streetstream
-
Content Count
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by streetstream
-
-
All chapters Maint manual A310 on disc for $9.99
http://carburetor-manual.com/airbus-a310-aircraft-maintenance-manual-p-3512.html
Thanks for the advice. I noticed that one too, but i don't know if the site can be trusted. On the other hand, it's only 10 bucks.
-
A Profile drawing good enough for what you need isnt going to be any Maint Manual(MM).Try Chapter 11, Placards and Markings,both Internal and external has dimensioning and Usually has a half decent drawing.I cant remember the A310's MM that well.If you look thru the disc it sometimes mentions Stn No's.So there is another way to find the position.Look at Chap.6 this gives the dimensions,zones,Stations,Water lines and Butt lines.Station is the distance from where ever the designer says it is.It might not be the very front part of the airframe.Its same for the other dimensions too.As long as the 0.0 Datum in all 3 planes (back-front,left-right and up-down) is known then everything else will fall in.Waterline is the height above the lowest point of the fuselage.Butt line is the distance from the center line (center being 0.0 normally)so you end up with Butt line 1" right or left viewed from the back.So you end up with three different dimensions to find the exact point you want to find.All you have to do then is to scale it to what you're building!
Sadly i don't have the maint. Manual for the A310. I have the 2 volumes of component location training manual and the ATA 100 index for the A310-200 and A310-300. i also have the airplane caracteristics for airport planning.
-
streetstream
Great stuff.Hope you got all the info you needed.
Well, i only could look at it for 5 minutes so i haven't had time to check all the info, but together with the airport planning manuals that AV O has provided, i did get a lot of info. Still haven't got a nice profile drawing, but i think that was reaching a bit to far. I hope to process the info soon, because at the end of this year, i would like to start my 1/144 A310 and one day buy the 1/72 A310.
-
The Standard system for maintenance manuals and IPC all use the same ATA 100 system.Thats Boeings since 1959 at least with the 707,Lockheed,Douglas,Airbus,BAC,BAe.Vickers.
Old aircraft use a different volume and chapter format.Comets,Viscounts for instance.Not sure about Vanguards and Tridents.
The VC10 manuals used this format and was the 1st British Airliner to use the system falling inline with Boeing and Douglas.
I'll list some of the chapters that I deal with (Airframes) some of the other chapters are for other trades,engines,electrics,avionics etc.
You might find pitot/static in chap 30 pitot static anti ice and 34 pitot static system
1 Introduction
5 Inspections Types of servicing A,B,C,D check etc.and periods between.flying hours and/or time period
7 Lifting/shoring Jacking,lifting and supporting etc.
25 Equipment/furnishings cabin panels,internal doors,toilets,galleys etc.
27 Flying controls
28 Fuel system
53 Fuselage
55 Stabs Horizontal and vertical
56 Windows
57 Wings
Illustrated Parts Catalogues (IPC)are ace for assemblies and positioning.The chapter numbers and system/area in the IPC are the same.Fuel pump 28,elevator 27 and toilet seat 25!
If you want some manuals go to Ebay.You can get the real books or all the volumes on disc.Which is better than a half ton wall of paper 12 foot long
Well, friday i bought a few manuals. It has a lot of illustrations on possitioning of doors, hatches, the lot.
-
If the plastic, instructions and decals are in good condition, I wouldn't return the kit. How ever, I would would get in touch with Amazon, explain what had happened and furnish them with a copy of the pic, a copy of the invoice with the kit, plus any other data you have on the purchase and request they take steps to determine how this happened and what did they intend to do to see it didn't happen again.
Couldn't agree more. Just do what Hawk10 said. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
Thanks everyone for your input. I'm still missing high detail profile drawings, but as been pointed out, there might be a chance that those don't exsist. I have some basic profile drawings, so i can get a sense of what it should look like and i got some really good info on door placement and engine size (thanks to AV O).
