View Full Version : BA to sell 21 767's

10th Dec 2001, 21:04
Hot off the teletext pages. BA to sell 21 767's for 600 million for possible tanker conversion!!!!!!!! :eek:

A7E Driver
10th Dec 2001, 21:42
The contract for the tanker will not be awarded until 2nd half next year -- with the competition being an Airbus 330. ????

10th Dec 2001, 23:26
How can one A330 do the same job as 21 B767s? ;) :D ;) :D ;)

The Guvnor
10th Dec 2001, 23:37
Considering that the value of one of BA's 767s is currently around the US$10m mark - due in large part to their being about the only airline using RB211s on them (a la DC10-40) the ascribed value of US$50m each is a trifle, er, over-optimistic! :eek: :rolleyes: :eek:

The RAF prefers the A330 because they want to have wing drogues as well as body ones - the 767 apparently cannot acommodate this without seriously expensive wing mods.

11th Dec 2001, 00:28
Guv - 100% wrong on this one!

I hope that this rumour is true - the 767K would be ideal for our needs. The A330K wouldn't - for many reasons. Size, pavement loading, autopilot characteristics.....

So the suits will no doubt go for the A330...

The absoutely last thing we'd need would be more ancient TriShaws. Guv - you're welcome to every last one of the damn things!

The Guvnor
11th Dec 2001, 00:32
BEagle - wasn't it you that did the piccie of an Airfix 767 in RAF colours on the MilPilots forum a while back? Looked very smart I must say!

11th Dec 2001, 00:46
Considering that the value of one of BA's 767s is currently around the US$10m mark - due in large part to their being about the only airline using RB211s on them (a la DC10-40) the ascribed value of US$50m each is a trifle, er, over-optimistic!

:confused: Does the fact they have RB211's make them more or less valuable?? :confused:

11th Dec 2001, 01:43

11th Dec 2001, 01:49

I think it has to be less doesn't it? This is 10 million dollars we're talking.

11th Dec 2001, 02:12
Qantas is rumoured to be taking up to 10 more.

Apparently 2 are a certainty - to replace the 2 763s currently operating for QF wet-leased from AWAS. I also wouldn't be surprised to see 3 more replacing the wet-leased AC a/c on trans-tasman services again on behalf of QF.

No idea if this will be lease or purchase.

11th Dec 2001, 02:14
Talks are in "very early stages", and the plan is part "of longer term thing", as part of the plans to replace the 767s with Airbus A320s.
Here is an article from Reuters, as reported on Yahoo:

BA in talks to sell aircraft for RAF project (http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/011210/l10139216_1.html)

Monday December 10, 1:23 pm Eastern Time

BA in talks to sell aircraft for RAF project

LONDON, Dec 10 (Reuters) - British Airways Plc, Europe's largest airline, said on Monday it was in talks to sell its Boeing 767s
to a consortium bidding for a contract to supply Britain's Royal Air Force with in-flight refuelling tankers.

"The talks are in the very early stages,'' a spokesman for British Airways
told Reuters. The carrier has a fleet of 21 Boeing 767s, of which six were
grounded as part of cuts in capcity to cope with the drop in demand for air travel.
The spokesman said that the discussions with the Tanker and Transport Services Company were not
prompted by the September 11 attacks in the United States nor the weak economic conditions.
"It's much more of longer term thing which started a couple of years ago reviewing our fleet,'' said the
spokesman, referring to plans to replace the 767s with smaller Airbus A320 planes.
Two consortia are bidding for the 13-billion-pound ($18.62 billion) Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft
contract and the UK defence ministry is not expected to award it until late 2002.
The Tanker and Transport Service Company includes British defence and aerospace company BAE
Systems Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: BA.L), Boeing Co (NYSE:BA - news) and UK services
company Serco Group Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: SRP.L).
The rival bidder for the contract is the Air Tanker consortium of the European aerospace group EADS, which owns 80 percent of Boeing's civil aircraft rival Airbus SAS, and aeroengines maker Rolls-Royce plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: RR.L).

Other Air Tanker consortium members are French defence electronics and contracting group Thales SA and in-flight refuelling specialist Cobham Plc (quote from Yahoo! UK & Ireland: COB.L) of Britain.

[ 10 December 2001: Message edited by: SK ]

The Guvnor
11th Dec 2001, 02:16
The RB211 is a fantastic engine - outshines the CF6 and the JT9/PW4000 family hands down - but the reason that these aircraft would be worth less than those equipped with the PW4000s (worth the most); CF6 (next highest) or JT9Ds is simple - there are a lot fewer of them around.

This is the same problem that the DC10-40 (which had the JT9Ds installed) had - all other DC10s had CF6 power. It's a question of commonality, as well as training, support, etc.

11th Dec 2001, 02:26
The RB211 on those airplanes does make them worth less if you are among them that know. Going to be hard for RAF to certify them and to whomever said that they can't handle wing booms needs to check their source. the 767 tanker already has wing booms. :rolleyes:

11th Dec 2001, 03:05
"How can one A330 do the same job as 21 B767s?"
If they all have the same reliability record as "whisky hotel", then you will need 21 767s!!!!!

And another thing, if the A320 is replacing 767s in BA, hadn't it better get etops clearance soon??

11th Dec 2001, 04:05
As somebody who did air-to-air refuelling from the receiving end before converting to liners (also did certification tests behind new pods for export ..) please consider that apart from flying the big heavy boat with pods and so, to really now if the aircraft is suitable you have to be fly in many configurations for hours with different types of fighters in the back. You have to monitor turbulences especially, otherwise apart from putting the fighters upside down which is the limit, first you will have a very touchy business to master for the fighter pilot (and it's not on autopilot..)

Now which one will fly best "through" the air, the 330 or the 767 ?

Anyway, that's unquestionably a big contract

From the back, the best one was the VC10 - the worst the KC10 ! :mad:

11th Dec 2001, 05:20
BEagle "The A330K wouldn't - for many reasons. Size, pavement loading, autopilot characteristics....."
Interesting comment, I believe that the A330 is a strong contender for the RAF FSTA (tanker) solution. Could you expand on your comment please?
:confused: BEagle

11th Dec 2001, 05:54
DC10-40 have GE engines with water injection. Not Rolls Roys.

11th Dec 2001, 08:34
The DC10-40 only has water injection when it rains.
Anyway those GE's are P&W JT9D's

11th Dec 2001, 09:35
OK, toxic avenger:

1. I share the opinion of the Italians who rejected the Airbus for its unproven technology in the AAR role, its inability to operate from most Italian Air Force aerodromes and the fact that it is way over the requirement in terms of fuel capacity.

2. The A330 is too big to operate from most UK military aerodromes. It is also too big to fit into any RAF hangar. Whereas 767K is the same size as the current VC10.

3. The autopilot configuration in the A330 is currently unsuitable for the AAR role - you cannot allow the ac to turn 'automatically' during AAR, it must maintain a predictable constant attitude and only turn when it is commanded to - the roll rate, angle of bank and final heading must be continuously adjustable by the pilot; rates of roll acceptable to airliner passengers are NOT necessarily acceptable to receivers maintaining contact throughout the turn. 'Taking out the autopilot' is not an acceptable alternative.

4. I have serious doubts about what the A330 tanker FBW would decide to do when a receiver disconnects and gives the tanker a transient yawing moment and change in apparent drag.

5. If a 74-94 fuel tonne 767 is compliant with the requirement, the surplus capacity of a 111 fuel tonne A330K is effectively irrelevant. Nice to have perhaps, but far from essential to have!

6. Personally I'd trust a company with a proven record in providing military aircraft to end users such as Boeing rather than one with a non-military background such as Airbooooooooos.

(Edited because on second reading some of my comments were perhaps not as clear as I'd intended.)

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

11th Dec 2001, 11:24
Hey BEagle, what's wrong with the TriShaws?...other than being rather old.

11th Dec 2001, 12:27

Unreliable, expensive to operate, spares increasingly difficult to source, no wing pods, receiver capability deleted.......

11th Dec 2001, 12:40
Ah - 411A - the Tristar, answer to everyone's problem.

The Tristar was always a joke as a tanker - two hoses but only one can be used at any given time. Carried loads of fuel but found it difficult to give away.

A few big tankers may look good on paper but really you want rather more smaller one - if they are to perform the role of "force multiplier".

11th Dec 2001, 12:46
Another snifter of info......
That despite Woodford losing the Rj program,there have been 767 licsensed engineers on the premises,doing feasibilty studies on this very 767-tanker program.
In fact that is what the large hanger on the south-side of the airport proposals were all about.

11th Dec 2001, 12:59
Two 767's are parked up at B'ham. Rumour had it that these were destined for QF.

Funny how the VC 10's ended up at Filton and I am sure the UK aerospace industry could do with some airliners to work on.

How does the value of a tanker conversion work out against a set of A.330 wings and the resulting employment benefits? Think they will keep selling 330's regardless and if BA is in the market for more 320's, there's a few more British jobs secure for a bit longer too.

Few Cloudy
11th Dec 2001, 13:23
There was only one real tanker - you couldn't see out of it for beams over the windshield and it didn't take off so well when it was hot but it was beautiful....

Ah...Handley Page...

The Guvnor
11th Dec 2001, 13:27
moggie - so why were the wing drogues never fitted to the RAF's L10s? The kits were lying around at Marshalls for years! That would have given them four refuelling points to play with!

Big Tudor
11th Dec 2001, 13:38

With rumours of Brize, Lyneham & St. Mawgan closing it is possible that the future AAR aircraft will not be operating from military airfields !!

11th Dec 2001, 14:32
The BA 767s were well and truly shagged when I used to play with them.
The RB 211 is a much heavier engine than the others (and far less reliable). BA had to ground the entire fleet shortly after delivery as the pylons were cracking. Then in the following years they started having big problems with the Brakes disentegrating.
We used to look after a few third world 767s with all other engine types with no problems whatsoever, whereas the 'Black hand gang' were boroscoping the BA ones practically every turnaround.
Go 767 by all means but don't touch the BA ones!

11th Dec 2001, 14:54
He Beagle

Do you know what you are writing about?

"I have serious doubts about what the FBW would decide to do when a receiver disconnects and gives the aircraft a transient yawing moment and change in apparent drag" So how do the frenchies manage when they disconnect with their Mirage 2000, which is fully FBW ( similar conception as the Airbus one, of course )

I don't understand your sentence about AP during the turn, even if I read it three times.

and you speak about "fuel in excess" for a tanker ?
:D :D :D
Have you ever planned transcontinental or transoceanic for a tanker + fighters package? have you ever been involved with planning tankers holdings close to the "line"?

11th Dec 2001, 15:07
The Guvnor,

I believe wing-mounted AAR pods were never fitted to the Timmies because of the -500's active control technology. Wind-tunnel studies showed that the wake from the constantly moving ailerons would not allow the drogue to be stable. In order to get the drogue below the aileron wake the pylons would have been ridiculously large - i.e. there would be inadequate ground clearance for the AAR pod. ;)

11th Dec 2001, 15:08
Isnt the point about RB211's that the RAF engineers are used to them?

Jase Neale
11th Dec 2001, 15:12
So PEnginner, why did Qantas take the last lot of BA 76's? According to an engineer I spoke to who worked on powerplants they will only have take them if they are near perfect. Now, the ETOP's 76's would probably be a good bet for Qantas or RAF, except Whiskey Hotel, which is a shed. However the shorthaul ones are a different kettle of fish, whose engine parameters are not within the tolerances required by Qantas.
As for the 600 mill, that'll keep those blood suckers at Water World going for another few months. Expect to see the business lounges "re Feng Shui'ed"

gas path
11th Dec 2001, 15:33
About the only similarity between the -524 on the Tristar and the -524 on the 76 is the makers name ;) The 76 is a great aircraft to work on, nice and simple, ideal for the RAF ;)

11th Dec 2001, 15:37
Thanks for your thoughts on the A330K :)

11th Dec 2001, 15:45
Don't suppose the Omega 707 mod is of any interest?

11th Dec 2001, 15:49
From the December 5 Washington Post: 100 Boeing 767 tankers for the US Air Force:

"The huge underlying defense measure, approved unanimously and scheduled to go to the Senate floor Thursday, includes a provision that will enable Boeing Co. to relieve some of the slack in its production lines by building and leasing 100 of its 767-series planes to the Air Force over the next 15 years for use as long-haul military tankers.

"Boeing, reeling from cutbacks in commercial aircraft orders after Sept. 11, sent its top executives to lobby Congress for the unusual deal, valued at $15 billion to $20 billion.

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did not request the planes, and the White House budget office opposed the original lease-purchase proposal. To get around budget rules, Senate officials worked out a lease arrangement that will not count against the Pentagon's regular procurement budget.

