Fuel Burn

[HerkDerka]

Howsabout finding an efficient method for detaching/attaching the C-130 externals?

It would take MAJCOM level approval. Not to mention you can't just pop the externals on and off depending on the sortie requirements.

There's really two schools of thought when it comes to the externals. Some guys say they create excess drag, but then again, what doesn't cause drag on a Herk. Then there is the wing loading issue.

HD

[Guest Caddis]

It would take MAJCOM level approval. Not to mention you can't just pop the externals on and off depending on the sortie requirements.

There's really two schools of thought when it comes to the externals. Some guys say they create excess drag, but then again, what doesn't cause drag on a Herk. Then there is the wing loading issue.

HD

It does not take MAJCOM approval, at least in the ARC. I know of a unit that did it a few years back to test out the difference in fuel burn, speed, and range. It increased KTAS and decreased fuel flow at the same TIT. There is a reason that the J does not have externals. One of the biggest gotchas on doing this is the storage issue at the unit level. It is a little different than popping externals on and off fighters, but it can be done.

My understanding on the wing loading issues is that by removing the externals we would reduce wing loading and fatigue.

As for the extra drag the 1-1 gives you a drag coefficient for the externals. The J models ditched them except for the weather birds at Keesler. I talked to the Keesler guys back in the late 90's and according to them the externals only produced about 45 minutes worth of usable fuel do to drag. They kept them on for the additional loiter time in a storm that they would get. Thier slicks do not have externals.

I am a big proponet of ditching the externals 95% of the missions we fly do not require them. With the new emphasis on fuel conservation I would not be surprised to see some ARC wings ditching the external for CONUS missions. I know there has been talk at our base about doing it.

If you want to have the extra gas of externals take a look at thesewing tanks. I saw their demo herc at Scott one day with a bunch of AMC/TACC types looking around. The tip tanks do quite a bit to reduce wing loading and flex. According to Mr Snow and his lead engineer the flex on a 60/2 turn with external tanks is roughly 3 feet. With their tip tank mod its about 6 inches of flex. Yup it was a sales pitch but after 3000 hours in the E Model I would love to see something that would reduce fatigue.

[HerkDerka]

It does not take MAJCOM approval, at least in the ARC.

I never said ARC.

HD

[Guest Caddis]

I never said ARC.

HD

Well HD actually you did, you see AFRC is a MAJCOM. The unit I know that removed the externals was assigned to AFRC. It was a decision made at the base level so NO MAJCOM approval was required.

It could have changed since then, don't know don't care. I was simply trying to give you some info I will talk to our MX CC tomorrow and see if I can find out the current info.

[HerkDerka]

Way to twist my words. I'm talking about AMC, nothing else.

HD

[Guest TheBurt]

As far as I know, the USAF isn't a business, it does not make a profit. Many times our missions dictate taking a lot of extra gas, something that pure bean counting cannot account for. A big for instance, talking C-130's only, flying the Atlantic especially in the winter, more than once experienced St Johns, Gander, Halifax etc wx calliing for 2000/3 only to find out along the way that it is 1000rvr Blowing snow with cruise winds 50knots more on the nose than predicted, you had better have brought the Herk up to MGW back in Jolly old England, even though your AMC "flight manager knucklehead" said you only needed 48K. Flying in the sandbox has it's own special fuel concerns, again, bean counters cannot possibly understand all the decisions the AC makes and reasons why he may take more or less fuel to the exact same destinations on even the same day ie. the threat, sudden airfield closures(mortar/rocket attack, UXO's, cable deployment etc.)day only ops, seasonal wx differences, instument approach options/lack thereof.

It's only called "tankering" if you land at your orginal destination with 25K still in the tanks, it's called a "great decision"/good judgement when you had to overfly dest and planned alternate/s because of winds/wx/airfield closure etc and ended up in Bangor with less than 7K. Don't let the threat of some out of touch desk jockey with a tracking program influence your decision to put all the extra fuel onboard that you think you need (or may need) to get you and your fellow aviation buds safely to the bar/home to wife and kids. This is not FedEx/UPS/ etc. Fly safe and fat on gas.

