By: Maj William J. Lawrence, Dr. William Cunningham, and Lt Col Amanda Femano, PhD

Higher costs for fuel and rising prices for travel by plane (Illustration courtesy of Shutterstock contributor gopixa)

In today’s climate of heightened operational scrutiny and ever-increasing fuel costs, every efficiency gain matters. For the C-17A fleet, one often-overlooked area of potential improvement lies in mitigating drag associated with aileron trim deflection during cruise flight. This article delves into groundbreaking research exploring a simple yet elegant solution: utilizing onboard fuel management to counteract aerodynamic imbalances. By strategically shifting fuel to maintain a neutral center of lift, aircrews can minimize aileron input, significantly reducing drag and unlocking substantial cost savings. Our investigation, validated by C-17A simulator testing, reveals a potential annual savings of over $2M and a reduction of 2,724 metric tons of CO2 across the U.S. fleet.

Traditionally, aircraft balance uses control surfaces and cargo distribution, which can inadvertently lead to increased drag and fuel consumption. This research proposes a concept that harnesses the aircraft’s onboard fuel as a dynamic balancing mechanism. Changing periodic fuel management can be executed through programming modification to the existing fuel management system, removing the need for aircrew input. This periodic fuel balance management system allows aircrew to distribute fuel between wing tanks with manual control of the onboard fuel management system. With button pushes on the overhead panel, the aircrew can keep an optimized roll axis balance throughout the cruise portion of the flight, thereby reducing the need for continuous control surface adjustments and potentially realizing substantial aviation fuel savings with minor software updates or continuous manual balancing. This research attempts to mathematically quantify the amount of fuel needed to move based on the amount of trim deflection in the ailerons of a C-17A, and tests the effectiveness of dynamic fuel trimming in the C-17A flight simulator.

Fuel efficiency is always a focus area in aeronautical engineering and flight planning. As a driving resource, fuel has been a focus in both mechanized warfare and commercial competition for over 100 years. As the Department of Defense shifts its focus to the Pacific, ensuring sufficient fuel availability for the needs of movement and deterrence presents a challenge. Operating in a geographic area that covers nearly half the earth without adequate fuel capacity is a planning factor for which military commanders and airline planners must account. Typically, 25% of the operating costs of airlines are expenditures associated with fuel costs, which have continued to rise.[1] All these factors lead to a renewed focus on fuel efficiency.

U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. John Houston, a crew chief assigned to the 172nd Airlift Wing, prepares to refuel a C-17 Globemaster III on Mar. 7, 2025 at Springfield-Beckley Air National Guard Base in Springfield, Ohio. The C-17 arrived in support of Advanced rath, a two-week exercise supporting U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue operations, and testing for the Air Force Research Laboratory. (U.S. Air National Guard photo by SrA Colin Simpson)

Reducing fuel requirements for C-17A operations could increase payload without increasing fuel burn or range at the same fuel state. Additionally, studying the effects of this method of efficiency increase on a specific wide-body military aircraft could be applied generally to other military and civilian aircraft. The C-17A Globemaster III is pivotal in Air Mobility Command’s (AMC) mobility portfolio for the United States, and eight other countries. Its versatility and operational capacity consistently wield vital movement, with a daily average of nearly 70 tails scattered globally by AMC alone. As the Air Force strives for military efficiency and environmental responsibility through its Climate Action Plan 2023, fuel consumption assumes noted importance. Objective 3.1, Improve Operational Energy Intensity, states Air Force flying missions should improve efficiency by 5% by FY27 and 7.5% by FY32, specifically through aircraft drag reduction technologies.[2] This article explores an innovative approach to fuel efficiency: the use of onboard fuel to balance the C-17 in the roll axis, offsetting trim-induced drag caused by the protrusion of the auxiliary power unit, potentially amplifying its fuel efficiency, with a particular emphasis on optimization strategies. This fuel balance optimization approach is not just environmentally responsible but also extends the mission capabilities of the C-17A by conserving potentially scarce fuel resources. Fuel has one of the most critical logistical and fiscal impacts on any aviation operation. Fuel is especially impactful in inter-theater air operations. Simple drag reduction processes will save fuel with little to no cost.

This research on drag reduction employed a simple optimization model using real-time sensors currently installed on the aircraft that continuously monitor the aircraft’s control surfaces to make basic fuel distribution adjustments. The optimization attempted to minimize control surface utilization for roll axis stabilization, effectively diminishing aerodynamic drag and fuel consumption. The force present at the aileron of a C-17A mathematically and the amount of fuel movement needed to neutralize that force is then determined. Finally, the fuel saved by reducing this force on a C-17A while in cruise flight in normal conditions is determined as a final output.

U.S. Air Force Capts. Dane Butler (left) and Ian Marlin (right), 8th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron C-17 prepare to land at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, Feb. 4, 2023. The C-17 Globemaster III has an international range and the ability to land on small airfields. It also has a fully integrated electronic cockpit and advanced cargo system that allows a crew of three to operate all systems on any type of mission. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Sahara L. Fales)

Research Questions

This research is guided by a series of key questions. First, can shifting weight laterally within an aircraft improve fuel efficiency? Second, will changing balance affect aerodynamic forces in a measurable amount? Third, can a change in lateral balance be achieved in flight through fuel movement? Fourth, will shifting fuel improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the C-17A? Finally, what cost advantage will be achieved by achieving aerodynamic balance?

Moving Mass Control (MMC) Systems

Various systems and techniques are employed to manage mass and its impacts on vessels that strive to perfect performance while in motion. Ensuring fuel and cargo are loaded in the best location onboard an aircraft is critical to maximizing efficiency. Relocating this mass in flight allows flexibility to balance forces for separate phases of flight. Moving mass to control vehicles in flight has shown promise in supporting optimization without traditional airflow deflection devices. Finally, the C-17A has unique and complex aerodynamic factors. These factors present considerable potential upside of mass transfer for aerodynamic efficiency.

Current literature shows that moving mass within a closed system can bring about directional control divorced from traditional thrust vectoring or control surface deflection.[3] Erturk and Dogan’s work went as far as to create a remotely piloted aircraft capable of controlled flight without any traditional control surfaces beyond fixed vertical and horizontal stabilizers (See Figure 1).

Β Figure 1. Erturk and Dogan’s Moving-Mass Actuated Model for Controlled Flight[4]

This vehicle flew in multiple tests assessing the capability of moving small mass blocks within the fuselage and wings to displace the center of gravity and, in turn, induce roll and pitch moments to yield directional control. The test confirmed the capability to maintain level flight and steady turns. The hypothesis that maneuverability can actively control a moving vehicle’s center of gravity location by manipulating mass was supported. In this case, the main advantage of MMCs is taking full advantage of aerodynamic forces, thus saving energy and maximizing the payload-carrying ability.

Conversely, multiple axes of MMCs come with drawbacks. Li et al. explain that though capable of multiple maneuvers, MMCs must overcome the physical complications of multiple moving masses and their associated control mechanisms within a limited space of the vehicle body.[5] In Erturk and Dogan’s model, a large portion of the internal aircraft space housed control functions. This limitation is disproportionately large in small aircraft compared to accomplishing the same function in larger aircraft.

Moving Mass Fuel Trimming (MMFT)

Physical limitations of MMCs are challenging to overcome in small-scale aircraft like those used by Erturk and Dogan. However, in widebody aircraft such as the Boeing 747 or Airbus A380, space allows the adjustment of the location of mass. The fuel system of the Airbus A380, Figure 2, contains an aft fuel tank used to achieve forward and aft Center of Gravity (CG) balance and, in turn, improved fuel efficiency. The A380’s MMFT system helps the aircraft take advantage of an optimum take-off CG and an optimum cruise CG. These systems demonstrate the advantages of trim tanks and the ability to adjust their levels in flight dynamically. AMC asserts a correctly balanced fore/aft CG can lead to a 2% fuel efficiency improvement due to the added drag associated with elevator trim requirements to overcome out-of-balance CG and center-of-lift forces.[6]

Β Figure 2. Airbus A380 fuel system utilizing aircraft fuel trim tanks[7]

