Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
757 Wake Turbulence  
User currently offlineDbo861 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 883 posts, RR: 1
Posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6336 times:

Today during my flight lesson, my instructor was talking about wake turbulence, and he said the 757 creates the more wake turbulence than any other plane. Anyone know why this is, and why Boeing hasn't added winglets to combat this wake turbulence? I'd think that something bigger would make the most wake turbulence, but what do I know.


30 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCougarAviator From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6240 times:

Am told that the 757 has bigger engines than it needs.........


Failure is not an option.....
User currently offlineAndersjt From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 390 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6215 times:

Not that I am an engineer, but I think it has something to do with the ratio of wing size to the size of the fuselage? That's my guess.

I don't think the winglets diminish wake turbulence. On a flight from SFO to LAX once, we went through some pretty rough wake turbulence. The captain came on to announce that it was residual from a KAL MD11 that was 30 minutes ahead of us. You could hear the cockpit communications on Channel 9. The MD11 has winglets.



Oh how I long for the day when the skies were truly Friendly!
User currently offlineVorticity From United States of America, joined May 2004, 337 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6192 times:

Aerodynamics is by no means a trival study. Size isn't the biggest factor, it has a lot to do with the wing design and so forth when it comes to wake turbulence. Adding winglets isn't trivial either, they have to be carefully designed to actually significantly help the situation, then they have to be certified and so forth. It seems Aviation Partners Boeing has hooked up with CO now for a winglet program on their 757's similar to the ones going on 737NGs. They probably have numbers on what this does to the wake turbulence, but I would guess it would improve. I'm not sure why it wasn't done earlier, maybe the 757 was good enough at the time, and it wasn't worth the money to redesign.


Thermodynamics and english units don't mix...
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6090 times:

They are overpowered; according to our pilots. They must be able to continue T/O if they lose an engine. On a 757-33N coming out of MDW full of customers and cargo, that is one hell of a feat.

One captain mentioned, gear up, flaps to 20 and keep the one engine from turning the plane over on its top! Pilot talk? Who knows? Interesting though!

One awesome plane!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Matthew Smith




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries - A.T. TEAM




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joe Pries - A.T. TEAM



M


User currently offlineAvi8tir From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 410 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6050 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I dont think that the 757 is the worst. I think its just exceptionally worse than similar sized aircraft. Dont heavies get 3 miles? I think 757s get the same now. I remember the incident that started all of this years ago. A westwind with the founder of In-n-Out Burger crashed on a 3 mile final to SNA. Crashed into what is now the second half of the Santa Ana Automall at the 55 and Edinger. I think it was determined that it was folowing to close to a 757.


*Long live the Widget*
User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

It isn't the worst, but they are given the same wake turbulence warnings that "heavies" do despite the fact that they don't meet the weight limit for a "heavy". It must be bad for their size or something.


Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3078 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5895 times:

Engines have nothing to do with wake turbulence. It is caused by the vortices coming off the wing tips. Based on the Pressure differences from the top and bottom of the wing. Therefore it is the wing shape which cause wake turbulence.

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineFL1TPA From United States of America, joined May 2004, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5795 times:

I've read in a flight safety maual that because the 757 has a solid panel flap design it produces a stronger wake vortex than other larger a/c. 747, 777, A340 etc. have slots in the trailing edge flaps - you can see them when they extend for landing. These slot separations help dissipate a forming wake vortex. The 757 has no slots in the flaps which is more conducive to the formation of a wake vortex.

Kinda makes sense to me...



"Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffin' glue."
User currently offlineChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5603 times:

ATA uses "heavy" on occasion for the 757. I don't know what the weight limits are.

User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5537 times:

Wake Turbulence, haha just realized that's my SN, can be caused by any commercial jet aircraft. At SNA there are many simultaneous take-offs and landings between commercial traffic and general aviation. Any time commercial traffic is within about 5 miles or less GA a/c are always warned weather it is an A320, 737 or a 757 ect. As far as ATA, they designate their 757-300's as heavies because they surpass the weight standards of normal commercial a/c. I don't think any of their -200's are designated as heavies. I think to be classified as a heavy an a/c needs to be over 255,000 lbs MTOW and the 757-200 is right at that weight. I think it is not classified as a heavy because it doesn't exceed this weight.
-Matt



Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5502 times:

I think to be classified as a heavy an a/c needs to be over 255,000 lbs MTOW and the 757-200 is right at that weight. I think it is not classified as a heavy because it doesn't exceed this weight.

