Hot_CharlieWhen the Airbus A330-200 …
… If an engine malfunctions on takeoff – let alone from a manpads attack – you have the makings of quite the human catastrophe.
Manpads will be countered by quite a high spec DAS I suspect.
As for engine failure or loss of power, the aircraft is designed and, more importantly, certified to be able to cope on a single engine past V1 on the takeoff roll (“perf A”), and in normal operations will often have better performance than a similarly designed three of four engined aircraft due to the nature of meeting the performance criteria with only two engines.
Twin engine aircraft don’t exactly thrill me…
Out of 2,500 McDonnell Douglas DC-9, 77 have ended in crashes.
Airbus A300 had 11 crashes.
Airbus A310 had 8 crashes.
The A320 had 10 crashes.
The A330 had 3 crashes.
Boeing 737 had 84 crashes.
Boeing 757 had 9 crashes.
Boeing 767 had 9 crashes.
Boeing 777 had 1 crash.
Those stats are a little meaningless without looking at them alongside three and four engine aircraft, number in service and cause – and I’d be very interested to see the DC-10 and 747 stats alongside.
Just looking at the A320 (which will always have figures skewed by its numbers in service, as have the DC9 and 737 families), A330 and 777, the three aircraft under 25 years old in the list, you’re looking at quite an improvement.
Hot_CharlieI think you could lose several tons by removing some of the passenger cabin fittings, galleys, etc. from the A330. Airbus gives a “typical” operating weight empty (exact weight will differ according to customer choices) of 119.6 tons for the A330-200, & maximum T/O weights of 230 (233) tons. I don’t know why there’s a slightly higher figure given in brackets.
Note that according to the manufacturers, the A330-200 flies 25% further than the DC-10-30 on only 0.3% more fuel. You can see how much difference buying a newer design makes.
Indeed. Fact and figures, and their accuracy and reliability will vary from publication to publication. The only document you can trust is the official aircraft documentation.
As for operating weights, using the example of the “classic” MRTT, the VC10, the C1K (the variant that can do AAR, freight and pax, or a mixture of any and each at one time), the ZFW can vary from just over 70t to 93t (although is limited on fuel once above 77/78t).
Hot_CharlieThe KC-30 does not carry less fuel than the KC-10 because “it hasn’t been fitted with extra capacity for refuelling“. It carries less fuel because it does not have the payload/lifting capability of the KC-10. As I explained, with 246,000 lbs of payload (fuel) the KC-30 IS ALREADY essentially maxxed out.
You can not simply add auxiliary fuel tanks to increase the KC-30’s fuel capacity as Boeing can do with the KC-767. Increasing the KC-30 fuel capacity would require increasing its MTOW weight (with a corresponding increase in OEW).[/QUOTE]
Yes, but all I’m saying was the reason the KC-10 has such a larger fuel capacity is because it has had tanks fitted in its adaptation from the DC10 airframe design. As basic airframes before adaptation they both have very similar fuel capacity.
You can not simply add auxiliary fuel tanks to increase the KC-30’s fuel capacity as Boeing can do with the KC-767. Increasing the KC-30 fuel capacity would require increasing its MTOW weight (with a corresponding increase in OEW).
I’m not saying they should. They could reasonably easily I suspect, but probably only gain an extra 20-40,000 (as BAe did with the Vickers VC-10 K2 and K3 fuselage tanks) whilst sacrificing pax and freight capability, but certainly for most customers needs it would be pointless and financially unnecessary.
Do you have to try and turn everything into an argument? I was merely helpfully explaining something to someone (which is difficult within a mountain of huge long lists of bickering posts), yet you feel the need to butt in completely unnecessarily.
Hot_Charlie“Tyree said that the greater size of the KC-10 versus the KC-135 makes it an in-demand asset for some missions, because it can carry more fuel.”
Indeed. Sometimes it would be desirable for a larger tanker to be on station; for example often you’ll find a tanker supporting one particular asset over its tasking (in relatively low-tempo ops, as we have now), but for the first or final “plug” another tanker is needed. This can lead to being slightly inefficient, as unless there is further trade then the it might end up being a very small task for the other tanker.
Not so much of a problem perhaps for the USAF, but for probe and drogue aircraft (RAF, USN, USMC) of which there are generally fewer available, then it’s not great.
Having said that, hopefully with KC-X the US forces will solve the issue by having ubiquity in tankers with both the boom and pods.
Hot_CharlieThe KC-30 carries less fuel because 246,000 lbs of fuel puts it essentially at its MTOW. In order to carry more fuel its MTOW would need to be increased (with a corresponding increase in OEW – which is already ~15,000 lbs more than the KC-10). BUT that is going in the WRONG direction for KC-X.
Yes. And the relevance of that in response to my post? No one was saying anything about putting any more fuel in the A330 – as you mention, for KC-X you wouldn’t need to. I was merely pointing out to F35b what was going to make up for a 10-15t difference in empty weight, as opposed to the KC-10’s much greater MTOW.
Hot_CharlieIF the A330 is so much heavier than the KC-10 but carries less fuel what is this extra weight taking up by on the A330?
The A330 carries less fuel as it hasn’t been fitted with extra capacity for refuelling – hence the MRTT name – it’s a transport as well as a tanker.
I suspect the empty weights quoted include basic role equipment, hence for and empty A330-200 it’s about 120t, and with the boom/pods/centreline HDU up towards 125t for the A330 MRTT/KC-30. With seats, galleys, toilets etc, combined with the slightly larger dimensions, goes a fair way to explaining the weight difference. It’s also unclear whether the later addition of wing pods to some of the KC-10 fleet is included in certain figures – although the difference would be fairly negligible.
AFAIK, the the KC10 cabin is fairly spartan, just like the KC-135. I know they occasionally expose people to hours down the back in the cabin of the 135 on the fold down cloth seats (which can only be a little more comfortable than hours in a C-130), but do they also do so on the KC-10?
Hot_CharlieSnow monkey made a good point about the NATO C-17’s they are based in Papa Hungary all alone where in my opinion it maybe would have been wiser to co-locate them with other C-17’s.
I’m sure there were dozens of bases in western Europe that would have been far more practical, but I suspect Papa was very much a political solution with a high profile and high value NATO asset being permanently based in a former Warsaw Pact nation.
Hot_Charliei think they were talking about stuff like speed during climb to altitude that doesn’t impact AAR
It does.;) Every single aspect of flying the tanker (even down to you cruise level back to base, and the type of approach you choose to fly) impacts on what “service” you can provide a receiver (and in the bigger picture the commanders), and ultimately, profiles will end up quite similar.
Hot_CharlieWhy is fuel burn calculated for profiles based on what’s efficient for the KC-135 when the most efficient profile for our plane is different (no real answer)
Possibly because once on task the limiting factor in the tankers performance (for example the most limiting being altitude in most cases) is the performance of the receiver aircraft during AAR.
Hot_CharlieAs for FSTA being set in stone, I wouldn’t bet on it, a lot of PFI’s are going to go under the microscope after the election to see if savings can be made.
The thing is though, it’s pretty much well under way, in all but the aircraft actually being delivered to Brize Norton.
And of course, whose constituency does it affect the most?
Hot_CharlieNone ! But the C-17 possibly can. they have certainly moved Abrams, but I don’t recall seeing a Chally2 loaded in any press release from the MOD
Moving one or two at a time though with a small fleet of aircraft, you can see the values of a ship!:D
Hot_CharlieI would favour an all or nothing approach if the A400M actually is successful and is delivered to specification. What I mean by that is replacing the current C-130J fleet with A400M’s later in the production run by that time the C-130J fleet should be in its early 20’s. They could either be sold or retired as they have had a very busy life in RAF service and if current operations continue and the A400M delays persist they will almost be needing replaced.
As you mention with the C-130J fleet becoming very tired very much earlier than envisaged in the late 90s, the sooner we have the A400M the better* with our amazing record in procurement. There’s a chance it’ll be fully operational by 2018 then!:D
*not the mention the VC10/Herc K/TriStar aircrew looking for a new job!
Hot_CharlieOne thing other commenter’s seem to be conveniently ignoring is that the RAF will have to operate a small 6-8 Aircraft C-17 fleet for 20 odd years alongside 2 other main aircraft fleets with similar roles.
[1]http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/01/16/321227/uk-reveals-conti…
To be fair we’re already operating five major air transport assets, so a fleet of four (relatively modern) types doing the job more efficiently would be a decent improvement.
Hot_CharlieIf the A400M is above 65-70% of the cost of a C-17 then I would strongly advocate ditching it especially for the RAF which already operates and supports the C-17. Doing so would be very wise in both the long and short term as it would keep the C-17 line open and keep support costs down in the longer term.
But that cunningly ignores the fact that UK plc has already invested a lot of time and a huge amount money in the project, which if you were then to put the C-17 purchase price on top of that, then you’re really talking a lot of money.
Hot_CharlieThe A400M is wider & higher internally than the Il-76, let alone the C-130J. There are a hell of a lot of loads that it can carry that don’t fit in the C-130J, & even if it only lifts 32 tons
At a conference I attended a few years back, that was essentially the argument made. Even if the increase in payload isn’t huge, the increase in physical space is large enough to warrant the design.:)
Sign In
