Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Still No Winglets For 777s  
User currently offlineJoeCattoli From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 570 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Hi A-netters, I checked in the past threads about the viability of winglets on the 777. There is something but not a proper answer to what I'm gonna ask.
Since I've heard that winglets are always saving-fuel especially on long-haul (and I don't wanna teach to anyone that 777s are actually long-haul airplanes) why there's not even one model that offers this improvement?
Is Boeing waiting on the next move of Airbus to propose than a winglet that keeps the T7s life longer? (or... since the T7 program has no problem in orders I should say even healthier...).
Or the reason is is simply that the winglet doesn't improve significantly the characteristics of the larger twin-jet on earth?
Thanks in advance
Ciao
Joe

14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4076 times:

Quoting JoeCattoli (Thread starter):
Is Boeing waiting on the next move of Airbus to propose than a winglet that keeps the T7s life longer?

Aviation Partners, the manufacture of the 737NG and 757 winglets, are considering a winglet retrofit for the non-LR 777 variants. They are currently running performance and economic projections before offering the product for sale.

Boeing will not likely get involved with winglet production for the 777 series, it will be an aftermarket product.

Quoting JoeCattoli (Thread starter):
Since I've heard that winglets are always saving-fuel especially on long-haul (and I don't wanna teach to anyone that 777s are actually long-haul airplanes) why there's not even one model that offers this improvement?

Winglets are typically used as a "band-aide" to add performance to a wing, a properly optimized wing does not need winglets.

When building the 777, Boeing considered winglets. They discovered, however, that increasing span 5/4 the hight of the winglet produces the exact same aerodynamic result with less structural weight. Remember that vertical winglets requires substantial wing reinforcement while a minor span increase does not.

There are few aircraft designed with winglets in mind. If they are, it is because increasing span would yield logistic complications like hampering gate clearance: A388, 744, 783, E170/E190, etc. Nearly all other aircraft recieved winglets midway through design or on the aftermarket to boost performance: MD11, 737NG, etc. The A340 only recieved winglets when it was discovered the CFM56 would not yield the performance of the IAE Superfan.

http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Technique/Thewinglet.html


User currently offlineN160LH From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 280 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3995 times:

I wonder why we have not seen more aircraft's getting motified with the racked wingtips like the 767-400's....?

N160LH



"I do alright up in the air, its down on the ground that I tend to mess up..."
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3913 times:

But, Boeing's philosophy is that for short haul flights, blended winglets. For long haul, raked wingtips. So, if anything, older 777s would be refitted with raked wingtips.

User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3913 times:

Quoting N160LH (Reply 2):
wonder why we have not seen more aircraft's getting motified with the racked wingtips like the 767-400's....?

Your question was answer in the previous post:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):
it is because increasing span would yield logistic complications like hampering gate clearance: A388, 744, 783, E170/E190, etc.

Essentially, raked wingtip devices are better at taking load off of the wing, but they increase span.



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 995 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

I remember reading that B777's wing is efficient as it is, therefore the winglets are not required. Don't forget that winglets weight a lot so there are soome disadvantages involved, especially on short and medium haul flights. An example of this would be B744D. Remember that when Boeing designed the 777, winglets were already widely used therefore they must have been considered (I'm not a Boeing engineer, just a guess). And I've never heard anyone complain about the 777's performance, so I guess there's no need to work on its efficiency.

Leo.



A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

The raked wingtips on the -300ER and -200LR perform the same function as winglets and Boeing jusged them to be more effective the 777's aft-loaded wing. No doubt that many older 777's will eventually be retrofitted with these.

User currently offlineMudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1167 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3767 times:

What would happen if one of the winglets broke off in flight?

User currently offlineCloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2454 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3607 times:

Given you stay within a box of 65m span for a Code E aircraft it's more efficient to stick with a simple span extension. That's why the span went up from 60.9m on the B772 to 64.8 on the B772LR. That's very close the maximum you can fit on a Code E stand. Airport compatibility is a huge issue if you go any wider.

Interesting fact that the B748 is going outside the 65m span box at 68.4m. It's a "narrow" Code F aircraft which means it can park at a Code E stand with restriction on the span of neighbouring aircraft (up to 61.6m span - B772/B773 "classics", B789/A333/A343/A358) if both centrelines offset to 1 side.

[Edited 2006-02-27 12:46:20]


A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
User currently offlineJoeCattoli From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 570 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3507 times:

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 1):

I didn't know about raked wingtips and adding wingspan to avoid the extra weight of a winglet. Thanks
It's a pity that we will almost surely never see one of those marvellous T7s with winglets... It should be quite impressive.
Ciao
Joe


User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 995 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

Quoting JoeCattoli (Reply 9):
It's a pity that we will almost surely never see one of those marvellous T7s with winglets... It should be quite impressive.

It would look something like this:

Modified Airliner Photos:
Click here for bigger photo!
Design © Joe Perez
Template © Pete Bennett




Leo.



A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting JoeCattoli (Thread starter):
winglets are always saving-fuel

Not always.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineSTARalliance24 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 378 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3325 times:

Quoting Levg79 (Reply 10):
It would look something like this:

SWEET! The T7 looks awesome with winglets!

Quoting Mudboy (Reply 7):
What would happen if one of the winglets broke off in flight?

All aircraft with winglets are certified to fly without one on a wing. Like the B747 and A340.


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

I'm not so keen. They work sometimes, like on the A340, but I think the 777 looks better with raked wingtips.

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting Viv (Reply 11):
Not always.

Maybe on a positioning flight under 30 minutes, but most winglet packages break-even in under an hour of flight time.

The benefit of winglets is more dramatic as the flight goes on, but the effects of winglets are felt even on the take-off roll.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why No Winglets For Every 737-700/800? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:48:32 by LY777
Why No Winglets For The 737-600? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 11:35:41 by LY777
Still No Word On The A 350 For EK? posted Mon Nov 21 2005 13:19:57 by EK156
Still No Green Light For US/HK Open Skies posted Sat Mar 2 2002 19:22:08 by Jiml1126
Why No PR For UAL 777s? posted Thu Jul 22 1999 08:41:32 by UA744Flagship
Why No Winglets For 737-900? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 05:55:25 by UncGSO
Why No Winglets On British Registered B757's? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 12:06:25 by KA501
US Orders 7 Sets Of Blended Winglets For 757s posted Wed Nov 1 2006 16:56:27 by Mah584jr
Mesaba & Unions; Still No Deal Yet posted Fri Oct 27 2006 19:41:26 by KarlB737
No Need For Aviation Magazines Anymore posted Wed Oct 25 2006 06:41:27 by Boeingforever