I guess this is a relatively appropriate forum for this aerodynamics question.
Lots of jet airliners have winglets: A320/330/340, late model 737s, 747-400 etc.
But hardly any turboprop airliners have winglets – only one I can think of is the Raytheon Beechcraft 1900D & the Beech 2000 Starship 1.
Why don’t more turboprop airliners have winglets? :confused:
By: arkrailuk - 2nd November 2008 at 14:57
A winglet only makes money when at cruise altitude. Therefor, the longer a plane flies at cruise altitude, the more time there is to earn back the investment and additional expenses (extra weight, maintenance etc). A turbo-prop typically flies short hops only, and therefor is not at cruiselevel long enough to warrant the investment.
The 747-400D (domestic) is not fitted with winglets for this very reason as it specifically designed for high density short haul flights.
By: Whiskey Delta - 1st November 2008 at 21:06
I think most of the things on the 1900D are there to improve performance not necessarily fix problems. (ie. extend the CG envelop).
By: wysiwyg - 30th October 2008 at 17:31
Most of the odd bits hanging off the Beech 1900D were attempts to resolve aerodynamic problems!
Also, my hobby these days is flying my Paramotor. A few weeks ago I test flew a pre-production paramotor in China that had winglets on each tip of the propeller!
By: tenthije - 29th October 2008 at 21:35
Funnt thing was the BAe 146-300 that was to have them and the prototype at least had them but it was quietly dropped
Garry
I’d love to see pictures of that, as I have never heard of that before! Not even the RJX prototype at the Manchester AVP has them!
By: garryrussell - 29th October 2008 at 21:33
Funnt thing was the BAe 146-300 that was to have them and the prototype at least had them but it was quietly dropped
Garry
By: tenthije - 29th October 2008 at 21:09
A winglet only makes money when at cruise altitude. Therefor, the longer a plane flies at cruise altitude, the more time there is to earn back the investment and additional expenses (extra weight, maintenance etc). A turbo-prop typically flies short hops only, and therefor is not at cruiselevel long enough to warrant the investment.
The Starship, being mainly used for corporate/medical flights, flies longer distance then an airline operated Fokker, ATR or Dash. The Beech has me puzzled as well. However, the Beech is also used a lot for corporate/medical, so it might well be that Beech offers them as standard to simplify their production line!
Edit: another reason for the winglets of the Starship is because they also act as rudder. A conventional rudder would not work on the starship as it would interrupt airflow to the props.
p.s. The Starship has been retired and except perhaps for one or two museum pieces all destroyed.
Sign In
October 29, 2008 at 8:53 pm