Flying to the Falklands

[LowNSlow]

A pal of mine tells me that there are civvy seats available on the Vickers FunBus flights to the Falklands.

Is he extracting the urine or does he speak the truth? If he is not speaking with forked tongue, how much would HMG relieve one of her citizens for the priviledge of visiting sheep central?

[Memetic]

I think this might be a good starting point: http://www.tourism.org.fk/flights-1.htm

Or for more general info on travel to the Falklands look at the "Getting Here" section from the home page of the site: http://www.tourism.org.fk/home.htm#

Strange thing is I remember reading this info, went straight to the site, but have no idea why I knew where to find it.

:confused:

[whowhenwhy]

I seem to remember reading whilst in the luxurious international departures lounge at MPA that a single ticket would cost you in the region of £1300. And that doesn't even cover the pink gins served by the loady!

[Wycombe]

Hi LowNSlow,

Yes, it's me, here on the Mil Forum.

Why - because I've been to the FI twice courtesy of HMFC (both in 2000, so reasonably recent).

First, sorry, but you won't find yourself flying in the Funbus - it'll be Timmy the white Tristar instead (quite roomy with only 250 seats, which are usually not all filled)

When I went (and I was on detachment, so Brenda paid!), the Travel Agent in Stanley was selling civvy return tickets for approx £2200, if I remember correct.

It's a long trip, approx 18hrs (even without delays, which can be frequent :D, often due to Wx in either ASI or MPN itself, or, dare I say it, U/S aeroplanes).

Most of the civvies I saw travelling were St. Helena residents travelling to and from ASI to pick-up/leave the boat that plies from there to their Island (which has no Airport).

Just hope you don't get nightstopped in ASI (as I did on the last trip down) as the accomodation in "Tristar Village" could best be described as functional.

You should go though - esp if into recent Military History - at some locations, you will feel like the fighting has only just finished

Will also suit you if you like to get away from it all - there are some great little Guest Houses on places like Pebble Island (either pay to get there on the FIGAS Islander, or ask nicely if there's a Brintel S61 going that way ;))

[FEBA]

When the Shar is binned and we have no effective air cover the Argies may well start another liberation campaign.
So suggest you join P Company soonest you should get down there for nothing!
FEBA

[Pub User]

It's a while since I was in the Falklands but I do remember a couple of things:

1. There was a civvie, who had paid for the flight, next to me on the way back.

2. There's a runway big enough for any 'effective air cover' to use, at Mount Pleasant.

[rivetjoint]

Just a thought.....but we must be fairly confident of island security against anyone if there's a handful of frontline fighters parked up around there.

[FEBA]

Pub U
Interesting. Who's going to provide CAS when Mount Pleasant falls into enemy hands after the Navy waves (sic) good bye to the last Harrier ?
FEBA

[FFP]

Famous last words . . .

I don`t think the Argies are in any state to have a go. Granted that in times of crisis a good war can take the country's mind of politics but are they really a credible threat ?

I dunno, just asking . .. . . . . . :confused:

[Pub User]

FEBA

Sorry, I thought you were on a about air superiority. The RAF's Harriers can do CAS.

[pr00ne]

When was the last time the SHAR was within a thousand miles of the Falklands?


FEBA

CAS with a SHAR? Yeah right!

FEBA/WEBF

4 Electric flick knives are more than sufficient for what is ever going to be needed down there.

One move anywhere near the "Malvinas" and the IMF will freeze their loans and credits and they will be finished. THAT is far more of a deterent than the SHAR could ever be.

Face facts, it's going, it's outdated, it's not very good, we have no need for ANY totally dedicated AD assets these days, the F3 will hold the fort until the Typhoon comes along and that will provide all the AD capablity we will ever need in the foreseeable future, plus a whole lot more!

If this proves to be a short sighted view then by the time there IS a credible threat out there we will have F-35 on shore and sea, so what's the problem?

