[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-02-03 AT 09:11 PM (GMT)]Does anyone know why some old aircraft have wires running from the tail to the front of the fuselage?
I’ve noticed it on 1-11’s (see pic), old 737’s, HS-748’s and a fair few 146’s as well. I’m sure I’ve seen them on other types too. Is it me, or does it seem a British thing to do?
Attachments:
By: mongu - 10th February 2003 at 23:01
RE: Wearing a wire
It’s a mournful whine.
By: KabirT - 10th February 2003 at 07:25
RE: Wearing a wire
And i dint even notice it! :9
By: mongu - 9th February 2003 at 22:56
RE: Wearing a wire
My fiancee gulped!
By: wysiwyg - 9th February 2003 at 22:01
RE: Wearing a wire
First time I heard it I thought the airframe was about to come apart!
By: mongu - 9th February 2003 at 21:50
RE: Wearing a wire
The flap noise is great! It’s like a proper big ol’ fashioned airliner.
By: wysiwyg - 9th February 2003 at 20:28
RE: Wearing a wire
I was referring to the awful aerodynamic squeal during flap transit.
If the RJX had been a twin it would have been a whole new type requiring massive system changes. Annoyingly that would have made it much better!
By: KabirT - 9th February 2003 at 16:08
RE: Wearing a wire
>I guess it is a bit fat.
But when the designed it i guess it was too young to go dieting!
By: mongu - 9th February 2003 at 16:04
RE: Wearing a wire
I guess it is a bit fat.
By: KabirT - 9th February 2003 at 15:48
RE: Wearing a wire
The RJX of-course wasent a all new aircraft…it was on the base-lines of the 146.
Wys you mentioned about the BAe aerodynamics….whats wrong with the aerodynamics of the 146?
By: mongu - 9th February 2003 at 12:45
RE: Wearing a wire
I guess that makes sense.
But I find it odd that the RJX programme still used 4 engines – was it really a new aircraft, or just an interior upgrade of the ARJ?
By: wysiwyg - 9th February 2003 at 12:35
RE: Wearing a wire
The original design was for 2 engines but at the time there wasn’t anything suitable according to their engineers so they looked at using four engines from the local toy shop. They claim that 4 engines is safer. This is an excuse of convenience as it is only really relevant to flight over large stretches of water which the 146 doesn’t do. 4 engines made the cost higher, causes a higher fuel burn, increases maintenance, increases the chance of going tech, makes the ergonomics and systems more complicated and doubles your chances of an engine failure!
If the 146 had been built using two decent western engines, simplified systems, better aerodynamics at the wing root during flap extension/retraction and better user ergonomics it could have been a much better tool.
regards
wys
By: KabirT - 9th February 2003 at 07:29
RE: Wearing a wire
If they did RR Tay’s it would have looked much like the Do328JET.
By: mongu - 8th February 2003 at 23:46
RE: Wearing a wire
Maybe I am not being practical, but couldn’t they just have bolted two RR Tay’s on rather than 4 little ‘uns?
Maybe even CFM 56’s?
I know it’s a big change but surely that would be OK when it was first being designed?
By: wysiwyg - 8th February 2003 at 22:13
RE: Wearing a wire
The 146 is a glider with 5 APU’s 😉
By: mongu - 8th February 2003 at 11:56
RE: Wearing a wire
Maybe Boeing had to transmit a lot of test data back from the aircraft, hence required more bandwidth?
I find the fact that old 146’ss have manually controlled aerials absolutely shocking! As a by the by, they also have shockingly loud APU’s, as any passenger using the rear steps will testify!
By: wysiwyg - 8th February 2003 at 07:54
RE: Wearing a wire
I’ve quite often seen new Boeing types under test trail a cable with a small cone on the back. When I used to do a lot of glider towing we experimented with placing a small kitchen funnel about 5 foot from the end of the rope as this aerodynamically stabilised the rope behind the tug after the glider had released. I have no idea what purpose it served for Boeings test engineers. There must have been far more satisfactory tests achievable for wake turbulence testing.
By: KabirT - 8th February 2003 at 07:05
RE: Wearing a wire
About the antena hanging at the back of the aircraft….i think the first flight of the ERJ 170 used this technique? Can anyone confirm this?
By: Ren Frew - 8th February 2003 at 02:57
RE: Wearing a wire
Thanks for the explanation Wys, fully understood.
By: EGNM - 8th February 2003 at 00:45
RE: Wearing a wire
ok i was trying tho – i just read about em in a magazine somewhere 🙁 – lol
By: wysiwyg - 7th February 2003 at 18:59
RE: Wearing a wire
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 07-02-03 AT 07:03 PM (GMT)]Yes except those are a load of bull! The emf we are talking about the aircraft producing is very small and yet that is from several hundred tonnes travelling at nearly the speed of sound. A Ford Focus doing 80 on the motorway produces, in effect, nothing. The only time you get a static shock from your car is in certain weather conditions when you slide out across the seat made from acrylic fibres.
What those thngs that trail behind a car do is allow people who don’t understand the physics to think that they have found a solution so they are then convinced the problem has gone away. It is all psychosematic. It’s like when you were a kid and your mum kissed your injury better. It never did anything medically but somehow it seemed to make things better when you were the right age to believe it!
Sign In
February 6, 2003 at 9:10 pm