JoeCattoli From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 572 posts, RR: 3 Posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4218 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
DfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1043 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4203 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.
Levg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1001 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4011 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.
A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4011 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.
Cloudyapple From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2455 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3734 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.
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.