Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9882 posts, RR: 52 Posted (2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6655 times:
Airbus hopes to sell 50 more A330-based tanker transports outside the USA. Current orders of the A330 MRTT stand at 5 for Australia, 6 for Saudi Arabia, 3 for the United Arab Emirates and 14 for the UK.
Prospects are South Korea, Singapore, India, Middle East / North African nations, Brazil, France and the UAE for a follow-on order.
Airbus does not expect stiff competition from the KC-767. "We are going to get all the market, we don't have competition today, to be honest."
Military certification of the A330 MRTT is targeted for April following up to 120 test flights, of which 57 have been completed.
For KC-X, the USAF's requirements will dictate whether the the passenger or freighter version of the A330-200 will be offered as baseline. "It could be passenger aircraft, freighters or [a combi version]," says Morell
1 Stitch: I thought India already decided on the A330 MRTT over the IL-78? And with a total sales market of 50, it's clear why Airbus needs the USAF contract to
2 Revelation: And they have 4 uncompleted frames they can use towards that production run. Apparently the US government will be paying a large portion of the costs
3 Keesje: I seems the MRTT would be certificated and several delivered long before the USAF would get a first one..
4 KC135TopBoom: Yes, they did, IIRC, India will be ordering 3-4 A-330MRTTs I would hope so. If the KC-X programs goes as scheduled today, and no one protests the dec
5 Scbriml: The KC-777 is nothing more than a nice CGI in a Boeing presentation. It's even less "out there" than the KC-767AT. Which is nothing more than a propo
6 KC135TopBoom: Kind of like the A-330F/MRTT? My guess is here that IAI began looking into this for some reason other than two conversions for Poland. My guess is th
7 Scbriml: The A330F is scheduled for first flight in November http://www.airbus.com/en/myairbus/he...tem/09_07_20_1st_a330200f_fal.html As you know, the A330MR
8 XT6Wagon: Then why hasn't the KC30B transfered exactly 0lbs of fuel on its boom, some 1/2 year past its contracted EIS date? Explain please
9 Zeke: Contracted EIS date is end of 2009 http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/asd/air5402/air5402.cfm The boom is not supposed to be operational in the RAAF until
10 KC135TopBoom: Who said anything about the A-330F? BTW, the B-777F is already in airline service. Not according to Keesje, he said in the thread start post; Neither
11 Keesje: Yes, and you are free to think and say so.
12 KC135TopBoom: Keesje, buddy, that IS NOT an A-330F.
13 Scbriml: You did in reply 6! You're just playing semantics. If something is in the process of completing, it means it hasn't yet completed. Standard English u
14 KC135TopBoom: I didn't say A-330F, I said A-330F/MRTT, which is something NG mentioned recently as a possibly offering from them and EADS. Here is the whole conver
15 Jackonicko: I'm not a cheerleader for either company. I'm a big fan of Chinook (though not for CSAR duties), of the Little Bird, of the Growler, of the C-17 for t
16 Scbriml: OK I now see what you meant, but no such designation exists. The way you wrote it made it look as though you were talking about two separate aircraft
17 XT6Wagon: Jack, we have been over this. The KC30 requires a footprint nearly the size of the 777 to haul less fuel than a KC10. The KC767AT is a FAR better KC1
18 Keesje: The last line of the article linked in the opening post says: For KC-X, the USAF's requirements will dictate whether the Northrop/EADS bid will be ba
19 KC135TopBoom: " target=_blank>http://www.flightglobal.com/articles....html It was mentioned again within the last few months, too Then again, if the KC-30A wins ag
20 Zeke: The footprint is a non-issue in the new SRD, the bare base operations use a 100,000 square foot area. Time to get some new material, the new RFP is o
21 Stitch: A combination of risk and time-to-market issues, I expect. Time to market issues? The USAF wants the first plane in five years. That might be too tig
22 KC135TopBoom: Both NG and the USAF had months to submit the documents the GAO wanted, and neither submitted them. The GAO did a lot of looking at the 2 year mainte
23 GDB: In 1936, with a potential war now looking more likely, the British Air Ministry specified a monoplane 4 engined heavy bomber, a real departure from th
24 KC135TopBoom: None of those other Air Forces are buying up to 179 new tankers, either. The biggest single A-330MRTT order is for the 14 aircraft to the RAF, everyo
25 GDB: I did think of the issue of where the aircraft would be deployed to, the USAF has in the large number of operational major deployments of the past 20
26 Scbriml: To match the capability of 25 KC-30s, you'd need a lot more KC-767s. Anyway, it's a totally moot point since, I believe, ramp space is not considered
27 474218: What is "military certification"? I have never heard of a military aircraft having to be certified? Normally military are are flight tested by the OE
28 Zeke: Incorrect. The GAO never had never information, it only had information supplied to the USAF during the original RFP (as that is all it is allowed to
29 KC135TopBoom: No, the KC-135 has been heaverily involved in just about every deployment, unless it only involved one KC-10, and even then, it usually had to refuel
30 EPA001: Just a small update on www.flyglobal.com on the progress of testing the A330-MRTT for the Australian Airforce: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...
31 KC135TopBoom: I couldn't get the links to work. Do you have another one?
33 Par13del: And that small little thing if the A330 or the 777 is selected will result in tax payors spending millions to upgrade facilities around the world. A
34 Scbriml: While ramp space is effectively not considered (by virtue of the large area the USAF say the plane must fit in), I believe MILCON costs of the 11 nom
35 Par13del: They are, thats the reason why I said remove / adjust. If a A330 or 777 is selected, we really believe that only the 11 bases listed will be used? It
36 KC135TopBoom: The 11 bases is where the infaststructures dollars will be spent. These will be the home bases for the KC-X, but it will fly in and out of other base
37 Zeke: The military does issue a military type certificate, that military type certificate is issued when the aircraft has met the military certification re
38 KC135TopBoom: There are slighly over 12,000 aircraft in the "west" that are receivers for refueling, of those about half, or 6000 of them have a receptical.
39 Par13del: Do you mean the US Military or the rest of the world? Based on your numbers, what percentage of that 6,000 is a/c assigned to the US military, I woul
40 KiwiRob: Is that really true, I read this on Wikipedia (not the best but disputes what you said). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_bomber "The aircraft s
41 KC135TopBoom: Well, the trend is for most heavies around the world to go to Boom refueling, because it is much faster. For the USN, the E-6B alreaqdy has a recepti
42 Scbriml: Does the RFP actually say they are, or is that your assumption?
43 KC135TopBoom: That is the current 11 planned bases.
44 Zeke: That is not what I said. I said the bigger need is for hoses. Even for the US military. What KC135TB does not want to state is that during the past f
45 Par13del: As it relates to this RFP, is the need for more hoses a US Air Force military requirement for their a/c or is it for their role as the "world's polic
46 KC135TopBoom: Wrong, it is close to 50/50. More and more countries are going with Boom refueling as opposed to probe and drogue refueling because of the effeiencie
47 Zeke: They do refuel coalition aircraft. Likewise coalition and civil tankers have been refueling US aircraft as they did not have enough hoses. But the ma
48 KC135TopBoom: The USAF will not drogue refuel 3 receivers at one time. The most it will refuel is 2 at one time, as it does now on the KC-135 and KC-10. At a max t
