Boeing (NYSE: BA) announced today a new winglet design concept for the 737 MAX. The new Advanced Technology winglet will provide MAX customers with up to an additional 1.5 percent fuel-burn improvement, depending on range, on top of the 10-12 percent improvement already offered on the new-engine variant. (boeing.mediaroom.com) More...
just saw a 737 business jet at McClellan Airfield (Sacramento) with this wing tip set-up... got a couple pictures but, I'm a dinosaur and still shoot 35mm slides - since 1967... who's this Kevin idiot?
Student Pilot that likes to dish out crap, looking at his profile and the comments below.Past that I don't know him but he doesn't seem to have a real good opinion of anything. I'd like to have his type in my right seat for awhile somewhere.lol
Son you ain't qualified to hold that man's puke bag. I guarantee yiu he has more hours in the left seat of bigger iron than you've ever seen. Show some respect for your elders around here or you'll get flamd big-time.
Just FYI: just got back in. All went OK. I won't even have to go out or talk to OKC. No change from last. Doc will do the waiver rec and send it on. Said it ought to rubber stamp. Should know within a week or so.
Crud, did a search and didnt see this posted already. Yish You guys seem to get news quicker than us inside :(. Problem is, I have to be very careful what I post. I need to confirm its in the outside world first. But, then you guys beat me to it.
Kevin shut up! This site is only for the big boys! We dont need your immaturity on this site! Btw, I think you should be banned from this site! Im tired of seeing you give crap to others! Leave us alone! Might I recommend Runscape for your kind? Grow up will you?
looks like the 737 I saw at McClellan Field is departing tonight funny tail number N162WCA looks like too many digits... anyway can look on "track flight" airport mode try KMCC for McClellan Field - old Air Force Base in Sacramento...... won't have pix developed for awhile
I've always wondered why the shapes of the winglets are so very different, take the 747 to the 737-800s, and now the 787 is completely different that this new one.
I was also curious why the 777 series doesn't have them at all?
Boeing can do all of the modifications,retros, and re-dos it wants (and, good for them, I suppose), but it's not going to keep Big Air (and its little-brother- and -cousin-wannabes)from gouging and sucking dry the people who, for whatever the reason, have to fly with/on them, whether frequently (for business) or at will, for fun/pleasure.
A hundred bucks to put a bag in a bin? Screw 'em. Boycott 'em. Form pools and buy (private) airplanes, if you can.
The short of it is that the winglets prevent air flowing over the top of the wing by the tip from escaping out the side of the wing tip. It keeps it trapped and flowing over the wing like it is supposed to.
They came out about 09 with some retrofits for the 767-300ER but they were about 11'tall and looked god awful. They never did go to the 200 ER with them as far as I know. As Alistair says here, they did a different wing or wing tip design on the 777
Can anyone comment on my question about winglets? A southwest pilot told me that one of the advantages of the winglet is that it allows a higher altitude cruising flight. I understand about the fuel consumption advantage, but why would this device allow for a higher optimum altitude? Just curious.
Those winglets are just a gimmick to sell airplanes and appease the tree huggers. They don't tell you the majority of flights are shorter and lower altitude. The winglets cause more drag than improve aerodynamics costing more fuel, less mileage in the long run. I guess they do look pretty though. How many hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars does it cost to be fashionable?
Do you have some wind tunnel data to back up this standpoint? The data I've seen shows a reduction in lift induced drag(which offsets the increase in parasite drag you're talking about) and an increase in payload capacity at all airspeeds and altitudes. In actuality the airplanes with winglets fitted will generally end up burning the same amount of fuel because the airline wants to use the extra payload, and the pilots want to use the extra climb performance... they might not save any fuel, but they might save a little time and make a little bit more money? But regardless of any small potential savings afforded by the winglets, the air traffic procedures and poor energy management by the pilots (using spoilers for descent, for example) eats into those fuel savings anyway.
Well, there is a school of thought going around that they are not all they are chalked up to be; saw a post on here a few weeks ago but can't remember the source,(from avweek I think) but it was saying that the main savings and all weren't reached until around FL350 and that under that was a loss, which was where the majority of flights were. I just really have a hard time with that as most all new equipment coming out has them and older stuff is being retrofitted, and as close as everybody is watching fuel burn/cost these days, there has got to be something there.IMHO
Agreed and there are still many factors involved that are not fully understood. Also as wingscrubber breifly described a lot of the advatages can be nullified depending on factors such as adding more payload or pilot "technique". However the main point I wanted to make to Steve is that the science is there, the math is there and and the proof is there. It's not just an astetic add on to "please" those looking at it. To say something like that about things as complex and as highly engineered as aircraft is ignorant and short sighted. This isn't a cheap little car that some kid put rims on the make it look "cooler".
I retired in 09, just before the age rule change and we never retrofitted our 757. Last year they bought a new 767-200ER, but apparently production only went back to the 300ER for the winglets or they just didn't want them. I know Boeing started with the retrofit there with ANZ in late 09 I think. Seem like they were monstrous.
Yes I would love to see the data to back up your claim here. I'm an aerospace engineer and have spent countless hours in wind tunnels testing wing tip devices, some so complex and advanced that it would make your head explode if you remotely knew how they work. Which judging by your ignorant post here implies that you haven't the foggiest idea. But I could be wrong and if you do actually have some raw data (not analyzed data) to support this claim I would really love to see you prove most of my career wrong.
Yes please show me this data that says this because I'm an aerospace engineer with countless hours in a wind tunnels testing every type of wing device under the sun. Even some so outrageous or complex it would make your head explode. And wing devices that are even remotely successful don't do what you're implying. So if this is true I need to see that data!!
