# The Great Ongoing Aviation Thread (general and other) (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 23, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499 "2011-10-23T02:17:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 80
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2020, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1581 "2020-12-20T17:44:44Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > I still think they’ll leave them on the vast majority of commercial and GA airplanes for now though. Synthetic vision is a coming thing. Which amounts to a camera in a turret that may be using IR or visible light or both. Which will be overlaid on a cartoon version of what should be seen out the window. _A la_ the scene generated and displayed in a training simulator or high end video game. This can permit lower safer approaches in bad visibility with less expensive ground equipment and aircraft avionics than current practice. The aerodynamic and structural hit from real windows is tolerable for subsonic aircraft, so I expect EVS to be in addition to, not instead of, cockpit windows for subsonic aircraft UFN. See for more: > **[Enhanced flight vision system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_flight_vision_system)** > > An enhanced flight vision system (EFVS, sometimes EVS) is an airborne system which provides an image of the scene and displays it to the pilot, in order to provide an image in which the scene and objects in it can be better detected. In other words, an EFVS is a system which provides the pilot with an image which is better than unaided human vision. An EFVS includes imaging sensors (one or many) such as a color camera, infrared camera or radar, and typically a display for the pilot, which can be ... But … the aerodynamic and structural hit from real windows gets to be a problem for supersonics, and especially for low-boom supersonics. The way to make a low-boom supersonic airplane is to make it extremely long and thin. Given the size of the engines, wings, and payload compartment, the best way to make it thin(ner) is to put a skinny stupid-long beak on the front. Sort of like the current style in men’s dress shoes but turned up to eleventy. And with a beak that long it’s impractical to have a drooping nose _a la_ Concorde or XB-70. In that case the pilot’s view out the front will be 100% through the camera(s). Logically akin to Lindbergh’s periscope back on the Spirit of St. Louis, but vastly more capable. This experimental airplane is an example: > **[Lockheed Martin X-59 Quesst](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-59_QueSST)** > > The Lockheed Martin X-59 Quesst ("Quiet SuperSonic Technology"), sometimes styled QueSST, is an American experimental supersonic aircraft being developed at Skunk Works for NASA's Low-Boom Flight Demonstrator project. Preliminary design started in February 2016, with the X-59 planned to begin flight testing in 2021. After delays, as of January 2024, it is planned to be delivered to NASA for flight testing in 2024. It is expected to cruise at Mach 1.42 (1,510 km/h; 937 mph) at an altitude of 55 This proposed low-boom executive jet SST flies at a fairly low Mach. And can just barely afford windows. Based on the nose shape plus likely AOA on landing I would expect the pilots to be landing mostly via what they see through the camera(s), not out the windows. Much like taxiing a taildragger, the view straight ahead is full of airplane. Which is much better when it’s _your_ airplane filling your windscreen rather than some other one. 😉 > **[Aerion AS2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerion_AS2)** > > The Aerion AS2 was a proposed supersonic business jet that was being developed by Aerion Corporation. > In May 2014, it was announced that the Aerion AS2 would be part of a larger Aerion SBJ redesign, which aimed for release after a seven-year developmental period. > Aerion partnered with Airbus in September the same year. > In December 2017, Airbus was replaced by Lockheed Martin. > Its General Electric Affinity engine was unveiled in October 2018. > In February 2019, Boeing replaced Lockheed Martin. > Deve... The next gen of Aerion-like airplanes that’re faster will probably lack cockpit windows. Assuming such are ever built. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2020, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1582 "2020-12-22T15:29:06Z")
Interesting - thanks. Hadn’t heard about those two supersonic jets in development. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2020, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1583 "2020-12-22T20:24:29Z")
Here’s one more I had forgotten. They just rolled out the actual demonstrator and hope to fly it in 2021. Particularly relevant to recent posts is the pitiful forward view out the windshield. > **[Boom XB-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_XB-1)** > > The Boom XB-1 "Baby Boom" is a one-third-scale trijet supersonic demonstrator designed by Boom Technology (dba "Boom Supersonic") as part of development of the Boom Overture supersonic transport airliner. Powered by three General Electric J85s, it is planned to maintain Mach 2.2, with over 1,000 nmi (1,900 km) of range. Taxi tests began in December 2022. > The design was unveiled in Denver on November 15, 2016, and it was initially intended to make its first subsonic flight in late 2017, powered b... This vid gives a good look at the overall vehicle & the cockpit and nose [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/6bRx2dpooCQ/maxresdefault.jpg "XB-1 up-close") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bRx2dpooCQ) Their **[website](https://boomsupersonic.com/)** has more vids, but are more hype-ful than informative IMO. Overall it reminds me of the **[Douglas X-3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_X-3_Stiletto)**; which was a noxious example of how not to design an airplane. Modern CFD and computerized flight controls can work miracles. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2020, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1584 "2020-12-22T20:29:08Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > but are more hype-ful than informative More hype-ful than helpful? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2020, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1585 "2020-12-22T20:31:21Z")
Much mo betta. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2020, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1586 "2020-12-22T20:35:45Z")
[wing-wag] ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2020, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1587 "2020-12-22T23:16:04Z")
I’m a glider pilot and own a sailplane. The view out of one of these canopies is exceptional (and, in my opinion, one of the best things about soaring) but I don’t need a bunch of instruments to fly and the panel is quite small. I have very few flights in powered GA aircraft but can tell you that, on those occasions, I thought, “Damn, you can’t see shit from in here”. Just spoiled, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2020, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1588 "2020-12-23T05:36:08Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > Overall it reminds me of the **[Douglas X-3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_X-3_Stiletto)** ; which was a noxious example of how not to design an airplane. Modern CFD and computerized flight controls can work miracles. Keep in mind the year the X-3 was built. Interesting bid of X-3 trivia. [The pilot seat extended down from the cockpit.](https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/195754/douglas-x-3-stiletto/) ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2020, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1589 "2020-12-23T16:12:35Z")
As I said. Lacking CFD and FBW they did what they could; it just wasn’t enough. I’m glad for the test pilots’ sake’s they never did up-engine it to meet the original performance specs. Would probably have been a real death trap at higher Mach, even by the death-trappy standards of all the early X-designs. Nowadays we’re pretty much pushing the boundaries of aero- engineering. Back then they were pushing the boundaries of aero- physics knowledge and _also_ aero- engineering. One is solving known unknowns. The other includes encountering unknown unknowns. Big difference in risk profile and big difference in success-or-oops rate. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2020, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1590 "2020-12-24T00:01:54Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I’m glad for the test pilots’ sake’s they never did up-engine it to meet the original performance specs. Would probably have been a real death trap at higher Mach, even by the death-trappy standards of all the early X-designs. I agree but it did demonstrate issues that higher mach numbers created without reaching those speeds… So while it wasn’t the test bed it was meant to be it really did provide useful data for planes like the F-104. I don’t think too many pilots wanted to experience -6 g’s down, 7 g’s up and 2 g’s laterally in one go. It’s amazing that plane was brought back in 1 piece. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2020, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1591 "2020-12-24T00:35:02Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So while it wasn’t the test bed it was meant to be it really did provide useful data for planes like the F-104. IIRC, the X-3 had a near accident involving roll coupling (or yaw coupling), which provided useful data for the F-104. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1592 "2020-12-26T00:59:40Z")
There is a pic at your link which illustrates the window question perfectly. It has front window but the pilot can’t see much of anything but space out of them. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1593 "2020-12-26T01:01:21Z")
Maybe the difference is most planes the pilot is the driver and there is no concern for his/her experience. The vehicle is meant to get you from point A to B safely and efficiently. There is little concern about the pilot enjoying him or herself. For a sailplane it is ONLY about the experience of the person driving (I suppose there are two-seater sailplanes but most I see seem to be single seaters). The whole thing is just there to enjoy the thrill of flying. So it makes sense for manufacturers to improve that experience with great visibility out of the cockpit. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1594 "2020-12-26T02:08:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > For a sailplane it is ONLY about the experience of the person driving (I suppose there are two-seater sailplanes but most I see seem to be single seaters). The whole thing is just there to enjoy the thrill of flying. While there may be something to this I think it has more to do with the fact that there’s an engine in front of you dictating the shape of the plane behind it. And attached to the engine is a propeller that dictates how high the engine has to be in order for it to clear the ground. And finally, we need all the radios and gauges to navigate and supply redundancy. All of that is missing from a glider. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1595 "2020-12-26T02:13:18Z")
Just to be a nitpicky pain…pusher prop in the back? Or wing mounted engines? Or engines on the tail? Or behind you integral to the plane (see military fighters)? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1596 "2020-12-26T07:17:41Z")
I doubt it has anything to do with whether the pilot is expected to enjoy the scenery or not, it’s more that the pilot’s forward visibility tends to come second to other design considerations. Some of the purest fun machines have terrible forward visibility. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iOe4CkcTJTI/maxresdefault.jpg) ](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iOe4CkcTJTI/maxresdefault.jpg) Gliders are designed for pure visual flying. One of the most important instruments in a glider is the variometer which indicates whether the glider is in lift or not. The variometer in a glider has a tone that rises and falls in pitch so that the pilot can gauge their vertical speed without ever having to look at it, they just listen. Gliders also have a bit of string stuck to the front of the canopy to show whether the glider is slipping or not. Again this means the pilot can see a basic instrument without having to look inside. Compare this to 99% of powered aircraft that are either fitted out for instrument flight or capable of being fitted out for instrument flight. The “six pack”, the set of six main flight instruments, have to be positioned so the pilot can easily see them without the control yoke getting in the way, this means sitting up quite close to the pilot’s sight line. [![](https://learntofly.