Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: CMC Airboss on January 20, 2011, 01:47:50 PM
-
This may be the worst possible timing for an Airbus A330 tanker to lose it's boom and damage the receiving F-16. With the US Air Force just weeks away from a decision in the tanker competition, there must be a lot of frantic activity in the Airbus camp for a fix.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2011829420110120?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2011829420110120?feedType=RSS&feedName=industrialsSector&rpc=43)
-
It didn't loose its boom. It lost one of the stabilizing fins. :rolleyes:
-
I'm very Boeing > Airbus to the core, so I was hoping they were going to get the contract anyways. Hopefuly more people are starting to see things my way and that contract for Boeing is in the bag! :aok Then again, AB's PR and sales departments have a good reputation for pulling things out of it's posterior that make pilots and engineers go :confused: :huh and executives/generals go :x :banana: :joystick: , so I'm still :pray .
-
If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going.
<------ See the avatar. The most beautiful plane in the world.
-
... lose it's boom and damage the receiving F-16.
what article did you read to find this?
-
My dad flies for the airlines and never once thought it would be a good idea to fly an Airbus.. He's a Boeing guy through and through and I have to agree by default, BUT,
I really hope America figures out that they should fly American planes in the American military.. That is all.. :salute
-
what article did you read to find this?
It's just making the rounds in the media right now, happened down under on Wendsday and the RAAF is just reporting it this morning (their time).
http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/236424.asp?from=blog_last3
-
AWESOME! :cheers:
If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going.
-
Hmmm, apparently this isn't the first F-16 to attract disintegrating tanker parts either, happened in 2006 with a F-16C and KC-10 (MD): http://www.f-16.net/news_article1722.html
Where's the AB PR to praise this as an intended feature? Any second now....
-
Hmmm, apparently this isn't the first F-16 to attract disintegrating KC-10 tanker parts either: http://www.f-16.net/news_article1722.html
Where's the McDonnell Douglas PR to praise this as an intended feature? Any second now....
fixed ...
-
fixed ...
too slow shmo, :P noticed the "american incident" a blogger linked was dated back to 2006 and some warning lights and old memory cells fired off in the ol' head so I read through the whole article again quickly. Stuff happens when it was made in 1977 and gets manhandled almost thirty years later. Wish we could say the same about AB products getting operated normaly before their delivery date or less than a year after it (oh yes, I'm going there). :D
-
operated normally? you (and a coupla others here) appear to have much more info about the incident to hand than the news agencies have been given by the RAAF. didnt realise there were so many spooks on this forum :uhoh
-
My dad flies for the airlines and never once thought it would be a good idea to fly an Airbus.. He's a Boeing guy through and through and I have to agree by default, BUT,
I really hope America figures out that they should fly American planes in the American military.. That is all.. :salute
Not to be a wet blanket on you there bud....BUT the tanker being proposed by Northrop Grumman/EADS will be built in the USA and will be having an estimated job impact for several thousand workers in the Southern and Midwestern US for suppliers and contractors putting people to work...unlike Boeings deal which honestly is already a done deal since they whined and complained enough a couple of years ago to have the contract re-worked TWICE in their favor.
I have nothing against Boeing or people from this BBS that work for them...what I can't stand is the whiny butt politicians that start screwing it all up for EVERYONE!
-
Not to be a wet blanket on you there bud....BUT the tanker being proposed by Northrop Grumman/EADS will be built in the USA and will be having an estimated job impact for several thousand workers in the Southern and Midwestern US for suppliers and contractors putting people to work...unlike Boeings deal which honestly is already a done deal since they whined and complained enough a couple of years ago to have the contract re-worked TWICE in their favor.
I have nothing against Boeing or people from this BBS that work for them...what I can't stand is the whiny butt politicians that start screwing it all up for EVERYONE!
i guess that airbus bait was just too irresistable to pass up on.
lets see.
1st- Its not BUILT here, only assembled. big difference as they were to arrive as pre-built assemblies from europe.