"Boeing will be required to repossess the planes after the leases expire, and the Air Force will have to remove the modifications. Military analysts have argued that the nation must start replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of tankers, which are playing a critical role supporting the Afghan war as well as military aircraft flying reconnaissance over 26 U.S. cities.

"But competition for the lucrative contract appears to have been all but ruled out. "I'm confident [the Air Force] will lease Boeing planes, because they are the ones available right now," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), ranking Republican on the defense appropriations subcommittee. Parochial considerations helped persuade key members of
the Senate Budget Committee to support the leasing arrangement, sources said.

"Forty-eight planes from the U.S. tanker force are based at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, the home state of Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D). Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.), the Budget Committee's ranking Republican, also endorsed the leasing plan after appropriators agreed to include several provisions he had sought in the anti-terrorism legislation attached to the defense bill."

11th Dec 2001, 18:00
Plus QF today announced the launch of it's Low cost carrier Australian Airlines. Begining with 4 763's (expanding to 12 within a year). They are yet to announce where the planes are coming from...

11th Dec 2001, 18:39
I should know this but can't remember the answer so I apologise if the question is a stupid one.

What is wrong with BA's Whiskey Hotel? I do recall them having real problems with one almost from delivery (was this the one stored in the desert after acceptance?) and one of our scribes refer to it as a 'shed'.

Dan Winterland
11th Dec 2001, 20:40
Unfortunately, the future tanker won't be owned by the RAF, but leased and in part operated by the owner. Which means that the cheapest package will probably win, with the winner being not selected wholly on suitability for a tanker. The way I see it is this: (All IMHO)

767 - Good basic technology, AFDS can be used for AAR with minimal modification, right size, needs to carry more fuel.

A330 - V big, perhaps too big for existing tanker airfields and forward operating bases, wing pod fitting problems with MLA (akin to the L1011-500s active wing relief), autoflight system not compatiable with AAR without expensive modification, carries lots of fuel (in proposed tanker guise).

I gather the A300 isn't in the picture. And as for the engines and certification, that won't be a snag for hte RAF as the package deals with all that - initially the contractors' problem. Where the aircarft will come from will be the contractor's problem (initially) as well.

Few Cloudy
11th Dec 2001, 21:04
Recce Guy,

Assymetric break of contact is not a problem - we used to do it all the time on the Victor with a single receiver - you just feel a slight tug as the locks open. In case of an emergency break with fuel still flowing there was a much stronger tug which could cause the autopilot (old technology) to disconnect but usually didn't.

11th Dec 2001, 21:44
reccepuke - when a receiver aircraft disconnects from a tanker, it may cause a brief yawing moment to be applied to the tanker similar to a deliberate rudder doublet. In a normal tanker aircraft, the autopilot will merely return the aircraft to the original attitude it was in before the disconnect and will not excite any lateral stability mode. However, if the autopilot is slaved to heading and is also under the influence of full flight regime autothrottle, a transient yawing moment will cause a heading error to be sensed. My concern is that the A330 FBW system might then attempt to recapture the original heading rather than attitude and may also detect the change in speed resulting from the receiver's disconnect. Would these effects lead to an unpredictable and possibly divergent tanker flight path for the other receiver? I don't know - and I'm prepared to bet that Airboooooooos don't either. Too problematic to accept without a technology demonstrator programme? Definitely! Whereas none of these effects would concern a 767K.....

If the BA sourced 767K has 'heavy' RR engines then it will have benefitted from life time wing bending moment relief greater than its P&W or CFM powered siblings....

The podded TriShaw programme was an utter disaster which wasted millions of pounds. Dull procurement would be the description to apply to any other TriShaw tanker derivatives - the fast-jet customers aren't too pleased with the current ones and certainly wouldn't relish any more Lockheed Trimotor tankers!!

But what we should really be doing is asking Mr Boeing to include another couple of dozen in the USAF programme for the RAF - and TO HELL WITH PFI!!!!!!!!

[ 11 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

Tom the Tenor
11th Dec 2001, 22:47
Is there any kind BA person out there who can recount the story of the BA 767 training detail at Cork some years ago. Wasn't it on a Monday sometime in the winter around January, maybe? She was there for nearly the whole morning and then again through the afternoon until dark. I guess the ILS must have been down at Shannon? Anyone recall what is was like training such a sizeable aeroplane at Cork with it's relatively short 7000 feet runway? Tks, TTT.

