Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 9:41 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
There is no "NATO" standard aeromedical equipment. Each country uses their own, or buys someone elses. The USAF has there own aeromedical equipment, and has for years.

Ok, then WHY can't the KC-30 use the USAF equipment?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
and does not have a finiky FBW system to maintane

Jeez, what's so finiky to maintain on a FBW system? Why do you think every new airframe from midsize business jets upwards is being designed with FBW, including Boeing's very own 777 and 787? So that the manufacturer can charge more for mx manuals?  
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3390
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 10:26 pm

Quoting A342 (Reply 100):
Jeez, what's so finiky to maintain on a FBW system? Why do you think every new airframe from midsize business jets upwards is being designed with FBW, including Boeing's very own 777 and 787? So that the manufacturer can charge more for mx manuals?

In fact, electronic systems are cheaper and EASIER to maintain than hydraulic systems, which can piss hydraulic fluid and it is damn hard to find the source of the leak. Traditional cable and pulleys are also problematic in that they need constant attention from maintenance so they don't rust and freeze up, or suddenly snap.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 10:58 pm

Here is another article on the 'national security' concerns of Boeing and others.

"Boeing portrays tanker rival as possible threat to national security"

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/d...rival-as-possible-security-threat-
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 11:13 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 99):

What are these then?



OK for us dumb commercial people, what are they? pimples?

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Boeing fails to mention that the KC-767 with Japan does not have any hose refuelling at all.


Did Japan request it? if they didn't want that system why would Boeing install it?

Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
They are lucky to push one 767 out the door a month.



The rate is based on commercial sales and customer requirements... you should know that. the KC rate will be set at what the AF requests.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 102):
"Boeing portrays tanker rival as possible threat to national security"



how many people are going to spend hours debating this piece of pure posturing... it's ho hum normal bs in any intense campaign...
 
Beta
Topic Author
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Tue May 25, 2010 11:55 pm

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 102):
Here is another article on the 'national security' concerns of Boeing and others.

"Boeing portrays tanker rival as possible threat to national security"

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/d...rival-as-possible-security-threat-

This confirms further for me that Boeing is increasingly concerned about fighting a losing battle, and the Pentagon is indeed quietly amending some of the KPPs and points-award language to favor the EADS tanker. One doesn't run screaming to political patrons in The Hill, and bandies about national security issue if one feels secured about its offering. Boeing is feeling "the heat" and does not like it!
 
silentbob
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 12:20 am

Quoting Beta (Reply 104):
This confirms further for me that Boeing is increasingly concerned about fighting a losing battle, and the Pentagon is indeed quietly amending some of the KPPs and points-award language to favor the EADS tanker.

If they make changes again mid-stream, it's going to get very, very ugly/
 
Beta
Topic Author
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 12:31 am

Quoting silentbob (Reply 105):
If they make changes again mid-stream, it's going to get very, very ugly/

Dont want to derail the thread with politics, but this Congress and the Obama admin have proven over the past 1 1/2 yrs that they do not shy away from getting ugly, or very very ugly. Par for the course! If I have to put a wager down today, I'd say Boeing is fighting a losing battle right now, and hence is getting desperate by the days. Furthermore it is becoming clearer to me that EADS is willing to cut profit-margin to the bone in its bid, and offering extremely competitive price, within 1% to Boeing's as noted in the report in earlier post. Once price differential becomes immaterial, then EADS's offering will be extremely attractive

[Edited 2010-05-25 18:04:56]

[Edited 2010-05-25 18:06:12]
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 5:44 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Of of course. According to you, everything Boeing says is a lie, and everything EADS says is true.

That is a lie, I have never made such a statement. It was a reference to the reply 95 where you have taken a whole page of Boeing copyright material and placed it in your post without giving the copyright holder the appropriate credit.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):

There is no "NATO" standard aeromedical equipment. Each country uses their own, or buys someone elses. The USAF has there own aeromedical equipment, and has for years.

NATO STANAG 1412 - "Minimum Standards For A Litter To Transfer Patients Ship to Ship or Ship to Air"
NATO STANAG 2040 - "Stretchers, Bearing Brackets and Attachment Supports"
NATO STANAG 3204 - "Aerial Evacuation"

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Read the 2008 GAO report.

I have many times, it does not make that statement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
It has fuel tank inerting, not the other systems.

They do, see "Survivability Package" at http://a330mrtt.com/MRTTSolution/Systems.aspx#LiveTabsContent7474
If the customer elects to take that package, is up to the customer, like a boom, hoses, cargo door, these are just options available.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Your sure about that?

Yes

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
The GAO believed it.

No, they never made any statement regarding reports that Boeing sponsored.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):

Okay, name some.

Australia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, UK

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
The empty weight of the KC-30 is also higher the A-330, so what is your point?

Actually, it is not. The A330 OEW includes over 10,000 kg of customer equipment like galleys and seats, that is not included in the KC-30.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Then prove it. The KC-767 has lower costs engines, and does not have a finiky FBW system to maintane.

The KC -767 and KC-30 engines cost almost exactly the same, jet engines of the same size class are all priced about the same. It is not based upon thrust, an A320 engine is not that much cheaper than an A330 engine. The A300 engine is about the same price as the A330 engine.

As for FBW, it takes less maintenance, and they are lighter, one of the reasons why Boeing has not used anything apart from FBW on its new designs since the 767, i.e. the 777 and 787. BTW, if FBW was such a burden, why is Boeing going to use a FBW boom on the KC-767 ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Boeing had some $400B in exports in 2009

Boeing is also the one of the largest if not largest importer into the US, please do your homework to look at the balance of trade.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Keep in mind the Boeing exported nearly 40 times the total value of EADS-NA.

EADS-NA is the North American subsidiary of EADS, that statement would not come of any surprise to anyone.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):

EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company.

Run that maths by us all, let me guess you used the share price and multiplied that by the volume of shares traded on a day ?

EADS 2009 revenue was EUR 42 billion, with orders in 2009 valued at EUR 45 billion, and a backlog of EUR 389 billion.

http://classic.eads.net/1024/en/inve...cials_and_Guidance/Keyfigures.html

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
EADS, supports the jobs about 190,000 people in NORTH AMERICA, which includes Canada, and Mexico, as well as the local McDonalds.

I think you made that part up again, and I am going to ask you to provide a source to backup the statement.

Also we are still awaiting you to reply to this "Please show me where you "have seen is the 6000 ppm (about 895.5 USG) to the French E-3F", I think you made that part up, and I am going to ask you to provide a source to backup the statement."

Please also note that EADS has always as part of its business model outsourced a lot of its manufacturing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Boeing supports some 500,000 US jobs.

According to Boeing, they have about 160,000 employees total. http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/employment/employment_table.html

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Then you had this little mistake, recently, too

What mistake was that ? I said "USARRI style receptacles", that does not mean "USARRI only". I worded that carefully as the 707/-135 airframe has both the standard -135 and also USARRI receptacles installed depending on the airframe, e.g. USN E-6B is a 707 airframe with the -135 AAR receiver receptacle, and the CT-49A and E-8 have the USARRI.

In the order I posted the photos
C-17 - USARRI
C-130 - USARRI
C-135/707 - either standard -135 AAR receiver receptacle or USARRI, the photo has a -135 AAR receiver receptacle
C-32b - USARRI

The point of my post was to shown other boom receptacles that have reinforcing around them, as you were claiming that the KC-30 required more than other types in the USAF. My point was, which I made consistently, it does not matter what sort or penetration you have to the fuselage, be it a door, window, or a USARRI style receptacle, it need reinforcing around it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
We don't know the final designs of either the EADS offer or Boeings offer. But, back in 2008, the NG/EADS KC-30A had 55% US content, and Boeing's KC-767AT had 78%.

Boeing is not even offering the KC-767AT, so I do not know why you are bring it up. The aircraft Boeing is offering is not the same as the one built for Japan, or Italy, it is not the same as what was offered to the USAF around 2003, not was it the one offered to the USAF in 2008.

You got to love the full page Washington Post advertisement for the KC-767 that Boeing ran, they said that EADS does not have a working tanker, showing a photo of the KC-30 refuelling a F-16, and on the same page shown an artists conception of the aircraft Boeing is proposing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
How much of each and every A-330 is built in France, Germany, Spain, and the UK?

Do not know, I know the wing for example that the majority of it is made in the US, the US made components are assembled into a finished wing in the UK.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
BTW, the C-17 has fewer systems than the proposed KC-767NG does.

The C-17 has more systems, and is far more advanced than a KC-767.

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
Did Japan request it? if they didn't want that system why would Boeing install it?

It was the customer specification. Likewise what is installed on the KC-30 is up to the customer to specify.

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
The rate is based on commercial sales and customer requirements... you should know that. the KC rate will be set at what the AF requests.

The commercial production rate directly reflects on the manufacturing cost of the military derivative, if Boeing is making just one commercial 767 airframe a month, and EADS is making 8-10 A330/A340 airframes a month, the indirect costs on the A330/A340 would be much lower as they are divided over more frames.

Also economies of scale come into play, due to the higher A330/A340 production rates, parts become cheaper to make, and spare are also therefore cheaper.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 7:46 am

Quoting Beta (Reply 106):
Furthermore it is becoming clearer to me that EADS is willing to cut profit-margin to the bone in its bid, and offering extremely competitive price, within 1% to Boeing's as noted in the report in earlier post.

How would that be possible if EADS don't know the price of Boeing's offering?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
• All EADS international tankers, including the Australian Multi-Role Tanker Transport (MRTT), fall far short of meeting all 372 critical requirements in the USAF RFP.

Pretty shameless considering how far Boeing's NewGen Tanker has materialized...

Calling out the KC-30 deficits from Boeing's viewpoint seems dangerous and may stir up some inconvenient questions:

- How does the EADS tanker's base model compare to the base model of Boeing's NewGen tanker? Not at all because Boeing's base model is a pure paper construction. The A330 on the other side flies in large numbers.

- Even if both offerings are not designed completely how does the completion degree compare? The KC-30 does meet most of the requirements while the Boeing's newGen tanker does meet 0%. Major missing portions:
- A working boom
- A flyable prototype of the base airframe (because it is not even assembled. No wonder, it is not even designed).

- What's the problem if the Boeing NewGen tanker has not been designed yet as well? As admitted by Boeing:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
 The Boeing tanker WILL be designed ....

The nervous and nasty Boeing reactions are quite remarkable. They feel that getting that deal will require the prices to be calculated sharply. The KC-X is no longer that safe and comfortable program that will reward Boeing highly with profits for assembling masses of profane aircrafts on a depreciated production line. Without much incentive to strive for technology or capability leadership. The EADS bid at least terminated the KC-X program being a walk in the park for Boeing. Good for the US taxpayers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
 The Boeing tanker will support 50,000 American jobs with over 800 suppliers in over 40 states.

If I would care about cost efficiency I would be concerned about these numbers. Is the 767 production that labor intensive? Hard to imagine that this aircraft can look good in production efficiency against a modular aircraft produced on a modern and much more automated production line.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
 Only about 5% of the total labor hours that go into the production of an A330 represent final assembly – and final assembly is all that is planned for the Mobile, AL facility. The other 95% of production labor hours will be spread across four European countries. The engineering design work will be done in Europe, as well.

On a side note: The KC-30 FAL will still do a higher portion of work than the 787 FAL in Seattle. If the less pre-assembled A330 takes only 5% on the FAL, I estimate the 787 FAL to consume not more than 1% or 2% of the total labor hours (remember that one 787 is completed within days on the FAL). If the 787 is a US aircraft (especially with RR engines) the KC-30 is much more.
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 9:32 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
The KC-767 has lower costs engines, and does not have a finiky FBW system to maintane.

I have been reading this battle about the relative merits of the B767 and the A330 for ages.
I would like to thank the protaganants for an interesting read.

I work on the ramp maintaining airliners. Every day at work I see an A330 with CF6, and a B767-300. I only do a turnround check, and send them home. They are both similar. The A330 is bigger.
Which one is better? To me the A330. It has FBW, and a CMC and you can do most of the work in the flight deck, sitting at a nice little table because there is no control column. There is loads of information in the CMC. I can run tests from there, the whole autopilot test is just a couple of button pushes. Main drawback is that the CBs are downstairs.
The B767 has a real control column with steel cables and pulleys. OK to me because I very rarely touch them, but means you cannot open the Tech Log sitting in the Capt seat, and must turn sideways. To run an autopilot test, I have to go and fetch a little test set, that plugs in to a socket in the flight deck, then operate it, and it takes ages to complete. There is no CMC, and very limited information on the EICAS. To test computors, I have to climb down into the avionics bay and push the buttons. It is really no more advanced than a B737-300.
I suppose that all this will be answered when Boeing reveals the Tanker. (Except the control column). They will probably fit new computors more like the B777 (which I like working on, very similar to A330)

Anyway, what does it matter. If KC135 would rather fly an US produced (except for the Japanese bits) aircraft, why don't we let him. I really don't see why there is so much fuss. (But if I was a pilot, I would prefer the A330 because you can pull out the table at lunchtime!!!!)
 
wolbo
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:09 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 10:57 am

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 102):
Here is another article on the 'national security' concerns of Boeing and others.

"Boeing portrays tanker rival as possible threat to national security"

http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/d...reat-

Looks like Boeing is getting really desperate and is now resorting to the Karl Rove playbook of creating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). Not exactly the markings of a mature responsible company. What's that sound? Is it Boeing calling the whaambulance?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18810
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 11:22 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 103):
OK for us dumb commercial people, what are they?

I'm not sure, which is why I asked the question. To me they look like part of the defensive suite that some don't seem to think exist.
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.
 
dl1011
Posts: 315
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 6:42 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 12:41 pm

Quoting Nicoeddf (Reply 66):
Quite understandable. I still have the view, and expressed it in the helo for Germany thread, that on a competing market place, countries should buy what is the best product for the least money. That SHOULD be true for Germany as well as the US.

Very true but as a taxpayer, I am willing to spend a bit more for the home team product. Obviously, the term "best product" is difficult to define and is a driving factor for this whole thread!

Quoting Nicoeddf (Reply 66):
Statistics of course don't agree with you here.

Could you provide those statistics and their source? Of course, I can provide statistics to prove any position on any subject matter  

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

I hate it when people say things like "based on my 200 years of experience" bla, bla, bla, and so I am hesitant to add to following. I have always had better luck working the Boeing products (McD excluded) vs the Airbus products. The 767's, and especialy the -400, were pretty rock solid. Just my preference.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 12:51 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 99):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
According to you, everything Boeing says is a lie, and everything EADS says is true.

If true, wouldn't that make him your exact mirror?

Hmmm, perhaps you are right.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 99):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
There is no "NATO" standard aeromedical equipment.

You'd better tell the companies making it then! http://www.army-technology.com/contr...tems/

Then why does Germany, UK, France, and the US all use different MEDVAC kits? They all work and do the job intended.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 99):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Read the 2008 GAO report.

Which, if I remember correctly, didn't say "The A330 cannot refuel...." but "It hasn't been satisfactorly demonstrated that...." Very different.

Is it? Then why has it not demonstrated that capability? The GAO also had questions on the ability of the KC-30 to accomplish the breakaway manuver.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 99):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
It has fuel tank inerting, not the other systems.

What are these then?

Who knows? LAIRCM will be a US Government provided equipment for installation on US tankers. The RAF leased A-330MRTTs don't have any defensive systems.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
The Airbus MRTT cannot use standard USAF aeromedical equipment.

Bullocks, 130 NATO stretchers can be installed.

There is no "NATO" standard aeromedical equipment. Each country uses their own, or buys someone elses. The USAF has there own aeromedical equipment, and has for years.

It needs design work to be fitted.

Quoting A342 (Reply 100):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
and does not have a finiky FBW system to maintane

Jeez, what's so finiky to maintain on a FBW system? Why do you think every new airframe from midsize business jets upwards is being designed with FBW, including Boeing's very own 777 and 787? So that the manufacturer can charge more for mx manuals?

The B-777 and B-787 use a differently designed FBW system, one that has not demonstrsated it is effected by 'cosmic rays' (see the QF A-330 incidents).

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
It has fuel tank inerting, not the other systems.

They do, see "Survivability Package" at http://a330mrtt.com/MRTTSolution/Systems.aspx#LiveTabsContent7474
If the customer elects to take that package, is up to the customer, like a boom, hoses, cargo door, these are just options available.

Like you say, they are options and need design work.

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):

There is no "NATO" standard aeromedical equipment. Each country uses their own, or buys someone elses. The USAF has there own aeromedical equipment, and has for years.

NATO STANAG 1412 - "Minimum Standards For A Litter To Transfer Patients Ship to Ship or Ship to Air"
NATO STANAG 2040 - "Stretchers, Bearing Brackets and Attachment Supports"
NATO STANAG 3204 - "Aerial Evacuation"

STANAG means "standard areements". It covers everything from uniforms (which are also different in every NATO country) to MLS, which is used by no one. STANAG allows each country to develope their own equipment within the satandard agreements. It does not designate NATO standard equipment, like the 5.56mm bullets.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Quoting zeke (Reply 97):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
By every measure the Boeing tanker will cost less to own and operate than the EADS/Airbus tanker over the anticipated 40 years of operation.

Not by every measure, only by what Boeing wants to publish.

Okay, name some.
Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):

Okay, name some.

Australia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, UK

Those are some of the A-330MRTT customers, each is a different tanker, and says nothing about how cheaply or expensive these tankers will cost to operate over 40 years.

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
The empty weight of the KC-30 is also higher the A-330, so what is your point?

Actually, it is not. The A330 OEW includes over 10,000 kg of customer equipment like galleys and seats, that is not included in the KC-30.

The RAAF KC-30s include pax seats and galleys. So does the RAF leased A-330MRTTs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Boeing had some $400B in exports in 2009

Boeing is also the one of the largest if not largest importer into the US, please do your homework to look at the balance of trade.

How much did EADS-NA import into the US?

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
Keep in mind the Boeing exported nearly 40 times the total value of EADS-NA.

EADS-NA is the North American subsidiary of EADS, that statement would not come of any surprise to anyone.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):

EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company.

Run that maths by us all, let me guess you used the share price and multiplied that by the volume of shares traded on a day ?

EADS 2009 revenue was EUR 42 billion, with orders in 2009 valued at EUR 45 billion, and a backlog of EUR 389 billion.

EADS is not the bidder on the KC-X, EADS-NA is.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
EADS-NA is an $11B USD company, Boeing is a $750 USD company. EADS stick is selling today at 15.26 Euros, Boeing is at $61.97. Boeing had some $400B in exports in 2009, how much did EADS-NA have? Keep in mind the Boeing exported nearly 40 times the total value of EADS-NA.

http://classic.eads.net/1024/en/inve...Share_price/Share_price_chart.html

http://investor.shareholder.com/ba/stock.cfm

EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company. EADS, supports the jobs about 190,000 people in NORTH AMERICA, which includes Canada, and Mexico, as well as the local McDonalds. Boeing supports some 500,000 US jobs.
Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):

EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company.

Run that maths by us all, let me guess you used the share price and multiplied that by the volume of shares traded on a day ?
Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
EADS, supports the jobs about 190,000 people in NORTH AMERICA, which includes Canada, and Mexico, as well as the local McDonalds.

I think you made that part up again, and I am going to ask you to provide a source to backup the statement.

I did.
http://classic.eads.net/1024/en/inve...Share_price/Share_price_chart.html

http://investor.shareholder.com/ba/stock.cfm

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Also we are still awaiting you to reply to this "Please show me where you "have seen is the 6000 ppm (about 895.5 USG) to the French E-3F", I think you made that part up, and I am going to ask you to provide a source to backup the statement."
Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
What mistake was that ? I said "USARRI style receptacles", that does not mean "USARRI only". I worded that carefully as the 707/-135 airframe has both the standard -135 and also USARRI receptacles installed depending on the airframe, e.g. USN E-6B is a 707 airframe with the -135 AAR receiver receptacle, and the CT-49A and E-8 have the USARRI.

The BSRI is much different than the USARRI. The Boeing installation has tow doors that open up and out, forming a much better "funnel". The single door on the USARRI collapes inside the fuselage shell. Post production build B-707s (E-8, CT-49) usually get the USARRI as it is a simplier and lower costs installation. But those built on the production line (E-3, E-6) get the BSRI as it at that time is cheaper and easier to install. The C-17 has the USARRI because it was specified in the original contract with MDD and before Boeing took them over.

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
We don't know the final designs of either the EADS offer or Boeings offer. But, back in 2008, the NG/EADS KC-30A had 55% US content, and Boeing's KC-767AT had 78%.

Boeing is not even offering the KC-767AT, so I do not know why you are bring it up. The aircraft Boeing is offering is not the same as the one built for Japan, or Italy, it is not the same as what was offered to the USAF around 2003, not was it the one offered to the USAF in 2008.

Correct. Nor do we know the final configueration of the EADS offer. We only have the 2008 offers from both to go by right now. It is no different than some here bringing up comparisons of the B-777 and B-787 while talking about the KC-30 and KC-767.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 108):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 95):
 Only about 5% of the total labor hours that go into the production of an A330 represent final assembly – and final assembly is all that is planned for the Mobile, AL facility. The other 95% of production labor hours will be spread across four European countries. The engineering design work will be done in Europe, as well.

On a side note: The KC-30 FAL will still do a higher portion of work than the 787 FAL in Seattle. If the less pre-assembled A330 takes only 5% on the FAL, I estimate the 787 FAL to consume not more than 1% or 2% of the total labor hours (remember that one 787 is completed within days on the FAL). If the 787 is a US aircraft (especially with RR engines) the KC-30 is much more.

See what I mean? What has the B-787 FAL have to do with the KC-767?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 1:59 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 101):
In fact, electronic systems are cheaper and EASIER to maintain than hydraulic systems, which can piss hydraulic fluid and it is damn hard to find the source of the leak.



Won't dispute your point about FBW. But don't most FBW system have a hydraulic actuator at the other end to actually move the parts? Isn't the 787 the first large airplane to use electric actuators?

And please people, let the Boeing PR people do their job. If 100 airplanes are in the balance, wouldn't you use all the tricks in your book? Besides it keeps a few back office folk employed!!

Don't forget, all these tit for tat press release may not be aimed at the Air Force, or the law makers in the first place.
Remember that this is a Mid-Term election year in the US. Boeing may be trying to influence public opinion which may impact the congressional election which if the Democrats can hold the House and Senate, Boeing will have more allies in top leadership positions. Mr Dicks comes to mind.

A lot of "if's and obfuscations" but the US general public can be had!

Quoting wolbo (Reply 110):
Karl Rove playbook of creating Fear,



It worked for "Dubbia", why not for Boeing?  
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 2:15 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
See what I mean? What has the B-787 FAL have to do with the KC-767?

Reliably you picked the last and most unimportant statement of my post:
- First I clearly labeled it with "on a sidenote". This means that I am aware that it is not 100% about the KC-X Tanker saga. My comment is sort of a consideration about US content in aircraft manufacturing. And this is on topic.

But if you don't dispute the rest of my post I'm fine...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 3:46 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 115):
But if you don't dispute the rest of my post I'm fine...
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 108):
On a side note: The KC-30 FAL will still do a higher portion of work than the 787 FAL in Seattle. If the less pre-assembled A330 takes only 5% on the FAL, I estimate the 787 FAL to consume not more than 1% or 2% of the total labor hours (remember that one 787 is completed within days on the FAL). If the 787 is a US aircraft (especially with RR engines) the KC-30 is much more.

Many of the segments of the B-787 come from other US suppliers to the FAL. In the case of the KC-30, only the engines, Boom, and a few other parts will come directly from other US states/suppliers. Most of the airframe, electrical, hydraulic, landing gear, stc. come from Europe and EADS (who will interestingly be a sub-contractor to the subsidy they fully own), or other EU suppliers who make things like the wing refueling pods (WARPS), etc.

Some parts will be made in the US, shipped to the EU for sub-assembly, then shipped back to the US for FAL, like the wing skin panels for example.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 4:49 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
The commercial production rate directly reflects on the manufacturing cost of the military derivative, if Boeing is making just one commercial 767 airframe a month, and EADS is making 8-10 A330/A340 airframes a month, the indirect costs on the A330/A340 would be much lower as they are divided over more frames.




pure unadulterated hogwash! Military programs stand on their own feet and cross pollination of assets isn't allowed unless the frame is bought as a commercial product and then 'sold' to the outfitter. Boeing will be building a tanker on dedicated a production line, EADS it appears is building a quasi commercial unit and then retrofitting.. in essence building twice.