TheBurt

[Nanook]

This discussion goes all the way to the top (congress) with regards to how O&M is funded...how you get money for AGE, MX, etc. With a yearly budget process and a yearly flying hour program it's difficult at best to show savings when there are sorties scheduled to "zero out" the time. That said, we've looked at our unit's flying and figured that taking the externals off of our H2s saves roughly 200 lbs/hr. The math for a 2500 hour year is evident--73000 gallons. That's just one behavioral modification. How about flying slower on legs less than 2 hours? At optimum altitudes? How about shutting two down on taxi in, or starting only two until just before takeoff? Are your standard ramp fuel loads at the lowest they can be with regard to your station? These techniques add-up. Now, I agree, nobody ever got promoted showing savings, (just ask me sometime what my looney sq/cc tried to do to save fuel when I was at Mather years ago) but like someone else said on this thread, Big Blue is broke, and these are some ways to help.

[Guest TheBurt]

We had an Allison rep talk to our unit several years ago regarding the only starting two to taxi, it is more cost prohibitive in the long run in engine mx because decreased engine life as you would have to use higher power in normal ground idle on two engines, you can usually taxi the herk with all 4 in LSGI (after intial taxi out of chocks), the same with shutting down two after landing, I always do IF I can taxi to the chocks with the remaining two in LSGI, but if you are going to taxi uphill or into a strong wind you really aren't saving gas if you are having to use normal ground idle on just two.

We would save a lot of money if we never actually flew!! No fuel burn and no Mx costs, it's a little ridiculous!! We used to use a standard "ramp load" for training sorties, the we significantly reduced this load for "fuel savings measures", now instead of doing assaults at 120K we were doing them a 104K, very negative and worthless training!! Again, looks real good on paper, why go out and fly a training sortie if it's unrealistic, only to go try and do the real thing on a rainy cloudy night to a no kidding dirt LZ in the middle of Afghanistan at 125K and destroy the aircraft and kill the crew, because your training was flawed because of a fuel savings program, some of this stuff is not quantifiable to folks unfamiliar with Ops.

TheBurt

Edited: to clarify normal ground idle on two engines

Edited October 14, 2007 by TheBurt

[HerkDerka]

It's only called "tankering" if you land at your orginal destination with 25K still in the tanks, it's called a "great decision"/good judgement when you had to overfly dest and planned alternate/s because of winds/wx/airfield closure etc and ended up in Bangor with less than 7K.

Well put, and that's exactly the problem. Bean counters have no business telling an A/C how much fuel he needs.

One of the funniest quotes I've heard: "When the AF pays like an airline pilot, I'll fly like one."

HD

[brickhistory]

One of the funniest quotes I've heard: "When the AF pays like an airline pilot, I'll fly like one."

Errr, seen recent airline pay scales?

In more than a few cases, the AF pays better...................

but I understand the point you were making.

[zrooster99]

Units blow their money on stupid things they don't need so they don't lose the money.

Socialism at it's best...

HD hit the nail on the head, I think. We deal with a lot that FedEx and UPS don't have to. Does that mean we shouldn't try to be as efficient as possible. As for the comment about airline pilot pay scales...I bet those airline pilots that make the hop across the pond (i.e. do what we in the C-17 world do routinely) make a good bit more than an AF Capt.

[Champ Kind]

It's only called "tankering" if you land at your orginal destination with 25K still in the tanks, it's called a "great decision"/good judgement when you had to overfly dest and planned alternate/s because of winds/wx/airfield closure etc and ended up in Bangor with less than 7K. Don't let the threat of some out of touch desk jockey with a tracking program influence your decision to put all the extra fuel onboard that you think you need (or may need) to get you and your fellow aviation buds safely to the bar/home to wife and kids. This is not FedEx/UPS/ etc. Fly safe and fat on gas.

To me, that's the end-all for this discussion, as far as Herks go. Well put!

[tac airlifter]

"We would save a lot of money if we never actually flew!! No fuel burn and no Mx costs, it's a little ridiculous!! We used to use a standard "ramp load" for training sorties, the we significantly reduced this load for "fuel savings measures", now instead of doing assaults at 120K we were doing them a 104K, very negative and worthless training!! Again, looks real good on paper, why go out and fly a training sortie if it's unrealistic, only to go try and do the real thing on a rainy cloudy night to a no kidding dirt LZ in the middle of Afghanistan at 125K and destroy the aircraft and kill the crew, because your training was flawed because of a fuel savings program, some of this stuff is not quantifiable to folks unfamiliar with Ops"

i could not have said it any better burt. you are never saving anything by neutering training.

[Herk Driver]

We had an Allison rep talk to our unit several years ago regarding the only starting two to taxi, it is more cost prohibitive in the long run in engine mx because you would have to use higher power and ground idle, you can usually taxi the herk with all 4 in LSGI (after intial taxi out of chocks), the same with shutting down two after landing, I always do IF I can taxi to the chocks with the remaining two in LSGI, but if you are going to taxi uphill or into a strong wind you really aren't saving gas if you are having to use normal ground idle on just two.

We would save a lot of money if we never actually flew!! No fuel burn and no Mx costs, it's a little ridiculous!! We used to use a standard "ramp load" for training sorties, the we significantly reduced this load for "fuel savings measures", now instead of doing assaults at 120K we were doing them a 104K, very negative and worthless training!! Again, looks real good on paper, why go out and fly a training sortie if it's unrealistic, only to go try and do the real thing on a rainy cloudy night to a no kidding dirt LZ in the middle of Afghanistan at 125K and destroy the aircraft and kill the crew, because your training was flawed because of a fuel savings program, some of this stuff is not quantifiable to folks unfamiliar with Ops.

TheBurt

All valid points but how many new ACs taxi with all 4 up-sped or in LSGI when they could've shut 2 down? It takes experience to know when you can do it and guys need to not get stuck in a rut with some of the habit patterns they build and figure out what they can and can't do.

As far as assaults, you can put on a pet rock and get the heavier weights with a lot less fuel. Of course, there are other considerations for wing loading that need to be taken into account. The problem will always be that it is your @ss on the line and you need to do what is comfortable and safe.

There is an old AMC pamphlet out there somewhere that has lots of figures on how much extra fuel gets burned for the gas you are tankering by MDS. IIRC, for every "extra" 1K of fuel in a Herk it takes 50#/hr to carry it. If you add that up over the yearly fuel burned, that's a considerable chunk of change. There were also recommendations for delaying configuration, etc that would save small amounts of gas, but when looking at the big picture, the savings is much larger.

All I'm saying is when you can save a few dollars here and there, try to do it...or don't b!tch about having to stay at the same base for 4 years or the lack of funds for upgrades to X-MDS or for lack of money for whatever else it is that the USAF is trying to buy. Fuel costs is the single largest line item in the DOD budget.

[Guest TheBurt]

Agree, however putting a pet rock on board is the exact same thing, weight. I do not plan any local flight wx permitting that does not involve assaults!! I'd rather have that weight as fuel for several reasons, one being that rock has to be loaded and unloaded by aerial port etc (refrag on a local to onload DZ truck, MRT team/equip etc), fuel as weight gives a lot more options (keeps aft of 245 empty for real cargo).

Fuel savings, I do fly for a large cargo company, that "mission" is to turn a profit. (note the literal period) that is the bottom line, we have all kinds of fuel/cost saving measures to stay competitive ie. B-43/44 exemptions to cut down on fuel reserves on long international and some domestic flights, cost indexing (cost of time vs operation or vice). The USAF bottom line is a little harder to fit into a cost. Yes, as you said, we should conserve fuel when we can, cruise at 2v130 regs etc (pulling back during cruise to XXXkts/lower TIT has more to do with engine life/conservation than just a fuel savings). Someone mentioned pulling it back on short hops below 10000', sounds good until you figure that slower cruise to do an LPS means you get 1 or 2 less assaults/instrument approaches/no flaps etc, you then just passed the "savings" to another day ie. not logging maximum # of counters, wasting fuel due to sortie generation, another start cycle, Mx costs, crew pay etc. It's kind of like the MPD program, yes, AETC was able to save money, but it probably cost each individual unit double the cost per student, to retrain new students, in-house upgrade, left seat requirements etc. Programs like these are very short sighted and IMO don't consider the long term costs. Of course, you/I have all seen this whether you've been in the military (or any other bureaucratic/government agency) 2 yrs or 20yrs.

