Random facts about planes..
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
If a pilot couldn't see outside at all and was flying purely on instruments. Would it make any difference if the seat and controls were arranged so s/he was facing backwards? Or sideways?
Personally I think it would make me very uncomfortable. It's quite amazing to learn how disorientated you get - and how quickly - when learning to fly on instruments only.Ayahuasca said:
V8LM said:
On approach to landing Concorde was on the back side of the drag curve so pulling the yoke back made the aircraft drop faster.
I believe that, on approach, pulling the yoke back will make a lot of aircraft drop faster.48k said:
Eric Mc said:
And the massive Vehicle Assembly Building in the background - to give an idea of size, the American Flag on the building is the size of a tennis court and with the right atmospheric conditions it can actually rain inside the building.The Kennedy Space Centre is a fascinating and awe inspiring place to tour and although I've not been back since the end of the Shuttle programme I would urge anyone to visit if they get the opportunity.
Revisited in 2015, and it's a completely different animal. The new Shuttle exhibit, particularly the Shuttle launch simulator, is incredible.
Dr Jekyll said:
If a pilot couldn't see outside at all and was flying purely on instruments. Would it make any difference if the seat and controls were arranged so s/he was facing backwards? Or sideways?
For even highly experienced Instrument Pilots, suffering from the 'leans' is quite common. This can be quite disconcerting and somewhat disorientating (you have to believe what your instruments are telling you and not what your inner ear is screaming at you). I would surmise that sitting backwards would exacerbate any episode of the 'leans' - certainly it was common for Nav studes on the pre-mod Dominie (who sat facing rearwards) to become disorientated.On the Nimrod MR2 the Navs sat facing obliquely, the sonics operators facing sideways and the radio op facing rearwards. Not for nothing was the a/c referred to as the 'Vomit Comet'.
Ayahuasca said:
V8LM said:
On approach to landing Concorde was on the back side of the drag curve so pulling the yoke back made the aircraft drop faster.
I believe that, on approach, pulling the yoke back will make a lot of aircraft drop faster.On all Deltas (as well as a number of swept wing a/c), increasing the angle of attack results in a very large increase in drag. On the approach this means that, if you are high and fast, pulling back will rapidly bleed speed off, as the speed comes off the rate of descent increases (despite not touching the power). Once you are back on the glideslope you then peg the approach speed by lowering the nose.
This is quite un-intuitive to pilots of straight winged aircraft where attitude controls speed and power controls rate of descent.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
It's not quite as simple as merely pulling back makes the rate of descent higher.
On all Deltas (as well as a number of swept wing a/c), increasing the angle of attack results in a very large increase in drag. On the approach this means that, if you are high and fast, pulling back will rapidly bleed speed off, as the speed comes off the rate of descent increases (despite not touching the power). Once you are back on the glideslope you then peg the approach speed by lowering the nose.
This is quite un-intuitive to pilots of straight winged aircraft where attitude controls speed and power controls rate of descent.
That's very interesting. I thought the main point of a delta wing on Concorde and TU144 was to allow a higher angle of attack specifically to provide lift at very-much-lower than cruising speed so they could land on normal sized runways.On all Deltas (as well as a number of swept wing a/c), increasing the angle of attack results in a very large increase in drag. On the approach this means that, if you are high and fast, pulling back will rapidly bleed speed off, as the speed comes off the rate of descent increases (despite not touching the power). Once you are back on the glideslope you then peg the approach speed by lowering the nose.
This is quite un-intuitive to pilots of straight winged aircraft where attitude controls speed and power controls rate of descent.
Dr Jekyll said:
That's very interesting. I thought the main point of a delta wing on Concorde and TU144 was to allow a higher angle of attack specifically to provide lift at very-much-lower than cruising speed so they could land on normal sized runways.
No, main point was to allow efficient supersonic flight!At low speed and with a high angle of attack, delta wings generate lift vortices along the top surface which generates the lift needed for low speed flight.
It's very difficult to get the design right, which is why the TU-144, essentially a copy of Concorde, has those little winglets at the front, as it wasn't "that" good a copy.
dvs_dave said:
No, main point was to allow efficient supersonic flight!
At low speed and with a high angle of attack, delta wings generate lift vortices along the top surface which generates the lift needed for low speed flight.
It's very difficult to get the design right, which is why the TU-144, essentially a copy of Concorde, has those little winglets at the front, as it wasn't "that" good a copy.
Apart from being a delta the wing of the TU144 looks very different form the Concorde wing, a far simpler shape. I think if the TU144 had been a copy of Concorde it would have worked a lot better.At low speed and with a high angle of attack, delta wings generate lift vortices along the top surface which generates the lift needed for low speed flight.
It's very difficult to get the design right, which is why the TU-144, essentially a copy of Concorde, has those little winglets at the front, as it wasn't "that" good a copy.
Dr Jekyll said:
Random question that might throw up some random facts.
If a pilot couldn't see outside at all and was flying purely on instruments. Would it make any difference if the seat and controls were arranged so s/he was facing backwards? Or sideways?
Spirit of St louis had horrendous/nil vision due to extra av gas tanks. If a pilot couldn't see outside at all and was flying purely on instruments. Would it make any difference if the seat and controls were arranged so s/he was facing backwards? Or sideways?
Dr Jekyll said:
dvs_dave said:
No, main point was to allow efficient supersonic flight!
At low speed and with a high angle of attack, delta wings generate lift vortices along the top surface which generates the lift needed for low speed flight.
It's very difficult to get the design right, which is why the TU-144, essentially a copy of Concorde, has those little winglets at the front, as it wasn't "that" good a copy.
Apart from being a delta the wing of the TU144 looks very different form the Concorde wing, a far simpler shape. I think if the TU144 had been a copy of Concorde it would have worked a lot better.At low speed and with a high angle of attack, delta wings generate lift vortices along the top surface which generates the lift needed for low speed flight.
It's very difficult to get the design right, which is why the TU-144, essentially a copy of Concorde, has those little winglets at the front, as it wasn't "that" good a copy.
dvs_dave said:
I'm guessing you're not aware of the somewhat infamous industrial espionage conducted by the KGB on the Concorde program? Rumor has it, blueprints with deliberate design flaws on them were passed to the Russians and they actually made it onto the TU-144. And let's call a spade a spade, the TU-144 was a poor performer compared to Concorde, possibly because of this.
I'm aware of it, and that the Soviets later asked for help quite openly but it didn't get them very far, and in any case it was details they were after not the overall design.The TU144 looks like roughly like Concorde for the same reason an A320 looks like a B737. Looking at the wing shapes it's clear it isn't a copy.
Speed 3 said:
The real reason they dim the cabin lights on take-off in the dark is to acclimatise your eyes (ie dilate your pupils) in case you have a survivable crash. Nothing to do with unexplained "company policy".
Also, unofficial 'company policy' was to hope that the passengers may nod off in the darkened atmosphere.Dr Jekyll said:
The TU144 looks like roughly like Concorde for the same reason an A320 looks like a B737. Looking at the wing shapes it's clear it isn't a copy.
Very good point here. The height of the wings on the Airbus is much higher than the B737, that allows for bigger engines. It was an improvement. Look at the Engines of 737, the big ones are not round at the bottom as the design is older.
greghm said:
Dr Jekyll said:
The TU144 looks like roughly like Concorde for the same reason an A320 looks like a B737. Looking at the wing shapes it's clear it isn't a copy.
Very good point here. The height of the wings on the Airbus is much higher than the B737, that allows for bigger engines. It was an improvement. Look at the Engines of 737, the big ones are not round at the bottom as the design is older.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff