Help choose a research topic for aircraft systems

[bonobo]

Hi guys,

As a student Aerodynamics, Engines & Systems at uni I have to write a massive report 'critically analysing' a commercial aircraft.

I could easily regurgitate as much info on the systems & engines as I can find about the A320, but to make it more interesting it would be great to hear some ideas from the guys up here with all the tech knowledge.

The subject is based on an ATPL standard and can discuss any of the following and more:

Engine system
Airframe system
Flight control system
Environmental control system
Ice and rain protection system
Design standards
Operational capability
Performance
Worldwide usage
Limitations
Future up-gradation plan

Would be great to hear some suggestions that could make for some interesting research/writing.

Cheers

[Dan Winterland]

The A320 is a good aircraft, but it's biggest issue is the lack of connectivity between the side sticks. You might want to concentrate on this.

[tdracer]

You might want to look at the philosophical differences between Airbus and Boeing - independent side stick vs. linked control columns, non-moving vs. moving autothrottles, envelope protection vs. letting the pilot do what he wants (although A320 vs. 737 wouldn't be very valid - A330 vs. 777 would be better since they were developed in the same time frame and technology).


Heck, there is treasure-trove of data and opinions right here on PPRuNe :E

[pattern_is_full]

I agree, tangentially, with the previous posters that the biggest single engineering controversy in current commercial aircraft is cockpit controls philosophy.

(There are other big issues, but they relate to human factors: crew fatigue, training, automation dependency, etc.)

For the most part, engines, airframes, deicing, etc. are more or less "sorted" - they work as designed, and where there are issues, they are generally manufacturing QC or maintenance problems, not basic design problems.

If your brief is producing a bolt-by-bolt critique of one single aircraft design, that's something else yet again. But clearly Airbus' unique selling proposition (and according to many, its Achilles Heel) is the fly-by-computer philosophy, and how it is implemented by Airbus, in the pilot-aircraft interface.

[good egg]

Perhaps you could write something forward-thinking...time based arrival separation is likely to grow in the near future...what are the chances of aircraft being instructed to reach, say 4nm final, at time MM:SS and the aircraft being able to make that within a reasonable tolerance (+/- 10 secs)?
Let's say you have an RNAV transition (point merge?) from the hold until 4nm final...

[bonobo]

Thanks to all for some awesome ideas. The cockpit control issue is definitely something that can be discussed deeply with some good arguments for either side. Good egg cheers for your suggestion too I think I would discuss that point too for some variety to my research.

[bonobo]

thanks for some great ideas guys. Controls is definitely going to provide some good ideas to argue and analyse. Also keen to bring in the ideas of time based separation.

[FE Hoppy]

As a new convert to graphical input on the Proline Fusion avionics and having use a touchpad on the Ejets and now converting to a trackball on the CSeries it might be interesting to look at different types of input devices and GUI in modern avionics.

Anyone who gets to use graphic flight planning having had to program an FMS via MCDU keypad in the past will find it a revelation but I think there are still optimisations to be found.

[Uplinker]

We can set a required time at a waypoint already, (Airbus). I sometimes use this feature to make sure I reach the first waypoint of an oceanic crossing at the estimated time we have given, and I have in the past used it to avoid infringing night curfews etc. It would be good if ATC would give us required arrival times to point x at our destination airport and this would help everyone save fuel by slowing down if necessary and avoiding vectoring for spacing, but I don't think we would need +/-10 secs?

[alf5071h]

bonobo, I would suggest that you avoid existing systems. Any analysis will be with hindsight. The original design and constraints at the time might not be known and thus any critique could be misjudged, altered by history, and refuted by operational experience.

You could consider a more futuristic and wide ranging analysis covering many of the subjects which you suggest; play to your strengths.
As an example consider the analysis at https://www.scribd.com/doc/311897855/BAC-R-STOL-Studies. This covers a wide range of systems in specific operational contexts.
Such a review provides scope for new operational requirements, evolving technologies, human performance, and environmental issues.
Think ahead: the report was dated 1974, but the two aircraft types which evolved from this are still in operation - 40 years!

[Ian W]

The problem with modern aircraft is that they have largely been built to fly efficiently in a 1930's procedural concept. Indeed if you ask Airbus or Boeing flight engineers the most efficient low fuel/emissions way to fly their aircraft - including taking advantage of wind and temperature and assuming no air traffic control airspace structures or other aircraft - they will have stand up arguments. The aircraft systems will not 'cruise climb', they will not follow an altitude profile once in cruise climbing when planned, without an input from the crew whereas the FMS will follow a track. Wind fields are simplified to winds at a few waypoints on the track, so the aircraft will not optimize by changing track only by changing level (as in FLT LVL Recommend) . Many of these limitations are to make the aircraft fly efficiently in a fixed route ATC system. In 2025 the ocean track structures in the Atlantic will be withdrawn, upper level route structures are already being simplified in Europe, and many ocean areas are getting more 'thin routes'. So what aircraft systems need to be changed to fly with fuel efficiency and schedule efficiency in the future airspace systems where there will be no restrictions on the '4 dimensional trajectory' of the aircraft? It will not need to fly 'in trail' at 0.84M but will be able to fly with almost complete freedom following a speed and altitude profile. But it will need to be able to fly it's 4D trajectory accurately within a lateral, vertical and longitudinal containment - and current FMC's cannot do that.

[OverRun]

This basic guide to choosing a research topic is worth reading:
http://profemery.info/ChooseTopic.pdf

[FCeng84]

Airplane system reliability has increased to the point where more incidents and accidents are the result of crews responding incorrectly to startling situations than from system failures. When fly-by-wire airplane control system augmentation was first introduced there was great concern about pilots finding themselves at the mercy of a failed system that would not allow them access to the airplane's full control authority. More recently, there have been incidents where control systems allowing pilots over-ride capability have resulted in perfectly good airplanes being put into dangerous situations by pilots making incorrect inputs. I think it would be interesting and valuable for you to investigate current thinking with regard to pilot training and pilot authority as they relate to reducing the number of incidents caused by incorrect pilot action. Is the mitigation path improved pilot training? How about designing control systems that protect the airplane and the passengers from the pilot? Is there some combination of the two that makes the most sense?

[Being738]

method for wake turbulence recovery. worht it!!

[plhought]

A nice thourough study on the BAe 146/Avro-RJ and it's pseudo-second-life as a water bomber would be great subject - and relevant to Australia as well.

Could talk about the engineering changes, design, capability etc etc

[Genghis the Engineer]

A nice thourough study on the BAe 146/Avro-RJ and it's pseudo-second-life as a water bomber would be great subject - and relevant to Australia as well.

Could talk about the engineering changes, design, capability etc etc
A standard presentation topic at the annual BAe-146/RJ owners and operators conference in Troon. A lot of material could be obtained from BAeS from there.

G

[Superpilot]

It's not on your list but how about Avionics? and the fact that you can purchase a 5 year old $150,000 single engine piston with more avionic capability and functionality than a brand new $100 million jet.

[FE Hoppy]

Re. the Avro Air Tanker.
I can put you in direct contact with the chaps if required. Friends of mine :-) http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll411/Gelsons_Dad/IMG_0747_1024.jpg (http://s314.photobucket.com/user/Gelsons_Dad/media/IMG_0747_1024.jpg.html)