The C-17A’s Aerodynamic Asymmetry

The Boeing C-17A Globemaster III provides the USAF an impressive capability. Capable of intercontinental flight and heavy delivery to semi-prepared runways in combat environments, the C-17A has many unique design features. These design features bring distinctive aerodynamic characteristics, such as the housing for the Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). Because the APU is located on the lower right-hand side of the aircraft, ahead of the right landing pod, it creates an aerodynamic asymmetry, resulting in an off-center aerodynamic force. Additionally, the C-17A suffers from a slight weight asymmetry resulting from the APU placement. These asymmetries result in multiple forces acting on the airframe in flight, with which most aircraft do not contend. The C-17A, therefore, provides a particular case of focus for this research.

Figure 3. Asymmetry of C-17A landing gear pods due to APU placement[8]

In Figure 3, the asymmetric gear pod is displayed with the upper pod housing the APU (red box). This gear pod extends forward, disrupting airflow and increasing drag off the centerline. Figure 3 also highlights the asymmetric vortices and drag fields created by the dissimilar airflow around the fuselage. These asymmetric drag fields identified by Bergeron et al., result in yaw and rolling moments, which displace the center of pressure of the C-17A from the centerline, creating a requirement for control surface deflection and increased drag.[9] Figure 4 highlights the abnormal flowline of air molecules passing over and around the C-17A in flight. The flowlines are exaggerated as they move around the right-hand side of the cockpit, and there is a pronounced asymmetry near the right-hand side of the aft fuselage.

Figure 4. Asymmetric aerodynamic floor due to landing gear pod[10]

Methodology

This article employs a three-pronged methodology to assess the feasibility of fuel trimming for drag reduction in C-17A aircraft. First, a mathematical model was developed to estimate the downforce exerted at the aileron due to deflection during cruise. This model was then used to calculate the corresponding fuel burn cost associated with this drag. Finally, the proposed fuel trimming process was rigorously tested within a C-17A simulator environment to validate the theoretical findings and assess its practical application. This research is limited in scope due to a focus on simulator-derived data, which is limited by simulator software programming, as opposed to real-world environmental and mechanical variables. Time and financial constraints prohibited the on-aircraft tests, which will need further refinement to validate the results of this study.

It is hypothesized that a mathematical method can be developed to estimate the amount of fuel to be moved from one wing to the other. This fuel movement, if successful, could yield the equivalent downforce of typical aileron deflection induced by trimming an aircraft to a steady state of cruise flight. The potential outcome of these findings is a significant shift in the center of force, resulting in a promising decrease in fuel consumption at approximately 3% per hour for every pound of control-induced downforce reduced from the ailerons. This research calculated the required fuel movement to balance an aircraft in flight based on aileron deflection as well as the resultant reduction in fuel burn achieved by reducing the drag of a deflected control surface in the C-17A.

The research assumes that moving mass to optimize fuel efficiency would only be applied when the aircraft was in the cruise portion of the flight. The aircraft’s structural limitation also restricts fuel movement to no more than 8,000 pounds of fuel imbalance. An assumption is made that ballast applied at center point of the aileron would act in the same manner as downforce applied aerodynamically. Sufficient fuel burn reduction drives the potential to reduce demand for jet fuel, reduce carbon emissions, and increase the potential for additional payload at reduced cost. These benefits lead to incrementally greater flexibility for the commander, planner, and operator.

Two major assumptions are made about forces acting on the C-17A. First, the downforce or negative lift created by the deflected aileron and the associated moment created thereby is equivalent to adding ballast to the wingtip to achieve an equivalent moment. Alternatively, if the aileron is held in a deflected position to maintain level flight, the resultant two-dimensional force applied at the center of the aileron can be calculated in the form of a negative lift force added to the wing. This negative force or downforce is measured in pounds (i.e., 70 pounds of downforce created) and for simplicity is calculated independently of the forces associated with the wing of the aircraft. Second, this ballast or force equivalent, would in-turn equate to an increase in fuel consumption of 3% of the added force to the whole aircraft as specified by AMC.[11] AMC explains that if an additional 100 pounds were added to the aircraft, be it fuel or payload, 15 pounds of fuel would be burned to carry the additional weight over a 5-hour flight. Thus, 3% of the additional weight is required in fuel burn per hour, or 3 pounds for every 100 pounds added. This research assumes that reducing the down force by 100 pounds would thus reduce the fuel requirement by 3 pounds per hour, which has significant practical implications for fuel efficiency in the aircraft.

