In the 70's Boeing fell asleep and dropped the ball. When Airbus came along with the very technically advanced and engineered A300 followed by the A320, Boeing has had had to play catch up. Boeing uses 50's style structure in their aircraft (787 excluded) and as such haven't been able to do much advancement to their aircraft and thus have to start from scratch again. The B737 only survived because of the new engines that came along.

The result of this catch up between Boeing and Airbus has resulted in a gap, where due to time and technology advancements, one company becomes the leader until the other company catches up and surpasses the other, so we will see this see-sawing effect between the two companies for ever.

With regards to the winglet saga, many of you forget that Airbus couldn't use winglets because of patent rights and like the electronics industry, I think advancements today are being made much more quickly. As regards the new 777, if Boeing go for a clean sheet design they have a lot of new data to incorporate into their design.

I have had the privilege of working on both manufacturers aircraft, starting from the B707 to the 727 - 737 which all used the same fuselage, to the B747 and then going onto the A300 and it was like going from a VW Beetle to a Mercedes S class.

Thanks for the photos and no, I don‘t like them.
I‘m on my break now and had time to google Airbus/America‘s Cup. They partner with Oracle on the design and it‘s the A320 sharklet that gets a new design. So I was wrong about the A350‘s winglets.

Why wasn't this winglet incorporated into the design from the start? The A350 is a relatively young frame...only two and a half years into operations...has there suddenly been a breakthrough in winglet design since the A350 configuration was frozen or was this a design snafu from Toulouse?...

This seems to be just a wingspan extension, not a one-to-one winglet replacement. A bit like what was done on A330NEO (though there it was a new winglet too). I agree it would be surprising to see such fuel savings on such a new design only with a new winglet. But a wingspan extension will increase your L/D ratio, which automatically improves your fuel efficiency - on an A350 or on a 707. All else being equal, aerodynamically as simple as 2+2.

Why hasn't this been done before? Possibly, because after 2 years of service, Airbus has found additional margins in terms of flutter and wing load distribution the they didn't have or were unsure of in the original design. And thus, they can now confidently and safely extend the wingspan within those margins.

How long will this extension be I wonder?

Interesting that the revised sharklets are being tested on a frame without the revised wing twist, as they are scheduled to be delivered with frames benefitting from that change.

It is the combined benefit of the two changes working in a complementary manner that should yield the expected gains.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Interesting that the revised sharklets are being tested on a frame without the revised wing twist, as they are scheduled to be delivered with frames benefitting from that change.

It is the combined benefit of the two changes working in a complementary manner that should yield the expected gains.

The combination will be tested on MSN 216, the first A350-900ULR.

Faro wrote:

Not a bad thing at all of course...I was just wondering how quickly these design innovations can come about...

I guess at one point you have to freeze your design and finish it. (no "gold plating") Then after EIS there is a lot more data availible and refinements can be done. IIRC the first ca 100 frames needed some rework after leaving the FAL, so the design seems to be already a moving target. Also the improvements for the -1000 (CFRP doorframes etc) can be backported to the -900. With all the required certification it's not possible to do all at once..

b.

KarelXWB wrote:

The photo below clearly shows the difference between the current and new winglet:


Sharklets Airbus A350 msn 001 by Jujug Spotting, on Flickr

Thanks Karel. So they appear to be taller, otherwise, still look great.

Faro wrote:

Not a bad thing at all of course...I was just wondering how quickly these design innovations can come about...probably that yacht design shop Airbus bought that provided the critical technology as mentioned by mat66...

Don't forget that people are tweaking and testing and planning and tweaking etc. all the time. If the A350 wingtip design was frozen several years ago (before production, don't forget) you can be sure that computer modelling to refine aero effects has been going on since that design freeze... At some point, the refinement looks to produce enough benefit to make it worth changing the production - and so you get what we see today.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

Faro wrote:

Not a bad thing at all of course...I was just wondering how quickly these design innovations can come about...probably that yacht design shop Airbus bought that provided the critical technology as mentioned by mat66...

Don't forget that people are tweaking and testing and planning and tweaking etc. all the time. If the A350 wingtip design was frozen several years ago (before production, don't forget) you can be sure that computer modelling to refine aero effects has been going on since that design freeze... At some point, the refinement looks to produce enough benefit to make it worth changing the production - and so you get what we see today.

In addition someone said the ultimate strength test of the wing showed some additional leeway - meaning that additional load could be added from the extended winglet without requiring structural changes to the wing. If I remember correctly the A320 wing needed strengthening to accept the winglet.

So when folks complain about Boeing being able to use "grandfather" clauses to continually improve the 737, they are admitting that Boeing continually works to improve their products or it is all about Boeing products not being safe?
Every time folks say the 737 is at the end of its development cycle and cannot be improved on any more they find ways to do so, but yet they as a company do not improve their products over the course of their development cycle.

I just checked the numbers, A350 wingspan is 64.7m, code E is 65m. So, there is really no room for wingspan extension. What is Airbus really planning here?

For reference, A330NEO wingspan was increased to 64m from 60.3m.

par13del wrote:

So when folks complain about Boeing being able to use "grandfather" clauses to continually improve the 737, they are admitting that Boeing continually works to improve their products or it is all about Boeing products not being safe?
Every time folks say the 737 is at the end of its development cycle and cannot be improved on any more they find ways to do so, but yet they as a company do not improve their products over the course of their development cycle.

I don't think that anyone believes that Boeing does not improve it's products. I mean those 737-100's are still produced.

What I do think people are saying is that Airbus has a more incremental approach to it than Boeing. Personally I see many more such incremental upgrade press releases from Airbus than I see from Boeing - and neither company is shy about issues Press Releases!

par13del wrote:

So when folks complain about Boeing being able to use "grandfather" clauses to continually improve the 737, they are admitting that Boeing continually works to improve their products or it is all about Boeing products not being safe?
Every time folks say the 737 is at the end of its development cycle and cannot be improved on any more they find ways to do so, but yet they as a company do not improve their products over the course of their development cycle.

Grandfathering is something else entirely (there was a whole argument on here not long ago - so I hope we don't go there again). Grandfathering is when you are creating a substantially new aircraft (completely new design and/or materials for much of its structure) but manage to tie all the certification to a much older aircraft by describing everything as a modification.

Completely overhauling an ancient design for the nth time such that it just barely resembles the original but still tying it to the original type certificate and therefore not complying with current regulations = grandfathering

Tweaking a wingtip device = peanuts

(BTW. this is not meant as a bash - grandfathering (within reason) has a justifiable place in the industry)

Balerit wrote:

In the 70's Boeing fell asleep and dropped the ball. When Airbus came along with the very technically advanced and engineered A300 followed by the A320, Boeing has had had to play catch up. Boeing uses 50's style structure in their aircraft (787 excluded) and as such haven't been able to do much advancement to their aircraft and thus have to start from scratch again. The B737 only survived because of the new engines that came along.

The result of this catch up between Boeing and Airbus has resulted in a gap, where due to time and technology advancements, one company becomes the leader until the other company catches up and surpasses the other, so we will see this see-sawing effect between the two companies for ever.

With regards to the winglet saga, many of you forget that Airbus couldn't use winglets because of patent rights and like the electronics industry, I think advancements today are being made much more quickly. As regards the new 777, if Boeing go for a clean sheet design they have a lot of new data to incorporate into their design.

I have had the privilege of working on both manufacturers aircraft, starting from the B707 to the 727 - 737 which all used the same fuselage, to the B747 and then going onto the A300 and it was like going from a VW Beetle to a Mercedes S class.

I see where you’re coming from, but the A300 isn’t much of an argument because the 767 did quite a bit more than “play catch-up” to it. It beat it badly.

767333ER wrote:

Balerit wrote:

In the 70's Boeing fell asleep and dropped the ball. When Airbus came along with the very technically advanced and engineered A300 followed by the A320, Boeing has had had to play catch up. Boeing uses 50's style structure in their aircraft (787 excluded) and as such haven't been able to do much advancement to their aircraft and thus have to start from scratch again. The B737 only survived because of the new engines that came along.

The result of this catch up between Boeing and Airbus has resulted in a gap, where due to time and technology advancements, one company becomes the leader until the other company catches up and surpasses the other, so we will see this see-sawing effect between the two companies for ever.

With regards to the winglet saga, many of you forget that Airbus couldn't use winglets because of patent rights and like the electronics industry, I think advancements today are being made much more quickly. As regards the new 777, if Boeing go for a clean sheet design they have a lot of new data to incorporate into their design.

I have had the privilege of working on both manufacturers aircraft, starting from the B707 to the 727 - 737 which all used the same fuselage, to the B747 and then going onto the A300 and it was like going from a VW Beetle to a Mercedes S class.

