Blah From Australia, joined Dec 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 749 times:
I have noticed from pictures that the wings on Boeing aircraft tend to be flatter than Airbus wings (meaning more parallel to the ground, less upward slope from the base, etc.). Can anyone explain the difference. This might be a poorly worded question, so I will try to clear it up if anyone wants.
MAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 749 times:
Yes indeed, the airfoil used by the Airbus products and Boeing products differs in chord and so forth the angle you are referring to is the "dihedral" which is the angle of the wings you see as viewed from head on or behind.
Airbus wings are in my view quite gracefullooking, while the Boeing wings are as you say more parallel looking with the ground. Squared off and with stodgy utilitarianism. I do notice this with most of the newer generation Boeing products. The Older Boeing products had more of a gracefulness to them like the 707, 727 and 747 wing. The Older A300 wing has a bit of a squared off look also. The newer generation Airbuses have a distinctively rounded off and sleef look to them.
The A340 reminds me of one of the greatest and most elegant airliners ever made..the DC-8. That thing is -pure beauty- to me. The A340 and A330 captures that same graceful look that I really like. A work of aerodynamic art to me..(G)
MAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 749 times:
There are advantages and disadvantages to every design. It all depends if they are flown with the mission they were built with in mind (or later developed along in concept after experience)
Both major airframe makes have advantages in their wing design. The Airbus side in the widebodies was primarily the work of BAe. The wing earned several awards if I'm not mistaken. It's a very unique wing making use of very high tech materials and design. The Boeing lineup, particularly the 757, 767 and 777 wings also are quite unique in their aerodynamic efficency.
The MD-11 wings are an expansion in many ways of the DC-10 wing. There are differences of course, but in most aspects it's a growth version of a DC-10 wing. The DC-10 had a wing that in many ways was great for it's job as originally designed, but it was severely limited in some ways. Continental's founder Robert F. Six was quite close to ordering L-1011 Tristars during the 60s because it could travel higher than the DC-10 due to it's wing.
Six sincerely felt passenger comfort (Flying at least at 41000 feet..well above the weather below) and efficiency of the airplane was a paramount concern. That was something CO was famous for back then, with it's well known inflight service "Golden Jet" theme it had. (A class act BTW)
Douglas then turned around and offered cheaper prices on the DC-10 (which couldnt fly as high as the L-1011) and guaranteed earlier delivery dates...
Six took the bait and the rest is history there.
You can read about that DC-10/L-1011 "wing and sales episode" at Continental at a -good large library- from the book by Robert Serling called "Maverick: The story of Bob Six and Continental Airlines" Copyright 1974. It's a very good book..old book..but very good book. (G)
MIKEYYZ From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 749 times:
Since you have alot of information about aircraft wings, can you please answer this.
Why does Airbus put 3 "flap movers" or i think it's fairings on the outer flaps, and if you look at the 767 or 777 they are about half the size of the 33/340 fairing.
Why so many and big on the Airbus.
MAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7 Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 749 times:
Well..it's as simple or as complex as the individual architectural preferences either airframe make has in its design and how it applies to it's own aircraft. Basically it's preference and how it fits into the overall planform and mission the airplane is supposed to do. On the older A300s, you will noitce 5 flap canoe fairings. Then on the A310...a reduction to 4. This could be that drag was realized on the older setup. Then with the A330 and A340 models a more aerodynamically refined 4 canoe system was emplaced. It's a pattern of evolution is what I'm saying here. On the Boeing models, the 767 and 777 share a very similar wing pattern. Albeit much bigger on the 777 of course.
Each manufacturer looks at the designs it builds and settles upon. The evolution of the Airbus wings is a great one to see how far it's come from it's humble beginnings to it's big presence now.
The ultimate show will be when the A3XX is launched (I think it will be). Then you will see a completely new wing from ground up being used on an ultra high capacity airliner. Take a look at the conceptual pictures of it. It holds some of Airbuses's "trademark" wing look to it, along with some very unique ideas with it.
It looks quite striking. It eschews the Winglet idea and sticks with a highly efficient planform. The Aspect ratio on it is also looking much higher than the current 747 wing, which means it will be a exceedingly serious contender in fuel efficency, range and payload capability.
You really have to dig into the raw math and numbers in the design and compare it carefully and understand the efficiencies in a basic level now to understand just how revolutionary this airplane is going to be. It's going to expand upon the widebody generation as we know it and bring a level of "super Widebody" that we havent seen before, along with incredible range.
I sincerely believe the A3XX is going to be a very very serious challenge to the 747 series. Some may think and espouse that "there is "no need" for this class of airplane..when the same, almost exact "logique" was said back in the 70s when the 747-100 was just being introduced! (LOL!)
Something to think about.
I really wonder if some of the words spoken by the Boeing people at the recent Paris Air Show was spoken out of fear (or just plain BS!).
Boeing and the Airline industry acknowledge that Air travel is expected to boom like never before..What does one think it will be? Exclusionary of super widebody airplanes? I dont think so.
I think it was words said to deflect the obvious answer in some regards. They (Boeing) knows it but will never admit to it because they dont have a plane in that class ready in the concept and design stage ready for production just yet and I believe it's a simple case of "Non-Denial-Denial" (They know it's true..but will say something else (G).
In other words...The more -less said-; the better.
I sincerely think that's the case they are trying to "spin" about it.
Wingman From Trinidad and Tobago, joined May 1999, 1836 posts, RR: 5 Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 749 times:
The 777 wing is a work of art. From the inside, it gives the appearance of sloping upward at an almost incredible angle. MAC says old and stodgy, but we know his distaste for Boeing in general. The new 764 wing will be a further advancement in wing technology derived, I believe, from patented McDonnel Douglas technology. It will use a rearward facing trailing edge that Boeing might also plan for a larger 747.
To counter MACs point about Boeing BS and fear vis a vis the A3XX, one should understand that for Beoing, a 5-10 billion dollar investment is not as easy as going to the Commerce Dept. for 30 year loans at 5% interest. The returns are just starting to come in the 737NG and the 777. Privately raised funding carries significant risk, especially when it is say 10 billion dollars (15-20% of annual Boeing revenue). But competition is good. Boeing will respond once Airbus plays its hand. Don't forget Airbus must privatize before recieving funding for the A3XX and once they do, Boeing will have the luxury of countering with its own new product. A stretched 747 merely needs to maintain a certain level of market share in order to turn the A3XX into an albatross. Or maybe not, and Airbus takes the market until Boeing responds with a brand new large transport. For now though, Beoing cannot compete with Airbus financing on a massive new project. So why not do the disinformation game and make Pearson sweat a little. This is what its all about. Unfortunately it will be another 10 years before we know who won this round.
MAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 750 times:
The 777 wing is a work of art. From the inside, it gives the appearance of sloping upward at an almost incredible angle. MAC says old and stodgy, but we know his distaste for Boeing in general.
The 747 wing is a "child of the 60s" in terms of higher speeds needed, meaning more fuel to burn which was plentiful and cheap back then. It's a great design dont get me wrong, but it's an older generation design.
Distaste, not at all, they have built some great designs, but I am a great fan of competition and have flown on some of the competing designs by Airbus and have become a great fan. Just as much of a fan there as I was and continue to be a fan of the great Lockheed airlifters I worked on.
The 777 wing, sure, nice wing. Beautiful. It's perfect for it's job. I believe the 777 will be a great seller and do very well for it's customers. There are risks with it's use in some of the ultra long range operations I believe, twin engine etops over the Pacific is one thing that I've been watching. The GE90 engine in particular has a track record of problems that should be watched.
All it takes is one ditching or -close to it- over the Pacific and the 777 will be in the -same boat- the DC-10 was back in the late 70s (in a figurative way). I think caution is a watchword with these large twins.
The new 764 wing will be a further advancement in wing technology derived, I believe, from patented McDonnel Douglas technology. It will use a rearward facing trailing edge that Boeing might also plan for a larger 747.To counter MACs point about Boeing BS and fear vis a vis the A3XX, one should understand that for Beoing, a 5-10 billion dollar investment is not as easy as going to the Commerce Dept. for 30 year loans at 5% interest.
Or expecting US government Corporate Welfare to be the way it was in the past also (LOL!) Those EXIM Bank loans are under the budget axe in recent years, so indeed, some creative financing is going to be in order selling those planes too (G). Financing like that slick act they pulled with SIA over the 777s (which will cost Boeing a -lot- of money to do isnt exactly the best way to make money either...that is going to cost them money in the long run if that's the means Boeing is going to do, incurring a loss on a capital product like that in order to "get sales". I hope it's a one time deal for them, if not, if you own Boeing stock, SELL!!! SELL!!! (LOL!)
The 764 wing will be interesting to see. I caution it -hasnt flown yet- and that's where it counts. As for the vaunted McDonnell Douglas patenting and so forth. Well, we'll have to see.
The MD-11 experience wasnt exactly something to "remember" in a positive way. (G) I certainly hope they dont use the ideas with -that- in the 764 or it will be in serious trouble.
The returns are just starting to come in the 737NG and the 777. Privately raised funding carries significant risk, especially when it is say 10 billion dollars (15-20% of annual Boeing revenue). But competition is good. Boeing will respond once Airbus plays its hand. Don't forget Airbus must privatize before recieving funding for the A3XX and once they do, Boeing will have the luxury of countering with its own new product. A stretched 747 merely needs to maintain a certain level of market share in order to turn the A3XX into an albatross.
