World News

Fall Capital Events- Europe!

    October- Europe    Using HAG schedules, start in London and fly to these European capitals. When completed, send an email to HAG for credit. Use any published flight/aircraft. To reach the next capital, fly direct or via another city, as the schedule allows, however, all flights must leave from the airport you last landed at. You do not have to visit the capitals in the order given. All flights must be completed in the month of the event.

Dublin, Ireland;  London, United Kingdom;  Paris, France;  Berlin, Germany;  Madrid, Spain;  Rome, Italy;  Prague, Czech Republic;  Amsterdam, Netherlands;  Copenhagen, Denmark;  Stockholm, Sweden

 

Find-A-Route: Arctic Bay to Mobile AL

    You find the airline connections that will get you from the frigid north to home sweet home Alabama. There are several ways to go. If your sim doesn't have Arctic Bay (CYAB), use Resolute Bay (CYRB). Complete the event for a special participation ribbon. No charters, no cargo flights. Enjoy! 

 

 

 

Baby Boeing

    Boeing started it all with the 707. They learned a lot about high-speed flight with their early military experiences and were able to successfully apply it to the commercial market. With reliable engines that required hardly any maintenance at all compared to the big R3350 radial's, the increase in fuel burn was offset by greatly reduced maintenance costs. The early 707 was loved by all except the smaller airports. Early jets needed 8,000'-10,000' of runway to get airborne. The airlines said they wanted a jet for short runways with 50-60 seats. The SUD Caravelle, BAC1-11 and DC9 were the competition, so Boeing went bigger. The quick fix was the redesigned 707, called the 720. Sure, it didn't need 9000+ feet of runway like its bigger brother, but Boeing knew it was an interim fix. Besides, the airlines pointed out that smaller airports meant smaller loads, and the 720 was a bit of an overkill. Plus, it needed ground power units and boarding stairs, expensive accessories for small places. The 727 was a big gamble. All new technologies, radical in design, it quickly put the 720's in the boneyard. Now Boeing had two jets that could carry 106-145 passengers in a two-class arrangement. But the airline reps wanted more. Sure, the 727 was nice and they could make money with it, but what they really wanted now was a short-haul regional jet that could make a profit with even fewer passengers. Airlines like Piedmont and Western wanted an efficient jet they could afford without bankrupting themselves into history. Boeing execs told Joe Sutter in Engineering to come up with a design. Sutter borrowed heavily from existing designs to keep things simple, i.e., minimal development costs. The 707 and 727 would have bankrupted Boeing had they not sold well, and the company execs did not want to risk the entire business a third time. Sutter used the 727 fuselage cross-section. The design was 25% shorter than the 727-100, would need only two engines and shared wing design theories from the 727. Sutter put the engines under the wing for various reasons including ease of maintenance and simplicity of overall structural design, though a twin-engine tail mount was considered. He wanted a simple, built-in airstair and an APU to make the jet totally self-sufficient. The engines couldn't be mounted on pylons like the 707, so they were mounted directly to the wing. Two pilots cut airline personnel costs, but it took a year to convince the unions that it would work without a flight engineer.

      Sutter knew that aircraft designs always grew, so rather than go with the 50-60 specified by the customers, he designed it for 85-100 seats in a six-abreast layout. United wanted even more, so a 6' section was added (737-200), increasing capacity to 102-115. This was almost as much as the 727-100. Still, people were skeptical. It didn't have the range nor the capacity of the 727-200, and could barely break M.72. Smaller airlines were excited about it, but few were able or willing to order large numbers. Three years after the 737 was just a gleam in Sutter's eye, the first 737 was delivered, to Lufthansa. Only two issues cropped up during follow-on testing. The engine mount fairing was redesigned, reducing drag and increasing speed. The thrust reversers were redesigned, for the original design (straight from the 727) blew air straight down, which tended to lift the aircraft just when you wanted the wheels firmly planted. Otherwise, the introduction went well. United ordered a large group of the 200 model and the future seemed bright.

     There were clouds on the horizon though. The 757 was designed as a 727 replacement. Of course, it never did much work in smaller airports (no airstair capabilty), so that work fell to the 737/DC9 families. The 737-200 soldiered on, but sales were only fair. Boeing knew they needed to replace their Baby Boeing. Rather than a clean-sheet design, Boeing went with a less risky 737 with newer, fuel-efficient CFM engines and updated glass cockpit, the 737-300/400 "Classic". Sales were brisk, and Boeing sold twice as many Classics as they had early 200's. Here was an airplane family that any airline could make money with.

     By the turn of the century, it was decision time again. New clean-sheet design, or continued improvement of the existing design? Execs chose the latter. Improved avionics, improved systems, varied lengths and capacities, led to new designations- the 600/700/800 Next Generation (NG) series. It was a hit, with over 5000 being built to date. However, many people question the wisdom of sticking with a decades-old design. The 737 has been stretched as far as possible, has a greatly improved capacity and range, but that was as far as it was going to go. The latest 737, the MAX, needed highly advanced avionics to cope with the new engine and engine mount design, and in that it was found lacking.

     The next 737? It's a difficult decision for Boeing. They were focusing on the 797 as a 767/A300 replacement, while the FSA (Future Small Airplane) got little attention. However, world airline execs have said they don't want or need a 767/A300 replacement, and instead have been pushing hard for more emphasis on the FSA market, a new 737 type of aircraft. Boeing owns Embraer now, and there has been talk about running with some new version of the EMB170/190 Brazilian Boeing group. Boeing remembers the intro of their radical new design, the 787. Years behind schedule and billions over budget, nobody on the Board wants to repeat that. If they went with composite construction for the FSA, it would mean a complete redesign of the entire Renton plant, an astronomical investment. These kind of investments must be recouped in sales, and that might not happen if the price is so high that few can afford it. What they need is a 737 replacement that is as capable and economical as the MAX, yet able to grow and meet the needs of airlines for decades to come. And suddenly, it's 1964 all over again....

    

---

Click for News Center

Flight	Pilot	Departure	Arrival	Aircraft	Duration	V/S	Info
EIN154	Herman K	EIDW	EGLL	Viscount	1.30	0 ft/m	Pending
EIN155	Herman K	EGLL	EIDW	Viscount	1.35	0 ft/m	Pending
BOA1	Sam F	EGLL	KJFK	Concorde	04.48	-656 ft/m	Accepted
TWA1431A	David R	KPHX	KSFO	B727-100	1.49	0 ft/m	Accepted
NWA212B	Malcolm E	KJFK	KMSP	B377	3.45	0 ft/m	Accepted
BEA49	Herman K	LEMD	EGLL	DH 106	2.15	0 ft/m	Accepted
NAL8115	Michael W	KLAS	KHOU	DC8-60	2.35	0 ft/m	Accepted
SAS581	Herman K	EKCH	LEMD	MD82	3.00	0 ft/m	Accepted
TWA491B	David R	KSTL	KPHX	B707-300	2.21	0 ft/m	Accepted
SAS46	Herman K	EHAM	EKCH	MD82	1.20	0 ft/m	Accepted

Pilot	Flight	Dep	Arrival	Status	Alt	Distance/Time