Great Western Air

Bleriot Airplane

First Flight Across the English Channel with the Bleriot XI Monoplane

              Great Britain, always disconnected from the European continent because of its insularity, had only been reachable by sea until 1785, at which time the first balloon had successfully crossed the English Channel by air.  By 1908, 35 other aerial balloon crossings had been completed, but none had been made with heavier-than-air craft.  That had been about to change, and the feat would fully equal the many epic, record-breaking flights now firmly impressed in the annals of aviation history, such as the transcontinental flight made by Calbraith Rogers in 1911 with the Vin Fiz Flyer and the solo transatlantic crossing by Charles Lindbergh in 1927 with the Ryan Monoplane nicknamed Spirit of St. Louis.

               Sparked by the London Daily Mail’s 500 British pound challenge issued on October 5, 1908, an amount later doubled, the event had sought “the person who shall succeed in flying across the English Channel from a point on English soil to a point on French soil, or vice-versa” in a heavier-than-air craft without stopping.

               Although Wilbur and Orville Wright had been perceived as the only two capable of the feat, their involvement with aircraft sales-pursuing demonstrations had precluded their participation, despite a significantly increased prize offer, and Hubert Latham, who had spent two years in the French Army and had already successfully crossed the Channel in an aerial balloon, had been the first to accept the challenge.  Having already earned a French duration record and a world record for monoplanes for the one-hour, seven-minute, 37-second flight in his Antoinette IV on June 5, 1909, he had intended to make the crossing with this aircraft, taking off from cliffs at Sangatte, a village six miles from Calais, where he had set up a rudimentary camp.  French destroyers and crane-equipped tugboats would follow his course.

                Count Charles de Lambert, a second contender and Wilbur Wright’s first student pilot in France, intended to make the journey with Wright aircraft, but of his two machines, one had been damaged during a test flight and the other had not been readied in time for the event.

                Latham had suffered a similar fate.  Fighting strong winds during a July 13 crossing attempt, he had been forced to land in a corn patch, severing the right strut and wheel of his aircraft, while a second attempt, six days later, had resulted in an engine failure-caused water landing near the French destroyer following him.  The airplane, now too damaged for anything but a lengthy rebuild, had to be substituted by the Antoinette VII, although at least a week had been needed to prepare it for flight.

                It had been at this time that a third contender, Louis Bleriot, had entered the race with his own design, the Bleriot XI, a smaller, though not dissimilar aircraft to the Antoinette.  Incorporating several features already introduced by his earlier aircraft and therefore representing the latest in a series of evolutions, it had sported a primarily open, box-frame fuselage; a small engine; fabric-covered, pylon-supported wings; wing-warping mechanisms; an open cockpit; the cloche method of actuating both the wing-warping and the elevators; and a tri-wheel undercarriage.

                The rounded-tip wings, with an 8.53-meter span, a 1.83-meter chord, a 4.65 aspect ratio, and a 13.95-square-meter area, had been attached to the poplar fuselage, their trailing edges differentially warped to induce in-flight banking.  The 25-hp, three-cylinder, V-shaped, air-cooled Anzani engine, replacing the original seven-cylinder REP semi-radial, sported a 2.08-meter wooden propeller which produced 105 kilos of thrust at 1,450 revolutions-per-minute.

                The horizontal tail, comprised of a fixed, center section with elevating tips, had been built round a steel tube bolted to the fuselage underside by cast aluminum fittings, while the rudder, positioned 13 inches behind it, extended above the fuselage.

                The undercarriage had been comprised of two main, fixed wheels which swung on links to cater to cross-wind ground conditions and absorbed landing impacts by means of elastic springs, and a single, castering tail wheel.

                First flying on January 23, 1909 at Issy, France, and covering a 200-meter distance, the Bleriot XI, with its characteristic forward bedstead frame built up of two ash horizontal beams, two vertical beams, and two vertical tubes to provide engine and landing gear mounts, took to the air for a second time the following month on February 18, with a two-square-meter larger wing.

                Louis Bleriot himself had set up his camp on a farm at Les Barraques so that he could use its flat pasture as a runway.

                On July 23, de Lambert became the third pilot to officially enter the race, but of the three, he had been impeded by his still-unprepared aircraft while the other two had been hindered by the weather.

                Diminishing winds and clearing skies on July 25, however, indicated cross-Channel flight potential, and Bleriot, having already awakened early, warmed his engine by 0400, before making a 15-minute practice circuit and relanding.

                As the sun triumphed over night 35 minutes later, Bleriot prepared himself to triumph over flight, climbing into the fabric-covered monoplane and throwing to the ground the crutches he had used to help him walk after a prior flight fuel tank explosion had burned his left foot.  “If I cannot walk, I will show the world I can fly!” he had proclaimed.

                The sun inched above Calais Castle.

                After oil had been added to the aircraft’s 25-hp engine and its 17-liter fuel tank had been topped off, Anzani, maker of the powerplant which bore his name, turned the wooden propeller and the five men holding the tail down released it when Bleriot had commanded, “Let’s go!”

                Throttling into 1,200 revolutions-per-minute of power, Bleriot accelerated his airplane over the grass toward the sand and the open Channel, gateway to England and aeronautical history, pulling back on the cloche and separating its two still-spinning, bicycle-like wheels from French soil, as if they continued to ride some invisible, aerial track.

                Surmounting the telegraph wires, the aircraft climbed to 180 feet, inching out over the water body which had generated the challenge.  Reducing power, it leveled off at 260 feet and maintained a 43-mph airspeed.

                The French destroyer, Escopette, intended to provide flight following and carrying journalists and Bleriot’s wife, moved into view.  Seeing the propeller-pulled object in the sky amid the cylindrical sun’s ascent above the horizon, she yelled, “Mon Dieu!  There he is!”  as her husband gracefully passed overhead on fabric wings which had created a 260-foot-high aerial bridge between landmasses, creating the lift for which they had been designed.  But the speed, one-and-a-half times greater than that of the ship’s lumbering 26, had rendered it a far superior opponent and it quickly overtook it.

                Attempting to make a wide circle in order to remain in sight, Bleriot quickly realized that his aircraft had been demonstrating its intrinsic speed and distance advantage over the water-plying vessel.  Its intended directional aid toward England, alas, could not be used.

