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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
[...] Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. Different color smoke from each wingtip would be very pretty. But imagine the mass of smoke agent that would have to be dispensed in order for it to be visible 5-10 miles behind the jet. There would be a terrific amount of dilution through the air, moving at that kind of speed. - FChE |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
I shouldn't be cheering just yet if I were you...
Who was cheering? I think the A-380 is very cool! -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
How about port side red smoke, starboard side green? Still smoke will
not show well. No point on night landings, just maintain increased separation. How about a ground based LIDAR to measure turbulence and/or windshear? Then the localized air turbulence could be displayed in some of the runway marker lights. Blink some of the lights in a pattern to indicate the location of the turbulence or windshear or shifting headwind/tailwind. The idea is some method of telling the pilots where to watch out for turbulence of all kinds. There have been studies to develop a LIDAR system on aircraft to watch for turbulence ahead. A system on aircraft adds to the operating cost but is always available to each plane so equiped. A system on the field would be available to all planes but localized. On approach the pilot would have an idea of how bad is the turbulence and whether or not to make a go-around. This would only help on the field not on the approach or anywhere else. A simple system would be a marker pattern that only indicates that there is turbulence anywhere in the approach pattern but not any information of specific location. This may be enough. James |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Matt, I missed that part. Shame on Airbus then. Either they really believed this and are thus stupid, or they were outright being deceptive. BS! I strongly suggest you read that report again. Nowhere does it say the wake turbulence measurements have been completed and/or published. These are "tentative" and "over-cautious" preliminary/interim standards issued by ICAO as a suggestion. No one knows what wake turbulunce is causes - and we will know before final ruling. The problem is: The A380 is flying around as we speak, so ATC has to have some guidance right now. That's what this does. It says NOTHING about the actual wake turbulence caused. But, anything for some cheap shots at Airbus, right? Well, if you are right, and I doubt it, that Airbus has no data on wake turbulence either from CFD or wind tunnel tests, they they should not have given ANY guidance to their customers about what it would be until they did have some data. Then again, you'll say anything if it takes a cheap shot at me. Matt |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
"Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote But imagine the mass of smoke agent that would have to be dispensed in order for it to be visible 5-10 miles behind the jet. There would be a terrific amount of dilution through the air, moving at that kind of speed. Not to disagree with the fact that putting smoke systems on heavies would be a bad idea, but I do wonder about how much smoke would have to be used. I remember a few years ago at OSH, there was an older jet trainer (don't remember which type) that had smoke generators carefully place on the wingtips. The trail was tight, and spun fiercely for a very long time. ( 2 or more minutes?) I was fascinated. Anyone else remember the details? -- Jim in NC |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote But imagine the mass of smoke agent that would have to be dispensed in order for it to be visible 5-10 miles behind the jet. There would be a terrific amount of dilution through the air, moving at that kind of speed. Not to disagree with the fact that putting smoke systems on heavies would be a bad idea, but I do wonder about how much smoke would have to be used. I remember a few years ago at OSH, there was an older jet trainer (don't remember which type) that had smoke generators carefully place on the wingtips. The trail was tight, and spun fiercely for a very long time. ( 2 or more minutes?) I was fascinated. That's actually what keeps the plane in the air. See http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils...ation-vortices rg |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
"Ron Garret" wrote That's actually what keeps the plane in the air. Very incompletely, and incorrectly stated. -- Jim in NC |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
"Morgans" wrote in message news:hschf.50 .....had smoke generators carefully place on the wingtips. The trail was tight, and spun fiercely for a very long time. ( 2 or more minutes?) I was fascinated. Anyone else remember the details? Not that, but many times over the years I've crossed paths or trailed with other a/c at a cruise altitude that generated contrails. Never saw the other a/c, but could see their contrail still rotating as we passed. A wingtip vortex starts out tighter, so may well last longer. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Wake Turbulence behind an A-380
In article
outaviation.com, "Skylune" wrote: by "Matt Barrow" Nov 22, 2005 at 11:30 PM "Peter R." wrote in message ... Jay Honeck wrote: Airliners may have to fly twice the normal distance behind the new Airbus A380 superjumbo jet to avoid potential hazards from its unusually powerful wake, according to preliminary safety guidelines. snip Airbus should include color smoke generators off each wingtip to colorize the vortices and give VFR aircraft something visually to avoid. Different color smoke from each wingtip would be very pretty. That would be cool, just like the stunt pilots' planes. Those jets would look very cool doing hammerheads and loops to entertain the passengers and crowds below. Who needs smoke when Mother Nature provides miles and miles (kilometers and kilometers) of stratus clouds. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Turbulence | Marco Rispoli | Piloting | 19 | October 17th 04 06:53 AM |
Wake Turbulence Question | HankPilot2002 | Piloting | 11 | July 14th 04 04:49 AM |
caution - wake turbulence | John Harlow | Piloting | 1 | June 4th 04 04:40 PM |
Wake turbulence avoidance and ATC | Peter R. | Piloting | 24 | December 20th 03 11:40 AM |
How much turbulence is too much? | Marty Ross | Instrument Flight Rules | 8 | August 21st 03 05:30 PM |