OI BEagle, NOOOO! A330-200MRTT tanker details.
Guest
Posts: n/a
bonajet
Your question has stretched my memory slightly, there was so much changing at the same time. FWTS grew as part of the lead in to the amalgamation of the resources and tasks of the 3 R&D airfields namely, Bedford, Farnborough and Boscombe. When all the aircraft re-located to Boscombe the set up was FWTS, essentially the amalgamation of A & B Sqns, and Experimental Fg Sqn which was the amalgamation of Farnborough and Bedford. Both units operated FJs and Heavies. Things settled down and the obvious decision was taken to have a FJ unit and a Heavy unit, probably the only change supported by logic and common sense that happened around that time.
To expand on BEagle's comment, the situation post QinetiQ has the flying sqns operating as STC units within an R&D flying regulatory environment with the aircraft engineering and scientific support provided by QinetiQ civilian staff. Rather a tricky set up to get right and detail appears to be a late consideration, so next week will likely be a testing time for many at BD.
lm
Your question has stretched my memory slightly, there was so much changing at the same time. FWTS grew as part of the lead in to the amalgamation of the resources and tasks of the 3 R&D airfields namely, Bedford, Farnborough and Boscombe. When all the aircraft re-located to Boscombe the set up was FWTS, essentially the amalgamation of A & B Sqns, and Experimental Fg Sqn which was the amalgamation of Farnborough and Bedford. Both units operated FJs and Heavies. Things settled down and the obvious decision was taken to have a FJ unit and a Heavy unit, probably the only change supported by logic and common sense that happened around that time.
To expand on BEagle's comment, the situation post QinetiQ has the flying sqns operating as STC units within an R&D flying regulatory environment with the aircraft engineering and scientific support provided by QinetiQ civilian staff. Rather a tricky set up to get right and detail appears to be a late consideration, so next week will likely be a testing time for many at BD.
lm
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beagle, you have been very selective in your comments about the A330/A340 incident. Firstly, nothing happened to the A330!! For the A340, quote from AAIB, it was a "random event driven by the severity of the turbulence." It didn't help that both aircraft were flying at near max Mach (M0.86) and the A340 was near max altitude, circumstances highly unlikely when tanking. Also bear in mind the location, North Atlantic RVSM airspace, a very unlikely position for a tanker and chicks to be - Blue Spruce route instead?? Now, the arguments against the B767 versus A330, that's another story!
Guest
Posts: n/a
An interesting AAIB report. UIAVMM there is a Notam out about the recued vertical separation trial - with the problems of turbulence being very much at the forefront, esp. wrt jetstreams.
It seems to me that if this had happened tanking, the unpleasant encounter with [unexpected] turbulence would simply result in an emergeny break off.
The big issue is that when crews do encounter a nasty, it takes 15 seconds to try and second guess the FBW - all very well trying to kepp the aeroplane in the air, but as Beags has implied, what happens if as captain you do not want to keep it going in THAT direction!
This incident is played down, but is very much a case of one the SLF will have remembered. Almost a very nasty, mainly because of the lack of horizontal separation, asociated with minimal vertical sep'n.
My understanding from material issued via The Salisbury Journal is that part of FTSA [DERA] Op Planning is that hours will be released for Civilian activity up to a year in advance uncer the terms of the contract.
QED All potential enemies please give due notice.
I also understand that there is an assumption in all the planning that while they may operate near a combat zone, they will never be allowed to go INTO the combat zone - so quick darts over the border to grab a mate and top him up are OOTQ.
It will all end in tears, but of course it will not be The Governments fault....
[This message has been edited by Reheat On (edited 01 July 2001).]
It seems to me that if this had happened tanking, the unpleasant encounter with [unexpected] turbulence would simply result in an emergeny break off.
The big issue is that when crews do encounter a nasty, it takes 15 seconds to try and second guess the FBW - all very well trying to kepp the aeroplane in the air, but as Beags has implied, what happens if as captain you do not want to keep it going in THAT direction!
This incident is played down, but is very much a case of one the SLF will have remembered. Almost a very nasty, mainly because of the lack of horizontal separation, asociated with minimal vertical sep'n.
My understanding from material issued via The Salisbury Journal is that part of FTSA [DERA] Op Planning is that hours will be released for Civilian activity up to a year in advance uncer the terms of the contract.
QED All potential enemies please give due notice.
