Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Winglets On Regional Jets?  
User currently offlineUltimateDelta From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2164 posts, RR: 6
Posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11952 times:

I know I might seem a bit slow asking this, plus it's possibly been asked before, but it occured to me: Why do regional jets have winglets? Based on what I have read, winglets provide no significant benefit over short distances like the ones these planes operate. Yet CRJs and ERJ-145XRs have them. Can someone enlighten me here? Thanks in advance.


Midwest Airlines- 1984-2010
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11956 times:

Winglets provide benefits regardless of aircraft size.

In the case of the XR, it's used for longer stage lengths where increased efficiency will help. In the case of the CRJ, it is a stretched Challenger which already incorporated it.



DMI
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 11949 times:

I think it is a combination of factors:
- On RJ terminals, space tends to be at a premium, and the installation of winglets allows a decrease in wingspan.
- Some of the RJ routes are in fact pretty long, running into several hours. The ERJ-145XR is a long range version, which would explain the addition of winglets.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineNZ8800 From New Zealand, joined May 2006, 425 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11829 times:

I've even seen - of all things - a Navajo with Winglets!
The photo is in the database somewhere - Air To There, photographed at Paraparaumu.



MDZWTA ~ Mobile Disaster Zone When Travelling Abroad
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11770 times:



Quoting UltimateDelta (Thread starter):
Why do regional jets have winglets? Based on what I have read, winglets provide no significant benefit over short distances like the ones these planes operate

Good question ad the best answer is probably "fashion", it looks modern(the exact words used by KL for example).
I am told that a 73NG needs at least a 2.5 hour cruise at a minimum altitude of 35.000ft to just play even with the extra fuel burned during take off and climb due to the weight increase.
The smaller the aircraft the bigger the weight impact will be and thus the longer it needs to fly in order to make it profitable.
But it seems that this hype is coming to an end like any other hype in the past.
The latest a/c have only tiny wing lets(a380) or a blended design(787).



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 11765 times:



Quoting Aviopic (Reply 4):
The smaller the aircraft the bigger the weight impact will be and thus the longer it needs to fly in order to make it profitable.

That depends on the size of the winglet in proportion.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 4):
The latest a/c have only tiny wing lets(a380)

They really are not tiny. They are necessary so as not to exceed the 80 meter limit.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 11753 times:



Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
That depends on the size of the winglet in proportion.

True but the weight is not coming from the winglet but mainly from the wing reinforcement.

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
They really are not tiny.

Well all is relative of course.
Compared to 744 etc they are little.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 11647 times:



Quoting NZ8800 (Reply 3):
I've even seen - of all things - a Navajo with Winglets!

It is the Panther mod, it also comes with new engines, props, and some other aerodynamic clean-ups. Expensive, but I am told it really enhances the aircraft.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 11622 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR



Quoting Aviopic (Reply 4):
But it seems that this hype is coming to an end like any other hype in the past.

Two points:

1) The term "hype" implies little or no benefit. As has already been mentioned, winglets provide benefits regardless of aircraft size. And the benefits are not limited to cruise.

2) How does it seem that this "hype" is coming to an end? There have never been more aircraft models available with winglets.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineTyphaerion From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 619 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11562 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Aviopic (Reply 4):
I am told that a 73NG needs at least a 2.5 hour cruise at a minimum altitude of 35.000ft to just play even with the extra fuel burned during take off and climb due to the weight increase.

I dont know where you got this from but this is no where near what I heard. What's your source?

Frankly, if that were the case WN would not mount them at all. There are very few WN flights with a cruise time much over 3 hours. I can think of several, but the vast majority are shorter than that. Which means that if they were losing money each time they took off with those things, plus the initial outlay, they never would have done it. And yet they are still in the process of adding them to their fleet, if they arent already all the way there with their targets.



For some, the sky is the limit. For us, it is only the beginning... -- Jack Hunt
User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 11553 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

It's important to remember that there are more benefits to winglets than just fuel burn at cruise. Well-designed winglets allow for reduced takeoff thrust, which decreases fuel burn and engine wear. Higher initial cruise altitudes can be utilized. Climb gradients can be greater, and takeoff weight can be increased.

In short, you needn't operate solely long-haul flights for the benefits of winglets to justify their cost.

2H4



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17118 posts, RR: 66
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 11512 times:



Quoting 2H4 (Reply 10):
It's important to remember that there are more benefits to winglets than just fuel burn at cruise. Well-designed winglets allow for reduced takeoff thrust, which decreases fuel burn and engine wear. Higher initial cruise altitudes can be utilized. Climb gradients can be greater, and takeoff weight can be increased.

The can also act as noise reduction devices. The 727 winglet mod, for example, allows faster climb, meaning the noise is removed from the ground faster.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25871 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11438 times:

May just be my imagination, but ground collisions seem more frequent involving winglet-equipped aircraft. One recent example a couple of days ago at YYZ from the Transport Canada daily incident website.

Westjet flight WJA645, a Boeing 737-7CT aircraft, was being pushed back from Toronto Terminal 3 gate C25 when the left hand winglet contacted the right hand winglet of Westjet flight WJA208, a Boeing 737-7CT aircraft, being marshalled into the adjacent gate C24. At the time of the incident, each gate was manned by a four person ground crew which included a lead hand, two wing walkers and fourth person for chocking the aircraft and/or disconnecting the tow tractor. All personnel were in their assigned positions when the collision occurred. There were no injuries. The aircraft were removed from service so both winglets could be replaced.


User currently offlinePilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 11397 times:

More aircraft today have winglets. Therefore more collisions will involve winglets.

Another thing to consider is that many new aircraft that are equipped with winglets have designs optimized for the application in the first place so no additional support may be needed compared to a retrofitted design.



DMI
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 14, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 11269 times:



Quoting UltimateDelta (Thread starter):
Based on what I have read, winglets provide no significant benefit over short distances like the ones these planes operate.

They always provide some benefit, and they always have some cost. Where those trades break even depends (strongly) on how the winglet was designed, and when it was designed compared to the airplane.

Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 13):

Another thing to consider is that many new aircraft that are equipped with winglets have designs optimized for the application in the first place so no additional support may be needed compared to a retrofitted design.

This is absolutely key. A wing designed from the outset to have a winglet (i.e. a wing with a span restriction) can fly better than a wing of the same span and loading designed without a winglet. This is quite different than retrofitting, where you're taking a wing designed to work without a winglet and grafting a winglet on to it. In that case, you shift the loading around and you pay a bigger penalty in wing re-inforcement.

Tom.


User currently offlineAndrewC75 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 91 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11150 times:



Quoting NZ8800 (Reply 3):
I've even seen - of all things - a Navajo with Winglets!

You mean like this?

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew E. Cohen



User currently offlineWestJetYQQ From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2987 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11070 times:



Quoting UltimateDelta (Thread starter):
ased on what I have read, winglets provide no significant benefit over short distances like the ones these planes operate.

As mentioned, they provide the same benefits to all aircraft. Not to mention that these regional jets don't only do short flights. Air Canada Jazz flies their CRJ's to Houston and other destinations abroad at times.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 4):
Good question ad the best answer is probably "fashion", it looks modern(the exact words used by KL for example).

That is a very good point at well. The winglets just make any plane look cleaner, sharper, and faster.

Quoting Aviopic (Reply 4):
I am told that a 73NG needs at least a 2.5 hour cruise at a minimum altitude of 35.000ft to just play even with the extra fuel burned during take off and climb due to the weight increase.

Many 73NGs cruise at FL415 even if the cruise there only lasts for 5 minutes. This more than saves the fuel needed to lift the winglets off the ground. Prime example is WestJet flights from here in YQQ to YYC, which is as short as one hour and three minute flight depending on the wind. Many WN flights in the US which are very short would do the same.

Your statistic seems somewhat biased and exaggerated to me.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ivan Kresanek - Contrails Aviation Photography



Cheers
Carson



Will You Try to Change Things? Use the Power that you have, the Power of a Million new Ideas.
User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 803 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11025 times:

I am told that the CRJ/Challenger's runway numbers would take a large penalty were it not for the winglets. The CRJ wing is not really designed for short field takeoffs.

User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1618 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 10967 times:



Quoting ROSWELL41 (Reply 17):
The CRJ wing is not really designed for short field takeoffs.

That's the truth! A fully laden CRJ-200 with a flex thrust take-off will use as much runway as a fully laden 747. Or so it seems.

Anyway, I have read somewhere that there is a 7% penalty on the CRJ if there are no winglets. That said, I doubt they can be removed. On some airplanes they can be, but I have never seen a CRJ without them.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2223 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 10859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

When Bombardier launched the CRJ900 with Enhanced Performance Package (EFP), the winglets were slightly redesigned.

The new winglet has "increased outboard cant", 20% increase in span + 10 inch effective wing tip extension".

"This provides better lift/drag ratio and better airfield performance. The larger winglets also contribute to reduced drag in cruise, resulting in the lower fuel burn (1% lower fuel consumption)."

Source: Bombardier.com, Regional Update / March 2005

So... sounds like the winglets are quite important on the regional jets. They look good with them too  Smile

I know the CRJ1000 wingspan will be 1,33 metres longer, but will the winglets be larger than on the CRJ900?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6101 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 10844 times:



Quoting Saab2000 (Reply 18):
That's the truth! A fully laden CRJ-200 with a flex thrust take-off will use as much runway as a fully laden 747. Or so it seems.

