It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Final bids for the project were received from the two competing consortia on 30 April 2003.
Air Tanker Ltd offered a mix of new and used Airbus A330-200s, team comprised of,
Rolls-Royce - Trent Turbofans
Cobham - Air-refuelling hose and drogue system
EADS - Airbus A330-200
Thales Group - Avionics etc.
Tanker Transport Services Consortium (TTSC) offered converted British Airways Boeing 767's.
British Airways - Aircraft
Boeing - Conversion technology, using the USAF KC-767 as the basis of the design.
BAE Systems - Conversion of majority of aircraft and mission systems.
Marshall Aerospace
Serco
Originally posted by waynos
Fred, the only difference between the A330 and the A340 is the number and type of engines, the airframes are identical. Also the only reason for the four engined A340 at all is the extended range (to a degree not necessary in the tanker version) and the limitations of ETOPS rules (which do not apply to a military tanker) so the A330 is perfectly suited.
Originally posted by FredT
Was there a request for competition or did the contract just go to Airbus by default? Im curious because I understand France is also embarking on replacing its tanker fleet and I am wondering if Boeing has any shot at even bidding in a remotely fair competition Who am I kidding of course it does not. (anymore than Airbus will get the US contract im sure). Yes I know its EADS, RR, Thales, et al.
But I wonder why they are not considering the A340 for the role? It can carry more, thus offload more and its not that much bigger. No doubt thought that the A330 will be suited for the role.
[edit on 8/8/05 by FredT]
Originally posted by Zaphod58
One of the things about an Airbus tanker that could lead to problems is the winglets. They're designed to create vortexes to make more lift, but depending on where the drogue pods are located it can cause them to spin, and whip around from the vortexes.
Whitcomb’s analysis of flow phenomena at the tip showed that the airflow about the wingtip of the typical aircraft in flight is characterized by flow that is directed inward above the wingtip and flow that is directed outward below the wingtip. Whitcomb hypothesized that a vertical, properly cambered and angled surface above or below the tip could utilize this crossflow tendency to reduce the strength of the trailing vortex and, thereby, reduce the induced drag. The drag reduction mechanism is achieved by a forward vectoring of the side force generated by the winglets
oea.larc.nasa.gov...
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Wasn't the BWB a boeing development?
Strange...
Shattered OUT...
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Ever seen a plane with winglets fly through clouds? The winglet does a good job of keeping the wingtip vortices from coming up over the wing, which is good, but they still leave a nice vortice behind them.
Originally posted by FredT
I doubt that Congress would allow the Pentagon to purchase Airbus tankers. Its no different if France or Germany bought Boeing tankers.
Originally posted by FredT
Actually the MMA is losing the winglets in favor of raked wingtips. You get the same effect, but, apparently designing a de-icing system is hard for the winglets.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Er, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Fred but didn't France use the US 707 derivative?
Didn't the old 'West Germany' buy the US 'buddy system'? Didn't the Netherlands, Spainish etc - basicially everybody in Europe (but the British who preferred their own 'probe & drogue' system) 'buy' American last time?
Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Boeing 767-400 was one of the first to use the raked wingtips. It's the same effect as the winglet.
Originally posted by FredT
To be fair, did Airbus or any other European entity have the capacity to build a tanker in that time frame that was cost effective and not really an elaborate jobs program?