49 KiwiRob: The way you wrote the original sentace inferred that a KC135 could refuel any aircraft regardless of system.
50 Jackonicko: More nonsense, KC? “At a max transfer rate of 400 GPM, the WARPS will not off-load more fuel or at a faster rate than the 1200 GPM Boom.” Depends
51 Par13del: Typhoon is a 5th gen fighter, the F-15 and F-16 are 4th gen or lower, I think the point that was being made was whether the exitsing fleet could soldi
52 Zeke: Yes it does. A KC-135 with a boom attached hose can only refuel hose equipped aircraft, and only one at a time. You will not get 6000 lb/min out of a
53 KC135TopBoom: The time to cycle will be about the same for both drogue and Boom refueling 1. No they get better fighters. 2. France and the UK have sold the IDF ai
54 Zeke: I was. Will have to take you word for that. I thought the RAF and French E-3s were only cleared for boom refilling off USAF KC-135/KC-10s. I would be
55 Cargotanker: Some info from what I've witnessed: MPRS (multi point refueling system, that's -135 talk for WARPS) offload rates to drogue recievers using two hoses
57 KC135TopBoom: I agree. While any pilot can win any engagement at any time, the odds are much better for the better pilots. A very good pilot in a F-4E can get a ki
58 KC135TopBoom: The RAF E-3D; http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/awacs/gallery/ukawacs1.html http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/awacs/gallery/ukawacs2.html T
59 KC135TopBoom: This is the first I have seen of "significant costs overruns on the A-330MRTT". Does anyone have any information on this? "The financial drain across
60 Keesje: If you are looking for wild accusation's on anything Airbus / EADS you'll never be disappointed at GLG. You'll notice the hit rate is almost 100%. ht
61 KC135TopBoom: Your guessing and just grabbing at straws, Keesje. For all you know, I could be the GLG Expert. So, I guess GLG has hit it right on the head, the A-3
62 EPA001: Maybe you should ask Boeing where the B767 based tankers are much and much more delayed.
63 Keesje: Come on KC135TB, check your sources first..Doug-McVitie is the a glgroup "Council-Member" and you can recognize his extreme anti anything Airbus whin
64 Scbriml: Indeed, hell hath no fury like an ex-employee armed with uncorroborated "facts". What knife-edge exactly?
65 Zeke: If they do it is against USAF published procedures. Having a probe does not automatically permit that type or AAR procedure, as I stated earlier, it
66 Astuteman: Well there you go. Straw well and truly clutched. Again. I'll echo the . It appears to me to be a damned sight less "knife-edged" than the 787 "glory
67 KC135TopBoom: The difference appears to be that the two current versions of the KC-767 actually do work. We cannot say that for the two current versions of the A-3
68 Evomutant: At least you have finally admitted it. That you are cheering for Boeing. And that is presumably the reason for your visceral hate of all things Airbu
69 Revelation: I think it's because the Aussie government is making it clear they want their delay payments from Boeing, whereas I don't think there is any such del
70 KC135TopBoom: I have never denied that I am pro-Boeing. Airbus is fine at building less than superior aircraft, if that is the kind of airplane you want. Nope, the
71 KiwiRob: You can't compare them, they are existing tried and tested products built on a current production line.
72 KC135TopBoom: Isn't the A-330 a tried and tested product, too?
73 Zeke: You have not provided any means to verify that information. Your comments to date on the various tanker and receiver performance/capabilities has bee
74 EPA001: Less then superior must mean that the Boeing products are all at least sub-standard as in the long history no Boeing product has ever come close to t
75 Scbriml: A pedant would be tempted to point out the true parentage of those two products!
76 Zeke: Not sure about the C-17, however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy. Boeing has no direct contract with the RAAF for t
77 KC135TopBoom: As usual you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to military aircraft and how they are used. Again you are wrong. The ITAF KC-767A
78 EPA001: Yes, exactly those sorry excuses for airplanes from Boeing is what I am talking about. (Which is rubbish of course but I am sorry to say that sometim
79 Zeke: Excuse me, why do you have to be so rude, do you think it helps to establish your lack of credibility ? I have provided links etc to support my comme
80 Zeke: Actually, I am wrong with this, April should be Q2.
81 KC135TopBoom: While I fully admit I am a staunch Boeing supporter, that by no means indicates I do not have a healthy respect for airplanes built/modified by other
82 Zeke: Does that mean it is not happening ? e.g. night refueling from the RAAF KC-30 The cargo handling system already had an STC for Japan, the differance
83 Overcast: Here the link to the nighttime refuelling. http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/184525.asp
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0 Reply 84, posted (3 weeks 8 hours 16 minutes ago) and read 1503 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81): While I fully admit I am a staunch Boeing supporter, that by no means indicates I do not have a healthy respect for airplanes built/modified by other companies, including Airbus/EADS. I have stated repaetedly on the A-400M thread that I want to see her fly, and soon. I just have doubts as to when that will happen. I have also been critical on Boeing management for the B-787 program. I have no doubt the A-330-200, A-330-300 and A-330-200F are good airplanes. Boeing does not have a product that equilly mimics ther capabilities. The B-777 and B-767 are one step above and below the A-330 capability. But, I also believe the A-330s stable sister, the A-340 is a complete dog. Only the B-737NG and A-32X compete head to head directly with near capability. The Boeings have a slight range advantage (except for the A-319), payload advantage, and slightly less fuel burn. But the A-32X series I have flown on seem quiter and slightly more roomy, something passengers want.
Though I might not totally agree with you, your reaction is fair enough imho.
But that is also something very different from categorizing Airbus as a company building sub-standard products for customers who want sub-standard products. Their products are on par with Boeing's, sometimes even a bit better, sometimes just a bit worse. That both companies share the world market in civilian aviation about 50%-50% says a lot. The market thinks that the products are pretty equal overall. In this number of 50%-50% you have to calculate that Airbus is still pretty new in some parts of the civilian market, so it had to draw customers away from Boeing/McDonnell-Douglas first. And with some airlines that is almost impossible which makes this 50%-50% number for Airbus actually a very good achievement.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7570 posts, RR: 51 Reply 85, posted (3 weeks 7 hours 22 minutes ago) and read 1503 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 82): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 81):
Because this is a FMS contract, and not a direct Boeing contract, the Aussie payments go to the US DOD, then are sent onto Boeing.
Just a minor reversal from this ...
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77):
Ah, wrong again. The RAAF F/A-18Fs are all new build airplanes under a RAAF/Boeing contract.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 76): Not sure about the C-17, however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy.
No reversal, we were both right and we were both wrong.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 82): Does that mean it is not happening ? e.g. night refueling from the RAAF KC-30
Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat. I know it is suppose to be a 3-D picture the Boom Operator sees at his station, but the picture looks all wrong. The shadow of the ruddervators across the receiver just foreward of the receptical really is screwing up the visual clues a Boom Operatior looks for. The lighting is all wrong, it is shinning on the lower portion of the telescoping fuel tube, not on the ball joint or nozzle. The lighting between the F-16 left and right wing is not even. There is a bright light spot at the base of each ruddervator. These lighting effects will make for a very confusing refueling picture in weather and clouds.
Maybe the problem is all the individual lights need to be properly aimed, or the worst case, they need to be moved to different locations.
The worst case I can think of is operational night refuelings where the tanker lighting is off to prevent downward shinning lights. These refueling are done today with KC-135s and KC-10s. The KC-30 will have to do them, too.
This refueling must have taken place out over water as there is no ground lighting in the background.
I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that? I would have also wanted to see the exterior formation lighting on the KC-30, the strip lights.
The story that came with some thjings that are not correct. It said the KC-30 has off loaded 40,000 lbs, it has not, it off loaded aboput 3600lbs last week and about 3300 this week, less than 7,000 lbs. I wonder about the large and rapid CG change for a big offload.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 84): Their products are on par with Boeing's, sometimes even a bit better, sometimes just a bit worse. That both companies share the world market in civilian aviation about 50%-50% says a lot.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 65 Reply 86, posted (3 weeks 7 hours 3 minutes ago) and read 1501 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): No reversal, we were both right and we were both wrong.
