Talk:Environmental control system

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environmental control system article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Aviation: Engines

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Spaceflight High‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I don't have time now, but this article is missing references to Wing Anti Ice commonly being part of the ECS and also the various other classes of ECS for smaller business jets, and other transportation platforms. Maybe when I have time I will come back. ;)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miker (talk • contribs) 03:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air quality front to aft?

I was just wondering about this:

- Boeing and Airbus jetliners supply constant flow per unit length of the cabin.

- Airflow into the fuselage is approximately constant, and pressure is maintained by varying the opening of the "Out Flow Valve" (OFV). Most modern jetliners have a single OFV located near the bottom aft end of the fuselage

If both are true, air inserted in the front of the cabin would have to make its way to the back, resulting in a net front-to-aft airflow... and air would have passed by more passangers towards the aft of the cabin.

Is this true, or is air vented over the entire length of the cabin and then transported to the back of the fuselage using conduits?

-

On a sidenote, i always believed this net flow used to be the reason that smoking seats where always on the back rows (and first class is up front). Any insights?

Comments:

In principle, these comments are correct. Air is vented over the entire length of the aircraft (think of all the gaspers above the seats in the lugage bins).

Please note however that the gaspers (where the air flows from the ventilation ducts into the cabin) are located near the ceiling. The slots, where the air exists the passenger area and goes into the cargo bays, are located near the floor (in the DADO panles). So the air flows front-to-aft AND downwards. This results in most smelly air flowing downwards before it reaches the passengers in the back.

To avoid any nicotine fumes reaching the forward compartment, the smoking area is loacted in the back.

First Class is located in the front to assure that first class passengers can board the area last (in most cases only the front door is used for boarding) and they receive their meals and service first (near to the galley and crew area). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.57.138 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lower cabin altitudes versus fatigue life

"The new airliners such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787 will have lower maximum cabin altitudes which help in fatigue reduction during flights."

I think this argument is incorrect. Lower maximum cabin altitude means higher minimum cabin pressure. This higher minimum cabin pressure results is a higher pressure difference between cabin and outside.

With new composites used in the A380 and B787, the structure can handle these bigger loads, since less rivets are used and more glued connections (les stress peaks).

I think the argument should read:

The new airliners such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787 will have lower maximum cabin altitudes because of their composite structures and theirfore their lower fatigue damage growth.

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.195.174 (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the initial quote should have read: "The new airliners such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787 will have lower maximum cabin altitudes which help in PASSENGER fatigue reduction during flights." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.188.83 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it to read "Passenger fatigue" for clarity, as I'm pretty sure this is what's meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.72.5 (talk) 14:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information: spacecraft

Manned spacecraft have environmental control systems (with the same name), too. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No response in over 3 years? A spacecraft ECS has exactly the same purpose (air supply, thermal control and cabin pressurization) as the one on aircraft. The only difference is, the air supply is not taken from the engines, as these are not "air-breathing". Without objection, I'm going to expand it by adding a section, and moving the article to Environmental control system. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Electric?

This article only focuses on pneumatic systems - it would be useful if someone would provide an overview of how "more electric" systems (such as that installed on the 787) differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.72.5 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about other military vehicles with ECSs

I came here from a link in Russia's current main battle tank article about its latest ECS for it. This article should be expanded to included details about such solutions in other craft, namely ground war vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.164.123 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]