Employing aileron lift force calculations with dimensions from the C-17A with typical air speeds and atmospheric conditions to achieve mathematical support for the process of MMFT is evaluated with AMC’s concepts of weight penalties in flight to estimate a fuel burn associated with the aileron drag. Finally, fuel balancing in the roll axis is tested in a C-17A simulator.

A C-17 Globemaster III from Joint Base Lewis-McChord flies over the Seattle skyline after completing a low-level formation training exercise in central Washington, Aug. 5, 2020. Flying in a formation of two or more aircraft in a combat scenario allows for tactical advantage by establishing mutual support and mass of aircraft over an objective area. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Mikayla Heineck)

Mathematical Support

The research used Equation 1[12] to calculate the lift at an aircraft’s aileron. However, because the wing tank is at the same distance from the center line, the distance from the aircraft centerline variable 𝒃𝒃 was equalized and removed, resulting in the force equation, Equation 2. If the aircraft in question has fuel tanks at differing centers of force from their respective ailerons, the difference in moment arms must be addressed. In Equation 2, the force of lift 𝑳𝑳𝑨𝑨 is equal to the dynamic pressure 𝒒𝒒 multiplied by the aileron’s surface area 𝑺𝑺 and the coefficient of lift π‘ͺπ‘ͺ𝒍𝒍.

Equation 3 calculates the dynamic pressure 𝒒𝒒 by multiplying half of the air density 𝝆𝝆 in kilograms per meter cubed, times Velocity V squared in meters.

Calculating the coefficient of lift π‘ͺπ‘ͺ𝒍𝒍 is achieved through the empirical formula of the lifting-line theory for estimating thin airfoil impacts, Equation 4.[13] This formula approximates the coefficient of lift π‘ͺπ‘ͺ𝒍𝒍 based on the angle of attack Ξ±, which represents the angle of displacement of an airfoil relative to the plane of airflow in radians. The lifting-line theory derives the coefficient of lift π‘ͺπ‘ͺ𝒍𝒍 as 2Ο€ multiplied by the angle of attack, Ξ± in radians.

Converting the angle of attack to radians is accomplished by multiplying the angle of attack in degrees by Ο€/180 resulting in Equation 5 where 𝜢𝜢 is the degrees of deflection of the aileron.

Combining the equations results in a total downforce, in Newtons, based on the speed, altitude, size of the control surface, and angle of its deflection (Equation 6).

This equation allows the research to adjust for changes in variables such as speed, altitude, and angle of aileron deflection to find the resultant downforce at the center of the aileron. The formula could be applied to other aircraft as long as the appropriate variables reflect the new aircraft. Additionally, the fuel tanks and the ailerons must have similar horizontal displacement from the aircraft centerline, or additional calculations would be required to determine the movement arm differences.

Balancing with Fuel

The process of balancing with fuel involves transferring a dynamic amount of fuel from one side of the aircraft to the other at equal intervals. This action results in a two-fold weight shift. For instance, removing a pound of fuel from the #4 tank and relocating it to the #1 tank creates the same imbalance and shift in the Center of Gravity as adding 2 pounds to the # 1 tank. To determine the approximate weight shift required

𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝒍𝒍 𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑺𝑨𝑨 the forces at the aileron for level cruise flight 𝑳𝑳𝑨𝑨 are divided by 2 (as shown in Equation 7).

This half-force is applied in this research to fuel being moved to the outboard tank (#1 or #4) to equalize the aileron downforce. Applying AMC’s 3% rule, the aircraft’s fuel burn change is estimated. If the downforce required to achieve colocation of the aerodynamic center of lift and the center of gravity is known, applying a 3% multiplier to the total force 𝑳𝑳𝑨𝑨, yields fuel savings per hour 𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝑭𝒍𝒍 𝑩𝑩𝑭𝑭𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑨𝑨 (Equation 8).

