EADS won't appeal tanker award to Boeing
03-10-2011, 02:43 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Position: Petting Zoo
Posts: 2,108
Really, last time I checked Boeing gets large hunks of their planes built in China, Italy, Japan.....
The 767, for example.
It may or may not be a better airplane (I've no idea) but all-American it sure ain't.
03-10-2011, 03:48 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: L Side
Posts: 409
I'll jump in here.
Even though I'm a 330/340 F/O at the moment, I'm not an Airbus fan. That said, the reality is the A330 is much more capable than the older technology B767. I know another poster on another thread pointed out that that the A330 was more aircraft than the USAF asked for, and I won't argue with that. However, I don't believe that any of us aims to pass a check ride with the minimum PTS standards; I believe that we aim to (or at least try to) exceed the standards. The A330 variant exceeds the standard by a greater margin than the B767 variant does.
03-10-2011, 06:58 PM
#13
New Hire
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: KC-135 IP
Posts: 62
I'll jump in here.
Even though I'm a 330/340 F/O at the moment, I'm not an Airbus fan. That said, the reality is the A330 is much more capable than the older technology B767. I know another poster on another thread pointed out that that the A330 was more aircraft than the USAF asked for, and I won't argue with that. However, I don't believe that any of us aims to pass a check ride with the minimum PTS standards; I believe that we aim to (or at least try to) exceed the standards. The A330 variant exceeds the standard by a greater margin than the B767 variant does.
Even though I'm a 330/340 F/O at the moment, I'm not an Airbus fan. That said, the reality is the A330 is much more capable than the older technology B767. I know another poster on another thread pointed out that that the A330 was more aircraft than the USAF asked for, and I won't argue with that. However, I don't believe that any of us aims to pass a check ride with the minimum PTS standards; I believe that we aim to (or at least try to) exceed the standards. The A330 variant exceeds the standard by a greater margin than the B767 variant does.
Bro, you have dibs on this since you started it. I'll pick up the pieces and have fun with them. Since we're both tanker pukes, we know the business and what the USAF needs. Enjoy!
03-10-2011, 09:00 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Sorry guys, I've been out for training. Sorry to leave ya hanging. MD11 said it perfectly. The USAF needs booms in the sky with the smallest footprint available.
Military airfields generally aren't stressed as strong like civilian fields. Even worse, overseas military airfields aren't stressed for heavies and they certainly don't have lots of room either.
In the KC-10, we routinely have problems with weight bearing. In fact, we produce a higher weight bearing than a C5 or C17 due to our lack of tires. (The KC10 and C17 weigh the same). Additionally, we also have problems with taxiway or ramp obstacles due to our wingspan. The Airbus will have these same issues as well.
The Airbus tanker is nearly 100K pounds heavier than the 767. The Airbus tanker's wingspan is nearly 50 feet greater in length.
When you add it all up, the Airbus will be harder to complete the same mission as the KC135. It will mean less aircraft we can park on an austere, contingency, or host nation ramp. The aircraft will be harder for crews to negotiate ramp or taxiway obstacles. They'll also be more expensive to operate since they burn more fuel per hour. Gas isn't cheap anymore.
KC135s and more importantly KC10s have a very tough time refueling slower aircraft (A-10s and C-130s). So it would seem logical to me that the Airbus's extra weight would make it more difficult fly that slow compared to a 767. However, I could be wrong (the wings are different).
I'm training on the 767 right now for my airline. The aircraft is very simple. I don't care if it is older technology, it is simple. Remember, we aren't putting 20 year Captains in these things. We are putting 1000 hour Pilot In Commands and 250 hour Second In Commands which leads me to my last point.
Airbus aircraft have shown a propensity to lose either their complete vertical stab or rudder during either pilot error, turbulent weather, or by delamination. Sure, if you honk on the 767 rudder, you can derive the same results. If you fly through a bad thunderstorm, you can have the same results. However, thankfully, that has never happened to my knowledge in the 767.
So which aircraft would I trust my young Air Force pilots in? The 767.
Military airfields generally aren't stressed as strong like civilian fields. Even worse, overseas military airfields aren't stressed for heavies and they certainly don't have lots of room either.
In the KC-10, we routinely have problems with weight bearing. In fact, we produce a higher weight bearing than a C5 or C17 due to our lack of tires. (The KC10 and C17 weigh the same). Additionally, we also have problems with taxiway or ramp obstacles due to our wingspan. The Airbus will have these same issues as well.
The Airbus tanker is nearly 100K pounds heavier than the 767. The Airbus tanker's wingspan is nearly 50 feet greater in length.
When you add it all up, the Airbus will be harder to complete the same mission as the KC135. It will mean less aircraft we can park on an austere, contingency, or host nation ramp. The aircraft will be harder for crews to negotiate ramp or taxiway obstacles. They'll also be more expensive to operate since they burn more fuel per hour. Gas isn't cheap anymore.