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Cessna-172-Instrument-Panel.jpg) ](https://learntofly.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Cessna-172-Instrument-Panel.jpg) Slight tangent, I was looking for video with the sound of the variometer and found this. Looks like lots of fun. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/OTN8J-lpQGM/maxresdefault.jpg "Low Level Flying at the Beach | Gliding New Zealand Style") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTN8J-lpQGM) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1597 "2020-12-26T07:28:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > Some of the purest fun machines have terrible forward visibility. I am not a pilot so I will have to take your word for it that the joy of flying is mostly about staring at instruments. That a sailplane pilot is up there to experience the joy of looking at his/her instrument panel for a few hours. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1598 "2020-12-26T08:35:12Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am not a pilot so I will have to take your word for it that the joy of flying is mostly about staring at instruments. You misunderstand. I was talking about purpose built aerobatic machines. The forward visibility out of something like a Pitts Special is terrible. Example: [![](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ce/6a/38/ce6a38f0c69642f2f3e9a001b5fceec4.jpg) ](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ce/6a/38/ce6a38f0c69642f2f3e9a001b5fceec4.jpg) This is because visibility is not the primary design goal. Visibility comes behind structural integrity, aerodynamics, cockpit ergonomics etc etc. This is true whether it’s a glider or an airliner. The difference between a glider and an airliner is that the glider is simple enough that all the other design requirements don’t preclude a lovely bubble canopy. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1599 "2020-12-26T08:43:50Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > This is because visibility is not the primary design goal. Visibility comes behind structural integrity, aerodynamics, cockpit ergonomics etc etc. This is true whether it’s a glider or an airliner. The difference between a glider and an airliner is that the glider is simple enough that all the other design requirements don’t preclude a lovely bubble canopy. My question is why would you want to fly such a machine? Pilots gush about how amazing flying is and you are telling us for most pilots the experience is all about staring at instruments? Is that what these pilots who enjoy flying so much are saying? It is barely glancing out a window and all about reading gauges? That’s depressing. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2020, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499/1600 "2020-12-26T10:18:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > My question is why would you want to fly such a machine? Which machine in particular? A Pitts Special? Because it is a heap of fun. The _sensation_ of flying is amazing when flying something capable of being twisted, turned, spun, and rolled. The _forward_ visibility is terrible, but most of the time you aren’t looking forward, most of the time it’s up, sideways, behind you and so on. The visibility in most of the other directions is great. The point about the Pitts Special is that it is an aeroplane designed for fun, but it still has poor forward visibility. It had to be good at aerobatics which meant it had to be strong, so it has a biplane design, which means forward visibility is bad. More modern aerobatic aircraft could be designed with sufficient strength with a single wing and so the visibility got better, but visibility was never the _purpose_ of the plane. The purpose was to be good at aerobatics, visibility came after. it’s fun because flying aerobatics is fun and challenging. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Pilots gush about how amazing flying is and you are telling us for most pilots the experience is all about staring at instruments? Is that what these pilots who enjoy flying so much are saying? It is barely glancing out a window and all about reading gauges? I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that most powered aircraft are designed to be _capable_ of flying solely on instruments, that means you simply can’t have a cockpit that doesn’t prominently feature instruments, or the space to put them. As aircraft get bigger and more complex you have to put the controls, dials, switches, system panels somewhere. It can’t just be window. but, as pointed out in my first response on the subject, even from an airliner, you still get a nice view. You can’t judge the visibility based on cockpit photos taken from behind and below the pilot’s eye position, many of which are taken with the intent of showing the interior of the cockpit. [![Google Photos](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ABLVV84juq1jL-AqzCw4XO2BqvK-GmiYJ2Hyt20xJoOGxvCfs_PiRh3rtUuuon7OV4HhFZjZ0cT06nOVECpA-aweerEohMJ5HXXtmxe7cZ0pEzGcK9qpztlH=w600-h315-p-k "New item by Jonathan Skogstad") ](https://photos.app.goo.gl/fMErxTjNkkm3uxj39) [![Google Photos](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/ABLVV87VQZ7GJbqvZyvlbY9_FkTiOom6MWIgSgm0GGLvceIUCRnAFuP9ZrlpQ1C2I0K5Ho5nlltU04j2V6KwphQzfPRyoWZ8c2G4zyusjTzeuMDDBTKafi9O=w600-h315-p-k "New item by Jonathan Skogstad") ](https://photos.app.goo.gl/8vwBx3LC9GB3obgdA) The above photos were taken from an Airbus A320. It is an office that I used to spend anything up to 10 hours in. It might have the crumbs from the previous crew’s crackers on the seat cushion, a coffee stain on the floor, and a finger print or two on the windscreen. The view is not as good as that from a glider, but it is miles better than the view from a cubicle in the middle of an office block, and that is the relevant comparison. Likewise the view from a Cessna 172 is not as good as that from a balloon, but it is miles better than the view from a car, the equivalent earth bound machine. All that said, although the views you get while flying can be spectacular, that was never my own reason for flying and if asked what I enjoy about it, the view wouldn’t be top of the list. Climb a mountain if you want a view. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499.md?page=79) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-great-ongoing-aviation-thread-general-and-other-part-1/600499.md?page=81)