chornedsnorkackChicago convention covers just the registrations of civil planes flying internationally. It quite generally does not seem to cover military planes, and while use of national prefixes on military planes is known, not using them seems more common. For example, US military planes seem to carry all-numeric registrations – not N-numbers like US civil planes.
chornedsnorkackFound an interesting overview:
http://daveg4otu.tripod.com/pref.html
So… all-numeric registration with no country prefix are used – mainland China and North Korea.
As for military – Japan had J-xxxx numeration for civil aircraft, but clearly this did not apply to military, like the kamikaze planes with all-numeric registration and no J-prefix.
chornedsnorkackrussian airliners are all in ‘english’ rather than cyrillic script.
Aeroflot registrations – CCCP-xxxxx – can be rendered in “German letters”, but make different sense in Cyrillic, and Cyrillic is the real sense.
chornedsnorkackHi everybody! I’m looking for an overview / comparison of the sizes of fuselages of current airliner (table, and if pos-sible graphic), mainly fuselage external diameter (if not circular in section: height and width) and cabin width (up-per/lower level for A380 and B747).
This for Boeing 707 … 787 and Airbus 300 … 380.
Many thanks for your support!
Lets´s make the overview. Some numbers are approximate.
Boeing, Douglas and Mcdonnell plane descriptions are linked from:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/plan_manuals.html
Boeing 707: not circular. Width outside 376 cm, height outside 427 cm. Cabin width 353 cm.
Boeing 717: there have been two models of that designation. One is the military KC-135, which had the cross-section of early 707 design (narrower than 707). Another is MD-95.
The MD-95 has the same cross-section as DC-9, MD-80 and MD-90: not circular. Outside width 338 cm, outside height 361 cm. Cabin width 313 cm.
Boeing 727: not circular. Width outside 376 cm, cabin width 353 cm – just like 707. Height outside 401 cm.
Boeing 737: not circular. Cross-section shared with 727.
Boeing 747: front not circular. Width outside 650 cm. Height outside said to be 785 cm.
Lower deck cabin width 610 cm.
Upper deck sidewalls steeply sloping. Width about 350 cm on armrest level, about 400 cm on floor level.
Boeing 757: not circular. Cross-section shared with 727.
Boeing 767: not circular. Width outside 503 cm, height outside 541 cm. Cabin width 472 cm.
Boeing 777: circular. Diametre outside 620 cm. Cabin width about 586 cm.
Boeing 787: not circular. Width outside 577 cm, height outside 592 cm. Cabin width about 549 cm.
Airbus 300: circular. Diametre outside 564 cm. Cabin width 528 cm.
Airbus 310: circular. Cross-section shared with 300.
Airbus 320: not circular. Width outside 395 cm, height outside 414 cm. Cabin width 369 cm.
Airbus 330: circular. Cross-section shared with 300.
Airbus 340: circular. Cross-section shared with 300.
Airbus 350: not well published. Not circular. Outside width 591 cm.
Airbus 360: designation not assigned.
Airbus 370: designation not assigned.
Airbus 380: not circular. Outside width 714 cm, outside height 856 cm. Lower deck cabin narrows downward, width 658 cm maximum, about 630 cm on armrest level. Upper deck cabin narrows upward, width 592 cm floor level, about 530 cm armrest level.
chornedsnorkackThe same right as many states have to refuse overflight to Israeli and South African planes.
chornedsnorkackI discovered that hieroglyphic registrations do exist:
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan—Air/Yokosuka-D4Y-Suisei/1044515/M/
not on the photo, but mentioned in comments.
chornedsnorkackThe reason for the difference in lateral positions is due to SLOP (strategic lateral offset procedures). We can fly either down the middle of the track or 1 or 2 miles right of track. The reasons we do this are:
1) to avoid wake turbulence from aircraft ahead
The turbulence must be carried sidewards by any crosswinds, right? As well as sink under its own momentum?
2) nav systems are now so accurate that an aircraft flying the wrong way would hit you absolutely head on so we all offset to the right
GOL 737-800 and a Legacy did not collide head on, cockpit to cockpit, but Legacy winglet sliced off a dangerously big part of 737 wingtip, so the 737 did not keep flying like Legacy did.
The wingspan of a Legacy is something like 0,01 miles, and that of 737 is 0,02 miles. The total height of 737 is something like 40 feet on ground, less than that in air with wheels up – Legacy is smaller, and a wing with winglet has a rather limited height. You would have to be massively unlucky, or else too accurate for your safety, in order to actually collide, rather than miss by 0,4 or 0,04 miles sidewards or 100 feet or 10 feet vertically… in the midst of the big, big sky.
3) if an aircraft overtakes or undertakes directly beneath the radio altimeters sense it as ground and can put some aircraft types into a landing mode (certainly the case on Airbus types)
If you are on different RVSM flightlevels, does it mean that the distance between overtaking planes is about 2000 feet, or multiples?
chornedsnorkackI’m also not sure of the benefit of the wing spans….you’re comparing Apples and Pears because each aircraft has a wing design based on the individual aircraft, so I’m not sure why we need this information. Payload, range, seat/mile costs, runway performance, purchase price, availability etc are probably better comparitors.
Wing design is a thing which is relatively hard to change, seeing how Boeing 777-200, 777-200ER and 777-300 have exact same wing but were able to tweak much else.
