Voyager Completes 3 Point Tanking Flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Voyager Completes 3 Point Tanking Flight
I may well be asking a daft question ... but here it goes ...
Having read this Press Release by AirTanker ...
1st 3 Point Tanking Flight
Could someone explain the advantage of having dissimilar configured Tanking Point Aircraft on the RAF fleet ?
Having read this Press Release by AirTanker ...
1st 3 Point Tanking Flight
Could someone explain the advantage of having dissimilar configured Tanking Point Aircraft on the RAF fleet ?
In all seven aircraft have now been delivered to the programme. The latest arrival, ZZ337, which was delivered at the end of January, brings the total number of aircraft flying on the MAR to six, (2x two-point tankers and 4x three-point capable tankers).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Reet here
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would have thunk that the external plugs depended more on the internal configuration of the air vehicle, rather than other way around, ie. more seats/baggage capacity = less space for fuel = not enough fuel to warrant trying to get three up.
Either that or the need to fuel larger aircraft (think Albert or C-17) limits space at the back of the tanker. Having three points when you can only use two?
Just my tuppence worth.
Either that or the need to fuel larger aircraft (think Albert or C-17) limits space at the back of the tanker. Having three points when you can only use two?
Just my tuppence worth.
When the business case was developed, a decision would have been made regarding the total number of tankers needed and their capabilities - this clearly didn't lead to a requirement for all Voyagers to be fitted with the FRU, given the necessary support required for large aircraft. Which should have included MRA4, but is now limited to Atlas, Sentry and C-130J. Sentinel was supposed to have had a probe, but performance issues were such that it was deleted.
In the sunset years of the VC10 fleet, there was a mix of 2-point and 3-point tankers, which didn't seem to cause much of an issue.
Perhaps, though, someone is thinking a bit further out of the box and has considered the inclusion of a boom on some of the 2-point Voyagers, so that the UK could support its own C-17s and Rivet Joints, plus Sentry?
On second thoughts.....
In the sunset years of the VC10 fleet, there was a mix of 2-point and 3-point tankers, which didn't seem to cause much of an issue.
Perhaps, though, someone is thinking a bit further out of the box and has considered the inclusion of a boom on some of the 2-point Voyagers, so that the UK could support its own C-17s and Rivet Joints, plus Sentry?
On second thoughts.....
Is there a plan to add probes to the Rivet Joints to make them compatible? It worked on the E3 and would presumably be less of a challenge/ cost than putting booms on the tankers. Likewise with the C17s, although I guess that is slightly less charted territory.
Just an idle thought.
Just an idle thought.
Arty, as far as I know there is no plan to add probes to the RJ
The E3 had the probe incorporated into the design - not added later.
The C17 would be uncharted territory not less charted!
Coffman -I think that any boom configuration would be added to the ac not yet built which presumably would not be that difficult since there are A330 tankers with that configuration already
Somph-not sure I even understand your second point!
BEags the only reason a mixed fleet of VC10s was not an issue was the lack of large rx.
The E3 had the probe incorporated into the design - not added later.
The C17 would be uncharted territory not less charted!
Coffman -I think that any boom configuration would be added to the ac not yet built which presumably would not be that difficult since there are A330 tankers with that configuration already
Somph-not sure I even understand your second point!
BEags the only reason a mixed fleet of VC10s was not an issue was the lack of large rx.
Coffman -I think that any boom configuration would be added to the ac not yet built which presumably would not be that difficult since there are A330 tankers with that configuration already
Tankertrashnav, the 3rd person on the Voyager flight deck, the Mission System Operator, would also double as boom operator. In addition, if the Mission Planning System is ever fit for purpose 
, he/she would also amend and update any AAR deployment trail plan or AARA towline fuel plan....
There's an awful lot more to it these days, than being a food-powered airborne fuel pump attendant!
, he/she would also amend and update any AAR deployment trail plan or AARA towline fuel plan....There's an awful lot more to it these days, than being a food-powered airborne fuel pump attendant!
TTN
I never suggested that there was only the issue of fitting a boom-simply that the work would likely be done to ac that have not even been built. As stated-the configuration already exists so design is pretty much done.
I never suggested that there was only the issue of fitting a boom-simply that the work would likely be done to ac that have not even been built. As stated-the configuration already exists so design is pretty much done.
There's an awful lot more to it these days, than being a food-powered airborne fuel pump attendant
Seriously, are we saying that the third man on the current fleet of Voyagers are already trained up as boom operators? If not, they are still going to need some serious training I would have thought. What if they dont hack it? After all, as you say - "there's an awful lot more....etc "
Not if the MPS is designed properly....
!
There should be no need for any MPS interaction during actual boom operation - just as there is no need for any MCS interaction during the period of the MEO's actual AAR work in the A310MRTT.
! There should be no need for any MPS interaction during actual boom operation - just as there is no need for any MCS interaction during the period of the MEO's actual AAR work in the A310MRTT.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,568
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes
on
31 Posts
I was led to believe that the probe was added to the Sentry because it was in the original specification. GEC would have had a field day if the Sentry did not meet spec.. after all, the Nimrod Mk3 was cancelled because it didn't meet spec although perhaps in more important areas. (You may be surprized at some of the Sentry add-ons to make it meet spec and to keep GEC happy). The boom receptacle was kept because it was too expensive to remove it!
Although the twin refuelling system on the Sentry does give a degree of flexibility, it also doubles the flight deck currency requirement as they have to be trained on both systems (in the past, some flight deck crews were only current on one type I believe). The preferred option during operations is the USAF boom system. It is much quicker to transfer fuel giving less time off station mid-mission and I understand that it is easier for the pilots (jousting with a large aircraft when sticking an aerodynamic radome into its jetwash is not much fun). I also believe that the Sentry is cleared for centre line only so the "twin" tanker would be no good.
Although the twin refuelling system on the Sentry does give a degree of flexibility, it also doubles the flight deck currency requirement as they have to be trained on both systems (in the past, some flight deck crews were only current on one type I believe). The preferred option during operations is the USAF boom system. It is much quicker to transfer fuel giving less time off station mid-mission and I understand that it is easier for the pilots (jousting with a large aircraft when sticking an aerodynamic radome into its jetwash is not much fun). I also believe that the Sentry is cleared for centre line only so the "twin" tanker would be no good.
