Kc330 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2085 times:
Please forgive my brief and sporadic posts, but I wanted to clarify something that has been incorrectly addressed on several recent tanker related threads.
By the way, I am a newbie here - and not this Keesje fellow some of you suspect that I am!
The cargo door for the KC-330 will be virtually identical in function and dimensions to the ones flying on freighter versions of the A300 and A310 for nearly a decade. With the exact same fuselage cross section as those shorter birds, engineering and certifying (from the FAA perspective) the big door on the KC-330 is relatively simple.
Also, some of you may be surprised to know that the KC-330 will use the existing fuel storage system of the civilian A330-200 - without additional tanks anywhere - thereby preserving all cargo space above the main deck and the fore and aft holds below deck. Provided you don't max out your take off weight carrying nothing but a massive load of fuel - which you can do if you have to - you have incredible mission versatility!
Another nice design element is that since the commercial A330/340 family share the same wing design with 4 wet engine hardpoints, the hose and drogue pods "bolt on" where the outboard engines would go the the A340, without requiring all of the engineering rework and minor performance penalties the KC-767 takes to carry the pods.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
FAA certification is necessary if Airbus wants to sell the design commercially.
If they go to the bother to design a cargo door for the KC330 they may as well get the design certified for any potential future A330F.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
Mostly it comes from the military perspective that they want something that is off the shelf. They don't want to wait for extensive R&D, they want an aircraft that only require a minimal amount of time spent developing new technologies and perfecting them.
Contact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
The KC330 will have drag penalties from the pods, but less so then on the KC767, because the A340 wing is designed to carry a draggy engine on that station, the 767 wing is not.
And btw, everyone have made the 330s size a big issue, but the KC330 will be able to take off from shorter runways, with more fuel, then the 767.
This was a issue for the RAF, because of generally shorter runways then at the usual USAF bases.
PPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
The USAF was more worried about ramp space, because the KC-330 would be bigger than all their other transport, with the except being the C-5. (Do a search there a couple of threads where we compare, 767, and 330 sizes to other USAF aircraft).
Also engines aren't very draggy overall unless they are off. Both aircraft will have similar performance degradation when the pods are bolted on, unless one companies pod is smaller than the other.