I wonder how much they now save over non winglet 767-300ERs or how much range they give. Perhaps the 767 could be improved a little more, for some additional sales?
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19695 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 18639 times:
Quoting EbbUK (Reply 1): could it be the A330 beater Boeing have been lacking?
Not really. The 330 has more passenger and cargo capacity, and winglets won't change that.
Now, if Boeing had come out with them earlier, they might have taken a few customers, but ultimately the 330 is a more capable plane than the 767 is for all but a few niche markets.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16252 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 18527 times:
Quoting Rj777 (Reply 4): Maybe if they put the winglets on the 764, then they'd be able to do it.
The 767-400s have Raked winglets, similar to the 77L and 77W.
Caryjack From United States of America, joined May 2007, 265 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 18079 times:
This from the OP provided link: "The blended winglets are 3.4 meter high win-tip devices, and make an aircraft's wing more efficient by reducing drag."
Is this the total horizontal plus vertical length of the a winglet or do these winglets actually rise 11 feet above the wing?
Thanks,
Cary
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19695 posts, RR: 56 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 17989 times:
Quoting Caryjack (Reply 7): Is this the total horizontal plus vertical length of the a winglet or do these winglets actually rise 11 feet above the wing?
Josh32121 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 325 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 17899 times:
I've seen DL 767's with them. They're huge (3.4m isn't a typo).
727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 783 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 17900 times:
Quoting Caryjack (Reply 7): This from the OP provided link: "The blended winglets are 3.4 meter high win-tip devices, and make an aircraft's wing more efficient by reducing drag."
Is this the total horizontal plus vertical length of the a winglet or do these winglets actually rise 11 feet above the wing?
Yes they do rise 11 feet. They have a nominal increase to parasite drag, but they drastically reduced the dynamic drag by keeping more air moving over the upper surface of the wing. This has the effect of increasing the lifting abilities of the wing resulting in less thrust needed at a constant altitude or by providing a higher max altitude at a constant weight. Either increases efficiency.
I have flown both the 757 with winglets and the 767 with winglets. I have noticed up to 12% reduction in fuel flows on the 757. I've only flown the 767 with winglets twice, but in those two flights I saw about an 8% reduction. These numbers are not scientific, just observations.
Tommytoyz From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1102 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 17768 times:
Quoting 727forever (Reply 10): I have flown both the 757 with winglets and the 767 with winglets. I have noticed up to 12% reduction in fuel flows on the 757. I've only flown the 767 with winglets twice, but in those two flights I saw about an 8% reduction. These numbers are not scientific, just observations.
If anywhere near correct, those number represent an incredible improvement over the base model. I gather that the 330 is 15% more efficient per pax than the base 767-300ER is, when the 330 is on a range/payload that is in it's sweet spot. If the 767 winglets can give an 8% improvement and the improved Genex engines another 7% viola.
However, it would always lose out to the 787, if it it were on par fuel burn wise, because the 787 is cheaper than the 767 to manufacture and buy - supposedly. For this reason alone, the days of new built 767s are just about over.
777219ER From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 7 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 16054 times:
Yes the winglets are 11 feet above the wing. The last Air NZ 767 300 is currently having them fitted and is due back in service early November. Here is a close up shot.
Pohakuloa From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 370 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 15917 times:
Not as attractive as it could be, but it works aesthetically for me. Nice winglets on the HA bird!! Thanks Hawaiian A330!
PEET7G From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 692 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 15804 times:
Pretty much the same being told to me by a friend flying for OS, however the info is a "dinner table chat info" so I didn't want to yap about it here on A.net as guys without hard facts get torn apart quit fast around here, especially by members who want the 767 as good as dead... what an old lady, isn't she? And love the 2-3-2 config in Y
However I think that the WL will only help her to remain in service longer, and be more competitive, but I do not expect sales to jump and definitely not take away A330 sales...but it will make airlines hold onto them longer for sure.
Kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 15738 times:
Quoting 777219ER (Reply 16): The last Air NZ 767 300 is currently having them fitted and is due back in service early November. Here is a close up shot.
Sorry to go OT , but I read something shortly after the first re-fitted NZ aircraft re-entered service , saying that there had been complaints about the Koru on the inside of the winglet inducing vertigo in pax looking out the window and that the decal would be removed . Since then , however , 3 more aircraft have been refitted and all photos which I have seen show the Koru on the inside of the winglet as well as the outside .
