Wing tip device

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 11851164
  • Patent Number
    11,851,164
  • Date Filed
    Friday, August 13, 2021
    2 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, December 26, 2023
    5 months ago
Abstract
A wing tip device for fixing to the outboard end of a wing, the wing defining a wing plane, the wing tip device comprising: an upper wing-like element projecting upwardly with respect to the wing plane and having a trailing edge; and a lower wing-like element fixed with respect to the upper wing-like element and having a root chord and a trailing edge, the lower wing-like element root chord intersecting with the upper wing-like element, and the lower wing-like element projecting downwardly from the intersection, wherein the upper wing-like element is larger than the lower wing-like element and the trailing edge of the lower wing-like element is adjacent the trailing edge of the upper wing-like element at the intersection, and wherein an included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is less than, or equal to, 160 degrees. Also, a wing with the wing tip device; an aircraft with the wing; a method of fitting, or retro-fitting, the wing tip device to a wing; a method of modifying an existing wing tip device; and a method of operating a wing with the wing tip device.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a wing tip device for fixing to the outboard end of a wing. Also, a wing with the wing tip device; an aircraft with the wing; a method of fitting, or retro-fitting, the wing tip device to a wing; a method of modifying an existing wing tip device; and a method of operating a wing with the wing tip device.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

A wing tip device is attached to the outboard end of a wing to reduce induced drag on the wing. In the case of e.g. an aircraft wing this can lead to improved fuel efficiency and reduced carbon emissions. Wing tip devices can take a variety of forms.


A winglet is a wing-like element that extends from the wing tip. A winglet may extend upwardly or downwardly from the wing tip. NASA TN D-8260 entitled “A Design Approach and Selected Wind-Tunnel Results at High Subsonic Speeds for Wing-Tip Mounted Winglets”; Whitcomb, R. T.; 1976 describes a wing tip device having a lower winglet (extending downwardly from the wing tip) forward of an upper winglet (extending upwardly from the wing tip). The sizing of these tip devices are recommended in NASA T M 81230 entitled “Effect of Winglets on the Induced Drag of Ideal Wing Shapes”; RT Jones and TA Lasinski 1980.


A wing tip fence is a special form of wing tip device that extends vertically both above and below the wing tip. U.S. Pat. No. 4,714,215 describes a wing tip fence.


Another example of a wing tip device is a non-planar wing tip extension, i.e. it extends out of the plane of the wing to which it is attached. A winglet may be considered to be a particular example of a non-planar wing tip extension. US 2002/0162917 describes a non-planar wing tip extension having continuously increasing curvature of local dihedral, continuously increasing sweepback (at both leading and tailing edges), and continuously decreasing chord in the outboard direction.


A winglet may include a substantially planar portion joined to the wing tip by a curved transition portion to form a blended winglet, such as described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,348,253. The transition portion has a constant radius of curvature. The specified blend is said to reduce interference drag effects at the wing tip.


Alternatively, a winglet may include a substantially planar portion joined to the wing tip by a non-planar wing tip extension portion, such as described in WO 2008/061739. The non-planar wing tip extension portion has increasing curvature of local dihedral in the outboard direction. The wing tip extension portion is said to further reduce interference drag effects compared to a blended winglet with a constant radius transition.


Another example of a wing tip device is a substantially planar wing tip extension, such as the raked wing tip described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,089,502, which does not extend substantially out of the plane of the wing. Raked wing tips can achieve similar drag reduction performance to winglets.


Span constraints on aircraft, due to e.g. airport compatibility gate limits or aircraft category flying constraints, mean that winglets or non-planar wing tip extensions, rather than raked wing tips, may need to be adopted in order to reduce induced drag on the wing. Since winglets (and non-planar wing tip extensions more generally) extend out of the plane of the wing to which they are attached, an effective increase in the wing aspect ratio can be achieved (which reduces the vortex-induced drag on the wing) without significantly increasing wing span.


The problem of span constraints is traditionally solved by optimising the wing span of the aircraft in the (full fuel load) ground shape where the span constraints are applicable. However, due to the bend induced on the wing shape from aeroelastic effects during flight, the wing span of the resulting flight shape is usually reduced and is therefore no longer optimal. This traditional approach therefore carries a performance shortfall. This problem becomes even more appreciable with greater use of relatively flexible wings to reduce structural weight, which tend to result in increased wing bending under aerodynamic load when compared to more rigid designs.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A first aspect of the invention provides a wing tip device for fixing to the outboard end of a wing, the wing defining a wing plane, the wing tip device comprising: an upper wing-like element projecting upwardly with respect to the wing plane and having a trailing edge; and a lower wing-like element fixed with respect to the upper wing-like element and having a root chord and a trailing edge, the lower wing-like element root chord intersecting with the upper wing-like element, and the lower wing-like element projecting downwardly from the intersection, wherein the upper wing-like element is larger than the lower wing-like element and the trailing edge of the lower wing-like element is adjacent the trailing edge of the upper wing-like element at the intersection, and wherein an included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is less than, or equal to, 160 degrees.


A second aspect of the invention provides a wing having an outboard end and a wing tip device in accordance with the first aspect fixed to its outboard end.


A third aspect of the invention provides an aircraft having a wing according to the second aspect.


A fourth aspect of the invention provides a method of fitting, or retro-fitting, a wing tip device to a wing, the method comprising fixing a wing tip device in accordance with the first aspect to the outboard end of a wing.


A fifth aspect of the invention provides a method of modifying a wing tip device fixed to, or for fixing to, the outboard end of a wing, the wing defining a wing plane, the existing wing tip device comprising an upper wing-like element projecting upwardly with respect to the wing plane and having a trailing edge, and the method comprising providing a lower wing-like element smaller than the upper wing-like element and having a root chord and a trailing edge, and fixing the lower wing-like element to the upper wing-like element such that: the lower wing-like element root chord intersects with the upper wing-like element, and the lower wing-like element projects downwardly from the intersection; and that the trailing edge of the lower wing-like element is adjacent the trailing edge of the upper wing-like element at the intersection; and that an included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is less than, or equal to, 160 degrees.


A sixth aspect of the invention provides a method of operating a wing having a wing tip device fixed to the outboard end of the wing, the wing defining a wing plane, and the wing tip device comprising: an upper wing-like element projecting upwardly with respect to the wing plane and having a trailing edge; and a lower wing-like element fixed with respect to the upper wing-like element and having a root chord and a trailing edge, the lower wing-like element root chord intersecting with the upper wing-like element, and the lower wing-like element projecting downwardly from the intersection, wherein the upper wing-like element is larger than the lower wing-like element and the trailing edge of the lower wing-like element is adjacent the trailing edge of the upper wing-like element at the intersection, and wherein an included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is less than, or equal to, 160 degrees, and the method comprising subjecting the wing to aerodynamic loads such that the wing shape undergoes aeroelastic deformation to a state in which wing bending causes rotation of the wing tip device about the wing root such that the tip of the lower wing-like element extends further outboard in the spanwise direction than the tip of the upper wing-like element.


The invention is advantageous in that the lower wing-like element acts to offset at least some of the decrease in wing span that occurs due to aeroelastic deformation in the flight shape, whilst the upper and lower wing-like elements may still be optimised to meet any applicable span constraints in the ground shape. The addition of the lower element to a wing tip device comprising only an upper wing-like element (e.g. a winglet) has been shown to reduce drag on the wing/wing tip device combination by around a further 1.9% overall, with a vortex drag reduction of around a further 25 to 40% relative to that provided by the upper element alone.


Near coincidence of the upper and lower element trailing edges is important to avoid wake disturbance effects. The trailing edges need not be exactly coincident but must be adjacent so as to avoid the wake of one element impacting on the flow over the other element at the intersection.


The included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is important such that the lower element provides an increase in span in the flight shape. The cant angle of the lower element (i.e. the angle between the vertical x-z plane and the element) may be optimised in order to achieve the maximum span increase in the flight shape, with due consideration to minimising interference effects at the intersection. Note that a wing tip fence has an approximately 180 degree included angle between vertical upper and lower elements, and so the lower element provides negligible increase in span in the flight shape.


The upper wing-like element is larger than the lower wing-like element. The lower wing-like element may have an element planform area less than approximately 25% of the upper wing-like element planform area. Note that the planform area of each element is viewed in a plane different to that of the wing planform area. The planform area of the lower element may be designed in order to deliver the required span loading while minimising the cruise viscous drag penalty, and to provide good low speed high lift performance. Ground height clearance constraints may limit the size of the lower element.


The lower wing-like element is fixed with respect to the upper wing-like element. The wing tip device is fixed with respect to the wing. The invention is not concerned with moveable wing tip devices as these are generally heavier than fixed devices, which may offset any performance benefit. Also, solving the problem of span constraints is somewhat trivial with moveable wing tip devices.


An included angle between the wing plane and the lower wing-like element may be at least 110 degrees. The lower element therefore extends outboard from the outboard end of the wing, and interference effects between the wing lower surface and the lower element can be minimised.


The included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection may be at least 80 degrees, and preferably is at least 90 degrees. This helps minimise interference effects between the upper and lower elements at the intersection.


The lower wing-like element may be substantially planar.


Alternatively, the lower wing-like element may be substantially non-planar. In particular, the lower element may have wing twist, e.g. wash-out. The lower element may have a spanwise curvature of increasing anhedral from root to tip.


The lower element may have a toe angle relative to the vertical x-z plane.


The lower element may have a sweep back angle. In particular, the lower element may have a swept back leading edge. The sweep back angle of the lower element leading edge may be similar to that of the upper element.


The upper wing-like element may include a substantially planar portion.


In one embodiment, the upper wing-like element may be substantially planar. The upper element may be a winglet.


In another embodiment, the upper wing-like element may include a substantially planar portion and an arcuate transition portion adapted to smoothly blend the outboard end of the wing into the substantially planar portion of the upper wing-like element. The upper element may be a blended winglet. The transition portion may have a constant radius of curvature. The blend helps to reduce interference drag effects at the wing tip.


In yet another embodiment, the upper wing-like element may include a substantially planar portion and a non-planar curved wing tip extension adapted to smoothly blend the outboard end of the wing into the substantially planar portion of the upper wing-like element. The upper element may be a winglet blended into the wing by a non-planar wing tip extension portion. The non-planar wing tip extension portion may have increasing curvature of local dihedral in the outboard direction. The wing tip extension portion helps to further reduce interference drag effects compared to a blended winglet with a constant radius transition.


The upper wing-like element may be a substantially non-planar curved wing tip extension. The extension may have continuously increasing curvature of local dihedral, continuously increasing sweepback (at both leading and tailing edges), and continuously decreasing chord in the outboard direction.


The upper wing-like element may have wing twist from root to tip, e.g. wash-out.


The upper wing-like element may have a toe angle relative to the vertical x-z plane.


The upper wing-like element may have a sweep back angle. In particular, the upper element may have a swept back leading edge. The sweep back angle of the upper element leading edge may be similar to that of the lower element.


The intersection between the lower wing-like element and the upper wing-like element may be at the outboard end of the wing.


Alternatively, the intersection between the lower wing-like element and the upper wing-like element may be outboard of the outboard end of the wing. This may be particularly advantageous where the upper element is smoothly blended into the outboard end of the wing. In this case, the intersection may be on the lower surface of the upper element.


The root chord of the lower element may extend along only part of the local chord of the upper element at the intersection.


When the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, the tip of the lower wing-like element may extend no further outboard in the spanwise direction than the tip of the upper wing-like element. In this way both upper and lower element tips may be at the airport gate limit, for example.


When the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, the spanwise extent of the tip of the lower wing-like element may be substantially equal to the spanwise extent of the tip of the upper wing-like element. Alternatively, the spanwise extent of the tip of the lower wing-like element may be greater than the spanwise extent of the tip of the upper wing-like element when the span of the tip of the upper element is substantially less than the airport gate limit.


When the aircraft is in flight, the tip of the lower wing-like element may extend further outboard in the spanwise direction than the tip of the upper wing-like element due to aeroelastic deformation of the wing shape.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Embodiments of the invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:



FIG. 1 illustrates a prior art aircraft wing with an upper winglet, shown a) in its ground shape, and b) in its flight shape;



FIG. 2 illustrates Detail A of FIG. 1 showing the span-limit on the ground, and the loss of span due to wing deformation under aerodynamic load;



FIG. 3 illustrates an aircraft wing/wing tip device according to a first embodiment having a planar upper winglet and a planar lower winglet, shown a) in its ground shape, and b) in its flight shape, and illustrating the span gained from the lower element in the flight shape;



FIG. 4 illustrates the aircraft wing/wing tip device (in the ground shape) according to the first embodiment in detail;



FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrates graphically the further reduction in drag due to the lower element in the first embodiment;



FIG. 7 illustrates an aircraft wing/wing tip device (in the ground shape) according to a second embodiment having a planar upper winglet and a non-planar lower winglet;



FIG. 8 illustrates an aircraft wing/wing tip device (in the ground shape) according to a third embodiment having a blended upper winglet and a planar lower winglet;



FIG. 9 illustrates an aircraft wing/wing tip device (in the ground shape) according to a fourth embodiment having an upper winglet blended into the wing with a non-planar wing tip extension, and a planar lower winglet (although a non-planar lower winglet may also be applied); and



FIG. 10 illustrates a perspective view of the wing/wing tip device of the fourth embodiment;



FIG. 11 illustrates a plan view of the wing/wing tip device of the fourth embodiment;



FIG. 12 illustrates an aircraft wing/wing tip device according to a fifth embodiment having a non-planar (upper) wing tip extension and a planar lower winglet; and



FIG. 13 illustrates a perspective view of the wing tip device of the fifth embodiment.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF EMBODIMENT(S)


FIG. 1 illustrates a prior art aircraft wing 1 having an inboard wing root 2 and an outboard wing tip 3. A wing tip device comprising an upwardly extending winglet 4 is fixed to the outboard end 3 of the wing 1. The wing 1 is shown in FIG. 1 in a) its ground shape (i.e. with the aircraft on the ground and with a full fuel load in the wing), and b) its flight shape (i.e. with deformation due to aerodynamic load).



FIG. 2 illustrates Detail A of FIG. 1 and the broken line 5 illustrates a span constraint imposed on the aircraft due to e.g. airport compatibility gate limits or aircraft category flying constraints. The span limit 5 is applicable for the ground shape shown in FIG. 2a). FIG. 2b) illustrates the loss 6 in wing span due to wing deformation in the flight shape. This loss in span 6 may be up to around 3%.



