Last week I was on an E170. I’m pretty sure it was an older version because the winglet was tall, blended and almost vertical.
Yet I have seen many others (especially United Express) E170’s that have wider winglets that are angled upwards, but FAR from vertical. Definitely adding a little wing length
I asked the pilot “hi, I’m a real aviation enthusiast, and I have a question: what is the difference between these two winglets, the vertical we have and the others that are wider angle outwards?”
Pilot’s response: “it’s a different design”
I’m not 6 years old, I’m a grown man. I said “oh, Gee Whiz, thanks that was helpful!!”
So, I know why winglets do and why they have been added to commercial aircraft, but I don’t know what or why this angled outward version was created? Does it now also provide some lift? Added MTOW? Or something else?
Thanks so much!
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
E170/5 different winglets
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
-
- battlegroup62
- Posts: 58
- Joined:
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Well he's not wrong, but obviously you were hoping for more than that. The enhanced winglet is one step closer to the blended wingtip like say on the 787 and on the E2's. With all the aerodynamic studies that have been done to study wingtip vortices, drag ... we went from no winglets, to multiple designs, and now we are going to blended wingtips. The advances in material science and testing methods have allowed us to continue to lower the drag and vortices which increases efficiency. For instance just changing from the standard to enhanced winglet on an e175 nets about 5% less fuel burn. This is due to how the drag and vortices are dealt with and the increased lift of the winglet. As for weight they are maybe 5-10 pounds heavier than the standard, but planes that have them have other changes as well that save weight.
We have to keep planes airworthy. That doesn't mean they have to fly.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
battlegroup62 wrote:Well he's not wrong, but obviously you were hoping for more than that. The enhanced winglet is one step closer to the blended wingtip like say on the 787 and on the E2's. With all the aerodynamic studies that have been done to study wingtip vortices, drag ... we went from no winglets, to multiple designs, and now we are going to blended wingtips. The advances in material science and testing methods have allowed us to continue to lower the drag and vortices which increases efficiency. For instance just changing from the standard to enhanced winglet on an e175 nets about 5% less fuel burn. This is due to how the drag and vortices are dealt with and the increased lift of the winglet. As for weight they are maybe 5-10 pounds heavier than the standard, but planes that have them have other changes as well that save weight.
No, the pilot was not wrong by saying a different design is a different design! I just thought it was a bit of a brush off or because he actually hiding the fact that he didn’t know. Actually, I left out a part. After I my first response about what seemed like a dismissive remark and said “obviously” I said “well, aside from just being a different design, does the new winglet perhaps add more lift as it does, in a way, make the wing longer, a bit like a raked wingtip similar to a 777-300 or 764?” and his answer was slightly snide again and said “sounds about right, go with that one!”
Thank you for your response! Making more of a comparison to the softer blend of the 787, (maybe even the A350?) seems logical.
While nothing about the design of an aircraft is done for aesthetic reasons and only aero-dynamics, I personally find winglets as an improvement aesthetically, even a 767 or 767, and especially so on the 787, 748 and A350.
The last question I have about winglet design: really, does the extended sharp point added to a “simitar” (sort of the BatPlane look) look make that much of a difference? If so, how vs the previous simple ones? (I seem to see them only on 737’s as well). Again, Thanks
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
VC10er wrote:battlegroup62 wrote:Well he's not wrong, but obviously you were hoping for more than that. The enhanced winglet is one step closer to the blended wingtip like say on the 787 and on the E2's. With all the aerodynamic studies that have been done to study wingtip vortices, drag ... we went from no winglets, to multiple designs, and now we are going to blended wingtips. The advances in material science and testing methods have allowed us to continue to lower the drag and vortices which increases efficiency. For instance just changing from the standard to enhanced winglet on an e175 nets about 5% less fuel burn. This is due to how the drag and vortices are dealt with and the increased lift of the winglet. As for weight they are maybe 5-10 pounds heavier than the standard, but planes that have them have other changes as well that save weight.
No, the pilot was not wrong by saying a different design is a different design! I just thought it was a bit of a brush off or because he actually hiding the fact that he didn’t know. Actually, I left out a part. After I my first response about what seemed like a dismissive remark and said “obviously” I said “well, aside from just being a different design, does the new winglet perhaps add more lift as it does, in a way, make the wing longer, a bit like a raked wingtip similar to a 777-300 or 764?” and his answer was slightly snide again and said “sounds about right, go with that one!”
Thank you for your response! Making more of a comparison to the softer blend of the 787, (maybe even the A350?) seems logical.
While nothing about the design of an aircraft is done for aesthetic reasons and only aero-dynamics, I personally find winglets as an improvement aesthetically, even a 767 or 767, and especially so on the 787, 748 and A350.
The last question I have about winglet design: really, does the extended sharp point added to a “simitar” (sort of the BatPlane look) look make that much of a difference? If so, how vs the previous simple ones? (I seem to see them only on 737’s as well). Again, Thanks
Apologies for the dismissive nature of that pilot. But unfortunately there is a lot of that in the RJ cockpits. He was probably to busy planning his "meow" voice over the guard frequency. The level of professionalism is sinking rapidly in cockpits with the new generation of pilots that do not accept the responsibility that goes with this job is a dedication to the profession.
-
- DiamondFlyer
- Posts: 3442
- Joined:
Re: E170/5 different winglets
mcdu wrote:VC10er wrote:battlegroup62 wrote:Well he's not wrong, but obviously you were hoping for more than that. The enhanced winglet is one step closer to the blended wingtip like say on the 787 and on the E2's. With all the aerodynamic studies that have been done to study wingtip vortices, drag ... we went from no winglets, to multiple designs, and now we are going to blended wingtips. The advances in material science and testing methods have allowed us to continue to lower the drag and vortices which increases efficiency. For instance just changing from the standard to enhanced winglet on an e175 nets about 5% less fuel burn. This is due to how the drag and vortices are dealt with and the increased lift of the winglet. As for weight they are maybe 5-10 pounds heavier than the standard, but planes that have them have other changes as well that save weight.
No, the pilot was not wrong by saying a different design is a different design! I just thought it was a bit of a brush off or because he actually hiding the fact that he didn’t know. Actually, I left out a part. After I my first response about what seemed like a dismissive remark and said “obviously” I said “well, aside from just being a different design, does the new winglet perhaps add more lift as it does, in a way, make the wing longer, a bit like a raked wingtip similar to a 777-300 or 764?” and his answer was slightly snide again and said “sounds about right, go with that one!”
Thank you for your response! Making more of a comparison to the softer blend of the 787, (maybe even the A350?) seems logical.
While nothing about the design of an aircraft is done for aesthetic reasons and only aero-dynamics, I personally find winglets as an improvement aesthetically, even a 767 or 767, and especially so on the 787, 748 and A350.
The last question I have about winglet design: really, does the extended sharp point added to a “simitar” (sort of the BatPlane look) look make that much of a difference? If so, how vs the previous simple ones? (I seem to see them only on 737’s as well). Again, Thanks
Apologies for the dismissive nature of that pilot. But unfortunately there is a lot of that in the RJ cockpits. He was probably to busy planning his "meow" voice over the guard frequency. The level of professionalism is sinking rapidly in cockpits with the new generation of pilots that do not accept the responsibility that goes with this job is a dedication to the profession.
The level of professionalism at the majors who sold out scope to outsource all these jobs should be questioned then too. Because some how, even though we do the same job, we're inferior to a skygod of Delta.
From my cold, dead hands
Re: E170/5 different winglets
VC10er, I agree with the previous replies, the Captain to whom you asked the question probably did not know the answer. But, rather than admit he didn’t know, he gave you a curt, rude reply. I’m sorry; you were entitled to a professional, dignified response, and I agree it may be a result of the attitude of the younger generation of regional pilots in the United States.
DiamondFlyer, I didn’t understand your comment. Nobody is saying you are inferior to anyone else.
e38
DiamondFlyer, I didn’t understand your comment. Nobody is saying you are inferior to anyone else.
e38
Re: E170/5 different winglets
The "enhanced wingtip" as Embraer calls it on the 175 is just a more efficient design. Without getting super detailed, it give the 175, which weighs roughly 3000 pounds more, performance more on par with the 170.
