There was a cool overlay photo to show relative sizes and shapes:
Looking at that image, it got me wondering about the straight vs angled wing. Straight vs angled tails, etc.
I get that a jet is faster than a turbo prop.
Cseries cruise speeds are: Mach 0.78 (828 km/h, 447 kn, 514 mph)
Dash8 Q400 cruise speeds are: 414 mph (667 km/h) 360 knots
Those are pretty close and yet that is a pretty radical wing design change.
Is this just the history an old design (Dash 8) vs a very modern design?
Well, for starters, the speeds are actually pretty significantly different. The Cseries is almost 25% faster than the Q400. Swept airfoils are much more efficient at those higher speeds, as are jet engines.
The Q400 is also a wildly stretched version of the original DeHavilland Canada DHC-8 (Dash 8), which was itself based on the 4-engine DHC-7 (Dash 7) STOL airliner. DHC has a lot of history building short takeoff and landing aircraft with pretty extreme performance, and a lot of that colored the design of the Dash 8. What you see today in the Q400 is the result of about 70 years of backcountry aircraft design, applied to a commuter airliner.
The Cseries, on the other hand, is a clean-sheet Bombardier design meant to compete with the E-jets and the smallest 737s (and 717).
Hopefully that answers your questions!
I was flying on Porter Airlines and they had an info card about how similar the Bombardier (I still say DeHavallind) Dash 8 Q400s are to the Bombardier CSeries they have ordered are. There was a cool overlay photo to show relative sizes and shapes: Looking at that image, it got me wondering about the straight vs angled wing. Straight vs angled tails, etc. I get that a jet is faster than a turbo prop. Cseries cruise speeds are: Mach 0.78 (828 km/h, 447 kn, 514 mph) Dash8 Q400 cruise speeds are: 414 mph (667 km/h) 360 knots Those are pretty close and yet that is a pretty radical
reduce - or even completely remove - the induced drag around the tips of the fan blades? Would it be possible to have a similar setup for a standard prop, it doesn't even have to be stationary, it could be a ring connecting the tips of the prop, spinning with it. Like an infinite winglet. :) It has the added safety benefit that it'll be visible when the prop is spinning. And I figure if the ring... thought, or would such a prop-winglet-ring (I'm sure there's a real name for it, anyone know what I'm talking about?) cause other disruptions of the airflow? Or perhaps there are other reasons, like
I've seen on numerous different constant-speed propeller aircraft and different pilots using different RPMs during the cruise phase on a propeller aircraft. What dictates the RPM used during normal cruise operations, and why is that the case? Often there are multiple possible throttle/RPM combinations that deliver the same power, so where would you pick one or the other?
What does one need to do when a turboprop engine gets over-torqued? I haven't over-torqued an engine before, but it seems it could happen inadvertently, say while doing a go-around. My questions are: Why is important not to over-torque an engine? What happens if you do over-torque an engine?
I read that a three blade can improve climb performance and decrease noise. How does that work?
WWII. They didn't have flight control computers back then, and the only control complaints I recall them having is that early versions had a tendency to flip over backwards when approaching stall speeds, well, that and the ground effects were pretty strong. But, no mentions of going into flat spins when going into hard maneuvers (that I recall). So how do they control that Y axis on flying wings...How do flying wings, like the B-2 Stealth bomber, actually keep themselves from yawing out of control without a vertical stabilizer? For the record, I assume this has to be a simple mechanics
When designing an airplane meant to cruise at transonic speeds (or supersonic speeds), I heard that one should look at the isobars on the main wing in order to assess if the shape, sweep angle and other airfoil parameters are suitably chosen. I also read that the better configuration yields isobars that are parallel to the leading edge. I already know that there are several techniques to get the isobars aligned with the leading edge (area ruling, adapting the sweep angle, extra care in the design of the junction between the fuselage and the wing), but why is this configuration better than
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, they're pretty similar anyway—they're even both the same ATC type (P28A)—but they aren't the same model. Here's the catch: Form 8710, the "Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application", asks... 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
I was watching an episode of MythBusters where they were trying to break glass windows and cups using a sonic boom generated by a F/A-18 Hornet, flown by the Blue Angels. In summary, they were unsuccessful at creating a boom that could shatter the windows, despite a mach speed pass within 200ft of the target building. In the last two passes they even flew straight at the building to focus the boom straight at the house, still no windows were shattered. ** But I've wondered, ever since, if they were unsuccessful because the plane was simply too small. What if the sonic boom had been
Pretty straightforward: what is the difference between forward flight, straight flight, level flight, and cruise flight in helicopters?