                Relaxing his grip on the cloche, Bleriot permitted the aircraft he himself had designed to find its own way across the water.

                Completely disconnected from soil and soul after ten minutes aloft, with neither coast ahead nor coast behind visible, he felt “alone, unguided, without compass, in the air over the middle of the Channel.”

                The wind had begun to regain its strength.  The 25-hp Anzani engine, apparently overheating from its continuous-power output, suddenly sputtered and the airplane nudged itself out of its artificial plateau toward the Channel’s waves and whitecaps.  Boring through a rainsquall, whose pelting douse of cool water ironically nourished the powerplant of its needs, the aircraft regained even, altitude-holdng power.

                Wrestling with wind and fog, it fought its way to England.  A long gray line, rising above the horizon and representing its destination, appeared ahead, but it did not resemble Dover.  The southwest wind had diverted the frail bird to St. Margaret’s Bay instead, yet the Dover Lighthouse, rising prominently in the west, had marked the location of the castle, and Bleriot banked left toward it, penetrating strong headwinds and paralleling the coast at a one-mile distance. 

                Following the presumably harbor-approaching channel boats, Bleriot spotted reporter Charles Fontaine waiving the promised French tricolor to mark the entrance over Shakespeare Cliff of North Foreland Meadow, itself next to Dover Castle.

                Completing a half-circle above the Channel, Bleriot initiated his approach to England—and history.  Threading its way between the gap and passing over land for the first time in more than half an hour, the aircraft banked to avoid red buildings on its right, but it had been clenched by the fist of low-level turbulence and winds, which had thrice spun it round, rendering it uncontrollable.  "At once, I stop my motor,” Bleriot had later stated, “and instantly my machine falls straight upon the land from a height of 65 feet.  In two or three seconds, I am safe upon your shore,” although the airplane’s propeller and landing gear had sustained damage.

                Latham, still asleep on the continent which Bleriot had just bridged, did not fly at all that day and had to accept defeat.  Although he had made the attempt two days later, he had once again plunged into the Channel when his engine had failed and he had sustained injuries.

                Because of the historical event, the Bleriot XI, which had been offered in training, sport, military, and racing versions with varying dimensions, wingspans, engines, horsepower ratings, and capacities, had attracted over 800 worldwide sales, having been the most massively produced pre-war monoplane.

                Although the relatively short, 23-mile distance between Les Barraques in France and North Foreland Meadow in England had been covered in 36½ minutes, the flight’s effects had been disproportionally long.  For England, geographically protected and isolated by its surrounding Channel, its insularity had ended.  For France, it had bred the designer, aircraft, and pilot which had triumphed over that Channel.  And for the world, it had meant that the airplane, increasingly able to connect countries and continents, had paved the way toward unlimited future civil and military application.

About the Author

A graduate of Long Island University-C.W. Post Campus with a summa-cum-laude BA Degree in Comparative Languages and Journalism, I have subsequently earned the Continuing Community Education Teaching Certificate from the Nassau Association for Continuing Community Education (NACCE) at Molloy College, the Travel Career Development Certificate from the Institute of Certified Travel Agents (ICTA) at LIU, and the AAS Degree in Aerospace Technology at the State University of New York – College of Technology at Farmingdale. Having amassed almost three decades in the airline industry, I managed the New York-JFK and Washington-Dulles stations at Austrian Airlines, created the North American Station Training Program, served as an Aviation Advisor to Farmingdale State University of New York, and devised and taught the Airline Management Certificate Program at the Long Island Educational Opportunity Center. A freelance author, I have written some 70 books of the short story, novel, nonfiction, essay, poetry, article, log, curriculum, training manual, and textbook genre in English, German, and Spanish, having principally focused on aviation and travel, and I have been published in book, magazine, newsletter, and electronic Web site form. I am a writer for Cole Palen’s Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York. I have made some 350 lifetime trips by air, sea, rail, and road.

What is the Worlds oldest flying airplane?

I just saw the 1909 Bleriot in Rhinebeck that's the oldest in the US but I want to know what is the oldest still flying. Not the oldest airplane, that would be the Wright Flyer.

The oldest in the world is another 1909 Bleriot, this one in England. It's only three weeks older than Old Rhinebeck's.

1909 Bleriot XI

Airplane Handcrafted

Manufacturer of Mini Micro Firefly Rc Helicopter

if not all RC Helicopter novices begin with electric RC Helicopter for several reason. There are those who prefer to build model RC Helicopter by themselves to add to their ever-growing collection. Are RC Helicopters much harder than planes? RC Helicopters are more complicated to fly than airplanes however it is possible to learn to fly a RC Helicopter by yourself which is next to impossible for an rc airplane because with a RC Helicopter you can fly a little bit 2 inches off the ground and land safely. RC Planes are nice in that they're much more relaxing to fly than a RC Helicopter but the coordination you learn from flying RC planes is not so useful when flying RC Helicopters that it warrants buying a whole airplane first. For those who have heard this for the first time you should realize that you only require standard parts from an auto parts and hardware store to create a helicopter (that can really fly). A popular type of RC Helicopter is the electric RC Helicopter. It is powered by a battery that is connected to a machine that makes the rotor spin to get lift.

Simulator: First Following these guidelines when using a simulator will improve your performance in real life. Practice turning the RC Helicopter towards you a little more. Practice doing small very slow circles. This is difficult. Flying left to right is easier than flying in and out. Start doing this. Wind conditions; the bigger the helicopter the more wind it can cope with. RC Helicopter kits even comes with its own set of training gear. We learnt to fly our remote control helicopter the hard way and now offer you tips on how to fly successfully. If you know something that is not on our helpfull list then please add it here at our Remote Control Helicopter Tips or just check out what help the RC Helicopter community has to offer for all you newbies out there. See air hogs reflex micro rc helicopter spin master.

RC Helicopters range in size from .06 cu inches to .91 cubic inches. The most common of these are glow fuel .30 and .60 two stroke engines. Practice in a little more wind... wind really makes a 30 size jump around be on top of it! Practice controlled flight. Try to make the RC Helicopter go exactly where you want it to. The HELICOPTER STATS give you a brief guide to price. If the RC Helicopter has NOT got RTF beside it you will have extra costs to get it flight ready and will have to do some building.

