Maximum size aircraft?

[earl1937]

  In light of the aircraft accidents recently in Asia, it got me to thinking about the size of airliners and where is the maximum size which we will ever see in aircraft design! I think the Boeing 767, 777 series of aircraft are about as big as they should ever get. The 777's wings "flex" a total of 54 feet, 27 feet up or down during flight and I have to wonder, what actually happens to that wing, if they should stumble into a thunderstorm of any size. I know they have to have flex, because if they didn't, things would break a lot quicker! I realize the flex contributes to a "smoother" ride for the paying customers, but at what point does that flex become a danger to the flight of the aircraft?
Then you have the 737 that just ran off the end of the runway yesterday, have the aircraft gotten to heavy to be forgiving at all? Makes you wonder! There just doesn't seem to be any margin for pilot error in these new, big and wonderful, if the weather is good, aircraft!
I know that we have all these graphs and charts on what we are suppose to do and how to safely fly the aircraft, but it still comes down to the "skill" of the pilot! That is a problem that is always going to be with us, no matter what!
Just like the 737 that ran off the end of the runway, the captain knew he was to fast and to high to get the thing down, but he was flying in a "monsoon" weather event and he didn't want to go around, I guess, but he wound up being real lucky that the aircraft didn't break up and kill a bunch of people!
Seems like airline accidents comes in "3's", now we have had two, just wonder what the third will be like?

[noman]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this is the 3rd airplane accident this year with a Malaysian airline. Can't forget the one that was shot down over the Ukraine. 

[Tilt]

.........and the 380 trumps the 777 in almost every aspect.

[BaldEagl]

I posted this in the aircraft and vehicle forums back in July.  Not a passenger plane but...


There was a thread titled "What do you consider a beast?"  I think this qualifies.  It took off from Minneapolis St. Paul International today.  I didn't see it but caught it on the news:

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this is the 3rd airplane accident this year with a Malaysian airline. Can't forget the one that was shot down over the Ukraine. 

That one was no accident. It was a terrorist crime.

[noman]

Yes Ripley I agree, I should have made it more clear. Was just trying to say that the 3rd has already happened. That is all...

[Serenity]

In light of the aircraft accidents recently in Asia, it got me to thinking about the size of airliners and where is the maximum size which we will ever see in aircraft design! I think the Boeing 767, 777 series of aircraft are about as big as they should ever get. The 777's wings "flex" a total of 54 feet, 27 feet up or down during flight and I have to wonder, what actually happens to that wing, if they should stumble into a thunderstorm of any size. I know they have to have flex, because if they didn't, things would break a lot quicker! I realize the flex contributes to a "smoother" ride for the paying customers, but at what point does that flex become a danger to the flight of the aircraft?
Then you have the 737 that just ran off the end of the runway yesterday, have the aircraft gotten to heavy to be forgiving at all? Makes you wonder! There just doesn't seem to be any margin for pilot error in these new, big and wonderful, if the weather is good, aircraft!
I know that we have all these graphs and charts on what we are suppose to do and how to safely fly the aircraft, but it still comes down to the "skill" of the pilot! That is a problem that is always going to be with us, no matter what!
Just like the 737 that ran off the end of the runway, the captain knew he was to fast and to high to get the thing down, but he was flying in a "monsoon" weather event and he didn't want to go around, I guess, but he wound up being real lucky that the aircraft didn't break up and kill a bunch of people!
Seems like airline accidents comes in "3's", now we have had two, just wonder what the third will be like?

How does the wing flex on the 787 compare to the 777? I recall seeing some pictures of it in flight and being amazed at how much those wings are flexing.

Then you have gliders like this:

[Mister Fork]

...I realize the flex contributes to a "smoother" ride for the paying customers, but at what point does that flex become a danger to the flight of the aircraft?

Very good point - especially in light of the recent AirAsia - it seems that the flex is probably what killed the aircraft.  That's two regional jets that have gone down in that area due to thunderstorms in the past 5 years.  While the flex offers a smoother ride, it also causes metal fatigue and other joint issues versus a sturdier design of most 1940-1950 designed birds.  I'm sure that a tired bird (like the A320 that had over 13'000 flights) tolerances were also part of the problem of the break-up.

Boeing and others in the 50's found out that allowing flex in the wingspan allows for a more comfortable ride but at what cost?  Do composite materials eliminate some of that metal fatigue we often see as causes of air disasters?

[715]

I posted this in the aircraft and vehicle forums back in July.  Not a passenger plane but...


There was a thread titled "What do you consider a beast?"  I think this qualifies.  It took off from Minneapolis St. Paul International today.  I didn't see it but caught it on the news:

<snip>

So what do you suppose the com instruction for G-BCJN was?  "Hold short.  Hold very, very, very short." 

[icepac]

What killed the recent air asia plane was flying into conditions with updrafts capable of sending fist sized hailstones up for another layer.

That will break apart most any plane.

[dirtdart]

I think the size of an aircraft is only limited by the airport infrastructure it requires. At some point the size of the aircraft will be limited by the space it occupies and the length of time it has to remain on the ground, which will no longer justify the dimensions.

However, I will take big over fast. I can't imagine sucking up the climbout or the descent required for hypersonic flight.

[icepac]

Much has to do with the weight and the area.

In that, I don't mean PSI but rather pounds per a larger area such as 1000sq feet (that figure just a random figure) but you get my drift.

A large plane such as the russian one shown earlier might be within PSI of most ramps but I'll bet it's main gear footprint could buckle some ramps.

[climber]

I ran across this recently. Wing testing to catastrophic failure of a 777.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=rak2HldVp9M

[earl1937]

I ran across this recently. Wing testing to catastrophic failure of a 777.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=rak2HldVp9M

Very good! It just points out what I am trying to point out and someone else addressed this also, at what point does wing "flex" become a danger to flight? While I know the aircraft in the 40's-50's were more of a ridged design, you didn't hear of any of them breaking up in flight! Personally, I rather endure a few bumps as a wing failure!

[PR3D4TOR]

A flexible structure is safer than a rigid one, not the other way around.