6 ms·

It's to do with the aerodynamic design of the planes, the response of the wings to turbulence, and the altitude and speed at which they're flying. The 747 is a

It's to do with the aerodynamic design of the planes, the response of the wings to turbulence, and the altitude and speed at which they're flying. The 747 is a longer plane with more wing surface area. Maybe that gives it better stability. https://www.quora.com/Is-a-Boeing-747-bigger-than-a-777 https://www.quora.com/Is-a-Boeing-747-bigger-than-a-777 The new composite materials might also be a factor, where perhaps the plane is designed to flex and distort more, which could make the trip more rough.

Retric 9y ago
Having more mass tends to smooth out the ride quite a bit. Being longer has both upsides and downsides as you can get a lot of torque, but you also resist that torque better.
- FabHK 9y ago
  The most relevant characteristic is the wing loading, I think, i.e. aircraft mass divided by wing area. For a given gust, acceleration is inversely proportional to wing loading. A380 > B747 > B777 (Though a B737 has the same wing loading as an A380!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
  - astrodust 9y ago
    Makes you wonder how much you'd get rattled around in an aircraft that's all wing. How smooth is a B2?
  - Retric 9y ago
    It's not just wing area, the body of the aircraft is also impacted by up/down drafts. Velocity and angle of attack also play a role.
- danaliv 9y ago
  It's not the mass, it's the wing loading—the amount of mass being supported by a given area of wing. Airplanes with lower wing loadings get battered around more than those with high wing loadings.
  - jameslevy 9y ago
    My rule of thumb has always been that bigger planes tend to experience less turbulence, although I didn't specifically know of the exact concept of wing loading. Are there a lot of cases where bigger planes experience less turbulence compared to smaller planes?
    - rosser 9y ago
      I just came home from Europe, flying CDG-SFO on an Air France A388 (A380-800). That was one of the rougher flights I've been on, both in terms of frequency and intensity of rough air. The flight over wasn't as bad, but it was still worse than average in my experience. That's my only memorable experience with anything of that size; I don't remember the air on any 74x flights I've taken (not least because they aren't very recent). I've never had a bad flight on a Dreamliner or a 777, and have flown trans-Pacific on both. SFO-LHR on a Virgin A340 was also pretty smooth. My long-haul experience on smaller planes is limited, as is my short-haul on bigger equipment; nothing specifically stands out in either case. None of my experiences should be taken as more than anecdotal.

Retric 9y ago

Having more mass tends to smooth out the ride quite a bit. Being longer has both upsides and downsides as you can get a lot of torque, but you also resist that torque better.

FabHK 9y ago
The most relevant characteristic is the wing loading, I think, i.e. aircraft mass divided by wing area. For a given gust, acceleration is inversely proportional to wing loading. A380 > B747 > B777 (Though a B737 has the same wing loading as an A380!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading
- astrodust 9y ago
  Makes you wonder how much you'd get rattled around in an aircraft that's all wing. How smooth is a B2?
- Retric 9y ago
  It's not just wing area, the body of the aircraft is also impacted by up/down drafts. Velocity and angle of attack also play a role.
danaliv 9y ago
It's not the mass, it's the wing loading—the amount of mass being supported by a given area of wing. Airplanes with lower wing loadings get battered around more than those with high wing loadings.
- jameslevy 9y ago
  My rule of thumb has always been that bigger planes tend to experience less turbulence, although I didn't specifically know of the exact concept of wing loading. Are there a lot of cases where bigger planes experience less turbulence compared to smaller planes?
  - rosser 9y ago
    I just came home from Europe, flying CDG-SFO on an Air France A388 (A380-800). That was one of the rougher flights I've been on, both in terms of frequency and intensity of rough air. The flight over wasn't as bad, but it was still worse than average in my experience. That's my only memorable experience with anything of that size; I don't remember the air on any 74x flights I've taken (not least because they aren't very recent). I've never had a bad flight on a Dreamliner or a 777, and have flown trans-Pacific on both. SFO-LHR on a Virgin A340 was also pretty smooth. My long-haul experience on smaller planes is limited, as is my short-haul on bigger equipment; nothing specifically stands out in either case. None of my experiences should be taken as more than anecdotal.