Virgin Blue Embraer E-190 Aircraft Landing

[mmciau]

May I ask please?

Is the Angle of Attack on an Embraer E-190 Class aircraft during the landing phase "higher or greater" than that of a Boeing aircraft?

To a layperson, the Embraer aircraft appears to be more 'nose up' on its final glide path


Mike McInerney

[Capn Bloggs]

Mike, are you referring to the body angle/deck angle, which is higher than Boeings? If so, it depends on various factors such as:

- Rigger's angle: the angle at which the wing is attached to the fuselage (optimised for cruise speed so that the fuselage is horizontal - stops the dinner trays sliding into your lap). The greater the riggers angle, the less the body angle at any stage of flight, including landing;

- Effectiveness of the flap system - good flap design would allow a lower body angle because of it's more efficient lifting capability, therefore reducing the effective angle of attack and so the body angle. Take an aeroplane with no flaps: it would land with a high body angle (as well as much faster) to ensure the angle of attack was sufficient to provide enough lift to keep flying.

Now take the same aeroplane with full flaps: because of the effective AoA (leading edge to trailing edge), the body angle during landing appears less, even though the AoA is still quite high. Better flap design could therefore reduce the body angle.

I therefore conclude that the E-190 is built for speed (low riggers angle) and a crappy flap system! :p

[peuce]

You sounded so diplomatic ... for a while!

[Jabawocky]

OK Professor Bloggs...from the video below, ignoring the Reatrd Vehicles first flight....tell us all about the body angle of the red E Jet!:ok:

at 1min 24sec
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S5pAt4t3Q-8&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S5pAt4t3Q-8&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[peuce]

Glad you finally remembered to take , what looks like, the pitot cover off!

[The Green Goblin]

You wouldn't want to wheelbarrow one of those RV10s! The nose wheel looks a tad under-engineered!

[Braviator]

I heard during the Ejet design process the majority of Embraer pilot consultants were ex-military, and preferred a nose high approach (I assume like most of their mil jets). No doubt that's not the only reason. As a result you'll also notice there is minimal flaring required.

[frigatebird]

Skinny looking legs without the ankle warmers on..

This looks more cluttered and clustered around..

http://i784.photobucket.com/albums/yy129/bird__photo/General/EmbraeratYHBA.jpg

[AerocatS2A]

Using leading edge devices such as slats will result in a higher nose attitude as well (they have an opposite effect on body angle to flaps.) It's the slat/flap/wing combination that determines the effective angle of incidence and therefore the body angle on approach.

[Whiskery]

It's a toy. Should be on the end of a handline!;)

[F111]

Yes it is higher than the 737. The 190 landing with flap 5 ( normal setting) is 6 degrees while flap full is 2. The 170 for flap 5 landing is 4 and for flap full 0. The 737-700 is 2 degrees for flap 30 and 0.5 for flap 40. The 800 is 6 for flap 30 and 0 for flap 40.

[frigatebird]

W
Couldn't agree more on a 170. When Sky put one on the run to Bris and Honiara it was a disaster when booked pax wanted to travel with their gear over that distance. Who listens when you point it out at the time though, you're made out to sound negative. Then again the whole concept and execution was a disaster, as was subsequently evident to all.

G'day F.111, What are you on these days?