As Python would say...
..."You luck Bastard. You, lucky, lucky Bastard!"
How do you tell the world you’re building smart(er) aircraft tech? If you’re Honeywell, you put a bunch of journalists in the front of your converted testbed airliner and take them for a flight 20,000 feet over eastern England, that’s how. Honeywell is partnering with Inmarsat to offer faster in-flight Wi-Fi speeds to airline …
It might well be that this is the data generated, rather than what's logged. There's a lot of very complex systems, making a lot of decisions, with an awful lot of data. I'm sure they actually log less than that. But I guess it means that engineering could log directly into the engines in-flight, and watch their actual performance, rather than what they chose to log by the time it's downloaded on the ground.
I guess you could use this for research. Or look at you most and least fuel-efficient planes to see what they're doing right/wrong.
It depends on what you're sampling. Cabin temperature changes fairly slowly so you'd probably sample that once a second at most. Engine performance may well be sampling lots of data points every millisecond. Fuel flow, fuel temperature, combustion temperature, exhaust temperature, pressure at various points in the engine, RPM. Then there's all the other flight parameters, other system parameters (battery volts, bus bolts, system load, hydraulic pressure etc). It wouldn't surprise me if there's not a video feed in there too, for modern aircraft.
Most of the time it isn't needed, but if something goes wrong, then having access to detailed data from the critical period leading up to the incident may be really useful.
There's a frankly staggering amount of information available from the engines alone. I was tangentially involved in some data logging trials and like you I was out by a few orders of magnitude when it came to what the aircraft could produce.
Different users have different data requirements though, so the engine manufacturer wants to know stuff about the engines I didn't even know was a thing, which lets them develop predictive maintenance programmes that minimise down time. The flight safety department want to know all about how the aircraft is flown so they can try and anticipate where the next accident could occur to prevent it, that used a few hundred parameters more than I thought would exist too.
Just think how slow the whole satellite system is going to get with all the passengers watching videos and video-calling all their family, on however many thousand flights a day there are.
Well I guess we're safe from that happening in reality, given the hideous charges that the airlines will want us to pay to use this data. I'm perfectly happy buying a paper in the airport if I need news, or reading a book if not.
"I'm perfectly happy buying a paper in the airport if I need news, or reading a book if not."
Unless the airline deceides to charge you for not using their on-board wi-fi, entertainment system, or whatever... because this means you are not producing any sellable data. Wouldn't put it past the likes of RyanAir.
Besides, only terrorists read books on a plane these days!
yep. AF1 could be a Cessna 182 if the situation demanded. Or an old C130 straight outta Panama with buckets for toilets.
If I were Prez, AF1 would be that XB70 the AF Museum has stashed :)
And whatever I could get Rutan to build for me.
Make Civil Aviation Great Again! But then the Airlines and both Political Parties would be on 24/7 attack mode for my frivolous flight expenses, even if they were cheaper and less damaging than most vanity (err.."Legacy") projects the last few Presidents have engaged in.
I think they are working on a plan to move N America to be over the equator,
IIRC It involves electing a president who can make the founding fathers spin in their graves fast enough to provide a torque to flip the axis
I think that's partly due to the mapping projection used and partly due to the original satellite orbits being chosen to cover the oceans, the mar in Inmarsat being for maritime. I suspect flying over a large 1st world land mass downlinks are also as viable as uplinks.
Also if the cellls are stationary that means geostationary satelites which necessarily places them above the equator and makes coverage more dificult nearer the poles, I'm surprised the beams are not made narrower to compensate. Plus coverage at the poles won't work well for geostationary sats, I'd guess there is some other arrangement of polar orbiting sats or geosync sats for help.
"The busy no electronic devices allowed Europe to N America route ?"
LOL, yes, that one. I'd forgotten about that. So, maybe not such a good time to announce new in-flight consumer WiFi services in the hope of selling it to operators.