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.
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.
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.
Embodiments of the invention will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
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.
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
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.
In
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.
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
Each of the second to fifth embodiments described above with reference to
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.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1011843 | Jul 2010 | GB | national |
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.
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 |
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 |
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. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220073193 A1 | Mar 2022 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14689831 | Apr 2015 | US |
Child | 17445004 | US | |
Parent | 13805406 | US | |
Child | 14689831 | US |