-
If you mean "accurate" when you say "good", the answer is that there aren't any. They simply don't exist. Airframe manufacturers have no need to produce accurate scale drawings. I've been at this for over 20 years (airliner decals), and they simply do not exist. Those that do exist have been created by enthusiasts. The A330/340 are long term drawing projects of mine. In order to create accurate drawings you need lots of technical data from the manufacturer, thousands of photos, and LOTS of time. I've probably spent a couple of thousand hours all told on my 737 family of drawings over the years.
J
First of all, thank you for the input.
By good, I indeed mean accurate. As for the availability or excistance of the drawings i search, i will rely on your experience. But i found this video (link below) were a person is building a large A380 model and he has some (not all) drawings including cross sections. I was mostly interessed in a profile of these planes, but cross sections also help. I'm also looking for the location of pitot tubes and sensors. Maybe that is available?
-
Does anybody know where i can find good airliners scale drawings. I'm always surprised to see that people have such great drawings. Now i'm looking for drawings for all mayor airliners but most of all for the A310 and A330/340.
Thanks in advance
-
Keep in mind that the title states MI-29 and you are looking for MI-24 pictures. I, be reading the title alone, tought you needed Mig 29 pictures.
-
What a nice paintjob and weathering. That plane looks real menacing.
-
Finish is Testor's Metalizer, brushed on.
Are you serious? You brushed that? It looks really good.
-
. I always use a 'sludge wash' which is made of water based paint (I use very cheap toy paint!!) with some water and a little bit of detergent to make the wash to flow instead of forming drops like water does.
Indeed, if you use waterbased paint, a wash is a safe option aswell. But only when using waterbased paints.
-
Hi streetstream!
Weathering is something that scares the hell out of me, I just don't seem to get it right anytime... I tried it once on a B744 model that had been already finished, and almost f*cked up the entire thing.
What kind of weathering do you suggest, wash, dry wash...?
It has to be something I can clean up later on in case I overdo it - or do it somehow wrong.
Thanks in advance!
Eduardo
I would do a little bit of drybrushing. It is a relative risk free method because you can build up in small steps. Just try your brush on a piece of sprue first.
-
That is a very nice build. I love the MD-11 (and the dc-10 for that matter). But if i can ad my 2 cents, i would ad a bit of weathering especially to the landing gears.
-
:whistle:/>
I will survive somehow, besides why confuse you with facts when your mind is already made up?
Great comebacks. I'm thoroughly impressed. Keep playing your game like you are to smart for this discussion, but fact is, you can't answer any question i ask and you can't quote me on all the BS you claim i wrote.
Now, i'm through with you and this stupid discussion. If you keep incisting that a grounding is an indication of just a small teething problem, go ahead. I don't buy it and despite you claims that they simply need to swap the batteries, we are almost 2 weeks further and it hasn't happend.
-
Agreed but Streetstream shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Well since you like facts so much, here's one for you: Despite you claiming that the only thing Boeing has to do is swapping the batteries, the 787 is still grounded and i didn't hear Boeing making a statement that they've cracked it.
-
Totally agree :salute:/>
Streetstream, unless you're working - or anybody else - for the company that produces the 787 (Boeing), you should never expect from the evening news to find out the truth about why an aircraft was grounded. Even expert magazines that publish news and articles on their monthly issues are not to be trusted 100%.
Sernak
I see now. If i don't work on the 787 i can't say that i find it a serious problem when one of their types get grounded. Somebody else can come here and claim that everything is fine and that the grounding is just a small teething problem with just the same information. Explain to me the difference?
-
I know what science fiction universe would have such a thing!?
Control Towers and flight control centers are run by the FAA. remember earlier when I said you should read up on this stuff? So yes, as long as the aircraft has a radio, they can and do call the FAA. The aircraft is also constantly monitored and directed(unless its a small airport, with different rules) by the FAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_emergency_frequency
See also:
Airband
Air-ground radiotelephone service
Call for help
Distress radiobeacon
Mayday (distress signal)
Transponder code
What is weather? Can Ground control not fly you into a mountain or a mid air? in which case the pilot and the plane are not to blame? Or an emergency that happens so rapidly that neither pilot nor plane can react? Can there be outside forces at work?
