Could be. But it seems unlikely.

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?

KenV

Sure. I know nowt about the A400. Sorry if I incorectly mentioned the Aibus formation in this context.

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?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ps59d375da.jpg

Maybe. Maybe not. But if seeing outside depends on getting up close and personal with the glass, that might be harder to do than you think wearing a helmet and NVG. (I'm assuming the A400 cockpit is NVG compatible.)

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.

One could always lower one's seat to enhance upwards vision.

The two "missing" windows appear to be in the sides of the cockpit, sort of behind the pilots, and not overhead to provide vertical vision. I still don't see how Airbus solved the same problems Alenia, Lockheed, and Douglas all solved with overhead windows, and that's why I'm asking.

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.

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.

You took D-IFF_ident's suggestion seriously didn't you? Go on, admit it, you did didn't you? :ugh:

S-D

Yeah, he got me.

Airliner formation at AFB Ysterplaat Airshow, Cape Town (2008)


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...formation4.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...7breakaway.jpg


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.)

I had no idea Airbus was building 737s. When did that start?:)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...mbarrassed.jpg

I meant to say Airliner formation.

Now edited.
Thanks.

Does Scully do `waterskiing` formation in the 73s as well..?(Harvard formation leader)

BTW, both 737s flyng formation in the photo have eyebrow windows. I wonder if that means anything?

It means the pointy end of the Boeing 737 belonged to the 707 to begin with, which started out as the KC 135

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.