Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:11 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 145):
Quoting Redflyer (Reply 144):

The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale only goes as high as Category 5.

My point exactly.



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 149):
Katrina was most definitely the exception. No storm, of any SS ranking, had ever had the geographic footprint or storm surge as Katrina.

Hate to deflate your enthusiasm, but Katrina was only a Category 3 when she came ashore in New Orleans. She was only a Category 5 (or in your professional estimation, Category "6") when she was out in the Gulf far away from land.
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.
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:45 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 150):

Hate to deflate your enthusiasm, but Katrina was only a Category 3 when she came ashore in New Orleans. She was only a Category 5 (or in your professional estimation, Category "6") when she was out in the Gulf far away from land.

I never made a reference to the intensity of the storm wind wise, which is the only thing the SS scale measures. My point was that there had never been a storm with the geographic footprint (it hit MSY, but devastated through to coastal MOB.) or with the storm surge. (Over 35 feet in many instances, pushing GULF WATER miles inland.)
 
MSYtristar
Posts: 7543
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:52 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:27 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 151):
My point was that there had never been a storm with the geographic footprint (it hit MSY, but devastated through to coastal MOB.) or with the storm surge. (Over 35 feet in many instances, pushing GULF WATER miles inland.)

I'm quite sure Camille came close....if not worse.

The MS Gulf Coast from Waveland/Bay St. Louis all the way down to D'Iberville took on damage which resembled both Betsy and Camille. Both of those storms were stronger than Katrina by the time it hit and produced massive indland flooding and storm surge. My grandfather lost a house to Camille in Waveland,MS and all that was left was the bathtub.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:58 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 151):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 150):

Hate to deflate your enthusiasm, but Katrina was only a Category 3 when she came ashore in New Orleans. She was only a Category 5 (or in your professional estimation, Category "6") when she was out in the Gulf far away from land.

I never made a reference to the intensity of the storm wind wise, which is the only thing the SS scale measures. My point was that there had never been a storm with the geographic footprint (it hit MSY, but devastated through to coastal MOB.) or with the storm surge. (Over 35 feet in many instances, pushing GULF WATER miles inland.)

You're still wrong. The SS scale measures sustained winds, but it doesn't measure "geographical footprint". The reason Katrina, a Cat 3, caused so much devastation was predicated on a number of factors. Among them, the location where it came ashore, which had a lot to do with the shape and slope of the coastline. And the shape and slope of a coastline is what determines the level of the storm surge. And that, my friend, is why your entire argument is wrong because the coastline in that area is very susceptible to storm surges.
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.
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:16 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 153):
You're still wrong. The SS scale measures sustained winds, but it doesn't measure "geographical footprint". The reason Katrina, a Cat 3, caused so much devastation was predicated on a number of factors. Among them, the location where it came ashore, which had a lot to do with the shape and slope of the coastline. And the shape and slope of a coastline is what determines the level of the storm surge. And that, my friend, is why your entire argument is wrong because the coastline in that area is very susceptible to storm surges.

I know the SS scale doesn't measure geographical footprint. Never said it did, in fact I said it didn't.

Yes, every factor you list is understood to have played a part in the unprecedented storm surge. And I know the region's coastline is susceptible to storm surge - I said if ANY TROPICAL STORM hits within the region, you can go swimming in downtown Mobile.

My argument, that storm surge and mass destruction comparable to Katrina isn't a typical occurrence, is not wrong. The last thing comparable to Katrina was Camille, in 1969. I also argue that you will find a facility that met NG/EAGS requirements that was not susceptible to hurricanes. Brookley served the USAF as a MRO facility for many many years - and I'm sure they had hurricanes then.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:28 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 154):
I know the SS scale doesn't measure geographical footprint. Never said it did, in fact I said it didn't.

Yes, every factor you list is understood to have played a part in the unprecedented storm surge. And I know the region's coastline is susceptible to storm surge - I said if ANY TROPICAL STORM hits within the region, you can go swimming in downtown Mobile.

Ok.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 154):
My argument, that storm surge and mass destruction comparable to Katrina isn't a typical occurrence, is not wrong.

Ok.

I have no issue with your argument. Personally, I think the location of EADS' assembly line is perfectly fine and the worries about storm surges and other natural disasters are silly. I think any geography has risks from natural disasters to a certain extent (with the exception of the U.S. Southwest desert area). I was just pointing out what I believed was false information about hurricanes and the Gulf Coast. Personally, I think as the population and industry grows along the Gulf Coast the risk from natural disasters increases. Not because the natural disasters are increasing; only because there's more man-made objects as well as more people in the path of mother nature. Hurricanes and tropical storms have been hitting the Gulf Coast for millennia, the only difference is now we notice it because the damage to man-made structures and human life is more because there is more of both there.
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.
 
M27
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:25 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:15 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 143):
No way Boeing gets both KC-X and CSAR-X now - the USAF has more pride (and common sense) than that.

So you're saying that the USAF just gives it to whom ever they want, regardless of the quality of the product. You're saying they let pride come into play and don't want to look bad, and to prevent that, they will somehow fix it so the "right" OEM gets the contract.

I agree to some extent. I think they let common sense come into play on CSAR-X, and I think they let pride come into play on the KC-X.

As to Boeing not getting both contracts, I don't know. They may not even get one! The DOD may let their pride overcome even their common sense.
 
agill
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:49 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:51 pm

Here's another article about the tanker deal, for those of you who are interested.

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/07/15/wh...air-force-picked-northrops-tanker/
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:25 pm

There are some very interesting remarks made in that article which give more background information regarding to the why of the USAF decision. As expected the considerably better capabilities of the NG-EADS platform and installations were the decisive factor.

But the article is rather anonymous, so it difficult to get confirmations about the statements made. But they sure sound acceptable and realistic.

Thanks for linking it here.

Kind regards.

[Edited 2008-07-15 10:28:10]
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Tue Jul 15, 2008 9:59 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 158):
But the article is rather anonymous, so it difficult to get confirmations about the statements made. But they sure sound acceptable and realistic.

For all we know the "source" could have been the media relations person for Northrop Grumman.

IIRC, this is the same publication that reported that the USAF and DOD was going to tell the GAO to "stuff it" and proceed with the KC-30 award. We know what happened to that notion.

[Edited 2008-07-15 15:00:42]
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:53 pm

Question:

Rumor has it that different aircraft have differnt max refueling rates. Is this true?

If so the extra capacity would only effect future aircraft designed after this tanker corrrect?
BK
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14194
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:15 am

I thought that the writer's name on that article was a bit theatrical, Colin Clark, now how many Colin Clarks have I known? not any. I guess it was a better name than a retired AF General's name that could be traced to NG/EADS.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:52 am



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 149):
I didn't say it would never happen again, but it received such damage once over 44 years of being there. The frequency is not there to prevent business from coming to the city.

The vast majority of taxpayers don't bear any ill will to the City of Mobile's economic advancement, but this desire has nothing to do with the Tanker decision.

The USAF and the taxpayers (who do NOT stand to profit from a Mobile tanker assembly location) do care about the safety and security of our resources (aircraft, parts, engineering support etc) and some indeed think it is foolish to place such expensive "eggs" in the basket that is Mobile.

This concept of concern is not at all a new one...

"And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:26-27)
 
pygmalion
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:47 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:01 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 160):
Rumor has it that different aircraft have differnt max refueling rates. Is this true?

If so the extra capacity would only effect future aircraft designed after this tanker correct?

Yes, it is dependent on the capacity and back pressure of the receiving system. And only if the newer aircraft were designed to take fuel on faster. Frequently the refuel lines are the same lines the receiver aircraft use for fuel transfer. Extra capacity adds weight and would require larger transfer or boost pumps to keep up with the added flows and to ensure correct balance between tanks at higher onload rates. Its a design trade like any other.
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:45 pm

Just a few notes from some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_KC-767

Commercial Derivative Air Refueling Aircraft
The U.S. Air Force (USAF) ran a procurement program to replace around 100 of their oldest KC-135E Stratotankers, part of the Commercial Derivative Air Refueling Aircraft program. Most USAF KC-135s are of the updated KC-135R variant.
On March 28, 2002, the US Air Force selected Boeing's KC-767 stating they "have clearly demonstrated that only the Boeing Corp. can currently meet the requirements".[2]
The USAF was listed as giving four main reasons for this selection of the KC-767 over Airbus's KC-330 (aircraft's name at the time).[2]
""The KC-330 increase in size does not bring with it a commensurate increase in available air refueling offload,..." (USAF quote)
The KC-330 "..presents a higher-risk technical approach and a less preferred financial arrangement." (USAF quote)
" the size difference of the EADS-proposed KC-330 results in an 81 percent larger ground footprint compared to the KC-135E it would replace, whereas the Boeing 767 is only 29 percent larger." (USAF quote)
The KC-330 requires "..greater infrastructure investment and dramatically limits the aircraft's ability to operate effectively in worldwide deployment." (Summary of Quote by MAT magazine)
The Boeing tanker received the KC-767A designation from the DoD in 2002 and appearing in the 2004 addition of DoD Model Designation report.[1]


It seems the USAF is more in question than either Boeing or EADS on this one. 180 degree flip should put in question everything.
BK
 
Ken777
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:53 am



Quoting Agill (Reply 157):
Here's another article about the tanker deal, for those of you who are interested.

While the article presented some interesting potential it seems that this might be KC-Y, not KC-X.

If the AF restates the RFP to strongly favor NG/Airbus then I would hope that Boeing "pulls an Airbus" and threatens to walk away. I can understand the AF having their heads in the clouds over all the wonderful things the KC-45 could possibly do, but at some point there is a need to face financial reality.

But if there is no concern about costs why not go with the 777? Might as well make it a 773 based tanker - could carry more fuel, troops and cargo.

I know that the AF loves whiz-bang, but additional funds spent over the lowest bid is going to take funds away from other equally (or more) important future programs.
 
flyingcat
Posts: 530
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 10:33 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:43 am



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 162):
The USAF and the taxpayers (who do NOT stand to profit from a Mobile tanker assembly location) do care about the safety and security of our resources (aircraft, parts, engineering support etc) and some indeed think it is foolish to place such expensive "eggs" in the basket that is Mobile.

Am I reading this right, are you are inferring that Mobile is in some way a security risk?

Using what logic have you and others come to this conclusion.

Were you mugged in Mobile or something?
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1865
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:49 am



Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 164):
180 degree flip should put in question everything.

This dilemma would be the same if the 767 platform will ever be selected again. Also if finally a 777 tanker would be selected we can count two 180 degree flips:

- First the mistakenly too big KC-45 won against the rightly sized 767.
- Second the even much bigger 777 would win against the KC-45.

Any argument that promoted the 767 yesterday sounds absurd if tomorrow Boeing would start offering a 777 tanker. To get a KC-777 brochure Boeing could take the KC-767 brochure, replace 767 by 777 and just inverse the meaning of each sentence.

"Our competitors offering is too big compared with the KC-767 because of ..." would become
"Our competitors offering is too small compared with the KC-777 because of ..."

Or:
"The USAF has no use for a bigger tankers ..." would become
"The USAF has much use for a bigger tankers ..."
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:20 pm



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 162):
The USAF and the taxpayers (who do NOT stand to profit from a Mobile tanker assembly location) do care about the safety and security of our resources (aircraft, parts, engineering support etc) and some indeed think it is foolish to place such expensive "eggs" in the basket that is Mobile.

The USAF Space Command is sitting near a major fault line at Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, so natural hazard exposure really cannot be considered as a concern.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14194
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:38 pm



Quoting Rheinwaldner (Reply 167):
First the mistakenly too big KC-45 won against the rightly sized 767

Now we can see where politics and influence can skew results, bigger is not alway better, except where certain influence can make it better. I think we all can accept politics and influence was at play here amd we now have this mess. The USAF is the main culprit here, so I do not trust them one bit, I cannot see them being stupid enough to try to write the specs to favor NG/EADS as suggested earlier. they obviously did that already.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
blackknight
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:40 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:53 pm

With the talk of another 787 line, could there be a 3rd in Texas for a KC-787? If they used USAF dollars to help set up the second and maybe a 3rd line (2 in Seattle) (the second where the test rig is now) they could benefit greatly. Could this be a plan to deal with predicted changes in the RFP?
BK
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:00 pm



Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 23):
She got drilled on Capitol hill.

Are senators Dodd and Kennedy doing the "sandwich" thing again?

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 67):
If it burns more fuel but can offload enough to compensate, then it is a better value.

No, it is not. At the current price of JP-8, it costs some $40.50 for each gallon of fuel delivered by the KC-135R, $53.00 from a KC-10A. The B-767 burns less fuel per hour than a KC-10 does, but more per hour than the KC-135 does. The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.

How is it a better value.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 69):
EADS is the single biggest export customer for the US aerospace industry.

The US Department of Commerce says Boeing is the largest exporter in the US.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 69):
Currently about 100 KC-135s are in maintenance at any one time, how will those facilities be used in the future ?

There will still be well over 400 KC-135s, plus 65 B-52s, 65 B-1s, 20 B-2s over 100 C-5s, and 190 C-17s. Theose facilities will be used doing depot level maintenance (equil to a "D" check) anyway.

I would not be surprised to see Boeing offer a tanker version of the B-767-200ERF, B-767-200LRF, B-767-300ERF, and B-777-300LRF all together. The GAO report does not limit them to their original offer, nor is EADS/NG limited to their original offer.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:46 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
No, it is not. At the current price of JP-8, it costs some $40.50 for each gallon of fuel delivered by the KC-135R, $53.00 from a KC-10A. The B-767 burns less fuel per hour than a KC-10 does, but more per hour than the KC-135 does. The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.

I find it very hard to believe that the KC-10 with its higher weight, its three "old" design engines and much less advanced wing and airframe burns less fuel than the twin-engined, much more modern and aerodynamically much more efficient A330/KC-30/KC-45.

Just a thought!
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:29 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):

How is it a better value.

I said IF it burns more fuel but can offload enough to compensate, THEN it is a better value.
Which, IMO, is unarguable. Per your analysis, I note that that is not the case. I question, however, how one can know what prices were presented to the USAF. List prices don't count.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 19173
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:34 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
I would not be surprised to see Boeing offer a tanker version of the B-767-200ERF, B-767-200LRF, B-767-300ERF, and B-777-300LRF all together. The GAO report does not limit them to their original offer, nor is EADS/NG limited to their original offer.

Young said at the press conference that both bidders were free to completely change their bids.

Are you saying Boeing could make four separate bids based on each type, or offer a combination of all four types in a single bid? If the second option, I really can't see that working. Young said the AF only wanted a single type (he said this when ruling out the option of a split buy). Boeing offering multiple types would also drive the costs and risks way up the scale. I'm pretty sure that would be a good way to lose again.



[I assume you mean a tanker based on the 777F? There's no such thing as a -300LRF.]
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13998
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:14 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.

Another misinformation attack from the Boeing camp ?

Northwest says the A330-300 uses 30% less fuel then the DC10-30 it replaces..


A330 More Efficient, Quieter Aircraft than DC10

The A330 provides Northwest with up to 30 percent in fuel savings, lower maintenance costs, and is a much quieter aircraft, than the DC10-30 it replaces. As an example, on the Minneapolis/St. Paul Amsterdam route, the A330 will carry 25 more passengers, yet consume 6,100 fewer gallons (23,090 liters) of fuel each way, than the DC10.

http://eon.com.ph/News.php?NewsArticleID=13
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 12:25 am



Quoting NorCal (Reply 74):
The only reason Airbus is interested in the area is the relative cheapness of the labor. Once that disappears, so will Airbus.

And how many centuries will it be, if ever, that labor in Alabama becomes more expensive than labor in Germany or France?

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 137):
In other words...the damage to the Mobile area came from a glancing blow of a relatively minor (Cat 3) hurricane 100 miles west of Brookley Fld.

Hurricane Katrina was the third most powerful hurricane to ever make landfall in the United States. It was one of the largest hurricanes in history and was certainly not a "relatively minor hurricane."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.

Oh boy, I await Zeke's brutal smackdown of that one.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:11 am

While Boeing has said that if the USAF writes the RFP to again favor the KC-30A's extra capacity and capability, they will demand extra time to develop a new, larger option.

That option is not going to be based on the 777 freighter. I would imagine it would be based on a newly-launched 767-400ERF. It won't be as good as the KC-30A across-the-board, but it should be close enough to comfortably get the job done per the new RFP specifications to allow Congress enough wiggle-room to force the USAF to buy it without causing a Trans-Atlantic Trade War.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:30 am



Quoting Flyingcat (Reply 166):
Am I reading this right, are you are inferring that Mobile is in some way a security risk?

Using what logic have you and others come to this conclusion.

Were you mugged in Mobile or something?

First...No, wasn't mugged in Mobile, but sounds like a good title for a blues song...!

Second...I'm not inferring Mobile is a threat to national security, only that placing an assembly plant for an aircraft we are told has vital national security interests directly on the waters of Mobile Bay is an unnecessary risk for these assets and threatens the vendor's ability to meet production schedule (threatening aircraft availability) should a significant storm visit the area.

Third...Make no mistake...as a gulf coast resident myself...we are all well aware that the next big storm WILL come to all of our towns and Mobile is no exception, as Camille, Fredrick and the glancing blow of Katrina have recently reminded us.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:42 am



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 172):
I find it very hard to believe that the KC-10 with its higher weight, its three "old" design engines and much less advanced wing and airframe burns less fuel than the twin-engined, much more modern and aerodynamically much more efficient A330/KC-30/KC-45.

My guess the reason this would be true is because the KC-10 can deliver far more fuel than the KC-30 can. Thus, the costs for delivering that fuel, while higher on the KC-10, are spread out across a lot more units of fuel that are off-loaded.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 175):
Another misinformation attack from the Boeing camp ?

Northwest says the A330-300 uses 30% less fuel then the DC10-30 it replaces..

Of course you would look to a passenger airline in order to make a comparison to a military operation.  Yeah sure
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
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:09 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
The B-767 burns less fuel per hour than a KC-10 does, but more per hour than the KC-135 does. The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 179):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 172):
I find it very hard to believe that the KC-10 with its higher weight, its three "old" design engines and much less advanced wing and airframe burns less fuel than the twin-engined, much more modern and aerodynamically much more efficient A330/KC-30/KC-45.

My guess the reason this would be true is because the KC-10 can deliver far more fuel than the KC-30 can. Thus, the costs for delivering that fuel, while higher on the KC-10, are spread out across a lot more units of fuel that are off-loaded.

I do not agree with you on this one RedFlyer. KC135TopBoom specifically writes about fuel consumption per hour. Everybody in the aviation world knows that any A330 is far more economical to fly then any DC-10. No matter if they are militarized versions of the airframe or not! Probably a full A330 as it is today flies more economical than an empty DC-10!  stirthepot  Big grin Big grin Big grin

Kind regards!
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:12 am



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 179):
Of course you would look to a passenger airline in order to make a comparison to a military operation.

Seeing as how different aircraft optimized for military use are from what airlines want... it gets very funny at times.

For instance not too many airliners need to be able to accelerate quickly at transsonic speeds to avoid an extra "intimite" encounter with a fighter aircraft. While its damn critical for a military tanker to do so. How much fuel burn do you think not losing a tanker, fighter, and a set of crew for each is worth trading off for? For the USAF it SHOULD be worth alot, for an airline its worth exactly 0.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7151
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:18 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.

Knowing at which point to draw the line on the propaganda is the key really, isn't it?  scratchchin 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 175):
Northwest says the A330-300 uses 30% less fuel then the DC10-30 it replaces..

But that'll be the "old clunker" A330's they're flying - which a 2009+ model A330 would comprehensively beat in efficiency (and maintaince) terms...  biggrin 

Rgds
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:08 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 179):
My guess the reason this would be true is because the KC-10 can deliver far more fuel than the KC-30 can. Thus, the costs for delivering that fuel, while higher on the KC-10, are spread out across a lot more units of fuel that are off-loaded.

Uh, you just made the case of the A330 v. the 767 (i.e. the larger airplane delivers more units to spread the cost across than the smaller airplane.)

I believe that most people believe that if neither make changes, NG will win again based on what the Air Force now says it wants. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what Boeing comes up with, and what NG does based on what they think Boeing comes up with.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3905
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:57 pm



Quoting EPA001 (Reply 180):
I do not agree with you on this one RedFlyer. KC135TopBoom specifically writes about fuel consumption per hour.

Well, I was going by the first sentence, which he stated, "At the current price of JP-8, it costs some $40.50 for each gallon of fuel delivered by the KC-135R, $53.00 from a KC-10A." He was stating the cost to deliver each gallon of fuel and then went on to make the comment about the KC-10 vs. the KC-30. Using that sentence as an assumption, I can understand how the KC-10 could be more cost-effective to deliver fuel because there would be far more fuel delivered and the cost to operate the KC-10, while higher than the KC-30, would be spread out across many more gallons of fuel that are delivered.

I'm not arguing with anything you are saying. I'm just saying, if I understand KC135TopBoom's comment as stated in the first sentence, I can understand how the KC-10's costs to deliver fuel could be lower than the KC-30's (and I'm not even saying it is; only that I can understand how it could be if it is true). And that efficiency would only be applicable, if it's true, if comparing both airplanes flying with close to or at maximum fuel loads, which we know doesn't happen too often. But I'll leave it up to him to clarify.

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 183):
Uh, you just made the case of the A330 v. the 767 (i.e. the larger airplane delivers more units to spread the cost across than the smaller airplane.)

Uh, I wasn't trying to make a case one way or another; I was simply commenting on the production concept of economies-of-scale.
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
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:20 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 173):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):

How is it a better value.

I said IF it burns more fuel but can offload enough to compensate, THEN it is a better value.
Which, IMO, is unarguable. Per your analysis, I note that that is not the case. I question, however, how one can know what prices were presented to the USAF. List prices don't count.

Those figures are USAF numbers based on an assumed mission of each type of tanker taking off at MTOW, flying 1,000nm, offloading the maximum amount of fuel (different for each tanker), and flying up to 1,500nm back to home base.

This was the mission sighted in the original USAF award to EADS/NG last 29 Feb. In this case, the GAO concluded the KC-767AT was more cost effective than the KC-30A, but not as good as the current KC-135R. Additionally, the USAF added a cargo hauling factor to skew the numbers in favor of the KC-30A. One this mission, no secondary mission was identified, so cargo factors should not have been considered.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 174):
Young said at the press conference that both bidders were free to completely change their bids.

