Category Archives: Aerospace & Defence

Douglas C-124 Globemaster II “Old Shaky”

A few days ago I saw the tweet below that reminded of an anecdote that I wanted to blog about since some time ago.

Last year, when we visited the Pima Air & Space Museum, one of the aircraft at the outdoors exhibit was the Douglas C-124 Globemaster II “Old Shaky”. Our guide during the tram tour, an US armed forces veteran, explained how the aircraft had a crawlway to access and service the engines in-flight!

Once the tram tour concluded, I went for a walk around the aircraft to inspect it.

As you can see the aircraft have the inner engines located at the same wing cross-section than the main landing gear. And since the landing gear doors were opened I checked and found a small hole which I deduce that leads to the crawlway by which the flight engineer had to access to the engines. Not a very comfortable passage indeed.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

See below a comment I found in a specialized forum on the use of this crawlway by veteran in the 1950s (Barry de Vries):

Flew “Old Shakey” out of TCM (McChord) from the spring of ’55 until July of ’57 after 4 or 5 months on the C-54. On my first trip as a C-124 A/C we had #4 engine generator overheat light come on just past the PSR between Travis and Hickam. That required an engine shutdown due to the proximity of the generator to the carburetor. The F/E crawled out through the wing and verified that the generator was hot, returned to the flight deck for about 20 minutes while it cooled down and then went back out there to remove it and put a pad over the hole. Sometimes, we had a spare generator in the “fly-away” kit but we did not on that day. After he returned to the flight deck, we fired up #4 again and proceeded, without further incident, to Hickam. In later years, jet engines had CSDs (Constant Speed Drives) which would disconnect the generator with the flick of a switch. Those 124 days were interesting to say the least………. wouldn’t trade them for anything.

On the other hand, after sharing this anecdote with some work colleagues they noted that in earlier times of aviation the accessing to the engines during flight for inspection or servicing was rather common.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aerospace & Defence

Benefits from space exploration

If you are not an aerospace enthusiast I guess that probably you have questioned once or twice the motives and the benefits for society from space exploration. Luckily, with the widespread use mobile technology the GPS quickly comes now to mind when such questions arise.

I just stumbled upon the latest outreach campaign from NASA and I wanted to share some of its features here.

Let’s go first to aviation. See in the tweet below the different contributions that NASA has made to commercial aviation and which today enable your cheap, safe, reliable, on-time flights in holidays:

Then, there is a series of videos under the theme “International Space Station Benefits from Humanity“.

The series covers, among others, water purification technologies or tooling used in neurosurgery developed from robotic arms at the ISS. Here I wanted to share a video on how the Vessel-ID System has contributed to make navigation around the oceans safer, as ships emit an Automatic Identification System (AIS) signal very much like airplanes do with air traffic control. The signal is received by the European Space Agency (ESA) Columbus module at the ISS and then sent to a centre in Norway which continuously evaluates them.

See in the video below how this technology works and has contributed make navigation safer and safe lives:

—

NOTE: Compare this scenario with the disaster of the Titanic.

2 Comments

Filed under Aerospace & Defence

Airbus E-Fan

Yesterday, a small event for employees was organized at Airbus Delivery Centre in Blagnac to see the concept airplane E-Fan, a prototype 2-seater electric aircraft. The airplane is expected to go into series production by 2017, by then the design will evolve in a side-by-side seating.

During yesterday’s event, the plane was to make a couple of flights. In the end it only made the first one, which I missed, and thus I didn’t get to see it flying. Nevertheless, I could get into the hangar, where the colleagues involved in the project were starting to disassemble it and I could take some pictures, ask some questions, wander around… #avgeeking.

See below the pictures I took and a video from Airbus Group Youtube channel:

1 Comment

Filed under Aerospace & Defence

Refuelling or not refuelling?

Last week, I took my brother and sister onboard of one of my flight lessons. Ahead of the flight I reminded my instructor that I would bring them along and asked what flight route should I prepare. His response: “prepare the weight and balance report, the destination will be a surprise”. And so I did.

For those not initiated, each aircraft has a defined maximum take off weight (MTOW). Before the flight, the pilot needs to ensure that the aircraft will be below that weight. On top of that, the centre of gravity must be within certain limits. That is the weight and balance (1).

For a small simple aircraft like the Robin DR-44 we flew, it is a rather easy calculation that can be done with a pencil. See in the image below two ways of calculating it: making the numbers or using the graphic at the bottom of the image.

Weight and balance report for Robin DR-44.

Weight and balance report for Robin DR-44.

Let’s review the numbers. We flew the DR-44 with immatriculation F-GSRR, which empty weight is 616kg. I estimated that the instructor and I, fully dressed and with headsets would weight ~160kg. My brother and sister behind, another 160kg. Baggages: I almost emptied mine and weighted it, 2.5kg. My instructor’s one is rather heavy, I assumed that together they would be 10kg. Principal fuel deposit: 110L of Avgas, with a density of 0.72kg/L, 79.2kg. Another 50L for the reserve deposit, 36kg.

Summing up: 1,061kg.

You can read in the image that the maximum take off weight for the plane is 1,000kg…

What to do then? Clearly, the aircraft is a given, so weight shall be reduced from somewhere else. But, from where? Either we left someone on ground or reduced baggage weight (my instructor left his and brought along only a book with aerodrome charts). However, baggage weight contributed only 10kg to the initial calculation. I then calculated: what is the maximum fuel we can carry?

Forget the reserve deposit: 36kg less. Let’s go with the principal deposit. What is the maximum fuel volume that would enable us to be within the 1,000kg limit? It would be somewhere about 80L (vs. the capacity of 110L of the deposit).

When I arrived to the aerodrome, I came with the message to my instructor: “Thierry, we can only carry 80L, if the plane is filled up with fuel, is there a way to purge it?” “No.” I then explained the numbers I had made and we went through them together.

Next step: check the fuel indicator of the plane… ~3/4… or about 80L, with the reserve deposit empty. We would be just within the limit!

We then proceeded with the preparation of the route, the pre-flight check, etc., and had good time with the flight (see report of the experience by my sister, in Spanish).

From this experience I learned a take away for future flights: when finishing your flight, it is normal etiquette towards the next pilot to refuel the aircraft if you see that the deposit is almost empty, however, it can be counter productive to fill it up completely if the next pilot is going to fly with passengers and close to the MTOW. I would then suggest that it is better to just fill it up to the volume where you know that the next pilot can have all choices open. For our DR-44 that would be filling it up to 3/4 of the main deposit (leaving reserve empty) (2). If the next pilot wants to travel along to a far distance needing more fuel he can always fill up more litres. This target weight will be different for each aircraft.

—

(1) See here another post I wrote two years ago about weight and balance calculations in the same plane model.

(2) Bear in mind that I found the airplane with precisely ~80L: coincidence or the previous pilot had come to the same conclusion at some point?

1 Comment

Filed under Aerospace & Defence

Aircraft market forecasts accuracy (update 2014)

About two years ago I wrote a post in which I analyzed the accuracy of commercial aircraft market forecasts. In particular, Boeing’s series of yearly Current Market Outlook (CMO). In that comparison, between the CMOs from 1997 and 2012, we could compare the predicted and the actual world fleets at 2011 year-end. Except for the twin-aisle segment and especially the large aircraft sector, the accuracy was remarkable, as the estimated global fleet only exceeded the actuals in 1%.

In this post, I just wanted to provide an update with the figures from the latest CMO (2014), released a few weeks ago, in comparison with 1999’s CMO. In that CMO from 1999 [PDF, 1.5MB], we find the following chart showing Boeing’s forecasted fleet size and distribution for 2003, 2008, 2013 and 2018 year-ends.

