Tanker facts and figures.....?

[Jackonicko]

I’m putting together a big table of tanker figures, and while the Boeing airplanes are generally easy, I have some gaps for the Airbus tankers and the VC10s.

What sort of HDUs do they use on:

The German A310 MRTTs, the Canadian MRTTs, the Aussie A330s and the proposed FSTA aircraft?

How many of the FSTA aircraft will have a centreline HDU, and what sort will it be?

What sort of underwing HDUs will they use on the A400M?

When the ex-BA 767s were being proposed for FSTA were they going to be 2 point or 3 point tankers, and what sort of HDUs were going to be used? How many pallets and how many pax could they have carried?

How many pallets and how many pax will the FSTA A330 carry?

What are the MTOWs for all VC10 versions, and the total fuel capacity figures for the K2, assuming that 70.3, 80 and 68 tonnes are right for the C1K, K3 and K4?

How many pallets can a C1K carry, and how many pax can the non-passenger tankers (K2, 3, 4) carry?

I’m putting together something on historic tankers, too, :8 so…..

Does anyone have MTOW and total fuel figures for the Valiant B(K)1, Victor B1A (K2P), K1, K1A and K2, and for the Hercules C1K. What was the HDU on the C1K?

And how about for the Myasischev ‘Bison’ tanker variants? :}

[BEagle]

Some info. (from open sources) for you:

I’m putting together a big table of tanker figures, and while the Boeing airplanes are generally easy, I have some gaps for the Airbus tankers and the VC10s.

What sort of HDUs do they use on:

The German A310 MRTTs, the Canadian MRTTs, the Aussie A330s and the proposed FSTA aircraft??


‘HDU’ normally refers to centreline hose drum units, such as the FRL Mk 17 fitted to VC10K and TriStar. Wing systems are usually termed ‘pods’.
The A310MRTT and CC150T Polaris use FRL 907E pods. A330MRTT and FSTA will also use FRL 900-series pods.

How many of the FSTA aircraft will have a centreline HDU, and what sort will it be?
Anyone’s guess – but probably ‘about half’? Best guess for the centreline HDU is the FRL Mk 40 HDU, currently under development.

What sort of underwing HDUs will they use on the A400M?

FRL 900-series.

When the ex-BA 767s were being proposed for FSTA were they going to be 2 point or 3 point tankers, and what sort of HDUs were going to be used? How many pallets and how many pax could they have carried?

Some 2-point and some 3-point. If I recall correctly, Boeing planned to use the Smiths’ pod for the 2-point aircraft; not sure about the 3-point. As for ‘pallets’, it depends on your definition....

How many pallets and how many pax will the FSTA A330 carry?

The maximum cargo volume available in the A330 is 4803 ft³, using 26 LD3 cargo containers, the most common container in use world-wide, plus 695 ft³ bulk cargo in the rear of the hold whereas the B767 offers a maximum volume of 4030 ft³, some 16% less. However, to achieve this the B767 needs to use 30 smaller LD2 containers plus 430 ft³ bulk cargo. Unlike the A330, the B767cannot carry LD3 containers in side-by-side pairs.

The A330 has a baseline seat fit of 293 seats, 30 B-class at 40” pitch and 263 Y-class at 32” pitch. ba operates the B767 in a variety of seating configurations; typically in ‘Longhaul Regional’ configuration it is fitted with 32 B-class ‘Club World’ seats at 43” pitch and 183 Y-class ‘World Traveller’ seats at 32” pitch. However, other B767-300ER configurations include 24 B-class seats at 38” pitch and 245 Y-class at 32” pitch, a total of 269 seats. The A330 cabin interior is considerably more spacious than that of the B767, allowing standard Y-class seats to be fitted in an 8 abreast configuration with 2 x 19” aisles, apart from the rearmost 5 rows which are fitted 7 abreast. The narrower cabin of the B767 means that seats and aisles of the same dimensions may only be fitted in 7 abreast configuration.

What are the MTOWs for all VC10 versions, and the total fuel capacity figures for the K2, assuming that 70.3, 80 and 68 tonnes are right for the C1K, K3 and K4?

