Aircraft where you cant see out the front
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft where you cant see out the front
In pilot magazine i was amazed to see a ANEC II where you simply cant see out the front at all. The thing is that it was from the 20s when flying was much less instrument orientated so why is it that someone made it so you couldnt see out the front? Its such a basic design flaw and would make flying much less fun. I just cant think of a good answer to these questions, can you?
Also, ages ago I heard talk of airliners where the cockpit would be completely computerised so that there wasnt even a window: it would be flown soley on instruments and perhaps computer recreated flight paths/ scenery. Does anyone know if anything like this is actually being developed? If so what is the point in covering up the cockpit when it could be just as easily made transparent? If they ever do that itll be a terrible day for aviation and that airliner would have more in common with computers and programming than actual proper flying. It might be good transport, but not good flying.
Also, ages ago I heard talk of airliners where the cockpit would be completely computerised so that there wasnt even a window: it would be flown soley on instruments and perhaps computer recreated flight paths/ scenery. Does anyone know if anything like this is actually being developed? If so what is the point in covering up the cockpit when it could be just as easily made transparent? If they ever do that itll be a terrible day for aviation and that airliner would have more in common with computers and programming than actual proper flying. It might be good transport, but not good flying.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Abingdon, Oxfordshire, U.K.
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lindberg couldn`t see out of the front as he stuck a bloody great big fuel tank in the way. He did have some forward vision either through a periscope or a viewing hole through the tank, can`t remember which.
Mike W
Mike W
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lindbergh used a periscope, although I don't think it was much help in the later stages of landing - he would have used the side windows.
A few weeks ago I got to fly in a Spirit of St Louis replica and will for ever more have 100% respect for Lindbergh's achievement, flying over 30 hours non stop in that thing. It is a dog of an aeroplane, horrible to fly. It took all my concentration just to keep the thing straight & level, very glad to have a map reader in there with me. One of the most amazing things about Lindbergh's trip was that he made landfall over the coast of Ireland just 4 miles off track. Some guy.
A few weeks ago I got to fly in a Spirit of St Louis replica and will for ever more have 100% respect for Lindbergh's achievement, flying over 30 hours non stop in that thing. It is a dog of an aeroplane, horrible to fly. It took all my concentration just to keep the thing straight & level, very glad to have a map reader in there with me. One of the most amazing things about Lindbergh's trip was that he made landfall over the coast of Ireland just 4 miles off track. Some guy.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,581
Received 439 Likes
on
232 Posts
Lindbergh was cleverer than you think. He designed the aircraft like that so that he wasn't distracted by the view and so that he followed the compass more accurately.
He was not four miles off track, it was just that on that particular day the Irish moved the coast four miles to confuse the British Government.
He should have landed at Terby shore (Terby shore).
He was not four miles off track, it was just that on that particular day the Irish moved the coast four miles to confuse the British Government.
He should have landed at Terby shore (Terby shore).
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of hijacking this thread (take me to "Fly like an Airliner") I wonder if Static Discharge may benefit from a light aircraft where he cant see the runway ahead of him on approach. After all, he can then concentrate on his 3 degree approach on instruments.............
oooooooo wash my mouth out.............
It does seem odd really...... makes you wonder why there weren't more pusher prop designs in the early days. Orv & Wil got it right didnt they ("keep pedalling Wilbur, just ring that bell when your ready to land and I'll light the PAPIs up.........")
oooooooo wash my mouth out.............
It does seem odd really...... makes you wonder why there weren't more pusher prop designs in the early days. Orv & Wil got it right didnt they ("keep pedalling Wilbur, just ring that bell when your ready to land and I'll light the PAPIs up.........")
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Diego - now Paris
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't even know what a Luton is -- guess I'll have to look it up. Re the translant single engine --- every pilot should do it once --- but I'll never do it again. Once was enough to get that Lindbergh stuff out of my system.
Now, concerning landing pattern geometry ..... (I'll give it a rest if you will.) :-)
Now, concerning landing pattern geometry ..... (I'll give it a rest if you will.) :-)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, given that on a transatlantic run I would have to reach a pretty high FL to maintain the 45 degree rule, I'll give it a rest on the landing pattern stuff!
Yup , she stalls at 28kts. VNE is 90kts. So I use an Archer when I actually mean to travel anywhere and get there in time.
Yup , she stalls at 28kts. VNE is 90kts. So I use an Archer when I actually mean to travel anywhere and get there in time.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, a Tiger Moth hasn't got much of a view to the front either. Especially if you're flying from the rear seat with someone sitting in front.
I had a flight in G-ACDC from Rochester a few weeks back, and the only way you could see anything coming in to land was to sideslip and feel a stiff breeze on your face.
I suppose that kind of flying was normal way back when, so nobody thought anything of it. We just have it too easy nowadays.
RD
I had a flight in G-ACDC from Rochester a few weeks back, and the only way you could see anything coming in to land was to sideslip and feel a stiff breeze on your face.
I suppose that kind of flying was normal way back when, so nobody thought anything of it. We just have it too easy nowadays.
RD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Age: 40
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done! just about all of you managed to completely not answer my question. You either talked about lindbergh or just miscellaneous topics!
I was aware of lindberghs having no view out the front when i wrote this but ommited it because i didnt want to make it too long a thread. I wish id just said it now and perhaps so many of you wouldnt have pointed it out. Are you sure he had it built like that so as to concentrate on the compass? I thought it was to allow for the engine/large amounts of fuel. Saying that thing about the compass seems like a consolation rather than a deliberate design: "well, yes the view is non existent but at least..."
I admitt the view in a Moth is not brilliant but with an extensive selection of cushions it can be made reasonable, even good if you are at the front (which im not). They should have just made the seat adjustable when they designed it. It amazes me sometimes when I see photos/people at airfields in Tiger Moths where they really can hardly see anything. Youd think theyd want to just get another cushion but some people seem to like to sit right down in the cockpit so they could only see what was in front in a descent. How do they land it??
I always like to sit high up. The view is one of the good things about flying.
I was aware of lindberghs having no view out the front when i wrote this but ommited it because i didnt want to make it too long a thread. I wish id just said it now and perhaps so many of you wouldnt have pointed it out. Are you sure he had it built like that so as to concentrate on the compass? I thought it was to allow for the engine/large amounts of fuel. Saying that thing about the compass seems like a consolation rather than a deliberate design: "well, yes the view is non existent but at least..."
I admitt the view in a Moth is not brilliant but with an extensive selection of cushions it can be made reasonable, even good if you are at the front (which im not). They should have just made the seat adjustable when they designed it. It amazes me sometimes when I see photos/people at airfields in Tiger Moths where they really can hardly see anything. Youd think theyd want to just get another cushion but some people seem to like to sit right down in the cockpit so they could only see what was in front in a descent. How do they land it??
I always like to sit high up. The view is one of the good things about flying.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,581
Received 439 Likes
on
232 Posts
Tiger M,
Ever hear the expression "hook, line, sinker and compass"?
Actually you have re-discovered the first attempt at birdstrike protection. It was deleted on later models because they found that the aircraft couldn't actually catch up with any birds....
Or it may have been a sign of the times. There weren't so many aircraft around in those days so perhaps forward vision wasn't deemed so necessary. Also, with the total loss oil systems used in those early days, the windscreen (or the pilot's face and goggles) would be covered with castor oil shortly after takeoff so forward vision was much reduced anyway (castor oil has a laxative effect so there were other problems for the pilot!).
ShyT
Ever hear the expression "hook, line, sinker and compass"?
Actually you have re-discovered the first attempt at birdstrike protection. It was deleted on later models because they found that the aircraft couldn't actually catch up with any birds....
Or it may have been a sign of the times. There weren't so many aircraft around in those days so perhaps forward vision wasn't deemed so necessary. Also, with the total loss oil systems used in those early days, the windscreen (or the pilot's face and goggles) would be covered with castor oil shortly after takeoff so forward vision was much reduced anyway (castor oil has a laxative effect so there were other problems for the pilot!).
ShyT
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I learned on Tigers I thought that the instructor should glue paid advertisements on the back of his talking hat, as that was about all there was to see! Mind you, with that huge rudder you could sideslip down the approach with a glide angle like the Space Shuttle, and a good forward view as well. 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some good reasons......
1. To encourage you to always look in the direction you will be turning.
2. The british weather is so lousy that there is very little point in looking ahead. Far better to concentrate on looking down to see where you are.
3. It's a very heroic thing to blunder forward blindly and somehow to get there successfully. A philosophy that has succeeded in many areas, not just aviation.
4. Sideslipping is fun.
5. If you really wanted to see where you were going, you can always tailslide (well at least in a Tiger you can - I'll excuse Lindbergh from this one).
6. Heroes must look the part. One has to have a mirror one can look at to ensure that mustache is trimmed, nostrils clean and grease smudges are correctly applied before one steps down to meet the adoring crowd. Where else to put a mirror apart from in front of one?
7. Where else on an aeroplane do you put all the things that can burn and hurt you in the event of an unsuccessful arrival on earth?
8. So your attention is not disrupted when counting how many sheep there are in that field (ok substitute dolphins for sheep if you are Lindbergh). Not that you find many dolphins in fields.....
1. To encourage you to always look in the direction you will be turning.
2. The british weather is so lousy that there is very little point in looking ahead. Far better to concentrate on looking down to see where you are.
3. It's a very heroic thing to blunder forward blindly and somehow to get there successfully. A philosophy that has succeeded in many areas, not just aviation.
4. Sideslipping is fun.
5. If you really wanted to see where you were going, you can always tailslide (well at least in a Tiger you can - I'll excuse Lindbergh from this one).
6. Heroes must look the part. One has to have a mirror one can look at to ensure that mustache is trimmed, nostrils clean and grease smudges are correctly applied before one steps down to meet the adoring crowd. Where else to put a mirror apart from in front of one?
7. Where else on an aeroplane do you put all the things that can burn and hurt you in the event of an unsuccessful arrival on earth?
8. So your attention is not disrupted when counting how many sheep there are in that field (ok substitute dolphins for sheep if you are Lindbergh). Not that you find many dolphins in fields.....