How important is it to find an expert to set up the pitch and balance? Make sure to buy a balancer and a pitch gauge you want errors to be less than 1 degree and the balance of the blades to be perfectly level / even. http://www.rchelicoptersguide.info/rc-helicopter-parts/air-hogs-rc-helicopter-parts.php This is a great starting point to those who would like to take RC Helicopter flying a hobby. Electric radio-controlled helicopter is also quiet. So if you are considerate enough to give your neighbors some peace.

For those who have heard this for the first time you should realize that you only require standard parts from an auto parts and hardware store to create a helicopter (that can really fly).RC Helicopter models are also available in woodcarvings carefully handcrafted to come out as a perfect replica of the original helicopter. The O.S. .32 SXH runs at a peak power RPM of around 18000 RPM with 1.2 horsepower while the 60 size engines can make 2 to 3 h.p!. if you are careful. Extremely careful. I put the blade holders on upside down but it seems to fly ok with them that way. When I get some extra money I'll buy new wood blades. You might question the danger it can present to the RC Helicopter pilot. The reality is homebuilt helicopter are as stable as any other types of helicopters provided it flies on a good weather condition.

When you get good at flying your RC reverse the direction of the rudder. When you are good at this land while slowly pirouetting. Also see mini helicopter 607 parts. You can also start with a scale-model plastic helicopter. There are model RC Helicopter that are made from wood. others say there not needed.

About the Author

Leo is an expert in attack remote control helicopters for over
20 years. More sources at http://www.rchelicopterguide.info/electric-rc-helicopter/micro-rc-electric-helicopters.php

Aircraft Model

Metal Pilots

The Faa, Pilots And Sunglasses

The Fedral Aviation Administriation (FAA) has issued a safety brochure on the use of sunglasses by pilots in their aircraft. The brochure is titled: "Sunglasses for Pilots: Beyond the Image." In the pdf brochure the FAA notes that "A pilot's eyes are their most important sensory asset," and that protecting them is a high priority.

The FAA even commissioned a study to determine if the use, or lack of use, of appropriate sunglasses had any relationship to incidents or accidents. For the time period studied, 1980 through 1988, the FAA identied 6 incidents and 1 accident which were directly related to the improper use of sunglasses.

Further study by the FAA determined that polarized sunglass lenses were not appropriate for use by piltos because of the fact that they eliminate glare off of glass or metal objects. In addition, with current glass cockpit technology polarized sunglasses can distort or even completely block viewing Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs) found in most modern aircraft.

The FAA recommends that the sunglasses worn and used by piltos should be non-polarized, that they should fit snugly on the pilot's head and slip easily under headsets or helmets. The best kind of sunglass temples are what are called "Bayonet" temples.

Bayonet temples are flat and somewhat thick as opposed to thin wiry temples which go over, down and behind the pilot's ears. This is important in order to put them on and take them off quickly, as needed.

Further, the lenses should be a grey or grey-green tint to afford effective blocking of the ultraviolet rays of the sun while still allowing objects to be seen clearly as they actually appear to the naked eye.

In addition, the FAA recommends aviator style sunglasses because they cover the entire eye socket, blocking stray sunlight rays from reaching the pilot's eyes and distracting them from their flying activities.

I even located a video on YouTube which outlines the features and benefits of the best Randolph aviator sunglasses.

While there are many kinds and choices of aviator style sunglasses, the best are those made in the USA and provided to American military aviators and ground troops. Today, those sunglasses are Randolph Aviator Sunglasses.

Pilots who want to protect their eyes properly with the very best eyewear worn by military aviators around the world can go to All Things Aviation where they will find a great selection of these original Randolph Aviator sunglasses.

About the Author

John White is an ATP pilot who sold his business in 2004 and is now an Internet Publisher. His interests in aviation continue to increase through his blog, and various aviation-related websites on the internet.

He enjoys flying airplanes, sailing boats, photography and cross country skiing.

You can find his blog at All Things Aviation where he discusses current aviation events and offers products like Randolph Engineering Aviator Sunglasses for pilots.

when synchronizing a bike which screw is use?

my bike has 3 sets of screws.
4 under the carb i think they are the pilot screws. they have metal plug under them.

3 on top of the carb where the accelerator cable , they open the blades.

and one on the side of the bike controls the blades all at one.

which one you turn when sync the bike.
so what are the pilot screws use for! tha manual just mention the screws they do not say whats the purpose!

have you tried to purchase a manual?

Let's Play Metal Gear Solid 4 Part 56A: Medal Geeur Pilots

Boeing Aircraft

The Boeing 767

Commercial aircraft are the result of the airline requirements which shape them, attempting to fulfill, as completely and cost-effectively as possible, the particular combination of mission goals.  For airliner-type aircraft, these include two primary parameters: payload, comprised of passengers, baggage, cargo, and mail, and range, which enables a carrier to offer nonstop service between specific city pairs.

Aircraft configurations are, in essence, design solutions to intended operating missions and hence vary according to fuselage length and width; wingspan, planform, and sweepback; engine type, thrust, and mounting; and horizontal and vertical tail location and size.

In the late 1970s, passenger demand had begun to eclipse the capacity of the Boeing 727, which had accommodated a maximum of 131 single-class, high-density passengers in its initial, short-fueselage -100 series and 189 in its stretched, -200 version.

Seeking to replace this venerable design on one-stop transcontinental routes with a higher-capacity tri-jet, Boeing had considered several replacements by stretching the 727-200’s fuselage, remounting two of the three engines to the wing underside, and ultimately eliminating the third engine in the vertical tail.  The result, a low-wing, twin-engined, single-aisle airliner based upon the performance specifications submitted by American Airlines, Delta, and United, had been designated the 757.  During this time, however, passenger acceptance of widebody aircraft had been overwhelming and many carriers had sought such a cabin cross-section on medium- as well as traditionally long-range route sectors.  As a result, passenger capacity per aircraft had begun to decrease, from the 500 of the quad-engined Boeing 747, to the 350 of the tri-engined Lockheed L-1011 and McDonnell-Douglas DC-10, to the 225 of the twin-engined Airbus A-300.

