Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
First 787 Inflight Wingview Pic  
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (4 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 26939 times:

I haven't seen any others, so here's this from Randy's blog:

http://boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2010/05/

I'm guessing the aircraft is in a left hand turn as the wingflex isn't quite what it should be. Interesting to note that the leading edge slats are composite with a minimal amount of titanium edge?

Also, can anyone tell me why the engine nacelle has such a huge leading edge rim?

Anyway, the wing is just beautiful!

UAL

56 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2737 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 26838 times:

Also in this video: http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/05/bca_ana_flight_05_19_10.html

Short clip of the takeoff looking out the window.



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26326 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Interesting to note that the leading edge slats are composite with a minimal amount of titanium edge?

The leading edges are aluminum, not titanium.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26261 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I'm guessing the aircraft is in a left hand turn as the wingflex isn't quite what it should be

How would that reduce wing flex? In a stable turn, the wings are under more load, not less.

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Also, can anyone tell me why the engine nacelle has such a huge leading edge rim?

Natural laminar flow nacelle.
787 Laminar Flow Nacelles (by Faro Dec 11 2009 in Tech Ops)

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
Anyway, the wing is just beautiful!

Yes, it certainly is!

Tom.


User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 26210 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter):
I'm guessing the aircraft is in a left hand turn as the wingflex isn't quite what it should be.

I think the wingflex just isn't apparent in the image... an artifact of being photographed at that angle and through a window.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlineEGCC777LR From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 21913 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

That is one spectacular view, looking forward to seeing it in person!


Flown On B704,722,732/3/4/7/8/9,744,752,762/3/4,772,77W,A319,A320,A321,A330,A388,L1011,F-50,BAE146,CRJ100, Dash-8. Left
User currently offlineORDFan From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20522 times:

Honestly, I've never been one to "ooh" or "aah" over the whole wingflex thing -- really, it's just form following function. I think ground effect, as well as the extra-long raked wingtip, may exaggerate the flex when the aircraft is on approach or departure, because from the looks of some of the air-to-air videos/photos that have been posted recently, there doesn't seem to be an inordinate amount of wingflex in-flight, especially when viewed relative to the A330, which is another slender-winged twin that displays a fair bit flex in some photos.

In this 2008 article, Jon Ostrower estimates about 10 feet of flex in-flight. Does anyone know if this has proven to be accurate? And if so, how does it compare to other widebody twins today (A330, 777, 767)?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...a-closer-look-at-787-wingflex.html


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8287 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20521 times:

Quoting Antoniemey (Reply 4):
I think the wingflex just isn't apparent in the image... an artifact of being photographed at that angle and through a window.

I would think that not much wing flex, if any, takes place in stable flight. You need significant load to flex it like taking off, landing, and turning.


User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 20114 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):

I would think that not much wing flex, if any, takes place in stable flight. You need significant load to flex it like taking off, landing, and turning.

That's not how aero loads work. Taking off and landing aren't "significant load."

If anything the wing flex should be greater in cruise flight, owing to higher speed and greater lift produced by the wing.



I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineTWFirst From Vatican City, joined Apr 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 19889 times:

What strikes me is how the entire engine/nacelle sits forward of the wing instead of hanging under.


An unexamined life isn't worth living.
User currently offlineTristarsteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3999 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19662 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 8):
cruise flight, owing to higher speed and greater lift produced by the wing.

 
How can you have greater lift in the cruise?
Then the aircraft would be climbing.
The plane is lighter in the cruise than at take off, so to fly level you must have less lift.


User currently offlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 9911 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19336 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 8):
If anything the wing flex should be greater in cruise flight, owing to higher speed and greater lift produced by the wing.

No matter what your speed, if you're in steady, level flight, the wing is going to be producing the same amount of lift. The lower speed is compensated for by a higher lift coefficient (read: higher AOA).

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
I would think that not much wing flex, if any, takes place in stable flight. You need significant load to flex it like taking off, landing, and turning.

The weight of an airplane is a significant load! There's actually probably slightly less load during a climb, as the engines are providing a bit of the force countering gravity.



"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
User currently offlineJBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4489 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 19019 times:

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 10):
How can you have greater lift in the cruise?
Then the aircraft would be climbing.
The plane is lighter in the cruise than at take off, so to fly level you must have less lift.

Incorrect.

Guess I oversimplified it and made a boo-boo. Lift varies directly with speed, and increases with angle of attack (to a certain point), among other things. My point is that the wings will flex as they are producing lift. As you go faster, ceteris paribus, the wings produce more lift. Obviously in cruise, angle of attack is quite a bit lower than on takeoff; the net effect of lower alpha and greater velocity is just enough lift to maintain steady-state, level flight. Also you have the complicating factor of high-lift devices (flaps and slats) for takeoff and landing.

Being "lighter in the cruise than at take-off" has little to do with your situation. It's airspeed and angle of attack (and air density, viscosity, etc.) A lighter aircraft will need a smaller angle of attack, everything else equal, to maintain steady-state flight.

[Edited 2010-08-18 11:43:25]

Edit again: I can't seem to convey my thoughts in a correct manner today....


[Edited 2010-08-18 11:46:18]


I got my head checked--by a jumbo jet
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8287 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 18587 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 8):
That's not how aero loads work. Taking off and landing aren't "significant load."

Maybe "load" was a poor choice of word. Nevertheless, from my personal observation wing flex tends to be far more accentuaded during take-off and landing.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/f18e777/3048197767/

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 12):
Guess I oversimplified it. Lift varies directly with speed, and increases with angle of attack (to a certain point), among other things. My point is that the wings will flex as they are producing lift. As you go faster, ceteris paribus, the wings produce more lift. Obviously in cruise, angle of attack is quite a bit lower than on takeoff--meaning the wings produce more lift with less speed. Also you have the complicating factor of high-lift devices (flaps and slats) for takeoff and landing.

That just about sums it up really nicely.


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10893 posts, RR: 37
Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18187 times:

A very pretty wing and engine picture there!

Seeing that beautiful elegant aircraft doing a flyover at Farnborough was a real pleasure!

I certainly hope to be on board the first commercial flight with Captain Masami Tsukamoto and ANA.
He looks like a really nice man and I am sure it must be a lot of excitement for him flying his new aircraft.

        



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15730 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 18074 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 12):
Lift varies directly with speed, and increases with angle of attack (to a certain point), among other things.

For the record, it isn't exactly directly with speed, but that is a fair assumption to make here for the purposes of simplification.

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 12):
Obviously in cruise, angle of attack is quite a bit lower than on takeoff; the net effect of lower alpha and greater velocity is just enough lift to maintain steady-state, level flight.

Furthermore, efficiency dictates that at cruise the aircraft have the lowest angle of attack possible. This is because induced drag varies with the lift coefficient which is determined by alpha.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineaerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4681 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17856 times:

Nice wing, big window too!


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlinemysterzip From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 167 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17792 times:

What a beautiful sight!

User currently offlinerutley21 From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 182 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17792 times:

Thats Hot. Haha

Robert



If you're not willing to give up everything, You've already lost.
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 746 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17075 times:

Beautiful shot! Always makes me proud to be a native of Washington State. I love Texas, where I have been for some years, but Washington simply takes the cake in natural scenery.

Is it me or does that nacelle strake look....huge?



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4721 posts, RR: 39
Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 17008 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A very nice picture indeed. Let's hope soon passengers can start making pictures like these.   The engine looks huge in this picture.  .

User currently offlinevio From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 1409 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16667 times:

Great photo and great video. I bet those ANA pilots were excited. I would be too. It reminded me of the good old days, when I was so excited to go flying the next morning that I could hardly sleep.


