Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Handling Qualities Widebody Vs Narrowbody  
User currently offlineFaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

I recall reading that the 747 when launched was deemed to have superlative handling qualities, much better than other models of the pre-widebody era.

Is this a general (or quasi-general) rule for widebodies vs narrowbody airliners? For the practicioners on Anet, which aircraft type that you have flown do you deem to have the:

- most responsive;
- most forgiving; and/or
- most harmonious

flying qualities about all axes?

Faro


The chalice not my son
11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16976 posts, RR: 67
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4645 times:

Widebodies have more inertia, so they will tend to resist changes of direction more. On the other hand, they have proportionally larger control surfaces to counteract the inertia.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9463 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4491 times:

I spoke with a test pilot comparing the 737 and 777. Although the 737 could outperform the 777 in almost every way, I was told that it is a clunker to fly compared to the fly by wire 777. The cable driven flight controls require much more finesse and are no where near as smooth as the electric controls on the 777. From having to physically force the landing gear lever in place to the spring loaded brakes, the 737 is an awesome plane, but it requires more effort to fly. Although they both have a yoke, the 777 is a beautiful plane to fly.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19277 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

Someone on this board described the MD-11 as "like flying a swimming pool half filled with water."

User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3065 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4398 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Someone on this board described the MD-11 as "like flying a swimming pool half filled with water."

 rotfl 
That sounds like a Wilco-ism. Big grin



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4280 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
I recall reading that the 747 when launched was deemed to have superlative handling qualities, much better than other models of the pre-widebody era.

Well, essentially it has proportionally huge control surfaces - so there is really no excuse for it to handle poorly. If you ever have the chance, just stand at ground level under the aircraft and take in the size of the v-stab - truly massive.

I took these from ground level:






If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2816 posts, RR: 45
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4129 times:



Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
I recall reading that the 747 when launched was deemed to have superlative handling qualities, much better than other models of the pre-widebody era.

Is this a general (or quasi-general) rule for widebodies vs narrowbody airliners? For the practicioners on Anet, which aircraft type that you have flown do you deem to have the:

- most responsive;
- most forgiving; and/or
- most harmonious

flying qualities about all axes?

Certainly earlier jet aircraft were less docile than more modern aircraft. The B-727 is notorious for dutch roll and has more yaw damper restrictions than most aircraft, for instance. I can't address the 707 or DC-8, but have flown the 727, 737, and DC-9, as well as the 747, and find the control harmony of the 747 much more pleasing than the 727 or especially 737. The DC-9 is a whole different creature with the cable drive tab architecture. I personally like the DC-9 control feel, though it does require more initial deflection (in roll especially) to obtain the same result present on the hydraulically boosted Boeings (one approach in manual reversion in the 727 or 737 will demonstrate the advantage of the Douglas design without question). Once you get into the spoiler augmented region the DC-9 is very responsive in roll. I personally think the DC-9 is better flying than the MD-80 family, as an aside.

In retrospect, I still think the 747 has very good control harmony, and is responsive beyond what most would expect. Of course it has a lot of inertia, too. I think the 747 has better control harmony than the 767 by far (way touchy in roll, especially slow and configured), but think the best Boeing for hand flying is the 757, which is extremely well balanced and maneuverable without being touchy in any axis. I have not flown the 777, so I can't address that comparison. In short, I think Boeing did a great job with the 747 controls (the 744 would be my second favorite Boeing to fly), but it's one good competitor in a very distinguished field; in other words, it's great, but so is most of the competition. The best control harmony and maneuverability I have personally flown in a large aircraft is undoubtedly on the L-1011, which was the most pleasing aircraft to hand fly I have ever known. It's as close to perfectly balanced as any airliner will ever be; I especially love the flying stabilator and DLC...talk about stable! As far as what's currently out there, I dramatically prefer the Airbus FBW aircraft for control harmony, stability, ease of control (especially in abnormal situations), and being very forgiving. B-737 is my choice for least enjoyable to fly in every regard, though plenty of people disagree.

This is, of course, my somewhat subjective, though informed opinion. Hope it's kind of what you were looking for.


User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 740 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4123 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 6):
I personally think the DC-9 is better flying than the MD-80 family, as an aside.

This perspective got my curiosity piqued. Is it because the MD-80's control surfaces have hyd boost like the Boeings you mention (and that's only my uneducated guess), and/or the greater inertia of the MD-80 family...or something else entirely?



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlinePGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2816 posts, RR: 45
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4101 times:



Quoting Western727 (Reply 7):
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 6):
I personally think the DC-9 is better flying than the MD-80 family, as an aside.

This perspective got my curiosity piqued. Is it because the MD-80's control surfaces have hyd boost like the Boeings you mention (and that's only my uneducated guess), and/or the greater inertia of the MD-80 family...or something else entirely?

Hi Western!

Great question, and I don't think it has a simple answer. The MD-80 family has the same control tab architecture for roll and pitch control the DC-9 has; there are trivial differences in the systems. The MD-90 does have hydraulically boosted elevators, and I like its handling least. I have often wondered about the hand flying qualities of the DC-9 vs. MD-80, and it may just be a personal preference. It seems to me that the bigger, heavier MD-80 (late MD-80's could weigh twice what early DC-9's weighed) seem a bit more sluggish than the DC-9 per unit of control deflection. The rudder is powered on both aircraft, and is very positive and effective. The biggest difference I note in the handling is that the MD-80 seems heavier in pitch especially at low speeds, and especially when in landing configuration (Flaps at 28 or 40 degrees); part of this may be due to trim technique. I tend to trim further nose up on final than most of my contemporaries (judging from looking at the stab trim indicator after landing). It's an individual pilot-feel thing and different people trim differently in reality. I have never thought I didn't have good pitch control of the aircraft, though some people complain about pitch feel when configured and slow (i.e. in the flare). The MD-90 DOES have hydraulically powered elevators, but has a vaguer feeling at slow speeds...I don't know how to describe it other than there is less feedback to the pilot in pitch even though there is actually more control authority. It's not a problem it's just different...when I flew the MD-90 a lot, I didn't really notice it, but when I switch back and forth between the MD-80 and -90 I notice it more, much like guys who normally fly the 767 note the handling differences of the 757 when they get in it.

I hope this addresses your questions. If you want to know more let me know what you'd like me to address.


User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 740 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4074 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 8):

Fascinating. Thank you, PGNCS, for taking the time to write down your thoughts and yes, you addressed my question and then some. Your comment about switching between the MD-88 and the -90 as well as between the 757 and 767 reminds me of the experience I have driving the many rental cars I drive. Thanks again.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineFARO From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 13 hours ago) and read 3968 times:



Quoting PGNCS (Reply 6):
The best control harmony and maneuverability I have personally flown in a large aircraft is undoubtedly on the L-1011, which was the most pleasing aircraft to hand fly I have ever known. It's as close to perfectly balanced as any airliner will ever be; I especially love the flying stabilator and DLC...talk about stable!

Many thanx PGNCS for your detailed and insightful input. I must say that the Tristar never ceases to amaze me, the number of times people have glorified it here on A.net is quite remarkable. Apart from all the innovations it introduced like 4D FMS, DLC, load-alleviating ailerons, etc (I recall reading somewhere on A.net that the Airbus FBW philosophy implemented starting with the A320 owes quite a lot to the Tristar legacy) it also flies superlatively well! I wonder if it were not for the Rolls Royce mess with the RB211, it may have been a major commercial success. That was one exceptional design.

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3462 posts, RR: 47
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 5 hours ago) and read 3912 times:

Limiting my judgement to those airliners I have actually flown in the front seat for more than a couple of trips [B737, B757, B767, F100, MD82/83/90]....

Quoting Faro (Thread starter):
- most responsive;
- most forgiving; and/or
- most harmonious

B752, B752, and... B752 (with B763 a very close second)



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Handling Qualities Widebody Vs Narrowbody
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...
Leapx Vs GTF posted Thu Nov 5 2009 09:31:32 by Miller22
B43 Vs B44 Rerelease Fuel Requirements posted Tue Nov 3 2009 19:48:36 by Jhooper
BCF Vs Bdsf posted Wed Oct 21 2009 12:45:23 by Ariis
Long Haul Widebody Casm posted Tue Oct 20 2009 07:39:27 by JRadier
Imperial Vs Metric Units Used Throughout Aviation posted Sun Oct 11 2009 11:10:37 by Part147
JFK Flight Capacity Vs Heathrow/Frankfurt/etc.. posted Sun Oct 11 2009 10:41:52 by Aquablue
Pilot Vs. Aircraft Mechanic posted Thu Sep 17 2009 09:05:14 by 747Fleet
Steel Vs Carbon Brake Wear posted Sun Sep 6 2009 23:37:23 by Speedracer1407
DHC-3T Pratt Vs Garret Vs Walter posted Tue Aug 18 2009 13:58:39 by FighterPilot
Boeing Vs Airbus Climbout Rates posted Sun Aug 16 2009 14:48:36 by Chrisrad
SGF-ground Handling posted Thu May 24 2012 00:20:32 by dlramp4life
B-747 Vs A-380 Flight Deck Placement posted Mon May 14 2012 14:42:52 by jetskipper
Segment Revenue Vs System Revenue posted Thu May 10 2012 18:06:38 by coffeepilot
Regular Descent Vs Steep Descent posted Sun May 6 2012 11:16:21 by aerotech777
B744 Vs B748 - Flight Deck Differences? posted Thu May 3 2012 06:51:42 by sevenheavy
A Twist On The A Vs B Argument posted Sun Apr 29 2012 10:53:08 by abnormal
Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies posted Mon Apr 16 2012 13:41:32 by ferpe
ICAO License vs Other Licenses posted Fri Mar 30 2012 07:46:28 by web500sjc
Lets Start An Airbus Vs Boeing Discussion posted Sat Mar 17 2012 00:14:42 by Max Q

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format