Kc330 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2080 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.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2736 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1984 times:
Please explain to me how the A-330 would not have any performance penalties from the draggy external hosereel units, especially as poopsed to the KC-767.
SATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 20 hours ago) and read 1907 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 19 hours ago) and read 1898 times:
LY744,
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 19 hours ago) and read 1887 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 19 hours ago) and read 1879 times:
Contact_tower,
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.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2736 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 15 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
Plus I'd wager the 2 A-330 engines plus pods are probably heavier than the 4 CFM-56s of the A-340 200/300 series that the 330 is derived from.
Question of the A-330 cargo door. Did Airbus design the A-330 with this in mind, or will there need to be major rerouting of plumbing/systems from the cutout area?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2736 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, 
From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
