31、Aviation Engineering: The Journey of the Last 747 Classic

Aviation Engineering: The Journey of the Last 747 Classic

1. The Aviation Landscape in the Early 1990s

In the early 1990s, the aviation industry was facing what some called a “crisis.” However, this so - called crisis was not always global; it could be local, often caused by mismanagement or a company’s inability to adapt to new situations.

In the United States, deregulation was popular, and in the European Union, some airlines were starting to separate from government control. Before this shift, governments were commonly involved in the airline business as a means of national promotion. Airlines were seen as national ambassadors, and many had names related to their home countries, such as British Airways, Alitalia, and Scandinavian Airlines System. These were the flag carriers.

The US pressured airlines to separate from governments to create fair competition. US airlines had to operate as businesses, and those that failed went bankrupt. Eastern Airlines, a large Florida - based operator with over 500 aircraft, went bankrupt. A similar fate befell the respected PAA.

On the other hand, Air France was constantly in financial trouble, but the French government provided millions of dollars to help it through each crisis, which occurred every couple of years. This led to complaints from US and some EU airlines, like BA and KLM, about unfair competition. Air France had a large and expensive organization, with more employees and higher salaries, thanks to government support.

2. The Last 747 Classic: From Air France to Martin Air

In the early 1990s, Air France decided to order a 747 full freighter, which was to be the last 747 classic ever built as Boeing had already started producing 747 - 400s. The freighter, with serial number 25266 and official model name 747 - 228F, was built between two 747 - 400s.

However, Air France, once again in financial trouble and on the verge of bankruptcy, canceled the order. Boeing, already far into the production process, had to finish the aircraft. They likely approached cargo operators, and the Dutch company Martin Air purchased the aircraft at a reduced price. Martin Air didn’t change the aircraft configuration as it was too late, and Boeing delivered the aircraft painted in Air France colors.

3. Company Specifications and Part Number Challenges

At that time, almost every airline or group of airlines had its own aircraft specifications, a legacy of the pre - 1980s. In Europe, there were two major 747 configurations: Atlas (represented by Air France and Lufthansa) and KSSU (KLM, SAS, Swissair, and Union de Transports Aériens).

The Atlas configuration had a common cockpit, while the KSSU had a split cockpit. This difference in cockpit design led to variations in wiring and operating procedures. There were also extensive differences in autopilot mode select panels, attitude director indicators, altimeters, and other instruments. Boeing certified at least 40 different mode select panels.

Both Atlas and KSSU had a common switch convention on the cockpit ceiling panel: “Forward ON” or “Forward OFF.” Fortunately, 747 s/n 25266 had the same switch convention as the KSSU fleet, avoiding the need to change all control panels.

The wide variety of part numbers (p/ns) made the work of avionics engineers difficult. The operations control center often asked engineers if they could use a different part or dash number when a component failed at an outstation. During office hours, engineers could check the documentation, but at night, they had to know the p/ns by heart.

For example, one night, an engineer was awakened at 2 am because a 747 in Dubai had a broken standby horizon. The available standby horizon had a dash number M1, different from the original. The engineer was able to explain that M1 was a modification related to different flag colors, allowing the aircraft to depart without delay.

4. Reasons for Maintaining KSSU Configuration

Airplane serial number 25266 was originally built for Air France in Atlas configuration but was going to fly for Martinair in KSSU configuration. There were two main reasons for this:
- Pilot Training : KLM provided all pilot training for Martinair on KLM flight simulators, so the aircraft and simulator needed to match.
- Components : Martinair could use the KLM pool of components, saving a significant amount of money on spares.

The engineers’ task was to modify the brand - new aircraft so that Martinair pilots could fly it and the KLM component pool could be used, with some minor exceptions.

5. Martinair Modifications: The Team and the Plan

A Martinair boss approached KLM engineering for help. After some consideration, a plan was forged. Ben, a retired KLM representative in Seattle, was re - hired because he knew the necessary contacts. He helped hire six Boeing engineers from Wichita, Kansas, where Boeing had facilities for building fuselages, performing heavy maintenance, and conducting big projects.

A team of six Boeing engineers from Wichita and ten KLM engineers was formed. Even before the aircraft was delivered, the team started working on modifications. There were 120 modification orders, hundreds of pages of wiring diagram changes, and thousands of parts on order. The team could order parts by simply sending a fax with the p/n to Ben, without worrying about costs.

