Military

Tiny vanes glued to planes promise big savings for US Air Force

Tiny vanes glued to planes promise big savings for US Air Force
A C-17 Globemaster II jet tansport
A C-17 Globemaster III jet transport
View 2 Images
Microvanes mounted on a Globemaster
1/2
Microvanes mounted on a Globemaster
A C-17 Globemaster II jet tansport
2/2
A C-17 Globemaster III jet transport

A surprisingly simple tweak is making a venerable military transport aircraft more efficient. Literally gluing a few microvanes to the rear fuselage of a C-17 Globemaster III cargo plane can result in fuel savings in the tens of millions of dollars.

Introduced in 1995 as a replacement for the workhorse Lockheed C-141 Starlifter, the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III has become a major logistical asset for not only the US Air Force, but the Royal Air Force, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force and others. However, even after three decades of service, there is still room for improvement.

One nagging problem that the Globemaster shares with the Lockheed C-130 Hercules is its rear section, which is marked by an upswept rear when the cargo door is raised. This causes some drag and turbulence problems even with the best aerodynamic design and is one reason why the empennage with the rudder and stabilizers are raised well away from the fuselage.

Microvanes mounted on a Globemaster
Microvanes mounted on a Globemaster

As part of a modernization program, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) , the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center, and private industry have teamed up to find a way to reduce this drag without major modifications to the airframe or the need for shelling out a lot of taxpayer money.

The result was a 3D-printed 4 x 16-in (10 x 41-cm) microvane attached to the fuselage using adhesive. That may not seem very secure, but sticky stuff is often the best thing for the job. Just remember that the brake pads on your car are stuck on with adhesive next time you tap the pedal. Screwing them on would result in stress points, ripped off pads, and a big jump in car insurance premiums.

Set in a series of steps on the rear of the fuselage, a dozen of these microvanes catch the airflow over the aircraft and consolidate them to produce a 1% reduction in drag. That translates into a 1% reduction in fuel consumption.

That doesn't sound like much, but the AFRL claims that when the vanes are installed on USAF and Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve aircraft, the project will pay for itself in seven months and save US$14 million annually, along with reducing demands on supply chains in forward areas. In addition, other nations have also shown interest in adopting the technology.

"Every gallon of fuel saved strengthens our readiness and operational effectiveness," said Roberto Guerrero, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Operational Energy, Safety, and Occupational Health. "By adding modern technology like microvanes to our legacy aircraft, we’re saving millions in fuel costs and building capability critical for maintaining our competitive edge in the era of Great Power Competition."

Source: AFRL

Update (Feb. 3, 2025): The above article originally stated that the C-17 Globemaster III was a replacement for the C-130 Hercules, when it was a replacement for the C-141 Starlifter. Our apologies for the error, which has now been corrected, and thanks to the readers who pointed this out.

9 comments
9 comments
vince
Wny not change out jets for electric motors with props and an all electric propulsion system? Oh range would be pitiful. Never mind.
vince
To save the range problem going all electric why not develop nuclear batteries that are crash proof and then enjoy ranges of 100,000 miles or more just like our nuclear subs.
anthony88
A little like the drag reduction fins above the back window of Subaru WRX STi.
Walter
While savings generated by almost free add-ons are to be lauded, I question the extent of such savings. The article contains this: "....problem that the Globemaster shares with the Lockheed C-130 Hercules is its rear section, which is marked by an upswept rear when the cargo door is raised. This causes some drag and turbulence problems even with the best aerodynamic design". While totally accurate, I have to question how much actual in-flight time of total in-flight time does a C-17 spend with it's cargo door open? In my years on the C-141 (a similar design), I only saw the door open briefly during a active airdrop at low altitude and never at cruise or high altitudes.
Zach
Hey Walter, I think when it says 'when the cargo door is raised' it means closed, not open. I guess the big straight door is less aerodynamic than a smoothly curved back end
Nelson
Vince, to mke a nuclear battery crash proof would make it too heavy to let the plane fly.
MQ
VGs, re-entraining airflow around the abruptly cut off back end, who would have thought it would make an improvement (it is pretty obvious some improvement could be experienced, as to the "worth it" nature of the feature, that is often theoretical and hard to truly quantify. Good to give it a go, obviously cheaper and lighter than redesigning a faired , inflatable, or rigid- hinged or otherwise articulated rear section. )
Gordien
Increasing aerodynamics on planes that are already fault aerodynamic shows some real understanding of drag. I always wonder how much work goes into making the millions of square back vehicles cut through the air better. For those who understand the problems with humans polluting our atmosphere, the electric powered vans will need the knowledge to reduce fossil fuel vehicles problems. And who wouldn't enjoy higher fuel mileage. So, where can we place those vanes on the trucks?
Gordien
That was supposed to be fairly aerodynamic - not fault aerodynamic. Oops, sorry.