KC135s and more importantly KC10s have a very tough time refueling slower aircraft (A-10s and C-130s). So it would seem logical to me that the Airbus's extra weight would make it more difficult fly that slow compared to a 767. However, I could be wrong (the wings are different).
I'm training on the 767 right now for my airline. The aircraft is very simple. I don't care if it is older technology, it is simple. Remember, we aren't putting 20 year Captains in these things. We are putting 1000 hour Pilot In Commands and 250 hour Second In Commands which leads me to my last point.
Airbus aircraft have shown a propensity to lose either their complete vertical stab or rudder during either pilot error, turbulent weather, or by delamination. Sure, if you honk on the 767 rudder, you can derive the same results. If you fly through a bad thunderstorm, you can have the same results. However, thankfully, that has never happened to my knowledge in the 767.
So which aircraft would I trust my young Air Force pilots in? The 767.
03-11-2011, 07:17 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: L Side
Posts: 409
Thanks for keeping it civil KC10 it's appreciated.
I am an outsider looking in and I'm sure you have first-hand knowledge of what you speak (Air Force requirements), while I know only what I've read.
You'll never hear me say that the Airbus is simple; it's actually not. I'll go so far as to say it is overly complicated. I just have to stress that I am not a fan of the complexity. I won’t argue about the Airbus rudders, but don’t forget that a few B737s have been lost due to faulty rudders. IMO, both airframers have been known to screw-up some things.
On the subject of speeds- at max take-off weight (233 T), green-dot speed (L/D max clean) is only 247 KIAS (sea-level). Throw the slats out and you can fly around at 204 KIAS (S speed) or select a speed as low as 184 KIAS (Vls slats out). If you put the flaps out the speeds drop even more. At max landing weight (180 T), the A330 Vapp is approximately 141 KIAS, or 5 KIAS above Vls. Those speeds are 3 KIAS, respectively, slower than an A321 at max landing weight.
I won’t dispute the A330 having a bigger footprint, but those big wings make it like a glider. For instance, in descent planning we use altitude by four instead of the typical altitude by three. It’s an efficient wing. I saw on another thread that some poster said the B767 cruises faster- I’m not sure about that. Mmo on the A330 is M0.86 and a typical managed cruise speed is M0.81. I’ve seen as high as M0.83 (based on Cost Index and a strong headwind). You could also fly a selected speed and wind it up to what you want. I believe that in general Boeing makes better wings, but in this case the Airbus wing is very good for this aircraft. I believe the A330 take more fuel and remain airborne longer.
Regarding the higher weight of the Airbus and the stresses caused to the airfields, the Boeing wins there. I took a look in the Jepps and the max weight variant of the B767-300 ER has an ACN of 68/25 (MN/m3) at max/empty weight on a pavement subgrade rated as poor. The A330 was 73/30 (MN/m3) on a similar surface. I’m not sure of the weights for the KC-10, but I looked at the highest weights of the DC-10 and the ACN was identical to the B767.
How you maneuver it on a ramp depends on the driver; I’ve been into fields that were certainly not designed and built for an aircraft of this size. Once, there wasn’t even an appropriately rated tow-bar there, the tow-bar that was used for pushing us back had a lower weight-rating than what the aircraft usually needs. That day we couldn’t start engines until pushback was complete to avoid adding the stress of the engines at idle to the already weak tow bar.
I am an outsider looking in and I'm sure you have first-hand knowledge of what you speak (Air Force requirements), while I know only what I've read.
You'll never hear me say that the Airbus is simple; it's actually not. I'll go so far as to say it is overly complicated. I just have to stress that I am not a fan of the complexity. I won’t argue about the Airbus rudders, but don’t forget that a few B737s have been lost due to faulty rudders. IMO, both airframers have been known to screw-up some things.
On the subject of speeds- at max take-off weight (233 T), green-dot speed (L/D max clean) is only 247 KIAS (sea-level). Throw the slats out and you can fly around at 204 KIAS (S speed) or select a speed as low as 184 KIAS (Vls slats out). If you put the flaps out the speeds drop even more. At max landing weight (180 T), the A330 Vapp is approximately 141 KIAS, or 5 KIAS above Vls. Those speeds are 3 KIAS, respectively, slower than an A321 at max landing weight.
I won’t dispute the A330 having a bigger footprint, but those big wings make it like a glider. For instance, in descent planning we use altitude by four instead of the typical altitude by three. It’s an efficient wing. I saw on another thread that some poster said the B767 cruises faster- I’m not sure about that. Mmo on the A330 is M0.86 and a typical managed cruise speed is M0.81. I’ve seen as high as M0.83 (based on Cost Index and a strong headwind). You could also fly a selected speed and wind it up to what you want. I believe that in general Boeing makes better wings, but in this case the Airbus wing is very good for this aircraft. I believe the A330 take more fuel and remain airborne longer.
Regarding the higher weight of the Airbus and the stresses caused to the airfields, the Boeing wins there. I took a look in the Jepps and the max weight variant of the B767-300 ER has an ACN of 68/25 (MN/m3) at max/empty weight on a pavement subgrade rated as poor. The A330 was 73/30 (MN/m3) on a similar surface. I’m not sure of the weights for the KC-10, but I looked at the highest weights of the DC-10 and the ACN was identical to the B767.
How you maneuver it on a ramp depends on the driver; I’ve been into fields that were certainly not designed and built for an aircraft of this size. Once, there wasn’t even an appropriately rated tow-bar there, the tow-bar that was used for pushing us back had a lower weight-rating than what the aircraft usually needs. That day we couldn’t start engines until pushback was complete to avoid adding the stress of the engines at idle to the already weak tow bar.
03-11-2011, 04:05 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,105
Dundem, thanks for the reply, very informative. Those airspeeds are impressive. What type of bank angle protection do you get with those?
Another issue to worry about is deck angle. When the KC-10 has to refuel slower aircraft (at higher tanker grossweights), the wings must have slats and some flaps extended. Unfortunately, the deck angle starts to get very high. This causes two problems. For the tanker, induction icing. For the receiver aircraft, two problems. The high deck angle of the tanker causes a visual illusion which becomes problematic for the pilot. Additionally, if you produce a big wake, the A-10 and certainly the C-130s can not be refueled. To get around this, the tanker must toboggan (descend at 300FPM) so that the receiver can stay in.
Some of the hardest ARs I've completed were with A-10s that needed 180-ish knots (our min boom speed is 180) and we had to toboggan. Nine hours of tobogganing over the Pacific is painful ... very very painful.
Do to the low altitudes that the A-10s and C-130s need, we've had tankers land with substantial engine damage caused by induction ice (flying low/slow/high pitch angle in moist clear air).
The one thing that I do not like about the 767 is that you can't anti-ice an inoperative engine. This doesn't seem to be a big threat to a 3 or 4 engine tanker, but it is definitely something to think about in a two engine aircraft while flying a diversion over the water, 300 miles from a divert, in the mid 20s (typical AR altitude), and that inoperative engine is scooping up ice. This seems like a very real threat to not only splashing 4 fighters, but also losing the tanker as well. It has happened before to a 767 and the aircraft had maximum power on the remaining engine on final due to the ice buildup on the inoperative engine. I'm not sure if Boeing/USAF will address this or is this even an issue on the Airbus. But it is definitely an issue in my book.
The problem I have with both tankers is that they're just big. If we could build modernized KC-135s that would be great. But it isn't going to happen. I like the simplicity of the 767 which respect to aircraft systems and autopilot etc. I think the low time USAF pilots would do best in them. Personal opinion.
Another issue to worry about is deck angle. When the KC-10 has to refuel slower aircraft (at higher tanker grossweights), the wings must have slats and some flaps extended. Unfortunately, the deck angle starts to get very high. This causes two problems. For the tanker, induction icing. For the receiver aircraft, two problems. The high deck angle of the tanker causes a visual illusion which becomes problematic for the pilot. Additionally, if you produce a big wake, the A-10 and certainly the C-130s can not be refueled. To get around this, the tanker must toboggan (descend at 300FPM) so that the receiver can stay in.
Some of the hardest ARs I've completed were with A-10s that needed 180-ish knots (our min boom speed is 180) and we had to toboggan. Nine hours of tobogganing over the Pacific is painful ... very very painful.
Do to the low altitudes that the A-10s and C-130s need, we've had tankers land with substantial engine damage caused by induction ice (flying low/slow/high pitch angle in moist clear air).
The one thing that I do not like about the 767 is that you can't anti-ice an inoperative engine. This doesn't seem to be a big threat to a 3 or 4 engine tanker, but it is definitely something to think about in a two engine aircraft while flying a diversion over the water, 300 miles from a divert, in the mid 20s (typical AR altitude), and that inoperative engine is scooping up ice. This seems like a very real threat to not only splashing 4 fighters, but also losing the tanker as well. It has happened before to a 767 and the aircraft had maximum power on the remaining engine on final due to the ice buildup on the inoperative engine. I'm not sure if Boeing/USAF will address this or is this even an issue on the Airbus. But it is definitely an issue in my book.
The problem I have with both tankers is that they're just big. If we could build modernized KC-135s that would be great. But it isn't going to happen. I like the simplicity of the 767 which respect to aircraft systems and autopilot etc. I think the low time USAF pilots would do best in them. Personal opinion.
03-11-2011, 04:44 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,083
Exactly. Color me cynical, but just like EADS, Boeing is an internationally held corporation that doesn't give a damn about US jobs, the US taxpayer, or the US in general. I just hope it's the best plane for the US military.
03-12-2011, 09:19 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,531
The key here in addition to the extra weight is the infrastructure costs of bringing the A330 online at bases with KC-135 hangers that can be modified to fit a 767, but not for an A330 due to wingspan, in addition to taxiway and apron reconstruction for the weight.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