USAF bottom line: Air Superiority. Delivering cargo on time. Supporting the guy on the ground.

FedEx/UPS bottom line: Profit for share holder.

Gentlemen, put as much gas on your airplane to safely accomplish the above USAF bottom line. It does not involve a monetary profit. If our government needs more money, they print more.

TheBurt

Edited October 15, 2007 by TheBurt

[amcflyboy]

I'll bet that the good ole phrase in 11-202v3 in regards to fuel requirements to the IAF, going missed, etc., was mistakenly not read when the TACC decided to pull all this fuel conservation crap!!

[C17Driver]

I'll bet that the good ole phrase in 11-202v3 in regards to fuel requirements to the IAF, going missed, etc., was mistakenly not read when the TACC decided to pull all this fuel conservation crap!!

I hate to say it, but I've drank the kool-aid when it relates to fuel conservation. A couple ago, the C-17 community was bad about fuel planning and I remember landing with way too much fuel quite a few times...Rarely have I had a flight manager plan the long sorties with too little fuel since the FCIF got released. Landing in the 20s or low 30s is respectable and more than enough fuel!

[Guest Jimmy]

There is such a thing as too much fuel?

[JP84U2]

There is such a thing as too much fuel?

Only when your on fire!

Humps

[pawnman]

It seems like the simpler answer would be to change the way fuel is budgeted, so guys aren't dumping all the fuel left at the end of the year "so we don't get shorted next year".

[Bergman]

Errr, seen recent airline pay scales?

In more than a few cases, the AF pays better...................

but I understand the point you were making.

I understand your point as well...but FWIW, I've been flying in the AF for 12 years. If I were AD, it'd work out to about $96,000/year.

A 12 year FedEx 757 Captain would make $173,000 plus per diem. An FO makes $143,000.

A 12 year UPS captain would make $217,000, and an FO would be at $148,000. Those numbers are just for "pilot guarantee" hours.

You get my point. No one joins the military to get rich, which I am sure you already knew.

Agree, however putting a pet rock on board is the exact same thing, weight. I do not plan any local flight wx permitting that does not involve assaults!! I'd rather have that weight as fuel for several reasons, one being that rock has to be loaded and unloaded by aerial port etc (refrag on a local to onload DZ truck, MRT team/equip etc), fuel as weight gives a lot more options (keeps aft of 245 empty for real cargo).

Fuel savings, I do fly for a large cargo company, that "mission" is to turn a profit. (note the literal period) that is the bottom line, we have all kinds of fuel/cost saving measures to stay competitive ie. B-43/44 exemptions to cut down on fuel reserves on long international and some domestic flights, cost indexing (cost of time vs operation or vice). The USAF bottom line is a little harder to fit into a cost. Yes, as you said, we should conserve fuel when we can, cruise at 2v130 regs etc (pulling back during cruise to XXXkts/lower TIT has more to do with engine life/conservation than just a fuel savings). Someone mentioned pulling it back on short hops below 10000', sounds good until you figure that slower cruise to do an LPS means you get 1 or 2 less assaults/instrument approaches/no flaps etc, you then just passed the "savings" to another day ie. not logging maximum # of counters, wasting fuel due to sortie generation, another start cycle, Mx costs, crew pay etc. It's kind of like the MPD program, yes, AETC was able to save money, but it probably cost each individual unit double the cost per student, to retrain new students, in-house upgrade, left seat requirements etc. Programs like these are very short sighted and IMO don't consider the long term costs. Of course, you/I have all seen this whether you've been in the military (or any other bureaucratic/government agency) 2 yrs or 20yrs.

USAF bottom line: Air Superiority. Delivering cargo on time. Supporting the guy on the ground.

FedEx/UPS bottom line: Profit for share holder.

Gentlemen, put as much gas on your airplane to safely accomplish the above USAF bottom line. It does not involve a monetary profit. If our government needs more money, they print more.

TheBurt

I'm not normally one to stroke egos, but nice post. I agree completely. Having said that, I think any officer owes it to the country, and by proxy the taxpayers, to be responsible with the equipment, money, fuel, etc that we are entrusted with. But that doesn't mean doing something stupid in the name of saving a buck.

