Folding 777 Wingtips

mham001 · Tue May 22, 2018 9:30 pm

Planesmart wrote:
But for military, any issues, and the flight is cancelled, or another aircraft is quickly substituted. Boeing don't yet have experience with such large folding surfaces, operating commercial cycles, for extended periods at altitude.

What issues do you foresee using "such large folding surfaces, operating commercial cycles, for extended periods at altitude."?

Newbiepilot wrote:
I don’t know where Jayafe is coming from.

It'd be best if he were only 'coming from' Foe lists and the rest of us would never see the noise.

Stitch · Tue May 22, 2018 9:31 pm

Tedd wrote:
[Can you imagine Boeing putting a winglet on the 787.....it would be an act of vandalism!

To be fair, Boeing prefers raked wingtips for their more recent generation of airframes designed for long-distance cruising.

BoeingGuy · Tue May 22, 2018 9:48 pm

Stitch wrote:
Tedd wrote:
[Can you imagine Boeing putting a winglet on the 787.....it would be an act of vandalism!

To be fair, Boeing prefers raked wingtips for their more recent generation of airframes designed for long-distance cruising.

The 787-3 was going to have winglets.

Personally I think the blended winglets look good on the 737, 757 and 767.

Stitch · Tue May 22, 2018 10:01 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
The 787-3 was going to have winglets.

True, but she was not designed for long-distance flying (at least as compared to her 787-8 and 787-9 sisters). :angel:

I have heard that it was the loss of effective span (compared to the -8 and -9) from those blended winglets that evidently hammered her aerodynamics so badly that beyond about 500 km a 787-8 at similar operating weights had better overall trip costs due to lower fuel burn.

Tedd · Tue May 22, 2018 10:17 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
Stitch wrote:
Tedd wrote:
[Can you imagine Boeing putting a winglet on the 787.....it would be an act of vandalism!

To be fair, Boeing prefers raked wingtips for their more recent generation of airframes designed for long-distance cruising.

The 787-3 was going to have winglets.

Personally I think the blended winglets look good on the 737, 757 and 767.

I was on a Ryanair flight last week & when I got off I looked back & compared it to the A320 next to it & I have to
say the Airbus looked more pleasing, it just had small chevrons rather than the winglets that look out of proportion
on the B737-800 IMHO. The B757 looks only okay, but deffo not the 767!

a320fan · Wed May 23, 2018 2:35 am

Tedd wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
Stitch wrote:

To be fair, Boeing prefers raked wingtips for their more recent generation of airframes designed for long-distance cruising.

The 787-3 was going to have winglets.

Personally I think the blended winglets look good on the 737, 757 and 767.

I was on a Ryanair flight last week & when I got off I looked back & compared it to the A320 next to it & I have to
say the Airbus looked more pleasing, it just had small chevrons rather than the winglets that look out of proportion
on the B737-800 IMHO. The B757 looks only okay, but deffo not the 767!

Well these singlet devices are not designed to increase the aesthetics of the airframe, they are there to improve the performance and efficiency. Any aesthetic improvement/degradation are subjective and a matter of personal taste, and irrelevant to their purpose.

Tedd · Wed May 23, 2018 9:17 am

a320fan wrote:
Tedd wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

The 787-3 was going to have winglets.

Personally I think the blended winglets look good on the 737, 757 and 767.

I was on a Ryanair flight last week & when I got off I looked back & compared it to the A320 next to it & I have to
say the Airbus looked more pleasing, it just had small chevrons rather than the winglets that look out of proportion
on the B737-800 IMHO. The B757 looks only okay, but deffo not the 767!

Well these singlet devices are not designed to increase the aesthetics of the airframe, they are there to improve the performance and efficiency. Any aesthetic improvement/degradation are subjective and a matter of personal taste, and irrelevant to their purpose.

You are of course correct in all you point out. If it was found that a forty foot square cardboard box supper-glued to the top of the
airframe saved a few hundred thousand dollars a year in fuel it would be taken up by all the airlines, we all know that. Since most
of the winglets in use spoil the lines of an aircraft save for the A350 perhaps., my argument was the folding tips in use at the gate
on the B777x ( ridiculous argument I know ) will do nothing for its looks. It`s all down to "personal taste" in the end, & I can`t discount
that I could be horribly aesthetically challenged too.........athough I did think Concorde was particularly good-looking

O530CarrisPT · Thu May 31, 2018 2:18 pm

Jayafe wrote:
a320fan wrote:
People are overcomplicating this system, it's pretty much just the aerodynamically shaped raked wingtip that folds up. There are no flight controls or fuel systems in this part of the wing, just wiring for wing tip lights and maybe anti-ice ducts.

