Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4848 times:
This got me thinking because out of curiousity, I measured out the distance between the number 1 and number 4 engines on the A340, which of course shares the same wing as the A330. (KC-30) Such an aircraft could boom refuel two F-22's simultaneously with more distance between the boom and the engine than is seen on the KC-10.
Obviously, some redesigning would have to be done to the 777's wing, but would this make the KC-777 more atractive to the USAF to have two outer wing booms?
10boomer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 55 posts, RR: 6 Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4758 times:
There would be a lot of stress put on the wing from the loads generated by a receiver in contact, not to mention if there was a brute force disconnect or some other incident. Another issue is the aerodynamic effects caused by the bow waves of large receivers (C-5, E-4 etc.) seems like it would take a lot of aileron trim with a C-5 on the boom. It just doesn't seem like a feasible concept
I agree. I guess I should have stated that I was curious about wing mounted booms to compliment the main "body boom". The application in my thinking was for simultaneous refueling of smaller aircraft via wing boom, and larger aircraft with the standard body boom. This would fit in the Pentagons desires to provide rapid refuelings.
Another non topic related question though. Are there and booms out there with probe servicing capability? Or is it just the drag chute? (not sure of the technical term, sorry)
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4674 times:
the wing would have to become far thicker and stronger than it is now.
That's the reason why the KC-10 doesn't have it (but has optional underwing hose/drogue pods).
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 3): Are there and booms out there with probe servicing capability?
Yes, the boom on the KC-10 can be fitted with a drogue and hose, but if fitted it can't use the boom directly (it has to land and the hose removed).
RC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4654 times:
Quoting Jwenting (Reply 4): Yes, the boom on the KC-10 can be fitted with a drogue and hose, but if fitted it can't use the boom directly (it has to land and the hose removed).
You're probably thinking of the KC-135. The KC-10 has dual capability at all times since it is equipped with both the boom and a hose/drogue (and can be additionally fitted with the wing hose/drogue pods). The 135 can have the hose/drogue fitted to the boom on the ground, and there are a limited number of wing pods available to the fleet. I've heard that US Navy pilots (sorry...aviators) much prefer the hose/drogue of the KC-10 due to it being more flexible than the short, fairly inflexible rig provided by the 135's boom which has been known to be less forgiving and more prone to slapping around and breaking parts off receiving aircraft ,like probes and pitot tubes, etc. which can be ingested by the engines and make for a bad day when you're a long way from land or a friendly base...
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4619 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 3): from what I understand, the next generation boom operators will be using a type of 3-D camera system while sitting at a computer station.
Probably, as the Dutch 'KDC-10s' have such a remote control system already. I was thinking that even so, it would be difficult for one person to operate two booms, but maybe not.
10boomer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 55 posts, RR: 6 Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4593 times:
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6): it would be difficult for one person to operate two booms, but maybe not.
We're good but not that good, working simultaneous flight control malfunctions, breakaways, etc would be practically impossible
Quoting Ptrjong (Reply 6): I'm contradicting myself here. Yes, the Dutch and the Israelis and the Turks and the Singaporeans I think do use the boom system.
Don't forget Norway, Denmark, Germany (F-4), UAE , Belgium, Japan, Australia (Wedge Tail), Italy bought the KC-767 with a boom. I'm sure I'm forgetting some others
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4516 times:
^^That's quite an interesting design.
I'd like to see innovative concepts like that, and like the blended-wing design, take to the air one day, provided that they are economically feasible.
Another interesting wing design that occurs to me, and, as I recall, one that actually did make it from the drawing board into the skies, is the reverse-wing design that I believe they implemented on an experimental F-16 (not the F-16XL). In any event, the aircraft sported wings that looked like they were put on backward (i.e., the wings swept forward).
Hemispheres From United States of America, joined May 2004, 85 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4493 times:
DEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4426 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4468 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 12): X-29! Ah, yes. It was based on the F-5 fuselage, then I would imagine. Thanks for the correction.
We may be getting way off-topic here but yes, the forward-swept wing had been in and out of the limelight like the oblique wing "flavor of the month".....
Texfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4345 times:
The proposal that is under study has the possibility of a 777 tanker as a part of a mix of aircraft or just it alone. The Air Force has differing opinions on the subject. The 777 was suggested as a possibility as it would offer cargo capability in addition to refueling. The 767 won't do that as it will be a dedicated fueling aircraft that won't carry cargo at the same time. But the Air Force is saying thats not a bad thing as they aren't particularly interested in a mixed mission capability. Instead a dedicated mission aircraft like the 767 is what they prefer in some circles.
The traditional tradeoff between the 767 tanker and the KC-30 is the footprint. The larger footprint of the KC-30 works against it as it can't be staged at some forward bases and when you can, you can't stage as many as you can the 767. The 777 tanker would have the same problem, hence a mix might be proposed. So its not just a pure problem of carrying capacity. Its more what the Air Force is going to have money for and what the final mission statement will be. Have cargo in there and the KC-30 and 777 are true contenders. Have just refueling and the 767 might just be the right choice.
Just a word on the 767 tanker, its not a commercial 767, its a Air Force spec model. Lots of new stuff like integrated modular systems, wing and controls enhancements, etc make it different. So like the KC-30 having the A340 wing, these birds are not just a "take one off the line and put a boom on it" airplanes. They are military spec airplanes in the truest sense of the word.
10boomer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 55 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4326 times:
Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 16): But the Air Force is saying thats not a bad thing as they aren't particularly interested in a mixed mission capability.
Really? That's news to me. I'm a KC-10 boom and judging by the number of dual-role (mixed missions) we do every year and have been doing, the Air Force seems to be very interested. How do you think all the fighter units (AF & Navy/Marine) get to and from all the exercises and deployments. If you don't have tankers that can handle the dual-role mission you're going to have to task air-lifters to carry the pax and cargo and potentially more tankers to refuel the air-lifters. Unless the Air Force plans on fundamentally restructuring how it does business, it will be a giant step backwards and a waste of money to have to task two or more airframes to do a job that could be (and currently is) done by one.
Being dual-role capable needs to be a pre-requisite for any new tanker.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4322 times:
If the USAF went for a mixed fleet of tankers, they should have the KC-10A and KC-777-200LR as multi-mission airplanes and a KC-737-700ER as the dedicated tanker.
Then you don't have the ramp space problems the KC-767 vs. the KC-30 bring to the table.
AislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 4322 times:
I heard on some of the old tanker threads that they were studying doing a folding wing option. While it would add weight, it would reduce the wing size to that of a KC767. The KC767 is dead in my book after the scandel about them forcing it onto the USAF, and that it is not that much better than the KC135.
Quoting 10boomer (Reply 17): If you don't have tankers that can handle the dual-role mission you're going to have to task air-lifters to carry the pax and cargo and potentially more tankers to refuel the air-lifters. Unless the Air Force plans on fundamentally restructuring how it does business, it will be a giant step backwards and a waste of money to have to task two or more airframes to do a job that could be (and currently is) done by one.
Being dual-role capable needs to be a pre-requisite for any new tanker.
Isn't it nice not needing 2 planes when one can do the job.
"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
Texfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4250 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 20): Partially correct. It rolls off the line as a commercial model, then gets highly modified in Wichita, I think.
No, actually the Air Force tanker has a lot of modifications built into it from the start. Modular control systems are not standard commercial 767 systems. Remember this aircraft is not for export, its a US military plane that is designed to meet their specific needs. And they made some specific needs that are not in the commercial bird. But it is proposed to go thru the commercial line and then get mods at Wichita. Its a very interesting aircraft and sitting on the field in its current livery, a very striking looking warplane.
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 20): 10boomer is correct. The USAF wants a multi role tanker that will even include surveillance capability.
Quoting 10boomer (Reply 17): Being dual-role capable needs to be a pre-requisite for any new tanker.
Well, its been a very hotly discussed topic in the Air Force systems and proposals teams. Looking at the reports and official discussion pages has been a very interesting read. I can see both sides opinions and reasons. But I do agree that a multi-mission aircraft makes sense. But the WarOps guys just don't want anything getting in their way of their mission planning, both in asset management or availibility. A totally dedicated mission asset answers their needs...and those are powerful reasons. They don't want their assets running around on cargo missions. So we'll see what's proposed and what's chosen.
As far as my personal preference, I agree with you. Actually, I think that a total mix of C-17/767/777/A330 makes lots of sense to me. with a 150+ buy, there's lot of room for everyone. The KC-10 has turned out to be a wonderful aircraft. So the mix of KC-135/KC-10 has turned out great. Interservice and international capabilities are also a prime need IMO. Spreading the load around makes for flexibilities that aren't currently available and one of the reason why the KC-135's are staggering under the mission load. Give me a 767 tanker only for the dedicated mission. Add in a 777/A330 tanker/cargo to the mix to do the long hauls. Use a C-17 tanker for the forward base missions that need cargo or fuel into a small strip...but those are just my opinions. I don't buy and pay for them, I only make them.
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 4245 times:
Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 21): Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 20):
Partially correct. It rolls off the line as a commercial model, then gets highly modified in Wichita, I think.
No, actually the Air Force tanker has a lot of modifications built into it from the start. Modular control systems are not standard commercial 767 systems. Remember this aircraft is not for export, its a US military plane that is designed to meet their specific needs. And they made some specific needs that are not in the commercial bird. But it is proposed to go thru the commercial line and then get mods at Wichita. Its a very interesting aircraft and sitting on the field in its current livery, a very striking looking warplane.
Duly noted.
The flexibility of the multi role aircraft I believe is simplyfied by palletizing other components for other roles. Outside of the tanker role of course.
Texfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4226 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 22): The flexibility of the multi role aircraft I believe is simplyfied by palletizing other components for other roles. Outside of the tanker role of course.