Superior decisions reduce the need for superior skills.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2095 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 14258 times:

From the way the cloud looks part at the ridge line, it looks like the plane is heading cloudy west to sunny east (Washington).

You are probably looking at Mt. Baker. If you were looking out the window on the other side of the airplane, you'll probably see the Iconic Mt. Rainier (the favorite back drops of Boeing Photo Ops).

Quoting Western727 (Reply 19):
Is it me or does that nacelle strake look....huge?

I agree, they seem to almost span the whole fan cowl!!

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemd80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2660 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 13045 times:

Wing flex is directly proportional to the weight being lifted by the wing, therefore wing flex is greatest on take off, the moment the plane breaks free of the ground.

Question:
If a fully loaded 787 were to attain a bank of 90 degrees, with no elevator input, what percentage of total possible flex would the wings exhibit?


User currently offlinepeterjohns From Germany, joined Jan 2009, 202 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 12687 times:

Quoting JBirdAV8r (Reply 12):
My point is that the wings will flex as they are producing lift. As you go faster, ceteris paribus, the wings produce more lift.

I think you are mixing up some things.
The lift produced by the wings equals the weight of the aircraft. Always. In climb it increases a little (fractions) and vice versa in descend.
Now I´m talking Airbus/Boeing not Raptor F22.

If the lift would increase with the speed- the aircraft would climb. It doesn´t. Why? AoA, and trim through the stabilizer.
So, let us agree that the lift of any fixed aircraft wing is always the same than the weight of the aircraft.
The flex of the wing comes from the wingload. Complete different thing. The wingload usually maximizes just before touchdown at slowest speeds. (That´s where you will also encounter the max. wakes)


