The vortex generator has been available to all airbus customers once it was developed. In fact, there are airports that actually lower their landing fees if it is installed. For example London Gatwick. Which explains why easyjet has retrofittet nearly all their units with it, but they are not the only ones.
@@oida10000 As I understand it, each additional 10dB doubles the volume so, as far as I am aware, a 2dB decrease would represent a one fifth reduction in volume.
@@davidwright7193 No it does not. A 6dB is a 50% of energy, no matter 'where you are in the cycle'. Human hearing is roughly logarithmic so a 6dB drop would mean it is half as loud. 2dB is about 20% reduction.
@@SillieWous I'm not sure whom you are referring to but your commenter right before you said the exact same thing. 1/5 is 20% 😉 However, 2db reduction is huge for an airplane as these machines are loud in the first place.
In terms of energy output 2 decibels could mean a large or small amount but subjectively I think it's true that 2 db is always gonna seem like roughly 20% change.
always amazed that the 320/319(?) seem to be the loudest commercial aircraft even louder than all the wide bodies with engines the size of the 320s fuselage. I like to poke fun at my smaller coworkers it's always the tiny ones making the most noise ;p
@@jlust6660 I feel like the 350/787 can often be quieter than the older CFM/IAE powered single ailed planes. At takeoff I would rate them as the same, though depending on engine power, which depends on multiple factors. The takeoff between any aircraft with CF6 and newer engined planes is quite the difference.
Definitely going to miss the Whistling sound of the FOPPs and with these vortex, it basically removed what made the Airbus fleet unique. But Orwell things have to get done I guess
That would be posable if they pay the tens of the thousands of dollars per type aircraft for Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs). They then could charge fees from the users.
I grew up two miles from London Heathrow in the days of the Boeing 707. So noisy, even when landing. Couldn't even hear yourself speak. Bad old days. Still suffering from hearing loss.
@Yuudachi poi Wanna bet how he pronounces Tagliatelle? But on the other hand I am sure he would laugh about my english pronunciation of some words as well.
Presumably it increases drag slightly compared to airflow over the port? Anything which reduces noise will help. On the other hand I love the sound generated by airflow over the cannon barrels of certain WW2 aircraft. :)
IT may not be that way. Typically noice uses energy from passing air to convert to sound. Depending on how the tab is made, it could probobly reduce the drag... While, yes, that would be a tiny reduction. But still
Noise is the largest inducer for stress. It is one of the reasons for European measures to limit road noises. It means reducing speed in built-up areas, tire noise being the largest contributor.
Dimples don't reduce friction over a smooth surface transition. That only works when there is already turbulent flow being generated by a body as it moves thru a medium and thus creating a wake behind the object. The turbulence generated by the dimples improves boundary layer effects thus reducing drag by decreasing the size of the wake. Dimples on a wing would only increase drag because the smooth transition and shape of the wing already minimizes wake since there is no boundary layer separation Not only that but dimples are not the most effective way to generate turbulent flow when its desirable. It's used on golf balls because it can survive a hit by the club and is omni directional. When at high angles of attack wings have boundary layer separation and cars get it rolling off the top of the roof at high speed. Vortex generators are far more effective and are use on wings and cars. They look like little tiny shark fins along the upper wing surface or above the rear window on the car. Spoilers at the rear of a car (often mistaken for wings) also have a similar effect but are dual purpose in nature.
Reducing noise is always great and appreciated by those affected. That said, 2db seems like a small and not big improvement? (Unless I’m missing some finer point about at what db threshold airplane noise becomes unbearable to residents living close by, or something) Rule of thumb in when working with audio editing is that 3db is a small noticeable change, that you can notice in careful A-B listening between two tracks. 6db is a clearly noticeable change, like if someone significantly changed their voice level while speaking. Any reduction of environmental impacts is welcome, but a single 2db improvement doesn’t seem great. Had a look at a airport db map, airports often are at about 100db and fall off to 65db far away from airport. Reduction from 100db to 98db or 65db to 63db, that does not seem like a big impact for affected residents?
The difference in overall dB is small, but it eliminates a distinct whistling noise made by the A320 series on descent. I hear it over my house every day. I rarely even notice other aircraft passing over at 5000 feet or so. But that whistling from the A320’s is very annoying.
One has to take into consideration that the db-scale is not very intuitive. It is a logarithmic scale, so an increase of 10 db is 10 times the power output of the previous step, but is perceived by the human ear double as loud as the previous step. So a 2 db reduction is actually not insignificant, especially more so if one takes into consideration the kind of noise produced before the modification. The airbus A320 has some very distinctive sounds in its portfolio, for example the use of speed brakes is clearly audible from the ground, even for an aircraft at several thousand feet above you.
@@Soordhin yup, removing the unwanted sound is great. That is the big change. If you check various sound charts, most info graphs consider 5-10db a significant change. A 2db overall change with no sound profile change is perceivable to the human perception, but *barely*. 3db changes are in the range you do notice in A-B tests, and 6db is a clear change in A-B testing. So a 2db certainly is noticeable in very careful listening, but is but not something you notice unless you are in extremely detective listening. So if the sound profile had not changed, just cutting 2db overall, it would not have been a big improvement. People would likely not have noticed a generic 2db change, answer to “is it more or less loud “ would yield random answers unless people are instructed to do careful listening to sound level.
Their next idea is deadstick approach, prevents costly go-arounds and quieter for residents on nearly all landings * For legal reasons Lufthansa state some landings may be louder and significantly brighter.*
If something is generating noise that represents energy loss that is remove by cancelling the noise but the tab creates additional drag. So overall it is likely that the effect in fuel consumption is negligible.
Is there a fuel increase trade off for noise reduction? Are other airlines adopting this modification? Are the aircraft manufacturers fitting this as standard on new builds?
Here, the downtown airport reduced noise by restricting the size of airplanes to 19 passengers or less and then a few years later closing altogether. That was a boon for developers of the vacated land and also for the residents under the flight paths. That was the ultimate noise abattement.
Fuel tanks are in the wings, but as the fuel is used air has to be let in or there would be a vacuum created and conversely when refuelling there has to be a path for the air to escape the tanks.
I think it is the same noise heard on the ground screaming coming down from the Flt levels altitude in the right conditions. It is very noticeable. Or perhaps some airbus drivers and planes seem to need speed brakes to manage descents often causing noises. Anyway, it is an Airbus trait.
The best way I can describe it is a sort of “warbling” noise that is very distinctive of the narrowbody Airbus. I’m surprised there wasn’t an example of it in the video as it’s easy to hear on the older jets.
As it was the first single aisle Airbus, technically nothing, but as Airbus was effectively a merger of several European Aircraft Manufacturers, you could probably argue that it stopped any further development of many European single aisle aircraft which may otherwise have appeared. However, I think that the European aircraft which most likely died because of the British involvement is probably the Trident (also 6 abreast seating with similar capacities and useage), for which the A320 series was an excellent replacement, and BAe, the final manufacturer of the Trident are part of the consortium producing the infinitely more successful A320 series. Better to produce a significant portion of one of the two most successful airliners ever (hopefully that will stop the trolls making unfounded accusations of an Airbus v Boeing bias!), than all of one with far more limited success!
The answer to your question of "What aircraft did the A320 replace?": Airbus designed the A320 to replace the 727-200. Boeing had designed the 757-100 to replace the 727-200 in1982, but the airlines only interested in buying the bigger 757-200 (so the 757-100 was never made). Thus, Boeing had no airplane to directly replace the 727-200, and made no effort to make one. With the 727s getting old, Airbus saw the opportunity and made the A320 which was more efficient than the 757 due to being much lighter (with a much smaller wing, landing gear, empennage, and shorter fuselage than the 757) and having smaller CFM56 engines that burn only 6,000lbs of fuel per hour (combined) compared to the 757's 7,000 pph. (The 727-200 burned 9,000pph with its 3 old JT8Ds). In reply to the A320 (1987), Boeing then made the 737-400 in 1988, but the wing was only the 95' wingspan of the -300. Piedmont, Alaska Airlines, KLM, Aer Lingus, Sobelair, QANTAS etc. bought them but they have a small wing for such a heavy aircraft. . Finally Boeing re-winged the 737-3/4/500 with a laminar flow wing and gave it a new cockpit and updated CFM56-7 engines, launching the 737-7/8/900, which rolled out in 1997. I suppose you could say that the A319 or A318 replaced the 737-200, but the A320 replaced the 727-200 (which is why Airbus made it)- not the 737-300, which was smaller than the A320 and had just entered service only 3 years before the A320 in 1984.
Did they just do this, or did they have to get it the German equivalent of STC'd? If so was that easier cause they're the flag carrier? And how does that cover flying it to the US?
I wondered about that too. They said that at first it was just brand new a320s that had this tab but changing the existing ones sounds like something they'd need a STC maybe? They also stated they were beginning with short haul fleet only, meaning that aircraft that fly to USA or any non Europe destination might not be affected... until the change reaches "medium haul" jets.
There is no german equivalent, it would have to be an EASA one, and probably was. However, as the modification came from the factory, i guess the development was probably done by the DLR (germany's NASA counterpart) sponsored by Lufthansa and the approval was then made by Airbus. As far as i can see it was incorporated for all new A320 family aircraft after that during production, and could be retrofitted for older ones which, aside from Lufthansa, quite a few airlines did. So it is probably just rolled into the general approval for the A320 family.
Because 2db is a tiny change that would not be very noticeable. And upon take off the engines are insanely much louder than the aerodynamic noise from the ports. You only work on small improvements then making big improvement is hard. For example, reducing take off noise with less loud engines, or building sound barriers reducing take off noise reaching residents, such changes reduce several db for any affected residents. Removing 2db of noise level from a plane not in the most extreme part of flight (takeoff / toga) is a tiny improvement for residents I imagine.
@@randomgeocacher well this howling noise from British airways A320 (they have not installed the hush kit) is utterly noticeable and quite annoying. When they fly over my town at about 5000 ft and I hear the howling notice, I check in flight radar 24 to confirm and it's always a BA A318 /-9 /-20.
@@nhytg376tgyuu765gjmg yup, one of the commenter explained in another the thread. The 2db reduction isn’t the issue, removing the whistle (annoying frequency) is.
Well, you have to take the employee costs who do the installation and the time the planes aren't flying with passengers into consideration. And probably some R&D costs also, including computer simulations of the airflow and wind tunnel testing.
Since the db scale is exponential a 2-decibel difference will be noticeable and if you live nearby an airport you would be happy about any noise reduction. You should try to think before writing
The problems is not the airlines but the airports. Allowing pilots to fly their own approaches would even out the noise and at the same time reduce noise because they would ban freed from the constraints imposed by the Desk Jockies who have never flown anything.
There could well be. Frankfurt Airport charges aircraft based on their noise. I'm not sure whether this is the case, but it could move the plane into a cheaper bracket. - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews Fair point... coz companies think not in terms of pollution effect but business points... if it brings up their profit margin enough, well and good... Thanks for the reply...!!
@@MrLockwire Lufthansa's turnover is what, 11 digits? Good for them if it's actually leading to tangible savings and noise reduction that you can actually notice. I doubt it.
So FRA can use runway 18 for only 1 direction in order to be considerate to the locals? Locals: *Buy house next to airport* Airport: *Generates noise* Locals: suprised_pikachu.jpeg
cost mid 7 figures? so 5 million dollars? so 200 units cost 5 million dollars? lol what each tab cost $25,000 lololol im in the wrong damn buiness lol. obviously most of that is probably installation cost, and non standard modification inspection/maintenance costs. I still cant help but think this would have cost ~5-10$/unit if it was done in the 1960s.... but planes crashed a lot more often back then for a good reason
Such figures usually include the costs of R&D, patents and putting such a change through the licensing authorities (all of which is very expensive and time consuming in the airplane business with its multiple authorities around the world) ... doubtful this figure is just for production and installation, most of such cost usually comes from the admin and legal implementations. Also doubtful its just one tab per plane, probably one per wing or even one per individual tank in those wings.
what a clever investment for just 7 digits. manufacturers spend billions in R&D to reduce the noise and they came up with a simple but effective solution. well done.
I always thought the noise A320s made was quite charming.
The vortex generator has been available to all airbus customers once it was developed. In fact, there are airports that actually lower their landing fees if it is installed. For example London Gatwick. Which explains why easyjet has retrofittet nearly all their units with it, but they are not the only ones.
I like the howling/whistling noise🤷🏻♂️
A novel yet perfect solution. The best ideas are the simplest. This isn't to insult the researcher's who spent many hours on this.
I believe it is called elegance.
"many hours" is still an insult JK
What I find funny about this is it was the Germans who came up with this, known for the opposite of simple answers
That definitely started life as a bottle opener as a joke, got left there by accident, and someone realized the planes quiet.
Decibels are non linear, “2 db reduction” could mean both a tiny and a large noise reduction.
I think it sounds quiet modest.
@@oida10000 As I understand it, each additional 10dB doubles the volume so, as far as I am aware, a 2dB decrease would represent a one fifth reduction in volume.
@@davidwright7193 No it does not. A 6dB is a 50% of energy, no matter 'where you are in the cycle'. Human hearing is roughly logarithmic so a 6dB drop would mean it is half as loud. 2dB is about 20% reduction.
@@SillieWous I'm not sure whom you are referring to but your commenter right before you said the exact same thing. 1/5 is 20% 😉 However, 2db reduction is huge for an airplane as these machines are loud in the first place.
In terms of energy output 2 decibels could mean a large or small amount but subjectively I think it's true that 2 db is always gonna seem like roughly 20% change.
I used to hear this when I lived under the Heathrow flightpath until 2016 when I moved, when I came back it had gone.
always amazed that the 320/319(?) seem to be the loudest commercial aircraft even louder than all the wide bodies with engines the size of the 320s fuselage. I like to poke fun at my smaller coworkers it's always the tiny ones making the most noise ;p
They definitely aren't louder than widebodies on approach.
@@jlust6660 I feel like the 350/787 can often be quieter than the older CFM/IAE powered single ailed planes. At takeoff I would rate them as the same, though depending on engine power, which depends on multiple factors. The takeoff between any aircraft with CF6 and newer engined planes is quite the difference.
Ryanair 737-800s are the noisiest round here.
Definitely going to miss the Whistling sound of the FOPPs and with these vortex, it basically removed what made the Airbus fleet unique. But Orwell things have to get done I guess
Nice D-UBAI anagram. Little things can deliver amazing results.
No samples before and after? :(
It would be great if that same metal tab can be installed in every other airline around the world.
That would be posable if they pay the tens of the thousands of dollars per type aircraft for Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs). They then could charge fees from the users.
This is a problem unique to Airbus 320 family. So not applicable for other planes, including Airbus 330,350,380 etc.
@@AaronShenghao Did Airbus adopt this as an engineering order or is it owned by Lufthansa?
Most airlines have
Airbus, an excellent company.
Good PR move. Well done 👍🏽
I grew up two miles from London Heathrow in the days of the Boeing 707. So noisy, even when landing. Couldn't even hear yourself speak. Bad old days. Still suffering from hearing loss.
Ooh. Smarthansa
I loled so hard 😂😂
LOL
Endlich ein Typ der Lufthansa aussprechen kann xd
As a German speaking person I find it realy funny when he says German things
Yes, but he tries his best. His Italian needs more improvements...!
Haha, I only speak a little German, but my accent is better.
@Yuudachi poi Wanna bet how he pronounces Tagliatelle? But on the other hand I am sure he would laugh about my english pronunciation of some words as well.
Definitely better then most other UA-cam channels, I'm actually pleasantly surprised by his German pronunciation
Presumably it increases drag slightly compared to airflow over the port? Anything which reduces noise will help. On the other hand I love the sound generated by airflow over the cannon barrels of certain WW2 aircraft. :)
IT may not be that way. Typically noice uses energy from passing air to convert to sound. Depending on how the tab is made, it could probobly reduce the drag... While, yes, that would be a tiny reduction. But still
Noise is the largest inducer for stress. It is one of the reasons for European measures to limit road noises. It means reducing speed in built-up areas, tire noise being the largest contributor.
They should try dimpling the whole under surface of the wing, this should reduce friction increasing the airflow reducing fan RPM saving fuel.
Dimples don't reduce friction over a smooth surface transition. That only works when there is already turbulent flow being generated by a body as it moves thru a medium and thus creating a wake behind the object. The turbulence generated by the dimples improves boundary layer effects thus reducing drag by decreasing the size of the wake.
Dimples on a wing would only increase drag because the smooth transition and shape of the wing already minimizes wake since there is no boundary layer separation
Not only that but dimples are not the most effective way to generate turbulent flow when its desirable. It's used on golf balls because it can survive a hit by the club and is omni directional.
When at high angles of attack wings have boundary layer separation and cars get it rolling off the top of the roof at high speed.
Vortex generators are far more effective and are use on wings and cars. They look like little tiny shark fins along the upper wing surface or above the rear window on the car.
Spoilers at the rear of a car (often mistaken for wings) also have a similar effect but are dual purpose in nature.
Great vid👍
Thanks for the feedback! - TB
Seven figures?! I can make one out of a soda can!
Reducing noise is always great and appreciated by those affected. That said, 2db seems like a small and not big improvement? (Unless I’m missing some finer point about at what db threshold airplane noise becomes unbearable to residents living close by, or something)
Rule of thumb in when working with audio editing is that 3db is a small noticeable change, that you can notice in careful A-B listening between two tracks. 6db is a clearly noticeable change, like if someone significantly changed their voice level while speaking.
Any reduction of environmental impacts is welcome, but a single 2db improvement doesn’t seem great. Had a look at a airport db map, airports often are at about 100db and fall off to 65db far away from airport. Reduction from 100db to 98db or 65db to 63db, that does not seem like a big impact for affected residents?
The difference in overall dB is small, but it eliminates a distinct whistling noise made by the A320 series on descent. I hear it over my house every day. I rarely even notice other aircraft passing over at 5000 feet or so. But that whistling from the A320’s is very annoying.
@@tommc290 ha, that was very useful information. Thanks!
One has to take into consideration that the db-scale is not very intuitive. It is a logarithmic scale, so an increase of 10 db is 10 times the power output of the previous step, but is perceived by the human ear double as loud as the previous step. So a 2 db reduction is actually not insignificant, especially more so if one takes into consideration the kind of noise produced before the modification. The airbus A320 has some very distinctive sounds in its portfolio, for example the use of speed brakes is clearly audible from the ground, even for an aircraft at several thousand feet above you.
@@Soordhin yup, removing the unwanted sound is great. That is the big change.
If you check various sound charts, most info graphs consider 5-10db a significant change.
A 2db overall change with no sound profile change is perceivable to the human perception, but *barely*. 3db changes are in the range you do notice in A-B tests, and 6db is a clear change in A-B testing. So a 2db certainly is noticeable in very careful listening, but is but not something you notice unless you are in extremely detective listening.
So if the sound profile had not changed, just cutting 2db overall, it would not have been a big improvement. People would likely not have noticed a generic 2db change, answer to “is it more or less loud “ would yield random answers unless people are instructed to do careful listening to sound level.
Their next idea is deadstick approach, prevents costly go-arounds and quieter for residents on nearly all landings * For legal reasons Lufthansa state some landings may be louder and significantly brighter.*
Does this have an effect on the fuel consumption?
Probably negligible.
If something is generating noise that represents energy loss that is remove by cancelling the noise but the tab creates additional drag. So overall it is likely that the effect in fuel consumption is negligible.
I don’t want the metal tab because I love the whistling sounds.
The Fokker 130NG will not make any noise at all and therefore will meet the noise regulations.
You should see the Singing Ringing Tree at Burnley. It uses this principal.
If you don't like aircraft noise, don't live near an airport!
Is there a fuel increase trade off for noise reduction? Are other airlines adopting this modification? Are the aircraft manufacturers fitting this as standard on new builds?
A piece that small probably won’t create a lot of drag. There will be an impact, but the effect is so small it’s most likely negligible.
Can this be done on a Boeing airplane? It would be nice to make the Boeing 737 Max even more quiet than it already is.
Quieter then the neos
@@andersonrodriguez8258 Especially when they were grounded.
Here, the downtown airport reduced noise by restricting the size of airplanes to 19 passengers or less and then a few years later closing altogether. That was a boon for developers of the vacated land and also for the residents under the flight paths. That was the ultimate noise abattement.
Not to mention it's a great way to kill the community that was living off the airport industry. Good going. Short sighted and ignorant.
How does it work. I thought they put the fuel in the wings.
Fuel tanks are in the wings, but as the fuel is used air has to be let in or there would be a vacuum created and conversely when refuelling there has to be a path for the air to escape the tanks.
I think it is the same noise heard on the ground screaming coming down from the Flt levels altitude in the right conditions. It is very noticeable. Or perhaps some airbus drivers and planes seem to need speed brakes to manage descents often causing noises. Anyway, it is an Airbus trait.
Ok
The best way I can describe it is a sort of “warbling” noise that is very distinctive of the narrowbody Airbus. I’m surprised there wasn’t an example of it in the video as it’s easy to hear on the older jets.
In general, modern planes are more quieter than before.
What is the difference in fuel consumption with and without the device? Not implying its not worth it just curious as to what the difference is.
What aircraft did the A320 replace?
B737
As it was the first single aisle Airbus, technically nothing, but as Airbus was effectively a merger of several European Aircraft Manufacturers, you could probably argue that it stopped any further development of many European single aisle aircraft which may otherwise have appeared. However, I think that the European aircraft which most likely died because of the British involvement is probably the Trident (also 6 abreast seating with similar capacities and useage), for which the A320 series was an excellent replacement, and BAe, the final manufacturer of the Trident are part of the consortium producing the infinitely more successful A320 series. Better to produce a significant portion of one of the two most successful airliners ever (hopefully that will stop the trolls making unfounded accusations of an Airbus v Boeing bias!), than all of one with far more limited success!
The answer to your question of "What aircraft did the A320 replace?":
Airbus designed the A320 to replace the 727-200.
Boeing had designed the 757-100 to replace the 727-200 in1982, but the airlines only interested in buying the bigger 757-200 (so the 757-100 was never made).
Thus, Boeing had no airplane to directly replace the 727-200, and made no effort to make one.
With the 727s getting old, Airbus saw the opportunity and made the A320 which was more efficient than the 757 due to being much lighter (with a much smaller wing, landing gear, empennage, and shorter fuselage than the 757) and having smaller CFM56 engines that burn only 6,000lbs of fuel per hour (combined) compared to the 757's 7,000 pph. (The 727-200 burned 9,000pph with its 3 old JT8Ds).
In reply to the A320 (1987), Boeing then made the 737-400 in 1988, but the wing was only the 95' wingspan of the -300.
Piedmont, Alaska Airlines, KLM, Aer Lingus, Sobelair, QANTAS etc. bought them but they have a small wing for such a heavy aircraft.
.
Finally Boeing re-winged the 737-3/4/500 with a laminar flow wing and gave it a new cockpit and updated CFM56-7 engines, launching the 737-7/8/900, which rolled out in 1997.
I suppose you could say that the A319 or A318 replaced the 737-200, but the A320 replaced the 727-200 (which is why Airbus made it)- not the 737-300, which was smaller than the A320 and had just entered service only 3 years before the A320 in 1984.
Did they just do this, or did they have to get it the German equivalent of STC'd? If so was that easier cause they're the flag carrier? And how does that cover flying it to the US?
I wondered about that too. They said that at first it was just brand new a320s that had this tab but changing the existing ones sounds like something they'd need a STC maybe? They also stated they were beginning with short haul fleet only, meaning that aircraft that fly to USA or any non Europe destination might not be affected... until the change reaches "medium haul" jets.
There is no german equivalent, it would have to be an EASA one, and probably was. However, as the modification came from the factory, i guess the development was probably done by the DLR (germany's NASA counterpart) sponsored by Lufthansa and the approval was then made by Airbus. As far as i can see it was incorporated for all new A320 family aircraft after that during production, and could be retrofitted for older ones which, aside from Lufthansa, quite a few airlines did. So it is probably just rolled into the general approval for the A320 family.
Guys you know you have to colorgrade the Stock Footage from the LH Group Website? 😂
Typically German 👍🏽✈️
Why did it take 30 years to do something about it?
Because 2db is a tiny change that would not be very noticeable. And upon take off the engines are insanely much louder than the aerodynamic noise from the ports. You only work on small improvements then making big improvement is hard. For example, reducing take off noise with less loud engines, or building sound barriers reducing take off noise reaching residents, such changes reduce several db for any affected residents. Removing 2db of noise level from a plane not in the most extreme part of flight (takeoff / toga) is a tiny improvement for residents I imagine.
@@randomgeocacher well this howling noise from British airways A320 (they have not installed the hush kit) is utterly noticeable and quite annoying. When they fly over my town at about 5000 ft and I hear the howling notice, I check in flight radar 24 to confirm and it's always a BA A318 /-9 /-20.
@@nhytg376tgyuu765gjmg yup, one of the commenter explained in another the thread. The 2db reduction isn’t the issue, removing the whistle (annoying frequency) is.
Sick! 😎
Looks like a Boeing 737 snuck in at 2:12
E190*
I'm not a plane-spotter
How about we don't put wholes in our wings to begin with? ...
Interesting
Second. And yes do more to reduce noise !
Can I fit one of these to the neighbours dog?
2db improvement lol
2db is a lot considering 3db would be half the noise energy.
@@fajoopsa I get that you were trying to look cool because decibles are logarithmic but what you said isn't factual.
@@BChandl13 how do you figure that champ?
@@BChandl13 champ? You still there or did you realise you’re the one that doesn’t look cool?
2 db reduction this quite a lot
1:41
Hahahha
I love your german!
how does the narrator manage to nail the pronounciation every single time. German, chinese, brazillian and arabic words seem to pose no challange
Of course the best way to prevent people from being annoyed by airport noise is: DON’T live by the airport!
LH is light years ahead with LH Technik.
Gotta love that 400 little metal tabs costs mid seven figures.
Yes, I got stuck there too. Presumably the whole noise reduction program is meant. 10 million for 400 pieces can't be.
Well, you have to take the employee costs who do the installation and the time the planes aren't flying with passengers into consideration. And probably some R&D costs also, including computer simulations of the airflow and wind tunnel testing.
Script from Captain Joe
I fell out of my chair when I heard it was only a 2 decibel difference
Since the db scale is exponential a 2-decibel difference will be noticeable and if you live nearby an airport you would be happy about any noise reduction. You should try to think before writing
@@gerhardma4687 I didn't know that, thank u
The problems is not the airlines but the airports. Allowing pilots to fly their own approaches would even out the noise and at the same time reduce noise because they would ban freed from the constraints imposed by the Desk Jockies who have never flown anything.
Gteat... But is there any business level profit??
Certainly, customer appreciation and loyalty. However, i dont believe in this 'breakthrough' . More a PR thing than anything
There could well be. Frankfurt Airport charges aircraft based on their noise. I'm not sure whether this is the case, but it could move the plane into a cheaper bracket. - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews Fair point... coz companies think not in terms of pollution effect but business points... if it brings up their profit margin enough, well and good... Thanks for the reply...!!
@@MrLockwire Lufthansa's turnover is what, 11 digits? Good for them if it's actually leading to tangible savings and noise reduction that you can actually notice. I doubt it.
Its german
So FRA can use runway 18 for only 1 direction in order to be considerate to the locals?
Locals: *Buy house next to airport*
Airport: *Generates noise*
Locals: suprised_pikachu.jpeg
yeah, they can use rwy 18 in only one direction. otherwise it would be rwy 00 😉
sorry, but it was just too good to let it pass
@@TheKobiDror 🤣 you got me there
Man, do I miss the screaming 707 era. Planes are just getting too quiet and boring now.
100% agree. There's not enough scream/roar anymore!
I SO Glád thé Pandémic hit as I don't having to here this Annoy noisé any Mooré
cost mid 7 figures? so 5 million dollars? so 200 units cost 5 million dollars? lol what
each tab cost $25,000 lololol
im in the wrong damn buiness lol.
obviously most of that is probably installation cost, and non standard modification inspection/maintenance costs. I still cant help but think this would have cost ~5-10$/unit if it was done in the 1960s.... but planes crashed a lot more often back then for a good reason
Such figures usually include the costs of R&D, patents and putting such a change through the licensing authorities (all of which is very expensive and time consuming in the airplane business with its multiple authorities around the world) ... doubtful this figure is just for production and installation, most of such cost usually comes from the admin and legal implementations.
Also doubtful its just one tab per plane, probably one per wing or even one per individual tank in those wings.
700th
like
It’s a waste of money for only 2 decibels.
It's nothing in comparison to the money involved with aviation. And since the db scale is exponential a 2-decibel difference might be noticeable.
what a clever investment for just 7 digits. manufacturers spend billions in R&D to reduce the noise and they came up with a simple but effective solution. well done.
total waste of money , and complete over engineering
Over-engineering suggests an overly complex solution. This is rather simple.