Tanker facts and figures.....?
How very quaint! Presumably the 'travelling back in time' event (1305 - 1345 - 1305) wasn't very common....
But the idea lives on. In the world's only 21st Century multi-hose tanker currently in service, the following are some of the features of the full-colour fuel graph displayed to the Air Refuelling Operator:
Why? Because I specified such requirements! It also plans trails automatically, including 'single click' single hose plan reversion. It's like having an AARC who doesn't trash hire cars, get himself banned from Atlanta, have 'blonde moments' or miss the transport...
But the idea lives on. In the world's only 21st Century multi-hose tanker currently in service, the following are some of the features of the full-colour fuel graph displayed to the Air Refuelling Operator:
- The fuel line is planned automatically using the exact fuel burn corresponding to the tanker weight at any time.
- Either still-air, forecast or stat. met can be used. Stat met can be anywhere from 35-95%.
- Planned receiver offloads are automatically entered.
- Minimum Off-Task and Minimum Div fuel ('final reserve') are automatically calculated.
- In flight, the actual fuel at any time is updated every few seconds and the actual fuel line is automatically shown on the planned fuel graph in a different colour.
- In flight, the spare fuel and 'foxtrot' state are continuously displayed in numerical form on the fuel graph.
Why? Because I specified such requirements! It also plans trails automatically, including 'single click' single hose plan reversion. It's like having an AARC who doesn't trash hire cars, get himself banned from Atlanta, have 'blonde moments' or miss the transport...
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automated Howgozit
Very interesting - makes me wonder how on earth Victors managed split second timing in AAR deployments, minimum fuel landings and never lost a receiver, using mental DR and rules of thumb!! Oh yes, the navigators did provide essential back up (!) - that is unless he was a Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capt (N) who never had the right Flt Plans or charts!!! 
I guess the modern pilots, Navs and Flt Engs have laptops on which to play games when not in howgozit mode? Is a modern cockpit a WiFi zone?? LOL 
I guess the modern pilots, Navs and Flt Engs have laptops on which to play games when not in howgozit mode? Is a modern cockpit a WiFi zone?? LOL
Bob, 21st century tanker aeroplanes have no need for navigators, air engineers or AEOs. Just a Mission Specialist to optimise the mission requirements and operate the pod control panel whilst the 2 pilots fly and navigate the aeroplane.
The Mission Computer System is used for a variety of functions, including automatic RV calculations and in-flight mission re-planning. It is proving to be more accurate than those expensive computer flight planning systems sold by well-known commercial companies!
The Mission Computer System is used for a variety of functions, including automatic RV calculations and in-flight mission re-planning. It is proving to be more accurate than those expensive computer flight planning systems sold by well-known commercial companies!
that is unless he was a Sqn Ldr/Wg Cdr/Gp Capt (N) who never had the right Flt Plans or charts!!!
RV's were quite an art, and a good plotter could make all the difference when meeting a receiver inbound from Cyprus over Sicily, say. As nav radar I only chipped in if required in the final stages, using fishpool on the H2S, marking with a squirt of jettisoned fuel from one of the pods and occasionally firing the Very pistol which made a satisfying muffled bang in the cockpit. Chastening to think that both navs' jobs are now done by a box of tricks the size of a laptop, but can it pass the coffees round?
Last edited by Tankertrashnav; 23rd Oct 2009 at 14:44.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder what the Tanker captain has to do of an evening now he is free from escorting the Nav back to his room two or three times in a vain hope that he will stay there rather than come back to the bar. Seriously though there's many a Nav who has dug his crew out a deep hole by a chunk of quick thinking when an RV went wrong, it will be lonely with just two qf you.
I lost this thread and it's taken me ages to find it again
Dear old 'Admiral Zig Zag', of whom a captain once asked "Doesn't he know any numbers smaller than 20?" when being given yet another heading change on the Ocean. I also once queried the heading on an off-airways route in the US by asking "Shouldn't we be pointing at the other side of Lake Ontario - I'm sure America's on the left and we seem to be aiming at Canada?" "Err, oh yes. Come 20 left....
" He'd missed a waypoint, it seems.His best effort, though, was to set off from ASI to MPA about 30 deg off heading....
A very nice, amiable chap who did at least admit he wasn't the world's best navigator and who always stood up for his chaps against daftness from above. But all the fun and mystery has gone now that the VC10 has a FMS nav display at the front!
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why did you become a nav?" I asked my friend, who didn't wear glasses, was socially adept, and sharp as anyone I've known.
"So I wouldn't have to fly with one," he replied.
