Air-Refuelling Systems Advisory Group 2010

[BEagle]

Any PPRuNers going to ARSAG 2010 in Orlando next week?

[169west]

I wish I can but my boss doesn't pay the bill! cheap bast***!

[FFP]

Likewise. Was all set to go last year, but the funding was pulled. DIFF was trying to get over for it if I remember ?

[D-IFF_ident]

DIFF will be there - and can PM a list of other attendees to those who need to know... :ok:

[SirToppamHat]

There will only be one member of the Royal Air Force/MOD attending. Travel will be by self-drive MT fitted with large tyres (AKA floatation Devices) for the wet bits. The attendee will be taking his/her own sandwiches. Tap water is to be taken with meals. There will be no requirement for alcohol, newspapers or toothpaste.

Cancel all that, apparently the MOD has taken up the offer of a webcam feed instead.

STH

[FFP]

And there's me just about to say the attendee is lucky they're going at all ;)

[BEagle]

Cancel all that, apparently the MOD has taken up the offer of a webcam feed instead.

Probably a monochrome webcam at that....on the cheapest cost low bandwidth system the MoD piggy bank will allow.

On second thoughts, can you really imagine a webcam link being permitted by the no-you-can't MoD IT-plods?

[Art Field]

Hey Beags, getting there again you jammy swine. Do you get a meal out of FRA as we did at Dayton back in the 80's? I think we were talking about replacing the Fun Bus even then, much talk but little water has flown since then.

[BEagle]

Hi Arters, yes indeed so! How are you keeping, old chum?

Oddly enough, I happened to bump into the ex-FRL chap you lot shamed into giving you a slap up meal in Dayton the other day. Roger now works at EASA in Cologne - I hadn't seen him since 1974!

I don't think that Cobham's corporate hospitality budget is quite so generous these days - but I might mention it to a chap who'll be there!

The ageing Vickers FunBus isn't seen (or heard....) quite as often these days - hopefully one day the RAF AAR force will get their hands on a nice new A330MRTT or few......:hmm:

[Algy]

First two now back on their wheels after structural mods in the hangars at Getafe, painted and looking rather splendid actually. Hyd, fuel, electrics now underway.

[Flyt3est]

The Centreline Hose and Drogue system is looking a bit sexy on the production line as we speak :ok:

[Easy Street]

The Centreline Hose and Drogue system is looking a bit sexy


Jesus, I've heard it all now! Hopefully no-one's going to 'plug in' before the inaugural receiver aircraft...

[Flyt3est]

Easy Street - You have no appreciation of engineering design and excellence.. its all about tits and ar5e to you isn't it..?? :p


Come to think of it.. he has a point..

[BEagle]

Certainly the 80x-series centreline system looks rather more elegant than the dear old Mk 17! But won't aircrew miss that Hoovermatic ledex rotary switch clanking away in the HDU control panel.

Watching the groundcrew testing a Mk 17 was always...interesting. And ideally viewed from a safe distance!

One presumes that the design elegance extends to a better motor control system than direct-on-line starting a 3-ph motor straight from the AC busbars - that always caused the load meters to dance somewhat merrily!

'Sexy'? I think that's stretching the imagine somewhat.....:\

But an 80x-ser in the back of a C-27J would surely turn it into a pretty useful helicopter / light attack fighter tanker? Perhaps in the KC-390 as well?

[Flyt3est]

BEagle,

KC-390 doesn't have a centreline requirement :confused: However I agree the 80-x in the C-27 could offer a pretty useful tactical tanker.

As for the new "easy on the eye design".. I could explain to you but I'd have to kill you. :}

[BEagle]

The KC-390 images I've seen all show a probe - I'd love to watch them prodding against a wing hose.... :suspect:

Maybe those fine Wimborne chaps should persuade the Brazilians that "Sir really should consider our 'sexy' 80-x kit - t'would suit you Sir, ooh, really it would, Sir!"

Can't believe I've just included 'Brazilian' and 'sexy' in the same post...:ooh: A bit early in the day for that sort of thing!

[Flyt3est]

I can go one better Mr B, I have just had one of our commercial officers in to see me, and she is both of those.. Brazilian and Sexy.. never too early in the day!!

You are right the KC-390 does have a probe, but as I said, the AAR requirement is for Wing Pods only, so I haven't a clue what they intend to refuel it from.. Maybe they'll buy A400M..:}:}

[BEagle]

Well, just about back in the time zone after getting back from ARSAG...

The joys of international airport faffs (90 min late out of Frankfurt, thanks to a security flap) and 2 hours from arriving at the gate at Orlando until leaving the airport. No fault of the US Homeland Security, just the dozy idiots who, despite hours on their flights, hadn't bothered to have the right forms filled out and ready....:mad: Nett result was that we missed the cockers P to which we'd been invited by those very nice people at Cobham.... But the First Class upgrade from Lufthansa had been pretty generous on the flight over...:ok:

Good to see so many familiar faces from the past! Of great interest were the EADS and Boeing stands.

Airbus Military gave a couple of good presentations, including a summary of the A330MRTT flight test progress which is going very well. Some honest facts and figures too. The FSTA looked good in the photos, hopefully it won't be long before it is airborne in the AAR role.

The JASDF gave a very good brief on their KC-767J, which is now operational. The Italians still 'hope' to get their KC-767I 'soon'. The Boeing presentation glossed over the passenger and payload issues of the yet-to-be-flown KC-767A and was almost a 'made for TV' version of the far better Japanese presentation, with a glossy video tacked on. The video still didn't show 2 receivers in contact taking fuel together, we all noted, whereas the A330MRTT video certainly did.

The KC-767A has now sprouted huge winglets. It isn't known which of the exisiting KC-767 deficiencies these are supposed to fix - the runway performance requirements or the pod/pylon aerodynamics and wing flutter......:hmm: They've also taken the significant risk of including the 7-late-7 flight deck displays on the KC-767A...:ooh:

Despite the recalcitrant AV system which caused problems for all those of us who gave presentations, this was an excellent gathering of the AAR clan and much useful work was done - or will develop as a result.

[169west]

Well we are glad the Japanese got their tanker but, correct me if I'm wrong, the Italian Air Force wasn't supposed to be the launch costumer for the KC-767 Dream Tanker. So far, for all of the italian tanker pilots it is still a dream.
Did Boeing discuss when are they planning to deliver it?
What are the real problems with that plane?
I'll bet a beer Boeing will deliver the tanker first to USAF then to IT.AF!

[D-IFF_ident]

"The Boeing KC767A - Building Yesterday's tanker; Tomorrow!"

;)

[BEagle]

And wasn't their presentation rather uninspiring, D-IFF!

According to their spiel, the 'new wine in ancient skin' tanker is 'Combat Ready, Lowest Total Cost, American Made'.

Combat Ready? It hasn't even been built yet, let alone flown.
Lowest Total Cost? Believe that when you see the bottom line!
American Made? It hasn't even been built yet.

They also claim that 'Boeing's flight control design gives the pilot unrestricted access to the full flight envelope that may be necessary in a threat environment' Bless...presumably that actually means 'Boeing's flight control design gives the pilot unrestricted opportunities to overstress and destroy the aircraft because we don't have the necessary technology to include flight envelope protection'

"The NewGen tanker will be proudly built and supported by the experienced and committed work force that built the KC-135which means that they must surely be in their 80s or 90sand KC-10except that those were built by McDonnell-Douglasand who are currently building the KC-767 international tanker."Or rather who are trying to get the massive order of 4 Italian 767-20ER conversions, now 5 years late, to work properly without their wings fluttering.....:hmm:

169west, from their presentation, the current hopes of the Italian Air Force for the KC-767 are:

Delivery of 2 a/c by 2010 (?)
Total of 4 assets by the end of 2011 (?)
IOC 1st quarter 2011, FOC end 2011 (?)

