I could'nt help but notice the unusual arrangement of the yokes. Both seem to be separated into pairs, making it look like there are 4 sidesticks. They look quite large as well. funny that they dont come out of the floor, but from the panel - unusual (for me!) for a large jetliner.
Anyone know what was the purpose of this arrangement?
I dont recall seeing anything similar on any other aircraft.
On a sidenote, its too bad Boeing never got fly at least one of these beauties. It would have been a sight to behold!
Thanks
I dont know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4340 times:
That arrangement was tried first on a 737.The idea was to get rid of the control column and get an uncluttered working space as well as a more complete view of the instrument panel.
It was abandoned -I think - because of the mechanical complexity of the system .(or the opposition of flight crews who are quite taken by the phallic symbol of the traditional yoke...LOL !)
Rg828 From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4304 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Thanks Pihero,
I figured it must be for space optimization, but those yokes look big! And to have 4 of them sticking out of the panel does'nt seem to be helpful at all.
I dont know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone
Sllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4275 times:
Wow...they've made great progress on that. Did you get up that close by special arrangement, or have they made that view available to the public? I don't think I've been up there in a couple of years.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 4237 times:
Ironic how we now have sidesticks to clear out working space on Airbus instead. The whole cockpit is quite narrow, which would explain the need to save space. Just getting in and out of the seats was probably hard enough.
In any case building an SST cockpit would be much much easier today. Simply do away with the front windows and that heavy droop nose. Move the cockpit back a bit and install high definition monitors. Apart from the outside view, you can now also project HUD information, flight director cross, radar and TCAS right in front of the pilot eyes. Keep the side windows.
This would quite literally save tons of weight by scratching the droop mechanism and those heavy windows. Also, the pilots would have a much better view.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4212 times:
Starlionblue ,
In your dreams,mate !
Not everybody would be happy with VR cockpits. and thank you very much !!! I for one prefer a sunset from my old window XXX panes or an aurora over northern Canada through my old fashioned breakable windscreen.
PS : In fact that cockpit is wider than Concorde's.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4177 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (reply 4): In any case building an SST cockpit would be much much easier today. Simply do away with the front windows and that heavy droop nose.
This was the plan for the Boeing/Lockheed SST concept of the mid-90s. This is not the 2707 concept from the 60s/70s-
Quoting Pihero (reply 5): Not everybody would be happy with VR cockpits. and thank you very much !!! I for one prefer a sunset from my old window XXX panes or an aurora over northern Canada through my old fashioned breakable windscreen.
Well if you want an economic airplane, ditching 5 tons of weight and huge mechanical systems takes priority
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4159 times:
Starlionblue ,
In your dreams,mate !
Not everybody would be happy with VR cockpits. and thank you very much !!! I for one prefer a sunset from my old window XXX panes or an aurora over northern Canada through my old fashioned breakable windscreen.
As DfwRevolution says, money talks.
In any case vision systems are much better today than even those in the mid 90s thx to the thin screen revolution and digital photlography. I think the pilots would often see better with monitors, if nothing else since you could make them much bigger than windows. You could also do things like eliminate clouds from view. This of course raises the question of trusting the aircraft systems to filter information, but you can't see in clouds anyway and you can include an "unfiltered data" option.
Landing without windows has already been tried with a DC-10 at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4142 times:
StarlionBlue and DfwRevolution,
Now we have a discussion.
First,every cat 2 or 3 landing is "without windows"...until I decide that I SEE enough runway geometry to land the airplane.
The next step you seem to be just about to take is a DRONELINER. And , after all, why not :the technology is there as if some officer inside a bunker can steer a cruise missile through a small window,he should be able to place a 600 ton airplane on a 200 foot-wide runway. Why not ?
I hope I won't be around to see that day.
On the other hand this same technology could provide us with :
-a wide -and I mean windscreen-wide - HUD
-an infra-red enhanced vision system,so that situation awareness is not impaired by clouds or fog
-a scale one type of instrument presentation so that a pitch movement on the HUD exactly reflects the visible change in the horizontal view.
-an intuitive speed vector image so that the pilot doesn't need to monitor the engine uotput at all times.
With that sort of instrumentation,we wouldn't need a multi-channel auto pilot as we would be back flying visual just like on an ultra light or a light aircraft.
