France orders A-330 based MRTT
Indeed, D-IFF_ident!
No doubt in the pax role, a windowless A330F-based tanker fuselage would have been fitted with that Rendition Class seating the Spams seem to love....
The cost of modifying the A330F to carry pax to a standard acceptable for certification would have been pretty high; no other A330 customer has been daft enough to specify a non-standard design. The French haven't specified a freight door, but are keeping an eye on the possibility as a future option.
All new customers will have an MRTT based on the current A330-200 build standard, which includes the Power8 computers and modified slats etc....and an 'enhanced' MPS
. Which will have a Win8.1 OS 
I don't know whether the new MRTT standard will include the very clever hose length LED indication system which AD&S has now patented, but it certainly should. I've prodded against 6 different tanker types (Victor, Vulcan, KC-135BDA, KC-10, VC10K and TriStar) and the AD&S system is by far and away the best system I've ever seen. NVG compatible too!
No doubt in the pax role, a windowless A330F-based tanker fuselage would have been fitted with that Rendition Class seating the Spams seem to love....
The cost of modifying the A330F to carry pax to a standard acceptable for certification would have been pretty high; no other A330 customer has been daft enough to specify a non-standard design. The French haven't specified a freight door, but are keeping an eye on the possibility as a future option.
All new customers will have an MRTT based on the current A330-200 build standard, which includes the Power8 computers and modified slats etc....and an 'enhanced' MPS
. Which will have a Win8.1 OS I don't know whether the new MRTT standard will include the very clever hose length LED indication system which AD&S has now patented, but it certainly should. I've prodded against 6 different tanker types (Victor, Vulcan, KC-135BDA, KC-10, VC10K and TriStar) and the AD&S system is by far and away the best system I've ever seen. NVG compatible too!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The cost of modifying the A330F to carry pax to a standard acceptable for certification would have been pretty high; no other A330 customer has been daft enough to specify a non-standard design.
The European standards must be different in some way, because there is no problem here in the US with putting passengers in KC-135, KC-10, and KC-46 tankers, none of which are based on a passenger version of the airframe. And the USN C-9 Skytrain (DC-9 based) and C-40 Clipper (737 based) are also freighter aircraft that routinely carry passengers. And Douglas built and civily certified a number of DC-10 Convertible Freighters and Combi Freighter/Passenger aircraft. Perhaps those European/US regulatory differences are yet another reason why the NG/EADS partnership collapsed.
I had never considered the difficulties associated with putting passengers in a civil freighter. I had no idea that was even an isuue. My bad.
Rendition Class passenger accommodation in a large civil freight aircraft simply won't meet 21st Century certification in terms of g restraint, oxygen or emergency egress requirements, not to mention other requirements.
It'd be interesting to see the Frankentanker attempt to meet such present day standards. But I guess the US doesn't view this as a criterion...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - the key words are "civil" and "military".
The KC-30 & KC-46 were/are for US military certification - no civil certification authority will have a single word they can enforce about how they were/are to be outfitted.
And yes, US military certification for passengers is quite different from anyone's civil certification.
The KC-30 & KC-46 were/are for US military certification - no civil certification authority will have a single word they can enforce about how they were/are to be outfitted.
And yes, US military certification for passengers is quite different from anyone's civil certification.
To elaborate a bit on what GreenKnight wrote:
The KC-46 will have three distinct certifications:
The 767-2C will have an FAA "Amended Type Cert" (ATC). It won't allow 'passengers'.
There will then be an FAA "Supplementary Type Cert" (STC) for the KC-46 as delivered to the USAF. Again, it won't allow 'passengers'.
There will then be a non-FAA "Military Type Cert" (MTC) that will cover how the USAF plans to operate the aircraft. I don't know much about the MTC, but it will cover details of such things as air-to-air refueling and passenger carrying capability (I'm unaware of any FAA regulations that would apply to, or even allow, air-to-air refueling).
If you're thinking three distinct certs isn't particularly cost effective way of doing things, I'm inclined to agree. But little of how the USAF has managed the KC-46 program would be considered to be 'cost effective'
During a design review of the 767-2C/KC-46 with the USAF and FAA, the FAA asked how I intended to address the affect of an uncommanded thrust change on aircraft handling during an aerial refueling. I responded to the effect that I was unaware of any FARs that address two aircraft flying ~20 feet apart. I basically got a dirty look from the FAA, but the USAF gave me an action item
The KC-46 will have three distinct certifications:
The 767-2C will have an FAA "Amended Type Cert" (ATC). It won't allow 'passengers'.
There will then be an FAA "Supplementary Type Cert" (STC) for the KC-46 as delivered to the USAF. Again, it won't allow 'passengers'.
There will then be a non-FAA "Military Type Cert" (MTC) that will cover how the USAF plans to operate the aircraft. I don't know much about the MTC, but it will cover details of such things as air-to-air refueling and passenger carrying capability (I'm unaware of any FAA regulations that would apply to, or even allow, air-to-air refueling).
If you're thinking three distinct certs isn't particularly cost effective way of doing things, I'm inclined to agree. But little of how the USAF has managed the KC-46 program would be considered to be 'cost effective'
During a design review of the 767-2C/KC-46 with the USAF and FAA, the FAA asked how I intended to address the affect of an uncommanded thrust change on aircraft handling during an aerial refueling. I responded to the effect that I was unaware of any FARs that address two aircraft flying ~20 feet apart. I basically got a dirty look from the FAA, but the USAF gave me an action item
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the Boeing factsheet:
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/def...ckgrounder.pdf
The KC46 will either have a "crew Compartment" for up to 15 crew members, or, in pax config, will have FAA certification for 58 passengers (1 more than a KC135).
