This was taken recently.

I did say its probably a good job, but why should our armed forces have to resort to scavenging from a 30 year old piece of war booty? I’m sorry how ever good the engineering and cost arguements thats a scandal really. I did say in my arguement “30 year old airliners.” I am aware that parts get reused. Not many “cut and shunt” B707 out there on the airline circuit anymore though…

Its not as if we are talking about using two recently new airframes here. Both are pretty old and one was captured in a war that most of our current servicemen at best watched on TV with mum and dad or for most happened years before they were born. What I am saying is that it highlights the underfunding scandal and everyone getting on their high horses about “good engineering” and “value for money” basically defends HMGs poor funding regime.

It might not just be a case of cost but also of availability of parts. If you can’t get the parts in a reasonable time frame then robbing other airframes to service becomes a viable option. It means you get the a/c operational quicker. At the moment, the more airframes they have in Afghanistan the better.

Come on!

Many 767s are fitted with PW4000 (4060 or 4062) which have a 94″ fan. The GEnx-2B67 is a 104″ (actually 104.7″ to be specific) fan.

But the Trent 600 (672) & Engine Alliance (joint GE and P&W) 7100 (7172) proposed for the 767-400ERX are/were 102″ fans.

GEnx-2B FAN DIAMETER IS NOT A PROBLEM!

What would be the ground clearance with GEnx fitted to a 767?
What would be the limits for FOD ingestion?

Another one in Holland
http://www.fitland.nl/Basis.aspx?Tid=2573&Sid=7955&Hmi=2579&Smi=7955

Historically the USAF selected the boom becuase it delivers a higher fule flow rate, essential for the SAC bombers it refulled.

This is the prime reason…. the boom also has ‘derivative benefits’…the higher fuel trasnfer rate deos mean smaller units are tanknig for less time.. so more can be done in the time window…

The pilot flies straight and level.. the boomer flies the boom.. important when pilots are tired/ injured etc.

Other air arm, including the USN did not have the same need and relied on the probe and drogue method and doubling up of recievers.

For large quantities the boom is the way forward, but for tac air perhaps the p+d method offers advantages.

Thanks for the answer, I do know most of the reasons. I was wondering if PFCEM could answer in his own words.
The argument about which is best has been going for longer than I can remember. P & D is certainly more flexible, the FR mk20 pod was even fitted to the Argosy and there was also one developed for the Tornado.

You know I think you need to have a look in the mirror sometime Pfcem:rolleyes:

Of all the “Kool Aid” drinkers as you call them on this forum you are the most vocal of them all…a Boeing Kool Aid drinker that is!

Also as asked earlier can you not treat other forum members with a general lack of respect and reply with the comment ‘BS’ every time you don’t agree with someone…

That’s because he has read a report. It doesn’t mean he understands it, but he can quote it. Seeing as he has absolutely no personal experience with tanker operations on any scale, means that his opinions are just that, opinions. They’re not even informed opinions.

Indeed i’m with Bruce on this.

Here is not the place to debate or gossip what happens twixt CAA and TFC.

.

So why start the “I know something you don’t”?
It would indeed be better coming from TFC, so don’t stir it.