Airbus A380.....

Originally Posted by Little Miss

Hi,

Of course I do actually prefer the Boeing, so heres hoping the beast they are building is just as nice!

Little Miss, any particular reason for preferring the Boeing ?

Originally Posted by Spider Charlie

Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that most modern aircraft do actually create lift from their fuselages - certainly at some angles of attack.

Not sure what you mean, but i can positively say that no tube body aircraft generates lift from it's body! Only an Aerofoil shape can generate lift, and a Tube is no Aerofoil!

But it is true, that at a positive angle of attack, any (flat) surface will generate "lift" or should we say "glide"

The only aircraft i know of in service which has some sort or hint of lift body to it, is the Space Shuttle. It is basically a Glider and returns to Earth at it's very characteristic high angle of attack (about 30 degrees) during the final approach.

Lift bodied aircrafts was very much experimental.not sure if they still try to develop them. As i recall the main problem with lift bodied aircrafts, was their basic inabillity to generate enough lift to actually take off on their own. Ie. without rocket boosters etc. "Flying Wing" aircrafts are differents beasts altogether.

A380 yes, but what about the "standing room only" idea .. *which may well have been a first of April release...

A gym will never happen for the fact that fit men and women get exhausted when doing exercises at altitude and the ones that do that type of exercise ( eg mountain climbers) tend to do specialist training, the people who would use the gym on the ac would be business men and women who are not use to altitute training and would probably give up and therefore never get used.

But the bar is a nice thought, oh and a sound proof room to throw the kids hee hee hee

I prefer the Boeing because it is nicer to fly and the flight deck actually looks like a flight deck.

The Airbus is like flying a computer game!!

Madz330, I ve just noticed you live in KL. I use to live there too, moved back to UK about 1 and a half months ago!

Originally Posted by madz330

don't worry. with the current price of aviation fuel all the plans about fitting gyms, showers, lounge are just fantasy. more seats are likely to maximize profit.

for those who think the aircraft is huge now, wait till you see the longer version .......

In any case, the thought of doing that exercise in the middle of turbulence is quite scary...

Any takers??

On the serious side, the Gym thing will happen. They have developed the machines.(naturally no free weights!)

Long haul flights(+12 hrs) will offer the service to frequest business travellers who are often on a tight schedule. They found by doing tests, that a 20 min work out and a shower a few hours before arrival, would almost eliminate jetlag, and give you that "2nd wind". For a Travelling sales exectutive being on top for an important meeting is no joke! and finding drugs might be a bit risky in a new town

Crews or part of, on long haul flights, is also expected to use this facillity. The work out will also help you sleep once you reach your destination. As many of you will have experienced, Long haul East bound travels can be a nightmare. You get there totally exhausted at the beginning of a new day. These days many crews only have a 12-16 hrs stop over, so it is important they get some shut eye before the next rotation. Long gone are the golden years, when a crew would have a 3 day stop over at a 5 star hotel..

Originally Posted by Little Miss

I prefer the Boeing because it is nicer to fly and the flight deck actually looks like a flight deck.

The Airbus is like flying a computer game!!

Madz330, I ve just noticed you live in KL. I use to live there too, moved back to UK about 1 and a half months ago!

actually there is not much difference between both makes inside the flight deck. it only look that way because the original 6 customer airlines for the 777 wanted the flight deck to be kept as similar as possible as their older boeings for familiarity . technology wise it's like comparing PS3 and XBOX360.

so what were you doing in KL? anyways hope your stay was a pleasant one...

Originally Posted by Peter K

Not sure what you mean, but i can positively say that no tube body aircraft generates lift from it's body! Only an Aerofoil shape can generate lift, and a Tube is no Aerofoil!

But it is true, that at a positive angle of attack, any (flat) surface will generate "lift" or should we say "glide"

The only aircraft i know of in service which has some sort or hint of lift body to it, is the Space Shuttle. It is basically a Glider and returns to Earth at it's very characteristic high angle of attack (about 30 degrees) during the final approach.

Lift bodied aircrafts was very much experimental.not sure if they still try to develop them. As i recall the main problem with lift bodied aircrafts, was their basic inabillity to generate enough lift to actually take off on their own. Ie. without rocket boosters etc. "Flying Wing" aircrafts are differents beasts altogether.

