Aerodynamics and stuff.. Ping: Pilotman

[finkenst]

So, I live very near to an airforce reserve base. You can drive right up to the fence and see a bunch of c-17 cargo planes (high wing, 4 engines, T tail). At the other end of the base that you can't see very well are some tankers (looks like a regular airliner with 4 engines, though). There are also 3, i think, f-16's based there. Even saw some sort of AWACS once.

This got me thinking: Is there a large difference in flying planes with different tail setups? Engine and wing locations? Etc?

thanks.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by finkenst

So, I live very near to an airforce reserve base. You can drive right up to the fence and see a bunch of c-17 cargo planes (high wing, 4 engines, T tail). At the other end of the base that you can't see very well are some tankers (looks like a regular airliner with 4 engines, though). There are also 3, i think, f-16's based there. Even saw some sort of AWACS once.

This got me thinking: Is there a large difference in flying planes with different tail setups? Engine and wing locations? Etc?

thanks.

As far as flying different planes, yes they do all fly a little differently. The biggest difference between all those planes by far is what's inside not necessarily how they look or handle on the outside. But we can forget that and focus strictly on your question or the design and what those meaningful differences are.

Strictly speaking the design of a plane is based around what the plane is designed to do. For passenger planes they are supposed to be relatively docile and stable, designed to return to a stable position in turbulence. This is the dihedral (upward bend) you see on modern commercial jets. The C-17 and older C-141 are opposite. The downward (high wing) look of the plane is designed to oppose that stability to allow the plane to be more maneuverable (less stable) overall. It's not that big of a deal if my 737 doesn't bank quickly in a tight turn, where they want that feature on a C-17. Fighter jets are inherently unstable to allow for maximum maneuverability. The drawback is that these planes are also notorious at slower speeds and need great discipline when landing.

The same is true with engines. Engines on the wings will cause a pitch up when power is applied, whereas center mounted engines (like the MD-80) will cause a pitch down. It's simply an adjustment that the pilot needs to make when controlling the plane.

As far as the overall feel of say one plane to another it's not too much of a stretch to use the analogy of a front wheel drive car to a rear wheel drive car. The look the same, mostly, they drive the same in general, but they handle slightly differently and have different rules for how you respond in a given situation. Same with planes.

Learning the intricacies of each plane isn't hard, but it's part of the learning process. It's also why the FAA doesn't just let any old pilot jump into any seat, and why each type of plane must have a new rating for the pilot to get checked out on. So I can fly any variant of 737, but I can't jump into say a 747 or even an Airbus without training and passing a new checkride.