Three point TriStars? What's the big deal, say Marshall.....

[Jackonicko]

One of our blokes has just got off the phone from Marshall, and wrote the following:

TriStar FSTA bid still on the table, insist Marshall Aerospace

Responding to the reported rejection of Marshall’s proposal to provide a fleet of TriStars as an ‘interim’ solution to meet the RAF’s urgent requirement for new tankers, the company’s Director of Engineering, Bob Ward, denied that the bid had been rejected or retracted. He also insisted that there were “no technical issues” that would prevent the installation of underwing inflight refuelling pods “and never had been.”

Ward told Flight Daily News that: “We have a firm price proposal in front of the MoD to add underwing pods to the existing RAF TriStar fleet, and to nine additional aircraft. We are a risk averse private company, and we would not offer a fixed price if there was any risk of not being able to achieve what we have offered.

The Marshall plan covers the conversion of the RAF’s existing six Tristar K1 and KC1 ‘single-point’ tankers to three point tanker configuration, with the three C2 and C2A transports and nine ex-Delta Airlines aircraft becoming two-point tankers.

An initial proposal to convert the TriStars to three point tanker configuration was made in the late 1980s, when the MoD awarded Marshall a one year project definition study. This was to have been followed by a contract to produce a trial installation, to ‘productionise’ the modification and achieve a Military Aircraft Release. This contract would also have commissioned Marshall to produce a ‘bidders package’ before a production contract was competed. The process promised to take nine years, which was too long for the customer, who turned instead to the conversion of surplus VC 10s that had been bought for spares some years before.

Marshall is believed to have made a further unsolicited bid during the early 1990s, but funding proved impossible.

The initial bid failed, Ward said, “because of procurement problems, not technical problems. There was never any technical issue.”

Ward explicitely denied that the TriStar’s flexible wing or active ailerons made it difficult to install underwing pods, pointing out that: “the pod sits on a node at the inboard end of the outboard aileron, so there is no problem with flutter. We’ve flown extensive trials, and it has been demonstrated that tanker clearances would present no problems.”

So to all you nay-sayers, it's clear, 'Onest Arfur says you're talking bollock$.......

[BEagle]

I quote the words of one Miss Mandy Rice-Davis:

"'Ee would say that, wouldn't ee?"

How many flight cycles have the old Delta TriShaws clocked up in their long history since entering service over 30 years ago?? Presumably they've been languishing in the desert at Kingman for a year or so?

Other air forces are buying new tankers - are we really going to see the RAF having to accept tired old aircraft out of some desert scrapyard?

[Jackonicko]

Will it be among the 'Measures to improve military capability' (really, that's what the press release says!) that the Secretary of State will announce tomorrow?

[Trumpet_trousers]

.....fitting a couple of pods onto the C17s? Then you've got your (ultimate?) 'force projector' in a nutshell. Shouldn't be too difficult...could even roll in a modular fuel system internally if needed for serious giveaway (a la CC130)...and I believe that the C130J already has the wing plumbing in place for pods, so why not the same for C17? (Contract terms notwithstanding, of course!):ok:

....'tis simple, really.....

[betty_boo_x]

What with all the conjecture over todays announcement I've forgotten where this one has got to.
How are the "suits" getting on with their re-hashed bid for financial risk ?
Interesting take from Marshall, I'll ask at work to see if anyone remembers the story at the time.
Is FSTA getting swept up into the big news today?
As for C-17 or C-130 or any other kind of "boys own"tanker, please remember........we have no money

[G Fourbee]

RE the suggestion to pod the C17 - its my understanding that the C17 doesn't have enough fuel to get there itself, never mind giving any away!

[BEagle]

It's also v. expensive!

The last EADS response was reported as having been favourably received by the procurement folk - and remember:

FEWER FIGHTERS MEANS YOU NEED MORE FORCE MULTIPLICATION!!

Sorry to shout, but there might be some dimwitted politician reading!

More capable and flexible assets? A310 MRTT would suit sir pretty well - and A330 MRTT even more so!

But a few old heaps from a desert scrapyard....err, no thanks Arfur.

NKAWTG!!

[Trumpet_trousers]

its my understanding that the C17 doesn't have enough fuel to get there itself, never mind giving any away!

.......you need some Andrex for your dribbling mouth ......

