<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
>

<channel>
	<title>AviationChatter.com &#187; Aircraft Systems</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aviationchatter.com/category/systems/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aviationchatter.com</link>
	<description>Exercise Your License to Learn</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:15:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<!-- podcast_generator="podPress/8.8" -->
		<copyright>&#xA9; </copyright>
		<managingEditor>patflannigan@aviationchatter.com ()</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>patflannigan@aviationchatter.com()</webMaster>
		<category></category>
		<itunes:keywords></itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:subtitle></itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>Exercise Your License to Learn</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:author></itunes:author>
		<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture"/>
		<itunes:owner>
			<itunes:name></itunes:name>
			<itunes:email>patflannigan@aviationchatter.com</itunes:email>
		</itunes:owner>
		<itunes:block>No</itunes:block>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:image href="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/plugins/podpress/images/powered_by_podpress_large.jpg" />
		
		<item>
		<title>Semi Monocoque, Mono-what?</title>
		<link>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2010/01/semi-monocoque-mono-what/</link>
		<comments>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2010/01/semi-monocoque-mono-what/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Flannigan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aircraft Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fuselage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monocoque]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[semi monocoque]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aviationchatter.com/?p=1866</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/systems.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="" title="Aircraft Systems" /><br/>Just about every pilot's operating handbook and airplane flying manual makes mention of the same property: "The fuselage is of a conventional semi monocoque construction..." And that's the last mention of semi monocoque construction anywhere in the book. I'm willing to bet that your training manuals make little to no mention of it either.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/systems.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="" title="Aircraft Systems" /><br/><p><strong>Just about every pilot&#8217;s operating handbook and airplane flying manual makes mention of the same property:</strong> &#8220;The fuselage is of a conventional <em>semi monocoque construction</em>&#8230;&#8221; And that&#8217;s the last mention of semi monocoque construction anywhere in the book. I&#8217;m willing to bet that your training manuals make little to no mention of it either. <span id="more-1866"></span></p>
<h3><span style="font-size: medium;">Airplane Fuselages, the Old Fashioned Way</span></h3>
<div id="attachment_1867" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 279px"><a rel="attachment wp-att-1867" href="http://www.aviationchatter.com/2010/01/semi-monocoque-mono-what/800px-vickers_warwick_geodesic_fuselage-jpg/"><img class="size-full wp-image-1867" title="Vickers-Warwick-Geodesic-Fuselage.JPG" src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/800px-Vickers_Warwick_geodesic_fuselage.JPG.jpeg" alt="The Vickers Warwick featured a geodesic airframe." width="269" height="202" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">The Vickers Warwick&#39;s geodesic skeleton</p></div>
<p>Much like the foundation of a house, the fuselage is the foundation of an airplane. It is the central attachment point for the wings, tail and engines. As such, it needs to be strong enough to support the loads imposed by the weight of the airplane in maneuvering flight.</p>
<p>Locked into the paradigm of their time, aviation pioneers constructed their fuselage much the same as a building or bridge. They used sturdy materials to construct heavy internal skeletons that would bear the full load of flight. It was not until 1913 that a Swiss man challenged the traditional wisdom of fuselage design.</p>
<h3><span>Monocoque Construction</span></h3>
<div id="attachment_1878" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><a rel="attachment wp-att-1878" href="http://www.aviationchatter.com/2010/01/semi-monocoque-mono-what/494077728_d0c4c20b61/"><img class="size-full wp-image-1878" title="Deperdussin Monocoque Fuselage" src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/494077728_d0c4c20b61.jpg" alt="Note the lack of an internal skeleton in the Deperdussin monocoque" width="300" height="215" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Notice the lack of any internal bracing in the Deperdussin monocoque racer</p></div>
<p>Eugene Ruchonnet thought outside of the box. Rather than mounting panels onto a solid load-bearing skeleton, Ruchonnet&#8217;s idea was to <em>let the airplane&#8217;s skin carry the load</em>. He did this by forming the fuselage out of multiple layers of wood. The layers were glued together with their grains running in different directions to strengthen the skin so much that <em>no internal skeleton was needed</em>! He called the new technique monocoque construction, or single-shell construction.</p>
<p>Monocoque construction works fine with tiny airplanes, but there is a point at which the weight of the monocoque fuselage is greater than the weight of an internal skeleton. Furthermore, monocoque construction is unforgiving of even the slightest structural failure: think of how easily an aluminum can is crushed once a single dimple forms in it&#8217;s skin and you&#8217;ll see the inherent problem.</p>
<h3>Semi Monocoque Construction</h3>
<div id="attachment_1879" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 281px"><a rel="attachment wp-att-1879" href="http://www.aviationchatter.com/2010/01/semi-monocoque-mono-what/chapter_1_img_27/"><img class="size-full wp-image-1879" title="Modern fuselage construction" src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/chapter_1_img_27.jpg" alt="Semi monocoque construction uses stressed skin reinforced by a partial skeleton" width="271" height="195" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Bulkheads and supporting beams (stringers) reinforce stressed skin in semi monocoque airplanes</p></div>