[brit bus driver]

Just to confirm then....the UK sent no representative to ARSAG this year? We're still the second largest tanker force in the Western world are we not? Did the NATO AAR Panel sit concurrently? I guess that wasn't important either?

Please tell me I'm wrong.

FFS....

[BEagle]

You're wrong; the RAF did indeed send representatives to ARSAG 2010.

And yes, the NATO meeting took place before the main conference.

[brit bus driver]

Thank goodness for that! Glad someone was there to drink Ulick's whiskey!

[D-IFF_ident]

BBD - I can also confirm that their were at least 2 (arguably 4) Brit representatives present. They made a significant contribution to the NATO AAR Panel meetings.

Your presence was missed this year though.

[Dengue_Dude]

IAW latest Government guidelines, I hope they all travelled 3rd class and stayed in the local YMCA. . .

We often felt that we were the poor relatives . . . nice to have it confirmed.

One wonders if we're going to have anything to inflight refuel by the time they're online.

Best of luck.

[BenThere]

Nevertheless, Boeing have built a fair number of tankers. It'll be a good shot in the arm for them, I'm happy to say.

[BEagle]

Nevertheless, Boeing have built a fair number of tankers.

But nothing new for about 5 decades. Nothing new has been designed by Boeing since the KC-135 of the 1950s. Hanging (half-French, the hoorah rednecks will be disturbed to learn) CFM-56s off the ancient 135 to create the 135R is hardly a new design - neither was upgrading the avionics in the 'Pacer Craig' update. The KC-10A doesn't count, because that wasn't a Boeing design.

So now they're trying to keep the rednecks happy by modifying the jet that no-one else wants, the 767. Why not the 7-late-7? Well, in 2004 George Muellner, Boeing's senior vice-president and general manager air force systems, claimed that the 7-late-7 was 'unsuitable for the tanker mission'. "The issue is not composites, but its configuration", he said.....:\

Hello foot, meet twelve bore! (Twelve 'gage' to the colonials).

Face it - the intelligent customer chooses Airbus!

[brit bus driver]

Thanks Dave - and Dave - for the reassurances. Yes, sad not to have been there, but on balance.....

Does that mean the good Canadian major was there too?

Still, if it's true to form and in Vegas next year, maybe I'll 'do a Dickie' and pitch up nonetheless!!:ok:

All the best fellas.

[Flight Detent]

Hi Beagle...

I see you have a great number of posts under your belt,
I'm sure some, no.. let's be positive, I'm sure most of your posts have been less 'one sided' and in a less sort of ranting tone than these most recent ones!

and in addition...again from the number of posts you've made, surely you are more intelligent than the tone and content of the two most recent posts...

you've not said anything we've not all heard before, most of the anti-Boeing antagonists go on about the same sort of things, not that I'm agreeing or otherwise with anything you say!

Really....some of the points you made are bordering on the ridiculous, and have led to me questioning your credability on this!

Enough is enough...you've said, and said, and said your piece..give it a rest!

FD

[BEagle]

Flight Detent, you'll just have to excuse my outrage at the biased KC-X program and the claims being made by ol' Bubba Boeing for the unflown KC-767NoGo tanker.

If tanker aircraft were to compete on capability, without spin and BS from pet senators, the A330MRTT would be the clear winner.

brit bus driver, no 'that' Canadian Major wasn't there this year - and ARSAG 2011 will be in Atlanta, not in Vegas. ARSAG 2012 will be in San Antonio.

[169west]

... any Japanese representative? Are they happy with their product or still fighting to fix some issue!
And what the Italian representatives (if any) said about the numerous delays Boeing is playing?

[BEagle]

Yes, the JASDF were there and gave a good presentation on their KC-767J which they have now declared to be operational. But it's boom-only and works mainly with the F-15J and F-2.

The Italians hope to receive 2 of their much-delayed KC-767Is this year. Bearing in mind that the Italian aircraft is only a 767-200ER with pods and boom, the fact that it will be over 5 years late doesn't bode well for the development risks associated with the KC-767NoGo....

