PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Tech Log (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log-15/)
-   -   Missing winglet (https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/323013-missing-winglet.html)

Spangly 16th April 2008 22:03

Missing winglet
 
Speaking as a curious air traffic controller….a 747-400 departed from Stansted today with one winglet missing (they were aware of it). I was wondering what difference this would make to the flying qualities?

- would there be any noticeable difference in the handling?
- would any of the speeds or procedures change?

I guess there would be some difference in fuel used, but enough to warrant extra being taken on for reserves?

Thanks.

tubby linton 16th April 2008 22:16

It used to be an rtow reduction of almost 20t! on the A330!

Sand Man 17th April 2008 00:07

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but you can fly a 747-400 with one winglet missing but not both, why?
I have also heard that you can buy 747-400's without winglet? Is there a difference in the wing design or am I missing something?

OutOfRunWay 17th April 2008 07:14

747-400 without winglet
 
The short-range 747-400 such as the ones used on japanese domestic routes have no winglets and are also constructed for more cycles.

OORW

Mac74 17th April 2008 16:47

747-400 missing one winglet
 
There is a penalty on performance of almost 10t for take off. And a fuel increase of 2,5%.
But no speed restrictions/differences with a missing winglet.

Mac74

boofhead 17th April 2008 17:25

You would think that if the winglet has some effect on drag, it would be noticeable to the pilot when flying with one removed, ie some evidence of yaw, instability on approach or takeoff etc. But apparently not, and one flight I saw with a missing winglet (London to Singapore) actually burned less than flight-planned fuel. And the MEL allows flight with only one?
Made me wonder if the winglet (at least on the 744) was worth the effort.

XPMorten 17th April 2008 18:14


Someone correct me if I'm wrong but you can fly a 747-400 with one winglet missing but not both, why?
Think the reason you can only fly with one missing is that Boeing
didn't certify it for flying with two missing. Not because it can't,
but because the process is expensive and the chances of two winglets
missing at once is minor.

M

Sand Man 18th April 2008 00:30

Thanks for the answer. I should have realized that it all comes down to money and not actually have anything to do with aircraft safety.

kick the tires 18th April 2008 01:32

Sand man,

what a strange sarcastic reply.

The post above explains so whats the issue??

CV880 18th April 2008 03:08

During flight testing the manufacturer tests the aircraft with every access door, fairing, etc, etc that they figure will be knocked off by accident or fall off due undetected wear and tear or as a result of not being closed or secured properly and puts all the data in the Configuration Deviation List (CDL) which is an appendix to the Flight Manual.
It is very expensive and time consuming to go back and redo a test for some bit that gets knocked off that nobody thought of first time round. It can be done whilst testing a variant of the same model and possibly the data can be read back to previous versions.
The Japanese -400SR's were certified without winglets and are a unique variant of the 747-400.
As someone wrote above Boeing no doubt figured you would only damage one winglet at a time

Spangly 19th April 2008 13:56

Thanks for all the info, useful to know.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.