How Winglets Save Fuel
Embed This Widget
Add the script tag and a data attribute to embed this widget.
Embed via iframe for maximum compatibility.
<iframe src="https://planefyi.com/iframe/guide/winglet-fuel-savings/" width="420" height="400" frameborder="0" style="border:0;border-radius:10px;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
Paste this URL in WordPress, Medium, or any oEmbed-compatible platform.
https://planefyi.com/guide/winglet-fuel-savings/
Add a dynamic SVG badge to your README or docs.
[](https://planefyi.com/guide/winglet-fuel-savings/)
Use the native HTML custom element.
The science and economics of winglet technology in reducing fuel burn.
Contents
Aerodynamics
At the tip of a wing, high-pressure air beneath the wing wraps around to the low-pressure area above, creating a wingtip vortex — a swirling mass of air that trails behind the aircraft. These vortices represent wasted energy: they increase induced drag, the drag penalty paid for generating lift.
A winglet is an upward extension at the wingtip that effectively increases the wing's aspect ratio (span-to-chord ratio) without extending the physical wingspan. Higher aspect ratio reduces induced drag because a longer wing generates the same lift with less spanwise pressure differential. The winglet redirects the wingtip vortex outward and slightly rearward, partially recovering energy from it.
The fundamental trade-off: winglets add weight and some parasite drag. The benefit must exceed these penalties — which it does on virtually all transport aircraft, with returns of 3–8% depending on design and mission profile. Long-range cruise conditions, where induced drag accounts for a larger share of total drag, favour larger winglets.
Types of Winglets
- Classic winglet (blended, upward-swept): Original design by Richard Whitcomb (NASA, 1970s); used on early 747-400 and 767-400; typically 15–20° cant angle; reduces induced drag by ~3–4%
- Sharklet (Airbus): Slender, upward-curving design with 35° cant angle; standard on A320neo family; reduces fuel burn by ~3.5% versus A320ceo winglets
- Split Scimitar (Aviation Partners Boeing): Standard retrofit for 737 NG family; adds a downward-angled lower blade, increasing efficiency to ~5.5% fuel saving
- Raked Wingtip: Used on Boeing 787 and 777-300ER; swept extended tip rather than an upturned winglet; achieves similar induced drag reduction with potentially lower weight
- Blended Winglet (Aviation Partners): Smooth curved junction; reduced fatigue stress at root; used on 737-800 and 757
Verified Fuel Savings
| Aircraft | Winglet Type | Fuel Saving |
|---|---|---|
| Boeing 737-800 | Blended Winglet | 4.0% |
| Boeing 737-800 | Split Scimitar | 5.5% |
| Airbus A320ceo | Standard winglet | 3.5% |
| Airbus A320neo | Sharklet | 3.5% vs ceo winglet |
| Boeing 747-400 | Winglet retrofit | 5.0% |
| Airbus A330 | Sharklet retrofit | 1.4% |
Retrofit Economics
Installing winglets on existing aircraft involves a fleet-wide modification programme. Per aircraft (737-800): $800,000–1,200,000 for hardware and installation; ~10–14 days downtime per aircraft. At $0.80/litre jet fuel and 2,500 flight hours per year, a $1M winglet kit saving 4% pays back in approximately 3–4 years. Southwest Airlines retrofitted its entire 737 fleet with APB winglets, crediting annual fuel savings of $150–200 million. Ryanair's fleet-wide blended winglet programme was calculated to save 8–10 million gallons of fuel per year.
CO2 Reduction
If every 737-800 in service (approximately 4,000 aircraft globally) installed split scimitar winglets achieving 5.5% fuel savings: average annual fuel burn ~6 million litres per aircraft, saving ~330,000 litres/year per aircraft = ~860 tonnes CO2/year. Fleet total: approximately 3.4 million tonnes CO2 per year avoided. This illustrates why winglet retrofits are consistently among the highest return-on-investment sustainability programmes available to airlines operating legacy fleets.