There wouldn't be a need for a droop nose as the wing will be speed-adaptable and a fbw system will provide relaxed stability so that the landing attitude will be shallow.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4115 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (reply 7): Landing without windows has already been tried with a DC-10 at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.
I recal it being a 737. Pray tell?
I think the main issue with viewscreen-based cockpit vision systems is their resolution, the human eye can have over 60 pixels per degree, am I right? That would make a 200-degree x 90-degree field of vision equivalent to a screen with 12000 x 3600 pixels high, or two 6000 x 3600. My 14-in laptop gets a max of 768 x 1024 pixels, I bought it Aug 2003 for reference. I am confident that we will have those systems with 10 years.
[Edited 2005-02-26 22:59:01]
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
RG828 From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4105 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Thanks for the replies guys - despite the discussion drifting towards the virtues of a VR cockpit!
I noticed the front windscreen is rather small, almost like a trench slit.
Quoting Sllevin (reply 3): Wow...they've made great progress on that. Did you get up that close by special arrangement, or have they made that view available to the public? I don't think I've been up there in a couple of years.
Last time I was there in 2003 it was open to the public, through a semi-spiral staircase in the rear. Lots of stuff on display inside the forward cabin as well.
I dont know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everyone
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, RR: 55 Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4105 times:
At least regular cameras have several disadvantages versus direct vision (even assuming reliability wasn´t a problem):
• Gamut limitation: They cannot (yet) compete with the human eye in intensity resolution adaptation to low light / daylight. Mixing with IR and night vision cameras might help, but it´s still problematic.
• No depth perception.
• Limited field of view.
With several enhancements and intensive training it may be possible to overcome all the limitations, but it certainly won´t be a walk in the park.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, RR: 80 Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4047 times:
Eccentric yokes aside, the mockup illustrates that had the 2707 flown, it would have been the first with a glass cockpit, or at least as 'glass' a cockpit as the later 757/767's that entered service a decade after 2707's demise.
As Air Net's resident Boeing SST expert is seemingly not around at the moment, here is an earlier 2707 thread (from 2003), though last time I checked, the links B2707SST provided on here were not working;
Pihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, RR: 72 Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4016 times:
GDB :
"the mockup illustrates that had the 2707 flown, it would have been the first with a glass cockpit, or at least as 'glass' a cockpit as the later 757/767's that entered service a decade after 2707's demise"
These instruments are as classical can be :I think I recognise the Collins FD 109 series as main displays.
Sorry,no joy this time.
B2707SST From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 1350 posts, RR: 60 Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4018 times:
The cockpit layout for the original 2707-100 had traditional yokes and no CRT displays:
A CRT was later fitted with a moving map/climb path display to help the pilot meet sonic boom restrictions over sensitive areas. Later, Boeing apparently moved to the CRT-based primary flight instruments later used on the 757/767. It's hard to say how many of the later features (such as the strange yokes) would have made it into the production version, but I'm sure some of the CRT displays would have stayed.
As Air Net's resident Boeing SST expert is seemingly not around at the moment, here is an earlier 2707 thread (from 2003), though last time I checked, the links B2707SST provided on here were not working;
Yep, just got back from a quick trip to snowy, windy NYC (on AS' first 737-800; the new interiors are very nice, BTW). I've reposted the 2707 cross section and can upload the other images from the thread GDB linked to, if anyone's interested.
NASA was researching Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) for the HSCT, which would have incorporated visible and infrared cameras, a heads-up style display, and possibly a radar imaging or computer-based terrain mapping system for poor weather conditions. They estimated that it could save ten thousand pounds versus a mechanical droop nose.
I'm still not convinced the system would have been certified or accepted in a commercial airliner. It's one thing to have your droop nose stuck in the up configuration with restricted forward visibility; it's quite another to have absolutely none if the SVS fails. Even if the system works perfectly, a two-dimensional display cannot replicate the three-dimensional information taken in by the human eye. Large delta wings have poor low-speed charateristics, making landings hard enough without visibility problems.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3977 times:
The 2707-100 would have been something else in the sky; unfortunately I am not a fan of the swing-wing, I find it complex and I do not know how to apply low-boom to it. But new materials as well as computerized manufacturing and design methods of today may change that.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Phollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3971 times:
Quoting Lehpron (reply 15): The 2707-100 would have been something else in the sky; unfortunately I am not a fan of the swing-wing, I find it complex and I do not know how to apply low-boom to it. But new materials as well as computerized manufacturing and design methods of today may change that.
You can apply low-boom to a swing wing. I have seen both CFD and wind tunnel tests showing it can be made to work. Additionally, if you want to close the loop on a supersonic transport it is almost essential that you have a morphing aircraft, and engine. A swing-wing is probably the best understood of these. Though I know many a fan of the oblique wing.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3954 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (reply 7):
Landing without windows has already been tried with a DC-10 at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center.
I recal it being a 737. Pray tell?
I may be wrong. Could be confusing it with the MD-11 used in the Propulsion Controlled Aircraft program. In any case it was done.
I think the main issue with viewscreen-based cockpit vision systems is their resolution, the human eye can have over 60 pixels per degree, am I right? That would make a 200-degree x 90-degree field of vision equivalent to a screen with 12000 x 3600 pixels high, or two 6000 x 3600. My 14-in laptop gets a max of 768 x 1024 pixels, I bought it Aug 2003 for reference. I am confident that we will have those systems with 10 years.
Lephron, you need a new laptop I had a 15 inch screen with 1600x1200 2½ years ago! Currently I have a 14.1 inch screen with 1400x1050. Note that these are business laptops, so nowhere near the price you would expect to pay for something you put in a cockpit. For maximum res, I think one of the top dogs is the IBM T221, which was launched over 2 years ago. 3840x2400 on a 22" (http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/features_specs.html). Put four in front and two on each side and I think the pilots will have a bigger field of view than they do now. Use projectors and you can go even higher, not to mention the fact that you can have several projectors to back each other up.
Having said that, there is nothing that says vision systems have to be just as good as the human eye, but I think they can be so it becomes a moot point.
If you think about it, simulators use vision technology that is good enough to practically duplicate the real thing, so this is just the same in reverse.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4011 times:
Me too, I've know about those since the seventh grade, I've known them to be called 'scissor-wings' though. I guess they are variable oblique wings, never thought of them like swing-wings. Though I am familiar with the arearule advantage of 'step wings', where the wingtip and tailplane tip are connected.
Quoting Starlionblue (reply 17): Note that these are business laptops, so nowhere near the price you would expect to pay for something you put in a cockpit
And nowhere near that price I would pay for a regular laptop. I got mine to play Age of Mythology, it was the cheapest I could buy. Sadly, I ended up getting high end 3d games which thrashed my HDD. Lesson learned; I have to wait for a desktop.
Quoting Starlionblue (reply 17): For maximum res, I think one of the top dogs is the IBM T221, which was launched over 2 years ago. 3840x2400 on a 22"
IMO, a sonic cockpit would have control sitcks like a fighter (because it is highly likely an SST/HST pilot will have flown in the military as a qualification, besides every flightsim uses a joystick), it will be a glass cockpit, there is a HUD, and i like the idea of VR helmets. You want depth perception, have two slightly different pictures to each eye, one faintly bluish the other faintly reddish.
For helmets, the pilot will turn his head and see a new image, the only problem is that the screen will be like two 3x2 inch screens with intense resolution, or just be attached to a series of cameras outside the plane (with zoom capability) such that he/she can look in virtually any direction. The actual windshield will simply have a low-res GPS-based nightvision screen.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
Sponsor Message: 
From Brazil, joined Jan 2004, 582 posts, 
From France, joined Jan 2005, 3496 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20853 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12708 posts, 
I had a 15 inch screen with 1600x1200 2½ years ago! Currently I have a 14.1 inch screen with 1400x1050. Note that these are business laptops, so nowhere near the price you would expect to pay for something you put in a cockpit. For maximum res, I think one of the top dogs is the IBM T221, which was launched over 2 years ago. 3840x2400 on a 22" (http://www.pc.ibm.com/us/intellistation/t221/features_specs.html). Put four in front and two on each side and I think the pilots will have a bigger field of view than they do now. Use projectors and you can go even higher, not to mention the fact that you can have several projectors to back each other up.
I got mine to play Age of Mythology, it was the cheapest I could buy. Sadly, I ended up getting high end 3d games which thrashed my HDD. Lesson learned; I have to wait for a desktop.
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
