LY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2444 posts, RR: 2 Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 28272 times:
Hi all,
I am willing to fly the A380, and I would like to know how the plane behaves during turbulence. Do we feel less the turbulence seen the size of the plane?
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 28197 times:
I don't know but I think it has less because of size...like a Large Ship compared to a small boat I went on singapore's first A380 and it was smooth as a baby's bum
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2024 posts, RR: 57 Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 28097 times:
Quoting LY777 (Thread starter): Do we feel less the turbulence seen the size of the plane?
The effects of turbulence are related to wing loading (how much weight is carried per area of the wing). While the A380 is enormous, its wing is sized for even bigger versions, and the wing loading of the existing A380 is actually rather light compared to other airliners.
In any event, the perception of turbulence is very subjective, so I wouldn't attach much value to reports about how this or that airplane felt.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10241 posts, RR: 40 Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 28112 times:
Very smooth. After many diverse flying experiences on the Singapore 380s I must say the Big Girls take the turbulence rather well.
I remember the typhoon weather that prevented us from landing at Narita on the very first flight to Japan and sent us to Nagoya to land there before we could fly back to NRT.
Even in typhoon weather Big Mama 380 behaved really well in the storm.
Singapore Girl You Are a Great Way to Fly!
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 28101 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3): Very smooth. After many diverse flying experiences on the Singapore 380s I must say the Big Girls take the turbulence rather well.
Halophila From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 623 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 28077 times:
My first flight on the SQ 380 was VERY bumpy coming in over Aus on the way to SYD, but it was exacerbated since I was in the upper rear part of the a/c.
First thing that will strike you if you're on the upper deck is that 1) rotation speed seems way too slow (perspective issue); and 2) climb rate also seems far too slow (again, perspective).
Aside from that, I very much enjoyed my 380 flights.
WROORD From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 810 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 27973 times:
The rule of the thumb is on any aircraft to sit on the wing if you want to have the smoothest ride. The size of the plane matters, but it also depends on other variables with the design. Initial 747 were not too great and had some design 'corrections' done. Certainly now with computer graphics and various tests available it is easier to lab test new models.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 27933 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 4): Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3):
Very smooth. After many diverse flying experiences on the Singapore 380s I must say the Big Girls take the turbulence rather well.
This has been my experience, as well.
That is what I have heard as well. Since I just booked my first A380 flight this week, I can not speak out of my own experience. But that will change "soon" after I have traveled LHR-SIN and back.
FCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 27918 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 2): The effects of turbulence are related to wing loading (how much weight is carried per area of the wing). While the A380 is enormous, its wing is sized for even bigger versions, and the wing loading of the existing A380 is actually rather light compared to other airliner
Also some pilots say that the back end as the shockwave goes from front to back making the turbulence greater...in general I mean
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 27479 times:
Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 2): While the A380 is enormous, its wing is sized for even bigger versions, and the wing loading of the existing A380 is actually rather light compared to other airliners.
The A380 seems to have very active load alleviation via the aileron sections, when I've been on it - they're certainly active little things (little..... ).
Quoting WROORD (Reply 6): The rule of the thumb is on any aircraft to sit on the wing if you want to have the smoothest ride
I wonder if the A380's low aspect ratio helps (fuselage length to height).
Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5276 posts, RR: 35 Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 22582 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 3): Very smooth. After many diverse flying experiences on the Singapore 380s I must say the Big Girls take the turbulence rather well.
Quoting Halophila (Reply 5): rotation speed seems way too slow (perspective issue);
Have to agree with both: on seven flights the turbulence was minmial, and even that was more a gentle lurching from side to side than shuddering. And on the upper deck it's so quiet at times that you'd never think you were in the air. I remember dozing-off a couple of times and waking-up thinking we were on the ground. And chatting to Singapore's crew, most of them said they liked flying in it becaues of it's smoothness in flight.
CHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 63 Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21898 times:
Been on all three A380s (EK, SQ and QF) and can report that she is very, very smooth.
Its all subjective of course but she does seem to ride the bumps better than the 777.
What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 21620 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 12): Its all subjective of course but she does seem to ride the bumps better than the 777
And that is quite an achievement for the huge A380 as to me the B777 (especially the B77W) handles turbulence already better than the B747-400 or the A340-600. The A340-600 is imho already slightly better then the B747-400, but the B77W is imho even more stable.
EBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 216 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19891 times:
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 13): the B77W is imho even more stable
In general I can't say, since the only 77W flight I've been in was a h*ll of a ride (SYD-SIN). It would have been so in any plane though.
However, when a 77W spool up those massive engines to regain lost altitude, it makes a lot of noise. If anyone managed to sleep during the turbulence, they definitely woke up during those times.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 19489 times:
Quoting EBGARN (Reply 15): However, when a 77W spool up those massive engines to regain lost altitude, it makes a lot of noise. If anyone managed to sleep during the turbulence, they definitely woke up during those times.
The B77W is not famous for being quiet. In this department the A340-series perform much better. And I guess the A380 is the new benchmark when it comes to low cabin noise levels.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18997 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 12): Its all subjective of course but she does seem to ride the bumps better than the 777.
I'd tend to agree, though the 77E at least seems to do really well. Back when UA used to fly EWR-LHR, I was on a 77E DEN-EWR and we flew into the remnants of a hurricane over the NYC area and she seemed to sail right through it with little aplomb.
Joakims From Sweden, joined Jan 2002, 55 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 18605 times:
I can only agree with the rest. A380 is very smooth.
Have been flying till Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur going over the famous turbulence spot Bay of Bengal and speciall around Andaman islands in both 773ER, 744, 7772ER , A332 and A380.
All the flights had turbulence but it felt less in the A380.
One thing that struck me After departing from LHR going to SIN with A380. We went directly up to crusing altitude and did mot make any altitude changes until the turbulence spot near Andaman islands. Usually the process of reaching cruising altitude is a gradual process. Any other noticed this?
Astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17762 times:
Quoting Joakims (Reply 18): One thing that struck me After departing from LHR going to SIN with A380. We went directly up to crusing altitude and did mot make any altitude changes until the turbulence spot near Andaman islands. Usually the process of reaching cruising altitude is a gradual process. Any other noticed this?
A couple of things come to mind:-
Firstly the A380's wing/lift capability was designed with growth to at least 650 tonnes built in, so even at the 560 tonne MTOW, she's going to climb pretty well.
Secondly, testing showed that actual lift was 2%-3% more than was anticipated. This showed up in lower landing speeds and take-off speeds.
Thirdly, LHR-SIN is about 5 600Nm, eastbound. It could be as little as 5 000Nm-5 200Nm Air distance with the following jet stream. An A380-800 with what I think is a "typical" full load around 70-75 tonnes could be taking off at as little as 500-510 tonnes ("little" )
WingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2024 posts, RR: 57 Reply 20, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17431 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): she seemed to sail right through it with little aplomb.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26679 posts, RR: 83 Reply 21, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17395 times:
BG777300ER From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 248 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17364 times:
Quoting EBGARN (Reply 15):
However, when a 77W spool up those massive engines to regain lost altitude, it makes a lot of noise. If anyone managed to sleep during the turbulence, they definitely woke up during those times.
I flew a UA 763 (maybe it was a 762 I honestly don't remember) SFO-IAD and its engine were really loud as well when they spooled up when the pilot attempted to fly over turbulence. They kept on changing altitude trying to get rid of turbulence for the majority of the flight but it never seemed to work so those engines were always spooling up and down...I was up the whole flight haha
DRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 705 posts, RR: 6 Reply 23, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 17296 times:
I heard from friends who flew the A380 that is was very stable in turbulence. But then again you never know what the same turbulence would do to a 747, unless you fly on same track within a couple of minutes!
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 24, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 16453 times:
The three factors which determine an airliner's ride in turbulence are:
- mass
- wing loading, and
- flight controls
The WhaleJet's high mass and advanced flight control software make it less susceptible to turbulence. However, the low wing loading makes it more susceptible to turbulence.
I don't believe it's possible to always say that one particular airliner has a better ride in turbulence than another. It will depend on the rate, direction, and duration of changes in air pressure. In other words, airliner A may pass through bump X with less effect than airliner B, while airliner A passes through bump Y with more effect than airliner B. Looked at another way, vertical gusts are different from horizontal gusts and most gusts include varying components of both. Further complicating matters, modern flight control software have different techniques for smoothing the horizontal gusts than for smoothing the vertical bumps.
25 LY777: Excuse me, what does "wing loading" mean?
27 Tdscanuck: Wing loading includes mass, so it's really only two. If you want it to be three, it would be flight controls, mass, and wing area. There's another, v
28 Zvezda: Weight and mass are not the same and at the altitudes that jets operate, the difference is material.
29 Rwessel: Weight and mass are two different things and are never the "same," although common misuse of certain units (grams, a unit of mass, for weight - more
30 Tdscanuck: The altitude change really doesn't enter into it in a meaningful way, but you're right that weight and mass aren't the same thing. I should have said
31 Zvezda: I don't think that listing wing area, rather than wing loading, is enlightening. The reason is that, if one were to list wing area and wing loading f
32 Ourboeing: It depends on where you are sitting in the aircraft too. I flew Singapore Airlines from LAX to Singapore a lot and especially over the Pacific ocean,
33 Zvezda: Despite high mass and high wing-loading, the JumboJet is not great in turbulence compared to modern airliners like the A330 or 777 because it has no
34 Gigneil: The A380 has pretty significant active load alleviation. NS
35 Tdscanuck: Except this isn't actually true. If you have equal wing loading, the acceleration of the aircraft (which is what you feel) will be equal in equal tur
36 WingedMigrator: F = ma Bigger airplane means bigger m Same wing loading means proportionally bigger wing area Bigger wing area means bigger F from turbulence Thus a
37 Astuteman: And that huge wing on the A380 is pretty flexible. (still love wtching them cure those 33m (110ft) long single piece skin pieces into that beautiful
38 EPA001: I love to see that too. I also remember the televised first landing of an Emirates A380 in NY. Upon the smooth touch down you immediately see the win
39 BNE: I have also flown in the SQ, QF and EK A380s, one thing I noticed was that the A380 was able to get to its desired height faster than the 747s. On a
41 Zvezda: You would be correct if airliner size didn't vary with mass. I can only guess what you mean by turbulent cells. Think of the turbulence as a vector f
42 WingedMigrator: Thank you, that is a precise mathematical definition of what I meant. While I initially was skeptical that there would be any variations over the dim
43 Tdscanuck: It's correct even if airliner size varies with mass. WingedMigrator summed it up perfectly: Wing loading is just F/m. Hence acceleration, which is wh
44 Revelation: Doesn't it get mighty windy out there?
45 Zvezda: Thank you for expressing by clear analogy what I was only able to express mathematically. You're right. The word "mass" was poorly chosen on my part.
46 Wowpeter: I thought that has been proven not to be the case... Airbus promotes the fact that their wing (namely back in the 330/340 days) is design to be more
47 Wukka: How much of this is psychological, though? You're flying the latest and greatest, and, by default, expect it to outperform everything else. It's much
48 Tdscanuck: Gotcha. I agree with you 100% if we're talking about "massive" as an expression of size, rather than mass. The latter...nice catch! Wing area alone d
49 Spacecadet: My smoothest flight ever was on an Embraer Brasilia No, but I absolutely agree with this. The A380 is big and new and because of that, people think i
50 Zvezda: I see. You meant the aspect ratio of the wing. I thought you meant the aspect ratio of the aircraft. Thank you for the clarification. I think I see y
51 BA777ER236: A typical fuel load for a 777 between LHR-SIN eastbound would be about 97 tonnes with reserves. I would think that for the A380 it would be around 15
52 Astuteman: Is that "fuel load" or "FULL load" You might want to re-read the part of my post that you quoted... Tell you what, I'll save you the effort..
53 Ncelhr: Well - they're two different schools of thought. As others have mentioned, there's also the algorithms used for Load alleviation - a feature present
54 Braybuddy: Which wouldn't explain why the Singapore crew I spoke to preferred flying in the A380 because of its smoothness. One female FA didn't like it, but th
55 Astuteman: My (then) 4 year old daughter managed to do that successfully on her own without any input from me, flying on SQ220 about 18 months ago... Rgds
56 Tdscanuck: Yes, I meant the aspect ratio of the wing. I appologize for not making that clear. Absolutely agreed. However, due to the induced drag problems of a
57 BA777ER236: Well, the fuel burn of a RR powered 777 200ER is about 7.7 tonnes/hr (average) on that sector with an approx 280 tonne t/o weight and a 12-12.5 hr fl
58 Astuteman: I wouldn't even begin to profess to "know" differently. And I have to admit that the comparison I had in mind when I made my statement was relative t
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Nov 2005, 2444 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1720 posts, 
I went on singapore's first A380 and it was smooth as a baby's bum 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2024 posts, 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10241 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, 
).
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 216 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5276 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3890 posts, 
)
From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 248 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
