Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
astuteman
Posts: 7439
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:54 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 95):
The main challenge Airbus faces will be the ability to have the 380 participate in the important slot times, like the early morning at LHR

Question - hasn't the A380 has been engineered to be so quiet, so that it can operate before/after the other operators have been required to "stand down" due to noise restrictions?
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:55 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 95):
I think Airbus will work out the problems,

They have to work out the problems post haste. The question is how, how much, and how long it will take. I am still surprised to see that Flight International and so on have not written about this issue.
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:12 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 94):
From how I understand it, the 757 has small wings to fit in 727 sized gates, and large engines to keep it flying

757-200 has wings that are pretty normal for it's size in terms of wing area, close to 763ER in wingloading. Planes like 739 and 321 have small wings for their size, but they are, of course much lighter.

On the other hand, it seems like the wing has lower aspect ratio than most, creating more wake. I do not have the number in front of me, and I do not have the time to calculate, but it seems like 757 might have the lowest AR of comparable aircraft.
 
trent900
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:06 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:22 am

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 99):
this is all further proof to me of how amazing the 747 is. boeing seems to have gotten the jumbo jet right the first time 30 years ago

But did Boeing have the same problems back then? Separation distances must have been increased when the 747 first entered service compared to the good'ol 707's and dc8's.

D.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:25 am

Okay, I'm confused. I'm not technically minded, so I've read it all and I am seriously confused.

The thread starter gives a list of data, but then says:

Quoting AeroPiggot (Thread starter):
I believe that the A380 regulations will clearly exceed the current 747-400 ones.

Why does he say "I believe" and "will"? If the figures he gives are accurate, either they do or they don't.

Is there any link to anything official that might clarify it for me?

cheers

mariner
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:25 am

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 97):
Guess that effectively kills off any hope of a BA order, eh?



Quote:
Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, delivered a snub to Airbus yesterday by saying there were "big question marks" over its A380 superjumbo and indicating the airline was potentially interested in buying the stretched Boeing 747 about to be launched by its rival.

Mr Walsh appeared to rule out a purchase of the A380 for the foreseeable future. "We are pleased we haven't got one on order at the moment," he said. "It is too big an aircraft. There is a big question mark beside it."

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article327108.ece
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:46 am

Quoting Mikkel777 (Reply 102):
On the other hand, it seems like the wing has lower aspect ratio than most, creating more wake. I do not have the number in front of me, and I do not have the time to calculate, but it seems like 757 might have the lowest AR of comparable aircraft.

That's what I meant. It is a short wingspan design to fit into narrow slots, but obviously it has to create enough lift to keep it flying, though it has extra powerful engines to get it aloft better.

From what I understand short wingspan leads to greater wing vortex.

DC10 has the same "fatty" wing shape, and from the looks of the A380, it has an extreme "fatty" wing. Low AR/OEW+reserves leads to more vortex on landing, and Low AR/MTOW leads to more vortex during take-off. Isn't that how it works?
 
stuckinMAF
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:49 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:19 am

I'm sure that Airbus Industries appreciates all of the suggested solutions presented so far in the thread and will carefully analyze them to select the one that provides the most appropriate resolution!

Seriously, a lot of the suggestions (far too many to quote) might help, but only a miniscule amount and I doubt could even be quantifiably measured in the real-world. Analyzing a still photo of the vapor trail at takeoff is not a valid study of the problem because the AOA at that time is quite different from all other parts of the aircraft's normal flight envelope, not to mention it's a single, static data point.

MD80fanatic got it right very early on in the discussion:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 4):
Big plane = Big wake .... it's physics.

That aircraft's wings have to displace a quantity of air molecules equal in mass to the aircraft, there's no changing that fact if it's going to be in flight. You can change the manner in which it does it somwhat, but you ultimately come back to the same physics. When the aircraft is going fast, there is more air to spread the displacement out to, but when it's slow it's going to interrupt more air. Even Airbus is not going to overcome that fact! Sorry A380 lovers.

Ultimately, though, the aviation world will come to grips with this problem and it will just be another one of those nuances of flying around big planes. Be aware of it and respect it and everything will be OK
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3605
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:03 am

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 107):
Even Airbus is not going to overcome that fact! Sorry A380 lovers.

You are sorry for what ?
 
stuckinMAF
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:49 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:55 am

Quoting Sebolino (Reply 108):
You are sorry for what ?

Sorry to be the one to break the news to A380 lovers that Airbus won't be able to break the laws of physics to appease the "wake turbulence police".  Wink Guess I didn't make that part clear enough.
 
Glom
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:38 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:21 am

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 109):
Sorry to be the one to break the news to A380 lovers that Airbus won't be able to break the laws of physics to appease the "wake turbulence police".

You're asking for it if Airbus sort out the wake turbulence problem of the ICAO recommendations are lowered.
 
stuckinMAF
Posts: 1022
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:49 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:29 am

Quoting Glom (Reply 110):
You're asking for it if Airbus sort out the wake turbulence problem of the ICAO recommendations are lowered.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm really not trying to take a swipe at anybody. I hope that they are able to make improvements, but like I said in my first post,

Quoting StuckinMAF (Reply 107):
Ultimately, though, the aviation world will come to grips with this problem and it will just be another one of those nuances of flying around big planes. Be aware of it and respect it and everything will be OK

Emphasis on NUANCES, not nuisances.
 
aeropiggot
Topic Author
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 6:43 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:54 am

Quote:
Mariner: Why does he say "I believe" and "will"? If the figures he gives are accurate, either they do or they don't

Mariner, at the time I started the thread I did not know the exact 747 horizontal following distances, but I remember that they were below 10 NM..so I said "I believe. Now that I have research the data, I can state categorically that the vertical separation has recently been reduced from 2000 feet to 1000 feet for ocean routes. This is done on both sides of the Atlantic. The horizontal separation is a bit more complicated since it depends on who is following who. If I recall, a small following a 747 in trail requires six NM. A 737 following a 747 requires four NM I think. Separation is enforce for the terminal area, or on final. Whatever distance is required at the threshold means that a greater distance is needed when airplanes first do their approaches to allow controllers to adjust everyone's speeds, etc. One of the difficulties is that airplanes do not fly at constant speed when they land, but at constant CL ( lift coefficient=landing Weight/(0.5*density*velocity-squared*Wing area) ). SO the speed(velocity) varies along the path. The A380 has a very slow approach speed for airplane of its size, and some of the RJs have very high approach speed. SO ATC is likely to try to put smaller guys ahead of the A380, but it may not always work out in high demand hours. so if you fly on a RJ and found yourself behind or next to a A380, and your approach speed is faster than that of the A380, you will have to basically flying near stall, or pace yourself ...far....far.. behind the A380 such that when you cross the terminal area, the separation between you and 380 is at the required separation. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you may have. The ICAO data will soon be posted, unless Airbus has some objections??
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:06 am

Quoting AeroPiggot (Reply 112):

Nice post, AeroPiggot. That clarified it for me, but I'm not flying any of these things. We can debate all we want here, but I will be interested to see what the press does with this data. They can blow it all out of proportion, ignore it, or "defer to the experts"--who can then blow it all out proportion!  Wink
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:07 am

If the A380 wingtip fences are redesigned to be more like the blended winglets found on the 737 NG and 757 then it would have to be recertified. That would be a very expensive and time consuming process and lead to further delays. What I don't understand is why Airbus has stuck with the wingtip fences instead of adopting the raked wingtips and blended winglet approach of Boeing that has proven to increase efficiency and range. I'm not so sure the wingtip fences have the same effect or at least not to the same degree.
 
startknob
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 11:43 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:10 am

This wake turbulence thingie isn't really a show stopper for the A 388, but it's a real pain in the *** and a serious, serious problem from the wake turbulence teself till the marketing department...

Airbus has to do very fast something very good about it - in a relatively hasty time frame - not the best starting point for really good solutions.

What shall they do?
- Redesign a "special 388" wing? Too much time and money IMHO.
- Design a new 388/389 wing with more wingspan? Very costly and the 80mx80m box in many airports would be too small.
- Reducing the bird's empty weight by ca. 10%+? Show me that - if it would be so "easy" they would have made it already.

I'm quite sure it's too late to make radical changes to the A388 package. So all options will concentrate on more cosmetic changes,
probably modified / optimized / larger wingtips or winglets.
Also the tail fin and the tail rudders maybe subject to changes.
On the wing only minor changes would be possible when SQ should get their first bird 4th quarter 07.

Perhaps we even get to see some really new things like spoilers on the gear or winglets that are able to change their behaviour electro-hydraulically between optimized positions for start, landing and cruising.

I won't go so far to say that they'll invent "Scotty's turbulence beamer" (see NCC-1701 est. 2207) but be prepared for some "funny" things Airbus will do about this...

Besides that there is the other option: political pressure. Maybe Airbus will also mount a good amount of oil pressure in a "lex A388".

OK Airbus guys, start working on this one.

Regards,
Startknob

[Edited 2005-11-16 02:15:13]
 
BoomBoom
Posts: 2459
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:26 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:20 am

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 114):
If the A380 wingtip fences are redesigned to be more like the blended winglets found on the 737 NG and 757 then it would have to be recertified.

Aren't a lot of these fixes like squeezing a balloon? You fix one bulge and another one pops up somewhere else. Aren't blended winglets heavier than wingtip fences? What will that do to performance?
 
vv701
Posts: 5895
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:54 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:33 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 71):
Make it wait until no other traffic are predicted to need to use the runway for 10 minutes.

And at LHR we would have 380s dropping out of the skies like flies as they ran out of fuel while waiting! But seriously there is a real problem.

It was said when the 741 and 742 were relatively new that if you spent 24 hours at LHR you would see . . . I am not sure, but I think it was 90 per cent of the world's aircraft of that type. It looks at least initially as if the same may be almost true for the 380. Looking on the bright side any 380 flying into LHR will almost certainly be occupying what is today a 744 slot. So we are not talking about that flight reducing the number of slots available by a factor of four (by taking up four exiting slots) but by a factor of one and two thirds with a 10 mile instead of 6 mile separation.

Quoting Cloudyapple (Reply 2):
One way round is to TEAM the A380 onto the departure runway.

At LHR this seems to be eminently possible when 09R is used for departures and 09L for arrivals. But 09R and 09L are only used with easterly winds and the prevailing winds at LHR are from the west. When the prevailing wind blows in week one all arrivals before 1500 hrs are on 27R while all departures are on 27L. At 1500 hrs (for environmental noise reasons) the arrival and departure runways are switched. In week 2 arrivals before 1500 hrs are on 27L and departures on 27R with the runways being again switched at 1500 hrs. In week three the week one arrangement is repeated and so on.

As Cloudyapple has pointed out many of the initial 380 arrivals at LHR will be from the Far East and in the early morning (and this will include the QF flights). He suggests that this can be managed (and he certainly knows much more than I do). But there are a significant number of flights from the Far and Middle East that arrive mid-afternoon. Can they be managed? Does this 'management' of the early morning and possibly the mid-afternoon flights include recognition and compliance with the current environmental restrictions at LHR or do they have to be rethought? Or could they even be a show stopper just as the government is claiming is the case with atmospheric NO2 levels delaying if not halting a third LHR runway?

And if we do end up with a reduction in slot numbers who will have to surrender their slots at slot restricted airports like LHR? At LHR it would seem the logical fall guy will be VS as none of the other airlines who have ordered the 380 have more than a handful of daily flights and you cannot expect BA to surrender slots because their competitors are going to use larger aircraft, or can you?
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:26 am

When the A380 landed in FRA, the next aircraft followed maintaining a 18 km (9.7 NM) distance. According to a local newspaper, airport officials claimed that normally two other aircraft could fill this gap. Thus the A380 was eating up it's advantage over the 747's capacities.

On top of that, the A380 was as loud as a 747-400 is.

Against the background that the A380 was not fully loaded, it appears to be apparent that Airbus has a real problem.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:29 am

Quoting AeroPiggot (Reply 112):
I can state categorically that the vertical separation has recently been reduced from 2000 feet to 1000 feet for ocean routes.

Thank you, your explanation is very welcome, although being non-technical, I get careful, as I assume I may have misinterpreted.

eg: I assume that vertical spacing and vertical seperation are one and the same. I'm sorry if this sounds like a child of three, but I don't want to get it wrong.

You say that the vertical seperation has "recently" been reduced - for the 747.

So until that reduction, the vertical seperation for the 747 was the same as it is now for the A380 - 2000 feet - and, presumably, has been so (for the 747) for some time?

Yes? No?

If that is the case, then it suggests (to me) two things:

(i) that in that one instance (point #3), there was no special difference between the 747 and the A380 - until recently, as 'twere, the vertical spacing for both was 2000 feet.

(ii) that all these things can be changed without - as some above seem to be suggesting above - changing any feature of the aircraft itself?

This would suggest to me that the guidance can change on any aircraft as new information becomes available. Yes? No?

So - being technically illiterate - my reading would be that the figures you have provided for the ICAO guidance are for the A380 as it is now, with what is known now.

But that they may change, either for better - or worse?

TIA

cheers

mariner
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:54 am

Quoting Mariner (Reply 119):
So until that reduction, the vertical separation for the 747 was the same as it is now for the A380 - 2000 feet - and, presumably, has been so (for the 747) for some time?

Yes? No?

The vertical separation in cruise for all RVSM qualified aircraft is 1000' when on opposing courses. RVSM rules were initially applied about ten years ago on trans-Atlantic routes and are now the standard in most of the world, particularly for trans-oceanic flights. The separation standard applies to all sizes of aircraft from A318/736's to 744's.

One concern for the A380 appears to be that in cruise its vortex can maintain considerable strength while descending 1000'. This may be a concern to A318/736 size or larger aircraft on an opposing course.

Guess we need to wait and see on this one. This is the type of issue I trust the regulators to sort out with a "Truth without Mercy" approach since there may be a potential safety issue.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:21 pm

Quoting BoomBoom (Reply 116):
Aren't blended winglets heavier than wingtip fences? What will that do to performance?

yes, but raked wingtips aren't, which is why B, even though they work closely with the blended wingtip company, went with raked tips for the 788, 789, 764 and 748 (the 748 wing is a cruvacious form of the raked tip). The 783 has a blended winglet wing because it needs to be a shorter wingspan.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 119):
You say that the vertical seperation has "recently" been reduced - for the 747.

So until that reduction, the vertical seperation for the 747 was the same as it is now for the A380 - 2000 feet - and, presumably, has been so (for the 747) for some time?

But the concern isn't really this part. That's just a nuisance to work out.

The concern is the approach spacing and takeoff delay at slot controlled airports.

As these PRELIMINARY numbers stand now, they would effectively negate ALL advantages the A380 has at slot controlled airports. Period. And that is BAD news.

3 744s (and one can assume 3 748s for now) would require 15-18nm spacing on approach. 2 A380s would require 18-20nm spacing on approach.

And the A380 would require another minute delay behind it before another jet could take off.

Put another way, in the spacetime it takes to land 2 A380s (1000 pax from two major hubs) you could bring in 3 748s (1200 pax from 3 major hubs), or in the time it takes you to launch 2 A380s (1000 pax to 2 major hubs) you could launch 2 748s and a 788/358 (1000 pax to 2 major hubs and 1 secondary destination), well, which solution brings more pax to the slot controlled airport and/or offers more flexibility in destinations served from a slot controlled airport?

Not the A380. Which was a major selling point of the model to begin with.

And of course cargo ops are far worse. 2 A388Fs vs. 3 748Fs... that's a no brainer for cargo lift.

Which is why it's important that Airbus address this, and hopefully not by just getting the EU to pressure the agencies into ignoring the safety issues...
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:37 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 121):
Which is why it's important that Airbus address this, and hopefully not by just getting the EU to pressure the agencies into ignoring the safety issues.

I understand all this. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. My point is buried in your response that these are preliminary numbers.

My question remains unanswered: can these numbers change without - as some are suggesting above - changes to the aircraft itself?

In the case of the change to vertical spacing for the 747, I assume that is the result of new information gathered and not because Boeing changed the aircraft.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 121):
Which is why it's important that Airbus address this,

Presumably, Airbus will, but inherent in my question is - address what? Change the aircraft, or supply more information?

I'm not sure why you would imply - at least in relation to anything I have said - that Airbus would approach this in an underhanded way.

chers

mariner
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 12:42 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 119):
So until that reduction, the vertical seperation for the 747 was the same as it is now for the A380 - 2000 feet - and, presumably, has been so (for the 747) for some time?

This is called RVSM, been around in many parts of the world for ages, the USA have just caught up with best practice and implemented it. A lot of older aircraft don’t meet the onboard instrument requirements and are prevented from flying in RVSM airspace.

Landing and takeoff separation applies to aircraft of different wake categories, an A380 following an A380 would need the same as a 747 following a 747.

Separation only applies to landing and takeoff when aircraft are following each other in landing or takeoff. A380 could say land, then a A320 lined up and cleared for immediate takeoff off the same runway as the 320 would not rotate before the 380 touch down point.

A lot of what has been said above is rubbish, I am still not convinced of the actual contents of this alleged "ICAO report".

A beginners guide to wake turbulence is here http://www.pilotfriend.com/flight_training/WAKE%20TURBULENCE1.htm, maybe worth a read to make slightly more informed comment.

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 83):
Why some manufacturers go for droop slats or Krueger slats is a matter of design considerations since they have similar performance.

Boeing uses Krueger, lighter and cheaper to make, Airbus slats, heavier, more complex, but generate better lift. Just another design tradeoff, and one reason why airbus aircraft generally have better runway performance than boeings.

Quoting Oly720man (Reply 72):
There will be next to no laminar flow on an aircraft this size. It will be turbulent over most of the aircraft, and over any aircraft bigger than a glider. Even an aircraft in the cruise configuration will have turbulent flow over it, or more accurately a turbulent boundary layer.



Quoting Sabenapilot (Reply 73):
Indeed, plane manufacturers will do every thing possible to make the flow over the wing turbulent by means of putting small wings (called vortex generators) on top of the wing... just have a look at the wing of a 737 to see what I am talking about!

Oly720man & Sabenapilot,

What your saying is lost on many people, boundary layers are not well understood. While I agree that designers will trip the layer and reenergize it with vortex generators etc, the free stream flow can be considered laminar, and when stalled turbulent.

I believe your comments are actually confusing, as the attached turbulent boundary layer will actually reduce the wake vortex strength, without the attached boundary layer a larger wing would need to be used, or more lift devices to increase the Cl, and more thrust.

Condensation trails at altitude are not a very good example to use for wake vortex as the aircraft is flying at a higher speed, with a lower AoA, lower induced drag, lower Cl. A380 in cruise could possibly have a lower wake vortex than a 737 at MTOW in takeoff configuration. RVSM allows for pilots to offset track if they wish to when following below and behind another aircraft of any size, in cruise its not an issue.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22917
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:06 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 4):

Big plane = Big wake .... it's physics.

Mostly, but there are many aerodynamic tricks to turn the "Karman Vortices" (Proper scientific name of the wingtip wake vortices) energy into something more useful. Winglets are like sails in the vortex, they actually produce thrust! (As well as an outword pull...) Boeing likes the "raked wingtips" as those harness the lift and by having a larger wingspan, less vortex is produced (without as much stress on the "host wing.") A "longer wing" has less wasted energy too, until the weight penalty of the wing offsets the aerodynamic benefit.

Its more accurate to say "Heavy plane=Big wake"

Quoting A350 (Reply 21):
I fail to understand how so large differences between wind tunnel experiments and reality can occur. Sure, the wind tunnel experiment is a scaled down model, but I'm convinced they have done a decent work at it. Perhaps the WhaleJet will end up with winglets as ugly as those of the 737NG

Me too! I am an expert on CFD modeling of turbulence. Ok, my specialty is combustors, but I fail to see how this was missed! Was their gridding wrong? Or did airbus use a K-E derived turbulence model (which overpredicts dissipation and hence would understate the vortices). For the claims they made, I expected Airbus to have employed the computationally expensive eddy simulation technique... Apparently not!