Maybe? I think you are oversimplifying the system without a clue of what’s in that part of the aircraft and could affect. This a security and operational unacceptable risk, that a manufacturer is trying to put on airports and airlines staff shoulders just to save money in the design board.

Jayafe, your frequent trolling of what everything Boeing does bothers me.

I think people are overcomplicating a thing which will be simpler than the original 777-200 folding wing (which had much more complex systems like fuel system, flaps and slats - while the 777X folding wingtip has only the wiring for the electrical systems like the wingtip lights as a320fan said). And Boeing is already adding levels of protection to prevent major problems from happening. So, no one is oversimplifying nothing.

FriscoHeavy · Thu May 31, 2018 2:56 pm

O530CarrisPT wrote:
Jayafe wrote:
a320fan wrote:
People are overcomplicating this system, it's pretty much just the aerodynamically shaped raked wingtip that folds up. There are no flight controls or fuel systems in this part of the wing, just wiring for wing tip lights and maybe anti-ice ducts.

Maybe? I think you are oversimplifying the system without a clue of what’s in that part of the aircraft and could affect. This a security and operational unacceptable risk, that a manufacturer is trying to put on airports and airlines staff shoulders just to save money in the design board.

Jayafe, your frequent trolling of what everything Boeing does bothers me.

I think people are overcomplicating a thing which will be simpler than the original 777-200 folding wing (which had much more complex systems like fuel system, flaps and slats - while the 777X folding wingtip has only the wiring for the electrical systems like the wingtip lights as a320fan said). And Boeing is already adding levels of protection to prevent major problems from happening. So, no one is oversimplifying nothing.

Very well stated. Jayafe is quite annoying with his Anti-Boeing rhetoric all the time. Doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

lightsaber · Thu May 31, 2018 4:04 pm

Wow, look how beefy the hinge is!
Look how little folds.

I honestly cannot understand the worry. I personally believe all future aircraft must have this feature to be competitive.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/361334/faa-a ... tips?amp=1

flyabr · Thu May 31, 2018 4:46 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Look how little folds.

It's amazing that such a small additional sfc area is gonna make that much difference in efficiency! :-)

lightsaber · Thu May 31, 2018 6:58 pm

flyabr wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Look how little folds.

It's amazing that such a small additional sfc area is gonna make that much difference in efficiency!

Modern underside laminar flow is very sensitive to effective aspect ratio. By this I mean stall as well as drag characteristics. The part of the hinge sticking down helps the stall characteristics. It is a few pervent. Over 5500+nm, that impacts payload and economics.

Lightsaber

Elshad · Thu May 31, 2018 7:22 pm

I am not a fan of the folding wingtips on the 777X. I really hate them. So much so that I created this account just to post this.

PW100 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:10 pm

Must have been asked before but the fading grey cells do not remember . . .
Do we have any idea on the weight penalty? And if it's optional? If so, would Boeing charge a premium?

ikolkyo · Sat Jun 02, 2018 10:33 pm

PW100 wrote:
Must have been asked before but the fading grey cells do not remember . . .
Do we have any idea on the weight penalty? And if it's optional? If so, would Boeing charge a premium?

What is optional? The folding tips? No it is apart of the wing design. I also thought I read that the penalty was 800lbs.

Stitch · Sat Jun 02, 2018 11:27 pm

PW100 wrote:
Must have been asked before but the fading grey cells do not remember . . . Do we have any idea on the weight penalty? And if it's optional? If so, would Boeing charge a premium?

As noted, folding wingtips are standard. Daniel Tsang at Aspire Aviation noted the weight of the wingtips will be 800 pounds (363kg) compared to the 3200 pounds (1400kg) of the original 777-200 wingtip design.

Strato2 · Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:10 am

Stitch wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Must have been asked before but the fading grey cells do not remember . . . Do we have any idea on the weight penalty? And if it's optional? If so, would Boeing charge a premium?