Would be nice if the details coming from the OEM and the customer were aligned.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/def...ckgrounder.pdf
The KC46 will either have a "crew Compartment" for up to 15 crew members, or, in pax config, will have FAA certification for 58 passengers (1 more than a KC135).
Would be nice if the details coming from the OEM and the customer were aligned.
D-IFF_ident, perhaps that's because the Frankentanker has so few emergency exits?
Do those Rendition Class 'palletised C-17 seats' include passenger oxygen systems?
All Airbus military aircraft, including the A400M, meet normal EASA certification standards. Why does the US consider that their aircraft don't need to meet an equivalent level of certification? This is 2014, not 1954!
Do those Rendition Class 'palletised C-17 seats' include passenger oxygen systems?
All Airbus military aircraft, including the A400M, meet normal EASA certification standards. Why does the US consider that their aircraft don't need to meet an equivalent level of certification? This is 2014, not 1954!
capability (I'm unaware of any FAA regulations that would apply to, or even allow, air-to-air refueling).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 May 1954 - USAF invites Boeing, Convair, Douglas, Fairchild and Lockheed Martin to submit proposals for a new jet tanker.
3 August 1954 - USAF orders 29 tankers from Boeing.
2 weeks later - USAF orders 88 more tankers from Boeing.
February 1955 - USAF announces that Lockheed has won the new jet tanker competition.
Soon after - USAF orders 169 more tankers from Boeing.
Soon after that - contract with Lockheed cancelled.
3 August 1954 - USAF orders 29 tankers from Boeing.
2 weeks later - USAF orders 88 more tankers from Boeing.
February 1955 - USAF announces that Lockheed has won the new jet tanker competition.
Soon after - USAF orders 169 more tankers from Boeing.
Soon after that - contract with Lockheed cancelled.
No doubt you'll need that oxygen after a long flight where the only passenger 'restroom' facilities are a palletised chemical toilet....
Truly primitive.... Surely your 'warfighters' (
) deserve something better than that?
Truly primitive....
Surely your 'warfighters' () deserve something better than that?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - those seats would have been luxury for my flights from MCAS Iwakuni, Japan to NAS Cubi Point, Philippines in May 1984 and back in June 1984.
We flew down in C-141s - the center of the floor was filled with our equipment, and we sat on the fold-down tube aluminium & canvas "jump seats" along both sides - the only toilet facilities were the single aircrew lavatory at the front.
While the jump seats on the C-17s are better, they are still much worse than those palletized seats - and the many of C-130s still have the old-style seats.
Your "rendition-class" label just makes me laugh - both at your pathetic biased attempt to spit on anything American and your total disconnect from current reality.
It would be funny to see your reaction to a 8-hour flight on C-141 seats.
We flew down in C-141s - the center of the floor was filled with our equipment, and we sat on the fold-down tube aluminium & canvas "jump seats" along both sides - the only toilet facilities were the single aircrew lavatory at the front.
While the jump seats on the C-17s are better, they are still much worse than those palletized seats - and the many of C-130s still have the old-style seats.
Your "rendition-class" label just makes me laugh - both at your pathetic biased attempt to spit on anything American and your total disconnect from current reality.
It would be funny to see your reaction to a 8-hour flight on C-141 seats.
GreenKnight121 wrote:
Not so. I was glued to the NASA webstream during last week's excellent Orion mission - good to see the US back in the space business. Something the UK could never afford.
As for those old seats, I've suffered those when travelling in the bowels of a C-130. But that was 30+ years ago and at least the RAF now treats its passengers to a more civilised way of travelling.
your pathetic biased attempt to spit on anything American....
As for those old seats, I've suffered those when travelling in the bowels of a C-130. But that was 30+ years ago and at least the RAF now treats its passengers to a more civilised way of travelling.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... at least the RAF now treats its passengers to a more civilised way of travelling.
Here's a picture of the "uncivilized" palletized passenger seats in a USAF C-17. These are the same palletized seats that would go in a KC-46.
http://www.tinker.af.mil/shared/medi...-2034C-023.JPG
They are certainly not business class seats, but they don't appear too "uncivilized" to my troglodite American eyes. Perhaps BEagle with his much more refined eyes can explain what is "uncivilized" about them.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yet you worked for a KC-X consortium?
Rendition Class passenger accommodation in a large civil freight aircraft simply won't meet 21st Century certification in terms of g restraint, oxygen or emergency egress requirements, not to mention other requirements.
It'd be interesting to see the Frankentanker attempt to meet such present day standards.
Last edited by KenV; 9th Dec 2014 at 15:32.
I hafta wonder if the A400 sidewall seats are really that much better than C-17's?
I really don't know what they were thinking when they designed the C-17 seating, but the heavy-bar frame was murder on the underside of my thighs the last time I had the pleasure.
Although I was on a relatively empty aircraft, I couldn't even fold down a number of seats to use as a bed as the same heavy bar-frame made it feel like the equivalent of trying to catch some Zzzzs on a park bench that's been subdivided to stop tramps sleeping out under the stars (not speaking from experience, mind). Ending up kipping on the floor.
Horrible things.