Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 5:58 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 46):
So tell me, after a clearly insulting commentnlike that why I should want to spend my tax dollars on your country'snproduct when I have a perfectly good alternative here?

Don't spend it on foreign product, buy American. But then don't go around and lecture
others about "level playgrounds" and open market. And especially do not tell
taxpayers in other countries how or how not spend their money (e.g.,subsidies).
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15086
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC

Wed Jun 18, 2008 6:01 pm



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 42):
I cant believe you guys are still at this - the KC45 won it - get over it. Its the best plane for the job because the review committee says so, and they know better than anyone here what it can do and what it cannot do.

If only you had waited a few hours before clicking "Post"  Wink The GAO doesn't agree with you.

The Executive Branch is not unchecked in the USA. Just because they claim something is true, doesn't mean we must accept it. We have the Legislative Branch that can challenge those findings, and ultimately, if push comes to shove, the Judiciary settles it. It rarely comes to that in these matters, because the White House is not going to just fund the KC-45 anyway if the the Congress denies it. It's happened for other things in the history of the country, but this decision is not worth the battle.

In this case, the GAO has determined the AF was full of crap during it's RFP and evaluation. Now, who is right? We'll have to see, but at this point, the KC-45 is no longer the winner unless members of Congress decide to fund the program despite their own Accounting office saying not to...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:59 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 46):
So tell me, after a clearly insulting comment like that why I should want to spend my tax dollars on your country's product when I have a perfectly good alternative here?

Its not "your" decision anyway  Wink

And again, just don't! As I have stated already in this thread, I personally don't care if you are flying Boeing or Airbus in your effort to force democrazy ..., sorry, I meant to "defend the free world". But then please be consequent, don't buy Mercedes, Porsche, BMW, Audi, VW, don't buy products made through Germanys superior tooling, don't go by Amtraks TGV (isn't Airbus a french product?!  Wink ),...!
Its always a two side thing, no?

Quoting Alien (Reply 46):

First off, not everyone here is what you call "the common taxpayer".

True, but here are posting hundreds in favor of the 767 petrol station. How many you think are NOT common tax payers?  Wink

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
If the Boeing option is cheaper and meets the basic needs then it should be the option chosen.

Really? In the interest of your soldiers risking their lifes for your country? Shouldn't then, considering the minimal difference in cost, the most capable options be chosen rather than what just meets "basic requirements"?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):

In terms of "cheaper" I believe that the USAF should have included the potential tax revenues that would be generated from the contractors profits from the contract. If company X gets a contract and pays $40 million in income taxes from the contract then that $40 million should be deducted from the cost when considering the cost of the contract.

No, that disguises REAL cost positions of the use of any equipment. Potential tax revenues as well as jobs and so on are part of a different evaluation which is no doubt being undertaken by someone in your administration  Wink

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Save the extra spending for critical first tier needs, like fighters - that is where the extra money is critical.

Strange, I thought critical first tier needs are health care, education, ...  Wink
Joking aside, again I think, such minimal difference in cost should NOT be the basis for a decision. You never know how cost will REALLY develop throughout the lifecycle, so 34 mio $ in one direction or the other is as good a difference as 0$ in a project worth tens of billion.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Wouldn't Boeing's offering be more desirable when space is at a limit? I also wonder just how full a tanker operating from a small base will need during a single mission. It's a huge waste of fuel to send it out fully loaded just because you can.

Don't you think all those things have been evaluated? You think all those people at AF administration are blind to reality and do buy tankers in the "i got the bigger one" mood?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Try to find out how many billions of dollars our trade debt is each year and you'll see that we are a pretty open country in terms of trade.

The one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Open in terms of government spending is a different thing to being generally open to the market. You wouldn't be as rich as you are in the US without being open. After all, aren't you the prototype of a free market society?
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15086
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:15 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 52):
Really? In the interest of your soldiers risking their lifes for your country?

Both outperform the aircraft they would replace, an aircraft the AF says could last 20 more years. So please don't play the "putting soldiers at risk" card. The KC767 does not put anyone's life at stake. Nor does KC45 for that matter.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
magyar
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2000 4:11 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC

Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:54 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 53):
the "putting soldiers at risk" card. ThenKC767 does not put anyone's life at stake. Nor does KC45 for thatnmatter.

Well they should  Smile! The lifes of the enemy soldiers! After all they are military equipments.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:38 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 53):
Both outperform the aircraft they would replace, an aircraft the AF says could last 20 more years. So please don't play the "putting soldiers at risk" card. The KC767 does not put anyone's life at stake. Nor does KC45 for that matter.

And thats the point, where leaving the discussion is maybe the best choice for me.
Stating that strategic military air refuelling capability (or the lack of) is NOT putting soldiers at risk is the most ridiculous thing ever.

After all, refuelling air to air is risky itself and therefore only viable for a countries defence interest. I think any ground forces of the Iraq liberation as well as in former-Yugoslavia and so on DO think their life is also somewhat dependent on the performance of air support, including tankers. They direcly influence frontline capability and effectiveness. Therefore the US developed the damn expensive and utterly superior F22 instead of just buying cheaper existing models which would have been also superior to what they replace as well as x-times superior to any enemy they likely encounter.

Just to understand me right: I do think, the KC767 is a capable aircraft, as is the KC-45. Both would get the job done. In the comfortable situation the US military is strengthwise, they maybe won't need the extra capability of the KC45. But after all you don't plan military for peacetimes, but for war. If you encounter the situation were you needed the extra lift of fuel the KC45 delivers over the KC767 you might bite your ass; and are not able to refuel the groundstriking aircraft desperately needed to bring down enemy artillery killing your guys.

Far fetched? Perhaps, but again, you plan for the worst case. With such small difference in cost anyway, no?
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:49 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 52):
your effort to force democrazy

Interesting comment coming from someone whose flag represents the one country that probably benefitted the most from our efforts "to force democrazy". I hear there are a lot of fugitive Nazis living in South America. Perhaps you should repatriate them and put together a Fourth Reich.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:16 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 56):
Interesting comment coming from someone whose flag represents the one country that probably benefitted the most from our efforts "to force democrazy". I hear there are a lot of fugitive Nazis living in South America. Perhaps you should repatriate them and put together a Fourth Reich.

I don't even know what to answer to that totally and utterly BS  

What do I have to do with what happend nearly 70 years ago, when even my grandfather was to young to influence anything?
Democrazy is a gift...from the subjective view of democratic countries and I love to live in one. Nevertheless, there is no right to force democrazy on any country by a western thinking of having a superior system, where obviously my home country agrees with...

And, for your info:

The US is one of the countries with most Nazi-concentration in the world, so why blame south america?
And: Being out of Germany does NOT mean to feel anything for Nazis but disgust and furthermorer disagreeing with US foreign affairs has nothing to do with nazism.

Edit: But I agree with you, that my personal meaning about US foreing affairs are not of any interest in this forum, which is why I will stop expressing them and concentrate on the subject!  footinmouth 

[Edited 2008-06-18 15:20:49]
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15086
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:06 am



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 55):
Stating that strategic military air refuelling capability (or the lack of) is NOT putting soldiers at risk is the most ridiculous thing ever.

No, stating that the KC-767 somehow puts soldiers lives at risk is the most ridiculous thing ever and yes, maybe you should just leave the discussion, because you are treading on thin ice. There are people on these forums who would be building the KC-767 that would take your comments as an insult.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:32 am

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 58):
No, stating that the KC-767 somehow puts soldiers lives at risk is the most ridiculous thing ever and yes, maybe you should just leave the discussion, because you are treading on thin ice. There are people on these forums who would be building the KC-767 that would take your comments as an insult.

Yes, I know its thin ice for many. Nevertheless, what I stated was NOT, that the KC767 is inferior and therefore risking lives. I stated, that taking the cheap option which meets only basic requirements, is in military equipment not always the right choice, considering the lives at stake.
Unfortunately in this case the USAF decided that the KC767 is the loser despite being cheaper, where my statement comes into play, that cost in military environment is not always first priority.

But, and I insist on that, if the KC767 would have been the outperformer in this bid and it would have been (reasonably) more expensive than the NG/EADS-Tanker, my argument stands the same and USAF should have bought KC767.

[Edited 2008-06-18 17:35:08]
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23881
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:42 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
The KC767 and KC30 meet the requirement and the KC777 would not.

It would seem the GAO is saying all exceed the requirements in many cases, but the old RFP disallows any "extra credit" for exceeing requirements.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13827
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:51 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 60):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 11):
The KC767 and KC30 meet the requirement and the KC777 would not.

It would seem the GAO is saying all exceed the requirements in many cases, but the old RFP disallows any "extra credit" for exceeing requirements.

A KC777 exceeding the 7000 ft max runway lenght requirement would no give a KC777 extra credit. That much is for sure.

The old requirements, do you mean those ? http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Galloway_033104,00.html

Maybe they have a copy left and can re-use it.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:11 pm



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 58):

No, stating that the KC-767 somehow puts soldiers lives at risk is the most ridiculous thing ever and yes, maybe you should just leave the discussion, because you are treading on thin ice. There are people on these forums who would be building the KC-767 that would take your comments as an insult.

 checkmark 

You would be surprised to read the amount of comments along those lines. As if the B767 has never been built..forget the fact Boeing has built over one-thousand of them.. sarcastic ..

I also get a laugh when people say "the B767 is going to have more inferiour technology"..as if Boeing have decided to go back to vacuum tubes and old piston engines.... sarcastic 

Funny, because no one mentions the fuselage of the A330 is based on a fuselage from 40 years ago...I guess that makes the A330 a "40 year old aircraft" as well.. sarcastic 
"Up the Irons!"
 
ContnlEliteCMH
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:19 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Thu Jun 19, 2008 6:30 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 12):
Where is the big deal?
And finally: Its absolutely ridiculous to find a 34Mio dollar mistake in a 108 billion dollar calculation as it is anyway only a prediction and in no way as accurate as it looks to be.

The error was not $34 million. In fact, it is undisclosed. Per the article (emphasis mine):

Quote:

$34 MILLION DIFFERENCE
Air Force documents initially put Northrop's life cycle cost at $108.01 billion versus $108.44 billion for the Boeing plane, a difference of $34 million or 3/100 of a percent.

In that calculation, Northrop's lower development and acquisition costs were balanced out by the slightly lower operating costs of Boeing's 767, a Northrop spokesman said.

Neither Northrop nor Boeing disclosed what the cost would be for each bid, once adjusted for the calculation errors.

The big deal is that billions of dollars are at stake and it's public money. That makes it our (the taxpayers) business. The Air Force is bound by a set of rules by which it does purchasing, and if those rules are not followed, then they have violated one of their duties vis-a-vis the taxpaying public's trust. This is a serious matter, unless you don't take seriously the matter of self-governance and the aircraft with which we conquer the world.  Yeah sure
Christianity. Islam. Hinduism. Anthropogenic Global Warming. All are matters of faith!
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:32 am

Initial feedback that I am getting:

1- RFP was for:
a. A replacement for the KC-135
i. A new plane that would fit into all current facilities including maintenance facilities.
ii. Operate from the same bases the KC-135 operates from.
iii. Refuel all current aircraft in the fleet in addition to a list of planned aircraft that should enter within 20 years.
iv. The replacement aircraft would have to be more able to survive on the battle front.
v. The replacement aircraft would have to have a list of defensive countermeasures.
2- Initial estimates to make ready all facilities (that currently use the KC-135) for a larger aircraft than would fit into the KC-135 box are above 100 billion.
3- The amount of defensive countermeasures to mask the larger size of the Airbus proposal was not included and thus the weight penalty for such additional equipment was not adjusted.
a. Note: the radar signature of the larger plane is an issue for all those whom understand.
4- The Airbus proposal banked upon using different facilities than are currently used by the KC-135 for operation and maintenance. Such as C-5, C-17, etc. This does not take into account the political environment of such switches and base closures.

In short if the RFP is for a KC-135 replacement aircraft, a proposal for an aircraft that was larger than the KC-135 box area would have to take in account the 100 billion facility upgrade cost which was listed as part of the RFP. In other words the larger aircraft provider would have to give them away for free and then pay additional fees for facility upgrades to match a proposal for an aircraft that fit inside the KC-135 box if the upgrade cost really is above 100 billion dollars.


This does not even take into account aircraft performance, radar signature, defensive countermeasures, and the political fallout of moving military base work loads.


I can clearly see why there is an issue. These 2 planes are as different as night and day as compared in military needs. What remains to be seen is if the RFP will be adjusted.
BK
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14945
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:12 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 64):

In short if the RFP is for a KC-135 replacement aircraft, a proposal for an aircraft that was larger than the KC-135 box area would have to take in account the 100 billion facility upgrade cost which was listed as part of the RFP. In other words the larger aircraft provider would have to give them away for free and then pay additional fees for facility upgrades to match a proposal for an aircraft that fit inside the KC-135 box if the upgrade cost really is above 100 billion dollars.

The RFP never mentioned a "box", it never specified a size for the aircraft. The RFP was performance based, i.e. it gave a list of requirements of what the platform need to do, but did not specify what the platform needed to look like.

Both the KC-767 and KC-30 have a larger footprint than a KC-135, neither would need zero changes for a facility that has a maximum size of a KC-135, I am not aware of such facilities, to me it seems like a bit of a red herring.

Keep in mind the USAF also has KC-10s, if the points you are trying to portray were even close to being factual, they would have raised their heads since the KC-10 was put into service.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5952
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:42 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
The RFP never mentioned a "box", it never specified a size for the aircraft. The RFP was performance based, i.e. it gave a list of requirements of what the platform need to do, but did not specify what the platform needed to look like.

It didn't mention a "box" but it did refer to lifecycle costs. This means the cost of MX, but also the cost of facility upgrade and maintenance.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 65):
Both the KC-767 and KC-30 have a larger footprint than a KC-135, neither would need zero changes for a facility that has a maximum size of a KC-135, I am not aware of such facilities, to me it seems like a bit of a red herring.

Well, being a civil airline expert from outside of the US, one might not expect you to be aware of those facilities. But we're not talking about facilities with room for only one KC-135...we're talking about facilities with room for multiple airframes, but where ramp space is still precious. If you've got a couple of fighter squadrons at a forward airbase, plus a couple of E-3s and E-8s (both near the size of KC-135s), maybe they'd be crowded out by the several KC-X units you'd need to support the operation? Because maybe you'd want them near the front for transit time. There are many scenarios and this is just one.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14945
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sat Jun 21, 2008 3:56 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 43):

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A330.pdf

Page 61/298 for the GE ISA condition

That chart does not indicate the runway length used, or the best performance, it is a weight limit chart which is not the same.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 44):
So does that put it at MTOW and will it take off in 7,000 feet of runway at that weight? I want you, or somebody, to say definitively that at MTOW the KC-30 can take off on a 7,000 ft runway.

I think it would be very possible, I do not a chart to show you, you would be looking for a flap 3 high derate chart to get that performance. Good runway performance comes at the expense of obstacle clearance after takeoff. We normally takeoff with flap 1 and do what is known as a V2 over speed on departure from HKG due to the terrain after takeoff.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 66):
It didn't mention a "box" but it did refer to lifecycle costs. This means the cost of MX, but also the cost of facility upgrade and maintenance.

Please cite a RFP/SRD reference for this, I have the whole 37 file package.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 66):

Well, being a civil airline expert from outside of the US, one might not expect you to be aware of those facilities.

What I am aware of is that 100+ KC-135s are in maintenance at any one time, with the introduction of the KC-45, some of those facilities will be freed up.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sat Jun 21, 2008 4:32 pm



Quoting Arluna (Reply 30):
In the RFP, Section 3.2.1.1.4.1 it states:
"The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft. dry, hard surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules."



Quoting Zeke (Reply 67):
That chart does not indicate the runway length used, or the best performance, it is a weight limit chart which is not the same.

Come on. You know it's true that required runway length is not used only for take off. It takes into account the stopping distance in case of rejected take off. Airbus's chart states the minimum runway length required (not used) for take off, according to FAA/JAA take off requirement, just as RFP required.

I know A332 probably CAN take off from a 7000 ft runway at MTOW, but probably in best case scenario. If something goes wrong you are definetaly screwed

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sat Jun 21, 2008 6:03 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 67):
What I am aware of is that 100+ KC-135s are in maintenance at any one time, with the introduction of the KC-45, some of those facilities will be freed up.

That is an assumption which shows you believe these aircraft are still commerical. A comment like this clearly shows that you do not understand military aircraft and the additional equipment they carry. While the new tanker will have better maintenance intervals it will still need service on many of its systems which are non-standard for normal commerical applications. Military readiness dictates the service intervals.

Many here are upset because they view this competition as a commerical one which it is not.
BK
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:21 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 67):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 44):
So does that put it at MTOW and will it take off in 7,000 feet of runway at that weight? I want you, or somebody, to say definitively that at MTOW the KC-30 can take off on a 7,000 ft runway.

I think it would be very possible, I do not a chart to show you, you would be looking for a flap 3 high derate chart to get that performance. Good runway performance comes at the expense of obstacle clearance after takeoff. We normally takeoff with flap 1 and do what is known as a V2 over speed on departure from HKG due to the terrain after takeoff.

So after 10 days of asking this question in this thread and another one, and countless replies, no one has yet to step forward and say definitively that the KC-30 can take off in 7,000 feet.

So it stands that the KC-30 can take off "fully loaded" in 7,000 feet, but that the KC-767 can't take off at "MTOW" in 8,000 feet, which makes it far inferior.  Confused

And people accuse Boeing of distorting truths???
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14945
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC

Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:16 pm



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 68):
Come on. You know it's true that required runway length is not used only for take off.

Far from it, the shortest runway performance on the A330 is obtained from using high flap settings and an engine derate to reduce the V1/Vr speeds, this is exactly what we use when we takeoff from 16L/35R with the A330 at Narita (RJAA/NRT) which is only 7,153 ft long.

The min V speeds for the 330 are around V1=113 kt, Vr=113 kt, V2=116 kt, for full thrust takeoffs speeds are up more around 140 kt plus, the engines can be derated up to 40% which reduces the V speeds for takeoff. We also normally do packs off takeoffs for better performance as well.

Also my reading of the RFP did not seem to indicate that the 7,000 ft was a balanced field length requirement, I read it to mean 7,000' take off run available (TORA), for heavy jet performance charts when they have the limit code 3, it is for runway length limit, referring to TORA, this would assume that the runway would have an infinite clearway as post liftoff we have not was of knowing what the fist, second, third, and final segment obstacle requirements are.

"The offeror shall document the ability of the proposed KC-X aircraft to operate, including takeoff gross weight, from a 7000 ft runway for standard day conditions and using FAA ground rules."

So according to FAR 25.113 Subpart B 3.1.3.1. Runway with Clearway
a) The takeoff run on a dry runway is the greater of the following values :

TORN-1 dry = Distance covered from brake release to a point equidistant between the point at which VLOF is reached and the point at which the aircraft is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, assuming failure of the critical engine at VEF and recognized at V1,

1.15 TORN dry = 115 % of the distance covered from brake release to a point equidistant between the point at which VLOF is reached and the point at which the aircraft is 35 feet above the takeoff surface, assuming all engines operating.

From memory the 767 also had an exemption to the current FAR 25.109 regs for accelerate stop distance calculations, so the 767 and 330 numbers may not be comparing apples with apples as the 330 was certified post FAR 25 amendment 42.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 69):
A comment like this clearly shows that you do not understand military aircraft and the additional equipment they carry.

It actually shows that I have read the USAF fleet maintainability report, and the majority of the KC-135 that are in deport level maintenance are there for serious problems, some spending upwards of 400 days in maintenance according to the USAF.

Retiring the aircraft with the most serious problems could then automatically free up to 400 days of maintenance for a single aircraft, with the USAF planning on retiring 48 KC-135s this year, the additional availability of hanger space could be significant.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 70):
So after 10 days of asking this question in this thread and another one, and countless replies, no one has yet to step forward and say definitively that the KC-30 can take off in 7,000 feet.

Considering we operate from Narita runway 16L/35R with the A330 I don't think it would be a problem (I guess other A330 operators do as well). But as I said before I don't have a chart to show you, our takeoff performance data is calculated by our mainframe for the actual runway conditions for each takeoff via ACARS, we don't have charts. Also our numbers are padded by 10% to give us some more buffer.

Also MTOW is a moving target with the A330, it has more than one depending on what is was built as, full fuel on some A330s would actually put the aircraft over MTOW, e.g. the latest weight variation has a MTOW of 192,000 kg, 35,000 kg below the KC-30 MTOW.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:30 am



Quoting Zeke (Reply 71):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 70):
So after 10 days of asking this question in this thread and another one, and countless replies, no one has yet to step forward and say definitively that the KC-30 can take off in 7,000 feet.

Considering we operate from Narita runway 16L/35R with the A330 I don't think it would be a problem (I guess other A330 operators do as well). But as I said before I don't have a chart to show you,

Okay, so again you didn't answer the question so we can assume when NG/EADS says the KC-30 can take off at "full load" in 7,000 feet then we know it doesn't mean at MTOW.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:32 am

The following is from the introduction to the RFP:

"This System Requirements Document (SRD) presents the technical performance required for the replacement tanker aircraft (KC-X). This SRD documents the requirements for the replacement of approximately the first third of the tanker fleet. Minimum performance/capability requirements are identified as key performance parameter (KPP) thresholds. All other thresholds/requirements (in the following descending priority order: key system attribute (KSA) thresholds, thresholds, other requirements) and objectives are part of the trade space the bidder can use to define the best value system in the proposed System Specification. For the purposes of this SRD the term " shall" is only mandatory for KPP thresholds."

The key sentence is the last one defining the word "shall."

These are the sections from the RFP that define take off performance:

"3.2.1.1.4.1 The KC-X shall be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level (THRESHOLD) using FAA ground rules."

"3.2.1.1.4.2 The KC-X should be capable of operating from a 7,000 ft dry, hard-surface runway at sea level at maximum weight for takeoff (OBJECTIVE) using FAA ground rules."

The first paragraph is the requirement. Note that it does not state the the aircraft has to be at MTOW, on the contrary, it does not give any weight value at all.

The second paragraph states that being able to take off at MTOW from a 7,000 foot runway would be good but it is not a requirement.

I hope this clears up the question of take off performance and proves that the ability to take off from a 7,000 foot runway at MTOW was not a requirement in the RFP.

J

[Edited 2008-06-21 20:34:24]

(edited for punctuation and clarification.)

[Edited 2008-06-21 20:36:58]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14945
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:22 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 72):
Okay, so again you didn't answer the question so we can assume when NG/EADS says the KC-30 can take off at "full load" in 7,000 feet then we know it doesn't mean at MTOW.

I think it can, this is what the USAF said to the GAO about it. The analysis showed the short field performance of the KC-30 provided significant capability to the USAF. Likewise the ability of the KC-30 fly 9,500 nm unrefueled, while the KC-767AT could not also was found to add significant benefit.

Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 2:05 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 74):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 72):
Okay, so again you didn't answer the question so we can assume when NG/EADS says the KC-30 can take off at "full load" in 7,000 feet then we know it doesn't mean at MTOW.

I think it can

"I think it can"??? You fly these birds for a living (or so you claim). You can't tell me what the performance capabilities are of the instrument that provides your livelihood????

Come on, Zeke, NG/EADS have been going around saying their bird can take off "fully loaded" in 7,000 feet of runway. If they meant at MTOW, why didn't they just say it? That is the common term to use in the aviation industry.

