KC-??
Joined: Jun 2013
Aviation Qualifications: ATCO
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 101
From: Róisín Dubh
With a potential order of this magnitude, would an A338 derived tanker have enough potential advantages over the current A332 MRTT to justify development? I mean better fuel burn, higher MTOW and range etc? Or would the extra performance be insufficient to justify the the expense? I'm guessing if the 787 composite structure rules it out, then the A350 is in the same boat.
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 804
Likes: 96
From: UK
The A350 fuselage is more suited to punching holes in it due to its panel style assembly. There have been a few journalists reports this year about an A350 Freighter (above and beyond the temporary ones with economy class removed). I haven't heard anything from the shop floor on it though (not that that means much, being out of it for 7 months).
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 314
Likes: 22
From: Whanganui, NZ
A "KC-38" based on the highest gross weight A330-800 blended with the nose-gear bulge,cargo door & cabin floor from the A330-200F, and incorporating the military features of the A332 MRTT would enable Airbus to launch a 'NEO freighter generation', available in 3 versions:
- A338F straight freighter
- "KC-38" straight tanker (boom and three hoses) / freighter, with additional tanks in the belly holds, so that with an empty main deck it can be fuelled to MTOW
- "KC-38 Combi" Tanker (boom and two hoses) / transporter with fuselage windows and a fitted aft toilet+galley, plus provision for a forward toilet+galley. Can use palletised seats - including some 'business class' - etc for trooping, palletised patient care modules for medevac, a moveable barrier allowing mixed freight plus SLF
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,537
Likes: 295
From: The Alps
The X-48 Subscale demo's were made at Cranfield. Worked with a guy who used it for one of his studies.
There's been nothing about a BWB tanker transporter out of Boeing. Maybe it might get looked at for the farfield study but right now it's all about production aircraft.
I think there's less chance an LM/Airbus product will win this time than last.
I suggest the fuselage design of the 787 is not suited to cargo conversion beyond putting boxes on seats or limited cargo on seat rail secured pallets.
There's been nothing about a BWB tanker transporter out of Boeing. Maybe it might get looked at for the farfield study but right now it's all about production aircraft.
I think there's less chance an LM/Airbus product will win this time than last.
I suggest the fuselage design of the 787 is not suited to cargo conversion beyond putting boxes on seats or limited cargo on seat rail secured pallets.
In 2005 where I worked we put together the tooling and built the composite BWB for Cranfield (UAV dept) who were sub for Boeing Phantom Works as they originally went to NASA to build and supply the bodies but could not so they went to Cranfield instead.
They were below me on the hangar floor. As i recall these drop Test bodies were used to evaluate crashworthiness and ended up flown at NASA Armstrong (Dryden / Edwards) as fsr as I recall.
cheers
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 60
Likes: 1
From: UK
In 2005 where I worked we put together the tooling and built the composite BWB for Cranfield (UAV dept) who were sub for Boeing Phantom Works as they originally went to NASA to build and supply the bodies but could not so they went to Cranfield instead.
They were below me on the hangar floor. As i recall these drop Test bodies were used to evaluate crashworthiness and ended up flown at NASA Armstrong (Dryden / Edwards) as fsr as I recall.
They were below me on the hangar floor. As i recall these drop Test bodies were used to evaluate crashworthiness and ended up flown at NASA Armstrong (Dryden / Edwards) as fsr as I recall.
Two air-vehicles were built... one was mostly a wind-tunnel fixture, but LSV2 flew quite a number of times, before being modified to X-48C standard (two engines and different fins)
