Originally Posted by
Just This Once...
Originally Posted by
KenV 
Another interesting point is why would an airline operating an A330-300 airliner fill the tanks completely full of gas and then haul 10 tons of cargo while leaving the passenger compartment empty? Honestly, what airline has such an operating requirement? In other words, having a capability and having a
useful capability are clearly two different things. And USAF's tanking requirements were based on actual useful needs. Both the KC-46 and A330MRTT meet or exceed those requirements. 'nuff said.
Indeed - he also casually forgets that he is posting in an air-to-air refuelling thread, throws up a wacky 'what airline' bait-and-switch question before slipping back to air force requirements where such configurations are rather useful.
As you say, the main counterpoint to his arguments are usually his own. Meanwhile the A330T / MRTT / V'Ger tanker operators can take an aircraft that was flying full pax fit the day before, with no role change, fill it to full, add a few maintainers and assorted FJ spares before departing on a trail as rather
useful capability. Once the chicks are left at their destination the aircraft is ready for tasking for pax, freight or a mix of both with no additional logistics or role equipment changes.
You completely missed the point didn't you? I started out by pointing out that Beagle (a forum member that I perceive has some clout here) contradicted his claim. Then I moved on to another point, that point being that no military operates an A330-300 based tanker. None. All the tankers are based on the -200 airframe. Only
airlines operate the stretched -300 airframe. What utility does an
airline have (I very specifically used the terms
airline and
airliner multiple times) in the capability that was described. In other words, I was (politely) questioning the accuracy/veracity of the author of the described capability, because there is not a single airline that can really make use of such a capability. Another author made the claim that the Max Take Off Weight (MTOW) of the A330 has "steadily gone up" over the years and that the -300 has a greater MTOW than the -200. There's not a single source that supports that claim and many that contradict it. Another author made the claim that the -300 unlike the -200 has no centerwing tank. There's not a single source that supports that claim and many that contradict it. I'm doing my best to be polite here, so lets just say there are some veracity issues with some of the claims posted here and I'm trying to point them out in a non confrontational manner. Unlike some folks here who have made multiple personal jabs at a specific individual.
And for the record, having the ability to load 10 tons of stuff in a tanker when it is full of fuel is a nice feature. Another nice feature is having a tanker that has sufficient fuel capacity to be filled with fuel to its max take off gross weight. In other words, when the mission is just passing or even just moving gas by air, can you
fully fill the airplane with just gas? The KC-46 can. According to this guy, the A330MRTT cannot. The customer gets to decide which feature they prefer. Not the manufacturer, nor armchair tanker operators on an internet aviation forum. And for the record, USAF tankers have the capability to be filled with fuel to their Max Take Off Gross Weight (MTOGW). It's a standard feature on USAF tankers, even the KC-10 which has a significantly higher MTOGW than A330. Just as a main deck cargo door is a standard feature on USAF tankers. That's what USAF wants and what they need. 'nuff said.
And oh yeah, about that centerwing tank in the -200 vs -300. In defense of the folks who made that claim, I think they confused them with the A340. A340, which shares the same wing with A330, has a centerwing tank while no A330 has one.