I also understand that there is an assumption in all the planning that while they may operate near a combat zone, they will never be allowed to go INTO the combat zone - so quick darts over the border to grab a mate and top him up are OOTQ.
It will all end in tears, but of course it will not be The Governments fault....
[This message has been edited by Reheat On (edited 01 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
BEagle – sorry to be so long in replying but there was another dicey FBW mission to be flown over enemy territory.
Just looking at the incident from a comparison of traditional versus FBW flight controls, the following spring to mind.
1 The excursions above 0.86 were of short duration and the protection in the A340 hardly pitched the aircraft up at all. The autopilot disconnect was probably missed by the crew. The disconnect audio would have been masked by the overspeed warning. The FBW system is probably better here because it does give some auto recovery from the overspeed.
2 The throttles were closed – this disconnected the autothrust. This was the start of their troubles. In a traditional a/c, in manual flight, slowing down is fairly obvious – in an Airbus the 1g flight law deletes the trim cues – if you’re not watching either the speed, trend arrows or the trim wheel. With the throttles closed you are going to slow down quite quickly at FL360.
3 Then at slow speed instead of stalling like the planes of old, the 340 engaged alpha feed back and put on full power. All that was needed was a little forward stick input to stop the climb. My guess is that it wasn’t until about then that they realized that the autopilot wasn’t connected. Impressive rate of climb for the old A340 at FL360! Must have been quite light.
So on balance I don’t think that there is a great deal to stab Airbus over – it climbed at the “stall” whereas I would have expected a traditional aircraft to have lost height. The only difference is that the climb could have been stopped (probably still provoking a TCAS RA though) but a loss of height after a traditional stall probably couldn’t.
Now as far as tankers go – let’s bring back the Valiant.
Just looking at the incident from a comparison of traditional versus FBW flight controls, the following spring to mind.
1 The excursions above 0.86 were of short duration and the protection in the A340 hardly pitched the aircraft up at all. The autopilot disconnect was probably missed by the crew. The disconnect audio would have been masked by the overspeed warning. The FBW system is probably better here because it does give some auto recovery from the overspeed.
2 The throttles were closed – this disconnected the autothrust. This was the start of their troubles. In a traditional a/c, in manual flight, slowing down is fairly obvious – in an Airbus the 1g flight law deletes the trim cues – if you’re not watching either the speed, trend arrows or the trim wheel. With the throttles closed you are going to slow down quite quickly at FL360.
3 Then at slow speed instead of stalling like the planes of old, the 340 engaged alpha feed back and put on full power. All that was needed was a little forward stick input to stop the climb. My guess is that it wasn’t until about then that they realized that the autopilot wasn’t connected. Impressive rate of climb for the old A340 at FL360! Must have been quite light.
So on balance I don’t think that there is a great deal to stab Airbus over – it climbed at the “stall” whereas I would have expected a traditional aircraft to have lost height. The only difference is that the climb could have been stopped (probably still provoking a TCAS RA though) but a loss of height after a traditional stall probably couldn’t.
Now as far as tankers go – let’s bring back the Valiant.
Guest
Posts: n/a
No - you miss the point.
When it turns nasty near a 767 - autopilot out, I have control.
When it turns nasty near a FBW airbus - lots of audio alarms, WIHIH, no-one has total immediate control!!
Great jets the A330/340. Great civvie jets, that is. On 3 Jul the competing mercenaries will have had to submit their proposals to the suits at the Brizzle Futurama - so their plans and estimates will soon be known. Will our rapid deployment capability have been sold down the river by some shiny suit's 'policy statement' about reaction times - who knows. A330K, NON MERCI!! PPP - EVEN MORE NON, MERCI!!!!! C'EST TOUT MERDE!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 July 2001).]
When it turns nasty near a 767 - autopilot out, I have control.
When it turns nasty near a FBW airbus - lots of audio alarms, WIHIH, no-one has total immediate control!!
Great jets the A330/340. Great civvie jets, that is. On 3 Jul the competing mercenaries will have had to submit their proposals to the suits at the Brizzle Futurama - so their plans and estimates will soon be known. Will our rapid deployment capability have been sold down the river by some shiny suit's 'policy statement' about reaction times - who knows. A330K, NON MERCI!! PPP - EVEN MORE NON, MERCI!!!!! C'EST TOUT MERDE!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 01 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bonajet. Whilst I view my time on the Valiant Tanker with nostalgia or is it neuralgia I'm not sure the tin drogue, the manual torque setting, the square ended nozzle and a lumbering 250 kts would be that welcome today let alone the single hose that would occasionally trail to infinity after falling off. The current Vickers product is much preferable I can assure you. As for the future, who knows?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Unfortunately Beagle you seem to have the usual problem of FBW baiters the world over…….you haven’t tried it.