[betty_boo_x]

Have I missed something or was there no mention of AAR?
BEagle, since when have we ever had the best tool for the job (please refrain from Hoon jokes), we just know that whatever the outcome it will be politically fudged by some degree.
The original lead-in time was laughably large as to make the project unnacceptable. Now I wonder why Sir Arthur quoted such a long time with the spanners/boffins. As we cancelled the project no blame could be laid as it never got off the ground (no pun intended) but 9yrs? for 2 simple pods! it doesnt add up.
Rumour has it VC10/Tri* extended by 2 further yrs to cover the gap till whatever arrives next.
Good job there is a lot of space at BZN around the end of the decade!
C-17 is a fantastic aeroplane but we are only employing it stategically as its so blooming expensive.
Sorry about the rambling its been a bit of a day!

[Denzil]

The majority of ex Delta L1011-500’s (it would make sense to have the same type as currently operated) are stored at Victorville. It’s rather a coincidence that the subject of Marshall Aerospace offering 9 aircraft should crop up only a few month’s after a bank bought nearly all the ex Delta stored L1011-500’s (12)!!!!

As for bidding, the MOD used to request tenders for the conversion to tanker, conversion to freighter and wing refuelling pod fitment, of the existing RAF L1011 fleet and additional aircraft nearly every year.

As much as I’m a fan of the L1011, I must back up the majority in support of new build aircraft. The L1011 is very labour intensive and spares are not always easily available (unless you have 3 scrap aircraft to b/u to hand!!).

[BEagle]

Meanwhile the A310MRTT is already flying in its tanker role and has just completed its first wet transfer through both FRL 907E pods!

How are you getting on with the 767, dear Boeing?

[brit bus driver]

Bring on the MRTT!

Relatively cheap. To buy & run.

Proven technology.

200ish seats. same fuel load as a Vickers K4 (ish, though I'm no egg-spurt)

A good springboard to the next generation, which the RAF will get when the next next generation comes on line!

Survivable - look at the DHL A300-B4 in Baghdad.

I know how to fly it. (Unlike my current chariot, some would say!)

What else do you want?

Oh yes, forgot. Proper coffee machines too! No more instant cr@p, not even the "but it is Gold Blend, you know".

[Dan Winterland]

New definition of FSTA is Fossil Standard Tanker Aircraft! (Thanks to Denzil for that one)

[ORAC]

Flight Inernational:

....A Collaborative group between Evergrenn Aviation and Omega Air, the Global Air tanker Srvice (GAS) is offering up to 10 KDC-10s available for the UK from Jan 2006, with a proposed total fleet of 20 aircraft........Industry sources say the GAS team could be supported in the UK by SERCO......

And the KC/KDC-10 will be supportable for the next 40+ years..........

[BEagle]

bbd -

With a normal ZFW of around 85.0 tonnes, expect to take the full 72.1 tonnes (44t in the basic a/c, another 4.9t in the Trim Tank plus 4 x ACTs with 5.8t each). Burns about 5.4 tonnes per hour at AAR speeds/heights with the hoses out.

Whereas the Vickers SuperFunBus only carries 69 tonnes - and burns around 7.5 tonnes per hour.

Plus the A310MRTT has a cargo door - and some very comfy seats for the passengers in real wide-body comfort.

How does it compare with the so-called KC-767A? Rather well, actually. Yes, the 767 can carry 91.8 tonnes of fuel - but from a 10000 ft balanced field at sea level, ISA and zero wind it won't be able to offer more than about 77 tonnes.... Want a cargo door? Extra! Want real seats rather than Gitmo Bay class squalor? Extra! Want windows? Extra! Does it meet ETOPS? Well, so long as you don't mind having to lower the boom to run the APU if you lose an engine....

The re-modelled Fuel Operator's Station will be good as it's being designed with aircrew opinion in mind. Mission computer, twin 15" displays....perhaps Link 16??

Think you'll rather like the CC150T!!

As for those old DC-10s being peddled by that consortium; well, the 'Ten Forty Corps' was booted out of the FTSA bidding a while ago, so what makes them think that they've got any chance now?

[betty_boo_x]

No chance?
Simple........remember we have no money
Cheapest option,whatever it is,no matter how queer the spin on the solution,then thats what were getting.
Performance,nice seats,fuel to give,servicing costs,ETOPS,coffee machines forget the lot.
Whats the best price because thats whats coming.
The best argument in the world wont win over the accountants.
If ive spleed anything wrong blame chianti.