"So I wouldn't have to fly with one," he replied.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A-310-300 Mrtt
Although the German and Canadian A-310 MRTTs could technically be fitted with 5 lower-hold Additional Center Tanks (ACT), each ACT having a capacity of about 4,580 Kgs of fuel, they are only fitted with 4 of them. This is in addition to the 48,862 Kgs of fuel located in the regular tanks. All but the 6 tonnes located in the outer wing tanks can technically be transfered.
I think that the reason they have 4 ACTs instead of the max of 5 is that they converted lower-powered A-310-304 to MRTT standard, which only have a Maximum Take-off weight of 157,000 Kgs. In order to be able to carry the 5 lower hold tanks, they would need to have an Airbus 310-308s, which have a MTOW of 164,000 Kgs.
In order to upgrade their A-310-304s to A-310-308s, to benefit from that extra 7 tonnes of take-off weight, the aircraft would need to upgrade their engines from CF6-80C2A2 of 53,500 lbs, to CF6-80C2A8 of 59,000 lbs.
They are fitted with two Flight Refuelling Ltd Mk32B pods.
I think that the reason they have 4 ACTs instead of the max of 5 is that they converted lower-powered A-310-304 to MRTT standard, which only have a Maximum Take-off weight of 157,000 Kgs. In order to be able to carry the 5 lower hold tanks, they would need to have an Airbus 310-308s, which have a MTOW of 164,000 Kgs.
In order to upgrade their A-310-304s to A-310-308s, to benefit from that extra 7 tonnes of take-off weight, the aircraft would need to upgrade their engines from CF6-80C2A2 of 53,500 lbs, to CF6-80C2A8 of 59,000 lbs.
They are fitted with two Flight Refuelling Ltd Mk32B pods.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 24th Oct 2009 at 17:53.
Actually, since the users' required target specification could easily be met with 4 ACTs, a 5th ACT would only be a 'nice-to-have' which would also impose a ZFW penalty when empty. As it would be for most flights.
Now that the CC150T and A310MRTT have been fully certified, the cost in down time to include a 5th ACT would be quite significant. Certain systems would require some design modification and an extensive test programme would also be necessary to validate fuel transfer and CG envelope issues. Add to that the workload involved in revising all the paperwork and you will realise that it wouldn't be a simple modification. Although, of course, it could be done if there was an urgent operational imperative. It's just not particularly cost-effective.
The pods are Cobham Mission Equipment (FRL) 907Es.
Fuel quantity in tankers can sometimes seem paradoxical. For example, had it been possible to isolate the front cell of the VC10K2 fuselage tank, it would have been possible to load more fuel than otherwise. Because with even just a basic 4 person crew, at max fuel the CG would be nudging the front of the envelope. Often maximum Tailplane Incidence was needed, "6 and a bit TPI and a bit of a pull" would be briefed by the Air Eng, particularly on trips with several pax and a high fuel load. You would set as much TPI as the Take-Off Configuration Warning system would allow; even then, the take-off, flap retraction and initial climb could be very demanding! Particularly given the higher buffet speeds of the old K2 and the fact that aileron upset applied immediately the flap lever was at 'UP', rather than when the flaps passed 14.5 deg on the way up as in later VC10s. This required a LOT of anticipation and some very positive trimming by the pilot flying!
Sorted the men from the boys, did a heavy K2!
On trails we would often load 'trimmed max fuel' and it took a lot of juggling with pax, fuel and cargo to find the optimum solution. Our expert Air Engineers were masters of their craft though and always got it right. But if we'd been able to keep the front cell empty, we'd have been able to fill up to MTOW with a bunch of punters before reaching the CG limit.
Now that the CC150T and A310MRTT have been fully certified, the cost in down time to include a 5th ACT would be quite significant. Certain systems would require some design modification and an extensive test programme would also be necessary to validate fuel transfer and CG envelope issues. Add to that the workload involved in revising all the paperwork and you will realise that it wouldn't be a simple modification. Although, of course, it could be done if there was an urgent operational imperative. It's just not particularly cost-effective.
The pods are Cobham Mission Equipment (FRL) 907Es.
Fuel quantity in tankers can sometimes seem paradoxical. For example, had it been possible to isolate the front cell of the VC10K2 fuselage tank, it would have been possible to load more fuel than otherwise. Because with even just a basic 4 person crew, at max fuel the CG would be nudging the front of the envelope. Often maximum Tailplane Incidence was needed, "6 and a bit TPI and a bit of a pull" would be briefed by the Air Eng, particularly on trips with several pax and a high fuel load. You would set as much TPI as the Take-Off Configuration Warning system would allow; even then, the take-off, flap retraction and initial climb could be very demanding! Particularly given the higher buffet speeds of the old K2 and the fact that aileron upset applied immediately the flap lever was at 'UP', rather than when the flaps passed 14.5 deg on the way up as in later VC10s. This required a LOT of anticipation and some very positive trimming by the pilot flying!
