Wake enroute
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa and Swiss Airbus provide “vetted” data?
I used a different source for the first aircraft I checked. I then switched to Wikipedia and they had the same wing area.
Most of the data that I use at work is very close, or exactly, what Wikipedia has for a lot of the data.
I used a different source for the first aircraft I checked. I then switched to Wikipedia and they had the same wing area.
Most of the data that I use at work is very close, or exactly, what Wikipedia has for a lot of the data.
Last edited by misd-agin; 23rd Nov 2018 at 13:04. Reason: Added word
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesnt really matter, many of the sources use the same source, use whatever you want. I did not find the 808 sq m for the 747, nor the 680 sq m, that you found on wiki something. Wiki data is not really vetted, I can go up there and edit an entry with whatever I want, it relies on someone to review it, whenever they get around to it or there is a comment about the validity..
Luftansa does extensive studies on their ac, one of which provided the wing root data down the wing, which is what I use.
Same for the 787-9 and the Max data, scientific papers as submitted for the wake turbulence validations.
Again, some Airbus data includes the center wing area, so one has to be able to sort that out of the mix, so as to make a relative comparison with the other data.
Luftansa does extensive studies on their ac, one of which provided the wing root data down the wing, which is what I use.
Same for the 787-9 and the Max data, scientific papers as submitted for the wake turbulence validations.
Again, some Airbus data includes the center wing area, so one has to be able to sort that out of the mix, so as to make a relative comparison with the other data.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely doubt this. I cannot see ATC sorting this many variants out, especially of the same ac variants. Aside from that, by the time this ill-fated scenario rolls out, there will be even more variants. (now it is a 115 by 115 matrix)
There is the potential to have something similar, if NATS gets the automation worked out on the new ATC system, but this would require the new system...lets see how that works out, and in how many years.
There is the potential to have something similar, if NATS gets the automation worked out on the new ATC system, but this would require the new system...lets see how that works out, and in how many years.
160 at 4DME is fast. For the 320 and 737 variants, not an issue., but try to manage the energy of a large aircraft from 160 down to FAS from 4 DME. (and with steeper approaches?!?!) Most large ac the optimum GPA is 2.8 to manage the energy.
I’m not aware of any comparable airport where they come down the whole final approach at 150 or 145, are you?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 115 x 115 matrix, or RECAT 2, is based on having the ATC software system set up to manage it, especially much further up the queue.
When I stated similar, I meant the systems currently being worked on by Thales, NATS, or other similar ATC solution.
The whole Brexit thing really screwed up progress at LHR, we were virtually signing contracts to move forward, then poof, 3rd runway BS again.
When I stated similar, I meant the systems currently being worked on by Thales, NATS, or other similar ATC solution.
The whole Brexit thing really screwed up progress at LHR, we were virtually signing contracts to move forward, then poof, 3rd runway BS again.