Actually, I've been on a United 752, we were fully loaded to the max, and using Channel 9, we were being given the callsign heavy. So, I think some very loaded 752s are given the heavy callsign.



-NWA742


User currently offlineWakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5424 times:

Yes NWA, I will modify my previous statement. Most times the 757 will not be designated as a heavy a/c. Sometimes these a/c are certified to fly over their usual weight of 250,000 lbs, thus making them a heavy a/c. A lot of charter 757-200 a/c fall into this category. Thanks for pointing that out.
-Matt

Also in the a/c stats page it says "basic max takeoff (220,000 lbs), medium range MTOW (240,000 lbs), and extended range (255,000 lbs or 255,550 lbs).

[Edited 2004-05-22 08:29:32]

[Edited 2004-05-22 08:30:18]


Jetwash Images - Feel the Heat!!!
User currently offlineSteve7E7 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 476 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5335 times:

I remember there were a couple of incidents at LHR involving BA 757's at LHR shortly after their introduction, whereby wake turbulence was causing following aircraft to experience uncomfortable approaches.ATC subsequently re-classified the 757 as 'heavy' and increased the seperation.

User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5281 times:

First of all, wake turbulence is mixed function of the weight of the aircraft in question, its wing loading, and its configuration (a cleaner configuration leads - slightly counter-intuitively - to stronger wake turbulence). Engines play no part.

In the 757's case, it's relatively strong wake can be attributed mostly to its wing-flap geometry. However, it is sometimes only thought of as producing particularly strong wake turbulence simply because it's on the heavy end of the scale in its general weight class...

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineYikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Greasespot (what kinda handle izzat??) was spot on: engines have nothing to do with wake turbulence.

With the advent of low-drag approaches and associated techniques, the B757 was on the forefront of the "capture the G/S from above" procedure. In brief, from descent from altitude, power is left as close to flight idle as possible. Any slowing is accomplished by low level level-off, speedbrake, flap/gear deployment. More often than not, this results in a g/s capture from above.

Wake turbulence generation is at its maximum when an aircraft is fast and clean. Not to be confused with wingtip vortex generation.

Hence the 757 got tagged as a "heavy" with respects wake turbulence separation standards.

Best Regards,

Yikes!


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3524 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5074 times:

wake turbulence is present on any aircraft whether it's a skyhawk a king air or a concorde. The wake turbulence is only present when the wings are producing lift. And i may offer a correction:

The greatest wake turbulence wingtip vortex occurs when the generating aircraft is heavy, slow, in a clean configuration, and operating at a high angle of attack

Right out of my jep commercial book. here is their explanation for WV

whenever an airplane generates lift, air spills over the wingtips from the high pressure areas below the wings to the low pressure areas above them. This flow causes rapidly rotating whirlpools of air called wingtip vortices or wake turbulence

It mentions weight as an important factor in terms of WT, but it doesn't really say what about the wing has an influence. My guess is that because the surface area of the wing on a 757 appears to be smaller than most other commercial airplane wings of similiar aircraft, there is going to be more air distributed over a smaller area, so that means that more air is going to be put through the downwash and behind the wingtips, thus creating a greater amount of wake turbulence. Some kind of ratio of

air density/surface area

or something along those lines. I'm taking my aerodynamics class this fall so perhaps i can better shed light on the subject after that.




Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5014 times:

Wake turbulence generation is at its maximum when an aircraft is fast and clean. Not to be confused with wingtip vortex generation.

In fact, "wake turbulence generation" (i.e. the strength of wake turbulence) is at its maximum not when an aircraft is fast and clean, but when it is slow and clean. And I don't see how there could be a problem of confusion with wingtip vortex generation because wake turbulence is mostly a product of those vortices, and thus whenever those vortices are strongest, an aircraft's wake is.

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineYikes! From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4894 times:

I think if you dig into Mechanics of Flight, it will state just what I quoted. Unfortunately I do not have a copy at the hotel here this summer!

If my statement is wrong, then heavy, fast and clean would produce the least wake turbulence. The worst wake turbulence I have ever run into is in trail of a 747 at altitude, 1000' below his altitude. And he'd been gone for 5 or 6 minutes per the ATC reply!

Back to the question, again, the 757 flight path profile at its best, intercepts the glide slope from above in a low-drag approach. If done correctly.

Best Regards,

Yikes!


User currently offlineLiamksa From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 308 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4886 times:

I've always associated the levels of wake turbulence to be proportional to the AoA or pressure differential around the wing. Therefore expect the greatest wake turbulence behind a heavy, clean, slow aircraft.

