static wicks & winglets

[RAT 5]

Greetings, I'd always thought static wicks were needed on the extremities. I see B737 NG's, where winglets have been retro-fitted, or factory fitted as original, where there are no wicks on them. Engineering had no explanation. Is it that the material is non-conducting, or some thing else? I've not noticed, but will look, regarding other types.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Off hand I can't think of any Bombardier type - which pretty much all have winglets these days - where the winglet has static dischargers. They are usually found on the outboard end of the wing t/e, not on the winglet.

[galaxy flyer]

MfS

Beg to differ on the business aircraft side--we have 'em on the T/E of the winglets and aileron.

GF

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Only down near the bottom, on the "curvy bit", no? Not on the actual "wingletty" bit. Which might be the key - I think the curved bit is still somwhat built-up in the fashion of wing structure, whereas the "wingletty bit" is more CF?

(I stand corrected. Just saw one near the end of a GEX winglet. Hope we had them on during FT because I never noticed them! :ouch: Knew I should have double checked some pics).

[transducer]

The CRJ-200 has static discharges on the top tip of the winglet which according to the CDL is a no-go item.

[john_tullamarine]

Not on the actual "wingletty" bit.

I get excited when you guys talk all technical like ...

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Well, what would you call it? :)

I really must look more carefully at our winglets - I could have sworn there was nothing on the CRJ winglet.

[GotTheTshirt]

Transducer, The L1011 has static wicks on the trailing edges of the control surfaces. A Lockheed PSC (Service publication) allows you to operate with ANY or ALL removed indefinitely !!:ok:

[kijangnim]

Greetings
the ADF was one of the reason for installing so many static dischargers, may be the removed the ADFs:confused:

[GotTheTshirt]

kijangnim

Hi,
The reason given by Lockheed in the PSC was that Lockheed did their flight test program with and without Static Wicks and there was no difference in interference on any of the radio system ( which included the ADFS):ok:

[Graybeard]

McDouglas worked hard to avoid requiring static wicks, too. They're fragile, and delays to change them are costly.

ADF and HF are the primary victims of P-static, but if it's bad enough, VHF can be affected, too.

I once was confronted with a Sabreliner where the VHF Comm would go away on liftoff. The diverter strips on the radome depended on a secure connection through the underside of the head of a single flat head screw. The mating surface was corroded.

GB

[glhcarl]

The reason given by Lockheed in the PSC was that Lockheed did their flight test program with and without Static Wicks and there was no difference in interference on any of the radio system ( which included the ADFS)http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif


Your correct. However, the L-1011 CDL covered operation with missing "Static Wicks and as the CDL was customer specific there were differences in the number of "Static Wicks" that could be missing. To the best of my knowledge only TWA actually allowed operation with all "Static Wicks" missing.

PSC stands for Product Support Center all corrospondance coming into and going out of the L-1011 customer support was assigned a PSC number.