Home





Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Fastest Commercial Jetliner.
karlhurst_380
post Jul 16 2006, 10:48 AM
Post #21


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,826
Joined: 10-June 05
From: Farnborough, Hampshire, UK (FAB/EGLF, LGW/EGKK, LHR/EGLL)
Member No.: 1,640



QUOTE(tripleseven @ Jul 16 2006, 03:43 PM) [snapback]94110[/snapback]
No it's not......... icon_rolleyes.gif


It would take a lot longer to get airborne if they weren't...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirRabbit
post Jul 16 2006, 12:11 PM
Post #22


The Rant Master
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333



QUOTE(charliepapa @ Jul 16 2006, 07:35 AM) [snapback]94093[/snapback]
All aircraft are overpowered. Even the A343... icon_razz.gif

QUOTE(tripleseven @ Jul 16 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]94110[/snapback]
No it's not......... icon_rolleyes.gif

QUOTE(karlhurst_380 @ Jul 16 2006, 10:48 AM) [snapback]94112[/snapback]
It would take a lot longer to get airborne if they weren't...

I think we need to know what was meant by "overpowered." Typically, when a term like that is used, it is used to mean "more power than is necessary." Well, to determine if something is or is not "over"powered, we have to know what power is necessary. To get an airplane into the air, you are going to need lift - and that is normally generated by pushing the wing through the air (except in some cases where the powerplant is designed to supplement that by "blowing" air over the wings even when the forward speed is not that much - Mcchord can probably tell us more about that...).

When there is sufficient forward speed to generate enough lift when the wings are at the prescribed angle of attack, the airplane will become airborne. So, there has to be enough "thrust" to overcome the inertia of the airplane at rest at the end of the runway. Then the "thrust" has to be large enough to accelerate the airplane (in the conditions that exist - headwind, tailwind, uphill, downhill, long runway, short runway, hard surface, rough surface, hot day, cold day, high pressure altitude, low pressure altitude, flaps up, flaps down, a lot of wheels, only a few wheels, etc.) to that point. Additionally, once reaching that point - where there is enough airflow for the proper AoA and the airplane becomes airborne, now the thrust has to be enough to allow the airplane to at least maintain that airspeed. Remember, we've now exchanged some of those on-the-ground conditions for the in-the-air conditions we now have. So while we're not fighting coefficients of friction for runway, brakes, and wheels, and we're not fighting uphill or downhill, now we have to fight the induced drag generated whenever lift is generated ... and we'll need enough "excess" thrust to be able to climb, not only climb out of ground effect (where the drag is less) but to continue to climb after getting out of ground effect. From here, we have to be concerned that we're not going to disintegrate the engine running it at any given RPM, temperature, etc., because we may have to reduce the power level to the point designed for “maximum continuous” operation. And, before I go on, please understand that this is NOT an exhaustive list of the things that affect this.

Now, there are just a couple of more considerations you have to make in order to say that an airplane is “over”powered. Remember, we said nothing about how quickly the airplane had to accelerate to get to the necessary airspeed to become airborne, and we said nothing about what kind of runway surface we were using, and we said nothing about any of the other conditions we described – only that we had to have enough power to “overcome” those conditions. So if you put our hypothetical airplane at an airport that has 6000 feet of concrete runway, the runway is uphill, it is at a high altitude, it is a relatively hot air temperature, and the airplane is quite heavy, you’re going to have to compute all the interrelated factors to be sure that the airplane can safely operate out of those conditions. Assume that it can; but it just can. Certainly, this is not an “over”powered airplane. Now, put that same airplane at an airport that has 12000 feet of concrete runway, the runway is flat and at sea level, the air temperature is relatively cool, and the airplane is substantially lighter than during our other example. Here, you might get away with saying the airplane is “over”powered. So, which is it? Is this airplane overpowerd or not overpowered? The answer is …it depends on all the circumstances that exist at the time. icon_cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliepapa
post Jul 16 2006, 12:29 PM
Post #23


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779



QUOTE(tripleseven @ Jul 16 2006, 03:43 PM) [snapback]94110[/snapback]
No it's not......... icon_rolleyes.gif


Um yeah they are dumbass.

Simple answer:
All aircraft HAVE to be overpowered... what happens when an engine fails? If there was just enough on four engines, on three or even two engines there wouldn't be enough grunt to keep it in the skies.

Why do you think there are de-rate settings...? If you aren't clever enough to work it out, it's because not all of the power available is needed at that time.

AirRabbit has hit the nail on the head... all depends on circumstances... but ALL aircraft have to have the power to keep aloft if there is a 50% powerloss (not including single engined a/c of course icon_razz.gif)


So Mr. tripleseven... if you don't know what you're talking about, watch and learn... don't make unsubstantiated rubbish up cuz you'll be caught out every time.

charliepapa
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tripleseven
post Jul 16 2006, 02:08 PM
Post #24


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Member No.: 2,550



QUOTE(charliepapa @ Jul 16 2006, 08:29 AM) [snapback]94126[/snapback]
Um yeah they are dumbass.

Simple answer:
All aircraft HAVE to be overpowered... what happens when an engine fails? If there was just enough on four engines, on three or even two engines there wouldn't be enough grunt to keep it in the skies.

Why do you think there are de-rate settings...? If you aren't clever enough to work it out, it's because not all of the power available is needed at that time.

AirRabbit has hit the nail on the head... all depends on circumstances... but ALL aircraft have to have the power to keep aloft if there is a 50% powerloss (not including single engined a/c of course icon_razz.gif)
So Mr. tripleseven... if you don't know what you're talking about, watch and learn... don't make unsubstantiated rubbish up cuz you'll be caught out every time.

charliepapa


Um, no they aren't

If they were you moron, then it wouldn't necessitate a four engine rotation NOW WOULD IT?
Oh, I forgot, the other 2 engines are there "just in case" we need 2 more to takeoff..............

Even if the engines are not at 100% at T/O it still takes all four to rotate, now what about those "de-rate" settings?......I thought so

Nice try junior............................... plane.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
learguy
post Jul 16 2006, 02:33 PM
Post #25


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: FL350 CREW
Posts: 755
Joined: 10-February 05
From: US (KSDL)/China (VHHH)
Member No.: 775



Expounding a little on what AirRabbit wrote:

I would say, in this context, the definition of "overpowered" would be: Having more power than you need under any conditions for which the aircraft is designed to operate (pretty much what he said). With this definition it is the rare aircraft that is overpowered. An F-15 Eagle, which can accelerate going straight up, is very powerful, but not overpowered. It has the power it needs for what it's designed to do.

"Overpowered" is at least an insinuation that the aircraft is overcome by that power, by having too much and under at least some flight conditions for which it is designed, and is uncontrollable as a result. Obviously, this is not the way to design an aircraft. Otherwise, if power is a good thing, why not simply bolt on the most powerful engine(s) you can fit to the airframe? Because too much power can be a bad thing. And not just for economic (fuel burn) reasons.

Take a twin, such as the Boeing 737, for example. If it has an engine failure the asymetrical thrust coming from a too-powerful engine can make the plane uncontrollable. At full power from the remaining engine the airplane must still be controllable (through the flight controls) or it would not get certified. This needs to be balanced by having sufficient remaining thrust available for the aircraft to continue flying, and with a required minimum performance remaining (ability to climb). If THAT required power is too much to handle (pun intended) then other design changes must be made, such as increasing the size of the vertical stabilizer and rudder. With more power comes design accomodations to handle it. So you don't put more power on the plane than needed.

When an airplane is designed and certified it must, as written above, meet minimum climb performance criteria in the event that it loses ONE engine at the worst possible time. This would be in the take-off roll at V1 (the decision speed, after which you continue the take-off and fly regardless of what may happen - such as an engine suddenly failing). A 4-engine plane would lose 1/4 of it's overall power. A 2-engine plane would lose 1/2 of it's overall power. A much bigger loss for the twin. For this reason twin-engine jets have a better power-to-weight ratio than planes with more engines. So, if any plane can be said to be "overpowered" compared to another, it is twin-engine planes compared to those with 3 or more engines. For its weight a 737 is more powerful than a 747, but it is not overpowered.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AirRabbit
post Jul 16 2006, 02:41 PM
Post #26


The Rant Master
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 1,225
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Atlanta, Georgia
Member No.: 1,333



Very nice summation, Mr. Lear. I wouldn't argue one bit ... and, in fact, I just may like your answer better than mine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliepapa
post Jul 16 2006, 02:42 PM
Post #27


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779



QUOTE(tripleseven @ Jul 16 2006, 07:08 PM) [snapback]94136[/snapback]
Um, no they aren't

If they were you moron, then it wouldn't necessitate a four engine rotation NOW WOULD IT?
Oh, I forgot, the other 2 engines are there "just in case" we need 2 more to takeoff..............

Even if the engines are not at 100% at T/O it still takes all four to rotate, now what about those "de-rate" settings?......I thought so

Nice try junior............................... plane.gif


Yay! I love this game...

A four engine rotation? Erm yeah.... that's more made up than pixie porno movies. All engines are used... they are de-rated in preparation for a flight via the FMC. This chops the EPR/Flex (depending on whether you're a Boeing or Airbus sorta guy) down a few percent. This saves engine wear and tear. If the aircraft had just enough power to get off the ground, then it would be using all the energy available... wouldn't they?

Nice try junior icon_rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Claustie
post Jul 16 2006, 02:43 PM
Post #28


Cessna 152 Member
*

Group: Members
Posts: 18
Joined: 24-February 06
From: EGXC, UK
Member No.: 3,207



Don't forget the mighty VC-10. We still have them in the RAF and are used extensively all over the world. I know strictly speaking they are not civil passenger aircraft anymore, but they are still used to carry our troops and for air to air refueling our fighter and bomber aircraft. And the aircrew certianly know how to throw the VC-10 around!!!! I have been sat in the cockpit of a VC-10 whilst refueling from another VC-10. Absolutly remarkable!!!!!

VC-10

VC-10 in Formation

VC-10 Take Off
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
velocityflier16
post Jul 16 2006, 02:47 PM
Post #29


Bell X-1 Platinum Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 974
Joined: 26-October 04
From: KOKC
Member No.: 158



If you really want to talk about overpowered airplanes, talk about the 757.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliepapa
post Jul 16 2006, 02:53 PM
Post #30


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779



QUOTE(velocityflier16 @ Jul 16 2006, 07:47 PM) [snapback]94143[/snapback]
If you really want to talk about overpowered airplanes, talk about the 757.


Yup... it has all the power it needs in 1 engine... but it has two icon_lol.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tripleseven
post Jul 16 2006, 04:20 PM
Post #31


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 22-November 05
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Member No.: 2,550



QUOTE(charliepapa @ Jul 16 2006, 10:53 AM) [snapback]94145[/snapback]
Yup... it has all the power it needs in 1 engine... but it has two icon_lol.gif



So then....using your logic......

It can rotate on JUST ONE ENGINE right?.......

Yay....I love this game icon_thumright.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliepapa
post Jul 16 2006, 04:32 PM
Post #32


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779



QUOTE(tripleseven @ Jul 16 2006, 09:20 PM) [snapback]94152[/snapback]
So then....using your logic......

It can rotate on JUST ONE ENGINE right?.......

Yay....I love this game icon_thumright.gif


Rotate? You mean take off? Yes.. it can. It is a requirement of all jets... what happens when there is an enginefailure after V1? The plane crashes and burns? Nope... it takes off and goes around ;)

Yay...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fluffdoc
post Jul 16 2006, 05:08 PM
Post #33


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1,068
Joined: 27-February 05
From: Collierville, TN
Member No.: 911



QUOTE(tripleseven @ Jul 16 2006, 03:20 PM) [snapback]94152[/snapback]
So then....using your logic......

It can rotate on JUST ONE ENGINE right?.......