For example, I think it is dumber than dirt to min-run operational mission fuel loads, whether it be coronets, pax hauls, or whatever. The extra gas just give you so many more options if/when things go to hades. Another example is the new FCIF for us to fly flaps-up in the radar pattern, at 210+ knots. WTF! That policy was clearly written by someone at Altus or Grand Forks, where they're the only game in town and can get away with grazing around at those speeds. For units that operate at a dual-use field, flying those speeds is not only dumb (see/avoid), it creates one hell of an ATC nightmare.

On the other hand, we routinely land with ~30,000 lbs. on our local missions. We've cut our standard ramp load 20k already, and we could safely lower that another 10k without any trouble. The small savings from just that one change would add up quickly, when you're talking about 500 tankers.

[HerkDerka]

Having said that, I think any officer owes it to the country, and by proxy the taxpayers, to be responsible with the equipment, money, fuel, etc that we are entrusted with. But that doesn't mean doing something stupid in the name of saving a buck.

Exactly.

HD

[Guest TheBurt]

Just to be clear, I do believe in being a good steward of the taxpayers money, I'm a taxpayer. What I find wrong with this fuel tracking program (is there one?), young Capt Smith gets called in to the DO's office, "Capt Smith you need to get your numbers down, we really want to send you to IP school with Capt Johnson and Lt Smythe, they have good numbers, now get out there and save us some gas."

BTW the salary numbers are a little deceiving between UPS/FedEx, FedEx has a Narrow/Widebody pay scale, most guys at 12 yrs can hold widebody Captain guys that have been there 2 years are able to hold widebody FO, FedEx widebody pay rates are significantly higher. You have to kind of look at what you can hold and compare that way, UPS FO pay outclimbs FedEx narrowbody FO at the 5th year, well you can hold narrowbody Captain at the 5th year or have decent seniority widebody FO, yes there are folks who are past the 5th year narrowbody FO for various reasons.

[C17Driver]

Just to be clear, I do believe in being a good steward of the taxpayers money, I'm a taxpayer. What I find wrong with this fuel tracking program (is there one?), young Capt Smith gets called in to the DO's office, "Capt Smith you need to get your numbers down, we really want to send you to IP school with Capt Johnson and Lt Smythe, they have good numbers, now get out there and save us some gas."

Maybe I've been lucky, but I have never had the numbers used in that way. The only conversation I've had about fuel planning with my DO was during an operational mission when my DO was also the Mission Commander. He asked me if I was onloading fuel at Cairo after we dropped our DV...I said "no". He said, "ok".

Now STAN/EVAL on the other hand...They are always asking about fuel planning...but not referencing the TACC website. But again, if you can stand up and give a logical explanation on why you did what you did, then no one cares!

[Guest momann]

Those of you who believe that the AF and the military as a whole is not a business, is sadly mistaken. Business as defines my Wiki:

In predominantly capitalist economies, where most businesses are privately owned, businesses are typically formed to earn profit and grow the personal wealth of their owners. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for their work and their acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions to this rule include cooperative businesses and government institutions. This model of business functioning is contrasted with socialistic systems, which involve either government, public, or worker ownership of most sizable businesses.

As the above definition state, business are typically formed for profit, however, not all business are. Some examples are non-profit and charitable organizations (or business). Although, the form of business the military (hence the AF is involved is atypical, nonetheless the US military is a business. We take resources (individuals, equipments, etc) and process then to provide a service (product) to our country (customer). Our goal or objective is to stand in defense of the might country and be the best military second to none. Think of it as a state owned business. We possess all the attributes of a business, except the nature, objective and scope is different and we haven't been taught to think of the military (or AF) as a business unit.

The key purpose of most business is profit maximization, however not all business are profit oriented. If you all will allow me, I believe our military profit is earned when we win wars, conflicts and finally, knowing that because of our actions, mother USA is always safe.

But as many have said, we need to be effective and efficient at what we do, using some of the principles of a typical business applicable to the military, we however should remember or not get carried away trying to fit into their shoes. As ours is of an atypical nature objective and scope) and the environment within which we perform said business is absolutely different from that of the civilian operated business.