Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Dugan MD80 Fuel Reduction Mod Test Results  
User currently offlinepfletch1228 From South Africa, joined Aug 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 15219 times:

Early January this year AA scrutinized the Dugan Kinetics Mod for the MD80, and it was discussed here :

AA Scrutinises Dugan MD-80 Fuel Reduction Mod (by Pfletch1228 Jan 12 2010 in Civil Aviation)

The results are in. Key points are :

1. They expect FAA certification early spring/summer.

2. Biggest fuel gain was in the climb (20% reduction). To quote : "During climb, the flight data recorder showed a peak fuel burn reduction of 20%, over baseline. It has been clearly illustrated that the EP-80 kit works most efficiently during the take-off and climb segments."

3. Cruise saving of between 0.5% and 7.8%, depending on the length of the segment. Cruise Mach number was 0.76.

4. Descent saving of approx 1%.

5. DER approved noise report showed noise reduction within Stage 4 requirements. They are proceeding with Stage 4 certification.

6. Achieved a 7.2% thrust augmentation. To quote : "The performance improvement for the -217c is best described by it reaching -219 thrust performance, while keeping the fuel burn constant with -217c specifications." The reduced EPR should result in better engine life. -219 engines revert to -217 maintenance schedules, saving a lot of money.

So how does this pan out? On a 500nm stage length, its a 9.8% reduction in fuel burn. That beats the MD90, and comes pretty close to matching the 738. Obviously the longer the stage length, the bigger the gap becomes, tipping in favour of the 738 and MD90.

So I suppose now it comes down to cost, and the business case for it. If its reasonably priced....

Oh, and I have to eat my hat. Although I must say that I still feel a little skeptical about this. Eish. Something so simple...

[Edited 2010-03-24 15:13:19]

[Edited 2010-03-24 15:14:18]


War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLRDC9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 610 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15184 times:

If true this is simply very exciting. If it holds water I imagine the large M80 operators will jump all over it (DL,AA,G4). And I do hope it pans out. Long live the maddog.


Just say NO to scabs.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15175 times:

I don't understand where the fuel savings come from. Surely the thrust reversers add additional drag?

User currently offlinepfletch1228 From South Africa, joined Aug 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15141 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 2):
Surely the thrust reversers add additional drag?

Yes they do, but they are augmenting the thrust that the engine produces, allowing for a lower power setting to get the same thrust output. In effect, they increase the bypass ratio...



War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13543 posts, RR: 100
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15137 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

1st, is their a link for the results?

Quoting pfletch1228 (Thread starter):
Oh, and I have to eat my hat. Although I must say that I still feel a little skeptical about this. Eish. Something so simple...

I too remain skeptical. If AA orders... I'll be less skeptical.  


Best of luck to Duncan. I hope they get a few into the field to prove their concept. I would love for these 'winglets for engines' to work, even if only for older higher exhaust velocity engines. If you will, the concept is to take advantage of the 'ejector effect.' So I see no benefit for new high bypass ratio engines.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21583 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15109 times:

Now all we need is blended winglets on the MD80 to reduce burn by another 3% or so and they match 738s on 500nm segments.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinepfletch1228 From South Africa, joined Aug 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15027 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
1st, is their a link for the results?

Oops, my bad. The test results are on the website : http://www.dugankinetics.com

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
I too remain skeptical. If AA orders... I'll be less skeptical.

And if they do order, there will be no production slots left for anyone else within a time frame reasonable enough to extract any value from the retrofit! I see the first 25 kits slated for production this year are already accounted for... So the earliest delivery slot is 2011.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5):
Now all we need is blended winglets on the MD80 to reduce burn by another 3%

I seem to recall someone on here saying that it wouldnt be feasible to put winglets on the MD80, mainly due to the already high wing loading?? Someone else can refute/confirm this.



War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
User currently offlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4700 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14885 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 4):
Best of luck to Duncan. I hope they get a few into the field to prove their concept. I would love for these 'winglets for engines' to work, even if only for older higher exhaust velocity engines. If you will, the concept is to take advantage of the 'ejector effect.' So I see no benefit for new high bypass ratio engines.

What could a new technology fan do for the JT8D-200's performance? The Russians have developed a conversion for the D-30KP engine found on the IL-76 (similar bypass ratio):

http://www.npo-saturn.ru/?pid=30

Admittedly, the new fan has a larger diameter and therefore necessitates a new nacelle. On the MD80 with its tail-mounted engine, such a modification would be very expensive.

However, according to the manufacturer, the engine now has increased thrust and 9% lower fuel burn. On top of that, noise certification jumped from Stage II to Stage IV.

Even if the MD80 would keep the current nacelle and the benefits would be lower, such a conversion concept seems much more credible than the Dugan mod.



Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 14850 times:

Sounds fantastic if true which it hopefully is, I hope SAS will buy the upgrade. Now they just need a new name for the airframe, the Ultra 80?

I remember reading a 737 classic mod wich gave a reduced fuel consumption by a few percent by rerigging the flaps to ~1-2 degrees extension

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineMoMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1054 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14777 times:

Hope that AA jumps all over this.....long live the Maddogs.


AA Platinum Member - American Airlines Forever
User currently offlineTZTriStar500 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1459 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14508 times:

Quoting pfletch1228 (Reply 6):
And if they do order, there will be no production slots left for anyone else within a time frame reasonable enough to extract any value from the retrofit! I see the first 25 kits slated for production this year are already accounted for... So the earliest delivery slot is 2011.

How do you come up with this analysis? STC kit production does not follow like regular production where there are limited slots at a specific modification facility. I'm sure Dugan will have sufficient kit building capability at multiple vendors to produce parts at a rate to match the modification's commercial interest as soon as they receive PMA which follows the issuance of the STC.



35 years of American Trans Air/ATA Airlines, 1973-2008. A great little airline that will not be soon forgotten.
User currently offlineworldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 14389 times:

Is this available for all MD80 series aircraft? They compared the MD83 w/ -217 engines against the MD88 w/ 219s presumably not converted - but it isn't clear if the kit isn't available for 219 engines or they were just using the MD88 as a baseline.

This would go a long ways toward increasing the efficiency of the MD80 fleet.


User currently offlineMoMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1054 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14215 times:

Also, isn't the difference between the -217 and -219 a software upgrade. I believe all AA MD-82/83 are using -219 rated engines.

This could be very good for both Delta and AA. Right now it's probably one of Boeing's headaches.



AA Platinum Member - American Airlines Forever
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14146 times:

Quoting pfletch1228 (Reply 6):
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 5):
Now all we need is blended winglets on the MD80 to reduce burn by another 3%

I seem to recall someone on here saying that it wouldnt be feasible to put winglets on the MD80, mainly due to the already high wing loading??

This subject has come up a time or two here before. If I recall correctly, the problem with fitting winglets on MD80's is two-fold:
1. MD80's already have quite high wing loading;
2. MD80's just don't reap the dramatic reduction in fuel burn due to the installation of winglets that 737's and 757's do.

Quoting pfletch1228 (Reply 6):
Someone else can refute/confirm this.

I'm sure they will.  



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlineMrSkyGuy From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1214 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14095 times:

Quoting TSS (Reply 13):
1. MD80's already have quite high wing loading;
2. MD80's just don't reap the dramatic reduction in fuel burn due to the installation of winglets that 737's and 757's do.

Not to throw fuel on an already burning fire, but I'm going to have to throw up a hand on that one.. where's the data? Any wing passing through air is going to create drag at it's wingtip where the airflow off the top and bottom of the wing meet and spiral.. creating [what I believe is called] parasite drag. (aeronautical physicists correct me if my terminology wrong, but it *is* a form of drag). A proper winglet varies between A/C types, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that a winglet mod of the MD-80 wouldn't reduce this vortice-induced drag.. though it might not follow the shape and style of the common 737 winglets.

It'd be interesting to see how the MD-80 progresses with the Dugan mod, a potential winglet mod and any other airframe improvements.. there are enough produced and still flying in quantity to catch the eye of multiple operators.. especially American and Allegiant.



"The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee." -- Gunter's 2nd Law of Air
User currently offlineTSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 3070 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 14017 times:

Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 14):
Quoting TSS (Reply 13):
1. MD80's already have quite high wing loading;
2. MD80's just don't reap the dramatic reduction in fuel burn due to the installation of winglets that 737's and 757's do.

Not to throw fuel on an already burning fire, but I'm going to have to throw up a hand on that one.. where's the data?

As I said, the subject of fitting MD80's with winglets comes up here with some regularity:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...general_aviation/read.main/3696647

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/245963

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/235228

Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 14):
Any wing passing through air is going to create drag at it's wingtip where the airflow off the top and bottom of the wing meet and spiral.. creating [what I believe is called] parasite drag. (aeronautical physicists correct me if my terminology wrong, but it *is* a form of drag).

Agreed.

Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 14):
A proper winglet varies between A/C types, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that a winglet mod of the MD-80 wouldn't reduce this vortice-induced drag.. though it might not follow the shape and style of the common 737 winglets.

Agreed. I never said that a winglet mod on an MD80 wouldn't reduce drag at all, I said that a winglet mod on an MD80 wouldn't reduce drag as much as it does on a 737 or 757. I'm fully willing to accept that I'm way off base on that, but there are other considerations as well... mainly that winglets pay the biggest fuel-burn reduction dividends on longer segments where MD80s are used less than 737's and 757's, and that the cost of developing, testing, and marketing a relatively expensive and involved modification on an airframe that has been out of production for ten years or so just doesn't make good financial sense.

But I digress. I'll try to keep from dragging this thread further off-topic by simply saying "Bravo Dugan!" If their test results are even close to verifiable, then they should be getting a big order from AA very soon.



Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13868 times:

If true I'm hoping for a big order of these kits from both DL and AA. This will sure extend the MD80's life for another 5 years at least. With DL starting interior mods on all their MD's this summer it looks like they will be around for a long time to come.

User currently offlinesasd209 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Oct 2007, 642 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13831 times:

Anything that makes the MadDogs more viable to operate into the future is good by me!!! Good luck to Dugan, I'm hoping this works out for all parties involved!!

User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 794 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13792 times:

Quoting MrSkyGuy (Reply 14):
creating [what I believe is called] parasite drag. (aeronautical physicists correct me if my terminology wrong, but it *is* a form of drag). A proper winglet varies between A/C types, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that a winglet mod of the MD-80 wouldn't reduce this vortice-induced drag.. though it might not follow the shape and style of the common 737 winglets.

You're thinking right but what you are referring to is induced drag.

Quoting TSS (Reply 15):
I said that a winglet mod on an MD80 wouldn't reduce drag as much as it does on a 737 or 757. I'm fully willing to accept that I'm way off base on that, but there are other considerations as well... mainly that winglets pay the biggest fuel-burn reduction dividends on longer segments where MD80s are used less than 737's and 757's

The difference really is the mission profile. For the blended winglets to really achieve maximum efficiency the airplane needs to be in cruise for several hours. What the winglets do is allow the airplane to climb to a higher cruise altitude at a higher weight, or earlier in the flight based upon the most efficient altitude for the wing. Swept wing airplanes as they approach their maximum performance weights fly into the coffin corner at lower altitudes or higher speeds. This is due to the shock wave behind the wing. The winglets change the way the air flows over the wing just enough to allow the wing to have a greater distance on the shock wave at the same weight and altitude. This allows the wing to go higher before the shock wave starts to approach the trailing edge of the wing and thus entering into the high speed buffet. At these higher altitudes the engines don't burn as much fuel.

Where this impacts the MD-80 is it typically isn't in cruise long enough to really make the added weight of the winglet effective. Generally winglets are most effective on flights over 3.5 hours from what I've read and experienced. This weakness on the MD-80 is what makes the Dugan concept work. This concept seems to make the takeoff and climb much more efficient by changing the way the thrust is applied at high power settings. Takeoff and climb often have fuel burn rates as much as 5 to 3 times as high as cruise. The MD-80 tends to do a lot of up and down flying so if they can achieve reductions in this period of very high fuel burn it is worth it.

These Dugan guys are pretty creative. They came out with one heck of mod on the 727's in the 90's that made it a lot more efficient and noise compliant without the need for hush kits which decreased efficiency. Boeing wasn't really impressed with this as it wasn't good for upcoming 737NG sales and never really caught on. We had a couple of 727-100s with the Dugan wing and it was interesting how the mod made it more efficient.

727forver



727forever
User currently offlinepfletch1228 From South Africa, joined Aug 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 13619 times:

Quoting TZTriStar500 (Reply 10):
How do you come up with this analysis? STC kit production does not follow like regular production where there are limited slots at a specific modification facility. I'm sure Dugan will have sufficient kit building capability at multiple vendors to produce parts at a rate to match the modification's commercial interest as soon as they receive PMA which follows the issuance of the STC.

I stand corrected. I was assuming that they would be doing production in house, but you are quite right, there is no reason that it can't be farmed out. For 2010, they are manufacturing 25 kits themselves, and they are sold already. I haven't the foggiest idea about vendor/subcontractor status or availability! The key to this product would be to get it to market as quickly as possible. A time lapse could ruin the business case...

Quoting MoMan (Reply 12):
Also, isn't the difference between the -217 and -219 a software upgrade. I believe all AA MD-82/83 are using -219 rated engines.

Between the -217C and -219, yes. The -217A is different. The other key difference is maintenance intervals. A -219 goes to the shop nearly twice as much as the -217C. So there is a maintenance saving involved here as well due to lower temperatures.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 18):
The MD-80 tends to do a lot of up and down flying so if they can achieve reductions in this period of very high fuel burn it is worth it.

Yip, I think you are spot on 727forever. Thanks for your informative post. You got any more info on the 727 wing mod?



War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
User currently offlinewarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 708 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 13446 times:

Any chance we'll see the Dugan Thrust Reverser Mod (the one installed on the MD80 being discussed at the moment) on a DC-9?

User currently onlinePohakuloa From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 432 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 13195 times:

Quoting worldtraveler (Reply 11):
Is this available for all MD80 series aircraft? They compared the MD83 w/ -217 engines against the MD88 w/ 219s presumably not converted - but it isn't clear if the kit isn't available for 219 engines or they were just using the MD88 as a baseline.

In the link provided above and I will post again here, it was tested on both the -217c on the MD83 (performance/noise/safety including climb/cruise up to M.81 and flight envelope testing) as well as the -219 on an MD83 (performance/climb/cruise to M.76) and on a 727 (performance/noise tests).

All things assumed by this testing information, I would imagine it should be available on the -217 & -219.

http://www.dugankinetics.com/flight-testing



Fast cars and 'Jet A' - such a sweet smell!
User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12559 times:

Some of the newest, most highly praised, wings today have no winglets (748F and 787, for example). Rather they have a raked wingtip.

MD-80s already have raked wingtips.


User currently offlinerbgso From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 12305 times:

Could this technology also work on the DC9 series?

User currently offlinepfletch1228 From South Africa, joined Aug 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11974 times:

Quoting rbgso (Reply 23):
Could this technology also work on the DC9 series?

I don't see why not, from a technical perspective. Financially though, probably not. It would require a R&D investment, and time to get it through all the FAA STC hoops. Think two or three years. What would the market be for this in 2013 on DC9s? There will probably only be a handful of DC9s in active service by then. It works for the MD80 because there is a 500+ frame market for them to make money on. The DC9 is a dead platform from a financial/investment perspective.



War does not determine who is right. War determines who is left.
25 ikramerica : This is likely focusing on WMDs as the sole reason given for the IRAQ war, not one of 17 as those who didn't support it in the first place like to ig
26 convairnut : The MD-80 is a Stage III bird not Stage II, you can't fly in and out of Burbank CA unless you're stage III; as has been the rule there for at least 1
27 Post contains images lightsaber : First, nice post. To others: winglets, like wings, are optimized for the mission. They can be large (738/767) where they are optimized for longer mis
28 Post contains links and images pfletch1228 : There is a war in Iraq? I thought that was an "Extended Military Engagement" There is a company called Comtran Limited that tried the winglet retrofi
29 Post contains images pfletch1228 : As will I. They have to get an existing (large) operator on board to make it work. I don't buy the whole marketing rubbish on their website about "ne
30 rbgso : Thanks. I thought the MD80 series were technically typed as "DC9-80". If a new STC has to be obtained I agree it may not make sense financially.
31 worldtraveler : Can someone provide a short summary of the age and approximate lease termination dates for AA's M80 fleet? While they have said the fleet could be aro
32 Post contains links 727forever : While I think the relevancy of your Iraq conflict metaphore is a little off, I'll humor your statement. You are right that the winglets achieve all o
33 wjcandee : I just like the smile that they painted on their MD80.
34 Post contains images TSS : Also, that odd little turn-up at the end of the wing might have a benefit other than just being a convenient place to mount a rear-facing clearance l
35 MrSkyGuy : Neither was the 737, 727 or many other aircraft wings which have since seen retrofit winglet modifications. I'm sure if there's a will, there's a way
36 Jeb94 : Actually, the wingtip of the MD80 and DC9-30 are virtually identical. The added length on the MD80 wing comes from the much enlarged center section.
37 Post contains links and images A342 : Some more info about that retrofit here: http://www.be-and-co.com/ako_pdf/ako0305140.pdf -bypass ratio increased from 2.2 to 3.65 -turbine entry temp
38 r2rho : Could you explain a bit more? So does the slower moving airflow around the engine basically get sucked in through the "thrust reverser" by the faster
39 Post contains links and images lightsaber : Common way to pump gas in industry where the pumping is to exhaust something non-toxic is to have a jet of gas (usually air) pushing out the other ga
40 727forever : You are absolutely right. Most of the increased wingspan is in the center section, however, the MD-80/90 wing has an insert placed between the end of
41 Post contains images TVNWZ : Will this work on a DC9? DL (NW) DC9's lasting another 40 years.
42 musang : Also to blast the smoke out of the smokestack. Did early DC-8 engines e.g. on the series 33 have a design similar to the Dugan eductors/ejectors? Tha
43 Post contains links pfletch1228 : Another MD improvement becoming available shortly. http://www.super98.com/products_md80.htm Quoting from their website : "Our goals are to offer quick
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
ATWOnline: GTF Better Than Expected Test Results posted Sun Jun 22 2008 23:53:46 by OyKIE
Hypothetical Boeing Embraer 110-165 Seater >20% Fuel Reduction posted Tue Jul 17 2007 13:57:01 by Keesje
A380 RTO Test Results? posted Fri Mar 2 2007 05:37:43 by Centrair
777-200 LR Test Results posted Sun Apr 17 2005 10:24:24 by Lahaina
TAM 2008 Results: Loss Due To Fuel Hedge! posted Mon Mar 30 2009 20:48:04 by LipeGIG
CO To Test Flight Bio-Fuel On Jan 7th posted Mon Dec 8 2008 19:55:56 by Falcon84
FG:SAS's MD80 Economical EvenIf Fuel Price Doubles posted Tue Mar 4 2008 09:09:25 by Jdevora
The Results Of Expensive Fuel On Aircraft Size posted Thu Feb 14 2008 23:08:52 by KennyK
787 Ultimate Wing Load Test - March 28 posted Tue Mar 23 2010 14:35:45 by WarpSpeed
BA Cabin Crew Reduction Question posted Sat Mar 20 2010 10:28:07 by CoachClass