Are you saying Boeing could make four separate bids based on each type, or offer a combination of all four types in a single bid? If the second option, I really can't see that working. Young said the AF only wanted a single type (he said this when ruling out the option of a split buy).

No, I was suggesting Boeing COULD submit as many as four individual bids, each competing against each other and the EADS/NG bid. Sorry if I caused confusion and made a suggestion of a mixed bid from Boeing. I am not suggesting anyone, Boeing or EADS/NG submit a mixed bit. OTOH, EADS/NG could also submit bids on the KC-30, A-330-200F, and a new A-340-500F, if they wanted to.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 174):
[I assume you mean a tanker based on the 777F? There's no such thing as a -300LRF.]

Oops, typo, me bad. It should have read the B-777-200LRF.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 175):
Northwest says the A330-300 uses 30% less fuel then the DC10-30 it replaces..


A330 More Efficient, Quieter Aircraft than DC10

The A330 provides Northwest with up to 30 percent in fuel savings, lower maintenance costs, and is a much quieter aircraft, than the DC10-30 it replaces. As an example, on the Minneapolis/St. Paul Amsterdam route, the A330 will carry 25 more passengers, yet consume 6,100 fewer gallons (23,090 liters) of fuel each way, than the DC10.
http://eon.com.ph/News.php?NewsArtic...ID=13

The USAF doesn't compare airplanes based on seat miles per pound of fuel burned. My point is the KC-10 delivery costs for each gallon of transferred fuel is lower than that of the KC-30, based on a combination of fuel burnmed by the tanker, and fuel offloaded, and RTB to launch base. That is how the USAF figuers the total cost of each tanker types of hourly operating costs (which includes crew, maintenance, fuel burned, fuel offloaded, and fair wear and tear) I do know the current total cost per hour of KC-135R flying, based on all these, is $11,500 per flying hour. It is much higher for each of the other 3 tankers.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 176):
Quoting NorCal (Reply 74):
The only reason Airbus is interested in the area is the relative cheapness of the labor. Once that disappears, so will Airbus.


And how many centuries will it be, if ever, that labor in Alabama becomes more expensive than labor in Germany or France?

Once US labor unions get into this, the French and German labor costs will look like a bargan. This will happen within 3 years of the start of production in MOB.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 177):
I would imagine it would be based on a newly-launched 767-400ERF.

Perhaps, but Boeing already has the B-767-300ERF in production, and it would be quicker to do the tanker engineering on this model, than a new B-767-400ERF or B-767-200LRF.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 180):
I do not agree with you on this one RedFlyer. KC135TopBoom specifically writes about fuel consumption per hour. Everybody in the aviation world knows that any A330 is far more economical to fly then any DC-10.

Almost right, I am talking about the total cost, of which fuel burn is only one factor. Perhaps I could have written it better than below? Other factors are crew costs (3-4 man crew), total offload, maintenance/parts, etc.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 67):
If it burns more fuel but can offload enough to compensate, then it is a better value.

No, it is not. At the current price of JP-8, it costs some $40.50 for each gallon of fuel delivered by the KC-135R, $53.00 from a KC-10A. The B-767 burns less fuel per hour than a KC-10 does, but more per hour than the KC-135 does. The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.

 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 19173
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:48 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 185):
No, I was suggesting Boeing COULD submit as many as four individual bids, each competing against each other and the EADS/NG bid. Sorry if I caused confusion and made a suggestion of a mixed bid from Boeing.

OK, no problem, thanks for clarifying. It could have been read either way, so I wasn't sure what you meant.

I guess I could see Boeing submitting two bids, if that's allowed, but four seems a little excessive. I suspect it wouldn't be cheap either.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:10 pm

A possible and critical reason for preferring the 330 over the 767 may by that the new Comfort Capsules are more spacious an comfortable on the 330.

Or the Comfort Capsules simply didn't fit into the 767 in an acceptable manner, which would certainly justify purchasing the NG/Airbus alternative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn.../AR2008071703161.html?hpid=topnews

It certainly demonstrates why SecDef pulled the tanker deal from the AF.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:33 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 187):
the Comfort Capsules

Whoever said there was no such thing as bad publicity did not work for USAF. On the other hand, there is something to be said for consistency.  Yeah sure
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:14 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 185):
Once US labor unions get into this, the French and German labor costs will look like a bargan. This will happen within 3 years of the start of production in MOB.

Alabama is a right to work state. It does not have the pro-union regulations that states like Michigan or countries like Germany have. The sole exception to this is the AEA, the Alabama Educators Association. The teachers' union owns the state government.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 185):
My point is the KC-10 delivery costs for each gallon of transferred fuel is lower than that of the KC-30, based on a combination of fuel burnmed by the tanker, and fuel offloaded, and RTB to launch base. That is how the USAF figuers the total cost of each tanker types of hourly operating costs (which includes crew, maintenance, fuel burned, fuel offloaded, and fair wear and tear)

How is that possible? The KC-30 has more efficient engines, more efficient aerodynamics, requires only 2 pilots instead of 3, will have lower mx costs, and because of that I don't see how the KC-10 can possibly haul and deliver enough fuel to make up that difference in quantity.

It's possible that paid-for KC-10s are more cost efficient than the KC-30 if you factor capital costs in, I suppose, but no tanker flies forever.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27225
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:38 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 185):
Perhaps, but Boeing already has the B-767-300ERF in production, and it would be quicker to do the tanker engineering on this model, than a new B-767-400ERF or B-767-200LRF.

I believe the freighter is based on the 767-300, not the 767-300ER.

And if the USAF is so enamored of the size and capacity of the KC-30A, the 767-400ER matches much better to the A330-200 then the 767-300ER does.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:30 pm



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 189):
Alabama is a right to work state. It does not have the pro-union regulations that states like Michigan or countries like Germany have.

Germany is in a way a right to work state as well. Nobody can be forced to become a union member, but on the other hand nobody can be denied from joining a union.
On the other hand closed shops, where union membership isa requirement to be employed (see e.g. UPS) are illegal in most of Europe.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sat Jul 19, 2008 9:28 pm



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 191):
On the other hand closed shops, where union membership isa requirement to be employed (see e.g. UPS) are illegal in most of Europe.

I didn't know that. Is it tradition that keeps European unions so strong?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:40 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 114):
This is slightly off message but NG has said the E-8C (Boeing 707) can fly beyond 2070. It appears the E-8C will last at least 100 years. Is the quality of the material and workmanship better on the 707 than on the KC-135?

Only the wings of the KC-135 and B-707-120/B-720s had a different material than the B-707-320/-420. On the KC-135 fleet, that was corrected in the 1970s and 1980s wing reskin.

Quoting M27 (Reply 119):
Young said that Boeing has no basis for protesting.

Isn't that what the USAF said?

Quoting Tugger (Reply 135):
So won't 5 KC-30's be able to do the job of 8 KC-135's?

No. It is not a question of the amount of fuel available. You can have a million pounds available, but if you cannot get it through the Boom to the receivers, in the time required, then that fuel is usuless. For the KC-30 to do the job of 8 KC-135s, you need 8 KC-30s. The problem is boom saturation, not fuel. It also makes no difference if the KC-30 Boom can offload fuel at a faster rate than the KC-135 Boom can. The rate is dictated by the receiver plumbing, not the tankers. In other words, if the receivers are F-15Es and F-16 escorts, both tankers will offload at the same rate to these receivers, due to plumbing limitations.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10116
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sun Jul 20, 2008 4:05 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 193):
The problem is boom saturation, not fuel. It also makes no difference if the KC-30 Boom can offload fuel at a faster rate than the KC-135 Boom can. The rate is dictated by the receiver plumbing, not the tankers.

As a dumb layman let me as you a dumb question. Why not use a NB for KC-X, then look at lager planes for KC - Y & Z? For the same dollars you can get more planes and therefore more booms in the air, increasing saturation. If number of booms and costs are important factors why limit your booms per dollar?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:07 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 194):
Why not use a NB for KC-X,

I will ask a follow-on question. Why bother with a new build? If the 135 provides the fuel lift that is needed, why not pull the 175 or so lowest time 135's and do a re-wing and another engine and system upgrade?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Topic Author
Posts: 19173
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:47 pm



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 192):
Is it tradition that keeps European unions so strong?

Define "strong".

Compared to their strength in the '70s and '80s, they're generally shadows of their former selves. Legislation has blunted their teeth - the kind of wildcat strikes we used to see are basically illegal now. Making compulsory membership a condition of employment has also been made illegal.

Of course, the situation in France may be slightly different.  duck 
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2729
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:57 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 195):
I will ask a follow-on question. Why bother with a new build? If the 135 provides the fuel lift that is needed, why not pull the 175 or so lowest time 135's and do a re-wing and another engine and system upgrade?

Not sexy enough. Too "obsolete"

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 194):
Why not use a NB for KC-X

Current narrowbodies are far too small in payload. The 757 with modern engines might make a decent case for itself in this role, but ah... its not in production. And require starting from scratch on its tanker conversion.

Its long been kicked around using a 747 to offload gas into smaller aircraft who then fly right up to the edge of the dangerous areas to reuel the actual fighters. The BIG problem with this concept is the total fuel burn required to get fuel to the end user is just too high. It has alot of attractive qualities since you can have eleventy billion booms flying around. The tankers near the front line are small, agile, and relatively expendable if it should go down that way. The big "mothership" tanker doesn't have to get remotely close to the action and can support very large operations. The large tankers also represent an insanely capible element for deploying units given the large payload both in fuel and in cargo. Just so far they can't get around that nasty fuel burn issue. If the 737RS or A320NG gets enough payload on a small enough fuel burn to replace the KC135E on its own merits, then the big + small gets its shot at working. Till then I just can't see it existing.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11190
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Mon Jul 21, 2008 12:48 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 143):
No way Boeing gets both KC-X and CSAR-X now - the USAF has more pride (and common sense) than that.

Why not? LM got both the F-22 and F-35 contracts.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 194):
As a dumb layman let me as you a dumb question. Why not use a NB for KC-X, then look at lager planes for KC - Y & Z?

There are three NB airplanes that would make a 'good' tanker, the A-319, B-737-700ER and B-757-200ER. It would not be difficult for Boeing to re-open the B-757 production line, as they still have the tooling. But, the B-757 would need a different wing design, as the one put on commerical B-757s or military C-32s is not good for tanker operations (wake turbalance due to super critical wing design).

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 195):
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 194):
Why not use a NB for KC-X,

I will ask a follow-on question. Why bother with a new build? If the 135 provides the fuel lift that is needed, why not pull the 175 or so lowest time 135's and do a re-wing and another engine and system upgrade?

This is still an option. None of the C/EC/KC-135s in AMARC need new wings, just engines. Of those 175 airplanes in AMARC, about 90-100 or so are KC-135A/Es, so those would be the best candidates. The EC-135A/C/E/G/Hs are the next best candidates, but even after the EC equipment is removed, are some 15,000lbs heavier than the KC-135A, but all are receiver refueling capable.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15145
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: AF To Rebid Tanker Replacement

Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:04 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
No, it is not. At the current price of JP-8, it costs some $40.50 for each gallon of fuel delivered by the KC-135R, $53.00 from a KC-10A. The B-767 burns less fuel per hour than a KC-10 does, but more per hour than the KC-135 does. The A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does.

Care to back that up with a source ? the price looks far too low to be "current".

The "A-330 burns more fuel than the KC-10 does" statement is inaccurate, it burns significantly less, even the MD-11 burns less fuel than the KC-10.

The engine technology on the DC-10 is very old (1960 vintage). Just compare the similar engine technology on the 747 classic E-4A, to what the 747-400 burns today, the 744 is larger, and would burn about 20-30% less fuel than the 747 classic whilst carrying more, that is mainly due to the old engine technology found on them.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
The US Department of Commerce says Boeing is the largest exporter in the US.

Is that still the case ? I knew the US government was their biggest customer by a long way, and they were the largest US arms exporter.

Boeing keeps shipping jobs overseas, e.g. 777/787, and now the A-10 military work http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...rony-or-farce-boeing-ships-us.html

EADS is still the single biggest export customer of the US aerospace industry.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):

There will still be well over 400 KC-135s, plus 65 B-52s, 65 B-1s, 20 B-2s over 100 C-5s, and 190 C-17s. Theose facilities will be used doing depot level maintenance (equil to a "D" check) anyway.

Depot level maintenance should include all checks, not just D checks (other checks may only take a few hours)....and I would think tanker maintenance facilities will remain tanker facilities ?

Or are you suggesting that the USAF does not do the other checks ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 171):
I would not be surprised to see Boeing offer a tanker version of the B-767-200ERF, B-767-200LRF, B-767-300ERF, and B-777-300LRF all together. The GAO report does not limit them to their original offer, nor is EADS/NG limited to their original offer.

Doubt it, I think the 767-300/400 is geometry limited with a boom under the tail in takeoff and landing configurations, and anything over the 767-200 length eats into the fuel burn.

Beside that, I don't recall the RFP saying that more than one frame could be offered, the USAF is only funding one SRD phase, with 4 aircraft. Boeing would need to submit a conforming bid for each type offered.

I think Boeing will still with their previous aircraft, the larger 767s do not give them any refueling advantage, and the 777 is still years away from being anywhere near a tanker.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 198):
This is still an option.

I don't, the USAF sees the new tanker as being more than just a tanker, e.g. while AAR or holding it is also an essential multi-role battlefield communications gateway. The new multi-role tanker has an important role in the digital battlefield as a gateway for high bandwidth data that exceeds the satellite bandwidth. The KC-135 is not a multi role aircraft, it does anything apart from AAR poorly.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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