Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Wing Let On 744 Domestic?  
User currently offlineTsufang@ci From Taiwan, joined Feb 2002, 39 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

i've visit the boeing site to see the information about commercial airplane data
one interesting different between 744 and 744 domestic version that's no wing let on domestic version
why?as i know wing let is to reduce the effect of lift reduction cause by wing span too wide and large then the pressure under the wing large than the pressure on upper surface of the wing and on the most outboard position on the wing produce a down wash force let the lift reduce
and the wing let just like a wall to against this situation occur
so how do u think about no wing let on 744 domestic version?thanks

8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

:bangs head on desk: read the Why no Winglets in 717 thread that was a while back.


At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineB747skipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2590 times:

Dear Tsufang@ci -
xxx
PPGMD did mention it - for the 717, and I remember there had been about the same type of explanations about 747-400D a few months in the past as well...
xxx
The 747-446D (JAL) and 747-481D (ANA) are optimized for typical 90 to 120 minutes-long sectors, so they spend very little time in cruise, which is the only time winglets can be justified for economy...
xxx
I heard (or read) that - in addition, the 400D do not have the extra tank in the tail - and I also learned that if the airplane, at a later time, is used on longer sectors, the winglets can be installed... I think I read something about 2 of ANA's airplanes, retrofitted with winglets to operate on longer sectors.
xxx
Happy contrails  Smile
(s) Skipper


User currently offlineYbacpa From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1108 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2539 times:

Without getting too technical, B747Skipper has it correct- the winglets only improve performance during extended cruise. By removing them they have slightly better takeoff performance.

And yes, this is retrofitable- either the addition of winglets, or, conversly, the removal of winglets to convert the plane to a -400D.

The fuel tank I understand is technically still possible to order with a 400D, but due to the short distances the airlines intend to operate them, this is not justified, and are therefore not ordered. I'm not sure what happens, though, if an airline converts a -400 to a -400D.



SkyTeam: The alliance for third rate airlines finally getting their act together!
User currently offlineCCA From Hong Kong, joined Oct 2002, 795 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

It costs fuel to have the additional weight of winglets but the reduction in drag from the winglet saves fuel, so there is a balance point at which the winglet starts saving fuel over the amount it costs to carry them and this point is about 2 hours into the flight so 400D's flights of less than 2 hours save fuel due to the fact of they aren't paying for the weight of the winglets.
Now I just checked the MEL and a missing winglet causes an increase of 2.5% in fuel burn now that isn't entirely the benefit of the winglet as the end of the wing is a little untidy without the winglet which will cause some drag.

Now the stabilizer is a normal 400 stabilizer except it has none of the plumbing for the fuel tank. As an example on this -400F you can see the two blank plates on the underside of the stabilizer towards the tip on the pick below. Freighters don't usually have the stabilizer fuel option like the 400Ds


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Banyai-Riepl




C152 G115 TB10 CAP10 SR-22 Be76 PA-34 NDN-1T C500 A330-300 A340-300 -600 B747-200F -200SF -400 -400F -400BCF -400ERF -8F
User currently offlineSSTjumbo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2401 times:

I always thought this was why:


Basically, you have two winglets adding significant mass and not providing the aerodynamic benefits to rebuke the negative benefits of the winglets on short range flights, to put it in a nutshell for you. Please refer to the above picture for some sort of analogy Big grin Big grin Big grin.

Cheers
Mike


User currently offlineN503JB From Hong Kong, joined May 2000, 300 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2219 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ryan Chow



This photos I was taken in Kai Tak. What's about the happen like this? Will improve performance or TOW will reduce?

Thanks~!



HKIA Ramp Spotters
User currently offlineBio15 From Colombia, joined Mar 2001, 1089 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

Are winglets a MEL??

User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2381 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2097 times:

Winglet's are an MEL, normally requiring entry on the configuration deviation list.
I would imagine the lack of winglets on a Jumbo at Haneda has saved many a grazed paint job!
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Gindrat



Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Wing Let On 744 Domestic?
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 No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 20:54:17 by QFA380
Fuel Selectors: Why No Both Position On Low Wings? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 22:35:45 by FLY2HMO
Why No Tail Antenna On 707-100B Originals? posted Sun Apr 3 2005 23:26:38 by Thrust
Why No Logo Lights On Most Flights? posted Sun Mar 20 2005 14:40:18 by Skywatch
Why No Upper Wings On Wide-bodies? posted Wed Sep 15 2004 14:17:51 by KLMCedric
Why No Papi On W/B Rwys At LAX? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 06:58:06 by Adipasqu
Why No US. Reg Numbers On Wings? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 16:45:00 by Access-Air
Why No Landings On posted Mon Sep 12 2005 11:29:01 by TheSonntag
Why No "Clarinet Look" On The 787? posted Wed Aug 31 2005 03:19:40 by Zippyjet
Why No V2500 On The A318 posted Sat May 28 2005 13:52:30 by HAWK21M

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format