Some of you need to get together in a bar somewhere, get drunk(er) and settle this with fisticuffs... the arguments are just rehashing old positions which you are so entrenched in that there is no retreat or graceful exit. Since this probably mirrors the debates in the A/F corridors, we could be another 10 years before it's resolved by the the participants dieing of old age.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 5:00 pm

Quoting DL1011 (Reply 112):
Very true but as a taxpayer, I am willing to spend a bit more for the home team product

Indeed. There are strategic industrial capability reasons why a government might choose a more expensive option.

Being based on a commercial airframe, I'm not convinced KC-X falls into that category (which is presumably why it is being allowed out to tender to an overseas-owned bidder)

Fighter planes and nuclear submarines might be a different matter  
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 114):
Isn't the 787 the first large airplane to use electric actuators?

As far as I'm aware, the A380 is the first commercial airliner to use electrical actuation.
Not bad for an old dinosaur, eh?  http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categories/commercial/12874.html

I believe the 787 shares this dual hydraulic/dual electric actuation architecture.

Rgds
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 5:53 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 118):
Not bad for an old dinosaur, eh?



Never thought the A380 as a Dinosaur. Whales on the other hand, are quite contemporary.   

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 6:00 pm

Quoting astuteman (Reply 118):
As far as I'm aware, the A380 is the first commercial airliner to use electrical actuation.

Read your own quoted article.
The Vulcan in the 50s had electrically powered flight controls
and the VC10 in the 60s had the same system.
In those days it was a pain on the ramp. To check the hydraulic quantities, you had to get a skylift
and drive around all the control surfaces to check the reservoirs.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 7:04 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
Then why does Germany, UK, France, and the US all use different MEDVAC kits? They all work and do the job intended.

They may use different kits, but they meet the same NATO standard, i.e. the same standard the USAF should meet, as it is part of NATO.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
Is it? Then why has it not demonstrated that capability? The GAO also had questions on the ability of the KC-30 to accomplish the breakaway manuver.

Interesting you should say that, as I am sure you have seen the KC-30 refuel the F-16 in many videos and photos by now, and it actually has one of the highest, if not highest breakaway speeds in the USAF inventory. The only aircraft with a higher CAS is the B-1, but the optimum refuel altitude is 9,000 ft lower than a F-16, and it can easily outrun the B-1 at that altitude during refiling.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):

Who knows? LAIRCM will be a US Government provided equipment for installation on US tankers. The RAF leased A-330MRTTs don't have any defensive systems.

Actually as previously circled in red above, the RAAF (not RAF) KC-30s have LAIRCM installed, it is the big pimples stuck on the face like the HC-130.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):

The B-777 and B-787 use a differently designed FBW system, one that has not demonstrsated it is effected by 'cosmic rays' (see the QF A-330 incidents).

I do not understand that, as the US companies that make the FBW computers for the 777 and 787 also make the FBW computers for other Boeing and Airbus FBW aircraft. BTW, the biggest electromagnetic effect on aircraft that they see on a daily basis is lightning, I would not think a day goes past without an Airbus FBW aircraft being hit by lightning.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
Like you say, they are options and need design work.

Why do you claim that ? 4 different KC-30s are being made at the same time, all the main features that the USAF want apart from a main deck cargo door are found on all of them. BTW, the A330-200F is already certified, so the cargo door is a non-issue.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):

STANAG means "standard areements". It covers everything from uniforms (which are also different in every NATO country) to MLS, which is used by no one. STANAG allows each country to develope their own equipment within the satandard agreements. It does not designate NATO standard equipment, like the 5.56mm bullets.

MLS is used by “little” airlines like BA into “little” airports like LHR. NATO standards like the STANAG ATP-56 are used by “little” air forces like the USAF, and it is the standard used for the RFP.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):

Those are some of the A-330MRTT customers, each is a different tanker, and says nothing about how cheaply or expensive these tankers will cost to operate over 40 years.

Actually it speaks volumes, as those countries have a history of operating aircraft well beyond what the USAF considerers viable, e.g. F-111 with the RAAF (fully retired from the USAF) and the RAF Nimrod/VC-10 (based on the 1940s Comet design).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
The RAAF KC-30s include pax seats and galleys. So does the RAF leased A-330MRTTs.

Very much so, the available below deck cargo space provides more than adequate cargo loading and does not need specialised main deck cargo loading/unloading equipment.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):

How much did EADS-NA import into the US?

No where near as much as Boeing imports, the main import at the moment would be Lakota and Airbus commercial aircraft parts.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
EADS is not the bidder on the KC-X, EADS-NA is.

Very true, just like Boeing is not bidding on the KC-X, it is Boeing IDS.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
I did.
http://classic.eads.net/1024/en/inve...Share_price/Share_price_char
t.html

http://investor.shareholder.com/ba/s...k.cfm

No, that does not as usual show what you stated, it does not show "EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
The BSRI is much different than the USARRI.

Not at all, both allow a boom to refuel a receiver aircraft, one is built to a USAF standard (USARRI), and one is not (the Boeing version). BTW I am yet to see a current USAF manual that stats it is a "BSRI".

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
The Boeing installation has tow doors that open up and out, forming a much better "funnel".

Actually some UARRSI are the similar, e.g. F-22.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
The single door on the USARRI collapes inside the fuselage shell.

Not always.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
Post production build B-707s (E-8, CT-49) usually get the USARRI as it is a simplier and lower costs installation.

Not always, the E-8 has the -135 system as I stated above.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
But those built on the production line (E-3, E-6) get the BSRI as it at that time is cheaper and easier to install.

Not always.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
The C-17 has the USARRI because it was specified in the original contract with MDD and before Boeing took them over.

USARRI is the USAF "Standard" hence the name.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
Correct. Nor do we know the final configueration of the EADS offer.

It has been stated in the EADS press releases, and trade publications like Flight International for months now. Even Boeing is stating what it is in their advertising.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
It is no different than some here bringing up comparisons of the B-777 and B-787 while talking about the KC-30 and KC-767.

The KC-30 is certified, it has a EASA STC (supplemental to the A330), the 787 is not certified at all, nor is any tanker version of the 777. The KC-767 that Boeing is offering the USAf this time is not based upon a current certified base civil airframe, not is it a certified military airframe (it is not the same as Japan).

I am nbot for a second suggesting that after some work Boeing could get the base airframe certified, just making a point it is an unknown at this point in time. It has been the unknowns that Boeing management has stated time and time again has been the problem with the 787 and 747-8 delays.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
See what I mean? What has the B-787 FAL have to do with the KC-767?

No, I do not. Apart from Boeing using the 767 FAL for 777 and 787 final assembly as the production rate on the 767 is so low.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 114):
But don't most FBW system have a hydraulic actuator at the other end to actually move the parts? Isn't the 787 the first large airplane to use electric actuators?

AFAIK the A380 was the first "large airplane" to have actuators similar to the 787. The 787 and A380 AFAIK have electro-hydraulic actuators, Airbus actually has a patent on the idea. They are primarily hydraulic, with an electric backup.

I am sure people who build RC aircraft would say they were the first with "electric actuators" (servos) on aircraft.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 116):

Many of the segments of the B-787 come from other US suppliers to the FAL. In the case of the KC-30, only the engines, Boom, and a few other parts will come directly from other US states/suppliers. Most of the airframe, electrical, hydraulic, landing gear, stc. come from Europe and EADS (who will interestingly be a sub-contractor to the subsidy they fully own), or other EU suppliers who make things like the wing refueling pods (WARPS), etc.

Basically all the electronics which is the high value stuff in the KC-30 is US sourced, none of that is assembled in Europe.

Quoting kanban (Reply 117):
pure unadulterated hogwash! Military programs stand on their own feet and cross pollination of assets isn't allowed unless the frame is bought as a commercial product and then 'sold' to the outfitter. Boeing will be building a tanker on dedicated a production line, EADS it appears is building a quasi commercial unit and then retrofitting.. in essence building twice.

Not at all. With both the KC-767 and KC-30 they start life as commercial airlines, and then are "sold' to the military divisions, BCA sells the 767 base commercial airframe to Boeing IDS, and Airbus sells the A330 to Airbus Military. The base airframe is very much dependant on the civil counterpart.

Not understanding such basic points demostarates a total lack of understanding of the whole production process. To be civil certified as the USAF, RAAF, RAF etc want, they need to be made on an approved civil production line, and then converted via a STC into a tanker.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 7:23 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
a total lack of understanding of the whole production process.



