Couldn't you just generate lift with a long body? Maybe a little broader than a normal plane.
As a design enhancement, we would need a heavier bottom, so the plane doesn't flips to a side.
Yes you can, these are called lifting bodies, they are not very efficient and require a lot of speed before they generate enough lift to stay aloft, requiring a long runway.
In 1983 a F-15 fighter lost a wing in a mid air collision and was able to land safely due in part by the main body being able to generate enough lift for the plane to stay controllable.
They are only really useful for supersonic flight where normal wings create too much drag
There are indeed lifting bodies which were able to fly without wings. But wings are much better at creating lift than a bulky fuselage. The space shuttle was developed based on testing lifting bodies, which allows it to have fairly small wings.
What you are describing sounds a bit like the blended-wing-body (BWB), which smoothly integrates the fuselage with the wing. Sort of like a commercial version of the B-2 flying wing design.
This is certainly still in the concept phase. Boeing has flown a scale model to test the concept, and it has performed well. Aside from being more efficient than traditional designs, it can also produce much less noise if the engines are positioned above the fuselage.
We have about 100 years of development in the traditional airplane design, which contributes to the efficiency and safety that we are able to achieve right now. Going with a BWB design alters so many of the standard design features that this presents a very radical change. When the benefits start to outweigh the costs of moving to this design, we may start to see more planes like this.
plane was fine, and I can't find any Part 61 regulations that are specific to experience in one make/model aside from adding an experimental aircraft as part §61.63(h)(1), which is what I assume 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 would encounter if I need to change the tail number or model number of my checkride plane and listed hours therein, potentially long after IACRA submission?
I have flown a bunch of times on a Bombardier Dash-8 Q400 on a couple of different airlines, and several times I have flown a shuttle flight that is basically empty. I have been instructed to change seats on these flights, reportadly to balance the plane better. It appears as though the request comes from the cockpit relayed back to the cabin staff. The plane appears to be static in place, so how do they determine that they need to balance the plane? Does the landing gear report this sort of info? A Dash-8 is a reasonably 'large' airplane that it seems sort of surprising that the balance
The airlines are always trying to jam more passengers into each plane. I'm smaller than today's average, and I'm still often uncomfortable in a standard Economy seat. It occurred to me... and those who really need to work during the flight). The enclosed space would inherently reduce some of the risks of passengers being thrown around in turbulence or an emergency landing; safety belts (or cargo restraint webbing? I'm not sure I'm joking) could handle the remaining risk. No, I don't really think it would be commercially viable ... but I'm wondering whether folks who actually Know
I know it might seem like a silly basic question, clearly some of these aircraft are awfully complex. I doubt anyone questions the idea of a type rating for a 747-400. But where is the line between, "sure, if you can fly you can probably fly this one" and, "you need to know how to fly this plane in particular". What sorts of functionality cause that sort of distinction?
? I've heard that they can refuel your plane, move it to a hangar, clean it, provide preflight planning facilities, etc. Is there a charge for these services (I guess so) and if so, what can be expected? I've also seen many airports with multiple FBOs. How does that work? All I know is that FBO stands for "Fixed Base Operator". This may seem like a very stupid question but in Europe there's no such thing. If you need fuel you either taxi to the pump and fill up or call up the fuel provider (if you're lucky because they usually only serve private jets).
Couldn't you just generate lift with a long body? Maybe a little broader than a normal plane. As a design enhancement, we would need a heavier bottom, so the plane doesn't flips to a side.
I know that for land aircraft and seaplanes that they require separate endorsements to fly them. However, for the case of amphibians, what do you need to fly one? Do you need to have another, completely different endorsement, or just a seaplane and land endorsements? What about if you always fly it on water or land?
In smaller planes, pilots has apparently great visibility in front, on the sides and a good portion of the rear of the plane. But as the plane's size is increased, the visibility is also reduced. One obvious factor is height of the cockpit from ground, but it appears (from pictures) that pilots of bigger Boeing/Airbus planes have too many blind spots. However, I did notice that some bigger planes have a camera behind the nose gear to ease in taxiing etc. So the question is that how do pilots compensate for this lesser visibility? Do they always need external help (e.g. ground crew
Does anyone have data on how much time the An-225 (only one was produced; it is currently the largest aircraft in the world) spends flying/on missions and how much it waits for customers? This is a very unique aircraft within the scope of contemporary aviation: Also, there is a copy of the plane - partially built. Does that suggest there might be need for the completion of second aircraft, to meet demand?
Most ATC in the world rely primarily on secondary radar to know where planes are. This requires that the transponder on the plane works correctly. This means that maintenance and deployment of primary radar is no longer a primary concern for airspace regulation. It becomes at best a secondary backup system before they need to pull out the flight progress strips and airways charts. Where are the spots that is not covered by primary radar? I understand that some military ships have primary radar and can act as a mobile radar during operations.