I see where you’re coming from, but the A300 isn’t much of an argument because the 767 did quite a bit more than “play catch-up” to it. It beat it badly.

In what way did it beat it badly? Just look at Boeing aircraft pre A300 then post A300, Boeing copied everything that Airbus started. The A300 was radically different and paved the way forward so it was easy for Boeing to leapfrog the A300. If you're talking about sales then that gets us into politics and I'm not going there.

par13del wrote:

So when folks complain about Boeing being able to use "grandfather" clauses to continually improve the 737, they are admitting that Boeing continually works to improve their products or it is all about Boeing products not being safe?
Every time folks say the 737 is at the end of its development cycle and cannot be improved on any more they find ways to do so, but yet they as a company do not improve their products over the course of their development cycle.

People complain about grandfathering because it allows Boeing to do 737s that are economically competitive in the 2010s, but preventing them from fitting a new, larger and less noisy nose section or fitting new more user-friendly cabin doors.

AirlineCritic wrote:

Don't think it looks as pretty as the original. And the looks should be what drives development, if I got to choose. I'm a sad a.netter today

I actually feel like the new, bigger sharklets would look great on the A350-1000!

ikolkyo wrote:

I really do wonder why it seems Airbus invest so much more into improving their product line unlike Boeing. Sure they ecoDemonstrator by we have yet to see any of that hit production lines. It seems like they just rely on engine PIPs.

Regardless it will be interesting to see how quick the can get this winglet into production.

I disagree. The 777 saw fast improvements in the first decade and then continued improvements. The 77W was only promised with 7440nm range (with 9 across Y).

Exclusive engines tend to see more PIPs as that is part of the contract; engine vendors write in airplane PIPs as part of the contract whenever they sign up for a PIP...

This is all due to the rule of thumb that a 1% drop in fuel burn extends sales life by a year. With exclusives, both parties really want to see an extension. Normal sales life is 15 years and the clock starts 8 years before EIS... Of course stretches extend sales life. FWIW, shrinks do not extend sales life.

Now with the A333, MTOW increases really helped sales but that is because the centerline tank couldn't be used otherwise, so there is no absolute with a rule of thumb. However, the A350 business case required continual improvements.

For the 787, there are also PIPs. The plane started 6 tons over promise weight (but met efficiency, just not range until a MTOW increase. IIRC, the 787 is now 2 tons under promise (someone here will know). Both the RR and GE engines have been PIP'd (e.g., RR Ten). For aerodynamics, Boeing cleaned up the laminar flow.

I'm sure GE under promised with the 777X engine... They were really agressive in technology added e.g., more turbine clearance systems all of higher precision, variable cycle turbine cooling from the LEAP, fan technology, agressive fuel cooling of the engine instead of fuel wasteful air cooling (started by the GE-90 as who cares if you burn hot fuel, unless you coke...), Advanced low turbine evolved from the LEAp-1A, higher Mach number high compressor (why I think the PW1100 is having issues the LEAP isn't), short combustor from LEAP (less fuel wasting cooling).

What I don't know is if the 777X engine is contra-rotating, an efficiency gain in the PW1100 vs. LEAP but combined with a higher Mach # compressor pushed bearing/shaft/casing/thermal_growth too far for one step IMHO, Pratt will fix, GE has learned from a competitor's mistakes). Basically, bearing speed/seal speed at temperature was too fast for 2010 technology...

So Airbus is doing well, don't underestimate the competition.

Lightsaber

MoKa777 wrote:

I wondered ho long it would take for someone to bring up this 777 upgrade.

The Boeing design is much easier to upgrade. To achieve a steeper winglet angle on the 777X, they just need a firmware update for the folding wingtips.

Think these enhance the look of the A350. Are there plans for a retrofit? Any chance one of these days Airbus or Boeing outfits a plane with the spiroid?

A and B are always going to iterate their designs, maximize their investments.

Here's an even better close-up of the differences between the current and new winglet:


Uploaded by Jujug Spotting‏ https://twitter.com/Frenchpainter/statu ... 6342340608

A first glance, the wing span may be the same, or very slightly less as the new winglet although taller, is more vertical and less curvy.

Tighter curve, more height.

Does this mean current carriers operating the A350 could retro fit tge new sharklets?

EK413

Clipper136 wrote:

A first glance, the wing span may be the same, or very slightly less as the new winglet although taller, is more vertical and less curvy.

The wing span measured linear, has of course not increased, the A350 is with 64.75 m right at the limit of the E size box < 65 m. But what the winglets do, is increasing the aerodynamically active wingspan. I do not know if there is a better word.