Perhaps not a lack of understanding, but rather missing the paradigm shift.

It is unlikely that Boeing or Airbus will be building the KC-X in the old ways (see the Wedgetail).
This is where one takes a perfectly fine commercial aircraft off the assembly line, then start cutting and pasting until you get the final military product. "The Mod" as some would say.

More likely it will be similar to the P-8A, where any "provisions" for military equipment will be included as part of the basic airframe and add-ons for the military equipment will be done later.

This is possible with a large quantity order. If you are looking at 4 - 5 frames, then the old ways could still apply.

Few of us here are factory managers (yours truly included), so a total lack of understanding of the whole production process is understandable.  

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 7:38 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 122):

The RFP requires the KC-X airframes to be civil certified (FAA/EASA), therefore they must be manufactured under a civil production certificate. The KC-30 received its EASA civil certification earlier this year.

AFAIK the P-8 is not civil certified, and not manufactured under a civil production certificate, they are on their own production line (apart from maybe the first few production examples).

If you see a FAA PC/STC/TCDS to show otherwise, I would love to see it, as I have looked in the past and have come up empty handed.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 7:51 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
they are on their own production line

As I understand the new dedicated P-8A line are for ITAR purposes. Standard commercial airframe may/will be built on that line. You'll have to get confirmation from someone in the know.

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
AFAIK the P-8 is not civil certified,


The P-8A may not be civil certified (something to do with carrying weapons), but the airframe that left Renton and flew to Boeing field (or the 767 that flew from Everett to Wichita for the Japanese tanker) had a certificate of some sort. So if you are talking about the "green" or pre-militarized aircraft, certification would not necessary be a limitation of the production line.

bikerthai

[Edited 2010-05-26 12:59:12]

[Edited 2010-05-26 13:02:19]

[Edited 2010-05-26 13:09:42]
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 8:06 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 124):
You'll have to get confirmation from someone in the know.

That would be the FAA, I have looked at the BCA FAA STCs for the 737, and the BCA FAA TCDS for the 737, I could see nothing, it maybe hiding elsewhere under a differnt name or may not exist at all.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 124):
I do not know about this either, but if true, this is probably as a matter of paperwork and/or cost and not necessary a limitation of the production line.

Again, the FAA. Either Boeing applied for the P-8 to have civil certification or not, they FAA cannot "give" a certificate to a new type unless the manufacturer has applied for it.

An aircraft does not need to have civil certification to gain military certification, however civil certification is a KC-X RFP requirement.

No need for a new production line for "ITAR" purposes if you are making the item in the US for the US military, they are not being exported. That may however deem other civil 737s are being military derivatives if they are made on the same production line as the P-8.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 8:19 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 125):
No need for a new production line for "ITAR" purposes



The new "ITAR" production line was not mandated by the US Navy. However, the new ITAR line will make it easier for Boeing to avoid accidental "foreign disclosure" of technical data to visiting foreign representative who are there to look at their commercial planes. It is hard to rope off a P-8A on a 737 moving line. 

Even for the Export Market (P-8I) there are ITAR issues involved. So, a separate production line eliminate some of the issues.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 8:35 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 125):
That would be the FAA, I have looked at the BCA FAA STCs for the 737, and the BCA FAA TCDS for the 737, I could see nothing, it maybe hiding elsewhere under a differnt name or may not exist at all.



Hate to do this research for you Zeke, but this link has the answers to our discussion.

http://esneux.info/aircraft-fire-protection-inerting-system-design

Summary: The P-8A aircraft went from Renton To Boeing Field on an Experimental Certificate, not FAA.

Enjoy,

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7119
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 9:10 pm

Quoting Tristarsteve (Reply 120):
Read your own quoted article.
The Vulcan in the 50s had electrically powered flight controls
and the VC10 in the 60s had the same system.

I saw the article referenced the Vulcan. I didn't consider it to be "a large commercial airliner"  

Missed (and missing) the reference to the VC10

Rgds
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 9:44 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):

The B-777 and B-787 use a differently designed FBW system, one that has not demonstrsated it is effected by 'cosmic rays' (see the QF A-330 incidents).

Can I please have some of the stuff you're smoking???

FYI, there have been one or two uncommanded dives on QF A330s, but there were caused by faulty ADIRUs, which are completely unrelated to the FBW system...
Exceptions confirm the rule.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 10:00 pm

Here is a response from EADS to Boeing's national security concerns.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbyi...to-pelosi-to-defend-its-reputation
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 10:04 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
Is it? Then why has it not demonstrated that capability? The GAO also had questions on the ability of the KC-30 to accomplish the breakaway manuver.

Interesting you should say that, as I am sure you have seen the KC-30 refuel the F-16 in many videos and photos by now, and it actually has one of the highest, if not highest breakaway speeds in the USAF inventory. The only aircraft with a higher CAS is the B-1, but the optimum refuel altitude is 9,000 ft lower than a F-16, and it can easily outrun the B-1 at that altitude during refiling.

During a breakaway the receiver decelerates and decends, it does not accelerate. The tanker accelerates and climbs.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
Like you say, they are options and need design work.

Why do you claim that ? 4 different KC-30s are being made at the same time, all the main features that the USAF want apart from a main deck cargo door are found on all of them. BTW, the A330-200F is already certified, so the cargo door is a non-issue.

None of those countries ordered their KC-30s as A-330Fs. The A-330F also has a cargo floor the pax version (which all of the KC-30s are designed from) does not. The RAF tanker will not have a boom, the RAAF, UAE, and RSAF do not have centerline drogues. There are other differences between them and the USAF requirments, too, like the smart tanker requirement, etc.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):

Those are some of the A-330MRTT customers, each is a different tanker, and says nothing about how cheaply or expensive these tankers will cost to operate over 40 years.

Actually it speaks volumes, as those countries have a history of operating aircraft well beyond what the USAF considerers viable, e.g. F-111 with the RAAF (fully retired from the USAF) and the RAF Nimrod/VC-10 (based on the 1940s Comet design).

The F/FB/EF-111 was retired under Clinton due to budget cuts. The F-111s went to the boneyard with lots of military value in them, and were last used in combat in ODS, just a few years before they were retired. The USAF still flys 50 year old KC--135s, B-52s, U-2, and C-130s (the C-130 also flies with the RAAF).

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 113):
The RAAF KC-30s include pax seats and galleys. So does the RAF leased A-330MRTTs.

Very much so,

But you said....

Quoting zeke (Reply 107):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 98):
The empty weight of the KC-30 is also higher the A-330, so what is your point?

Actually, it is not. The A330 OEW includes over 10,000 kg of customer equipment like galleys and seats, that is not included in the KC-30.

So the OEW of a RAAF KC-30 is heavier than the A-330-200 airliner, thus burns more fuel.

Quoting zeke (Reply 121):
No, that does not as usual show what you stated, it does not show "EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company."

About EADS North America
EADS North America is the North American operation of EADS, a global leader in aerospace, defense and related services. As a leader in all sectors of defense and homeland security, EADS North America and its parent company, EADS, contribute over $11 billion to the U.S. economy annually and support more than 200,000 American jobs through its network of suppliers and services. Operating in 17 states, EADS North America offers a broad array of advanced solutions to its customers in the commercial, homeland security, aerospace and defense markets.

http://www.eadsnorthamerica.com/1024...s/Hot%20News%20Landing%20Page.html

Quoting zeke (Reply 123):
The RFP requires the KC-X airframes to be civil certified (FAA/EASA),

Last I heard, both the B-767-200ER and the A-330-200 were certified civil airframes with both the FAA and the EASA.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Wed May 26, 2010 11:12 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 122):
Few of us here are factory managers (yours truly included), so a total lack of understanding of the whole production process is understandable


Ditto (only retired)

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 124):
As I understand the new dedicated P-8A line are for ITAR purposes. Standard commercial airframe may/will be built on that line. You'll have to get confirmation from someone in the know.


they could, but why?
They could even run the P-8 down the commercial line if the accounting nightmare wasn't so big

the KC767 will probably sit next to the commercial line using the same skills and all until the 767 is replaced, just as EADS will do when the commercial 330/400 are replaced..
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 3:07 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 127):

Summary: The P-8A aircraft went from Renton To Boeing Field on an Experimental Certificate, not FAA.

Yes this says it all, from the same article....

"Unlike a green aircraft that is then modified, the P-8 will not be FAA-certificated when it comes off the assembly line."

For the NewGen tanker "All I can confirm is that we’ll build the NewGen Tanker there in Everett and take it to Wichita for modification work." from http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2010...14/configuration-on-kc-767-emerge/

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 131):
During a breakaway the receiver decelerates and decends, it does not accelerate. The tanker accelerates and climbs.

You seem still want to deny that you have seen the KC-30 in photos and videos refuelling F-16 which have about the highest breakaway speeds of any USAF aircraft. If the KC-30 cannot do the breakaway manoeuvre as you are suggesting, how does it refuel the F-16 ?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 131):
None of those countries ordered their KC-30s as A-330Fs. The A-330F also has a cargo floor the pax version (which all of the KC-30s are designed from) does not. The RAF tanker will not have a boom, the RAAF, UAE, and RSAF do not have centerline drogues. There are other differences between them and the USAF requirments, too, like the smart tanker requirement, etc.

The A330-200F is an A330-200, they share the same type certificate. The KC-30 received its civil STC a few months ago, any A330 can be used as the base airframe as it is an STC to the A330 TC.

Between all the different customer configurations that EADS is currently building, all of the refuelling options that the USAF have already been designed, and are presently in production. The RAAF KC-30 also has the Link 16 data links installed, and is flying already.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 131):

So the OEW of a RAAF KC-30 is heavier than the A-330-200 airliner, thus burns more fuel.

Not at all, the A330 and KC-30 are certified without interiors except what is required for the base airframe, any additional interior items such as passenger seats can be added at the customer request, it does not form part is the base certification or the base airframe weight.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 131):
About EADS North America

Still does not state as you claimed, "EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company."

Still awaiting your maths for you to justify that statement. Not everything that Boeing has been saying adds up http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ology/2011332783_sundaybuzz14.html

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 131):
Last I heard, both the B-767-200ER and the A-330-200 were certified civil airframes with both the FAA and the EASA.

Very true, but the tanker that Boeing is proposing for the USAF, and the new civil base airframe it is to be based upon is not FAA certified. I cannot understand why Boeing decided the NewGen tanker boom geometry they way they have, to have the retracted boom in the APU exhaust, I can never see that getting certified.

The KC-30 received its civil certification in March this year (EASA STC).
The A330-200F received its civil certification in April this year (EASA TC).
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 5:23 am

people who don't read newspapers (and business journels) are un-informed... those that do are mis-informed. (Mark Twain)

people who trust everything the find on the internet and in press releases even more so...
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2727
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 6:53 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
You seem still want to deny that you have seen the KC-30 in photos and videos refuelling F-16 which have about the highest breakaway speeds of any USAF aircraft. If the KC-30 cannot do the breakaway manoeuvre as you are suggesting, how does it refuel the F-16 ?

Why would the F16 have the highest break away speeds? I hate to break it to you but its not exactly the worst plane out there for flight envelope.

We don't even know for sure that it is a max speed breakaway thats the issue. It could very well be that the KC30 has an issue with the acceleration portion of the breakaway manuver. If the operating speed requires a low N1 and clean configuration, they might have response time issues.

We *DO* however know its an issue and why we know it can't be avoided. EADS/NG specificly requested a change in the breakaway manuver to allow for the KC30 to dive to accomplish the manuver.

Of course a tanker diving during a overrun situation is... beyond stupid. So maybe some posters here should be asking why would EADS ask for stupidity unless it can't meet the current proceedures on a reasonable budget and timeline.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 8:13 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):

Why would the F16 have the highest break away speeds? I hate to break it to you but its not exactly the worst plane out there for flight envelope.

The F-15 and F-16 both have an optimum AAR refuelling speed of 315 IAS at FL300, if you were to plot all the types cleared off the KC-135 boom, they have the highest AAR speeds. 315 KIAS at FL310 is still below the maximum speed of the KC-30.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
We don't even know for sure that it is a max speed breakaway thats the issue.

Correct

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
If the operating speed requires a low N1 and clean configuration, they might have response time issues.

Err no, we are talking about aircraft with turbofan engines operating well below their maximum altitudes.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
We *DO* however know its an issue and why we know it can't be avoided.

No we do not, the aircraft has done a lot of flight testing since that RFP submission was made, it is amazing what a little video can prove. What EADS now has is a more mature RFP submission, they can back their claims up with flight test data.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
EADS/NG specificly requested a change in the breakaway manuver to allow for the KC30 to dive to accomplish the manuver.

EADS/NG asked to do something a little differently, they do a lot of things a little differently, that does not mean they are necessarily wrong, just differnt.

For example in the last round EADS/NG used the NATO procedures for their "USAF AAR procedures" compliance, whereas Boeing used the KC-135/KC-10 flight manuals. Both are "USAF AAR procedures", to avoid any doubt, this round the USAF has specified the NATO procedures.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 9:52 am

Quoting astuteman (Reply 128):
Missed (and missing) the reference to the VC10

Sorry there wasn't one.
I used to work on them in BAH for GF and remember it well.
Anyway try
http://www.vc10.net/Technical/hydraulics.html

As noted above, the flight controls are the 'missing link' in the list above. In any other large airliner these are hydraulically powered, and therefore the main hydraulic system is crucial in maintaining the controllability of the aircraft. In the VC10 this is not so. Each PFCU is an individual small hydraulic system with an electrical pump and small reservoir to feed the control jack. As long as these are all provided with electric power the controls can be moved as demanded by the servo valves which are connected to the flying controls.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10126
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 12:15 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
You seem still want to deny that you have seen the KC-30 in photos and videos refuelling F-16 which have about the highest breakaway speeds of any USAF aircraft. If the KC-30 cannot do the breakaway manoeuvre as you are suggesting, how does it refuel the F-16 ?

My understanding is that refuelling an F-16 is not the same as performing the breakaway manuever, passing fuel is passing fuel, the breakaway is an emergency procedure in case something goes wrong, obviously nothing went wrong during the refuelling process, so that does not prove that the a/c has "issues" with the manuever.



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
We *DO* however know its an issue and why we know it can't be avoided.
Quoting zeke (Reply 136):
No we do not,

Well the GAO had an issue with it, don't see why we need to nit pick that point, we could nit pick whether their issue is with paper specification or paper proof that the a/c is capable, but the issue was listed in the GAO report.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
EADS/NG specificly requested a change in the breakaway manuver to allow for the KC30 to dive to accomplish the manuver.
Quoting zeke (Reply 136):
EADS/NG asked to do something a little differently, they do a lot of things a little differently, that does not mean they are necessarily wrong, just differnt.

So you are agreeing that they requested a change, one poster gives more detail saying they requested a dive, you are now saying they want to do it differently, does that qualify as a change? The next issue would be the issue of the change and why it is required.
For arguments sake, if it is a dive, we are going to have one set of tanker crews performing one manuever to ensure that they get a new tanker, while the other 400+ tanker crew do something differently, since all a/c are going to be replaced over time. No big problem there, now pilots of certain fighter a/c will have to ensure that procedure one is followed for one tanker and a different procedure for another tanker, obviously this creates a complicated safety issue, is it really necessary to take such a risk simply to purchase one a/c over another?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 12:23 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 131):
During a breakaway the receiver decelerates and decends, it does not accelerate. The tanker accelerates and climbs.

You seem still want to deny that you have seen the KC-30 in photos and videos refuelling F-16 which have about the highest breakaway speeds of any USAF aircraft. If the KC-30 cannot do the breakaway manoeuvre as you are suggesting, how does it refuel the F-16 ?

Where is the video of the KC-30 doing a breakaway with the PAF F-16s? It was the GAO that suggested the KC-30 cannot do the standard breakaway manuver, not me, I just repeated it.

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 131):
About EADS North America

Still does not state as you claimed, "EADS-NA is bidding on a contract that is 3 X bigger than the entire company."

I provided the link that say EADS-NA is an $11B company in the US. The contract is at least $35B, you do the math.

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
Still awaiting your maths for you to justify that statement. Not everything that Boeing has been saying adds up http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ology/2011332783_sundaybuzz14.html

Boeing has never said their employment would increase by 45% if they win this contract.

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
I cannot understand why Boeing decided the NewGen tanker boom geometry they way they have, to have the retracted boom in the APU exhaust, I can never see that getting certified.

You do know the APU exhaust on the KC-10 is next to the Boom, and the KC-10 has a civil certification.

Quoting zeke (Reply 136):
The F-15 and F-16 both have an optimum AAR refuelling speed of 315 IAS at FL300, if you were to plot all the types cleared off the KC-135 boom, they have the highest AAR speeds. 315 KIAS at FL310 is still below the maximum speed of the KC-30.
Quoting zeke (Reply 136):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 135):
EADS/NG specificly requested a change in the breakaway manuver to allow for the KC30 to dive to accomplish the manuver.

EADS/NG asked to do something a little differently, they do a lot of things a little differently, that does not mean they are necessarily wrong, just differnt.

For example in the last round EADS/NG used the NATO procedures for their "USAF AAR procedures" compliance, whereas Boeing used the KC-135/KC-10 flight manuals. Both are "USAF AAR procedures", to avoid any doubt, this round the USAF has specified the NATO procedures.

The RFP says "current air refueling procedures".
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 1:48 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
"Unlike a green aircraft that is then modified, the P-8 will not be FAA-certificated when it comes off the assembly line."

The fine prints also state that even though the P-8 is not FAA certified, all the paper work associated with an FAA certification is provided to the Navy to support Navy certification.

The above quote would also imply that the "green" 767 that was provided for the Japaner Tanker, was FAA certified.

Which should leads to this conclusion. Whether or not Boeing or Airbus has a current KC-X candidate that is certified to FAA regulation is a non issue. Producing an FAA certified KC-X tanker should not be a problem for either company, It "is in their DNA".

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
I cannot understand why Boeing decided the NewGen tanker boom geometry they way they have, to have the retracted boom in the APU exhaust, I can never see that getting certified.

Does anyone have a clear understanding to what extent or at which stage of fabrication the FAA certification requirement is applied? For example, how would the FAA certify a chaff dispensing system (which would surely be installed on the KC-X). My only guess is that the FAA certifed requirement only applies to the basic airframe. The boom, the chaff dispensor and any other military specific equipment would be installed afterward and not fall under the same certification.

Quoting kanban (Reply 132):
if the accounting nightmare wasn't so big

The accounting part is only part of the problem. Starting with separate vaults and databases for drawings and digital data, to reems of paperwork needed when ever techincal data (of significance or not) is transfered to a non US entity (for fabrication or sales), any slip-up on ITAR compliance would results in sensure, fines and even jail time.

I'm sure Airbus will have a similar ITAR plan in place for the KC-X.



bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 5:46 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 138):
My understanding is that refuelling an F-16 is not the same as performing the breakaway manuever, passing fuel is passing fuel, the breakaway is an emergency procedure in case something goes wrong, obviously nothing went wrong during the refuelling process, so that does not prove that the a/c has "issues" with the manuever.

Before making dry and wet contacts, breakaway procedures would have been tested, they are in place to not only to protect the receiver, but also the tanker. It is part of any new AAR receiver qualification.

Quoting par13del (Reply 138):

Well the GAO had an issue with it, don't see why we need to nit pick that point, we could nit pick whether their issue is with paper specification or paper proof that the a/c is capable, but the issue was listed in the GAO report.

A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, the KC-30 is now a known quantity, it is now civil certified. The flight testing that has occurred since the last round has significantly strengthened the EADS position, they have the evidence to show that the system works.

I do not have access to the full GAO report, however the logical explanation for the situation is for the breakaway procedure with the tanker having one engine out. Neither the KC-30 or KC-767 could maintain their normal all engine refuel altitude with one engine out. The KC-135 and KC-10 being quads/trijets would have better altitude performance one engine out.

One engine out tanker and receiver clearance is part of the NATO procedures.

Quoting par13del (Reply 138):

So you are agreeing that they requested a change, one poster gives more detail saying they requested a dive, you are now saying they want to do it differently, does that qualify as a change? The next issue would be the issue of the change and why it is required.

I was demonstrating as the GAO pointed out that the term "current USAF procedures" had more than one meaning, NG/EADS used one standard, and Boeing another. The USAF have clarified the RFP to now say the NATO standard that NG/EADS used last time is the standard they want. This is a contradiction to what the GAO found, but the GAO cannot tell the USAF what standard or specification it should adopt.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):

Where is the video of the KC-30 doing a breakaway with the PAF F-16s? It was the GAO that suggested the KC-30 cannot do the standard breakaway manuver, not me, I just repeated it.

As a said above, breakaway procedures are a standard part of the initial qualifying any new receiver, you claim to have been involved with flight testing on tankers, you should know that.

I do not know exactly what the GAO did and did not say, the report I saw has a lot of the required detail removed. Also as I said above, since the last RFP submission, EADS not has a lot of flight test data it can present. The USAF has around 370 requirements, the RAAF had over 800.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
I provided the link that say EADS-NA is an $11B company in the US. The contract is at least $35B, you do the math.

That is not what is says at all, it says "EADS, contribute over $11 billion to the U.S. economy annually".

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
Boeing has never said their employment would increase by 45% if they win this contract.

They did use the 71,000 jobs figure, and as Dominic Gates clearly demonstrated in the article linked above

"Here's how it goes for Boeing (bear with us on the math here): a $35 billion contract x 0.96 available to U.S. operations x 15 percent of that projected to be spent on investment = $5 billion, which is 58 percent of Boeing's 2008 total annual investment in plant, property and equipment. So multiplying 58 x .79 produces a 45 percent employment boost to the current Boeing U.S. work force of 156,000, or 71,000 FTE jobs over 18 years."

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
You do know the APU exhaust on the KC-10 is next to the Boom, and the KC-10 has a civil certification.

Correct the KC-10 is civil certified, but it does not have the APU exhaust going over the boom like Boeing is proposing on the NewGen tanker.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Robbins - Nashville Aviation Photographers
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Steve Brimley

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):

The RFP says "current air refueling procedures".

The current RFP states the NATO ATP-56 procedures, the previous RFP stated current USAF procedures.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 140):

The above quote would also imply that the "green" 767 that was provided for the Japaner Tanker, was FAA certified.

Yes the Japanese tankers are FAA certified, from memory it took 18-24 months to achieve that STC. However the Japanese airframe is not the basis for the NewGen tanker, nor is teh boom teh same.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 140):
Which should leads to this conclusion. Whether or not Boeing or Airbus has a current KC-X candidate that is certified to FAA regulation is a non issue.

It is an issue, it is a mandatory RFP requirement. The KC-30 is already certified, and the boom is part of the STC.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 140):
Does anyone have a clear understanding to what extent or at which stage of fabrication the FAA certification requirement is applied? For example, how would the FAA certify a chaff dispensing system (which would surely be installed on the KC-X). My only guess is that the FAA certifed requirement only applies to the basic airframe. The boom, the chaff dispensor and any other military specific equipment would be installed afterward and not fall under the same certification.

No, the KC-30 for example is certified as an STC for the military configuration, which includes the boom, wing pods, AAR station, cockpit modifications, communication system modifications, and changes to the flight control laws.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 7:59 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
but it does not have the APU exhaust going over the boom like Boeing is proposing on the NewGen tanker.



Can anyone confirm if the APU for the 767 is running during flight? If it is not, then where is the issue?

Besides, I would suppose a purge operation would occur prior to the boom being stowed. Otherwise, you'll get afterburners!

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
certified to FAA regulation is a non issue.


O.K. I would admit a smaller issue compared to some of the other hurdles both companies have to face.

Boeing faced this certification issue with Wedgetail (both with respect to the UARSI and Chaff dispenser). They would certainly know how to do it with the KC-X tanker. Boom and all.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...el=defense&id=news/WEDGE051909.xml

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 8:25 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 133):
I cannot understand why Boeing decided the NewGen tanker boom geometry they way they have, to have the retracted boom in the APU exhaust, I can never see that getting certified.



This is how I can see the Boeing boom configuration get FAA certified with the retracted boom in the APU exhaust.

The FAA will certify the KC-X from an airframe, flight characteristic, etc. stand point. It will not certify the KC-X from an operation (refueling standpoint). Otherwise FAA will have to certify close formation flying which I doubt they will ever do.

So as long as the boom (without fuel) and the airframe interaction is shown to be aerodynamic and structurally acceptable in all standard flight regime (as defined by the FAR), then the FAA will certify the aircraft. This applies also whole refueling system from the UARSI to the boom and every ducts and tanks in between. At least this was what I was told with respect to Wedgetail.