I highly doubt the A3XX will turn into an albatross, or is that wishful thinking? (G)
The A3XX is going to introduce "Super widebody" flight and once it takes root, there's no going back.
Boeing has been railing off the same, now decidely more shrill, anti-A3XX propaganda even though it has a design of its own revealed in Aviation Week a few months ago. The difference is Boeing is counting on -not- having to build it I believe. The cheapest way to guarantee their monopoly is of course to smear or deride the potential product that will compete with it. Along with "creative financing" like the SIA 777 purchase as mentioned above.
It will take a lot of money to build the facilites to make this Boeing counter to the A3XX and frankly they probably dont want to do it.
Airbus on the other hand is going forward with it whether people know it or not. The French government is going to support it and yes, the privatisation moves have been accelerating along as agreements between some of the companies and governments involved with the Airbus consortium have been struck. This is a recent development and I'm not sure if you are aware of this.
What it will do is clear the final hurdle from this in order to get the privatisation course for Airbus so it can launch the A3XX.
If Boeing isnt watching this, then they are fools.
Or maybe not, and Airbus takes the market until Boeing responds with a brand new large transport.
That is what I believe is going to happen. They've done it before as well. Because they either misjudged their competition and market (like they did with the A320 back in the late 1980s, earlier as well as the early very slow pace of sales with the 757, all the way to the production difficulties it had with the 737NG) Boeing has an established track record of bungling things like this occasionally and as such, it's a possibility with this one as well. It's a company that is stock market focused. It gobbled up MDD and wasted a lot of capital and resource on that, while losing market share and capability with it's 737NG production line, when it's shortfalls were noticed, layoffs ensued.
Then they fired Phil Condit (Something Gordon Bethune, CO Chairman and former Boeing kingpin said was a total mistake) Then the crash hiring programs (I know this because I lived in the Portland, Oregon area and remember the ads in the paper for Boeing Portland) had to be started, then quality problems with the new hires, then laying these people off -again- and so forth..this Up-Down-Up-Down-Up-Down "madhouse-manner" Boeing has managed itself with is "legendary" for it's confusion. So definitely, I do believe it's possible a bungled Boeing approach to the A3XX is a strong possibility.
I dont want them to screw up, I'm just identifying a -few- of their past mistakes and their track record, and it aint all that "legendary" in terms of good decisions.
For now though, Beoing cannot compete with Airbus financing on a massive new project. So why not do the disinformation game and make Pearson sweat a little. This is what its all about. Unfortunately it will be another 10 years before we know who won this round.
Jean Pearson retired last year, it's Noel Forgeard now (G). And I dont think they are sweating.
They are getting their "ducks in a row" and letting Boeing have a great time with it's disinformation efforts, Re: the A3XX.
We'll see who has the last laugh in this. (G)
I think we will know earlier than that actually.
In another year I believe we will be hearing of the A3XX launch along with Launch customers. In 2 years we'll probably see the Boeing retort, In 3 years, production of A3XX begins. In 4-5 years, first deliveries. Boeing would still be another 2-3 years away from it's first deliveries. It could be spread over a few years, indeed, but Airbus I believe has the lead here and I believe they are going to capitalize on it. Their design has been set for some time now, it's been ambitious and very creative. You need to see some of the documentaries on it that we can get over here in Asia. Star TV Hong Kong had an excellent documentary on the A3XX not long ago and I suggest people watch it.
For starters I believe Airbus is going to build an agressive test program that shakes the airplanes down very well, Route proving flights, all of that. Invitiations to Toulouse to the worlds airline executives. Sampling the literal "Cruise Ship" this thing is going to be. (I think it would be a bit funny if they flew it over Seattle during one of those promo tours (G)..Hey.."payback is a B*tch" ya know (LOL!)
I believe the following carriers are strong contenders to buy it:
Virgin Atlantic (A Cruise Ship and Sir Richard not buying it?! I dont think so! ..He'll have a blast with that! (G)
South African Airways
Emirates and/or Gulf Air
US Carriers-tough one to call thanks to the "Boeing only" contracts that some of these carriers signed. I think the primary Airbus operators are the contenders here.
MAC_Veteran From Taiwan, joined Jun 1999, 726 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 749 times:
(Nice plane BTW...a lot quieter than the F-16 (G)
I've been relatively new here, but I've been in the online world for quite a while. I host a forum on a different website that is Flight Sim oriented also. I thoroughly enjoy sharing and posting viewpoints that personally come from -vast experience- in this career field and interest.