Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
ERJ 190 Angle Of Attack On Landing  
User currently offlineN701AA From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 61 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 2 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10892 times:

I have noticed that the angle of attack of the ERJ190 on landing is very nose up. Today I flew the aircraft for the first time and from way back of the plane, where I was seating, the nose seem to come way up during flare. I was wondering how well this aircraft maneuvers at low speeds? Any issues with wing design?

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9643 posts, RR: 42
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 10650 times:



Quoting N701AA (Thread starter):
Any issues with wing design?

As long as there's no danger of a tail-strike and the crew have a good view of the runway, I'm not sure there would be any "issues".

I'm guessing the answer will centre on "leading edge devices". That's often the reason given for a nose-high approach.


User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 6004 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 10639 times:

While not AOA, pitch is normally about 5 degrees on touch down, maximum is 10 degrees. Any greater than that, and "tail strike protection" takes over. The fly by wire system controlling the pitch/elevators will reduce pitch on touchdown if it is too high.

The E190 is more "over winged" than "under winged". That is, the wings are quite a bit larger than they need to be, allowing higher cruise altitudes. That is why the heavier E195 uses the same wing, the growth was planned from the start.

If the flaps/slats were working properly and in correct position for landing, a high nose up landing is not necessary, and usually more the result of an incorrectly applied landing technique. Stretching the landing flare, to get a smooth touchdown, is rarely a good idea.



Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7440 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 10622 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I had noticed this a while back when I was brousing photos of Jet Blue's first E-190s. I was always curious about it. N701AA, thanks for the post!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Trent R Sellers
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Stephenson



And this is only Jet Blue. I saw it also on KLM Citty Hopper, etc.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineGlobeEx From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 747 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 10616 times:



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 3):

Well, looking at the second picture, it rather seems like a take off.

GlobeEx



As you may presently yourself be fully made aware of, my grammar sucks.
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 10596 times:

What is it about wing design that causes an aircraft to have a higher AOA? The MD-11, DC-10, L-1011's, 747's, and most airbii have higher angles of attacks on landing than Boeing twins. I know that because the tri-jets have an aft 2nd engine, they are heavier behind, therefore, it moves the wingbox aft due to the shift in weight, thus making higher AOA approaches and take-offs easier because of the shorter fuselage behind the main gear, but still, it's interesting to note these differences...

UAL


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3172 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 10572 times:

You guys are confusing pitch with AOA. They aren't necessarily tied together.

As for the 190, on the 170, the max PITCH on landing is about 12 degrees. The 175 is about 11.5 (six feet longer). I would imagine than the 190, which is the same aircraft with another fuselage plug, will be the same as the 175 or perhaps less.

I have a four day starting Saturday. I'll try to pay attention to the PFD for you guys when on final and tell you my findings. It's honestly something I ever pay much attention to.



DMI
User currently offlineBellerophon From United Kingdom, joined May 2002, 586 posts, RR: 58
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 10476 times:

N701AA

I suspect you may have inadvertently used the wrong term in asking your question, the terms Angle of Attack and Pitch Angle are frequently confused by many.

Put very simply:

Angle of Attack (Alpha / Incidence)

The angle between the airflow and the wing.


Pitch Angle (Pitch Attitude / PA)

The angle between the wing and the horizontal.


Pitch Angle or Attitude - which is what I suspect you meant to ask about - can be estimated reasonably accurately by a spectator, ask any USN pilot who has worked as a LSO on an aircraft carrier.

Angle of Attack - can only be known from looking at an alpha-meter, trying to estimate it from a still photo can be very misleading.


Best Regards

Bellerophon


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10344 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 5):
What is it about wing design that causes an aircraft to have a higher AOA?

If you mean having the ability (but not the necessity) to fly at a higher angle of attack, then it's a multitude of things. Slats are one example that is applicable to transport aircraft. A prominent one on modern fighter jets is leading edge root extensions (LERXs), or having a delta wing.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineAirbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10257 times:

Thread already exists as posted by myself 5 months ago:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...chid=238483&s=E-190+pitch#ID238483

And the actual designation is not ERJ 190 but just E-190, nothing regional about a 4000nm range...

rgds

AB



FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 56
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10251 times:



Quoting Airbuster (Reply 9):
nothing regional about a 4000nm range...

Tell that to the legacies...

