Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Winglets For Galaxy And Herc...  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6500 times:

Lockheed is coming up with a series of aerodynamic improvements which could significantly reduce fuel burn on the c-5 and C-130.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...For%20C-130,%20C-5&channel=defense

Quote:
The 5-ft.-tall winglets are projected to reduce cruise fuel flow by 170 lb./hr. on the C-130J and “probably more” on older versions of the Hercules, he says. They are designed to be fitted to any C-130 with the beefed-up “enhanced service life” center wingbox. This has the extra structural margin to accommodate winglet-induced bending loads.

Winglets for the C-5M are 6 ft. tall and projected to reduce cruise fuel flow by 1,100 lb./hr. This is on top of the 8-20% improvement in fuel efficiency that comes with re-engining of the C-5 with General Electric CF6-80C2 high-bypass turbofans, O’Banion says, adding that the wing already has sufficient margin to accommodate the winglet loads.

Winglets are standard on the C-17, retrofitting them makes as much sense for these planes as it does for commercial planes.

With dollars getting tighter all the time, it seems like a good idea to make the current equipment better, since it might be around for a while.

I wonder how the B-52 would look with winglets...


What the...?
34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6492 times:

Will this affect the wing fatigue issues that the C5 has had in the past?

User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Boeing decided that winglets didn't make sense for the KC-46 so I wonder if the actual mission profiles flown by the C-130 and C-5 will invalidate the savings?

User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 6442 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 1):
Will this affect the wing fatigue issues that the C5 has had in the past?

The wing fatigue issues were fixed with the replacement of the A model wings in the 80s...there are no issues with the wings now.

This was visited a couple years ago, and the cost of the modification is more than the savings over the expected life of the aircraft. I guess Lockheed decided to go ahead and continue with the development process on hopes that maybe they'd have improvements to the original proposals. There are rumors that Lockheed might buy back the A models that are being retired from service and using them in the civillian world after upgrading them to C-5Ms; so it would make sense if they do that.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6393 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
This was visited a couple years ago, and the cost of the modification is more than the savings over the expected life of the aircraft.

I suspect this idea may have legs since these frames may have lives significantly longer than originally forecast.



What the...?
User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 6381 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
There are rumors that Lockheed might buy back the A models that are being retired from service and using them in the civillian world after upgrading them to C-5Ms

That would be interesting.


User currently offlinehawaiianhobo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6313 times:

Galaxy5007, was there any word on how much it would cost per modification?

Not to mention, aren't the CF6's causing more stress on the wings than previously thought? I've been told by Dover MX that fuel cell is going crazy repairing pylon leaks caused from the heavier engines (maybe thats been resolved by now). I doubt winglets weigh much but I can't imagine any more wing load is good for FRED for an extended time.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
There are rumors that Lockheed might buy back the A models that are being retired from service and using them in the civilian world after upgrading them to C-5Ms; so it would make sense if they do that.

I couldn't imagine ANYONE would buy them since they're giant money pits. At $47000+ per hour to use, would they make anyone any real money?

There is a rumor floating around Travis that we might get a few of the A models that are leaving the reserve world. Meaning we'd have AMP'ed A's, the M's and whatever they're going to do with our C models. Total rumor like I said but I can't see it being true because I'd think they'd have to activate another squadron.

[Edited 2011-10-07 22:15:41]


...
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5420 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6288 times:

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 6):

I couldn't imagine ANYONE would buy them since they're giant money pits. At $47000+ per hour to use, would they make anyone any real money?

If the An-124's can keep working, I imagine a few C-5's could make some cash in civilian use.

I find your rumour about leaks interesting...I didn't think the Cf-6's were that much heavier...or at least the difference would be enough to overstress the upgraded wings.



What the...?
User currently offlinehawaiianhobo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6250 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
I find your rumour about leaks interesting...I didn't think the Cf-6's were that much heavier...or at least the difference would be enough to overstress the upgraded wings.

It might not be just the engines but possibly the new pylons as well. I'm not sure if the pylons weigh more or just faulty installation. Who knows....heck, we're stuck here in Dover right now for fuel cell problems, when FRED leaks, he leaks bad.

I thought about the 124's after I posted my last comment, and you're right. But, I can't help to wonder how busy those Antonov's stay. Is there room for more competition? Not to mention I also wonder how much it costs per hour to fly a 124 vs. the C-5...even the M model.



...
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7251 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6061 times:

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 8):
I thought about the 124's after I posted my last comment, and you're right. But, I can't help to wonder how busy those Antonov's stay. Is there room for more competition? Not to mention I also wonder how much it costs per hour to fly a 124 vs. the C-5...even the M model.

The oil and gas industry loves them, I'm pretty sure that this sector alone keeps them flying.


User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3178 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6045 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 7):
If the An-124's can keep working, I imagine a few C-5's could make some cash in civilian use.

Well remember Lockheed did try to built a Civilian C-5, the Lockheed L-500

http://www.art-aviation.com/GALERIE/photo_galerie/L500.jpg

McDD was supposed to build a MD-17 (?) civilian version of the C-17 in the late 90s but no one ordered it. I guess if any American company or anyone else for that matter needs to ship some outsized freight they just charter an Antonov


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 6):
At $47000+ per hour to use, would they make anyone any real money?

$47,000 an hour is absolutely nothing. The C-17 costs the RAF $80,000 an hour and the winner, AF-1 cost the government $131,000 per hour to operate .

A Goggle search of military aircraft operating costs is eye opening!


User currently offlineFoxTwo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5994 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 11):

Please post links where I can search the operating costs for certain aircraft per hour? I attempted to search and came up with nothing. I would like to verify your figures, and search a few of my own ! I would love to confirm the operating costs of an F/A-18, SR-71, B52, and B1-B

Cheers


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5991 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 11):
$47,000 an hour is absolutely nothing. The C-17 costs the RAF $80,000 an hour and the winner, AF-1 cost the government $131,000 per hour to operate .

What... $80k per hour? You must be using F-35 Math!   

If that were the case... It would cost about $1 million bucks to fly a 12 1/2 hour mission! Say the A/C has a 5,000 cycle lifespan (just picking a number.. If you have actual specs please provide) and its average mission is 3 hours in duration, equaling 15,000 hours total?

$80,000. x 15,000 hours = $ 1.2 Billion!

$1.2 B x 260 A/C = $312 Billion in operating cost alone (lifetime)? Add in development and acquisition costs for 260 A/C and we well on our way to a $400 Billion program!

This is starting to make the the F-35 look good! 

I'm just having a little fun here... But I would love to see some real data.



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5975 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 13):
What... $80k per hour? You must be using F-35 Math!

I am not using anything.

I have said many times I don't make things up. If you think the numbers are wrong I suggest that you take it up with the UK MOD.

Ref:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-04-08c.325233.h

42,000 UK pounds would be just over $80,000 at todays exchange rate.


User currently offlinehawaiianhobo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5868 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 11):
$47,000 an hour is absolutely nothing. The C-17 costs the RAF $80,000 an hour and the winner, AF-1 cost the government $131,000 per hour to operate .

The VC-25 is an exception in my opinion because of its mission, it's meant to be lavish and secure so obviously its going to cost more.

I DO find it interesting that you say the C-17 costs the RAF $80,000 per hour since it only costs the USAF aprox $18,000 per hour. I'll find and post the actual numbers (I believe it was a recent thread) but that is a HUGE increase RAF vs. USAF.

I believe the chart that was posted a month ago stated for us C-5 guys the B model actually cost the USAF more to operate per hour than the A model does. Once again, I'll try to find it so I don't just come off as spouting random numbers.



...
User currently offlinehawaiianhobo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5868 times:

Here's the cost per hour link: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...exclusive-us-air-force-combat.html


...
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2104 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5860 times:

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 15):
I DO find it interesting that you say the C-17 costs the RAF $80,000 per hour since it only costs the USAF aprox $18,000 per hour. I'll find and post the actual numbers (I believe it was a recent thread) but that is a HUGE increase RAF vs. USAF.

Well this may help to explain the discrepency... the US figures as reported in hawaiianhobo's link are achieved this way, and I quote:

"Writing about "costs" is always tricky. Numbers can vary dramatically depending on what gets included. In this case, we're talking about operational costs. This includes operations costs, including fuel, parts and maintenance, as well as interim contractor support and manpower. It excludes modifications funded by procurement accounts. The total cost number is divided by the total number of flight hours flown by the fleet, and that is the operational cost per flight hour."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...exclusive-us-air-force-combat.html

The UK numbers, as given by 474218's link are achieved this way:

"The average operating cost per hour for E-3D Sentry, Hercules C-130J, and C-17 Globemaster, for financial year 2009-10, is provided in the following table. The cost includes forward and depth servicing, fuel, crew and training costs and the cost of capital charge, depreciation and other overheads."

