Bertamus47 Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 Just a new pilot musing here, but why wouldn’t the Pegasus have some form of winglets or raked wing tips? Although they would probably add some weight and development costs, it’s been done before on 767s and seems to be a cost-effective measure to increase fuel efficiency on all kinds of commercial aircraft. Given the thousands of hours these aircraft will fly, wouldn’t the extra cost be recouped in fuel saved quite easily? Is there something I’m missing here? Appreciate any input.
SurelySerious Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 Boeing designed the airplane to meet the absolute minimum requirements in the request for proposal.
jazzdude Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 Or maybe because airliners don't have other aircraft in close formation on them
Gazmo Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 Same reason the Air Force took the thrust reversers off of it. They basically don't learn from their mistakes from the KC-135R. They did a study on winglets for the KC-135 decades ago and although there were significant savings during cruise, the Air Force felt it wasn't worth the cost of upgrading 450+ aircraft. Hindsight is 20/20 though and I'd be willing to bet that it would have been very, very worth it at this point. 1
CharlieHotel47 Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 The airlines are in the business of making money$$$ The Air Force / the Gov is in the business of spending our money. Nobody cares how much things are when your spending someone else’s $$$Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app 2
Gazmo Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 The airlines are in the business of making money$$$ The Air Force / the Gov is in the business of spending our money. Nobody cares how much things are when your spending someone else’s $$$ Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app Well, at the end of an 8-10 hr sortie, having an extra grand or two of gas after droning at endurance for 4 of those hrs may actually be worth something and I am not talking about $$$. More offload capability is never a bad thing. Winglets can save 4-6%. When you are burning 100k+ over an 8 hr sortie, it adds up. This is a tanker. Don't we want max offload capability? This is an organization who chose to pay to remove thrust reverses to save a few thousand pounds. This is an organization who chose to remove 4 parachutes from the KC-135's to "save weight". Yeah, I am sure there were some $ and manpower savings not having to maintain parachutes anymore in a jet we'd 99.9% never need or get a chance to use them in, but I think winglets would have made sense. We just don't know how to make deals with defense contractors anymore. https://www.stripes.com/news/winglets-could-save-air-force-millions-on-fuel-1.69425 This article focuses on money savings, but putting winglets on a tanker shouldn't be about saving money. It should be about max offload capability, even if it is only an extra couple of grand in the tanks at the end. I can't tell you how many *very recent* times I have chosen to go below bingo because our receivers got strung out, zig-zagging across the AOR after getting retasked to support multiple TIC's and we followed to support. It was either that or they were going to have to bingo out. With less tails in the air it becomes the only option at times. 1
SurelySerious Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Gazmo said: Well, at the end of an 8-10 hr sortie, having an extra grand or two of gas after droning at endurance for 4 of those hrs may actually be worth something and I am not talking about $$$. More offload capability is never a bad thing. Winglets can save 4-6%. When you are burning 100k+ over an 8 hr sortie, it adds up. This is a tanker. Don't we want max offload capability? This is an organization who chose to pay to remove thrust reverses to save a few thousand pounds. This is an organization who chose to remove 4 parachutes from the KC-135's to "save weight". Yeah, I am sure there were some $ and manpower savings not having to maintain parachutes anymore in a jet we'd 99.9% never need or get a chance to use them in, but I think winglets would have made sense. We just don't know how to make deals with defense contractors anymore. https://www.stripes.com/news/winglets-could-save-air-force-millions-on-fuel-1.69425 This article focuses on money savings, but putting winglets on a tanker shouldn't be about saving money. It should be about max offload capability, even if it is only an extra couple of grand in the tanks at the end. I can't tell you how many *very recent* times I have chosen to go below bingo because our receivers got strung out, zig-zagging across the AOR after getting retasked to support multiple TIC's and we followed to support. It was either that or they were going to have to bingo out. With less tails in the air it becomes the only option at times. If the AF wanted more offload capes for a jet of size X, they should have written it into the contract. They didn’t, and that’s why you don’t get aerodynamic elements that improve efficiency/offload. Boeing did everything the AF asked for*. *well, except for all that FOD and floors breaking and... Edited January 5, 2020 by SurelySerious
StoleIt Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 I believe it had something to do with weight. They couldn't put the MPRS pods and winglets on without beefing up the wing spars more...and I think Boeing/AF was doing everything they could to keep the weight down (ie: carbon floor, removeable shitter, no T/Rs, etc...which ironically has also caused more issues than anyone could have guessed).
herkbier Posted January 5, 2020 Posted January 5, 2020 Acquisitions for the government is done by those inexperienced/ineffective individuals that remain behind while all the experienced and effective dudes/dudettes leave to work for LM, Boeing, etc. 2
Sprkt69 Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 4 hours ago, herkbier said: Acquisitions for the government is done by those inexperienced/ineffective individuals that remain behind while all the experienced and effective dudes/dudettes leave to work for LM, Boeing, etc. Unfortunately way too true
jazzdude Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 Acquisitions for the government is done by those inexperienced/ineffective individuals that remain behind while all the experienced and effective dudes/dudettes leave to work for LM, Boeing, etc. Sounds like many other career fields-so how do we retain the good ones? A major acquisitions program is likely a once in a career (if not your whole career) program, so how do you train someone up for that? Or you lose continuity as people in the team PCS in/out.There's plenty of jobs for rated people in the acquisitions world, if you think it sucks, then do something to make it better instead of just throwing spears.Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk
Hawg15 Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 16 hours ago, jazzdude said: Sounds like many other career fields-so how do we retain the good ones? A major acquisitions program is likely a once in a career (if not your whole career) program, so how do you train someone up for that? Or you lose continuity as people in the team PCS in/out. There's plenty of jobs for rated people in the acquisitions world, if you think it sucks, then do something to make it better instead of just throwing spears. Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk The military doesn’t want to fix it. You retain experience by matching the benefits they receive working outside the military and making their personal life easy to manage. Someone working a big contract doesn’t need to PCS, they should be paid a comparable salary, don’t send them on random useless TDYs, or live in the middle of nowhere, etc. I know people who get out of the military and then do literally the exact same job for a contractor except they make 2-3 times more, live somewhere great, deployments are half the length, and theres better overall benefits. It is literally impossible to keep anyone that can get hired by then to stay. You can only guilt someone with “service before self” for so long before self and family matters. 1
SurelySerious Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 3 minutes ago, Hawg15 said: The military doesn’t want to fix it. You retain experience by matching the benefits they receive working outside the military and making their personal life easy to manage. Someone working a big contract doesn’t need to PCS, they should be paid a comparable salary, don’t send them on random useless TDYs, or live in the middle of nowhere, etc. I know people who get out of the military and then do literally the exact same job for a contractor except they make 2-3 times more, live somewhere great, deployments are half the length, and theres better overall benefits. It is literally impossible to keep anyone that can get hired by then to stay. You can only guilt someone with “service before self” for so long before self and family matters. Yep. In the civilian sector wage growth happens largely from people moving jobs, not from raises with same employer; right now unemployment is low, but wage growth stagnated because people aren’t moving. In the military, obviously for a large portion of your career you are confined to yearly pay raise as your wage growth...when you have the option, though, the military is either doing a poor job or congressionally restrained from making it lucrative via pay increases or that mixture of quality of life in conjunction with pay. If you want the experience, you have to give something, unless you just want manning numbers on spreadsheets.
Gazmo Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 Acquisitions for the government is done by those inexperienced/ineffective individuals that remain behind while all the experienced and effective dudes/dudettes leave to work for LM, Boeing, etc. But what does it take to get experienced subject matter experts in the air refueling field ( instructor pilots and instructor boom operators who have done this for years) from the active-duty, guard and Reserves together to hash out what we really need for a Next Generation tanker. People with training experience. People with tactics experience. People with CAOC experience. People who are in the fight right now, not generals who haven't seen a real combat mission in the last 15 years. Get us all together in one big room and hash out what really is important for a new tanker or any aircraft for that matter that we need. Do they not do that? Who sets the criteria for these acquisitions?
SurelySerious Posted January 6, 2020 Posted January 6, 2020 2 hours ago, Gazmo said: On 1/5/2020 at 3:15 PM, herkbier said: Acquisitions for the government is done by those inexperienced/ineffective individuals that remain behind while all the experienced and effective dudes/dudettes leave to work for LM, Boeing, etc. But what does it take to get experienced subject matter experts in the air refueling field ( instructor pilots and instructor boom operators who have done this for years) from the active-duty, guard and Reserves together to hash out what we really need for a Next Generation tanker. People with training experience. People with tactics experience. People with CAOC experience. People who are in the fight right now, not generals who haven't seen a real combat mission in the last 15 years. Get us all together in one big room and hash out what really is important for a new tanker or any aircraft for that matter that we need. Do they not do that? Who sets the criteria for these acquisitions? Hah! Good luck breaking the OSD acquisition bureaucracy.
precontact Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 (edited) The KC-46 design did show winglets originally but they were removed by Boeing primarily to be able to carry more fuel. B767 winglets weigh 3,300 lbs total and the internal wing structure is a little different. Edited January 7, 2020 by precontact
jazzdude Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 But what does it take to get experienced subject matter experts in the air refueling field ( instructor pilots and instructor boom operators who have done this for years) from the active-duty, guard and Reserves together to hash out what we really need for a Next Generation tanker. People with training experience. People with tactics experience. People with CAOC experience. People who are in the fight right now, not generals who haven't seen a real combat mission in the last 15 years. Get us all together in one big room and hash out what really is important for a new tanker or any aircraft for that matter that we need. Do they not do that? Who sets the criteria for these acquisitions? But what does it take to get experienced subject matter experts in the air refueling field ( instructor pilots and instructor boom operators who have done this for years) from the active-duty, guard and Reserves together to hash out what we really need for a Next Generation tanker. People with training experience. People with tactics experience. People with CAOC experience. People who are in the fight right now, not generals who haven't seen a real combat mission in the last 15 years. Get us all together in one big room and hash out what really is important for a new tanker or any aircraft for that matter that we need. Do they not do that? Who sets the criteria for these acquisitions? It's the staff. Or attending any number of the requirements boards they hold throughout the year. The problem with many good aviators dodging staff assignments to continue flying is that you then don't have good aviators doing the staff work, which means crappy guidance, and poor planning for the future, and the vicious cycle continues. 1
Sua Sponte Posted January 7, 2020 Posted January 7, 2020 14 hours ago, jazzdude said: It's the staff. Or attending any number of the requirements boards they hold throughout the year. The problem with many good aviators dodging staff assignments to continue flying is that you then don't have good aviators doing the staff work, which means crappy guidance, and poor planning for the future, and the vicious cycle continues. At least in the MAF the problem is bad aviators dodge flying, do the exec/staff/school, get promoted, then make poor decisions about the topic they weren't good in to begin with: flying. The good aviators see the writing on the wall and GTFO at the earliest opportunity and fly for the majors. The bad aviators get out after retiring and go into project management, policy analyst, or some other staff job. 1
Prosuper Posted January 8, 2020 Posted January 8, 2020 When I did commercial MRO stuff we had a customer who's 737's NG's did not have winglets from the factory. We installed from kits they bought which was much cheaper than having Boeing do it. When if ever they start coming to Tinker for the scheduled C checks would be a good time to install them and keeping all costs in house.
Bertamus47 Posted January 12, 2020 Author Posted January 12, 2020 I appreciate the variety of insights and opinions. Thanks for the responses!
gimmeaplane Posted January 12, 2020 Posted January 12, 2020 On 1/5/2020 at 7:33 AM, Gazmo said: They did a study on winglets for the KC-135 decades ago... https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810010485.pdf Nerd it up. Could have saved ~$1-2B by now. My other favorite stupid decision is the continual failure to re-engine the BUFFs, but I digress. 2 1
12xu2a3x3 Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 On 1/12/2020 at 2:49 PM, gimmeaplane said: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810010485.pdf Nerd it up. Could have saved ~$1-2B by now. My other favorite stupid decision is the continual failure to re-engine the BUFFs, but I digress. how about failure to reengine any aerospace vehicle powered by a TF33s twenty years into the 21st century
SurelySerious Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, 12xu2a3x3 said: how about failure to reengine any aerospace vehicle powered by a TF33s twenty years into the 21st century “But we have so many spares in the boneyard!”
12xu2a3x3 Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 1 minute ago, SurelySerious said: “But we have so many spares in the boneyard!” "they're gonna reengine the buff, doesn't that have the same engine as us?"
SurelySerious Posted January 14, 2020 Posted January 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, 12xu2a3x3 said: "they're gonna reengine the buff, doesn't that have the same engine as us?" That’s actually a paraphrase of real mx troubleshooting at Deid JSTARS sq, circa 2016.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now