Slashdot Mirror
Boeing's Folding Wingtips Get the FAA Green Light (engadget.com)
Boeing received FAA approval today for its folding wingtips, which will let the planes stop at airport gates big enough to accommodate typical 777 models. "Once the 777X lands, the wingtips will rotate until they point upwards," reports Engadget. "Bloomberg notes that the plane will be the only commercial model in widespread use to have such a feature." From the report: The 777X's wingtips are so novel that U.S. regulators had to draw up new standards for them. The agency was concerned that the wingtips could cause safety issues -- some plane crashes occurred after pilots did not secure flaps on wings before takeoff. The FAA required Boeing to have several warning systems to make sure pilots won't attempt a takeoff before the wingtips are locked in the correct position. The FAA also wanted assurances that there was no way the tips would rotate during flight, and that the wings could handle winds of up to 75 miles per hour while on the ground.
The new wings are made from carbon-fiber composites that are stronger and lighter than the metal Boeing uses in other wings. That lets the company increase the wings' width by 23 feet to 235 feet, which makes flying more efficient. These are the widest wings Boeing has attached to a plane, surpassing the 747-8's 224 feet. However, it doesn't hold the record for a commercial plane: the Airbus A380 has a 262-foot-wide wing, which forced some airports to install gates specifically to accommodate it.
The new wings are made from carbon-fiber composites that are stronger and lighter than the metal Boeing uses in other wings. That lets the company increase the wings' width by 23 feet to 235 feet, which makes flying more efficient. These are the widest wings Boeing has attached to a plane, surpassing the 747-8's 224 feet. However, it doesn't hold the record for a commercial plane: the Airbus A380 has a 262-foot-wide wing, which forced some airports to install gates specifically to accommodate it.
I'm unaware of any accidents involving the folding wings on US Navy aircraft, or at least, not in the last 3 decades. The airlines primarily get their pilots from the military, so having some airline pilots who are already familiar with the checklist step of making sure that the wings are unfolded and locked won't be an enormous training issue.
The FAA rubber-stamped those measures Friday. (emphasis added)
"Rubber-stamped" is an idiomatic expression meaning roughly "to approve without review," which is not at all how the FAA works.
I know that it is a bit pedantic but I find that more and more people speak and write using phrases that are not appropriate for the context and it makes communication more difficult than it needs to be.
The summary said the FAA "rubber-stamped" the folding wingtips. However, the FAA made Boeing put in several warnings on the planes on whether the tips were in the right place, withstand 75mph winds on the ground, and could not rotate during flight.
Doesn't seem like a "rubber-stamp" to me.
--PM
One-wing F-15, landed safely...
https://theaviationgeekclub.co...
Not saying it's recommended, or particularly safe.
https://theaviationist.com/201...
They start the engines after they push the plane away from the gate. There's usually too much stuff near the gate to safely start them up.
The noise you hear when you're at the gate is the APU running. It's *really* loud 'cause it's usually mounted on top of the cabin in the back of the plane. Once they use it to start up the main engines they shut it off and the cabin gets quieter.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Longer wings create less drag for a given lift, everything else being equal.
I can't tell whether the writer means that incident "X" did not make the landing hazardous,
In the F-15's case that the former :
- The plane has body lift too. Thus there are some safety margins (even with missing bits it can generate enough lift).
- The onboard avionics(*) are able to compensate for quite a lot of situations.
So even with a wing missing, although it couldn't probably perform complex acrobatic maneuvers, could still land safely provided that the pilot is experienced and know how to handle the plane too.
TL;DR: brilliant pilot + bad-ass airplane = can still fly "almost normally" even with missing bits.
Just don't try this it at home, you have drastically reduced quite some safety margins.
---
I've read somewhere that Airbus has some software routine in their avionics that are able to compensate for missing / damamged tail bits. I'll have to track down the reference.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Do the same for the Boeing, but put a little LED right next to it so they won't miss it in the dark.
Not a bad idea but it creates a new issue. Namely how do you tell the indicator is working if the LED malfunctions? Instruments are generally quite reliable but not 100%. That's a fundamental issue with any status indicator - false positives or worse, false negatives. The problem can be with the device or the indicator and it can be difficult to tell which is the problem. The indicators are still worth doing if the failure modes are severe enough but it doesn't completely eliminate the risk.
You just need an indicator that shows that the first indicator is working.
Still a classic!