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-04-08c.325233.h



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5779 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 15):
The VC-25 is an exception in my opinion because of its mission, it's meant to be lavish and secure so obviously its going to cost more.

I DO find it interesting that you say the C-17 costs the RAF $80,000 per hour since it only costs the USAF aprox $18,000 per hour. I'll find and post the actual numbers (I believe it was a recent thread) but that is a HUGE increase RAF vs. USAF.

Fixed costs for the VC-25 are out of sight. Aircraft doesn't fly much so fewer hours to spread the costs to.

Similiar problem for RAF C-17s, big difference in number of operating airframes & hours plus I suspect UK is more expensive generally than US.

Back on topic... I don't believe you can compare commercial & military operating costs, even for same airframe. Military is going to have requirements the commercial side will eliminate very quickly for cost containment.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlinehawaiianhobo From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5745 times:

I apologize to 474218 for making it sound like I was calling him a liar, I wasn't. I just can't imagine why the RAF's cost is so much higher than the USAF especially since their overhead seems lower (parts per aircraft, Home Station Checks, operating hours, training, manpower etc.).

The article HaveBlue linked states their cost for FY 09-10 at around $65,000 vs. their C-130J's at almost $19,000. Does the RAF fly the 130J's more? I guess I don't understand the numbers that well.

Anyway, would be pretty cool to see winglets on the C-5... of course we'd have to throw away all of our "Winglets are for Pu**ies" stickers we stick everywhere we go.  



...
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13985 posts, RR: 62
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

Quoting titanmiller (Reply 5):
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 3):
There are rumors that Lockheed might buy back the A models that are being retired from service and using them in the civillian world after upgrading them to C-5Ms

That would be interesting.

Breaking the Russian / Ukrainian monopoly on superheavy transports they have with the AN-124, good idea.

Jan


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5249 times:

Sorry I forgot to come back and check up on this thread...so let me try and catch up

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 6):
Galaxy5007, was there any word on how much it would cost per modification?
No clue; I just heard that with the RERP; it wasn't worth the money to add them; the fuel savings with the C-5M wasn't much of an improvement.

Not to mention, aren't the CF6's causing more stress on the wings than previously thought? I've been told by Dover MX that fuel cell is going crazy repairing pylon leaks caused from the heavier engines (maybe thats been resolved by now). I doubt winglets weigh much but I can't imagine any more wing load is good for FRED for an extended time.

The first 3 C-5Ms that were test birds were always in fuel cell...constantly because of leaks. They (Lockheed) caused alot of problems during testing, and had to be repaired several times when they became operational. The production jets have not had the same problems. The wings are built well enough to sustain the increased stress of the engines. The engine weight has nothing to do with it; its the increased thrust. That and the hot rodding pilots do with the jet; I don't see, at least the early production and prototype C-5Ms to last past 2040

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 6):
I couldn't imagine ANYONE would buy them since they're giant money pits. At $47000+ per hour to use, would they make anyone any real money?

The thing is the USAF is too picky on stupid stuff on the C-5. I've been saying it from day one that the USAF is trying to make it fail at this point. Its bad reputation in the 70s has stuck with it; even with the mods; legacy issues keep popping up. The civillian world is quite a bit different; and they'll make money with the C-5M if they convert some A models to that standard. Lockheed will put the USAF C-5 fleet to shame...I really believe that. I went down to Lockheed in the summer and was told that during RERP; they have found a bunch of issues that can be fixed while the plane is apart; but the USAF won't approve of it because its not in the contract. So because of that, these issues get sent back home with the jet, and it looks like a POS product; not because of Lockheed; but the USAF. Kind of a shame really.

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 6):
There is a rumor floating around Travis that we might get a few of the A models that are leaving the reserve world. Meaning we'd have AMP'ed A's, the M's and whatever they're going to do with our C models. Total rumor like I said but I can't see it being true because I'd think they'd have to activate another squadron.

We have heard that we'd get Legacy A models; All of the A AMPed birds are going to be at Lackland and Martinsburg; so unless one of those two units get shut down, which is unlikely, I don't see it happening. I honestly don't see the A Legacys coming around either, because the only base that will have them is Memphis, and it appears that they'll be without any planes by 2013 unless someone says lets put some C-17s there.

Both the Cs are supposed to get RERPed. There is a rumor that one is going to get transferred to Dover so it actually gets utilized for something other that locals. Personally, I think both of them should get scrapped or put at Lackland.

Quoting hawaiianhobo (Reply 15):
I believe the chart that was posted a month ago stated for us C-5 guys the B model actually cost the USAF more to operate per hour than the A model does. Once again, I'll try to find it so I don't just come off as spouting random numbers.

I think that chart is a bunch of crap. With the A models not flying nearly as many hours now adays because they are all in the guard and reserve or retired; the B models are working triple time; especially now while 15 jets are in RERP/PDM. So I don't think that chart takes that into account.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 20):
Breaking the Russian / Ukrainian monopoly on superheavy transports they have with the AN-124, good idea.

Agreed. There is a market out there...Lockheed just has to buy one A model back, modernize it to the standard they think would work in the civillian world, and then put it out there. I bet it would blow an AN-124 away.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7251 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5156 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 21):
Agreed. There is a market out there...Lockheed just has to buy one A model back, modernize it to the standard they think would work in the civillian world, and then put it out there. I bet it would blow an AN-124 away.

So long as they are prepared to fly into the places and take on the jobs which the Russians and Ukranians are prepared to do.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1846 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5127 times:

If you counted all costs and kept the plane parked 364 days year, you could claim it costs $10 million an hour to fly. That's garbage math. Cost of ownership and cost of flying arer two different things. That's why they made two different words for them.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5070 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
The oil and gas industry loves them, I'm pretty sure that this sector alone keeps them flying.


You see AN-124s at YWG fairly often, I think every other week or so. In fact was one there on Monday (Oct 10). They are used to haul farming machinery back to the Motherland.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
25 Post contains images canoecarrier : If the USAF cared about fuel burn they would have re-engined the B-52 a long time ago
26 wn700driver : You'd think they would care about that, given the range missions and the fact that they do a lot low altitude work... Some CFM-56s or maybe V2500s wo
27 ThePointblank : Or 4 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100's as on the C-17...
28 canoecarrier : I don't disagree that they'd look better and burn less fuel, but given the number of engine spares in the inventory why spend millions per aircraft t
29 LMP737 : It be interesting to see what sort of structural modifications they would have to do for a winglet mod for a C-5 or C-130. After all, you just can't t
30 JoeCanuck : The article seems to indicate that the wings are strong enough already to take winglets.
31 Galaxy5007 : I'm not so sure that the article is correct on that. The wing tips on the C-5 are made of honeycomb and have been subject to cracks and corrosion, an
32 474218 : Lockheed has always built (designed) very strong (stiff) wings. They extended the wings on the L-1011-500's without major structural beef ups.
33 747400sp : There was a plan to replace the eight J-57/T-33 on B-52 G/H models with six CFM-56-2s, but it never happened. To bad, because 737s with two CFM 56s a
34 JoeCanuck : The Pratts on the C-17 seem to me like a good replacement. Those 4 engines are more than the combined thrust of the 8 T-33's on the B-52...but re-engi
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Winglets For Galaxy And Herc...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
NSM Missile Ready For Production And Export posted Sat Apr 18 2009 05:50:57 by Mortyman
Spitfire Mk VI -- Looking For Pics And Info posted Fri Dec 7 2007 00:47:35 by Brenintw
Winglets For Every US Air Force C-32A? posted Mon Aug 20 2007 03:02:25 by Socal
Winglets For The E-6 Mercury posted Sat Sep 16 2006 20:57:56 by 747400sp
Winglets For C-5? posted Sat Jan 28 2006 20:45:57 by Boeing Nut
747SP Flying Telescope For Nasa And German DLR posted Mon May 30 2005 23:46:26 by Columba
Tires For F-9F, F-8, And FJ-6 - - Looking To Buy posted Sun Aug 17 2003 05:27:38 by DeltaMD11
Vision Requirements For Usaf And USN posted Sun Jul 29 2001 02:16:33 by XFSUgimpLB41X
Germany RFP For Navy SAR And Air Force Csar posted Thu Jun 10 2010 02:37:02 by columba
Are Winglets Feasible For Old Hands Like B-52/C-5? posted Tue May 4 2010 09:21:35 by LHCVG

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format