4 ms·

Wingtip Coupling at 15,000 Feet (2000) [pdf]

52 points by smacktoward 8y ago

londons_explore 8y ago
This is how invention is done. It seems designs can be iterated on and tested in just a few days. In today's aviation world, if an idea can make it into the air in less than 5 years it's a miracle. I don't see any substantial innovation happening in the aviation world for that reason. Planes docking side by side to save fuel like this would be amazing for the environment, but will never happen.
- _s 8y ago
  > This is how invention is done. > It seems designs can be iterated on and tested in just a few days. > In today's aviation world, if an idea can make it into the air in less than 5 years it's a miracle. I don't see any substantial innovation happening in the aviation world for that reason. Planes docking side by side to save fuel like this would be amazing for the environment, but will never happen. There is a significant and substantial amount of innovation happening in aviation, from down to gliders and ultralights / experiments all the way to aircraft that can "fly" in what is technically outer space. I'm not even sure where to begin to highlight the advances in technology, simulation, manufacturing, materials, training and just plain ol' understanding of chemistry and physics that has happened - which allows you to get on an aircraft and be hundreds or thousands of miles away for pocket change. Please don't let the recent articles around the 737 airframe cloud your judgement - the 737 NG and the 737MAX are very, very different aircraft in terms of their composition, materials and technology than the original that was introduced a couple of decades ago. More to the point - there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying some sails, an electric motor and batteries, putting them together and going flying under the experimental ultra-light category.
  - londons_explore 8y ago
    Sure, there is innovation, it's just on a different scale. Back then, people were hooking up different types of engine just to see if they could. Now an anti-reflective windscreen coating would involve lots of meetings and paperwork... It's changed from 'wild west' to 'dont do anything that might be dangerous'. Our taste for innovation Vs safety has swung dramatically.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      That might be a conclusion in search of evidence. I suspect it's something similar to what's happened in physics. Plenty of important work's still being done, but the low hanging fruit has already been harvested.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rory096 8y ago
      You're conflating experimental aircraft with commercial passenger aircraft. The latter are highly regulated. The former can be tested with an experimental airworthiness certificate, which is significantly less regulated but also significantly more restricted — e.g. they generally have operating limitations prohibiting carrying passengers for hire or flying over populated areas until they're sufficiently proven.
- gus_massa 8y ago
  The explanation of why now they use a more conservative approach is in tha last pag "72": > This action resulted in the F-84’s pitching violently and then flapping upward and into the B-29. The B-29’s outer wing panel crumpled as the F-84 rolled into it and, when inverted, struck the B-29’s main wing spar; before the two aircraft separated, this impact sheared off the F-84’s nose section forward of the cockpit. The B-29 then went into a steep spiral and crashed into Peconic Bay, Long Island, and the F-84 went down shortly afterward. No one survived.
  - hudibras 8y ago
    The whole time I'm reading the article, I'm thinking "Jesus, that sounds dangerous...Oh, my! Now that sounds really dangerous...It's amazing that nobody died doing this..." and then I get to the last page.
asking_for_it 8y ago
Pretty much an accident waiting to happen. The contact points offer no break-away bail out options, to sacrifice the connector sections in the event of an emergency. If I'm in aircraft C, and I notice that A and B are having trouble, I want a way to ditch the linked section of my wing, without having to rely on mechanisms belonging to the other airframe. I also want the other plane to be able to ditch it's connector, and leave it attached to my craft, without significantly affecting my aerodynamic profile. In other words, the linkage should behave similar to a weapons mountable hard point. The demonstrations provided look like coat hangers, and really don't appear to be designed to tolerate potential forces and loads anticipating malfunctions or adverse conditions like ice, nor do they look like they'll fail in a safe and predictable way that doesn't result in ripped sheet metal. Sorry, this shit fucking sucks. Only an asshole would sign up for this shit as designed.
retardedCripple 8y ago
It's funny, because almost anyone alive today can look at this and immediately recognize poor execution of a terrible idea. Were that many people that stupid back then? They couldn't look at this and think: Gee, this is fucking stupid. I mean, I guess, considering how retarded WWI and WWII really were, I guess it shouldn't be all that surprising. Take the body count of the war, and maybe times ten gets you the full count of people that fucking stupid.