Oh really....
"Australia is not actually buying from Boeing. It is buying this warplane from the US Navy, so Australia is getting the US Navy's pricing." from the Boeing Hornet VP
How is that differnt from "however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy" which is what I said ?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it.
Of course you do, nothing in that photo is a Boeing product. Get used to it.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I wonder about the large and rapid CG change for a big offload.
That is a problem with the Boeing tankers, not the KC-30. Basically all the fuel for the KC-30 is in the wing on the CG, it is not also stored unevenly in the underfloor cargo holds away from the CG like on Boeing tankers.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Keesje From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9882 posts, RR: 52 Reply 87, posted (3 weeks 6 hours 56 minutes ago) and read 1499 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that? I would have also wanted to see the exterior formation lighting on the KC-30, the strip lights.
TopBoom, EADS says the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel. Are you suggesting they (and the RAAF) are lying?
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 65 Reply 88, posted (3 weeks 6 hours 6 minutes ago) and read 1486 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 77): The ITAF KC-767A received its FAA STC on 23 Sept. 2009. There is no airspeed, WARP flutter, or drogue hose problems. You are correct the KC-767A has not been delivered to the ITAF yet. But, one is currently being used for crew qualification here in the US, two others are still qualifing receiver aircraft and other minor flight testing. They are also being used (with Italian approval) for USAF, then USN Military Utility Observation (MUO) required under contract. The ITAF will receive its first in 2010.
An update today on the Italian KC-767 problem
Quote: ROME - Boeing's delivery of 767 tanker aircraft to the Italian Air Force has slipped again as the company fixes a problem with the hose-and-drogue refueling system, a senior Italian defense source said.
Quote: And with Boeing still testing its fix on the central drogue stability issue, no date had been fixed for the U.S. Navy MUO to start, the Italian source said.
If the MUO is successful, the TFA could start in January and would last around 60 days, said the source, meaning the first tanker could be ready for delivery in March.
In September 2008, Boeing officials said all four aircraft would be delivered during 2009.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7570 posts, RR: 51 Reply 89, posted (2 weeks 6 days 16 hours 36 minutes ago) and read 1392 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 86): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
No reversal, we were both right and we were both wrong.
Oh really....
"Australia is not actually buying from Boeing. It is buying this warplane from the US Navy, so Australia is getting the US Navy's pricing." from the Boeing Hornet VP
How is that differnt from "however in the F/A-18F case, they are coming to the RAAF from the US Navy" which is what I said ?
because the RAAF is not buying the airplanes from the USN, it is buying them from the FMS Office. The FMS Office is in the DOD, but is not part of the USN, or USAF.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 86): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it.
Of course you do, nothing in that photo is a Boeing product. Get used to it.
I already made some comments why. You are not a Boom Operator, you are a pilot, and should understand problems like depth perseption. The lighting problems I pointed out are fixable. But I don't know if it is fixed by reaiming the lighting, or if the placement has to be moved. If that is the case, the engineers will need to readdress the lighting placement and come up with a new design.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 86): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I wonder about the large and rapid CG change for a big offload.
That is a problem with the Boeing tankers, not the KC-30. Basically all the fuel for the KC-30 is in the wing on the CG, it is not also stored unevenly in the underfloor cargo holds away from the CG like on Boeing tankers.
Yes, the fuel on the KC-30 is all in the wings, and the wings have an aft moment, except for possibly the center wing tank, depending on its location. Airplanes with body fuel tanks have much more control of the CG as they can select fuel movement from the foreward or aft body tanks in a sequence that will maintane the CG where they need or want it. They have the same ability to move fuel from the wings as the A-330 does, except they can control the CG movement aft by draining or pumping fuel into the foreward bady tank if they need to.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 87): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that? I would have also wanted to see the exterior formation lighting on the KC-30, the strip lights.
TopBoom, EADS says the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel. Are you suggesting they (and the RAAF) are lying?
Yes, they are lying. The KC-30 has only made those few wet contact with the Boom last week and this week. They transferred less than 7,000 lbs, according to their own press releases to 3 F-16 receivers. They have not transferred 40,000 lbs inflight through the Boom from the KC-30.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 88): An update today on the Italian KC-767 problem
Yes, did you notice these?
The source said the start date was subsequently pushed back to the end of November 2009.
"That provisional TFA date has now slipped to January 2010," he said. "But that is just guesswork, and things could change from week to week." If the January appointment is kept, all four tankers could yet be delivered during 2010, he added.
and this?
The new problem, said the source, concerns the stability in flight of the central drogue, or basket, fixed to the end of the refueling hose that is extended from the center line of the fuselage.
"Boeing is dedicating a team to fixing this latest problem," the source said. "They appear to have found a solution, but test flying has yet to confirm it, and we have been down this road before."
That would be the upcoming USN MUO testing using the ITAF KC-767As.
This is what happened during the USAF MUO testing last summer.
Boeing's main focus, added Sanchez, was to "complete the Italy flight test program, complete Federal Aviation Administration Supplemental Type Certification [STC] and then work with the U.S. Navy to complete a Military Utility Observation [MUO] required under contract. That is similar to the MUO we conducted with the U.S. Air Force earlier this year."
During the U.S. Air Force MUO in June, two of the tankers destined for Italy used their booms during test flights at Edwards Air Force Base, offloading 100,000 pounds of fuel during 65 tanker-to-tanker contacts.
The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
"We have completed the FAA STC certification requirements," Sanchez said. "Once flight testing has been completed and all resultant findings have been addressed, we'll work with the U.S. Navy to schedule the MUO requirement. Once the MUO requirement has been completed, we'll begin the [TFA] process with our Italian customers and deliver their advanced KC-767 tanker."
While the flight testing with the U.S. Air Force put the boom to the test, the testing with the U.S. Navy will check the workings of the hose and drogue. And with Boeing still testing its fix on the central drogue stability issue, no date had been fixed for the U.S. Navy MUO to start, the Italian source said.
If the MUO is successful, the TFA could start in January and would last around 60 days, said the source, meaning the first tanker could be ready for delivery in March.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 65 Reply 90, posted (2 weeks 6 days 14 hours 5 minutes ago) and read 1315 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
because the RAAF is not buying the airplanes from the USN, it is buying them from the FMS Office. The FMS Office is in the DOD, but is not part of the USN, or USAF.
May I ask you you know better than the Boeing Hornet VP which I quoted word for word ? May I suggest you provide evidence of your claims.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): You are not a Boom Operator, you are a pilot, and should understand problems like depth perseption.
Like I have never flown a block hole approach, or taken off/landed in fog or heavy rain.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): The lighting problems I pointed out are fixable.
Yet another unfounded comment, you have not seen the boom operators console.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): Yes, the fuel on the KC-30 is all in the wings, and the wings have an aft moment, except for possibly the center wing tank, depending on its location.
Not true (common theme with the junk in your posts)
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): Airplanes with body fuel tanks have much more control of the CG as they can select fuel movement from the foreward or aft body tanks in a sequence that will maintane the CG where they need or want it.
Except when you have a pump or electrical failure and you are unable to gravity feed uphill. Tell me exactly how many Boeing commercial aircraft or their derivatives use fuel for CG control ?
What experience does Boeing have in this area ?
How does the aircraft know its CG at any point in time ?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): They have the same ability to move fuel from the wings as the A-330 does, except they can control the CG movement aft by draining or pumping fuel into the foreward bady tank if they need to.
Incorrect, in the case of total failure, EMP etc, the A330 can gravity feed.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
Yes, they are lying. The KC-30 has only made those few wet contact with the Boom last week and this week. They transferred less than 7,000 lbs, according to their own press releases to 3 F-16 receivers. They have not transferred 40,000 lbs inflight through the Boom from the KC-30.
More unfounded statements, You cannot provide ANYTHING to support those claims.
because the RAAF is not buying the airplanes from the USN, it is buying them from the FMS Office. The FMS Office is in the DOD, but is not part of the USN, or USAF.
May I ask you you know better than the Boeing Hornet VP which I quoted word for word ? May I suggest you provide evidence of your claims.
Okay, the RAAF F/A-18F sale is a DOD FMS sale action, not a USN sale.
Of course I don't really expect you to accept these facts, you haven't accepted any other facts I pointed out.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
You are not a Boom Operator, you are a pilot, and should understand problems like depth perseption.
Like I have never flown a block hole approach, or taken off/landed in fog or heavy rain.
Like I said, you should understand depth perseption.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
The lighting problems I pointed out are fixable.
Yet another unfounded comment, you have not seen the boom operators console.
I didn't comment on the Boom Operator's console. You are right, I have not seen it. I commented on the KC-30 external air refueling lighting, and what I thoulght of the lighting shown in the picture.
Don't believe me, go ask another Boom Operator.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
Yes, the fuel on the KC-30 is all in the wings, and the wings have an aft moment, except for possibly the center wing tank, depending on its location.
Not true (common theme with the junk in your posts)
Do you really understand how airplanes fly? Are you really a co-pilot, or do you just play one on the internet?
Maybe you should ask a Captain some of these questions?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
Airplanes with body fuel tanks have much more control of the CG as they can select fuel movement from the foreward or aft body tanks in a sequence that will maintane the CG where they need or want it.
Except when you have a pump or electrical failure and you are unable to gravity feed uphill. Tell me exactly how many Boeing commercial aircraft or their derivatives use fuel for CG control ?
What experience does Boeing have in this area ?
How does the aircraft know its CG at any point in time ?
I don't know about Airbus airplanes, but Boeing airplanes have more than one pump in each fuel tank. So a single pump failure will not prevent pumping fuel into another tank or the engines. These pumps are often of different electrical systems**, yes, commerical airplanes have more than one electrical system, powered by generators on different engines. BTW, it is the same for the more than one hydraulic systems, too.
**hydraulicly driven fuel pumps, like air refueling pumps, are also on seprate hydraulic systems.
Airplane operators, both Boeings and Airbuss burn fuel according to a established sequence, from one (or more tanks) to another, depending on the fuel load they took off with. Different tanks have different pumps that will pump at a higher pressure than the wing boost pumps, thus you do not have to shut the boost pumps off when you burn from, say. a center wing tank (in airplanes that have them). Some fuel tanks only gravity drain into a tank with fuel pumps. In most Boeing airplanes, the reserve fuel tanks are in the outboard sections of the wing (an aft moment), these tanks can be drained, once there is enough room for the fuel in the main wing tank to accept it, thus moving the CG foreward. Airplanes with center wing tanks generally have them foreward of MAC, thus burning fuel from it will shift the CG aft.
Airplane with body fuel tanks, like the KC-135 and KC-10 have even more control and faster control over the airplanes CG because of pumping large offloads to large receivers.
Try offloading 100,000 lbs, or more, of fuel sometime and see how it works.
For those airplanes that do not have a constant CG read display, you know it is within the CG limits by looking at the horizontal trim indicators. generally, if the airplane will fly "straight and level" it is properly trimmed and within the CG limits.
BTW, if Boeing did not understand CG and percent of MAC, they would not be in the airplane building business. It is just one of a thousand differnt thing they need to understand to make an airplane fly.
Any more questions about CG, or percent of MAC?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 90): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89):
They have the same ability to move fuel from the wings as the A-330 does, except they can control the CG movement aft by draining or pumping fuel into the foreward bady tank if they need to.
Incorrect, in the case of total failure, EMP etc, the A330 can gravity feed.
So can Boeing airplanes. But, in the case of total electrical failure, or an EMP spike, moving fuel around the airplane is the least of your problems.
You should try that in the sim sometime. USAF aircrews do.
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8928 posts, RR: 51 Reply 92, posted (2 weeks 6 days 8 hours 58 minutes ago) and read 1190 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): Yeah, I have been looking at this and have problems with it. It is a flat picture and has no depth preseption. the lighting looks all wrong and the shadow really screws up the picture, perhaps that is making the depth perseption look flat. I know it is suppose to be a 3-D picture the Boom Operator sees at his station, but the picture looks all wrong.
Of course it "looks wrong". It's a 2-D photo of a 3-D computer screen image.
Quote: Aerial refueling operations are controlled from a state-of-the-art Remote Aerial Refueling Operator console in the cockpit behind the pilots, incorporating the enhanced vision system with laser infrared lighting and high-definition digital stereoscopic viewing.
“I have situational awareness and a field of view that far exceed anything I ever had during my Air Force career,” Cash said, “with crystal-clear visuals night or day.”
Maybe you should try it before you knock it?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that?
If they had, what would you have said? Maybe something along the lines of "that photo doesn't prove it was a wet contact"? As far as you're concerned, when it comes to EADS, you won't believe anything they say. Yet, when Boeing say something like:
Quote: The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
you don't demand photographic evidence or question why only 5,000lbs of fuel was transferred in more than 100 contacts. If this was the ARBS, you'd be demanding to know why they're still having problems with it.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 89): Yes, they are lying. The KC-30 has only made those few wet contact with the Boom last week and this week. They transferred less than 7,000 lbs, according to their own press releases to 3 F-16 receivers. They have not transferred 40,000 lbs inflight through the Boom from the KC-30.
Where did anyone claim the 40,000+lbs of fuel transferred by the A330MRTT boom was all "in flight"? Don't you think it would have been sensible to do some wet transfer testing "on the ground" first? Or didn't that happen because they haven't published a photo of it?
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 65 Reply 93, posted (2 weeks 6 days 37 minutes ago) and read 1116 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Okay, the RAAF F/A-18F sale is a DOD FMS sale action, not a USN sale.
The DoD does not do the negotiations of sale themselves, they are done by an "implementing agency", in this case it was the US Navy.
The first link you posted states this, " An implementing agency within the Pentagon -- the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, or Defense Logistics Agency, depending on the type of item being considered -- negotiates the terms of the sale. If agreement is reached, both parties sign a letter of offer and acceptance (LOA), the contract which sets an FMS "case" in motion."
The FMS role in this case is to oversee the process, and make the appropriate notifications to congress. They do not do the direct negotiations with the suppliers, nor do the do the military support. It is the implementing agency that signs the agreement with the supplier, in this case the US Navy.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): Of course I don't really expect you to accept these facts, you haven't accepted any other facts I pointed out.
I accept the links you posted, they contradict what you have been saying as usual, and just goes to confirm what the Boeing Hornet VP was saying. You do realise, that it would have been the Hornet VP at Boeing that would have represented Boeing to the implementing agency, I am sure is he aware who he was dealing with, i.e. the US Navy.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): You are right, I have not seen it. I commented on the KC-30 external air refueling lighting, and what I thoulght of the lighting shown in the picture.
I actually see a photos that was taken without lighting, under a night vision system, that is pretty obvious when you look at the roundels. The "shadows" you complain about would be due to the fact earth only has one moon, I guess only having one moon is also the fault of EADS.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): Don't believe me, go ask another Boom Operator.
Don Cash has already made numerous comments on this, you dismiss his comments and have even claimed at times he is not operating the boom.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Do you really understand how airplanes fly? Are you really a co-pilot, or do you just play one on the internet?
I am well aware of how aircraft fly. I am also well aware of where fuel is stored on the A330, it is not " all in the wings" as you claim, it has 2 inner wing tanks 67,200 kg, 2 outer wing tanks 5,840 kg, centre fuselage tank 33,248 kg, and an aft trim tank (in horizontal tail) 4,984 kg (all based upon a SG of 0.8)
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Airplane operators, both Boeings and Airbuss burn fuel according to a established sequence, from one (or more tanks) to another, depending on the fuel load they took off with. Different tanks have different pumps that will pump at a higher pressure than the wing boost pumps, thus you do not have to shut the boost pumps off when you burn from, say. a center wing tank (in airplanes that have them). Some fuel tanks only gravity drain into a tank with fuel pumps. In most Boeing airplanes, the reserve fuel tanks are in the outboard sections of the wing (an aft moment), these tanks can be drained, once there is enough room for the fuel in the main wing tank to accept it, thus moving the CG foreward. Airplanes with center wing tanks generally have them foreward of MAC, thus burning fuel from it will shift the CG aft.
On the A330, fuel is always taken from the collector cells in the inner tanks, the only exception would be in the case of an engine failure or if the cross feed is opened where fuel maybe taken from the cross feed manifold.
The fuel is transferred as follows,
* ACT (if applicable) fuel transferred to the center tank
* Center tank fuel transferred to the inner tanks
* Inner tanks down to a given level
* Trim tank fuel transferred to the inner tanks
* Inner tanks is emptied down to a second given level
* Outer tanks fuel transferred in the inner tanks
* Inner tanks (until empty)
On the CG envelope, this sequence is depicted by the red line, as you can see, fuel burn cause forward and aft CG movement, and aircraft CG can actually be anywhere within the forward of aft limits.
Normal practice however is to load the aircraft with an aft CG as this reduces fuel burn, and then the FMEGC will control the CG in flight for minimum fuel burn (normally within 2% (+/-0.5%) of the aft limit), so in most cases on the A330 fuel burn will cause the CG to move forward after it has reached the initial cruise altitude (the aircraft normally pumps fuel into the tail on climb to get the desired aft CG). All A330/A340/A380 have active CG control in flight, the aircraft knows at ALL times the CG position.
Your statement that "burning fuel from it will shift the CG aft" is false as usual.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): For those airplanes that do not have a constant CG read display, you know it is within the CG limits by looking at the horizontal trim indicators. generally, if the airplane will fly "straight and level" it is properly trimmed and within the CG limits.
So you answered the question, the aircraft does not know the CG position, unlike the A300/A310/A320/A330/A340/A380.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91): So can Boeing airplanes. But, in the case of total electrical failure, or an EMP spike, moving fuel around the airplane is the least of your problems.
You should try that in the sim sometime. USAF aircrews do.
I have done flights in the sim with smoke removal or electrical failure working off essential backup electrical systems only, it is not big a deal. I also know we can run the engines without any fuel pumps on, we do regulatory flight tests on the airframes to prove that every year.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (2 weeks 5 days 19 hours 57 minutes ago) and read 1032 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36): The USAF will not park cargo aircraft to use the KC-X in the cargo role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41): The cargo moving for the KC-X, and any USAF tanker will always be a secondary role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48): The USAF will not drogue refuel 3 receivers at one time.
You seem to know really detailed what the USAF will and will not do in the future... Granted, as an ex-employee you probably still have some contacts. However, I do hope that you are wrong about these statements:
If true, the USAF strikes me as one of the most inefficient and stagnant organizations I have ever come across in my business education. If you, as an ex-emplyee, are able to predict these things, the USAF has a non-existent improvement programme for their operations. I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
If so, the departure from the pioneering work of USAF employee George Dantzig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Dantzig) in 1946 with the operational optimization Simplex algorithm is a giant step backwards. This method, still used today in a vast number of applications, helped the USAF (and many others since then) utilize their resources better, and have benefitted greatly from that.
If today's USAF fails to recognize operational improvements (which always involve CHANGES) as a useful tool, the USA should better not be sending any money that way, as it will be spent in a horribly inefficient way compared to other national defences in no more than ten years from now...
"I stand corrected", said the man in orthopedic shoes...
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 65 Reply 96, posted (2 weeks 5 days 18 hours 55 minutes ago) and read 1011 times:
Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 94): Are there any good descriptions or pictures of the boom operator console around? Neiter the EADS nor the Airbus websites had any details.
This is the Remote Air Refueling Operator station on the A310, similar but not the same as the RAAF one.
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Quote:
Aerial refueling operations are controlled from a state-of-the-art Remote Aerial Refueling Operator console in the cockpit behind the pilots, incorporating the enhanced vision system with laser infrared lighting and high-definition digital stereoscopic viewing.
“I have situational awareness and a field of view that far exceed anything I ever had during my Air Force career,” Cash said, “with crystal-clear visuals night or day.”
Maybe you should try it before you knock it?
I know it is a 2-D picture of a 3-D system. I said that here;
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85): I know it is suppose to be a 3-D picture the Boom Operator sees at his station, but the picture looks all wrong. The shadow of the ruddervators across the receiver just foreward of the receptical really is screwing up the visual clues a Boom Operatior looks for. The lighting is all wrong, it is shinning on the lower portion of the telescoping fuel tube, not on the ball joint or nozzle.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 92): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 85):
I am still disappointed in the fact that for the second time EADS hgas chosen not to release pictures from the chase aircraft showing the F-16 actually on the Boom with the KC-30. Why is that?
If they had, what would you have said? Maybe something along the lines of "that photo doesn't prove it was a wet contact"? As far as you're concerned, when it comes to EADS, you won't believe anything they say. Yet, when Boeing say something like:
Quote:
The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
you don't demand photographic evidence or question why only 5,000lbs of fuel was transferred in more than 100 contacts. If this was the ARBS, you'd be demanding to know why they're still having problems with it.
There are plenty of pictures on the web showing the KC-767 in contact with various receivers, including F-16, F-15s, and B-52s. If EADS had posted an external picture of the A-330MRTT refueling the F-16, in contact on the Boom, like the KC-767 has done, I would be satisfied.
The KC-767 has offloaded 5000 to a F-16, and over 100,000 lbs in total between the two KC-767As that were tested at EDW this past summer.
The source said the start date was subsequently pushed back to the end of November 2009.
"That provisional TFA date has now slipped to January 2010," he said. "But that is just guesswork, and things could change from week to week." If the January appointment is kept, all four tankers could yet be delivered during 2010, he added.
and this?
The new problem, said the source, concerns the stability in flight of the central drogue, or basket, fixed to the end of the refueling hose that is extended from the center line of the fuselage.
"Boeing is dedicating a team to fixing this latest problem," the source said. "They appear to have found a solution, but test flying has yet to confirm it, and we have been down this road before."
That would be the upcoming USN MUO testing using the ITAF KC-767As.
This is what happened during the USAF MUO testing last summer.
Boeing's main focus, added Sanchez, was to "complete the Italy flight test program, complete Federal Aviation Administration Supplemental Type Certification [STC] and then work with the U.S. Navy to complete a Military Utility Observation [MUO] required under contract. That is similar to the MUO we conducted with the U.S. Air Force earlier this year."
During the U.S. Air Force MUO in June, two of the tankers destined for Italy used their booms during test flights at Edwards Air Force Base, offloading 100,000 pounds of fuel during 65 tanker-to-tanker contacts.
The tankers also undertook more than 100 day and night boom contacts with F-16 aircraft and transferred 5,000 pounds of fuel.
"We have completed the FAA STC certification requirements," Sanchez said. "Once flight testing has been completed and all resultant findings have been addressed, we'll work with the U.S. Navy to schedule the MUO requirement. Once the MUO requirement has been completed, we'll begin the [TFA] process with our Italian customers and deliver their advanced KC-767 tanker."