Simulator Test

Next, the findings were tested in the C-17A simulator using the mathematical model developed to estimate fuel movement requirements. Unfortunately, the C-17A simulator fails to accurately model the drag asymmetry associated with the APU present in flight. The simulator was, therefore, set up with a payload imbalance to create an asymmetry and an aileron trim requirement. The setup placed a 90,000 lbs pallet on the aircraft’s right side at load station 774 in the right logistic rail location (Figure 5).

Figure 5. C-17A simulator test load placement

Load station 774 is a typical forward/aft center of gravity load station. By placing the pallet at this load station, the research can maintain the imbalance in the lateral axis instead of introducing a fore/aft or longitudinal imbalance variable. With 140,000 pounds of fuel, a near-full tank level, space exists in the wing tanks to move fuel. The simulator pressure altitude is set at 30,000 feet and an airspeed of Mach .74. Finally, the simulator is set on a fuel freeze mode, which allows the indications of fuel burn in the instrumental readouts but does not change the weights/levels of fuel in the fuel tanks. This setup allows the researcher to change as few variables as possible.

With this desired configuration of aircraft and atmosphere, the research isolates fuel burn (dependent variable), the aileron control deflection, and fuel levels in tanks 1 through 4 (independent variables). The simulator allowed the aircrew to shift fuel instantly to differing tank positions and volumes, simulating fuel movement in flight through the onboard fuel management system in manual mode. This manual mode of fuel balancing is a regular backup system used to correct fuel imbalance onboard the C-17A. To model the level of control surface deflection, the crew manually trims the aircraft for level flight conventionally through cockpit aileron controls and then reengages the autopilot and autothrottles. Aircraft movement is then allowed to stabilize (approximately 15-20 seconds), and the crew records fuel flows along with trim indications.

The research tests a base state of neutral fuel balancing with a displaced center of pressure and then trims the aircraft, repeating the manual trim process after each fuel movement. The test crew continues this process until achieving a neutral aileron deflection. The simulator test reflects starting with an aircraft in an exceptionally out-of-balance, potentially unrealistic situation. This unbalanced state leads to excessively elevated levels of required trim to begin the simulation based on the near maximum allowable fuel transfer of 7,000 pounds, approaching the 8,000-pound imbalance limit. However, this asymmetry does highlight the capacity of fuel balancing to overcome even gross imbalances in flight.

Results

Running the calculations developed in this research yields a measurable aerodynamic force. Calculating the force applied at the aileron of a C-17A was accomplished utilizing nominal data. Assuming a standard day at 30,000-feet pressure altitude, an aircraft Mach of 0.74 (the typical cruise speed of the C-17A) and a theoretical alerion displacement of 5 degrees yield a downforce. The C-17A aileron surfaces have a total area of 127.34 square feet or 11.83 square meters (Tyler, 2009).[14]

The resultant calculation in equation (9) yielded a net force of 5833.74N, or 1,312 pounds of force, at the center of the aileron. This estimated force can then be used to calculate the quantity of fuel needed to obtain aerodynamic balance and potential cost savings.

Fuel to Balance

Calculating the cost advantage from the aerodynamic balance in this example utilized the force of 1,312 pounds. Half the downforce is shifted to achieve balance. In the example case, half of 1,312 pounds or 656 pounds of fuel moves to the #1 outermost fuel tank, approximately the same distance from the aircraft center as the center of the aileron as seen in equation (10). This movement achieves balance in forces, eliminating the equivalent of 1,312 pounds of downforce at the aileron.

A reduction to streamline of the aileron would alleviate 1,312 pounds of force. To calculate the fuel savings, 1,312 pounds was multiplied by AMC’s 3%, potentially yielding a 40-pound reduction in fuel consumption per hour at cruise in a C-17A traveling Mach .74 at 30,000 feet pressure altitude on a standard day.

Simulator Results

The simulator tested the ability within the fuel system to change the lateral balance in flight through fuel movement. Additionally, the simulator test evaluated the improvement of the aerodynamic efficiency of the C-17A by fuel balancing. The five iterations of testing resulted in Table 1. This table captures the fuel state in tanks 1 and 4, the imbalance between wings, the trim state depicted on the aileron trim gauge, the total fuel burn at each stabilized point, and the fuel saved from the baseline. Note that the trim is displayed in scalar units from 1 to 10, not degrees, due to the method of indication in the cockpit and the variable nature of the flight control computer on the C-17A.