Does anyone know whether there was any validity to the rumours about nauseous pax ?
My own guess is that it must have been exaggerated otherwise the later aircraft would presumably have a plain inner face to the winglet .
In any case , I am glad to hear that the winglets are producing even more savings for NZ than originally expected . In the current operating environment every bit helps , especially since the delays with the 787-9 will probably mean that the dear old 767s will remain in the NZ fleet for at least another 4 years.
[Edited 2009-10-16 01:43:05 by kiwiandrew]
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
777219ER From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 7 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 15643 times:
Yes there was talk that the koru would be removed from the inside of the winglet due to vertigo issues. Howver as you have noted ZK- NCG, NCK, NCL & NCJ have all entered service still with the Koru. ZK-NCI is in Hong Kong at present having her winglets fitted and it is expected that the Koru will be on both sides of her winglets.
When flying on the 767 with the winglets I have delibrately stared and the Koru to see if it had any affect and I can't believe it is an issue. The wine had more effect than looking at the koru
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 13865 times:
Interesting news. Personally I like the 767 very much, and would like for it to age with dignity. With this retrofit it will be competitive for years to come. I wonder how much of the Advantage 70 package P&W introduced for the A330, that could be incorporated into the 767? That would give it an even better performance. Even if it were just for retrofits on exciting models. It offers lower maintenance cost as well as 1% better fuel economy.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
Av8rDAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 456 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 13057 times:
Quoting Tommytoyz (Thread starter): Perhaps the 767 could be improved a little more, for some additional sales?
They did, and they call it the 787 I was at Everett on Monday and saw the first prototype and 3 more being built for ANA. What a sweet airplane that they'll be able to assemble in 3-4 days' time.
Maintain thine airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee.
EA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10 Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12800 times:
Quoting Airnerd (Reply 5): The -400's already got a new wing with raked wingtips, no? Don't they pretty much do the same thing according to Boeing?
The 764 doesn't have a new wing. It's the same wing as the 763ER that's been beefed up slightly for the increase in MTOW, and added raked wingtips.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
Manfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12679 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 3): Not really. The 330 has more passenger and cargo capacity, and winglets won't change that.
Now, if Boeing had come out with them earlier, they might have taken a few customers, but ultimately the 330 is a more capable plane than the 767 is for all but a few niche markets.
If everyone would like to compare an aircraft that first flew in 1982 to one that flew 10 years later that's fine by me. I think it speaks bounds for the 767's longevity.
NicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1051 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 12476 times:
Quoting Manfredj (Reply 22): If everyone would like to compare an aircraft that first flew in 1982 to one that flew 10 years later that's fine by me. I think it speaks bounds for the 767's longevity.
Aren't we comparing the 330 vs. 787, too? Finally, close to 20 years will be between those two models first flight, nevertheless, the 330 holds quite well, no?
Clydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 995 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 11834 times:
Quoting 727forever (Reply 10): I have flown both the 757 with winglets and the 767 with winglets. I have noticed up to 12% reduction in fuel flows on the 757. I've only flown the 767 with winglets twice, but in those two flights I saw about an 8% reduction. These numbers are not scientific, just observations.
Quoting Tommytoyz (Reply 11): If anywhere near correct, those number represent an incredible improvement over the base model. I gather that the 330 is 15% more efficient per pax than the base 767-300ER is, when the 330 is on a range/payload that is in it's sweet spot. If the 767 winglets can give an 8% improvement and the improved Genex engines another 7% viola.
25 LipeGIG: Good point. But considering the 763 availability, would give a fresh and warm push to the secondary market. A 10 year old 763 with the winglets and t
26 727forever: Yes, yes. I said that my numbers are not scientific. I've read APC's website too. I'm telling you what I've seen operationally. Everyone is noticing
27 SEPilot: The real problem with the 767 is it is a very inefficient cross section. With seven across you have to add the width of one seat plus one aisle to the
28 WorldTraveler: The type of cargo containers that is used really only matters if you are interlining between LD3 capable aircraft and the 767. Nearly all of DL's carg
29 Hamlet69: How many operators now have the winglets in operation? From memory: - American - Delta - LAN - Austrian - Condor - Air New Zealand - DHL Am I missing
30 PC12Fan: Actually, from what I understand, it can, but it uses up an incredible amount of dead space. Something like where one LD3 would go on a 767 you could
32 Spacepope: Flew last mont with OS VIE-IAD, sat on the wing, did not get the least bit woozy from the bouncy winglets.
33 MD-90: And yet when the 767 was introduced Boeing guaranteed TWA that it would have lower CASM than the 8-abreast A310--and it did.
34 71Zulu: Add Hawaiian to the list, first one delivered today and 7 more to be done. HA expecting up to 5% fuel savings or about 300,000 gallons of fuel per ai
35 Flighty: That is not really fair. No one will argue the fact that an A330 carries more stuff. But, the 767 burns less fuel and is cheaper to fly. In many case
36 GOGOJET: I wish Qantas would bite the bullet and fit-out at least a part of their large (27-28) fleet of 767s. The fuel savings would be substantial. Unfortuna
37 SEPilot: Which is probably a big reason why Airbus found it necessary to design the A330. I do not know a lot about the A310, but it did not find a big market
38 Reltney: Excellent point.. They are both good planes but it is compairing apples with watermelons. It does speek bounds however but the 330 is a A300 which fl
39 Stitch: The A310 was a significant (13 frame) shrink of the A300, which resulted in a strong increase in CASM. The same reason killed the 777-100X (which was
40 Viscount724: The A310 should be compared with the 767-200, and a few more A310s were built than 762s (255 vs 249). It's not logical to compare the A310 with the 7
41 DocLightning: Superficially, that may be true. But that's like arguing that the 757 is a stretch of the 732 with some modifications. Just because the 330 has the s
42 Flighty: The 767 is a much older aircraft. It did a good job selling before the first A330 ever flew. Many carriers such as Delta, United (I could go on) have
43 Caryjack: Along side those engines? Sure does. That's interesting information. Thanks. Maybe not classified as scientific but surely an arms length o
45 Stitch: No, it never left the design studio. The mission eventually was filled by the 777-200LR.
46 NicoEDDF: That is one weird way if seeing the world. Might consider of rethinking your "plain facts". And, I say it again, if comparing 767 and 330 is not appl
47 727forever: So I just got home from my trip. On this trip I flew both the 752 with winglets and the 752 without winglets. Both had the PW2037. I compared numbers
48 Reltney : There is a great artical out there in print about the different concepts on why the 2 companies differ in basic winglet design. One airline uses it a
49 PHBUF: 727forever, thank you for the information, very interesting and VERY promising. Almost 12% is simply huge. Is it true that the winglets also improve t
50 Caryjack: Looks like good news to me. You are measuring fuel burn per hour so while head winds may affect trip times they won't affect burn rates, right? At th
51 727forever: I haven't really noticed increased stability. If anything I would say that I have noticed a very slight increase in roll response which makes sense a
52 Vfw614: It is as much an A300 derivative as the Boeing 737-900ER is a Boeing 707-120 derivative. What have the design characteristics that define efficiency
53 SEPilot: I also like the 767 for the same reason; however airline managements do not consult me before buying their planes.
54 Reltney: You hit the nail on the head with that one. Great job ! The 707-120 utilizes the same basic structure components in the fuselage with all the narrow
55 Hawaiian763: Good to see the winglets are working out great for the airlines that added them to their 763's. HA's 763's look amazing with them installed. Hopefully
56 Travelhound: I think the 767 got itself caught between two newer airplane types. The newer generation narrow bodies (A320 and 737-800) and the A330. In both insta
57 Vfw614: I am at a loss understanding what you are trying to tell me. What product of any manufacturer is not a derivative of a predecessor? Of course nobody
58 Reltney: Woa big guy, nothing personal at all. I like what you say, I am just telling you what the horses mouth says in its printed advertisments... I told yo
59 Saab2000: I fly CRJs for a living. I hate taking off after any Boeing without winglets. Even the 737s create a strong wake vortex and we get rocked behind these
60 Someone83: Yes, and we're all derivatives of some pre-historic monkey.....
61 727forever: A very interesting observation. It totally makes sense too. I used to fly the CRJ and would agree that that airplane is always getting rocked by some
62 PEET7G: Good question, please forward it to MA's first line of idiots. It is on the table for ages at MA what to do with the 73s and the decision has been al
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1102 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 213 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, 
From Hungary, joined Jan 2007, 692 posts, 
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2575 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1051 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 995 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