2nd- They said they were going to build a plant to assemble the frieghter here as well and that never happened and production is now being done in Germany.
3rd- thousands of jobs... :lol ya, jobs that will be moved here from Europe. really helping us out. Boeing has published very detailed numbers of how many jobs will be made should the 767 be chosen. in the range of 10-20k NEW jobs to support the full scale production (i havent added up the exact numbers but it looks to be in that range). not only would Boeing be able to create that amount of jobs, but they would be able to save another 10-20k (if not more) jobs that will be lost when the 767 ends production.
4th- Boeing didnt have the contract reworked, Airbus did. They had it reworked to allow them to win with the larger aircraft for the last RFP and they got caught. They threatened to not submit their bid if their demands in changes werent made. Even the airforce said the KC-767 was the best canidate of the two and had the least amount of cons. IIRC there was only 7 cons total for the 767 compared to over 30 for the A330 while the 767 had more bonus abilities than the A330.
in short, previously Boeing had a contract to provide 100 767's as refuelers. 20 were to be bought and the other 80 to be leased. The gov didnt like that and they switched it to something like 80 bought and 20 leased. Then Boeing gave some chick a job from the gov and the contract was pulled.
Boeing has been doing this for over 50 years. Airbus? they havent even been a company that long. Never heard of a piece falling off of a Boeing Boom
-
Airbus tanker just got its :ahand to that f-16
-
Then Boeing gave some chick a job from the gov and the contract was pulled.
Some chick on the Pentagon's procurement staff for Air Tankers....
:noid :huh
wrongway
-
One report says "part of the boom", the other says in more detail that it lost stabilizing fins which are technically part of the boom.
I think the Boeing fans are playing up the incident just a smidge.
-
yeah google reveals boom incidents are not that uncommon, boeing included.
-
http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/1594.pdf (http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/1594.pdf)
^ Interesting article, if you're interested in the Boeing vs Airbus debate, read from the page labelled 125.
-
One report says "part of the boom", the other says in more detail that it lost stabilizing fins which are technically part of the boom.
I think the Boeing fans are playing up the incident just a smidge.
The fins on a boom are large enough to take out an F-16. I would estimate a 3 foot span and a 1 foot chord for one fin. A chunk of aluminum (or composite, these days) zipping past the canopy will get the receiver’s attention. The adverse effect on control of the boom would also present a danger to both aircraft.
If anything, this is being played down by the Airbus camp. Boeing has worked out the bugs over the last 70 years.
*** DISCALIMER***
I was an instructor pilot in the KC-135A and the KC-135R. I am a hard core Boeing fan.
-
yeah google reveals boom incidents are not that uncommon, boeing included.
I have a good friend who has a son that actually does flying of the booms on KC-135 tankers and yes boom failures of some type or even drogue failures happen all the time.
As for the information on the jobs that would be created by the acceptance of the Northrop/EADS proposal....check their website. http://www.northropgrumman.com/review/001-us-air-force-kc-x-tanker-replacement-program.html
The KC-30 industrial team is committed to delivering an American military aircraft program, with KC-30 Tanker assembly and production taking in place in Mobile, Alabama and creating over 1,000 highly-paid, highly skilled jobs. Hundreds of American partners and suppliers will provide more than 50 percent of the aircraft’s subsystems and support, in-sourcing approximately 25,000 U.S. aerospace jobs. Additionally, the new KC-30 assembly and modification center will expand the Gulf Coast’s aerospace corridor east to Mobile, while creating much-needed economic recovery in the region.
As for what Boeing does...its only assembly for them as well since similar numbers their component suppliers are OUTSIDE of the United States as well. The difference is that the country will actually benefit from a huge increase over the next couple of years as these jobs come online. Its honestly just about politics and which region of the country has the biggest lobbying firms in the Pentagon and in Congress. Now I am done before we get this thread closed for political talk.