Table 1. Simulator Moving Mass Fuel Trim Test Results

Conclusion

This study provides a simple mathematical method and practical extrapolation of the opportunities presented in MMFT in the roll axis of large aircraft such as the C-17A. Based on the mathematical method, this research shows that moving mass to achieve a neutral center of lift, rather than trim or control surface deflection, significantly reduces drag on an aircraft at cruise flight. The incremental gains that MMFT presents could have far-reaching impacts if applied across the flying community. MMFT could be used to reduce trim deflection in aircraft where the p-factor or the rolling tendency results from the application of power in aircraft with corotational propellers. Additionally, in an environment where margins are razor thin, such as the airlines, or where the range is a critical balance between more cargo or more fuel, the ability to eke out even 400 pounds of fuel from a ten-hour flight is noteworthy. Moreover, achieving greater fuel efficiency without requiring hardware modifications is even more enticing due to the lack of certification requirements and costs, making MMFT a practical and cost-effective solution for the aviation industry.

U.S. Air Force 2nd Lt. Prem Wells, 97th Training Squadron C-17 Globemaster III upgrade student, uses a C-17 virtual reality pilot simulator at Altus Air Force Base, Oklahoma, March 3, 2022. The Virtual/Enhanced Reality Training, Innovation and Generation Office has four virtual reality simulators for students to use during their training. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Trenton Jancze)

During September 2023, an average flying month, AMC’s C-17A flew 6,094.3 hours. If, conservatively, 2/3 of those hours are assumed to be at cruise, 4,022 hours would fit into the flight regime targeted by MMFT improvements. With only 40 pounds per hour of fuel savings, flying 4,022 hours saves approximately 160,000 pounds of fuel. At the average fuel price of $7.21 per gallon or $1.06 per pound[15] in an average year of flying, a savings of over $2,052,000 could be achieved across the U.S. C- 17A fleet. With 9.75 kg of CO2 from every gallon of jet fuel burned,[16] the 286,000 gallons of fuel saved will save 2,724 metric tons of CO2 emissions.

AMC efforts in assets of a similar nature might also benefit from this process. The C-5M, which flew 900 hours, or the C-130J, which flew 790 hours in the same period, could also yield savings. MMFT could be acutely helpful for a major operation in the Indo-Pacific Theater, where long flight legs and few operating bases naturally lend themselves to a greater focus on fuel efficiency to extend the range and reduce fuel demand in austere island locations. Finally, MMFT could yield massive financial and environmental impacts to long-haul commercial air carriers. Searching to reduce carbon emissions and fuel impacts on the bottom line, commercial carriers could push manufacturers such as Boeing and Airbus to implement software changes to their fuel management systems, which could then crossflow into the military sector. The potential for MMFT to influence industry-wide changes is significant and inspiring, highlighting the role it could play in shaping the future of aviation.

This research underscores the need for further work to validate and refine the mathematical predictions on fuel efficiency, particularly for the C-17A. While results from the aircraft simulator in an atmospherically stable environment serves as a theory validator, to effectively model the benefits of MMFT, tests must be conducted in the aircraft with a higher fidelity of data acquisition to test real-world system limitations. This would necessitate a higher fidelity measurement of fuel flows onboard the aircraft, likely directly from the engine management computer. To provide a control data set this test would require formation flight where atmospheric variables are eliminated by testing both aircraft simultaneously. A formation of C-17’s flying cross country to participate in an exercise could be directed to perform the experiment, resulting in no additional cost to the taxpayer while potentially yielding significant returns.

Achieving the precision required for optimal lateral fuel trimming in the real world presents challenges, given the age and complexity of AMC’s mobility assets. It requires incredible focus to maintain fuel system balance within the theoretical tolerance levels required. However, this research suggests that even incremental improvements in fuel system balance can yield appreciable fuel savings. While a software update from Boeing to automate this process would be ideal, aircrews can begin exploring these principles and techniques today, carefully monitoring fuel system balance and leveraging existing onboard systems whenever time and conditions allow. Further real-world testing and refinement are warranted to fully realize the potential of this approach.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.Β 

About the Authors

Maj William β€œBilly” Lawrence is currently the Chief of Plans and Programs at the Joint Interagency Task Force West, HQUSINDOPACOM. A distinguished graduate of the Advanced Study of Air Mobility Program at the Air Force Institute of Technology with a Master of Science in Operations Management, he is a seasoned Mobility Pilot with over 3,300 flight hours in the C-5, C-17, and KC-10. His professional interests include tactical and strategic mobility, supply chain resilience, and systems optimization. He can be reached at william.j.lawrence44.mil@mail.mil.

Dr. William Cunningham is the Department Head of the Department of Operational Sciences at the Air Force Institute of Technology at Wright-Patterson AFB, and is also a Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management.Β  He has a PhD in Economics from the University of Arkansas. He has published over 60 articles in peer reviewed journals.

Lt Col Amanda Femano, PhD, is currently serving as Commander, 502nd Logistics Readiness Squadron, Joint Base San Antonio, while remaining active as an Adjunct Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain Management for the Air Force Institute of Technology. A Logistics Readiness Officer in the USAF, she is a trusted logistics leader dedicated to tackling operational problems with data driven decisions. Her research interests include supply chain resilience, transportation, and strategic mobility. She can be reached at amanda.femano@us.af.mil.

Works Cited

[1] Bouwer, J. Dichter, A. Fuchs, G. Hartung, K. Krishnan V. Rivas, D. Saxon, S. (2022, July). Why rising fuel prices might not be as bad for the airline sector as it seems. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our- insights/why-rising-fuel-prices-might-not-be-as-bad-for-the-airline-sector-as-it- seems#/

[2] Department of the Air Force. (2023, July). Climate Campaign Plan. https://www.safie.hq.af.mil/Programs/Climate/

[3] S.A. Erturk, A. Dogan. (2013). Trim analysis of a moving-mass actuated airplane in steady turn, in 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition.

[4] S.A. Erturk, A. Dogan. (2013). Trim analysis of a moving-mass actuated airplane in steady turn, in 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition.

[5] Li, J., Gao, C., Li, C., & Jing, W. (2018). A survey on moving mass control technology. Aerospace Science and Technology, 82–83.

[6] AMCPAM 11-3. (2015, October). Birds Fly Free, AMC Doesn’t Certified Current 21 July 20.

[7] Khan, Z. (2023, June 12). Airbus A380: The ultimate guide and pro-tips. HopDes. https://hopdes.com/exclusives/airbus-a380-guide/

[8] Bergeron K, Mehdi, Ghoreyshi, Larsen E, Jirasek A, Rose TM, Noetscher G. (2020).

[9] Bergeron K, Mehdi, Ghoreyshi, Larsen E, Jirasek A, Rose TM, Noetscher G. (2020). Near-Body/Cartesian Off-Body Simulations for C-17 and Extraction Parachute. AIAA AVIATION 2020 FORUM. Published online June 8, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-2712 IMAGES FIG1&2

[10] Bergeron K, Mehdi, Ghoreyshi, Larsen E, Jirasek A, Rose TM, Noetscher G. (2020).

[11] AMCPAM 11-3. (2015, October). Birds Fly Free, AMC Doesn’t Certified Current 21 July 20.

[12] Sadraey, Mohammad. (2012). Aircraft Design: A Systems Engineering Approach: Chapter 12 Wiley Publication

[13] Abbott I, Von Doenhoff A. (1959). Theory of Wing Sections, Including a Summary of Airfoil Data. Dover. ISBN 978-0-486-60586-9

[14] Tyler, J. R. (2009, September). C‐17 Control Numbers. VT.EDU. https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/mason/Mason_f/C-17Spr09.pdf

[15] Staff, B. (2023, September 12). September 2023 fuel prices. Aviation Week Network. https://aviationweek.com/business-aviation/airports-fbos-suppliers/september- 2023-fuel-prices

[16] U.S. Energy Information Administration (2023, September) – EIA Independent Statistics and Analysis. https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php