Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12824 times:
.
While the first flight and service entry of the Boeing 787 with ANA gets closer and closer we already know it will be comfortable. It will provide passengers more room (although airlines are in charge here), it provides a lower cabin attitude (reducing fatigue) and offers higher cabin humidity. Then there is the larger windows and nice cabin design, including larger bins and lavatories.
I suppose from an engine perspective Rolls Royce / GE / Boeing should be able to achieve the same low external noise levels as e.g. the A380.
Maybe the innovative CRFP fuselage has a different noise propagation then a conventional metal fuselage. Thinner, lighter and stiffer materials do not immediately make me feel as better for noise insulation.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5336 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12800 times:
Keesje, I'm surprised. Do a search- we discussed it about a year ago.
It was SUPPOSED to be targeted to be quieter than anything else, and then through a weight reduction program, that all changed. Boeing did some weird research showing that passengers actually prefer a loud cabin, so that they can't hear babies crying.
Randy wrote about it on his blog.
I called foul, and wrote a very long reply that I was disappointed that Boeing was being cheap and telling us it's what we, as passengers, prefer.
Randy respected my views.
There was a thread here about the whole thing.
Anyhow, so, it's going to be noisy, I suspect Airbus will MAINTAIN their quieter cabin lead.
The Discussion you mention was on a different topic I guess. It was about the A380 noise levels and EK crew perception I think. Tinset / Leahy reacting etc etc..
BlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12585 times:
I expect the "definition of quietness" to look like this:
A380 < 787 < 747-8i < A340 < 777 etc...
where "<" means "quieter than" in this instance
Generally, A380 will take the crown as being "the quietest", followed by 787. I don't believe Airbus released any data regarding A350XWB in this matter, therefore I left it out.
Khobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12512 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1): It was SUPPOSED to be targeted to be quieter than anything else, and then through a weight reduction program, that all changed. Boeing did some weird research showing that passengers actually prefer a loud cabin, so that they can't hear babies crying.
Randy wrote about it on his blog.
Randy's blog had to do with the A380 being too quiet, with the usual crowd here howling at the thought. And then A380 crews complained the A380 was, in fact, too quiet - they couldn't sleep because - lo and behold - they were disturbed by babies crying.
Gorgos From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 232 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12462 times:
Its not only about insulation material, but also the position of the engines I suppose. The inboard engines of the A380 are removed relatively far away when compared to other aircraft. The outboard engines, well you need binoculars to see them!
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26682 posts, RR: 83 Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12444 times:
I'll be very impressed if it's as quiet as an A380, but since I don't generally sleep on planes, noise isn't much of an issue for me thanks to noise-canceling headsets.
I expect it will be quiet even with thin walls thanks to advances in insulation and noise-modeling.
Pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, RR: 12 Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12178 times:
CFRP in boats (and fiberglass for that matter) is quieter than metal. I have been told the way the layers lay down it stifles noise. But some of that depends on thickness. Aluminum is the noisiest and steel is slightly better. CFRP also apparently insulates temperature wise better than metals. So if that is the case the 787 should be a quiet plane depending of course on insulation and mechanical noise.
I am one that white noise (although fatiguing over a long period of time) is less stressful than hearing loud conversations and children crying. As I said on the original A380/Randy brewhaha, having worked in an office that was open concept and employed white noise, no noise was perfect at night when the office was nearly empty and shutting off the white noise was a major relief. However, during the day with the office buzzing, if the white noise was off, everyone was in an uproar and stressed out.
Swallow From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 544 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 12066 times:
Quoting Khobar (Reply 4): And then A380 crews complained the A380 was, in fact, too quiet - they couldn't sleep because - lo and behold - they were disturbed by babies crying
Because EK placed the crew rest at the back of Y, where lavs flushing and other background noise is more prevalent.
SQ has its crew rest behind the cockpit and we have not heard complaints from that carrier's crew.
Nomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1561 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12037 times:
Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 1):
It was SUPPOSED to be targeted to be quieter than anything else, and then through a weight reduction program, that all changed. Boeing did some weird research showing that passengers actually prefer a loud cabin, so that they can't hear babies crying.
Randy wrote about it on his blog.
I called foul, and wrote a very long reply that I was disappointed that Boeing was being cheap and telling us it's what we, as passengers, prefer.
Randy respected my views.
People have known that a bit of white noise makes for a more relaxing trip than a dead quiet cabin for years. It's not exactly cutting edge science.
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3689 posts, RR: 34 Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 11992 times:
Funny, I was thinking about noise last week.
I was flying in an A320 in Row3. There was no noise from the engines at all, it was all masked by the hiss of the air conditioning outlets in the ceiling. I was sitting there thinking that there must be a way to make that quieter. Why is air conditioning hiss so loud on a plane, but not in other places (car, office etc.) I know the aircraft has less cubic footage than other placed per person, so needs more mass flow, but why is it so noisy. Perhaps the reason the A380 is so quiet is that there is more cabin volume per person, so less flow?
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 11948 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
I assume the 787 will have no exposed rivet heads or similar fasteners protruding out from the skin. How much of a difference will this make in terms of cabin noise?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 11928 times:
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 10): Why is air conditioning hiss so loud on a plane, but not in other places (car, office etc.)
Two major reasons...the airflow is *way* higher, and the vents are way smaller. Typical office/car vents are very large, very low velocity, which is quiet.
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11): I assume the 787 will have no exposed rivet heads or similar fasteners protruding out from the skin. How much of a difference will this make in terms of cabin noise?
It's got flush fastener heads (no rivets, as far as I know) on the skin, but from the photos it doesn't look like any of them stick out. Assuming their aerodynamically faired, it should help some, but I have no idea how much.
Rheinbote From Germany, joined May 2006, 1956 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10983 times:
Quoting Keesje (Thread starter): Now what about cabin noise? I did a little googling and it strikes my this specific topic seems to be absent everywhere from the start.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10909 times:
Quoting 2H4 (Reply 11): I assume the 787 will have no exposed rivet heads or similar fasteners protruding out from the skin. How much of a difference will this make in terms of cabin noise?
I can't think of any airliner that has used protruding head rivets since the DC-3. I did see a RAF Comet with protruding head fasteners on the fuselage and Boeing used them on the 737 and 747 lap in the lap joint mod.
Boeing767mech From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 992 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10906 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 15): I can't think of any airliner that has used protruding head rivets since the DC-3. I did see a RAF Comet with protruding head fasteners on the fuselage and Boeing used them on the 737 and 747 lap in the lap joint mod.
757, 767 and 777 use them around the APU compartment area, but that far back your not going to hear anything off the rivet heads.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 10841 times:
Quoting Boeing767mech (Reply 16): 757, 767 and 777 use them around the APU compartment area, but that far back your not going to hear anything off the rivet heads.
Does anyone really think the reason that countersunk (flush) fasteners are used is because of the noise they cause?
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10803 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 15): I can't think of any airliner that has used protruding head rivets since the DC-3.
All current production Boeing's (not counting 787) have them somewhere near the back. Once the boundary layer gets appreciably thicker than the rivet head, there's not much benefit to going flush.
Baroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 60 Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 10705 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 6): I'll be very impressed if it's as quiet as an A380, but since I don't generally sleep on planes, noise isn't much of an issue for me thanks to noise-canceling headsets.
Same here. Maybe we need a technical thread on" why is this so?" to quote the late Julius Sumner Miller. I remember once having a super flight from the US to LHR on a Tristar and not sleeping a wink. I was picked up at LHR and taken to visit a factory up to M11 N of London and they were driving me there in a horrible small Ford, and I fell fast asleep quick as a flash on the North Circular road complete with noisy everything and stopping for traffic lights every half a mile.
Noise to suppress that from babies did strike me at the time as the best cop out of last year, well aside from ones about toxic debt.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
I wonder if that means a little better then 747/757/767 or e.g. on par with the A380.
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5336 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, 
From Greece, joined Dec 2007, 232 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2046 posts, 
From Uganda, joined Jul 2007, 544 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3689 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2006, 1956 posts, 
From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