Peter K,

Just a couple of quotes - I thought I remembered from theory stuff that fuselages create lift.

"Incidence of the wing does not control stability or handling to any significant degree for most aircraft (with the possible exception of widebodies such as the Super Guppy, where the fuselage generates a significant percentage of the aircraft's total lift)."

"At a positive deck angle the fuselage generates some lift and brings the spanwise pressure distribution over the wing root area closer to the ideal elliptical distribution. Designers can use deck angle to trade off lift over the fuselage for lift generated on outer wing sections; the latter necessarily adds structural weight."

Originally Posted by Fandango

Spider Charlie you seem very 'up to speed' with this aviation industry lark!
And being from the North West I'm wondering if you may have 'inside info'.
If so, I'm actually based at Warton.

Apologies if my powers of perception have led me down the wrong route here!

Wait a minute - just reading back at the posts - is this forum full of aero engineers or something?

Fandango - I may have frequented that establishment from time to time

Originally Posted by madz330

for those who think the aircraft is huge now, wait till you see the longer version .......

I read Boeing is coming out with an even longer plane, equipped with all kinds of ballsports courts. They'll call it... the "Boeing Boeing".

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by Spider Charlie

"Incidence of the wing does not control stability or handling to any significant degree for most aircraft (with the possible exception of widebodies such as the Super Guppy, where the fuselage generates a significant percentage of the aircraft's total lift)."

"At a positive deck angle the fuselage generates some lift and brings the spanwise pressure distribution over the wing root area closer to the ideal elliptical distribution. Designers can use deck angle to trade off lift over the fuselage for lift generated on outer wing sections; the latter necessarily adds structural weight."

**Confused** you claimed earlier that most modern aircrafts uses lift-body technology, and that their fuselages creates lift. That was what i responded to. You seem to be "quoting" in two different directions. One is refering to the Guppy, which is not a tubeshaped aircraft, but basically the same as a blimp when talking shape of fuselage.(The Guppy is no longer in service.)

As for the other paragraph, which seems to be cut and pasted from here: http://yarchive.net/air/airliners/level_floor.html

I think i understand what you are talking about though, but i think we are getting too technical here.

If i understand you correct, you think it is possible to create positive lift from the fuselage by changing the angle of attack? Most airlines do cruise at a positive AOA (i believe about 4 degrees) if you go beyond that, then yes the fuselage will create more lift, but the induced drag from the wings will by far exceed the lift generated by the fuselage! Thus the end result is not postive lift.

As far as i understand, at cruise angle of attack the fuselage on tube-shaped aircrafts does not contribute to lift in any way worth mentioning. The correct AOA is however a very complex matter all depending on the collected situation at hand, and the lift generated by the fuselage is certainly a factor, and sometimes used as a positive. (You need to fly Jets to understand how all this connects, and i don't!) However at core, i do not believe any modern airliners have any real positive lift generated by the fuselage, as an overall contributing factor to the performance of it.(like the Guppy or a Blimp)

Flattening the aircraft fuselage so it resembles an airfoil is the only way to get it to create postive lift. But doing so creates a whole array of structural problems. The Tube shape is very poor as a lift generator, but still ideal for todays material technology, as it is strong and easy to pressurize.

The old SR72 generated lift from its fore-body as well as the wing.

& 1 more aero-engineer

Originally Posted by Cheradnine

The old SR72 generated lift from its fore-body as well as the wing.

& 1 more aero-engineer

Whats an SR72? Incidentally, I thought 70s aircraft like F14s and F15s also generated lift from their fuselages, although I realise these are not tunes like Peter K was referring to.

Lockheed SR72 Blackbird... legendary spyplane sadly now retired. still holds the record as fastest ever aeroplane if i'm not mistaken.

SR71 Blackbird.

I'm with Peter K on the fuselage lift issue. The original question referred to airliners and the tubular shape of most airliners doesn't significantly add to/subtract from the overall lift.

Military aircraft are designed to a different set of parameters and can have, for various reasons, fuselages shaped to provide lift.

____________________________
Bill (BSc Aeronautical Engineering)

I worked in Kl as Flight Crew for a red low cost airline based at KLIA. I think you will know it!!

Hence why I know I pre