XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 2, 2018 17:07:09 GMT 1
Most have 275t, others have 268t and 273t. The base line model is 268t.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Feb 2, 2018 17:07:38 GMT 1
I did understand that the new winglet and wing twist together with a change of the carbon layers in the top and bottom skin (slight weight reduction) go hand in hand. New winglet and wingtwist should give 1 % fuel burn reduction. I can not imagine a reason to stay with the old winglet on the new wing version.
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Feb 2, 2018 17:12:19 GMT 1
I can not imagine a reason to stay with the old winglet on the new wing version. On the A320, Airbus charged a premium for the new sharklet. Fuel burn reductions usually result in an increase of acquisition costs as the manufacturer can offer a better product. |
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Feb 2, 2018 18:07:56 GMT 1
I can not imagine a reason to stay with the old winglet on the new wing version. It all depends on the respective drawbacks and advantages of each winglet. A larger winglet trades more weight (and likely a higher price) for better aerodynamics at cruise. Is it a win in all cases, I don't know ... If the new winglet is better in all cases, then the old winglet already belongs to the past. On the one hand, producing only one type of winglet is less costly for Airbus, on the other hand if the base model has the old winglet, then the new winglet is an opportunity to increase the bill. |
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Feb 3, 2018 7:26:54 GMT 1
I can not imagine a reason to stay with the old winglet on the new wing version. It all depends on the respective drawbacks and advantages of each winglet. A larger winglet trades more weight (and likely a higher price) for better aerodynamics at cruise. Is it a win in all cases, I don't know ... If the new winglet is better in all cases, then the old winglet already belongs to the past. On the one hand, producing only one type of winglet is less costly for Airbus, on the other hand if the base model has the old winglet, then the new winglet is an opportunity to increase the bill. having hard time to imaging how much more weigh comes with the taller sharklets considering that 1% fuel burn saving needs a lot of weigh to offset ...... I think we are also safe to assume that the fuel saving does consider the additional weigh of the sharklets |
|
|
|
Post by kevin5345179 on Feb 4, 2018 0:18:21 GMT 1
I can not imagine a reason to stay with the old winglet on the new wing version. It all depends on the respective drawbacks and advantages of each winglet. A larger winglet trades more weight (and likely a higher price) for better aerodynamics at cruise. Is it a win in all cases, I don't know ... If the new winglet is better in all cases, then the old winglet already belongs to the past. On the one hand, producing only one type of winglet is less costly for Airbus, on the other hand if the base model has the old winglet, then the new winglet is an opportunity to increase the bill. I was looking at the flight plan for LH A350 from MUN to BOS ~ 7:40 for flight time ~ 3500 nmi mission According to Leeham, 1.4% saving for 5000 nmi mission and let's take 1% for simplicity. The trip fuel is ~ 42t (excluding contingency and other additional requirement) 1% safe on fuel burn means 420 kg weight saving I understand this is not the most reliable source and the best comparison, but this is the best info I can find. For B738 and B739ER Split Scimitar Winglets (SSW) weight 133 kg for 1 pair. If all we are doing is making it "taller and slightly different shape", I doubt we are adding anything significant compare to our fuel saving. You probably really have to fly all shorties to get the additional weight penalty. www.b737.org.uk/winglets.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Jkkw on Feb 5, 2018 4:22:58 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by ca350 on Feb 5, 2018 22:36:17 GMT 1
Regarding CAAC certification of A350, the review process has entered phase III. The certification process started in June 2017. (sorry article in Chinese. Google translate is your friend:) ) news.carnoc.com/list/434/434971.html |
|
|
|
Post by marlibu on Feb 6, 2018 0:16:48 GMT 1
This sounds like a long road ahead before any Mainland Chinese Carrier get their A350s... It seems odd they just started the process in June of 2017.
side note... google translate is awesome..my very first time using it..i'm amazed...
|
|
|
|
Post by ca350 on Feb 6, 2018 2:03:06 GMT 1
This sounds like a long road ahead before any Mainland Chinese Carrier get their A350s... It seems odd they just started the process in June of 2017. side note... google translate is awesome..my very first time using it..i'm amazed... Sounds reasonable because CA was supposed to be the first carrier to receive the A350. Capital Airlines and Sichuan Airlines took NTUs from other airlines, thus expediating their deliveries. If the end of 2017 or early 2018 was the target delivery date CA A350s, June 2017 seems logical for the start date. As for google translate, yeah it's great. If you use Chrome, it can be configured to automatically translate pages to another language. |
|