However i've never had any actual encounters having been taught and read how dangerous it can be to a light aircraft - steer clear!


User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

I think if you dig into Mechanics of Flight, it will state just what I quoted. Unfortunately I do not have a copy at the hotel here this summer... If my statement is wrong, then heavy, fast and clean would produce the least wake turbulence.

None my textbooks think so, and hopefully Mechanics of Flight doesn't really either, as it's otherwise quite a good book!

It does stand to reason anyway, though, that the strongest wake turbulence is definitely generated at slow rather than fast speeds. After all, slow flight is a high-Cl regime, and thus the strongest wingtip vortices (and corresponding wake turbulence) occur(s) there. Accordingly "heavy, fast, and clean" certainly doesn't produce the weakest wake. Rather "light, fast, and dirty" does, pretty intuitively...

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlinePlanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3524 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4829 times:

Just because wake turbulence is the strongest when an a/c is slow, clean, heave and at a high aoa, doesn't mean that wake turbulence can just be shrugged off at any other time. Wake turbulence is present whenever the a/c is producing lift, so it's not like it's only noticeable after take off and near the ground. The worst wake i've ever encountered was behind an AA MD-80 @ MLI immediately after passing my private checkride. I acknowledged the caution wake turbulence and was about 400 feet off the ground i was violently jerked to the left and banked about 45 degrees in the same direction.

But just because thats the worst i've experienced doesn't mean it's the worst ever period. And why would heavy fast and clean produce the least amount? The "least" amount of wake turbulence from a heavy jet is like talking about the "smallest" atomic bomb, it's still gonna knock you around.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineNfield From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4802 times:

Having spent many a happy hour outside the Green Man pub - only 1/4 mile from touchdown LHR 27L - I can confirm that 757's seem to have the worst wake turbulence. It sounds like a gigantic sheet of paper being ripped up and you can see the surrounding trees getting a battering.

User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4748 times:

Just because wake turbulence is the strongest when an a/c is slow, clean, heave and at a high aoa, doesn't mean that wake turbulence can just be shrugged off at any other time.

Of course! Where there's lift there's a vortex and thus a wake (given a finite wing). Period. It wasn't that I was ignoring that fact, but as I understood things we were just trying to determine what extremes produce the strongest wake...

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineRaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 376 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4743 times:

is there any correlation between wake turbulence intensity and the amount of drag that they induce?

25 QantasA332 : Is there any correlation between wake turbulence intensity and the amount of drag that they induce? Sort of. The correlation is really between the win
26 Videns : QuantasA332: I'd certainly would appreciate it if you'd explain it in more detail!
27 Post contains links and images QantasA332 : Okay. I'm not sure what you already know and what you don't, so I'll start from the beginning... Induced drag is drag due to lift. From the moment win
28 UA777Pilot : Hey All! I was a 757 pilot in a former life. To be classified as a heavy aircraft, an aircraft has to weigh over 225,000 pounds. The 75 is not exactly
29 QantasA332 : The reason for [the 757 having such a strong wake] is because of the really big wing span on the aircraft... Not really. Rather, longer wing span actu
30 Goboeing : UA777Pilot, You must have meant 255,000 pounds, not 225,000. Bedford, NH huh? I'm right down the road at ASH most of the year. Nick[Edited 2004-05-26
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic 757 Wake Turbulence
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...
757 W/Winglets And Wake Turbulence posted Thu Mar 10 2005 04:04:58 by KAUST
C-17 Wake Turbulence Picture posted Tue Sep 5 2006 12:06:55 by Zarniwoop
Wake Turbulence - Is There A Sop Or Qrh Procedure? posted Thu Jun 8 2006 20:23:26 by JulianUK
Supersonic Wake Turbulence posted Wed Mar 8 2006 11:11:19 by Speedracer1407
Wake Turbulence - How Is It Measured? posted Tue Dec 20 2005 16:20:28 by Alphafloor
Wake Turbulence Stories Needed. posted Thu Dec 8 2005 18:47:07 by Julesmusician
Does Payload Increase Wake Turbulence? posted Thu Jun 9 2005 21:46:20 by Skywatch
Wake Turbulence posted Fri Apr 1 2005 08:43:49 by Lehpron
Wake Turbulence posted Wed Jan 5 2005 12:00:08 by Phil747
Wake Turbulence posted Sat Dec 25 2004 05:59:39 by AAFLT1871

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format