1999 Boeing CMO year-end fleet forecasts for 2003, 2008, 2013 & 2018.

1999 Boeing CMO year-end fleet forecasts for 2003, 2008, 2013 & 2018.

In 2014 CMO, Boeing offered figures of 2013 year-end fleet (1).

Fleet at year end 2013 - Boeing 2014 CMO.

Fleet at year-end 2013 – Boeing 2014 CMO.

And now, the comparison is immediate:

Comparison of aircraft fleet at year-end 2013: 1999 forecast vs. actual (sources: Boeing CMO 1999 and 2014).

Comparison of aircraft fleet at year-end 2013: 1999 forecast vs. actual (sources: Boeing CMO 1999 and 2014).

Some reflections:

  • The forecasts for all segment except for single-aisle (737-800) predicted higher numbers of aircraft in the fleet than the actuals have shown 15 years later (2).
  • The total fleet figure was missed by 11%, a larger deviation than the 1% from two years ago.
  • The 737 has been the model outselling the forecasts, offsetting partially the lower demand in all other segments. In particular, even if deviations per segment have been higher, the global forecasted figure for passenger aircraft has been missed by only 3%.
  • The forecast is especially off mark the twin-aisle, where there are over 1,700 less aircraft in the current fleet than forecasted (3).

For the next such comparison we will need to wait some years, as from the year 2000 Boeing provided CMOs in a different fashion, offering a view of the forecasted fleet only 20 years from the date in question, instead of a view every 5 years. Therefore, we will have to wait until 2017, when we will be able to compare the 20-year forecast from 1997 CMO with the actuals of 2016 to be provided in 2017 CMO.

—

(1) In order to see the detailed split per segment differentiated between passenger and freighter aircraft, until the released of the full CMO, it is needed to use the exploring data tool offered in Boeing’s site.

(2) The differences in accuracy between the lower and higher end of the small-aisle segment should not be taken into account, as they are influenced by the different consideration of the cut off number of seats between a CMO and the other.

(3) Possibly a reason why Boeing plays down on the 747-8I and A380 segment.

4 Comments

Filed under Aerospace & Defence

“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” (speech)

Thanks to the drive of some individuals (Sarah, Eduardo, Dominique) a new Toastmasters corporate club (1) is being created within Airbus in Toulouse, where I work.

I joined Toastmasters in 2007 when I lived in Madrid and I have written often about Toastmasters in this blog, however I had become inactive in the last couple of years. This new initiative is very convenient and thanks to it I am engaging myself again in the association.

Today, I gave again a prepared speech in Toastmasters (2). In this post I just wanted to share it. Find it here, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, and below:

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

The topic of the speech is known for the reader of this blog: impact of delays in aircraft development projects seen as investment projects, the time value of money, discounting cash flows, break even, etc.

The feedback that I got: It was well received, especially the introduction, the interaction with the audience, the structure and how the topic was introduced and the main points called back in the end. However, I lost some individuals with the last slide, which needed some more explanation. I should have simplified the graphic. Some demanded more pauses and better vocalization.

—

(1) Up to now it is a prospect Toastmasters club.

(2) Project #1 of the “Speeches by Management” advanced manual: “The briefing”.

1 Comment

Filed under Aerospace & Defence, Investing, Toastmasters

Wide-body mix in 16 years of Boeing CMOs

Last year I wrote a post showing the puzzling change in Boeing’s predicted mix of twin-aisle sales, between small and medium wide-bodies (“Wide-body mix in 15 years of Boeing CMOs”). A few days ago I wrote a post about the publishing by Boeing of its Current Market Outlook for 2014-2033. This year’s CMO is more consistent with last years figures, i.e., the larger share of the forecasted market corresponds to small wide-bodies (787s from Boeing perspective). Recall the numbers:

  • small wide-bodies: 4,270 a/c in CMO2014 (passenger aircraft only),
  • medium wide-bodies: 2,990 a/c in CMO2014.

However, the trend is changed again in this year’s CMO in comparison with last year’s one: small wide-bodies market decreases while the medium wide-bodies’ one increases again. Since I keep a collection of CMOs from years back, I will include again a comparison going 16 years back…

Twin-aisle mix distribution (Boeing CMO 1998-2014).

Twin-aisle mix distribution (Boeing CMO 1998-2014).

Seeing at the graphic (made using Boeing figures):

  • During the first 5 years (1998-2003) the trends are quite constant.,
  • From 2003 to 2007, the mix is reverted, possibly to favour the launch of the 787.
  • In 2008 the CMO did not provide the split.
  • From 2009 to 2014, you can see that both trends in the forecasts are erratic… why? Only Boeing knows.

4 Comments

Filed under Aerospace & Defence

Review of Boeing Current Market Outlook 2014

Just ahead of Farnborough air show, Boeing Commercial has published its yearly update of the Current Market Outlook (CMO) for the next 20 years of commercial aircraft market (2014-2033).

I have just compared the figures for passenger aircraft of the last two years’ CMOs:

CMO 2014 vs 2013 comparison.

CMO 2014 vs 2013 comparison.

Some comments to it:

  • You can see that the total number of new aircraft delivered has slightly increased from 34,430 to 35,930, a 4%, which is consistent with the constant 5% traffic increase that Boeing predicts (1).
  • The volume (Bn$) increases by a larger percentage, 8% (360Bn$)… this is due mainly to the increase in:
    • single-aisle aircraft expected sales in volume (12%, +270Bn$) and aircraft (+1,010), and
    • medium wide-body segment with 180 more aircraft (+6%) and an increase in volume of 70Bn$ (+7%).
  • Last year I wrote about a sudden change between CMO 2013 and CMO 2012 of the mix in wide-bodies; CMO 2014 is more consistent with last year’s one even if the trend is reverted again.

This year study’s figures seem to push for the 737 and 777, which is backed by the presentation as well. It is curious how 777 market is increased whereas 787 is slightly decreased.

Find below the nice infographic [PDF, 0.1MB] that the guys from Boeing have put up together:

Boeing Commercial Aviation Market Forecast 2013-2032 infographic.

Boeing Commercial Aviation Market Forecast 2013-2032 infographic.

As always, I recommend going through the CMO, as you can learn a lot about the business: from global numbers, to growth, traffic figures, fleet distributions, forecasts, etc… You may find the presentation [PDF, 10.6 MB] and the file [XLS, 0.7 MB] with all the data.

For a comparison between this CMO and the respective Airbus’ GMF we will have to wait until after the summer, when Airbus publishes its update. Until then, find here the comparison based on 2013 market studies.

—

(1) These two ratios, 4% fleet growth and 5% traffic growth, point to an implicit increase in the average size of the aircraft in fleet.

(2) Find the review I wrote comparing 2013 CMO with 2012 CMO.

5 Comments

Filed under Aerospace & Defence

Musée de l’Aéronautique of Luchon

On July 19th of 1945, the British bomber Halifax Mk III Mz 981, from the 644th squadron of the Royal Air Force’s 38th transport command departed from Christchurch, in the South of England’s coast on a training mission that would take it all the way to the Cape d’Adge in the Mediterranean French coast.

Route followed by Halifax III MZ 981.

Route followed by Halifax III MZ 981.

On the way back, the aircraft would return to England crossing the South of France till the Atlantic ocean by way of Toulouse. With the fall of the night the pilot took a wrong heading (1) towards the Pyrenees, crashing against the Pic Lampau (2,543m).

About 50 years later, in the eighties, Léon Elissalde, an important figure of Luchon at the time, knowing about the crash of the Halifax III during WWII set out to look for lost parts of the aircraft. He found some of the engines, propellers, crankshafts, etc.

