Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 Wing High Efficiency Vs Mediocre Aspect Ratio  
User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1633 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 18185 times:

IIRC, the A380 has today the lowest CASM of any operational airliner. Its wingspan is also constrained by regulatory gate width requirements so that it has a relatively stubby wing.

How is such a low CASM achieved despite an aspect ratio of around 7.5. Comparatively, most newer airliners have AR ratios around 9 or higher. An AR of 7.5 is comparable to the L1011-500 and VC-10, some rather outdated aircraft.

What is it about the A380's wing that counters its relatively low AR? In terms of lift to drag ratio, is it more or less efficient than the 77W's wing?


Faro


The chalice not my son
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 17977 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What help's the A380's CASM is the large number of seats you can put in it.  

User currently offlinedw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 17833 times:

AR is certainly important, but it is not the only measure of efficiency. I'd bet that despite the similar aspect ratio the A380 wing utilizes many aerodynamic advances that make it far more efficient than any other jetliner wing of similar aspect ratio. That said, a higher aspect ratio would certainly have had aerodynamic benefits (though the structure of the shorter wing is lighter).

Combined with other new materials and systems--plus, as above, the economies such a large aircraft--and the A380 is incredibly efficient. Certainly not having the constraint on span would have offered other opportunities for further improvements, but like all designs it was a trade off, and apparently still good enough.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 17728 times:

As I have this all in a large excel model, the easiest is to copy the relevant parts including some other notable frames and then look at the different values. I have not studied this before and not looked beyond a quick glimpse so everyone comment. I will leave my first thoughts below the table:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380wingversusothers_zpsf8fee3d5.jpg


1. This part of my airframe model shows wing data but also drag and lift values on an overall frame level.

2. What one can see is that only the latest frames of the longhaulers have better aspect ratio then the A380. If we would look at only a wing level we would see a L/D (the true figure of merit as it shows how much drag is created for the lift you need to fly level) that was clearly worse for the A380 then e.g. 788, 359 and -9X.

3. What you see in the table is the drag created on an airframe level when lifting the aircrafts weight. Here the very efficient packaging on the A380 benefits the OVERALL L/D as the dominant drag components, parasitic drag (where skin friction drag is dominating) is relatively lower for the A380, it has a low wetted surface per transported pax due to it's whale like packaging. So the frame L/D when cruising at Cl 0.5 (I have put all at Cl 0.5 at FL370 by adjusting the weights so that we can compare better, except for 320 and 738 as they seems to be designed for a higher Cl cruise) is only 1 unit lower then the soaring eagle -9X  .


So the A380 is doing pretty well on an overall L/D despite its stubby wing, part of that is low wingloading and a good transonic design = low compressibility drag and then the low overall parasitic drag. These two compensate a somewhat higher induced drag level (Dp is all drag independent of lift and Di is all drag dependent on lift, i.e. also compressibility drag) .


Edit: Just a caution, don't look at the drag per pax etc figures (oops, should have taken them out). FL370 is the average weight FL for the A380, some other frames like the 748i has this FL as the last just before it is time to descent. No wonder they have a lower overall drag level per pax as the frame is at 69% of MTOW vs 78% for the A380. I can't show different frames on different flight levels easily so that is why I adjusted the weight to get them all at the same loading of the wings at FL370. The picture only tells a good story around L/D at that FL. The drag coefficients and the basic wing data (effective span including wingtip devices, wingloading, spanloading etc) is OK to compare as well.

[Edited 2013-05-05 13:04:31]


Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17557 times:

As I have the wetted areas for the frames (you need them to calculate the dominant drag factor, skin friction drag which is the major part of the parasitic drag (or drag independant of lift)) I revised the table to include the frames total wetted area and then I divided it with the cabin area that the airplane transports. I did not use Pax count as these are not calculated using the same standards (ref the A380 vs 748i debate re seating).

While I guessed on the low wetted area per pax in the previous post it was quite interesting to see the result, it is highlighted (click on the tables to get them in sharp resolution):

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380wingversusotherswithwettedareaperm2cabin_zps1d0be360.jpg

Here we see that while the A380 might not be top at induced drag reduction is in a class of it's own when it comes to avoiding the most prevalant drag, skin friction. Normally induced drag (the compression drag is tiny in the Cdi so it is essentially only induced drag) is from 45% down to 1/3 of the drag as the frame gets lighter, we can see that at average cruise weight it is 50-50 for the A380. It compensates by being efficient in other corners.