No aircraft is going to perform well when it's at or near it's certified MTOW. Of course, the CRJ is exceptionally slow off the ground at or near MTOW due to its lack of slats.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineSaab2000 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2001, 1618 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10830 times:



Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 20):
No aircraft is going to perform well when it's at or near it's certified MTOW. Of course, the CRJ is exceptionally slow off the ground at or near MTOW due to its lack of slats.

It also has high approach and landing speeds as well as high take-off speeds because of this. All the controllers think that because it's a small airplane it flies slow and uses short runways. But our approach speed at MLW is 146KIAS.



smrtrthnu
User currently offlineROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 803 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 10716 times:

I have a couple of thousand hours of time in the front window seat of the CRJ. The -200 series is definetely not a short field aircraft. The wing is definetely designed to go high and fast. I recall having a B767 Captain in the jumpseat one day and he was astounded at how fast our approach speeds were. They were much higher than his 767 he said.

User currently offlineMrocktor From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1671 posts, RR: 49
Reply 23, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 10497 times:

Winglets are not all optimized for cruise, as some posts here imply. A winglet optimized for high lift coeficient flight phases (takeoff, climb) makes a lot of sense for a plane that flies short sectors and has a hard restriction on wingspan.

User currently offlineEGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 11 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10162 times:



Quoting Aviopic (Reply 6):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 5):
They really are not tiny.

Well all is relative of course.
Compared to 744 etc they are little.

A380 wing tip fences:




7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
25 Starlionblue : Nice pics. Seeing as the 744 ones are 6 ft IIRC these seem a tad larger.
26 EssentialPowr : Poor analysis. Winglets are not a cure all. The 787 does not have them; the pursuit of an elliptical wing is as valid today as it was when the Spitfi
27 2H4 : Any wing can benefit from a reduction in induced drag, whether that reduction comes from an increase in span or from a winglet. A winglet is simply a
28 Tdscanuck : The original message where I posted this stuff got deleted due to quoting another post that was deleted. I'm reposting it here (minus the original quo
29 Mls515 : On the EMB-145XR, the wingspan is actually 3'2" or just shy of 1 meter wider with the winglets than the non-XR versions without them. The winglets lo
30 Greasemonkey : No slats and a super-critical wing will do that.
31 EssentialPowr : Friend, your explanation of a winglet as a "non planar wing extension" is grossly incorrect. So a bent wing offers the same benefits as a longer one,
32 EssentialPowr : Lot of "experts" on this topic; the bottom line is that wing span is always a better substitute, from a pure aerodynamic design standpoint, than wing
33 EssentialPowr : 2H4, I also seem to recall a comment I made about the E145XR being a Newly Constructed RJ with winglets, along with a ventral tank and belly skid....a
34 2H4 : It's not, actually. A winglet is a non-planar span extension. And a properly designed winglet will reduce induced drag and will produce a net reducti
35 EssentialPowr : The point is this. Winglets, blended or not, are not an automatic 3% DOC reduction. A 3% reduction in drag at cruise alt is a figure I agree with for
36 Tinpusher007 : My question about winglets relates to the blended winglets for the 767-300ER. Why did Boeing go with winglets instead of raked wingtips like they did
37 Lowrider : Can't speak to the first two you mentioned but as to the 400D, I would bet the reason is because there are so few of them. How much money is it worth
38 Tinpusher007 : Has more to do with the fact that these were designed for short hauls with lots and lots of pax, not long hauls like the standard 400.
39 Lowrider : Right, but I was refering to the reason there has not been a retrofit introduced for the 400D
40 Viscount724 : The -400D was designed so that the extended wingtips and winglets (the -400D lacks both and thus has the same wingspan as all other 747s) could be ad
41 NorCal : haha no kidding, the only thing that catches us on approach is a 747. The 2.5 degree nose down approach on the -200 scares a lot of jumpseaters too.
42 Tinpusher007 : The 700/900 even with slats still fly slightly nose down all the way into the flare as well which I don't quite understand. It varies from level pitc
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Winglets On Regional Jets?
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 Never Winglets On MD80/90's? posted Mon Oct 6 2008 16:39:05 by Boeingluvr
Why Doesn't Airbus Put Winglets On The A306? posted Sat May 24 2008 18:50:29 by FalconBird
Why No Winglets On The A380 posted Thu Dec 20 2007 12:14:58 by DL767captain
Why Not Winglets On Every Airplane? posted Thu Jun 2 2005 18:24:04 by KCMike
Winglets On DC10: Why Not? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 07:53:12 by Bruce
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
No Winglets On The VC-25A - Why? posted Wed Apr 10 2002 11:52:48 by SK A340
Winglets On The MD-80 posted Mon Aug 11 2008 00:49:20 by L1011CPH

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format