dark light

Robert Hilton

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 673 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Tanker Draft RFP party #2437889
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    KC-X

    i guess they want to speed up tanker-to-tanker refuellings

    Which would mean even longer range operations and higher fuel loads. This would give the 330 an advantage over the 767 (apart from the higher flow rate centre-line)?

    in reply to: Tanker Draft RFP party #2437953
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    None whatsoever, it does show though that even if the boom can deliver the flow rate required, it won’t actually be used operationally (yet).
    I can only assume that they plan to increase receiver rates in the next generation of a/c

    in reply to: Tanker Draft RFP party #2437979
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Check out: http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/airtoair56b.cfm

    Specifically this one Annex ZE towards the bottom of the page: http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/atp56usnationalannex.cfm

    I’m fairly sure the rates they give are lbs/minute, and I am unsure how to convert these to USG or litres of EADS Kood-Aid….

    It is indeed pounds per minute.
    This might help in calculating to litres.
    http://www-static.shell.com/static/aviation/downloads/safety_data_sheets/outside_usa/tds-f-34-military_aviation_kerosine.pdf

    in reply to: Tanker Draft RFP party #2438055
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

    I bet that I want a fair contest more than you do.

    You can’t have it both ways.

    No I am not. But like I said, I have long since recognized the fruitlessness of attempting to convince the likes of you otherwise.

    Actually, just because your idocy has gotten me into the mood, the RAF isn’t getting anything. It is leasing tanker services from a 3rd party. Now please show that you are not as disingenuous as you appear & call for the program to be cancelled because it costs more than purchasing the tankers outright.

    Children, children, leave it at the door.
    PFCEM, you have said before that you have no experience in tanker operations in any way whatsoever. That means your opinion is exactly that, your opinion, based on what you have read and what you believe in, and not based on personal experience or training. Nor is it based on the experience of those who operate such equipment, you have no direct access to such people.
    Fed, I’d be happy to discuss with you any ideas you have on this RFP or anyone else here for that matter. There are enough tanker threads that have benn corrupted, maybe we can keep this one on an even level?

    Cheers,

    Rob

    in reply to: Tanker Draft RFP party #2438058
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Interesting. I’d guess “greater than 900” means anything up to, but not including, 1000.

    I seriously doubt Boeing and they’re Washington crew will be allowed to delay this much more than it already has been with complaints and demands. The 135’s can’t keep going forever.

    I’d assume the KC30 receives at the same rate it gives. It’d make sense to stick to one standard, the 767 seems to.

    I must admit I’d be interested to see what a/c in the US inventory can receive fuel at such high rates of flow. 1200 gals does seem a quantam leap.

    in reply to: General Discussion #307949
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Boy, I wish I knew what the hell was going on…

    It’s called “forum meltdown”.
    It’s not uncommon and has been known to affect even the most level-headed.

    in reply to: Bones of Contention (Merged). #1894907
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Boy, I wish I knew what the hell was going on…

    It’s called “forum meltdown”.
    It’s not uncommon and has been known to affect even the most level-headed.

    in reply to: General Discussion #310813
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Ditto

    in reply to: Alan Turing, posthumous apology. #1896475
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Ditto

    in reply to: Dumping of fuel #520291
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Fuel is dumped to lower the weight of the aircraft before landing. Not many a/c can land at max all up weight.
    The fuel does tend to disipate in the atmosphere, it is dependant on altitude though.

    in reply to: B787 first flight delayed (again) #523286
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    The aircraft is positioned right and the risk is much lower than for the A380. The B787 is the consequence of linearly extrapolating the trend.

    The problem is that Boeing was led by flawed management, and I don’t see any trend towards better leaders which have the standing in the company. Traditionally Boeing programs were led by Chief Engineers, who were the most influential people.
    At the moment Boeing rapidly loses reputation, at a much faster pace than Airbus did with the A380 at any time. This might backfire when Boeing proposes the next new aircraft. If Airbus somehow achieves the A350 certification and first delivery on time (on time = planned EIS plus 6 month), Boeing is in trouble (like Airbus was after the A380 when the B787 seemed perfectly on track).

    It isn’t just a Boeing (or Airbus) problem. Most of the companies I am in contact with exhibit the same flaws in their management concept.
    Very few are wiilng to see/admit it. It would appear they have forgotten the definition of an engineer.

    in reply to: So Long RAF Swinderby…. #1163148
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Cool, did you visit the vulcan in a bag that was a war reserve? and kept on the other camp

    No, we went to see them during majors, Buccs as well.

    in reply to: So Long RAF Swinderby…. #1163504
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Before the move there was certainly a He111 and a Ju88 in the shed, there is no mistaking them. Indeed I remember the 162 as well.
    Still, happy times (sort of).

    in reply to: So Long RAF Swinderby…. #1163759
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    I am lousy with names, was the Chief the one in the office with jet black hair that looked like it was dyed, if so he turned up at Odious as a flight sergeant on 18 Sqn.

    We had the bad luck at Swinditz to do the AOC’s parade so our camping was done on the end of the Airfield and we had extra drill! 🙁

    The person with both arms in plaster was standing by the waer heater on camping when the tank exploded and he was badly burned, he had to go to the med centre when he wanted a pee or other things and a nurse would hold it for him….. :p

    Still it allowed us when we got to Saints to be involved with dragging most of the junk out from the Museum Hanger to be run for a sound recordist to record it for posterity, that included the Tony and the FW 190 🙂

    No, Stan Currell webt on to be a civvy instructer at Halton, I met him there as well.
    Indeed the museum hanger, I was there for the move as well. I remember a Spit, a JU88, He111, the 190 was a T bird, a Stuka and a couple of meat boxes, one of which was the prone position a/c.

    in reply to: So Long RAF Swinderby…. #1164472
    Robert Hilton
    Participant

    Well then that means you had the opportunity to watch me leave as the senior course of A mech P’s from Saints 🙂 was on I think 179

    Then you might remember ‘Boots’ Fieldhouse. Or what about c/t Currell (the bionic smile)?

Viewing 15 posts - 151 through 165 (of 673 total)