Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is THIS an aviation safety issue? (Another good landing)...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    In their den on MSFS just like you!
    I've never done much good following a magenta line and genuinely improvised descent profiles, except with generous ceilings. That, in itself, should not be a major contributing factor.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      I've never done much good following a magenta line and genuinely improvised descent profiles, except with generous ceilings. That, in itself, should not be a major contributing factor.
      Unless you are doing an RNAV arrival, the VNAV will probably get you a little behind requiring the use of speed brakes. The old 3 for 1 adage, (add a little for a tail wind and subtract a little for head wind), will work all the time except in the 747-8 which requires a 4 to 1 because of the residual forward thrust from the big engines and the extra lift from the new wing.

      Try setting yourself up for the Neell 4 RNAV arrival for runway 7R in PANC. Start at HAMND or AKGAS at FL 350, set the MCP to 2000' and watch the magic happen!

      If you are doing it in the 747-400 set .84 mach / 300 knots in the box for your decent speed.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
        The old 3 for 1 adage[...] will work all the time except in the 747-8 which requires a 4 to 1 because of [...] the extra lift from the new wing.
        What extra lift from the new wing are you talking about? Are you going to tell me that, during a steady descent, lift is anything other than weight?

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          What extra lift from the new wing are you talking about? Are you going to tell me that, during a steady descent, lift anything other than weight?

          Yes!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
            Two pilots in the cockpit, nobody knows.
            Unless one was in the lav during the landing, then I would assume they were both up front.

            Comment


            • #21
              Question: If you perform this steep approach perfectly on a sunny day will you get a "terrain terrain" warning and if not, will you get one if you performed it the way these guys did?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ptwtanks View Post
                Question: If you perform this steep approach perfectly on a sunny day will you get a "terrain terrain" warning and if not, will you get one if you performed it the way these guys did?
                If the way these guys did it includes using the terrain inhibit switch, which wouldn't surprise me here, than no.

                But the warning would be PULL UP (SINK RATE) and AvHerald tells us they pitched down after sighting the runway at around 150' AGL but hit the runway in a nose-high atitude. So it would seem that somebody eventually pulled up...

                The aural GO AROUND, COWBOY warning does not yet exist. It is badly needed.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  Originally posted by Gabriel
                  What extra lift from the new wing are you talking about? Are you going to tell me that, during a steady descent, lift is anything other than weight?
                  Yes!
                  Well, if you are going to say that, you are wrong.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Well, if you are going to say that, you are wrong.
                    Well let's see Gabriel, In my 37 years of flying jet aircraft including the Lear 25,35,36, North American Sabreliner 60, Convair 880, Boeing 707, 720, 747-100,200,300, 400 and -8. I have ALWAYS been able to use a 3 for one decent plan. It will not work in the -8. According to the Boeing engineers that I have spoken with on more than one occasion, it is because of the efficiency of the new wing design and the residual forward thrust from the next gen engines. But I guess you do more than they do. After all you are the chief pooba from Monkey River.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      Well let's see Gabriel, In my 37 years of flying jet aircraft including the Lear 25,35,36, North American Sabreliner 60, Convair 880, Boeing 707, 720, 747-100,200,300, 400 and -8. I have ALWAYS been able to use a 3 for one decent plan. It will not work in the -8. According to the Boeing engineers that I have spoken with on more than one occasion, it is because of the efficiency of the new wing design and the residual forward thrust from the next gen engines. But I guess you do more than they do. After all you are the chief pooba from Monkey River.

                      Bobby: Gabe has gone engineer and technical language on you- you may have years and type ratings, but old age, brain fog and maybe the fact that you aren't an engineer is keeping you from getting it.

                      You are going to have to go back and read what you said and think for a minute.

                      You said that in a steady descent your high-fit wing gave more lift. Actually your high wing lift gave the exact amount of lift as a low lift wing would give...exactly enough lift to equal the weight of the airplane.

                      It's a technical thing I remember from the class I took to get my sole PPL-SEL rating (+ a check off for a Skyhawk XP with a constant speed prop).

                      Now, maybe your high lift wing produces more lift with less drag so the plane 'glides better' (descends worse), but the reason is that it produces less drag, not that it produces more lift.

