Holy smokes that must have been terrifying. Glad nobody died. I hate flying as it is (not that I'm likely to ever find myself in a private jet anytime soon).
Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
91–100 of 376 posts
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#92Big problem is the use of autopilot navigation locked to the GPS route.. this pretty much guarantees that you will fly right below the wake of the above plane on the same route! (Before GPS it will be very odd to flight exactly the same path) ..
Eh. e.g. the north atlantic tracks have been around since the 1960s. GPS wasn't available to the public until Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in the 1980s.
The OP means that satnav ensures that two aircraft on a reciprocal or identical track will now pass over one another, whereas there used to be navigational slop that would give some unintentional but useful lateral displacement.
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
"According to information The Aviation Herald received on March 4th 2017 the CL-604 passed 1000 feet below an Airbus A380-800 while enroute over the Arabian Sea, when a short time later (1-2 minutes)" They saw the plane, and 1-2 minutes later... bang. We already went over this.
> They saw the plane, and 1-2 minutes later... bang. We already went over this. We did, that's why it made zero sense that you said this was predicated on not being aware of the positions of other planes. They were aware of this a full 1-2 minutes earlier at least. They could've turned on the sign. The solution was totally implementable.
I think we've reached that point at which I'd be happy to buckle my seatbelt and let you walk around the cabin to your heart's content. I am not your parent.
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably they have a different idea about risk management than more risk-averse people. Worrying a lot about very low probability events is not compatible with the risk-taking typically required to make a lot of money. After all millionaires are largely a "survivor club" filtered from high risk appetite workaholics.
I don't know about that. I think mostly it has to do with having the power to pick and choose critical service providers, bully them, etc. If Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs had not been as wealthy and powerful as they had been, they would also both probably be alive. Neither has much to do with being risk-takers, although you might be right that a higher arousal threshold desensitized them to risk. It may also be tha…
I feel like Steve Jobs is an odd choice... He turned down treatment I thought?
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or we can just go to the demonstration that our flight instructor did in the first 5 minutes of our Aerodynamics 101 lectures. Get a piece of A4 or Letter sized paper and try this experiment with it [0]. For best effect, hold both the edges closest to you in each hand and twist the front edge downwards to keep it straight and prevent the paper twisting which could inadvertently straighten it. (i.e. Not with one hand…
Sure but now try the same thing with a piece of metal. No one questions whether the Bernoulli and Venturi effects actually exist. But airplanes are heavy and it's pretty obvious that the Bernoulli effect does not produce sufficient lift by itself. As proof that most of the lift comes from deflecting air, I offer the fact that airplanes can fly upside down.
Haha this is a fantastic answer. Also, not most of the effect, all of the effect.
Do the same experiment with the paper, but rest the trailing edge on a table. The air can no longer be deflected downwards, so the paper will not rise.
Another one to think about, at the air metal boundary the air is stationary on both sides of the wing. So why is there a pressure difference? Bernoulli's law is valid only along flow lines and is a consequence pressure difference required to accelerate (or decelerate) a fluid. Since in the laminar situation flow does not occur from the top surface to the bottom (minus around the tips), direct application is nonsensical. If you integrated all flow lines from all surfaces however, you would get the correct answer.
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#96This is a reminder that the announcement that you should "keep your seat belt fastened at all times when you're in your seat" isn't just something someone made up. It's a small price to pay in case you ever encounter severe turbulence en route, but it might be one of these things that most people don't realize until it happens to them. Hitting your head against the cabin ceiling can seriously put a damper on your tri…
When I was in single digits, my mother and I were coming home from an international flight and the plane was struck by lightning. We lost a bit of altitude (felt like a TON of altitude subjectively), and yeah... it was a damned good thing we'd all been told to keep those seatbelts on. It was literally the difference between seconds of terror, and someone being seriously injured.
Using that philosophy, then anyone riding a bicycle, even if they aren't going at high-speed on road, should wear a helmet "just in case" there is an accident to protect their skull?
There is a balance between annoyance and utility. I personally have no problem wearing a belt for the entire flight, including while sleeping. But I'm not to dismayed by those who leave it off, walk around the cabin, go hang out near the cocktail lounge in business class, etc...
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wings generate lift primarily by deflecting air downward. There is an area of low pressure over the wing where air is taking a longer path than under the wing, but that is only responsible for a small fraction of the lift.
That's a meaningless correction, and technically not correct. Aircraft are lifted up by air molecules hitting the underside of the rigid body with more force than the top side, by definition. The net integrated instantaneous pressure at the surface of the aircraft IS the lift. The fact that air gets deflected downward is a necessary (c.f. conservation of momentum) effect too. So it's not incorrect to do the analysis…
The Coanda [or "coma daily" as my iPad helpfully autocorrects] Effect also contributes to lift.
The air "sticks" to the surface of the wing and leaves the trailing edge in a partially downward direction i.e the air is deflected downward by the top of the wing not just the bottom.
For a quick demo of this, hold the bowl of a spoon under a running faucet and see how it pulls the spoon into the stream.
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or we can just go to the demonstration that our flight instructor did in the first 5 minutes of our Aerodynamics 101 lectures. Get a piece of A4 or Letter sized paper and try this experiment with it [0]. For best effect, hold both the edges closest to you in each hand and twist the front edge downwards to keep it straight and prevent the paper twisting which could inadvertently straighten it. (i.e. Not with one hand…
Sure but now try the same thing with a piece of metal. No one questions whether the Bernoulli and Venturi effects actually exist. But airplanes are heavy and it's pretty obvious that the Bernoulli effect does not produce sufficient lift by itself. As proof that most of the lift comes from deflecting air, I offer the fact that airplanes can fly upside down.
Well, scale up the wind according to the weight of the metal (and the overall surface area of the metal) and it can happen, as evidenced by this 747 in a boneyard 'rotating' under heavy gusty winds [0] (taking into account the massive weight and CoG difference without the engines on).
Extend the flaps and slats on that aircraft and I am sure the effect will be all the more pronounced.
And yes I've flown aircraft inverted too - it take a tremendous amount of forward stick to try and maintain level flight in that config to counteract the wings natural tendency to move towards the top surface.
People have pointed out the "Thunderbirds" F-16s flying in the "mirror" formation [1] and not displaying much difference in AoA between the upright and inverted aircraft, but supersonic fighter usually have a straighter, almost trapezoidal shaped wing cross section rather than a curved 'fish' shape. I am willing to bet the inverted pilot has a fair bit of forward stick on though.
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHhZwvdRR5c
[1] - http://c8.alamy.com/comp/EG175E/little-rock-air-force-base-a...
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about that. I think mostly it has to do with having the power to pick and choose critical service providers, bully them, etc. If Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs had not been as wealthy and powerful as they had been, they would also both probably be alive. Neither has much to do with being risk-takers, although you might be right that a higher arousal threshold desensitized them to risk. It may also be tha…
I feel like Steve Jobs is an odd choice... He turned down treatment I thought?
He wasted precious time indulging quackery.
Re: Enroute Airbus A380 wake flips Challenger business jet upside down
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wings generate lift primarily by deflecting air downward. There is an area of low pressure over the wing where air is taking a longer path than under the wing, but that is only responsible for a small fraction of the lift.
That's a meaningless correction, and technically not correct. Aircraft are lifted up by air molecules hitting the underside of the rigid body with more force than the top side, by definition. The net integrated instantaneous pressure at the surface of the aircraft IS the lift. The fact that air gets deflected downward is a necessary (c.f. conservation of momentum) effect too. So it's not incorrect to do the analysis…
No, the correction is valid. The main component of lift is an upwards reactive force produced by pushing a mass of fluid downwards, in accordance with Newton's third law.