From the pilot's perspective, it adds about 10 feet to the wingspan that you have to be mindful of in tight quarters and descent will need more frequent use of the spoilers because it just made an already efficient wing more efficient.
From the pilot's perspective, it adds about 10 feet to the wingspan that you have to be mindful of in tight quarters and descent will need more frequent use of the spoilers because it just made an already efficient wing more efficient.
DMI
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Thanks to everyone for answering! And even if the difference is minimal, it was big learning for me. For starters I didn’t even know an E170/5 had a very efficient wing! Although I’ve always, since my very first ride on one was so impressed by how gently she made a sharp bank into LGA, with virtually no sound it felt as if we were gliding.
Nor was I aware they were 3000lbs heavier. So now my curiosity has been satisfied, THANKS AGAIN!
As for this pilot, I’d say he was in his late 40’s, maybe 50. When I started with “Hi, I’m a real aviation enthusiast and have a small question...” I got this strange blank look as if I had said “Hi, are you a Trekkie by any chance?” - as if the mere fact that I said I was an aviation enthusiast was a very odd thing to say. He absolutely wasn’t rude, slightly dismissive, and obviously disinterested in answering any questions I had. I thought perhaps I interrupted something important, but I took the opportunity because he was still standing up by the door chatting with the FA, as folks were boarding. So, I didn’t think I was interrupting his job. Had he been sitting down at the controls, I wouldn’t have dared to bother him. (?)
Nor was I aware they were 3000lbs heavier. So now my curiosity has been satisfied, THANKS AGAIN!
As for this pilot, I’d say he was in his late 40’s, maybe 50. When I started with “Hi, I’m a real aviation enthusiast and have a small question...” I got this strange blank look as if I had said “Hi, are you a Trekkie by any chance?” - as if the mere fact that I said I was an aviation enthusiast was a very odd thing to say. He absolutely wasn’t rude, slightly dismissive, and obviously disinterested in answering any questions I had. I thought perhaps I interrupted something important, but I took the opportunity because he was still standing up by the door chatting with the FA, as folks were boarding. So, I didn’t think I was interrupting his job. Had he been sitting down at the controls, I wouldn’t have dared to bother him. (?)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Some pilots are just that way. I think that the mindset is that it can be hard to explain technical things to a non technical person so many pilots avoid that possibility. I have flown many hours In the observers seat and our crews don't really like to talk technical things so much, or so it seems.
Try to make your questions more direct and you might get real answers. I think I understand why you got the "Trekkie" treatment. It was your introduction.
Try to make your questions more direct and you might get real answers. I think I understand why you got the "Trekkie" treatment. It was your introduction.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Quoting stratclub (Reply #9), " It was your introduction."
I think it all depends on the personality of the individual.
Actually, if someone were to come up to me and say, " I’m a real aviation enthusiast and have a small question...", my eyes would light up a little bit because it's rare to have a passenger actually interested enough in aviation to come up and ask a question, then I would invite them into the flight deck and ask them if they would like to have a seat in one of the pilot seats to have a look around. Personally, I think it's great when somebody is interested enough in what we do (pilots) to come up to the flight deck and introduce themselves. It just doesn't happen very often.
Everyone is different; however.
e38
I think it all depends on the personality of the individual.
Actually, if someone were to come up to me and say, " I’m a real aviation enthusiast and have a small question...", my eyes would light up a little bit because it's rare to have a passenger actually interested enough in aviation to come up and ask a question, then I would invite them into the flight deck and ask them if they would like to have a seat in one of the pilot seats to have a look around. Personally, I think it's great when somebody is interested enough in what we do (pilots) to come up to the flight deck and introduce themselves. It just doesn't happen very often.
