Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4745 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8020 times:
Last I heard from Aviation Partners was they weren't going to start testing until mid-2005.
Ship 134 is the first 757 to get winglets. The testing is actually being done at Boeing, not by Continental. The two are sharing the costs of development in return for Continental getting a better rate on the product itself.
Boeing gains a 757 for testing, and Continental gains a better deal for giving up a 757 for the testing period.
When I last checked (about a month ago), Ship 134 was in Abbottsford, Canada having its D check. It was then scheduled to go into normal service for two weeks before heading up to Boeing for the winglet installation and testing period.
I would say that it is safe to say that the testing has begun.
Drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5200 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6838 times:
They probably could if there was a kit available--but there is no point; the DC9 is not a long range aircraft and winglets only are beneficial on long range sectors. Short hops incur more of a added weight penalty versus more efficient fuel burn.
LN-MOW From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1908 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6452 times:
SAS is considering winglets for their MD80's. This is, however, depending on how long they are going to keep them in their fleet. I understand a decision will be taken within the next few months.
This is however not something you just 'slap on'. They will have to be properly tested and certified, and this is a six-month process. Pretty much any type of aircraft can have winglets installed, APB is working to find a 767 launch customer, but there are of course some serious costs involved that has to be taken into consideration.
WJV04 From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 584 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5573 times:
Winglets also help in climb performance, The 737NG winglets are like adding 50 feet of wing. Thus having to use less power during climbs. However it is true that the flights have to be a longer range for them to become most effective.
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13169 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4694 times:
Isn't '134 one of the older 757's in their fleet? Are they only considering them on the ETOPS a/c's ? What are the projected fuel savings with winglets on a trans-ocean flight such as these units are proposed for?
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 997 posts, RR: 51
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3492 times:
Can pilots tell the difference when taking off or landing? And how long does the segment have to be for the fuel savings to be visible? Do pilots have to be specvially rated for winglets?
Do the pilots notice the winglets on take-off? I think it would vary from pilot to pilot, but the winglets do let the 737NG reach cruise altitude faster.
How long does the segment need to be? WN states the winglet package begins to save fuel on any sector longer than 48 minutes, but it would likely change from airline to airline. A 73G* with IFE and gallies installed would be much heavier than WN's spartan 73G and would experience different savings. WN estimates they will save 92,000 gallons of fuel per aircraft annually... with a fleet of 200+ aircraft, they save huge amounts of fuel
Special rating for the winglets? No... the pilot certification is the exact same.
Nosedive From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
Keeping in mind that the IL 96 is a derivative of the IL 86 which first flew on the 22 December 1976...
Yes, I am aware of this.
So you're saying the IL-86 was a breakthrough? By your comparison, don't these two aircraft look strikingly similar??
1) Did I say the 86 was a breakthrough? You can debate that all you want, but don't expect me to interact with you on that one. 2) I used the 96 in comparison to the 340 b/c both aircraft were developed closer in time than the 86 and the 340 than the 707 and the 340 (as provided by your example). 3) Going with my original point, how can an aircraft be copy another aircraft if that other aircraft isn't on the drawing board yet? Nevermind the fact the older aircraft is based upon a similar company aircraft.....(as mentioned by TJCAB) 4) For all we know my sarcasm meter is busted and this was all for nil. 5) As the 707 and 340 were developed in different eras, designed for different niches, and one is a narrowbody, I fail to see your point. Similar yes, but they cannot be passed off as "copies" b/c of the aforementioned differences.
Were saying the same thing; aircraft look may similar, but the vast majority of the time they are not copies. Similar aircraft that were developed around the same time appear that way for a few reasons. Market demands and technology of the time play significant roles- engine technology, for example. Common examples of "similar" aircraft include: the DC-8 and B707, the IL 86/96 and A340, the B727 and Tu154 , the IL114 and the Saab 340, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Whether or not anyone these examples look similar is irrelevant, as similarities and beauty are in the eye of the beholder, not to mention ambiguous. My point, same as yours, is that just b/c an aircraft looks like another does not mean it is a copy. There are many things that must be considered if an aircraft is a copy of another aircraft. All I'm saying