Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Turbulence and wing design

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Turbulence and wing design

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 8th Oct 2010, 22:10
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Turbulence and wing design

A question I was pondering on a flight yesterday:

"Is there a specific design of wing that minimises the in-cabin effects of turbulence, and if so, is wing design dictated in part by these considerations?"

...and as a follow up question, "would it follow that seating at the wing root gives best comfort as a result?"
Mike-Bracknell is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 09:15
  #2 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Any wing section with a flat lift curve improves the ride in turbulence, but those sections are uncommon in airliners. Speed is the greatest influence we have.

Regarding 'motion' - over the wing you will just be 'jiggled' up and down mostly whereas at the ends you will probably get an 'end of a see-saw type' of motion.
BOAC is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 10:01
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The L1011-500 series TriStar featured ACS [Active Control System] which automatically deploys wing spoilers to dampen turbulence induced upsets.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 11:51
  #4 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Clever, but presumably not able to cope with downdrafts?
BOAC is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 12:39
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: East side of OZ
Posts: 624
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Didn't the Tristar have active ailerons for gust response suppression while the spoilers were used on approach for direct lift control.

Regards,
BH.
Bullethead is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 12:51
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi BH,

Affirm. There was also RSB (recovery speed brake) on UK registered -500s which would automatically deploy at a high Mach No and required manual stowage. PFM.
rudderrudderrat is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 13:19
  #7 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apologies to MB for hijacking the thread but Bullethead - are you saying, then, Glueball is wrong? How did the ailerons work in lift control?
BOAC is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 13:32
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How did the ailerons work in lift control?
When ACS detected a vertical acceleration beyond it's threshold, the ailerons would move upwards to reduce the lift at the extended wing outboard section. (-500 wing was extended to improve aspect ratio)
rudderrudderrat is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 14:14
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 1,319
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
Effectiveness

Were these 'active damping' schemes purely for passenger comfort ? If so, did they work in terms of the passenger experience ?
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 14:21
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"would it follow that seating at the wing root gives best comfort as a result?"
For dull rigid body mechanics reasons (as the aircraft translates up it pitches down and vice versa) the smallest turbulence upset will normally be felt at the front of the aircraft getting worse as you move back.
WillDAQ is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 14:39
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Mr. Optimistic,
Were these 'active damping' schemes purely for passenger comfort ?
I see you live up to your name - They were for wing bending relief to improve the fatigue life. A by product may have been the ride had less +ve g "up bump" - but as BOAC pointed out - the same -ve g "down bump".
rudderrudderrat is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 14:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 1,319
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
one lives in hope

Thanks.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 14:50
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
For dull rigid body mechanics reasons (as the aircraft translates up it pitches down and vice versa) the smallest turbulence upset will normally be felt at the front of the aircraft getting worse as you move back.
Aha - this is something I hesitated to mention. I had a pretty good flight at the pointy end of a 757 on Thursday compared to a relatively poor flight at the rear of an A320 on Tuesday, and was wondering whether it was one of the reasons business class and first was nominally put at the front of the aircraft.

So for those of us paupers who don't normally travel in style, the best results can be seen at the front of the relevant section of cattle class, aligned with a liberal amount of praying to the gods of Bernoulli?
Mike-Bracknell is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 17:37
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,483
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
When the gust response analyis is being done the certification requirements mandate that the manufacturer observe the dynamic effects of an statistically alleviated gust at various stations on the airplane and around the airplane

§ 25.341 Gust and turbulence loads.

(a) Discrete Gust Design Criteria. The airplane is assumed to be subjected to symmetrical vertical and lateral gusts in level flight. Limit gust loads must be determined in accordance with the provisions:
(1) Loads on each part of the structure must be determined by dynamic analysis. The analysis must take into account unsteady aerodynamic characteristics and all significant structural degrees of freedom including rigid body motions.
(2) The shape of the gust must be:


for 0 ≤ s ≤ 2H
where—
s=distance penetrated into the gust (feet);
Uds=the design gust velocity in equivalent airspeed specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section; and
H=the gust gradient which is the distance (feet) parallel to the airplane's flight path for the gust to reach its peak velocity.

