Not sure which wiki data you are referencing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-8
I did not use wiki data, that is not vetted and really should not be relied on.
Luftansa uses 511 sq m for 744 and 554 sq m for 748, I did not use 748 data as there are very few of these in service.
For the 787 series, there is a scientific paper on this aircraft.
A388 was from Airbus.
B773 was from Swiss Air. (427 sq m)
BTW, Airbus uses the center wing in their area calculations, Boeing does not. This may be why you will see such differences in similar ac, or why there are differences in the source on same ac.
This website seems to be a bit more accurate:
http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_en.php
Of course 96x96 will be used. It’s coming to LHR in the next few years.
I sincerely doubt this. I cannot see ATC sorting this many variants out, especially of the same ac variants. Aside from that, by the time this ill-fated scenario rolls out, there will be even more variants. (now it is a 115 by 115 matrix)
There is the potential to have something similar, if NATS gets the automation worked out on the new ATC system, but this would require the new system...lets see how that works out, and in how many years.
Interesting to note the RECAT pilot program at Memphis, no increase in REPORTED wake encounters...(no decrease either) I know every pilot reports every wake encounter, so it appears that RECAT works, right?
Curious, what is going on with time based separation at LHR?
160 at 4DME is fast. For the 320 and 737 variants, not an issue., but try to manage the energy of a large aircraft from 160 down to FAS from 4 DME. (and with steeper approaches?!?!) Most large ac the optimum GPA is 2.8 to manage the energy.