The scope of the job included:
| Modification | Details |
| — | — |
| Cockpit | Change from common cockpit to split cockpit (K - box; M - box) |
| Navigation Equipment | Change VHF NAV from Collins to Bendix |
| Communication Transceiver | Replace VHF communication transceiver from Bendix to Collins |
| TCAS | Install TCAS |
| Radio Altimeter | Change from Bendix to Thales and replace indicators |
| Instrumentation | Change ADI, HSIs, GMT clocks, and various cockpit panels to KLM look - alikes |
| Other Systems | Install ACARS, replace weather radar, transponders, standby horizon, INUs, reconfigure CB panel, install PMS, and install an egg timer |

The egg timer, a simple mechanical timer, was used by pilots to report their position to the ATC when flying over the ocean. An old Swissair captain from Zurich built these timers in his basement after retirement. There were two p/ns for the egg timers, - 01 with a black dial and white numbers, and - 02 with a white dial and black numbers. One 747 - 400 captain, who mostly flew at night, preferred the white - dial timer.

graph LR
    A[Original Aircraft] --> B[Modification Team]
    B --> C[Cockpit Modification]
    B --> D[Navigation Equipment Modification]
    B --> E[Communication Equipment Modification]
    B --> F[TCAS Installation]
    B --> G[Radio Altimeter Modification]
    B --> H[Instrumentation Modification]
    B --> I[Other System Modifications]
    C --> J[Split Cockpit]
    D --> K[Bendix VHF NAV]
    E --> L[Collins Transceiver]
    F --> M[TCAS Installed]
    G --> N[Thales Radio Altimeter]
    H --> O[KLM - like Instruments]
    I --> P[ACARS, Radar, etc. Installed]

The only thing not in the scope of the project was the installation of a third autopilot. The aircraft remained with a dual autopilot throughout its life.

The engineers had to develop ground and flight test procedures, issue hundreds of job cards, and design project planning. For the first time, an engineer had to compile an Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) test. He learned the philosophy of EMI testing from a Fokker test engineer at the gym. This knowledge served him well in future projects.

All the modification tasks required four months of work for about 50 people. The Boeing staff worked hard during the day and enjoyed the beach in Zandvoort in the evenings. The team grew closer, became friends, and supported each other on the project.

6. A Celebrated Mistake

One of the Boeing engineers on the team had made a wiring mistake a few years before the Martinair project. Every year, his team would tease him and celebrate the anniversary of the mistake.

While in Amsterdam, the team decided to celebrate the 5th anniversary of Pete’s mistake again. The author kept it secret and prepared a “trophy”: a plank with two wires and two splices, with an inscription “5th Anniversary of Pete’s mistake.” When the trophy was presented, Pete took it well and was delighted. This light - hearted event added a fun element to the otherwise serious engineering project.

7. Lessons Learned from the Martinair Project

The Martinair project was a complex and challenging endeavor that offered several valuable lessons for the aviation engineering community.

7.1 Adaptability and Flexibility

The project demonstrated the importance of adaptability in the face of unexpected changes. When Air France canceled the order for the 747 freighter, Boeing and Martin Air had to quickly find a solution. Martin Air’s decision to purchase the aircraft at a reduced price and work with KLM engineering to modify it showed their flexibility. The engineering team also had to adapt to the tight schedule and numerous modifications required, working efficiently to meet the project deadlines.

7.2 Collaboration and Teamwork

The success of the project was largely due to the strong collaboration between the Boeing engineers from Wichita and the KLM engineers. The combination of their expertise and skills allowed for a comprehensive approach to the modifications. The team worked together seamlessly, with each member contributing to the overall goal. The fact that they could order parts without worrying about costs and receive them quickly also facilitated the smooth progress of the project.

7.3 Technical Knowledge and Problem - Solving

The wide variety of aircraft specifications and part number challenges required the engineers to have in - depth technical knowledge. They had to be able to quickly answer questions about part compatibility, especially during off - hours. The incident with the broken standby horizon in Dubai showed how an engineer’s knowledge of part modifications could solve a critical problem and prevent flight delays. Additionally, learning about EMI testing on the job and applying that knowledge in future projects demonstrated the engineers’ ability to acquire and use new technical skills.

7.4 Cost - Free Engineering and Resource Management

The ability to work without strict cost constraints during the Martinair project was a unique and valuable experience. It allowed the engineers to focus on the technical aspects of the modifications without being distracted by budget concerns. However, this also highlights the importance of proper resource management in normal engineering projects. The quick delivery of parts also emphasized the need for efficient supply chain management in the aviation industry.

8. Impact on the Aviation Industry

The Martinair project had a broader impact on the aviation industry, both in terms of technology and industry practices.

8.1 Standardization vs. Customization

The project highlighted the ongoing tension between standardization and customization in the aviation industry. On one hand, the wide variety of aircraft configurations and part numbers made maintenance and operations more difficult. On the other hand, airlines’ specific requirements for cockpit design, instrumentation, and other features led to customization. The project showed that while customization is necessary to meet different airlines’ needs, there is also a need for some level of standardization to simplify engineering work and reduce costs.

8.2 Engineering Innovation

The numerous modifications made to the 747 freighter for Martinair represented engineering innovation. Changing the cockpit configuration, upgrading navigation and communication systems, and installing new equipment such as TCAS and ACARS demonstrated the industry’s ability to adapt and improve aircraft technology. These innovations could potentially be applied to other aircraft in the future, leading to more efficient and safer aviation operations.

8.3 Industry Culture and Team Spirit

The celebration of Pete’s wiring mistake was not just a light - hearted event but also reflected the industry’s culture and team spirit. It showed that mistakes are a part of the learning process and that a positive and supportive work environment can enhance team morale and productivity. This kind of culture can encourage engineers to take risks and innovate, knowing that they will be supported even if they make mistakes.

9. Future Outlook for Aviation Engineering

Based on the experiences of the Martinair project, we can make some predictions about the future of aviation engineering.

9.1 Increasing Automation and Standardization

As the aviation industry continues to grow, there will likely be an increasing trend towards automation and standardization. This will help reduce costs, improve safety, and simplify maintenance. For example, the development of more standardized part numbers and cockpit configurations could make it easier for engineers to work on different aircraft.

9.2 Technological Advancements

The industry will continue to see rapid technological advancements, such as the development of more advanced navigation systems, communication technologies, and aircraft materials. Aviation engineers will need to stay updated with these new technologies and be able to integrate them into existing aircraft.

9.3 Collaboration and Globalization

The Martinair project was a result of international collaboration between Boeing and KLM. In the future, we can expect more such collaborations as the aviation industry becomes more globalized. Engineers from different countries and companies will need to work together to solve complex problems and develop new solutions.

9.4 Focus on Sustainability

With growing concerns about the environment, the aviation industry will also focus more on sustainability. Aviation engineers will be tasked with developing more fuel - efficient aircraft, reducing emissions, and finding ways to make aviation operations more environmentally friendly.

graph LR
    A[Future Aviation Engineering] --> B[Increasing Automation and Standardization]
    A --> C[Technological Advancements]
    A --> D[Collaboration and Globalization]
    A --> E[Focus on Sustainability]
    B --> F[Standardized Part Numbers]
    B --> G[Standardized Cockpit Configurations]
    C --> H[Advanced Navigation Systems]
    C --> I[Advanced Communication Technologies]
    C --> J[New Aircraft Materials]
    D --> K[International Engineering Teams]
    D --> L[Cross - Company Collaborations]
    E --> M[Fuel - Efficient Aircraft]
    E --> N[Reduced Emissions]

10. Conclusion

The story of the last 747 classic and its transformation for Martin Air is a fascinating journey through the world of aviation engineering. It encompasses elements of financial challenges, technical complexity, teamwork, and innovation. The project not only provided a solution for Martin Air but also offered valuable insights for the entire aviation industry.

The lessons learned from this project, such as adaptability, collaboration, technical knowledge, and the balance between standardization and customization, will continue to shape the future of aviation engineering. As the industry faces new challenges and opportunities, engineers will need to draw on these experiences to develop innovative solutions and ensure the continued growth and safety of the aviation sector. Whether it’s dealing with part number variations, implementing new technologies, or fostering a positive work culture, the Martinair project serves as a reminder of the importance of engineering excellence in aviation.

In summary, the aviation engineering field is dynamic and ever - evolving, and the story of the last 747 classic is just one example of the exciting work that goes on behind the scenes to keep the skies safe and efficient.

Key Points	Summary
Lessons Learned	Adaptability, collaboration, technical knowledge, and cost - free engineering
Impact on Industry	Standardization vs. customization, engineering innovation, and industry culture
Future Outlook	Automation, technological advancements, globalization, and sustainability
Conclusion	The project offers valuable insights for the aviation engineering industry