![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Eunometic" wrote in message ups.com... A higher flying Airbus or B747-400 at 44,000ft might have glided nearly 30 minutes. This suggests that a fighter plane with its lower glide ratio probably only needs half the amount of time (10 minutes) which suggests that a thermal battery is possibly more efficient or at least adaquet whereas an airliner may need twice as much. What seems extraordinary is that both airbus and boeing designers have provided insufficient RAT power to opperate all systems: spoilers, flaps, undercarriage seem to be neglected. This makes an emegency landing much harder. In both the airbus A330-200 azores and boeing 767 gimli fuel out landing case the lack of spoilers added a great deal of risk as pilots manouvered agressively to loose altitude and speed for runway lineup. If you add more power to the RAT you increase drag and reduce the glide distance, the record suggests they made the right trade offs. Keith |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Keith Willshaw wrote: "Eunometic" wrote in message ups.com... A higher flying Airbus or B747-400 at 44,000ft might have glided nearly 30 minutes. This suggests that a fighter plane with its lower glide ratio probably only needs half the amount of time (10 minutes) which suggests that a thermal battery is possibly more efficient or at least adaquet whereas an airliner may need twice as much. What seems extraordinary is that both airbus and boeing designers have provided insufficient RAT power to opperate all systems: spoilers, flaps, undercarriage seem to be neglected. This makes an emegency landing much harder. In both the airbus A330-200 azores and boeing 767 gimli fuel out landing case the lack of spoilers added a great deal of risk as pilots manouvered agressively to loose altitude and speed for runway lineup. If you add more power to the RAT you increase drag and reduce the glide distance, the record suggests they made the right trade offs. Apparently in the the lockheed L.1011 Tristar The RAT pressurises a hydraulic system that can be connected through to the undercarriage, flaps, spoilers although the system becomes quite sluggish in this mode and one would expect the pilots to time this opperation carefully. I would like to see some sort of one shot Emergency Power System EPS such as a thermal battery to provide supplementary power to allow full flight control opperation for final 5-7 minutes of flight. There may be safety issues related to chemical power sources (eg hot thermal batteries with very high current output or hydrazine gas generators in a crash) Clearly in fighter aircraft the intention is to allow the aircraft to get into an ejection zone. Poor L.1011: a fine piece of advanced engineering that was a commercial failure (due to delays on the RB.211 engine I think) (an excellent aircraft in engineering terms that was a commercial failure) Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Thunderstorm - Ron Knott | Greasy Rider© @invalid.com | Naval Aviation | 0 | June 2nd 05 11:05 PM |
PC flight simulators | Bjørnar Bolsøy | Military Aviation | 178 | December 14th 03 12:14 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |