KC-X RFP Mk II (merged)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pods and pylons might be built by Cobham, but that doesn't mean they will work any better on the high wing-load 767. The Mk 905Es required aerodynamic modifications before they were matched to the A330 wing; I suspect the same problems Boeing have on Frankentanker Mk1 will re-emerge. The result will be an aircraft type over 35 years old before it gets close to entering service.
Now that the Frankentanker has such enormous winglets, completely changing the flutter characteristics and vortex field of the old 767, pod aerodynamics will be a different problem than it was for the useless Smiths pod.
But Cobham should manage to solve it. A small tweak to the 907E sorted drogue nutation very quickly (not that it was actually that severe) for the A310MRTT.
It'll be interesting to see whether those big winglets will cause receiver pilots any disorientation issues when maintaining close formation in poor visibility. Probably not, but did anyone think about that?
Competition is no bad thing; the fact that the USAF chose second best is their problem. But their paper plane will have a significant UK content.
But Cobham should manage to solve it. A small tweak to the 907E sorted drogue nutation very quickly (not that it was actually that severe) for the A310MRTT.
It'll be interesting to see whether those big winglets will cause receiver pilots any disorientation issues when maintaining close formation in poor visibility. Probably not, but did anyone think about that?
Competition is no bad thing; the fact that the USAF chose second best is their problem. But their paper plane will have a significant UK content.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D-IFF
When a refuelling pod is fitted to any new platform, invariably there will be different aerodynamic characteristics and loads. This is overcome by an aircraft type specific rear fairing on the pod, which affects the hose catenary and stability. Smiths could never solve it on 767, IAI did and Cobham will too, given that we solved it on every other aircraft.
When a refuelling pod is fitted to any new platform, invariably there will be different aerodynamic characteristics and loads. This is overcome by an aircraft type specific rear fairing on the pod, which affects the hose catenary and stability. Smiths could never solve it on 767, IAI did and Cobham will too, given that we solved it on every other aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not just a matter of shape of the pod fairing that affects the hose stability, the toe in or toe out of its mounting on the wing is also significant.
Last edited by Art Field; 1st Mar 2011 at 18:25. Reason: Sinificant supilin
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess if IAI could get pods to work on the 767 wing, albeit not the New ImaGenary Tanker with the big winglets, then it won't be a big challenge for Cobham. Interesting that Smiths (Boeing) couldn't do it on the OWN aircraft though - and the wing loading on the 767 will still be high compared to the 330.
Boeing to miss 787 performance spec.
Interesting to note from an article in Flight that Ol' Bubba can't meet his claimed performance figures for the 'plastic plane' 7-late-7:
Boeing to miss 787 performance spec: Albaugh
So is it hardly any wonder that Ol' Bubba is being coy about payload/range and performance details of the Frankentanker....?? Boeing can't meet their own claims for a straightforward (and long-overdue) airliner, so what hope is there for an unknown high-risk military aircraft which doesn't even exist yet?
Boeing to miss 787 performance spec: Albaugh
Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Jim Albaugh, for the first time, has acknowledged that the 787 will miss its intended performance specifications.
This is the maiden flight of the first Airbus MRTT for the UAE. It's the seventh MRTT to fly.
Now, I know the US deal is done and dusted, and old news to boot, but remind me again when the first Boeing KC-46A is due to fly.....
airsound
Now, I know the US deal is done and dusted, and old news to boot, but remind me again when the first Boeing KC-46A is due to fly.....
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 12th Apr 2011 at 12:12. Reason: word missing, d'oh
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winglets gone ?
AvWeek (I think) reported recently that the latest Boeing presentation on the KC-46 showed that it's already changing from the beastie presented during the competion, particularly that the winglets have gone.
Of course, this could be that the artist who prepared the drawing missed them out, and the omission was spotted too late for the change to be made before the deadline (I know, it happens ...).
Of course, this could be that the artist who prepared the drawing missed them out, and the omission was spotted too late for the change to be made before the deadline (I know, it happens ...).
