No, I have stated several times that there are written agreements covering access to software & rights to modify aircraft.

I have read most of the replys on this subject and have yet read what should have been salient point from the begining. The softwear in question was developed by Lockheed Martin (not the US government) and is their proprietary properity. Even the US government does not have the right to change it. Any modification to the softwear must be accomplished by, or in accordance with, Lockheed Martin.

………

the 14 quoted above for MRRT rings a bell and prompts my own question; is there any chance of the RAF opting for another 4 or so more? 14 isn’t enough by about half, the alternative being to buy refueling kits for the some of the A400s (or a non-linear, non-sensical alternative being to retire 30% of the fleet so there are enough tankers to go around, surely the Call-me-Dave’s wont be as bad as labour?)

…………..

Thanks in advance

The chances of the RAF getting more A330-200 tankers seem slim since the 14 Air Tanker 300-200’s will not all be in RAF service the at same time (except in critical situtions). Air Tankers will retain 5 that they will be able to lease to civilian operators.

Repairing composite aircraft structure is no different then repair aluminum structure. You have to repair the damaged area so that is as strong or stronger than the original structure and in such a manner that it does not cause excessive stresses on the surrounding area.

The attached artical describes a composite patch developed for use on the aluminum L-1011. Note the date, over 12 years ago.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1997_June26/ai_19532195/

… and the only time the RAF will ever use ALL of the converted aircraft is during a huge crisis – a war… I would hazard a guess that the aircraft could be re-roled witrhin a ‘C’ check timescale – probably a week or so. The majority of wars have build-up phases which would give the MOD plenaty of time to lease the remaining aircraft and re-role them.

This may be ture, but where is he RAF going to get the addtional crews to operate these extra aircraft that have now been pressed into service. Unlike the States that has Reserve and National Guard to pick up the slack when there is a need the UK does not have the same capability. They can’t be operated by cilivians.

It can’t be a ‘civil’ C-17 as they have not been certified. It’s just a fancy paint job.

It’s a chemicaly etched doubler. You find them all over Boeings.

Rgds Cking

It is a “bonded” doubler not a chemicaly etiched (milled) doubler. It is called a tear strap and it prevents a crack from growing past a specific length.

The pictures show the skin and a the seperate doubler!

And I can’t believe a company with as much experience as Douglas had with jets in the late 60s, would mess up a design that badly.

Douglas philosphy was that aircraft design should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The DC-10 uses a scaled up DC-9 designs for the leading edge slats and the trailing edge flaps. The fuselage structural design is similar to the DC-9 but scaled up to the DC-10 size. Many other systems and design features of the DC-10 follow this same pattern.

Did they mess up the design, they sold more than the “revolutionary” L-1011? Was the design safe, there are still many DC-10 flying?

I like to compare the DC-10 to a car. Say you were Volkswagen and you wanted to make a car as big as a Cadillac. You surly would not want to start with the “Beetle” and just make it bigger. Will that is basicly what Douglas did with the DC-10.