CIK: MTOW 146.5, max fuel 70.3
K2: MTOW 142.4, max fuel 74.0 (if it would trim!)
K3: MTOW (AAR role) 151.9, max fuel 80.0
K4: MTOW: 151.9, max fuel 70.3

How many pallets can a C1K carry, and how many pax can the non-passenger tankers (K2, 3, 4) carry?

C1K can carry 5 NATO pallets in the full freight role, if I recall correctly. K2 had 18 seats in the cabin, K3 has 17, K4 has 30.

[SirToppamHat]

Get a room you two! ;)

STH

[High_lander]

Well.


You learn something new every day.

Fact.

[Jackonicko]

Lovely stuff, BEags.

If only you'd done an exchange on 'Bisons' and rather than wasting your time on Vulcans and Phantoms and the like had done a quick Victor K tour.

[Dan Winterland]

Victor K2 MTOWs: Wartime - 238,000lbs. Peacetime, 223,000lbs. In flight, AAR could take the Max weight to 238,000lbs in peacetime. An empty K2 weighed in between 115,500 and 117,000 lbs.

The Victor had a Mk17 HDU on the centreline and Mk20B pods on the wings. These differed from the pods on the VC10 in that they had their own hydraullic system powered by the Ram Air Tubine on the front of the pod. Ths was used to wind the hose in and out. The RAT also powered the fuel pump. The Mk32 pods fitted to the VC10 just had a fuel pump powered by the RAT which did the winding as well as pumping. The Mk20 was also fitted to the Sea Vixen and Buccaneer in the buddy-buddy role. It had an internal fuel capacity of about 1000lbs and in these aircraft it provided extra tankage. In the Victor however, the pods had to be empty for take off and landing and full in flight for wing bending relief.

The Hecules Tankers had a Mk 17 HDU, the same as fitted to the Victor, VC10 and Tristar.
I don't know about the MA4 Bison, but I did see a Harbin H6 tanker recently.

[Jackonicko]

:=

:8 :8 :8 :8 :8 Xian H-6, surely? :8 :8 :8 :8 :8

;) :}

[BEagle]

Art Field is you man for any queries about the Valiant or Victor..............

























...or Vimy :p

[Jackonicko]

and pre Vimy, we have the expertise of Pontius Navigator

[Art Field]

Jacko.
As volunteered by Beags, another younger member of the Tanker Mafia.
Valiant BK1. Fitted with Mk 16 HDU, like the Mk17 but DC driven rather than AC as the Valiant was DC. Initially the system used a flat fronted probe nozzle but then converted to the rounded tip cus it went in more easily [yes]. Also initially a solid metal drogue but then used the spoked canopy. Max T/O weight with under wings 175000lbs. 4 times Avon 205 with water meth injection.
Victor1, kit as Victor2, forget MTOW, sorry.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks very much, Art. How about max fuel (for Valiant and Victor 1/2)?

And how about an MTOW and max fuel for the Vulcan K2, anyone?

[BEagle]

Vulcan K2: MTOW 92.6 tonne, max fuel 44.5 tonne

Victor K2 - the figure I have is a max fuel value of 58.7 tonne for the K2; the K1 held about 30% less, giving it a max fuel value of about 41 tonne.

Sorry, I don't have any information about the Valiant.

[Dan Winterland]

'Xian H-6, surely?'

Sorry. Xian makes aeroplanes, Harbin makes beer. Easy mistake to make! :O


Actually, when the TU16 was first made in China under licence, it was at the Harbin aircraft factory. Production was later transferred to the Xian factory, but the designator H6 was retained - the H referring to Harbin. If it had first been produced at Xian, it would have a J designator such as the Xian J7 (MiG 21 copy). The J comes from the original Wade-Giles spelling of the city of Xian, which has it as Jian. Both are pronounced the same.





I'll get me anorak!

[ElTeneleven]

What about the Premier AT/AAR fleet?

:confused:

[TheHogwartsBEngO]

the premier AT/AAR fleet?

I think VC10 facts and figures have been posted already on this thread! :E

[ElTeneleven]

:} More likely!

