Comments on: What the F*&^ is a Sharklet? (Hint: It’s Good)

By: Darkwater

Darkwater — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:27:34 +0000

Of course, you could always catch a flight on a CX L-1011 outfitted as 3-4-3 (although I think they only did this on their truly short-leg flights and kept other L-1011s as 2-5-2 for their medium haul flights).

By: aisle walker

aisle walker — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:18:39 +0000

@ Nicholas Barnard: I flew 37's back in the 70's and 80's the roues were often less than 1 hour lax sea being an example of max flight time. Once the -300 and -400 were produced, the a/l started using them on much longer city pairs..

By: Nicholas Barnard

Nicholas Barnard — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 04:35:50 +0000

@ aisle walker: My Point exactly. The A320 and the 737 were initially designed in an era where cross country really meant flying on a wide body, not a narrow body airliner

By: aisle walker

aisle walker — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:07:52 +0000

@ aisle walker: sorry I meant 8 to 9

By: aisle walker

aisle walker — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:02:54 +0000

@ Nicholas Barnard: This a/c was configured so prior to deregulation... wide aisles, wide seats, halfway decent food and staffing and consistent pricing...post deregulation,; cattle car seating ie 9 across vs 10 , loss of staffing and meal services price gouging, ala cart pricing. and massive industry losses and failures.. Thanks a lot!

By: Yo

Yo — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:44:58 +0000

I want canards! Retractable with a retractable front nose, like the TU 144!

Sharklets are cool.

By: Jay

Jay — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:14:13 +0000

But why come up with a new name if they’ve been called wiglets since the begining of time?

Does this have anything to do with the early 787 renderings that made it look like a shark? Maybe to steal some shark-themed heat from Boeing?

HHHMMMMMM……

By: ASFalcon13

ASFalcon13 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:02:04 +0000

Wonko Beeblebrox wrote:

and when is Boeing/Airbus going to put them on the tail wings as well…?

Been there, done that. Shuttle Carrier Aircraft ...ok, I realize that, for the SCA, those are actually auxilliary vertical stabs. Still though, I think they qualify in the "stuff slapped on to the end of an airfoil" category.

By: Greg Thomson

Greg Thomson — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:41:04 +0000

Wonko Beeblebrox wrote:

(and when is Boeing/Airbus going to put them on the tail wings as well…?)

Hope your joking. If so, please excuse my crusty response. The horizontal stabilizer produces negative lift. It still produces induced drag like the wing, but manufacturers try to minimize the lift coming from the horizontal stab to begin with. I can't imagine the complexity it would add to put wingtip airflow control on this surface. But then again, engineers are doing some amazingly complicated stuff now. Got to chat with a former Boeing engineer that said what they are doing with the 787 wing is confusing (he designed airplanes more than 30 years before retiring). The vertical stabilizer's main job is not to produce lift except that when the rudder moves the shape changes and makes lift in the desired direction. Don't think induced drag augmentation would even be sought with this one.

By: Brendan

Brendan — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:27:42 +0000

Don’t forget, it costs a mint to retrofit a plane with blended winglets. The 737 and 757 blendeds that can be added on require a lot of down time for the plane and is a pretty significant mod. Airbus may have taken a survey of their customers and decided that not enough would spring for a retrofit.

Oh, and as for the blended vs angled winglets, the angled ones that you see on, say, a 747, can be removed and still have the plane fly (but with a fuel peanalty for each missing winglet). The blended ones require repair immediately, if I recall correctly.