With the margin between the maximum capacities of the 727-200 and the Airbus A-300 beginning to converge, many airlines had expressed interest in a small widebody which could accommodate the median of the two.  The result, the 767, featured greater range and wider-cabin comfort with seven-abreast, dual-aisle coach seating for about 200, becoming the first (and thus far only) commercial airliner to deviate from the standard wide body fuselage width of previous Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell-Douglas, and Airbus aircraft.  The chosen width had offered both advantages and disadvantages.  Of the advantages, it had featured less fuselage cross section-generated drag and increased cabin comfort, with most passenger seats either on the window or the aisle.  Of the disadvantages, it had not been able to accommodate the now-standard LD-3 container on its lower deck in the traditional paired loading configuration and therefore had required the design of a smaller, specialized LD-2 container.

In January 1978, Boeing had expanded its Everett, Washington, production line, hitherto the sole domain of the 747, to include the new 767 design, and seven months later, on July 14, United Airlines had ordered 30 of the type, officially launching the program.  First flying in prototype form on September 26, 1981, at which time orders had been received from 17 customers, the aircraft, in its initial –200 series domestic guise, received its FAA certification with the 44,300 thrust-pound Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7R high bypass ratio turbofan on July 30, 1982.  The type entered scheduled service with United the following month on August 19.  The aircraft was also certified with the General Electric CF6-80A powerplant on September 8 and this version entered service with Delta Air Lines.  A variant with the Rolls Royce RB.211-524 engine, intended for British Airways, had also been offered.

Although initially intended for medium-range operation, the basic airframe had proven ideally suited toward larger-capacity deployment on thin, nonstop transcontinental and intercontinental sectors after being fitted with additional fuel tankage, thus able to replace previous widebody trijets.  Dimensionally identical to the basic design, but certified with higher operating weights, the sub-version, designated 767-200ER…for “extended range”…had entered service on March 26, 1984.

The basic 767 fuselage, initially designed for increased capacity “stretchability,” had been lengthened by some 20.1 feet, accommodating 40 additional passengers.  Although it had retained the original wingspan, the new version, designated 767-300, had been intended for higher-capacity transcontinental routes and had been first rolled out on January 30, 1986.  Certified nine months later in September, it had entered scheduled service on September 25.

Mating the newly-elongated fuselage of the -300 series with the extended range capabilities of the -200ER, Boeing had produced the -300ER with increased-thrust engines, additional fuel capacity, and minor structural strengthening.  Recording a 50,000-pound gross weight increase, the 767-300ER, numerically the most popular version with 505 aircraft having  been sold, had featured a 2,000-mile range increase, entering scheduled service on February 19, 1988.

  The final version, the 767-400ER, had incorporated technology designed for the already-in-service 777-200.  Accommodating some 409 single-class passengers in a 21-foot longer fuselage and featuring a 14-foot greater wingspan with highly swept, raked wing tips, the 400,000-pound version had sat on a higher main undercarriage in order to retain take off rotation angles.  The aircraft, with a remodeled passenger interior, had closed the gap between its smaller -300 series 767 and its larger 777 design.  Although it had offered numerous advancements, it had appeared after most of the market had already ordered previous 767, A-330, and A-340 versions, not entering service until August 20, 2000, and therefore had only been operated by Continental, which had ordered 16, and Delta, which had ordered 21.

All aircraft incorporate several design-shaping characteristics.

The Boeing 767, for example, had replaced the 727 with a larger capacity, widebody design, retaining gate and ramp compatibility at smaller, 727-like airports, and had been optimized for the tri-jet’s one-stop transcontinental routes.  Because of parallel 757 development, it had been able to minimize its development costs.   

A narrower fuselage cross-section than that used by previous widebody aircraft had resulted in a reduction in parasite drag and a twin-aisle cabin, in which passengers had never been more than one seat away from the window or the aisle.  Composite construction had been used in most of the flight surfaces, particularly the fixed wing leading edge panel, the spoilers, the ailerons, the fixed wing trailing edge panel, the undercarriage doors, the elevators, and the rudder, and the airframe had utilized advanced, light-weight aluminum alloy construction.

A supercritical wing, one the aircraft’s key design features, had resulted in a high aspect ratio, an aft-loaded section, the development of more lift for less drag than any previous airfoil, a 22% thicker wing than that used by any previous-decade commercial airliner, a lighter and simpler structure, and more wing-integral fuel tank capacity.

Powered by two high bypass ratio turbofans, in which a higher percentage of the engine’s thrust is produced by the cooler, inner core-bypassing air, it had featured lower specific fuel consumption, a reduced noise footprint, lower maintenance costs, and high reliability.

A two-person cockpit crew, following the trend created by the Airbus A-300, had reduced crew costs, and the aircraft’s common pilot type rating with that of the narrow-body Boeing 757 had ensured greater crew scheduling flexibility to carriers which had operated both types.

Inherent fuselage stretchability and existing wing and tail capability had enabled the manufacturer to offer increased-capacity versions and these, coupled with its extended range twin-engine operations certification, had enabled it to offer a viable DC-10 and L-1011 alternative with one fewer engine and cockpit crew member, significantly reducing operating costs.

Although sales of the Boeing 767 had dwindled by 2008, the type, currently being replaced by Boeing’s own 787, had sold some 950 aircraft of all versions to well over 100 worldwide airlines. 

About the Author

A graduate of Long Island University-C.W. Post Campus with a summa-cum-laude BA Degree in Comparative Languages and Journalism, I have subsequently earned the Continuing Community Education Teaching Certificate from the Nassau Association for Continuing Community Education (NACCE) at Molloy College, the Travel Career Development Certificate from the Institute of Certified Travel Agents (ICTA) at LIU, and the AAS Degree in Aerospace Technology at the State University of New York – College of Technology at Farmingdale. Having amassed almost three decades in the airline industry, I managed the New York-JFK and Washington-Dulles stations at Austrian Airlines, created the North American Station Training Program, served as an Aviation Advisor to Farmingdale State University of New York, and created and taught the Airline Management Certificate Program at the Long Island Educational Opportunity Center. A freelance author, I have written some 70 books of the short story, novel, nonfiction, essay, poetry, article, log, curriculum, training manual, and textbook genre in English, German, and Spanish, having principally focused on aviation and travel, and I have been published in book, magazine, newsletter, and electronic Web site form. I am a writer for Cole Palen’s Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York.

Are the recent Airbus water crashes starting to make Seattle's "Boeing Aircraft Co" look real good?

I don't even remember when was the last crash of a Boeing?