[Tanker512]

The Mk 16 HDU was DC Powered as stated and suspended in the Valiant Bombay, The Bomb bay soors had to be opened to use it,

The Mk 17 HDU a development from the 16 in the Victor K1 and K1A was DC Powered and was lowered into the airstream being retracted when not in use

The Mk17B HDU in the Victor K2 was AC Powered and was again lowered and retracted from into the airstream

The Flat fronted Refuelling Nozzle was the Mk 6 and was superseded by the MK 8 as the RAF call it but infact it was the MA2 designed in the USA

MTOW for all versions of the Victor are in the new book on the Victor

[MrBernoulli]

What new book on the Victor is that, do tell? I only have Andrew Brookes one ....... admittedly signed by one of the Handley Page designers and a Victor test pilot.

[Jackonicko]

Mr B,

Roger Brooks (I hope I've remembered his name correctly) a former Victor crew chief has written a book on the Victor which is being published by Crecy.

Dan W,

I have a way better anorak than you.

Though Harbin made the H-5 (the licenced Il-28) it produced only a handful of H-6s from kits supplied by Tupolev, before the big split between the filthy reds and the inscrutable reds.

Thereafter (and after the usual dislocation and politicking of the Cultural revolution) all Chinese 'Badger' production (as opposed to final assembly) has been by Xian.

ALL of the H-6 tankers (there are two distinct variants, one used by the PLA Air Force, one by the Navy) are Xian-built and Xian designed.

Moreover the H- designation is short for Hong - the Chinese word for bomber, whereas the J- designation indicates a fighter, Q- an attack aircraft and JJ- a fighter trainer. Confusingly, export aircraft have anglicised designations - thus H-6s are known as B-6s, and export J-6s and J-7s are F-6s and F-7s, while the Nanchang Q-5 Fantan becomes the A-5.

[Sadbloke]

I need to stick pins in me eyes! This is possibly the best thread ever if unable to sleep!

[Dan Winterland]

Jackinoko - I bow to the bigger anorak!

[TheVulcan]

Hi!
Writing book on flight testing the Vulcan due out June. Can you or anyone help with Mk1 span, length, wing area, empty weight, max TOW?

[Wader2]

Jacko, I don't recall the Vimy but I do remember how they tried to illuminate the Valiant basket. IIRC the bought some bicycle dynamos from Halford and strapped them on.

There was also a cartoon in the 60s about a further IFR embellishment. This would have involved the in-flight transfer of rations for the crew as well as fuel for the aircraft :}

The big difference, IIRC, between the Valiant and the Victor 1 was the greater off-load ability in the Valiant. I also think it had the ability to transfer all its fuel!

A Valiant could escort a Javelin from UK to Singapore on 4 legs whereas the Victor needed a post take-off top up and even a possible pre-landing prod as well.

In the early 60s I don't think the AAR doctrine for the bombers had been thought through. We were not planned for operational IFR possibly because of the difficulty of ensuring that both tanker and receiver could launch within the warning period and meet up. By 1963 the plan to have the ability to mount an airborne deterrent had also been dropped.

In the reinforcement case it was certainly possible to 'flow' a stream of bombers from UK to Singapore but the tanker force would have had to pre-position down the route first. The bombers could actually flow down the route earlier if they double staged en route and without the heavy financial and training burden of maintaining an IFR capability.

Note: I use IFR for In-flight refuelling as that was the term in the 60s.

[BEagle]

Strangely enough, we're just looking at a new drogue for a certain tanker platform - which uses annular ducts around the drogue shroud to feed air driven generators providing electrical power to lights in the drogue......

[Wader2]

Mmm, tried Halfords yet then?

[Art Field]

Those bicycle dynamos were made by Miller, the Rolls Royce of dynamos but even so they were rather ineffective. In spite of having three per drogue the chance of even one working was pretty low. They had vanes with airflow directed onto them as a turning force but with unreliable results.

The airborne deterrent was trialled for two weeks in July 62 as Trial 448 and in spite of picking mid-summer the weather caused quite a few problems but I think the main reason it was dropped was the expense. As well as the fuel used there was a considerable amount dumped in order to get the Valiant tanker back on the ground to be ready for the next refuel with limited tanker availability.

The Mk16 HDU on the Valiant also differed from subsequent marks in that it was manually operated. The torque for trailing, refuel and wind was set by the Nav Rad using power or scoop settings via a Wheatstone bridge. This was not always reliable and many a hose trailed to five miles, stripping the brake to pieces. It was also possible for the hose to be unbalanced in refuel giving either a hard contact or the opposite with the hose running in as the receiver neared the drogue. These were early days and much to be learned.

[BEagle]

But it's amazing how the wheel has turned full circle with the new air-driven drogue lights!

A chum tells me that the receiver pilots thought they were great - they did the trial in late evening and the drogue was superbly lit. Also the drogue aerodynamic behaviour was, if anything, better than the normal one! And it trailed and rewound very smoothly, with virtually no 'sucking spaghetti' effect.

I'm surprised that, as well as Mr Miller's dynamos, there wasn't a Sturmey Archer 3-speed lurking somewhere within the Valiant's Mk 16 HDU, Arters!

[Art Field]

Well now you mention it there was and indeed still is a gear change system in the HDU but it is controlled by a Ledex, not a little lever on the Engineers desk.

[BEagle]

Presumably they picked up the Ledex rotary switches at a knock down price from the receiver when John Bloom's Rolls Razor twin tub washing machine company went TU in the early '60s?

[sangiovese.]

A chum tells me that the receiver pilots thought they were great - they did the trial in late evening and the drogue was superbly lit. Also the drogue aerodynamic behaviour was, if anything, better than the normal one! And it trailed and rewound very smoothly, with virtually no 'sucking spaghetti' effect.

Wasn't the correct technque not to look at the basket!......or was that cheating...... :)

[BEagle]

Dual: Achieve the stabilzed pre-contact position. Trim. When the red light goes out, add a little power, maintain the reference marks, ignore the drogue.

Solo: Shag up behind the drogue. When the red light goes out, whack on a handful of power and chase the basket.

Solo (US Navy): As above, but don't bother to wait until the red light goes out....:rolleyes:

[VictorPilot]

New thread "Were you ever on Victors" gives access to the Tanker World of yesterday. Bob

[Gainesy]

And think that Bob meant to point out that the Victor thread is in the History and Neuralgia Forum.:)

[ECMO1]

Have you considered looking at ATP-56(B)? Especially the country annexes which contains a significant amount of the information you are looking for. See RAF - Air to Air Refuelling - ATP-56(B) (http://www.raf.mod.uk/downloads/airtoair56b.cfm)

Why recreate a wheel??

[dmussen]

Chaps,
Flew the two point beast in the early seventies. Balanced field calculations and take-off performance were a great source of wonder to me as P2.
My job was to do the sums.
Upstairs it was superb but it's low speed handling was an education in itself.
I will write futher tommorrow about a current book on the Victor which I bought at Duxford in July this year(publisher etc.).
The last B1a is now under cover at Duxford and I note that I flew it three times with 232 OCU. The Gestapo at the museum would not allow me to have a peek inside after all these years. Bastards!!!!
I see that someone refered to us as "Tanker Mafia". In the seventies we were known as "Tanker Wankers". Fighter Jocks were cruel at the bar but I know they really loved us. They had no choice in the matter if you think about it.

[Tankertrashnav]

http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/icons/mpangel.gif The Victor B1a(K)

We had just one of these beasts on 214, XH 667. It was notorious for the variety of snags it came up with, one round the world ranger subsequently being dubbed "Round the World in 80 delays". Its best trick was losing its starboard hose on the RAF Germany towline one night - the thing just trailed normally and kept on going. It was subsequently found in gardens on the outskirts of Bremen - but imagine the havoc caused by a 60' steel-reinforced hose scything through a crowded street at several hundred knots had they not been so lucky!

We had Tanker Trash nav bag name tags made up, which were carried with pride. I've still got mine somewhere. Somewhat politer than the version dmussen quotes!

[Art Field]

Yes, XH667 or Sicky, Sicky Seven as it was often called was actually a Victor B1A[K2P] used mainly for IRT's and the like. 214 was the only squadron that had a mixture of Mk1's and 1A's as we got the leftovers from 55/57. The B1A[K2P] meant it was the bomber with a pod on each wing and no centerline hose.