[169west]

BEagle
No. 33 Squadron RAAF is flying with the KC30 yet?

[BenThere]

The thing is, BEagle, the US should have an American tanker. It's a strategic system and control needs to be in house. If Europe builds a better tanker, buy it for Europe and accept my sincere congratulations on your success. For me, I'd rather take what we can get domestically and work with it.

The issue of maneuver limitations is less important than the organic sourcing.

While it's true Boeing delivered the first -135s in 1955, they have managed the program over the years and kept them updated and flying. That is ongoing and current experience Airbus doesn't have.

I flew KC-135s for 27 years. I fly A320s for a living now. I know the difference. I would rather have had a KC-135 in the dicey scenarios I've seen in tanker operations than an Airbus, though I agree the A320 (therefore the A330 as well) is a marvelous machine.

[Flight Detent]

..at last...

Somebody that seems to know what they're talking about...

What a breath of fresh air

I do hope this trend continues...

FD...:)

[BEagle]

BenThere, I don't know to which 'dicey situations' your people expose their tankers, but in 20 years on RAF tankers the only 'dicey situations' I encountered were due to others not sticking to the ACO.

ATP-56B doctrine is quite clear about the risk exposure to tankers. I agree that manoeuvre requirements are irrelevant, so view the Boeing statement Boeing's flight control design gives the pilot unrestricted access to the full flight envelope that may be necessary in a threat environmentas irrelevant. Of course the A330 offers the same access, but has the benefit of preventing the pilot from going outside the full flight envelope.

Flight Detent, apart from sniping on the sidelines, what positive contribution if any do you actually have to make to this thread?

[BenThere]

I personally experienced an autopilot disconnect caused by a KC-10s erratic and excessive closure.

Based on the tone of the boom operator's screaming, "Breakaway", and my own assessment of the moment of the tail's abrubt dropout, I elected to firewall the TF-33 throttles in order to get out of there. On the Bus, I would have gotten maybe 94% by jamming the throttles to TOGA. On the -135 I got probably 104%.

Because of the overboost, all engines had to be boroscoped, and two of them turned out to be shelled. It was one of those situations where I either had to be fired or given a medal. Because the boom operator stated we would have had, and missed by inches, a mid-air collision had I not firewalled, I got the medal. Possibly, and arguably, had I been flying an airbus that day, I might not be here to write this post.

Perhaps that single experience colors my take on the lack of FADEC override on the Bus and its impact on operations; and if I had your pleasant experience of never needing all available control, I might see it your way, but for me it is what it is.

[johnfairr]

BEags,

It would appear that Ben There has a fairly valid point, from his own perspective?

[Art Field]

I, like Beags (beat you by 8 Beags) had many years of Tanker time and was fortunate to survive unscathed in spite of near misses thanks to overenthusiastic young and not so young jet jockeys. The tricky situations were usually over so quickly that any reaction would have been too late and possibly made it worse, though Ben There got it right. Where control restriction of any sort is awkward is in disparity between types in formation so that rates of roll can not be matched. Let us not forget that a tanker is an aeroplane with a full envelope to fly from t/o to landing and the fly by wire protection is relevant throughout. I have had more scary moments in the circuit than whilst tanking.

[FFP]

Been there,

I feel your pain. I've been that KC10 back there (albeit with a perfect closure of course ; )
Let's remember that it's the 135 autopilot's inability to cope with those rapid trim changes that is a big factor in that particular situation.
Interestingly, other nations, when considering a tankers action in the event of an emergency separation, do nothing ........
If the FADEC issue is still there, then that is indeed an issue, but I thought there was a modification to allow full range of the engine parameters ?

Diff may know .......

[D-IFF_ident]

Diff would like to see a quantitative analysis of the closure rates Ben There experienced, and the subsequent rates of acceleration/deceleration and seperation parameters. Otherwise it's just another breakaway; a copy of the mishap report might help.

IIRC there have been some collisions between boom tankers and receivers, but I am not aware of any recorded cases where a 'soft kill' of the tanker, by the crew overboosting its engines, have resulted in saving lives. Although I would be keen to read such a report. IT's less of an issue on P&D missions of course.

Notwithstanding the thrust limits set by engine manufacturers (NOT by Boeing or Airbus - who only make the aeroplane to which the engines are bolted), an Airworthiness Authority would have to consider very carefully whether allowing crews to operate outside of design parameters met ALARP principles, to start with. I suspect they would want the crews to stick to the limits; and I would argue that the 'fire or medal' argument is a matter of philisophical difference between operators.

Personally, I have trained and evaluated a number of Tanker and Receiver crews, in Boom and P&D ops, and I believe that while exceptionally qualified operators, like Ben There, might benefit from being able to ride the knife-edge, the average pilot, on an average day, etc, would benefit from protection beyond the edge of the envelope. NB that the Bus allows operation to the limits, just not beyond them.

Specifally for the A330MRTT; there are 3 engine types available and all allow access to maximum rated thrust applicable to the given environment, with protection against shelling-out as Ben There did.

FFP mate - if you press TOGA on your TRC and 'firewall' your throttles - you get TOGA (MCT factored for ram air effect?) same deal on a 'Bus with CF6's - only no visible TRC, just push the thrust levers forwards to the stops. From what Ben There says - if you do the same on the KC135, you get a Class 1 mishap!

You also make a good point that it's the deficiencies of the KC-135 autopilot that brings about the sort of situation Ben There found himself in. Therefore, if Boeing are offering the same standard of automation as the KC-135, then perhaps he has a point, but we would need to assess the, as yet unbuilt, Boeing product before his argument has any merit at all.

:ok:

[BEagle]

'Firewalling' the engines in a VC10 at AAR levels would probably lead to 4 x engine surges and a significant loss of thrust and possible engine damage - it is never even considered as an 'escape' method. More modern aircraft with better engine fuel control systems will, as D-IFF states, give you max continuous thrust factored for the environment (temp / alt / TAS etc) in response to the associated thrust demand method (TOGA buttons or thrust lever movement).

Rapid closure to the astern position seems more likely with, for example, the Option 2 RV Delta method. Purely due to the fact that receiver / tanker speeds are less standardised than for Option 1. Flying at receiver AAR speed with the receiver joining to (real) observation at no more than AAR speed +20KIAS is a lot simpler - even if it means the receivers slowing down slightly earlier - and is less likely to result in an 'overrun'.

About the only seriously dangerous join I can recall resulted in a fatal accident where only the captain of the Victor crew survived. The receiver pilot broke all SOPs, came hammering in way too fast, then tried to pull up and despite full airbrake, clouted the Victor's tail - which detached. The receiver crew survived.

Large receiver bow waves affecting the tanker autopilot is not that common in the RAF; I've experienced it during early TriStar receiver trials and with the Nimrod AEW3 - neither of which are current receiver types. It is likely to be more significant with something like a C-5 against a boom tanker, I would imagine.

Of course the only real way to prevent accidents is to beat 'erratic and excessive' closure rates out of receiver pilots with a large cudgel. Send them home if necessary - I don't know whether Arters ever sent anyone home, I've only done so once when a FAF Mirage appeared not to understand basic RT calls. But if there's any doubt, there must be no doubt.

And make the RV and join process as simple and straightforward as possible by providing a stable, predictable tanker platform flying at receiver AAR speed - the receivers flying at AAR speed +20 with a 1 mile rollout works just fine.

[Art Field]

Yes I have sent two home. One was a Station Commander who showed his lack of continuity rather too well and the other was a young lady of a Far Eastern air force for whom it was all too much and her oscillations behind the drogue were fully exploring her aircrafts envelope. Any attempt to react to either by the tanker would have been impossible because the situation was changing so rapidly.