25 Goldenshield : I believe this is for the engine cowl and wing anti-ice. These areas get mighty hot.
26 Post contains links BMI727 : With the exception of gravity effects weighing down the wing in level flight, the flex would basically be about the same since the wing will produce
27 LHR380 : Thats the first thing I noticed. That engine is HUGE!
28 wn700driver : Whatever, you guys... UAL747 is right. It is in a turn. Look closely at the reflection of the Fuselage on the engine nacelle... There is sky between
29 UAL747 : It doesn't reduce wingflex. However, without a point of reference behind you to show the aircraft really IS in a turn, a lower wing in a turn will ma
30 kl671 : Take off is not the limiting load condition on the wing. The greatest loads the wing will see will be during severe turbulance or an emergency contro
31 md80fanatic : I think logically, with the weight of the plane completely off the wing (in 90 deg bank, no elevator) there will be much less flex. If the wings are
32 Post contains images md80fanatic : Well, I understand. Consider this though, that abnormal attitudes in turbulance/high winds or pulling out of a dive actually "add weight" to the plan
33 redflyer : All this talk of wing flex - or lack thereof - in the original poster's post and no one stopped to think for a moment that perhaps the photo is a resu
34 dynamicsguy : This just isn't right. The wing will flex less because there is less force. The force is less because the wings are holding up a lighter plane. For s
35 IndianicWorld : Yeah, it almost looks too far forward. Its uncomfortable to look at, as it looks fragile. Not sure why but it just does. These types of planes are de
36 Post contains images MadameConcorde : It doesn't bother me as I am sure Boeing has taken all needed precautions for it to be 100% safe, wind tunnel testing and all that. What would bug me
37 Byrdluvs747 : Enough with the geek-speak!!! Let's just take in the beauty of that view!
38 bkircher : I think we all need to consider that it looks like the image is a wide angel image as well. I took a similar picture out the wing from about the same
39 Post contains images MadameConcorde : Did you get invited on board the B-787 on one of the test flights? If this is the case, I hope you will post some of your pictures.
40 Post contains images md80fanatic : I thought that was what I just said? My use of the term "work" is wholly appropriate for this discussion, a decidedly non- physics/engineering topic.
41 sprout5199 : I second that. Did any one see the pic in Randy's blog with the 787 and the Model 40? Thats COOL. Dan in Jupiter
42 bikerthai : The nacelle inlet lips are typically aluminum. Even though the air entering the inlet is hot (the duct leading to the lip is probably titanium), the
43 ER757 : I think it's Glacier Peak but you could be right. Either way, I agree it's looking north as the aircraft heads east
44 bikerthai : That peak in the distance make me think the near peak may not be Mt Baker. A friend suggest the fore ground my be Mt. Adams or Hood. bikerthai
45 ER757 : I was referring to the peak in the distance (as I thought you were in your ogiginal post). Whatever it is, the picture's beautiful as is the airplane
46 spchamp1 : Awesome picture! I am falling more and more in love with this aircrat everytime I see it. Great shot.
47 Post contains links bkircher : Not on one of the test flights, the plane was here doing hot weather testing in Yuma, and it was on the ground when I took it. Heres the link to the
48 chrisair : That peak in the foreground is neither Mt. Hood or Mt. Adams. My guess is it's the Wenatchee National Forest under the engine, looking north towards
49 tdscanuck : All depends on angle of attack and speed...the angle of bank isn't relevant. Thank you! That's driving me crazy. It *is* really far forward. You have
50 Post contains images MadameConcorde : Oh you got to go inside the plane! Fantastic! Nice picture gallery! I love the 787! Such a beautiful aircraft!
51 md80fanatic : I believe it is relevant. How much would the wings flex if the 787 were to be flying level, but inverted (if it were possible, of course)? You'd witn
52 tdscanuck : Depends on the angle of attack & speed. Angle of bank (including inverted) isn't relevant. See above. The above statement would be partly true *i
53 KPDX : Leave it to Airliners.net to totally hijack a thread to talk about techinical aspects.
54 kl671 : Dynamic loads experienced during severe turbulence, or the other upset conditions that I mentioned previously will cause wing loads to greatly exceed
55 dynamicsguy : It's 2.5g limit, so 3.75g ultimate including the safety factor.
56 tdscanuck : It's a thread about wing flex...wasn't really any other way it could have gone. No, they won't. The reason severe turbulence and upset conditions cau
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...
AC Delays First 787 posted Thu Jul 30 2009 11:02:25 by SixtySeven
Flightblogger: ANA Taking Most Of The First 787... posted Thu Apr 2 2009 21:35:41 by Aircellist
First 787-9 To ANZ In Early 2013 posted Tue Dec 23 2008 16:33:01 by IAD787
First 787 Cancellation-from Azerbijan Airlines posted Thu Aug 7 2008 11:26:51 by Beaucaire
First 787 Model Number posted Wed May 21 2008 04:11:02 by Ravel
Royal Jordanian: First 787 Could Be 30 Months Late posted Sat May 3 2008 05:37:46 by Aviationbuff
Trents On First 787 posted Wed Dec 5 2007 10:43:31 by Flipdewaf
First 787 Has Left The Building! Photos posted Tue Jun 26 2007 11:58:36 by SEAchaz
First 787 On Prod Line posted Wed Jun 20 2007 00:53:14 by Davidlc3
Boeing CEO Confident On First 787 Timetable posted Fri Jun 15 2007 14:04:00 by BigSky123
AC Delays First 787 posted Thu Jul 30 2009 11:02:25 by SixtySeven
Flightblogger: ANA Taking Most Of The First 787... posted Thu Apr 2 2009 21:35:41 by Aircellist
First 787-9 To ANZ In Early 2013 posted Tue Dec 23 2008 16:33:01 by IAD787
First 787 Cancellation-from Azerbijan Airlines posted Thu Aug 7 2008 11:26:51 by Beaucaire
First 787 Model Number posted Wed May 21 2008 04:11:02 by Ravel
Royal Jordanian: First 787 Could Be 30 Months Late posted Sat May 3 2008 05:37:46 by Aviationbuff
Trents On First 787 posted Wed Dec 5 2007 10:43:31 by Flipdewaf