A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fly-By-Wire Flight Controls



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 19th 05, 03:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fly-By-Wire Flight Controls


"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  
Old December 20th 05, 06:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.military
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fly-By-Wire Flight Controls


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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.