Everyone is different; however.
e38
Re: E170/5 different winglets
I've been on the 170/175 for three years and counting, sitting on about 2000 hours on type. The 170 is lighter and slightly smaller, the winglets help with fuel burn. The 175 with the enhanced winglets adds roughly 10 feet to the wingspan, and increases lift, and decreases fuel burn. As was stated above the 175 has about 3000 more weight to it as well. As far as why, the enhanced winglet is just a newer design that wasn't examined for whatever reason on the 170 variant.
The largest difference for the crews is during ground maneuvering and landing. I find the 170 significantly easier to land than the 175, due to the smaller wing area. The 170 will also climb faster to higher altitudes, but that is mainly due to the lower weight.
The largest difference for the crews is during ground maneuvering and landing. I find the 170 significantly easier to land than the 175, due to the smaller wing area. The 170 will also climb faster to higher altitudes, but that is mainly due to the lower weight.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
e38 wrote:Quoting stratclub (Reply #9), " It was your introduction."
I think it all depends on the personality of the individual.
Actually, if someone were to come up to me and say, " I’m a real aviation enthusiast and have a small question...", my eyes would light up a little bit because it's rare to have a passenger actually interested enough in aviation to come up and ask a question, then I would invite them into the flight deck and ask them if they would like to have a seat in one of the pilot seats to have a look around. Personally, I think it's great when somebody is interested enough in what we do (pilots) to come up to the flight deck and introduce themselves. It just doesn't happen very often.
Everyone is different; however.
e38
It can be fun explaining aero principles to layman and sometimes not. Courses for horses, I guess. When we go and do remote testing, people will tour the aircraft and we do try to give them a thumb nail view of our instrumentation and what Flight Test does.
Usually, most of it goes over their head. You are right though it's really great when someone understands and is somewhat of an aircraft nut.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Actually I don’t understand why the general population is not more intellectually curious about flying? I don’t think they need to be enthusiasts, but somewhere after the launch of the 747, and after the 767 etc...I presume the miracle of flight is just taken for granted. Today it’s only about price and complaints, and I totally understand how that happened.
But to see a 787 or 747 or A380 take off so effortlessly is a miracle to me every time. And it’s not that it does it once. The fact that any 747 or 767 or A340 I see has been taking off and flying hundreds of people miles over the Earth, lands many thousands of miles away, then comes back (over and over) is the true miracle beyond the wind foil.
When I see a United 772 at Newark, parked at a gate and think “that enormous metal machine has been to a hundred cites, around the world hundreds of times” it just awes me.
But, I do realize that as a child in the 1960’s with my parents and grandparents- I was only really 1 generation away from people who only had ocean liners to visit relatives in the “Old Country”- I was far closer to the advent of regularly scheduled flights to London or Hong Kong.
About 10 years ago or more perhaps, I remember watching Tom Brokaw reporting on the accidental finding of a time capsule buried by nuns at a convent in the 1850’s. Among the letters etc, one nun asked:
“Are there flying machines?” And my whole body got goosebumps!
So, I personally think it’s incumbent on the airlines to explain and celebrate flying and in lay terms in the on board magazine. How lift is created, why wing length or engine power is needed at hot and high airports.
United’s “Big Metal Bird” is a good start, but the dwindling Ch 9 sucks! Perhaps a video option about the plane you’re on “Learn about this 787-9” etc etc would be AWESOME.
But to see a 787 or 747 or A380 take off so effortlessly is a miracle to me every time. And it’s not that it does it once. The fact that any 747 or 767 or A340 I see has been taking off and flying hundreds of people miles over the Earth, lands many thousands of miles away, then comes back (over and over) is the true miracle beyond the wind foil.
When I see a United 772 at Newark, parked at a gate and think “that enormous metal machine has been to a hundred cites, around the world hundreds of times” it just awes me.
But, I do realize that as a child in the 1960’s with my parents and grandparents- I was only really 1 generation away from people who only had ocean liners to visit relatives in the “Old Country”- I was far closer to the advent of regularly scheduled flights to London or Hong Kong.
About 10 years ago or more perhaps, I remember watching Tom Brokaw reporting on the accidental finding of a time capsule buried by nuns at a convent in the 1850’s. Among the letters etc, one nun asked:
“Are there flying machines?” And my whole body got goosebumps!