I agree, I am a very poor teacher. This Forum would have fired me a long time ago if it wasn't for the Internet Teachers Forum Union I am always paying dues for.
Ye I never said nobody else can cause a plane to crash, but no matter what you say, when in flight the only factors that matter are a plane and it's pilot and how they act. Jesus, how can you not understand that. Or do i have to mention Al qaida tpo as a factor in airl travel because they can hijack planes and crash them in the WTC?
My example was on the performance of a plane and if a pilot can still fly the plane after a certain parts failure or not. In the DC 10 case, the plane in about 30 of the time couldn't be safed no matter what. in the A330's case, if the pilot knew what he was supposed to do (like the captain of the Air france flight did, unfortunatly he arrived in the cockpit too late) he can still fly the plane. So the Pilot and plane are the only relevant factors in my examples (happy now, or do i have to explain every simple thing for you?).
I'm actually glad you agree that you are a poor teacher.
Now, how about those quotes? Found them yet? Or affraid to admit that you were BS-ing?
And let me try and ask this question again in hopes you will at some point answer it (i doubt it): Giving all you stated about teething problems, why isn't the DC 10 cargo door incidents a teething problem?
And now tii summarise: You believe the problem in the 787 is just a case of swapping batteries, i don't. And if you just keep on stating that i'm wrong without ever producing an argument to back your statements and by simply calling me ignorant, keep making rediculous comparisons that don't make sense and by fasly claiming i said this that you never seemed to be able to quote me on.
So if that is your stradegy, keep at it. But don't think you'll convince me or anyone else for that matter.
-
Or another example what I if I said the 2 main factors in space travel are a rocket and a monkey to shoot into space. Would you consider that a gross oversimplification?
No matter what you say, when you are flying a plane you have to factors, the plane and the pilot. Or do you think pilots have constant communication with the FAA when they are in trouble? Ofcourse it takes alot more than that to operate an airline, but when you are flying a plane, and something goes wrong, you have simply a plane and a pilot. Either one can cause the crash. That was the point i was trying to get accross.
Because its not my job to educate you...
Seeing how you make comparisons and how you can always disagree with a person without making any argument or even make statements in my name without ever being able to quote me or have the abbility to answer one direct question, it is indead not in you ability to educate me, let alone your job.
-
Thats not how the FAA works. Fine guess though.
Nice, you can always say how pople are wrong, but never even give an argument. What is next? Call me ignorant again? Make comparisons that don't ad up? Ignoring evry question i ask?
-
A gross oversimplification bordering on pure ignorance. The statement above is one of the statements that shows me you have no idea what you are talking about, and to me shows you have no logical source for opinion on the matter. There is reason I don't comment in ARC hockey threads, or threads about chemistry, or threads about medical issues. I don't know much about the subjects so I don't say much, what little I know is so limited to the point that I don't form opinions on the matter. Its ok to say nothing or to try and learn from those who know better without saying sweeping things that show how little you know about things. The difference is I know what I don't know about. You are so wrong with the above statement you don't even know how beyond your depth you really are. You are ignorant of your ignorance.
That is you only deffence and you call me ignorant? No correction? No nothing?
No its not-- the Pitot feed information to the Fly by wire computer. They are not simply a speedometer. The data collected by the sensors is used to help fly and control the aircraft. Much like how your ears don't just hear sounds, they are critical to balance and spatial awareness. I am not saying that it did or did not contribute to the crash, just that Pitot tubes carry vital information to the flight computer.
The pitot only sends information to the fly by wire computer to make autopilot possible. That's why the autopilot on the Air France jet disconnected. In manuel flight it only acts as a speedo.
Here is the problem in every aircraft ever built-- there are margins that will result 100 percent in a crash. However if the chance of that happening is for example 0.0004 percent then that is acceptable. If you want an aircraft that is 100 percent safe, you can fold up a paper airplane and cut off its sharp nose using safety scissors, while wearing gloves to avoid paper cuts. DC-10s are flying today, in fact right now while the 787 is not (wrap your ahead around that one). If we ground every aircraft forever that ever crashed (or in the 787's case, worried it theoretically might) nothing would ever fly.