As for audio warnings, the noises would have been very similar in the 767; overspeed, autopilot disconnect, TCAS, autothrust disconnect.
And for the old chestnut - “ I can take control and pilot the plane” – yes, you can do that in an Airbus. In the quoted low speed case at altitude, the aircraft was perfectly controllable – it was just that no-one was flying the plane. This is a problem with all aircraft in difficult, tense situations with the autopilot out. I would far rather do my low speed rolling show in an Airbus than any of the conventional big aircraft types I have flown!
By all means campaign for a 767 tanker, even one that the RAF can own full time, but please don’t use urban myth to attack the 330
As for audio warnings, the noises would have been very similar in the 767; overspeed, autopilot disconnect, TCAS, autothrust disconnect.
And for the old chestnut - “ I can take control and pilot the plane” – yes, you can do that in an Airbus. In the quoted low speed case at altitude, the aircraft was perfectly controllable – it was just that no-one was flying the plane. This is a problem with all aircraft in difficult, tense situations with the autopilot out. I would far rather do my low speed rolling show in an Airbus than any of the conventional big aircraft types I have flown!
By all means campaign for a 767 tanker, even one that the RAF can own full time, but please don’t use urban myth to attack the 330
Guest
Posts: n/a
I am not criticising the A330/340 - merely querying whether it is wise to operate such aircraft in formation if any inherent flight control law can invoke such a vigorous climb and full thrust. In our current tankers, it is not considered safe to slave the autopilot to the HSI heading bug nor to automatic lateral navigation from the FMS; the attitude of the aircraft must always be under the pilot's total and immediate control. The only autopilot function permitted is automatic altitude hold; speed control is effected manually in the VC10 and, I understand, using ATS in the TriStar whilst heading alterations are effected by autopilot turn rate selection in the VC10 and, I understand, CWS in the TriStar. An A340 pilot with whom I have been speaking considers that there would need to be a substantial software modification disabling certain FBW modes for operating the A330 in formation - particularly when, as we WILL need to, 2 tankers are flying in formation. I am not convinced that this would be an easy - or cheap - modification.
Incidentally - has the occasional small amplitude yawing motion now been modified out of the A330/340? A colleague reported quite noticeable yaw whilst seated in the rear part of the passenger cabin during high level cruise; whether snaking or slight Dutch rolling he didn't say. Of course, it may have been an abnormality of that particular airframe...??
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 July 2001).]
Incidentally - has the occasional small amplitude yawing motion now been modified out of the A330/340? A colleague reported quite noticeable yaw whilst seated in the rear part of the passenger cabin during high level cruise; whether snaking or slight Dutch rolling he didn't say. Of course, it may have been an abnormality of that particular airframe...??
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Further to comments on size etc it would appear that the B767K is the front runner as the Italian Air Forces B707 replacement. BEagle's comments on size of the A330 are also mentioned in the article in this weeks Flight International.
------------------
"please report further"
------------------
"please report further"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think the point on FBW AAR is will the system let you have enough manual authority to make the intuitive attitude corrections required for close formation and...prodding?
Its not a case of not having flown an FBW big jet, its a case of FBW big jet pilots not having flown formation in them!
Plus, what will the chip think when the receiver disconects from the wing hose inducing a yawing moment that, at present, is damped by the natural aerodynamics of our analog aircraft!? Will it over or under correct, or just ignor it...please tell? (plese exquse pis por spolling)
Its not a case of not having flown an FBW big jet, its a case of FBW big jet pilots not having flown formation in them!
Plus, what will the chip think when the receiver disconects from the wing hose inducing a yawing moment that, at present, is damped by the natural aerodynamics of our analog aircraft!? Will it over or under correct, or just ignor it...please tell? (plese exquse pis por spolling)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Indeed, MaxR8, 'yawing moment due to asymmetric disconnection rate' is an aerodynamic factor not currently listed in the lateral stability quartic! So if 'Marcel-le-mouse (sorry, souris)' hasn't built it in to his FBW software assumptions, what would happen when a sudden yaw rate was induced? And what would be the effect on the other receiver......
PennDoff - were the comments in Flight International similar to mine or were they lifted directly from PPRuNe? Because I sure as $hit haven't been writing to the Weekly Learmouth!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 July 2001).]
PennDoff - were the comments in Flight International similar to mine or were they lifted directly from PPRuNe? Because I sure as $hit haven't been writing to the Weekly Learmouth!!
[This message has been edited by BEagle (edited 02 July 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Having now read the Flight article, I note that Italian military sources indicate that:
1. The 767 offers the best combination of performance and cost.
2. The A310 is too short-legged
3. The A330 exceeds the requirement, is too expensive, is technically unproven and is too big and heavy to operate from many IAF runways.
Well, what a surprise! Interesting to learn that internal EADS Airbus strategy was also criticised.
At least the Italians aren't saddled with the PPP nonsense; however, having learned all this about what another Air Force has concluded, will the suits at the Brizzle Futurama take note?
IAF, lucky chaps, are going to be taking delivery of their first 767TTs in 2004. No doubt we'll still be embroiled in procurement vacillation and will be soldiering on with our decrepit old jets in 2004+.................
1. The 767 offers the best combination of performance and cost.
2. The A310 is too short-legged
3. The A330 exceeds the requirement, is too expensive, is technically unproven and is too big and heavy to operate from many IAF runways.
Well, what a surprise! Interesting to learn that internal EADS Airbus strategy was also criticised.
At least the Italians aren't saddled with the PPP nonsense; however, having learned all this about what another Air Force has concluded, will the suits at the Brizzle Futurama take note?
IAF, lucky chaps, are going to be taking delivery of their first 767TTs in 2004. No doubt we'll still be embroiled in procurement vacillation and will be soldiering on with our decrepit old jets in 2004+.................
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes - that photo of the A330 has been doing the rounds for a while now. The 767K pictures have been around even longer though!
Interesting that the Italians can afford 4 brand-spanking new 767TTs, but our pathetic procurement budget won't even stretch to secondhand ex-BA aircraft; we're supposed to trust a bunch of mercenaries to provide our core front-line military force-enabling assets!
Interesting that the Italians can afford 4 brand-spanking new 767TTs, but our pathetic procurement budget won't even stretch to secondhand ex-BA aircraft; we're supposed to trust a bunch of mercenaries to provide our core front-line military force-enabling assets!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Now now! Beagle, Mercenaries!
let us embrace our industry brothers who are striving hard with us to break down the artificial divisions of our business environment. Lets think "out of the box" and strive to deliver more for less.
while we're at it let us produce thousands of processed fish products from but one fish and invent multitudes of perpetual motion machines....baaaaaaaahhh
let us embrace our industry brothers who are striving hard with us to break down the artificial divisions of our business environment. Lets think "out of the box" and strive to deliver more for less.
while we're at it let us produce thousands of processed fish products from but one fish and invent multitudes of perpetual motion machines....baaaaaaaahhh
Guest
Posts: n/a
http://defence-data.com/current/page11451.htm
give the latest state of play inc. a nice artist impression of the 767 zapped with roundels
give the latest state of play inc. a nice artist impression of the 767 zapped with roundels
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've heard some very interesting information concerning the slow progress of the German A310 MRTT program. BAeS (who are not part of EADS) are not releasing wing data to the subcontractor doing the conversions. Well, not unless 't Baron gets a substantial financial interest and share of 't brass!! Well - of course that would never happen with the A330K now, would it..........???? The Italian Air Force were critical of EADS' internal wrangling - perhaps we shouldn't touch them with a barge pole for FSTA. A400M is another matter though!
Noting how our cash-starved defence budget can't afford to buy its own tankers, my sums reckon that instead of the bŁoody stupid Mandeldome so beloved of Trust-me-Tone, we could have had 7 767K tankers in service in 3 years......! But no, a few more jobs for the suits in the Brizzle Futurama, a bit more stonewalling and contract assessment - and no doubt we'll be forced to accept the wrong aircraft.
Noting how our cash-starved defence budget can't afford to buy its own tankers, my sums reckon that instead of the bŁoody stupid Mandeldome so beloved of Trust-me-Tone, we could have had 7 767K tankers in service in 3 years......! But no, a few more jobs for the suits in the Brizzle Futurama, a bit more stonewalling and contract assessment - and no doubt we'll be forced to accept the wrong aircraft.