dark light

wysiwyg

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 3,331 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Just supposing… #409054
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    DBW, I think you may have woken up with your serious head on today!!!

    Reading this as an innocent bystander I think Trinny has been fairly tongue in cheek.

    in reply to: Fly-by-Wire #555513
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    Yes, so just like a non-fbw aircraft a lot of redundancy is built in.

    in reply to: Heathrow A380 #556014
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    I used 307 for the first time last week. Nice smooth tarmac, mmmmm…….

    in reply to: Fly-by-Wire #556526
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    FBW aircraft use electrical signalling with hydraulic actuation whereas modern non-fbw aircraft just use hydraulics throughout. Flight control surfaces will be operated by at least 2 independent hydraulic systems and actuators for redundancy.

    in reply to: If you won the Euromillions…… #556780
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    …Personally I’d probably buy a boat…

    …actually OneLeft and I are going for a test drive in one of these in a fortnights time with a view to buying one next winter.

    in reply to: Just supposing… #409401
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    …unfortunately need approx 3000m of perfect tarmac these days. Give me a Cub anyday!

    in reply to: Fly-by-Wire #558986
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    I can understand this in the F-22 which is the case but airliners are more stable than an F-22 so is this the biggest advantage to commercial airlinesrs i’m not so sure.

    Thank you all for all your feedback I have learned alot.

    Yes it is used on the A330 and A340 as we employ active c of g control. Boeing just use the tail fuel tank as a means of getting more fuel on board whereas widebodied Airbus types shift fuel forward and backward during a flight to place the c of g as close to the center of pressure as possible. This has the effect of making the aircraft less stable (which the fbw deals with) but it removes any vertical force required from the tailplane and therefore its associated drag. We achieve a fuel burn reduction of approximately 3.5% as a result. This saving is worth millions.

    in reply to: Fly-by-Wire #559503
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    As far as I am concerned the flight envelope protections provided in the Airbus FBW (which Boeing chose not to incorporate into the 777) are its best feature. I just pray that I never have to rely on them (but it’s nice to know they are there)!

    in reply to: MyTravel First #559720
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    Great in priciple but we’ve been here before. The reality is that someone somewhere won’t have a laptop with them and will say ‘oh can I just have a quick printout please’! I have spent the last 2 years in a paperless cockpit only to find that in reality you end up printing out so many paper hard copies because it is easier to work from than a computer screen. Ironically paperless cockpits seem to generate more paperwork than non-paperless ones!

    in reply to: For our MAN members… #566461
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    Someone get a pic of that, please? How long would that flight take…?

    Amost exactly the same time it would take in a 737 (or in any current jet).

    in reply to: Why crash upright? #566462
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    Virgin Atlantic Upper Class Suite passengers are permitted by the UK CAA to take off and land in any seat position due to the fact that the seat belt contains built in airbags to protect the occupant in the event of a mishap.

    in reply to: Kemble: Slippery friction! #410161
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    A few years ago I was flying into Keffalonia airport in a 757. I had been mildly amused when the notams warned of birds in the vicinity of the airport. I made a VOR approach to the northerly runway before circling to land on the southerly. There was a bay just before the threshold of the southerly with a boat on the shore. Just before I passed over it it 2 non-feathered birds jumped up and dropped their tops! I absolutely slammed it into the runway!

    in reply to: sorry another question #568567
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    I couldn’t work out the relevance of the title. It struck me that thy just wanted any term that was something to do with aviation regardless of whether or not it was relevant!

    in reply to: sorry another question #569720
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    Attrocious film and it wasn’t a 747 but a strange monstrous thing they drew up themselves.

    in reply to: cargo version ? #569722
    wysiwyg
    Participant

    Will happen in years to come but at the moment they are too valuable to enter that market as conversions.

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 3,331 total)