Sorted the men from the boys, did a heavy K2!
On trails we would often load 'trimmed max fuel' and it took a lot of juggling with pax, fuel and cargo to find the optimum solution. Our expert Air Engineers were masters of their craft though and always got it right. But if we'd been able to keep the front cell empty, we'd have been able to fill up to MTOW with a bunch of punters before reaching the CG limit.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I think that EADS had planned the A-310 MRTT with 5 tanks and modified it to 4 tanks for A-310-304 use. On the EADS website:
"The A310 MRTT, with up to five additional fuel tanks in its lower deck, can be provided with a combination of wing pod and/or fuselage hose and drogue units and/or the Airbus Military Air refuelling boom system (ARBS)."
Airbus MRTT - Air to Air Refuelling Tanks
"The A310 MRTT, with up to five additional fuel tanks in its lower deck, can be provided with a combination of wing pod and/or fuselage hose and drogue units and/or the Airbus Military Air refuelling boom system (ARBS)."
Airbus MRTT - Air to Air Refuelling Tanks
Yes, certainly old marketing literature showed the possibility of all sorts of things for the MRTT. The 1997 'Pocket Guide to Airbus Military Derivatives' included versions with a fuel capacity of 77.5 tonne, including 5 ACTs and a MTOW of 164 tonne.
It also showed AEW&C and 'Government and VIP' versions being offered, as well as tanker versions with options of a probe, air refueling receptacle and boom.
The aircraft was later marketed by EADS with 164 tonne MTOW, 5 ACTs (each carries 5770 kg of fuel, incidentally), the option of a boom or centreline hose and would have been powered by the GE CF6-80C2A8 or PW 4156A. But no probe or receptacle.
But this was all true of 'production line' aircraft. Whereas both the German A310MRTT and the Canadian CC150T are modified versions of aircraft already in service. The customers' mission requirements could be met with 4 ACTs and there was consequently no need to increase the MTOW or uprate the engines. Few military customers these days opt to pay for surplus capability, so the 157 tonne version with 4 ACTs is the version now in service with both the Luftwaffe and Canadian Forces.
However, if a customer were to acquire some 164 tonne MTOW A310 aircraft with a view to modifying them to carry 5 ACTs, that could certainly be achieved. Some of the additional AAR systems were designed with 5 ACTs in mind, so this requirement could still be met.
It also showed AEW&C and 'Government and VIP' versions being offered, as well as tanker versions with options of a probe, air refueling receptacle and boom.
The aircraft was later marketed by EADS with 164 tonne MTOW, 5 ACTs (each carries 5770 kg of fuel, incidentally), the option of a boom or centreline hose and would have been powered by the GE CF6-80C2A8 or PW 4156A. But no probe or receptacle.
But this was all true of 'production line' aircraft. Whereas both the German A310MRTT and the Canadian CC150T are modified versions of aircraft already in service. The customers' mission requirements could be met with 4 ACTs and there was consequently no need to increase the MTOW or uprate the engines. Few military customers these days opt to pay for surplus capability, so the 157 tonne version with 4 ACTs is the version now in service with both the Luftwaffe and Canadian Forces.
However, if a customer were to acquire some 164 tonne MTOW A310 aircraft with a view to modifying them to carry 5 ACTs, that could certainly be achieved. Some of the additional AAR systems were designed with 5 ACTs in mind, so this requirement could still be met.
A330 Air-to-air refuelling qualified flying instructor ......??
Our client requires experienced type-rated Airbus A330 pilots for training duties. The successful candidate will have experience of air-to-air refuelling in the tanker role, as well as significant military or civilian instructional experience. You should hold ATPL(A) with Airbus A330 type rating and a current Class 1 medical, without climatic restrictions. You will be an effective instructor and have the ability to work flexibly and without supervision. You must be willing to work worldwide, have good interpersonal skills and be an excellent communicator with the ability to act as an ambassador while overseas.
Reality check??
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Nov 2009 at 19:59. Reason: Stupid website wouldn't accept normal abbreviations in the title!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a half million per year (going rate for A2 AAR QFIs with ATPL A330 et al.....)....I'm sure all of them will jump to this opportunity...(sorry, I only know of ONE of him.)