As noted, folding wingtips are standard. Daniel Tsang at Aspire Aviation noted the weight of the wingtips will be 800 pounds (363kg) compared to the 3200 pounds (1400kg) of the original 777-200 wingtip design.

That doesn't answer the question. How much *penalty* is there from adding this flippy-floppy wingtips compared to the regular rigid wing of the same span. Nobody cares what the fantasy wingtips would have weight in 1995.

PlanesNTrains · Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:12 am

Strato2 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Must have been asked before but the fading grey cells do not remember . . . Do we have any idea on the weight penalty? And if it's optional? If so, would Boeing charge a premium?

As noted, folding wingtips are standard. Daniel Tsang at Aspire Aviation noted the weight of the wingtips will be 800 pounds (363kg) compared to the 3200 pounds (1400kg) of the original 777-200 wingtip design.

That doesn't answer the question. How much *penalty* is there from adding this flippy-floppy wingtips compared to the regular rigid wing of the same span. Nobody cares what the fantasy wingtips would have weight in 1995.

You know Boeing is onto something when the same people lose their s**t over it.

lightsaber · Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:17 am

Strato2 wrote:
Stitch wrote:
PW100 wrote:
Must have been asked before but the fading grey cells do not remember . . . Do we have any idea on the weight penalty? And if it's optional? If so, would Boeing charge a premium?

As noted, folding wingtips are standard. Daniel Tsang at Aspire Aviation noted the weight of the wingtips will be 800 pounds (363kg) compared to the 3200 pounds (1400kg) of the original 777-200 wingtip design.

That doesn't answer the question. How much *penalty* is there from adding this flippy-floppy wingtips compared to the regular rigid wing of the same span. Nobody cares what the fantasy wingtips would have weight in 1995.

It is a good 240lb penalty or so. About 300kg lost fuel volume, and about $400k of manufacturing costs plus the upfront engineering.

Late edit:. I should note the extended wingtips will save tons of fuel per flight and I believe a code F at the gate 777X was a non starter.

I believe all future 150+ seat aircraft will have this game changing technology. The fun of working aerospace R&D is looking at all in service aircraft and noting " I know how to make you obsolete ". :spin:

Acey · Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:24 am

Given the logistical nightmare of not being able to park at a code E gate, a question to also be asked is if said weight penalty for the folding mechanism is a bigger detriment than the reduced efficiency of a mere 65 meter span; the answer is obviously no else they wouldn't have done it... at which point the mechanism is no longer really a "penalty".

notaxonrotax · Sun Jun 03, 2018 12:56 am

For the people that somehow fear this system: if the hinge were to fail miserably and make the wingtip fall off in flight spontaneously (not gonna happen!) .....rest assured the aircraft could still fly safely; albeit it with a fuel burn penalty.

No Tax On Rotax

Stitch · Sun Jun 03, 2018 1:20 am

Strato2 wrote:
That doesn't answer the question. How much *penalty* is there from adding this flippy-floppy wingtips compared to the regular rigid wing of the same span.

The folding mechanism (hinges and hydraulics) weighs 800 pounds /363 kilograms, so that would be the OEW penalty compared to a natural 72m span.

As for the cost, Boeing spent $40 million on design and engineering for the 777-200's folding wingtips so on a direct cost basis, it was probably a fair bit less for this one, but then with two decades of inflation...

klkla · Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:17 am

lightsaber wrote:
Wow, look how beefy the hinge is!
Look how little folds.

I honestly cannot understand the worry. I personally believe all future aircraft must have this feature to be competitive.

https://www.pcmag.com/news/361334/faa-a ... tips?amp=1

According to that article, "Gaining approval for the folding wingtips is a big step forward for Boeing, but we'll still be waiting quite a while to see the 777X in action. The first flight isn't expected to happen until Q1 of 2019."

Is Q1 of 2019 really possible? I would think they would need to be a lot closer to building the first frame for that too happen, no?

Stitch · Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:33 am

klkla wrote:
Is Q1 of 2019 really possible? I would think they would need to be a lot closer to building the first frame for that too happen, no?

The first wing lay-ups are being done and the first fuselage sections are being assembled, so...

Okcflyer · Sun Jun 03, 2018 5:39 am

It’s interesting the lights aren’t even on the folding part. Extremely simple mechanism. Brilliance!

OA940 · Sun Jun 03, 2018 7:15 am

northstardc4m wrote:
It was talked about, AA wanted a 777 that would fit the same gates as DC-10s, but it never was ordered, the weight increase was prohibitive.

The fact they are doing it all over again is interesting though

Technological advancements in the last 30 or so years allow this to be done more efficiently. No airline has raised concerns about it yet, so I think they have found a more practical design.

frmrCapCadet · Sun Jun 03, 2018 2:24 pm

There always are ambiguities in costs and weight. Boeing did not have to spend money designing an other sort of wing tip treatment. Hence the 'penalty' with a folding wing tip needs to be reduced by whatever it would have cost and weighted to do some other sort of advanced wing tip.

United787 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:37 pm

Wanted to share this article on CNN where they show the first actual folding wingtip.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/boei ... -jetliner/

TWFlyGuy · Thu Oct 18, 2018 5:50 pm

wedgetail737 wrote:
Flyglobal wrote:
And its now FFA approved with some measures to take care. (e.G. make it impossible to move up in flight).

Flyglobal

I think you mean "FAA."

No, the Future Farmers of America definitely approved!

neomax · Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:04 pm

lightsaber wrote:
We are at the end of an era of cheap airport real estate. I believe most aircraft after the 777X will have this technology. Just as I believe most new engines will have CMC turbine blades after the 777X too. Technology moves on.

Yeah, but people said the same thing about dimmable windows. Looks cool and technically has a functional purpose but ends up creating more problems than it solves. Dimmable windows was a gimmick but folding wingtips is an even bigger gimmick. I'm not saying that there's no place for folding wings, but just the tips is ridiculous. If you're gonna fold the wings do it right. When they figure out how to fold half the wings, that will be revolutionary technology.

lightsaber · Thu Oct 18, 2018 6:05 pm

These folding wingtips are like ETOPs, a needed technology that non-technical people have trouble understanding.

My take is that they are a required design feature going forward. Underside laminar flow requires more wingspan than prior wings. There is a nice step change in fuel burn available with the underside optimization. But too many airports are operating at or near limits. No airport will sign up for reducing gate count 20% for the same passenger count per plane, that would cripple opperations. So fold the wingtips.

And if you do the math, yes, I am predicting future post 777x aircraft will fold more of the wing.

Or... Hubs move to new airports with the land.

Lightsaber

Stitch · Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:25 pm

neomax wrote:
Dimmable windows was a gimmick but folding wingtips is an even bigger gimmick. I'm not saying that there's no place for folding wings, but just the tips is ridiculous. If you're gonna fold the wings do it right. When they figure out how to fold half the wings, that will be revolutionary technology.

Boeing figured out how to fold the outer third decades ago with the original 777, so I suppose they could figure out how to do it at the halfway point.

United787 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:35 pm

Can anyone post the photo of the folding wingtip?

hOMSaR · Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:36 pm

neomax wrote:
Dimmable windows was a gimmick but folding wingtips is an even bigger gimmick.

It's going to take some convincing for me to believe that an aircraft manufacturer would design a "gimmick" into the wing in the 21st century.

The cost of designing it, the weight of the device, and the mechanical complexity aren't just done for shits and giggles.

BobMUC · Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:00 pm

United787 wrote:
Can anyone post the photo of the folding wingtip?

You mean this one?

https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_aut ... ip-142.jpg

EK2 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:16 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
neomax wrote:
Dimmable windows was a gimmick but folding wingtips is an even bigger gimmick.

It's going to take some convincing for me to believe that an aircraft manufacturer would design a "gimmick" into the wing in the 21st century.

The cost of designing it, the weight of the device, and the mechanical complexity aren't just done for shits and giggles.

Yet if Airbus had designed it, it would have been the best thing since sliced bread !!!! The outright bias on this site (both A&B) is at the best frustrating and at worse just downright childish

United787 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:57 pm

BobMUC wrote:
United787 wrote:
Can anyone post the photo of the folding wingtip?

You mean this one?

https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_aut ... ip-142.jpg

Yes, thank you.

United787 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:01 pm

United787 wrote:
BobMUC wrote:
United787 wrote:
Can anyone post the photo of the folding wingtip?

You mean this one?

Yes, thank you.

BTW, the idea that this is a gimmick is insane. If anything, I think Boeing and Airlines might be worried about the public's perception of the safety of folding wings but I doubt they are even concerned about that. My understanding is that even if the folding wingtip failed, it would have no affect on the airplane's ability to stay aloft, correct?

WIederling · Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:13 pm

lightsaber wrote:
I honestly cannot understand the worry.

How are they going to cope with the broken surfaces aerodynamically?

I'd have expected a design that only shows one surface seam all around
preferably following prevalent airflow in the area.

Ruscoe · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:03 pm

Another advantage I see is that if new wingtip technology comes along, or a longer wing is required, it could be incorporated without changing the Code, .
Ruscoe

StTim · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:09 pm

I find the concept of a folding wing intriguing and wonder if Airbus will introduce their version to give the A321 the extra wing that is necessary to turn it into a real TATL (plus a bit) frame.

Flightsimboy · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:16 pm

United787 wrote:
My understanding is that even if the folding wingtip failed, it would have no affect on the airplane's ability to stay aloft, correct?

The wing folds upwards only on the ground and would be unfolded before take off and inflight, correct. Is there a chance it may fold in flight, such as cargo doors opening, and other mechanisms that have failed inflight. What are the risks of such a thing happening? Those wings will be HUGE!! Such a beast!!!!

zrh177 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:17 pm

The military has used folding wings for years without any tremendous issues (F-18, C-2, E-2, etc). Is this because of more intense mx, or is there something else to it?

mutu · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:32 pm

Whilst failure is technically (but remotely) possible, so is an uncontained engine failure a la QF32. Don't make the design unsafe. Benefits outweigh complexity

7BOEING7 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:42 pm

zrh177 wrote:
The military has used folding wings for years without any tremendous issues (F-18, C-2, E-2, etc). Is this because of more intense mx, or is there something else to it?

Quite a few years, early 40's with props and early 50's with jets -- all of which were much more complicated and percentage of wing wise much higher than what Boeing is doing on the 777X.

ER757 · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:50 pm

neomax wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
We are at the end of an era of cheap airport real estate. I believe most aircraft after the 777X will have this technology. Just as I believe most new engines will have CMC turbine blades after the 777X too. Technology moves on.

Yeah, but people said the same thing about dimmable windows. Looks cool and technically has a functional purpose but ends up creating more problems than it solves. Dimmable windows was a gimmick but folding wingtips is an even bigger gimmick. I'm not saying that there's no place for folding wings, but just the tips is ridiculous. If you're gonna fold the wings do it right. When they figure out how to fold half the wings, that will be revolutionary technology.

It's just the tips so that there are no control surfaces on the folding part - that way in the extremely remote chance one might break off in flight, the aircraft's stability and maneuverability are not affected. It's also all that's needed to fit into the existing gate spaces. No reason to fold half the wing - think how much more powerful the motors would have to be to fold that much more weight.

Revelation · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:51 pm

7BOEING7 wrote:
zrh177 wrote:
The military has used folding wings for years without any tremendous issues (F-18, C-2, E-2, etc). Is this because of more intense mx, or is there something else to it?

Quite a few years, early 40's with props and early 50's with jets -- all of which were much more complicated and percentage of wing wise much higher than what Boeing is doing on the 777X.

Seems they were patented in 1913 and already common in the late 30s:

Short Brothers, the world's first aircraft manufacturer, developed and patented[1] folding wing mechanisms for biplane ship-borne aircraft like their Short Folder, the first patent being granted in 1913. The Folder's biplane wings were hinged so that they folded back horizontally alongside the fuselage,[2] usually being held in place by latches projecting sideways from the rear of the fuselage.

Since the monoplane supplanted the biplane in the late 1930s, virtually all fixed-wing aircraft designed for shipboard duty have been equipped with folding wings.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_wing

JayinKitsap · Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:57 pm

Landing gear fold in a more complicated manner than this wing hinge. It is also more catastrophic if it fails.

VirginFlyer · Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:01 pm

JayinKitsap wrote:
Landing gear fold in a more complicated manner than this wing hinge. It is also more catastrophic if it fails.

You can add flaps to that list too.

V/F

mjoelnir · Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:23 pm

I am quite astonished that it is still discussed if the wingtips will work or be safe. They will work and will be safe. Moving surfaces on a wing are nothing new.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net