I agree with Hulk on this one.
I've seen a few shows on the development of the A380 and they had some pretty advanced simulators to start training pilots on well before the thing got off the ground. Of course it isn't going to be 100% accurate, but they can come pretty close.
I'm sure this plane would be no different. Those pilots probably have hundreds of hours on the simulator well before they get into the real cockpit.
For sure - I almost fell out of my chair when I read the original suggestion that they need the test pilots to create the simulator model. There is an incredible amount of software and wind tunnel work that goes on developing an aircraft like this. They know exactly what that wing is going to do in the air. Test pilots are important for testing the edges of the flight envelope - the outer edges of the flight envelope are harder to model accurately, and that's where even well designed aircraft turn out to have quirks and issues that you didn't anticipate.
If you are at all interested in aviation and aircraft engineering, you should check out X-Plane on the PC or Mac. Rather than use a table of performance info like MS Flight Sim does, it uses something called Blade Element theory to slice all the surfaces of the aircraft up into their individual aerodynamic components, and then simulates air flow over them. (check it out here: http://x-plane.com/pg_Inside_X-Plane.html). As a result, you can design all kinds of planes, with all kinds of wings, and get a pretty fair representation of how it affects the performance of the aircraft. I have used it, for example, to test the change in performance on an R/C aircraft using a clipped (shortened) wing. It's obviously not as detailed modeling as Boeing has (your PC isn't a supercomputing cluster...), but it gives you a good idea of how much modeling can be done.
I'm still interested in seeing how that fuselage holds up after multiple lightning strikes and possible problems with moisture, Wing parts made with some composite materials is one thing but a fuselage is pressurized and as far as I know the whole fuselage is made from composites.
Think I'll wait awhile before I jump on one of these puppys
Fighter jets are composite as well... and still going strong. As long as they are inspected regularly then everything should be fine. Frankly I see alumium skinned as the same as composite, with both prone to issues which require constant maintenance & inspection.
Peoples concept of composite fabrics today is the same as how concrete (a form of composite) and even steel was denied by most when it was first introduced in the civil field.
I really really really love the wing on the 787. Especially the root.
Kinda OT from the original topic, so sorry....but but I'm stoked on this plane.... I am so gonna own one of these bad boys one day: http://www.iconaircraft.com/index.html
Ok, it has a carbon-fibre frame... sorta on topic then.
Fighter jets are composite as well... and still going strong. As long as they are inspected regularly then everything should be fine. Frankly I see alumium skinned as the same as composite, with both prone to issues which require constant maintenance & inspection.
Peoples concept of composite fabrics today is the same as how concrete (a form of composite) and even steel was denied by most when it was first introduced in the civil field.
I really really really love the wing on the 787. Especially the root.
1) How much percentage of a fighters fuse is pressurized?
2) A fighter doesn't see near the hours of an airliner.
3) A fighter is inspected top to bottom after every flight
4) Size of a fighter and hours in the air make it less likely to be hit by lightning.
5) Skin thickness on a fighter is about 10 times thicker if you use size percentage.
6) aluminum is much better at dispersing electricity than any composite materials.
7) Agreed, the wing design is wicked!!!
Edit: Just noticed this part of your post (bolded)
What composite fighters are still going strong? anything with any real age or flight time is made out of mostly aluminum, as far as I know anyway.
Kinda OT from the original topic, so sorry....but but I'm stoked on this plane.... I am so gonna own one of these bad boys one day: http://www.iconaircraft.com/index.html
Ok, it has a carbon-fibre frame... sorta on topic then.
Yeah, that's a nice little unit, Saw one this summer, not speedy but fun. It (or one like it) has retracts as well for dry takeoffs/landings. would be awesome if you lived on a lake.
So what all does a test flight like that entail anyway? I mean how far, how high etc.? Do they just head'er off the coast a few hundred miles and u turn it back home?
Also, anyone notice the Korean air logo on the first link Bigtime posted? It looks like pepsi's hooking up with them!
So what all does a test flight like that entail anyway? I mean how far, how high etc.? Do they just head'er off the coast a few hundred miles and u turn it back home?
The first flight wouldn't be much but now they'll go crazy on the airframe doing things that should never come up on commercial flights. They'll do high G maneuvers even low speed barrel rolls to make sure it wont fall apart, they will slam it into the ground (very rough landings)..etc.
Pretty much everything they can think of to make sure it will be safe for the public. Usually the crazy stuff is done by air-force pilots (at least it use to be that way anyway)
I'm still interested in seeing how that fuselage holds up after multiple lightning strikes and possible problems with moisture, Wing parts made with some composite materials is one thing but a fuselage is pressurized and as far as I know the whole fuselage is made from composites.
Think I'll wait awhile before I jump on one of these puppys
By that reasoning you should fly on one sooner rather than let them get older!
Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
The first flight wouldn't be much but now they'll go crazy on the airframe doing things that should never come up on commercial flights. They'll do high G maneuvers even low speed barrel rolls to make sure it wont fall apart, they will slam it into the ground (very rough landings)..etc.
Pretty much everything they can think of to make sure it will be safe for the public. Usually the crazy stuff is done by air-force pilots (at least it use to be that way anyway)
Barrell rolls? Haha, I wish. Those days are long gone, I believe the last Boeing commercial airliner to be barrel rolled was the 707:
Around the 0:55 mark.
Those were the crazy Tex Johnson days, although a well excecuted barrel roll will not put any more than 1g on an aircraft.
1) How much percentage of a fighters fuse is pressurized?
2) A fighter doesn't see near the hours of an airliner.
3) A fighter is inspected top to bottom after every flight
4) Size of a fighter and hours in the air make it less likely to be hit by lightning.
5) Skin thickness on a fighter is about 10 times thicker if you use size percentage.
6) aluminum is much better at dispersing electricity than any composite materials.
7) Agreed, the wing design is wicked!!!
Edit: Just noticed this part of your post (bolded)
What composite fighters are still going strong? anything with any real age or flight time is made out of mostly aluminum, as far as I know anyway.
1)Just the cockpit, say 5% of the overall. 2)No, but they are considerably higher stress hours. The Airframe life of a fighter is less than 1/4 of most airliners. 3)Not really. Quick visual but not much more than a passenger plane. If you relate the airframe life of a fighter to an airliner they get a teardown inspection at a similar frequency. 4) 5)Skin thickness compared to overall size is not really worth comparing. The aircraft are built as small as possible to handle the stresses they will face. 6)Lightning protection is put in place on composites, just like a lighting rod on a house with paths to ground.
Additionally, composite fighters are not really 100% composite. The frame is still aluminum, just the skin is composite and only the latest are built that way. Anything built pre 2000 is aluminum. Composite is the way of the future and shouldn't have many issues. Stronger and lighter it should hold up quite nicely. I think the main problem area is bonding/attaching the the aluminum frames, but smarter people than me have been working on this for years.
Very neat
I got to visit the Air Canada flight operations centre in Toronto last year and fly one of their simulators there (I knew a pilot). While I was there, one of the simulators was specific for this new air liner. I got to see it, but my pilot friend wasn't qualified to fly it.
We weren't allowed to barrel roll the simulated 737, but I almost made it trying to fly it under the Golden Gate Bridge
Very neat
I got to visit the Air Canada flight operations centre in Toronto last year and fly one of their simulators there (I knew a pilot). While I was there, one of the simulators was specific for this new air liner. I got to see it, but my pilot friend wasn't qualified to fly it.
We weren't allowed to barrel roll the simulated 737, but I almost made it trying to fly it under the Golden Gate Bridge
I'm going aviation nerd on you, Air Canada doesn't operate the 737. Perhaps you were in an A320 simulator?
Either way I'm jealous! I have a couple of good friends working at Westjet and I keep trying to get the hookup to fly one of their sims sometime.
I know, it was a fantastic b-day present my gf organized for me. She knew this pilot and arrange for him to take us to the facility and show us around. He scheduled some sim time, and took us with him. After watching him fly around, he let us take a turn on the controls.
Very neat experience
I read an article that Air Canada will making flight simulators open to the public. Can't remember if this was in Toronto or Calgary
which is which? 
5)Skin thickness compared to overall size is not really worth comparing. The aircraft are built as small as possible to handle the stresses they will face. 6)Lightning protection is put in place on composites, just like a lighting rod on a house with paths to ground. 
