How Boeing steered tanker bid

Peter Kemp schrieb:

(Airbus tankers)

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago)

Right, I remember a news footage on this.

Are these the Airbus currently used for passenger transport and
Medevac, the convertibles?

Odd history, IIRC they were ordered by the GDR Interflug and taken
over by Luftwaffe after the reunification.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Gruss, Roman

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:19:12 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder
wrote:

Peter Kemp schrieb:

(Airbus tankers)

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago)

Right, I remember a news footage on this.

Are these the Airbus currently used for passenger transport and
Medevac, the convertibles?

Yup, Multi Role Tanker Transports (MRTT) in Airbus speak.

Odd history, IIRC they were ordered by the GDR Interflug and taken
over by Luftwaffe after the reunification.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Odd world we live in.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Peter Kemp schrieb:

Are these the Airbus currently used for passenger transport and
Medevac, the convertibles?

Yup, Multi Role Tanker Transports (MRTT) in Airbus speak.

Somehow cute idea.

Odd history, IIRC they were ordered by the GDR Interflug and taken
over by Luftwaffe after the reunification.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Odd world we live in.

I checked it, and... yes. Interflug, paid by the GDR. :-)

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRA310TT.htm

It refers to the firstflight as MRTT, too. The first will be
re-delivered in May.

And if you read german:

http://www.bw-flyer.de/neu/report/re...ip-airbus.html

One other odd thing - these birds are those which replaced the old LW
707, the aircraft Helmut Kohl used on the evening of 09. November 1989
and where he developed many strategies and ideas for the following
months..

---
Peter Kemp

Gruss, Roman

On 30 Mar 2004 14:25:41 -0800, (sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message ...
In article ,
(sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
In article ,
The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
be used in a tanker model.

However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
spend the money for additional weight certification.

The USAF doesn't care about certification, so being stock or not
doesn't much matter except for maintenance issues. The USAF will do
the usual CAT I/II acceptance testing, which isn't very much like
certification.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On 30 Mar 2004 14:25:41 -0800, (sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message ...
In article ,
(sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
In article ,
The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
be used in a tanker model.

However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
spend the money for additional weight certification.

The USAF doesn't care about certification, so being stock or not
doesn't much matter except for maintenance issues. The USAF will do
the usual CAT I/II acceptance testing, which isn't very much like
certification.

Mary

While the military may not care about certification per se, when civil
aircraft are bought by the military they don't go beyond the
demonstrated parameters that the manufacturers established during
certification. At least I'm not aware of any instance in which they
did.
My point is that this whole KC-767 deal is all about obtaining stock
and standard airframes without any costly mods suggested by Mr.
Parsons. Boeing has little vested interest in making 767's that could
compete with their 777 line.

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2004 14:25:41 -0800, (sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
In article ,
(sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
In article ,
The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
be used in a tanker model.

However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
spend the money for additional weight certification.

The USAF doesn't care about certification, so being stock or not
doesn't much matter except for maintenance issues. The USAF will do
the usual CAT I/II acceptance testing, which isn't very much like
certification.

The USAF cares greatly about certification issues. Any modification that
violates the civil Type Certificate of the airplane greatly reduces the
value of the airplane. The E4Bs have correct civil certification paperwork
for any changes made for USAF. Civil certification is a probabilities
basis.

Perhaps you are unaware that the current Chief Scientist at Dryden is behind
the 8 ball over a lack of 25.1309 capability. Manufacturers will no longer
participate based on the half assed methods used by her predecessor.

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:35:20 -0500, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:49:31 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago), and the Canadian conversions to
transport/tanker that are on order.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

There is a difference between "building" and "built". Are the LW planes
boom or probe/basket ??

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard schrieb:

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago), and the Canadian conversions to
transport/tanker that are on order.

There is a difference between "building" and "built".

Read the links I quoted yesterday, everything is written there.

10+27 "August Euler" is finished and in testing phase, it will be
delivered next month.

Are the LW planes boom or probe/basket ??

Both, the "hose and drogue" on the wingtips, the boom option in the
center body has been cancelled on the LW birds - but is still an
option. Perhaps the Canadian version ("Polaris") will have it?

The system has been delivered by Flight Refueling Ltd. (Cobham).

Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman