Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Wake Turbulence  
User currently offlineMas777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7406 times:

As I do a lot of my flying on short-haul routes too - I have started to become increasingly nervous about wake turbulence, especially when I am sitting in a tiny 737 waiting to depart behind a 'heavy' aircraft. This fear seems to be worsening to the point that sometimes if I notice that a 747 is taking off ahead of mine - my mind starts wondering...

...anyway - personal fears aside - does anyone else have similar concerns about the A380's wake turbulence and distance separation required once it comes into service?

(Geez - sometimes the wait at LHR can be so long on the taxiways to take-off that I do hope that I never meet an impatient crew who just can't wait to get off the ground...)

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7269 times:

Airbus did mention that they'd be putting in a lot of aerodynamic effort to minimze wake turbulence in any way they could...

...but it is huge, and displaces a lot of air. Only so much you can do.

N


User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6684 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7218 times:

Can't avoid the "heavy" problems. Big plane generates big vortices. Separation recommendations will be developed during test flying I'd imagine.


wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 784 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7171 times:

Are there any novel solutions to wake turbulence from the perspective of the ground? Could, I don't know, large fans be placed across and at the ends of the runway to negate the vortices that a jet creates? I'm sure plenty of people here know the physics of this and could intelligently respond.


You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6202 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7109 times:

One time I took off in a Cessna 172 right behind a C-5; that was exciting!


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6684 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 7079 times:

As far as dispersing wake vortices goes, nature tends to do it anyway. A vortex is a rotating tube of air and as it gets close to the ground it will roll sideways, if it's not already broken up. If there's any wind, the vortices will be blown with the wind. Having something to disperse them would be prohibitively expensive because they'd have to cover the whole length of the runway and a lot of power would be needed to generate enough flow velocity. The likelihood is that any dispersal system would cause more disruption than the vortices themselves

The vortices are a bigger problem in the air because they'll take longer to disperse.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineLuisca From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7044 times:

i was doing some touch and go's in tocumen in preparation for my solo when I was told to hold for a lab 727 that was going to take of, I did all the procedures to avoid wake turbulance, landed before the pont where the aircraft took off, during the landing everything was fine, in the takeoff, things got ugly, i am not quite shure if i took of after the point where he rotated, but i defenetly croosed its path, it was horrible, i have never been shaken so much in an airplane ever. I was in a 152, next time i will wait till the turbulance disipates, i had only waited about a minute. that shure thought me a lesson.

User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7005 times:

Are there any novel solutions to wake turbulence from the perspective of the ground? Could, I don't know, large fans be placed across and at the ends of the runway to negate the vortices that a jet creates? I'm sure plenty of people here know the physics of this and could intelligently respond.

Even if there were a fan large enough, it would just make the problem worse.


User currently offlineAAgent From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 560 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6826 times:

Curious...

Here's an idea out of left field. And I suppose it would only work under visible light conditions, but I wonder what would happen if there was some sort of colored smoke emitted from the wingtips into the vortices that would create visible trails to warn following aircraft? You know something similar to the stuff used by sky writers to write messages across the sky. Makes me wonder??? (Of course the emission would occur only during takeoff, climb out, approach and landing cycles...not when cruising at altitude.)

Respectfully,
AAgent



War Eagle!
User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6773 times:

AAgent,

Seems like a decent idea at first, but then does it become cost-prohibitive down the road? It's another system that needs to be added to an aircraft so it will need to be developed, tested, and approved for commercial aircraft. Who's going to pay for it?

Gigneil,

I've worked ATC for a decade and have never seen a wake turbulence problem so long as the time and separation standards were adhered to. When I fly, of all the things that potentially scare me, this is something I have never thought about.


User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6744 times:

I can hear it now...
Uh... Air Force One, we're gonna ask you to hold a few minutes to let that wake turbulence do its thing here...


User currently offlineMatheus From Brazil, joined Nov 2003, 135 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6085 times:

The worst aircraft to be after to is the 757!
Not exactly because its heavy, but because it inboard flap and outboard flaps is just one part! So, the it traffic separation is the same (maybe bigger) as the 747's, A340's etc. Maybe a traffic controller can explain this better!

Matheus


User currently offlineUAXDXer From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 765 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 6001 times:

Here is my experience with wake turbulence.............. KPDX - KDEN; UAL 733: As most of us know, anytime flying in & out of DEN turbulence is to be expected. On this particular flight (while listening to channel 9) we where experiencing the normal bumps flying over the Colorado Rockies, I heard ATC tell our flight deck crew that we where following a heavy 767, followed by the standard "caution wake turbulence". I didn't think anything of it because you hear this all the time. Not more than 30 seconds after that, in a blink of an eye, the aircraft violently knife edge to the right and back level then repeated one more time. Everything that wasn't secured went flying thru the cabin, luckily the FA's had already taken their seats, if they would have been up it could have been real ugly. After things settled down the Captain came over the speaker and said a larger aircraft (767 had descended informs of us causing the turbulence). Ever since then wake turbulence has paranoid the hell out of me.


It takes a bug to hit a windsheild but it takes guts to stick
User currently offlineAngelairways From United Kingdom, joined Nov 1999, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

due to the large wing area and low wing loading (i.e. each square foot of wing carries less weight than on a 747, therefore each square foot of wing needs to produce less lift, therefore since less lift is produced, the wake vortices are also weaker)

so the wake turbulence will be equivalent or less than that of a 747.
noise will also be less due to the need for less flap in proportion.

(of course there is a trade off between wing loading and wing weight and skin friction so the optimum config nees to be found.)



User currently offlineAa777jr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Mas777,

I feel your pain about waiting on the taxiways. I fly often from ORD-LHR on AA and the wait on the runway at ORD is getting increasingly more and more unbearable. Sat on the runway waiting in line for 90+ mins on my last flight to Europe.

AA777jr


User currently offlineHodges From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 138 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

I think we need to remember that wake turbulence can threaten many larger aircraft. Look at the AA A300 that crashed in Queens in November 2001. Crash investigators believe the vertical stabilizer fell off of the plane due to multiple factors, however, the wake turbulence casue by a JAL 747 (correct me if I'm wrong) was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Erik



Beer, helping ugly people have sex since 1862.
User currently offlineDayflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Taking off in a 737 after a 380 will be like surfing in a hurricane. Got Sea legs?
Your gonna need 'em!



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3015 times:

So how is the wake turbulence after the AN-225?


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16991 posts, RR: 67
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Crash investigators believe the vertical stabilizer fell off of the plane due to multiple factors, however, the wake turbulence casue by a JAL 747 (correct me if I'm wrong) was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Sort of, but it's the other way around. Wake turbulence started a chain of events in which the pilots had to compensate for the turbulence, eventually leading to the snapping of the tail.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In posted Mon Nov 14 2005 22:09:11 by AeroPiggot
A380 Wake Turbulence posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:58:56 by Mas777
A380, Slots .... And Wake Turbulence posted Mon Apr 5 2004 05:31:41 by Bd1959
A-380 Wake Turbulence Seperation posted Mon Oct 9 2006 23:38:36 by KC135TopBoom
Citation Severe Wake-turbulence Encounter At SFO posted Mon Sep 25 2006 05:22:43 by Wave882
A380 Wake Database Grows posted Tue Sep 19 2006 02:07:33 by Leelaw
Question On Wake Turbulence posted Tue May 30 2006 18:11:13 by Toulouse
A380 Wake Turbulance At LHR posted Thu May 18 2006 23:53:29 by Springbok295
Any Resolution Of A380 Wake Vortex Issue? posted Tue Mar 14 2006 12:44:22 by OldAeroGuy
Validity Of A380 Wake Data Questioned. posted Tue Dec 13 2005 21:50:46 by AeroPiggot