. For a given wingspan, minimum induced drag is achieved when the spanwise lift distribution is elliptical. The parameter with greatest effect on lift distribution is the wing planform. Thus, a wing with elliptical planform would have low induced drag. Few aircraft have this planform because of manufacturing complications — the most famous example is the World War II Spitfire. Tapered wings with straight leading and trailing edges can approximate to elliptical lift distribution. Typically, straight wings produce between 5–15% more induced drag than an elliptical wing. The lift distribution may also be modified by the use of washout, a spanwise twist of the wing to reduce the incidence towards the wingtips, and by changing the airfoil section near the wingtips.
Provide a physical barrier to vortex formation. Such a barrier might take several forms. Some early aircraft had fins mounted on the tips of the tailplane which served as endplates. More recent aircraft have wingtip mounted winglets to oppose the formation of vortices. Wingtip mounted fuel tanks may also provide some benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Aug 25, 2008 21:58:37 GMT 12
Thanks, I always wondered why they spoiled the look of aircraft with those winglets, but it makes sense noe. I recall the Aussies added them to the tails of their DH86 fleet because they kept crashing them and blamed the design. NZ never added the additions and never lost one in an air accident (though all three were crunched on the ground by bad weather and one taxiing into a drain)
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Sept 2, 2008 10:19:15 GMT 12
I was out at the letterbox about 15 minutes ago and the sound of a low flying jet got through the muffled deafness of my flu clogged ears as a familiar looking 757 on final for Whenuapai thundered (almost) overhead. I dashed back inside and grabbed the camera but it was almost out of view by the time I managed to get a couple of shots off.   Anyhow, to the point of this post - a heads up to anybody in the vicinity of Whenuapai and armed with a camera, they may want to pop out for a look. Cheers, Stu |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 2, 2008 11:14:19 GMT 12
Australian history of DH 86A here: www.raaf.gov.au/raafmuseum/research/aircraft/series2/A31.htm" A31 de Havilland DH-86ADeveloped in 1933 to meet an order by Qantas for a four-engined airliner to fly the Singapore-Australia route, the DH 86 had a busy and sometimes controversial career until being impressed into RAAF service from late 1939. Eight machines (A31-1 to 8) flew in RAAF colours, serving with Nos 35 and 36 Squadrons, as well as with No 1 Air Ambulance Unit, until the sole survivor (A31-4) was sold to MacRobertson Miller Aviation Company in 1945. Of the other aircraft, two were destroyed in crashes (A31- 1 and 2), one by fire (A31-3), and one by enemy action (A31-8). Two others crashed while on loan to civil aviation (A31-5 and 6). The fate of A31-7, last used on 25 February 1944, is unknown." & home.st.net.au/~dunn/ozcrashes/qld115.htm"Several portions of VH-USE's fin were found almost a mile from the crash site on Mr. T. R. Blunt's property. Clearly it had been detached from the fuselage in the air. When one of the investigations from the south, John Watkins, arrived the following day, Mr. T.R. Blunt produced a few more pieces of the fin that he had found. This then meant that almost three quarters of the fin had been found quite some distance from the main wreckage of the aircraft. The subsequent official inquiry into the loss was inconclusive." & "There were a total of fifteen DH-86 aircraft operated in Australia. VH-URN was lost in Bass Strait in 1934; VH-USG lost near Longreach on delivery flight in 1934. VH-URT was lost near Flinders Island in 1935 as well as VH-USE. The design and construction of the DH-86 was completed in the near impossible duration of 4 months. The design was initially flawed and the British should never have issued the initial Certificate of Airworthiness. When Australia lost the first DH-86 Britain denied there was a problem. Australians did their best to overcome the problems without assistance from De Havilland's or the British Air Ministry. It was only after the sixth loss of a British registered DH86 in 1936 that the Air Ministry took decisive action which resulted in the DH86B which solved most if not all the handling & stability problems. Aeroplane Monthly of April 1984 tells the unflattering story." |
|
