Could civilian AAR ever happen?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but who the heck would want to be cooped up in an airliner for that length of time
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www.range-unlimited.com
Hi I set up range with three ex RAF mates some years back as a means to raise the profile of civil AAR.
At the time of $180 a barrel oil I think it was getting viable based on calculations and papers published by Raj Nangia which you can find on the website or online via the RAeS etc.
Omega, a small civil AAR outfit claimed they could deliver fuel in the air a while back at $2000 a tonne using a KC135 or Extender. I believe that if we placed a KC10 or MRTT A 330 in the Gulf it might well be possibly to fly a full commercial load down to perhaps Perth. Sydney would need another top up over Singapore.
If you offset a tanker mission against the economic benefits of non stop flights which are many and varied then it could be made to work.
Boom is the way ahead and automation thanks to UAV work not far off.
Some applications quite subtle, a relatively modest uplift after take off from the Gulf would allow non stop flights to LAX with decent loads.
Anyway it's an interesting subject which may get the political and economic drivers to take off one day.
At the time of $180 a barrel oil I think it was getting viable based on calculations and papers published by Raj Nangia which you can find on the website or online via the RAeS etc.
Omega, a small civil AAR outfit claimed they could deliver fuel in the air a while back at $2000 a tonne using a KC135 or Extender. I believe that if we placed a KC10 or MRTT A 330 in the Gulf it might well be possibly to fly a full commercial load down to perhaps Perth. Sydney would need another top up over Singapore.
If you offset a tanker mission against the economic benefits of non stop flights which are many and varied then it could be made to work.
Boom is the way ahead and automation thanks to UAV work not far off.
Some applications quite subtle, a relatively modest uplift after take off from the Gulf would allow non stop flights to LAX with decent loads.
Anyway it's an interesting subject which may get the political and economic drivers to take off one day.
Omega, a small civil AAR outfit claimed they could deliver fuel in the air a while back at $2000 a tonne using a KC135 or Extender.
At the time of $180 a barrel oil I think it was getting viable based on calculations and papers published by Raj Nangia which you can find on the website or online via the RAeS etc.
If airlines really want to fly ultra long range operations, then until sub-orbital air vehicles are available, the A350XWB-900R looks like the best solution - but around 20 hours in a people-tube wouldn't be much fun, no matter in which class. Also, as the number of passengers increases and flight times increase, so does the risk of diverting with a medical emergency.....
I believe that if we placed a KC10 or MRTT A 330 in the Gulf it might well be possibly to fly a full commercial load down to perhaps Perth. Sydney would need another top up over Singapore.
. I know ultra ultra long range sounds attractive to some but it's worth asking if the carriers really want to, or could afford to, overfly some of the major Far east destinations....for example many passenger flights ex-Oz coming up to Europe pick up a significant amount of very lucrative cargo during the transit in the likes of SIN and BKK.
Last edited by wiggy; 3rd Nov 2013 at 09:12.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney, I apologise that no civvie pilots have bothered to rise to your "aren't as good" bait, even though, as mentioned, civvies invented, developed and trialled the idea years before any military chaps gave it a go. That's because we're all too busy counting our money in jacuzzis in Barbados with fifteen hosties!
...there're eighteen hosties on a 747. I think even mustachioed ex-fighter pilots could get laid with those odds.
Back in the 70's I got chatting to a lady in our hotel bar just outside Offutt AFB. Hearing we were on tankers, she told us that when her husband was in the USAF she had been on a trooping flight to Germany (presumably in a C135) which had been refuelled during the flight, (again presumably by a KC135).
Had no reason to disbelieve her, but I was not aware that the USAF ever routinely refuelled passenger aircraft. Can anyone in the know confirm this, or otherwise?
Had no reason to disbelieve her, but I was not aware that the USAF ever routinely refuelled passenger aircraft. Can anyone in the know confirm this, or otherwise?
....a lady in our hotel bar just outside Offutt AFB
'A lady'.....
A nav on the 617th bombardment wing was talking to some female at the same place. When she asked where his home was, he told her it was in Lincoln....."Gee - did they name the town after our President" came the response.....
B52 bar, Ramada Inn, Bellevue,
We had a great discussion on the relative merits of the solid boom and probe and drogue methods
Talking of Lincoln, on another occasion a lady we had met who had some business in the state capitol building there took my plotter and me along for the ride in her Lincoln. That was when they had proper cars in the US!
We had a great discussion on the relative merits of the solid boom and probe and drogue methods....
Those Offutt trips were great - in those days the UK was always on strike, we were poorly paid and inflation was rampant. So trips to the USA were eagerly anticipated and our Vulcans were carefully nursed at Goose to make sure that we were allowed to carry on to Offutt!
Last year I found some tapes I'd made at the time of the local radio stations such as KGOR and KQKQ; find suitable AOR FM station, bung in a cassette and leave it running whilst in the bar. Some great music - and "$1000 off 1979 model Chevys in National Chevy Week" adverts. Unfortunately most US Internet radio is now blocked for copyright protection
. It's OK for the US to export death and destruction world-wide, but not classic rock, it seems...
Last edited by BEagle; 3rd Nov 2013 at 15:27.
Why don't you get a crowbar out and wedge open your wallet and pay for it. As far as exportindeath and destruction, there was once a day and age when your lot could as well. You can study it in a history book if you so care to.
Why don't you get a crowbar out and wedge open your wallet and pay for it.
As far as exporting death and destruction, there was once a day and age when your lot could as well. You can study it in a history book if you so care to.
Thread Starter
Thanks, folks, for your most generous and greatly illuminating responses to my OP query.
I now need to confess that I expected the response to be 'Oh, too difficult!' rather than 'Oh, too dear!' (Shame on me, in this place).
My tentative conclusion is that, at presently credible fuel prices, the cost of the tanker operation is highly unlikely to be justified on fuel cost savings alone.
However if (very big IF) a tanker could refuel two or three long-haul services within the scope of a single relatively short sortie, and IF those services were in the happy position of being able to sell profitably the very substantial increase of long-haul payload capability which AAR might offer to their fleet ... it might quite easily fly.
(Beags' expert criticism most welcome - I have no commercial interest!).
My own gut feeling is that, with the sudden eagerness of several traditional Far Eastern/Oz operators to jump into the business of low-cost, long-haul operations, commercial AAR might just be in with a chance within the foreseeable - I'd hazard a 30-40% chance.
I now need to confess that I expected the response to be 'Oh, too difficult!' rather than 'Oh, too dear!' (Shame on me, in this place).
My tentative conclusion is that, at presently credible fuel prices, the cost of the tanker operation is highly unlikely to be justified on fuel cost savings alone.
However if (very big IF) a tanker could refuel two or three long-haul services within the scope of a single relatively short sortie, and IF those services were in the happy position of being able to sell profitably the very substantial increase of long-haul payload capability which AAR might offer to their fleet ... it might quite easily fly.
(Beags' expert criticism most welcome - I have no commercial interest!).
My own gut feeling is that, with the sudden eagerness of several traditional Far Eastern/Oz operators to jump into the business of low-cost, long-haul operations, commercial AAR might just be in with a chance within the foreseeable - I'd hazard a 30-40% chance.
However if (very big IF) a tanker could refuel two or three long-haul services within the scope of a single relatively short sortie, and IF those services were in the happy position of being able to sell profitably the very substantial increase of long-haul payload capability which AAR might offer to their fleet ... it might quite easily fly.
Sydney to London is about 9200nm. Say 120T? Not far off the capability of the next generation A350XWB - so why bother with the added expense of AAR?
Commercial airline AAR? I'd say 0% chance!
Last edited by BEagle; 3rd Nov 2013 at 22:08.
ETOPS twins are inherently overpowered due to one engine inoperative performance requirements, so runways at commercial airports are rarely 'too short' these days. But a cargo airline might possibly view the option of non-stop ultra long range flights with AAR support as being worthy of investigation.
However, if there really was such a need, surely by now it would be in service? Just what commodity is there which needs to be transported so far, so fast?
However, if there really was such a need, surely by now it would be in service? Just what commodity is there which needs to be transported so far, so fast?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dogle - whilst the mechanics of tanking can no doubt be automated so that the 'average' airline pilot can do it, you need to consider the planning.
Current tanking operates either on a 'tow-line', by positioning tankers en-route or by 'accompanying' the receiver along the route.
A tow-line would be totally uneconomic for both giver and receiver. The 'staging' of a tanker along the route means the giver would have to burn a lot of fuel whilst 'giving' and then either back-track or divert - again uneconomic, as is 'accompanying' the receiver along the route. The sums just will not work out.
Then there are slots, delays, finding a suitable level, ATC.........................
It would relieve some of the long-haul boredom (for crews, anyway...........)
Current tanking operates either on a 'tow-line', by positioning tankers en-route or by 'accompanying' the receiver along the route.
A tow-line would be totally uneconomic for both giver and receiver. The 'staging' of a tanker along the route means the giver would have to burn a lot of fuel whilst 'giving' and then either back-track or divert - again uneconomic, as is 'accompanying' the receiver along the route. The sums just will not work out.
Then there are slots, delays, finding a suitable level, ATC.........................
It would relieve some of the long-haul boredom (for crews, anyway...........)
When we did EX PUP in Apr 1987, supporting the London-Australia record attempt, the first tanker had to do a 3 hr trip from Akrotiri to overhead El Daba, then RV with the inbound VC10K between El Daba and METRU, nominally at 26° East, then offload up to 40T between KANAR and Fayoum, before returning to Akrotiri from overhead Cairo. So we must have needed around 64T in tanks....
(Prince Charles was snoozing on board a VVIP VC10 parked outside the main terminal building..... I guess our full power departure an hour before dawn probably woke him up though.....
)
It was at a relatively quiet time of the day and a fairly benign ATC environment, so all went OK. But the cost and complexity of a similar operation for routine airline flying rules it out, in my view.
I don't know how much they took from the second tanker, but the VC10K crew were well over MAUW and flying at M0.9 for much of the time, so must used up heaven knows how much fatigue life....
But they did get the record!
(Prince Charles was snoozing on board a VVIP VC10 parked outside the main terminal building..... I guess our full power departure an hour before dawn probably woke him up though.....
)It was at a relatively quiet time of the day and a fairly benign ATC environment, so all went OK. But the cost and complexity of a similar operation for routine airline flying rules it out, in my view.
I don't know how much they took from the second tanker, but the VC10K crew were well over MAUW and flying at M0.9 for much of the time, so must used up heaven knows how much fatigue life....
But they did get the record!