The American Airlines over NY which lost a tail was an Airbus.
The ditch into the river in NY, US Air was an Airbus.

they sure are Boeing is the best and we need the defense contracts with them to be continued as well

Houston.Texas. Boeing 737 -3H4 ,catches fire on landing

Whitney Aircraft

The Airbus A-310

Seeking to complement its original, although larger-capacity, A-300 on thinner sectors with a low-cost, minimally redesigned counterpart and thus expand its product range, Airbus Industrie explored a shorter-fuselage version designated "A-310."

A consortium of European aircraft manufacturers headquartered in Toulouse, France, Airbus Industrie itself had arisen because the design and marketing of an advanced, widebody airliner had exceeded the financial strength of any single, Europe-based company, the principle ones of which had included de Havilland with the DH.106 Comet, Vickers with the VC-10, Hawker Siddeley with the HS.121 Trident, and the British Aircraft Corporation with the BAC-111 in the United Kingdom, and Sud-Aviation with the SE.210 Caravelle and Dassault-Breguet with the Mercure 100 in France.

The A-300, its first joint design, not only signaled its launch as an aircraft manufacturer, but that of the aircraft itself and the concept it represented—a large-capacity, widebody, twin-engined "airbus."  Intended to compete with Boeing, and particularly with its still-envisioned 767, it provided a non-US alternative to continental carriers and a foundation on which a European commercial product range could be built, offering the first serious challenge to both Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas.

Intended for short- to medium-range, relatively high-capacity deployment, the aircraft featured a widebody fuselage mated to two high bypass ratio turbofans whose thrust capability and reliability, coupled with a high-lift wing, had served as the key elements of its design.

Obviating the need for a third powerplant characteristic of the 727, the DC-10, and the L-1011, the twin-engine configuration yielded numerous economic benefits, including the reduction of structural and gross weights, the reduction of maintenance costs, the elimination of the additionally required fuel lines, the introduction of structural simplicity, and the reduction of seat-mile costs.

Aerodynamically, the twin-engine design also resulted in several advantages.  The wings, mounted further forward than feasible by a tri-engine configuration, increased the moment-arm between the pylon-slung turbofans/center-of-gravity and its tail, thus requiring smaller horizontal and vertical stabilizers to maintain longitudinal and yaw-axis control and indirectly reducing structural weight and drag, yet maintaining certifiable control during single-engine loss, asymmetrical thrust conditions.

Designed by the Hawker Siddeley team in Hatfield, the 28-degree sweptback, supercritical wing, built up of a forward and rear full and mid half-spar, produced the greater portion of its lift over its aft portion, delaying shock wave formation and reducing drag.

Low-speed lift was augmented by full-span, engine pylon-uninterrupted leading edge slats, which increased the aircraft's take off weight capability by some 2,000 pounds, and tabbed, trailing edge Fowler flaps, which extended to 70 percent of their travel before rotating into camber-increasing profiles, resulting in a 25-percent larger chord.

Part of the reason for engine reliability had been the auxiliary power unit's integration into the main electric, air conditioning, and starting systems, providing immediate back-up in the event of engine failure at altitudes as high as 30,000 feet.

The A-300's widebody fuselage provided the same degree of twin-aisle comfort and loading capability of standard LD3 baggage and cargo containers as featured by the quad-engined 747 and the tri-engined DC-10 and L-1011.

Seeking to build upon these design strengths, yet decrease passenger capacity with a foreshortened fuselage and expand its market application, Airbus Industrie conceptionally studied and proposed nine potential aircraft varying in capacity, range, and powerplant number and designated A-300B1 to -B9 based upon the initial A-300 platform.  It was the tenth, however—designated A-300B10—which most optimally catered to carriers' needs for a 200-passenger airliner for segments with insufficient demand to support its larger counterpart and for those which merited additional frequencies, such as during off-peak times.  Other than the two original prototype A-300B1s and the three-frame longer A-300B2, the aircraft had only offered a single basic fuselage length, whose capacity partially accounted for initially sluggish sales.

Although a low-cost A-300B10MC "Minimal Change" entailed mating a shorter fuselage with the existing wing, powerplants, and tailplane would have provided few engineering obstacles, it would have resulted in an aircraft proportionally too small and heavy for the A-300's original surfaces.  Despite a lower structural weight, it would have offered insufficient internal volume for revenue-generating passenger, cargo, and mail payload to eclipse its direct operating costs (DOC).

Balancing both the superior performance and the minimized development cost sides of the program's equation, Airbus Industrie considered two possible approaches:

1). The A-300B10X, which employed a new wing designed by the since-amalgamated British Aerospace in Hatfield with smaller leading and trailing edge, high-lift devices.

2). The A-300B10Y, which utilized the existing A-300 wing box, with some modifications.

Lufthansa, the envisioned launch customer, strongly advocated the former approach, because of the reduced costs associated with a redesigned, more advanced airfoil, and, together with Swissair, which equally contemplated an order for the type, detailed performance specifications.  Placing deposits for 16 A-300B10s, which were concurrently redesignated "A-310s," in July of 1978, both airlines expected a final configuration by the following March.

The aircraft, which sported a 12-frame shorter fuselage for 767-like, 245-passenger accommodation, first appeared at the Hanover Air Show in model form.

Its wing, retaining the 28-degree sweepback of the A-300's, featured a shorter span and a consequent 16-percent reduced area, eliminating its center, half-spar and therefore offering equal, front and rear spar load distribution.  The spars themselves, with 50 percent greater depth, were stronger, yet decreased structural weight by more than five tons.  Its revised shape, requiring a new center section, introduced a double-curved profile, its metal, bent both span- and chord-wise, requiring shot-peening manufacturing techniques to form.

The increased-chord and –radius leading edge slats, necessitating a new cut-out over the engine pylon, improved take off performance, while the former, inner-tabbed, trailing edge Fowler flap panels were integrated into a single-slotted one with increased rearward movement.  The two outer panels, also combined into a single panel, decreased cruise drag.

Lateral control, no longer necessitating the A-300's outboard ailerons, was maintained by the inboard ailerons operating in conjunction with the spoilers.

The tailplane, a scaled-down version of the A-300's, featured reduced separation between the upper surface of its elevator and the horizontal stabilizer, in order to decrease drag, and a redesigned tailcone permitted optimized internal cabin volume.

