KC330
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 9:01 am

KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:53 pm

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.

Cheers!

 
Spacepope
Posts: 3151
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:26 am

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
 
LY744
Posts: 5185
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 11:55 pm

RE: KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Mon Oct 25, 2004 4:48 am

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


LY744.
Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:33 am

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.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:29 am

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.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
Contact_tower
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:05 am

RE: KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:46 am

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
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Mon Oct 25, 2004 6:55 am

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.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3151
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts

Mon Oct 25, 2004 10:38 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests