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

A320 vortex generator retrofit

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

A320 vortex generator retrofit

Old 22nd Nov 2018, 15:41
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 774
Soundsamples:
https://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/re...abatement.html
IFixPlanes is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 16:29
  #22 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
Nice! Thank you!
underfire is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 17:42
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by IFixPlanes View Post

yes, thank you very much - oder, Vielen dank!
CaptainMongo is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 21:20
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: NRW Germany
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by alexh1987 View Post
We (Lufthansa-group airline) have installed them on all our A320 and as someone who lives directly under the approach path of a nearby airport I can tell you that these vortex generators really make a difference. The whisteling noise is completely gone after the modification.


Oh yes, the noise relief is now 6dB at least, that means that the noise energy produced is now divided by 4.
In other words, proviously the silly A320's FOPs emitted 3 times more noise than all the rest of the plane!
RIN67630 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 21:28
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: NRW Germany
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
A fuel impact due to a vortex generator over a small opening on the wing???
Just think if they covered the landing gear!
It was the concern of FlightDetent that the small vortex gens could have a negative impact on the fuel consumption.
The landing gears can be retracted.

Pilots can however remember that outputting the landing gears too early costs fuel and increases the residential noise.
Regards.
Laszlo
RIN67630 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 21:32
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: NRW Germany
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
That is very good and pleasant to hear! People doing the right things for the right reasons.
Yes. Unfortunately many planes from Eurowings taken over from Air Berlin are still not retrofitted. Their managers seem to be unable to calculate.
RIN67630 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2018, 23:17
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 66
Posts: 3,367
On the original pure turbojet and low bypass turbofan jets, the engine noise so dominated the noise generation that nobody paid much attention to the aerodynamic noise generation. But as the engines have gotten progressively quieter, the airframe contribution has become increasingly important. Years ago Boeing did a noise test of the 747 (I forget which model but is was long enough ago that I suspect it was a -200). They flew over the microphone array at max takeoff power, then repeated the tests - same speed, altitude, etc. but with the engines at idle. It only made 3 db difference - basically meaning that at takeoff power the airframe contribution to the noise was roughly equal to the engines
On the new, quieter aircraft (787, 747-8, A350, etc) the noise engineers spend as much time working things like the flaps and landing gear as they do the engines.
tdracer is online now  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 07:13
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: NRW Germany
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
On the original pure turbojet and low bypass turbofan jets, the engine noise so dominated the noise generation that nobody paid much attention to the aerodynamic noise generation. But as the engines have gotten progressively quieter, the airframe contribution has become increasingly important. Years ago Boeing did a noise test of the 747 (I forget which model but is was long enough ago that I suspect it was a -200). They flew over the microphone array at max takeoff power, then repeated the tests - same speed, altitude, etc. but with the engines at idle. It only made 3 db difference - basically meaning that at takeoff power the airframe contribution to the noise was roughly equal to the engines
On the new, quieter aircraft (787, 747-8, A350, etc) the noise engineers spend as much time working things like the flaps and landing gear as they do the engines.
I m not surprised. The engines ususally radiate noise behind the aircraft.The noise intensity with hen engines on might make only 3dB difference, the duration is however longer. But for the certification tests the duration was not relevant.
One frequently forget, that landings harms more people than starts. Landing is flat and aircrafts follow the ILS as on rails. The starts are steeper and the routes diverge soon.
And yes some trivial improvements like castellated bolts on the wheels make a significant difference on the landing noise.
RIN67630 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 16:24
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
The landing gears can be retracted.
I was referring to the variants where, when retracted, the landing gear is not covered. I would think that castellated bolts would make more noise?



underfire is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 16:56
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here
Posts: 828
Originally Posted by Down Three Greens View Post
Gatwick will be charging more airbus aircraft not fitted with the FOPP mod. That factors into the business case.
https://www.gatwickairport.com/globa...nt-30jan17.pdf
Charges seem not insignificant. Page 27 (as printed on bottom of page). I don't know what "chapter" the A320 is in. Text is all legible here if page full screen.

jimjim1 is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 18:27
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 56
Posts: 31
I think the unmodified A320 family sums it up

As part of the wake turbulence measurement, we are measuring the sound frequency of the passing ac, not just the noise level. This helps in the mitigation of noise, as a blanket insulation is overkill, but if you target frequencies, the mitigation can be very effective.

Last edited by underfire; 23rd Nov 2018 at 18:38.
underfire is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 19:02
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,232
Originally Posted by jimjim1 View Post
I don't know what "chapter" the A320 is in.
Chapter 4.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 20:19
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: NRW Germany
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by underfire View Post
I think the unmodified A320 family sums it up<br />As part of the wake turbulence measurement, we are measuring the sound frequency of the passing ac, not just the noise level. This helps in the mitigation of noise, as a blanket insulation is overkill, but if you target frequencies, the mitigation can be very effective.
<br /><br />

I have a detailed frequency diagram for you: The frequency analysis there (Sonogramm) reveals a lot: the whine sound (the pair of Z shaped dark traces) is perceived far before and long after the main aircraft noise.<br />The unmodified A320 is an acoustical catastrophe in the begin of the ILS landing.<br />
Since i can't post an image yet, I invite you to go to cjoint.com and append /doc/18_11/HKxvmhuM0d1_Akustische-Analyse.jpg to that address.
Maybe someone can post the image for me?
Regards
Laszlo
RIN67630 is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2021, 19:01
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 38
Never found the reason until now. The ugly disgraceful whine sound of A320 family. Only at landing. But not anymore before touchdown. Thanks a bunch they found a solution. Unfortunately still some aren't fixed.

The poster above mentioned diagrams. I share them. The frequencies of those different sized openings are stated as 530Hz and 580Hz. Absolutely disharmonic and annoying, See here the recording of an A320 overfly. Sonogram: Left to right is approaching over leaving the microphone position. More black means higher noise level. See the 2 strong curves, that's the dominating whine sound. And it is the first noise one hears and the last before the noise disappears. Due to doppler effect the frequency lowers during overpass.



waito is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2021, 19:04
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 38
Oh, this is a good overview
Presentation re EasyJet (gatwickairport.com; PDF)
waito is offline  
Old 17th Jan 2021, 19:42
  #36 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 43
Posts: 3,390
Further search in the old threads reveals your annoyance well share around the globe. At one point, probably even still, Gatwick Airport would charge what, 900 GBP if you'd brought in aircraft without the MOD? Per movement! The answer probably in the AIP.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2021, 08:05
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Far East
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
Gatwick Airport would charge what, 900 GBP if you'd brought in aircraft without the MOD? Per movement! The answer probably in the AIP.
Obviously such was necessary to force the airlines into action. Well done, Gatwick! If some other relevant airports follow, healing is ahead. I mean, the A320 family, compared to recent other traffic on approach, was outstanding in noise and how it bothers your brain.
waito is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2021, 08:32
  #38 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 43
Posts: 3,390
Sorry for the grammar of the previous post. More soothing reading here: https://www.gatwickairport.com/globa...19-2024-lr.pdf Slide 45 shows a daytime turn-around with an A320 without the generators incurs a penalty of 1400 GBP. That's actually more of a political statement than a fee, not joking.
FlightDetent 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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.