So, I personally think it’s incumbent on the airlines to explain and celebrate flying and in lay terms in the on board magazine. How lift is created, why wing length or engine power is needed at hot and high airports.
United’s “Big Metal Bird” is a good start, but the dwindling Ch 9 sucks! Perhaps a video option about the plane you’re on “Learn about this 787-9” etc etc would be AWESOME.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Flyer732 wrote:I've been on the 170/175 for three years and counting, sitting on about 2000 hours on type. The 170 is lighter and slightly smaller, the winglets help with fuel burn. The 175 with the enhanced winglets adds roughly 10 feet to the wingspan, and increases lift, and decreases fuel burn. As was stated above the 175 has about 3000 more weight to it as well. As far as why, the enhanced winglet is just a newer design that wasn't examined for whatever reason on the 170 variant.
The largest difference for the crews is during ground maneuvering and landing. I find the 170 significantly easier to land than the 175, due to the smaller wing area. The 170 will also climb faster to higher altitudes, but that is mainly due to the lower weight.
My guess is that the cert costs for the 170 versus the units they could sell didn't make the business case work. Regarding why they did the first version upright and then the diagonal one, my guess is that v1 was more optimized for gate spacing, and when airlines sent them on longer routes, they wanted the efficiency benefits.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
LH707330 wrote:Flyer732 wrote:I've been on the 170/175 for three years and counting, sitting on about 2000 hours on type. The 170 is lighter and slightly smaller, the winglets help with fuel burn. The 175 with the enhanced winglets adds roughly 10 feet to the wingspan, and increases lift, and decreases fuel burn. As was stated above the 175 has about 3000 more weight to it as well. As far as why, the enhanced winglet is just a newer design that wasn't examined for whatever reason on the 170 variant.
The largest difference for the crews is during ground maneuvering and landing. I find the 170 significantly easier to land than the 175, due to the smaller wing area. The 170 will also climb faster to higher altitudes, but that is mainly due to the lower weight.
My guess is that the cert costs for the 170 versus the units they could sell didn't make the business case work. Regarding why they did the first version upright and then the diagonal one, my guess is that v1 was more optimized for gate spacing, and when airlines sent them on longer routes, they wanted the efficiency benefits.
To be fair, there are 175 variants with the straight winglet too. As far as gate space, since the 170/175 doesn't have build in stairs, most of the airports that are served by them, in the US at least, use jetways that can handle 737/A320 and larger so not a huge issue. For example in EWR, I've been waiting for a gate, with a 757 on the gate that we'd be using.
-
- Starlionblue
- Posts: 20381
- Joined:
Re: E170/5 different winglets
VC10er wrote:Actually I don’t understand why the general population is not more intellectually curious about flying? I don’t think they need to be enthusiasts, but somewhere after the launch of the 747, and after the 767 etc...I presume the miracle of flight is just taken for granted. Today it’s only about price and complaints, and I totally understand how that happened.
But to see a 787 or 747 or A380 take off so effortlessly is a miracle to me every time. And it’s not that it does it once. The fact that any 747 or 767 or A340 I see has been taking off and flying hundreds of people miles over the Earth, lands many thousands of miles away, then comes back (over and over) is the true miracle beyond the wind foil.
When I see a United 772 at Newark, parked at a gate and think “that enormous metal machine has been to a hundred cites, around the world hundreds of times” it just awes me.
But, I do realize that as a child in the 1960’s with my parents and grandparents- I was only really 1 generation away from people who only had ocean liners to visit relatives in the “Old Country”- I was far closer to the advent of regularly scheduled flights to London or Hong Kong.
About 10 years ago or more perhaps, I remember watching Tom Brokaw reporting on the accidental finding of a time capsule buried by nuns at a convent in the 1850’s. Among the letters etc, one nun asked:
“Are there flying machines?” And my whole body got goosebumps!
So, I personally think it’s incumbent on the airlines to explain and celebrate flying and in lay terms in the on board magazine. How lift is created, why wing length or engine power is needed at hot and high airports.
