3 ms·
The idea of looking ahead at turbulence and preparing for it is good, but it has to be done with a technology that doesn't require placing an enormous pole in t
by globalise83 3y ago
The idea of looking ahead at turbulence and preparing for it is good, but it has to be done with a technology that doesn't require placing an enormous pole in the air, e.g. laser, radar, etc.
- vlovich123 3y agoYeah that’s one problem for airliners. The others are getting accurate predictions to happen far enough into the future that the contraction would work and being able to generate high levels of thrust into a specific direction at a moments notice to counteract it.
- sixothree 3y agoThe front of the airplane is very far ahead of anything that could possibly act on that information. Not nearly as much in the case for this test plane.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ianlevesque 3y agoThat's a really good point. Napkin math on an Airbus A321 gives about 81 milliseconds of time to react, not far off from the 1/10th of a second they cite for their prototype.
- YetAnotherNick 3y agoApart from the looks, is there any issue with the retractable pole? We already have that in few aircraft for aerial refueling.
- MBCook 3y agoYou need to be able to get the information fast enough to be able to make the control surfaces adjust in time. The longer the plane, the further between the nose and the leading edge of the wing. So the more time you have. also aren’t turbulent more likely when you are lower than at final cruise altitude? Wouldn’t the plane be going slower than anyway for fuel savings in the denser air? Even if it would only work on longer/larger jets it could still be very helpful.