Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Winglets Now On 767 And 777
WOW! I was just reaidng the latest edition of airliners magazine, and the Aviation Partners Boeing add said that they are now available on 767, 777, and 757 (which we already knew!), but thats awsome awsome about the 76 and 77! Any news on what airlines are doing it, and any pix?!!
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9307
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Slow down turbo 
The 767 and 777 winglet package have yet to be launched or even defined. Aviation Partners are simply looking for customers who are interested so they can proceed with design. There are no pictures, but the 777 winglets would likely be as high as 12 feet.
The 757 winglet package, as we know, has already been launched by CO and will be rolled out in 2005....
The 767 and 777 winglet package have yet to be launched or even defined. Aviation Partners are simply looking for customers who are interested so they can proceed with design. There are no pictures, but the 777 winglets would likely be as high as 12 feet.
The 757 winglet package, as we know, has already been launched by CO and will be rolled out in 2005....
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
The winglets that they offer on the 76- & 777's are all wing extensions, rather than winglets, as far as I know. I dont think they are adding the classical 744 or A340 winglets that you see... I was having a lapse of memory for a moment-- they are called RAKED wingtips, rather than Winglets, on the 764 and 773ER.
....they do look cool though
View Large View Medium
Photo © Brian Futterman
View Large View Medium
Photo © Mindscape
-AA777
....they do look cool though
Photo © Brian Futterman
Photo © Mindscape
-AA777
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
this is knd of a stupid question, but what exactly do winglets do? I like em just cuz they look incredible, but what is their real purpose?
-
- longhauler
- Posts: 6488
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Air Canada has just ordered 22 shipsets for the B767-300. After the first is installed, the rest will be installed by Air Canada in Montreal.
Yes, I know that fuel burn is reduced 3.5%, but I am sold on looks alone!
Yes, I know that fuel burn is reduced 3.5%, but I am sold on looks alone!
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Wait, wait, wait.
I thought the raked wingtips were the best option for the 777 and 767 wings? Because Boeing certainly seems to think so... with the 764 and the 777LR families anyway.
What gives?
I thought the raked wingtips were the best option for the 777 and 767 wings? Because Boeing certainly seems to think so... with the 764 and the 777LR families anyway.
What gives?
-
- NWFltAttendant
- Posts: 331
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
AA777....
those are winglets on te 764... and these being offered are also winglets. The style, while differernt from the airbus boomerang and boeing widget, are refered to as raked winglets.
those are winglets on te 764... and these being offered are also winglets. The style, while differernt from the airbus boomerang and boeing widget, are refered to as raked winglets.
Go yakkin !!!!!!
-
- longhauler
- Posts: 6488
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
The pictures we saw from HQ, regarding the winglets on the B767-300s looked like the winglets one can see on the B737NGs, not like the raked winglets on the B76-400s
Just because I stopped arguing, doesn't mean I think you are right. It just means I gave up!
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
I'm just speculating, but I would not expect a horizontal wing extension to provide exactly the same benefits as a more vertical winglet. Granted, the should both improve lift, and I'm sure there is much more technical information available as to their benefits. However, as it was explained to me, the vertical winglets provide lateral stability, which is where most of the fuel burn savings is realized.
Canon junkie - Aviation Nut
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9307
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
The winglets that they offer on the 76- & 777's are all wing extensions, rather than winglets, as far as I know.
The new package that Aviation Partners is toying with are winglets, like the ones on the 737NG.... they would be available for the 763ER and 772ER
this is knd of a stupid question, but what exactly do winglets do? I like em just cuz they look incredible, but what is their real purpose?
They have the effect of adding several feet of wingspan without the weighing the airplane down and taking up gate space. In very abbreviated terms, a larger wing allows for more efficent cruise and has less drag than a smaller wing. This means the engines can cruise at a lower setting and less fuel is burned. Read more about them here-
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Technique.html
However, as it was explained to me, the vertical winglets provide lateral stability, which is where most of the fuel burn savings is realized.
