More KC-46A woes....
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm. Omega has been providing tanking services to the USN/USMC for over 18 years. And doing it with a KC-707. An A340 is essentially a wide body 707. So I'm still not seeing it. Care to elucidate?
Hmmmm is my version of your "rolleyes" emoji. Equally purile. Mine's just more old school.
And do stop your patronising "Oh My" and "mmmm..." nonsense - it's so utterly puerile.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficult? Nope, technically speaking. But it requires a contract change. Ever work a DoD contract? Ever try to change a DoD contract. That is hard. How hard? I'll provide an example. C-17 was contractually designed with a forward and aft radome. Technically no big deal. Radomes require very special paint that is transparent to a wide range of RF. Again technically no big deal. Here's where things get dicey: Every electronic device and antenna in the C-17 tail cone is gone. There is no longer any need for special radome paint. The operators don't want it. The maintainers don't want it. MAJCOM does not want it. Boeing who service the tail radomes don't want it. No one wants it. But,to remove the special radome paint requirement requires a contract change. That is hard to do,. How hard? So hard that even though literally no one wants or needs the special radome paint, Boeing is contractually required to ship the radomes out to a specialist paint vendor and USAF is paying 8 times more than they would if Boeing just painted the radomes with the same paint as the rest of the airplane. Warner Robbins (the other C-17 depot) has the exact same problem. This has been going on for nearly a decade. So on the subject of "logical thinking", we are talking about lawyers, not engineers. And not just any kind of lawyer, but contract lawyers. Get the picture? If the lawyers who wrote the contract had been "logical" the contract would have referenced a technical document that provided the specs That way if an error was found in the spec the technical document could have been updated and everything resolved very quickly. But the lawyers did not do that.
Your implication is grievously offensive. Nevertheless, lets return to the subject of "logical thinking". Has it occurred to you that perhaps I work other than a normal daytime shift? Or a normal 5 day week? I'll leave it at that.
What time code do you put on your Boeing timesheet for posting on here btw??
Last edited by KenV; 1st Feb 2019 at 23:16.
I guess it's a competence thing. I've worked on UK MoD and US DoD contracts (and many others) for most of my adult life. Routine contract amendments happen most months on all of these due to oversights, enhancements or simply changes in the world around us. We handle these as normal business - it's a routine part of the day job for the commercial and PM staff. But I have to assume from what you say that Boeing doesn't employ competent staff in these roles. It would explain a lot.
PDR
PDR
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't say they'd been charged more than the original price, just that it was expensive. It's not cheap even if it is a bargain. Or are you saying the USAF should accept multi-year delays because Boeing are saving them some money?
Thread Starter
Regarding the A340-200/300, just study the wing planform, dihedral angle and 2 outboard engine locations....
Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates. The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.
Of course Boeing knows all about the problems of buffet and flutter caused by poor pod / pylon design on the original KC-767, so if a major manufacturer experiences such difficulties and programme delay, it's unlikely that anyone else trying to fit pods on an A340-200/300 would find it straightforward - or cost effective. For example, the UK wasted £M through a sub-contractor trying and failing to fit AAR pods on the TriStar; it might eventually have worked, but by then there were more VC10s available anyway, so the programme was dropped.
Whereas pre-owned A330-200/300 would merely need the existing A330MRTT wing and pod modifications - even a boom if really necessary. Quite how much life is left in pre-owned A330 aircraft is a different question though.
Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates. The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.
Of course Boeing knows all about the problems of buffet and flutter caused by poor pod / pylon design on the original KC-767, so if a major manufacturer experiences such difficulties and programme delay, it's unlikely that anyone else trying to fit pods on an A340-200/300 would find it straightforward - or cost effective. For example, the UK wasted £M through a sub-contractor trying and failing to fit AAR pods on the TriStar; it might eventually have worked, but by then there were more VC10s available anyway, so the programme was dropped.
Whereas pre-owned A330-200/300 would merely need the existing A330MRTT wing and pod modifications - even a boom if really necessary. Quite how much life is left in pre-owned A330 aircraft is a different question though.
Not sure about the remaining life on pre-owned A330s BEags but Filton did kick around the idea of harvesting wings from used A340s for future use. Hanging engines on the outboards did a wonderful job of preserving fatigue life.
Expensive? That's a value judgement which has been done to death here
What is a problem is that the USAF are getting severely delayed delivery - that they didn't bargain on - on the other hand it hasn't caused the sky to fall in and if you were a super optimist you could say Mr B has actually extended the time the USAF will have to look for a replacement. Future generations may thank them......................
Every few years yet another USAF General, when discussing future tanker plans or KC-135 upgrades, says: ".. the last pilot to fly the KC-135 hasn't been born yet …" !
Google it - multiple times from 2008 to just recently !
Google it - multiple times from 2008 to just recently !
Every few years yet another USAF General, when discussing future tanker plans or KC-135 upgrades, says: ".. the last pilot to fly the KC-135 hasn't been born yet …" !
PDR, you do know that resorting to personal insults is generally considered evidence that you're loosing the debate? 
Boeing has been something of leader in the area of alternate work schedules - particularly for the white collar workers. They started this during the 777 development when they discovered the heavy use of CATIA was overwhelming their mainframe computing capabilities - so they started having the designers work alternate schedules to spread out the computer demand. This ultimately proved popular with the workers - plus it got Boeing bonus points from the traffic planners for spreading out peak commuting traffic (and the Seattle area has some of the worst traffic in the US).
Personally, I spent most my last 20 years at Boeing working an alternate work schedule.
Boeing has been something of leader in the area of alternate work schedules - particularly for the white collar workers. They started this during the 777 development when they discovered the heavy use of CATIA was overwhelming their mainframe computing capabilities - so they started having the designers work alternate schedules to spread out the computer demand. This ultimately proved popular with the workers - plus it got Boeing bonus points from the traffic planners for spreading out peak commuting traffic (and the Seattle area has some of the worst traffic in the US).
Personally, I spent most my last 20 years at Boeing working an alternate work schedule.
Out of order I think.............. Looking back Ken has fought the good fight from Day 1 and posted a lot of technical info. Absolutely no need to go to personal attacks on ANY of these forums (or forii?)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed he has, Including such things as a long thread derailment concerning the F-35's helmet-mounted display, and how come he knew that a far superior Block 4 (or whatever) was right around the corner.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the A340-200/300, just study the wing planform, dihedral angle and 2 outboard engine locations....
Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates.
Airbus used the basic A340 wing for the A330MRTT, but used the outboard engine locations and plumbing to supply the AAR pods. You can't do that on the A340; even if it was aerodynamically and structurally possible to fit pods outboard of the engines (which I doubt - it isn't a 707), considerable design work would be needed to supply the pods with adequate fuel flow rates.
1. Omega has been supporting USN/USMC for 18 years using a centerline drogue equipped KC-707.
2. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-10s using just the centerline drogue system. While KC-10 can be equipped with WARP, only a few have been so equipped.
3. USAF has been supporting USN/USMC for multiple decades with KC-135 using a hose/drogue adapter on the KC-135's boom.
4. Dutch KDC-10 have been supporting NATO probe-equipped aircraft for decades using just the centerline drogue system.
5. USN's MQ-25 refueling drone has no WARP.
6. RAF's TriStar tankers have no WARP.
Secondarily, you are selling your European engineers short. If turning an A340 into an aerial tanker with WARP turns out to make financial sense, I'm reasonably confident the engineers at Airbus and BAE could figure out the engineering to make it happen. May I remind you that your engineers managed to put WARP on your Victor bombers. And those bombers' wings had no built in provision to deliver fuel near the wingtips where the WARP were located. And by the way, the Victors had anhedral and a downright odd wing planform, so your dihedral and planform comments appear to be red herrings.
The process of clearing receivers against a 'new' tanker design is also a very time consuming and expensive activity, except for UOR 'heart of the envelope' clearance during TTW.
Now, about those "blindingly obvious" reasons you referred to? Not so much.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts