|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Jan 4, 2008 02:37
Aeroflot ends mainline Tu-134 operations after 40 years
By David Kaminski-Morrow
Russian flag-carrier Aeroflot has withdrawn the Tupolev Tu-134 from
mainline operations after keeping the Soviet-era twin-jet in service for
more than 40 years.
Aeroflot’s final Tu-134 flight, SU753 from Kaliningrad to Moscow
Sheremetyevo on 31 December, brought to an end the most prominent role
undertaken by the type.
The carrier has 14 remaining in its fleet and will offer these to
subsidiary carriers Aeroflot-Don and Aeroflot-Nord for purchase.
Developed from the Tupolev Tu-124 – and originally designated the
Tu-124A – the 68-seat aircraft first flew in July 1963 after emerging
with a design that followed the trend towards rear-engined jets.
It was equipped with two Soloviev D-30 powerplants and featured
characteristics such as a glazed nose.
From a total of 852 Tu-134s some 162 were still in operation two years
ago when more than 220 remained on the Russian state registry for civil
aircraft.
|
| Show full article (2.32Kb) |
|
| | 12 Comments |
|
|
Author: RTRT Date: Jan 5, 2008 19:16
> Aeroflot ends mainline Tu-134 operations after 40 years
No - means nothing in particular to me...... Never been in one. Only
USSR a/c I've been on is a 727-ski (TU-154) LOT London to Cracow & ret. in
the ole daze.
Noisy - small o/h lockers - round-head rivets on the wing upper surface and
general impression of being agricultural/robust.
Given 3 similar a/c lined up, I'd choose Boeing 1st, Russian 2nd and AirBus
3rd
Seems Aeroflot now have the same opinion :-)
|
| |
|
| | 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: NedNed Date: Jan 6, 2008 05:52
According to RT -
>
> Given 3 similar a/c lined up, I'd choose Boeing 1st, Russian 2nd and AirBus
> 3rd
>
> Seems Aeroflot now have the same opinion :-)
>
>
So, drunk the vodka laced Boeing Kool-aid too have you RT?
Maybe you and Comrade Aeroflot which just ordered a heap of B-787s need to think
again before it's too late.
AFAIK in the new flagship Dreamliner the only protection in the network
architecture between a disgruntled Olga from Chechnya with her laptop in 34A and
the aircraft's backbone flight control systems is an unproven software firewall FFS.
Good luck and happy landings.
Ned
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: NedNed Date: Jan 7, 2008 03:58
Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:52:45 +1000, Ned aioe.org> wrote:
> >> According to RT -
>>> Given 3 similar a/c lined up, I'd choose Boeing 1st, Russian 2nd and AirBus
>>> 3rd
>>>
>>> Seems Aeroflot now have the same opinion :-)
>>>
>>>
>> So, drunk the vodka laced Boeing Kool-aid too have you RT?
>>
>> Maybe you and Comrade Aeroflot which just ordered a heap of B-787s need to think
>> again before it's too late.
>>
>> AFAIK in the new flagship Dreamliner the only protection in the network
>> architecture between a disgruntled Olga from Chechnya with her laptop in 34A and
>> the aircraft's backbone flight control systems is an unproven software firewall FFS.
>
> And "air gaps" according to the Boeing flak catcher. ...
|
| Show full article (1.97Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: NedNed Date: Jan 8, 2008 21:35
Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:58:06 +1000, Ned aioe.org> wrote:
> >> According to the FAA "The digital systems architecture for the 787 consists of
>> several networks connected by electronics and embedded software. This proposed
>> network architecture is used for a diverse set of functions, including
>> the following:
>> 1. Flight-safety-related control and navigation and required
>> systems (Aircraft Control Domain).
>> 2. Airline business and administrative support (Airline Information
>> Domain).
>> 3. Passenger entertainment, information, and Internet services
>> (Passenger Information and Entertainment Domain).
>> The proposed architecture of the 787 is different from that of
>> existing production (and retrofitted) airplanes."
>>
>> If true this means it will also be vulnerable to attacks from *anywhere* on the
>> ground. Maintenance engineers for example and we all know how certain airlines
>> love to outsource maintenance jobs to other countries as well. Inserting someone
>> with evil intent into such a company would not be impossible. ...
|
| Show full article (1.90Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: NedNed Date: Jan 14, 2008 05:33
Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:13:53 +1000, Ned aioe.org> wrote:
> >> Paul Saccani wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:35:34 +1000, Ned aioe.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Boeing (transports) do tend to have an uncommon amount of common sense in
>>>>> their designs.
>>>>>
>>>> And at times an uncommon lack of common sense too. Witness their dragging the
>>>> chain on B-737 rudders.
>>> If you mean the actuator issue, that wasn't a lack of common sense in
>>> my view.
>>>
>> Please explain?
>
> It's an opinion only, but the design offered a number of advantages
> and was quite clever as far as it went. Common sense said that it
> would work and there was nothing in the crashed aircraft's servo
> valves to indicate that they had failed to perform other than as ...
|
| Show full article (9.14Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SnapperSnapper Date: Jan 16, 2008 00:04
Ned wrote...
> I was referring to the electrical system design genius at Boeing who
> decided it would be a good idea to co-locate all four GCUs into
What's a GCU and what is the problem with doing that?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Gordon BeamanGordon Beaman Date: Jan 17, 2008 12:45
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:09:50 +0900, Paul Saccani omen.net.au>
wrote:
snip
>
>Where Ned and I disagree is on the amount of common senselessness,
>stupidity, bastardy and out right disregard for human life this design
>decision involves.
Couldn't agree more...wanna guess what my trade was when I retired?..
:)
--
-Gord.
(use gordon in email)
"Perhaps my memory isn't what it
used to be - if it ever was"
.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: SnapperSnapper Date: Jan 17, 2008 13:40
Paul Saccani wrote...
> Because without physical separation, one event may take out all the
> controllers. This is exactly what happened in a recent case, where a
> galley leak resulted in water entering the rack that contained the
> GCU, taking out all four engine GCU - and possibly the APU GCUs as
> well.
Oh, I understand, now. I'm surprised that these units aren't of a more robust
design, given their vital part.
I wonder if something like this happened to the BA 777 last night.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Gordon BeamanGordon Beaman Date: Jan 18, 2008 20:52
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:05:51 +0900, Paul Saccani omen.net.au>
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:45:38 -0400, Gordon Beaman
> islandtelecom.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:09:50 +0900, Paul Saccani omen.net.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>snip >
>>wanna guess what my trade was when I retired?.. :)
>
>Electrical engineer?
Close but no cigar...Flight Engineer...and it's my and lots of former
F/Es opinion that many lives will be lost with this move.
|
| Show full article (0.97Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