Egg Mayo
11th Dec 2001, 23:33
I'm itching to know about this "shed thing and WH". It wouldn't be a spurious connection with the inhabitants of Manchester per chance, as it does the daily JFK-MAN route? :rolleyes:

Soup Dragon
12th Dec 2001, 00:01

BEagle made some very relevant observations on potential problems with the Airbus autopilot characteristics in the AAR role. Certainly, response to yaw moment generated during receiver disconnect will need to be investigated.

As to your suggestion that he doesn't know what he's talking about, your comment of:

"So how do the frenchies manage when they disconnect with their Mirage 2000, which is fully FBW "
seems rather unusual for someone who claims great knowledge in this field. If you are trying to suggest that the froggie M2000 boys are on AP whilst plugged in then I would seriously doubt you are as swept up on AAR ops as you think you are!

12th Dec 2001, 00:59
Yes and Reccechap - when you've been on here a little longer you will realise that BEagle HAS done all the things you (sarcastically) ask if he's ever done. He is evidently too polite to reply flaming you, which would have been only what you deserved.

You also evidently failed to understand his point about autopilots, break-out forces and fly-by-wire.

12th Dec 2001, 01:29
Whilst I thank you for those kind words, perhaps my original post was rather unclear - I've now edited it!

Regarding the 'surplus capacity' - imagine that you are a road transport company director. "We want a new truck which will carry at least 70 bananas of stuff", you decide. So you go to the purchasing department and say "Get some tenders for our new truck". Eventually 2 are accepted for assessment - 1 can carry 75 bananas worth (or, if you want, the firm will modify it to carry about 90). It will fit your garage and will get throught the company's yard gates. But the other can carry 111 bananas worth (over 50% more than you decided that you needed), although it has a wacky new transmission system which none of your employees has ever come across before, it won't fit in the garage and it won't get through the yard gates.

Which would you want to buy.......??

12th Dec 2001, 01:54
Guvnor- although I realise that the L1011 is PERFECT, the answer from 1.3Vstall gives your answer.

The Tristars were a panic buy (which also subsidised BA pre-privatisation!) They are great transport aeroplanes (on the military runways which may actually be long/strong enough to take them) but the aerodynamics make them lousy tankers.

They should have been used soley as transports with the VC10 tranpsorts being modified to tanker spec in the mid 80s when the deathstarts arrived.

12th Dec 2001, 03:40
For those itching to know about 'WH'

You can normally check its 'reliability' (or not) on Teletext - look for the BA1502/3 as stated above between JFK and MAN.

I do suspect that its something to do with not getting near the usual 767 maint @ LHR, and also there never being a spare (unlike LHR).

Its kept on that route because (I think) its now the only 2 class LH 767...


12th Dec 2001, 03:42
WH does indeed plow its way from Manchester to JFK. I last flew it in May when it had a groovy new feature...

Any transmission on the HF closed the thrust levers and the EICAS lit up with spurious tailskid and flap warnings/cautions.

Most exciting mid ocean at 3 in the morning :eek:

I'm reliably informed that a visit to the Engs in LGW fixed the problem.

757 Gti

12th Dec 2001, 08:17
Hmmm, about as exciting as the problem SV had with one of their 747-SP's, when the number two HF was keyed both outflow valves opened fully....at 30W. :eek:

A7E Driver
12th Dec 2001, 12:02
Beagle -- I don't know which is better as a tanker -- Boeing or Airbus --- but I don't buy your rationale "the Airbus carries too much fuel." As a former fighter pilot, I never plugged a Texaco with too much fuel --- and should the miracle occur that the fighters don't need the fuel, it means extra range/extra linger time for the tanker --- both extremely valuable commodities.

12th Dec 2001, 23:00
Static discharge - whilst I might agree that the A330K would have a lot of transferable fuel, it would be utter overkill for our conceivable needs. What we do need is the right number of hoses in the right place - not just fewer enormous tankers which have lots of fuel but are thinly spread about the area!

All independent analysis concluded that a 767/A310/VC10 sized aircraft carrying as much fuel as the design would allow was the best solution. Things like 747s and A330/340 are physically too large and expensive to permit flexible basing and AAR towline manning.....

gas path
12th Dec 2001, 23:32
Damn and blast....You saying the a330 is too big rather scuppers the idea of flogging their worships a few B777 with that dog of a motor the GE90 :D

12th Dec 2001, 23:54
Shitty that means more job cuts...

