Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Not Winglets On Every Airplane?  
User currently offlineKCMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 537 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3557 times:

From everthing I read installing a set of winglets on an aircraft cuts down on fuel consumed, time, and is environmentaly friendly. Is it incredibly expensive to install them? Because it seems as if they are saving airlines alot of money. I mean why dont all airlines look into installing them on their 737's or 757's. I understand it doesnt make as big an impact on the shorter flights, but wouldnt it help save $$$ if they were on a 777?


Dustoff
10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Depends, perhaps when the airline ordered the airline the aircrafts, winglets were not available.

When the winglets did become available, maybe the airline can not afford the cost of the winglets.

Maybe the routes that the aircraft is used for, winglets would not make that much of a price savings that would warrant the cost of the winglets.

Who knows, so many different reasons.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

First, winglets only become effective over a long range, so adding them to 'all' aircraft may not be cost productive. Notice.. with Southwest they are only being added to their longer ranged Boeing 737's.

As for the Boeing 777, winglets are not needed due to the design of the wing. It is even more noticiable with the wing on the Boeing 777-300.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

The 767-400 went with raked wingtips, as it they were found to be more aerodynamically efficient than winglets. One of the requirements given to Boeing by DL for the 767-400 was that it would be able to use the same gate space the L-1011s used, and supposedly this design requirement helped to quash winglets for the 764.

User currently offlineOzLAME From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3529 times:

It may just come down to money. Virgin Blue Airlines here leases 737-700s and -800s from all over the place and has about 50 aircraft all up. It has aircraft of both models with winglets fitted and without. From what I've heard the sole reason for whether one of their a/c has winglets or not is whether the original purchaser ordered them one way or the other.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Will Lanting
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Christophe Van Lint



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Thurtell
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Montague Smith


As an aside, I think the -700 with winglets just looks completely wrong; it looks so stumpy from head-on or below.



Monty Python's Flying Circus has nothing to do with aviation, except perhaps for Management personnel.
User currently offlineBoeingATL From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 144 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3521 times:

The 767-400 went with raked wingtips, as it they were found to be more aerodynamically efficient than winglets. One of the requirements given to Boeing by DL for the 767-400 was that it would be able to use the same gate space the L-1011s used, and supposedly this design requirement helped to quash winglets for the 764.

I see that DL uses 21 767-400 and CO uses 16. Who else uses the 764? Was Delta's order enough to dictate the design of the wing?



boeingATL
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Winglets would make sense for Airtran 737s since they generaly fly longer flights. I am still wondering why they haven't installed them yet since Airtran is big on saving costs.

User currently offlineNWADC9 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4892 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3495 times:

Quoting BoeingATL (Reply 5):
Who else uses the 764?

Just DL and CO



Flying an aeroplane with only a single propeller to keep you in the air. Can you imagine that? -Capt. Picard
User currently offlineJustplanesmart From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3478 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 6):
Winglets would make sense for Airtran 737s since they generaly fly longer flights. I am still wondering why they haven't installed them yet since Airtran is big on saving costs.

As I understand it, the increased winspan with the winglets makes the planes too big for some of AirTran's gates at Atlanta.



"So many planes; so little time..."
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

Quote:
As I understand it, the increased winspan with the winglets makes the planes too big for some of AirTran's gates at Atlanta.

What? How small are their gates? The added wingspan to a 737 is not that much.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31568 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 3190 times:

Quoting OzLAME (Reply 4):
think the -700 with winglets just looks completely wrong; it looks so stumpy from head-on or below.

If Adding Winglets,saves money.The Look wont matter  Smile
As said Above,It depends on the Sector operated.Why carry extra weight when the cruising time is less.

regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Not Winglets On Every Airplane?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Not Engines On Top Of The Wings? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 00:21:25 by Keta
Why No Winglets On The 777? posted Sun Sep 12 2004 12:19:58 by Regis
Why No Winglets On The 737-600 posted Sun Sep 28 2003 00:41:25 by Cancidas
Why No Winglets On The 717? posted Mon Oct 14 2002 21:35:26 by BR715-A1-30
Winglets On DC10: Why Not? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 07:53:12 by Bruce
Why Not More (quick) Stops On Longer Flights? posted Sun Jul 16 2006 15:38:25 by Pavlin
Lettering On Wings: Why Not Done Anymore? posted Fri Jul 14 2006 03:52:03 by Airwave
Why Does The Front-wheel Door Not Close On MD-11? posted Fri Apr 21 2006 00:14:33 by Aero145
Why Not Accelerate Wheels On Landing? posted Mon Sep 12 2005 15:35:41 by TaromA380
Why Not Use Goo Tyres On Aircraft posted Tue Feb 1 2005 10:59:27 by Allpress

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format