A380 Too Big, Massive Inertia Factor!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A380 Too Big, Massive Inertia Factor!
Weather and wake turbulence forces striking an aircraft are unable to accelerate a large mass into sufficient motion to dissipate a high level of kinetic energy and therefore, the aircraft absorbs a major percentage of the kinetic energy in the structure!
An example of this phenomena is the TWA 800 accident. (Another massive structure.) At 2031.12 the aircraft was initially struck by wake turbulence forces that started the structural breakup. (A 13.5 foot section of the aircraft's keel beam fell out of the structure into the initial debris area. No evidence of explosive damage to any of the items in this debris area!) Eight seconds later the explosion occurred. (The FDR stopped recording and both cockpit clocks stopped at 2031.20!)
There must be a physical limit to the size of an aircraft design, in relation to the possible turbulence forces that an aircraft may encounter.
WS
An example of this phenomena is the TWA 800 accident. (Another massive structure.) At 2031.12 the aircraft was initially struck by wake turbulence forces that started the structural breakup. (A 13.5 foot section of the aircraft's keel beam fell out of the structure into the initial debris area. No evidence of explosive damage to any of the items in this debris area!) Eight seconds later the explosion occurred. (The FDR stopped recording and both cockpit clocks stopped at 2031.20!)
There must be a physical limit to the size of an aircraft design, in relation to the possible turbulence forces that an aircraft may encounter.
WS
Last edited by wsherif1; 12th Oct 2003 at 02:40.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm afraid your hypothesis is unproven and as a result your conclusions are totally incorrect (in my opinion). I would rather be in a large 747 type structure in any wake encounter than any smaller one like MD-80 size. You infer bits are more likely to break off on a larger aeroplane because of the inertia- I think you will find the strength of the structure is greater. You would have us all flying around in Beech 18 size aeroplanes. Perhaps you could do more to stress it is personal opinion rather than try and present it as 'fact'.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There must be a physical limit to the size of an aircraft design, in relation to the possible turbulence forces that an aircraft may encounter.
Yes
A380 Too Big, Massive Inertia Factor!
No. I think Airbus might have thought of that.
Weather and wake turbulence forces striking an aircraft are unable to accelerate a large mass into motion
Newtonian physics would suggest otherwise.
An example of this phenomena is the TWA 800 accident. (Another massive structure.) At 2031.12 the aircraft was initially struck by wake turbulence forces that started the structural breakup
Completely unproven.
Yes
A380 Too Big, Massive Inertia Factor!
No. I think Airbus might have thought of that.
Weather and wake turbulence forces striking an aircraft are unable to accelerate a large mass into motion
Newtonian physics would suggest otherwise.
An example of this phenomena is the TWA 800 accident. (Another massive structure.) At 2031.12 the aircraft was initially struck by wake turbulence forces that started the structural breakup
Completely unproven.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wsherif1 whines.......
A380 Too Big, Massive Inertia Factor!
Aviate 1138 says...
Do you work for Boeing?
Loads of idiots said the 747 was too big in 1969 - no change there then.
Never mind, with all the military contracts to keep Boeing solvent, I am sure they will come up with an alternative competitive product for the civil market.
Eventually.
Aviate1138
A380 Too Big, Massive Inertia Factor!
Aviate 1138 says...
Do you work for Boeing?
Loads of idiots said the 747 was too big in 1969 - no change there then.
Never mind, with all the military contracts to keep Boeing solvent, I am sure they will come up with an alternative competitive product for the civil market.
Eventually.
Aviate1138
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What thoughts do the pilot community have in relation to the wake turbulence that the A380 itself create? And what implications that might have on separation times and distances for other aircraft?
I seem to recollect reading somewhere that the wake turbulence of significantly smaller aircraft (757?) where somewhat underestimated at the time of development.
I seem to recollect reading somewhere that the wake turbulence of significantly smaller aircraft (757?) where somewhat underestimated at the time of development.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviate1138
Your comment,
"Loads of idiots said the 747 was too big in 1969 - no change there then."
If you will read the TWA 800 report and enlarge the FDR Chart you will then see the data which was removed by the NTSB and understand what happened to TWA. (Including the parts of the aircraft that fell out of the structure, prior to the explosion."
WS
Your comment,
"Loads of idiots said the 747 was too big in 1969 - no change there then."
If you will read the TWA 800 report and enlarge the FDR Chart you will then see the data which was removed by the NTSB and understand what happened to TWA. (Including the parts of the aircraft that fell out of the structure, prior to the explosion."
WS
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is Les Bloxham and are you seeing him socially?
The argument put forward: Bigger aeroplane=bad structurally is complete nonsense. It would presumably follow that bigger ship=less ability to handle large waves, and we know the opposite. What happened to TWA was the tragic consequences of inflight breakup- inferring too much from the FDR recording spurious readings is a mistake. Boeing showed the way with improvements in safety in large aeroplanes for over 30 years now. Behold the next step- the new 'jumbo' for the next 40 years, the A380!
The argument put forward: Bigger aeroplane=bad structurally is complete nonsense. It would presumably follow that bigger ship=less ability to handle large waves, and we know the opposite. What happened to TWA was the tragic consequences of inflight breakup- inferring too much from the FDR recording spurious readings is a mistake. Boeing showed the way with improvements in safety in large aeroplanes for over 30 years now. Behold the next step- the new 'jumbo' for the next 40 years, the A380!
bat fastard
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back home in Alba
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As already has been mentioned larger aircraft have stronger structures. Modern matierials like composites are very very strong. I would think the larger the structure the more structure there will be to absorb the impact of any turbulence. I would certainly rather be in a 747 in a thunderstorm than any other aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks the gent complains too much!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=101819
Change the record mate.....
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=101819
Change the record mate.....