So you agree that if there is a factor that can make the plane crash with 100 certainty and that factor can happen regualary, the plane is unsafe and should be grounded and the problem fixed. That is what happend with the DC 10. it had a factor that made it crash and it could occur at any time. Now the Boeing is grounded? Why is that? Because there is a dangerous factor that can occur at any time?
If you feel that an aircraft that has an issue that contributes to pilot error and results in a crash that kills hundreds is far better than an aircraft that crashes beyond pilot control and kills hundreds is markedly better, well that's your problem. but I wouldn't deem either of them a victory for airline safety.
The issue in the A330 didn't contribute to pilot error. Where in the hell did you get that. Where did i say anything like that. You keep making up stuff as if i said it, without ever qouting me. Did you find my Boeing cover up quote yet?
The A330 had a fault that in combination with gross pilot error leads to a crash. No a fault that results i pilot error.
How do you know what actions Boeing is or isn't taking?
I'm not saying they aren't taking actions. Again, quote me. You keep saying that they just will switch the batteries and the problem will be solved ( i can quote you on that). If that is the case, and you see how fast they switch the faulty powerboards when they were creating 'smoke incidents', why aren't the batteries switched like you claim is the simple solution? And for once, try answering directly on a question and before you try and call me ignorant again, start work on quoting me on the matters you falsely accuse me of?
-
Maybe the FAA isn't "hating" on BA, maybe because the systems involved are so revolutionary, they felt it was prudent to order the
How do you measure the safety of an aircraft? By number of groundings? By hours flown without an incident, by bodycount? Lots of metrics out there to pick and choose from. Using the latter, I could make a case that the A330 is 228 times more dangerous than the 787.
And where did i say the 787 is less safe than the A330.
-
Maybe the FAA isn't "hating" on BA, maybe because the systems involved are so revolutionary, they felt it was prudent to order the grounding so that the issue(s) could be thoroughly understood. Not because there was an imminent threat that the plane was about to crash.
All system on a plane have to be approved by the FAA before the plane gets cirtified. So whay your saying is that the FAA first claims that the systems onboard are in order, than make an announcement that the batteries in the plane did more than enough testtime on the bench and are satisfied by them and all of a sudden would ground them because it is a new system?
And in making that statement you are acting in a way that you accuse me of doing, namemy making assumptions. You are assuming that the FAA is biased over new technology even when they tested it over and over again and were satisfied with it. So why would they change their minds? What will it be? Is the FAA biased over new technology or did the FAA approve equipment that they weren't satisfied with?
-
It's just more tacky simplistic dumbed-down bland focus group garbage designed by talentless hacks who learned the nuances of graphic design from an instruction manual at whatever third-rate community college they got their piece of paper from ("I'm primarily a web designer, of course"). Either that or they sourced it from drawings made in the ranks of the 13-year old armchair captains on airliners.net who have equally bland tastes. I'm sure it will be a hit with the kind of hipster pubic monkeys that think 'leverage' is a verb and are obsessed with the words 'fresh' and 'reboot.'
Since the average person has about the same eye for artistic ability as a can of ginger ale, I suppose it will be a hit, justifying the millions of dollars no doubt put into designing a livery that is really nothing more than a template with the word 'EXAMPLE' replaced with 'American.'
Pure kitsch in its absolute worst form. I guess it will help them blend in with the crowd, since there's really nothing to differentiate it from the other new liveries designed in the last fifteen years or so. This will look dated in next to no time, just as tons of gated reverb dated the garbage produced by the record labels in the '80s. It doesn't matter anyway; air travel in and of itself is so bland and tasteless in this day and age that you may just as well walk.
Am i a bad person if i agree with this. That flag on the tail really doesn't work. The overall color of the fuselage is good, but the artwork could have been better.
Airliner scale drawings
in Airliner Modeling
Posted
I'm not getting any malware, i just don't like internet shopping, but i will charge my Paypal and give it a try.