Now, if you are talking about the APU exhaust burning a hole in the boom in regular day to day operation, then that's what titanium and nickel alloys are for.  

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 10:39 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
Before making dry and wet contacts, breakaway procedures would have been tested, they are in place to not only to protect the receiver, but also the tanker. It is part of any new AAR receiver qualification.

Wrong

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
the logical explanation for the situation is for the breakaway procedure with the tanker having one engine out.

No, there are several reasons for a breakaway call, which can be made by any crewmember of either the tanker or receiver. The most common call is for a receiver PIO while in contact.

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
As a said above, breakaway procedures are a standard part of the initial qualifying any new receiver, you claim to have been involved with flight testing on tankers, you should know that.

No, you are wrong, my friend. When has EADS and the RAAF done the breakaway with the KC-30?

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 139):
Boeing has never said their employment would increase by 45% if they win this contract.

They did use the 71,000 jobs figure, and as Dominic Gates clearly demonstrated in the article linked above

Boeing said it will create 71,000 jobs, but never said all those jobs would be Boeing jobs. Gates clearly has some axe to grind with Boeing. Some of those jobs would be with Boeing, but most would be with sub-contractoirs and suppliers.

Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 140):
Which should leads to this conclusion. Whether or not Boeing or Airbus has a current KC-X candidate that is certified to FAA regulation is a non issue.

It is an issue, it is a mandatory RFP requirement. The KC-30 is already certified, and the boom is part of the STC.
Quoting zeke (Reply 141):
the KC-30 for example is certified as an STC for the military configuration, which includes the boom, wing pods, AAR station, cockpit modifications, communication system modifications, and changes to the flight control laws.

The FAA has not yet issued a STC for the KC-30, only the EASA issued it. The KC-30 has yet to receive its military certification from the RAAF. The RFP for the KC-X requires a FAA certification, which the KC-767J already has.

The APU exhaust over the Boom is a non-issue. Even the APU on the KC-30 exhausts over its Boom.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 142):
Boeing faced this certification issue with Wedgetail (both with respect to the UARSI and Chaff dispenser). They would certainly know how to do it with the KC-X tanker. Boom and all.
 
cmb56
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Thu May 27, 2010 11:27 pm

Both the 767 and A330 can use the APU in-flight for air or electric power. It is normally not used unless a generator or engine bleed system is not working. There are altitude limits also on how high the APU can be started and operated. These are usually well below the normal cruise altitude of 30K+. I would expect that if either proposed tanker had to have the APU running in-flight there would be some procedures for using and retracting the boom.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1852
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 1:02 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
Even the APU on the KC-30 exhausts over its Boom.

Not in the same way than that of Boeing. Boeing's boom pretty much is right in front of the exhaust

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm153/sandglasspatrol/blog/kc35mrtt.jpg

 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3390
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 1:26 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
The FAA has not yet issued a STC for the KC-30, only the EASA issued it. The KC-30 has yet to receive its military certification from the RAAF. The RFP for the KC-X requires a FAA certification, which the KC-767J already has.

General rule of thumb is that if EASA has given its approval, the FAA will essentially give its approval the next day if requested, and vice versa.

And the KC-767J is not what's being offered by Boeing; they are offering an unbuilt and uncertified variant of the 767 with equipment that was never certified for the 767.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 14847
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 8:04 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 142):
Can anyone confirm if the APU for the 767 is running during flight?

It is an ETOPS requirement with the loss of an engine, it would also be required if engine driven generators failed. The only aircraft that I am aware of that regularly starts the APU in flight is the 737 for ETOPS flights.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 142):
Besides, I would suppose a purge operation would occur prior to the boom being stowed. Otherwise, you'll get afterburners!

Under FAR 25 they would have to show compliance in the event a purge could and could not take place. I would think it would be more difficult to have a combined air/fuel mixture in the boom than it being full of fuel. The heating of fuel tank vapour on Boeing aircraft by their internal pumps and packs is what has caused a number of aircraft to explode in the past.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 142):

Boeing faced this certification issue with Wedgetail (both with respect to the UARSI and Chaff dispenser). They would certainly know how to do it with the KC-X tanker. Boom and all.

The Wedegtail certified took a long time (almost an 8 year process), far longer than what the KC-X RFP gives for the aircraft to be in service. As far as I am aware, only the Australian 737-700IGW AW&C aircraft were certified, I did not think the Turkish mods were certified yet.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 143):
The FAA will certify the KC-X from an airframe, flight characteristic, etc. stand point. It will not certify the KC-X from an operation (refueling standpoint).

It would be FAR 25 certified, like the KC-10.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):

Wrong

I know for a fact that formation flying, the breakaways, communication systems, light signals, flight envelope testing with boom extended/retracted, flight envelope testing with hoses extended/retracted and dry contacts are all tested well before a drop of fuel is transferred.

There is a lot of different failure conditions that they need to show compliance with, and that all needs flight testing.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
No, there are several reasons for a breakaway call, which can be made by any crewmember of either the tanker or receiver. The most common call is for a receiver PIO while in contact.

Engine failure is another.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
No, you are wrong, my friend. When has EADS and the RAAF done the breakaway with the KC-30?

Many times, you make it sounds like a breakaway is some extreme piece of airmanship, it is a relative simple procedure (this is from the published NATO procedure used for this RFP).

"a. Tanker Actions
(1) Initially, the tanker is to maintain heading or established AOB and assigned FL/altitude/height and,
(a) For boom/BDA operations, the tanker is to increase power and accelerate.
(b) Also, if the Boom Operator calls "clear to climb", the tanker will begin a slow climb maintaining established AOB. It is imperative that the airspeed is not allowed to decrease below that indicated at the start of climb.
(2) Additionally, some nation’s tankers will accelerate up to the drogue limiting speed for probe and drogue AAR operations."

I doubt the KC-767 or KC-30 could do that at their higher gross weights when refuelling aircraft at higher flight levels if they would happen to suffer an engine failure.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):

Boeing said it will create 71,000 jobs, but never said all those jobs would be Boeing jobs. Gates clearly has some axe to grind with Boeing. Some of those jobs would be with Boeing, but most would be with sub-contractoirs and suppliers.

Gates is one of Boeing best friends in the press, so is the paper he writes for. Boeing paid for and commissioned that report, they could have buried it, however they chose to run with it. The press exposed it for what it was.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):

The FAA has not yet issued a STC for the KC-30, only the EASA issued it.

No requirement under the RFP for the aircraft to have a FAA TCDS or FAA STC, the RFP clearly states that EASA certification meets the requirement.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
The KC-30 has yet to receive its military certification from the RAAF.

Nor has the KC-767. Military certification from the RAAF is not a requirement under the RFP.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
The RFP for the KC-X requires a FAA certification, which the KC-767J already has.

The KC-767J does not have hoses, nor is it the same base airframe or boom as the NewGen tanker.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 144):
The APU exhaust over the Boom is a non-issue. Even the APU on the KC-30 exhausts over its Boom.

Suggest you have a look at the actual FAR 25 requirements. The KC-30 and KC-767J booms are not behind the APU exhaust like on the NewGen tanker. The NewGen tanker proposes to place an upgraded KC-10 boom on the smaller 767 fuselage. The NewGen tanker is geometry limited on the placement of the boom.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 145):
There are altitude limits also on how high the APU can be started and operated.

ETOPS certification requirement is for APU start to 45,000' or the maximum certified altitude for the airframe whichever is lower. The KC-30 APU can be started at any altitude in its flight envelope. The A330 as far as I am aware is the only airframe certified for 240 minute ETOPS.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
Tristarsteve
Posts: 3653
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 11:04 pm

RE: KC-X Tanker Saga Continues

Fri May 28, 2010 8:38 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 148):
Quoting bikerthai (Reply 142):
Can anyone confirm if the APU for the 767 is running during flight?

It is an ETOPS requirement with the loss of an engine, it would also be required if engine driven generators failed. The only aircraft that I am aware of that regularly starts the APU in flight is the 737 for ETOPS flights.

While this is true of current B767s, it might not be true on the tanker.
The B777 has two generators on each engine. One for normal use, and one for back up. The back up is only used when an IDG has failed. Because of this the APU is not required for ETOPS despatch.
There is no reason why this could not be designed into the tanker. The Back up generator is quite small.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 38 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