Sorry if this is a dumb question, but since airbus increased the size of the Sharklets for the standard A359, what happens to operators who've received a few examples with the "old" shorter one like LH and DL. Will their later models get the newer one or will they keep them all the same to standardize their fleet? Can they get the first few delivered models refurbished with the taller ones or is the savings not worth the hassle/cost.

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

gatibosgru wrote:

Will their later models get the newer one or will they keep them all the same to standardize their fleet?

I may be wrong, but I don't think commonality is a huge factor here. You don't replace winglets, unless your plane has hit something, which fortunately doesn't happen often. So I don't see a problem for Delta or anyone else to operate A350 fleets with different winglets.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

Isnt the reason why some have winglets and some raked tips is that one-winglets - lets you have a shorter wingspan? .

The introduction of the new, larger winglet was originally part of the A350-900ULR study which also came with improvements to the wing itself. Without the new wing twist, the bigger winglet is near pointless so older models are better off keeping their original winglet.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

Why do you assume that whatever Boeing does must be better than what Airbus does?

In any case, if you look at the A350 wing tip it appears to be a hybrid between a raked wingtip and a traditional winglet.

trex8 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

Isnt the reason why some have winglets and some raked tips is that one-winglets - lets you have a shorter wingspan? .

The primary reason for winglets is better fuel efficiency. Boeing had to use folding wingtips for the 777X so that it could fit in current gates though.

a330 a340 were first

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

How different is a ranked wingtip vs a winglet anyway? They're both achieving a common goal, regardless if one of them points up.

Well, the fuel savings they got probably wouldn't be enough to offset the amount of money they need to spend on changing the old winglets.

It's not like the new winglets required the pilot to get extra certifications or anything. So it should be fine.

I'm not too sure that I've noticed a difference in wingtips between different A350s, could someone perhaps show the two types for clarity?

gatibosgru wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

How different is a ranked wingtip vs a winglet anyway? They're both achieving a common goal, regardless for if one of them points up.

A raked wingtip adds to the overall length of the wing. A winglet adds a little but does not add much. One is primarily for performance where Gate space is not an issue
the Other is primarily for where Gate space is an issue..

Boeing wings and Airbus wings are quite different, following different philosophies, so there is no reason for their tips to be identical.

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

First relative to what? These aircraft were certainly not the first implementation of wingtip devices.

Aesma wrote:

Boeing wings and Airbus wings are quite different, following different philosophies, so there is no reason for their tips to be identical.

If they were identical, someone would accuse one of copying the other

one cannot simply put a winglet on a plane and boom it saves fuel
it depends on wings' design, body design, engines etc
and plane utilization
look at the B737NG - they can have or not have winglets, and there are different designs, too...

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

Had the A350 had rakes wingtips like 777, its effective wingspan would have been shorter.

The disadvantage of the raked wingtip is that it wastes horizontal span, and so the 64.75m wingspan of the 777 is roughly 59m of actualy wing + 6m raked wingtips.

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

That title goes to the A300/310.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

You mean to say that Boeing decided that raked Wingtips work better for their design with their desired design-point. You had the roles reversed on the 737 & A320. Took Airbus a while to find a winglet design that made sense on that wing at all......

Winglets make the wing shorter for the same aerodynamically effective wingspan compared to raked wingtips. They also don´t produce lift.

So, in terms of lift Winglets are pretty much dead weight, while raked wingtips are not. However, lift way out there at the tips creates a lot of bending moment, leverage is long after all, and that makes the wing itself heavier.

I would think the way Boeing makes their wings lends itself more to making the wing stronger, but have the aero-devices at the tip generate lift, while the "wing building philosophy" Airbus uses seems to work better with "dead-weight" at the wing tip for saving weight across the wing due to reduced load.

I would also think that the A350 is designed for a longer average stage length than the 787. If you go to the tech forum you´ll find a A350 range thread. At long ranges the quite some bigger and heavier frame doesn´t need that much extra fuel compared to the smaller Boeing...

gatibosgru wrote:

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but since airbus increased the size of the Sharklets for the standard A359, what happens to operators who've received a few examples with the "old" shorter one like LH and DL. Will their later models get the newer one or will they keep them all the same to standardize their fleet? Can they get the first few delivered models refurbished with the taller ones or is the savings not worth the hassle/cost.

