AirTanker First Officers
ShotOne
right up until you start adding certain types of defensive aids systems. There really isn't much point in trying to defend your jet if the entire jet and paint scheme adds to the signature!
can't see many operators wanting to fly their nice shiny jets into Basra or Bastion. Also can't see many civil operators meeting the military DAS requirement
white and grey
civilianised AT
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can't see many operators wanting to fly their nice shiny jets into Basra or Bastion. Also can't see many civil operators meeting the military DAS requirement
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be surprised if they are going to allow the Voyager KC2 to fly for the civvies airline, especially as it doesn't have a civilian TC!! I would imagine they will convert the aircraft back into the Civvy TC variant of the FSTA i.e. military mods removed, just some of the pipe work left intact. As for the 'Green' aircraft, that was bought into service for the benefit of the RAF and ATr and will be returned to Airbus DS (no longer AiM) to be converted into another FSTA.
Lots of rubbish on here and not too many facts!!
Lots of rubbish on here and not too many facts!!
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Civilianised AT?" A bit late for that debate -much of it was civilianised years ago. Even the most ardent Air Tanker hater must surely prefer them to sending our boys in aircraft from the Seychelles or Angola!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and I think that you will find that Voyager is pretty efficient in both roles. Burns less and carries more than Tristar and VC10, Offloads more gas than Tristar and VC10, has two hoses, therefore more efficient for the receiver formation than Tristar, Greater serviceability than Tristar and credits to the RAF when the service fails to deliver....
Surge fleet crewing....thats the point of the SR crews!
90 Days recall, yes it will be expensive, but that is what you pay for the versatility of the service, better than paying for 14 ac when you only need 9. However, you only pay when you need it. Will they deliver on time? They will be hit very hard finically if not!
Voyager KC2 and 3 will not be used on the civilian register, mainly because they don't have a civilian TC due to the mil equipment.
Will they be painted differently for charter work, probably yes, but to be honest that is a quick job for the turnaround.
And that is only a small part of the risk that the company carry if they fail to deliver.
Is it a perfect solution, probably not, have they delivered everything? No. Is it all their fault? Definitely not. Are we good a requirement definition? No, hence the issues. Will things change over the next 25 years? You can bet your life on it!!
Like I say, let me know what you need to make your case.
Surge fleet crewing....thats the point of the SR crews!
90 Days recall, yes it will be expensive, but that is what you pay for the versatility of the service, better than paying for 14 ac when you only need 9. However, you only pay when you need it. Will they deliver on time? They will be hit very hard finically if not!
Voyager KC2 and 3 will not be used on the civilian register, mainly because they don't have a civilian TC due to the mil equipment.
Will they be painted differently for charter work, probably yes, but to be honest that is a quick job for the turnaround.
And that is only a small part of the risk that the company carry if they fail to deliver.
Is it a perfect solution, probably not, have they delivered everything? No. Is it all their fault? Definitely not. Are we good a requirement definition? No, hence the issues. Will things change over the next 25 years? You can bet your life on it!!
Like I say, let me know what you need to make your case.
3engnever, the aircraft which will be 'moist-leased' to Thomas Cook will be a Voyager KC2 in air transport configuration, but with a 323-seat 'sell 'em cheap, stack 'em tight' grockle-fit cabin configuration. It will not be a plain-vanilla A330.
It will painted in white, with Thomas Cook logos.
Depending on ZFW, the A330MRTT is supposedly able to carry 111 tonnes of fuel, whereas the TriStar (IIRC) could carry up to 136 tonnes - but had a higher burn rate.
It will painted in white, with Thomas Cook logos.
Depending on ZFW, the A330MRTT is supposedly able to carry 111 tonnes of fuel, whereas the TriStar (IIRC) could carry up to 136 tonnes - but had a higher burn rate.
To achieve that fuel figure the TRI would need a ZFW of 109T (about 10T too low in the K1/KC1) not only that but it would need a longer runway than BZN (or a very high QNH and/or strong headwind).
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Sorry, but you are wrong on this. The aircraft will not be a vanilla A330, true, but it will not be a Voyager KC2 either as it does not have a civilian TC. This is why the conversion takes the time it does. The leased aircraft will be a part modified A330 operating under an STC.
Sorry, but you are wrong on this. The aircraft will not be a vanilla A330, true, but it will not be a Voyager KC2 either as it does not have a civilian TC. This is why the conversion takes the time it does. The leased aircraft will be a part modified A330 operating under an STC.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"323 seat sell-em cheap, stack-em tight.." Really? Monarch fly this type with 358 seats, other operators with 363. Most folk will find the space and comfort on a 330 stands well above that of any previous RAF type...although some may still miss the "working-men's-club" whiff of the '10's urinals.
3engnever, I only have the Flight article to go on - no doubt you have more info.
Flight stated:
ShotOne, not being familiar with such places, I must bow to your knowledge of working mens' clubs..
But I agree that the VC10C urinals were pretty darn awful....
Perhaps not quite as bad as anything in a C-130K though.
Flight stated:
Following its conversion into a two-point tanker at Airbus Defence & Space’s Getafe site near Madrid, Spain, the new A330 will be flown to AirTanker’s facilities at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire in February 2015 to be prepared for civilian operation. This will involve the removal of military systems and the reconfiguration of its cabin from the Voyager’s 291-seat configuration into an all-economy, 323-seat layout.
But I agree that the VC10C urinals were pretty darn awful.... Perhaps not quite as bad as anything in a C-130K though.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: all over
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags,
Indeed. The article does not say that the aircraft will be a KC2, in fact the 323 seat fit doesn't feature as a config for the KC2. The article, quite rightly says that the aircraft will be delivered to Bzz where it will be converted into the civilian variant. The KC2 and 3 are military versions only, the civilian variants has to hold a civ TC and hence the need for the conversion work.
The important reason for this difference is who holds responsibility for airworthiness. For the mil jet (KC2 and 3) the military TAA has responsibility. For the civil variant of FSTA the military has no airworthiness role, this is purely down to the AOC holder and the civilian authorities.
Indeed. The article does not say that the aircraft will be a KC2, in fact the 323 seat fit doesn't feature as a config for the KC2. The article, quite rightly says that the aircraft will be delivered to Bzz where it will be converted into the civilian variant. The KC2 and 3 are military versions only, the civilian variants has to hold a civ TC and hence the need for the conversion work.
The important reason for this difference is who holds responsibility for airworthiness. For the mil jet (KC2 and 3) the military TAA has responsibility. For the civil variant of FSTA the military has no airworthiness role, this is purely down to the AOC holder and the civilian authorities.
3engnever, the article states:
So if that isn't a KC2, what is it? The flight deck will still have the MSO's station, the tanker military wiring and plumbing will still be present, as presumably will certain antennae... Clearly the AAR equipment will be removed, but will items such as fixed (inoperative) DASS sensors be removed? Sufficient 'military' equipment will still be present to preclude the aeroplane being flown to Cuba in Thomas Cook use, so it clearly is not a straight A330.
The A330MRTT received a civil Type Certificate some time ago.
Following its conversion into a two-point tanker...
The A330MRTT received a civil Type Certificate some time ago.
The actual situation is somewhere between the 2 BEags and nev3. The MSO station is removed along with a lot of other stuff . The ARCs are disabled so the ac fuel handling is like a true A330. Not sure about things like the extra TRs.