While the flight testing with the U.S. Air Force put the boom to the test, the testing with the U.S. Navy will check the workings of the hose and drogue. And with Boeing still testing its fix on the central drogue stability issue, no date had been fixed for the U.S. Navy MUO to start, the Italian source said.
If the MUO is successful, the TFA could start in January and would last around 60 days, said the source, meaning the first tanker could be ready for delivery in March.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 95): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 36):
The USAF will not park cargo aircraft to use the KC-X in the cargo role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
The cargo moving for the KC-X, and any USAF tanker will always be a secondary role.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48):
The USAF will not drogue refuel 3 receivers at one time.
You seem to know really detailed what the USAF will and will not do in the future... Granted, as an ex-employee you probably still have some contacts. However, I do hope that you are wrong about these statements:
If true, the USAF strikes me as one of the most inefficient and stagnant organizations I have ever come across in my business education. If you, as an ex-emplyee, are able to predict these things, the USAF has a non-existent improvement programme for their operations. I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
The USAF, nor any other military force is not a "business". Business management courses do not apply because the USAF is not in the profit making business. I am not an "ex-employee", nor is any other veteran of military service.
The USAF is very efficient for what they do. They are not stagnant. Tactics are reviewed and changed as needed. Does the USAF ever make mistakes? do they ever miss future projections? You bet they do, as does any organization that is run by human beings. But they do get it right more often than they get it wrong. Can GM or Chrysler say that?
Quoting Zeke (Reply 96): Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 94):
Are there any good descriptions or pictures of the boom operator console around? Neiter the EADS nor the Airbus websites had any details.
This is the Remote Air Refueling Operator station on the A310, similar but not the same as the RAAF one.
Zeke's picture, as he said, is that of the KC-310 refueling station. He is right the KC-30 refueling station is similar, but I believe it is also a generation improvement over the KC-310. The picture I have seen, show multi screens for the Boom Operator and Instructor Boom Operator, as well as a third set for an observer. I do not know if theis is what the RAAF has on their KC-30, or something else that is more, or even less capable. But it for sure more capable than the system on the KC-310.
Quoting Keesje (Reply 87): TopBoom, EADS says the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel.
This is what I dispute, Keesje's statement the KC-30 has offloaded 40K through the Boom and has made 70 contacts. Maybe he is just confusing the KC-30 with the KC-310, which has had more contacts and offloaded more fuel.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 93): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
You are right, I have not seen it. I commented on the KC-30 external air refueling lighting, and what I thoulght of the lighting shown in the picture.
I actually see a photos that was taken without lighting, under a night vision system, that is pretty obvious when you look at the roundels. The "shadows" you complain about would be due to the fact earth only has one moon,
That is not moon light, nor is it a picture taken through NVG. If you think it is moon light, explain the shin on the lower fuel tube section, which would be on the bottom. and sheilded from the moon light. Explain why the right wing (which is the left wing in the picture) is darker than the left wing (right wing in the picture). Explani why the ruddervator shadow is so wide. If this were a moon light shadow, it would be no wider than the ruddervators themselves. It is a picture taken with the external refueling lights on.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 93): I guess only having one moon is also the fault of EADS.
That statement is so stupid it needs no reply.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 93): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 91):
Don't believe me, go ask another Boom Operator.
Don Cash has already made numerous comments on this, you dismiss his comments and have even claimed at times he is not operating the boom.
Don works for EADS, he is helping them to try to sell EADS tankers. In that respect, he is a lot like me and my defense and preference for Boeing tankers. Don is not paid to say anything negitive, or identify any problems he finds publicly. He will only discuss any of those issues with EADS. I doubt he will even discuss them with the RAAF. Don is just being a company paid salesman. Some how I think Don Cash is not the only person operating the boom, as the engineers would want other inputs from others, too. I read somewhere that EADS also employed a retired French AF Boom Operator, that is also involved with the flight testing, at least on the KC-310, but I cannot find it now. I do not know if the French Boom Operator has flown the KC-30, or not. Nor, did I recongnise his name (it was mentioned in the artical). I have only met a few French Boom Operators.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 98, posted (2 weeks 5 days 16 hours 14 minutes ago) and read 921 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): The USAF, nor any other military force is not a "business". Business management courses do not apply because the USAF is not in the profit making business.
Incorrect. Businesses only run by profit goals are often bad-run. Just as important is the allocation of resources (be it troops, vehicles, equipment, money, weapons etc.), which is as valid for non profit organizations (such as the military) as for profit organizations. Why else would the USAF benefit from the Simplex algorithm???? It's all about optimization, and cost is just a tiny bit of that. Operations are much more important, hence my skepticism to the USAF being reluctant to change theirs.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): I am not an "ex-employee", nor is any other veteran of military service
You provided your personal services, they gave you money. That's pretty much the definition of an employee in a general sense. Of course, employees within different sectors might have specific names, such as surgeons, lawyers, officers, waiters, soldiers, consultants, pilots and (full time) politicians.
"I stand corrected", said the man in orthopedic shoes...
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4777 posts, RR: 65 Reply 99, posted (2 weeks 5 days 14 hours 40 minutes ago) and read 878 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
That is not moon light, nor is it a picture taken through NVG
NVG images are generally green, night vision systems use cameras that pickup the normal visible spectrum as well as frequencies which humans cannot see and convert it to grey scale image that a human can see. They intensify any light that is available, including formation lights, skud lights, receptacle lights, pilot director lights, moon light etc.
How do I explain the greyscale image... it is not representative of what one would see with the naked eye, it is an enhanced image. It is a product of the digital night vision system (infrared lasers and a digital 3D infrared cameras), as I pointed out before, the roundel is too bight, so is the formation light illumination of the drop tanks for it to be normal flood lighting.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
Don works for EADS, he is helping them to try to sell EADS tankers. In that respect, he is a lot like me and my defense and preference for Boeing tankers. Don is not paid to say anything negitive, or identify any problems he finds publicly. He will only discuss any of those issues with EADS. I doubt he will even discuss them with the RAAF. Don is just being a company paid salesman. Some how I think Don Cash is not the only person operating the boom, as the engineers would want other inputs from others, too.
Don Cash did the actual boom hook-ups on all the initial boom refuelling tests on both the A310-MRTT and KC-30. The rest of your allegations are baseless, he is employed be EADS in a flight testing role, not as a salesmen.
e.g. the A310-MRTT
Quote: "Multiple boom hook-ups were conducted with the F-16. The ARBS was controlled by Don Cash, a 21-year U.S. Air Force veteran and refueling boom operator, using the A310's Remote Aerial Refueling Operator (RARO) console. The RARO station employs a three-dimensional vision surveillance system, providing a high-fidelity visual representation of the boom's position during the entire air-to-air refueling process. Today's flight test was the 60th for the boom, totaling more than 160 flight hours."
the KC-30
Quote: “The ARBS was just as smooth and easy to control during these contacts as it has been in all our prior work with it,” said Don Cash, boom operator for the A330 MRTT test flight. “The precision of the system makes the boom feel just like an extension of my arm.”
Cash is a retired U.S. Air Force boom operator with more than 20 years’ experience aboard the KC-135 and KC-10, and has been on the ARBS design team for five years. “I’ve had the needs of the warfighter in mind from the beginning, and we’ve arrived at a system that offers them a level of performance and reliability unmatched by any system available in the world today and for the foreseeable future.”
