Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nose Shape Of 787 Vs. Traditional Shape  
User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5113 times:

Is there an aerodynamic advantage to the shape of the 787's nose, vs the traditionally-shaped noses of the 777 and 767? Or is there another reason for the "droopy" shape, such as position of cockpit windows?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 18713 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5061 times:

As I understand, the most aerodynamic shape for the nose of a subsonic aircraft is the solid created by the rotation of a parabola around its axis. However, it's almost as good to use any shape that increases in cross section at the same rate as a parabola.

The problem with a straight-up parabola is that you have no good way to place the cockpit windows so that the pilots can see. That's why a droopy nose helps.

As it happens, the shape of the nose isn't that radical. The Comet had an almost identical nose. So did many of the early airliners. I don't know why Boeing moved away from it. Probably issues of cost and ease of manufacture.


User currently offlinetsugambler From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5058 times:

Although I think the 787 is overall a beautiful aircraft, the "droopy" nose is probably the part I like the least. I think my favorite "face" on an airliner is the DC-10/MD-11--fantastic windows and gorgeous shape!

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6296 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4617 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
As it happens, the shape of the nose isn't that radical. The Comet had an almost identical nose.

Many (or most) airliners of today had the nose designed around a bulky weather radar.

The Comet was designed with no weather radar, even if some later Comet variants got one in the front of a wing fuel tank pod.

Modern weather radars take up a lot less space than earlier ones.

That is the reason why the B787 can revert to the low drag, good view and low noise level front office of 60 years ago. Much the same as E-jets for instance.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinejetlagged From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 2536 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4600 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 3):
Many (or most) airliners of today had the nose designed around a bulky weather radar.

The Comet was designed with no weather radar, even if some later Comet variants got one in the front of a wing fuel tank pod.

Modern weather radars take up a lot less space than earlier ones.

Nobody told Douglas or BAe it seems.  
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Tate
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Nicolas Janssen


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © StefanP



The Comet certainly had weather radar in its rather elegant nose too.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Roel van der Velpen - MST-Aviation




The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
User currently offlinemrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1668 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

The 787 shape is the current traditional shape (see E-jets, FD728, CSeries, SSJ, etc. etc.). Modern computational fluid dynamics plus the fact that everyone flies in the same atmosphere - unsurprisingly the same general shape tends to be most efficient.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Nose Shape Of 787 Vs. Traditional Shape
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...
Can Someone Explain The Use Of Trim Vs. Elevator posted Thu Feb 25 2010 16:11:42 by AT
DC-9/MD-Series Nose Ahead Of Its Time? posted Thu Jul 23 2009 16:21:15 by Nitepilot79
The Economics Of RJ Vs Prop posted Mon Jul 7 2008 13:14:22 by Landgreen
787 Vs A350: Freight Capacity Question. posted Sat May 3 2008 22:06:51 by MotorHussy
787-8/9 Vs 777-200LR posted Thu Dec 13 2007 19:43:06 by CO787EWR
Rights Of Reservists Vs Employers posted Fri Aug 25 2006 13:51:11 by FlyMatt2Bermud
Engine Of 772ER Vs 772LR posted Mon Jul 31 2006 01:23:07 by ORDRyan28
Operating Cost Of A332 Vs 772 On Route LHR To DAC posted Wed Mar 8 2006 00:06:25 by AirA380
Status Of 787 Autoclaves posted Sun Feb 5 2006 19:46:32 by CaptainBob
Advantages Of A T-tail Vs. A Conventional Tail posted Sat Dec 17 2005 03:15:13 by Thrust

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format