KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 14317 times:
So, we are looking at a September FF as a tanker (she already flew at least once)?
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 13739 times:
Quoting columba (Reply 2): Any plans to use the A330F as future platform for the MRTT ? Would make more sense for military use, wouldn´t it ?
It makes sense but then it depends on what the user Air Force has in mind for its tanker fleet. If the fleet is predominantly for use as a tanker, and cargo hauling is a limited secondary funtion, the A330F probably isn't a good option. The additional cost wouldn't justify basing a tanker on that airframe.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 13705 times:
RAF tankers like the L-1011s carry lots of pax from time to time. This one will not carry main deck cargo, as it does not have a cargo door. I don't recall anyone ordering their A-330MRTTs from the basic A-330F model, only the -200 pax model, which is the same EADS is offering to the USAF as their KC-X competitor (it will have a main deck cargo door).
I don't think the A-330F has been evaluated, yet as a tanker offered airframe. Will the aero-dynamic dome for the nose gear have any aero-dynamic effects on the Boom, centerline drogue, or a receiver refueling from the centerline? I don't know, but the WARPs will not be effected.
keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13519 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8): Didn't EADS at one time touted the A330F as their base platform for the KC-X competition?
They considered it. I guess it would give a boost in functionality. However the rivised criteria (meeting mnimum requirements / minimum costs discourages any additional value being explored (it might get more expensive) .
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 13243 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 10): Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8):
Didn't EADS at one time touted the A330F as their base platform for the KC-X competition?
They considered it. I guess it would give a boost in functionality. However the rivised criteria (meeting mnimum requirements / minimum costs discourages any additional value being explored (it might get more expensive) .
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7): I don't think the A-330F has been evaluated, yet as a tanker offered airframe. Will the aero-dynamic dome for the nose gear have any aero-dynamic effects on the Boom, centerline drogue, or a receiver refueling from the centerline? I don't know, but the WARPs will not be effected.
Keesje is correct, but so am I. The nose gear dome may have a significant effect on centerline receivers, or it may have no effect. I don't think windtunnel tests have been done on a KC-330F version. But maybe computer generated testing has been done by EADS, I just don't know? If they did computer testing (I am speculating here) and found the dome to be an aero-dynamic problem for centerline receivers, the solution might be to expensive for a reasonable EADS bid price proposal.
zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, RR: 73 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 13140 times:
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 8): Didn't EADS at one time touted the A330F as their base platform for the KC-X competition?
The KC-30 tanker modifications are set of CERTIFIED STCs that can be applied to any existing or new A330, it can be applied any of the fully CERTIFIED A330-200, A330-300, or the A330-200F base airframes.
The STC covers all A330 models. The choice of base airframe has to do with customer requirements, it is not an engineering limitation.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 13034 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 6): Contrary to other tankers on the MRTT all fuel is stored in existing belly and wing tanks. The cargo and passenger deck remain fully operational.
The A330 has belly tanks? I though all the fuel was in the wings and the trim tank in the horizontal stabilizer?
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 13000 times:
Quoting keesje (Reply 14): The center tank on the A330 can carry 41,559 liters,
Thanks for the picture, it proves that the A330 does not have a belly tank. The center tank is in the center wing box, not the fuselage belly?
trex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 3970 posts, RR: 14 Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12884 times:
if these RAF tankers are supposed to be available for the operator to use commercially when the RAF don't need them, does that mean they will have a "conventional" main deck seating, not the usual RAF rear facing seats etc?
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12879 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 17): if these RAF tankers are supposed to be available for the operator to use commercially when the RAF don't need them, does that mean they will have a "conventional" main deck seating, not the usual RAF rear facing seats etc?
Just like the TriStars the A330 seating will be facing forward.
kanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2466 posts, RR: 21 Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 12854 times:
Quoting trex8 (Reply 17): if these RAF tankers are supposed to be available for the operator to use commercially
I hope this doesn't imply that the RAF is going into competition with BA... although it might be one way to cover expenses.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12682 times:
Quoting kanban (Reply 19): I hope this doesn't imply that the RAF is going into competition with BA... although it might be one way to cover expenses.
There are only 14 RAF A-330MRTTs that will be available to AirTanker. But I doubt all will be available at one time to AirTanker for charter flights. Mayby as many as 5, or so at any one time (my guess). The RAF will have some of them on training missions, or operational refueling or pax missions.
So, any threat by AirTanker to BA will be minimal at best.
astuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, RR: 96 Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 12633 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 15): Thanks for the picture, it proves that the A330 does not have a belly tank. The center tank is in the center wing box, not the fuselage belly?
It is indeed, but the fuel tanks as they exist on the passenger A330-200 (at 233 tonnes MTOW at least) are capable of being filled with fuel up to within a whisker of the plane's MTOW anyway, just as you would want on a dedicated tanker...
The Centre tank is not fitted to A330-300's, which is why that plane's range is limited.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12595 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 21): It is indeed, but the fuel tanks as they exist on the passenger A330-200 (at 233 tonnes MTOW at least) are capable of being filled with fuel up to within a whisker of the plane's MTOW anyway, just as you would want on a dedicated tanker...
The RAF can operate the TriStar tankers will above the MTOW for a commercially operated L-1011. The RAF can operate up to 540,000 lbs while the MTOW for a civilian aircraft is 514,000.
Because the RAF/AirTanker A330's will also be operated commercially, there is not way the RAF could do something similar.
A342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4655 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12577 times:
Quoting astuteman (Reply 21): The Centre tank is not fitted to A330-300's, which is why that plane's range is limited.
Not that there would be weight reserves to fill if you're carrying a good payload...
Quoting 474218 (Reply 22): The RAF can operate the TriStar tankers will above the MTOW for a commercially operated L-1011. The RAF can operate up to 540,000 lbs while the MTOW for a civilian aircraft is 514,000.
What prevents the MTOW increase from being applied to a civilian aircraft? Maybe lack of certification, but in the very theoretical case that somebody would be willing to pay for that, are there any additional hurdles?
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 12507 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 23): What prevents the MTOW increase from being applied to a civilian aircraft? Maybe lack of certification, but in the very theoretical case that somebody would be willing to pay for that, are there any additional hurdles?
Correct, lack of certification. However, if certification was attempted it may not be achievable due to lack of safety margins required for civilian certification.
25 DELTADART106: Does the stripe down the side remind anyone else of the old AA stripe?
26 kanban: I'm still confused by the references to commercial use of the MRTT... I looked at the AirTanker website and there is no reference to using the planes
27 474218: The original plan (which may have be changed over the last eight (8) years ) was for AirTankers to buy fourteen (14) A330-200 have them converted to
28 oly720man: From the RAF's own website http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/futurestrategictankeraircraft.cfm One novel aspect of the contract is the facility to leas
29 474218: I agree with both your statements, I worked for the RAF when the different FSTA proposals were being considered. While I not involved with the progra
30 kanban: there was a thread on the tech forum that implied that stripping and repainting was not an over night operation... nor is it cheap. I would think any
31 474218: AirTankers believe that these cost can be re-couped. Additionally, stripping will not be required, prior to or after leasing, as multiple coats of pa
32 KC135TopBoom: What happens if the A-330MRTTs are leased to an airline based in a country that later has a major political dispute with ther UK and erupts into a mil
33 474218: They will not be returned to the RAF, they will first have to go to AirTankers for conversion to there tanker role. Presumably, and sabotage/bugs wou
34 Zeke: I would think the reference to reinstalling the in flight refuelling equipment refers to the actual pods/hoses and military radios. Currently when ta
35 kanban: with a weight penalty of course.... Zeke's note that many of the refueling systems changes are in essence "plug and play" so the install time is low.
36 474218: Since AirTankers is responsible for maintaining the airframes even when they are in RAF operation, I seriously doubt they would want to have crews sp
37 breiz: Sorry to be picky but I thought there was one and only Royal Air Force, the British one. EADS used the wording "UK Royal Air Force" in its press rele
38 Zeke: That is still the case, however to meet the 9500 nm ferry range for KC-X, the Cobham wing pods are removed, this is common, and currently done with e
39 474218: Everything you say maybe correct. I left Brize in 2002 and even though I have been in contact with several retired and current RAF flight crew member
40 KC135TopBoom: Actually the old paint is removed, not painted over.
41 kanban: Hey, we only have two different answers... although the second does not exclude repainting... is the RAF configuration bare polished metal or grey? I
43 kanban: and Air France gets clobbered for dirty a/c... or is that the new camouflage? if that was at the terminal for my tour flight to the Azores, I'd cance
46 KC135TopBoom: That was a temporary camoflage paint job. Paint is very heavy. On the KC-135 it weighed about 1000 lbs. So to add a second coat doubles that. You can
47 kanban: for a while Boeing was looking at blasting with dry ice pellets (no chemicals and onc ethe dry ice evaporated you only had paint dust to clean up and
48 KC135TopBoom: I know that method has been used on some airplanes in the past. It would be more 'eviornmentially acceptable' than chemicals are, but would it damage
49 kanban: as I recall yes, however there was a video of a Virgin Atlantic 747 repaint on the civil av. forum (now disappeared) that showed them sanding all the
51 A342: Don't know if it has already been mentioned here, but some press reports seem to indicate that the UK wants to pass down five of the new A330MRTTs to
52 kanban: is that face saving for "refusing delivery"? It would make more sense to give then to NATO unless there is a problem.
53 Zeke: I posted it a week or two ago in another thread. Instead of offsetting the cost of the tankers by leasing excess capacity out to charter airlines, Fr
54 KC135TopBoom: Actually, that makes economic sense. Then the French Air Force would not need to order new A-330MRTTs. I think you are correct, France would want the
55 McG1967: On the same day that the RAF A330 took off from Getafe earlier this week, for it's first flight since full conversion to the tanker roll, the UK Parli
56 KC135TopBoom: Thanks McG1967. Is there any possibility of cutting the AirTanker leased A-330MRTTs from 14 to something below that number? Is every new system on the
57 tepidhalibut: From what I understand, the AirTanker Fleet of 14 aircraft is basically an A-Fleet of seven, actually doing the RAF role (Tanking, Transport, Troops)
58 Bongodog1964: As the RAF will receive at best 14 new A330MRTT's to replace 9 Tristars and 13 VC10's, and bearing in mind that they are presently overstretched on th
59 srbmod: Please keep the discuss focused on the A330MRTT. Discussions about Royal Navy ships and other military projects not associated with the A3330MRTT and
60 bikerthai: Sorry to distract the topic. I just want to close out a questioned posted: The process is called FLASHJET http://www.flashtech-inc.com/ bikerthai[Edi
61 keesje: Airbus Military's third A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport for the Royal Australian Air Force made its first flight last week, EADS North America announ
62 KC135TopBoom: No, you are right, there are 5 now flying, 3 KC-30s for the RAAF and 2 A-330MRTTs for the RAF. But the tankers are in 2 different configuerations.
Sponsor Message: 
From Portugal, joined Nov 2007, 42 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6798 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4425 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8298 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2004, 4522 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7725 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 9135 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
