Would it be a problem to place the engine out of alignment with the air intake, around a bend or something?

I’m no engineer, would it cause air-feed problems :confused:

Just thinking it might hide the fan blades?

Bending the air causes a certain amount of loss, dependant on the the severity of the bend, intake length and speed.

Sorry, “8200 kg” is public consumption data. Official data is 20,650 lbs.

I have explained previously where I believe the difference comes from.

And your numbers did not even add up to 8200 kg – so either way your numbers are BS..

Out of interest, why is the fuel load of an a/c such sensitive information that they have to publish misleading “public consumption” data?

One should not forget that the KC-767 matches the original requirement to 100%, Boeing has 50 years of experience in tanker building and supporting the tanker fleet.

So Boeing invented in flight refuelling?

Unfortunatly so, they have an extra stage or two I believe, I don’t know whether the accessories are the same though.

It was in fact one stage, called the zero stage. It was hung in front of the fwd bearing. I have one in my front garden, a zero stage that is.

The report says alot of things to alot of different people as PFCEM proves.
What it says to me is that both offers meet the requirements although the NG exceeds more (but not all) of them than the Boeing.
Also the method of calculating the costs has favoured NG more than Boeing. I assume that the they do have an intimate knowledge of how Boeing (or NG for that matter) presents the costs during an RFP compared with the actual costs when it is translated into real cost per unit ordered.
My reading of it is that the airforce chose the a/c because they thought it was better but, but that they hadn’t specified it and that is what the GAO are pulling them up on.

Not sure I follow – the fuel tanks (aviation or maritime) have say volume of 10m3 (10,000 litres).

Depending on the ambient temperature, batch, type and grade of fuel the mass that will fit in that fixed volume will vary.

When an aircraft is refuelled from either fixed hydrants or a tanker truck, I would have thought you’d shut off the refueling process when the tanks are 95% full (or whatever) and this would be based on the volume (litres, USG, etc)?

What do the cockpit fuel guages/readouts display – kg/lbs or L/USG?

I can see the argument for kg – the engine is after energy released per value of measurement (be it volume or mass).

Gauges read in lbs or Kg. Whilst being usefull for weight and Cof G, it is very important for range. SFC (specific fuel consumption) is expressed in lbsthrust/lbs fuel/hour or Kg thrust/Kg fuel/hour.

It did, but its engines and intakes were removed for radiation testing purposes.
However it seems the Woodford chunks were white so wouldn’t fit with ‘190

Agree wholehartedly with AK and JDK, however it is sad to see some of the factory sites go.

I had assumed they were talking about the stress airframe. That was located at Woodford. It being scrapped in 93-94 would be about right. 190 was scrapped much later I believe.

Is anything happening at Macrihanish??

I have heard rumours that Qinetiq and the Skunk Works have tested some interesting kit out of that base over the years.

Certainly not in my time there.