Your turbulence experience in different aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
8 Posts
Your turbulence experience in different aircraft
Just read an article concerning turbulence detection systems. It stated how a 747 is not as affected by turbulence as a 737. What has been your experience for better or worse performers in turbulence.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hotel
Age: 43
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not having flown the 737 or 747 I cannot answer for them, what I can do is make a brief general outline for turbulence handling.
Generally(very generally speaking) If a wing is a soft ride wing, usually wing mounted engines have soft ride wings, the wing will take some of the brunt.
If a wing is a hard ride wing, usually engines not mounted to the wings, the wing will not flex as much and give the pax/pilot a bumpier ride.
another General factor is wing loading. The higher weight per square foot the better the ride will be.
and lastly(off the top of my head) is speed...Vb is a good place to be
To answer your question based on mere deduction(havnt flown neither aircraft) I would ASSUME the 747 would give a better ride.
But then again if a white knuckled pax saw those winglets bobbing, i think they would prefer the 737
Generally(very generally speaking) If a wing is a soft ride wing, usually wing mounted engines have soft ride wings, the wing will take some of the brunt.
If a wing is a hard ride wing, usually engines not mounted to the wings, the wing will not flex as much and give the pax/pilot a bumpier ride.
another General factor is wing loading. The higher weight per square foot the better the ride will be.
and lastly(off the top of my head) is speed...Vb is a good place to be
To answer your question based on mere deduction(havnt flown neither aircraft) I would ASSUME the 747 would give a better ride.
But then again if a white knuckled pax saw those winglets bobbing, i think they would prefer the 737
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally(very generally speaking) If a wing is a soft ride wing, usually wing mounted engines have soft ride wings, the wing will take some of the brunt.
If a wing is a hard ride wing, usually engines not mounted to the wings, the wing will not flex as much and give the pax/pilot a bumpier ride.
If a wing is a hard ride wing, usually engines not mounted to the wings, the wing will not flex as much and give the pax/pilot a bumpier ride.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hotel
Age: 43
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally wings that are large and have wing mounted engines tend to be soft ride wings. The wing mounted engines strengthen the wing therefore
it tends to have some more wiggle room. Think 747-400
wings that are clean(no mounted engines) tend to need reinforcement
and are stiffened. Think MD-80.
There are other design characteristics that help in the design of soft and stiff wings but they escape me, too technical for my noggin.
Happy boxing day
it tends to have some more wiggle room. Think 747-400
wings that are clean(no mounted engines) tend to need reinforcement
and are stiffened. Think MD-80.
There are other design characteristics that help in the design of soft and stiff wings but they escape me, too technical for my noggin.
Happy boxing day
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gday guys,
A larger aircraft will have more inertia, therefore will be less affected by an external force. Thus, the 747 would most probably be more comfortable in turbulence.
Just my thoughts.
Cara
A larger aircraft will have more inertia, therefore will be less affected by an external force. Thus, the 747 would most probably be more comfortable in turbulence.
Just my thoughts.
Cara
Join Date: May 2003
Location: france
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
turbulence
hi everyone,
turbulence perception for you & the aircraft, has to do with wingloading, wing elasticy & speed.
in technical terms a vertical & also to a lesser extend a horizontal gust, increases/decreases your g loading, depending if the gust is positive(+) or negative(-).
n = 1 + (xi).delta n
n = 1 and is your loadfactor when flying straight & level, unaccelerating in smooth air. also your apparent weight (Wapp= nW) equals your real weight, because n = 1.
now comes the gust & for simplification, let's only consider a positive(+) vertical gust. loadfactor & weight go up by (xi).delta n; stall speed increases also by square root of total load factor n.
xi = greek letter & is the elasticy/damping factor & depends on the wing design & structure and engine location. note that pictures of latest aircraft designs, b787 & a350, have very pronounced upwards curved wings. normal figure = circa 0.8, so 20% of the gust intensity is already absorped by the aircraft stucture.
delta n is directly proportionnal to the gust intensity(in kts or ft/sec) & aircraft speed(kts) & INdirectly proportionnal to the wingloading [= aircraft apparent weight (Wapp) ]versus wing surface(S).
so, a jumbojet, with high elasticy wings & high wingloading, flying at the right turbulence penetration speed(Vb), is less prone to turbulence than your favourite cessna150, eg. i remember jack waddell, chief project pilot for the b747, after a test flight & when asked about turbulence, saying, "WHAT turbulence?"
kind regards, fasten your seatbelts & merry x-mas,
bm
turbulence perception for you & the aircraft, has to do with wingloading, wing elasticy & speed.
in technical terms a vertical & also to a lesser extend a horizontal gust, increases/decreases your g loading, depending if the gust is positive(+) or negative(-).
n = 1 + (xi).delta n
n = 1 and is your loadfactor when flying straight & level, unaccelerating in smooth air. also your apparent weight (Wapp= nW) equals your real weight, because n = 1.
now comes the gust & for simplification, let's only consider a positive(+) vertical gust. loadfactor & weight go up by (xi).delta n; stall speed increases also by square root of total load factor n.
xi = greek letter & is the elasticy/damping factor & depends on the wing design & structure and engine location. note that pictures of latest aircraft designs, b787 & a350, have very pronounced upwards curved wings. normal figure = circa 0.8, so 20% of the gust intensity is already absorped by the aircraft stucture.
delta n is directly proportionnal to the gust intensity(in kts or ft/sec) & aircraft speed(kts) & INdirectly proportionnal to the wingloading [= aircraft apparent weight (Wapp) ]versus wing surface(S).
so, a jumbojet, with high elasticy wings & high wingloading, flying at the right turbulence penetration speed(Vb), is less prone to turbulence than your favourite cessna150, eg. i remember jack waddell, chief project pilot for the b747, after a test flight & when asked about turbulence, saying, "WHAT turbulence?"
kind regards, fasten your seatbelts & merry x-mas,
bm
Last edited by blackmail; 26th Dec 2006 at 11:23.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect "ride" may be subjective, wing loading, speed, inertia, and rigidity all having cumulative effects.
For my money the L-1011-500 had a very civilised ride, mainly because in addition to the "right" mix of the previously mentioned characteristics, it also had active controls, which "unloaded" some of the jounce forces on the wing. The collateral benefit is that it softened the ride quite noticeably.
There are those who would say it mirrored the difference between US luxury car, and European luxury car, both of which have their afficionados, but who is "right"?
For my money the L-1011-500 had a very civilised ride, mainly because in addition to the "right" mix of the previously mentioned characteristics, it also had active controls, which "unloaded" some of the jounce forces on the wing. The collateral benefit is that it softened the ride quite noticeably.
There are those who would say it mirrored the difference between US luxury car, and European luxury car, both of which have their afficionados, but who is "right"?