As far as performance was concerned, the figures, for a long time, were related to 11000 lb per engine on take-off. It was found that, because of Fred's poor engine intake design, the engines only gave 7000 lb on take-off and the new ODM moved the runway end a bit more comfortably away.

[ian16th]

AF
The airborne deterrent was trialled for two weeks in July 62 as Trial 448 and in spite of picking mid-summer the weather caused quite a few problems but I think the main reason it was dropped was the expense. As well as the fuel used there was a considerable amount dumped in order to get the Valiant tanker back on the ground to be ready for the next refuel with limited tanker availability. I was a Cpl/Tech Radar Fitter on 214 Sqdn that carried out the tanker side of the trial. What you referred to as ‘limited tanker availability’ is an understatement of immense proportions.

We were fast running out of serviceable tanker a/c. We were working 3 shifts for about 14 days and I think, flying 3 tankers a shift. The 1st week wasn't too bad, but the cumulative snag rate made the 2nd week a very difficult time, with the last 2 or 3 days being a real struggle to get a/c ready to meet the take-off deadlines. We ended the 2-week period with 10 very tired a/c, many of them having been ‘Xmas Tree’d’ to maintain other a/c and the Sqdn personnel weren’t in a much better state.

There was no way that such a routine could have been maintained for any extended period by a single Sqdn of Valiant’s, with the normal establishment of ground crew.

We of course dropped our normal routine for this period, no training of receiver crews, no ferrying of fighters anywhere. This was dedicated exercise just to keep one Vulcan in the air.

[dmussen]

Jackonicko,
Handley Page Victor
The Cresent winged Bomber

Authors :- Phil Butler & Tony Buttler

cx. out Ianallenpublishing.com (http://www.ianallenpublishing.com)

[a346driver]

If you're interested i could scan my howgozit from my last victor k2 flight with 55Sqn. It's still got the chinagraph scribbles on it.
I couldn't bear to rub them off.....

In fact you could have the entire Nav Bag - oh no maybe I'm not quite ready for that yet.

Give me a mo' and I'll scan it and upload it. I just need to be sure that somebody won't retrospectively take away my B Cat again because of their bitterness at getting old and being a navigator and having a daft moustache - Oh and my appalling fuel planning.

Not that I'm bitter obviously.

So do ya want it?

Alright you convinced me:

SCAN0048 on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/28988274@N04/4035937478/in/photostream/)

[BEagle]

How very quaint! Presumably the 'travelling back in time' event (1305 - 1345 - 1305) wasn't very common....:confused:

But the idea lives on. In the world's only 21st Century multi-hose tanker currently in service, the following are some of the features of the full-colour fuel graph displayed to the Air Refuelling Operator:

The fuel line is planned automatically using the exact fuel burn corresponding to the tanker weight at any time.
Either still-air, forecast or stat. met can be used. Stat met can be anywhere from 35-95%.
Planned receiver offloads are automatically entered.
Minimum Off-Task and Minimum Div fuel ('final reserve') are automatically calculated.
In flight, the actual fuel at any time is updated every few seconds and the actual fuel line is automatically shown on the planned fuel graph in a different colour.
In flight, the spare fuel and 'foxtrot' state are continuously displayed in numerical form on the fuel graph.


Why? Because I specified such requirements! It also plans trails automatically, including 'single click' single hose plan reversion. It's like having an AARC who doesn't trash hire cars, get himself banned from Atlanta, have 'blonde moments' or miss the transport...;)

[a346driver]

You know my time keeping wasn't that great on 101 either! Trust you to actually read the thing, I've never noticed that before!

[VictorPilot]

Very interesting - makes me wonder how on earth Victors managed split second timing in AAR deployments, minimum fuel landings and never lost a receiver, using mental DR and rules of thumb!! Oh yes, the navigators did provide essential back up (!) - that is unless he was a Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capt (N) who never had the right Flt Plans or charts!!! :) I guess the modern pilots, Navs and Flt Engs have laptops on which to play games when not in howgozit mode? Is a modern cockpit a WiFi zone?? LOL :rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Bob, 21st century tanker aeroplanes have no need for navigators, air engineers or AEOs. Just a Mission Specialist to optimise the mission requirements and operate the pod control panel whilst the 2 pilots fly and navigate the aeroplane.

The Mission Computer System is used for a variety of functions, including automatic RV calculations and in-flight mission re-planning. It is proving to be more accurate than those expensive computer flight planning systems sold by well-known commercial companies!

[Tankertrashnav]

that is unless he was a Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capt (N) who never had the right Flt Plans or charts!!!


No names etc but it was pretty well known that his nav radar got the AFC for doing both jobs down the back throughout his tour as sqn cdr. Lovely guy though!!

RV's were quite an art, and a good plotter could make all the difference when meeting a receiver inbound from Cyprus over Sicily, say. As nav radar I only chipped in if required in the final stages, using fishpool on the H2S, marking with a squirt of jettisoned fuel from one of the pods and occasionally firing the Very pistol which made a satisfying muffled bang in the cockpit. Chastening to think that both navs' jobs are now done by a box of tricks the size of a laptop, but can it pass the coffees round?

[Art Field]

I wonder what the Tanker captain has to do of an evening now he is free from escorting the Nav back to his room two or three times in a vain hope that he will stay there rather than come back to the bar. Seriously though there's many a Nav who has dug his crew out a deep hole by a chunk of quick thinking when an RV went wrong, it will be lonely with just two qf you.

[L J R]

...excellent....a Nav rubbishing Thread..!

The Best Nav 'Bashers' are Ex Navs..

[Tankertrashnav]

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to the above but I lost this thread and it's taken me ages to find it again ;)

[BEagle]

I lost this thread and it's taken me ages to find it again

Sounds rather like something a certain erstwhile VC10K navigator might have said about his track-keeping.

Dear old 'Admiral Zig Zag', of whom a captain once asked "Doesn't he know any numbers smaller than 20?" when being given yet another heading change on the Ocean. I also once queried the heading on an off-airways route in the US by asking "Shouldn't we be pointing at the other side of Lake Ontario - I'm sure America's on the left and we seem to be aiming at Canada?" "Err, oh yes. Come 20 left....:hmm:" He'd missed a waypoint, it seems.

His best effort, though, was to set off from ASI to MPA about 30 deg off heading....:\

A very nice, amiable chap who did at least admit he wasn't the world's best navigator and who always stood up for his chaps against daftness from above. But all the fun and mystery has gone now that the VC10 has a FMS nav display at the front!

[BenThere]

"Why did you become a nav?" I asked my friend, who didn't wear glasses, was socially adept, and sharp as anyone I've known.

"So I wouldn't have to fly with one," he replied.

[Dan Winterland]

You know my time keeping wasn't that great on 101 either!

Now I know who you are!

[Minorite invisible]

Although the German and Canadian A-310 MRTTs could technically be fitted with 5 lower-hold Additional Center Tanks (ACT), each ACT having a capacity of about 4,580 Kgs of fuel, they are only fitted with 4 of them. This is in addition to the 48,862 Kgs of fuel located in the regular tanks. All but the 6 tonnes located in the outer wing tanks can technically be transfered.

I think that the reason they have 4 ACTs instead of the max of 5 is that they converted lower-powered A-310-304 to MRTT standard, which only have a Maximum Take-off weight of 157,000 Kgs. In order to be able to carry the 5 lower hold tanks, they would need to have an Airbus 310-308s, which have a MTOW of 164,000 Kgs.

In order to upgrade their A-310-304s to A-310-308s, to benefit from that extra 7 tonnes of take-off weight, the aircraft would need to upgrade their engines from CF6-80C2A2 of 53,500 lbs, to CF6-80C2A8 of 59,000 lbs.

They are fitted with two Flight Refuelling Ltd Mk32B pods.

[BEagle]

Actually, since the users' required target specification could easily be met with 4 ACTs, a 5th ACT would only be a 'nice-to-have' which would also impose a ZFW penalty when empty. As it would be for most flights.

Now that the CC150T and A310MRTT have been fully certified, the cost in down time to include a 5th ACT would be quite significant. Certain systems would require some design modification and an extensive test programme would also be necessary to validate fuel transfer and CG envelope issues. Add to that the workload involved in revising all the paperwork and you will realise that it wouldn't be a simple modification. Although, of course, it could be done if there was an urgent operational imperative. It's just not particularly cost-effective.

The pods are Cobham Mission Equipment (FRL) 907Es.

Fuel quantity in tankers can sometimes seem paradoxical. For example, had it been possible to isolate the front cell of the VC10K2 fuselage tank, it would have been possible to load more fuel than otherwise. Because with even just a basic 4 person crew, at max fuel the CG would be nudging the front of the envelope. Often maximum Tailplane Incidence was needed, "6 and a bit TPI and a bit of a pull" would be briefed by the Air Eng, particularly on trips with several pax and a high fuel load. You would set as much TPI as the Take-Off Configuration Warning system would allow; even then, the take-off, flap retraction and initial climb could be very demanding! Particularly given the higher buffet speeds of the old K2 and the fact that aileron upset applied immediately the flap lever was at 'UP', rather than when the flaps passed 14.5 deg on the way up as in later VC10s. This required a LOT of anticipation and some very positive trimming by the pilot flying!

Sorted the men from the boys, did a heavy K2!

On trails we would often load 'trimmed max fuel' and it took a lot of juggling with pax, fuel and cargo to find the optimum solution. Our expert Air Engineers were masters of their craft though and always got it right. But if we'd been able to keep the front cell empty, we'd have been able to fill up to MTOW with a bunch of punters before reaching the CG limit.

[Minorite invisible]

Actually, I think that EADS had planned the A-310 MRTT with 5 tanks and modified it to 4 tanks for A-310-304 use. On the EADS website:

"The A310 MRTT, with up to five additional fuel tanks in its lower deck, can be provided with a combination of wing pod and/or fuselage hose and drogue units and/or the Airbus Military Air refuelling boom system (ARBS)."

Airbus MRTT - Air to Air Refuelling Tanks (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/mrtt/mrtt2.html)

[BEagle]

Yes, certainly old marketing literature showed the possibility of all sorts of things for the MRTT. The 1997 'Pocket Guide to Airbus Military Derivatives' included versions with a fuel capacity of 77.5 tonne, including 5 ACTs and a MTOW of 164 tonne.

It also showed AEW&C and 'Government and VIP' versions being offered, as well as tanker versions with options of a probe, air refueling receptacle and boom.

The aircraft was later marketed by EADS with 164 tonne MTOW, 5 ACTs (each carries 5770 kg of fuel, incidentally), the option of a boom or centreline hose and would have been powered by the GE CF6-80C2A8 or PW 4156A. But no probe or receptacle.

But this was all true of 'production line' aircraft. Whereas both the German A310MRTT and the Canadian CC150T are modified versions of aircraft already in service. The customers' mission requirements could be met with 4 ACTs and there was consequently no need to increase the MTOW or uprate the engines. Few military customers these days opt to pay for surplus capability, so the 157 tonne version with 4 ACTs is the version now in service with both the Luftwaffe and Canadian Forces.

However, if a customer were to acquire some 164 tonne MTOW A310 aircraft with a view to modifying them to carry 5 ACTs, that could certainly be achieved. Some of the additional AAR systems were designed with 5 ACTs in mind, so this requirement could still be met.

[BEagle]

Our client requires experienced type-rated Airbus A330 pilots for training duties. The successful candidate will have experience of air-to-air refuelling in the tanker role, as well as significant military or civilian instructional experience. You should hold ATPL(A) with Airbus A330 type rating and a current Class 1 medical, without climatic restrictions. You will be an effective instructor and have the ability to work flexibly and without supervision. You must be willing to work worldwide, have good interpersonal skills and be an excellent communicator with the ability to act as an ambassador while overseas.

Well I guess the 'client' behind this advert must be able to offer a very good package indeed, seeing that the contract is for a mere 3 years.

Reality check??

[L J R]

For a half million per year (going rate for A2 AAR QFIs with ATPL A330 et al.....)....I'm sure all of them will jump to this opportunity...(sorry, I only know of ONE of him.)