-
http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/1594.pdf (http://www.cluteinstitute-onlinejournals.com/PDFs/1594.pdf)
^ Interesting article, if you're interested in the Boeing vs Airbus debate, read from the page labelled 125.
come on, you're not really suggesting we should base our opinions on real facts and data are you? :huh
-
I have a good friend who has a son that actually does flying of the booms on KC-135 tankers and yes boom failures of some type or even drogue failures happen all the time.
I flew tankers for seven years, and never heard of parts falling off of the boom. This does not "happen all the time." I do not recall any discussion of structural boom failures. The only issue I can recall with the boom was the signal coil, which "signals" that the nozzle is in the receptacle and allows the pumps to be turned on. That would fail due to wear, tear and abuse as the point of contact.
Drogues are Navy. KC-10s were McDonnel Douglas, which was not Boeing at the time.
To be fair, I'll have to take the time to google it. Also, out of fairness, Airbus might have been doing some acceptance testing at the edge of the envelope.
Still haven't lost my bias for the BMAC 717.
-
While I realize this is far more political than it is a consideration of safety, I prefer Boeing for one small reason. Airbus has a reputation of hiring non-pilot programmers to program pilot error out of the cockpit. In some instances this can be useful, in others, it could be deadly. While this A/P (auto pilot) system can be disabled, it's far more difficult than disabling a Boeing A/P system.
As a quick comparison (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't seen too many airbuses), Airbus requires pilots disable 4 levels of A/P before regaining full control of their airplane. This is accomplished by reaching above your head and disabling the systems one by one. On the other hand, Boeing has a "Disengage" handle you can pull and it's directly in front of the first-officer. Upon pulling the handle, the A/P is immediately disengaged and you regain full control of your aircraft.
In my opinion, a quick A/P disengage is life-saving when the A/P is no longer assisting in safe flight. While I understand A/P failures or mess-ups are extremely rare, they do happen.
-
While I realize this is far more political than it is a consideration of safety, I prefer Boeing for one small reason. Airbus has a reputation of hiring non-pilot programmers to program pilot error out of the cockpit (Fly by Wire). In some instances this can be useful, in others, it could be deadly. While this A/P (auto pilot) system can be disabled, it's far more difficult than disabling a Boeing A/P system.
As a quick comparison (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't seen too many airbuses), Airbus requires pilots disable 4 levels of A/P before regaining full control of their airplane. This is accomplished by reaching above your head and disabling the systems one by one. On the other hand, Boeing has a "Disengage" handle you can pull and it's directly in front of the first-officer. Upon pulling the handle, the A/P is immediately disengaged and you regain full control of your aircraft.
In my opinion, a quick A/P disengage is life-saving when the A/P is no longer assisting in safe flight. While I understand A/P failures or mess-ups are extremely rare, they do happen.
You are confusing several different systems and combining them as an "autopilot".
In either airplane you have one press of a button to kick off the automation and get back to stick and rudder flying.
There is no autopilot disengage handle and sure as heck no 4 buttons or systems or levers or handles or passwords to manipulate, enter, move, touch or say to disengage the autopilot in an Airbus. Just one push of a button that is mounted on the stick.
-
come on, you're not really suggesting we should base our opinions on real facts and data are you? :huh
Nah, I would never do such a thing
-
Den,
Fly-By-Wire technology is proven. There are other aircraft manufacturers that produce FBW airplanes as well and while I haven't spent a career flying them I did fly one such airplane for about 1000 hours in airline service.
It seems you're confusing multiple autopilots (as required for CAT III approaches that aren't hand flown via HUD or Heads Up Display) and adding in flight control laws, flight control computers and flight control disconnects to the mix as well.
Multiple autopilots still kick off with the little red button that you push with your thumb when you ask "what's it doing now?"
Flight control laws are built into the flight control computers and apply based on various levels of failures in the system. This generally speaking provides stall protection, overstress protection, overspeed protection and roll protection in an Airbus. They do more but that isn't really important. These can be disabled but the only reason you'd ever need to in normal service would be if you wanted to do a roll in your airliner. Since you don't want to do that, you leave em alone. As systems fail or are load shed in an abnormal or emergency situation some of these control laws and their protections degrade or revert to lower levels until you're left with what amounts to raw data going to the FCU's.
