The RAAF KC30s are still on the ground in Spain while certification issues are sorted out.
The Australian Defence Department says the Spanish Military Certification Authority is making changes to the boom system and operational procedures following the accident in January when the boom detached during the refuelling of a Spanish F-16.
There are varying reports on when the aircraft will arrive at Amberley...some are saying delivery in July and others late this year.
Meanwhile, the fourth aircraft is still under conversion in the QANTAS hangar at Brisbane airport.

cessnapete says:

There is a lot more to testing of aircraft than just the aerodynamics. Firstly there is the integration of the refuelling equipment (which is more than just a couple of pods), and associated testing of the equipemnt both on the ground, and in the air. The aircraft will also no doubt have some sort of military equipment that does not feature on a normal airliner, e.g. air to air TACAN and Defensive Aids. Finally there is the not inconsiderable work required to test the AAR in the air with different aircraft types to assess the best refuelling envelopes, and also the testing if the Voyager itself as a receiver. Then there are the EMC (Electromagnatic Compatability) issues, as the EMC environment for a military aircraft is less benign than that for a civil aircraft. The list goes on.

Does the autoland system work? :rolleyes:

Two Squirrels

Sadly one task Boscombe will not have to do is to test its airborne refuel capability as it will not have a probe. As to the performance with its various receivers I trust that AAR experienced aircrew are involved, I have experience of previous Tanker types and the resulting muddled restrictions imposed by the lack of same.

Vicious!:E

YS

I think the previous autoland system worked fine, as long as you didn't count the crew as part of the system. :)

GIATT and cessnapete,

Clearly, neither of you understand the process of Test & Evaluation (T&E) and the need to explore the flight envelope of reciever aircraft i.e. Typhoon, Tornado and, the C-130J, behind the FSTA (Voyager).

Voyager will require the installation of test instrumentation prior to the air to air refuelling test-points; hence, the delivery to Boscombe to carry out that process.

Those series of tests should be complete by mid October/November and that Voyager will then be put into service at Brize Norton. The flying-reports for the reciever aircraft will then be analysed and given the neccessary Release to Service for operational use.

The reasons for doing so are quite simple... the first time that a Squadron Typhoon pilot plugs his expensive aeroplane into the refuelling basket of Voyager isn't the time or the place to discover a major problem with the transfer of fuel... especially if the jet is en-route to Libya or the Falkland Islands and that there's nowhere else to go!

If the said pilot then had to ditch his aeroplane into the sea, how would you then feel about how the Government spent your taxes without first ensuring that the refuelling system actually works?

Your comparison of the commissioning of large industrial plant to the flight testing of multi billion dollar aircraft systems doesn't make any sense... whatsoever!

TCF

Well spoken... the TriStar Autoland System worked a treat, it was unfortunate that the chap who was attempting to demonstrate the system didn't fully understand the "pre-capture" requirements... resulting in severe damage to the aeroplane (a broken wing-spar).

411A (RIP) had much to say about that particular incident... and he was right!

TCF

TCF, the audio transcript of the CVR was pretty interesting too....:eek:

A new multi-role aircraft might be cleared for one role, whilst work continues to clear it for another role. For example TypHoon was cleared for the air-to-air role whilst work continued on its air-to-mud/sand role.

But when an aircraft is actually owned by someone else, should the manufacturer have been unable to deliver to the contractor fully everything which was specified, things become rather more complicated as regards payment for use by the contractor's intended end-user.....:\

In such a case, "We'll go with what we've got" simply wouldn't be acceptable, I imagine!

Anyway, notwithstanding all the above, you should be falling over each other to get your hands on it; the 330 is easily the most wonderful civil aircraft I have flown.

Plus, also, as well, your CVs will look great if P45s start to appear...

Read 'Vulcan Test Pilot' by Tony Blackman, it goes into some of the differences between the test flying done by steely-eyed manufacturer's Test Pilots and the test flying conducted at Boscombe to ensure that it can be operated safely in-service

Not necessarily. Back in Nimrod days, I was told by the sqadron stats officer that my crew was short of one practice Lindholme (Air Sea Rescue Apparatus) drop. I pointed out that we had carried out two live drops on a rescue mission the previous week. Apparently that didn't count, he wanted us to do a practice, dropping smoke floats. Unbelievable.

I just noticed that this is my post #777, so I shall add that with 3,000 hours on the A330, I know that the RAF crews will be absolutely delighted with their new Voyagers.

Particularly if they get a type rating out of a tour or two.

TCF - was that the one (early '86) that flew a circuit leaking about 8,000lb of fuel. I was in the Falklands at the time, and light blue had to adopt a very low profile as the army had some guys who were pretty upset at having a few days extra on the chuff chart.

I was standing on the line watching it stagger around the circuit trailing fuel, half expecting it to break up at any moment..... And thankfully, I haven't seen anything come that close since... The guys that came over from Lockheed just stood there open mouthed at the sight of it and could not believe it flew.

Wasn't the first impact the gear and the second one shortly afterwards his posting hitting the desk :E

Still, anyone remember the BA Eng Hyd CB finger problem and the resulting explosion that "opened a few panels" ;)

Yes I do. The aeroplane sat there for weeks being repaired....:sad:

I understand that, after the TriStar autoland 'event', it was found to have had another, unrecorded heavy landing during its previous ownership? I saw the photos of the incident aircraft's main spar and they were very, very lucky to have survived. As was the welder in Witney's industrial estate who, on realising it was raining AvTur, wisely decided to turn off his torch....:eek:

Another time in 1984 I was chatting to a TriStar chum over tea in the OM (yes, it was still quite civilised in those days) when we heard the distant sound of a TriStar doing engine runs. The noise increased, followed by a thunderous surge and silence. It seems that the boffins were doing some IR measurements prior to fitting IRCM to a ba jet which was due to fly HMtheQ to Jordan...and they didn't realise that you can't just park the thrust levers at maximium in a TriStar willy-nilly. I'm not sure who paid for the subsequent engine change.

The antics of twenty-one and sixpence kept us quite amused back then!

Weeks? It was repaired over the winter months in Base Hangar and as the hangar doors had to be open for the Tristar to fit, it switched the heating off.

Bloody freezing it was.

As for Boscombe Down, well all new aircraft have to go there don't they?

Whether they need to or not because that's the way it's always been....

I hope the aircraft does not have to go through the MAA, as its a civvy aircraft I assume its exempt all the usual crap MRA4 went through.

"As for Boscombe Down, well all new aircraft have to go there don't they?"

I don't recall the C-17 spending much time at Boscombe Down, and unless things have changed recently, the Airseeker team don't plan on the RC-135 spending time there either.

NutLoose,

Yeah, I do, indeed, recall the resident BA Engineer "holding-in" the CB for the Standby Hydraulic Pump and the ensuing fire that caused so much damage to the hydraulic compartment.

It's my hope that the introduction to service of Voyager won't see any of the "cowboy" attitudes that were once attributed to the early TriStar aircrew. To be fair, it was only the misguided attitude of one or two that tainted the early days of the TriStar. It was a superb aircraft; it still is, and, that the guys who now operate the type are doing a superb job.

Back to the thread... Voyager will be fit for purpose; however, there will be many ongoing discussions about the "contractual" costs of how this aeroplane was financed... via a consortium of international bankers! The "finer details" are all wrapped-up in legalese; it's, perhaps, suffice to say that the contract was signed-up by the MoD... a bunch of guys who aren't as "bussiness savvy" as those who are involved with international banking... do you believe that we got a good deal? I somehow doubt it!

Comments invited.

TCF

Edit

AirSeeker has a track record; as did the C-17; hence, why would there be any requirement for any further T&E for an aircraft that has a proven track record?

Voyager is a "first"... the platform has to be proven.