Ex military pilots formate A350s
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that these aspects are better in an A350 than in the types you flew?
Besides, I was not referring to the A350. I was referring to the A400. Perhaps the A400's specifications did not include a requirement to do large formation, low-level tactical air drops. C-27, C-130, and C-17 had that requirement and all three have eyebrow windows. They also have electroluminscent formation lights. My question was: assuming the A400 has that requirement, how did Airbus meet the requirement without those items? And for a plane theoretically optimized for tactical air transport missions, it seems to be missing other important stuff too. I'm not familiar with the details of the A400 and I was just wondering if Airbus had found different ways to accomplish the same thing. Or were those items not included as a cost saving measure?
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV
Curiosity took me to Google and this picture of the A400M cockpit. Bit of lean forward and one might be able to see sideways and upwards better than you might expect?
Curiosity took me to Google and this picture of the A400M cockpit. Bit of lean forward and one might be able to see sideways and upwards better than you might expect?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV
Curiosity took me to Google and this picture of the A400M cockpit. Bit of lean forward and one might be able to see sideways and upwards better than you might expect
Curiosity took me to Google and this picture of the A400M cockpit. Bit of lean forward and one might be able to see sideways and upwards better than you might expect
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken,
The photo that John posted only shows 4 of the 6 windows. Sideways vision, and vertical vision for that matter, is actually excellent.
The cockpit is fully NVG compliant, and formation keeping at night very, very easy with/without NVGs.
The photo that John posted only shows 4 of the 6 windows. Sideways vision, and vertical vision for that matter, is actually excellent.
The cockpit is fully NVG compliant, and formation keeping at night very, very easy with/without NVGs.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The photo that John posted only shows 4 of the 6 windows. Sideways vision, and vertical vision for that matter, is actually excellent.
There are no knee windows in the A400 either. C-27, C-130, and C-17 all have windows down low to provide forward and downward vision, enabling the pilots to taxi right up to the edge of a runway/taxiway or parking apron. In the C-17 these knee windows are roughly where the side stick consoles are on the A400. And another small nit for me is the placement of the nose gear. The C-17 uses a DC-10 nose, (the loft lines are identical) with one really big modification. The nose gear has been moved forward to put the nose gear right under the pilots. C-130 nose gear is under the pilots also. This plus the downward vision windows are really important for operating on small austere airstrips. A400's nose gear is behind the pilots. This plus the lack of downward vision windows causes me to scratch my head wondering how Airbus solved the problems Alenia, Lockheed and Douglas all solved with those features.
.
Also, many C-130 and all C-17 have "combat lighting" in the nose. These are basically taxi lights in the nose that emit in the IR to facilitate taxiing in close quarters at night with NVG. How did Airbus solve that problem?
Please understand that I am NOT calling the A400 a "bad design". Airbus just seems to take their own approach to solving various tactical issues. (For example, the A400 has kneeling landing gear while the C-17 does not. And Airbus chose to go with big turbo props rather than hi-bypass fan jets. The cargo floor design is also very different, as are the sidewall seats.) My experience is with the C-27, C-130 and C-17. I'm trying to get my head around the approach Airbus used to solve certain problems in comparison to the approach Alenia, Lockheed, and Douglas all used to solve the same problems.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One could always lower one's seat to enhance upwards vision.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reducing one's forward vision to enhance one's upward vision seems like a losing proposition to me, especially in a low-level formation environment. Separately, all modern aircraft have a "design eye point". Moving the eyepoint around is generally not a good idea. Expecting the pilots to move that eyepoint around to solve a deficiency in the windows is just plain bad design. I refuse to believe Airbus would do that.
S-D
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airliner formation at AFB Ysterplaat Airshow, Cape Town (2008)
Close formation, well executed throughout.
Very impressive.
The 737-300 was flown by father and daughter Scully Levin and Sally Bates and the 737-200 by Pierre Gouws and Colin Gibson.
(The pics were sent to me. Mine weren't as good as these.)
Close formation, well executed throughout.
Very impressive.
The 737-300 was flown by father and daughter Scully Levin and Sally Bates and the 737-200 by Pierre Gouws and Colin Gibson.
(The pics were sent to me. Mine weren't as good as these.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 30th Jan 2015 at 17:30.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great lecture at Cambridge RAeS last night by Peter Chandler. The formation flying on the big cinema screen was quite impressive although we had seen it before on the small screen through the earlier link on PPRuNe.
Water ingestion and cross wind landing trials were interesting but the highlight for me was how they induced the oscillations for flutter testing through the FBW.
Someone tried to draw Peter into the sidestick vs steering wheel debate. Not a single mention of lack of eyebrow windows! Sir Michael even joined in with the banter.
Water ingestion and cross wind landing trials were interesting but the highlight for me was how they induced the oscillations for flutter testing through the FBW.
Someone tried to draw Peter into the sidestick vs steering wheel debate. Not a single mention of lack of eyebrow windows! Sir Michael even joined in with the banter.
