US vs Russia. Spy/patrol planes. Low bypass vs high bypass.

C-5 has a wing flapping problem which impacts fatigue life. The flapping is a 6 foot cyclic movement at the wing tip at cruise.
I wouldn’t be surprised if addition of winglets would exacerbate the flapping problem.

The P-8 has extended raked tips, which perform the same functions as winglets: increase the effective span and create one or two vortices to prevent spanwise migration.

The raked tips have the advantage of lower weight and lower bending moments in turbulent air, which is significant at low-level, at a cost of increased ground area which apparently is less significant to the US Navy.

Yeah the span extentions have the same function, with same drawbacks of flutter. KC-46 lacks either, C-17 has winglets yet they were never retrofitted to the C-5 fleet. It would seem to be a no brainer with the KC-46 reducing tip vortex for the aircraft flying behind, unless there are drawbacks not readily apparent.

Edit- apparently Boeing claimed the winglets would add cost to their bid that wasn’t worth the fuel savings.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/kc-46a-lacks-winglets-touted-boeing-during-kc-x-competition

“why the hell isnt the USAF or Navy fitting winglets to their aircraft in 2016”

The P-8 has extended raked tips, which perform the same functions as winglets: increase the effective span and create one or two vortices to prevent spanwise migration.

The raked tips have the advantage of lower weight and lower bending moments in turbulent air, which is significant at low-level, at a cost of increased ground area which apparently is less significant to the US Navy.

Enough with the moron threads. First off, the P-8 is not a spy plane, second off, the premise of this thread is moronic to begin with. If you want a seriously interesting thread, “why the hell isnt the USAF or Navy fitting winglets to their aircraft in 2016”

What was said is not a made up claim. The low bypass ratio engines on the Russian jet is better for speed and high altitude.

Is lower bypass better for high speed and thrust : yes
Is lower bypass better for fuel consumption and IR signature : no
Simple as that. It is his Russian strunk attitude in every topic that getting on my nerve
For PS-90A and Tu-214 case ,it will not make much different either ways due to their design.

FFS , can you give your national chest thumping a rest for like a week ?. Why do you still not understand ? no one care about or believe your made up claim and number .Just shut up for god sake.

What was said is not a made up claim. The low bypass ratio engines on the Russian jet is better for speed and high altitude.

What is the cross thing on the sides fuselage forward of the vertical tail?

Top secret.

Tu-214R is a lot more efficient and high speed design than anything based on B737 which will need to be parked near to battlefield.
Plus Tu-214 comfort make it ideal for long range loitering of 12 to 14 hours on special mission aircraft. upgrade with PD-14 will make it 18 hours aircraft.

FFS , can you give your national chest thumping a rest for like a week ?. Why do you still not understand ? no one care about or believe your made up claim and number .Just shut up for god sake.

Obviouslt the high bypass one. It is also more fuel economical

Tu-214R is a lot more efficient and high speed design than anything based on B737 which will need to be parked near to battlefield.
Plus Tu-214 comfort make it ideal for long range loitering of 12 to 14 hours on special mission aircraft. upgrade with PD-14 will make it 18 hours aircraft.

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2015/09/tu-214-transaero-business-class-flight/
Still, with how rock-steady a Tu-214 is when heavy at a cruising altitude of around 33,000 feet, one can easily get some rest. There’s no odd squirrelly motions and almost unusual attitudes you find on a light Tu-204-100.
Regardless of all that, Transaero is an amazing airline, and the Tu-214 is an amazing aircraft. The only thing I would change is to, maybe, add a toothbrush to the amenity kit. Everything else earns nothing but high praise

What is the cross thing on the sides fuselage forward of the vertical tail?

COMINT antenna, apparently.

BPR is 5.1 – 5.5 in the CFM-56-7 series vs. 4.4 – 4.8 for the PS-90A – an entirely insignificant difference in this context.

Which one runs cooler ?

Obviouslt the high bypass one. It is also more fuel economical

What is the cross thing on the sides fuselage forward of the vertical tail?