One can also see why the 748i can't compete, neither with the tube+wings (787 to -9X) nor with the double decker A380. it is simply to much wetted area for what it does, it is an inefficient single level frame with the hump making it double decker on to short a distance, lots of wetted area not contributing to the cabin floor area. As a part double decker it should have a lower factor then the -9X, it does not. And while the wing is a shade better on aspect ratio and span loading then the A380 it is to little to help. Both the A380 and 748i lacks span compared to the new DA crop, A380 because of the 80m dilemma, 748i because it is a base design which is 40 years old.

[Edited 2013-05-06 00:22:59]


Non French in France
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2776 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 17465 times:

Very interesting analysis ferpe.

Another thing to note is that the A380 wing was designed to eventually carry the weight of the -900, which is another constraining factor leading to more "stubbiness" (an A388-only wing could have surely been shorter at the root). That despite that the A388 has turned out so efficient shows that they must have really optimized the aerodynamics to extract the best out of the given constraints. Even then, it looks like Airbus have found they can optimize further, as is shown by the new wing twist applied to the BA frames and onwards.


User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6548 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 17271 times:

Thank you very much, ferpe, for an extremely interesting analysis.

Just one extra comment: The low wetted area of the A380 comes at a price. It has a relatively small cargo volume.

Cargo volume offers potential airline revenue just like cabin floor area does. The large Boeing planes (744, 748i, 773ER) offer a substantially larger cargo volume to cabin floor ratio.

The A380 was made as a pax plane - pax and their baggage. That's perfect when that is your customer base. If, however, your customer base is pax + baggage + substantial high volume cargo on sectors considerably shorter than max range, then the A380 is soon maxed out and loses points to the competition.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17138 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 6):
Just one extra comment: The low wetted area of the A380 comes at a price. It has a relatively small cargo volume.

You are right, the double decker layout gives only half the length to the underfloor area. But that is not all, the A380 engineers seems to have chosen a MLG design that worsened this problem even further, the design impinged on the cargo area at great length:



The MLG is staggered behind each other and protrudes therefore into the cargo area over a long distance (on an already short under the floor area) and made it 1 abreast LD3, 748i and normal tube designs avoided that by focusing the MLG directly behind the center wingbox, for the 748i even when it had a 4 strut MLG like the A380 to spread the pavement loading:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/747MLGstowage_zps5b1cd99d.jpg


Here not to scale screen-shots from the ACAPs with an LD3 summary for each frame type that I added:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380cargocapacityvs748and77W_zpsbd98bd02.jpg

The grey area shows the stowage space for the MLG in the underbelly.



Non French in France
User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 16866 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 4):
Here we see that while the A380 might not be top at induced drag reduction is in a class of it's own when it comes to avoiding the most prevalant drag, skin friction

It would be interesting to see how the 79m A380-900 might model ...........  

Rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 16865 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8):
It would be interesting to see how the 79m A380-900 might model ...........

OK, tell me the MTOW that I shall use and I will include that column.



Non French in France
User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 16853 times:

590 t ?

Ferpe, there's a fifth position reserved for a central main landing gear for growth on the A380 ! (4 wheels)

And it might be interesting to drop LD3 for all non luggage and put in 88*125 or 96*125 pallets... you can fit some between the landing gear... (6 precisely)

[Edited 2013-05-09 13:59:21]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 16819 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 10):
Ferpe, there's a fifth position reserved for a central main landing gear for growth on the A380 ! (4 wheels)

What is the current gear good for? I heard 640t (with the brakes good for 625t with brakes on all 20 main wheels).


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 16777 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 9):
OK, tell me the MTOW that I shall use and I will include that column.

My guess would be the launch weight of the 388 plus 30t - i.e. 599 tonnes

Rgds


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21525 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 16629 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
What is the current gear good for? I heard 640t (with the brakes good for 625t with brakes on all 20 main wheels).

If I recall correctly, the main limitation was not primarily the landing gear itself but pavement loading.

Which was also why the A388F was supposed to get that additional center bogie, just like the A389 later on.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
the A380 engineers seems to have chosen a MLG design that worsened this problem even further, the design impinged on the cargo area at great length:

What would have been a realistic alternative?

When looking at the (excellent) comparison of the floor plans I believe one thing to remember is that in the 747 the lower deck occupies almost half of the main cross section versus less than a third in the A380. Plus the six-wheel A380 body bogies simply couldn't be stowed near-upright like the shorter 747 ones.

Keeping the center area flexible for use either for additional cargo space in the lighter version(s) or for an additional wheel well in the heavier ones looks like a pretty decent concept given the needs and circumstances.

An A389 would probably take away some space for the additional MLG leg there, but if the total length is sufficient, it should still provide somewhat decent cargo space, even if the increased passenger load with their luggage will keep eating into it. But how could a full double decker ever be a first-rate cargo hauler anyway?

Effectively you're paying for the somwhat better cargo ratio in the 747 with the empty crown space above the cabin you can't use.

The wing was already designed for the larger version from the start, as was the MLG layout. Effectively the A388 is already a somewhat compromised shrink of the initial, full design. They already had their hands full with pushing the 80m box to its limits airport-wise with the initial version (let's ignore the originally proposed even shorter double-shrunk -700 for now), but the design clearly points to an A389 being the full implementation.

That the A388 today is already quite efficient even while having to haul around much of the structure of a future A389 looks like a pretty aggressive but forward-looking design strategy to me.

[Edited 2013-05-10 08:38:00]

User currently offlinecobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1034 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 16590 times:

The A380 wing was optimised for stretched A380-900 variant which could possibly launched in the future

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31444 posts, RR: 85
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
If I recall correctly, the main limitation was not primarily the landing gear itself but pavement loading.

Which was also why the A388F was supposed to get that additional center bogie, just like the A389 later on.

The A380-800F would not have had a center bogie according to the A380 ACAPs. And one of the A380-800 test airframes performed a take-off at 596.5t and then landed at 590t.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21525 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 16554 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
The A380-800F would not have had a center bogie according to the A380 ACAPs. And one of the A380-800 test airframes performed a take-off at 596.5t and then landed at 590t.

I can't say I remember this really well; It may have been just speculation about an HGW F version back then.


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16538 times:

Quoting ferpe (Reply 7):
Here not to scale screen-shots from the ACAPs with an LD3 summary for each frame type that I added:

So the 777 is so excellent that bends even the math!
2*12+2*8 = 40 (not 44)



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 16536 times:

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 17):
So the 777 is so excellent that bends even the math!
2*12+2*8 = 40 (not 44)

Yeah , there is a fault in the last line in the picture (my addition and fault), read the fine print (Boeing facts) and you find it should have been 10*2 LD3s, ie 44 in total.



Non French in France
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 16322 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 12):
My guess would be the launch weight of the 388 plus 30t - i.e. 599 tonnes
OK, so here the table with a projected A380 in 3 versions, std, -900 with the -800 wing and finally -900 with sharklets:

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380wingversusotherswithwettedareaperm2cabin-900and900sl_zpsf71fb33c.jpg

The total wetted area increases (fuselage length in red increases) therefore the parasitic drag increases and the L/D decreases somewhat. The sharklet equipped A380-900X claw back half of that by reducing drag due to lift, see the effective wingspan and aspect ratio in red. That a full doubledecker is an effective transport form for pax is seen when we divide the total wetted area with the cabin area, we are now at a sensational 4.9 m2 wetted area per m2 of cabin space (click on the table to see better).

It still does not make sense to look at total drag per m2 cabin area as I have the different birds at very different weight in order to get them to Cl 0.5 at FL370. We could look at drag independent of lift (and therefore weight) divided by cabin area, you could do that exercise. It will track our wetted area per m2 cabin closely as skin friction drag is the dominant part of the non lift (=parasitic) drag.

One interesting drag factor which decreases is the fuselage pressure drag factor or the form factor drag. This is modeled as an increase of the skin friction drag due to airstream overspeed to get around the fuselage (there is no such thing as drag due to frontal area, it is called pressure drag and is taken as the increased speed needed to traverse that whale body with all it's twist and turns. We can see that this drag likes the longer and slimmer body (better finesse ratio which is fuselage dia to length)).

If you look at the range you see I took an existing -900 column I had which had TXWB engines (TSFC around 0.52 instead of 0.56 ), that is why these ladies fly some 200nm longer then the -800 despite being heavier and having higher drag  .

[Edited 2013-05-11 15:51:43]


Non French in France
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2261 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 16243 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
If I recall correctly, the main limitation was not primarily the landing gear itself but pavement loading.

Interestingly, the A388 has a lot of room to grow in pavement loading. 569 tons on 20 wheels is only 28.5 tons per wheel, well shy of the 32 routinely seen on other aircraft. 32 x 20 = 640 tons before you need a fifth leg... My numbers may not be all that accurate, but for sure it has plenty of room to grow.


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 16163 times:

Ferpe, i've got 298 t oew in an air et cosmos hors serie (and 286 t for the -800er)
14200 km range with 656 pax
Not equipped today for brownsing through your wonderful tabs.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21525 posts, RR: 53
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks ago) and read 16132 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 20):
Interestingly, the A388 has a lot of room to grow in pavement loading. 569 tons on 20 wheels is only 28.5 tons per wheel, well shy of the 32 routinely seen on other aircraft. 32 x 20 = 640 tons before you need a fifth leg... My numbers may not be all that accurate, but for sure it has plenty of room to grow.

As far as I'm aware it's not just the weight per wheel but also the area the wheels are distributed across which is constrained.


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 644 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 16065 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 21):

Oh and 277 t OEW for the A380-800 in this source... last ACAPS was 270.5 t
And 600 t for the heaviest Freighter (with the same landing gear)

By the way the A380-800 is 525PAX normally (even if it stays 555 on acaps... quoted range for airbus is for 525).

I can't find the lines with normalized consumption per m² or per pax ?


User currently offlineastuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10253 posts, RR: 97
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 15718 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 19):
OK, so here the table with a projected A380 in 3 versions, std, -900 with the -800 wing and finally -900 with sharklets:

Many thanks my friend. I and one or two others used to model this sort of stuff, but I've stopped now - yours are so thorough.

I've always been of the view that when (and if) an A380-900 (as originally described by Airbus) was launched, it would end up outranging the A380-800 a bit, whilst offering 14%-15% more capacity.
I don't see much of a movement in trip cost either, especially if one assumes TXWB's

thanks again

Rgds


User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 25, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 15753 times:

Quoting astuteman (Reply 24):
Many thanks my friend. I and one or two others used to model this sort of stuff, but I've stopped now - yours are so thorough.

Well modeling the way you did it (and I as well before taking it to a full drag model) makes a log of sense, it can bring a pretty close understanding of a frames performance. The seemingly impossible engine size of the 777X brought me to actually seek numbers for the forces involved. Once done it is amazing how little I have to tune those aerodynamic constants and the equations that control how they scale with weight or other dimensions.

If the spec range does not fit for a frame I usually find something else that is not trustworthy such as stated TSFC (a fault big factor and why I now also model the engines to do reality checks on these figures) and the empty weights. A fault of 2% on the A380 empty weight gives you 250nm payload-range fault, a 0.01 fault in TSFC 150nm. A fault in a aero constant might give you a 50nm fault like if the interference drag is 25% to high (actually checked it, increase that drag 25% and you loose 40nm   ).

[Edited 2013-05-17 23:25:55]


Non French in France
User currently offlineMatt6461 From United States of America, joined Oct 2013, 95 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 12876 times:

Ferpe - thanks for posting this. Can you share your excel sheet? Also, are you using a program? How are you coming to your numbers?

User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 12482 times:

Quoting Matt6461 (Reply 26):
Can you share your excel sheet? Also, are you using a program? How are you coming to your numbers?

Hi, I have been advised to not share the model I have made but it is not very difficult to do one for yourselves. I pretty much gave a cook-book description on how to make a model using excel in this thread:

Boeing Vs. Airbus Wing Design Philosophies (by ferpe Apr 16 2012 in Tech Ops)

A few tips about using excel to make the model:

1. You have to start collecting the principal parameters. The one you need is part of the Standford course I reference. Start small and expand gradually.

2. Use named parameters where-ever you can (in fact everywhere). My sheet call the specifix weight of JetA1 just that and not cell U3 and when I want to have the weight of the fuel the formula looks like Fuel_weight =tank_volume*JetA1 on the row for fuel weight in the 788 column. I did not know everything about named cells and columns when I started and had the typical B174 = B172 * U3 which soon becomes a nightmare.

3. Activate iterative calculation to do the route reserves part, standard is 5% of route fuel.

4. To get your atmospheric constants (viscosity etc) use this site:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/

5. Use PianoX as your reference when you develop your model, you can check almost everything you do with a airplane that is modeled in PianoX. The 788 is especially well covered. In fact if you don't know how a civil airliners is flown and why (step cruise etc) run every aspect of PianoX and learn to understand why it does what it does. If you don't understand that you can't model aircrafts, not even if you had my excel:

http://www.lissys.demon.co.uk/PianoX.html

[Edited 2013-10-21 15:39:18]


Non French in France
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 77
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12386 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi, Guys !
There's a very good illustration of the A380 wing efficiency, through a picture I discovered on Flicker :

A380 humid air takeoff
Here we see that aerodynamics are not that arcane a science as it can be illustrated in everyday's life   

See the depression on top of the wing causing water vapor to be visible, thus giving a - very - clear picture of the lft repartition at Flap 2 config.
See also that , with the drooped ailerons, we have a full span trailing edge high lift flap system and the almost complete absence of tip or flap-break vortices.

Airbus seems to have managed a very clean airflow ( which also illustrates why the airplane is so quiet )

I would think that the A350, with a higher aspect ratio and winglets would do even better.

I'd be grateful if someone could upload this pic on this thread.

Rgds



Contrail designer
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12355 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 28):
I'd be grateful if someone could upload this pic on this thread.

Wilco!

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm262/ferpe_bucket/A380startinginwetweather_zps0b14fe94.jpg

(fantastic picture  )

[Edited 2013-10-22 04:51:32]


Non French in France
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 13249 posts, RR: 36
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 12348 times:

Than you will also like this one:


F-WWDD sous le plafond by Killian Mouden, on Flickr

Note there is more fog on the left-hand side wing.

[Edited 2013-10-22 05:09:05]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4682 posts, RR: 77
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 12314 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ferpe (Reply 29):
Wilco!

Ferpe, you're a prince !

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 30):
Note there is more fog on the left-hand side wing.

It's quite normal : the drooped ailerons are in line with the flaps while on the low wing side - starboard - , as expected, the ailerons, at least the inner portion , are up : note the dip in the depression ( hence lift ) at that inner aileron point.

Superb photos !

[Edited 2013-10-22 06:09:43]


Contrail designer
User currently offlineferpe From France, joined Nov 2010, 2805 posts, RR: 59
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 12213 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 31):
Superb photos !

Now we only need them with no high lift deployed and we could start discussing Airbus change in wingtwist 



Non French in France
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic A380 Wing High Efficiency Vs Mediocre Aspect Ratio
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...
747-8 Wing Reloft / A380 Wing Twist posted Sun Jul 1 2012 07:18:19 by FlyingCello
A380: Wing Stress Due To "Bend"? posted Wed Jun 16 2010 01:40:47 by faro
747-8, 787, A380 Wing Attachment posted Sun Mar 7 2010 05:24:30 by originalblis
Unsightly A380 Wing Soot posted Wed Oct 28 2009 04:08:47 by Faro
The A380 Wing Droop A Bit Excessive? posted Mon Apr 27 2009 14:21:07 by Nitepilot79
Aspect Ratio And Induced Drag posted Sat Dec 6 2008 21:53:25 by ZBBYLW
Small Flaps Under A380's Wing posted Sun Nov 16 2008 04:48:11 by Dash500
Efficiency Vs. Payload/range posted Fri Jun 27 2008 09:50:45 by Cloudy
Wing Flex, 757 Vs A320 posted Fri Sep 14 2007 04:23:12 by N9JIG
A380 Wing posted Wed Nov 1 2006 07:01:36 by GlobalVillage

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format