That might be true, but according to Boeing, the raked wingtips are far more structually efficent than winglets. The winglet package for the 772ER would be twice the size of the 772LR wingtip extension!
Also, fly-by-wire aircraft are inherentily more stable at cruise that an manually trimmed aircraft, so extra vertical surface wouldn't have much effect...
[Edited 2004-11-16 01:28:41]
The new package that Aviation Partners is toying with are winglets, like the ones on the 737NG.... they would be available for the 763ER and 772ER
this is knd of a stupid question, but what exactly do winglets do? I like em just cuz they look incredible, but what is their real purpose?
They have the effect of adding several feet of wingspan without the weighing the airplane down and taking up gate space. In very abbreviated terms, a larger wing allows for more efficent cruise and has less drag than a smaller wing. This means the engines can cruise at a lower setting and less fuel is burned. Read more about them here-
http://airtransportbiz.free.fr/Technique.html
However, as it was explained to me, the vertical winglets provide lateral stability, which is where most of the fuel burn savings is realized.
That might be true, but according to Boeing, the raked wingtips are far more structually efficent than winglets. The winglet package for the 772ER would be twice the size of the 772LR wingtip extension!
Also, fly-by-wire aircraft are inherentily more stable at cruise that an manually trimmed aircraft, so extra vertical surface wouldn't have much effect...
[Edited 2004-11-16 01:28:41]
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20478
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
I'm just speculating, but I would not expect a horizontal wing extension to provide exactly the same benefits as a more vertical winglet. Granted, the should both improve lift, and I'm sure there is much more technical information available as to their benefits. However, as it was explained to me, the vertical winglets provide lateral stability, which is where most of the fuel burn savings is realized.
This https://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/98566/ and this https://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/99307/4/ should answer most questions.
And btw, lateral stability has little to do with it.
Raked wingtips are all well and good, but they do increase wingspan, which can be a problem if the aircraft becomes (more) gate restricted.u
This https://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/98566/ and this https://www.airliners.net/discussions/tech_ops/read.main/99307/4/ should answer most questions.
And btw, lateral stability has little to do with it.
Raked wingtips are all well and good, but they do increase wingspan, which can be a problem if the aircraft becomes (more) gate restricted.u
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
The raked theory vs winglets has to do with size and weight (I believe, don't quote me on this). A winglet to support a 777 wing would have to be huge and would change the aerodynamics of the 777 wing dramatically without any significant fuel efficiency.
The raked wingtip gives just enough extra lift and sweep to add that extra performance of the new wings on the 777LR and 764ER. Placing raked winglets on the existing 777 wings would require more lift and sweep, hence they would have to be larger. How they overcome the weight to increase range would be an interesting engineering and physics question....way beyond my level of expertise.
Someone asked what a raked wingtip or a winglet does...it increases the lift of the wing without requiring extra power. Hence, less fuel burn. This makes the aircraft fly farther even with the added weight of the winglets. CO is adding them to the 752 and 753s (plus what they get from ATA) to allow them to fly east coast to any western European city. The extra 400-500 miles in range they would get would allow them to do that. They can then expand into secondary markets where there isn't sufficient traffic to warrant a large aircraft AND downsize aircraft in markets where the traffic tends to be more seasonal without sacrificing their presence in the markets.
Hope this helps...
The raked wingtip gives just enough extra lift and sweep to add that extra performance of the new wings on the 777LR and 764ER. Placing raked winglets on the existing 777 wings would require more lift and sweep, hence they would have to be larger. How they overcome the weight to increase range would be an interesting engineering and physics question....way beyond my level of expertise.
Someone asked what a raked wingtip or a winglet does...it increases the lift of the wing without requiring extra power. Hence, less fuel burn. This makes the aircraft fly farther even with the added weight of the winglets. CO is adding them to the 752 and 753s (plus what they get from ATA) to allow them to fly east coast to any western European city. The extra 400-500 miles in range they would get would allow them to do that. They can then expand into secondary markets where there isn't sufficient traffic to warrant a large aircraft AND downsize aircraft in markets where the traffic tends to be more seasonal without sacrificing their presence in the markets.
Hope this helps...
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Also, fly-by-wire aircraft are inherently more stable at cruise that an manually trimmed aircraft, so extra vertical surface wouldn't have much effect...
A bit of a nit-pick, but fly-by-wire generally aren't more inherently stable, if anything they're less stable. The F-22 is inherently unstable, the software makes it stable.
A bit of a nit-pick, but fly-by-wire generally aren't more inherently stable, if anything they're less stable. The F-22 is inherently unstable, the software makes it stable.
Your bone's got a little machine
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
That's what a 737-style winglet would look like on a t7.... hmmm... dunno if I like it
(If the owner of the picture doesn't like it being edited and posted here, please drop me a line and i'll remove it immediately.)
(If the owner of the picture doesn't like it being edited and posted here, please drop me a line and i'll remove it immediately.)
Why is 10 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
It's horrible, i love the smooth wing of the 777, not a 737 on steriods (Major Steriods if on GE90s.)
Raked wingtips pls!
Raked wingtips pls!
Now you're really flying
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Something tells me the winglet package is not going to be incredibly popular with the 777, first and foremost because it is already the most efficient aerofoil in the world already, and second because raked wingtips seem to be better suited for the 777.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Does anyone know what happened to Aviation Partners' proposal to fit winglets to 747 Classics?
Cheers,
Jeff
Cheers,
Jeff
If something hasn't broken on your helicopter, it's about to.
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
this is knd of a stupid question, but what exactly do winglets do? I like em just cuz they look incredible, but what is their real purpose?
ERJ--
Winglets add thrust to the aircraft. They are like wings acting in the horizontal plane. I could explain the aerodynamics but its kinda hard to explain if you don't know basic aerodynamic principles. Even I would have to sit down and draw a diagram for me to understand it. If you want me to, I will get out my notes and try to put it in words.
But essentially winglet save fuel by adding thrust. Don't think its a huge amount of thrust, but just a little to make the airlines like 'em.
Chris
ERJ--
Winglets add thrust to the aircraft. They are like wings acting in the horizontal plane. I could explain the aerodynamics but its kinda hard to explain if you don't know basic aerodynamic principles. Even I would have to sit down and draw a diagram for me to understand it. If you want me to, I will get out my notes and try to put it in words.
But essentially winglet save fuel by adding thrust. Don't think its a huge amount of thrust, but just a little to make the airlines like 'em.
Chris
Ride Amtrak!
-
- masseybrown
- Posts: 5585
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
erj145lr, if Chris didn't give you enough explanation, go to airpartners.com and their joint site with Boeing - lots of technical answers there.
The 7E7 (at least the artist's conception) appears to have a combination of the raked tip and the canted tip; there must be distinct advantages to each, worth combining.
The 7E7 (at least the artist's conception) appears to have a combination of the raked tip and the canted tip; there must be distinct advantages to each, worth combining.
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Winglets add thrust to the aircraft.
Thrust?
How do winglets add thrust?
They reduce drag, and add area, but I don't understand how they could add thrust.
N
Thrust?
How do winglets add thrust?
They reduce drag, and add area, but I don't understand how they could add thrust.
N
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
I was wondering the same thing - winglets adding thrust just doesn't sound right...
But I guess that the result is the same: same amount of thrust from the engines, less amount of drag equals same amount of drag with more thrust...
Still, I would also have said that they "just" reduce drag and not increase thrust - I always considered the engines to be the only source of thrust...
Or am I wrong?
Regards,
Frank
But I guess that the result is the same: same amount of thrust from the engines, less amount of drag equals same amount of drag with more thrust...
Still, I would also have said that they "just" reduce drag and not increase thrust - I always considered the engines to be the only source of thrust...
Or am I wrong?
Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
-
- corey07850
- Posts: 2335
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Winglets do not add thrust in any shape or form... They are intended to reduce drag, thus increasing fuel efficiency.
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
What's a bit scary is that Saxman66 is a student at UND Aerospace. Just as long as he is flying it, but not designing or repairing it, everyone should be OK. Winglets do add thrust if they have engines in them.
Logan
Logan
"The deeper you go, the higher you fly. The higher you fly, the deeper you go."
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9307
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
A bit of a nit-pick, but fly-by-wire generally aren't more inherently stable, if anything they're less stable. The F-22 is inherently unstable, the software makes it stable.
You can't compare a high-performance fighter to an average commercial airliner The F-22 is unstable because of its radical stealth design, the sharp facets and angles make the aircraft very difficult (probably impossible) to handle without FBW. The software then transforms this into excellent manuverability.
But commercial airliners are are built to be aerodyamically stable. A stable aircraft remains level in-flight, keeping the wings in their most efficent position. An aircraft that pitches and yaws constantly waste fuel, just like a runner who wobbles from side to side waste energy. FBW and autotrim can make minute changes to the control surfaces that would be beyond the pilot's ability to make....
You can't compare a high-performance fighter to an average commercial airliner
The F-22 is unstable because of its radical stealth design, the sharp facets and angles make the aircraft very difficult (probably impossible) to handle without FBW. The software then transforms this into excellent manuverability.
But commercial airliners are are built to be aerodyamically stable. A stable aircraft remains level in-flight, keeping the wings in their most efficent position. An aircraft that pitches and yaws constantly waste fuel, just like a runner who wobbles from side to side waste energy. FBW and autotrim can make minute changes to the control surfaces that would be beyond the pilot's ability to make....
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Question: If winglets significantly help efficiency, why do some airlines still orders winglet-less aircraft?
PPVRA
PPVRA
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
PPVRA: It is my understanding that the reduced drag only realises a fuel savings over longer routes, so the expense of the winglets (and approvals, etc?) is not always worth it for airlines with mostly shorter hauls. That's why longer haul aircraft, such as 744s, all have winglets, while on the 738, which can be used very short to nearly medium-range, winglets are an option.
Logan
[Edited 2004-11-16 23:33:39]
Logan
[Edited 2004-11-16 23:33:39]
"The deeper you go, the higher you fly. The higher you fly, the deeper you go."
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9307
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Question: If winglets significantly help efficiency, why do some airlines still orders winglet-less aircraft?
Several reasons...
The first is cost of purchase, the 737NG winglets cost roughly 1 million dollars to retrofit. It could cost an airline 50 million dollars (more than a single fully loaded 737NG) to retrofit a modest fleet. Granted airlines with large fleets have the most to gain, but it isn't as if winglet-less aircraft are unprofitable. Remember that it takes a 737NG roughly 5 years (depending on airline) to recoup the cost of purchase.
The second is gate space. 737NG opperators FL and AA both have this problem, some of their airports can fit winglet 737s and others can't. It is a bigger hassle to rework an airport terminal than it is to fly with a little more fuel burn....
The third is if the airline can even benefit from the winglets. Most can extract some benefit, but it varies from airline to airline
PPVRA: It is my understanding that the reduced drag only realises a fuel savings over longer routes, so the expense of the winglets (and approvals, etc?) is not always worth it for airlines with mostly shorter hauls
Sometimes yes sometimes no. WN states they will benefit from the winglet package on any flight over 48 minutes, but other airlines require up to an hour or more.
Several reasons...
The first is cost of purchase, the 737NG winglets cost roughly 1 million dollars to retrofit. It could cost an airline 50 million dollars (more than a single fully loaded 737NG) to retrofit a modest fleet. Granted airlines with large fleets have the most to gain, but it isn't as if winglet-less aircraft are unprofitable. Remember that it takes a 737NG roughly 5 years (depending on airline) to recoup the cost of purchase.
