Yes, they are strong allies of the USA. Haven’t you noticed the French soldiers fighting and dying in Afghanistan? Or the French soldiers who fought in Iraq in 1991?
Or in Iraq in 2006,7,8….oh, wait.
I don’t think Euros have ANY idea of the level of ambivalence towards the French held by significant numbers of the populace of the USA. And the French involvement in Airbus is well known. Thus, this tanker competition has become a flashpoint.
This is way off topic. When I started the thread, I was just wondering how likely anyone thought a GEnx powered KC767 might be, and if so, what the benefits might be.
Am I Google? Go, find it yourself!
But that a larger fan for a similar and potentially higher thrust engine is heavier, that is something people might know.
Already tried google…..no joy. Its not on the GE GEnx website either.
The real weight of a new engine, like a new airplane, is often akin to a state secret. I’ve seen people actually debate the weight difference between the PW2037 and RR RB211-535E4, and those engines have been around for almost 20 years.
It sounded as if you had reliable, accurate information, but if you can’t justify your claim, well……
No matter what the inevitable investigation reveals, there is one thing we can be sure of: The pilot was a hero!
They’re having enough trouble attatching it to a 787 fuselage at the moment.
Thats kind of the point of the thread. The 787 has a lot of issues to work through and the USAF has said they don’t want it anyway. Yet, technology could be leveraged from the program. A re-engine is relatively simple by comparison to an all new airplane and has been done many times on large airplanes. Seems to me that taking a proven structure and putting new engines on it is relatively easy technologically, yet in this case significant in terms of performance.
WRT to A330 using the GEnx, for some reason Airbus doesn’t seem to be coordinating very closely with GE, at least with regard to the GEnx. Which is kind of surprising considering the history of GE on Airbus products, and the level of French cooperation with GE (25% of CF6 series and 50% of CFM56 series.) I am aware of the disconnect on the A350….GE spent several billion developing an engine and it is too small for the airplane A wants to build to compete with the 787.
Why feed the dead horse?
Besides, the new engine is heavier, will require additional structure and probably will be oversized, apart from issues with vertical clearance. In the end, you end up saving a little under 10% for a big investment.
The GEnx makes more sense for the A330.
Can you please provide a linky with weights of GEnx and CF-6-80C2? I am unable to find GEnx weight.
The “base” GEnx produces about 54,000lb of thrust, the next one up the line, the 1B64, produces 63,800. It seems to me that this is right in the ballpark of the CF6-80 series.
For weeks, the word on the street was: “The new guys won’t be able to compete.”
Now that they have found a way to provide real competition (this is good for customers isn’t it?), the established players will run to the governments for help. Very predictable. And the side benefit to their whining (if it works) will be that those QANTAS A380’s get protected from any real competition. Voila!
Am I the only one who thinks that its a crying shame, that they are hideing the real H-229, instead of putting it on display?
My guess it that it is political decision…..”they” don’t want to publicize any perceived technological achievements by Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Those A380’s are amazing…I wonder if this one has given it’s opinion on the paint job? I heard one declared “Pan” the other day….thats what the thread said, “A380 declares Pan.”
Not Radar wins the war, Blechtley Park and their Enigma crack.;)
Through the high German u-boat loss rate was no nickel available for the jet engines etc.
Why used the USN not their superduper RADAR on Pearl Habor?
Before the Randel (UK) and Bott (UK) magnetron based on the Hollmann Patent (Germany) the US had only a 10W klystron in the cm range.:rolleyes:
Britain had no money to develop the magnetron on a massive scale, Churchill agreed that Sir Henry Tizard should offer the magnetron to the Americans in exchange for their financial and industrial help. 😉
I agree that Bletchley Park played a huge role.
The US Army actually tracked the Japanese planes (inbound) that attacked Pearl Harbor from their Opana radar site. Unfortunately, training and doctrine had not caught up with technology.
The USN had only a few bedspring type radars in service at the beginning of the war, but it can easily be shown that, once provided the magnetron help from the UK, the USN rapidly fitted their fleet with various radars. Even vessels as small as PT boats had radar by 1943, submarines and large surface combatants much sooner than that. Even large numbers of USN aircraft had tactically useful radar with the year of 1942.
The first U-boats were equipped with FMG-41g Seetakt radar from 1941. All Type IXC U-boats were fitted with this set, as well as U-boats U-156, 157, and 158. The conning tower fixed antenna array was then replaced with a rotating retractable mast antenna from 1942.
In late 1942, all U-boats were built with the improved FMG-42g.
And finally, the new FuMO-65 was fitted on some of the Type XXI U-boats.
All these were in addition to the various radar warning receivers fitted during the course of the war.
I erred in saying they “were never fitted.” I should have said that operationally useful sets were never utilized on a wide basis.
According to uboat.net, the FMG 41g was “generally unsuccessful” and only fitted to the IXC boats, not the far more numerous type VII’s.
http://www.uboat.net/technical/radar.htm
At the same link, the FMG 42 was easily disabled by depth charges and commanders did not like to use it. It was fitted in late 1942 and that was far too late.
The Type 21 boats arrived far, far too late to influence the war.
About all the warning receivers told you is that a B-24 or Hudson was about to swoop down from the night sky and bomb or depth charge you.
Undoubtedly, Huff/Duff, SONAR, Bletchley Park, and sheer numbers all helped defeat the Uboats, but it is generally accepted by every serious historian I have ever read that the Allies made far better use of Radar than the Axis.
It’s ironic that so many people seem to be “proving” that the Germans and Japanese were very advanced WRT radar, yet they don’t seem to have been able to field tactially useable sets in the during the war.
It has been widely recognized for many years that the Axis lagged far behind the Allies WRT radar. For example, USN submarines were radar equipped very early in the war, yet Japanese destroyers were never so equipped on a wide scale, and only a few were ever equipped at all. Alternatively, the U Boats never had radar, yet the destroyers and aircraft hunting them did.
The plot thickens…
I have asked The Australian’s Steve Creedy for some data Steve…should have some stuff soon for all of us.
See if he can get cargo data also please.
It’s wrong to focus only on loads, fares play as big or bigger role. It’s not the loads that count, but the yield. With the large number of additional seats being added to the market, average fare levels can be expected to fall. The lower prices might stimulate more business, but the yield per seat will be significantly less.
Weren’t those quotes from Payton from the second, flawed, politicized, and overturned decision? Didn’t the first (technical) decision define the KC-767 as the best choice, only to be overturned due to the crappy and illegal lease deal (and also Euro-whining)? Who do Euro’s keep referring only to the second competition, as if the original decision never existed? Oh, yeah, you have to ignore the original spec in order to put forth the too-big A330 as “better.”