                      Please continue to enjoy actually flying a plane, and know that we too have fun mucking around on aviation fora and the occasional bit of jet-piloting in the basement on flight sim.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Bobby: Gabe has gone engineer and technical language on you- you may have years and type ratings, but old age, brain fog and maybe the fact that you aren't an engineer is keeping you from getting it.

                        You are going to have to go back and read what you said and think for a minute.

                        You said that in a steady descent your high-fit wing gave more lift. Actually your high wing lift gave the exact amount of lift as a low lift wing would give...exactly enough lift to equal the weight of the airplane.

                        It's a technical thing I remember from the class I took to get my sole PPL-SEL rating (+ a check off for a Skyhawk XP with a constant speed prop).

                        Now, maybe your high lift wing produces more lift with less drag so the plane 'glides better' (descends worse), but the reason is that it produces less drag, not that it produces more lift.

                        Please continue to enjoy actually flying a plane, and know that we too have fun mucking around on aviation fora and the occasional bit of jet-piloting in the basement on flight sim.
                        Yea, what you said.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          Well let's see Gabriel, In my 37 years of flying jet aircraft including the Lear 25,35,36, North American Sabreliner 60, Convair 880, Boeing 707, 720, 747-100,200,300, 400 and -8. I have ALWAYS been able to use a 3 for one decent plan. It will not work in the -8. According to the Boeing engineers that I have spoken with on more than one occasion, it is because of the efficiency of the new wing design and the residual forward thrust from the next gen engines. But I guess you do more than they do. After all you are the chief pooba from Monkey River.

                          You can't throw titles, rating, and years of experience at me and expect me to "believe" you just because you the expert said so.
                          Leave faith and belief for religion. That's not how science works. That's not how I work.
                          Nature works one way and no amount of PhDs with no amount of papers and no amount of Nobel prizes (and no amount of wiggling smilies) will be right if what they say is not correlated to what happens in nature.

                          By the way, what the engineers told you can be right. What you are saying, which is different, is wrong.
                          A high-lift wing produces the same amount of lift at slower speeds.
                          A low-drag wing produces less drag for the same lift.
                          A high-efficiency wing can be any of these (and others, like the same lift with less structural weight, or the same lift and drag with more internal room for fuel), depending what is your benchmark for efficiency.

                          I guess that your Boeing engineers friends were referring a high efficiency wing in the same of same lift with less drag.

                          Newton's second law says that the acceleration is proportional to the net force. In a steady descent, the plane is not accelerated, so the net force must be cero. And that requires the lift to be equal to the weight, no matter if you are at Vmo or Vref, and no matter if that lift is being produced with little or lots of drag.

                          EDIT: See? Even 3WE gets it.

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            You can't throw titles, rating, and years of experience at me and expect me to "believe" you just because you the expert said so.
                            Leave faith and belief for religion. That's not how science works. That's not how I work.
                            Nature works one way and no amount of PhDs with no amount of papers and no amount of Nobel prizes (and no amount of wiggling smilies) will be right if what they say is not correlated to what happens in nature.

                            By the way, what the engineers told you can be right. What you are saying, which is different, is wrong.
                            A high-lift wing produces the same amount of lift at slower speeds.
                            A low-drag wing produces less drag for the same lift.
                            A high-efficiency wing can be any of these (and others, like the same lift with less structural weight, or the same lift and drag with more internal room for fuel), depending what is your benchmark for efficiency.

                            I guess that your Boeing engineers friends were referring a high efficiency wing in the same of same lift with less drag.

                            Newton's second law says that the acceleration is proportional to the net force. In a steady descent, the plane is not accelerated, so the net force must be cero. And that requires the lift to be equal to the weight, no matter if you are at Vmo or Vref, and no matter if that lift is being produced with little or lots of drag.

                            EDIT: See? Even 3WE gets it.


                            3WE corrected me, and I admitted to it. What I meant to say was efficiency. Remember I am a pilot NOT a engineer.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              3WE corrected me, and I admitted to it. What I meant to say was efficiency. Remember I am a pilot NOT a engineer.
                              And a very good one I bet.

                              Yes, I saw 3we's comment (and your answer) after posting my reply to you. All is good

                              (Just don't bother to throw your titles at me to defend your position, you would be wasting your time, it just doesn't work)

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X