Airline Pilot Central Forums - View Single Post

03-01-2008, 11:15 AM

#77

GasPasser

New Hire

Joined APC: Jan 2007

Position: KC-135 IP

Posts: 62

Quote:

Originally Posted by L'il J.Seinfeld

The A330 is an entirely better airplane than the 76. Why knock something just because it's not a Boeing? Have you flown an Airbus product? Also, their boom system is far superior to the KC-767 and that comes from one of the boom engineers in Wichita that I lived next to when I was at McConnell.

I think Boeing got lazy and assumed they would win.

I'm with you on that one...I believe that Boeing did think they had it in the bag. My suspicion is that they pushed the 76 because it suits them (doesn't conflict/compete with the civilian orders) and is a very nice fit as a 135 replacement. It is not unprecedented either, the USAF bought 707’s for JSTARS long after the airlines stopped buying them…..and the 75/76 was available for consideration when they bought the JSTARS.

On the other hand, it is not the role of the USAF to consider the impact to the US economy. That’s where this pick of the Airbus is at risk. It is however, the job of Congress to tend to our economy, and they hold the purse strings on this whole thing. Look, we’re on the verge of a recession, if we’re not already in one. They, Congress, are putting billions of dollars in the hands of US taxpayers in the hopes that they will spend it and stimulate the economy. A Boeing tanker would be better for the US economy than the Airbus tanker. Much more of the purchase price stays in the US, provides jobs, and gets back in to the Federal Treasury in the form of payroll taxes, state taxes, and the like. Congress will not like the idea of sending billions to Europe to benefit countries, who btw, do not support us with even a few hundred soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan at this time – causing us to send thousands of our own.

Guilty, I’ve never flown the bus. You have me there. But having flown most of my tanker sorties with other reservists who fly or flew 72/73/74/75/76’s and many who fly Buses, I do know a little about them. Even the guys that fly the airbus say it is a sweet machine….as an airliner. They all say the bus would not be a good tanker – even the ones who sing the praises of the bus. The main reason they give is that the bus is not built as durably as the Boeing. We know that the USAF keeps it planes flying for a lot more years than the airlines do. We don’t put as many hours on them as the airlines do, but we keep them a lot longer.

And to my reference to flying outside of normal parameters….I wasn’t referring to flying on the edge or beyond the flight envelope of the aircraft. I was referring to rolling the plane beyond 30 degrees of bank. My limited understanding of the bus is that the French engineers think pilots are knuckle draggers who don’t know what they are doing and will ask the plane to do something they the engineers don’t think you should. I think they will have to give the bus a lobotomy, and give direct control to the pilot when he wants it. Otherwise, the USAF will have to give up on the paradigm of the Aircraft Commander being in charge and ultimately responsible (at least for KC-45 ACs). I’m not saying we need to roll the thing like Tex Johnson did, but we do need to go beyond airline flight maneuvers for tactical reasons now and then – especially since the USAF intends to get these birds closer to the heat of the fight. I’ve lived with being a target as a tanker pilot; I personally don’t like the idea of being closer in range

BTW, love the avatar

Reply