I’m sure you’ve seen video of a Boeing 737 lifting off as yet another news reader drones on about the MCAS troubles in the MAX version of the world’s most popular airliner. If you watched closely, you have seen what looks like a wire or tube with a cone on the end trailing from the top of the rudder.
What the heck is that thing, and why is the 737 dragging it through the air?
What is that thing?
The video is of the 737 in test configuration and the tube and cone are a static pressure port. The lash-up is usually called a “static cone.”
One of the first, and critical tasks, in any flight test program is to calibrate the airspeed and altimeter systems. Especially airspeed. If you don’t have reliable airspeed data, then you can’t know for sure how the airplane is performing, at what airspeed it will stall, and at what high airspeed flutter and other structural issues threaten.
All flight test data, and thus all data essential for safety and certification of any airplane, depends on reliable airspeed information. If you don’t know how fast the airplane is flying, you really don’t have any useful information.
We all remember from private pilot ground school that indicated airspeed is the difference in the ram air pressure entering the pitot tube and the static pressure of the atmosphere surrounding the airplane. Sounds easy, right? And on smaller airplanes flying at low airspeeds, measuring pitot and static pressure reliably may not be too difficult.
But on larger airplanes, flying at a wide range of airspeeds from takeoff, landing, to near the speed of sound in cruise, the challenge of measuring pitot and static pressure can be very complicated.
Of the two inputs, measuring pitot pressure is almost always easier. On most early test flights of a new or modified airplane, you see a long boom protruding from the nose. That “test boom” holds a pitot tube that is located forward of the airplane and is mostly free of the air flow distortions created when the slip stream accelerates to flow around the airplane.
Airplanes create a “bow wave” when they move through the air similar to a boat pushing a wave ahead and around it as it moves through the water. The test boom moves the pitot tube ahead of the bow wave, or at least ahead of its greatest disturbance.
The entire airplane is also creating a wake as air moves out of the way to pass over the airframe. That wake, or movement of air, means the air is not “static” around the airplane. But we need “static” air to complete the pitot-static airspeed measurement. That’s where the static cone comes in.
By trailing a static port far behind the airplane, the static port remains clear of most of the air pressure disturbance caused by air flowing around the airplane. Often the static cone and its tube are on a reel that the crew can extend after takeoff to trail the cone farther behind in “clean” air after takeoff. Sometimes the test pilots reel out the cone by taxiing slowly ahead on the runway before beginning the takeoff roll.
Advanced computer programs do a great job of predicting how airplanes will fly, but you have to test them.
Advanced fluid dynamic programs do a good job of predicting how air flow behaves over all parts of an airplane. Using those programs designers find locations on the airplane where airflow is most stable across the performance envelope and that’s where they plan to mount the actual static ports and pitot tubes.
Flying with the pitot test boom and the static cone provides quite precise airspeed indications that can be compared to the actual static ports mounted somewhere on the airplane, which is most often the forward fuselage on fast airplanes, and tailcone of slower airplanes.
Test pilots also typically use a “chase” airplane to confirm pitot-static performance, particularly at very high airspeeds. The chase airplane has a well established airspeed indication system and so by flying it alongside the test airplane the pitot-static system of the new airplane can be confirmed.
Development of the digital electronic air data computers most of us now fly with – even in basic piston singles with flat panel integrated avionics – makes it possible to correct for pitot-static errors. Those errors can be caused by configuration change, such as extending the flaps, or flying at higher or lower altitudes, and faster or slower airspeeds. But the errors must first be documented in flight test and that’s why the static cone is so essential. The air data computers are terrific at correcting errors, but only after the errors themselves have been documented.
- Cirrus and Bonanzas dominated their eras - May 22, 2023
- Lead-free avgas STC—a historical preview? - November 21, 2022
- What Nexrad can—and can’t—tell pilots - March 14, 2022
I thought that was Boeing’s new angle of attack indicator
I personally think that any modern day pilot that needs a angle of attack indicator to let him or her know they are exceeding the critical angle of attack, should find another job to do before it is to late. To much crap in the cockpit is the result of airliners crashing, what ever happened to the pilot in command??? I guess they are not needed any more???Modern technology is great but not if it is over done. Boeing 737 max for instance !!! We are improving beyond practicality and are losing what we as pilots are trained to do. That is fly the damn airplane. As it is now only about 27% of the time the pilot is flying the airplane, and the electronic dept. is doing the rest??? What has happened??? Why don’t we spend more time flying and less time pushing buttons and playing pacman…I really think more lives will not end up in the graveyard…my opinion.
I AGREE 100%…!!!
Joe,
The AOA indicator is just another tool, and a good and simple one for the most part. Sure, you don’t need one, and if you don’t know how to use it, you certainly don’t need one. However, I’d rather have an AOA than an airspeed indicator. The AOA will save your life when the airspeed indicator may not. I’ve had planes with and without and I prefer to have one.
However, I’m in agreement with you that too much automation and information to digest is probably not the best thing. While I’ve got several 1000 hours behind glass, I still don’t care for it. Much easier to read a dial than a tape or numbers. Give me a good map, weather avoidance and that’s all I need.
And, I still only fly 27% of the time with the autopilot off. I see little reason to sharpen ones skills for hours of cross country time. Monitor the autopilot and be less tired for the approach phase.
Thank you Mac.
Yes, I was wondering what it was. And I’m not going to embarrass myself by saying what I decided.
There was considerable discussion between Cessna and the FAA about the need for a static cone on C-X dive tests. We finally ended up using one. I am not expert enough on the subject to assess the accuracy of the M1.005 that was achieved.