Giant winglets on a widget

[ZapBrannigan]

Impressive looking machine at SFO.

 

[derg]

Yes, they're huge!

 

[dasleben]

Got a chance recently to fly a -300ERF with winglets. Impressive fuel burn. Adds what, 11' to the span?

 

[Muff3n]

It is pretty cool seeing 767s with winglets after seeing them for so long without them. Definitely pretty neat looking. Derg, dasleben how noticeable is the difference in fuel efficiency between a winglet vs non winglet version?

 

[dasleben]

I don't recall off hand... We were light a couple nights ago out of SYD, and I recall the total fuel burn dropping below 8k lbs/hr, which struck me as very low for the -300, even at that weight (nothing but empty containers in back). I'll have to check out the cruise performance charts. I'll post back when I get a chance.

 

[derg]

Faster climb, better fuel burn, but they have also added mods like vortex generators underneath the leading edge so it's really part of a larger "package" of mods.

It'll fly 13hrs fully loaded like a BAWSE.

 

[derg]

Look at the flex on a 767-300:

 

[TUCKnTRUCK]

Impressive looking machine at SFO.
View attachment 23638
View attachment 23639

That's either a lot of distortion, or that '6 has seen some better landings

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Learjet window

 

[dasleben]

Look at the flex on a 767-300:

View attachment 23732

That's cool... Can't see that while flying the freighter.

Just looked up some burn numbers, by the way. This compares the -300ERF(WL) to the -300ER (no winglets):

380,000#, FL320 at standard ISA, long range cruise:

-300ERF(WL) two-engine burn: 11,482 lbs/hr.

-300ER (no winglets): 12,354 lbs/hr.

Substantial burn difference... The non-wingletted version is actually above optimum altitude at 380,000# and FL320, as well. The winglet aircraft is right at optimum.

 

[SteveC]

Learjet window

"Which one am I supposed to land on again???"

 

[ShyFlyer]

Look at the flex on a 767-300:

View attachment 23732

So, with winglets, the 76' will do vertical? Cool.

 

[Muff3n]

That's cool... Can't see that while flying the freighter.

Just looked up some burn numbers, by the way. This compares the -300ERF(WL) to the -300ER (no winglets):

380,000#, FL320 at standard ISA, long range cruise:

-300ERF(WL) two-engine burn: 11,482 lbs/hr.

-300ER (no winglets): 12,354 lbs/hr.

Substantial burn difference... The non-wingletted version is actually above optimum altitude at 380,000# and FL320, as well. The winglet aircraft is right at optimum.

Wow! Over 125 a gallons am hour saved. That is pretty dang impressive. I know those things cost millions to install, but I would imagine they would pay for themselves considering on a 10 hour flight you would be saving over 1200 gallons. That is probably at least 4 or 5 thousand dollars worth considering the discounted rate the airlines probably get on fuel.


Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Minuteman]

Look at the flex on a 767-300:

But ... this photo was taken from the commander's side of the airplane?

UPGRAYEDD!

 

[dasleben]

But ... this photo was taken from the commander's side of the airplane?

UPGRAYEDD!

Upgrade to passenger seat?

Can't see the wings from either side of the cockpit!

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Yes, they're huge!

But it's still the 737 of the Atlantic, right?

 

[derg]

Yes. Was referring to the aircraft, not the winglet size.

Unless you're a size queen now!