He knew about other crashes in the Pyrenees during WWII as well. A British Halifax II which crashed against the Pic Douluy when coming on a mission all the way from Algeria (see a description of that mission here, in French) and two German Dornier 217 equipped with BMW engines which allegedly were on the look out for the area where maquis were hidden in the mountains.

Elissalde, with all those parts created the Musée de l’Aéronautique of Luchon, located in a small hangar of village’s aerodrome.

Museum interior.

Musée de l’Aéronautique of Luchon.

We visited the museum last weekend. We counted with the guidance of a retired technician of the Armée de l’Air (French Air Force), who described the details of each of the engines, aircraft in which they were mounted and the mission the flew when they crashed. The visit lasted about an hour.

Breguet 941S preserved at Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace, image by PpPachy.

The museum includes some other engines, such as the turbojet Hispano Suiza Nene, which equipped the French Mistral, or the turboshaft Turmo III D3, which equipped the aircraft Breguet 941. The 941 was a short take-off and landing (STOL) aircraft with blown wings designed in the 1950s and which flew for the 1st time in 1961. One curiosity of this aircraft is that using 4 turboshaft engines (designed to power helicopters, not planes), all 4 engines’ turbines did not directly turn the propellers but rather powered a common shaft that ran along the leading edge of the wing powering the 4 propellers. A Breguet 941 is displayed at the Musée de l’Air et de l’Espace at Le Bourget, Paris.

Luchon is a nice village located at the heart of the Pyrenees, close to Super Bagneres skiing station, to some of the summits cycled in the Tour de France and has a great spa with water from natural sources. It is a great destination where to spend a few days. One hour of those days is well employed visiting the aviation museum.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

—

(1) My flight instructor uses to say “Dans l’air, le cap est la vie” (“in the air, the heading is the life”).

1 Comment

Filed under Aerospace & Defence, France

“Lessons from a Career of Trying to Defy the Law (of Gravity)”, lecture by Norman Augustine

Norman Augustine is an aeronautical engineer whom I have referred to often in this blog mainly due to his book “Augustine’s Laws” of which I wrote a review (find it here). He started working at Douglas Aircraft Company (1) in 1958, though through his long career he has occupied several positions in the administration and other major aerospace companies such Martin Marietta and then Lockheed Martin (2).

In my review about his book I wrote:

The book reviews A&D programs, especially their mismanagement and failures from the Wright brothers times till the early 80′s, when the book was written. The book is hilarious.

Lecture by Norman Augustine.

Lecture by Norman Augustine.

Some readers may believe I overstate it. Well, I invite you to watch the lecture he gave 2 days ago at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum (3) as part of the Charles A. Lindbergh Memorial Lecture Series. The lecture was titled “Lessons from a Career of Trying to Defy the Law (of Gravity)” [47’59”].

During the lecture Norman shares a great deal of the wisdom he has accumulated through his long career, part of it condensed in his Laws, compiled in his book. One of the laws I like the most is possibly the number IX:

In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one tactical aircraft. This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3 1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day. (LAW NUMBER IX)

I think it is priceless to have Norman explain it in person:

Augustine's Law IX.

Augustine’s Law IX.

During the lecture he used an update of his law (written in the 80’s) made by The Economist a few years ago which I covered also in this blog (4).

Other topics covered by Augustine during the lecture include: the importance of thinking with a systems point of view, the evolution of aerospace industry in the last decades, the importance of strategy and leadership, all covered by his fine humor and wit.

—

(1) You may read here a tribute I wrote about Douglas Aircraft Company.

(2) Some years ago I wrote this post about Lockheed’s Skunk Works.

(3) You may find here a post I wrote about my visit to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum at Dulles.

(4) I few months ago I wrote another post reviewing the application to bomber aircraft of Augustine’s Law IX with new US long range bomber program. In his book Norman includes an extrapolation as well of bomber aircraft increasing costs, even if the wording of the law takes tactical aircraft as the benchmark.

Leave a comment

Filed under Aerospace & Defence