4
$\begingroup$

I am looking up for jet blast data and there are not much information in the net.

One of the main references I can found are the Airport Planning of each aircraft. From these can be obtained that the jet blast contours from Boeing's aircraft are quite longer than the Airbus's ones at idle and breakaway conditions (the double in length of the jet blast print).

According to this, simulations carried out using specific software (AeroTurn, in this case) show that the jet blast affected area by a breakaway run of a B737-800, for example, would affect stands in a 100 m backwards zone, which is far from the truth.

Some researches can be find Googling a little, but they show comparison between simulations and experimental jet blast data from a JFK test campaign, besides the own JFK data.

Could anyone confirm if the difference is real? A mapping study, an experimental analysis or other similar evidence would be useful.

Thank you everyone for your help, and thanks for all your work in the community.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Did you just look at the pictures or compare the actual data? Maybe/possibly/probably Boeing used a different cutoff wind velocity (e.g.) for their diagrams as compared to Airbus when writing their manuals. $\endgroup$ – jwenting Nov 5 '18 at 9:01
  • $\begingroup$ @jwenting, I am using data from the simulation software and from the Airport Planning Manuals of A320-200 (page 275 for CFM56) and B737-800 (page 414 w/ CFM56-7). Links below: airbus.com/content/dam/corporate-topics/publications/… dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/B737.pdf The 35 MPH velocity contour for B738 is quite bigger than the equivalent velocity contour for the A322 (15 m/s). Both cases consider sea level, static and no wind conditions. $\endgroup$ – Aeroturned Nov 6 '18 at 10:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CptReynolds , I have presented the theorical data for B738 and A322 (both with CFM56 engines) in the previous comment. Anyway, the B738 velocity contour for 56 km/h (=15m/s) extends quite more than 70 meters meanwhile A322 (even with V2500 engine) doesn't reach 60 meters backwards for the 15 m/s velocity contour, according to page 276 of the document linked below: bit.ly/2AP3e3e In any case, what I am looking is for other documents confirming this difference in the APM data, because with this jet blast, the Boeing could not operate "safely" in most of the airports. $\endgroup$ – Aeroturned Nov 6 '18 at 11:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Aeroturned You’re correct. I must have misread, apologies! Earlier comment deleted. $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Nov 6 '18 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ Based on the observed differences, I would probably adress this question to the manufacturers, to be honest. $\endgroup$ – Cpt Reynolds Nov 6 '18 at 21:57
4
$\begingroup$

Probably not.

Airbus and Boeing aircraft may even have the same model of the engine. For instance, 2.4 m diameter Pratt & Whitney PW4000 is used on Airbus A310-300, A300-600 and also Boeing 747-400, 767-200/300. General Electric CF6-50 is used on both Airbus A300 and Boeing 747.

I would expect much more differences between jet blast from of Airbus A380 versus Airbus A220. A220 is near ten times lighter (575 vs 60 t).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, @h22 but, so, if they may have the same engine, why they report in the Airport Planning Manuals different jet blast distance? That's the point of my question. About the A380 and A220 difference, it is already stated clearly in the manufacturers' documentation. $\endgroup$ – Aeroturned Nov 14 '18 at 7:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.