Flight control computers, flight control units, actuators and such are all part of the flight control system and turn what the pilot inputs with the stick into movement and allows the airplane to fly in a conventional manner. You don't really need to mess with it and if you do the airplane does it for you.
Flight control disconnects (Aileron, Elevator and Rudder) are common and depending on the type of certification the airplane was subjected to required to be installed. The airplane I currently fly has Aileron and Elevator disconnects which enable the left and right sides to operate independently of one another in the event of a jam. It's happened and these are honest to goodness levers that you pull to disconnect the interconnect between the yokes in the case of an elevator control jam. This separates them and whichever sides cables are the ones that are stuck you can still manipulate the split elevator with the free side. You have less control authority but you also don't die because you can't control the airplane which is a positive. Roll disconnect in the same airplane take the aileron cables completely out of the loop and you steer the airplane with the pilot side yoke which has a built in RVDT (Rotary Variable Differential Transformer...aka Joystick Pot basically) which controls the left and right spoilers to give you roll control. It's actuated by flipping a mechanical switch on the pilots yoke in the event of a jam and it enables the yoke to turn freely without engaging the clutch that actually moves the cables.
In other airplanes they can work similarly or differently (real deep, right?) but the end result is the same. I've sat in the jumpseat of Boeing and Airbus airplanes enough to know that there isn't anything ceremonious about turning off the autopilot. Click a button and she's gone with the aural announcement that the autopilot is off (required for certification after Eastern put their airplane into the Everglades when nobody knew the AP kicked off) which can be any number of voice messages of alert bells/chimes. Once you click that button you're hand flying like you would any old airplane.
-
As for what Boeing does...its only assembly for them as well since similar numbers their component suppliers are OUTSIDE of the United States as well. The difference is that the country will actually benefit from a huge increase over the next couple of years as these jobs come online. Its honestly just about politics and which region of the country has the biggest lobbying firms in the Pentagon and in Congress. Now I am done before we get this thread closed for political talk.
the only thing im going to say about jobs further as its getting off topic...
In all honesty, i don’t trust any numbers Airbus publish as they have a very long history of embellishing numbers to make them sound as the better. Just ask them what is the best selling airliner… However, say they do create 25000 jobs. for the sake of this argument, i went through a years worth of press releases from Boeing in which they publish that had specific numbers of jobs that would be created through the number of suppliers for each state. I counted 34,290 jobs that would be directly created in 22 states. Boeing in one report claims that 50000 jobs would be directly sustained from this contract which would mean there are currently about 16000 jobs tied in the 767 as is which seems about right.
So with the KC-45, we are "Creating" 25000 "new" jobs but are loosing 16000 jobs from the closure of the 767 line. Meaning the country is only gaining 9000 "new" jobs.
Now with the KC-767 we are creating over 34000 new jobs in at least 22 different states that previously never existed plus sustaining a further 16000 jobs already held.
So if you want to talk job creations, then the KC-767 is more important to our economy than the KC-45 is. However, i see you’re from that region and i believe this could be why you prefer the KC-45, which i can’t blame you for. My home town is loosing 160 jobs this march because some richass greedy people from Texas came in and bought the plant's parent company and they are now closing the plant that has been here for over 107 years because "its location" isn’t the greatest for them. Meanwhile our plant is profitable and is meeting all the shareholder demands. My dad has worked there for 39 years and it’s the only job he ever had.
Now back to the RFP. I thought i read a few weeks ago that an announcement has been postponed and no schedule was set for an award of contract?
-
operated normally? you (and a coupla others here) appear to have much more info about the incident to hand than the news agencies have been given by the RAAF. didnt realise there were so many spooks on this forum :uhoh
No, I just love smacking down AB when Boeing is involved to a less than practical level usually. And its not that I wish AB didn't exist or would cease to exist, the competition is a good thing.