They can´t. Wingtip devices and wing are a Unit and Airbus had to do some minor changes to the wing, adjust the wing twist, to reap the benefits of the new tips.

best regards
Thomas

The winglet needs to be considered as part of the overall aerodynamic design. The newer A350s have a change to the wing twist and that change included a change to the winglet. Different aircraft have different requirements- it was was worth it for Boeing to fit the raked wingtips to the 777 because it's a long-haul aircraft where the fuel burn tradeoff was worth the potential headaches with the extra span. This is why the P-8 Poseidon has a raked wingtip while the 737NG has blended wingtips- the 'gate space' wasn't an issue for the military, while fuel burn while loitering over the ocean searching for submarines was very important (more for loiter time).

The A350 of course has a very long average segment length, and the wingtip devices are an important part of the wing design. Airbus have designed the wingtip as part of the whole wing, and have improved on the design slightly with the new twist and change of winglet. I don't believe that it leads to a significant improvement, but it does help slightly and so it makes sense for it to be the new production standard. But I would expect that the costs of certifying the new winglets for the old wing twist would be far more than the potential savings.

shamrock350 wrote:

The introduction of the new, larger winglet was originally part of the A350-900ULR study which also came with improvements to the wing itself. Without the new wing twist, the bigger winglet is near pointless so older models are better off keeping their original winglet.

This.

The -900s from MSN 216 and on, share the same wing twist that the -1000 has. The taller winglets are designed to work with that improved wing twist.
Why the -1000 never got the taller winglets remains unknown.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

The A330NEO has raked wingtips in addition to a blended winglet. Look at an aerial view of the aircraft/wings.

workhorse wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Will their later models get the newer one or will they keep them all the same to standardize their fleet?

I may be wrong, but I don't think commonality is a huge factor here. You don't replace winglets, unless your plane has hit something, which fortunately doesn't happen often. So I don't see a problem for Delta or anyone else to operate A350 fleets with different winglets.

You're right. The only commonality impact I see is for flight operations engineering to maintain two sets of performance calculations. The different winglets will (likely) cause slightly different runway weight limits and (definitely) different route fuel calculations.

gatibosgru wrote:

Can they get the first few delivered models refurbished with the taller ones or is the savings not worth the hassle/cost.

The larger winglets are conjoined with the changed wing twist.
you don't ever change that at all after the wing is made with that specific twist.

caoimhin wrote:

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

First relative to what? These aircraft were certainly not the first implementation of wingtip devices.

but before the 737 and 767 implemented they were already deployed or built this way from factory

HIA350 wrote:

caoimhin wrote:

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

First relative to what? These aircraft were certainly not the first implementation of wingtip devices.

but before the 737 and 767 implemented they were already deployed or built this way from factory

The 747-400 predates the A340/A330, as does the MD-11.

RalXWB wrote:

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

That title goes to the A300/310.

you are correct, same manufacturer Airbus thank you for correcting me lmao

Does the -1000 have the new winglets? It doesn't seem like it from pics but I'm not sure

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Boeing wings and Airbus wings are quite different, following different philosophies, so there is no reason for their tips to be identical.

If they were identical, someone would accuse one of copying the other

As was accused - and proven (after a decade of litigation) - with the A320 sharklet vs the Aviation Partners blended winglet.

However, the sharklet used on the A350 and A330 is unique, so no big lawsuits there.

jagraham wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Boeing wings and Airbus wings are quite different, following different philosophies, so there is no reason for their tips to be identical.

If they were identical, someone would accuse one of copying the other

As was accused - and proven (after a decade of litigation) - with the A320 sharklet vs the Aviation Partners blended winglet.

Was it actually proven though?

I thought the courts dismissed the claims and counter-claims of the two and compelled them to arbitration?