Revelation wrote:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/25/airbus-working-new-sharklets-a350/ says:

Airbus is working on further extending the range of the A350-900 and -1000. The company is quietly testing an extended Sharklet, which will extended the aircraft’s wingspan.

... and he even has a pretty picture, click to see it.

And gives some numbers:

Our performance model says the larger Sharklets will increase the A350-900 range with ~100nm and the A350-1000 range with ~140nm, when introduced. Alternatively, the fuel consumption over a mission of 5,000nm will reduce with ~1.4% for the A350-900 and ~1.6% for the A350-1000.

Nice to see A350 get even more range!

This seems like an error to me. If one can really get significant improvements by adding sharklets to a A350, they should have come that way from the beginning. Winglet technology was around when the A350 was designed!

I understand that sharklets can cause reduced performance over short ranges, but I doubt many A350 flights are short ranged. If there are, then sharklets should have been at least an option. But again, I doubt many A350s fly short flights often.

I wonder if the error is Leeham's (no sharklets) or Airbus's (should have had sharklets from the start).

Lots of hogwash on here.

Boeing improve products all the time:

777-200 -> 777IGW/773 -> 77E higher MTOW -> 77L/W launch design -> 77W EIS -> 77W "8000" package.

It's just Boeing likes to name their changes and clump them rather than a more gradual implementation.
All in a span of under 15 years.

I actually think the taller winglets makes the aircraft look quite better! It's not much, but it really must help.

Form follows function.

ikramerica wrote:

Lots of hogwash on here.

Boeing improve products all the time:

777-200 -> 777IGW/773 -> 77E higher MTOW -> 77L/W launch design -> 77W EIS -> 77W "8000" package.

It's just Boeing likes to name their changes and clump them rather than a more gradual implementation.
All in a span of under 15 years.

I'd say the 777 has had 2 (soon to be 3) revisions. 777-200A/ER/300A, 77L/W, and 778/9. Yes, The ER and W did have PIPs to increase performance, but rarely are they as staggering as the increase in performance in the A330 from launch to the current pre-NEO state or even the large increase in the A321, making it a capable transcon aircraft.

Airbus seems to have larger increases within the generation, while Boeing has larger leaps from one generation to the next.

MoKa777 wrote:

I posted the following in this thread


2. How many seats are blocked on this flight?

I think none. SQ has a low density config on its A350 compared to other airlines.

kitplane01 wrote:

This seems like an error to me. If one can really get significant improvements by adding sharklets to a A350, they should have come that way from the beginning. Winglet technology was around when the A350 was designed!

The A350 has had sharklets from day one. This is simply an improved version being tested.

No errors.

scbriml wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This seems like an error to me. If one can really get significant improvements by adding sharklets to a A350, they should have come that way from the beginning. Winglet technology was around when the A350 was designed!

The A350 has had sharklets from day one. This is simply an improved version being tested.

No errors.

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

This is not something like a new generation of engines, where better materials and new design techniques enable new performance. It's not like the 767->787, where carbon fibre allows for a bigger better aspect ratio and improved wing performance. It's that they made the sharklets wrong, and should have done better.

Was there some reason that the sharklets could not have been designed better originally?

From my reading the ability to fit these came from the strength margin found when testing the wings. As such the could add additional load without extra strengthening. Even today with the vast computing power available the ultimate strength of the complex wing structure is difficult to be accurate. Better to have a little high side margin than to fail before 150%

kitplane01 wrote:

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

This is not something like a new generation of engines, where better materials and new design techniques enable new performance. It's not like the 767->787, where carbon fibre allows for a bigger better aspect ratio and improved wing performance. It's that they made the sharklets wrong, and should have done better.

Was there some reason that the sharklets could not have been designed better originally?

From the comments section posted under the Leeman article in question:

We have got a response from Airbus:

– We can confirm that as part of our continuous improvement philosophy, we are undertaking some tests to study a modified wing tip design. This remains a development study at this time and it is too early to report any findings. Everyday testing is a normal part of evaluations.

– EIS feedback, new developments, R&T are all sources for further improvement, even though not all ideas are adopted commercially.

So it seems that Airbus has been continually using data modelling and other techniques to try and find additional efficiencies. This in addition to new data points from EIS has been used to refine their models and this in turn has lead to some improvements over the original wingtips.

That's a good and plausible answer St Tim.However I don't suppose they would have bothered unless there was extreme commercial pressure to do so.After all who (other than a very few at Airbus) would have ever known that the original blended winglets were slightly sub optimal.

Two possible reasons.
One is to extract every possible mile out of the aircraft with its forthcoming LR competitions with the 777x series.
The other is fuel economy versus the lighter (but shorter ranged) 787-10.Obviously the 359 has far greater flexibility of operations (amount carried / range).But does suffer when this is not always required.A good example may be BA's optimised choice of aircraft for their operations.

kitplane01 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This seems like an error to me. If one can really get significant improvements by adding sharklets to a A350, they should have come that way from the beginning. Winglet technology was around when the A350 was designed!

The A350 has had sharklets from day one. This is simply an improved version being tested.

No errors.

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

This is not something like a new generation of engines, where better materials and new design techniques enable new performance. It's not like the 767->787, where carbon fibre allows for a bigger better aspect ratio and improved wing performance. It's that they made the sharklets wrong, and should have done better.

Was there some reason that the sharklets could not have been designed better originally?

So you can not imagine that over 9 years, new design combined with perhaps new modelling software can lead to advancement?

Have a look at the aviation partners original blended winglet for the 757 and now the scimitar one to have another example. There you can also question why they did not do the scimitar version right away.

kitplane01 wrote:

This seems like an error to me. If one can really get significant improvements by adding sharklets to a A350, they should have come that way from the beginning. Winglet technology was around when the A350 was designed!

I understand that sharklets can cause reduced performance over short ranges, but I doubt many A350 flights are short ranged. If there are, then sharklets should have been at least an option. But again, I doubt many A350s fly short flights often.

I wonder if the error is Leeham's (no sharklets) or Airbus's (should have had sharklets from the start).

What Airbus is doing is increasing the size and shape (very slightly) of the sharklets, not adding them or taking them away. Why they do this change, IMO, is because they have found that the wing has additional capability for loads produced by the sharklets and they can therefore be bigger than they were originally. These will most likely be retrofittable as well since the wing structure, form what has been reported, isn't changing.

Comparisons of the original and new sharklets can be found earlier in the thread in pictures posted by Karel.

350helmi

The response Airbus gave Leeham kind of confirms what I guessed.... The winglets are likely not part of the aero improvement on msn216...

mjoelnir wrote:

So you can not imagine that over 9 years, new design combined with perhaps new modelling software can lead to advancement?

Have a look at the aviation partners original blended winglet for the 757 and now the scimitar one to have another example. There you can also question why they did not do the scimitar version right away.

Agreed, plus having lots of operational data and the ability to generate more data quite quickly is a big advantage. Modelling in software and/or with wind tunnels is good, but nothing beats the real thing.

It could be that the original design simply was conservative. They might have believed that bigger would be better, but they didn't have enough data to support the bigger winglets (nor the time/money to gather it), or it wasn't clear if going bigger was a big enough win to justify the additional cost/weight, etc. and they had "bigger fish to fry" so they decided to wait till after EIS to do a full study.

It's interesting to read that this is just a design study and the results may or may not justify the larger winglets.

ap305 wrote:

The response Airbus gave Leeham kind of confirms what I guessed.... The winglets are likely not part of the aero improvement on msn216...

It goes even beyond that, the winglets are likely not part of MSN 216 (the first A350-900ULR) at all as it is just a design study.

Revelation wrote:

It's interesting to read that this is just a design study and the results may or may not justify the larger winglets.

A design study targeted at QF

KarelXWB wrote:

A design study targeted at QF

Interesting thought. Hopefully it all works out.

kitplane01 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

This seems like an error to me. If one can really get significant improvements by adding sharklets to a A350, they should have come that way from the beginning. Winglet technology was around when the A350 was designed!

The A350 has had sharklets from day one. This is simply an improved version being tested.

No errors.

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

This is not something like a new generation of engines, where better materials and new design techniques enable new performance. It's not like the 767->787, where carbon fibre allows for a bigger better aspect ratio and improved wing performance. It's that they made the sharklets wrong, and should have done better.

Was there some reason that the sharklets could not have been designed better originally?

It sounds like you think everything should have been invented and done when it was logical, not when it was done.

You know the wheel got invented 5,000 years ago, right? And luggage has been used for almost as long. Yet nobody put wheels on luggage until about 30 years ago. They should have come up with that 4,000 years ago

mjoelnir wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

scbriml wrote:

The A350 has had sharklets from day one. This is simply an improved version being tested.

No errors.

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

This is not something like a new generation of engines, where better materials and new design techniques enable new performance. It's not like the 767->787, where carbon fibre allows for a bigger better aspect ratio and improved wing performance. It's that they made the sharklets wrong, and should have done better.

Was there some reason that the sharklets could not have been designed better originally?

So you can not imagine that over 9 years, new design combined with perhaps new modelling software can lead to advancement?

Have a look at the aviation partners original blended winglet for the 757 and now the scimitar one to have another example. There you can also question why they did not do the scimitar version right away.

I can image lots of things

That there is a difference between the very first winglets and our current winglets make sense to me. Humanity has learned. Yea.

But that the current A350 sharklets are so far from optimal surprises me. Perhaps StTim is right, and the new development is newfound strength in the wing itself. But Airbus has a very large incentive to get the aerodynamics right, world class experts, and a huge budget. It just makes me wonder what has changed to allow for such an improvement.

parapente wrote:

That's a good and plausible answer St Tim.However I don't suppose they would have bothered unless there was extreme commercial pressure to do so.After all who (other than a very few at Airbus) would have ever known that the original blended winglets were slightly sub optimal.

I wonder if that's true.

My impression is that if you can change the airplane to save fuel, you can charge a higher price for the plane. In particular, if Airbus could change the A350 to use less fuel, they could charge more for A350s. I imagine that Airbus has every economic incentive to optimize the A350.

sharktail wrote:

You know the wheel got invented 5,000 years ago, right? And luggage has been used for almost as long. Yet nobody put wheels on luggage until about 30 years ago. They should have come up with that 4,000 years ago

Yes!

I also have questions about why it took so long to marry chocolate and peanut butter!

kitplane01 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

This is not something like a new generation of engines, where better materials and new design techniques enable new performance. It's not like the 767->787, where carbon fibre allows for a bigger better aspect ratio and improved wing performance. It's that they made the sharklets wrong, and should have done better.

Was there some reason that the sharklets could not have been designed better originally?

So you can not imagine that over 9 years, new design combined with perhaps new modelling software can lead to advancement?

Have a look at the aviation partners original blended winglet for the 757 and now the scimitar one to have another example. There you can also question why they did not do the scimitar version right away.

I can image lots of things

That there is a difference between the very first winglets and our current winglets make sense to me. Humanity has learned. Yea.

But that the current A350 sharklets are so far from optimal surprises me. Perhaps StTim is right, and the new development is newfound strength in the wing itself. But Airbus has a very large incentive to get the aerodynamics right, world class experts, and a huge budget. It just makes me wonder what has changed to allow for such an improvement.

I think you are reading too much into this. Aerodynamic analysis models are not perfect. They are iterative based on assumptions that get refined over time. There is no way to perfectly model airflow over a wing. Wing tips are just about the hardest to model and we see both manufacturers constantly looking for improvements and design changes. Winglets, split similar, wingtip fence, blended wingtip, folding wing. What is next?

Both Boeing and Airbus do aerodynamic improvements over time. The incremental improvements are getting smaller and smaller with time, but they still exist.

At the time the "original" wingtip was probably the best that could be done given money/time/resources.

I see this all the time in my own work (software). You work hard, deliver a good product. Then a few months down the line and a couple of other projects, you go back to the original product and there are always opportunities to improve it.

kitplane01 wrote:

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

Everything changes all the time. There are better computers today then when the 350 was designed.
Airbus now have raw data from the well over 100 aircrafts that are in service.

It is the same as everything else. it is called evolution and it is why you live in a and wearing clothes rarher
living in a cave while only being dressed in bear skin.

kitplane01 wrote:

Then they should have used the improved version from the beginning (I think)!

Aerodynamics have not changed, the technology and materials and computers have not changed. It's weird to me that Airbus left 1.4% more drag on the air frame available for reduction via something as small as sharklets.

It appears you don't understand how aircraft development works.

As I posted upthread, the original A350 sharklet was designed nearly nine years ago. While the physics of aerodynamics hasn't changed, the computing power available to better model them has improved significantly. In addition, Airbus now has in-service data to work with which it didn't have nine years ago.

You might as well ask why didn't Boeing include split scimitar winglets on the 737-100 in 1967?

scbriml wrote:

As I posted upthread, the original A350 sharklet was designed nearly nine years ago.

I suppose the current winglet design is even old than 9 years as Airbus started A350 development in 2006 and finished in 2009.