Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Look At This UA 744...Winglet Missing?  
User currently offlineUnited747-200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 91 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2714 times:

Hi, look at these two pictures and tell me what's wrong...

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Christopher Smay



Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Christopher Smay


The winglet on the pilot's side is gone. How do they take off a winglet? Did it need to be repaired? Please help me out. Thanks!

United747-200

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTg 747-300 From Norway, joined Nov 1999, 1318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2540 times:

If i don't remember wrong, this a/c was involved in a incident somewere in Asia or Oceania, which caused the winglet to be removed before flying the bird (on regular scheduled pax flight) bak to the US.

Hope I wasn't wrong

tg 747-300



intentionally left blank
User currently offlineMr Spaceman From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 2787 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

Hi there, I know that all Airliners have a "Minimum Equipment List" [MEL], however I never thought that a "Winglet" could ever be an item that was NOT required before take off! Pretty Amazing!

Chris



"Just a minute while I re-invent myself"
User currently offlineAirplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

That is really weird that it doesn't have a winglet. I wonder if that is safe to fly like that. It must be because that plane is about to depart. Why is a 744 flying domestic from Denver to Chicago? Airlines don't usually fly that big of a plane on domestic flights in the US except to Hawaii and that one is going to Chicago. Did it come in from Asia or some other place and is going on to Chicago?

User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2450 times:

United has often in the past had a great deal of intra hub routes with 747s, although currently they are mostly flown by 767s and 777s.

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3706 posts, RR: 34
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2439 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is not an MEL item, it is covered in the CDL (Configuration Deviation List). The CDL lists what panels/fairings the a/c can fly without & any fuel/speed/weight penalties the missing item incurs.

In this particular case the CDL says all -400's (except 400D) can dispatch with one winglet missing provided the performance limited weights are reduced by:-

T.O. & Ldg - 9435 Kg

En-route Clb - 4536 Kg

No I don't what is special about the D model


User currently offlineApuneger From Belgium, joined Sep 2000, 3032 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

This problem was also discussed in an older topic. If I remember well, it's possible to fly the aircraft with one or two winglets being removed.

However, I wonder if, flying this aircraft with only one winglet, this doesn't cause assymetric problems. Wouldn't it be better to remove BOTH winglets? Or does even one winglet cause a noticeable increase in performance, and hardly any problems for flying this bird?

Ivan



Ivan Coninx - Brussels Aviation Photography
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3706 posts, RR: 34
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2403 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Apuneger,

I think I have answered your question.


User currently offlineMac From United States of America, joined May 2001, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2393 times:

With all due respect to all, I will not let myself be led to believe that a 747 or any other aircraft leased by or belonging to a major U.S. airline would be allowed clearance to fly without proper wing configuration...such as a winglet.

Again, with respect, the author of this picture is mistaken when he says that this aircraft had just finished pushback for departure.

By a very great deal of stretching the imagination, the plane could have been on a special ferry flight, without passengers, to an overhaul center.

And my last remaining thought is that if the above is incorrect, than someone is carrying off some black magic produced by computer magic.

I say all of this with good intentions and without any malice what so ever.

Mac aka Doug Vernon


User currently offlineAC_B777 From Canada, joined Aug 2000, 809 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2378 times:

Hi all,

This topic has been discussed a few times here on the forum.
Yes, it is possible for a 744 to fly with one winglet missing. It all depends on what the MEL (Minimum Equipent List) or as VC-10 mentioned, the CDL (Configuration Deviation List) says and requires.
Air Canada had a 744 flying for a while with the right winglet missing. This is safe to do.
The performance of the a/c will suffer a little in terms of fuel economy and range. There's probably also some minor changes with weight and balance of the plane as well as some small aerodynamic differences, however, nothing major that would ground the a/c unless the wing itself was damaged.

AC_B777



In life, some days you are the bug..... some days you are the windshield!
User currently offlineUnited747-200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2360 times:

Mac,
You have many good points, but I thought I'd tell you that the aircraft was indeed backing up. You can clearly see the tire tracks in the light snow.

United747-200


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3706 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2355 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Mac,

Why won't you believe what I have quoted from the CDL that is published by Boeing, the a/c manufacturer, and approved by the FAA?


User currently offlineJet_guy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2351 times:

A UA 744 flew AKL-LAX without both winglets when it was pushed back into the terminal, I dont know if it flew pax. back to LAX though. As this happened only last month, and those pics taken in '96 it isnt the same plane!!

Sam  Big thumbs up


User currently offlineN907CL From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 255 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2361 times:

The other aircraft talked about was:

Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Ryan Chow




Brian
User currently offlineJet_guy From New Zealand, joined Aug 2000, 231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2340 times:

That 744 looks a bit worse for wear!
No winglet, and a non-CX nose cone.
I would have loved to see that C-130 Herc, thats in the background, flying the checkboard approach into Kai Tak.

Sam


User currently offlineFBWless From Sweden, joined Feb 2000, 197 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2322 times:

The nose cone is in the new CX livery.

User currently offlineRed Panda From Hong Kong, joined Jun 2000, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2311 times:

Those are not new pix. This has been discussed before. But for those who don't know about it, this particular 744 was to participate in a test w/o winglets to see if the winglets really matter to fuel consumption.

Winglets are not in MEL. For someone (forgot your name, sorry) who doesn't know why 744D is an exception, 744D doesn't have any winglet at all. So, which just not apply to the D-model.

hope this help
r panda


User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3706 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2313 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Red Panda,

I said it wasn't in the MEL, it's in the CDL


User currently offlineBen88 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2304 times:

This discussion should be over. The 744 (non d) can fly without one winglet with certain weight limitations. I understood it the first time VC-10 explained it. Can't argue with manufacturer data.

User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3706 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

This is what pisses me off about this site, you quote official data and unqualified people still think they know better.

User currently offlineLMML 14/32 From Malta, joined Jan 2001, 2565 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

The first time I heard of a B744 flying without one winglet was a few years back when BA flew one for a few weeks. There is only a fuel penalty as a consequence.

User currently offlineAmbasaid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2241 times:

Dont you just love it, a QUALIFIED AND EXPERIENCED aircraft engineer has just quoted the OFFICIAL BOEING CDL and nobody believes him!!!!!!!!!

VC10 i would jump in and back you up, but they probably wouldnt believe me either!

Anyone want the CDL page reference?

As for Doug, you would be extremely surprised at how we are allowed to operate aircraft under FAR121.


User currently offlineYqfca From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

I have seen a photo of a Lufthansa 747-400 doing a routine flight FRA-LAX with one winglet and back, in I believe it was ACARS International. It's no big deal.

User currently offlineWe're Nuts From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5722 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Actually, a friend of my former roommate's cousin's uncle (who, during a period between Dec. '89 and Jan. '90, worked for Boeing) told me that the 747 in question crashed shortly after takeoff because the pilots did not perform a walkaround OR go over the winglet checklist. So according to him, a 747 CAN'T fly without both winglets. Insane


Dear moderators: No.
User currently offlineRendezvous From New Zealand, joined May 2001, 520 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

The 747-400D manages without them...

25 Ambasaid : We're Nuts, "A friend of my formers roommates cousins uncle" is definitely a reliable source! I'm glad that the world of aviation works on FACTS and n
26 Post contains images We're Nuts : Explain this.
27 G-CIVP : VC-10 are you holding your head in your hands? Or banging it against a brick wall? We're Nuts, please elaborate on your B747 crash in 1989.
28 L-188 : I dunno what to say. There are cases where the book is wrong or you can do things outside the book..... But this ain't one of them... VC-10...I would
29 PhilB : The few of us who post FACTS here, rather than ill-informed assumptions, statements based on hearsay such as : "my great uncle's 20 year old Mistress,
30 BluebellyA380 : I just saw this (or similar) aircraft in TPE last week. Since I could only see it from the port side, I figured that this must have been the case from
31 HlywdCatft : I seen a Northwest 744 at DTW last summer that was missing a winglet
32 Post contains images Airmale : Wasnt this a test carried out by UA to see if the 744s performance was affected minus the winglet, I believe they were surprised to note no change
33 Yqfca : Fact 1: A747-400 can fly without one or both winglets, period. As for effectiveness is concerned, Boeing is redesigning the winglet for the 747-500. S
34 KonaB777 : Hah, 747-500...
35 Post contains images We're Nuts : Oh my God, some of you people still think my post was serious. Even after TWO " " you still don't think I was joking! That's pathetic, folks. I guess
36 Post contains images PhilB : Yup, coming from you, in that mode it had to be a spoof , but too many posts of that nature are serious - unfortunately
37 Post contains links Crosswind : I get so pissed off when someone answers a question, answers it accurately and obviously knows what hes talking about, and still someone contradicts t
38 United747-200 : Hmm, I didn't know this subject would get so..."heated." Anyway, I like it went people speak their minds. Thanks for the info about the picture and wi
39 Post contains images Highflyer16 : Please forgive my ignorance, but what is a "winglet"? Is it that little piece of the 747's wing at the tip that comes straight up? Also, if "winglets"
40 Hkgspotter1 : Why is this topic so long ???, A 744 can fly with 0, 1 or two winglets. Lets finish this stupid topic.
41 Post contains images SIA_B777 : Highflyer16 Correct. Why? I don't know the scientific explaination behind this but they save fuel ONLY on long routes. Short route airplanes like the
42 United747-200 : Thanks for calling my topic "stupid". But, as I said, I believe in free speech. Oh, by the way, people saying the topic should end only make it longer
43 Post contains images Baec777 : Why do some aircrafts has Winglets installed on wings like for A320, A330, A340, B744...??? Baec777
44 VC-10 : Hkgspotter1. If you want this topic to end, why post & it put back at the top of the board?
45 Nicolaki : Winglets are designed to reduce the tendency of the high pressure located under the wing to propagate itself to the upper surface of the wing in a per
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...
Take A Look At This KLM 744 posted Tue Mar 11 2003 17:44:48 by Red Panda
Longest Airbridge? Look At This One... posted Thu Jun 29 2006 22:56:44 by DIA
Hey Look At This-Graphical Air Traffic posted Sun Aug 28 2005 00:40:25 by KarlB737
Take A Look At This A320... posted Tue Dec 14 2004 15:19:20 by AC330
Look At This Pic-Why Are There No Overheadbins? posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:12:45 by COEWR2587
Best Biz Seats On A 321: Have A Look At This! posted Sun Jun 8 2003 08:59:11 by Salim
Wilmington (state) Look At This... posted Sun Nov 3 2002 23:10:21 by Big777jet
Look At This Airline Name! posted Sat Oct 26 2002 01:28:10 by Big777jet
Look At This Angle Drifting Take Off Strong Wind posted Sat Oct 19 2002 17:27:15 by Big777jet
Whoa Look At This Time Turn Around Fast! posted Tue Oct 15 2002 03:02:04 by Big777jet