The second is gate space. 737NG opperators FL and AA both have this problem, some of their airports can fit winglet 737s and others can't. It is a bigger hassle to rework an airport terminal than it is to fly with a little more fuel burn....
The third is if the airline can even benefit from the winglets. Most can extract some benefit, but it varies from airline to airline
PPVRA: It is my understanding that the reduced drag only realises a fuel savings over longer routes, so the expense of the winglets (and approvals, etc?) is not always worth it for airlines with mostly shorter hauls
Sometimes yes sometimes no. WN states they will benefit from the winglet package on any flight over 48 minutes, but other airlines require up to an hour or more.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
-
- FriendlySkies
- Posts: 3540
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Winglets add thrust to the aircraft.
Close, but no cigar. Winglets add thrust in theory, but only because they reduce drag. By reducing drag, more thust from the ENGINES can be applied to propelling the aircraft instead of fighting the opposite force of drag. There is nothing on a winglet that can produce thrust, as thrust the is the force of super-heated and compressed air being forced out the rear-end of a jet engine. Don't worry, I'll be entering college next year as an aerospace engineering major, so I don't know this for no good reason.
Close, but no cigar. Winglets add thrust in theory, but only because they reduce drag. By reducing drag, more thust from the ENGINES can be applied to propelling the aircraft instead of fighting the opposite force of drag. There is nothing on a winglet that can produce thrust, as thrust the is the force of super-heated and compressed air being forced out the rear-end of a jet engine. Don't worry, I'll be entering college next year as an aerospace engineering major, so I don't know this for no good reason.
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
I am sure that boeing knew what they was doing when they designed the 777 without winglets!
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
The aerofoils of the 777 were designed 14 years ago.
Aviation Partners has 14 years of aerospace science to build on.
N
Aviation Partners has 14 years of aerospace science to build on.
N
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
Can anyone post a picture of an Air Canada B767-300 with Winglets (Of course it'll be a rendering)
-
- DfwRevolution
- Posts: 9307
- Joined:
RE: Winglets Now On 767 And 777
I am sure that boeing knew what they was doing when they designed the 777 without winglets!
Boeing seriously considered winglets on the 772... but decided that adding several more feet of wingspan would have the same effect but with less structural weight. But what Gigneil says is accurate, there is 15 years on which to build on.
The older an aircraft becomes its reliability and performance begin to degrade slightly. Stuff starts wearing down when an aircraft hits ~15 years, and some of the first 777s will be this age very soon. These first 777s also havn't benefitted from some of the improvements that have been made along the line.
Winglets recoup some of the lost performance due to old age, they reduce wear and tear on engines, and bring older 777 variants up to par with newer 777s. They are a very good idea if they turn out to be feasable...
Boeing seriously considered winglets on the 772... but decided that adding several more feet of wingspan would have the same effect but with less structural weight. But what Gigneil says is accurate, there is 15 years on which to build on.
The older an aircraft becomes its reliability and performance begin to degrade slightly. Stuff starts wearing down when an aircraft hits ~15 years, and some of the first 777s will be this age very soon. These first 777s also havn't benefitted from some of the improvements that have been made along the line.
Winglets recoup some of the lost performance due to old age, they reduce wear and tear on engines, and bring older 777 variants up to par with newer 777s. They are a very good idea if they turn out to be feasable...
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: a2b7, ah414211, Airdolomiti, airlinepeanuts, Areopagus, AviatorTravis, Baidu [Spider], bradyj23, dash7co, DirkPV, DLASFlyer, Dupli, EISHN, evank516, FB330, fishbone, georgiabill, Google Adsense [Bot], hOMSaR, ILG2BUR, INFINITI329, jetbluefan1, kaitak, kaneporta1, mhae, Midwestindy, n515cr, N766UA, NG263, NoahV37, NZdsgnr, petertenthije, phxfqtv, planecane, SASViking, seat1a, SEU, Thunderboltdrgn, timberwolf24, tphuang, TrafficCop, Trk1, uadc8contrail, XLA2008, zachary165 and 313 guests