Originally Posted by
SpringHeeledJack
Does the FAA 'Experimental' catagory allow the owners of said aircraft to operate the aircraft for profit, or for that matter remuneration ?
Yes.
There are multiple private operators of jet fighters in the USA - who charge for participation at Air Shows - whose aircraft are registered in the "Experimental" category - in particular multiple very nice looking F-86s.
There are also the F-104s of Starfighters Inc which provide "
low-cost alternative to other active-duty military and NASA aircraft for avionics and electronic systems testing and validation, electronic warfare R&D, surveillance system testing, captive carry aerodynamic testing, high-G pilot/passenger physiology testing, and other military, Homeland Security, NASA, and contractor requirements".
Omega's tankers are also registered in the "Experimental" category.
Out of interest, I looked up the final version of the Multi-Award Contract [by definition more than one company] RFP the USN put out in 2020 to follow on from the existing Omega single source contract.
It had the following items in it which left the door open for both owners of existing converted tankers, and those who wanted to buy up surplus airliners and convert them, to bid:
---------------------------------
2.2.2 Aircraft Modification Plan
The Offeror shall provide an Aircraft Modification Plan for each aircraft proposed that requires major repairs and alterations (as defined by the FAA) to meet the requirements of the PWS paragraph 3.1.
The Offeror shall submit its plan detailing the major repairs and alterations required to bring the aircraft into airworthiness compliance.
Plans shall include all significant repairs and alterations required, major milestones (to include, but not limited to, FAA review and approval process and integration of AAR systems), the organization performing the repair and alterations(s), and FAA Administrator approved source data supporting the repairs or alterations.
2.3.1 Civil Airworthiness Certifications
The Offeror shall provide a valid FAA certificate of airworthiness or their plan to obtain a FAA certificate of airworthiness for each proposed aircraft.
2.3.2 Navy Airworthiness Certification Plan
Each aircraft under this contract will require a U.S. Navy issued Interim Flight Clearance (USN IFC).
The Offeror shall submit a plan detailing its approach to achieve issuance of a USN IFC, including original certification authority, supporting data and major milestones.
If submitted with the proposal, an active USN IFC for the proposed aircraft configuration satisfies this requirement.
2.3.3 Aircraft Modification Status Report
The Offeror shall demonstrate that the appropriate Aviation Authority (e.g. FAA, DGAC, TCAA, and CAA)or the appropriate military airworthiness authority certified each aircraft modification made to the proposed aircraft since its manufacture as airworthy. [the records for the Tristar and VC10 conversions will be available].
For each modification, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the airworthiness certification or, alternatively, the engineering report that clearly demonstrates that the modified aircraft is airworthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3.4 Maintenance History Report
The Offeror shall demonstrate how it will maintain each aircraft proposed in accordance with the requirements established by the OEM Manufacturer and approved by the appropriate Aviation Authority (e.g. FAA, DGAC,
TCAA, and CAA) or the appropriate military airworthiness authority.
The Offeror shall include for each aircraft proposed a summary of the aircraft's maintenance history similar to the requirements of 14 CFR §91.415 and §91.417.
The Offeror shall identify and explain any lapses in the documented maintenance history of any aircraft proposed, from the time of aircraft manufacture to proposal submittal.
3.1.1 Airworthiness Certification.
The Offeror shall demonstrate its understanding and direct experience and/or knowledge of airworthiness certification processes for US public use aircraft, and operations as a state aircraft, to include: establishing a certification pedigree based on previous airworthiness certifications (foreign and/or domestic) and providing documentation for subsequent approvals by a US government agency.
The Offeror shall provide a copy of their FAA or other foreign civil airworthiness certificates and the Offeror may include a Public Aircraft Operations (PAO) designation letter from a US Government or State authority, or US or foreign military airworthiness documentation (e.g. Interim Flight Clearance (IFC), Military Flight Release (MFR), Airworthiness Release (AWR)) signed by a US or foreign government authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom lines are:
Ex-military, already converted surplus tankers have a rock-solid history of how they were converted already documented - this gives them an edge over one-off conversions of the odd surplus airliner bought now which would have to have their tanker conversion method approved for airworthiness (on top of the lead time for conversion) - and depending on where they came from - may have a sketchy basic aircraft airworthiness documentation history.
There is no doubt there is going to be a small market for contractors with the USN until such time as that requirement might be subsumed by a larger US TRANSCOM managed contract - years ahead depending on the outcome of the ongoing studies of the several options and the lead time for suitably large players to get involved - Boeing are busy enough on the KC-46A with all its problems and the Airbus production line for turning an A330 into an A330 MRTT is tied up for the next 4 years already with orders already on the books.
Commercial considerations will be the cost of getting stored aircraft up to current airworthiness standards vs the cost of acquisition of surplus airliners + tanker conversion.
The USN has already stated that "time on type" requirements can be met entirely in the simulator. Northrop has a Tristar simulator for its Stargazer aircraft and the VC10 simulators have already been mentioned.
There is a huge difference between the cost a contractor would have to charge per minute on task to use a $300M A330-MRTT versus a "back-in-the-air" legacy tanker - those capable of making the right calculations will know exactly how much money they would have to throw at an option to make it work for them.
I quite expect some of the Red Air contractors - who currently have just limited AAR capability with a few buddy buddy pods - to expand into the space with the acquisition of transport aircraft size tankers.
It's going to be interesting to see what transpires over the next few years - indeed the next 30 years until the final solution to replacing the US DoD legacy tanker fleet by whatever mix is decided upon eventually comes to fruition.