TTailedTiger wrote:

The primary reason for winglets is better fuel efficiency. Boeing had to use folding wingtips for the 777X so that it could fit in current gates though.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way is to say if fitting into existing gates was the primary concern they could have accepted lower efficiency and gone without folding wingtips.

However, since efficiency is the primary concern and since CFRP construction (higher strength, lower weight, smoother surface) allows for high aspect ratio wings (longer span with shorter chord), they developed folding wingtips to allow the aircraft to fit in current gates.

Therefore, the primary reason for folding wingtips is better efficiency with the secondary reason of fitting into existing gates.

As mentioned above the winglet reduces airflow turbulence at the wingtip (and thus lowers drag) but does so without contributing to lift. The blended wingtip does both at the same time so it is favored when you can work through the space constraints.

I suspect whatever we see next in an all-new CFRP wing for narrow bodies will also have a folding wingtip.

HIA350 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

That title goes to the A300/310.

you are correct, same manufacturer Airbus thank you for correcting me lmao

He 162 "Henschelohren" 1944. ( might be even earlier testing applications. )

The basic patent is from 1879 or thereabouts.

OA940 wrote:

Does the -1000 have the new winglets? It doesn't seem like it from pics but I'm not sure

No.

WIederling wrote:

The basic patent is from 1879 or thereabouts.

Wow, talk about a manufacturer being WAY ahead of its time... Before the first powered aircraft, muchless jet engine were invented

Obvious mistake, but I had to get that one in there

rjsampson wrote:

WIederling wrote:

The basic patent is from 1879 or thereabouts.

Wow, talk about a manufacturer being WAY ahead of its time... Before the first powered aircraft, muchless jet engine were invented

Obvious mistake, but I had to get that one in there

mangled the number, ups, "1897", look for one "Frederick W. Lanchester"
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... Geschichte

Chaostheory wrote:

jagraham wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

If they were identical, someone would accuse one of copying the other

As was accused - and proven (after a decade of litigation) - with the A320 sharklet vs the Aviation Partners blended winglet.

Was it actually proven though?

I thought the courts dismissed the claims and counter-claims of the two and compelled them to arbitration?

Settled in Aviation Partners favor in 2017. After a lot of filings and refilings. It did take a decade. After Airbus officially collaborated with Aviation Partners for 5 years.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... spute.html

jagraham wrote:

Settled in Aviation Partners favor in 2017. After a lot of filings and refilings. It did take a decade. After Airbus officially collaborated with Aviation Partners for 5 years.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... spute.html

The relevant patent was invalidated years ago.
If money was passed it must have been for other "services".

WIederling wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Settled in Aviation Partners favor in 2017. After a lot of filings and refilings. It did take a decade. After Airbus officially collaborated with Aviation Partners for 5 years.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... spute.html

The relevant patent was invalidated years ago.
If money was passed it must have been for other "services".

The relevant patent was not invalidated in the US. I haven't looked at European litigation.
Money was passed because Airbus copied the Aviation Partners winglet. After signing a non disclosure and working on a partnership under that NDA.

HIA350 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

That title goes to the A300/310.

you are correct, same manufacturer Airbus thank you for correcting me lmao

Try again noobs, first commercial airliner with wingtip devices comes from Tupolev, they first appeared in the Tu-204. Not everything was invented in the West you know.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

HIA350 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

That title goes to the A300/310.

you are correct, same manufacturer Airbus thank you for correcting me lmao

Try again noobs, first commercial airliner with wingtip devices comes from Tupolev, they first appeared in the Tu-204. Not everything was invented in the West you know.

A310-300, A300-600, and 747-400 all predate the Tu-204’s first flight.

Wayfarer515 wrote:

HIA350 wrote:

RalXWB wrote:

That title goes to the A300/310.

you are correct, same manufacturer Airbus thank you for correcting me lmao

Try again noobs, first commercial airliner with wingtip devices comes from Tupolev, they first appeared in the Tu-204. Not everything was invented in the West you know.