Yay....I love this game icon_thumright.gif


Yeah, you may love this game but you are an amatuer playing against professionals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Archangel
post Jul 16 2006, 05:30 PM
Post #34


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Banned
Posts: 2,047
Joined: 8-December 04
From: McChord AFB 62 AW
Member No.: 333



Guys dont make me babysit this topic. This should not be such and argument, heck this topic has nothing to do with power, its about the fastest commercial airliner. How about you guys make a new topic and i will move all the off topic posts to it? Sound fair. If not im gonna lock, no i'll delete it if you keep this thing personal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AspiringPilot
post Jul 16 2006, 05:37 PM
Post #35


Airbus 380 Member
*****

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 425
Joined: 24-March 06
Member No.: 3,514



QUOTE(Mcchord_AFB_Airman @ Jul 15 2006, 05:07 PM) [snapback]94028[/snapback]
What are you talking about? Carry the plane? Im sure im not the only one confused here, and the 747 isnt overpowered, its got just the right amount.

I clearly never stated that the 747 was over powerd. I believe I should of rephrased myself and sorry for that. Carry the plane as in bring it up to that altitude. Can someone correct me so I dont have any bad information please if needed. Lets not get rude. Guys Im sure we can handle this in a more adult way.
Cheers,
Ap
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
charliepapa
post Jul 16 2006, 05:57 PM
Post #36


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 716
Joined: 30-December 05
Member No.: 2,779



QUOTE(Mcchord_AFB_Airman @ Jul 16 2006, 10:30 PM) [snapback]94159[/snapback]
Guys dont make me babysit this topic. This should not be such and argument, heck this topic has nothing to do with power, its about the fastest commercial airliner. How about you guys make a new topic and i will move all the off topic posts to it? Sound fair. If not im gonna lock, no i'll delete it if you keep this thing personal.


Just split it into a new topic.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dash8q300
post Jul 16 2006, 06:07 PM
Post #37


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 724
Joined: 22-December 05
From: Nhulunbuy, Northern Territory
Member No.: 2,714



QUOTE(Claustie @ Jul 16 2006, 10:43 AM) [snapback]94142[/snapback]
Don't forget the mighty VC-10. We still have them in the RAF and are used extensively all over the world. I know strictly speaking they are not civil passenger aircraft anymore, but they are still used to carry our troops and for air to air refueling our fighter and bomber aircraft. And the aircrew certianly know how to throw the VC-10 around!!!! I have been sat in the ####### of a VC-10 whilst refueling from another VC-10. Absolutly remarkable!!!!!

VC-10

VC-10 in Formation

VC-10 Take Off

Oh I like the VC-10! I just got a model of it when I was up in Darwin.
Anyways. I think that boeing and airbus make their planes with more power than needed (or does the airline that buys those planes chose the engines icon_confused.gif ) So I think that they know what they are doing.
Sorry to get off topic a bit icon_lol.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chrome777
post Jul 17 2006, 03:35 AM
Post #38


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 798
Joined: 10-September 05
From: SDQ, FCO,MSP, SLC, SKP, BRU, BUD, LHR, JFK
Member No.: 2,098



1: B727/DC-10
2:B747
3: B757
4: B767
5:B777/MD-11
7: MD-80
8: A340
9: DC-9
10: A300/310
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
alex-y
post Jul 17 2006, 06:38 AM
Post #39


Airbus 380 Member
*****

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 315
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Sydney, Australia Santiago, chile
Member No.: 1,880



Thanks guys icon_thumright.gif i'm glad for your guys help.
isn't the 787 going to take the tittle of fasted commercial jet after it starts flying???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AIRCRAFT ENGINEE...
post Jul 17 2006, 10:12 AM
Post #40


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: Full Access Members
Posts: 913
Joined: 13-August 05
From: US Pacific Northwest
Member No.: 1,931



QUOTE(alex-y @ Jul 17 2006, 03:38 AM) [snapback]94254[/snapback]
Thanks guys icon_thumright.gif i'm glad for your guys help.
isn't the 787 going to take the tittle of fasted commercial jet after it starts flying???


You just keep missing it - the "speed" aspect isn't what the 787 is all about - it's ECONOMY (and the two, like in AUTOMOBILES don't coincide - more speed, more fuel usage) No - it won't be "the fastest"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

 
 
Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 09:06 AM

Home | Webmail | Forum | Random Video Generator | Link to us | Aircraft Fact Sheets | Help
Upload videos | Become a videographer | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact us | About Flightlevel350.com | Ad Choices

© 2004 - 2009 Flightlevel350.com
Aviation Videos - Airplane Videos - Loudest place on the web!