BA to sell 21 767's
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah - 411A - the Tristar, answer to everyone's problem.
The Tristar was always a joke as a tanker - two hoses but only one can be used at any given time. Carried loads of fuel but found it difficult to give away.
A few big tankers may look good on paper but really you want rather more smaller one - if they are to perform the role of "force multiplier".
The Tristar was always a joke as a tanker - two hoses but only one can be used at any given time. Carried loads of fuel but found it difficult to give away.
A few big tankers may look good on paper but really you want rather more smaller one - if they are to perform the role of "force multiplier".
Another snifter of info......
That despite Woodford losing the Rj program,there have been 767 licsensed engineers on the premises,doing feasibilty studies on this very 767-tanker program.
In fact that is what the large hangar on the south-side of the airport proposals were all about.
That despite Woodford losing the Rj program,there have been 767 licsensed engineers on the premises,doing feasibilty studies on this very 767-tanker program.
In fact that is what the large hangar on the south-side of the airport proposals were all about.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: behind the lens
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two 767's are parked up at B'ham. Rumour had it that these were destined for QF.
Funny how the VC 10's ended up at Filton and I am sure the UK aerospace industry could do with some airliners to work on.
How does the value of a tanker conversion work out against a set of A.330 wings and the resulting employment benefits? Think they will keep selling 330's regardless and if BA is in the market for more 320's, there's a few more British jobs secure for a bit longer too.
Funny how the VC 10's ended up at Filton and I am sure the UK aerospace industry could do with some airliners to work on.
How does the value of a tanker conversion work out against a set of A.330 wings and the resulting employment benefits? Think they will keep selling 330's regardless and if BA is in the market for more 320's, there's a few more British jobs secure for a bit longer too.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was only one real tanker - you couldn't see out of it for beams over the windshield and it didn't take off so well when it was hot but it was beautiful....
Ah...Handley Page...
Ah...Handley Page...
Guest
Posts: n/a
The BA 767s were well and truly shagged when I used to play with them.
The RB 211 is a much heavier engine than the others (and far less reliable). BA had to ground the entire fleet shortly after delivery as the pylons were cracking. Then in the following years they started having big problems with the Brakes disentegrating.
We used to look after a few third world 767s with all other engine types with no problems whatsoever, whereas the 'Black hand gang' were boroscoping the BA ones practically every turnaround.
Go 767 by all means but don't touch the BA ones!
The RB 211 is a much heavier engine than the others (and far less reliable). BA had to ground the entire fleet shortly after delivery as the pylons were cracking. Then in the following years they started having big problems with the Brakes disentegrating.
We used to look after a few third world 767s with all other engine types with no problems whatsoever, whereas the 'Black hand gang' were boroscoping the BA ones practically every turnaround.
Go 767 by all means but don't touch the BA ones!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Clipperton island
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He Beagle
Do you know what you are writing about?
"I have serious doubts about what the FBW would decide to do when a receiver disconnects and gives the aircraft a transient yawing moment and change in apparent drag" So how do the frenchies manage when they disconnect with their Mirage 2000, which is fully FBW ( similar conception as the Airbus one, of course )
I don't understand your sentence about AP during the turn, even if I read it three times.
and you speak about "fuel in excess" for a tanker ?
Have you ever planned transcontinental or transoceanic for a tanker + fighters package? have you ever been involved with planning tankers holdings close to the "line"?
Do you know what you are writing about?
"I have serious doubts about what the FBW would decide to do when a receiver disconnects and gives the aircraft a transient yawing moment and change in apparent drag" So how do the frenchies manage when they disconnect with their Mirage 2000, which is fully FBW ( similar conception as the Airbus one, of course )
I don't understand your sentence about AP during the turn, even if I read it three times.
and you speak about "fuel in excess" for a tanker ?
Have you ever planned transcontinental or transoceanic for a tanker + fighters package? have you ever been involved with planning tankers holdings close to the "line"?
The Guvnor,
I believe wing-mounted AAR pods were never fitted to the Timmies because of the -500's active control technology. Wind-tunnel studies showed that the wake from the constantly moving ailerons would not allow the drogue to be stable. In order to get the drogue below the aileron wake the pylons would have been ridiculously large - i.e. there would be inadequate ground clearance for the AAR pod.
I believe wing-mounted AAR pods were never fitted to the Timmies because of the -500's active control technology. Wind-tunnel studies showed that the wake from the constantly moving ailerons would not allow the drogue to be stable. In order to get the drogue below the aileron wake the pylons would have been ridiculously large - i.e. there would be inadequate ground clearance for the AAR pod.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: home
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So PEnginner, why did Qantas take the last lot of BA 76's? According to an engineer I spoke to who worked on powerplants they will only have take them if they are near perfect. Now, the ETOP's 76's would probably be a good bet for Qantas or RAF, except Whiskey Hotel, which is a shed. However the shorthaul ones are a different kettle of fish, whose engine parameters are not within the tolerances required by Qantas.
As for the £600 mill, that'll keep those blood suckers at Water World going for another few months. Expect to see the business lounges "re Feng Shui'ed"
As for the £600 mill, that'll keep those blood suckers at Water World going for another few months. Expect to see the business lounges "re Feng Shui'ed"
Usual disclaimers apply!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: EGGW
Posts: 843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About the only similarity between the -524 on the Tristar and the -524 on the 76 is the makers name The 76 is a great aircraft to work on, nice and simple, ideal for the RAF
The 76 is a great aircraft to work on, nice and simple, ideal for the RAF
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the December 5 Washington Post: 100 Boeing 767 tankers for the US Air Force:
"The huge underlying defense measure, approved unanimously and scheduled to go to the Senate floor Thursday, includes a provision that will enable Boeing Co. to relieve some of the slack in its production lines by building and leasing 100 of its 767-series planes to the Air Force over the next 15 years for use as long-haul military tankers.
"Boeing, reeling from cutbacks in commercial aircraft orders after Sept. 11, sent its top executives to lobby Congress for the unusual deal, valued at $15 billion to $20 billion.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did not request the planes, and the White House budget office opposed the original lease-purchase proposal. To get around budget rules, Senate officials worked out a lease arrangement that will not count against the Pentagon's regular procurement budget.
"Boeing will be required to repossess the planes after the leases expire, and the Air Force will have to remove the modifications. Military analysts have argued that the nation must start replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of tankers, which are playing a critical role supporting the Afghan war as well as military aircraft flying reconnaissance over 26 U.S. cities.
"But competition for the lucrative contract appears to have been all but ruled out. "I'm confident [the Air Force] will lease Boeing planes, because they are the ones available right now," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), ranking Republican on the defense appropriations subcommittee. Parochial considerations helped persuade key members of
the Senate Budget Committee to support the leasing arrangement, sources said.
"Forty-eight planes from the U.S. tanker force are based at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, the home state of Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D). Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.), the Budget Committee's ranking Republican, also endorsed the leasing plan after appropriators agreed to include several provisions he had sought in the anti-terrorism legislation attached to the defense bill."
"The huge underlying defense measure, approved unanimously and scheduled to go to the Senate floor Thursday, includes a provision that will enable Boeing Co. to relieve some of the slack in its production lines by building and leasing 100 of its 767-series planes to the Air Force over the next 15 years for use as long-haul military tankers.
"Boeing, reeling from cutbacks in commercial aircraft orders after Sept. 11, sent its top executives to lobby Congress for the unusual deal, valued at $15 billion to $20 billion.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld did not request the planes, and the White House budget office opposed the original lease-purchase proposal. To get around budget rules, Senate officials worked out a lease arrangement that will not count against the Pentagon's regular procurement budget.
"Boeing will be required to repossess the planes after the leases expire, and the Air Force will have to remove the modifications. Military analysts have argued that the nation must start replacing the Air Force's aging fleet of tankers, which are playing a critical role supporting the Afghan war as well as military aircraft flying reconnaissance over 26 U.S. cities.
"But competition for the lucrative contract appears to have been all but ruled out. "I'm confident [the Air Force] will lease Boeing planes, because they are the ones available right now," said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), ranking Republican on the defense appropriations subcommittee. Parochial considerations helped persuade key members of
the Senate Budget Committee to support the leasing arrangement, sources said.
"Forty-eight planes from the U.S. tanker force are based at Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, the home state of Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D). Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.), the Budget Committee's ranking Republican, also endorsed the leasing plan after appropriators agreed to include several provisions he had sought in the anti-terrorism legislation attached to the defense bill."
Plus QF today announced the launch of it's Low cost carrier Australian Airlines. Begining with 4 763's (expanding to 12 within a year). They are yet to announce where the planes are coming from...
I should know this but can't remember the answer so I apologise if the question is a stupid one.
What is wrong with BA's Whiskey Hotel? I do recall them having real problems with one almost from delivery (was this the one stored in the desert after acceptance?) and one of our scribes refer to it as a 'shed'.
What is wrong with BA's Whiskey Hotel? I do recall them having real problems with one almost from delivery (was this the one stored in the desert after acceptance?) and one of our scribes refer to it as a 'shed'.
Unfortunately, the future tanker won't be owned by the RAF, but leased and in part operated by the owner. Which means that the cheapest package will probably win, with the winner being not selected wholly on suitability for a tanker. The way I see it is this: (All IMHO)
767 - Good basic technology, AFDS can be used for AAR with minimal modification, right size, needs to carry more fuel.
A330 - V big, perhaps too big for existing tanker airfields and forward operating bases, wing pod fitting problems with MLA (akin to the L1011-500s active wing relief), autoflight system not compatiable with AAR without expensive modification, carries lots of fuel (in proposed tanker guise).
I gather the A300 isn't in the picture. And as for the engines and certification, that won't be a snag for hte RAF as the package deals with all that - initially the contractors' problem. Where the aircarft will come from will be the contractor's problem (initially) as well.
767 - Good basic technology, AFDS can be used for AAR with minimal modification, right size, needs to carry more fuel.
A330 - V big, perhaps too big for existing tanker airfields and forward operating bases, wing pod fitting problems with MLA (akin to the L1011-500s active wing relief), autoflight system not compatiable with AAR without expensive modification, carries lots of fuel (in proposed tanker guise).
I gather the A300 isn't in the picture. And as for the engines and certification, that won't be a snag for hte RAF as the package deals with all that - initially the contractors' problem. Where the aircarft will come from will be the contractor's problem (initially) as well.
ex-Tanker
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recce Guy,
Assymetric break of contact is not a problem - we used to do it all the time on the Victor with a single receiver - you just feel a slight tug as the locks open. In case of an emergency break with fuel still flowing there was a much stronger tug which could cause the autopilot (old technology) to disconnect but usually didn't.
Assymetric break of contact is not a problem - we used to do it all the time on the Victor with a single receiver - you just feel a slight tug as the locks open. In case of an emergency break with fuel still flowing there was a much stronger tug which could cause the autopilot (old technology) to disconnect but usually didn't.