[FEBA]

Proone
So the Navy can get by with out any air cover at all whilst they wait for the F35. Yeah right, to quote you.
I doubt for a single minute that the admiralty will agree with you. One thing they probably would agree with is that you have the potential to make a minister of defence some time.
FEBA

[pr00ne]

FEBA,

Well, they got by for the last 21 years perfectly OK, no need for organic air defence has ever arisen where there had to be an "FAA only" AD solution. They will have a superb (genuinely multi role) solution from 2011, so what's the big deal with the 2006 to 2011 gap?

The defence budget is a finite assett, it has to be spent on what is needed and required, SHAR just doesn't fit that requirement. If it did, then it would be in the bag of tricks HM forces has to offer, it's as simple as that.

The world's changed, accept it and move on, there's a whole host of more important things to worry about.

[scroggs]

What has this to do with flying to the Falklands? Have the Navy had a carrier posted 'just over the horizon' Down South that we didn't know about? And all that time I thought it was the F3s doing Falklands air defence. Silly me!

[FFP]

Very true. This has the square root of to do with flying to the Falklands and we seem to have hijacked the thread.

[Grimweasel]

I will try out the Flight for the third time for you in a few weeks and report back. Last time the flight was dull (all 16.5 hrs of it) and I would not pay £1 to go to the wretched bleak barren dartmoor looking hole. Every day down there is groundhog day unless you are an Alcoholic.
Give the place up, its a waste of HMG resources. Sod the supposed Oil reserves. I believe that they are not econimically viable anyway!!
The FI defence force don't even use the same rifle as us. Thats gratitude for you. They use the Austrian AUG!

[BEagle]

Ahh - another thing I won't exactly miss now I'm civilian filth...

Trips to the Malvinas. Wonderful. Try to sleep during the day, then turn up hours earlier than necessary to please the Muppets. Hand in luggage - but note that hand luggage is restricted in dimensions. Which are invariably ignored by Bennies-with-bergens and are an utter joke as you'e supposed to take enough kit to survive a night in some South American location (or ASI if you're really unlucky) if the TriShaw team have to divert. However, you're only allowed one piece, so if you want to take your (mandatory) overnight kit and a laptop - tough... Wait around in departure area watching engineers trying to patch up enough of the TriShaw to get it serviceable, then finally climb on board, noting how utterly shabby it looks. TriShaw takes off- invariably late - and heads off towards Berry Head. Try to get to sleep only to be asked if you want a tasteless box containing spam roll, stale crisps and orange juice. Try to get some more sleep - then threatened with horrid tin foil meal of gristly lamb with pasta. Try to get back to sleep - then woken up 3 hours before ASI with another meal which ltakes 10 minutes at the most to eat. Restless attempts at sleep, then TriShaw hits volcanic island with almighty crash before going the wrong way round the high speed loop (why do the w@nkers always do that?). Then 90 minutes in the stockade drinking into merciful stupor. But not if you're a Flt Lt or below - Mummy says you mustn't bring your own, so you have to queue up with teenage grunts for a beer or 2. No such rules for an oaf from Turners or a Benny though... Then herded back on board the TriShaw for another 7 hours or so. Probably a Cornish pasty or something, then Chicken Run or Black Rain on the few serviceable video players. Eventually it gets dark and horrid, then the cabin crew threaten you with another dead-pig-and-egg breakfast at about 1300 Benny-time before that god-forsaken $hithole known as the Islas Malvinas (or F**kland Islands) appears out of the window. Get off the thing at long last, then listen to the same old grunt briefing about minefields. Mentally decide not to extend one foot out of Base Aerea Gringo unless really essential... Finally let out into Bennyland, then over to one's executive residence for the next few weeks, pondering why on earth the Argies would ever want the place ....

Did 7 trips in Business Class last week. Whilst sitting in the air-conditioned lounge quaffing chilled freebie champoo I mused on how much I really miss the joys of the TriShaw runs to the Malvinas.....

Air Force, do I miss thee? Not so far, that's for sure.....

[Dan Winterland]

Top tip. When in the 'cage' on ASI, neck at least six tins of Castle lager. The next leg goes so much quicker.

[BEagle]

Dan, a bit lower deck that...

Far preferred a quarter bottle of scotch and a bottle of highland spring water from my hand luggage in one of those nifty little cut glass mini-tumblers from 'rods. Plus some mixed nuts from the same emporium.

[FFP]

It`s plain to see what the Argies were up to

I can see the meeting now . . . . .

"There's no way we will win. BUT . . . the Brits will send down the boys for at least the next 50 yrs and they will have to live on the island for 4 mths !! Yes , that`s sealed it !! Let's pop over and reduce every serviceman to a gibbering wreck waiting for his next stint !!"

How they are laughing at us now . . . . . . ..

[2port]

Mr BEagle

Just the two legs down the back of the TriShaw and with videos. Had the pleasure of going on an Op about 4 years ago which involved 4 days down the back of said beast - one of those half and halfers, C2 - K9 or whatever. Back half 50 of us crammed into space for 30, front half was pallets of ammo - lovely and flat, ideal for sleeping on, or so you would have thought. The Capt and Alm decided that it was verboten and ve vould stay in our seats. How we laughed.
The consolation was our destination in same hemisphere as FI's but just about as far removed as it's possible to be - hurrah.

[LowNSlow]

Thanks for all that chaps. I think BEagle's description of the flight is enough to put me off.

Maybe I'll revisit the Shetland Islands next time I hanker for that abandoned, desolate, 'kin cold feeling. SI also has the bonus of no unexploded nasties lying around the place, apart from the locals that is.........

[MSF]

Whining about a flight on a Tristar?
Obviously you never experienced the VC10 to ASI and the trip of a lifetime on the Uganda!:yuk:

[MrBernoulli]

BEags,

It doesn't get any better on the trips down here. With any luck will be on the Timmy home this week. Only thing that makes it acceptable is the trip we did today in support of you-know-who and saw South Georgia again - majestic! Other than that this place is a dive.

[BEagle]

Yes - South Gerogia was always a majestic sight!

Enjoy the trip home - you've just missed temperatures of 37.8 deg C at LHR (and the business class lounge ran out of ice.... such hardship is sooo hard to bear!).

And ponder those age-old TriShaw mysteries:

1. Why take-off going west and then turn left when your destination is invariably several thousand miles to the north?

2. Why go the wrong way round the ASI high-speed exit?

I always liked George Morris' description of crew activity in the descent in the TriShaw - "Like a Buddhist prayer meeting. Lots of chanting interspersed with the sound of gongs!"

PS - Edited to add, please say "Hi" from me to the recently arrived navigator with the large beak.....and I hope that he didn't get into any poo at ASI this time;)

[NoseGunner]

You think you've got it bad. Next time you're unhappy about the tristar try it in an F3.
Crew in V early.
Get airborne, faff joining with tanker(s), head south. fly self for next 10-11 hours without being able to move from strapped in seat, or stop concentrating on something very boring (following tanker) have compulsory IMC close formation for 1 hour, tanker finds CAT spot on tanking bracket in the middle of nowhere (how do they do that?), get told by Nimrod that nearest boat is 400 miles away (what is that flickering caption?), eventually find aforementioned volcanic isle, land, go both ways round high speed loop cos you don't know which is the right way, park, get out after 12.5 hours. Piss (aaaaaaagghhhhhhhh!)
Get told you're sharing rooms cos cabin crew don't want to. Get angry. Drink beer. Fall over. Sleep a bit. Get up next day and repeat above but end up in Falklands.
I miss the good old days
:D

[moggie]

BEagle - that is the best description of the trip to hell that I have ever read/heard. Herc travel was at least more honest - no-one pretended that it was an airline and you knew it was going to be sh!tty. At least no-one minded if you stretched out on the freight pallets (I once slept on a Tornado engine from LYN to Goose via Marham!).

Travelling longhaul down the back of a VC10 was not fun, either (I used to hate deadheading). I always used to feel sorry for our pax on the longer trips - unless they were Paras in which case they got what they deserved.

[Redcarpet]

Beagle you will be glad to hear that your views are highly regarded in the Tri* world. Also your wide-body jet experience gives you plenty of credibility.

[BEagle]

Oh good.



.

[goldcup]

Redcarpet-

Shame on you. You know the rules- BEagle knows everything about everything and anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

[BEagle]

:{I disagree:{

So those who disagree with that are, by your definition......;)

Do learn the difference between talk and banter.

Just off to study my 'Boy's Book of Fat-bodied Jets' so that one day I might truly appreciate the art and skill involved in flying such things... :yuk:

[massingbird]

Yes, but try not to disagree with yourself. Years and years of A330 is rubbish, 767 is king. And now, as if by magic 767 is rubbish, A330 is king. I wonder....what can have changed your mind? I'm sure the Falklands TriStar could buy your favourable opinion just the same as Airbus did.
:ok:

[BEagle]

Meanwhile, back on the topic of flying to the Malvinas....

Around 100 lucky punters could do so direct from Brize in an A330-200 with South American diversion fuel.....

No-one could fly direct in an ex-BA 767 with any diversion fuel.

If you must bring up FSTA, the reason for my lack of enthusiasm regarding the old ex-BA 767-336s is that they only have 73.5 tonne of fuel and no probe. So not much better in the AR role than a VC10K3 and would be as old as even those were when they entered RAF service. Except that, unlike bankrupt EAAC, BA have actually been flying their aeroplanes....

Whereas KC-767A is entirely different. It has up to about 18 tonne more fuel than the ex-BA ac, a 767-400 glass flight deck with integrated tanker avionics and all the bolt-on goodies one would want. Except windows for the SLF - at least the ex-BA ac have those!

In contrast, the A330-200 offers vastly superior capability in both AT and AR roles with over 37 tonne more fuel than the old ex-BA767s. Offloading 20 tonne per hour on a North Sea towline, a K3 from Brize could probably stay on task for just over a couple of hours. An ex-BA 767 perhaps a few minutes more. But if you took off from the Airbus factory in Toulouse 500 miles to the south in an A330-200, flew up to the same towline and off-loaded fuel at the same rate before flying back to Toulouse, you could stay on task for an extra hour. And with over 200 passenegers enjoying the spectacle.....

The TriShaw mates have demonstrated quite clearly that fuel and time on task are nowadays more important than the Cold War 'hoses in the sky' days of AD CAP-support priority. Hence the need for maximum capability in any new tanker-transport aeroplane.

[Farfrompuken]

Beagle,

Kindly remove your head from your rectum.

Thankyou:ok:

[BEagle]

Farfrompuken, thank you for your well-researched and valuable contribution:ugh:

I'm surprised that you didn't note the fact that it was your AR fleet which proved in GW2 that 'Cold Warrior' "hoses-in-the-sky are more important than off-load and time on task" attitudes need a rethink. Which was what I wrote; following recent operational experience, capability needs re-evaluation - and A330 wins on that score:ok:

[goldcup]

Didn't you also write

So wouldn't it be a really excellent idea to buy up a couple of dozen ex-BA 767s, get them modded to carry 94 tonne of fuel

and

'Hoses in the sky' are what matters! So better 11 aircraft with 73 tonnes than 7 aircraft with 111 tonnes - always assuming that both have 2 wing and 1 centre-line hose!


and

BEagle Tankers Plc would go to a commercial bank and ask for a loan to make Uncle Nigel happy to part with his RR-engined B767-300ERs

and

And then there's the ever-so-teensy snagette that the wingspan of an A330 is 60m and the internal width of the Base Area Gringo Timmy hangar is......??

[BEagle]

Yes - but things have moved on. And I have been persuaded by the reported GW2 TriStar experience that different capabilities are now more appropriate. "Hoses in the Sky" was possibly relevant when I wrote that, but less so now.

Not a great fan of PPP/PFI - but that isn't germane to the issue here. 94 (that should have been 91) tonnes in a thoroughly modified ex-BA 767 with all the KC-767A features, yes, very nice. But is that on offer? I don't know. I doubt it. TTSC talk (in their website) of a 'substantial refit including engine upgrades' being needed whereas AirTanker talk in theirs of 'minimal modifications'. Which poses the less risk and offers the greater capability?

Let the debate continue.

..and you probably won't now need to base an A330 tanker in the S Atlantic as A400M could be used for in-theatre AR. Which wasn't necessarily the case when I wrote of the Timmy hangar limit as the ac hadn't been signed up to at that time.

[massingbird]

Needs re-evaluation after recent operational experience or after BEagle gets a new job with Airbus (formerly Airbooooos in BEagle speak)?

As for flying towlines from Toulouse, what happened to:

"If some whoopy-do new tanker design (carrying, say, 100+ tonnes of fuel) is so
huge that it can only use a limited number of bases and alternates, but another
new tanker design carrying less can be based closer to the area of operations
because it can use any aerodrome a VC10 can, would the perceived fuel capacity
advantage of the former by lost by virtue of the extended transit times needed
to get from where it lived to where it was needed and back again?"

and

"PLUS I trust Boeing's military understanding far more - and in any case, the
A330K would be used to capacity on very rare occasions indeed - hence usually
inefficiently. Whereas the 76K will be operated efficiently far more often."

And what about the size problems:

"PLUS, and don't let Airboooooooooos fool you, the A330 is T O O F * C K I N G B
I G for virtually ALL military aerodromes except Brize. Try taxying one at
Lossiemouth! Whereas the 767K will fit where a VC10 will, the A330K won't even
fit where a TriStar or C-17 might...... "

Who is it you work for now Beags ?

[BEagle]

Myself!





....and, as I've said, requirements and capabilities aren't now what they were then. In the words of a (non-retired) senior officer who knows far more about such things, "It's now a different world order to that which we imagined 2 years ago..."

So, snipe as ye shall and quote my comments from a bygone time if you must, but the world has changed. So have my opinions.

[goldcup]

"A bygone time" = April and May 2003.

And time doesn't change your argument that the introduction of the A330 would pose PCN and space problems.

[massingbird]

I'm still concerned about the fly by wire in the Airboooooos. Have you read the AAIB report about the A340 which encountered a
little turbulence, the FBW decidedto go to alpha prot, firewalled the throttles and zoom climbed out of its assigned level, very nearly colliding with an A330?

I cannot see how we could EVER trust Airboooooooooooooos' control laws NOT to do something equally alarming with a receiver in contact.

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.

:oh:

[BEagle]

That has now been addressed.

How about the pair of you cut and paste artistes making a useful contribution to this debate rather than just harping on about past statements I may have made?

A week is a long time in politics.......and the change of AR emphasis following recent experience must equally be addressed.

[goldcup]

A week is indeed a long time in politics. However, it is doubtful whether any politician has made such a dramatic u-turn. If they had, their credibility would undoubtedly lie in shreds...

[BEagle]

Thanks again for a most positive contribution........

[Captain Gadget]

BEags

I've been out of the AT/AAR game for a while now (and I was a truckie anyway) - BUT I think that the point about the 'Airbooos' doing its own thing with a receiver in contact was a point worthy of an answer.

Not that you didn't answer it, of course, but IMHO you did so in a cursory and dismissive, 'should know better', kind of way.

I'm sure your argument has substance (because, BEags, you are a guru to our entire community); but for the idiots amongst us, could you please explain the substance?

I have to say that, when I was flying the all-electric folding bomber, there were some 'really useful' features that one could have well done without...

