A320 Sharklet equipped Aircraft

[alpha69]

Flew as SLF on a BA 320 fitted with sharklets the other day.

What performance benefit do the sharklets give a A320? Do such aircraft have revised performance manuals / performance date in the Flight Management Computer?

[Skornogr4phy]

I have not noticed much in the way of landing or take off performance benefits, but it does give an approximately 2% improvement in fuel economy iirc.

[Denti]

Higher cruise level, better climb rate and therefore better fuel economy. Much more noticeable on the A321 though.

[BAe 146-100]

They land a bit smoother, no huge difference on climb rate or take off performance, have better fuel burn in the cruise.

[Amadis of Gaul]

I find that it floats on landing quite a bit more than the "classics". I also find a sharklet-equipped 321 by far the easiest airplane to land of all the types I've had the pleasure of operating.

[FlightDetent]

From a calculated perfomance standpoint, it is a different aircraft altogether and all of the documention reflects this. It is not wildly different, actually almost similar, but certified and operated with a standalone dataset.

[dartmoorman]

It's all about wing tip vortices which reduce induced drag across the whole wing by affecting actual wing incidence ...

[CONSO]

start here as to claimed/ real advantages disadvantages

Products | Aviation Partners Boeing (http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/products.php)

http://airinsight.com/2012/04/10/winglets-a-triumph-of-marketing-over-reality/

and a bit more of History.

winglets are a specialized version of endplates on wings- and one can argue they have been around for many decades as in gliders and small aircraft in various forms. NASA worked on them for larger aircraft around the 1960's- 70's- 80's at various times.

But AFIK- the real boost for large commerical aircraft came in the late 90's. and started as NOT a performance improvement but as aircraft ' bling '.:cool:

In the 90's- boeing was selling 737's as business jets- and what CEO wanted his 'private' plane to look like a plain old commerical aircraft, especially one that was larger than a cessna citation- learjet, etc..
Meanwhile an older aerodaynamic type at Boeing was working on and ' endplate design" ( winglet) which had promise as performance improvement on 737 size aircraft. Ran into an internal problem re management and infusion of MCD aerotypes who were pushing for a inboard trailing edge ' wedge' used on the DC-10/11 to correctcertain drag issues. And also Boeing was investing bucu $$ for a new 737 wing to get performance improvements. So said aerotype and a few buddies bailed and started their own company. And designed some for small jets, etc.

But then the issue of how to make a 737 Bus jet (BJ ) look a bit dIfferent came into the picture. So a winglet was proposed- IF- it could be shown that there was NO performance hit or safety issues, etc. So a set or two was built and put on a 737 for flight test. Also a wedge inboard trailing edge was tried. etc. The wedge showed little if any improvement, the winglet showed several percent improvement in takeoff- climb- etc. Considering that most aerotypes would sell their grandmothers for a few percent improvement . . . it was decided that for the BJ set- the Bling factor was a winner in addition to a performace improvement. But the commerical types raised all sorts of objections, weight, strength, etc. but after more tests and some tweaks most of the objections were beat down- especially since by then the new 737 wing while an improvement- did not really make as much gains as hoped for- BUT at a major cost.

So A 737 customer ( I think it was a german carrier ) agreed to equip their new 737s with winglets for their short haul routes if NO penalty, etc.

And the rest is history. :ok:

I was fortunate enough to see some comparison performance graphs in the early 2000's and an explanation by one or two older flight test types- now retired or passed away.

Side note-There are floating around a few white papers on the effects of winglets/ scimitars on trailing edge vorticies such that for LARGE Aircraft- the reduction would allow trailing aircraft in landing patterns to be be closer in the pattern, thus getting improved capacity in some airports under some conditions.

*** For those who take the time to read the Airinsight article and ALL the comments- one will find a comment made in 2014 that is VERY similar to my comments above- FWIW - I did NOT copy or paraphrase those comments without attribution :) ***

[underfire]

Side note-There are floating around a few white papers on the effects of winglets/ scimitars on trailing edge vorticies such that for LARGE Aircraft- the reduction would allow trailing aircraft in landing patterns to be be closer in the pattern, thus getting improved capacity in some airports under some conditions.

I am pretty sure that sales point has been proven incorrect.

[mac76]

Ive been flying new airbus 320 and 321 for 8 years i recently switched to old 321 with cfm engines and take off weight of 89,i amazed at the high fuel consumption of this aircraft iused to get 2400 to 2600 kg per hr on iae 321 aircraft ,but with this old ac wih t cfm engines the fuel flow is often at 3100 or even 3200 kg per hr at 84 tonnes at fl 320 or 310 anybody can comment on old 321 with cfm engines as to their fuel flow in teh cruise. i have not flown any 321 with sharklets

[hawk37]

For the same aircraft weight, is it the same Vref for both a sharklet equipped wing versus a non sharklet wing? My thoughts are that slightly lower speeds could be attained with the sharklet.

Hawk

[Metro man]

Got a last minute swap one night from sharklet to non sharklet, which required new flight plans. On a four hour flight the calculated fuel burn was 800kg more.