52 points by smacktoward 8y ago

This is how invention is done. It seems designs can be iterated on and tested in just a few days. In today's aviation world, if an idea can make it into the air in less than 5 years it's a miracle. I don't see any substantial innovation happening in the aviation world for that reason. Planes docking side by side to save fuel like this would be amazing for the environment, but will never happen.

_s 8y ago
> This is how invention is done. > It seems designs can be iterated on and tested in just a few days. > In today's aviation world, if an idea can make it into the air in less than 5 years it's a miracle. I don't see any substantial innovation happening in the aviation world for that reason. Planes docking side by side to save fuel like this would be amazing for the environment, but will never happen. There is a significant and substantial amount of innovation happening in aviation, from down to gliders and ultralights / experiments all the way to aircraft that can "fly" in what is technically outer space. I'm not even sure where to begin to highlight the advances in technology, simulation, manufacturing, materials, training and just plain ol' understanding of chemistry and physics that has happened - which allows you to get on an aircraft and be hundreds or thousands of miles away for pocket change. Please don't let the recent articles around the 737 airframe cloud your judgement - the 737 NG and the 737MAX are very, very different aircraft in terms of their composition, materials and technology than the original that was introduced a couple of decades ago. More to the point - there is absolutely nothing stopping you from buying some sails, an electric motor and batteries, putting them together and going flying under the experimental ultra-light category.
- londons_explore 8y ago
  Sure, there is innovation, it's just on a different scale. Back then, people were hooking up different types of engine just to see if they could. Now an anti-reflective windscreen coating would involve lots of meetings and paperwork... It's changed from 'wild west' to 'dont do anything that might be dangerous'. Our taste for innovation Vs safety has swung dramatically.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    That might be a conclusion in search of evidence. I suspect it's something similar to what's happened in physics. Plenty of important work's still being done, but the low hanging fruit has already been harvested.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rory096 8y ago
    You're conflating experimental aircraft with commercial passenger aircraft. The latter are highly regulated. The former can be tested with an experimental airworthiness certificate, which is significantly less regulated but also significantly more restricted — e.g. they generally have operating limitations prohibiting carrying passengers for hire or flying over populated areas until they're sufficiently proven.
gus_massa 8y ago
The explanation of why now they use a more conservative approach is in tha last pag "72": > This action resulted in the F-84’s pitching violently and then flapping upward and into the B-29. The B-29’s outer wing panel crumpled as the F-84 rolled into it and, when inverted, struck the B-29’s main wing spar; before the two aircraft separated, this impact sheared off the F-84’s nose section forward of the cockpit. The B-29 then went into a steep spiral and crashed into Peconic Bay, Long Island, and the F-84 went down shortly afterward. No one survived.
- hudibras 8y ago
  The whole time I'm reading the article, I'm thinking "Jesus, that sounds dangerous...Oh, my! Now that sounds really dangerous...It's amazing that nobody died doing this..." and then I get to the last page.

asking_for_it 8y ago

Pretty much an accident waiting to happen. The contact points offer no break-away bail out options, to sacrifice the connector sections in the event of an emergency. If I'm in aircraft C, and I notice that A and B are having trouble, I want a way to ditch the linked section of my wing, without having to rely on mechanisms belonging to the other airframe. I also want the other plane to be able to ditch it's connector, and leave it attached to my craft, without significantly affecting my aerodynamic profile. In other words, the linkage should behave similar to a weapons mountable hard point. The demonstrations provided look like coat hangers, and really don't appear to be designed to tolerate potential forces and loads anticipating malfunctions or adverse conditions like ice, nor do they look like they'll fail in a safe and predictable way that doesn't result in ripped sheet metal. Sorry, this shit fucking sucks. Only an asshole would sign up for this shit as designed.

retardedCripple 8y ago

It's funny, because almost anyone alive today can look at this and immediately recognize poor execution of a terrible idea. Were that many people that stupid back then? They couldn't look at this and think: Gee, this is fucking stupid. I mean, I guess, considering how retarded WWI and WWII really were, I guess it shouldn't be all that surprising. Take the body count of the war, and maybe times ten gets you the full count of people that fucking stupid.