Also note that the wingspans of A340, Il-96 and B-777 are within 80 cm of each other, and 8…9 m longer than MD-11. Not a coincidence, I suspect: they are all designed to be slightly but not much bigger than 747 Classic wingspan of 59,6 m. This also means that they are all too big for airports built to fit DC-10-30…
And consider how DC-10-30 has larger wing than MD-11 at 368 sq m.
The MD approach was to increase wing loading by making the wing slimmer even while MTOW was increased, thus forcing high-speed approaches, cutting down tailplane size and sacrificing longitudinal stability – all of it with the aim to save cruise drag. Whereas Boeing designed a huge wing for 777 compared to MD-11 wing.
How did Boeing 777 avoid a drag penalty for a big wing? And which approach worked – the MD-11 one or the B-777 one?
chornedsnorkackI wonder if they also looked at 2 large turbofans mounted at the rear.
I have no idea about the subject but I always imagined that having two clean wings would reduce fuel burn.
It also restricts CoG range. No matter whether the tail carries 2, 3 or 4 jets.
Just a pity these days we cannot have the beautifuly integrated engines inside the wings like the DH Comet. Alas,engines are too big these days.
We can. The new Nimrod does have considerably bigger high-bypass engines, still integrated in wings. Someone should build civilian Comets based on new generation Nimrods.
chornedsnorkackHow big do you think would the plane be?
chornedsnorkackFriend of a friend gave me some ballpark info for DL 777.
777ER, 50/218 seats, 656,000lb MTOW, BOM-JFK, great circle dist. 6800 NM, usually performance (runway allowable) limited.
Interesting. So, 777-200ER cannot take off at MTOW. Does this happen in JFK or BOM? (Neither is high, both are hot and humid in summer, but Bom is slightly hotter).
It is a challenge to get all the people and bags on, this route is about the “real” limit of this plane.
777LR, 43/233 seats, 766,000lb MTOW makes the above route with full pax, bags, some cargo and still has 20-30,000lbs of performance margin to spare.
Let´s see what remains of the margin in May-June in Bombay. I think DL did not yet have 777-200LR last summer?
In general, winds, performance (hot/high), and routing issues (politics, suitability of enroute alternates, mountainous terrain/critical terrain, etc.) all greatly reduce the “book” range claims of Boeing and Airbus for their products.
Winds affect both equally. As for the rest, 777 as a twin is more restricted.
For example, the MTOW-s of twins are calculated so that they can climb out at 2,4 % if one engine fails on takeoff. Quads are required to climb at 3,0 %. When you take off from a runway that actually has obstacles ahead at 2,9 %, the MTOW of a quad is unchanged while a twin has to take TOW restrictions.
PS WRT how come no 777LR operator flies longer routes than SQ and TG with A340-500, I would say the manufacturer is secondary. The reality is this ULR market is very limited, many in the industry question how many pax want to be on an airplane 16-20 hours (counting boarding/de-boarding, taxi times, etc.).
Singapore decided that few pax want to fly executive economy and therefore they rip it out and go all business.
The other ULR operators do not seem to be following suit. Thai is happy with their premium economy and ordinary economy which has 36 inch pitch. Even less pitch on other A340-500 operators.
On BOM-JFK, you have two airlines on exact same route, with exact same plane. Delta and Air India.
Delta has no first class, 43 business and 233 coach. Air India has 8 First Class, 35 business (total 43 flat beds), 195 coach (a minimum of 34 inches pitch).
Which is better to spend 16+ hours in?
chornedsnorkackI never argued the MD-11 wing is smaller than the DC-10, in fact I think it is slightly bigger with the winglets. The wing loading is a lot higher though.
I do argue it. Sure, MD-11 wing is slightly longer, but it is also so much narrower that it has smaller area and higher loading.
DC-10-30 span 50,4 m, area 368 sq m, mean chord about 7,3 m
MD-11 span 51,7 m, area 339 sq m, mean chord about 6,6 m.
chornedsnorkackThe MD-11 is definitely difficult to handle, based on the direct input I have received from 30plus years Airline Captains.
The MD-11 horizontal stabilizer has only 59% the wetted area of the DC-10 even though the airplane is 20 feet longer and weighs from 40-100,000 lbs more. McD designed a longitudinal stability augmentation system which some pilots feel is poorly designed (it trims the stabilizer with no indication to the pilot flying).
DC-10-30 has 50,4 m wingspan, and 368 sq m wing area.
Why does MD-11 have so much smaller wing and tailplane?
chornedsnorkackIf they were ‘liable’ to have accidents MD-11’s wouldn’t be in the air, but there’s certainly some truth that many pilots found them to be more difficult to handle than the DC-10.
Paul
Well, having a look at crash records…
MD-11 has lost 3 frames through botched approaches:
Fedex Flight 14 in Newark, 1997
China Airlines Flight 642 in Hong Kong, 1999
Fedex Flight 87 in Subic Bay, 1999
A340-300 has had 1 botched approach – AF A340 in Toronto, 2005.
Il-96 has no crashes at all, and the only 777 crash (BA in Heathrow) was due to double engine failure well up in air.
Could it be that the airframe design of MD-11 makes it liable to bad landings? Or are those 3 (and lack of similar accidents with 777) a mere coincidence?
chornedsnorkackI have seen accusations that MD-11 is hard to handle.
The grounds:
the small wing leads to high wing loading
this combined to allegedly comparatively feeble high-lift devices leads to high takeoff and approach speeds
small tailplane and rear CoG is allegedly liable to cause poor stability, such that MD-11 is liable to accidents due to botched high-speed approaches.
Is there any truth to this?
Sign In