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3172 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 10094 times:

To answer the question: It varies with weight but I was seeing a pitch angle of about 3 degrees on Final. I don't like to flare much past about 6 degrees because this plane likes to float. Again, these are numbers for a 170.

Quoting Airbuster (Reply 9):
And the actual designation is not ERJ 190 but just E-190, nothing regional about a 4000nm range...

My type rating says ERJ-170/190.



DMI
User currently offlineAirbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 10003 times:



Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 11):

Ey pips! I believe you but don't know where they got that from...is it maybe the officailly registered type designation and they use E-JETS as their marketing name?

Like my Fokker 70 and 100 are officially F28 Mk0070 / Mk 0100..

Here's the link to Embraer anyways...

http://www.embraercommercialjets.com/english/content/home/



FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 9991 times:



Quoting Airbuster (Reply 9):
And the actual designation is not ERJ 190 but just E-190, nothing regional about a 4000nm range...

Wow, so this thing could fly BOS-LHR? I'm astounded! I didn't know it had that much range!

UAL


User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 6004 posts, RR: 43
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 9981 times:



Quoting UAL747 (Reply 13):
Wow, so this thing could fly BOS-LHR? I'm astounded! I didn't know it had that much range!

 Smile

Full fuel gives you about 2200 miles. The longest route we have flown the E190 is YYZ-SAN.



Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3172 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 9960 times:



Quoting Airbuster (Reply 12):
Ey pips! I believe you but don't know where they got that from...is it maybe the officailly registered type designation and they use E-JETS as their marketing name?

Like my Fokker 70 and 100 are officially F28 Mk0070 / Mk 0100..

Here's the link to Embraer anyways...

Oddly enough, the 145 type here in the US is EMB-145



DMI
User currently offlineAirbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 481 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9848 times:



Quoting LongHauler (Reply 14):

Hey, you're correcto about that, i should have said, it has a 4000 KM range not NM...a bit over enthusiastic that was...

Still, you can doe transcons with the 190 or Paris-Middle East....

rgds

Ab



FLY FOKKER JET LINE!
User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1708 posts, RR: 48
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 9626 times:



Quoting Airbuster (Reply 9):
And the actual designation is not ERJ 190 but just E-190

Official designations are:

ERJ 170-100 (E-170)
ERJ 170-200 (E-175)
ERJ 190-100 (E-190)
ERJ 190-200 (E-195)


User currently offlineWildcatYXU From Canada, joined May 2006, 2977 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 9472 times:



Quoting GlobeEx (Reply 4):
Well, looking at the second picture, it rather seems like a take off.

Indeed. The flaps and slats on the first picture are much lower.

Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
Tell that to the legacies...

AC seems to know...



310, 319, 320, 321, 333, 343, 345, 346, 732, 735, 73G, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 77L, 77W, 788, CR2, CRA, CR9, DH1, DH3,
User currently offlineTinpusher007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1009 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 9289 times:

To further add to this discussion, the CRJ-900 that i fly which is equipped with slats still has a slight nose low pitch on final. It isn't until the flare that pitch increases to about 5 degrees nose up. Ive always been curious as to why this is. After flying it for a year Im still not sure.


"Flying isn't inherently dangerous...but very unforgiving of carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic ERJ 190 Angle Of Attack On Landing
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
0° Angle Of Attack In The Cruise posted Thu Sep 6 2007 19:49:57 by Faro
Airspeed Vs Angle Of Attack posted Fri Nov 26 2004 21:16:35 by AirxLiban
Lot Of Time On The Wing posted Fri Dec 19 2008 15:10:33 by Venus6971
Embraer E-jet High Pitch On Landing posted Mon Sep 22 2008 02:28:11 by Airbuster
Descent Rates On Landing: When Could Damage Occur? posted Wed Sep 3 2008 11:23:17 by Kaitak
VC-10 Power Settings On Landing posted Sun Mar 9 2008 13:58:57 by LockstockNL777
Power-up On Landing posted Sun Feb 24 2008 13:05:42 by Dmanmtl
Why No Reverse Thrust On Landing In ATL? posted Fri Feb 8 2008 17:12:26 by BR715-A1-30
Different Shades Of Gray On AA Airbusses? posted Fri Jan 18 2008 16:38:27 by FlyAA757
Number Of Airlines On A Route posted Mon Dec 24 2007 04:10:26 by PAHS200

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format