KC-30 Boom comes off.

[BEagle]

Of the 92 AAR anchor areas in the US, the overwhelming majority are over the land.

As are most of the AAR tracks. See AP/1B 5.3.

[BatOutaHell]

Correction

"Also for clarification, the KC-767 also has had a partial boom loss when one aircraft was unable to retract the boom in flight and had to land with the boom extended."

Boeing did have an aircraft with the boom extended, however no parts came off of it. The same boom was repaired and is in active service now with the JASDF.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Originally Posted by zeke

that was a "possibility" or "speculation" put forward by the magazine "Australian Aviation" in their article.

Incorrect. The article states...

Sources say preliminary reports suggest the boom’s probe snapped off near the F-16’s receptacle, causing the boom to spring up and strike the underside of the KC-30, possibly snapping off one of its two guiding fins and causing it to oscillate wildly until it snapped off at the pivot point.

This is not speculation on the magazine's part, it is relating information from a source. This is the same as what I have heard through my 'sources', and it seems BEagle might have similar gouge!

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BatOutaHell

Boeing did have an aircraft with the boom extended, however no parts came off of it.

If Boeing had one as well, it was a different event to what I was referring to. The emergency that I was referring to was when the aircraft was with the JASDF.

It was the JASDF that released details of the incident, including landing with the boom extended and the small fire that resulted.

More details on this link KC-767J damaged in emergency landing - The DEW Line

Originally Posted by FoxtrotAlpha18

This is not speculation on the magazine's part, it is relating information from a source.

Their source was the Australian DoD media release, everything after the word possibly in that sentance is their speculation.

[greenhornet]

Zeke wants to pretend it's a non event, but I'm keen to see pictures when they surface. This is likely to be a major event that the crew were lucky to survive.

[BEagle]

Foxtrot Alpha 18 and greenhornet, the account published in the magazine article is correct.

I don't know why Zeke wishes to cast doubt on the incident; the fact is that the entire boom assembly did violently separate from the KC-30A before falling into the sea.

Boeing's KC-767J uses a different boom design to their paper-plane 767NoGo tanker; the Airbus KC-30A has been flying for quite some time now and has transferred a lot of fuel through the boom. Investigation of the incident may well lead to some modifications; nonetheless, as far as the KC-X contest is concerned, the Airbus contender is at a far more advanced stage of development than Boeing's.

[BEagle]

PPRuNe's maximum image size is 850x850.

Here is your (somewhat out of date) image re-sized to 850:



Please edit as appropriate.

The latest version I have is from the 18 Nov 2010 - 13 Jan 2011 edition of the AP/1B and is dated 30 Aug 07.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BEagle

I don't know why Zeke wishes to cast doubt on the incident; the fact is that the entire boom assembly did violently separate from the KC-30A before falling into the sea.

Because that article is not consistent with the Australian DOD statement on the incident, they said “The incident resulted in the detachment and partial loss of the refuelling boom from the MRTT, which fell into the sea.”

The Australian DOD statement was the basis for that article.

I am aware of a number of other such incidents with F-16s on the KC-135, the boom normally fails near the UARRSI.

The boom also has a lot of drag on it, with its own mass and a low CG, the idea that a boom could “spring up” with all that drag and mass does not seem plausible to me.

[BEagle]

Zeke, accept that you're wrong.

Those who know, know..... This was a violent and total boom failure, resulting in the entire boom assembly detaching from the tanker.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Originally Posted by zeke

The Australian DOD statement was the basis for that article.

Incorrect...again! The DoD release was NOT the basis for that article. The article referred to "sources" in one instance, and the the DoD release in another.

I have it on first hand authority that the magazine had undertaken to sit on the information from the "sources" until the DoD and/or Airbus issued their official release/s, and that the "sources" are irrefutable.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BEagle

This was a violent and total boom failure, resulting in the entire boom assembly detaching from the tanker.

Even the Australian Aviation article says it was only a partial loss, "partial loss of its air-to-air refuelling boom", and you are saying it was the entire boom ?

Originally Posted by FoxtrotAlpha18

The DoD release was NOT the basis for that article. The article referred to "sources" in one instance, and the DoD release in another.

I read that article to say they have two sources, the Australian DoD and Airbus Military. Both of those sources are credible however I do not think either would have come out and made such a statement so early.

Still no one can give me a explanation of the physics of how an extended boom in flight can "spring up" and hit the underside of the tanker taking into the account the drag and mass of the boom.

[ftrplt]

Still no one can give me a explanation of the physics of how an extended boom in flight can "spring up" and hit the underside of the tanker taking into the account the drag and mass of the boom.

Flying surfaces - incorrect inputs &/or response - boom flys up (when it wasnt meant to or expected to)

Its not the first time this boom has gone the wrong / unexpected way!!

[greenhornet]

It's not rocket science to understand that a boom can fly upwards, perhaps at a rapid rate if some event caused that? A boom would need to be quite dynamic to prevent damaging the aircraft it's trying to refuel. It should be a design consideration that contact with the fuselage is not a catastrophic event though? Shouldn't it......

[Saintsman]

It seems that the 'incident' was not so bad after all.

Airbus Military details 'limited damage' to A330 tanker after boom mishap

[Zeke]

BEagle, FoxtrotAlpha18, greenhornet ...

"Those who know, know..... " seems Flight Global has presented some balance, care to amend some previous claims made such as "a violent and total boom failure, resulting in the entire boom assembly detaching from the tanker."

Or are you three going to edit and delete your posts to change the content again ?

[TBM-Legend]

Zeke, this is a "rumour" network. Time always gives up more "facts"....

Here, like "real life" stories abound.

[BEagle]

Zeke, the article states:

"The boom detached at the root of the structural mast," says Airbus Military, responding to questions from Flightglobal. "There is no damage to the boom attachment, nor is there any significant damage to the [aircraft's] fuselage," it adds.

However, the company is assessing the likely duration of limited repairs required, which it says are "in the non-pressurised area of the tail cone and auxiliary power unit area (structure)".

So,

1. The boom detached at the pivot - fact.
2. There is damage to the tanker's fuselage - fact.
3. The 'non-pressurised area of the tail cone and APU (structure)' occasioned damage - fact.

And those of us who know, still know. What has been posted (apart from your comments) has been accurate. It's good that Airbus have spoken up about this as it avoids a Chernobyl-style denial which would do more harm than good.

[Zeke]

BEagle,

The boom and the structural mast are not one in the same. The boom telescopes from the mast and transfers fuel to the receiver, as well as providing two way communications.

Read that paragraph you have quoted again.

[greenhornet]

So what did happen Zeke, you suggest you are one of 'those who know, know' perhaps? The boom departing at 'the root of the structural mast' would be........pretty much the whole boom? You must be an Airbus shareholder?

[EW73]

It may have been "limited damage" to the boom components as a result of this incident, but also consider, should this have happened during a real-time in-service environment, maybe they would have also lost several fighters/C-130s/AEW&C airplanes or whatever, as a direct result of running out of fuel!