13th Dec 2001, 03:51
Sorry to mention it as we are all L1011 lovers, but some of our fleet of L1011 had at one time (until they visited the vet) an interesting crew awareness extra.
The number two engine would run down when the Fe pressed to transmit on his HF box two.
One day seeing the engine running down the unbriefed captain applied a fistfull of throttle and yelled (communicated) to the FE, who... let go of his press to transmit switch and the engine was over boosted.... Just like that, all at fl.350!
Aircraft landed Istanbul, number two took a week to be changed.
Commander heavily ticked off for not proceeding to destination on two engines, as his holiday with 200 plus passengers cost a bit.
Haveing pointed out the serious predicament if finding himself on one engine later, he was told this had never happened and was therefore unlikly to have been a problem.
He resigned and was upset by this incident.
Sometime later as a result of this lot, another captain spent 5 hours on two engines London Bahrain in a L1011, now this time some management were pro this, other management were horrified.
It was quite a challenge pleasing everyone in our company!

13th Dec 2001, 07:13
How about MD-11(K) as a max fuel, min risk? tanker conversion? This might suit all ex fighter jocks out there (358,000 lbs, or thereabouts in a 'K' configuration,I believe)

15/15 flex
13th Dec 2001, 08:44

What's the problem with refuelling in "full flight autothrottle"? Seems to have worked OK for years. And why not use CWS?

13th Dec 2001, 14:26
re WH and Manchester, I'm only putting my 9 year old twins on this plane next Monday 17th unaccompanied, so perhaps I'll take some binoculars and see what BAs using! Argh.

I've done this route several times myself (and thanks BA for keeping it going and not just being a London airline, since some of us enjoy living North) and never had any problems. But perhaps with you sharp lot up front the passenegrs never realise??!

Magnus Picus
13th Dec 2001, 14:40
BA doesn't have 21 767's. It has (at the last count), none. They are leased.

Jase Neale
14th Dec 2001, 00:35
Here is another angle. The 76's are not worth the 600 mill at current market values, but its a good way of the Government giving BA cash without facing the wrath of critiscm from other carriers etc. A good deal for BA and the RAF get some new kit as well. Just heard (cannot confirm) that 2 of BA's 777 have been sold???

14th Dec 2001, 01:12
15/15 flex - nothing wrong with full flight regime ATS so long as you can control it effectively! Regrettably the A330 doesn't have the CWS that the TriStar does, or so we're reliably informed. But 767 - no problems!!

14th Dec 2001, 03:22

The comments re WH are slighty tongue-in-cheek - as has been hinted at, it might have a few more technical glitches because there is no spare aircraft there - result, maybe a few more delays...

However, please be assured it is maintained and flown to the same standards as any other BA B767, and none of the comments have any safety implications! Please do not worry about your daughters' forthcoming flight...


14th Dec 2001, 17:54
Re:- WH and the MAN - JFK.

The latest rumour is that it will be changing to a B777 sometime after next septembers current cut-off.

14th Dec 2001, 23:52
So Overstess, Soup dragon... Beagle knows about his business ? maybe because he spoke about "rudder doublets" - so it could be that we undertook the same course close to Salisbury, couldn't it?

And when I say that the froggies on the 2000 are on FBW, I know what I am speaking about - sometines they are on full manual mode, which is FBW, and sometines they are on AP, which is also FBW-related - any other inputs from you?

Yes, on the 707 with pods you feel a little yawing "smack" when the fighter disconnects - so for which reason wouldn't the A330 be suitable?

Just conceed that this 767 deal has been designed to transfer some govt money to BA, and save a very little bit of development funds as USAF would have paid for it anyway, and so everybody will agree, OK ?


15th Dec 2001, 00:39

1. No one cares about the M2000 and whether it is FBW or not - the discussion is about the tanker autopilot responses. The whole M2000 thing is a red herring.

2. The tankers will be purchased, operated and funded by as a commercial proposition by a commercial consortium using their own funds. The government will not be involved in the purchase - as if they care since BA was sold off.

17th Dec 2001, 00:03

1. See ORAC's reply above.

2. Not rudder doublets, I just know who BEagle really is, so I know he knows what he is talking about.