RAAF chooses A330
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF chooses A330
Hi all,
Just caught on the news that the RAAF/governement has selected the A330 for the in-flight refuelling replacement. Be interested to hear what the PPRUNE gang thinks about this decision over the B767. Cheers,
NFR
Just caught on the news that the RAAF/governement has selected the A330 for the in-flight refuelling replacement. Be interested to hear what the PPRUNE gang thinks about this decision over the B767. Cheers,
NFR
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proven technology ignored in favour of (cheaper??) alternative.
Possibilty of greater commonality (with B737) lost too.
Shame, would've been good to see the 767 tanker in the RAAF. More of a man's airplane too...!!
Possibilty of greater commonality (with B737) lost too.
Shame, would've been good to see the 767 tanker in the RAAF. More of a man's airplane too...!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NFR, I tend to agree,
however it appears that in the end it was a no contest. From the intel that I have heard, the Bus beat the boeing in just about every department, and it was probably cheaper too.
In two crucial areas, it has a greater offload capability (which is everything in AAR) and decisively, it will come equipped with both delivery systems (boom and baskets). Those two points alone would make it unbackable.
Now all they have to do is find someone in the RAAF with airbus flybywire experience and they will be laughing. If not they may find themselves proffessionally embarrassed by brilliant Airbus engineering a la the boys in Jo'burg recently.
Cheers
dmf
however it appears that in the end it was a no contest. From the intel that I have heard, the Bus beat the boeing in just about every department, and it was probably cheaper too.
In two crucial areas, it has a greater offload capability (which is everything in AAR) and decisively, it will come equipped with both delivery systems (boom and baskets). Those two points alone would make it unbackable.
Now all they have to do is find someone in the RAAF with airbus flybywire experience and they will be laughing. If not they may find themselves proffessionally embarrassed by brilliant Airbus engineering a la the boys in Jo'burg recently.
Cheers
dmf
Last edited by druckmefunk; 18th Apr 2004 at 21:37.
Props are for boats!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: An Asian Hub
Age: 56
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see the RAAF buy something new for this job for once. The reincarnated 707s were definitely long in the tooth. A330 will be good for guys wishing to get airline jobs after their ROSO aswell. Duckme funk no surprise really that the A330 beat the 76 on allfronts, only about 2 decades between them in developement. What engine option did they go for anyone know?
Sheep
Sheep
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...I believe it's: "planes are for carpenters"
From other recent threads on D&G:
I think you should write to the editors and explain your carpentry theories. Didn't see any mention of "aeroplane" or any other 60s terminology though, Dad. And decimal currency is here to stay, too!!
Sorry, Old Man....!!! 
He was then able to manually move the plane off the centreline of the runway.
Travolta is also qualified to fly 707 passenger planes
Sorry, Old Man....!!!
Last edited by itchybum; 17th Apr 2004 at 07:27.
itchybum,
Sorry mate, not having a go at you, just wondering if you know something more about the KC-767 program than what I did... you said "Proven technology ignored", I have not been following the KC-767 program closely but do remember the Italians ordering the first 767's, I thought for introduction next year, and US congress giving approval for 100 aircraft mid last year, and Japan for some a fair way off, was not aware of any flying yet, do you have other info ?
And the comment "Possibilty of greater commonality (with B737) lost too", I thought wedgetail/VIP was new 737-700 based (NG), and the KC-767 old 767-200/300 airframes, the cockpit fits I would image be quite different. Maybe the RAAF have got sick of second hand airframes (a la B707).
Sorry mate, not having a go at you, just wondering if you know something more about the KC-767 program than what I did... you said "Proven technology ignored", I have not been following the KC-767 program closely but do remember the Italians ordering the first 767's, I thought for introduction next year, and US congress giving approval for 100 aircraft mid last year, and Japan for some a fair way off, was not aware of any flying yet, do you have other info ?
And the comment "Possibilty of greater commonality (with B737) lost too", I thought wedgetail/VIP was new 737-700 based (NG), and the KC-767 old 767-200/300 airframes, the cockpit fits I would image be quite different. Maybe the RAAF have got sick of second hand airframes (a la B707).
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well first of all, I'm definitly NOT an expert and maybe I should do a search first so I might look like I know what I'm talking about but since I'm lazy...
It was my impression the 767s are new-build. So new aircraft with the latest available tanker-mods but essentially an old airframe design, it's true.
If the bus can pump fuel faster then it has a major advantage as dmf pointed out.
And the flying boom/basket capability provides a service even the F111s can enjoy (for a few more years). Depending on the JSF configuration, it may then no longer be needed except during multi-national exercises and/or operations.
As for proven technology I was probably getting ahead of myself as you're quite right, there aren't any in service yet.
Regarding commonality, what I meant was having two Boeings as opposed to one of each (Boeing and Airbus) would lead to some small benefits in an airline sense. The NGs, like the 767s, are not very digitalised in terms of systems (as opposed to avionics) eg the pressurisation system, fault-finding (bleed-leaks, fire-detector loop failure, etc), and so on. But I admit that in the RAAF the types would probably be completely sequestered from each other.
Ok ok Airbus wins..................
It was my impression the 767s are new-build. So new aircraft with the latest available tanker-mods but essentially an old airframe design, it's true.
If the bus can pump fuel faster then it has a major advantage as dmf pointed out.
And the flying boom/basket capability provides a service even the F111s can enjoy (for a few more years). Depending on the JSF configuration, it may then no longer be needed except during multi-national exercises and/or operations.
As for proven technology I was probably getting ahead of myself as you're quite right, there aren't any in service yet.
Regarding commonality, what I meant was having two Boeings as opposed to one of each (Boeing and Airbus) would lead to some small benefits in an airline sense. The NGs, like the 767s, are not very digitalised in terms of systems (as opposed to avionics) eg the pressurisation system, fault-finding (bleed-leaks, fire-detector loop failure, etc), and so on. But I admit that in the RAAF the types would probably be completely sequestered from each other.
Ok ok Airbus wins..................
Last edited by itchybum; 17th Apr 2004 at 07:31.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stralia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Capn Bloggs
Word History: The plane in which we fly is properly named for a very important element of its structure the wing that keeps it in the air. But the story behind this name is slightly complicated. To begin with, plane in the sense of “winged vehicle,” first recorded in April 1908, is a shortened form of aeroplane. In June of that year plane appeared in a quotation from the London Times that mentioned one of the Wright brothers. Aeroplane, first recorded in 1866, is made up of the prefix aero-, “air, aviation,” and the word plane, referring to the structure designed to keep an air vehicle aloft. Originally the plane in such contexts was imagined as flat, hence the choice of the word plane; in practice this surface must curve slightly in order to work. The word aeroplane for the vehicle is first found in 1873. The first recorded appearance of the form airplane in our current sense, which uses air- instead of aero-, is found in 1907. An American flies in an airplane while a Briton still travels in an aeroplane, but both can catch a plane.
Word History: The plane in which we fly is properly named for a very important element of its structure the wing that keeps it in the air. But the story behind this name is slightly complicated. To begin with, plane in the sense of “winged vehicle,” first recorded in April 1908, is a shortened form of aeroplane. In June of that year plane appeared in a quotation from the London Times that mentioned one of the Wright brothers. Aeroplane, first recorded in 1866, is made up of the prefix aero-, “air, aviation,” and the word plane, referring to the structure designed to keep an air vehicle aloft. Originally the plane in such contexts was imagined as flat, hence the choice of the word plane; in practice this surface must curve slightly in order to work. The word aeroplane for the vehicle is first found in 1873. The first recorded appearance of the form airplane in our current sense, which uses air- instead of aero-, is found in 1907. An American flies in an airplane while a Briton still travels in an aeroplane, but both can catch a plane.
Evertonian
Well, the nerve of this government!
Didn't even reply to my proposal to buy the remaining AN 767's at an exhorbitant price & refit at their own expense! Well then, from now on, I refuse to fly RAAF...it's QF or DJ from now on!
As for the "plane" debate....
It must be plane, because Paul McCartney bought one for his wifes birthday...he also got her an Epilady for the other leg!
(Yeah, yeah...I know!....Sheesh!)
Didn't even reply to my proposal to buy the remaining AN 767's at an exhorbitant price & refit at their own expense! Well then, from now on, I refuse to fly RAAF...it's QF or DJ from now on! As for the "plane" debate....
It must be plane, because Paul McCartney bought one for his wifes birthday...he also got her an Epilady for the other leg!
(Yeah, yeah...I know!....Sheesh!)
Nunc est bibendum
Itchy, considering that it is QF that will be maintaining these aircraft, it's probably no suprise that QF went with the A330 instead of the 767. The 767 will be dead at QF within the next ten or so years wherease the A330 has a good 25+ years of life. I don't think QF wanted to get into the same strife that we are with the B707, that is supporting a miantenance system that has no 'cross over' into the QF system. Spares, expertise, training will all be 'shared' between QF and ronnie RAAF.
Great deal for QF and not a bad one for the RAAF- even it if WAS an airbus!
Great deal for QF and not a bad one for the RAAF- even it if WAS an airbus!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Over 250 posts so far. Perhaps I support Pprune by posting regularly.
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I know..... I just hate conceding to an aircraft (that's the terminology I prefer to use) during training for which the student is instructed to manipulate the Side Stick Controller as if he has his "hand on another man's shlonger"... 
Air Refueling platform chosen because it's simpler for an airline... now I've heard it all. Are Qantas happy with the RAAF's choice of the JSF? Isn't it a Boeing..??? Nope, Lockheed-Martin. How's Qantas off for spares for that machine?
Air Refueling platform chosen because it's simpler for an airline... now I've heard it all. Are Qantas happy with the RAAF's choice of the JSF? Isn't it a Boeing..??? Nope, Lockheed-Martin. How's Qantas off for spares for that machine?
Bottums Up
Itchy,
I can't confirm this info but I was told the other day by an ex Ronnie RAAF colleague that one of the big points in favour of the A330 is that it has the same wing as the A340, with all the fuel plumbing for engnes that aren't there, which can very easily be used for the AAR.
And, that it can easily offer both forms of AAR.
I can't confirm this info but I was told the other day by an ex Ronnie RAAF colleague that one of the big points in favour of the A330 is that it has the same wing as the A340, with all the fuel plumbing for engnes that aren't there, which can very easily be used for the AAR.
And, that it can easily offer both forms of AAR.
