Spitfire vs Airbus A380

The Airbus is a far more impressive engineering feat than the An-225. The level of sophistication that thing has would put most military aircraft to shame.

Still. 'Tis a lemon. Gimme the new Boeing any day.
 
Scuzi said:
The A380 really is a beast. It requires 10 miles wake vortex spacing meaning that anything flying within 10 miles behind it is in danger of severe turbulence or getting flipped over :eek:

It's a crazy beast.
Click to expand...

How much spacing do "normal" aircraft need? I mean when they are coming in to land at Heathrow during peak times they can't be more than a few miles behind each other surly?
 
dbmzk1 said:
How much spacing do "normal" aircraft need? I mean when they are coming in to land at Heathrow during peak times they can't be more than a few miles behind each other surly?
Click to expand...

Depends on the wake vortex category of the aircraft. Most of them will be 3 miles in trail on final approach but if a Medium is behind a Heavy, this is increased to 5 miles due to the vortex.

Here's a table of the spacings...

waketurbulence.jpg
 
Ah, the Spruce Goose. it only flew for a few feet if my memory serves me correctly.

<edit>
which it doesen't. it flew a few feet high for over a kilometer and a half.
 
Last edited:
Scuzi said:
Last time it flew in it was 10 miles for everything and 2000ft vertical (or was it 1500ft within 15nm) but that was on a TOI. It may have changed but I haven't heard or read anything to say that it has.
Click to expand...

Yeah I read in a aircraft mag that they calculated the needed figures to be 10/8/6nm for light medium and heavy.
 
So if a little Cessna were to fly across the path traveled by the airbus (say a mile behind) it would be in serious danger of flipping?. I don't doubt it, just find it really hard to comprehend, because a mile is just so far. I would have presumed that air would settle, similarly to the way it does when I flap my hand about lol (on a bigger scale :P).
So what about on take-off?. I presume the engines are running at a powerful setting. Does it not blow cars parked behind the end of the runway on their roofs or take the tarmac up and things?.
 
benneh said:
So if a little Cessna were to fly across the path traveled by the airbus (say a mile behind) it would be in serious danger of flipping?. I don't doubt it, just find it really hard to comprehend, because a mile is just so far. I would have presumed that air would settle, similarly to the way it does when I flap my hand about lol (on a bigger scale :P).
So what about on take-off?. I presume the engines are running at a powerful setting. Does it not blow cars parked behind the end of the runway on their roofs or take the tarmac up and things?.
Click to expand...

A mile behind a heavy is seriously dangerous. There would be a severe danger of fliping the aircraft, losing control and causing structural damage.

I had an aircraft file a wake vortex report today, an Airbus A320 just after departing from Heathrow which flew 4 miles behind an inbound Boeing 747-400 on a perpendicular track. The A320 pilot described it as "severe turbulence with significant height loss". I bet that scared the crap out of the passengers especially as they were only at about 6000ft!

We frequently get aircraft as much as 10-15+ miles behind a heavy asking to be vectored out of trail due to the turbulence. It's a long distance but it's a very real and dangerous thing. I have had a few scares in a PA28 as well. I was once following an Easyjet 737 down the ILS at Aldergrove, 7 miles behind according to the Director. It was all fine then BANG, the right wing lifted violently, we then suddenly dropped about 150ft, I hit my head a whack off the roof and eventualy recovered it once we dropped below the wake.

Wake vortex is not created by the engines, it is created by the wings and generally, the heavier the aircraft is, the stronger the turbulence it will create.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6VwjLtRleCk
 
Yes basicly a wing needs clear smooth undisturbed air to function at its best and produce maximum lift. If the wing encounters turbulent air then the smooth slow across the wing is disrupted and the lift is lessened. Thats why when you fly in turbulance you feel like you are falling and then rising again, thats because you are :p

A wake is the same thing only man made... like has been said, the bigger the plane the bigger and more turbulant the wake and the longer it takes to subside.

If things go really bad then you can possibly stall. This is when there is insufficient air flow across the wing to allow lift to be generated. ( ie brown trouser time )
 
The gusting on the wing is the main reason for the severe changes in aircraft attitude rather than changes in the lift distribution across the wing.

The wake vortices are trailing vortices created as the air spills off the swept wing, particularly the wing tip where you get air spilling around from the higher pressure base to the low pressure region. They manifest as two big spirals of low pressure air and form a good portion of the aircraft drag simply from the lower pressure behind its flight path.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
On a 200 knot approach thats only 20 seconds time to fly into the tubulent wake.
Click to expand...

No aircraft should be within a mile of the other on intermediate or final approach at the same level anyway :p

But aye, when planes are doing between between 160Kts and upwards of 340Kts IAS (500Kts+ ground speed at higher levels), those miles suddenly aren't so big ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom