This is a followup to What is the measurement system used in the aviation industry? and related to this question from History.
I can understand the arguments as to why adoption of SI units would not make sense for the general population, but aviation is a specialised business. All professionals are highly trained, and would (should) be well versed in both systems anyways, so the transition would be much simpler from the point of view of human factors. The technology would probably be much harder to shift but again, with more and more displays and documentation going digital in cockpits, this again seems to be a not so huge problem. Maintenance and manufacturing is again fairly specialised and restricted to a smaller number of companies as compared to the general case.
What are the historical factors that lead up to the adoption of imperial units in the industry? Why are they still being used when widely accepted scientific standards exist?
This is a historical development that dates back to that much of the early aviation equipment was sourced from the United States, and was consequently in imperial units. This in particular occurred after World War Two, and hence mixing them was a bad idea, and the imperial system stuck. Interestingly, the places where the US did not have a lot of influence- the former USSR and China for example- use metric.
As for airspeed in Knots and distance in Nautical Miles, this comes from aviation's nautical heritage.
All pilots can do the conversion, but it's rather that changing all the instruments from the imperial system to metric system that would cause a huge headache, among other things, and the cost would outweigh the benefits.
Non-SI is only used for altitude, distance and speed except in US and some other American countries.
Nevertheless if it was not for the prevalence of US-built planes after WWII, we would probably be using metric in Europe too as continental planes before WWII usually had instruments in metric.
This is a followup to What is the measurement system used in the aviation industry? and related to this question from History. I can understand the arguments as to why adoption of SI units would not make sense for the general population, but aviation is a specialised business. All professionals are highly trained, and would (should) be well versed in both systems anyways, so the transition would be much simpler from the point of view of human factors. The technology would probably be much harder to shift but again, with more and more displays and documentation going digital in cockpits
As a follow up to "What is the measurement system used in the aviation industry?" which specified about measurement units during operations, another question that comes to my mind is: are there differences used in tools for maintenance and repairs for aircraft produced in different countries? Although things have been standardized these days, in the automotive industry you still get differences in the types of tools that are required for repairs. For example, the old British cars such as Land Rover or MG used imperial spanners until not long ago (3/8, 5/16 etc) whereas other cars used more
My only detailed experience with carburetors is in aircraft. I'm pretty familiar with the principles behind float-type carbs, but I recently saw a schematic for a "downdraft carburetor" with a choke valve. This got me curious, so I did a little research and found that what I'm used to is an "updraft carburetor", and that (according to wikipedia) they fell out of fashion in the automotive industry in the 1930s. Why is the updraft carburetor design so prevalent in aviation? Does an updraft carb actually have a choke valve? Images below to provide a little context for those of us who
for a small exercise. I understand the control part and its implementation. What I do not grasp is how one acquires the longitudinal equations of motions (which are then used for the control part) which serves as the starting point. What is the starting point or what are the principles used to derive these equations? If I know how to derive these equations for a very simple case, then I know I have... these are longitudinal equations of motion although their general form differ from each other. I think I got to understand one point: these equations were derived considering translation motion on the x and z planes
generated by a B-1 Lancer or perhaps Concorde, which are several times larger than the F/A-18? Logically it seems that since you are displacing more air, the energy wave should have more energy. Then again, the plane isn't going any faster, so perhaps the surface area of the wave would be larger (because of the larger plane) but you wouldn't actually have any more energy at any given point? Anyone know if a bigger plan than the F/A-18 would have a higher energy sonic boom? And could that cause glass to break? Bonus point: A mathematical formula showing why, I love those things. For those
with solid-state gyros (or replacement electronic horizons like the RC Allen 2600 series) still suffer from gimbal lock, or do they provide true 3-dimensional freedom? I'm interested primarily in answers from a light General Aviation standpoint, but answers about electronic gyros on commuter and transport category aircraft would be interesting too. ...With all the shiny new glass cockpits it would seem that the days of the spinning mechanical gyro (and associated tumbling due to gimbal lock) should be over: Sparing everyone the boring math
I'm interested in short, or trick, take-offs - such as from platforms, tall trees, etc. I think that I should have a wind speed and direction measure an understanding of my wing surface area This will let me add to my intuition from regular launches (from sites with known-good launch conditions), and estimate how much velocity I need to add via a run / push. The methodology to count the wind measure seem a bit more grey, right now. I can have a sense of the wind where I am, but it may quickly change beyond my launch site. Since I'm considering how to launch from a stationary
I used to work for a company making maintenance software for the shipping industry. Each component, from a cylinder in an engine to the furnace has to be inspected after (e.g.) 10,000 running hours, or every 2 years, etc. My question is: Are task cards like the one below still used in aviation, or is there a more up-to-date way of working nowadays? (The PDF I got this from is 10,000 pages long) What must airlines do to ensure their planes are maintained according to schedule?
in Europe you pretty much need to know QNH, QFE, QDM and QTE) and only later found out it means "pressure altitude". Q-codes suck. Anyway I said "Say again" and he came back and asked how many were on board (which I incorrectly assumed at that point was what QNE meant), again, using "request". Anyway, I've never heard a controller say "request" before, is it just army version of "say"? I'm pretty...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
This recent comment reports that: the IMU on new (plane) would localize the aircraft to within 3 feet after a cross-country flight, without any GPS input other than the starting location. I somewhat doubt about this statement, at least for an IMU based solely on inertial measurement: over the duration of a flight, I fear much more error accumulates. So what's the precision of a modern Inertial Measurement Unit over say the duration of a flight, and from what sources is that obtained? If some source (in particular, GPS) becomes unavailable, how does it degrade that accuracy?