Boeing 777 and winglets(or lack Of)

Profile picture for user kevinwm

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 1,105

After watching the Emirates 777 at Glasgow ,I was left pondering this thought Why Boeing hasn't fitted wing-lets to the 777,which are standard fit to The 747 400 optional on the 737-800 and are now being tested on Continental 757 ers and looks to appear on the 787
Anyone have thoughts ,

Original post
Profile picture for user skycruiser

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 854

The wing is so good it doesn't need them to reduce drag.

Profile picture for user murph

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 546

The wing is so good it doesn't need them to reduce drag.

Says the Boeing fan :rolleyes: ;). However I would say from an engineer's point of view, the only time you dont want to reduce drag anymore, is when there isn't any!

Profile picture for user kevinwm

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 1,105

The wing is so good it doesn't need them to reduce drag.

so why will the 787 have winglets? this is supossed to have one of the most aerodynamic wings ever built

Kevin

Profile picture for user murph

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 546

It's going to have winglets? I thought it was going to have that random widget bit on it a la 767-400er?

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 12,842

The 777 wing is the most aerodynamically efficient airfoil ever developed for subsonic commercial aviation. In a further refinement of designs introduced on the Boeing 757 and 767, the 777 wing features a long span with increased thickness. This advanced wing enhances the airplane's ability to achieve higher cruise speeds, climb quickly and cruise at higher altitudes than competing airplanes. It also allows the airplane to carry full passenger payloads out of many high-elevation, high-temperature airfields.
Fuel volume requirements for the 777 are accommodated entirely within the wing and its structural center section. Fuel capacity ranges from 31,000 gallons (117,335 L) for the 777-200 to 53,440 gallons (202,287 L) for the 777-200LR Worldliner.
Airlines helping to design the 777 encouraged Boeing to commit to the performance capabilities of an optimum wing, which has a span of 199 feet 11 inches (60.9 m).
Raked 6.5-foot wingtips have being added to the 777-200LR and 777-300ER to improve the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the wing. The raked wingtips help reduce takeoff field length, increase climb performance and reduce fuel burn.

Profile picture for user skycruiser

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 854

The 777 wing is the most aerodynamically efficient airfoil ever developed for subsonic commercial aviation. In a further refinement of designs introduced on the Boeing 757 and 767, the 777 wing features a long span with increased thickness. This advanced wing enhances the airplane's ability to achieve higher cruise speeds, climb quickly and cruise at higher altitudes than competing airplanes. It also allows the airplane to carry full passenger payloads out of many high-elevation, high-temperature airfields.
Fuel volume requirements for the 777 are accommodated entirely within the wing and its structural center section. Fuel capacity ranges from 31,000 gallons (117,335 L) for the 777-200 to 53,440 gallons (202,287 L) for the 777-200LR Worldliner.
Airlines helping to design the 777 encouraged Boeing to commit to the performance capabilities of an optimum wing, which has a span of 199 feet 11 inches (60.9 m).
Raked 6.5-foot wingtips have being added to the 777-200LR and 777-300ER to improve the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the wing. The raked wingtips help reduce takeoff field length, increase climb performance and reduce fuel burn.

Thank you Steve, ;)

as I said Murph, it's so good it doesn't need them. :D no matter who's point of view. ;)

Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 10,160

no matter who's point of view.
LOL! :D Steve's post is a cut and paste from this page of the Boeing website. (6th paragraph, under "Wing Design")

We can hardly take it as an objective and unbiased technical opinon, can we? :diablo:

Come on chaps..... don't blindly trust what anyone's publicity department tells you. :)

Profile picture for user murph

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 546

Raked wingtips, thats the name (not widget).

Boeing's website biased, nah never!

Member for

16 years 7 months

Posts: 12,842

LOL!
We can hardly take it as an objective and unbiased technical opinon, can we? :diablo:
Come on chaps..... don't blindly trust what anyone's publicity department tells you. :)

Legally they can only print something that's factual, if their claims were at all embellished they'd be walking into a legal minefield
Profile picture for user skycruiser

Member for

19 years 11 months

Posts: 854


We can hardly take it as an objective and unbiased technical opinon, can we? :diablo:

Come on chaps..... don't blindly trust what anyone's publicity department tells you. :)

Guys, FACT, They don't need them due to the efficincy of the wing. ;)

Profile picture for user kevinwm

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 1,105

Come on Guys this isn't a bash Boeing thread,all i was looking for was answer
both Skycruiser and steve Have given one ,But the one that Steve has taken from boeing seems to contradict it self

It first says
The 777 wing is the most aerodynamically efficient airfoil ever developed for subsonic commercial aviation. In a further refinement of designs introduced on the Boeing 757 and 767, the 777 wing features a long span with increased thickness. This advanced wing enhances the airplane's ability to achieve higher cruise speeds, climb quickly and cruise at higher altitudes than competing airplanes. It also allows the airplane to carry full passenger payloads out of many high-elevation, high-temperature airfields.

Then goes on to say
Raked 6.5-foot wingtips have being added to the 777-200LR and 777-300ER to improve the overall aerodynamic efficiency of the wing. The raked wingtips help reduce takeoff field length, increase climb performance and reduce fuel burn.

Now if if the first statement is to believed then there would be no overall increase in performance if adding the raked wingtips,but in the next statement it says there is an increase in performance ,so why are the not fitted as standard like on the 747-400, especially as the cost of fuel at the moment seams to be spiraling out of control (Well in the UK it is)

Profile picture for user Grey Area

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 10,160

See what I mean about publicity departments? :diablo:

Member for

14 years 7 months

Posts: 108

Was there some consensus that raked wingtips are better overall for long-haul planes, but winglets better for shorthaul (as is the case with 787-3 and 737NG) winglets? Or was this urban legend?

(Granted the Airbus models don't quite fit in here...)