Winglets are generally upwardly sloping ends of a generally planar wing. Winglets reduce drag generated by wingtip vortices. However, winglets produce lift that increases the bending moment on the wing.
Various wing tip devices and geometries are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0252031 (titled “Wing Tip Devices,” published Nov. 1, 2007), U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0114327 (titled “Wing Load Alleviation Apparatus and Method,” published May 24, 2007), U.S. Pat. No. 6,722,615 (titled “Wing Tip Extension for a Wing,” issued Apr. 20, 2004), U.S. Pat. No. 6,827,314 (titled “Aircraft with Active Control of the Warping of Its Wings,” issued Dec. 7, 2004), U.S. Pat. No. 6,886,778 (titled “Efficient Wing Tip Devices and Methods for Incorporating such Devices into Existing Wing Designs,” issued May 3, 2005), U.S. Pat. No. 6,484,968 (titled “Aircraft with Elliptical Winglets,” issued Nov. 26, 2002), U.S. Pat. No. 5,348,253 (titled “Blended Winglet,” issued Sep. 20, 1994), each of which is incorporated by reference into this application as if fully set forth herein.
An innovative winglet concept is described herein including a split winglet, which includes separate extensions above and below the wing chord plane. The split winglet includes an upward sloping element similar to an existing winglet and a down-ward canted element (ventral fin). The ventral fin counters vortices generated by interactions between the wingtip and the lower wing surface.
The split winglet is designed to reduce drag but without generating the increased bending moment found in existing winglet designs. The split winglet design is believed to improve fuel burn or reduce fuel burn by approximately 1.5%, reduce drag by up to 9.5% over an unmodified wing, and improve cruise performance by more than 40% over existing blended-winglet configurations.
Embodiments as described herein are adaptable to various wing and wing tip designs. Embodiments may include an integrated split blended winglet that attaches as a single unit at a wing tip, or may include a separate ventral fin designed to attach to an existing blended winglet.
The disclosed systems and methods can be better understood with reference to the following drawings. The components in the drawings are not necessarily to scale.
The blended winglet produces superior drag reduction results and other improvements in airplane performance. Embodiments of the split winglet, as described herein, provide additional performance benefits with essentially no change in the structural support needed beyond that required by the basic blended winglet design. The split winglet generally involves the placement of an additional surface below the wing chord plane. In one embodiment, the additional surface is integrally configured with the curved winglet. In another embodiment, a ventral fin is an add-on to an existing blended winglet. The following description and accompanying figures, which describe and show certain embodiments, are made to demonstrate, in a non-limiting manner, several possible configurations of a split winglet according to various aspects and features of the present disclosure.
In an exemplary embodiment, the winglet geometry can vary within the usual range (i.e., size (h1), cant (φ1), sweep (Λ1), camber (ε), and twist (θ)) without significant compromise to the optimization of the ventral surface D or the overall performance of the split winglet. The tip section, C, geometry for each surface may be individually designed to provide elliptical tip loading corresponding to each surface loading.
The outer panel B is designed to carry most of the load. The outer panel B is approximately planar, projecting from the wing tip at a cant angle φ1. The leading edge E of the outer panel B is swept rearward at an angle Λ1. The outer panel B extends to a height h1 above the plane of the wing 104. The transition section A-B between the wing and winglet outer panel is optimized to minimize aerodynamic interference. In an exemplary embodiment, the transition section A-B is generally a near-radial curve with a curvature radius of r. The tip configuration C is optimized for elliptical loading.
The ventral surface D is sized and oriented to conform to certain physical constraints and optimized to provide a loading corresponding to maximum benefit with minimal effect on the wing bending moment. The ventral fin 102 projects from the transition section A-B of the curved winglet. The ventral surface D linearly projects from the curved winglet at a cant angle φ2. The ventral fin 102 creates a downward projecting surface a distance h2 below the wing plane.
The drag reduction due to the split winglet is significantly better than for the blended winglet of the same size as the primary surface B. This increment can be 2% or more when the length of the ventral surface D is about 0.4 the height of the primary surface (h2=0.4×h1). Other aerodynamic characteristics are similarly enhanced, which result in higher cruise altitude, shorter time-to-climb, improved buffet margins, reduced noise, and higher second segment weight limits. No adverse effects on airplane controllability or handling qualities are expected.
Any improvement in structural stiffness characteristics of the wing will result in an additional drag benefit corresponding to a reduction in wing aeroelastic twist. The drag benefit will increase if the wing has available structural margin or the wing can be structurally modified to allow increased bending moment. The tradeoff between wing modification and drag reduction can be favorable for modest increases in bending moment beyond that produced by the winglet alone.
The ventral fin 102 may emanate from the wing plane at generally the same spanwise wing location as the upward projecting curved wing tip. The ventral fin 102 may also emanate from other locations along the wing tip, including along the transition section A-B or the lower facing surface of the outer panel B. For example, the ventral fin may emanate from a general midpoint of the radial A-B transition.
In an exemplary embodiment, the upward projecting curved wing tip may continuously transition from the wing. The upward projecting winglet may include a section that continuously extends the upper and lower surfaces of the wing along the leading and trailing edges such that the upward projecting winglet smoothly integrates with the wing surfaces. The upward projecting winglet may continuously and smoothly curve upward to seamlessly transition from the wing profile to the generally planar wing tip profile. The upward projection wing tip then extends generally planar at an angle with respect to vertical and terminates at the winglet tip. The leading edge 110 of the upward projecting winglet may include a generally linear section 112 swept at an angle Λ1. The leading edge 110 may continuously and smoothly transition from the leading edge of the wing to the generally linear section 112 at section 114. The leading edge may then curve from the generally linear section 112 at 116 so that the leading edge approaches the air stream direction 118, generally parallel to the airplane body (not shown). The upward projecting winglet trailing edge 120 may be a generally linear and transition in a curved and upward direction to continuously transition from the wing trailing edge to the winglet trailing edge. The winglet may be swept and tapered to a greater extent than the wing.
The ventral fin may be a generally planar projection below the upper curved winglet and extend generally below the plane of the wing at an angle with respect to vertical. The ventral fin may be generally wing shaped, such that it is swept and tapered. The ventral fin leading edge 122 may be generally linear extending from the curved winglet and transition along a continuous curve toward the air stream direction 118 at the ventral fin tip. The trailing edge of the ventral fin may be generally linear. In one embodiment, the ventral fin leading edge 122 may be generally curved so that the discontinuity between the wing surface and the ventral fin is reduced. Therefore, the leading edge 122 may be closer to the surface of the winglet, transition away from the wing surface to the generally linear section, and then finally transition to the tip shape.
The chord length of the ventral fin at an attachment location with the wing may be equal to or less than the chord length of the wing or upward projecting wing tip at the attachment location. As seen in
In an exemplary embodiment, the split winglet may be integrated such that the curved winglet and ventral fin are designed as a continuous wing tip structure. The curved winglet therefore creates an upward projecting surface and the ventral fin creates a lower projecting surface. The ventral surface D may project from a lower surface of the curved winglet at a near linear profile. The intersection of the curved winglet and ventral fin is continuous to constitute a blended intersection to minimize aerodynamic interference and produce optimal loading. The curved winglet and the ventral fin may emanate from the same spanwise wing location.
In an exemplary embodiment, the ventral fin may be separately attached to the wing by attachment to either the wing or curved winglet already projecting from the wing tip. The ventral fin may be bolted or otherwise attached to the wing tip section. The ventral fin 102 may include a ventral surface D that is generally linear. The ventral fin may be attached to the curved winglet near the mid-point of the transition section A-B of the curved winglet. The ventral fin 102 may project below the wing.
In accordance with the geometries and design considerations described above,
The upper element generally consists of an adapter section (AB), a transition section (BC), and a blade section (CD). The adapter section AB is configured to fit the split winglet onto an existing wing end, and generally corresponds to the wing surface extending from A. As viewed from above, the adapter section AB will be generally trapezoidal. The transition section BC provides for a continuous transition surface between the extended wing surface at B and the blade section at C. The transition section BC has a radius of curvature R that may be variable. The blade section CD is generally planar and is designed to carry most of the load. The different sections are serially connected to form the first element delineated by continuous leading edge and trailing edge curves that bound upper and lower surfaces to form a solid body having an airfoil cross section.
The transition section BC may have a variable radius along its length; therefore, the section may be described in terms of an average radius, RA, and a minimum radius, RM, at any point along the transition. The transition section BC of the upper element may have an average radius of curvature, RA of the principle spanwise generator and a minimum radius of curvature at any point, RM, which meets the criteria:
Where, KA is preferably between 0.25 and 0.7 and more preferably between 0.25 and 0.35. The ratio of the minimum to the average radius, RM/RA, is preferably between 0.3 and 1.0 and more preferably between 0.5 and 1.0.
The airfoil geometry of the transition section BC near the leading edge is constrained by the following relationships between leading edge sweep angle, Λ, airfoil nose camber, η, and chordwise extent of nose camber, ξT:
The lower element generally consists of the ventral fin, EF. The lower element has a generally wing-like configuration attached to the first element. The lower element may be attached to the first element along transition section BC at a generally 90° angle that allows adjustment of the second element relative to the local wing vector.
The general geometry of both the upper (identified by subscript 1) and lower (identified by subscript 2) elements are defined by a height from the wing plane (h1 and h2); cant angle (φ1, φ1); incidence angle (i1, i2); sweep angle (Λ1, Λ2); and blade taper (λ1, λ2). The geometry determines the aerodynamic loading, which is critical to enhancement of the airplane performance characteristics. Generally, the geometric parameters are selected to minimize drag without incurring structural and weight changes that will offset or compromise the drag benefits or adversely affect other characteristics. The optimization process results in the optimum combination of independent geometric parameters while satisfying the constraints that apply to the dependent design parameters selected for a given application. The above identified parameters are mostly independent parameters, although they may be considered dependent for certain applications. Additional dependent parameters include, loading split ratio, allowable wing bending moment, extent of structural modification, winglet size, airplane operating limitations, economic and business requirements, and adaptability. The design restrictions for optimization of the split blended winglet will be more complex than the traditional blended winglet technology.
The upper and lower elements are oriented at a cant angle with respect to the wing normal. The cant angle of the upper surface is generally between zero and fifty degrees (i.e. 0°<φ1<50°), while the cant angle of the second element is between ninety and one hundred eight degrees (i.e. 90°<φ2<180°).
Each of the first and second elements include a tapered near-planar section. These sections include a taper ratio generally in the range of approximately 0.28 and 0.33 for the first element (i.e. 0.28<λ1<0.33) and approximately 0.33 and 0.4 for the second element (i.e. 0.33<λ2<0.4). The split winglet includes a surface area corresponding to a design lift coefficient CL in the range of approximately 0.6 and 0.7 (i.e. 0.6<CLW<0.7) and a thickness ratio corresponding to the section life coefficient which meets the following criteria at the design operating condition:
Winglet Mcrit=Wing Mcrit+0.01.
The leading edge 302 and 303 curves of both the upper and lower elements monotonically varies with a leading edge sweep angle up to 65°. The leading edge curve and sweep angle are correlated with airfoil section nose camber to prevent or reduce formation of leading edge vortices. These elements may be limited in cant angle, curvature, height and surface area to maintain optimum performance over the flight envelope with minimum impact on wing structural requirements which affect weight, cost, and airplane economics.
While the invention has been described in terms of particular variations and illustrative figures, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the invention is not limited to the variations or figures described. In addition, where methods and steps described above indicate certain events occurring in certain order, those of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that the ordering of certain steps may be modified and that such modifications are in accordance with the variations of the invention. Additionally, certain of the steps may be performed concurrently in a parallel process when possible, as well as performed sequentially as described above. Therefore, to the extent there are variations of the invention, which are within the spirit of the disclosure or equivalent to the inventions found in the claims, it is the intent that this patent will cover those variations as well. An attachment end of the winglet is described. The winglet may be integrally formed or may be separately bolted together. The attachment end, therefore, is taken to include an end to a separate winglet assembly that is bolted or otherwise separately attachable to an existing wing, or may be integrally formed with a wing through a curved winglet. The attachment end of the winglet would then be a boundary between the winglet structure and the existing wing plane, attachable through the integral nature of the wing and winglet. The terms attach and connected and coupled are used interchangeable to include any direct or indirect attachment between structures. Embodiments as described herein are generally described in reference to end profiles for airplane wings. The invention is not so limited and may be used in other aircraft where drag induced from a surface end presents concerns.
This application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/495,236, filed Jun. 9, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in its entirety into this application.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
994968 | Barbaudy | Jun 1911 | A |
1050222 | McIntosh | Jan 1913 | A |
1692081 | De La Cierva | Nov 1928 | A |
1710673 | Bonney | Apr 1929 | A |
1841921 | Spiegel | Jan 1932 | A |
2123096 | Charpentier | Jul 1938 | A |
2576981 | Vogt | Dec 1951 | A |
2775419 | Hlobil | Dec 1956 | A |
2805830 | Zborowski | Sep 1957 | A |
2846165 | Axelson | Aug 1958 | A |
3029018 | Floyd, Jr. | Apr 1962 | A |
3128371 | Spaulding et al. | Apr 1964 | A |
3270988 | Cone, Jr. | Sep 1966 | A |
3778926 | Gladych | Dec 1973 | A |
4017041 | Nelson | Apr 1977 | A |
4093160 | Reighart, II | Jun 1978 | A |
4108403 | Finch | Aug 1978 | A |
4172574 | Spillman | Oct 1979 | A |
4190219 | Hackett | Feb 1980 | A |
4205810 | Ishimitsu | Jun 1980 | A |
4240597 | Ellis et al. | Dec 1980 | A |
4245804 | Ishimitsu et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
4247062 | Brueckner | Jan 1981 | A |
D259554 | Parise et al. | Jun 1981 | S |
4365773 | Wolkovitch | Dec 1982 | A |
4429844 | Brown et al. | Feb 1984 | A |
4444365 | Heuberger | Apr 1984 | A |
4541593 | Cabrol | Sep 1985 | A |
4545552 | Welles | Oct 1985 | A |
4598885 | Waitzman | Jul 1986 | A |
4605183 | Gabriel | Aug 1986 | A |
4671473 | Goodson | Jun 1987 | A |
4674709 | Welles | Jun 1987 | A |
4714215 | Jupp et al. | Dec 1987 | A |
4722499 | Klug | Feb 1988 | A |
4949919 | Wajnikonis | Aug 1990 | A |
5039032 | Rudolph | Aug 1991 | A |
5102068 | Gratzer | Apr 1992 | A |
5156358 | Gerhardt | Oct 1992 | A |
5275358 | Goldhammer et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5348253 | Gratzer | Sep 1994 | A |
5407153 | Kirk et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5634613 | McCarthy | Jun 1997 | A |
5961068 | Wainfan et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5992793 | Perry et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6089502 | Herrick et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6227487 | Clark | May 2001 | B1 |
6260809 | Egolf et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6345790 | Brix | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6474604 | Carlow | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6484968 | Felker | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6578798 | Dizdarevic et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6722615 | Heller et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6827314 | Barriety | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6886778 | McLean | May 2005 | B2 |
6926345 | Ortega et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
7275722 | Irving et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7475848 | Morgenstern et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
D595211 | Cazals | Jun 2009 | S |
7597285 | Schweiger | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7644892 | Alford et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7744038 | Sankrithi et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7900876 | Eberhardt | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7900877 | Guida | Mar 2011 | B1 |
7971832 | Hackett et al. | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7980515 | Hunter | Jul 2011 | B2 |
7988099 | Bray | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7988100 | Mann | Aug 2011 | B2 |
7997875 | Nanukuttan et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8123160 | Shepshelovich et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8342456 | Mann | Jan 2013 | B2 |
8366056 | Garang | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8439313 | Rawdon et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8490925 | Buescher et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
20020092947 | Felker | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020162917 | Heller et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20050173592 | Houck | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20070018037 | Perlo et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070114327 | Dees et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070131821 | Johan | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070252031 | Hackett et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20080116322 | May | May 2008 | A1 |
20080191099 | Werthmann et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080308683 | Sankrithi et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090039204 | Eberhardt | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090065632 | Cazals | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090084904 | Detert | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090302167 | Desroche | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100006706 | Breitsamter et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100019094 | Theurich et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
20100123047 | Williams | May 2010 | A1 |
20100163670 | Dizdarevic et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100181432 | Gratzer | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110024556 | Cazals et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110192937 | Buescher et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110272530 | Mann | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120049007 | Hunter | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120049010 | Speer | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120091262 | Rawdon et al. | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120187251 | Guida | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120286102 | Sinha et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120312929 | Gratzer | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130092797 | Wright et al. | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130256460 | Roman et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2149956 | Apr 1973 | DE |
3638347 | May 1988 | DE |
19752369 | May 1999 | DE |
20211664 | Jan 2003 | DE |
10207767 | Sep 2003 | DE |
0094064 | Nov 1983 | EP |
0122790 | Oct 1984 | EP |
1375342 | Jan 2004 | EP |
1924493 | May 2008 | EP |
2084059 | Aug 2009 | EP |
1883577 | Jan 2010 | EP |
2274202 | Jan 2011 | EP |
2610169 | Jul 2013 | EP |
418656 | Dec 1910 | FR |
444080 | Oct 1912 | FR |
726674 | Jun 1932 | FR |
2282996 | Apr 1995 | GB |
8204426 | Dec 1982 | WO |
9511159 | Apr 1995 | WO |
03000547 | Jan 2003 | WO |
2005099380 | Oct 2005 | WO |
2007031732 | Mar 2007 | WO |
2008061739 | May 2008 | WO |
2010124877 | Nov 2010 | WO |
2012007358 | Jan 2012 | WO |
2012171034 | Dec 2012 | WO |
2013007396 | Jan 2013 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Norris, Guy et al., “Shaping Up,” Aviation Week, May 7, 2012, pp. 37-38, vol. 174, No. 16. |
PCT/US2012/041936 filed Jun. 11, 2012 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Aug. 31, 2012. |
PCT/US2012/041961 filed Jun. 11, 2012 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Sep. 6, 2012. |
EP 13161204.6 filed Jul. 7, 2011 European Search Report dated May 17, 2013. |
PCT/EP2011/061552 filed Jul. 7, 2011 International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 7, 2011. |
Starlionblue (Jun. 10, 2009) Could Boeing Reconsider the MD-12? [Msg 11]. Message posted to http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general—aviation/read.main/4443449/2/#menu27. |
Tibbits, George (May 16, 1992) Superjumbo Jets are Ocean Liners for the Skies. Casa Grande Arizona Dispatch, p. 12. |
Gilkey, R. D. et al., “Design and Wind Tunnel Tests of Winglets on a DC-10 Wing,” Apr. 1979, 52 pages. |
Jameson, A., “Aerodynamic Design,” Prceedings Computational Science for the 21st Centuty, May 1997, 16 pages. |
Jameson, Antony, “Re-Engineering the Design Process Through Computation,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 36, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp. 36-50. |
Kroo, I., “Nonplanar Wing Concepts for Increased Aircraft Efficiency,” CKI Lecture Series on Innovative Configurations and Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft, Jun. 6-10, 2005. |
McDonnell Douglas Press Release, “McDonnell Douglas Unveils New MD-XX Trijet Design,” Sep. 4, 1996, 1 page. |
Nangia, R. J. et al., “Aerodynamic Design Studies of Conventional & Unconventional Wings with Winglets,” 24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Jun. 5-8, 2006, 18 pages. |
PCT/US2012/041961 filed Jun. 11, 2012 International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Dec. 27, 2013. |
Trucchi, Marco, “Fluid Mechanics of Yacht Keels,” Dec. 18, 1996. |
Whitcomb, Richard T., “A Design Approach and Selected Wind-Tunnel Results at High Subsonic Speeds for Wing-Tip Mounted Winglets,” NASA Technical Note, Jul. 1976. |
Wilhelm, Steve, “Winglet's Split Personality,” Puget Sound Business Journal, Aug. 16-22, 2013. |
Boeing MD-80 Technical Specification, May 2011. |
CN 200980132637.3 filed Feb. 21, 2011 First Office Action dated Dec. 25, 2012. |
CN 200980132637.3 filed Feb. 21, 2011 Second Office Action dated Aug. 19, 2013. |
CN 200980132637.3 filed Feb. 21, 2011 Third Office Action dated Apr. 10, 2014. |
EP 09767892.4 Extended European Search Report dated Aug. 30, 2013. |
PCT/US2009/048065 filed Jun. 19, 2009 International Search Report dated Aug. 17, 2009. |
PCT/US2009/048065 filed Jun. 19, 2009 Written Opinion and International Preliminary Report on Patentability dated Aug. 17, 2009. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/488,488, filed Jun. 19, 2009 Advisory Action dated Feb. 27, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/488,488, filed Jun. 19, 2009 Final Office Action dated Dec. 6, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/488,488, filed Jun. 19, 2009 Final Office Action dated Feb. 14, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/488,488, filed Jun. 19, 2009 Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 3, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/488,488, filed Jun. 19, 2009 Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 13, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/493,915, filed Jun. 11, 2012 Non-Final Office Action dated May 23, 2014. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120312928 A1 | Dec 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61495236 | Jun 2011 | US |