-
yes it is... plus there is that saying...
Every Airbus once flew on a Boeing
literally
-
Some chick on the Pentagon's procurement staff for Air Tankers....
:noid :huh
wrongway
It's like one of the largest and longest-lasting contracts to come along in a long time, everyone that wants the pot is playing hard ball, such as AB being accused of tickling some people in the pentagon that then conveniently dropped for them specs and documents on their competition's (Boeing's) proposed tanker very early on in the competition. To me, that's real dirty. At least with "the Pentagon Chick" Boeing can understandabley claim that they hired her based on a good and longstanding previous work relationship with her, especialy if an investigation proves there was nothing fishy going on otherwise (I do agree it is suspicious, but feasabley well intentioned).
-
now, i hope none of y'all take this against me, but i'm from mobile, the place where the kc-45 is planned to be built. ain't the 767 line behind like 4 years or something like that, and with the airbus being bigger, wouldn't be able to carry more fuel, cargo and passengers? lets not forget that airbus came in with a new boom design, verses boeing that is going to use the same design as the 135, accidents can and will happen during development. heck, an mechanical device can break until you work out the kinks. end rant
-
all I can say is that this is Boeings sale to lose. Just like the JSF bid. If it does go to AB, which wouldn't at all surprise me, then perhaps everyone will know once and for all what a piece of crap Phil Conduit was as CEO for letting McDonnell Douglas and Harry Stonecipher soil the once great name of Boeing.
-
now, i hope none of y'all take this against me, but i'm from mobile, the place where the kc-45 is planned to be built. ain't the 767 line behind like 4 years or something like that, and with the airbus being bigger, wouldn't be able to carry more fuel, cargo and passengers? lets not forget that airbus came in with a new boom design, verses boeing that is going to use the same design as the 135, accidents can and will happen during development. heck, an mechanical device can break until you work out the kinks. end rant
nobody can fault you for wanting to improve your local economy, as we all do, but i do have some issues with people thinking their economy should be the only one to be improved (that wasnt directed right at you) especially when a home grown bid could bring more jobs to more economies within our country.
now onto the a/c. the 767 is currently in low rate production, only 1 per month, but is set to have its output increase this year to help finish off the commercial backlog of ~50 a/c. Boeing just finished up assembling the 1000th 767 two weeks ago and every plane after that will be made in the new modify assembly line (they took half the building and turned it into part of the 787 assembly line. If they do get the contract then the increased rate is already in place for KC-767's to be immediately started in the production process.
you are thinking of the 787 i believe which currently is looking at a 3 year delay in certification and is also running on a low rate assembly line.
Now the KC-45 is signifcantly larger than the 767 so it can indeed hold more fuel and passengers/cargo. However the aircraft it is replacing is only the size of a 737-900. Yes i know it is pretty much a 707 (and no its not actually a 707), but i want to show a modern aircraft comparision. The 767 has a ~29% larger footprint than the KC-135 already but the KC-45 is about 81% larger than the KC-135. So there would be a big need to upgrade A LOT of bases to even be able to handle the KC-45 which the 767 can easily fit in without major mods. Also the KC-45 is considerably more expensive to buy and own which with our country's spending habbits, might not be the best decision. So it can hold more cargo and pax, which that could be taken advantage of, however the increase in fuel load is as big as an advantage as the A330 will burn more fuel to carry that fuel around than the 767 will. Also its offloadable fuel amount isnt that much greater than the 767's.
The KC45 would be a much better KC-10 replacement than a KC-135 replacement. However when it comes time for the KC-10 contract within the next decade, i hope Boeing's KC-777 aircraft wins! come on, you know a 777 would look SICK in AF colors!
now for the booms, you have it backwards. This is Airbus's first or MAYBE second generation boom. However this is Boeing's 5th generation boom which is all FBW. Boeing has continuously developed their booms over the years.
-
Den,
Fly-By-Wire technology is proven. There are other aircraft manufacturers that produce FBW airplanes as well and while I haven't spent a career flying them I did fly one such airplane for about 1000 hours in airline service.
It seems you're confusing multiple autopilots (as required for CAT III approaches that aren't hand flown via HUD or Heads Up Display) and adding in flight control laws, flight control computers and flight control disconnects to the mix as well.
Multiple autopilots still kick off with the little red button that you push with your thumb when you ask "what's it doing now?"
Flight control laws are built into the flight control computers and apply based on various levels of failures in the system. This generally speaking provides stall protection, overstress protection, overspeed protection and roll protection in an Airbus. They do more but that isn't really important. These can be disabled but the only reason you'd ever need to in normal service would be if you wanted to do a roll in your airliner. Since you don't want to do that, you leave em alone. As systems fail or are load shed in an abnormal or emergency situation some of these control laws and their protections degrade or revert to lower levels until you're left with what amounts to raw data going to the FCU's.
Flight control computers, flight control units, actuators and such are all part of the flight control system and turn what the pilot inputs with the stick into movement and allows the airplane to fly in a conventional manner. You don't really need to mess with it and if you do the airplane does it for you.
Flight control disconnects (Aileron, Elevator and Rudder) are common and depending on the type of certification the airplane was subjected to required to be installed. The airplane I currently fly has Aileron and Elevator disconnects which enable the left and right sides to operate independently of one another in the event of a jam. It's happened and these are honest to goodness levers that you pull to disconnect the interconnect between the yokes in the case of an elevator control jam. This separates them and whichever sides cables are the ones that are stuck you can still manipulate the split elevator with the free side. You have less control authority but you also don't die because you can't control the airplane which is a positive. Roll disconnect in the same airplane take the aileron cables completely out of the loop and you steer the airplane with the pilot side yoke which has a built in RVDT (Rotary Variable Differential Transformer...aka Joystick Pot basically) which controls the left and right spoilers to give you roll control. It's actuated by flipping a mechanical switch on the pilots yoke in the event of a jam and it enables the yoke to turn freely without engaging the clutch that actually moves the cables.
In other airplanes they can work similarly or differently (real deep, right?) but the end result is the same. I've sat in the jumpseat of Boeing and Airbus airplanes enough to know that there isn't anything ceremonious about turning off the autopilot. Click a button and she's gone with the aural announcement that the autopilot is off (required for certification after Eastern put their airplane into the Everglades when nobody knew the AP kicked off) which can be any number of voice messages of alert bells/chimes. Once you click that button you're hand flying like you would any old airplane.
Thank you for the well-needed correction. I was referring to the fly-by-wire system which I confused with the A/P (as you already suggested). I still have an itchy feeling Airbus FBW systems were responsible for a few hundred deaths. Yet I'm not going to start another war of brain over electronics and Boeing vs. Airbus.
Once again, thank you for the much-needed systems lesson. :aok
-
I demand a video of this accident...is there one?
-
If there is, no doubt YouTube has it.
-
I demand a video of this accident...is there one?
pilot error but im pretty sure the flight computer had some blame with it as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY
plus it is thought that AF 447 might have had issues with its AP system.
I know a couple of times the flight law systems have failed which resulted in tailstrikes. AB's are hard wired though to not allow the aircraft to rotate past a point that they could have a tail strike. Boeing on the other hand adds tail skids which take the impact should the pilot over rotate.
-
I see the first plane crash a ton, its all over You tube. As for the song, i used it in my Tybee island video :lol
-
flight17, mobile(pronounced moe-bill) isn't the only economy that would improve from this. i read somewhere that jobs would be helped all around the southeast and a good portion of the nation. i also read that one of the reasons boeing didn't win back in 07-08 was that thier plane design was already 10 years old at that point(purely conjecture).
as far as the winglet falling off is concerned, none of us really knows what the circumstances the two planes were in before or during the accident. we just have to let the engineers figure out the cause.
on a personal note, i just dont believe that it is wise to have most of america's planes built in one part of the nation, as demonstrated by german in ww2. and before anone says southerners cant build fliable aircraft, who built the saturnV rockets that got us to the moon?
-
who built the saturnV rockets that got us to the moon?
Germans?
-
pilot error but im pretty sure the flight computer had some blame with it as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY
plus it is thought that AF 447 might have had issues with its AP system.
I know a couple of times the flight law systems have failed which resulted in tailstrikes. AB's are hard wired though to not allow the aircraft to rotate past a point that they could have a tail strike. Boeing on the other hand adds tail skids which take the impact should the pilot over rotate.
UA 744's must not all have tail skids, one had a tail strike out of Sydney last year and I saw the patch work.
Also AP system problems aren't purely an Airbus problem, a MH B772 which is an excellent aircraft had a major issue out of Perth a number of years ago.
Tronsky
-
Germans?
:lol
-
… and with the airbus being bigger, wouldn't be able to carry more fuel, cargo and passengers?
My personal experience in the KC-135 with regards to cargo is that it is a secondary consideration. A -135 with full fuel has no weight left for cargo. The layout of the cargo door makes a scissor-lift required at both ends of the flight to get cargo on or off. Either that, or the cargo has to be in small enough units to man handle onto the plane. The only time cargo capacity comes into play is on deployments. It was at a premium for the Desert Storm build up. But, in practice, I refueled C-141s and C-5s more often than carrying the cargo myself.
So there would be a big need to upgrade A LOT of bases to even be able to handle the KC-45 which the 767 can easily fit in without major mods.
Back in the SAC days, we had 12,000 foot long, 300 foot wide runways. Most of those bases are closed, but they could easily handle any airplane.
lets not forget that airbus came in with a new boom design, verses boeing that is going to use the same design as the 135, accidents can and will happen during development. heck, an mechanical device can break until you work out the kinks.
now for the booms, you have it backwards. This is Airbus's first or MAYBE second generation boom. However this is Boeing's 5th generation boom which is all FBW. Boeing has continuously developed their booms over the years.
Boeing has been doing this since the KC-97. I agree that Airbus can work out the kinks, but in process of grading the two options, Boeing vs. Airbus, the decades of experience has to count in favor of Boeing.
-
...I know a couple of times the flight law systems have failed which resulted in tailstrikes. AB's are hard wired though to not allow the aircraft to rotate past a point that they could have a tail strike. Boeing on the other hand adds tail skids which take the impact should the pilot over rotate.
My discussion with airline pilots revealed that tail skids are there as a last resort. Should a pilot over-rotate, it's available to keep the tail off the ground. However, as an A343 pilot once told me, "It's worthless, just something to make you feel better."
-
re the tail skid. Only boeing aircraft have them. No AB has them because airbus hardwires a Virtual one into the system that prevents this from happening, however they have had a couple where the system has failed.
Tronski, tailskids arent options, they either have them in the design or they dont. The 737-800/900 have them, the 747's do not though i think the new -8's might and the 757-300, 767-300/400's and 777-300. Now the 747's because of their high tail design would require a massive pilot error to scrap the tail which is why they probably were never added to it. Typically it seems though with boeing after the first strech of an aircraft, they add them.
and just because they have tailskids doesnt mean that the tail surface still wont come into contact with the ground. if you keep the rotation going, then it will just pivot off the tailskid and the fuselage past the skid can come into contact with the ground. There is a video on youtube of airbus doing the VME tests on the A380 and on the first run, the plane rotated further than planned and it scrapped aft of the skid (they added one for the tests)
@ rufus, yes but we still would have to upgrade the hangars and all the ground support equiptment which with the 767 we wouldnt. I mean heck, The navy had to cut holes in the doors of the hangars just to fit two P-8's into the hangar like they previously did with the P-3's. even now, only 1.5 aircraft fit into each hangar.