KC-135s to receive winglets

[Fives]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/k ... g-winglets

[Pete Da Bear]

A couple of years ago, on a base tour at Lakenheath, I asked a pilot why aircraft spent so much time sitting at "last chance " or on holding areas. As far as he was concerned this was just normal operating procedure. I've seen aircraft sitting for the best part of an hour on many occasions. Also, and it seems to happen a lot with US sorties as opposed to RAF, there is a problem with non existent / misfiled flight plans. A pair of B52 at Fairford in recent memory. Surely when an engine is running it's burning fuel, I'm no expert and stand to be corrected. While this may only be small amounts it will all add up. I have wondered why winglets had not been fitted and assumed it was to do with possible wake turbulence making it harder for receiving aircraft. So maybe winglets and a more efficient way of working can together save a great deal of fuel.

[Fives]

Yes, certainly a joined-up way of working would save a fortune in time and energy.

[xkekeith]

A NKC-135A with winglets at Edwards in 1980 when NASA proved the concept worked, years later was involved in retro fitting winglets to a Boeing 757 its a fairly major piece of work as the original structure was not designed to take the forces associated with the winglet. The fuel efficiency on the B757 allowed us to operate a route that otherwise would have been very marginal, from memory the business case promised 4% improvement but we exceeded that.

53129 NKC-135A USAF / NASA - winglet trials a/c by Keith Heywood, on Flickr

[raptor9]

The 'last chance' check has always been done in the U.S.A.F for as long as I remember [a long time!]. It's something that that our Air Force doesn't appear to do. The Americans also have a penchant for running through every single available switch for it's pre-flight checks, whether or not some systems will be required for a particular mission or not . The more you operate switches, the more inclined they are to not function!.

[luxto]

The 'last chance' check has always been done in the U.S.A.F for as long as I remember [a long time!]. It's something that that our Air Force doesn't appear to do. The Americans also have a penchant for running through every single available switch for it's pre-flight checks, whether or not some systems will be required for a particular mission or not . The more you operate switches, the more inclined they are to not function!.

If memory serves me correctly the USAF don't call it "Last Chance" they call it "Quick Check" and have done since at least the 60's. The nearest the RAF comes to it, is the visual inspection by the Runway Controller in the caravan, near the holding point. There have been times when they've been credited with a "save" by preventing a/c from departing with, for example, fuel/hydraulic leaks and open panels.

[Seahornet1]

"This program adds winglets to the left and right outboard wing section...

The Air Force may regret using this wording in the budget request. The bean-counters will probably want to save money by approving the left wings, but refusing the right....

[Pete Da Bear]

The 'last chance' check has always been done in the U.S.A.F for as long as I remember [a long time!]. It's something that that our Air Force doesn't appear to do. The Americans also have a penchant for running through every single available switch for it's pre-flight checks, whether or not some systems will be required for a particular mission or not . The more you operate switches, the more inclined they are to not function!.

If memory serves me correctly the USAF don't call it "Last Chance" they call it "Quick Check" and have done since at least the 60's. The nearest the RAF comes to it, is the visual inspection by the Runway Controller in the caravan, near the holding point. There have been times when they've been credited with a "save" by preventing a/c from departing with, for example, fuel/hydraulic leaks and open panels.

At Waddington during the recent Cobra Warrior the caravan personnel caught a Saudi Herc with a "venting something" engine and a Saudi Typhoon with an open hatch, both prevented from departure till resolved. I understand the need for pre flight checks but the amount of time a lot of the Lakenheath birds spend just sitting waiting does seem excessive.

[Canberra TT.18]

The 'last chance' check has always been done in the U.S.A.F for as long as I remember [a long time!]. It's something that that our Air Force doesn't appear to do. The Americans also have a penchant for running through every single available switch for it's pre-flight checks, whether or not some systems will be required for a particular mission or not . The more you operate switches, the more inclined they are to not function!.

If memory serves me correctly the USAF don't call it "Last Chance" they call it "Quick Check" and have done since at least the 60's. The nearest the RAF comes to it, is the visual inspection by the Runway Controller in the caravan, near the holding point. There have been times when they've been credited with a "save" by preventing a/c from departing with, for example, fuel/hydraulic leaks and open panels.

At Waddington during the recent Cobra Warrior the caravan personnel caught a Saudi Herc with a "venting something" engine and a Saudi Typhoon with an open hatch, both prevented from departure till resolved. I understand the need for pre flight checks but the amount of time a lot of the Lakenheath birds spend just sitting waiting does seem excessive.

Maybe odd question but the men and women only see one side of aircraft? Or do the aircraft do a full turn.
With an additional walk around you see the whole aircraft.
One other thing; been ad many airfield around Europe the RAF use (as one of the few or as the only one?) the famous caravan where as eg. the Dutch have a small low build in shed. Why use a 'caravan' every day. Would a building not be easier and cheaper (in the long run)?

[raptor9]

One would need a shed at the end of every runway. More expensive!. Caravans are mobile, sheds not!.

[C24]

One would need a shed at the end of every runway. More expensive!. Caravans are mobile, sheds not!.

Also, when the runway is changed the shed person would need a bike to change to the appropriate shed.

Guessing, the RAF system probably evolved from the ‘A’ runway airfields. The use of a mobile caravan not requiring six sheds and a bike.
…so, winglets?
I really must get a proper job

[Snoop 95]

At Bentwaters/Woodbridge the final check point was always known as the 'LCP' as far as I am aware. Also, I have noticed that the F35's at Lakenheath do not stop at the checkpoint there when departing. Or should I add that they did not the last time I was there!

[slogen51]

Going going going gone off topic

[Finty]

Will make them look a tad less photogenic but I understand the requirements of the USAF trump those of us planespotters. For a truly ugly modification that should one day grace Mildenhall, see what they’re doing to the MC-130Js, namely the installation of silent knight radar!

[Chris in Tennessee]

"This program adds winglets to the left and right outboard wing section...

The Air Force may regret using this wording in the budget request. The bean-counters will probably want to save money by approving the left wings, but refusing the right....

OH God, please don't give those idiots in Congress ideas! What you say as satire will sound perfectly reasonable to some of them I'm sure.

[mustang5861]

"This program adds winglets to the left and right outboard wing section...

The Air Force may regret using this wording in the budget request. The bean-counters will probably want to save money by approving the left wings, but refusing the right....

OH God, please don't give those idiots in Congress ideas! What you say as satire will sound perfectly reasonable to some of them I'm sure.

I'm confident that Republican politicians will support the installation of a winglet on the right wing only; after all, the last thing any of them want is to be accused of being left-wing supporters...

[Nighthawke]

Boom, boom (Basil Brush reference intended rather than refuelling method until I realised!)

[Black Mike]

Winglets might add some interest once they've removed all identifying markings

[Vulture 01]

One question that no one seems to have raised. Why spend a lot of money on an aircraft that, in many cases is over 60 years old,
and is supposed to be being replaced by the KC46?
Any project must have a cost / benefit analysis before going ahead, so the USAF must be expecting a lot longer airframe life from the '135.

When you look at civilian airliners today, they have a wide variety of winglets/sharklets fitted. Any indications on what the USAF have in mind?

[POL]

KC-X (of which the KC-46 was the eventual "winner") replaces some of the oldest KC-135s. With the sort-of-but-not-quite abandonment of the KC-Y programme, the KC-46 is more likely to replace the whole KC-10 force and the KC-135 will continue to soldier on for some time!