[V.Narayan]

The world has enough for everyone's needs but not enough for one man's greed - MKS Gandhi

2 B777s + 3 B737s + 4 Mi-17s + 3 EH101s {paid for but languishing now} -all paid for by my taxes. I hope I shall receive at least a thank you note. Ten years ago and going back all the way to 1981 the fleet was 3 B737s and 2 Mi-8s - it seemed to work rather well.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by mmxylorider

If you are thinking coach, you might find yourself grossly mistaken. I know for a fact some of the policies of certain MNC and senior leadership does not travel economy. It is purely a time, peer connect and comfort related aspect. CEOs charter planes all the times to show commitment to clients.

You are confusing a privately run corporation which has to earn the money it wants to spend vs a public office representative elected by the people to work for the people and using public money for every largesse that he/she enjoys

Originally Posted by mmxylorider

Countries are going that route of marketing themselves to get business and I personally see nothing wrong in that.

At the risk of repeating myself, that is not how capitalism works unless I have misunderstood what "business" means in this context. It doesnt matter how the PM travels if the country doesnt have basic infrastructure or rule of law or policies to encourage investment. If thats the case, all the dictatorships would be investment heavens but guess what they are not.

Originally Posted by mmxylorider

My taxes are working towards making my country and my life better and as long as there is transparency in that I will support it.

I am actually amazed at the subjugation. Without going into how your life is better and the country's because the PM travels in a 10,000 crore worth of aircrafts, Delhi government just inaugurated a 600 bed state of the art hospital, built at a cost of 125 crores meaning at the cost of this wasteful expense we could have had 80 state of the art hospitals with 24000 beds across India. Care to explain how PM travelling in billion dollar aircraft is better than 80 hospitals serving the common public across India? You could replace hospitals with IIT's, research grant or even infrastructure spend etc etc.

The western politicians would actually love our voters. Where I am currently, they had face wrath of the public because they chartered a flight for $7000 when they could have travelled economy domestically.

Remember, probity is to be demanded, its not something which is expected.

[mmxylorider]

I don't understand this reasoning.

If you say, all perks and comforts afforded to government officials should be taken off since that money can be better spent on serving the common man - Absolutely!!
But I believe some things are more important than others. So let's not make this about the VIP planes.

Let's agree to disagree and move on.

[ChoosetoCruze]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Is anybody familiar with how they cope with these high electrical power requirements on these VIP planes?

The B777 is powered by three 120 kVA constant frequency generators attached to each engine & APU.

For the civilian B77W specifically, the APU (AlliedSignal GTCP331-500) can start & provide electrical power all the way up to 43,100ft (B777 service ceiling) and provide electrical power & pneumatics up to 22,000ft. The APU has dual starting motors (1 pneumatic and 1 electrical) and autostarts inflight if both the left and right transfer buses lose power. (Borrowed knowledge as I’m not rated on the triple)

For anyone that’s curious :

https://www.topspeed.com/aviation/av...r-ar88099.html

About the Jet Airways’ A330, only JWW is owned (an asset). The rest were all leased & have already been repossessed by the lessors barring JWV.

All Air India’s B777 are owned. The B77W is a natural replacement for the worldwide fleet of B747. My guess is ALV (K7066) & ALW (K7067) were better operationally suited for the VIP role as they were newly delivered birds in Jan 2018 with all the newest engines & avionics upgrades.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by ChoosetoCruze

The B777 is powered by three 120 kVA constant frequency generators attached to each engine & APU.
.

Thanks, but you are quoting standard specs. Is that sufficient? I would imagine that there is a whole range of additional comms equipement and some other stuff that needs powering.

The Americans have added an additional APU to their Airforce one.

Jeroen

[ChoosetoCruze]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Thanks, but you are quoting standard specs. Is that sufficient? I would imagine that there is a whole range of additional comms equipement and some other stuff that needs powering.

The Americans have added an additional APU to their Airforce one.

Jeroen

Without claiming to be an engineer, I would think that without the burden of personal entertainment screens of 300 odd passengers, the standard electrical power supply from the engines should be sufficient to power any additional avionics fitted onboard.

Regarding the actual specifications of these aeroplanes post modification, I think that may be classified information/still unknown.

Maybe others in the know can chime in.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by ChoosetoCruze

Without claiming to be an engineer, I would think that without the burden of personal entertainment screens of 300 odd passengers, the standard electrical power supply from the engines should be sufficient to power any additional avionics fitted onboard.

Not so sure about that. To your point, it does depend on what kind of additional systems they have put on. I believe there is a big difference between the American 747 Airforce One and most if not all other governmental planes.

Airforce one (using the call sign here) although used a the president plane is first and foremost designed as a mobile air command centre. It is an intrinsic part of American defence doctrine.

So it is kitted out with a bunch of stuff that enables it to fulfil that role. Most governmental planes are just that: transportation (in ridiculous luxury). I am not sure if there are any additional comms or other systems that require powering. As soon as there are, you basically need to take a complete relook at the whole electrical system. E.g. a scenario where 777 looses one engine, what comms capability are still to be up and running for the PM? What if you loose that other engine? How do you arrange for the load shedding? What priority etc.

Word has it; Trump design philosophy is to shed the twitter feed at the very last minute, seconds before impact!

As soon as you start adding system that have nothing to do with flying the plane as such, but might have a different role, potentially life and death for many, you need to re-design the whole electrical system. On some of these there might be additional avionics defense systems as well. Again, you can’t just wire them into the system. You need to think about load, redundancy and load shedding priority to name just a few.