Powerplant choices included the 48,000 thrust-pound General Electric CF6-80A1 and the equally powered Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7R4D1, while the Rolls Royce RB.211-524D was optionally available, although no carrier ever specified it.

Both potential launch customers, round whose specifications the foreshortened version took shape, placed orders, Swissair ordering ten Pratt and Whitney-powered aircraft on March 15, 1979, Lufthansa placing 25 firm and 25 optioned orders for the General Electric-powered variant on April 1, and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines mimicking this order with ten firm and ten options two days later, also for the General Electric version, thus signaling the program's official launch.

Three basic versions, varying according to range, were then envisioned: the short-range, 2,000-mile A-310-100; the medium-range, 3,000-mile A-310-200; and the long-range, 3,500-mile A-310-300.

Final assembly the first two Pratt and Whitney-powered A-310-200s, with construction numbers (c/n) 162 and 163, commenced in the Aerospatiale factory in Toulouse during the winter of 1981 to 1982, continuing, not reinitiating, the A-300 production line numbering sequence.  Major sectors, components, parts, and powerplants were fabricated by eight basic aerospace companies: Deutsche Airbus (major fuselage portions, the vertical fin, and the rudder), Aerospatiale (the front fuselage, the cockpit, the lower center fuselage, and the engine pylons), British Aerospace (the wings), CASA (doors and the horizontal tail), Fokker (the wing moving surfaces), Belairbus (also the wing moving surfaces), General Electric (the engines), and Pratt and Whitney (also the engines).  Fokker and Belairbus were Airbus Industrie associate members.

Transfer to the final assembly site was facilitated by a fleet of four, 4,912-shaft horsepower Allison 501-D22C turboprop-powered Aero Spacelines Super Guppys, which had been based upon the original, quad piston-engined B-377 Stratocruiser airliners, requiring eight flights collectively totaling 45 airborne hours and covering some 8,000 miles for A-310 completion.  The transports were re-dubbed "Airbus Skylinks."

A-310 customer furnishing, including thermal and noise insulation; wall, floor, and door cladding; ceiling, overhead storage compartment, and bulkhead installations; and galley, lavatory, and seat addition, according to airline specification of class divisions, densities, and fabrics, colors, and motifs, occurred in Hamburg Finkenwerder, to where all aircraft were flown from Toulouse.

The first A-310, registered F-WZLH and wearing Lufthansa livery on its left side and Swissair livery on its right, was rolled out on February 16, 1982.  Powered by Pratt and Whitney turbofans, it only differed from production aircraft in its internal test equipment and retention of the A-300's dual, low- and high-speed aileron configuration.

Superficially resembling a smaller A-300, however, it incorporated several design modifications.

The 13-frame-shorter fuselage, rendering an overall aircraft length of 153.1 feet, incorporated a redesigned tail and a relocated aft pressure bulkhead, resulting in a cabin only 11 frames shorter, and access was provided by four main passenger/galley servicing doors and two oversize type 1 emergency exits.  These measured four feet, 6 ¾ inches high by two feet, 2 ½ inches wide.

The A-310's wing box, a two-spar, multi-rib metal structure with upper and lower load-carrying skins, introduced new-purity aluminum alloys in its upper layer and stringers, which resulted in a 660-pound weight reduction, but otherwise retained the larger A-300's ribs and spacings.  Almost blended with the fuselage's lower curve at its underside root, the airfoil offered a greater thickness-chord ratio, of 11.8, as opposed to its predecessor's 10.5, reducing the amount of wing-to-body interference ordinarily encountered at high Mach numbers, yet it afforded sufficient depth at the root itself to carry the required loads at the lowest possible structural weight and simultaneously provided the greatest amount of integral fuel tankage.

Low-speed lift was attained by means of the three leading edge slat panels and a single Krueger flap located between the inner-most slat and the root, and inboard, vaned, trailing edge Fowler flaps and a single outboard Fowler flap panel.

Although the first two A-310s retained the A-300's outboard, low-speed ailerons, they quickly demonstrated their redundancy, roll control maintained by means of all-speed, trailing edge ailerons augmented by three electrically-activated, outer spoilers, which extended on the ground-angled wing.  The four inner spoilers served as airbrakes, while all seven, per wing, extended after touchdown to serve as lift dumpers.

Engine bleed air or that from the auxiliary power unit (APU) provided icing protection.

Engine pylons were positioned further inboard then those of the comparable A-300, and the nacelles protruded further forward.

With a 144-foot span, the wings covered a 2,357.3-square-foot area and had an 8.8 aspect ratio.

Although the A-310 retained the A-300's conventional tail, it featured a horizontal stabilizer span reduction, from 55.7 to 53.4 feet, with a corresponding decease from 748.1 to 688.89 square feet, while its vertical fin rendered an overall aircraft height of 51.10 feet.

Power was provided by two 48,000 thrust-pound Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7R4D1 or two 48,000 thrust-pound General Electric CF6-80A1 high bypass ratio turbofans, either of which was supportable by the existing pylons, and usable fuel totaled 14,509 US gallons.

The hydraulically actuated tricycle undercarriage was comprised of a twin-wheeled, forward-retracting, steerable nose wheel, and two, dual tandem-mounted, laterally-retracting, anti-skid, Messier-Bugatti main units.  Their carbon brakes resulted in a 1,200-pound weight reduction.

The smaller, lighter, and quieter Garrett GTCP 331-250 auxiliary power unit offered lower fuel consumption than that employed by the A-300, and the aircraft featured three independent, 3,000 pound-per-square-inch hydraulic systems.

The A-310's cockpit, based upon its predecessor's, incorporated the latest avionics technology and electronic displays, and traced its origin to the October 6, 1981 first forward-facing cockpit crew (FFCC) A-300 flight, which deleted the third, or flight engineer, position, resulting in certification to this standard after a three-month, 150-hour flight text program.  That aircraft thus became the first widebodied airliner to be operated by a two-person cockpit crew.

The most visually-apparent flight deck advancement, over and above the number of required crew members, had been the replacement of many traditional analog dials and instruments with six, 27-square-millimeter, interchangeable cathode ray tube (CRT) display screens to reduce both physical and mental crew workload, subdivided into an Electronic Flight Instrument System (EFIS) and an Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor (ECAM), which either displayed information which was necessary or which was crew-requested, but otherwise employed the dark-screen philosophy.  Malfunction severity was indicated by color—white indicating that something had been turned off, yellow indicating potentially required action, and red signifying immediately-needed action, coupled with an audible warning.