United’s “Big Metal Bird” is a good start, but the dwindling Ch 9 sucks! Perhaps a video option about the plane you’re on “Learn about this 787-9” etc etc would be AWESOME.
In my experience, most people are not intellectually curious about much of anything. Furthermore, not all pilots are big aviation enthusiasts. Most are passionate about aviation, but nowhere near the level of your typical plane spotter.
The pilot probably didn't know. Many pilots don't really care. It typically makes no difference to our job what shape the winglets are. Case in point, the A350-1000 has slightly different winglets compared to the -900, but I would never have known this if I hadn't heard one the chief pilots mentioning it. It certainly isn't written in the FCOM because the information is basically trivia to the pilots.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo
Re: E170/5 different winglets
VC10er wrote:No, the pilot was not wrong by saying a different design is a different design! I just thought it was a bit of a brush off or because he actually hiding the fact that he didn’t know. Actually, I left out a part. After I my first response about what seemed like a dismissive remark and said “obviously” I said “well, aside from just being a different design, does the new winglet perhaps add more lift as it does, in a way, make the wing longer, a bit like a raked wingtip similar to a 777-300 or 764?” and his answer was slightly snide again and said “sounds about right, go with that one!”
"I didn't design the damn thing, I just fly it..."
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
Re: E170/5 different winglets
VC10er wrote:Actually I don’t understand why the general population is not more intellectually curious about flying? I don’t think they need to be enthusiasts, but somewhere after the launch of the 747, and after the 767 etc...I presume the miracle of flight is just taken for granted. Today it’s only about price and complaints, and I totally understand how that happened.
But to see a 787 or 747 or A380 take off so effortlessly is a miracle to me every time. And it’s not that it does it once. The fact that any 747 or 767 or A340 I see has been taking off and flying hundreds of people miles over the Earth, lands many thousands of miles away, then comes back (over and over) is the true miracle beyond the wind foil.
When I see a United 772 at Newark, parked at a gate and think “that enormous metal machine has been to a hundred cites, around the world hundreds of times” it just awes me.
But, I do realize that as a child in the 1960’s with my parents and grandparents- I was only really 1 generation away from people who only had ocean liners to visit relatives in the “Old Country”- I was far closer to the advent of regularly scheduled flights to London or Hong Kong.
About 10 years ago or more perhaps, I remember watching Tom Brokaw reporting on the accidental finding of a time capsule buried by nuns at a convent in the 1850’s. Among the letters etc, one nun asked:
“Are there flying machines?” And my whole body got goosebumps!
So, I personally think it’s incumbent on the airlines to explain and celebrate flying and in lay terms in the on board magazine. How lift is created, why wing length or engine power is needed at hot and high airports.
United’s “Big Metal Bird” is a good start, but the dwindling Ch 9 sucks! Perhaps a video option about the plane you’re on “Learn about this 787-9” etc etc would be AWESOME.
As someone in the industry, especially the technical side, I can tell you how easy it is to fall into the entire "pushing tin" and "just focus on my job" thing. But I, like you, appreciate many more aspects of the collective industry. When I have a plane come into a heavy check, I always go out to greet it and cannot help but to think that in all those hours and cycles, all the cities it has flown to, all the customers it has carried to those destinations.
And when one leaves me? I know how hard I worked, the 18 hour days to meet it's ETR, 2am wake-ups with problems, you bet I'm out there to wave to the pilots as they taxi out for departure, and I am out there on the ramp until the wheels are in the wells. I can only imagine the adventures the aircraft will have once it gets home and back into the operation. I appreciate all I do to make a safe and well-maintained aircraft for my crew and customers, and I take pride in it. I, like you, think it is a miracle every time one of these machines (from a C172 to an A388) takes to the sky.
Don't stop asking questions, and if you experience any answer like you did, just know that some folks in our industry sometimes lose sight of the passion that got us into this industry to begin with, but is still alive in people like you and I.
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
Re: E170/5 different winglets
B6JFKH81 wrote:VC10er wrote:Actually I don’t understand why the general population is not more intellectually curious about flying? I don’t think they need to be enthusiasts, but somewhere after the launch of the 747, and after the 767 etc...I presume the miracle of flight is just taken for granted. Today it’s only about price and complaints, and I totally understand how that happened.
But to see a 787 or 747 or A380 take off so effortlessly is a miracle to me every time. And it’s not that it does it once. The fact that any 747 or 767 or A340 I see has been taking off and flying hundreds of people miles over the Earth, lands many thousands of miles away, then comes back (over and over) is the true miracle beyond the wind foil.
When I see a United 772 at Newark, parked at a gate and think “that enormous metal machine has been to a hundred cites, around the world hundreds of times” it just awes me.
But, I do realize that as a child in the 1960’s with my parents and grandparents- I was only really 1 generation away from people who only had ocean liners to visit relatives in the “Old Country”- I was far closer to the advent of regularly scheduled flights to London or Hong Kong.
About 10 years ago or more perhaps, I remember watching Tom Brokaw reporting on the accidental finding of a time capsule buried by nuns at a convent in the 1850’s. Among the letters etc, one nun asked:
“Are there flying machines?” And my whole body got goosebumps!
So, I personally think it’s incumbent on the airlines to explain and celebrate flying and in lay terms in the on board magazine. How lift is created, why wing length or engine power is needed at hot and high airports.
United’s “Big Metal Bird” is a good start, but the dwindling Ch 9 sucks! Perhaps a video option about the plane you’re on “Learn about this 787-9” etc etc would be AWESOME.
As someone in the industry, especially the technical side, I can tell you how easy it is to fall into the entire "pushing tin" and "just focus on my job" thing. But I, like you, appreciate many more aspects of the collective industry. When I have a plane come into a heavy check, I always go out to greet it and cannot help but to think that in all those hours and cycles, all the cities it has flown to, all the customers it has carried to those destinations.
And when one leaves me? I know how hard I worked, the 18 hour days to meet it's ETR, 2am wake-ups with problems, you bet I'm out there to wave to the pilots as they taxi out for departure, and I am out there on the ramp until the wheels are in the wells. I can only imagine the adventures the aircraft will have once it gets home and back into the operation. I appreciate all I do to make a safe and well-maintained aircraft for my crew and customers, and I take pride in it. I, like you, think it is a miracle every time one of these machines (from a C172 to an A388) takes to the sky.
Don't stop asking questions, and if you experience any answer like you did, just know that some folks in our industry sometimes lose sight of the passion that got us into this industry to begin with, but is still alive in people like you and I.
Thanks for working so hard to keep us safe! It is also a miracle to me that EVERYTHING on board a plane in flight (especially on a ULH, that she is 100% self contained and self sufficient, from the engines to the oven from NYC to Hong Kong etc, etc - no matter the model, an Airbus or Boeing. I’ve been obsessed with airplanes since before I could even really speak. My parents told me that when I was in a baby stroller going down 5th Ave, during the era airlines had street level offices and there would be a giant model in the window- that I would start screaming when I saw it and that I didn’t shut up until they wheeled me up to the window to see (most likely a 707) often with a cut away showing the seats and mini people inside.
Today on 5th Ave remains the very LAST sign of an airline ticket office: on 5th Ave and 44th/45th a large wooden over hang above a store front of what looks like the corner section of an Asian/South Pacific building is the remains of a Philippine Airlines ticket location. Up until roughly the 1970’s or 1980 was a giant Philippine’s 747. People inside at their desks and travel posters. I miss them. Most of them held back nothing to re-create the wonders of their country they basically were ambassadors of. I loved OLYMPIC airlines lettering!
Thanks
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Fun fact from the ATC side. The type identifiers for the different winglet types on the E175s have different type identifiers. E75W and E75S respectively. "Wide" and "short".
Peace
Peace
"We've recently upped our standards, so up yours." - Federal Aviation Administration
Re: E170/5 different winglets
Technically speaking, the original E170/175 winglet design helps only in reducing induced drag but does not add wing area. The E175 Plus wingtip design (it is not even called winglet) reduces the induced drag and adds a little bit of wing area. There were other changes in this model, like seals and new performance computations which in the end reduced the cost per seat around 6% versus original design.