a380900
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2003 11:26 pm

Circular Cross Sections?

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:04 am

I read in another thread that the 777 was the first Boeing with a "circular cross section". I don't know whether that's true but I wonder which airliners have a perfectly circular cross section. It is quite obvious that the A380 does not. But what about the A300/10/20/30/40/50? The 787? And how far are 757, 737 and 767 from a circle?

And I guess if these are perfect circles, it must have a technical explanation. Is it more about aerodynamics or more about pressurization issues? And how bad is it for the A380 and the others not to not have this shape?

How about concorde by the way? Was the fuselage cross section close to a circle?

[Edited 2013-06-26 18:07:33]
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:23 am

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
And how far are 757, 737 and 767 from a circle?

The 707/720, 737, 727 and 757 all share the same cross section, but have different lower lobes. The upper lobes are quite circular, with the different models having different degrees of bulge on the bottom. The 727 and 737 are closest to circular.

707

727

737

757


The 767 is rather oval.


AFAIK the 330/340 is circular.
Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
And I guess if these are perfect circles, it must have a technical explanation. Is it more about aerodynamics or more about pressurization issues?

Pressurization and structure in general. A cylinder is inherently stronger, and thus can be made lighter. However in other respects a cylinder could be heavier. It really depends on the capacity of the airliner you're designing whether a cylinder is a good idea or not.

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
And how bad is it for the A380 and the others not to not have this shape?

It's all about design compromises. Methinks a cylinder on the scale of the 380 would be too wide for the middle decks to be practical I think. Imagine three aisles with 3-4-4-3 seating. Also it would mean shorter wings, and the 380 is already hard up against the ICAO size limit of 80 meters wingspan.

One of the 380 proposals was basically two 340 fuselages side by side but structurally it would have been quite heavy.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
BMI727
Posts: 11123
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:21 am

Quoting A380900 (Thread starter):
And I guess if these are perfect circles, it must have a technical explanation.

It's structurally the most efficient: pressurization is trying to push a vessel into a circle anyway. A circle also has the most area per perimeter of any shape, but that brings you to the reason why you might not want a circle: drag.

A circle gives the most interior space, but not all of it is useful, especially as you get bigger. A large circular cross section will have space in the crown and keel that is not revenue producing. Now a lot of it can be used for EE bays, ductwork, hydraulics, etc. but eventually some of it is not needed. So a circle is the best area per perimeter (which translates pretty directly to surface area, which translates to drag), but maybe not the least perimeter for a given useful area. A non-circular shape can cut drag for a given cabin/cargo bay size, but at the cost of structural efficiency. It turns into a big tradeoff, but for all the circular planes out there, Gulfstream switched from circular to a flat bottom cross section on the G650.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
LH707330
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:27 am

One reason for the non-circular cross-sections is the floor. If you don't have anything inside, a cylinder makes the most sense, but if you have floor beams in tension, then it makes sense to have two partial cylinders in a double-bubble (or figure-8) arrangement, because it cuts down on drag.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19055
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:14 pm

Didn't the KC-135 have a circular fuselage section (unlike the wider 707 fuselage)?
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:36 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Didn't the KC-135 have a circular fuselage section (unlike the wider 707 fuselage)?

Nope. Incidentally, this was Boeing model 717.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
LH707330
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Fri Jun 28, 2013 12:45 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 4):
Didn't the KC-135 have a circular fuselage section (unlike the wider 707 fuselage)?

Same lower lobe, slightly narrower upper lobe. It's oval, not figure-8.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:06 am

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 3):
One reason for the non-circular cross-sections is the floor. If you don't have anything inside, a cylinder makes the most sense, but if you have floor beams in tension, then it makes sense to have two partial cylinders in a double-bubble (or figure-8) arrangement, because it cuts down on drag.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how does drag, whether for circular or double-bubble cross section, relate to floor load?
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17117
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Fri Jun 28, 2013 2:45 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Quoting LH707330 (Reply 3):
One reason for the non-circular cross-sections is the floor. If you don't have anything inside, a cylinder makes the most sense, but if you have floor beams in tension, then it makes sense to have two partial cylinders in a double-bubble (or figure-8) arrangement, because it cuts down on drag.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how does drag, whether for circular or double-bubble cross section, relate to floor load?

I believe LH707330 is not speaking about floor load from cargo, but rather about the fact that the deck beams are part of the structure and thus partially relieving the load on the fuselage itself. Thus the fuselage can be made as strong as if it were circular even if it is not.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:16 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how does drag, whether for circular or double-bubble cross section, relate to floor load?

While a circular fuselage will contain the maximum volume for a given surface area (wetted area = parasitic drag), much of that space is not usable (see, for example, the very large crown area on the 777). For typical loads, a double (or triple) bubble can enclose more *usable* space for a given wetted (surface) area, hence less drag. Structurally, the circular fuselage is simpler and lighter for the enclosed volume (hence less induced drag), and a double bubble requires heavy reinforcement along the plane joining the bubbles (although it does save on skin area, and hence skin weight). For airliners in particular, the main deck floor needs to be there anyway, and slightly strengthening that to handle the chore is usually not a big increase over the other design loads for the floor.

From a passenger and cargo perspective, you'd ideally like a rectangular cross section (think railroad box car), but that's problematic from a pressurization perspective (and the angular corners are not particularly aerodynamic).
 
LH707330
Posts: 1510
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

RE: Circular Cross Sections?

Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:49 am

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 7):
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but how does drag, whether for circular or double-bubble cross section, relate to floor load?

Apologies for the confusion, I wasn't being very clear.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 8):
Quoting rwessel (Reply 9):

These two did a good job explaining what I was trying to say: a cylinder is best from a structural standpoint, and an oval is best for drag. A double-bubble consisting of two partial circles with a tensioned floor beam is a good compromise.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aircanadaa330, rjsampson and 15 guests