<p>In order to build bigger and stronger airplanes, a hybrid of the two construction techniques was put forward and remains in use today. The idea behind semi monocoque construction is quite simple. Instead of building a full internal skeleton, aircraft designers chose to build a <em>partial skeleton</em> to reinforce the skin in critical areas. A semi monocoque airplane&#8217;s skin supports much of the load, with some internal bracing and bulkheads in place to maintain structural integrity. This design works surprisingly well, and remains in place on most modern aircraft from single engine pistons to the brand new Boeing 787 Dreamliner.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2010/01/semi-monocoque-mono-what/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Auxiliary Power Units and You!</title>
		<link>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009/07/auxiliary-power-units-and-you/</link>
		<comments>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009/07/auxiliary-power-units-and-you/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:52:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Flannigan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aircraft Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[redundancy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aviationchatter.com/?p=1265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/systems.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="" title="Aircraft Systems" /><br/>If you look closely at commercial aircraft, you might notice something that looks a bit like an extra engine. Consider the CRJ-900 for example. It clearly has only two engines, but take a look at the tail. It has an additional jetpipe which surely resembles a third engine. Learn all about how the APU provides [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/systems.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="" title="Aircraft Systems" /><br/><p><strong>If you look closely at commercial aircraft, you might notice something that looks a bit like an extra engine.</strong> Consider the CRJ-900 for example. It clearly has only two engines, but take a look at the tail. It has an additional jetpipe which surely resembles a third engine.</p>
<p>Learn all about how the APU provides redundancy in <a title="What is an APU at AskACFI.com" href="http://www.askacfi.com/887/what-is-an-apu.htm" target="_blank">my guest article at AskaCFI.com</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009/07/auxiliary-power-units-and-you/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Technology Is Making Pilots Safer</title>
		<link>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009/06/how-technology-is-making-pilots-safer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009/06/how-technology-is-making-pilots-safer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 06:22:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Flannigan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aircraft Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glass cockpit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plane crash]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aviationchatter.com/?p=1213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/systems.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="" title="Aircraft Systems" /><br/>Although rare, airplanes do crash. As pilots, it is important to understand the causes of airplane crashes so as not to repeat the same mistakes. Statistical evidence shows that an increasing percentage of airplane accidents are being linked to pilot error. Before we jump to conclusions, consider that this may not be such a bad [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<img src="http://www.aviationchatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/systems.gif" width="100" height="100" alt="" title="Aircraft Systems" /><br/><p><strong>Although rare, airplanes do crash. </strong>As pilots, it is important to understand the causes of airplane crashes so as not to repeat the same mistakes. Statistical evidence shows that an increasing percentage of airplane accidents are being linked to pilot error. Before we jump to conclusions, consider that <em>this may not be such a bad thing</em>. <span id="more-1213"></span></p>
<hr />In the past, pilot error was rarely a factor in any accident investigation. So what was the chief cause of accidents? Bonus points if you guessed it: <em>mechanical failure. </em>Pilots simply didn&#8217;t get a chance to screw up! With technological advancement came safer airplanes. Not surprising, the total number of accidents have gone down dramatically. In fact, the odds of dying on an airliner today is 52.6 million to 1 according to the <a title="NTSB" href="http://www.ntsb.gov/" target="_blank">NTSB</a>. Today, airplanes are so structurally sound that pilot error is the only factor left to dominate the <a title="NTSB Accident Database" href="http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/query.asp" target="_blank">accident reports</a>.</p>
<p>The problem lies in the pilot&#8217;s ability to evaluate information. Ultimately, many pilot error cases come down to a <a title="User Interface" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface" target="_blank">user-interface</a> issue. Luckily, modern technology is advancing to keep pilots seamlessly tuned into their environment in an effort to further increase safety of flight.</p>
<p>In his article on <a title="Why Planes Crash and How Technology is Keeping Us Safe" href="http://www.tripbase.com/blog/why-planes-crash-and-how-technology-is-keeping-us-safe/" target="_blank">Why Planes Crash</a>, Captain <a title="Captain Alan Price" href="http://www.tripbase.com/guest-bloggers.do" target="_blank">Alan Price</a> discusses three major accidents and the technologies designed to avert future disasters.</p>
<p>As cool as these technologies are, just being presented with modern avionics isn&#8217;t enough to prevent disaster. Pilots of modern aircraft face the very real possibility of information overload. Consider Tim Krell&#8217;s report on the <a title="Perils of the Glass Cockpit" href="http://www.npl.com/~tkrell/writings/aviation/glass-cockpit.html" target="_blank">dangers of glass cockpits</a>.</p>
<p>Today, more than ever, it is vitally important to maintain situational awareness and proficiency of one&#8217;s aircraft. Stay alert and fly safe!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aviationchatter.com/2009/06/how-technology-is-making-pilots-safer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