I know that sat comm retrofits on planes are relative easy and straight forward. Not much power requirement. A mate of mine works for a USA company doing just this. No extra power supply.

Jeroen

[mmxylorider]

On a twin engine long haul craft like the 777, generators are installed on both the engines for redundancy perspective. In addition to that there is the RAT that can power basic control and communication equipment and worst case scenario, you have the APU which unless there is a fuel issue will work at lower altitudes. From what I have read, such special aircraft are customized to ensure control surfaces and communications get priority so that the aircraft can attempt to get down safely. Of course this is what is in public domain, what other capabilities remain enabled would be classified.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by mmxylorider

On a twin engine long haul craft like the 777, generators are installed on both the engines for redundancy perspective. In addition to that there is the RAT that can power basic control and communication equipment and worst case scenario, you have the APU which unless there is a fuel issue will work at lower altitudes.

I am not sure twins have full redundancy. When you loose an engine you also loose some system capabilities. You can still safely fly and land, but there are some restrictions.

RAT will only be deployed in case of both engines failing. APU depends on type. On some they can be started in the air, on some only on the ground. But on most, APU can function up to whatever altitude they are certified for.

APU runs on the same fuel as the engines. But could be feeding from a different tank, depending on the fuel system configuration I guess. (at least on a 744).

Jeroen

[mmxylorider]

Jeroen - Absolutely - Losing both engines is about survival (Gimli Glider incident) where RAT played a critical role. But single engine failure does not cause big issues. ETOPS will come into play for single engine failure so that should not get systems compromised.

As I said before, I am not sure of the fuel supply to the APU but special aircraft might have supply through a classified location of an auxiliary fuel tank.

[ChoosetoCruze]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

E.g. a scenario where 777 looses one engine, what comms capability are still to be up and running for the PM? What if you loose that other engine? How do you arrange for the load shedding? What priority etc.

Word has it; Trump design philosophy is to shed the twitter feed at the very last minute, seconds before impact!

Absolutely LOVED the Trump reference.

Even on a standard B777 (most Boeing aeroplanes), in the event of a failure of 1 engine generator, the other engine generator (IDG) can automatically power the transfer bus of the failed side. Unless the aircraft loses all AC power, the FO will not lose any of his instruments. I’m not sure if the RAT can provide power to the FO’s instruments too.

All said & done, since they both were flown back by Air India flight crew, I feel the B777 aircraft systems may remain untouched. As soon as any systems are modified, commonality with the rest of the fleet/pilot pool goes out the window & the cost increases significantly to keep only a specialist group of crew rated on these modified machines.

APU fuel burn is negligible and can be started whenever required inflight, although APU starts aren’t recommended above 25,000ft. At least on my type. It’s usually supplied from the left side of the fuel manifold on most aeroplanes.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

3 EH101s {paid for but languishing now} -all paid for by my taxes. .

I am curious to know. What really happened to those lovely looking grey IAF EH101s. Are they still in India? If the money has been paid, what is the point in letting them rot and waste public money?

If I remember correctly, something similar had happened in the 80s with another helicopter acquisition. I don't know if it was for the govt or for some charter company but there was a definite link to Westland helicopters. That time too those helicopters was paid for and bought and left to rot in India!!!

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by ChoosetoCruze

Even on a standard B777 (most Boeing aeroplanes), in the event of a failure of 1 engine generator, the other engine generator (IDG) can automatically power the transfer bus of the failed side. Unless the aircraft loses all AC power, the FO will not lose any of his instruments. I’m not sure if the RAT can provide power to the FO’s instruments too.

What about hydraulics? Some hydraulic system capabilities are reduced I believe? Different system affected by different engines?

Jeroen

[ChoosetoCruze]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

What about hydraulics? Different system affected by different engines?

Jeroen

You’re absolutely right. On my type, the transfer bus powers the electrical hydraulic pump of the other engine so that in the event of an engine failure, all hydraulic capabilities are maintained at near normal pressures by the remaining engine driven/electric pump. I don’t know the hydraulic system architecture & redundancy in the triple, but it should be similar/even better than the 737.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

I am curious to know. What really happened to those lovely looking grey IAF EH101s. Are they still in India? If the money has been paid, what is the point in letting them rot and waste public money?

Yes they are sitting here unused and deteriorating! Why should allegations of bribes cause all commercial contact to be stopped beats me as the only one who suffers is us (IAF in case of the EH101 and army in case of the Bofors 155mm). Haven't yet heard of a politician getting jailed yet. The EH101 is an outstanding helicopter. The right choice. But political parties insist on palms being greased after the IAF has made the right selection.

If I remember correctly, something similar had happened in the 80s with another helicopter acquisition. I don't know if it was for the govt or for some charter company but there was a definite link to Westland helicopters. That time too those helicopters was paid for and bought and left to rot in India!!!

That was Pawan Hans purchasing the Westland 30 which was an enlarged derivative of the military Lynx. It proved to be a big flop world wide as a civilian transport helicopter. Pawan Hans selected it due to Westland being backed by a UK grant. To Pawan Hans' credit their choice was the Aerospatiale Dauphin. The Westland 30 was unsuited for the oil rig support work it was needed for. 21 were purchased. 2 crashed within a couple of years. 6 were sent/sold back to UK. The remainder 13 rot to this day in hangars in Mumbai!!!!!

Both classic examples of how the Govt wastes public money. The Dauphins gave yeoman service. Of the 41 Westland 30s ever produced we bought 21.