FIG. 3 illustrates an aircraft wing 101 according to a first embodiment having a planar upper winglet 104 and a planar lower winglet 107. The upper winglet 104 is fixed to the outboard end 103 of the wing 101. The wing 101 defines a wing plane 108. The upper winglet 104 projects upwardly with respect to the wing plane 108. The upper winglet 104 has a tip 109 and a root 110. The lower winglet has a tip 111 and a root 112. The lower winglet root chord 112 intersects with the upper winglet 104 and the lower winglet 107 projects downwardly from this intersection. The upper and lower winglets 104, 107 each have a leading edge and a trailing edge and the trailing edges are adjacent at the intersection. FIG. 3a) illustrates the wing 101 in its ground shape where the tip 109 of the upper winglet 104 and the tip 111 of the lower winglet 107 are coincident at the span limit 105. FIG. 3b) illustrates the wing 101 in its deformed flight shape and shows how a potential loss in span 106 due to the upper winglet 104 is mitigated by an increase in span 113 gained from the lower winglet 107. This gain in span 113 due to the lower winglet 107 is approximately 2%.



FIG. 4 illustrates the aircraft wing 101 of the first embodiment in greater detail. The lower winglet 107 is sized and oriented so as to maximise the span increase in the flight shape, whilst minimising interference effects at the intersection between the lower winglet 107 and the upper winglet 104. In addition, a ground clearance height G between the ground and the tip 111 of the lower winglet 107 is taken into account. The resultant geometry provides an included angle between the upper and lower wing elements of around 132°, and an included angle between the wing plane 108 and the lower winglet 107 of around 128°. The lower winglet 107 has a winglet planform area of around 20% of the upper winglet 104 planform area. The relatively small size of the lower winglet 107 minimises the viscous drag penalty at cruise whilst delivering the required optimum span loading.



FIGS. 5 and 6 illustrate graphically the effect of the addition of the lower winglet element 107 on the lift and vortex drag characteristics of the wing 101. In FIGS. 5 and 6 the line with circular markers represents a reference wing corresponding to the wing 101 with a tip near to an imposed span limit without any wing tip device. The line with the cross markers illustrate the wing 101 with only the upper winglet element 104 (sized as recommended in NASA T M 81230 entitled “Effect of Winglets on the Induced Drag of Ideal Wing Shapes”; RT Jones and TA Lasinski 1980), and the line with the triangular markers represent the wing 101 with both the upper and lower winglet elements 104, 107. FIG. 5 illustrates the relationship between lift and drag coefficients (CL, CD) and shows an improvement in lift to drag ratio for the wing 101 with both the upper and lower winglet element 104, 107 as compared to both the reference wing and the wing with only an upper winglet element. FIG. 6 illustrates a drag saving due to the addition of the lower winglet element 107 of around 1.9% at the mid-cruise weight lift coefficient (CL=0.5) relative to the wing with upper element 104 alone. The vortex drag reduction provided by the lower winglet element 107 is a further reduction of around 25 to 40%.



FIG. 7 illustrates an aircraft wing 201 according to a second embodiment having a planar upper winglet 204 and a non planar lower winglet 207. The wing 201 defines a wing plane 208 and the upper winglet 204 projects upwardly with respect to the wing plane 208. The upper winglet 204 is fixed to the outboard end 203 of the wing 201. The lower winglet 207 has a root chord 212 which intersects with the upper winglet 204. The lower winglet 207 projects downwardly from the intersection. The upper winglet 204 has a tip 209 and a root 210. The lower winglet 207 has a tip 211 that is coincident in the spanwise direction with the tip 209 at the span limit 205. The upper and lower winglets 204, 207 each have a leading edge and a trailing edge and the trailing edges are adjacent at the intersection. The wing 201 is illustrated in FIG. 7 in its ground shape where the span limit 205 is enforced.


The lower winglet 207 has increasing curvature of local anhedral from root 212 to tip 211. The lower winglet 207 may have a toe in on toe-out angle to optimise the low speed performance of the tip device.


The wingtip device for the wing 201 has been optimised so as to maximise the span increase under flight aerodynamic loads, whilst minimising interference effects between the lower winglet 207 and the lower surface of the wing 201, and between the upper and lower winglets 204, 207. The resultant optimised geometry has an included angle between the upper and lower winglets 204, 207 of around 120°, and an included angle between the wing plane 208 and the lower winglet 207 of around 138°. In the flight shape, the lower winglet 207 provides a further gain in span as compared to the lower winglet 107 of the wing 101, principally due to the increased root 212 to tip 211 height of the lower winglet 207 and the flexibility of the lower winglet 207 which straightens under flight loads.



FIG. 8 illustrates an aircraft wing 301 according to a third embodiment having a blended upper winglet 304 and a planar lower winglet 307. The wing 301 has an outboard end 303 to which is fixed the blended upper winglet 304. The upper winglet 304 has a tip 309 and a root 310. The upper winglet 304 is fixed to the outboard end 303 of the wing 301 by its root end 310. The upper winglet 304 has a substantially planar portion 314 and an arcuate transition portion 315. The transition portion 315 is adapted to smoothly blend the outboard end 303 of the wing 301 into the substantially planar portion 314. The arcuate transition portion 315 has a substantially constant radius of curvature R.


The lower winglet 307 is fixed to the lower surface of the transition portion 315 of the upper winglet 304. The lower winglet has a tip 311 and a root 312. The root chord of the lower winglet 307 intersects with the upper winglet 304 and the lower winglet projects downwardly from the intersection. The upper and lower winglets 304, 307 each have a leading edge and a trailing edge and the trailing edges are adjacent at the intersection. The transition portion 315 helps reduce interference effects between the substantially planar portion 314 and the wing 301.


The tip 309 of the upper winglet 304 is substantially coincident in the vertical x-z plane with the tip 311 of the lower winglet 307 at the span limit 305. An included angle between the upper and lower winglets 304, 307 at the intersection is around 84°. It is preferable that this angle is at least 80° so as to avoid interference effects between the upper and lower winglets 304, 307. Since the intersection is on the lower surface of the blended transition portion 315, this angle is measured between the transition portion lower surface tangent and the lower winglet 307. An included angle between the wing plane 308 and the lower winglet 307 is around 125°. The substantially planar portion 314 of the upper winglet 304 has a cant angle relative to the vertical x-z plane of around 7° to 15°.


The lower winglet element 307 has an element planform area of approximately 25% of the upper winglet element 304 planform area. Whilst the lower winglet 307 is substantially planar it may have some wing twist from root 312 to tip 311. The lower winglet 307 may additionally or alternatively have a toe in or toe out angle to optimise low speed performance. Similarly, the upper winglet 304 may have some twist and may have a toe in or toe out angle. The lower winglet 307 has a sweep back angle and in particular the leading edge is swept back. The upper winglet 304 is also swept back and has a swept back leading edge and a swept back trailing edge.


If ground clearance limits allow, then the lower winglet element 307 could be replaced with a non-planar lower winglet element similar to that described above with reference to FIG. 7.



FIG. 9 illustrates an aircraft wing/wingtip device combination comprising a wing 401, a blended upper winglet 404 and a planar lower winglet 407. The wing 401 has an outboard end 403 and defines a wing plane 408. The upper winglet 404 includes a substantially planar portion 414 and a blended transition portion 415. The transition portion 415 smoothly blends the outboard end 403 of the wing 401 into the substantially planar portion 414 of the upper winglet 404. The transition portion 415 is a non-planar curved wing tip extension having continuously increasing curvature of local dihedral, continuously increasing sweep back (at both leading and trailing edges) and continuously decreasing chord in the outboard direction. The non-planar curved wing tip extension portion 415 provides improved drag performance for the upper winglet 404 in comparison to the blended upper winglet 304 shown in FIG. 8.


The upper winglet 404 has a root 410 and a tip 409. The substantially planar portion 414 of the upper winglet 404 has a cant angle of around 7° to the vertical x-z plane. A substantially planar lower winglet 407 is fixed to the lower surface of the non-planar curved wing tip extension portion 415 of the upper winglet 404. The lower winglet 407 has a tip 411 and a root 412. The root chord of the lower winglet 407 intersects with the upper winglet 404 and the lower winglet projects downwardly from the intersection.


An included angle between the upper and lower winglets 404, 407 at the intersection is around 86°. Since the intersection is on the lower surface of the non planar curved wing tip extension portion 415 of the upper winglet 404, this angle is measured from a local surface tangent to the lower surface of the non-planar curved wing tip extension portion 415 at the intersection. This included angle is preferably greater than 80° to avoid interference effects between the upper and lower winglets 404, 407. An included angle between the wing plane 408 and the lower winglet is around 124°. The tip 409 of the upper winglet 404 is substantially coincident in the vertical x-z plane to the tip 411 of the lower winglet 407 at the span limit 405.



FIGS. 10 and 11 illustrate perspective and plan views respectively of the wing/wingtip device combination of the fourth embodiment. From FIG. 10 in particular it can be seen that the trailing edge 416 of the upper winglet 404, and the trailing edge 417 of the lower winglet 407 are substantially adjacent at the intersection. The trailing edges 416, 417 are sufficiently close that the wake from the lower winglet 407 substantially does not interfere with the flow over the upper winglet 404. The upper winglet 404 has a leading edge 418 that is swept backwards and the lower winglet 407 also has a leading edge 419 that is swept backwards. The trailing edge 416 of the upper winglet 404 is swept backwards and the trailing edge 417 of the lower winglet 407 is also swept backwards.


In FIG. 11, the plan view (i.e. the top down view in the x-y plane) illustrates how the upper winglet 404 “shadows” at least part of the lower winglet 407. This is due to the coincidence of tips 409, 411 of the upper and lower winglets 404, 407 in the vertical x-z plane. As best shown in FIG. 10, the root chord 412 of the lower winglet 407 occupies only part of the local chord of the upper winglet 404 at the intersection. Due to the near coincidence of the trailing edges 416, 417 the leading edge 419 of the lower winglet 407 is positioned substantially aft of the leading edge 418 of the upper winglet 404.



FIG. 12 illustrates an aircraft wing/wingtip device combination according to a fifth embodiment, comprising a wing 501 with a wingtip device comprising an upper non-planar wingtip extension 504 and a lower planar winglet 507. The wing 501 has an outboard end 503 and defines a wing plane 508. The non-planar wingtip extension 504 has a root 510 and a tip 509 and is fixed to the outboard end 503 of the wing 501 by its root 510. The non-planar curved wingtip extension 504 has continuously increasing curvature of local dihedral, continuously increasing sweepback (at both leading and trailing edges 518, 516), and continuously decreasing chord in the outboard direction, y.


The non-planar curved wingtip extension 504 is substantially non-planar from root 510 to tip 509. The tip 509 forms a cant angle of approximately 8° with the vertical x-z plane. The lower winglet 507 has a tip 511 and a root 512 and the root chord intersects with the non-planar curved wingtip extension 504, with the lower winglet 507 projecting downwardly from the intersection. An included angle between the non-planar wingtip extension 504 and the lower winglet 507 at the intersection is approximately 82°. This angle is measured between the lower winglet 507 and a local surface tangent to the lower surface of the non planar curved wingtip extension 504 at the intersection. An included angle between the wing plane 508 and the lower winglet 507 is approximately 126°. The tips 509, 511 of the non-planar curved wingtip extension 504 and the lower winglet 507 are substantially coincident in the vertical x-z plane at the span limit 506.



FIG. 13 illustrates the wingtip device in accordance with the fifth embodiment in a perspective view and clearly shows that the trailing edge 516 of the non-planar curved wingtip extension 504 is substantially coincident with the trailing edge 517 of the lower winglet 507 at the intersection. Both the non-planar curved wingtip extension 504 and the lower winglet 507 have a sweepback angle and the leading and trailing edges 516, 517, 518, 519 each have a respective sweepback angle.


The lower winglet 507 may be only substantially planar and may feature winglet twist from root to tip and a toe in or toe out angle relative to the free stream flow. Similarly, the non planar curved wingtip extension 504 may feature wing twist and a toe in or toe out angle relative to the free stream flow. The lower winglet 507 may be replaced with a substantially non-planar curved lower winglet, similar to that described above with reference to FIG. 7 if ground height clearance limits allow.


Each of the second to fifth embodiments described above with reference to FIGS. 7 to 13 are shown with the respective wing/wingtip device combination in its ground shape. Due to aerodynamic loads on the wing during flight, deformation of the wing will cause rotation of the wingtip device about the wing root such that the tip of the lower wing-like element extends further outboard in the spanwise direction than the tip of the upper wing-like element. The lower wing-like element in each case therefore provides an increase in wing span when compared to wingtip devices having only the upper wing-like element in each case.


The wingtip devices described in the first to fifth embodiments above may be fitted, or retro-fit to the outboard end of an aircraft wing having either no wingtip device or as a replacement for an existing wingtip device. Furthermore, the lower wing-like element may be provided as a retro-fit modification to an existing wingtip device having only an upper wing-like element so as to form a wingtip device according to this invention.


Although the invention has been described above with reference to one or more preferred embodiments, it will be appreciated that various changes or modifications may be made without departing from the scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.

Claims
  • 1. A wing tip device fixed to an outboard end of a wing of an aircraft, the wing defining a wing plane, the wing tip device comprising: an upper wing-like element projecting upwardly with respect to the wing plane and having a trailing edge; anda lower wing-like element fixed with respect to the upper wing-like element and having a root chord and a trailing edge, the lower wing-like element root chord intersecting with the upper wing-like element, and the lower wing-like element projecting downwardly from the intersection,wherein the upper wing-like element includes a substantially planar portion and an arcuate transition portion adapted to smoothly blend the outboard end of the wing into the substantially planar portion, the transition portion having a lower surface, the lower surface curving upwards such that the transition portion extends above the wing plane,wherein the intersection between the lower wing-like element and the upper wing-like element is on the lower surface of the transition portion, outboard of the outboard end of the wing, such that the intersection is located above the wing plane,wherein the upper wing-like element is larger than the lower wing-like element and the trailing edge of the lower wing-like element is adjacent the trailing edge of the upper wing-like element at the intersection,wherein an included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is less than, or equal to, 160 degrees, andwherein the wing tip device is arranged such that the lower wing-like element provides an increase in wingspan during flight.
  • 2. The wing tip device according to claim 1, wherein the wing tip device is arranged such that when the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, a tip of the upper wing-like element extends to an upper-element ground span, and a tip of the lower element extends to a lower-element ground span, wherein the wing tip device is arranged such that when the aircraft is in flight such that there is aeroelastic deformation of the wing, the tip of the upper wing-like element extends to an upper-element flight span, and the tip of the lower element extends to a lower-element flight span, andwherein the wing tip device is arranged such that the upper-element flight span is less than the upper-element ground span and the lower element flight span is greater than the upper element flight span.
  • 3. The wing tip device according to claim 2, wherein the wing tip device is arranged such that the upper-element ground span is greater than or equal to the lower-element ground span.
  • 4. The wing tip device according to claim 1, wherein the wing tip device is arranged such that when the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, a tip of the lower wing-like element extends no further outboard in a spanwise direction than a tip of the upper wing-like element.
  • 5. The wing tip device according to claim 4, wherein the wing tip device is arranged such that when the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, a spanwise extent of the tip of the lower wing-like element is substantially equal to a spanwise extent of the tip of the upper wing-like element.
  • 6. The wing tip device according to claim 5, wherein the wing tip device is arranged such that when the aircraft is in flight such that there is aeroelastic deformation of the wing, the tip of the lower wing-like element extends further outboard in a spanwise direction than the tip of the upper wing-like element.
  • 7. The wing tip device according to claim 1, wherein the wing tip device is arranged such that a spanwise extent of the wing and wing tip device in a ground shape is substantially equal to an airport compatibility gate limit.
  • 8. An aircraft comprising: the wing and wing tip device fixed to the outboard end of the wing according to claim 1.
  • 9. A method of fitting, or retro-fitting, a wing of an aircraft, comprising: attaching a wing tip device to an outboard end of the wing, the wing tip device including:an upper wing-like element projecting upwardly with respect to a wing plane and having a trailing edge; anda lower wing-like element fixed with respect to the upper wing-like element and having a root chord and a trailing edge, the lower wing-like element root chord intersecting with the upper wing-like element, and the lower wing-like element projecting downwardly from the intersection,wherein the upper wing-like element includes a substantially planar portion and an arcuate transition portion adapted to smoothly blend the outboard end of the wing into the substantially planar portion, the transition portion having a lower surface, the lower surface curving upwards such that the transition portion extends above the wing plane,wherein the intersection between the lower wing-like element and the upper wing-like element is on the lower surface of the transition portion, outboard of the outboard end of the wing, such that the intersection is located above the wing plane,wherein the upper wing-like element is larger than the lower wing-like element and the trailing edge of the lower wing-like element is adjacent the trailing edge of the upper wing-like element at the intersection, andwherein an included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is less than, or equal to, 160 degrees; andconfiguring the wing tip device such that the lower wing-like element provides an increase in wingspan during flight.
  • 10. The method according to claim 9, further comprising: configuring the wing tip device such that when the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, a tip of the upper wing-like element extends to an upper-element ground span, and a tip of the lower element extends to a lower-element ground span;configuring the wing tip device such that when the aircraft is in flight and there is aeroelastic deformation of the wing, the tip of the upper wing-like element extends to an upper-element flight span, and the tip of the lower element extends to a lower-element flight span; andconfiguring the wing tip device such that the upper-element flight span is less than the upper-element ground span and the lower element flight span is greater than the upper element flight span.
  • 11. The method according to claim 10, further comprising: configuring the wing tip device such that the upper-element ground span is greater than or equal to the lower-element ground span.
  • 12. The method according to claim 9, further comprising: configuring the wing tip device such that when the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, a tip of the lower wing-like element extends no further outboard in a spanwise direction than a tip of the upper wing-like element.
  • 13. The method according to claim 12, further comprising: configuring the wing tip device such that when the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, a spanwise extent of the tip of the lower wing-like element is substantially equal to a spanwise extent of the tip of the upper wing-like element.
  • 14. The method according to claim 13, further comprising: configuring the wing tip device such that when the aircraft is in flight and the wing undergoes aeroelastic deformation, the tip of the lower wing-like element extends further outboard in a spanwise direction than the tip of the upper wing-like element.
  • 15. The method according to claim 9, wherein a spanwise extent of the wing and wing tip device in a ground shape is substantially equal to an airport compatibility gate limit.
  • 16. A method of modifying a wing tip device fixed to, or for fixing to, an outboard end of a wing of an aircraft, the wing defining a wing plane, the existing wing tip device comprising an upper wing-like element projecting upwardly with respect to the wing plane and having a trailing edge, comprising: providing a lower wing-like element smaller than the upper wing-like element and having a root chord and a trailing edge;fixing the lower wing-like element to the upper wing-like element such that the lower wing-like element root chord intersects with the upper wing-like element, the lower wing-like element projects downwardly from the intersection, the trailing edge of the lower wing-like element is adjacent the trailing edge of the upper wing-like element at the intersection, and an included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is less than, or equal to, 160 degrees; andconfiguring the wing tip device such that the lower wing-like element provides an increase in wingspan during flight,wherein the upper wing-like element includes a substantially planar portion and an arcuate transition portion adapted to smoothly blend the outboard end of the wing into the substantially planar portion, the transition portion having a lower surface, the lower surface curving upwards such that the transition portion extends above the wing plane, andwherein the intersection between the lower wing-like element and the upper wing-like element is on the lower surface of the transition portion, outboard of the outboard end of the wing, such that the intersection is located above the wing plane.
  • 17. The method according to claim 16, further comprising: configuring the wing tip device such that when the aircraft is on the ground and the wing is subjected to downward deflection due to full fuel load, a tip of the upper wing-like element extends to an upper-element ground span, and a tip of the lower element extends to a lower-element ground span;configuring the wing tip device such that when the aircraft is in flight and there is aeroelastic deformation of the wing, the tip of the upper wing-like element extends to an upper-element flight span, and the tip of the lower element extends to a lower-element flight span; andconfiguring the wing tip device such that the upper-element flight span is less than the upper-element ground span and the lower element flight span is greater than the upper element flight span.
  • 18. The method according to claim 17, further comprising: configuring the wing tip device such that the upper-element ground span is greater than or equal to the lower-element ground span.
  • 19. The wing tip device according to claim 1, wherein the upper wing-like element is at least 20% larger than the lower wing-like element.
  • 20. The wing tip device according to claim 1, wherein the included angle between the upper and lower wing-like elements at the intersection is approximately 90 degrees.
Priority Claims (1)
Number Date Country Kind
1011843 Jul 2010 GB national
RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/668,471, filed Apr. 17, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/805,406, filed Dec. 19, 2012, which is the National Phase of International Application Number PCT/EP2011/061552, filed Jul. 7, 2011, and claims priority from British Application Number 1011843.8, filed Jul. 14, 2010.

US Referenced Citations (250)
Number Name Date Kind
994968 Barbaudy Jun 1911 A
1050222 McIntosh Jan 1913 A
1692081 De La Cierva Nov 1928 A
1710673 MacDonald Apr 1929 A
1841921 Spiegel Jan 1932 A
2123096 Charp Jul 1938 A
2418301 Lionel Apr 1947 A
2576981 Vogt Dec 1951 A
2775419 Hlobil Dec 1956 A
2805830 Von Zborowski Sep 1957 A
2846165 Axelson Aug 1958 A
3029018 Floyd, Jr. Apr 1962 A
D196546 Kartveli Oct 1963 S
3128371 Spaulding Apr 1964 A
3199813 Roper Aug 1965 A
3270988 Cone, Jr. Sep 1966 A
3500020 Cone, Jr. Mar 1970 A
3523661 Rethorst Aug 1970 A
3684217 Kukon Aug 1972 A
3778926 Gladych Dec 1973 A
3840199 Tibbs Oct 1974 A
4017041 Nelson Apr 1977 A
4050397 Vanderleest Sep 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 Dec 1980 A
4245804 Ishimitsu Jan 1981 A
4247062 Brueckner Jan 1981 A
D259554 Parise Jun 1981 S
4272043 Spillman Jun 1981 A
4293110 Middleton et al. Oct 1981 A
4345875 Charpentier Aug 1982 A
4365773 Wolkovitch Dec 1982 A
4382569 Boppe May 1983 A
4429844 Brown Feb 1984 A
4444365 Heuberger Apr 1984 A
4445655 Hueberger May 1984 A
4449680 Gratzer May 1984 A
4453684 Hanks Jun 1984 A
4457479 Daude Jul 1984 A
4477042 Griswold, II Oct 1984 A
4538779 Goldstein Sep 1985 A
4541593 Cabrol Sep 1985 A
4545552 Welles Oct 1985 A
4595160 Santos Jun 1986 A
4598885 Waitzman Jul 1986 A
4605183 Gabriel Aug 1986 A
4667906 Suarez May 1987 A
4671473 Goodson Jun 1987 A
4674709 Welles Jun 1987 A
4714215 Jupp Dec 1987 A
4722499 Klug Feb 1988 A
4776542 Van Dam Oct 1988 A
4848700 Lockheed Jul 1989 A
4896160 Miller, Jr. Jan 1990 A
4949919 Wajnikonis Aug 1990 A
5034751 Miller, Jr. Jul 1991 A
5039032 Rudolph Aug 1991 A
5046684 Wolkovitch Sep 1991 A
5072894 Cichy Dec 1991 A
5082204 Croston Jan 1992 A
5102068 Gratzer Apr 1992 A
5156358 Gerhardt Oct 1992 A
5158251 Taylor Oct 1992 A
5190441 Murphy Mar 1993 A
5267626 Tanfield, Jr. Dec 1993 A
5275358 Goldhammer Jan 1994 A
5303879 Bucher Apr 1994 A
5348253 Gratzer Sep 1994 A
5407153 Kirk Apr 1995 A
5487351 Nedderman, Jr. Jan 1996 A
5634613 McCarthy Jun 1997 A
5702071 Kroll Dec 1997 A
5738298 Ross Apr 1998 A
5738331 Woolley Apr 1998 A
5839691 Lariviere Nov 1998 A
5871174 Hannay Feb 1999 A
5899409 Frediani May 1999 A
5899410 Garrett May 1999 A
5961068 Wainfan Oct 1999 A
5988563 Allen Nov 1999 A
5992793 Perry Nov 1999 A
6042059 Bilanin Mar 2000 A
6089502 Herrick Jul 2000 A
6161797 Kirk Dec 2000 A
6179248 Putman Jan 2001 B1
6224012 Wooley May 2001 B1
6227487 Clark May 2001 B1
6260809 Egolf Jul 2001 B1
6297486 Rom Oct 2001 B1
6345790 Brix Feb 2002 B1
6394397 Ngo May 2002 B1
6422518 Stuff Jul 2002 B1
6474604 Carlow Nov 2002 B1
6484968 Felker Nov 2002 B2
6547181 Hoisington Apr 2003 B1
6578798 Dizdarevic Jun 2003 B1
6619584 Haynes Sep 2003 B1
6722615 Heller Apr 2004 B2
6726149 Wojciechowski Apr 2004 B2
6827314 Barriety Dec 2004 B2
6886778 McLean May 2005 B2
6923403 Dizdarevic Aug 2005 B1
6926345 Ortega Aug 2005 B2
7048228 Vassberg May 2006 B2
7275722 Irving Oct 2007 B2
7316371 Wyrembek Jan 2008 B2
7475848 Morgenstern Jan 2009 B2
D595211 Cazals Jun 2009 S
7597285 Schweiger Oct 2009 B2
7644892 Alford, Jr. Jan 2010 B1
7744038 Sankrithi Jun 2010 B2
7900876 Eberhardt Mar 2011 B2
7900877 Guida Mar 2011 B1
7905449 Cazals Mar 2011 B2
7971832 Hackett Jul 2011 B2
7980515 Hunter Jul 2011 B2
7988099 Bray Aug 2011 B2
7988100 Mann Aug 2011 B2
7997875 Nanukuttan Aug 2011 B2
8123160 Shepshelovich Feb 2012 B2
8128023 Cazals Mar 2012 B2
8128035 Malachowski Mar 2012 B2
8152109 Silich Apr 2012 B2
8196537 Lee Jun 2012 B2
8241002 Wobben Aug 2012 B2
8342456 Mann Jan 2013 B2
8366056 Garang Feb 2013 B2
8382041 Yechout Feb 2013 B1
8439313 Rawdon May 2013 B2
8490925 Buescher Jul 2013 B2
8544800 Stuhr Oct 2013 B2
8651427 Malachowski Feb 2014 B1
8727285 Theurich May 2014 B2
8757555 Werthmann Jun 2014 B2
8757557 Brewer Jun 2014 B2
8788122 Sankrithi Jul 2014 B1
8820676 Cazals Sep 2014 B2
8832041 Teh Sep 2014 B1
8876044 Cazals Nov 2014 B2
8894018 Boer Nov 2014 B2
8910910 Emunds Dec 2014 B2
8936219 Roman Jan 2015 B2
8944386 Gratzer Feb 2015 B2
9033282 Wright May 2015 B2
9162748 Brunken, Jr. Oct 2015 B2
9193445 Wright Nov 2015 B2
9199727 Wright Dec 2015 B2
9302766 Gratzer Apr 2016 B2
9381999 Gratzer Jul 2016 B2
9457894 Bonatto Oct 2016 B2
9511850 Zaman Dec 2016 B2
9573693 Cazals Feb 2017 B2
9714080 Bradshaw Jul 2017 B2
9884674 Suciu Feb 2018 B2
10053209 Speer Aug 2018 B2
10232934 Gratzer Mar 2019 B2
10252793 Gratzer Apr 2019 B2
10377472 Gratzer Aug 2019 B2
10526073 Theurich Jan 2020 B2
10853438 Spillane Dec 2020 B1
10946951 Commis Mar 2021 B2
11111029 Hoisington Sep 2021 B2
11267577 Mondal Mar 2022 B2
11279469 Petscher Mar 2022 B2
11427307 Petscher Aug 2022 B2
11440645 Guida Sep 2022 B2
20020003190 Sankrithi Jan 2002 A1
20020092947 Felker Jul 2002 A1
20020162917 Heller Nov 2002 A1
20030106961 Wyrembek Jun 2003 A1
20040155146 Wyrembek Aug 2004 A1
20040195461 Hugues Oct 2004 A1
20040262451 McLean Dec 2004 A1
20050001103 Vassberg Jan 2005 A1
20050116116 Morgenstern Jun 2005 A1
20050133672 Irving Jun 2005 A1
20050173592 Houck, II Aug 2005 A1
20050184196 Shmilovich Aug 2005 A1
20060027703 Bussom Feb 2006 A1
20060144991 Frediani Jul 2006 A1
20060249630 McCarthy Nov 2006 A1
20070018037 Perlo Jan 2007 A1
20070018049 Stuhr Jan 2007 A1
20070114327 Dees May 2007 A1
20070131821 Johan Jun 2007 A1
20070252031 Hackett Nov 2007 A1
20070262207 Morgenstern Nov 2007 A1
20080042013 Shmilovich Feb 2008 A1
20080116322 May May 2008 A1
20080191099 Werthmann Aug 2008 A1
20080308683 Sankrithi Dec 2008 A1
20090039204 Eberhardt Feb 2009 A1
20090065632 Cazals Mar 2009 A1
20090084904 Detert Apr 2009 A1
20090173835 Shmilovich Jul 2009 A1
20090224107 McLean Sep 2009 A1
20090256029 Malachowski Oct 2009 A1
20090302167 Desroche Dec 2009 A1
20100006706 Breitsamter Jan 2010 A1
20100019094 Theurich Jan 2010 A1
20100044501 Silich Feb 2010 A1
20100123047 Williams May 2010 A1
20100155541 Garang Jun 2010 A1
20100163670 Dizdarevic Jul 2010 A1
20100181432 Gratzer Jul 2010 A1
20100213309 Parks Aug 2010 A1
20100243795 McDonnell Sep 2010 A1
20100303634 Long Dec 2010 A1
20110024556 Cazals Feb 2011 A1
20110024573 Kirk Feb 2011 A1
20110108675 Tuval May 2011 A1
20110180660 Llamas Sandin Jul 2011 A1
20110192937 Buescher Aug 2011 A1
20110272530 Mann Nov 2011 A1
20110309202 Smith Dec 2011 A1
20120001022 Morvant Jan 2012 A1
20120049007 Hunter Mar 2012 A1
20120049010 Speer Mar 2012 A1
20120091262 Rawdon Apr 2012 A1
20120112005 Chaussee May 2012 A1
20120187251 Guida Jul 2012 A1
20120234968 Smith Sep 2012 A1
20120256049 Shmilovich Oct 2012 A1
20120286102 Sinha Nov 2012 A1
20120286122 Tankielun et al. Nov 2012 A1
20120312928 Gratzer Dec 2012 A1
20120312929 Gratzer Dec 2012 A1
20130092797 Wright Apr 2013 A1
20130256460 Roman Oct 2013 A1
20140117151 Fox May 2014 A1
20140117166 Campbell, Jr. May 2014 A1
20140133982 Dejeu May 2014 A1
20140346281 Gratzer Nov 2014 A1
20150041597 Theurich Feb 2015 A1
20150042521 Hazen Feb 2015 A1
20150048215 McGinnis Feb 2015 A1
20150197331 Wright Jul 2015 A1
20150203191 Wright Jul 2015 A1
20150239549 Wright Aug 2015 A1
20160001876 Wright Jan 2016 A1
20160009378 Guida Jan 2016 A1
20160144951 Zaman May 2016 A1
20180237128 Commis Aug 2018 A1
20210009256 Ahlstrom Jan 2021 A1
20220024564 Cosentino Jan 2022 A1
20220073193 Wright Mar 2022 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (35)
Number Date Country
1073642 Jun 1993 CN
1073643 Jun 1993 CN
101065291 Oct 2007 CN
101596934 Dec 2009 CN
2149956 Apr 1973 DE
3638347 May 1988 DE
19752369 May 1999 DE
20211664 Jan 2003 DE
10207767 Sep 2003 DE
0122790 Oct 1984 EP
1375342 Jan 2004 EP
1924493 Apr 2009 EP
1883577 Jan 2010 EP
2281747 Feb 2011 EP
2084059 Feb 2012 EP
2274202 Feb 2012 EP
418656 Dec 1910 FR
444080 Oct 1912 FR
726674 Jun 1932 FR
2282996 Apr 1995 GB
63154399 Jun 1988 JP
H 06144384 May 1994 JP
WO 1982004426 Dec 1982 WO
WO 1982004426 Nov 1983 WO
WO 1995011159 Apr 1995 WO
WO 2003000547 Jan 2003 WO
WO 2005099380 Oct 2005 WO
WO 2007031732 Mar 2007 WO
WO 2008031620 Mar 2008 WO
WO 2008061739 May 2008 WO
WO 2009155584 Dec 2009 WO
WO 2010124877 Nov 2010 WO
WO 2012171023 Dec 2012 WO
WO 2012171034 Dec 2012 WO
WO 2013007396 Jan 2013 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (69)
Entry
“Aircraft Winglets,” Airline World, accessed at https://airlineworld. wordpress.com/2008/ 1 0/0 I /aircraft-winglets/, last accessed on Mar. 2, 2015, 4 pages, Oct. 1, 2008.
“HpH 304S Flight Test Results,” Texas Soaring Association, Johnson/Carswell Memorial Flight Test Series, Soaring Magazine, 8 pages, Jan. 2010.
“Korean Air, How Much Have You Seen (KAL OC tour)?” Hanjin Group, Korean Air, 3 pages, Feb. 22, 2011.
“MD-11 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning,” McDonnell Douglas, Douglas Aircraft Company, 104 pages, Oct. 1990.
“MD-12 Technical Overview,” McDonnell Douglas, Douglas Aircraft Company, 4 pages, Sep. 1992.
“NASA Conference Publication 2036 Part II: CTOL Transport Technology—1978,” Conference Proceedings, 414 pages, Feb. 28-Mar. 3, 1978.
“NASA Contractor Report 3164: Selected Advanced Aerodynamics and Active Controls Technology Concepts Development on a Derivative B-747 Aircraft, Final Report,” Staff of Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, The Boeing Commercial Airplane Company, 303 pages, 1980.
“NASA Contractor Report 3704: DC-10 Winglet Flight Evaluation,” Staff of Douglas Aircraft Company, McDonnell Douglas Corporation, 154 pages, Jun. 1983.
“Watch Out for the Shark,” Sailplane & Gliding Magazine, 68 pages, Apr.-May 2007.
“What is Relationship Between Airplane Wing Shape and Flying?” Original Korean Publication, 52 pages, Jul. 1, 2010.
Berens, M., “Potential of Multi-Winglet Systems to Improve Aircraft Performance,” Technischen Universitat Berlin, 265 p. 2008.
English language abstract of DE 19752369 A1 , Thomson Innovation, http://www.thomsoninnovation.com, accessed Dec. 8, 2014, 6 pages.
English language abstract of DE 3638347 A1 , Thomson Innovation, http://www.thomsoninnovation.com, accessed Dec. 8, 2014, 5 pages.
English language translation of DE 2149956 A, European Patent Office, http://translationportal.epo.org, accessed Dec. 8, 2014, 2 pages.
English language translation of FR 418656 A, European Patent Office, http://translationportal.epo.org, accessed Dec. 8, 2014, 2 pages.
English language translation of FR 444,080 A, European Patent Office, hUp://translationpo 1ial.epo.org, accessed Dec. 8, 2014, 4 pages.
English language translation of FR 726,674 A, European Patent Office, http://translationportal.epo.org, accessed Dec. 8, 2014, 2 pages.
European Search Report dated May 24, 2013 for corresponding application No. 13161204.6.
Gardner, J.E., et al., “NASA Technical Memorandum 87676: Loads and Aeroelasticity Division Research and Technology Accomplishments for FY 1985 and Plans for FY 1986,” 126 pages, Jan. 1986.
Gilkey, R.D., “NASA Contractor Report 3119: Design and Wind Tunnel Tests of Winglets on a DC-10 Wing,” 53 pages, Apr. 1979.
Hale, A.I., “Investigation into the Application of Winglets on Canards for Tip Vortex Position Improvement,” University of New South Wales-Canberra, 9 pages, 2009.
Hogge, J . V., “Development of a Miniature VTOL Tail-Sitter Unmanned Aerial Vehicle,” Brigham Young University—Provo, 108 pages, Apr. 22, 2008.
International Search Report and Written Opinion corresponding to PCT/EP2011/061552, dated Oct. 7, 2011.
Japanese Patent Office, Office Action dated Jan. 28, 2014, in Japanese Application No. 2013-519037.
Jones, R.T., Lasinski, T.A., “Effects of Winglets on the Induced Drag of Ideal Wing Shapes,” NASA TM 81230, Sep. 1980.
McLean, D., “Wingtip Devices: What They Do and How They Do It,” Boeing Aerodynamics, 2005 Performance and Flight Operations Engineering Conference, 20 pages, 2005.
Portillo, A.C., “Final Year Project Report: CFO Analysis of Winglets,” Glyndwr University, 82 pages, May 2011.
Reijerkerk, M., “Aeroelastic Model Identification of Winglet Loads from Flight Test Data,” 332 pages, 2008.
Satran, D.R., “Nasa Technical Paper 2623: Wind-Tunnel Investigation of the Flight Characteristics of a Canard General-Aviation Airplane Configuration,” 59 pages, Oct. 1986.
Search Report corresponding to GB 1011843.8. dated Sep. 29, 2010.
Taylor, A.B., “NASA Contractor Report 3781: Development of Selected Advanced Aerodynamics and Active Control Concepts for Commercial Transport Aircraft,” 89 pages, Feb. 1984.
Wejerman, J. et al., “Winglet Design and Optimization for UA Vs,” 28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 1 4 pages, Jun. 28-Jul. 1, 2010.
Weierman, J., “Winglet Design and Optimization for UA VS,” Oklahoma State University, 107 pages, Jul. 2010.
Whitcomb, R.T., “A Design Approach and Selected Wind Tunnel Results At High Subsonic Speeds for Wing-Tip Mounted Winglets,” NASA TN D-8260, 1976.
Whitcomb, R.T., “NASA Technical Note D-8260: A Design Approach and Selected Wind-Tunnel Results at High Subsonic Speeds for Wing-Tip Mounted Winglets,” 33 pages, Jul. 1976.
Zimmer, H., “NASA Technical Memorandum 88534: The Aerodynamic Optimization of Wings at Subsonic Speeds and the Influence of Wingtip Design,” 105 pages, May 1987.
McDonnell Douglas Press Release, “McDonnell Douglas Unveils New MD-XX Trijet Design,” dated Sep. 4, 1996; 1 page.
Nonis, “MDC sets October date for MD-XX,” Flight International, Sep. 18-24, 1996; 1 page.
MD-XX LR, Exhibit D6 submitted in the European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 1 page.
MD-XX Stretch, Exhibit D7 submitted in the European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 1 page.
MD-XX photo model, Exhibit D8 submitted in the European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B 1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 1 page.
Photo of frame of D8, dated Nov. 18, 1996, Exhibit D9 submitted in the European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B 1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 1 page.
MD-XX Stretch & MD-XX LR, dated Aug. 28, 1996, Exhibit D10 submitted in the European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 1 page.
Jameson, “Re-Engineering the Design Process Through Computation,” Journal of Aircraft vol. 36, No. 1, published Jan.-Feb. 1999; pp. 36-50.
General Arrangements—MD-12, Exhibit D 13 submitted in the European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 1 page.
Close-up of a part of D13, Exhibit D14 submitted in the European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 1 page.
Kroo, “Nonplanar Wing Concepts for Increased Aircraft Efficiency,” VKJ Lecture series on Innovative Configurations and Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft, Jun. 6-10, 2005; pp. 1-29.
“Assessment of Wingtip Modifications to Increase the Fuel Efficiency of Air Force Aircraft,” National Academy of Sciences, 2007; 113 pages.
European Patent Office Notice of Opposition corresponding to EP 2593362B1, dated Jun. 3, 2015; 21 pages.
“737 Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning,” Boeing Commercial Airplanes, pp. 31-46, Jul. 2007.
Aerodynamic Principles of Winglets, Engineering Sciences Data Unit, Jun. 1999.
Blackwell, J., “Numerical Method to Calculate the Induced Drag or Optimum Loading for Arbitrary Non-Planar Aircraft,” May 1976.
Dahlin, J.A., “Aerodynamic Evaluation of Winglets for Transport Aircraft”, 14th AIAA Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, Jun. 1981.
Faye; R. et al., “Aero 17: Blended Winglets for Improved Airplane Performance,” Aero Magazine, Jan. 2002.
Heyson, H. et al., Theoretical Parametric Study of the Relative Advantages of Winglets and Wing-Tip Extensions; NASA TP-1020, Jul. 1977.
Ishimitsu, K., “Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of Winglets,” AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Meeting, Sep. 1976.
Ishimitsu, K., “Design and Analysis of Winglets for Military Aircraft,” Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Nov. 1977.
Kroo, I., “Drag Due to. Lift: Concepts for Prediction and Reduction,” Annual Review Fluid Mechanics 2001, 2000.
McCallum, C., “Aviation Partners Boeing—Blended Winglet Programs,” Aviation Partners Boeing, Jul. 2004.
Nangia, R. et al., Aerodynamics Design Studies of Conventional & Unconventional Wings with Winglets,: AIAA, Jun. 2006.
Ostrower, J., “Airbus A320 flies with Aviation Partners blended winglets;” Flight.global, http.://www. Flightglobal.com/blogs/flightblogger/2008/12/airbus_a320_flies_with_aviatio/, Dec. 2008.
“Photographs of the Airbus A320 MSN001 Aircraft Fitted With The API Winglets,” AirLiners.net, Dec. 2008-Jan. 2009.
Taylor, A., “DC-10 Winglet Flight Evaluation Summary Report,” NASA Contractor Report 3748, Dec. 1983.
Treadgold, D., “Notes on Recent Research on Non-Planar Wing Tip Designs,” May 1978.
“What is Aviation Partners Boeing?” 2005.
English language abstract of JPH 06144384 A, Espacenet, accessed Feb. 9, 2016. 2 pages.
English language abstract of listed CN 1073642 A, European Patent Office, Espacenet, accessed Aug. 18, 2016, 1 page.
English language abstract of listed CN 1073643 A, European Patent Office, Espacenet, accessed Aug. 18, 2016, 1 page.
English language abstract of listed CN 101596934 A, European Patent Office, Espacenet, accessed Aug. 18, 2016, 1 page.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20220073193 A1 Mar 2022 US
Continuations (2)
Number Date Country
Parent 14689831 Apr 2015 US
Child 17445004 US
Parent 13805406 US
Child 14689831 US