Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 And Turbulence  
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 34915 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?


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 34840 times:

I don't know but I think it has less because of size...like a Large Ship compared to a small boat  Smile I went on singapore's first A380 and it was smooth as a baby's bum  Smile

User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2138 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 34740 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.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10735 posts, RR: 38
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 34755 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.  airplane   cheerful 

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a285/madameconcorde/P1120311-1.jpg

Singapore Girl You Are a Great Way to Fly!



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 34744 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.


User currently offlineHalophila From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 643 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 34720 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.

Halophila



Flown on 707, 717, 727, 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 741 742 743 744 74SP 757 753 762 763 772 773 77W D10 DC9 M11 M80 M87
User currently offlineWROORD From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 915 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 34616 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.

User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 34576 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.  Smile


User currently offlineFCA767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 1724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 34561 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  Smile


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 34122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.....  scratchchin  ).

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).

Rgds


User currently offlineEBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 31098 times:

After a handful of A380 flights, I'd say it doesn't have a significant difference from any other big bird like the 747-400 or 340-600.

As usual, any high frequency 'chop' seems to be less noticeable, but the big swings are still there.



A306,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343/6,A380,B717,B727,B737,B744,B752/3,B763,B772/3/W,C-130,AN26,CRJ900,Il62,DC-8/9/10,MD80's,BaeR
User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5575 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 29225 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.


User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 28541 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???
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 28263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.  Smile


User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4692 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 26625 times:

Very smooth ride if you ask me...

I flew EK413 back in Apr SYD-DXB which is roughly 14 hours direct... Didn't feel any turbulence at all...

 Wink

Note the resemblance in the username Big grin

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineEBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 26534 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.



A306,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343/6,A380,B717,B727,B737,B744,B752/3,B763,B772/3/W,C-130,AN26,CRJ900,Il62,DC-8/9/10,MD80's,BaeR
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 26132 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.  Smile


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 25640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.


User currently offlineJoakims From Sweden, joined Jan 2002, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 25248 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?


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9838 posts, RR: 96
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 24405 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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"  faint  )

She does climb pretty quick...  Smile

Rgds


User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2138 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24074 times:



Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
she seemed to sail right through it with little aplomb.

Or rather, with great aplomb.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29689 posts, RR: 84
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 20):
Or rather, with great aplomb.

Indeed.  Embarrassment  footinmouth 


User currently offlineBG777300ER From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2005, 250 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 24007 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



Koi mi sra v gashtite?
User currently offlineDRAIGONAIR From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 708 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 23939 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!


cheers
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 23096 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?
26 Zvezda : Aircraft weight divided by wing area.
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 Post contains images 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
40 Mutu : Cripes, how did you board?
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 Post contains images 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
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 And Turbulence posted Tue Jan 18 2005 23:46:03 by LongbowPilot
Shopping On The A380 And Turbulence posted Tue Dec 14 2004 19:50:57 by AirWales
LH A380, F And J Upstairs? posted Sun Jan 25 2009 22:39:25 by NorthstarBoy
A380 And 787 Delays - Which Dept Is To Blame? posted Fri Dec 19 2008 09:20:38 by AirbusA6
Size Comparison Pictures, A380 And B747 posted Sun Oct 5 2008 13:42:06 by MWHCVT
O2 Masks That Drop During Landings And Turbulence. posted Fri Aug 22 2008 18:46:18 by USAirALB
A380 And Limited Destinations.....For Now posted Thu Apr 10 2008 17:47:01 by CHQIAH
SQ - A380 And B773ER Seat Map posted Fri Feb 8 2008 05:52:57 by B773A346
Large Animal Transport And Turbulence posted Wed Jan 23 2008 19:41:54 by Allrite
A380 And The Triple Jetways posted Sat Oct 27 2007 10:42:35 by Stealth777