Amiga500Just a new picture reagarding “compressor blockers” (looks really like one :confused:), “curves in the intakes” …
Deino
Interesting.
I owe two users on here an apology (Kapedani & someone else), they are indeed correct that the duct curvature alone will not hide the compressor face.
They will instead use “inlet guide vanes” to do it… not exactly something that fills me with enthusiasm. Unless they do it significantly better than the E/F Hornet, you can expect to lose a good chunk of performance with them.
Amiga500YES it is VERY CLEAR. The smaller & lighter KC-767 can operate from MORE airfields & in greater number from each than the larger & heavier (larger & heavier the KC-10 in fact). The KC-767 can operate from ANY runway length the KC-30 can operate from & what you EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinker DELIBERATE ignor/dismiss is that as the length of runway shortens the payload/capacity advantage of the KC-30 shrinks & in fact at a runway PCN of ~50 the KC-767 can operate with a GREATER payload/capacity than the KC-30.
Are we discussing the same aircraft?
To my knowledge, a fully filled 330F will get off the ground quicker than a fully filled 767-200ER…
In fact, Northrop Grumman highlighted field performance as one of the reasons for winning the 2nd tender…
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=141392
The Air Force concluded that the more capable Northrop Grumman KC-45 featured better takeoff performance. This capability, in combination with the other characteristics of this modern airframe, provides the Air Force with greater basing and operational flexibility than Boeing’s proposed KC-767.
Specifically, the Air Force found that Northrop Grumman’s superior aircraft “Can take off with more fuel load from a 7,000 foot runway” than the KC-767.
Superior takeoff performance provides many operational advantages.
Compared to Boeing’s KC-767, the KC-45 can launch with more fuel from the same length of runway, providing longer range, more time aloft, and the ability to refuel more aircraft per sortie.
In military operations, the KC-45 can launch with a fuel load equal to the KC-767’s maximum fuel load using a takeoff roll over 1,000 feet shorter.
The KC-45 can take off from more airfields around the world than the KC-767 carrying a fuel load equal to or greater than Boeing’s maximum. Greater airfield availability increases the Air Force’s future basing and operational flexibility.
This means that in the critical matter of refueling — the primary mission of a tanker — Northrop Grumman’s plane can carry more fuel, fly greater distances, stay airborne longer, and refuel more aircraft in combat operations than Boeing’s proposed aircraft, providing what the Air Force termed “Significant refueling advantages” over Boeing.
As well as:
http://132.228.182.183/products/kc45tanker/assets/KC30_QuadFold.pdf
Tarmacks (runways & taxiways) were strengthened and taxiway & parking areas were increased as well.
Any airport with a sufficient refuel system to handle A2A tankers will already have taxiways and parking areas of more than sufficient strength. How many airbases currently used by tankers are not fit to take C-5s or C-17s?
That is a superfluous argument.
Of course the KC-X (A330 or 767) won’t fly commercial mission profiles nor will they fly at maximum take-off gross weight very often. The analysis was perfectly clear where its data came from & what it represented.
The analysis was not clear at all in what data it used.
The mission length or duration was not stated at all.
The only thing made clear by it was the author’s desire to hide the assumptions used during the analysis.
The FACT is that the data used is PUBLIC DATA from operators and the difference between the CF6-80C2 & the PW4062 is negligible at best.
Wooossshhhh…. and my point went sailing completely over your head.
If they adjust the mission profile to consist of 20 mins climb, 10 mins cruise, and then descent, of course the mission average fuel consumption will go up. I know what the A330 cruise numbers are… and they are nowhere near the average fuel consumption stated in that Boeing report.
Thus, Boeing have had the mission profiles “adjusted” to greatly favour the smaller aircraft.
No matter how you try to spin it the reality IS that a ~265,000 lbs OEW, 193′ 7″ long, 197′ 10″ wingspan aircraft IS going to burn more fuel than a ~185,000 lbs OEW, 159′ 2″ long, 156′ 1″ (167′ with winglets) wingspan aircraft.
Of course.
The only question is how much & I bet that the difference for USAF tankers is GREATER than it is for commercial airliners.
You bet? Based on what?
You knowing everything and the rest of us apparently knowing nothing?
In your EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid induced hallucinations. The way tankers operate vs commerial arliners, the fuel burn difference is likely to be HIGHER.
Why would it be higher?
How on earth can you assume it will be higher? Commercial airlines will operate at most efficient speed for cruise. When at their refuelling waypoints, tankers can operate at the most efficient speed for endurance (somewhat slower).
Amiga500Six is more than enough. The F-15s got 4 AIM-7s and the F-22A got 6 AIM-120s for good reasons, when F-35A is back to 4 AIM-120s. 😉
When you have already sacrificed aircraft frontal cross sectional area to have a weapons bay of sufficient depth to take ground munitions…
What have you to lose? Carrying some extra weight into a dogfight (guess what, that is easily solved :diablo:)
Amiga500And what about mr. Aboulafia??
[I]Richard Aboulafia, an industry analyst with the Teal Group,
Ach, he is just a motor mouth.
Doesn’t have much of a clue really.
I’ve seen a lot of pish come from the mouths of “industry analysts” recently.
Amiga500The F-117 that was lost wasn’t due to performance, or stealth. It was due to complacency, and a lack of situational awareness.
You misunderstand where he is coming from (although his example isn’t perfect either).
When it was found, the F-117 had no more aces in its deck to avoid getting shot down. The F-117 is now retired.
With regards others in the inventory and the question of something to fall back on when located…
The F-22 does, the B-2 doesn’t…
Does the F-35?
[IMO, no, its a lame duck]
Amiga500Tell ya all what it does do.
(Assuming all bids meet the provisions) it f**ks up the plan to give the contract to the cheapest bidder.
Boeing are gonna be looking for added value extras back into that RFP! :diablo:
Amiga500The sawtooth application of RAM at the trailing edge of Rafale’s doors and control surfaces is a crude attempt to attenuate the creeping wave that is predominant with vertically polarized RF.
Calling it “crude” is being a bit disingenuous…
You know that every engineering decision is a compromise… so what do Dassault do:
(a) Have a full sawtooth trailing edge? With all the manufacturability, maintainability and aerodynamic compromises that arise as a result of that?
-or-
(b) Maintain a straight trailing edge, compromising radar profile for the above three?
Option (c) as used on the F-22, is alignment of leading/trailing edges to direct the waves off to nowhere. However, the Rafale’s wing planform does not allow for that – aerodynamics or RCS… swings & roundabouts…
Amiga500Eighter way 6 R-77 will be quite impressive.
Nah, not really.
A stacked bay with 2×6 (12) R-77… now that would be impressive. 🙂
Amiga500– A novelty is that T-50 has “ADAPTABLE” wing geometry (04:13 on video). The wing adapts corresponding to the speed that the aircraft is flying at (changes it’s shape?) allowing maximum aerodynamic performance.
I don’t speak Russian, so could not translate directly. Thus, I may be missing nuances.
However, as others have said, that could just mean automatic leading edge slats… which have been around since world war 2 (never mind F-16s!)
Amiga500Considering that Airbus has no plans for a A330-300F and that they are working on plans for freighter conversions of existing A332 and A333, I doubt it will be that many. Surely not enough to keep a whole factory running on that orders alone.
http://www.glgroup.com/News/747-8F-777F–A330F-Orders-Will-Drive-Passenger-Orders-46553.html
If Airbus gets the contract and decides to built them in the US, it is ok. But they should not be forced to built them in the US. It should be up to them where they built them, they only need to deliver on time and for the fixed price. If the factory in the US makes it easier for them, so be it, if it does not, then they should built itwhere they want. (France, Spain – whatever)
Sorry, you still don’t understand me.
Airbus WANTS to build aircraft in the USA. It sells aircraft in US dollars, therefore to build aircraft in the US dollar economy helps to insulate them from currency fluctuations.
They don’t want to build in Spain or France or wherever. They want to build in the USA.
That clear enough for you?
Amiga500True. Thing is the only way to truly know is to take it to war. By then it’s a bit late if ya find out you guessed wrong.
An additional problem to be considered is maintaining all those lovely surfaces when the pressure of fighting is on.
Anyone know what the % availability rates of F-117s were compared to say… B-1bs in GW I?
Amiga500Do you think there will be many A330 sold, after the tankers are built and 5 years after A350 and 7 years after 787 are in production?
Yup.
How long do you think it will be before Boeing or Airbus build dedicated freighter versions of the 787/350?
And the factory only made sense for EADS beacuse the factory in Moblie would have been getting lots of money from the state for building it.
Only makes sense if they have the guaranteed orders for the line. No point building an assembly plant if there is nothing needing assembling.
If it all about getting the USAF the best tanker for the lowest price Airbus should be free to built them were they like and not find a use for a factory in the US.
It is to the advantage of both Airbus and the US economy that the tankers are built in America.
I’ve said before, Airbus have been looking into the dollar market for quite some time. This is their chance to do it without getting it in the back from the French/German govts.
Amiga500AMNTK Soyuz in Moscow will look after inlet guide vanes as well as rcs reduction for injun
That would answer the question of how the duct is being designed…
Amiga500well, the good thing would be for the USAF to take boeing’s word for it:
if the USAF average consumption isn’t 24% less than RAAF one (using A330 based tankers) for the same mission types, boeing pay (refund at “per plane basis”) the difference…
in two years no more boeing… 😀
Ha ha ha!
That would be a great contract clause.
Amiga500Since the lighter B767 platform burns 24 percent less fuel than the Airbus, the NewGen Tanker is expected to save more than $10 billion in fuel costs over its 40-year service life.
That 24% figure leaps off the page at me!
Bull-f**king-s**t Boeing.
A PW4060 engined 767 will use anything between 4.5 and 5.5 tonnes per hour (per aircraft) in cruise.
A 330-200 will use between 5 and 6 tonnes/hr (per aircraft) in cruise.
(Of course, the variation is due to aircraft weight and flight level)
Thus, manipulate the figures, and you are looking at 30%+ increases. Taking the average, you are looking at 10% difference.
OK, after some googling I found this:
http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/files/FuelConsReport.pdf
Reading it, you know what the c**ts done? I can do no better than quote direct:
This analysis assumed that both fly similar commercial mission profiles, both fly 750 hours per year and both are operated at their maximum take-off gross weight at the start of each mission profile and/or their maximum landing weight at the conclusion of each mission
profile.
So, the rocket scientists conclude that the aircraft that carries 28% more payload burns more fuel…
Even better, I’ve seen their average fuel burn rates – and they are more bull****. They’ve used averages of 5.1 tonnes/hr and 6.4 tonnes/hr for the B767 and A330 respectively. I know for a fact a 330 will burn between 5 and 6 tonnes/hr cruising, and take-off/climb is such a short portion of flight that it doesn’t make a big difference to the average. So the bstarts at Boeing have shortened the “similar commerical mission profiles” so the take-off/climb portions are proportionally much greater. After all, it takes more energy to get more weight to 30,000 ft doesn’t it.
Oh, and in addition, they used the more fuel efficient GE engined 767 rather than the proposed PW engined 767 in this comparison “study”.
Bottom line – do not believe one single word that falls from the mouth of Boeing.
Sign In