Yep, that's true as both the 777 and A330 have very efficient palletized freighter versions. And thats what the Ops planners are concerned with. Using these assets as cargo planes eats into maintenance budgets, allows them to be assigned to non tanker duties, puts them out of use more often due to maintenance overhauls etc. All of which produces conflict inside the operational organizations, particularly if its a shared asset. So there is a group in the Air Force that says, don't give it cargo capability and it won't be a problem. And they have a point. Whether the Secretary agrees with them is still to be seen. I have a very strong feeling that it will be a dual buy if for nothing else than to build a stronger international alliance. I don't think that NG and AB would go to the trouble to put together the consortium if they hadn't gotten a strong signal that a dual buy is possible. A single source buy to Airbus is not even possible. The uproar over that would make McCains witchhunt look like a minor issue.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4156 times:
Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 19): I heard on some of the old tanker threads that they were studying doing a folding wing option. While it would add weight, it would reduce the wing size to that of a KC767. The KC767 is dead in my book after the scandel about them forcing it onto the USAF, and that it is not that much better than the KC135.
No, the USAF will never consider the folding wing option on any KC-777 order. That option adds a lot of weight, which translates into reduced offload and other mission capabilities. Also, the KC-767 will still take up a lot less ramp space than a KC-777, even with the wings folded. Remember a B-777-200 is almost twice as long as a B-767-200.
Don't write off the KC-767. The scandel had nothing to do with the airplanes capabilities, just it's lease/procurment.
If you think the KC-767 is not much better than a KC-135, that puts it in pretty good company, in my book. There has never been an airplane designed as well as the KC-135, it has been flying for 50 years. Yes, you can say the C-130 and B-52 have flown longer, but that is not quite true. Those designs have flown a few years longer. But the production #1 KC-135A, tail number 55-3118, is still flying as a KC-135R with the KSANG.
A KC-767 carries the same fuel load as a KC-135, up to 202,000lbs. But, the KC-767 has a slightly better offload capability (on missions under 4,000nm), the same ferry and mission range, and can carry more cargo and troops. On mission ranges longer than 4,000nms, the KC-135R still has the heaviest offload capability of any current or proposed tanker, except for the IIAF KC-747-100 and a possible Boeing proposal KC-747-800, or possible Airbus proposed KC-380-800.
25 AislepathLight: KC135: I am a Boeing lover... there is not much that I would rather see than our crazy government deciding on a Boeing product for the new tanker. Th
27 Dc1030guy: Why do Tanker threads always get off topic? To get back on topic, I do not believe we will see wing mounted air refueling booms anytime soon. From a
28 KC135TopBoom: That is correct, that is why heavies will only refuel from the tail mounted boom. That is also correct. The wing tip refueling pods trail the drogues
29 Boeing Nut: I don't understand why that was off topic. It was a relevence comparing the distance between a fuselage mount boom on the KC-10 to the "wing boom" on
30 Boeing Nut: TopBoom, I forgot to ask this before. Have bigger diameter drogues been considered to eleviate this problem?
31 KC135TopBoom: The drogue is actually the aerodynamic basket. The basket is designed to put maximum drag on the hose to help stabilze it and reduce "hose whip". Ins
32 RAPCON: Top Boom, If it wasn't for you on this forum, a bunch of crazies would be running around with all sorts of wild immaginary ideas as to how to AAR, and
34 AislepathLight: I think that the Mil-av forum has a good group of posters now. We seem to all have figured out that if you have any questions about tankers, TopBoom
35 KC135TopBoom: Thanks guys. But, I am not the only one here. We also have a KC-10 Boomer who drops in from time to time, as does AWACS Lt. Both of them also know a
36 RAPCON: Dude, I was a controller at Torrejon AB, and during those nice hot/high summer days of central Spain (TJ's elevation is 1994ft), the J57 powered KC's
37 KC135TopBoom: Yeah, I saw both ends of a lot of runways, while still in a 3 point attitude (wheels still on the ground), LOL. I remember we were dragging F-106s (t
38 RAPCON: Must've been way before my time (84-87). No hills west of TJ, only MAD Int'l and Madrid itself. There is a hill S-SE, but only the fighters flying VF
39 KC135TopBoom: It could have been Zara, but I thought it was TJ. It happened back in 1976, IIRC, or within a year either way. IIRC, it was a crew out of Grissom AFB
40 RAPCON: Found it!!! You were right, it was at TJ. Serial Numer 58-0001/0039 (KC-135Q) crashed into hill Jun 13, 1971, during approach at Torrejon AB, Spain.
41 KC135TopBoom: Yes, it was initially designed to refuel the SR-71.
42 N328KF: Hmmm, why do we even need boom operators these days? Not to disparage our boomer comrades, but going forward, why not have automated linkup between ta
43 Dc1030guy: Boeing Nut: My apologies sir. The comment was NOT directed towards you; it was for others who started to hijack the thread. Quoting you was meant to
44 KC135TopBoom: Thanks Pat. But, I was never, and will never be a flight attendent, I briefed and controlled the pax. I cannot speak for the KC-10 Boom Operators, bu
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3767 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 4502 posts, 
From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4426 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 785 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
