Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
gia777
Topic Author
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:12 pm

AF 1 Winglets

Mon May 30, 2016 6:02 am

Wingtip devices are usually intended to improve the efficiency of fixed-wing aircraft. I wonder why this never be implemented into Air Force One as an upgrade feature?
Cheers,

GIA777 :coffee:
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10390
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon May 30, 2016 6:17 am

Quoting gia777 (Thread starter):
Wingtip devices are usually intended to improve the efficiency of fixed-wing aircraft. I wonder why this never be implemented into Air Force One as an upgrade feature?

Because range (hence fuel efficiency) is never an issue for an aircraft with in flight refueling capability and that always has an attendant tanker available when needed.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
gia777
Topic Author
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:12 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon May 30, 2016 6:41 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 1):
Because range (hence fuel efficiency) is never an issue for an aircraft with in flight refueling capability and that always has an attendant tanker available when needed.

Thanks!

Aha good point, I feel dumb now. However, I thought the in flight refueling is only for emergency only due to safety risk? I even wonder myself if they ever did the in flight refueling procedure while the president on board.
Cheers,

GIA777 :coffee:
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10390
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon May 30, 2016 7:02 am

Quoting gia777 (Reply 2):
Thanks!

Aha good point, I feel dumb now. However, I thought the in flight refueling is only for emergency only due to safety risk? I even wonder myself if they ever did the in flight refueling procedure while the president on board.

That is true as far as I am aware, but the aircraft is also essentially "light" compared to a passenger and cargo laden commercial flight that only wants to carry only fuel that is necessary in order to maximize profits. Sure it has a lot of "extra stuff" that adds weight (about another 150,000lbs) but it still flies very light compared to its design limits.

Now with all that said, the next iteration is to be a 747-8 variant and will have the raked wingtips which improve the overall fuel efficiency. So it is not just "not done", it just isn't something that needs to be added.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon May 30, 2016 1:45 pm

This subject popped up several times in the past at A-net :

See : Why No Winglets/raked Tips On VC-25/32 Or E-4's? (by LHCVG Nov 13 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11180
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon May 30, 2016 9:17 pm

Quoting gia777 (Reply 2):
I even wonder myself if they ever did the in flight refueling procedure while the president on board.

That has only happened once, but it was not on the VC-25. It was Carter during his administration, and he was flying aboard the E-4. It was refueled by two KC-135As with Secret Service aboard.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Wed Jun 01, 2016 4:39 am

Plus, the VC-25 has beefier engines than on the standard 747-200. And I'm sure Boeing included a lot of extra fuel capacity (along with all the other gizmos the USAF wanted) in the cargo hold since the aircraft doesn't necessarily have to carry cargo, even though it probably could in the event of a national emergency. And it's also not designed to carry 400 passengers and bags.

A normal 742 couldn't fly from Andrews AFB to Japan nonstop, but AF Once isn't an ordinary 742.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3337
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Wed Jun 01, 2016 1:17 pm

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 6):
the aircraft doesn't necessarily have to carry cargo, even though it probably could in the event of a national emergency. And it's also not designed to carry 400 passengers and bags.

This is probably one of the bigger factor in the range. AF1's cargo hold is a couple of C-17 

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3784
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:45 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):

I don't believe AF1 has below deck fuel tanks. If it does they're smallish. Remember it has fore and aft self contained stairs as well as a self contained bag belt aft. Not to mention the freezers and medical suite aft.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
Max Q
Posts: 8252
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:46 am

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 6):
A normal 742 couldn't fly from Andrews AFB to Japan nonstop,

That is not correct, a late model -200 series with the higher thrust engines certainly could, in fact ANA
had regular 747-200 passenger service from Dulles to Narita.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 6:32 am

According Jane's All The World Aircraft 1988/1989 :

747-200B, CF6-80C2B1 (F138) engines, MTOW 833.000 lbs

Range* with 366 pax and bagage : 6900 Nm (12788 km, 7940 miles)
Ferry range* : 7900 Nm (14630 KM, 9091 miles)

* = LRC, typical Intl. reserves 5% tripfuel, 200 Nm alternate, 30 min hold at 1500 ft

Both VC25 aircraft have no lower hold aux tanks installed.

Aerial refuelling has not been certified by the FAA. and has been seldom used, only in a real emergency this could be used.


APB Winglet installation has been briefly considered around the year 2000 but rejected because of the high certification costs, to be absorbed by only 2 planes.
Note : E-4B aircraft has different strength wing platform and other engines (F103) installed, requiring additional certification and modification costs.

[Edited 2016-06-01 23:34:45]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 10:23 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 10):
APB Winglet installation has been briefly considered around the year 2000

See : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ow-fuel-savings-for-747-200-69001/

With picture : http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPD...Archive/2000/2000-1%20-%200507.PDF

The trail was stopped due low interest of the airlines and minor flutter issues that popped up during flight testing.



Copyright Aviation Partners Boeing (APB)

[Edited 2016-06-02 04:19:57]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3337
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 1:14 pm

Quoting zanl188 (Reply 8):

I don't believe AF1 has below deck fuel tanks.

A typical 747 carries many more passengers, luggage and cargo than AF1. I suspect AF1 would have a lower max take-off weight then the tanks are full and thus would have much greater range specially since much of the hardware that follows the president is carried by the C-17.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:05 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 12):
A typical 747 carries many more passengers, luggage and cargo than AF1.

But the Dry Operating Weight (DOW) is substantial higher than the standard 747-200 DOW.
Second APU installed, on board stairs, aerial refuelling system, extra communication equipment,(electronic) self defence equipment, medical theatre etc.


Lower holds are used for pantries preparing (not heating up) meals for up to 50 people, food storage, spare parts storage, etc.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10390
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:27 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 13):
But the Dry Operating Weight (DOW) is substantial higher than the standard 747-200 DOW.
Second APU installed, on board stairs, aerial refuelling system, extra communication equipment,(electronic) self defence equipment, medical theatre etc.

It is about 150,000 lbs heavier. Still nowhere near max.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:53 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 10):
Aerial refuelling has not been certified by the FAA. and has been seldom used, only in a real emergency this could be used.

This is a military aircraft however. The USAF can perform aerial refueling with these planes whenever they require. The pilot's do not require an FAA type rating, nor any other type of civilian FAA requirements.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 2:58 pm

Quoting Tugger (Reply 14):
It is about 150,000 lbs heavier

Using your INCREASE OF 150.000 LBS, I am left with a POTUS on a diet (negative payload of -4300 lbs )

Standard all pax empty weight 747-200B/80C2B1 = 380.800 lbs
VC-25A Empty weight 380.800 + 150.000 lbs = 530.800 lbs

Limited is the max zero fuel weight. (wing root bending moment)

MZFW of the 747-200B all pax series = 526.500 lbs.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3104
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 3:07 pm

Quoting JohnM (Reply 15):
This is a military aircraft however. The USAF can perform aerial refueling with these planes whenever they require. The pilot's do not require an FAA type rating, nor any other type of civilian FAA requirements

Both VC-25A's are civil (FAA) certified to be able to carry non military passengers, guests, journalists, etc.
For the same purpose even all the non standard equipment has been FAA certified by several supplemental type certificates.

Only the aerial refuelling system has not been FAA certified, so can officially not been used with non military people on board, except in an emergency.

[Edited 2016-06-02 08:48:55]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 4:44 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 17):
Only the aerial refuelling system has not been FAA certified, so can officially not been used with non military people on board, except in an emergency.


Is the C-5 A, B, C, M FAA certified? I think not. They all get air refueled with civilian pax on board. Just think of the horror that all the above airplanes are maintained by non A&P technicians...
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 5:38 pm

Does the VC-25 actually get refuelled in the air in peacetime, with the Pres on board..?
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Thu Jun 02, 2016 8:22 pm

Quoting gia777 (Thread starter):

Wingtip devices are usually intended to improve the efficiency of fixed-wing aircraft. I wonder why this never be implemented into Air Force One as an upgrade feature?


Which aircraft? Air Force 1 isn't a specific aircraft, it's only with the President on board. The B757 have winglets....
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:26 am

Quoting Tugger (Reply 1):

Because range (hence fuel efficiency) is never an issue for an aircraft with in flight refueling capability and that always has an attendant tanker available when needed.

As I suspected, it would seem from the following thread that the VC-25s never get refueled in the air. The pilots do train it, but on E-4s.

Last Time Airforce 1 Mid Air Refueled? (by Runga08 Apr 23 2009 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
gia777
Topic Author
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:12 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:09 pm

Quoting ptrjong (Reply 21):
As I suspected, it would seem from the following thread that the VC-25s never get refueled in the air. The pilots do train it, but on E-4s.

Then if they never use it on AF-1, Then there should be no need one, no? Anyway the plane can fly from A to B so far without having lack of fuel...
Cheers,

GIA777 :coffee:
 
User avatar
ptrjong
Posts: 4123
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:38 am

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:12 pm

No need in peacetime.

But hey, it's the POTUS. Every contingency, however unlikely, must be covered. Read about the crashed project to spend $13 billion on twenty-eight large VH-101 helicopters, essentially to move just one man...
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: AF 1 Winglets

Sat Jun 11, 2016 4:04 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 6):
A normal 742 couldn't fly from Andrews AFB to Japan nonstop,

That is not correct, a late model -200 series with the higher thrust engines certainly could, in fact ANA
had regular 747-200 passenger service from Dulles to Narita.

As did NW and JAL from JFK with their later model 747-200s. IAD-NRT is only 7 nm further than JFK.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos