Official Plane Spotting Thread II

[dafansu]

taken 5 mins ago for sharing, lens a bit slow to focus

 

[kusircidomo]

Some from yesterday 6th May

It was very nice weather yesterday...

 

[Mike Y]

Coming...

And going...

Type: Boeing C-17A Globemaster III
Serial: 05-5147
C/n: P-147

Shot in early Apr 2010. Saw it landing and departing a few hours later. For once I can say my lens was too long (landing shot). The 2nd shot was taken from home; had kept my gear and standby and made a beeline for the window when i heard the distinctive whine of its PWs. ;p

 

[gilcrest]

Hey Mike !

Your C17 every nice, sharp!

 

[beanokim]

hi 9v, actually the 2 patterns you talk about are quite different. Military jets practice circuits, tengah is to the east and paya Lebar is to the west, which is the most expeditious way of putting a large number of aircraft on the ground in the shortest period of time. You fly over the airfield the break into the circuit, configure your jet for landing, then turn base to land. Hence the pictures of turning jets that many have contributed. Jets that fly straight in either do it off a visual straight in, ILS or GCA. This however takes a much longer time to recover jets as they need minimum radar separation.

As one might have noticed from the photos in the RSAF set of my Flickr album, it is not uncommon for aircrafts to turn onto a short final from the base leg just 1.8 Nm away from RWY 36 instead of 4 Nm to 8 Nm for a long final as routinely flown in the final approach segment of a Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR) into WSSS.

I did saw a Las Vegas Sands B74S just the other day.

 

[beanokim]

the hazard area from an f-16 in full afterburner is 1160ft where the temp is 100 deg F. Most high power ground runs are conducted in hush houses and if conducted on the ramp, should there should be a jet blast deflector behind it.

I hazard a guess that the jet blast danger zone from the Norwegian F-16A in the video should be approximately 100 to 150 meters? :think:

I wonder if the engine has sufficient power to start ripping off the tarmac like how a stationary General Electric GE90 or Rolls-Royce Trent 800 on takeoff thrust would? :dunno:

The AP and MSD are a great fan of this thread and should be watching this thread closely like a leopard waiting to pounce on its prey, no reason to stop contributing photos though.

 

[beanokim]

Great shots! Thanks for sharing. Anyone ever wondered why military transports are all high winged (e.g. C130, c5, c17, c141 etc) while commercial jets are all low winged? And which do you think is a more efficient design?

Coming...

And going...

Type: Boeing C-17A Globemaster III
Serial: 05-5147
C/n: P-147

Shot in early Apr 2010. Saw it landing and departing a few hours later. For once I can say my lens was too long (landing shot). The 2nd shot was taken from home; had kept my gear and standby and made a beeline for the window when i heard the distinctive whine of its PWs. ;p

 

[9V-Orion Images]

Great shots! Thanks for sharing. Anyone ever wondered why military transports are all high winged (e.g. C130, c5, c17, c141 etc) while commercial jets are all low winged? And which do you think is a more efficient design?

• By locating the wingbox at the top of the fuselage, you gain an increase in cargo capacity with a low floor design, not to mention the efficiency in facilitating cargo handling and movements in and out of the aircraft.
  
  
• FOD ingestion prevention due to their nature of operating in unprepared runways.

The effectiveness/efficiency of any particular design (in what ways ?), be it high wing or low wing also depends on many other aspects though fundamentally speaking a high wing aircraft is inherently aerodynamically stable due to the pendulum effect (thus the hands of God had created all his airborne creatures with a high wing), so stable in fact that an anhedral angled wing is required to balance out the dihedral effect and maintain an ease of manoeuvrability in the roll axis.

 

[whiteshades]

Something interesting to share on the C-17 Globemaster III for those who have not seen it doing a Short-Field Landing plus reverse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmGoctmNvPo

Personally i think the C-17 is a one hell of a looker for a Cargo jet! Love the turbine sound. :thumbsup:

 

[Canew]

Something interesting to share on the C-17 Globemaster III for those who have not seen it doing a Short-Field Landing plus reverse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmGoctmNvPo

Personally i think the C-17 is a one hell of a looker for a Cargo jet! Love the turbine sound. :thumbsup:

Thanks for the clip. And I also agree on the looks of this aircraft.

 

[beanokim]

Wow 9v, you definitely da man! That was some reply! another question, if a high wing design is better in terms is stability etc, why are all commercial jets low winged? My guess is that the design is inherently more fuel efficient. Airlines are all about getting the best bang for the buck and hence would want max savings. Is that accurate?

• By locating the wingbox at the top of the fuselage, you gain an increase in cargo capacity with a low floor design, not to mention the efficiency in facilitating cargo handling and movements in and out of the aircraft.
  
  
• FOD ingestion prevention due to their nature of operating in unprepared runways.

The effectiveness/efficiency of any particular design (in what ways ?), be it high wing or low wing also depends on many other aspects though fundamentally speaking a high wing aircraft is inherently aerodynamically stable due to the pendulum effect (thus the hands of God had created all his airborne creatures with a high wing), so stable in fact that an anhedral angled wing is required to balance out the dihedral effect and maintain an ease of manoeuvrability in the roll axis.

 

[beanokim]

yup, i think the c-17 looks best head on. From the side I think it looks a little stubby.

The c5 though is by far the most impressive in my opinion... Especially when you're standing next to it.

Something interesting to share on the C-17 Globemaster III for those who have not seen it doing a Short-Field Landing plus reverse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmGoctmNvPo

Personally i think the C-17 is a one hell of a looker for a Cargo jet! Love the turbine sound. :thumbsup:

 

[9V-Orion Images]

Wow 9v, you definitely da man! That was some reply! another question, if a high wing design is better in terms is stability etc, why are all commercial jets low winged? My guess is that the design is inherently more fuel efficient. Airlines are all about getting the best bang for the buck and hence would want max savings. Is that accurate?

Lateral stability in the case of a high wing aircraft does not necessary equates to greater fuel efficiency as compared to a low wing aircraft. Longitudinal and lateral stability are easily influence by other design aspects of a aircraft such as from the fuselage itself, horizontal stabiliser and vertical stabiliser, and also the type of wing planform used along with the angle of sweep, aspect ratio etc. etc.

Likewise fuel efficiency can be accomplished through improvements in jet engine technology and the use of raked wingtips or winglets.

Though there are high wing airliners, those are typically turboprops (with a small number of jet powered high wing airliners such as the Antonov An-72/An-74, An-128 and BAe 146) which necessitate a high wing design for the purpose of propeller clearance from the ground. IMHO it doesn't make much sense in possibly allocating an entire section of overhead luggage bins to accommodate the wingbox along with the center fuel tank of a high wing especially for wide-body airliners or in the case of a low floor design, positioning the cargo hold on top of the passenger cabin.

 

[beanokim]

double wow!!! You most definitely da man. wish I paid more attention in aerody.

Lateral stability in the case of a high wing aircraft does not necessary equates to greater fuel efficiency as compared to a low wing aircraft. Longitudinal and lateral stability are easily influence by other design aspects of a aircraft such as from the fuselage itself, horizontal stabiliser and vertical stabiliser, and also the type of wing planform used along with the angle of sweep, aspect ratio etc. etc.

Likewise fuel efficiency can be accomplished through improvements in jet engine technology and the use of raked wingtips or winglets.

Though there are high wing airliners, those are typically turboprops (with a small number of jet powered high wing airliners such as the Antonov An-72/An-74, An-128 and BAe 146) which necessitate a high wing design for the purpose of propeller clearance from the ground. IMHO it doesn't make much sense in possibly allocating an entire section of overhead luggage bins to accommodate the wingbox along with the center fuel tank of a high wing especially for wide-body airliners or in the case of a low floor design, positioning the cargo hold on top of the passenger cabin.

 

[nstclicks]

Wow 9v, you definitely da man! That was some reply! another question, if a high wing design is better in terms is stability etc, why are all commercial jets low winged? My guess is that the design is inherently more fuel efficient. Airlines are all about getting the best bang for the buck and hence would want max savings. Is that accurate?

I thought it was just a matter of the passenger cabin being more noisy if you have a high wing and engines under the wing:dunno:

 

[whiteshades]

then why not high winged with the engine mounted on top of the wing?

 

[No Horse Run]

then why not high winged with the engine mounted on top of the wing?

my personal thoughts to your questions:
- engine mounted above the wings will probably cause inspection problems for Line Maintenance when they have to do pre & after flight check.

- it would be better to hang a heavy weight than try to balance it.

 

[whiteshades]

Ah thats true... perhaps the gurus can shed more light on this? Would be good to know... will research too and post what I can find.

 

[whiteshades]

Got something with regards to high wing vs low wing aircraft from a pilot's perspective. Interesting read! Not much about the design factor but more of the effect it plays while piloting the two various types of aircraft.

http://stoenworks.com/High%20wing,%20Low%20wing.html

 

[9V-Orion Images]

I thought it was just a matter of the passenger cabin being more noisy if you have a high wing and engines under the wing. :dunno:

An insignificant secondary or an otherwise minor factor really. Jet powered commercial aircrafts have evolved over the past 61 years based primarily on the requirements to be able to fly faster, further and with a greater payload capacity while still maintaining minimal operating costs as much as possible. Aviation noise and emissions regulations such as the ICAO Annex 16, Chapter 3/4 and FAA FAR Part 36, Stage 3/4 restrictions are more or less implemented for the consideration of local communities in the immediate proximity of an aerodrome rather than for the comfort of airline passengers.

With all that said, background noise of a constant frequency can actually be quite pleasant IMHO instead especially when it helps to mask out undesirable sounds such as conversations, crying babies, farts, snores etc. etc. from your surrounding fellow passengers. For those who had travelled on the A380, they will have noticed how considerably quiet it is in the cabin as compare to other contemporary aircrafts. This level of quietness with the aforementioned sounds reverberating around can be often quite disturbing not just for passengers but especially for the off duty cockpit crew members and flight attendants in the many Crew Rest Compartment (CRC) areas including the LDMCR (Lower Deck Mobile Crew Rest) module (not exactly sure if it is actually removable on the A380?).

The only thing far more annoying is an inop propeller synchrophase system or mismatched port and starboard propellers RPM in a turboprop aircraft. Argh... :angry:

Then why not high winged with the engine mounted on top of the wing?

Antonio An-72 & An-74

VFW-Fokker VFW-614

Ah that’s true... perhaps the gurus can shed more light on this? Would be good to know... will research too and post what I can find.

No horse run has a very valid point raised with regards to underwing podded turbofans though the most important advantage is the ability for them to provide relief from over-excessive wing bending.

Got something with regards to high wing vs low wing aircraft from a pilot's perspective. Interesting read! Not much about the design factor but more of the effect it plays while piloting the two various types of aircraft.

http://stoenworks.com/High%20wing,%20Low%20wing.html

Great article but a majority of the issues raised mostly applies to general aviation aircrafts operating in VFR (Visual Flight Rules) rather than commercial aircrafts operating in Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).