The RAAF are an active participant in the flight testing, as far as I am aware they have a test pilot and/or flight test engineer on every KC-30 certification flight test. The RAAF are also an active participant in the post flight reviews, nothing is being "hidden", it is a joint civil/military certification process.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): I read somewhere that EADS also employed a retired French AF Boom Operator, that is also involved with the flight testing, at least on the KC-310, but I cannot find it now. I do not know if the French Boom Operator has flown the KC-30, or not.
It would not surprise me if they had ex-tanker crew from many countries, that would not make them any less skilled in the task, if anything it would help internationalise the procedures.
[Edited 2009-11-11 09:23:58]
Cathay Pacific wins Airline of the Year 2009 Award. Great service. Great people. Great fares.
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2431 posts, RR: 3 Reply 100, posted (2 weeks 5 days 14 hours 24 minutes ago) and read 872 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 95): I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
The "wee bit" comment is interesting.
This contract for a new tanker is on it's way to being the largest single military contract ever given out by the US Military, which will run for decades, wee bit is an understatement. Even the European recognize this, reason for the big "fight".
The US Air Force presently has a huge dedicated cargo fleet, from the C-130, C-17 and C5's, the C5's being the smallest fleet - I have exclude a/c below the C-130 which they also operate. The cargo capabilities of the KC-30 are less valuable to the US Air Force, whether they want to change or not. Change would require parking C-17's which even though are hard pressed are still being built, and provided whether the Air Force wants them or not - politicians - . The C5 re-engine program could be cancelled, however, the KC-30 will not replace or take on the job that the C5 was doing, more of those are being done by the C-17 or chartered a/c. So if the cargo capabilities of the KC-30 are to be used, missions would either have to be co-ordinated around re-fuelling and dropping off cargo, or doing a solo cargo run, the experts will have to speak to the number of re-feulling missions presently being conducted which can be combined with a cargo run. Based on the number of receiver a/c in the US Air Force I would assume that they are a large number of missions where only fuel is required, such as training, or dragging a/c across country.
Is there any other country that has over 100 cargo a/c and 100 tankers, even 50?
The comment was aimed at the operations of the aircraft, not the size of the order. I'll elaborate:
Whether the USAF orders Airbus or Boeing, they'll end up with a number of tankers that also have a not insignificant amount of cargo/passenger capacity. Failing to recognize this and not use this capacity would be mismanagement of resources, in that the USAF can either get rid of uplift shortage or can get rid of excess capacity (dedicated cargo/passenger aircraft) when utilizing the tankers' capacity whenever possible (which again frees up other resources such as manpower, money, fuel, spare parts etc). The first step of using this capacity will probably be to "tag along" some troops or cargo on missions similar to the ones the USAF flies today. The next step might be to alter the tanker missions a bit, to better use the aircrafts' joint capabilities, and the ultimate action might be a complete reshuffle of aircraft usage throughout all the fleets in the AF. Fighters, bombers, tankers and cargo planes might end up doing VERY different missions from today 20 years from now, if deemed more efficient resource-wise by the AF.
I reacted to KC135TopBoom's rather definitive claims that the Air Force wouldn't change ANYTHING to accommodate an aircraft with different capabilities than the ones they have today. My above listed "first step" is the least they should do when the new tankers arrive, which is exactly a "wee bit" of change form today. If the Air Force really is serious about not changing anything, they should have requested a plane with NO uplift capacity, since every unused capability must be considered a waste until utilized. But I doubt KC135TopBoom speaks on behalf of the USAF.
My argument is valid for both the tanker planes. The only thing that differs between them is the amount of fuel and uplift they provide.
"I stand corrected", said the man in orthopedic shoes...
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2431 posts, RR: 3 Reply 102, posted (2 weeks 5 days 13 hours 40 minutes ago) and read 856 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): If the Air Force really is serious about not changing anything, they should have requested a plane with NO uplift capacity, since every unused capability must be considered a waste until utilized.
In hind sight that is probably what they should have done, somehow someone convinced them that purchasing an off the shelf product would be cheaper.
We are three competitons in, a few million has been spent and no a/c has yet been ordered, hard to imagine it taking this long to settle on a new design and award a contract for a purpose built tanker, but then what do I know
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8928 posts, RR: 51 Reply 103, posted (2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 806 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): The KC-767 has offloaded 5000 to a F-16, and over 100,000 lbs in total between the two KC-767As that were tested at EDW this past summer.
So you accept all this from Boeing without ever questioning it, but are not prepared to apply the same standards to EADS?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97): This is what I dispute, Keesje's statement the KC-30 has offloaded 40K through the Boom and has made 70 contacts.
Quote: To date, the ARBS installed in the Australian A330 MRTT aircraft has performed more than 70 contacts and transferred more than 40,000 pounds of fuel. Overall, the ARBS has completed more than 250 wet and dry contacts with a wide range of receiver aircraft, in a full range of operating conditions and throughout its flight envelope, during evaluations aboard the A330 MRTT and from a test-bed aircraft.
Again, there's no claim by EADS that all that fuel was transferred "in flight".
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7570 posts, RR: 51 Reply 104, posted (2 weeks 5 days 9 hours 26 minutes ago) and read 775 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 98): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
The USAF, nor any other military force is not a "business". Business management courses do not apply because the USAF is not in the profit making business.
Incorrect. Businesses only run by profit goals are often bad-run. Just as important is the allocation of resources (be it troops, vehicles, equipment, money, weapons etc.), which is as valid for non profit organizations (such as the military) as for profit organizations. Why else would the USAF benefit from the Simplex algorithm???? It's all about optimization, and cost is just a tiny bit of that. Operations are much more important, hence my skepticism to the USAF being reluctant to change theirs.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Military forces are not for profit or non-profit. Efficiencies and effectiveness have different meanings in the military compared to a business.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 98): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 97):
I am not an "ex-employee", nor is any other veteran of military service
You provided your personal services, they gave you money. That's pretty much the definition of an employee in a general sense. Of course, employees within different sectors might have specific names, such as surgeons, lawyers, officers, waiters, soldiers, consultants, pilots and (full time) politicians.
I provided more than "personal services" for the small compensation I got. An employee works a clock and gets paid for his time on that clock. Soldiers are always "on duty", they do not get paid by the hour. Soldiers are expected to make sacrifices. Employees are not. Part of a Soldiers "job" is to "kill people and break things". Many Soldiers give up their lives to accomplish those goals. Your assembly line worker only has to build what ever is built on his line, no more, no less. He is not expected to give his life doing his job.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): Whether the USAF orders Airbus or Boeing, they'll end up with a number of tankers that also have a not insignificant amount of cargo/passenger capacity. Failing to recognize this and not use this capacity would be mismanagement of resources, in that the USAF can either get rid of uplift shortage or can get rid of excess capacity (dedicated cargo/passenger aircraft) when utilizing the tankers' capacity whenever possible (which again frees up other resources such as manpower, money, fuel, spare parts etc). The first step of using this capacity will probably be to "tag along" some troops or cargo on missions similar to the ones the USAF flies today. The next step might be to alter the tanker missions a bit, to better use the aircrafts' joint capabilities, and the ultimate action might be a complete reshuffle of aircraft usage throughout all the fleets in the AF. Fighters, bombers, tankers and cargo planes might end up doing VERY different missions from today 20 years from now, if deemed more efficient resource-wise by the AF.
I reacted to KC135TopBoom's rather definitive claims that the Air Force wouldn't change ANYTHING to accommodate an aircraft with different capabilities than the ones they have today.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): My argument is valid for both the tanker planes. The only thing that differs between them is the amount of fuel and uplift they provide.
Different airplanes have different mission values to the USAF. It is more important to the USAF for the tanker to provide fuel to the strike mission aircraft (being a force multiplyer), or recce, AWACS, cargo, etc. than for the tanker to carry boxes. Yes, the tanker can carry boxes, just like any other cargo aircraft. But for every pound it carries in boxes, is one less pound of fuel it can give to a receiver. Tankers will do the tanker mission 95%-97% of the time. The USAF will always be able to move that box in another airplane. The USAF has been doing what it does long before you were born, and it does it veru well. Just because you took some business management course somewhere does not make you an expert in anything, not even management.
XaraB From Norway, joined Aug 2007, 65 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (2 weeks 5 days 8 hours 24 minutes ago) and read 762 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): You have no idea what you are talking about. Military forces are not for profit or non-profit. Efficiencies and effectiveness have different meanings in the military compared to a business.
You're emphasizing the wrong part of the argument. My point is, no matter what kind, an organization has to deal with allocation of resources, and strives to do so in an efficient manner (with "efficient", I mean in whatever way suits the organization's purpose best. I'd be stunned to know if the military was an exception, since I can't possibly imagine why they would not want the most out of their resources, and they themselves decide what "the most" means). Since the resources (in this case; tanker equipment) and organizational objectives are always subject to change, so will the optimal use of said resources. No matter how little the USAF needs the extra space of the tankers today, they are worse off not using it when they can (without disrupting primary tasks) than using it, since the capacity is then effectively wasted, inducing an inefficiency in their operations. One that is easily rectified, if one has the will to do so.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): Soldiers are always "on duty", they do not get paid by the hour. Soldiers are expected to make sacrifices.
This is slightly off topic: You obviously have strong feelings on the subject. I respect that, and apologize if you found my comments out of line. I had no intention of belittling your contribution to your country. However, consider the similarities between soldiers on duty and doctors on duty. Both have to be available and alert during duty time, and both "professions" involve dealing with life and death in pressured situations, turning joy into tragedy and vice versa in split-second decisions. Doctors are employees by definition, but obviously prefer to be referred to more specifically (as doctors/surgeons/appropriate title), and I expect soldiers do as well.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): Tankers will do the tanker mission 95%-97% of the time. The USAF will always be able to move that box in another airplane.
Yes, today. Who knows tomorrow? The USAF specified it wanted cargo/passenger capacity, signalling that they need it and want to use it. We both might see in 20 years time that they decided it could move boxes and fuel at the same time... Remember that neither of the planes' MTOW is lower than OEW+Max Fuel. Thus, they'll always have room for some boxes. Summed up across the entire fleet, it is a significant amount of lift, that can either be viewed as increased capacity or replacement capacity. Apparently neither of us know what the AF prefers.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104): The USAF has been doing what it does long before you were born, and it does it veru well. Just because you took some business management course somewhere does not make you an expert in anything, not even management.
Yes, I'm young. Yes, I have a Master's Degree in Industrial Economy & Technology Management. No, that doesn't make me an expert. Yes, my education involved lots of optimization cases, quite a few of which were military related. Whatever credibility (or lack thereof) you decide to extend me is entirely at your discretion.
[Edited 2009-11-11 15:11:12]
"I stand corrected", said the man in orthopedic shoes...
Cargotanker From United States, joined Oct 2009, 18 posts, RR: 0 Reply 106, posted (2 weeks 4 days 10 hours 59 minutes ago) and read 609 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 101): Whether the USAF orders Airbus or Boeing, they'll end up with a number of tankers that also have a not insignificant amount of cargo/passenger capacity. Failing to recognize this and not use this capacity would be mismanagement of resources, in that the USAF can either get rid of uplift shortage or can get rid of excess capacity (dedicated cargo/passenger aircraft) when utilizing the tankers' capacity whenever possible (which again frees up other resources such as manpower, money, fuel, spare parts etc).
Xara, just a few pointers from someone who has no clue what the simplex algorithm is.
It is cheaper and more efficient for the USAF to park its planes instead of fly them.
It is cheaper and more efficient for the USAF to pay Atlas, Evergreen, and FedEx to fly its cargo than it is to do that by itself.
And that is what the USAF does. Take a visit to any east coast AMC base and you'll see civil cargo 747s loading up pallets to take to the middle east. The C-17s and C-5s haul the stuff that's too big for the 747s, such as MRAPs and helicopters. The C-17s and C-5s also hang out down range, flying cargo into fields that require defensive systems.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 95): If true, the USAF strikes me as one of the most inefficient and stagnant organizations I have ever come across in my business education. If you, as an ex-emplyee, are able to predict these things, the USAF has a non-existent improvement programme for their operations. I have a hard time believing that they are unable or unwilling to change their operations a wee bit to utilize their equipment better (be it Boeing, Airbus, fighters, cargo planes, missiles, the lot).
I don't think any military is truly efficient compared to businesses. But the USAF innovates better than any other Air Force out there. Global Hawks and Reapers are bringing the cost and risk of combat way down, and the USAF is way out in front of other nations with those. Look at JDAMs and SDBs, JSTARS, GPS, and plenty more on the horizon. All USAF and DOD innovations. Non-existent improvement program? Please.
Plus, we have lots of recycling bins in my squadron!
On one of my staff tours I got to work with analysts, brainiacs with math and statistics PhDs from MIT and CalTech. They analyzed every mission we did, plugged those into crazy mathematical formulas, and came up with more efficient ways to use airlift in theater. With budget crunches and limited assets the USAF is trying many different methods to cut costs.
[quote=XaraB,reply=101]If the Air Force really is serious about not changing anything, they should have requested a plane with NO uplift capacity, since every unused capability must be considered a waste until utilized.
I personally feel that the USAF is overemphasizing cargo capabilities with this new tanker. Any cargo improvement over the -135 is welcome but 19 or 26 pallets worth? Thats alot of empty space for most missions. Problem is the -135 can carry 200K of fuel yet its max gross is only 323K. What modern airplane comes close to that ratio? Any plane today that carries 200K of gas has to be a widebody. At least the 767 and A330 are designed to be efficient.
Quote: The hose-and-drogue "wet contacts" occurred November 10 during a mission that utilized both the A330 MRTT left and right under-wing pods, with more than 9,200 lbs of fuel transferred to a NATO F/A-18 fighter aircraft.
Hmm, I wonder what else could possibly be wrong with it?
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7570 posts, RR: 51 Reply 108, posted (2 weeks 4 days 7 hours 13 minutes ago) and read 561 times:
Quoting XaraB (Reply 105): Yes, I'm young. Yes, I have a Master's Degree in Industrial Economy & Technology Management. No, that doesn't make me an expert. Yes, my education involved lots of optimization cases, quite a few of which were military related. Whatever credibility (or lack thereof) you decide to extend me is entirely at your discretion.
You are more than welcome to your opinions. You do have impressive credentials. But, I must point out that reality is not close to what is taught in the classroom. Please don't take my comments personally. My military brothers and sisters are very close and important to me and my heart.
Quoting XaraB (Reply 105): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 104):
Soldiers are always "on duty", they do not get paid by the hour. Soldiers are expected to make sacrifices.
This is slightly off topic: You obviously have strong feelings on the subject. I respect that, and apologize if you found my comments out of line.
Not a problem.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 107): Successful testing of the A330MRTT continues:
Quote:
The hose-and-drogue "wet contacts" occurred November 10 during a mission that utilized both the A330 MRTT left and right under-wing pods, with more than 9,200 lbs of fuel transferred to a NATO F/A-18 fighter aircraft.
Hmm, I wonder what else could possibly be wrong with it?
Well, congradulations, and it is about time. BTW, the seal in the drogue needs to be replaced, it leaks (look at the F/A-18 canopy). I do really mean that. EADS seems to be moving in the right direction, with the A-330MRTT, now.
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 9882 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2005, 7570 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 4777 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 8928 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 307 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 2431 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
