Is there a particular reason for which thrust vectoring is not used in airliners as with military aircraft besides weight and complexity factors?
I understand that on military aircraft maneuverability is a core component but, by implementing this technique also on commercial airliners, wouldn't there be any benefit? For example one thing that comes into my mind would be reduction of stress on the tail of an aircraft at high speed/high altitude turns, thus reducing maybe maintenance.
Another option would be increased safety, whereas if maneuverability would be compromised by loss of the tail of the plane (for example American Airlines 587), you would still have some sort of control, even though reduced, on the plane with directional thrust.
Thrust vectoring is for flying outside the "normal" envelope (which is characterized by attached flow). Airliners should really never leave this envelope, so they are perfectly fine with regular control surfaces.
If you want to add thrust vectoring, it would make most sense if the engines are at the back of the airplane. On most airliners, it is really better to put them on and ahead of the wings, because in this location they help both with flutter damping (mass ahead of the elastic line helps) and bending relief. Putting the engine mass right where lift is created is better than carrying stresses all around the airframe, which would be the case with rear-mounted engines.
The redundancy point is valid, but it would be more helpful to have redundant control surfaces, and this is exactly what airliners have. At some point, every airplane has to come down for a landing, which requires to throttle the engines. No thrust, no control!
Most extreme case: If one tail surface breaks off, I wonder if thrust vectoring would be up to the job of trimming the aircraft even with cruise thrust. Not only have the raw forces to be sufficient, the reaction time to control setting changes has to be quick enough to suppress oscillations. I am sure, however, that thrust vectoring will certainly not suffice in all flight phases.
Thrust vectoring is perfect for situations at high angle of attack where you quickly want to point the nose of your aircraft at your adversary, so you get lock-on first. This is quite different from what an airliner has to do.
Thrust vectoring enables extreme maneuverability, airliners don't need that. Personally I don't want to be subjected to 9 Gs on the redeye from JFK to LHR! It's also very expensive technology to build and maintain, so your airfare would go up substantially. You also need a huge amount of power to make it work, so you'd have to fit afterburning engines to your commercial aircraft, which isn't workable.
Anyway, differential thrust is already an option on airliners and other aircraft which have engines outboard on the wings. A B-52H lost its tail in the 1960s and made it back, the pilots made good use of differential thrust. UA232 used differential thrust after they lost hydraulics.
So it's a technology that is expensive to implement, and isn't going to help prevent an accident.
of the plane (for example American Airlines 587), you would still have some sort of control, even though reduced, on the plane with directional thrust. ...Is there a particular reason for which thrust vectoring is not used in airliners as with military aircraft besides weight and complexity factors? I understand that on military aircraft maneuverability is a core component but, by implementing this technique also on commercial airliners, wouldn't there be any benefit? For example one thing that comes into my mind would be reduction of stress
In February 2014 a co-pilot hijacked Ethopian Airlines flight 702 and took it to Switzerland. Now in March there is some speculation that Malaysia Airlines flight 370 may have been hijacked and destroyed by the pilots - maybe they took a nose dive into the Andaman Sea? So my question is this: is there an automatic or say anti-pilot warning system on commercial airliners? In other words, a system that is non-maskable (can't be disabled by the pilot) and which will automatically warn ATC about unexpected conditions (like a sudden decrease in altitude)?
pinged to track an aircraft's position and heading? Would this require any intervention by the pilots? (posted separately) Is this system standard on commercial airliners? What data do Airlines collect... are used to communicate between the aircraft and its base. Various types of messages are possible, for example, relating to fuel consumption, engine performance data, aircraft position, in addition to free...An aircraft's Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System uses line of sight HF via ground stations or satellites to communicate with its base station. This system allows for three
powered parachutes where you simply don't want a propeller in your face The Convair B36 is one notable multi-engine aircraft with engines in pusher configuration, as is the Piaggio Avanti. Single engine aircraft are even more uncommon, and pretty much all I could find except the Lake Buccaneer are all kit-planes (e.g. Velocity, Rutan), ultralights (Quad City), military, or experimental. ... the fuselage and tail (with its rudder and elevator)? Twins generally have their engines on the wings, and the tail is no longer directly behind it, does that mean the choice of a pull-engine
See Wikipedia:Drag polar and Wikipedia:Polar curve (aviation) for example. These curves are not on a polar coordinate system. Why are they called polars?
I am searching some airports databases and I find some airports with the same IATA code with different ICAO codes. Is it mistake in the database? Is it OK? For example: Beaufort MCAS - Merritt Field (ICAO KNBC IATA BFT) Beaufort County Airport (ICAO KARW IATA BFT) Edit: Another example; Paamiut Airport (ICAO BGPT IATA JFR ) Paamiut Heliport (ICAO BGFH IATA JFR ) Another example with 40 km between them: Desierto de Atacama (IATA: CPO – ICAO: SCAT) Chamonate (IATA: CPO – ICAO: SCHA)
that the aircraft went that way. In reality, this would be more complicated. For example, the plane most probably did not go along a straight path at max speed. However, useful inferences can be made by adding other... if the plane most likely went along the S or the N arc we see in reports. Unfortunately, only the last ping (at 8:11AM) is available publicly. Here is the basic idea on extracting the information: A Malaysian military satellite gave the last geographic fix of ML370 at 2:15AM. A circle can be drawn with this point as the center and distance traveled at maximum speed as diameter, confining the plane's
I've noticed that on some airlines (I may have seen it on SAS) the cabin crew had a small touchscreen at the front of the plane which they were using to select recorded audio messages etc, in both their language, and English. Searching the internet, I found out it's called a Flight Attendant Panel — here are some photos I found: So I gather they can control the lighting, and movies; but what else can these panels do? I also found a FAP trainer, which says: This virtual training environment generates a realistic FAP representation including OBRM, CAM and PRAM What
as well land. But what about in a light, single engine plane (think Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee)? Engine failures in small aircraft, for example, seem to be more common, so you have more...There was another question that asked why commercial flights don't have parachutes. The almost ubiquitous response was that the parachutes would be useless because: Most accidents with commercial airliners happen on take off and landing, and there is no time to parachute. In order to get to a position where 100+ people can successfully jump out, you'd most likely need to descend some 20,000 ft
According to Wikipedia: Some aircraft are able to safely use reverse thrust in flight, though the majority of these are propeller-driven. Many commercial aircraft cannot use reverse thrust in flight What are the repercussions to using reverse thrust while airborne?