Of the six display screens, the Primary Flight Display (PFD), which was duplicated for both the captain and the first officer, and the Navigation Display (ND), which was equally duplicated, belonged to the Electronic Flight Instrument System, while the Warning Display (WD) and the Systems Display (SD) belonged to the Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor.

The Primary Flight Display, viewable in several modes, offered, for example, an electronic image of an artificial horizon, on the left of which was a linear scale indicating critical speeds, such as stick shaker, minimum, minimum flap retraction, and maneuver, while on the right of it were altitude parameters.

The Navigation Display screen, below that of the Primary Flight Display, also featured several modes.  Its map mode, for instance, enabled several parts and scales of a compass rose to be displayed, such as its upper arc subdivided into degrees, with indications of course track deviations, wind, tuned-in VOR/DME, weather radar, the selected heading, the true and indicated airspeeds, the course and remaining distance to waypoints, primary and secondary flight plans, top-of-descent, and vertical deviations.

The autopilot possessed full control for Category 2 automatic approaches, including single-engine overshoots, with optional Category 3 autoland capability.

The collective Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor, whose two display screens were located on the lower left and right sides of the center panel, continually screened more than 500 pieces of information, indicating or alerting of anomalies, with diagrams and schematics only appearing during flight phase-relevant intervals, coupled with any necessary and remedial actions.  The Systems Display, located on the right, could feature any cockpit crew member-selected schematic at any time, such as hydraulics, aileron position, and flaps.

Two keyboards on the center pedestal interfaced the flight management system (FMS).

The flight control system, operating off of two Arinc 701-standard computers and essentially serving as autopilots, drove the flight director and speed reference system, and was operable in numerous modes, inclusive of auto take off, auto go-around, vertical speed select and hold, altitude capture and hold, heading select, flight level change, hold, heading hold, pitch, roll/attitude hold, and VOR select and homing.

The thrust control system, operating off of an Arinc 703-standard computer, provided continuous computation and command of the optimum N1 and/or engine pressure ratio (EPR) limits, the autothrottle functions, the autothrottle command for windshear protection, and the autothrottle command for speed and angle-of-attack protection.

Unlike earlier airliners, the A-310 replaced the older-technology pilot command and input transmission by means of mechanical, cable linkages with electronic bit or byte signaling.

Retaining the A-300's fuselage cross-section, the A-310 featured a 109.1-foot-long, 17.4-foot-wide, and seven-foot, 7 ¾-inch high cabin, resulting in a 7,416-cubic-foot internal volume, whose inherent flexibility facilitated six-, seven-, eight-, and nine-abreast seating for first, business, premium economy, standard economy, and high-density/charter configurations and densities, all according to customer specification.  Typical dual-class arrangements included 20 six-abreast, two-two-two, first class seats at a 40-inch pitch and 200 eight-abreast, two-four-two, coach seats at a 32-inch pitch, or 29 first class and 212 economy class passengers at, respectively, six-abreast/40-inch and eight-abreast/32-inch densities.  Two hundred forty-seven single-class passengers could be accommodated at a 31- to 32-inch pitch, while the aircraft's 280-passenger, exit-limited maximum, entailed a nine-abreast, 30-inch pitch arrangement.

Standard configurations included two galleys and one lavatory forward and two galleys and four lavatories aft, with encloseable, handrail-equipped overhead storage compartments installed over the side and center seat banks.

The forward, lower-deck hold, measuring 25 feet, ½ inch in length, accepted three pallets or eight LD3 containers, while the aft hold, running 16 feet, 6 ¼ inch in length, accepted six LD3 containers.  The collective 3,605 cubic feet of lower-deck volume resulted from the 1,776 cubic feet in the forward compartment, the 1,218 in the aft compartment, and the 611 in the bulk compartment, which only accepted loose, or non-unit load device (ULD), load.

Powered by two General Electric CF6-80C2A2 engines and configured for 220 passengers, the A-310-200 had a 72,439-pound maximum payload, a 313,050-pound maximum take off weight, and a 271,150-pound maximum landing weight.  Range, with international reserves for a 200-nautical mile diversion, was 4,200 miles.

The A-310-200 prototype, flown by Senior Test Pilot Bernard Ziegler and Pierre Baud, took to the skies for the first time on April 3, 1982 powered by Pratt and Whitney JT9D turbofans, and completed a very successful three-hour, 15-minute sortie, during which time it attained a Mach 0.77 airspeed and a 31,000-foot altitude.  After 11 weeks, 210 airborne hours had been logged.

The second prototype, registered F-WZLI and also powered by Pratt and Whitney engines, first flew on May 3, completing a four-hour, 45-minute flight, and the third, powered by the General Electric CF6 turbofans for the first time, shortly followed, the five aircraft demonstrating that the A-300-morphed design had far more capability than originally calculated.  Drag measures were so low, in fact, that the cruise Mach number was increased from the initially calculated 0.78 to a new 0.805, while the buffet boundary was ten-percent greater, permitting a 2,000-foot-higher flight level for any gross weight to be attained, or a 24,250-pound greater payload to be carried.  Long-range fuel consumption was four percent lower.

The Airbus A-310 received its French and German type certification on March 11, 1983 for both the Pratt and Whitney- and General Electric-powered aircraft and Category 2 approaches, and a dual-delivery ceremony, to Lufthansa German Airlines and Swissair, occurred on March 29 in Toulouse.  It became the European manufacturer's second aircraft after that of the original A-300.

Lufthansa, which had operated 11 A-300B2s and -B4s and had inaugurated the larger type into service seven years earlier, on April 1, 1976, from Frankfurt to London, followed suit with the A-310-200 on April 12, 1983, from Frankfurt to Stuttgart, before being deploying the type to London later that day.  It replaced its early A-300B2s.

Swissair, which, like Lufthansa, had been instrumental in its ultimate design, inaugurated the A-310 into service nine days later, on April 21.  Of its initial four, three were based in Zurich and one was based in Geneva, and all were used on high-density, European and Middle Eastern sectors, many of which had previously been served by DC-9s.

A convertible variant, featuring a forward, left, upward-opening main deck cargo door and loading system, was designated A-310-200C, the first of which was delivered to Martinair Holland on November 29, 1984.

By March 31, 1985, 56 A-310s operated by 13 carriers had flown 103,400 revenue hours during 60,000 flights which had averaged one-hour, 43 minutes in duration.

Demand for a longer-range version precluded A-310-100 production, but resulted in the second, and only other, major version, the A-310-300.

Launched in March of 1983, it introduced several range-extending design features.

Wingtip fences, vertically spanning 55 inches and featuring a rear navigation light fairing, extended above and below the tip, extracting energy from unharnassed vortices created by upper and lower airfoil pressure differential intermixing, and reduced fuel burn by 1.5 percent.  The device was first flight-tested on August 1, 1984.

Increased range capability, to a far greater extent, resulted from modifying the horizontal stabilizer into an integral trim fuel tank.  Connected to the main wing tanks by double-walled pipes and electrically driven pumps, the new tank was contained in the structurally strengthened and sealed horizontal stabilizer wing box, storing five tons of fuel and shifting the center-of-gravity over 12- to 16-percent of the aerodynamic chord.  The modification, requiring minimal structural change to an aerodynamic surface beyond the pressurized fuselage, offered numerous advantages over the increase in range, including Concorde-reminiscent, in-flight fuel transferability to effectuate optimum trims, and an aft center-of-gravity to reduce wing loading, drag, and resultant fuel burn.  A trim tank computer controlled and monitored center-of-gravity settings, and the amount of needed fuel could be manually selected during the on-ground refueling process.

Structure weight had been decreased by use of a carbon-fiber vertical fin, resulting in a 310-pound reduction.  The A-310 had been the first commercial airliner to employ such a structure.

Total fuel capacity, including that of the trim tank, equaled 16,133 US gallons, while up to two supplementary tanks could be installed in the forward portion of the aft hold, increasing capacity by another 1,902 US gallons.

In order to permit extended-range twin operations (ETOPS), a certification later redesignated extended-range operations (EROPS), the aircraft was fitted with a hydraulically-driven generator, increased lower-deck fire protection, and the capability of in-flight APU starts at minimum cruising altitudes.

Powered by General Electric CF6-80C2A8 turbofans and carrying 220 dual-class passengers, the A-310-300 had a 71,403-pound payload capability and a 330,675-pound maximum take off weight, able to fly 4,948-mile nonstop sectors.

First flying on July 8, 1985, the type was certified with Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7R4E engines six months later, on December 5, while certification with the General Electric CF6-80C2 powerplant followed in April of 1986.

Four of Swissair's ten A-310s, which were operated on its Middle Eastern and West African routes, were -300 series.

The A-310-300 was the first western airliner to attain Russian State Aviation Register type certification, in October of 1991.

Although it had initially been intended as a smaller-capacity, medium-range A-300 complement, the design features incorporated both conceptually and progressively resulted in a very capable twin-engine, twin cockpit crew, widebody, intercontinental airliner which, in its two basic forms, served multiple missions: an earlier-generation Boeing 707 and McDonnell-Douglas DC-8 replacement; a Boeing 727 replacement on maturing, medium-range routes; a DC-10 and L-1011 TriStar replacement on long, thin sectors; an A-300 replacement on lower-density segments; an A-300 complement during off-peak times; and a European competitor to the similarly-configured Boeing 767, enabling Airbus Industrie to describe the type as follows: "The A-310's optimized range of up to 5,000 nautical miles (9,600 km) is one of the parameters that has made it the ideal ‘first widebody' aircraft for airlines growing to this size of operation."

Singapore Airlines had been the first to deploy the A-310-200 on long-range overwater routes in June of 1985, covering the 3,250-mile sector between Singapore and Mauritius, although the aircraft had not been EROPS-equipped, that distinction reserved for Pan Am, which had connected the 3,300 miles over the North Atlantic from New York/JFK to Hamburg the following April.

During that year, the A-310-200 became available with wingtip fences, first deliveries of which were made to Thai Airways International, and the A-310-300 was progressively certified with uprated engines and increased ranges, a 346,125-pound gross weight producing a 5,466-mile range capability and a 361,560-pound gross weight producing a 5,926-mile range, all with General Electric engines.  Pratt and Whitney turbofan-powered aircraft offered even greater ranges.

The first EROPS-equipped A-310-300 with JT9D-7R4E engines, was delivered to Balair on March 21, 1986, and its range capability, with 242 single-class passengers and a 337,300-pound gross weight, exceeded 4,500 miles.

By the end of that month, the A-310 fleet had collectively logged more than 250,000 hours.

A post-production cargo conversion of the A-310-200, designated A-310-P2F and performed by EADS EFW in Dresden, Germany, entailed the installation of a forward, left, upward-opening door, which facilitated loading of 11 96 x 125-inch or 16 88 x 125-inch main deck pallets, while three of the former and six LD3 containers could be accommodated on the lower deck.  With an 89,508-pound payload and a 313,055-pound maximum take off weight, the freighter offered 10,665 cubic feet of internal volume.

The last of the 255 A-310s produced, an A-310-300 registered UK-31003, first flew on April 6, 1998 and was delivered to Uzbekistan Airways two months later, on June 15.  Although Airbus Industrie had contemplated offering a shorter-fuselage version of the A-330, the A-330-500, as a potential A-310 replacement, its range and capacity had proved too high to assume its mission profiles.  Resultantly, no definitive design ever succeeded it.

About the Author

Are there any entry level A & P mechanic Jobs in U.A.E?

I'm 20 years old, i got my A & P license about six months ago. I have 2 years working on turbine engines(Pratt & Whitney, GE, CFM). But i hear that the real money as an aircraft mechanic is OVERSEAS. I'm young, i don't have any kids or wife(s). So i am willing to travel to make the money. I want to know if there are any jobs for a fresh out the oven A & P mechanic in the U.A.E or other safe zones in the middle east or even anywhere that the
pay is considerably great. If so where do i look?

Thanks in advance!

Since you're an engine man, why not try Singapore P&W? From then youwith the experience you could try movingto their MRO and you'll be working as an engine man for their narrow body which have mostly CFM engines. After some years of experience you could be an engineer in UAE, Emirates as a powerplant engineer.
The key is experience and a good name and soon they'll be the one looking for you.
Hope I'd helped you.

Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Logos: Dependable Engines