User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:14 am

Is RAAF KC-30 still in Spain for the installment of the fuelboom etc.?

Cheers

Micke  wave 
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:10 am

Because it doesn't work yet. If they had a success story to show then it'd be there.

They are having mountains of problems with the fuel delivery systems and software integration.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
Because it doesn't work yet. If they had a success story to show then it'd be there.

They are having mountains of problems with the fuel delivery systems and software integration.

you betcha...
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:42 pm

Wouldn't the KC-30 be a A332F + Refueling Equipment? I guess they prefer to officially introduce the A332F first, otherwiese there could be a misconception that the KC-30 would be the same airplane as the Britisch and Australian air tanker.

Presenting the Australian prototype of the A330 MRTT as the KC-30 would make it a bluff package marketing-wise and Randy would have enough material for his next blog entry ...
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 4132
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:02 am

What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:38 pm

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
Presenting the Australian prototype of the A330 MRTT as the KC-30 would make it a bluff package marketing-wise and Randy would have enough material for his next blog entry ...

Does Randy talk about military stuff? He doesn't seem like the right type of personality for Boeing to put forth to hawk military wares.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:20 pm

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 4):
What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

IIRC the US KC-30 would be based on the A332F (large cargo door) and not on the A332.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 5):
Does Randy talk about military stuff? He doesn't seem like the right type of personality for Boeing to put forth to hawk military wares.

No, he does not talk about military stuff usually. But he would talk about the A332F which is a civil product, but the basis for the proposed KC-30.
 
ftrguy
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 8:17 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:55 pm

Airbus Military and Northrop Grumman had models up for the thing everywhere.
 
RAPCON
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:34 am

Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
They are having mountains of problems with the fuel delivery systems and software integration

...inflight entertainment issues with this one too??  stirthepot 
MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
 
texfly101
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:42 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:08 am

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 4):
What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

The AF Tanker request is for a tanker that is designed to specific USAF requirements. It is not the direct equivalent to the British and Australian aircraft and a KC-30 hasn't been built yet.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:34 pm

Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 4):
What is the difference between the A330MRTT that the RAAF and RAF are getting, and the KC-30 that they are proposing for the USAF?

They are really 3 different airplanes. The RAF A-330TT is your basic A-330-200 with WARPs. The RAF A-330TT will actually be a cilivan commerical airplane. The RAAF A-330MRTT is an A-330-200 with the A-340-300 wing with larger, heavier WARPs, and an air refueling boom, but no additional fuel tanks. The RAAF A-330MRTT will be a full military airplane, including military avionics. Both the RAF and RAAF tankers will still have the full A-330-200 below deck cargo holds. The proposed KC-30A for the USAF will not have below deck cargo holds, as additional full tanks will be in those places. The KC-30 will also be a full A-330-200F, with fewer main deck windows, and a full cargo handeling system. It may or may not have the A-340-300 wing to support heavier, larger WARPs (similar to the RAAF A-330MRTT), and either the new Airbus Refueling Boom, or a Boeing Air Refueling Boom, depending on how the contract is written. The KC-30A will be a full military airplane with military avionics.

All three tankers will have different capabilities with respect to range, offload capability, troop capacity, and cargo capacity. All three will have a main deck cargo door, but, IIRC the KC-30 may be offered with two cargo door, both on the left (port) side, but on either side of the wing.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
Wouldn't the KC-30 be a A332F + Refueling Equipment? I guess they prefer to officially introduce the A332F first, otherwiese there could be a misconception that the KC-30 would be the same airplane as the Britisch and Australian air tanker.

Presenting the Australian prototype of the A330 MRTT as the KC-30 would make it a bluff package marketing-wise and Randy would have enough material for his next blog entry ...

Both are correct. But with respect to the USAF, RAAF, and RAF versions, see above.

Quoting Texfly101 (Reply 9):
The AF Tanker request is for a tanker that is designed to specific USAF requirements. It is not the direct equivalent to the British and Australian aircraft and a KC-30 hasn't been built yet.

Yes.
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Tue Jul 25, 2006 8:25 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
The RAAF A-330MRTT is an A-330-200 with the A-340-300 wing

Aside from very minor differences the A330 and the A340-2/300 use identical wings. A330 wings have the same structural reinforcements for the outer engines as the A340-2/300 wings have. They are just lacking the mounting provisions for the outer engine nacelles, fuel pipes and control wires. That is why it is rather easy to attach the refueling pods to an A330 ... you don't need to strengthen the wings as it is necessary with A310s for instance

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
All three will have a main deck cargo door,

I am pretty sure that the RAF and RAAF aircrafts will not have a main deck cargo door, because in order to load pallets onto the main deck the main floor has to be strengthened and that didn't happened. The prototype has been built already without a large cargo door. It even got painted already which would be non-sense when structural changes were still due ... Concerning the RAF airplanes it was clearly said that all airplanes remain in a standard airline configuration, aside from the refueling pods.

As regards the avionics you might be right, I don't have any information about that.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:16 pm

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 11):
Aside from very minor differences the A330 and the A340-2/300 use identical wings. A330 wings have the same structural reinforcements for the outer engines as the A340-2/300 wings have. They are just lacking the mounting provisions for the outer engine nacelles, fuel pipes and control wires.

I thought the A-330 wing also had 1 less main wing spar, to save weight, compared to the A-340 wing. But, you are correct, other thatn the spar and the additional plumbing and other needed components for the outboard engines, the A-330-200/-300 and A-340-200/-300 wings are identical.

In the specs for the RAAF A-330MRTT, the contract calls for the A-340-300 wing. This is not part of the specs for the RAF A-330TT, and one reason why both airplanes actually have a different designation from Airbus.
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:25 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
In the specs for the RAAF A-330MRTT, the contract calls for the A-340-300 wing. This is not part of the specs for the RAF A-330TT, and one reason why both airplanes actually have a different designation from Airbus.

It might be that RAAF airplanes just use the outer nacelle mounting provisions for accamodating the outer refuelling pods while the RAF airplanes use custom-built provisions for the lighter refueling pods ... it might also be related to the fact the RAF needs a civil certification and type rating for their planes, while the RAAF does not necessarilly need that.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:42 am

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 13):
It might be that RAAF airplanes just use the outer nacelle mounting provisions for accamodating the outer refuelling pods while the RAF airplanes use custom-built provisions for the lighter refueling pods

You could be right about the RAAF A-330MRTTs. But, to me that seems like a lot of additional equipment.
 
PADSpot
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:31 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:10 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
You could be right about the RAAF A-330MRTTs. But, to me that seems like a lot of additional equipment.

As I said the RAF cannot to afford to loose the standard A330 type certificate, because their private-public partnership type-of operations won't function then ... Additional military avionics (TACAN, UHF/VHF-Radio) won't affect that, but i guess the "A340"-wing is nevertheless different enough to make re-certification necessary for civil use.

RAAF does not have to care about that ... military airplanes, military pilots, military certification ...
 
aislepathlight
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:16 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
WARP

Sorry, but what are WARPs?
bleepbloop
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 26, 2006 3:56 pm

There is a myth that the A330 and A340 wings are identical apart from the outer engine mounting points. The only thing that is identical is the shape. The A330 wing will need significant strengthening to accept the pods although it is a relatively straight forward modification.

Back to the original question. The reason that the KC-30 is not at Farnborough is that they haven't built one yet. The nearest they have to one is the Australian MRTT and that only started conversion last month. It won't fly until early next year.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why No KC-30 At Farnborough?

Wed Jul 26, 2006 7:20 pm

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 16):
Sorry, but what are WARPs?

Wingtip Air Refueling Pods. Sorry for the confusion. Now, for WARP Factors, I guess you will have to ask Capt. Kirk or Capt. Pacard, LOL

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 17):
There is a myth that the A330 and A340 wings are identical apart from the outer engine mounting points. The only thing that is identical is the shape. The A330 wing will need significant strengthening to accept the pods although it is a relatively straight forward modification.

That is what I thought originally.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos