Long haul 'kiss'
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Third Floor
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone elaborate? Even slightly?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Allovertheplace
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was quite some time back when I crewed a B747-400 minus one winglet. We were surprised there was no fuel penalty required with the applied MEL and don’t recall any additional fuel burn over the flight plan (AKL-SYD). Made us wonder what purpose they served. Not sure if current manuals are any different for the same situation.
Last edited by Streuth; 26th Feb 2018 at 01:18.
This was debated here some time ago and I recall that it is permissible to operate without one winglet but not both. I don't recall ever hearing a satisfactory explanation for this counter-intuitive requirement.
I flew on a All Nippon Airways 747-481D Haneda-Fukuoka (about a two-hour sector) which had no winglets. The story was that on short-haul they made no difference. I'm beginning to wonder whether they make any difference at all on long-haul now.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I fly the B744, the CDL penalty for 1 winglet is 2.5% fuel burn. RTOW has a 9435kg penalty.
In Japan where the B744 was used for domestic ops, the short cruise time meant that the winglets actually increased fuel burn because of their weight.
In Japan where the B744 was used for domestic ops, the short cruise time meant that the winglets actually increased fuel burn because of their weight.
The Japanese domestic B744s were delivered without winglets and initially flown on short sectors. As the number of cycles got to a certain level they were then fitted with winglets and used on long haul flights. The aircraft would get to the end of its service life having used all its hours and cycles so full value for money was obtained.