Also, with wind tunnels there is a huge scaling issue. Smaller turbulence dissipates *much* faster than larger turbulence. Tenikas and Lumly (sp?) wrote the definitive introduction text on the subject. Let's put it this way, most fluid engineers complete their careers without ever understanding turbulence. Most would scale wind tunnel results wrong. Because of the much greater effective viscosity in a wind tunnel, they are a poor device for estimating wake vortex propagation. CFD should have been the more accurate tool.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 35):

Airbus better find a way to fix this, and fast...

True. The only fix I see is to grow the winglets.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 43):
Hence the HUGE wings.... (Interestingly, A engineers wanted to make the wings even bigger - now we know why

Actually, they wanted larger wings for fuel efficiency. There have been other discussions on A.net about this. However, larger wings would have mitigated the vortices.

Quoting ContnlEliteCMH (Reply 52):
Fluid mechanics is definitely a black art, despite what some on this board postulate, that computational fluid dynamics is mature enough that you shouldn't even need physical testing. But wind tunnel testing is a well-established method. There are millions of wind tunnel hours in the books.

CFD is very mature. But, it still takes someone who knows gridding (model setup), turbulence models, and most importantly error analysis! Oh, but think of it as a black art, that raises my salary!  spin  (Alas, now I only teach others CFD, I've been promoted beyond a user...)  Sad

Quoting Mariner (Reply 122):

My question remains unanswered: can these numbers change without - as some are suggesting above - changes to the aircraft itself?

No. Something is going to have to be done with the wingtips. Well, or you could take 200,000lbm out of the aircraft... To say the least, the MTOW increases aren't helping this issue.

Look, I apologize for the long technical post. If you would like to know more, please contact me and I'll try to explain in terms you'll understand.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:32 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 124):
My question remains unanswered: can these numbers change without - as some are suggesting above - changes to the aircraft itself?
No. Something is going to have to be done with the wingtips. Well, or you could take 200,000lbm out of the aircraft.



Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 124):
If you would like to know more, please contact me and I'll try to explain in terms you'll understand.

Thanks for the offer, but I'm giving up trying to sort it out.

The 747 numbers did change without structural changes to the aircraft, but the A380 numbers can't?

Too complex for this poor old brain. Thanks, anyway.

cheers

mariner
 
Wiggidy
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:06 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:37 pm

I posted this in another thread, but it equally applies here.
Heres what I find interesting... According to this PDF: http://wwwe.onecert.fr/projets/WakeN...ndon2003/Greene_A380Safety_FAA.pdf
I know that this report is 2 years old, but according to these guidlines, ICAO is a very minimal participant in this wake turbulence study. The "technical group" is the one doing the testing and that consists of the FAA, AFS, and Airbus. Even the "steering group", or the process moderator, has nothing to do with ICAO, it is made up of the CJAA and Eurocontrol members. So has this process been reorganised in the last 2 years? Where are reports from the other 5 members, the more important ones at that? I too am very suspicious of this so called report and cannot find links using all my resources. Anyone have any information?
-Wes
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22917
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:53 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 125):
The 747 numbers did change without structural changes to the aircraft, but the A380 numbers can't?

IIRC, NASA paid to study the 747 wake turbulence back when it was the heaviest aircraft in US airspace. Their findings found that the 747 turbulence wasn't as bad as feared. The A380 numbers, like the latest 747 turbulence numbers, are from chase plane measurements.

So its not that the 747 wake turbulence changed, its that with accurate measurements it was found to be "not as bad" as thought.

I still want to see the A380 numbers...

oh, I started a tech-ops thread on CFD of turbulence for those who want to know more.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 1:59 pm

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 127):
So its not that the 747 wake turbulence changed,

But - the thread starter said:

Quoting AeroPiggot (Reply 112):
I can state categorically that the vertical separation has recently been reduced from 2000 feet to 1000 feet for ocean routes.

He says "recently been reduced". Call me a pedant, but to me that means "changed".

cheers

mariner
 
glacote
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 1:44 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:09 pm

I will put it straight:
- there is no link to any hard data. No news agency has jumped on this. Airbus has said nothing of that kind. Nor any customer. Nor FAA or EAA. This is really AeroPiggot vs world for now.
- what is ICAO? How do they get their data? Was Airbus involved in the measurements? Is this data for F-WOOW? Under what meteorological conditions?
- Airbus claimed no later than today that the A388 shall meet or exceed performance targets. This would be a much, much worse lie than the late-to-be-acknowledge delay. Remember the overweight wa _not_ denied but acknowledged early on.
- there was no issue of that kind with the scaled model. To the best of my knowleger aerodynamics scale reasonably well within a factor of 4. How come there would be such a huge mis-experimentation? How many new PhD. dissertations will try to explain these new, unknown phenomena that the best european researchers failed so miserably to predict?
- the A388 wing is far larger than that of the B747 and despite being 30 years younger, despite the massive use of computers not even thinkable of 30 years ago, the A388 engineers would have missed their target by so much? Are those european aerodynamics engineers so bad?

My take on this issue is that we rather wait for reputable data before sentencing Airbus to "do something about this other issue - and rather quickly". This looks like "just too much" - and to helpful to some.

I find extraordinarily disappointing the apparent joy and hunger of many posters to find new material to bash the A388. So many comments axiomatizing this as a fact and going fast forward speculating. I still fail to understand why. Or is it because it is "french" (actually 50% american) or just a problem of "mine is bigger than yours"? And more posts full of nonsenses (bigger implies bigger wakes), wild speculations (the Y3 will be at least 50t lighter - where are even perliminary specs to be found? Estimating drag from a picture ?!), hatred claims ("catastrophic", "Oh dear oh dear. What a pain in the @$$...", "Nightmare", "Sorry A380 lovers.", "This is just the tip of the 380 iceberg. Sit back and watch all the other John Leahy style predictions become the fairy dust that they are.", etc.) A shame, really.

This is probably (one of) my latest post(s) on A.net. At first I had believed it was a forum where aviation enthusiasts could exchage striving news and awesome pictures about the aricraft industry.

I just failed to understand that the industry necessarily meant one from Seattle. My apologies.

Bye. Enjoy.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:31 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 129):
I find extraordinarily disappointing the apparent joy and hunger of many posters to find new material to bash the A388.

Don't take it too hard. It's human nature. Just like the hordes of people who stop and gawk at a gruesome automobile accident. There is some internal desire to see others fail, and sometimes in a collosal fasion.

Quoting Glacote (Reply 129):
Or is it because it is "french"



Quoting Glacote (Reply 129):
or just a problem of "mine is bigger than yours"?

It may be a little bit of both. But I have seen it go both ways - just look at some of the comments being hurled about the launch of the 748. And I'm sure it will definitely go against Boeing as the 787 project matures. Trust me: this is not a uniquely Boeing supporters "problem". It cuts both ways and time will prove it.
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 2:53 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 129):
what is ICAO? How do they get their data? Was Airbus involved in the measurements?

International Civil Aviation Organisation. And they get their information from an international working group. And yes, Airbus is part of the group.

Thanks to a friend I have a copy of the ICAO's letter of 10th. November. The first three paragraphs read:-

"1. I have the honour to refer to my State letter T13/15.5 – 05.0654.TEC of 3 November 2005 with regard to wake vortex aspects of Airbus A380 aircraft.

2. The ad hoc group of experts under the auspices of the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Eurocontrol, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) and the manufacturer is currently developing guidance on wake vortex separation criteria for the A380. It is now anticipated that this guidance will be made available in early 2006.

3. In the meantime, analyses and flight test data available to the group have raised concerns about horizontal and vertical wake turbulence spacing criteria for approach, landing, departure, and enroute operations of the A380 relative to other aircraft. Current data analyses indicate that A380 wake vortices will descend further and be significantly stronger at 300 m (1 000 ft) below the generation altitude than for other aircraft in the heavy wake turbulence category."


It goes on to say exactly what the thread-starter says about separations, distances, etc.

So relax, Glacote, and lay off the 'conspiracy theories.'  

[Edited 2005-11-16 06:56:23]
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:06 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 128):


Quote:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 127):
So its not that the 747 wake turbulence changed,

But - the thread starter said:

Quote:
Quoting AeroPiggot (Reply 112):
I can state categorically that the vertical separation has recently been reduced from 2000 feet to 1000 feet for ocean routes.

He says "recently been reduced". Call me a pedant, but to me that means "changed".

I am not sure what the issue is here. As I understand it the actual 747 wake turbulence has not changed, but rather the measurement of it changed after they used a more accurate method of determining the real number, and as a consequence of that lower but more accurate measurement of wake turbulence, guidelines for vertical separation have changed to allow for closer spacing of aircraft.
 
echster
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:21 pm

I'm a controller and this really doesn't seem to make the recommendations any more difficult for me - except the 2000 foot vertical separation.

One additional minute for departures is really no big deal. Almost all wake turbulence separation on departure (departing from same point) is 2 minutes. Departures from a different point (ie. taxiway/intersection) is 3 minutes. Making it 3 or 4 minutes isn't a deal breaker for the airlines.

I know folks seem to put a lot into the 10 mile separation on final, but there are several ways to limit the impact. For one, the type of airport the A380 will fly to will usually have parallel or a set of parallel runways. With that in mind, you can have the A380 land on your designated departure runway thus freeing up the spacing requirements for your normal landing runway. Wake turbulence separation ends at touchdown so the A380 would only need to be clear of the runway before resuming normal departures (also I imagine it would take more time to taxi across the runway if it would land on the normal approach runway).

Secondly, it would still be possible for an aircraft following an A380 to be on a visual approach. In that case, the A380 only need be in sight and the pilot following would be responsible for wake turbulence separation.

It's not as much work as you may think. Two further notes on this already long thread: I don't put the wake turbulence issue with the B757 on its demise. I believe we're only talking the B757-200 model with the different wake turbulence separation. The other models of the B757 are 1 mile less separation. Also, someone mentioned 6 miles of wake turbulence separation on final behind a heavy, and while technically correct in the US, probably should have read 5 miles on final increasing to 6 miles at the landing threshold.