Gadget :ok:

[BEagle]

mockingbird was merely quoting verbatim from something I once wrote on here regarding my concern at the possible response which Airbus FBW laws might generate when reacting to the short term perturbations which might result from receiver disconnects etc.

I'm told that such concerns have now been addressed. As have the roll control characteristics essential for AR operation.


The A330/340 'Atlantic Incident' is AAIB report 6/2001. The full report is at http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_501275.hcsp

Here is an extract:

The A330 commander's report:

Both aircraft were in clear air as the A330 was slowly overtaking the A340 below it. The A330 commander stated that his aircraft was slightly to the right of the A340 and almost abeam it when he saw the A340's wings start to flex. At about that time he felt a bump, which he described as similar to entering a mountain wave. Five to ten seconds later there was another bump during which the A330's altimeter reading descreased by 200 feet. Immediately thereafter, the A330 commander heard a TCAS "climb climb" warning and he noted that the A340 TCAS symbol had changed colour to red on his navigation display. He looked out and down at the A340 which was some 200 to 300 feet to his left in a nose-up attitude and climbing steeply. The A340 passed through the A330's level before the commander had time to react to the TCAS warning and the TCAS was still issuing a "climb" instruction for a short while after the A340 had climbed above the A330. The commander continued to monitor the A340 visually and on TCAS. It appeared to reach an apogee above FL380 although by this time it had fallen behind the A330. Nevertheless, it was still laterally quite close to the A330's track so the commander altered copurse to the right to make space for the A340 to descend back to FL 360. After a short discussion with the A340 crew on VHF radio, the A330 commander broadcast a warning of severe turbulence on the common VHF frequency and then reported both the turbulence and the aircraft proximity (AIRPROX) occurrence to Shanwick on HF Radio. there were no injuries on board the A330 although there were spillages in the cabin.


The A340 commander's report

At FL 360 the A340 was 1000 feet below the maximum cruising level displayed on the Flight Management and Guidance System (FMGS). The commander was expecting a turbulence encounter around 59°N 20°W and when the aircraft first entered light turbulence he made a cabin announcement and switched on the seat belt signs. Shortly before the AIRPROX event he experienced moderate turbulence and noticed outside air temperature changes. Suddenly the aircraft began to climb, the Master Warning sounded and the autopilot self-disengaged as the aircraft exceeded the speed limit of 0.86 Mach. The indicated airspeed dropped below VLS (the lowest selectable) as the aircraft climbed and the commander took manual control of the aircraft because neither autopilot would engage. The crew subsequently reported the incident to Shanwick on HF radio and using their TCAS, they descended back to FL 360 in a safe area. At the time of the AIRPROX the commander estimated the aircraft were one mile apart laterally. After landing at New York the commander had the aircraft inspected by technical staff but no defects were found. There were no injuries on board the aircraft.

The commander could not remember the sequence of warnings but he did recall being unable to re-engage either autopilot which prompted him to make manual control inputs. He also remembered seeing an ‘Alpha Lock’ warning displayed on his Primary Flying Display.

[Captain Gadget]

BEags

Very prompt - thanks.

Not wishing to rock the boat, just curious - and I know that others are also!

'nuff said

Gadget :ok:

[massingbird]

So how have they been addressed then?

[Captain Gadget]

Shame on you Sir.

All that I asked Mr BEagle to do was to elucidate us masses - which he did.

Of course I still have questions as to why TCAS does not call for heading changes, when lateral separation (even under MNPS, if my long-term memory is still functioning) is far greater than vertical. Admittedly, the incident in question took place outside radar coverage - but can you imagine the apoplexies in ATC if it had not?

I have an even bigger question as to why the aircraft captain of the A340 took 17 seconds plus to [section deleted on legal advice]...

But I didn't ask those questions, did I?

And BEagle answered the one that I did.

Gadget :ok:

[BEagle]

mockingbird - sufficiently.

Captain G - lateral TCAS advisory commands are still some way off. But I'm sure that a current 'wide-body' pilot could explain why....;)

[massingbird]

Is that all we're going to get by way of an answer BEags? It's a legitimate question after all, & one that you raised yourself. Come on, elucidate us masses.

:confused:

[moggie]

Massingbird - for G0d's sake give it a rest!

Surely one of the most important skills a pilot (or manager) can have is the willingness to change his mind and his plans if the situation dictates.

Would you stay on track and fly through a CB just because that track is the one you filed for 4 hours ago? Or would you say that it was a good idea to re-assess the situation and choose an alternative route?

You may not agree with the opinions which BEagle chooses to hold (some will, some will not) but you surely have no grounds to criticise someone because he is open minded enough to change his point of view. From personal experience I found plenty of people on the VC10 fleet who had very fixed mindsets!

Personally, I would like to see new, European aircraft used rather than pretty-old, tired 767s however I would want those new aeroplanes to be capable of operating where needed.

Of course, there is no rule that says an aeroplane has to take of at max structural TOW, so if you are operating from shorter runways or those with lower load bearing capabilities you can go off with a lower fuel load at max REGULATED TOW.

I'm not sure off the top of my head how the 767 and 330 compare with regard to payload/fuel available to offload - I am sure BEagle can tell me. But if the 330 will operate out of the same places as a 767 with the same fuel load (but have the option to carry more when the runway allows) then is that level of flexibility not a welcome addition to the game?

Anyway - I still think that flying to the FI in the back of any RAF aeroplane is the sort of thing that should invite the interest of Amnesty International and the Red Cross!

[BEagle]

moggie - thanks. I thought that certain needles were getting stuck in certain grooves, to use an old vinyl metaphor.

Re. the payload/range query, I've done some data reduction using open source material. Unfortunately I don’t know how to post .jpg images into PPRuNe posts, so you’ll have to construct your own FSTA payload/range graph from the following information obtained from the manufacturers’ publications but not factored for AR role-configured aeroplanes:

X-axis (range) from 0 to 10000 nautical miles, Y-axis (payload) from 0 to 60 tonnes. For the A330, the x,y curve is (0,50), (4000,50), (9000, 0) and for the B767 it’s (0,41.68), (3709, 41.68), (5854, 21.73), (6748,0).


If you construct this graph, it will be readily apparent that the A330 offers a considerable payload range advantage over the B767, particularly at ranges in excess of 5700 nm. For example, it would be possible for an A330 to fly non-stop direct from Brize Norton to the Falkland Islands, a great circle distance of 6800 nm, carrying at least 100 passengers whereas a B767 would be unable to fly the route non-stop with any payload. The A330 has a baseline seat fit of 293 seats, 30 B-class at 40” pitch and 263 Y-class at 32” pitch. British Airways operates the B767 in a variety of seating configurations; typically in ‘Longhaul Regional’ configuration it is fitted with 32 B-class ‘Club World’ seats at 43” pitch and 183 Y-class ‘World Traveller’ seats at 32” pitch. However, other B767-300ER configurations include 24 B-class seats at 38” pitch and 245 Y-class at 32” pitch, a total of 269 seats. The A330 cabin interior is considerably more spacious than that of the B767, allowing standard 21” width Y-class seats to be fitted in an 8 abreast configuration with 2 x 19” aisles, apart from the rearmost 5 rows which are fitted 7 abreast. The narrower cabin of the B767 means that seats and aisles of the same dimensions may only be fitted in 7 abreast configuration. Both aircraft offer substantial underfloor cargo areas without any compromise from AR fuel tanks. The maximum cargo volume available in the A330 is 4803 ft³, using 26 LD3 cargo containers, the most common container in use world-wide, plus 695 ft³ bulk cargo in the rear of the hold whereas the B767 offers a maximum volume of 4030 ft³, some 16% less. However, to achieve this the B767 needs to use 30 smaller LD2 containers plus 430 ft³ bulk cargo. Unlike the A330, the B767 cannot carry LD3 containers in side-by-side pairs.

Although British Airways Fact Book 2002 lists the maximum take-off weight of its B767-336 aircraft as 181.4 tonne, Boeing quotes the MTOW of the B767 aircraft as 186.9 tonne in 269 seat configuration. At ISA+15°C in still air at sea level, the B767 at 186.9 tonne requires a take-off field length of 10100 ft, whereas at its MTOW of 230 tonne under the same conditions, the A330 requires a take-off field length of 8300 ft. On such a 8300 ft runway under the same conditions, the B767 would be limited to a MTOW of 175 tonne.

For the AR role, on a North Sea ARA sortie upon which a full VC10K3 could offer 2:10 hours on task or a VC10C1K/K4 1:44 hours, a B767 with 73.1 tonne of fuel on take-off could offer 2:16 hours or an A330 with 111 tonnes 3:41 hours at the same assumed constant offload rate. Unlike the USAF’s KC-767A, the ex-BA 767s are not, according to the TTSC website, being offered with additional fuel. It has been alleged that the A330 faces infrastructural problems at certain bases from PCN/ACN and dimensional constraints; hence it is prudent to examine the A330’s capability if forced to operate from a base some 500 nm further from the ARA. In such a case it could still offer 3:16 hours on the same task, an hour more than the rival B767 and thus the purported deployability limitation of the A330 is clearly more than offset by its much greater AR capability.

It will be readily apparent that AirTanker’s Airbus A330-200 platform offers a markedly superior capability in both Air Transport and Air Refuelling roles when compared against the ex-BA Boeing 767-300ER proposed by TTSC even when deployed to a base 500 nm further from the ARA than that used by its competitor. It is also a far more modern aeroplane in all respects; however, the viability of its operation is inextricably linked to the business case presented by the bidding consortium. That is a highly sensitive commercial matter upon which I will make no comment whatsoever.

But getting back to the thread topic, I'm sure that anything which reduces the current transit time between the UK and the Islas Malvinas would be greatly appreciated by all!

[moggie]

BEagle - thanks for that. I think I can get all I need without drawing graphs.

Basically, if I read you right, as long as the runway can hold the A330's weight then for a given runway length an A330 can carry substantially more fuel to the chaps who need it - full stop.

Therefore there is almost 50% greater offload capability with the 330 than the 767.

The non-stop to FI makes a HUGE difference! By the time you allow for descent and departure you have saved at least an hour. Add in the best efforts of the movers at ASI and that goes up to 3-4 hours. That is a lot of airframe fatigue life over the next 20 years.

Reminds me of the plann Rolls Royce floated for the VC10 in 1986 (I think). Re-engined with the V2500 there would have been guaranteed:

10% more thrust
Significantly reduced noise (and how!)
Better reliability and
Minimum 30% fuel saving (projected 35-40%)

That fuel saving would have guaranteed direct to Dulles every day of the year and probably direct to Calgary from Gutersloh every day, too (no more KEF!).

RR said that the design, engineering and purchase of engines and ground equipment would have been paid for in 5 years by the guaranteed fuel saving.

Of course, the RAF could not be seen to spend money to save money so they allowed the offer to pass by.

How is the Conway these days?

[BEagle]

Yes - you've got it in one, moggie! But the offload comparison in my example assumes a transfer rate of 20 tonne per hour, so the comparison would change slightly with different transfer rates.

With 20-20 hindsight, the V2500 option would have been a good one for the Vickers FunBus.

How is the Conway these days? As I'm sure even the TriShaw mates will agree - B£OODY NOISY!!

[moggie]

Noisy but nostalgic! My parents still live near BZN and I can't help looking up everytime I hear that VERY distinctive sound as they pass over.

I used to love that "whooosh" and the shove in the back as the N1s passed 93% on a rolling take off. Inside, up the front is the only sociable place to be when a VC10 goes off, mind you.