Wrong as usual, comrade. Continental operated a DC-10 with winglets in 1981. 727 with winglets were in service in the 1980s too. All predating your 757-ski. viewtopic.php?t=200247

WIederling wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Settled in Aviation Partners favor in 2017. After a lot of filings and refilings. It did take a decade. After Airbus officially collaborated with Aviation Partners for 5 years.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... spute.html

The relevant patent was invalidated years ago.
If money was passed it must have been for other "services".

and again wrong.
AP stood back from patent infringement and instead litigated for getting "services" paid. all around 2012 afair.
pretty long commented articles on Leehamnews, law360.com, ainonline,com and some other sites at the time.

WIederling wrote:

WIederling wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Settled in Aviation Partners favor in 2017. After a lot of filings and refilings. It did take a decade. After Airbus officially collaborated with Aviation Partners for 5 years.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... spute.html

The relevant patent was invalidated years ago.
If money was passed it must have been for other "services".

and again wrong.
AP stood back from patent infringement and instead litigated for getting "services" paid. all around 2012 afair.
pretty long commented articles on Leehamnews, law360.com, ainonline,com and some other sites at the time.

Leeham article is not showing up in search on Leeham website back to 2012. This is the only thing close that shows up and it is too far back in time
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... es-375243/

Links please

WIederling wrote:

WIederling wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Settled in Aviation Partners favor in 2017. After a lot of filings and refilings. It did take a decade. After Airbus officially collaborated with Aviation Partners for 5 years.
https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/new ... spute.html

The relevant patent was invalidated years ago.
If money was passed it must have been for other "services".

and again wrong.
AP stood back from patent infringement and instead litigated for getting "services" paid. all around 2012 afair.
pretty long commented articles on Leehamnews, law360.com, ainonline,com and some other sites at the time.

Leeham article is not showing up in search on Leeham website back to 2012. This is the only thing close that shows up and it is too far back in time
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... es-375243/

Links please

jwjsamster wrote:

I'm not too sure that I've noticed a difference in wingtips between different A350s, could someone perhaps show the two types for clarity?

The old and the new A350 sharklets: https://twitter.com/mpylkko/status/1074565096637108224

HELyes wrote:

The old and the new A350 sharklets: https://twitter.com/mpylkko/status/1074565096637108224

Am I not enough tech or whatever difference there is minimal? I struggle to see differences?!

vahancrazy wrote:

HELyes wrote:

The old and the new A350 sharklets: https://twitter.com/mpylkko/status/1074565096637108224

Am I not enough tech or whatever difference there is minimal? I struggle to see differences?!

The new winglet is slightly larger (taller). In the tweet look at the amount and shape of white space above the Finnair logo and you will see (click each pic separately to see full size). It is a subtle change though, and hard to really notice without comparison shots.

jagraham wrote:

Links please

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publica ... ale=en_EP#
to witt:
Code Expl.: + REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE FIRST REEXAMINATION
FURTHER INFORMATION : CLAIM 1 IS CANCELLED. CLAIMS 2-5 WERE NOT REEXAMINED.

More If I find the time to unearth my link stash from the time ...

WIederling wrote:

jagraham wrote:

Links please

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publica ... ale=en_EP#
to witt:
Code Expl.: + REEXAMINATION CERTIFICATE FIRST REEXAMINATION
FURTHER INFORMATION : CLAIM 1 IS CANCELLED. CLAIMS 2-5 WERE NOT REEXAMINED.

More If I find the time to unearth my link stash from the time ...

Only claim 1 was cancelled. Effect is to specify radius and wing sweep relationships. Whereas claim 1 specified a "curved transition section" which would cover any radius, even radii of millimeters. Minimal damage to the patent; the cancellation of claim 1 while leaving the other claims says that there must be a significant radius that conforms to the formulas in the other claims.

Losing claim 1 while keeping the other claims did not kill the patent by any means.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I think the better question is why Airbus needs winglets at all. Boeing has never need them with the 777 and 787. Did Boeing patent the integrated raked wingtip?

MDC patented the raked wingtips.Boeing got it in the merger.

HIA350 wrote:

a330 a340 were first

Were first what?