(3) A sufficient number of gust gradient distances in the range 30 feet to 350 feet must be investigated to find the critical response for each load quantity.
(4) The design gust velocity must be:


where—
Uref=the reference gust velocity in equivalent airspeed defined in paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
Fg=the flight profile alleviation factor defined in paragraph (a)(6) of this section.

(5) The following reference gust velocities apply:
(i) At the airplane design speed VC: Positive and negative gusts with reference gust velocities of 56.0 ft/sec EAS must be considered at sea level. The reference gust velocity may be reduced linearly from 56.0 ft/sec EAS at sea level to 44.0 ft/sec EAS at 15000 feet. The reference gust velocity may be further reduced linearly from 44.0 ft/sec EAS at 15000 feet to 26.0 ft/sec EAS at 50000 feet.
(ii) At the airplane design speed VD: The reference gust velocity must be 0.5 times the value obtained under §25.341(a)(5)(i).
(6) The flight profile alleviation factor, Fg, must be increased linearly from the sea level value to a value of 1.0 at the maximum operating altitude defined in §25.1527. At sea level, the flight profile alleviation factor is determined by the following equation:


Zmo=Maximum operating altitude defined in §25.1527.

(7) When a stability augmentation system is included in the analysis, the effect of any significant system nonlinearities should be accounted for when deriving limit loads from limit gust conditions.
(b) Continuous Gust Design Criteria. The dynamic response of the airplane to vertical and lateral continuous turbulence must be taken into account. The continuous gust design criteria of appendix G of this part must be used to establish the dynamic response unless more rational criteria are shown.
[Doc. No. 27902, 61 FR 5221, Feb. 9, 1996; 61 FR 9533, Mar. 8, 1996]
Pugilistic Animus is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 19:31
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,808
Received 133 Likes on 65 Posts
Is there a specific design of wing that minimises the in-cabin effects of turbulence,
Yes - rotary wings have excellent ride in turbulence.
Checkboard is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2010, 23:25
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Age: 52
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What I was really getting at was - "has ride performance in turbulence improved in later generation planes?" as I thought the ride on a 777 was great in turbulence, whereas the old 727 used to rattle my bones.
Mike-Bracknell is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2010, 06:02
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What I was really getting at was - "has ride performance in turbulence improved in later generation planes?" as I thought the ride on a 777 was great in turbulence, whereas the old 727 used to rattle my bones.
Sure, later model aircraft provide a smoother ride as the wings are less rigid. The 777 wing allows for more flex as opposed to a rigid wing 727.. Been allways told that corperate jet's get beat up the worst for this reason, some commuters too. Stubby little wings that translate the up and down drafts at hard frequencies.
grounded27 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2010, 06:16
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Based on personal experience, aircraft with higher wing loadings and with lower aspect ratios ride smoother in turbulence.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2010, 11:16
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany (North)
Age: 44
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Best gust response comes when you have very high wing loading and very flat lift curve slope. See: Tornado IDS or F-111.
As correctly pointed out, Gust Load Alleviation is done to drive down wing weight. As the certification requirements are looking at the upper end of gust intensity, I wouldn't expect such an aircraft to be more comfortable except maybe in really tough turbulence.

Been allways told that corperate jet's get beat up the worst for this reason, some commuters too. Stubby little wings that translate the up and down drafts at hard frequencies.
Those aircraft also have low wing loading.
CabinMaster is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2010, 05:10
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
I have never flown on any Aircraft that soaks up turbulence as well as the wonderful B727.


Rigid wing ! Have you ever watched it flap around ?



That wing was a masterpiece of design.



If you really want to find a modern Aircraft with a very bad ride in turbulence it is the B757.
stilton is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.