Sorry for the awkwardly phrased question, but I learned in my intro to engineering class at my college that 5th gen fighters (which are stealth aircraft) are designed with similar angles to evade radar.
Why is this true?
Also, does the angle matter? Many of these modern fighters looks to have very similar angles (no pun intended).
The angle matters because radar works kind of like a mirror. Imagine holding a mirror out in front of you. If you start to twist it in any direction, you reach a certain point where the light coming off of you is no longer bounced back into your eyes, but is reflected off in another direction. Radar however cannot ever be completely reflected away, but this same principle allows a significant portion of the radar's energy to be deflected off in a useless direction, instead of back toward the dish.
The angles are similar because that angle was determined to have the smallest radar signature. So it makes sense that every other facet on the same (geometric) plane would be at the same angle. This means that the radar's energy is directed away in a very specific direction (away from the source), rather than a bunch of different angles (that would be more likely to return the energy to the source).
Define "with similar angles". In itself the phrase means nothing.
The basic shape of the airframe is of course a function primarilly of its required function to provide lift and enough inner volume for the aircraft's components.
Stealth depends on several factors:
These are functions of the shape and materials used. Creating surfaces that cause incoming EM waves to scatter in many directions rather than being reflected directly back causes the return signal received by a RADAR system to be much weaker, reducing the detection range.
But a big part is also played by placing grids in air intakes, shielding sharp edges with sawtooth overlays (see the canopy and bay doors, for example), and covering different parts of the aircraft in different materials.
I assume you're using the term 'similar angles' in a geometric sense, to mean that the angle from a reference like the aircraft centerline to the lines made by two structural features are the same. Your photo shows this well, with the wing leading edge angle the same as the horizontal stabilizer leading edge angle and the same as the inlet (?) angle.
I believe the reason for this is that the overall likelihood of radar detection is lower because each of these features will reflect radar signal in the same direction as one another. This means that the reflection will be very much stronger in the direction they reflect, but that reflection has a very narrow spread. In contrast, the features will not reflect radar strongly at all other angles. Thus the radar dish has to be "lucky" to be at exactly the right angle from the aircraft to receive the strong signature, and so the overall probability of detection is reduced since at most angles the reflection signature is reduced. This is also the reason that flat surfaces are used in many stealth designs.
I'm a frequent subscriber of airport messaging services where you get notified of check-in queue times, delays in takeoff, ETA + 10 minutes, landed timestamp, baggage claim time and these kinds of information, but not life-dependent messages. However, if something bad happens I assume I won't get a "Flight X crashed and burned" message on my cell, but most likely a "Contact the airline at 555-1212 for more information" or something similar. What's the standard operating procedure in these cases?
I'm a student pursuing a US Private Pilot License, and recently scheduled my checkride. I've been training in a 1981 Piper Warrior (PA-28-161), but if its annual goes sour I may have to take my club's 1980 Piper Archer (PA-28-181). I have well over §61.109's 40 hours in the Warrior alone, and only ~10 hours in the Archer. I have a separate club checkout and CFI solo endorsement for each... the box is really for. Of course I'd rather test in my more-experienced plane, but I'm asking specifically for regulations here if Plan A falls through. Are there any regulations or headaches that I
I recently had the opportunity to fly a PAR approach into Büchel Airbase in Germany. It was a ton of fun and I'll definitely try it again when I get the chance. However, as we were getting set up for the approach I received the following call (callsign) request heading It caught me off guard, and it took a while but I eventually interpreted it as "say heading" and gave him my current heading. He didn't complain, but I'm still not sure if that's what he wanted. A bit later I got a similar call (callsign) request QNE However, I was unfamiliar with that Q-code (as a private pilot
Sorry for the awkwardly phrased question, but I learned in my intro to engineering class at my college that 5th gen fighters (which are stealth aircraft) are designed with similar angles to evade radar. Why is this true? Also, does the angle matter? Many of these modern fighters looks to have very similar angles (no pun intended).
What is the average range, accuracy, and update frequency of radar systems used to monitor airspace in the USA? I'm primarily interested in capabilities for tracking smaller general aviation aircraft without enhanced return data channels like ADS-B, etc. Please include sources, if possible. As an example, by looking at TRACON/ASR data exports (CDR), these systems appear to update an aircraft echo at about a 4.7 second frequency, give or take a few tenths. However, I not been been able to source or verify my findings or similar statements made by expert witnesses in litigation cases.
I was watching Flight Radar 24, positioned near my house, to see what planes I could spot, and noticed a Cessna 550's transponder just dropped off @ 5,325 ft in a high-speed descent! Is there something I should do about it? Or do I assume somebody in ATC has seen it? Is there anything anyone should do in similar circumstances?
Inspired by a discussion in chat. Most GA piston singles are powered by either Lycoming or Continental engines. The engine designs used by both manufacturers are broadly similar (4-cycle, horizontally-opposed, gasoline-powered, air-cooled), and they're both generally available with either carburetors or fuel injection, but I know they're not "identical products". What are some of the differences between the designs used by the two manufacturers, and what practical implications do those choices have for pilots?
I see that big planes (for example B737, A319 etc and up) always need a staircase or a boarding tunnel in order for crew or passengers to enter the cabin since the position of the entry door is quite high (meters above the ground). What solutions are there if none of these options are available? (Except, obviously, for aircraft like DC-9's/MD-82 and 727's which had the rear entrance) How could the pilots get in? Is there some sort of manhole under the aircraft that can be opened to get inside with a sliding staircase or similar? Living in Africa, I have been to a couple of airstrips where
to switch to ground frequency with this clearance (assume I just landed)? N12345, right on E, cross 27 R, contact ground .9 Should I call ground (or switch frequency, so I no longer hear the tower) before or after crossing 27 R? My by-the-book assumption would be immediately, as there's no "then" or "after crossing" or similar, but somehow that feels wrong. I suppose normally it doesn't really matter, but in the case of someone (which includes me, everyone makes mistakes) doing something wrong, where would they call me as I'm about to cross 27 R? The reason I ask is that I saw exactly
I think i've read that the B787 has a common type rating with the B767 and B777. But I also think I've read that pilots are only allowed to fly two types of aircraft at a time... So when they go to fly the 787, do they have to give up one of the their ratings if say they were previously allowed to fly the 767 and 777? Would the same still apply for say a B757 and B767 which have very similar flightdecks? EASA and FAA perspectives would be appreciated :)