[pr00ne]

BEagle,

If FSTA is really in as much doggy doo as some suggest, would not an outright purchse of an A310MRTT derivative based on 2nd hand airframes supported by EADS be a viable alternative?

If the real FSTA issue is the transfer of risk to the contractor then surely cutting out the idea of using the frames for commercial service when not required by the RAF is the answer?

Would this be the only way of retaining a suitable fleet size if the PFI A330K option really is unaffordable?

[BEagle]

1. Yes. When Elbeflugzuegwerke had finished modifying them, they'd be almost as good as new. In fact BWoS (Airbus Filton) were trying to offer 20+ A310 MRTT to the RAF nearly 10 years ago!

2. Using the PSP's 'military' a/c for commercial third party revenue generation is a pretty risky idea. It's not as though there aren't quite a few experts already in the spot charter market. However, I'm sure that AirTanker have a sound business plan - but how can it make their AAR service 'cheap'.

3. The PFI A330K platform is undoubtedly a more capable tanker than the A310 MRTT. But how often does the RAF really need 111 tonnes in one place rather than 55.5 here and 55.5 there? 'Hoses in the sky' are sometimes more necessary than capacity alone?

Extend the A310 MRTT MTOW to 164t and fit a 5th ACT to give it a total fuel capacity of around 78 t, plus a lightweight centreline hose. Fit 99 permanent seats aft (only need to carry 2, not 3 cabin staff with 99 rather than 100 pax) - then configure the centre cabin for freight/more seats as req'd with fuel load adjusted correspondingly. Sure, it'd need intelligent AT/AAR tasking, but would be used more efficiently more often than the A330K, I would suggest. The A310 can go wherever a VC10 can - which is more than can be said of a TriStar/DC10-40K/A330K........

[MrBernoulli]

BEagle,

" ..... it'd need intelligent AT/AAR tasking ....."

And therein lies your problem. It very rarely happens where DTMA are concerned. It's more random than anything remotely approaching intelligent!

[Trumpet_trousers]

Fit 99 permanent seats aft (only need to carry 2, not 3 cabin staff with 99 rather than 100 pax)

....thought the issue with 'passenger' aircraft was door manning rather than the number of bums on seats??

[BEagle]

Mr B - ah, yes, I wasn't really casting doubt on the chums at Ar$ecoat Ops, just saying that if an a/c has to be roled and/or configured for AT and/or AAR roles, then someone has to take positive control and adopt a rigorous approach!

The clever airlines have clever people working in load management and scheduling. The others don't........

Trumpers, that may well be true for military aircraft which don't meet civil certification requirements, because they are not engaged in Commercial Air Transport operations.

But the rule for civil aircraft engaged in public air transport is that for:

Any flight for the purpose of public transport by an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom

a. On which is carried 20 or more passengers or,
b. Which may in accordance with its certificate of airworthiness carry more than 35 passengers and on which at least 1 passenger is carried.

There shall be carried not less than 1 member of the cabin crew for every 50 or fraction of 50 passenger seats installed in the aircraft.

Thus if your A310 MRTT (certified i.a.w. JAR-OPS) had only 99 passengers seats fitted, if even 1 passenger is carried then you must carry 2 cabin crew. Not many airline operators have the luxury of carrying 1 cabin crew member per exit!

[Violet Club]

Hey Jacko

You can't remember which one of your guys it was on the phone, can you?

Vi

[brit bus driver]

Trumpers

If the 310 were in the combi role, there would only be 2 doors aft of the bulkhead, so still only 2 in the back, plus ALM in the front.

[BEagle]

How many pax seats do you normally have in that config? I seem to recall that the GAF 310 combis normally have 57 seats aft (and very nice ones at that!), leaving the centre compartment configured for the cargo role?

The true wide-body 222" fuselage and quality of the interior make it a very nice way to travel. Having done quite a few sectors in the back of LH's 737s, A319/320/321 and wretched little CRJs, the space and comfort when there's a 300/310 on the route instead put it in a different league!

But when you get approval to fly pax in the MRTT tanker role, non-stop flights of over 10 hours will be feasible. Which will be pretty demanding for just 2 cabin crew, no matter what the regulations say. And for those who don't know the way the 'Bus is operated, once there's cargo in the centre and the smoke curtain is up, there is no 'routine' access from front to aft compartment... Not like the way we could squeeze past the cargo in the VC10, I can assure you!

[Jackonicko]

Yes, I can remember who it was. Why do you ask?