This is the type of stuff I prefer on A.net vs an AvB thing.
 
lehpron
Posts: 6846
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 3:42 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:55 pm

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 4):
Big plane = Big wake .... it's physics.



Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 6):
Bigger plane = bigger wake.

If the wing were elliptical, the wake would be significantly less due to an evenly distributed downwash pattern. But we don't have that situation. CFD's cannot predict everything, flight testing has purpose. Airbus could modify or change their wingtip devices, they have another year to do it.  Smile
 
mikkel777
Posts: 361
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2002 1:15 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:12 pm

Quoting Echster (Reply 133):
I believe we're only talking the B757-200 model with the different wake turbulence separation. The other models of the B757 are 1 mile less separation

How many others are there exept -200 and 300?
The -300 is regarded as heavy in terms of MTOW and wake, the -200 only because of wake.
I find it very hard to belive that the -300 creates less wake turbulence and thus needs less separation, with the same amount of thrust, the same wings and a heavier weight than the -200. (If that is what you ment by "1 mile less separation")

The FAR states that on some situations, there are different separations between small and heavy, and small and 757 (which implifies -200, since the -300 actually is a heavy by MTOW)
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:25 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 130):
It may be a little bit of both. But I have seen it go both ways - just look at some of the comments being hurled about the launch of the 748. And I'm sure it will definitely go against Boeing as the 787 project matures. Trust me: this is not a uniquely Boeing supporters "problem". It cuts both ways and time will prove it

True enough - only that the Boeing people often are the worst by a BIG margin.

Abba
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:33 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 136):
True enough - only that the Boeing people often are the worst by a BIG margin.

Abba

Based on what?
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15181
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:59 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 122):
I understand all this. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. My point is buried in your response that these are preliminary numbers.

It's why I did those words in ALL CAPS, because it is not final.

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 127):
So its not that the 747 wake turbulence changed, its that with accurate measurements it was found to be "not as bad" as thought.

Very similar to why there are "more recorded tropical storms" in the last few years. The ability to measure the wind speed and internal pressure of storms that never approach land and pose no threat has greatly increased in the last few years with better equipment and better computer technology (or mismeasure, honestly considering most recent storms have been 1 category lower than advertised by the collected data). Thus more storms become "tropical storms" and get names. The number has not really increased, nor has the intensity. Just the data collection method has improved. Despite the flooding in New Orleans due to poor design, this year has been no worse than many others and not out of the ordinary in respect to landfall and intensity of storms.

This is the same way to explain the 747 change. After better understanding how to measure the wake vortex, the data changed, not the design. Thus the adjustment. But the reality of the situation has not changes. Just our ability to understand the reality.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 131):
Thanks to a friend I have a copy of the ICAO's letter of 10th. November. The first three paragraphs read:-

How dare you confirm what was obviously not made up. Some people would much rather believe PR rather than real data, and your confirmation is just not fair to them.

Quoting Echster (Reply 133):
One additional minute for departures is really no big deal. Almost all wake turbulence separation on departure (departing from same point) is 2 minutes. Departures from a different point (ie. taxiway/intersection) is 3 minutes. Making it 3 or 4 minutes isn't a deal breaker for the airlines.

But that's 33 to 50% increase in time it takes for an A380 to take off during tight operations. How is this not a big deal?

The approach and runway issue can also be resolved, but not without causing delays and interruptions, which isn't exactly a selling point for the A380.

Hopefully things will get better, as this is only a report based on initial data. The final is months away.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16357
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:09 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 138):
But that's 33 to 50% increase in time it takes for an A380 to take off during tight operations. How is this not a big deal?

The approach and runway issue can also be resolved, but not without causing delays and interruptions, which isn't exactly a selling point for the A380.

You have missed the point, if its a 380 following a 380, no change.

If a 380 lands, you can clear another jet to takeoff on the same runway without any delay.

If a 380 takes off, you can clear another aircraft to land striaght away on the same runway.

The seperation really only applies if following doing the same thing in the airport, either taking off behind, or landing behind like it does today.

Today you can have a 747 land, 737 takeoff 737 land without any delays, or 747 takeoff, 737 land, 737 takeoff. ATC manage the sequence to enable this.
 
cricket
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:23 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:24 pm

I think (and I only think) this would really impact airports where one runway is dedicated to landings and the other dedicated to take-offs and there are quite a few congested airports that operate like this. But I'm no engineer and my understanding of fluid dynamics is limited to seeing rising cigarette smoke.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 19473
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:37 pm

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 138):
It's why I did those words in ALL CAPS, because it is not final.

Excuse me for being stupid. You did several words in all caps. I found the meaning, in context, obscure.

It is - for me - hard to imagine a thread of this length, proclaiming such doom for the A380, on figures which are only PRELIMINARY.

cheers

mariner
 
User avatar
sebolino
Posts: 3605
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 11:26 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:48 pm

Quoting Glacote (Reply 129):
I find extraordinarily disappointing the apparent joy and hunger of many posters to find new material to bash the A388. So many comments axiomatizing this as a fact and going fast forward speculating. I still fail to understand why. Or is it because it is "french" (actually 50% american) or just a problem of "mine is bigger than yours"? And more posts full of nonsenses (bigger implies bigger wakes), wild speculations (the Y3 will be at least 50t lighter - where are even perliminary specs to be found? Estimating drag from a picture ?!), hatred claims ("catastrophic", "Oh dear oh dear. What a pain in the @$$...", "Nightmare", "Sorry A380 lovers.", "This is just the tip of the 380 iceberg. Sit back and watch all the other John Leahy style predictions become the fairy dust that they are.", etc.) A shame, really.

