From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Peter Lisner) Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc. Date: 22 Jun 94 16:57:49 References: 1 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1994.1334@ohare.Chicago.COM>, Fred Christiansen <email@example.com> wrote: >Seeing the amount of thrust that the PW4084's can put out on the 777 prompts >me to ask about wake turbulence. It is my understanding that wake turbulence >has been a problem with the "heavies" -- DC-10, MD-11, 747, 767, TriStar. >My guess was that this was due to the large amount of thrust put out by >the engines of these aircraft. I heard on the radio that it is now known >that the 757 has significant wake turbulence, just like a "heavy". The >report did not say, as I recall, but I again guessed it was due to engine >thrust. If that's the case, what sort of wake turbulence will a 777 put >out? The thrust on those engines is amazing! Are there high-engine-thrust >airplanes w/o wake turbulence problems? Why did the 757 problem come as >a surprise? The 757 has an incredibly high rate of climb. A takeoff in one of those (especially a noise abatement one!) is probably the most fun you can have in an airliner. They also descend much faster than most other aircraft on final approach. So this makes it harder for following traffic to stay above the flight path of a 757. This last statement sounds counter-intuitive, but what happens is that even though a following aircraft may be above the preceding one, the first aircraft was actually higher than the second one when it was at the same distance from touchdown earlier. So the second aircraft is below the wake still there from the first. There is a very good article about this in the latest (July I think) edition of "Flying" magazine, written by Richard Collins. Get a copy, and you will get a much better explanation than my clumsy attempt ! All opinions are mine, not SGI's. -- Peter Lisner e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org phone : (415)390-4419 Silicon Graphics Inc.