Erj145lr From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 431 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9362 times:
WOW! I was just reaidng the latest edition of airliners magazine, and the Aviation Partners Boeing add said that they are now available on 767, 777, and 757 (which we already knew!), but thats awsome awsome about the 76 and 77! Any news on what airlines are doing it, and any pix?!!
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9267 times:
Slow down turbo
The 767 and 777 winglet package have yet to be launched or even defined. Aviation Partners are simply looking for customers who are interested so they can proceed with design. There are no pictures, but the 777 winglets would likely be as high as 12 feet.
The 757 winglet package, as we know, has already been launched by CO and will be rolled out in 2005....
AA777 From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 2465 posts, RR: 31 Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9246 times:
The winglets that they offer on the 76- & 777's are all wing extensions, rather than winglets, as far as I know. I dont think they are adding the classical 744 or A340 winglets that you see... I was having a lapse of memory for a moment-- they are called RAKED wingtips, rather than Winglets, on the 764 and 773ER.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5336 posts, RR: 11 Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 9203 times:
Wait, wait, wait.
I thought the raked wingtips were the best option for the 777 and 767 wings? Because Boeing certainly seems to think so... with the 764 and the 777LR families anyway.
What gives?
Nwfltattendant From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 341 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9191 times:
AA777....
those are winglets on te 764... and these being offered are also winglets. The style, while differernt from the airbus boomerang and boeing widget, are refered to as raked winglets.
LongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9172 times:
The pictures we saw from HQ, regarding the winglets on the B767-300s looked like the winglets one can see on the B737NGs, not like the raked winglets on the B76-400s
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Philhyde From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 674 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9125 times:
I'm just speculating, but I would not expect a horizontal wing extension to provide exactly the same benefits as a more vertical winglet. Granted, the should both improve lift, and I'm sure there is much more technical information available as to their benefits. However, as it was explained to me, the vertical winglets provide lateral stability, which is where most of the fuel burn savings is realized.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 9114 times:
The winglets that they offer on the 76- & 777's are all wing extensions, rather than winglets, as far as I know.
The new package that Aviation Partners is toying with are winglets, like the ones on the 737NG.... they would be available for the 763ER and 772ER
this is knd of a stupid question, but what exactly do winglets do? I like em just cuz they look incredible, but what is their real purpose?
They have the effect of adding several feet of wingspan without the weighing the airplane down and taking up gate space. In very abbreviated terms, a larger wing allows for more efficent cruise and has less drag than a smaller wing. This means the engines can cruise at a lower setting and less fuel is burned. Read more about them here-
However, as it was explained to me, the vertical winglets provide lateral stability, which is where most of the fuel burn savings is realized.
That might be true, but according to Boeing, the raked wingtips are far more structually efficent than winglets. The winglet package for the 772ER would be twice the size of the 772LR wingtip extension!
Also, fly-by-wire aircraft are inherentily more stable at cruise that an manually trimmed aircraft, so extra vertical surface wouldn't have much effect...
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, RR: 66 Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 8666 times:
I'm just speculating, but I would not expect a horizontal wing extension to provide exactly the same benefits as a more vertical winglet. Granted, the should both improve lift, and I'm sure there is much more technical information available as to their benefits. However, as it was explained to me, the vertical winglets provide lateral stability, which is where most of the fuel burn savings is realized.
Baw716 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1994 posts, RR: 31 Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 8595 times:
The raked theory vs winglets has to do with size and weight (I believe, don't quote me on this). A winglet to support a 777 wing would have to be huge and would change the aerodynamics of the 777 wing dramatically without any significant fuel efficiency.
The raked wingtip gives just enough extra lift and sweep to add that extra performance of the new wings on the 777LR and 764ER. Placing raked winglets on the existing 777 wings would require more lift and sweep, hence they would have to be larger. How they overcome the weight to increase range would be an interesting engineering and physics question....way beyond my level of expertise.
Someone asked what a raked wingtip or a winglet does...it increases the lift of the wing without requiring extra power. Hence, less fuel burn. This makes the aircraft fly farther even with the added weight of the winglets. CO is adding them to the 752 and 753s (plus what they get from ATA) to allow them to fly east coast to any western European city. The extra 400-500 miles in range they would get would allow them to do that. They can then expand into secondary markets where there isn't sufficient traffic to warrant a large aircraft AND downsize aircraft in markets where the traffic tends to be more seasonal without sacrificing their presence in the markets.
Hope this helps...
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8304 times:
Also, fly-by-wire aircraft are inherently more stable at cruise that an manually trimmed aircraft, so extra vertical surface wouldn't have much effect...
A bit of a nit-pick, but fly-by-wire generally aren't more inherently stable, if anything they're less stable. The F-22 is inherently unstable, the software makes it stable.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6328 times:
Something tells me the winglet package is not going to be incredibly popular with the 777, first and foremost because it is already the most efficient aerofoil in the world already, and second because raked wingtips seem to be better suited for the 777.
Saxman66 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 518 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5121 times:
this is knd of a stupid question, but what exactly do winglets do? I like em just cuz they look incredible, but what is their real purpose?
ERJ--
Winglets add thrust to the aircraft. They are like wings acting in the horizontal plane. I could explain the aerodynamics but its kinda hard to explain if you don't know basic aerodynamic principles. Even I would have to sit down and draw a diagram for me to understand it. If you want me to, I will get out my notes and try to put it in words.
But essentially winglet save fuel by adding thrust. Don't think its a huge amount of thrust, but just a little to make the airlines like 'em.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 4721 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5078 times:
erj145lr, if Chris didn't give you enough explanation, go to airpartners.com and their joint site with Boeing - lots of technical answers there.
The 7E7 (at least the artist's conception) appears to have a combination of the raked tip and the canted tip; there must be distinct advantages to each, worth combining.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4806 times:
Winglets add thrust to the aircraft.
Thrust?
How do winglets add thrust?
They reduce drag, and add area, but I don't understand how they could add thrust.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 72 Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4670 times:
I was wondering the same thing - winglets adding thrust just doesn't sound right...
But I guess that the result is the same: same amount of thrust from the engines, less amount of drag equals same amount of drag with more thrust...
Still, I would also have said that they "just" reduce drag and not increase thrust - I always considered the engines to be the only source of thrust...
Corey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2519 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4069 times:
Winglets do not add thrust in any shape or form... They are intended to reduce drag, thus increasing fuel efficiency.
Logan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3938 times:
What's a bit scary is that Saxman66 is a student at UND Aerospace. Just as long as he is flying it, but not designing or repairing it, everyone should be OK. Winglets do add thrust if they have engines in them.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3824 times:
A bit of a nit-pick, but fly-by-wire generally aren't more inherently stable, if anything they're less stable. The F-22 is inherently unstable, the software makes it stable.
You can't compare a high-performance fighter to an average commercial airliner The F-22 is unstable because of its radical stealth design, the sharp facets and angles make the aircraft very difficult (probably impossible) to handle without FBW. The software then transforms this into excellent manuverability.
But commercial airliners are are built to be aerodyamically stable. A stable aircraft remains level in-flight, keeping the wings in their most efficent position. An aircraft that pitches and yaws constantly waste fuel, just like a runner who wobbles from side to side waste energy. FBW and autotrim can make minute changes to the control surfaces that would be beyond the pilot's ability to make....
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3769 times:
Question: If winglets significantly help efficiency, why do some airlines still orders winglet-less aircraft?
PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 Logan22L: PPVRA: It is my understanding that the reduced drag only realises a fuel savings over longer routes, so the expense of the winglets (and approvals, et
26 DfwRevolution: Question: If winglets significantly help efficiency, why do some airlines still orders winglet-less aircraft? Several reasons... The first is cost of
27 FriendlySkies: Winglets add thrust to the aircraft. Close, but no cigar. Winglets add thrust in theory, but only because they reduce drag. By reducing drag, more thu
28 Tarantine: I am sure that boeing knew what they was doing when they designed the 777 without winglets!
29 Gigneil: The aerofoils of the 777 were designed 14 years ago. Aviation Partners has 14 years of aerospace science to build on. N
30 Pictues: Can anyone post a picture of an Air Canada B767-300 with Winglets (Of course it'll be a rendering)
31 DfwRevolution: I am sure that boeing knew what they was doing when they designed the 777 without winglets! Boeing seriously considered winglets on the 772... but de
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 431 posts, 
, 2465 posts, 
From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4275 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15870 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 335 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1081 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