You're right.Welcome to the realm of NAV20 and friends.
They really managed to screw up this forum.

You can find however some very interesting posts sometimes, and it's why I continue to come: I'm still looking for posts will teach me something interesting about planes.
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:52 pm

Now, I'm really not an expert in these things, so forgive me if I say something which is total nonsense.

If I understand correctly, airplanes are classified as either heavy, medium or light. And even if we assume the worst case scenario, the fact is that an A380 can land immediately after another A380. But can other heavy airplanes land immediately after an A380?

If that's possible, and if an airport has an A380, a B777 and a B737 coming in for landing, then that would mean that the landing distances would be no different than, say, a B747 followed by a B777 followed by a B737. So for an airport that has lots of heavies, like SIN, the A380 won't really cause any problems, even if we assume that the worst case figures quoted in this thread are correct.

I hope you see my point.

Quoting BoogyJay (Reply 79):
In TLS, the A380 already flies with the regular "heavy" category wake turbulence distances and although TLS is not as crowded as LHR, there is some traffic there everyday with annual 5.6M pax.



Quoting NoUFO (Reply 118):
When the A380 landed in FRA, the next aircraft followed maintaining a 18 km (9.7 NM) distance.

So at TLS, the A380 is categorized as a regular heavy, while at FRA, they added a safe margin on the first A30 arrival. Does anybody know what they did in SIN, BNE, SYD, MEL and KUL? And was there any medium or light aircraft taking off or landing immediately after the A380 in those airports?
 
Joni
Posts: 2613
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2000 11:05 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:07 pm

I fail to see what the fuss is about. Ok, if a minute is added to the cooldown time before a new take-off or landing, that is peanuts. The turnaround time of a plane is min 90 minutes, so adding one minute to this is in the order of 1% airport capacity-wise. And this is assuming that the additional minute even comes into play!
 
PlaneDane
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:08 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:10 pm

Quoting Abba (Reply 136):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 130):
It may be a little bit of both. But I have seen it go both ways - just look at some of the comments being hurled about the launch of the 748. And I'm sure it will definitely go against Boeing as the 787 project matures. Trust me: this is not a uniquely Boeing supporters "problem". It cuts both ways and time will prove it

True enough - only that the Boeing people often are the worst by a BIG margin.

Abba

Well, congratulations to you then, Abba.

You singlehandedly have been able to more than even the score against those Boeing people with your pugnacious attacks.

You are as guilty as anyone.
 
abba
Posts: 1385
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:18 pm

Quoting PlaneDane (Reply 145):
You are as guilty as anyone

I'd never said anything negative about Boeing. I like Boeing products very much and I am truely happy that the 747 is getting a new lease of life. I do not suport any of the two as I have no personal interrest invested in any of them.

Abba
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22917
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:28 pm

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 132):

I am not sure what the issue is here. As I understand it the actual 747 wake turbulence has not changed, but rather the measurement of it changed after they used a more accurate method of determining the real number, and as a consequence of that lower but more accurate measurement of wake turbulence, guidelines for vertical separation have changed to allow for closer spacing of aircraft.

Thank you. Well said.  Smile

Ok, where is this in the press? The 2,000 vertical isn't minor...

Lightsaber
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:05 pm

Quoting Mariner (Reply 119):
So until that reduction, the vertical seperation for the 747 was the same as it is now for the A380 - 2000 feet - and, presumably, has been so (for the 747) for some time?

RVSM applies to all aircraft in certain airspace regardless of size. It is an enroute concept and not a terminal airspace concept. While RVSM has been in effect over the Atlantic and Pacifc oceans for a while, the US introduced the concept just this year to domestic airspace between 29,000 and 41,000 feet.

[Edited 2005-11-16 15:35:40]
 
squirrel83
Posts: 1218
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 12:28 pm

RE: A380 Wake Turbulence Data Are In

Wed Nov 16, 2005 11:31 pm

Quoting Wiggidy (Reply 126):
I posted this in another thread, but it equally applies here.
Heres what I find interesting... According to this PDF: http://wwwe.onecert.fr/projets/WakeN...ndon2003/Greene_A380Safety_FAA.pdf
I know that this report is 2 years old, but according to these guidlines, ICAO is a very minimal participant in this wake turbulence study. The "technical group" is the one doing the testing and that consists of the FAA, AFS, and Airbus. Even the "steering group", or the process moderator, has nothing to do with ICAO, it is made up of the CJAA and Eurocontrol members. So has this process been reorganised in the last 2 years? Where are reports from the other 5 members, the more important ones at that? I too am very suspicious of this so called report and cannot find links using all my resources. Anyone have any information?

Here is another link that might work!
http://wwwe.onecert.fr/projets/WakeNet2-Europe/

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos