Cars & Transportation: Aircraft: “Question: Why is the Q400 so popular and the ATR so unpopular in the US while the ATR dominates in Asia and Europe?” plus 5 more |
- Question: Why is the Q400 so popular and the ATR so unpopular in the US while the ATR dominates in Asia and Europe?
- Question: Where is the safest place to sit on an airplane?
- Question: HOW DO WE PERFECTLY LAND THE C172?
- Question: Is there a height limit for fighter pilots?
- Question: How does stealth work?
- Question: In terms of cabin pressure, how much pressure, in psi, can an airplane fuselage, say an Airbus A300, take before cracking or exploding?
| Posted: 14 Aug 2015 03:46 AM PDT Well in Europe and Asia, the ATR-42 and 72 basically dominate the regional turboprop market and out number the Q400 by a huge number. However, ever since American Eagle retired their ATR fleet a few years ago, none of the big regional airlines like Delta Connection, united express, american eagle and horizon air operate ATRs anymore and they are just all Q400s in the United States. Why is the American regional turbo prop market so different from the rest of the world? Is it because Bombardier is located in Canada and it is easier to get support and parts from Canada than Europe or is there another reason that the Q400 fits more in the US than the ATR? Or is it just a trend?  |
| Question: Where is the safest place to sit on an airplane? Posted: 14 Aug 2015 02:23 AM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel  |
| Question: HOW DO WE PERFECTLY LAND THE C172? Posted: 13 Aug 2015 11:03 PM PDT Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel Report AbuseAdditional DetailsIf you believe your intellectual property has been infringed and would like to file a complaint, please see our Copyright/IP Policy Report Abuse Cancel |
| Question: Is there a height limit for fighter pilots? Posted: 13 Aug 2015 03:48 PM PDT US Air Force height requirements = You must be 64 to 77 inches tall when standing - And from 34 to 40 inches tall when sitting - Graciously supplied by Google and Wikipedia Information Service on the web - If you are outside these limits, apply with the North Korean Air Force - |
| Question: How does stealth work? Posted: 13 Aug 2015 03:22 PM PDT 2 strategies. First is you cover it with a coating that tends to absorb radar signals, instead of reflecting them back. This simply makes it harder to detect from a long range. But the more significant is shape of the airframe. But with a "stealth" design, it all tends to be very angular. A radio beam hitting it gets bounced off in various directions, but likely not directly back to the radar dish. Caught on exactly the right angle it would reflect, but on the next scan, the plane has moved, and doesn't show. It gets ignored as a "glitch" or at least it can't be tracked and a missile locked. Add those 2 things together, and the plane is practically impossible to detect before it gets in range to fire a radar homing missile. And the first thing you take out is any air defence radars. The plane is not technically "invisisble" to radar, just that no radar can pick up a bee doing 500mph 20 miles away. But the time it can, it's already fired missiles and is heading the other way. Now stealth is a 2 edge sword. If you design a plane for stealth, you have to compromise on the ideal aerodynamic shape. This is obvious in planes like the F117. Very stealthy, but it's slow, not great range, and not very manoeuvrable. So although it's get a F- designation, it's actually a light bomber. It was successful because it's stealth worked, allowing it to sneak in a attack defended targets. Take out anti-aircraft defences and communications etc. The F35 has similar issues. It's a compromise between speed, manoeuvrability and stealth. This is why F16 can out dogfight it. F117s are more stealthy. Some other plane is faster etc. |
| Posted: 13 Aug 2015 03:19 PM PDT The other answer relates partly to structural faults rather than a "normal" aircraft: The usable life of an aircraft is based on the number of "cycles" - takeoffs and landings - as each flight stretches the fuselage slightly while it's pressurised & it relaxes again on decent as the pressure differential drops off. This causes weakening over time due to metal fatigue. A brand new aircraft will be significantly stronger than one at the end of it's life, when it's due to be retired. The idea is to take them out of use before they weaken to the point if danger. Also, the aircraft has to handle the stresses of flight while pressurised, which add to the fuselage load. As a single test to destruction, a new aircraft could probably take something like 30 - 60 psi (or more) before failure. The "operators manual" pressurisation limits are the ones that will not shorten it's working life. The two more relevant incidents are a 747 flight where the pilots became disorientated and ended up in a high speed dive - they only pulled out when they broke out of the cloud layer and could see the horizon. While levelling the plane, they exceeded 4G stresses and various bits of control surfaces snapped off due to the forces involved, but the basic structure of the plane stayed intact. 4G loading to the fuselage via the wings is a phenomenal amount of load and I suspect the equivalent stress due to air pressure alone in a static test would take several times atmospheric pressure.. At the other extreme, see the "Aloha Airlines Flight 243" incident. In that, part of the fuselage simply burst off with normal pressurisation in otherwise normal flight conditions. The aircraft had done over 89,000 flight cycles and it failed simply due to fatigue and weakening of the structural joints. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Cars & Transportation: Aircraft To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment