Split blended winglet

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 8944386
  • Patent Number
    8,944,386
  • Date Filed
    Monday, June 11, 2012
    12 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, February 3, 2015
    9 years ago
Abstract
A split winglet is disclosed having a first generally upward projecting wing end, and a second generally downward projecting wing end. The second generally downward projecting wing end may be integrally formed with the first generally upward projecting wing end to form a winglet assembly or may be separately attached onto an existing upwardly curved winglet.
Description
BACKGROUND

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.


SUMMARY

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.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

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.



FIG. 1 is a three-view illustration of an exemplary split winglet according to embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 2 illustrates the principal characteristics of an exemplary load distribution for the wing with split winglet according to embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 3 is a two-view illustration of an exemplary integrated split winglet according to embodiments of the invention.



FIG. 4 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of the split winglet design as attached to an airplane.



FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary split winglet including a different tip configuration according to embodiments of the invention.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

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.



FIG. 1 is a three-view illustration of an exemplary split winglet. FIG. 1A is a front view of the exemplary winglet 100 with ventral fin 102; FIG. 1B is a bottom view; and FIG. 1C is a side view. The winglet includes a primary surface attached to the wing 104 at A that has the geometric characteristics of a blended winglet including a near-planar outer panel B, a tip configuration C, and a transition section A-B between the wing and winglet outer panel. A ventral fin 102 projects below the wing chord plane and includes a ventral surface D.


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 FIG. 1B, the chord length of the ventral fin is less than the chord length of the curved winglet portion at the attachment location. The trailing edge of the ventral fin emanates from a point along the trailing edge of the curved winglet. The leading edge of the ventral fin emanates from a bottom surface of the curved winglet.


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, FIG. 2 illustrates the principal characteristics of the load distribution for the wing with split winglet. The load distribution is optimized with the primary surface, B, load directed inboard and the load on the ventral surface D directed outboard. This provides the maximum drag benefit for any combination of primary and ventral surface sizing for which loads do not exceed limits established by the wing structural capability. The loading of the primary surface B and ventral surface D are generally elliptical. The loading at the end of the primary surface B and ventral surface D approaches zero, while the origin of these surfaces from the wing surface bear the greater load. The load at the wing tip, indicated as l1, is generally equal to the total of the loading at the origin of the primary surface B and ventral surface D, (i.e. l1B+l1D).



FIG. 3 illustrates an exemplary integrated split winglet according to embodiments of the invention. FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary front view of the winglet, while FIG. 3B illustrates an exemplary side view. The exemplary integrated split winglet is conceived as a unit that may be attached directly to the wing tip at location A. However, it is apparent that it is easily separable into two or more parts, including the upper element that closely resembles a blended winglet and a lower element, the ventral fin, that is attachable to the first element at a transition between the winglet upper element and the wing tip (i.e. transition section BC).


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:









R
A

h

=


K
A







1


1
+

sin






ϕ
1







;





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:








η
/

η
o


=


(

1
-

ξ

ξ
T



)

2


;

0
<
ξ
<

ξ
T









η
o

=


.1


ξ
T


=

.006






tan
1.3


Λ






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.



FIG. 4 illustrates another embodiment of the split winglet design. As seen in FIG. 4, the split winglet 400 is a continuous projection of the wing 402 in an upper section 404 extending above the wing 402 plane and a lower section 406 below the wing 402 plane. The leading edges of the upper section and lower section emanate from a common point along the leading edge of the wing tip; while the trailing edges of the upper and lower section similarly emanate from a common point along the trailing edge of the wing tip. The leading edges of both the upper and lower portions may have a generally linear portion with a smooth curved transition from the wing to the linear portion. The winglet tips of the upper and lower portions may curve toward the free stream air direction (indicated by arrow on FIG. 4). The trailing edges may generally project linearly to the respective winglet portion ends. The trailing edges of the upper and/or lower portions may also include a curved section from the common point to reduce the chord length of the respective portion so that the taper of the upper and lower portions is variable and may be greater along a portion of the upper and/or lower portion than from the wing. The upper and lower surfaces of the wing extend continuously onto the upper and lower surfaces of the upper portion and lower portion of the winglet, respectively. The junction between the lower surface of the upper portion and the upper surface of the lower portion may also be continuous.



FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary split winglet including a different tip configuration 500. The upper and lower winglet sections may have various designs, including the leading and trailing edges, the winglet surface contours, transition profile between the winglet and the wing, and the winglet tip profiles. As previously disclosed, the leading and trailing edges of the winglet portions may be continuous extensions of the wing leading and trailing edges. The taper of the winglet sections may also be greater than that of the wing and may be variable long its length. For a continuous leading and trailing edge design, the transition to the greater taper may occur along either the leading edge, or trailing edge, or a combination of both. The lower portion, i.e. ventral fin, may have the same chordwise span as the upper winglet portion and wing, or may be reduced, such that either the leading and/or trailing edge of the ventral fin extends from a lower surface of either the wing or upper curved winglet portion. The winglet tips 500 may also include various formations and curvatures, depending on the application. As shown in FIG. 5, an additional tip edge 502 may be included between the leading and trailing edge. The leading and/or trailing edges of either or both of the upper and lower portions of the winglet may also be curved toward the free stream air direction. US Publication Number 2010/0181432, titled “Curved Wing Tip,” incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, describes alterative winglet tip designs applicable to the present split winglet tip.


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.

Claims
  • 1. A wing tip configured to be attached to an attachment end of a wing defining a wing chord plane, comprising: a winglet configured to couple to the attachment end as a continuous extension of the wing, the winglet smoothly transitioning from a continuous extension portion in the wing chord plane to a portion extending above the wing chord plane, the winglet including a leading edge swept rearward; anda fin coupled to the winglet, extending below the wing chord plane, the fin having: a leading edge swept rearward, the leading edge including a first curve adjacent the winglet and a second curve adjacent a tip section; anda trailing edge including a third curve adjacent the tip section.
  • 2. The wing tip of claim 1, wherein the winglet has a frontal profile comprising a generally curved transition section continuously extending from the continuous extension portion and a generally linear section continuously extending from the curved transition section.
  • 3. The wing tip of claim 2, wherein the fin projects from the generally curved transition section of the winglet.
  • 4. The wing tip of claim 3, wherein the fin has a generally linear frontal profile.
  • 5. The wing tip of claim 1, wherein the winglet includes a tip section approaching a freestream air direction, and wherein the leading edge is generally linear.
  • 6. The wing tip of claim 5, wherein a trailing edge of the winglet is generally linear.
  • 7. The wing tip of claim 1, wherein the leading edge of the fin includes a generally linear section, and wherein the tip section approaches the freestream air direction.
  • 8. The wing tip of claim 1, wherein a trailing edge of the winglet and the trailing edge of the fin intersect.
  • 9. A wing tip attachable to a wing end, comprising: an upward projecting portion shaped to smoothly and continuously transition from the wing end, the upward projecting portion including a leading edge swept rearward; anda lower projecting portion emanating from a chordwise wing location of the upward projecting portion, the lower projecting portion having: a leading edge swept rearward, the leading edge including a first curve adjacent the upward projecting portion and a second curve adjacent a tip section; anda trailing edge including a third curve adjacent the tip section,wherein the upward projecting portion and the lower projecting portion project outwardly from the wing end.
  • 10. The wing tip of claim 9, wherein the upward projecting portion extends above the wing end and the lower projecting portion extends below the wing end, when the wing tip is attached to the wing end.
  • 11. The wing tip of claim 10, wherein the lower portion projects from the chordwise wing location generally linearly.
  • 12. The wing tip of claim 10, wherein a chord length of the upward projecting portion at the chordwise wing location is greater than a chord length of the lower projecting portion at the chordwise wing location.
  • 13. The wing tip of claim 10 wherein a leading edge of the upward projecting portion approaches the freestream air direction near an end of the upward projecting portion away from the chordwise wing location.
  • 14. The wing tip of claim 9, wherein a transitional section adjacent to the chordwise wing location on the upward projecting portion forms a near-radial curve.
  • 15. The wing tip of claim 14, wherein the upward projecting portion extends generally planar from the transitional section.
  • 16. The wing tip of claim 14, wherein an intersection of the upward projecting portion and lower projecting portion is blended to minimize aerodynamic interference and produce optimal loading.
  • 17. The wing tip of claim 14, wherein the lower portion is a separately attachable fin coupled to an existing curved winglet integrated with an aircraft comprising the upper projecting portion.
  • 18. An aircraft with a wing projecting from a body, the wing having a split wing tip, the split wing tip comprising: a first wing end extending from the wing away from the body along an entire length of the first wing end and projecting above a plane of the wing, the first wing including a leading edge swept rearward; anda second wing end extending from a lower surface of the first wing end and projecting below the plane of the wing, the second wing end having: a leading edge swept rearward, the leading edge including a first curve adjacent the first wing end and a second curve adjacent a tip; anda trailing edge including a third curve adjacent the tip.
  • 19. The aircraft of claim 18, the first wing end further comprising a curved section and a generally planar section, such that the first wing end creates a continuous extension from the plane of the wing through the curved section and upward into the generally planar section, the second wing end projecting generally planar from the curved section.
  • 20. The aircraft of claim 19, wherein the first wing end and the second wing end comprise respective leading edges approaching lines parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft at a first wing end tip and the second wing end tip, respectively.
  • 21. The wing tip of claim 1, wherein the winglet comprises a leading edge configured to align and continuously extend from a leading edge of the wing, and a trailing edge configured to align and continuously extend from a trailing edge of the wing, the leading edge and trailing edge smoothly transitioning through the wing tip.
  • 22. The wing tip of claim 21, wherein the fin trailing edge originates along the trailing edge of the winglet.
  • 23. The wing tip of claim 22, wherein the fin leading edge extends from a lower surface of the winglet such that the fin leading edge does not contact the winglet leading edge.
  • 24. The aircraft of claim 18, wherein the wing comprises a leading edge and a trailing edge smoothly and continuously extending along an entire length from the aircraft body through the first wing end and to a terminal end of the first wing end.
  • 25. The aircraft of claim 24, wherein the leading edge is swept rearward and approaches a line parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft body at the terminal end of the first wing end.
  • 26. The wing tip of claim 1, wherein the winglet comprises an angle between the wing along the wing chord plane and the winglet of generally between 90 degrees and 140 degrees.
  • 27. The wing tip of claim 1, wherein the leading edge of the winglet continuously transitions from a leading edge of the wing.
  • 28. The wing tip of claim 9, wherein the leading edge of the upward projecting portion continuously transitions from a leading edge of the wing end.
  • 29. The aircraft of claim 18, wherein the leading edge of the first wing end continuously transitions from a leading edge of the wing.
PRIORITY

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.

US Referenced Citations (104)
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
Foreign Referenced Citations (27)
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
Non-Patent Literature Citations (30)
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.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20120312928 A1 Dec 2012 US
Provisional Applications (1)
Number Date Country
61495236 Jun 2011 US