• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Airbus launches "Sharklet" wingtip devices for A320

GoFlyKiteNow

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
2,605
Points
0
Airbus launches "Sharklet" wingtip devices for A320

sharklet.jpg


Airbus will equip new A320 aircraft for Air New Zealand with "Sharklet" large wingtip devices that enhance environmental and payload-range performance, the plane maker announced Sunday.

Airbus will offer the Sharklets as a forward-fit option.
It expects them to cut fuel burn by at least 3.5 percent, compared with A320s with wingtip fences, over longer sectors, corresponding to an annual carbon dioxide reduction of around 700 tonnes per aircraft.

Air New Zealand is the launch customer for the Sharklets, with first delivery set for around the end of 2012, Airbus said.

"The new Sharklets will enable our Airbus fleet to benefit from lower fuel burn and carbon emissions, both across Air New Zealand's domestic network and especially on the longer trans-Tasman sectors," Rob Fyfe, Air New Zealand's chief executive, said in a news release.

John Leahy, Airbus chief operating officer -- customers, said: "The eco-efficient A320 Family just keeps getting better. We are delighted that Air New Zealand recognizes that our single-aisle family will remain the most profitable product in its class for years to come."

Payload-range benefits include either a revenue payload increase of around 500 kg or an additional 100 nautical mile range at the original payload, Airbus said. It said the Sharklets would keep the A320 within the ICAO 'Class C' (wingspan less than 36 meters); result in higher available takeoff weights, notably from obstacle-limited runways; allow reduced average takeoff thrust on non-limited runways, saving engine maintenance costs by around two percent, while lowering takeoff noise; and allow enhanced climb performance and higher initial cruise altitude.
 
747 have these like 10 yrs ago.
what is news?

Those are winglets.
Both Airbus and Boeing have them., meant to reduce
the negative effect of vortex creation around the wingtips.
Different shape and size.
 
Those are winglets.
Both Airbus and Boeing have them., meant to reduce
the negative effect of vortex creation around the wingtips.
Different shape and size.

I believe the new 737s have them already.
 
The foto you posted. It is the usual winglet.

Sharklet is larger and introduced only now.
Airbus is providing retro fit kits to modify
existing 320s.
 
The foto you posted. It is the usual winglet.

Sharklet is larger and introduced only now.
Airbus is providing retro fit kits to modify
existing 320s.

It may be.. but isn't Airbus' "sharklet" just marketing gimick for a large winglet? :rolleyes:
 
what is the difference between airbus and boeing.

airbus is own by french + partners like UK, Spain and soon china.

boeing is own by amercian + partner Japan.


Japan is number 1 in quality, so boeing have less accidents than airbus. spain, UK and french have no concept of quality. they are only number 1 in innovation.
 
It may be.. but isn't Airbus' "sharklet" just marketing gimick for a large winglet? :rolleyes:

Read the message fully.
Airbus is even offering retro kits to fit on existing 320 with winglets.
( They just gave the name sharklet - to differentiate and also
the design is learnt from studying nature - shark fin dynamics )

Not a marketing gimmick.
It has benefits as stated by Airbus.

Nobody play the fool with aircraft design.
Especially commercial passenger aircraft with FAA approval and what not.
 
2 to 3 % savings in fuel burn is very substantial, plus added benefits
of less turbulence effects and noise.

one question, when the engine power go off in air, due to failure , fire or fuel ran out,

when gliding, does the sharklet add drag , therefore reduce survivability?

will the sharklet increase instability, if the part of the plane control system damage, oh shit, fly by wire, meaning computer flying the plane, not the pilot.
is sharklet possible without fly by wire?
 
Japan is number 1 in quality, so boeing have less accidents than airbus. spain, UK and french have no concept of quality. they are only number 1 in innovation.

Human makes mistakes...

The ill-fated SilkAir flight 185 and Singapore Airlines Flight 006 are both Boeings...

Airbuses are comfortable and spacious...
 
Human makes mistakes...

The ill-fated SilkAir flight 185 and Singapore Airlines Flight 006 are both Boeings...

Airbuses are comfortable and spacious...

silkair? are saf pilot commit suicide.
flight 006 are FT pilot who use the wrong runway.

what the fxxk is it going to do with boeing???
 
will the sharklet increase instability, if the part of the plane control system damage, oh shit, fly by wire, meaning computer flying the plane, not the pilot.
is sharklet possible without fly by wire?

i think only delta wings cannot be glided down into the runways...

as long there's enough attitude, all planes can be glided down to the nearest runway...or flat surface..land or sea.

the winglet should help to extend range by reducing fuel consumption...
 
i think only delta wings cannot be glided down into the runways...

as long there's enough attitude, all planes can be glided down to the nearest runway...or flat surface..land or sea.

i was asking something else, if you dun know, which i know you dun. please keep quiet.
 
silkair? are saf pilot commit suicide.
flight 006 are FT pilot who use the wrong runway.

what the fxxk is it going to do with boeing???

you should watch the Nat Geo documentary....there was an investigation that there's a faulty tail rudder controls that caused the plane to roll over and plunged...
 
Back
Top