Voyager: AT Aircraft Only??
 

Bearing in mind this is from "The Current Bun", how could Cobbam have got this so wrong?

£10bn refuel planes don’t work for RAF | The Sun |News

Maybe the Ten will make its 50th yet :suspect::E

Amazed it has taken this long to make it into the press!

NFF:ugh:

Mmmmm

There are rumours that there are issues with it as an AT asset too apparently, anyone wondered why it's still sat in a hanger.

The Tornado fuel system has always made it a slow receiver. Tanking from US assets has always required them to turn of one of the transfer pumps in not to exceed the maximum flow rate and pressure. That design 'feature' very nearly made it into a slightly newer jet.

Maybe that's why it never made it to Ohakea!

lj101,


"...issues with it an an AT asset too...."


The A330 is one of the most popular and efficient airliners in production in the world today. How on earth can the MoD manage to have "issues" with it?

pr00ne, are you joking? I have no idea what the issues may be but just watching how the RAF handle aircraft and Civvies handle them I am sure the RAF can find better ways of doing things.

Ways that will cost more, take longer, and be less efficient.

Does anybody know what type of POD they are using, I was involved with the testing of both the GAF A310, and the Australian A330, we never encountered any real problems with the PODS.

The Voyager and KC-30A both use the Cobham 905E pod.

The Luftwaffe A310MRTT and RCAF Polaris CC-150T both use the Cobham 907E pod.

pr00ne and Pontius Navigator, the Voyager is not a plain vanilla A330. It includes system modifications (even when the AAR systems are removed) which do not form part of the basic A330. These include structural modifications and software changes, all of which must nowadays pass MAA scrutiny regardless of the OEM's own certification work.

Why would MOD be liable for circa £1m per week or, indeed, any other sum? Is liability at this stage not with Air Tanker or one of its constituent companies?

so is this a pod problem or a tornado problem!!

Typhoon trials failed too.

. . . but APART from that, what did the Romans ever do for us?

FAILED....?

I understood trials were still ongoing to iron out a few technical aspects...

lj101, Typhoon had no problems with the pods on the Aussie aircraft..

....and the Typhoon and Tornado have both taken fuel from Voyager without leakage...... an intermittant problem me thinks... (basket?)

Depends, I believe, on whether the aircraft has been accepted into service. Presumably there is a lot of political pressure on the RAF to accept Voyager, even if it has one or two 'quirks' to be addressed...

lj101, 'twas just a hunch as I couldn't see what else could possibly prevent the aircraft being flown in the AT role.

ArthurR, did you work with Elbeflugzeugwerke at Dresden? A very proactive team. It would be interesting to know whether the Typhoon trial test points using the KC-30A were the same as those for the Voyager trials.

opsjockey, if the alleged problem is intermittent, that'll be the very devil to sort out. It's one thing to know that "It always does this when he does that", but an entirely different thing if one day it's fine and the next it isn't - even though the conditions were identical on both occasions.

I hope the chaps and chapesses on 10 Sqn aren't getting too fed up with all this though....:hmm:

Maybe I should have written 'Intermittant pending permanent resolution'....

BEagle, I was not imputting anything about your inestiamble project but your clients propensity for producing a sow's ear from a silk purse.