Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts  
User currently offlineKc330 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 1 month 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3952 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!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

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.


7 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3856 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.

The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3798 times:

Does a military aircraft really need to be certified by the FAA?  Confused


Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3779 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.

Lockheed did the same with the C-130J.

User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3770 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.

At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineContact_tower From Norway, joined Sep 2001, 536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3759 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.

User currently offlinePPGMD From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 2453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3751 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.

At worst, you screw up and die.
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3234 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3724 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?

The last of the famous international playboys
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
KC-135R Book Value And Resale Potential posted Wed Oct 19 2005 15:03:22 by WhiteHatter
Basic KC-330 Facts Clarified posted Sun Oct 10 2004 03:55:14 by Kc330
Dambusters And Other 'special' Ops posted Tue Apr 15 2003 09:04:52 by Saintsman
22 C-17s And Lots Of Other Goodies! posted Wed Oct 18 2006 18:13:23 by Galaxy5007
Aviation Traditions And KC-135's posted Thu Aug 17 2006 02:53:36 by Army15P
Did I Hear A KC-135A, And Was It At March ARB? posted Sun May 7 2006 21:37:06 by 747400sp
Usaf Pushing For KC-777 And KC-737 Mix - AW&ST posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:37:23 by Boeing Nut
Dutch F-16s And KC-10 At Lajes posted Sun Jul 3 2005 19:06:31 by LPLAspotter
777LRF Launched - Opens Door For KC-777? posted Wed Nov 17 2004 14:32:04 by Boeing nut
Jet Powered KC-97s And C-123s posted Mon Mar 29 2004 02:04:48 by TradewindL1011

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format