How will the RAF tankers be crewed, clearly there will be 2 drivers, a loadie??. Who is going to oversee the refuelling part of the job particularly on a trail etc. I am guessing the AARCs role will be retained but will there routinely be a 3rd on the flightdeck at some bespoke workstation monitoring the fuel offload? If so what brevet will this type be? Will the Eng/Nav fraternity be playing musical chairs........:E

Are there any RAF aircrew who currently operate as "sponsored reservists"?

Thanks

Have they sussed out where they can stick Mk32 pods yet?

They had these lovely pictures when they were about to hang them off the Tri-motor - only to find there wasn't anything they could attach the bolts to.

Naughty Lockheed had a weaker outer wing structure to save weight and a bunch of accelerometers - not territory to hang a refuelling pod off.

Of course NOBODY knew this when the RAF were politically saddled with the wrong aircraft. Had they used Lakers DC10s, there wouldn't be the need for new kit yet.

Oh well, I'm glad we've got several handfuls of air officers looking this project now - bound to get it right . . .

The Mission Systems Operators (MSOs) will be drawn from all NCA trades. Whilst the ac is re-fuelling the MSO will be operate from a console on the flight deck. When on a pax flight they will be cabin supervisors. If on a trail there will be 2 MSOs swapping roles each leg. If a rotary ALM, Eng, AEOp or Nav want to become an A330 MSO then they will have to complete the ALM fixed wing training course at Cranwell.
I think there might be a few Air Eng/Navs that will be dissapointed at both the simplistic nature of the re-fuelling process (towline and trail management/navigation) and the fact that they will have to be air steward supervisors for a fair chunk of their time on the sqn.

There are a few sponsored reservists on EFTS.

Actually the L-1011 TriStar wing is much stronger than the DC-10 wing. The DC-10's outboard aileron has to be nulled in cruise to prevent over loading. While the 1011 not only has a full time outboard aileron, Lockheed was able to increase the span on the -500's for improved fuel efficiency.

Why will Air Eng/Navs need to do the ALM course at Cranwell? I understood that the A330 trim would be the responsibility of the drivers.

The reason the outboard aileron is active on the Tristar was quite rightly to offload the outer wing which would be overstressed if it didn't have it.

It was quite clever by offloading the outer wing to push the centre of lift inboard, forward thus raising the nose if a certain 'g' threshold was reached.

BUT when you hang a tonne of ironmongery under this outer wing, it upsets all the calculations and is not doable within the budgets pertaining at the time. Ergo, it was the wrong aircraft.

Having flown both, I preferred the Tristar for crew comfort. The DC10 is a stronger aircraft wing outboard - even Lockheed admitted that they use a 'light weight' structure outboard to reduce weight and increase aerodynamic efficiency.

Most modern jets lock out the outer ailerons as they are unnecessary in high speed cruise.

The point was (and is) that the DC10 was the better flight refuelling platform and all the 'artists' impressions' in the world don't affect reality.

So - have they sussed out where to hang the Mk32 pods yet?

In my 32 plus years on the L-1011 program that is the first I heard that the we used "light weight" structure in the outboard wing. In fact here is a quote from the L-1011-500 Technical Summary: "It should be noted that the adapation of the active controls is unique to the L-1011, which has a wing structure so stiff in torsion that there is no need to dwell the outboard ailerons in high speed flight."

Not Mk 32 pods - Cobham 90X series pods.

FSTA using A330 wings - Pods hung from points where Engines 1 and 4 would be if it was an A340 wing, but with the A330 wing appropriately modified. (Possibly why the RAAF specifically ordered A340 wings).

I'm guessing MSOs will need to do the ALM course at Cranwell so they can sign for the weight and balance? Doesn't matter what the background of the MSO is if they are appropriately trained on the new system. Although a background as an AE/ALM/Nav/steward would be useful for different scenarios.

Lionel - be interested to see your copy of the TORs?

Edited to add - FSTA won't be using L1011 or DC10 wings - so the aileron argument is a moot point. And I'm sure EADS will iron out all the snags before delivery and provide a turnkey solution etc.

I guess those in EFTS are ex QFIs.

Are those on 32 ex RAF or from civvy background.

What Im getting to is, are there any 'sponsored reservists' who come from only civvy background - no past mil experience? And will AirTanker see the first civvy only pilots flying for the RAF?

To begin with it's highly likely, I'd have thought - the chances of finding an ex-RAF, now suitably qualified TRI/TRI who really wants to go back to light blue might be slim.

Why have a Boom, Probe, Receptical, Centre-line HDU
 

Well from an RAF point of view.
1. Can Boom refuel E3D/C17's so they don't have to go and pay another Nation for the Currency/Training ticks.
2. They could BDA train UK A/C rather than go and pay another Nation for the Currency/Training Ticks.
3. The Boom could be used to offload fuel at much higher speeds, than the centre-line HDU can into other tankers.
4. If ALL FSTA had a Boom/Centre line HDU then they could all refuel the RAF's large aircraft as it is they will be a limited number capable of doing this and they will probably be in the wrong part of the Country/World when needed.
5. With a Boom they could also pass gas to the Receptical fitted Tankers should they have to depart the Towline for turn around comitments or unservicabilities before they have off loaded all their available fuel.
6. With a Boom/Centrline HDU both fitted then they could be used to cover for other tankers that have either had to recover or have not made it to the Towline.
7. If fitted with Probe and Receptical they could then recieve Gas from any tankers that had to go home early, thus still making it available to the fragged recievers when they eventually turn up.

That short list was brought to you from some one who has controlled tankers in 4 Wars/Conflicts and over 27 years of experience in Tanker ops. But does it make a bit of difference to the bean counters, of course not:ugh:

trap one, you are right on all counts but since those companies that tendered were not told that either a boom or a probe were to provided, then the 'if you don't ask you wont get' rule applied and the lessons of many a past operation were ignored. Both TTSC and Air Tanker were going to do the minimum within the contract and ensure they could get the maximum out of the frames from the non RAF side. It is a pretty good deal to have guaranteed income for twenty odd years for your assets from a government contract.

Art
I do not have a problem with the companies doing as little as can on the RAF side and as much as possible on the civilian side. They after all are there to make money. My problem is with the MOD who allowed the Government to put this on the RAF.
If the MOD wont hire the good but expensive lawyers, then they will get shafted every time.

As a serviceman I wanted the kit to do the job and have built in development. I know, that the Request would have started out as an Aircraft more than capable of doing the jobs I described in my previous post. But when the operators are told what they can and can't do by Bean Counters who have no idea of what is required, then it makes my blood boil.

That change to the RAF was one of the reasons that I left and nothing I've seen since the day I left has changed my mind.

Acknowledgment - glhcarl
 

I acknowledge a one-to-one instruction in Tristar aerodynamics from glhcarl and thank him for it. I stand corrected, but wiser.

That said, the RAF still chose the wrong aircraft in the Tristar for AAR. More of a political decision than an engineering-based one.

The Lockheed tri-motor still remains my favourite aircraft of all time - despite what the RAF did to it and four companies-worth of DC10.

So have they worked out where to hang the (newer type) pods yet???

Well that looks pretty - is it real???

If it is, then a simple 'yes' would have done :)

Boom, probe and HD inflight entertainment system
 

Guess that there are lots of things that we want, but not so many things that we can afford. So, while a probe would have been just ducky, the A330 can already carry a bucket of fuel. As for the boom, it would also have been simply wonderful but our E3s can make do with a hose and I'm not quite sure why we need it for the C17. As for cost of renting someone else's tanker for a bit of boom practice, I doubt whether the economics of renting a boom-ed minifleet coupled with the additional fuel penalty of carrying that draggy thing around for 27 years would quite stack up.

Overall, I guess it comes down to why do we need these aircraft and right now, tanking is probably not at the top of the list. But I think that we can be fairly confident of one thing with this programme and that is that there will be an A330 on the line, on time in late 2011.;)

Ah, the penny drops - using an A340 wing and using the hardpoints for missing Engines 1 and 4 - now that's clever.

So the answer is YES they know where to hang the pods - IF they use the nowse that the Aussies did - why do I feel that might be a problem?

Thanks for the information - good luck with the project.