[Edited 2008-06-22 07:08:10]
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14945
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:35 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 75):
"I think it can"??? You fly these birds for a living (or so you claim). You can't tell me what the performance capabilities are of the instrument that provides your livelihood????

Nope, I always enter the current conditions into the ACARS box it goes off to our mainframe and it then the printout comes out in the cockpit. Just like ANY other professional pilot does, we do not second guess takeoff performance numbers.

I cannot just enter a 7000' runway and ask it to calculate the numbers, our performance data includes not only the runway (length, slope, direction, width), but also the obstacles in the takeoff path.

For example from HKG I would input VHHH, 07RJ1, OAT, QNH, Wind, ZFW, TOW, runway surface, configuration, thrust setting, a/c packs, engine anti ice, wing anti ice, MEL/CDL items, that would give me the performance numbers for HKG RW 07R from Juilette1, the mainframe knows from its database about the aircraft registration, engines installed, runway direction, slope, length and the hills after takeoff and come back with the max weight I can takeoff and, V speeds, optimum flap setting, and thrust setting.

From experience I can guess the numbers within a few knots, but I would never rely on that for real operations. We do not have charts either that we can enter with 7000', SL, 15 deg C, nil wind, and read off a TODR, all our performance data is done on a runway by runway basis.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:49 pm

Because the KC-X program is to replace the KC-135E, I suspect that the "threshold" for 7,000 ft of runway is to match or exceed the fuel load of a KC-135E (R?) using 7,000 ft of runway. The KC-30 probably exceeded the KC-135's fuel load using 7,000 ft and it also likely bested the KC-767 in this area. So they won this criteria.
 
PolymerPlane
Topic Author
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:47 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 71):
Far from it, the shortest runway performance on the A330 is obtained from using high flap settings and an engine derate to reduce the V1/Vr speeds, this is exactly what we use when we takeoff from 16L/35R with the A330 at Narita (RJAA/NRT) which is only 7,153 ft long.

Did you take off from NRT 16L/35R at MTOW? Because I have personally been on a JL 772ER taking off from 16L/35R. I am sure if the plane is at MTOW it will not be safe to take off from that distance.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 71):
Also my reading of the RFP did not seem to indicate that the 7,000 ft was a balanced field length requirement, I read it to mean 7,000' take off run available (TORA), for heavy jet performance charts when they have the limit code 3, it is for runway length limit, referring to TORA, this would assume that the runway would have an infinite clearway as post liftoff we have not was of knowing what the fist, second, third, and final segment obstacle requirements are.

Well my reading is that the proposal is that the proposal is for the aircraft to "operate" from 7000 ft runway. Which should include the balanced field length requirement.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 71):
"The offeror shall document the ability of the proposed KC-X aircraft to operate, including takeoff gross weight, from a 7000 ft runway for standard day conditions and using FAA ground rules."

Just answer this question then. Would you ever take off at MTOW on an A330 from a 7000 ft runway?

If not, how can an A330 operate safely from a 7000 ft at 510klbs MTOW then?

If it is just TORA, I am sure the B772LR can make it on a 7000 ft runway at MTOW, or at least very close. (This is the cause of the discussion)

Cheers,
PP
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF Calculation Error, KC-767 Cost Less Than KC-30

Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:02 pm



Quoting Zeke (Reply 76):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 75):
"I think it can"??? You fly these birds for a living (or so you claim). You can't tell me what the performance capabilities are of the instrument that provides your livelihood????

Nope, I always enter the current conditions into the ACARS box it goes off to our mainframe and it then the printout comes out in the cockpit. Just like ANY other professional pilot does, we do not second guess takeoff performance numbers.

So at the end of almost a two week period, the final answer is...YOU don't know the answer!

So we can safely assume that when NG/EADS say the KC-30 can take off "fully loaded" from 7,000 feet of runway then they are NOT talking about MTOW.

End of discussion.
A government big enough to take away a constitutionally guaranteed right is a government big enough to take away any guaranteed right. A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything you have.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 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