bdak From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 89 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 35408 times:
The BA Source www.thebasource.com is reporting that the BA1/2 Club World London City Service is cancelled for a second day in a row, after the a318 aircraft used to operate the service was damaged at JFK. Does anyone have any idea what happened? Or any pics?
SSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 30744 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 2): "British Airways A318 G-EUNA sustained damage to its tailfin whilst under scheduled maintenance at New York JFK resulting in the cancellation of BA2 New York JFK – London City today."
I can't help imagining someone being insistent that A320s fit through a certain hanger door, so an A318 must too.
kjfk527 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 21990 times:
The aircraft is currently parked in American Airlines Hangar 10, Bay # 4. It was in Bay # 6 yesterday and was repositioned today. Their is plenty of space for the A318 in both Bay #4 and Bay # 6 with more than enough clearance for the tail.
The aircraft normally RONs over the weekend on AA hardstand number 3.
I will try and snap a picture of the bird in the hangar tomorrow if it is still there.
N243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1657 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 21986 times:
Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 18): apparently the taller tail is to compensate for the shorter body, not sure but I assume it's a centre of gravity issue
Sort of. It's not for adjusting the location of the center of gravity, if that's what you're suggesting. The shorter fuselage means the stabilizer and rudder are farther from the aircraft's CG and therefore has less of a moment arm to counter any yawing tendency. Without a larger rudder area to compensate, the 318 would be less directionally stable than its larger variants.
Speedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 22036 times:
Quoting ezalpha (Reply 21): I believe that's true. Of all 747s, the 747SP has the tallest tail.
It is correct, yes. The A330-200 also has a taller vertical stabilizer than the A330-300 and A340-300 due to it's shorter fuselage, and also has a shorter vertical stabilizer than the A340-200, which has 4 engines and therefore is more stable and has better directional control
Boa noite Faro, Air Portugal 257 climbing flight level 340
Not exactly, only the -200LF and -200F, but I believe that the tail itself is the same size and that the variation is due to other factors. Design shrinks often have the taller tail, hence the A318, B747-SP and early A332s. However there are also exceptions, like the A310, which is shorter.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
flyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 535 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16276 times:
It is not about the "normal" directional stability, but about being able to compensate the yaw momentum in case of an engine failure. With the same or at least similar engines attatched, you need the same yaw momentum compensation by the tail fin.
Now as momentum is force x arm, when shortening the arm, you have to increase the force somehow. You can do that by increasing the aerodynamic area.
Looking at the A320 family, A319/20/21 all have the same tail fin, but the rudder of the A321 does not deflect as far as the A319 one. On the A318, the deflection was not sufficient, hence the "taller" tailfin with increased "deflectable rudder area".
EagleBoy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 2193 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 16121 times:
Quoting N243NW (Reply 23): It's not for adjusting the location of the center of gravity, if that's what you're suggesting. The shorter fuselage means the stabilizer and rudder are farther from the aircraft's CG and therefore has less of a moment arm to counter any yawing tendency. Without a larger rudder area to compensate, the 318 would be less directionally stable than its larger variants.
Quoting BryanG (Reply 25): N243NW is exactly correct, from a physics standpoint. It's a moment arm issue. It's not uncommon for shortened airframes to have taller tails in a line of aircraft, and vice versa.
Thanks for the clarification.....I knew the shorter body needed the taller tail but didn't know the physics of it.
The B777-300 is a stretch whereas the taller tail comes into play with a shrink of the baseline model, like the B747SP, the A330-200 and the A318. It's not just early A332s that have the taller fin, they've all got it.
The B737NG has a bigger tail and wing across all models.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8301 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 14428 times:
Quoting bthebest (Reply 14): I thought it was a year round twice daily? (except Saturdays)
The frequency of the LCY-SNN-JFK-LCY rotation is reduced from twice daily to daily during the holiday period in August each year.
In 2012 BA003/04 - the rotation 'NA was operating before it was damaged - did not operate from 29 July to 31 August inclusive. 'NA was at LGW undergoing routine maintenance from 29 July to 8 August. and 'NB followed on 17 August returning to LCY on 3 September.
In 2011 the last BA003/04 rotation was on 31 July and the next 0n 31 August. That year 'NA was undergoing maintenance at LGW from 29 July until 8 August while 'NB was at LGW from 6 to 31 August.
The gap between 8 and 17 August in 2012 when neither aircraft was under maintenance but BNA003/04 did not operate strongly suggests that operating the second flight in August would not be justified by demand. However data published by the CAA for 2011 - full year 2012 numbers have not yet been published - shows that in August 2011 passengers carried on this route (1,234) were significantly more than half the number carried on average in the other elven months of that year (1,853). So unless the August figures are boosted by a weakening in average per passenger yield that month looks to be operationally more profitable.
BA did say when announcing this service that routine maintenance would be carried out in "bite sized chunks" at LGW. These "chunks" are not all in August. It is not unusual for either aircraft to visit LGW for maintenance at other times. For example in 2012 'NA was ferried into and then out of LGW on the following day on six occasions, most usually arriving there on a Saturday and retuning to LCY on the Sunday. However in addition to the August visit there was another longer visit from 5 to 10 April. But this also looks as if it was for planned maintenance as it was from the Thursday before to the Tuesday after the Easter holiday weekend.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 22492 posts, RR: 55
Reply 41, posted (2 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 10534 times:
Quoting BryanG (Reply 41): No, I was incorrect, and I stand humbly corrected. Vertical stabilizers on the 340-500/600 have the same dimensions.
Airbus took the vertical stabilizer off the 330-200 and put it on the 340-500/600 - they could have put a different size on the -600 because it's longer, but since they already had a stabilizer that was designed and tested and certified, the cost/benefit analysis just didn't make sense.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Lofty From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 439 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6044 times:
I understand that the aircraft was in the hanger with a safety wire which the engineers attach themselves to when working at hight. The wire was not removed before the aircraft pushed back and cut into the tail.