Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Is The Vert Stab So Small On 787?  
User currently offlineLemurs From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1439 posts, RR: 4
Posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

On the newest illustrations from Boeing for the 787, the most striking thing I've noticed has been the relatively small size of the vertical stabilizer as compared to other jets in its class.

Now, I realize that the size of that part of the empenage is calculated based on the length of the fuselage, the amount of asymmetric thrust that can be expected on engine failure, and all the other data points around the lever of thrust and CG...so my question is, what's unique about the 787's geometry that I'm not noticing that allows it to be so small?

I know that if your flight computers can react to an asym thrust scenario quickly enough, and you make the tail/rudder/actuators strong enough, it'd be possible to reduce the size since you wouldn't be tied to pilot reaction time. Could this be part of it?

Or is simply my eyes playing tricks on me?


There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary, and those that don't.
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline7E7Fan From Sweden, joined May 2004, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4282 times:

Hi,

I'd like to follow up on that question; On the latest illustrations of the 787, the awesome shark-fin look of the vertical stab has been replaced by a standard boring looking this-is-what-stabs-been-looking-like-for-a-hundred-years-now type of stabilizer... Does anyone know whether this was actually due to aerodynamics etc or was it just a coward cave-in because there have been some conservative postings around the net from people who don't like the new look? As you can probably tell by now  Wink I loved the shark-fin and I am terribly disappointed that they removed it!

Thanks/Mike


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3148 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4240 times:

To the first poster, while the drawings show the small vert. stabilizer, have any dimensions of the aircraft been specified yet? If not remember that it's still all artist's conception.

Second, It could be a combination of both. Boeing may have found a more efficient fairing for use with "traditional" style vert. stabilizer, they may have determined that some sort issue may arise with the sharkfin, or the customers decided that the marginal improvement in efficiency (if there was any) was not worth the radical new design because people don't like change.

These reasonings are all purely speculation on my part and just an attempt to stir the pot a bit.



DMI
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4201 times:

The latest impressions from Boeing (straight leading edge fin, et al) are described as defining the final external look of the 787. In other words most of the curves have gone forever as most people predicted. The curves might have been causing trouble with compressibility effects, or it might be to reduce manufacturing costs. The three versions of 787 may need different sized fins and this would be easier to arrange with straight edges.

However this does not mean that the fin's size is fixed, and it does look on the small side. The smaller the better for drag, but there are limits.

Quoting Lemurs (Thread starter):
I know that if your flight computers can react to an asym thrust scenario quickly enough, and you make the tail/rudder/actuators strong enough, it'd be possible to reduce the size since you wouldn't be tied to pilot reaction time.

The aircraft must be safe without the automatics, so you can't really reduce the fin/rudder area on that basis alone. Fin area will normally be determined by lateral/directional stability considerations, rather than engine out yaw correction. Things like dutch roll characteristics and spiral stability are set by fin size and moment arm.

I wouldn't like to rely on the avionics working to avoid spiralling in after an engine cut on takeoff. There needs to be enough countering yaw moment from the rudder, regardless of reaction time.



The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlineAsstChiefMark From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4186 times:

THIS is small, especially the Comet


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Krepp
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bob Garrard



User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4315 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4183 times:

Quoting 7E7Fan (Reply 1):
Does anyone know whether this was actually due to aerodynamics etc or was it just a coward cave-in because there have been some conservative postings around the net from people who don't like the new look?

I suspect it had more to do with economics. In the final analysis, this plane is intended to deliver savings to airline customers. A fin with the complex curves depicted in Boeing's original illustrations would cost more to manufacture and the benefit of the original fin - designed for aesthetic purposes only - was negligible.

Best regards,

R



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineJetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2543 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4113 times:

Quoting AsstChiefMark (Reply 4):
THIS is small, especially the Comet

The Comet had quite a large tail dihedral angle, adding to the effective fin area.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joop de Groot




The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Is The Vert Stab So Small On 787?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Was The JT9D-70A So Rare On 747's posted Fri Jun 2 2006 23:45:50 by 747400sp
Why Is The PW JT8D So Loud? posted Mon Nov 14 2005 20:14:49 by AirWillie6475
Why Is The Wing's LE/TE Dist. Shorter On The Tip? posted Wed Sep 10 2003 19:40:34 by Bio15
Why Is The 757 So Tall? posted Thu Jul 24 2003 18:23:51 by Leezyjet
Why Is The Approach To LAS So Rough In Hot Weather posted Thu May 17 2001 22:29:08 by Tripleseven
ATR 42/72 - Why Is The Cargo Bin In Front? posted Sun Jul 9 2006 06:35:24 by N353SK
Why Is The TF-34 Such A Low Powered Engine? posted Sat Apr 15 2006 05:16:18 by 747400sp
Why Is 737's Nose Wheel So Tiny? posted Tue Mar 21 2006 06:49:45 by Lehpron
Why Is The Gear Called Main Landing Gear? posted Tue Dec 13 2005 03:02:52 by Airfoilsguy
Why Is SXM Runway 09 So Tricky? posted Mon Feb 28 2005 03:15:03 by Mozart

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format