Simple Voyager Questions
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bedford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple Voyager Questions
Does Voyager have centreline refuelling capability. All the mock up pictures I have seen 2 aircraft in the wings and nothing behind.
Which Airbus wing have they married to which Airbus fusilage and is it comon to mix Airbus wings and fusilages.
Thanks
Which Airbus wing have they married to which Airbus fusilage and is it comon to mix Airbus wings and fusilages.
Thanks
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Yes, some Voyager aircraft will have a centreline hose, but not all. I believe it is five centreline but don't quote me on that.
2. I believe it is an A340 wing married to an A330 fuselage to make use of the outboard engine hard points on the A340 for the wing AAR pods.
3. Unsure how common this is, but wouldn't think it is that common as why would you use a different wing for civvy jets?
Hope this helps.
2. I believe it is an A340 wing married to an A330 fuselage to make use of the outboard engine hard points on the A340 for the wing AAR pods.
3. Unsure how common this is, but wouldn't think it is that common as why would you use a different wing for civvy jets?
Hope this helps.
Voyager KC Mk 2 has 2 wing pods, Voyager KC Mk 3 will have 2 wing pods and a single centreline fuselage refuelling hose unit.
Both are based on the standard A330-200 airliner, as is the RAAF's KC-30A which has 2 wing pods and an air refuelling boom; it also has the capability of receiving fuel in flight which the UK's Voyager does not.
Both are based on the standard A330-200 airliner, as is the RAAF's KC-30A which has 2 wing pods and an air refuelling boom; it also has the capability of receiving fuel in flight which the UK's Voyager does not.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A330 wing and A340 wing are essentially the same thing so think the whole 'A340 wing'thing may be a red herring, I believe the only major difference is the amount of engines hung underneath.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: DESDI or BUBIN
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The wings are identical on the 332 and 343.
The 330 wing has the pylon attachment for the additional engines and fuel piping so in effect it is just as easy to fit a drogue to it.
The only change required in essence is the Fuel tank computer logic.
The 330 wing has the pylon attachment for the additional engines and fuel piping so in effect it is just as easy to fit a drogue to it.
The only change required in essence is the Fuel tank computer logic.
Ask youself in these very fuel conscious days, why you would want to fly an A330 around with all the additional weight that the pipes and engine mounts for the two outer engines would add, for something that would never be used?
Maybe its because they are not there. The A330 & A340 wings are the same in shape and size, not construction.
Voyager's wings need strengthening to mount the Cobham pods.
Maybe its because they are not there. The A330 & A340 wings are the same in shape and size, not construction.
Voyager's wings need strengthening to mount the Cobham pods.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It goes something like this:
The RAAF expected the USAF to buy the KC-30A, so called their aircraft the KC-30B, but the USAF ordered the KC-45, so the RAAF changed the name of their aircraft to KC-30A. The RAF decided to call their aircraft the KC-30B and KC-30C. Then a change of personnel prompted the requirement for a name, so the aircraft was called the Voyager. The KC-30B and C designators were already in circulation, so the Voyager post-nominals became KC Mk 2 and 3. Then the USAF ditched the KC-45 for the KC-46. The Italians and Japanese now have KC767 International Tankers and the remaining Airbus customers have A330 MRTTs, which is what is written on the front of most of everybody's operating manuals; except for those that say Boeing of course.
Hope this helps.
The RAAF expected the USAF to buy the KC-30A, so called their aircraft the KC-30B, but the USAF ordered the KC-45, so the RAAF changed the name of their aircraft to KC-30A. The RAF decided to call their aircraft the KC-30B and KC-30C. Then a change of personnel prompted the requirement for a name, so the aircraft was called the Voyager. The KC-30B and C designators were already in circulation, so the Voyager post-nominals became KC Mk 2 and 3. Then the USAF ditched the KC-45 for the KC-46. The Italians and Japanese now have KC767 International Tankers and the remaining Airbus customers have A330 MRTTs, which is what is written on the front of most of everybody's operating manuals; except for those that say Boeing of course.
Hope this helps.
Meanwhile the KC-45A, which had been the KC-30A under the KC-X competition, was cancelled due to whining complaints in the US, which led to the Australian KC-30B being retitled KC-30A.
The KC-X competition was then biased sufficiently for ol' Bubba Boeing to win it with the KC-46A developed from the paper plane Boeing NewGen Tanker:
The KC-46A won't fly until 2015 at the earliest and ol' Bubba then has to deliver 18 mission ready aircraft before 2017. Unlike the KC-767I or KC-767J which are based on the Boeing 767-200ER, the KC-46A 'Frankentanker' is a hybrid which combines the -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor, -400ER flaps, uprated engines, a modified KC-10A boom and Boeing 787 cockpit with additional military equipment:
The signature winglets of the Boeing NewGen Tanker have now been deleted on the KC-46A. Unsurprisingly, the KC-46A has already run up significant cost overruns, despite the NewGen Tanker being hyped as 'Combat Ready, Lowest Total Cost, American made'. Of course it was none of these as it never actually existed!
Whilst Boeing was faffing about with its Frankentanker, Israeli Aerospace Industries quietly delivered a Boeing 767MMTT tanker transport to Colombia; this was based on the B767-200ER and has wing AAR pods only.
The other company bidding for the RAF's FSTA requirement, TTSC, proposed using secondhand ex-ba B767-200ERs with up to 3 hoses, no additional fuel tanks and Jaguar-like take-off performance at MTOW:
Although unlike other Boeing 767 tankers, at least it would have had proper passenger seats and windows, whereas even the KC-46A will only have the usual Rendition Class USAF passenger accommodation.....
The KC-X competition was then biased sufficiently for ol' Bubba Boeing to win it with the KC-46A developed from the paper plane Boeing NewGen Tanker:
The KC-46A won't fly until 2015 at the earliest and ol' Bubba then has to deliver 18 mission ready aircraft before 2017. Unlike the KC-767I or KC-767J which are based on the Boeing 767-200ER, the KC-46A 'Frankentanker' is a hybrid which combines the -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor, -400ER flaps, uprated engines, a modified KC-10A boom and Boeing 787 cockpit with additional military equipment:
The signature winglets of the Boeing NewGen Tanker have now been deleted on the KC-46A. Unsurprisingly, the KC-46A has already run up significant cost overruns, despite the NewGen Tanker being hyped as 'Combat Ready, Lowest Total Cost, American made'. Of course it was none of these as it never actually existed!
Whilst Boeing was faffing about with its Frankentanker, Israeli Aerospace Industries quietly delivered a Boeing 767MMTT tanker transport to Colombia; this was based on the B767-200ER and has wing AAR pods only.
The other company bidding for the RAF's FSTA requirement, TTSC, proposed using secondhand ex-ba B767-200ERs with up to 3 hoses, no additional fuel tanks and Jaguar-like take-off performance at MTOW:
Although unlike other Boeing 767 tankers, at least it would have had proper passenger seats and windows, whereas even the KC-46A will only have the usual Rendition Class USAF passenger accommodation.....
Last edited by BEagle; 18th Feb 2012 at 07:56.
