Boeing v Airbus wings
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 865
Likes: 15
From: Greater Aldergrove
Boeing v Airbus wings
Folks,
Do Boeing and Airbus have significantly different wing design philosophies?
To me, Airbus flaps seem to be smaller than their Boeing counterparts, and seem to extend less.
Boeings tend to have higher cruising speeds.
Are Airbus wings optimised for broader performance across a wider speed range (thus requiring less flap to land), with Boeing tending to choose a better high-speed design and fitting bigger flaps for low-speed control?
Do Boeing and Airbus have significantly different wing design philosophies?
To me, Airbus flaps seem to be smaller than their Boeing counterparts, and seem to extend less.
Boeings tend to have higher cruising speeds.
Are Airbus wings optimised for broader performance across a wider speed range (thus requiring less flap to land), with Boeing tending to choose a better high-speed design and fitting bigger flaps for low-speed control?
BOEING VS AIRBUS
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
From: Skagness on the beach
Each company has its better wings for comperable aircraft vs. the other. Sometimes the manufacturer gets it right and sometimes things just don't turn out exactly the way you thought they would.
But one of the two is known, as SOON2B points out, for Being "low and slow".
But one of the two is known, as SOON2B points out, for Being "low and slow".
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
From: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
When Airbus introduced the A310, it was the aerodynamically most advanced wing in transport aircraft design, obviously much better than any existing Boeing design at that time. For modern Boeing design, there is not much difference to modern Airbus design, both are at comparable level of aerodynamic performance.
Anyway both companies follow a sligtly different optimisation idea, Boeing wings have a little more sweep. This improves high speed performance by reducing transsonic drag. Therefore Boeing aircraft cruise a little faster. On the other hand wingsweep is bad for high lift performance, especially the outer wing is not able to work at high CL. To compensate for this Boeing wings have to use more sophisticated trailing edge devices like multiple slotted flaps.
If you compare the B777 wing flaps to the A330 design, you see the large gap between inner and outer flaps at the engine position for the Boeing, while the Airbus flap is continous. To have the same overall high lift performance, the flaps with ´engine window´ need to have better performance than the continous, therefore they have to be slotted.
Anyway both companies follow a sligtly different optimisation idea, Boeing wings have a little more sweep. This improves high speed performance by reducing transsonic drag. Therefore Boeing aircraft cruise a little faster. On the other hand wingsweep is bad for high lift performance, especially the outer wing is not able to work at high CL. To compensate for this Boeing wings have to use more sophisticated trailing edge devices like multiple slotted flaps.
If you compare the B777 wing flaps to the A330 design, you see the large gap between inner and outer flaps at the engine position for the Boeing, while the Airbus flap is continous. To have the same overall high lift performance, the flaps with ´engine window´ need to have better performance than the continous, therefore they have to be slotted.
Paxing All Over The World
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,843
Likes: 328
From: Hertfordshire, UK.
As a pax, I have learnt from flight crew that Airbus wings were designed for fuel economy. They go slower but are smoother and, for the distance, the amount of fuel saved is significant.
On a short or medium haul, the time diff for an Airbus wing is negligible. On the long haul, it becomes noticeable but not significant. For example. LHR ~ JNB: This non-stop sector of (avergae) some 10.5 hours, is shown with 30 minutes extra for the A340 against a B747. I gather that the time is less than that but 30 mins is easier on the schedule for pax to understand.
So, from a pax point of view, it's irrelevant. From the human point of view, when I hear people boasting that their toy goes X knots faster than another, I think: Bunch of babies.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
On a short or medium haul, the time diff for an Airbus wing is negligible. On the long haul, it becomes noticeable but not significant. For example. LHR ~ JNB: This non-stop sector of (avergae) some 10.5 hours, is shown with 30 minutes extra for the A340 against a B747. I gather that the time is less than that but 30 mins is easier on the schedule for pax to understand.
So, from a pax point of view, it's irrelevant. From the human point of view, when I hear people boasting that their toy goes X knots faster than another, I think: Bunch of babies.
--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
None but a blockhead
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 534
Likes: 0
From: London, UK
I'm just glad there is a difference. As everyone gets better and better computer modelling, runs the same routes burning the same fuel with interchangeable engines, I wouldn't be surprised if it all ends up at the same ultra-optimised geometry. Dull or what?
R
R
