III Corps

As an old Air Force dog, I followed the competition and knew some guys at Lockheed who had info on the MB. It was/is a very capable machine but like I said, many figured it was too much airplane for the mission. It bumped up against the -38 in many areas (not supersonic of course but formation, instruments, fighter lead-in, weapons delivery capability). Nice looking machine.

I think many were surprised because while the Navy has used T-props for quite some time, few thought the USAF was going to buy into something with the compressor blades swinging in the free air. And it was all complicated because the Navy had already bought and subsequently almost re-designed the BAe Hawk to get it suitable for carriers. So the Navy didn't need another jet.

The real farce was the T-46 effort which seemed to be totally out of character for Republic's design team. Poor handling, poor response, poor engines.. the list went on and on. Not exactly the type machine you want for UPT unless you are stressing ejections...

III Corps

You obviously have never flown a FBW airbus. The old canard about having to fly the airplane outside the routine envelop is just that... a tired canard. Name one instance in your career where you have ventured even close to the edge of the envelop, please, tactical or otherwise.

I'm not saying one airplane has huge advantages over the other but what is factual is all airplanes have strengths and flaws. The wise aviator learns to play to the strengths and respect the flaws.

III Corps

it may have looked awesome but it was a real barker. It was supposed to replace the 'dog whistle' and it did to some extent. It left out the 'whistle' but kept the 'dog' part.

blastoff

Hmm, I don't recall any recent Class "A" mishaps in Tankers involving fresh LT's...the belligerent support of less real world training is starting to sound really odd.

blastoff

Combat descent = I've seen them within 5 knots of max structural airspeed.

Spongebob

Some more things to consider..

Was Boeing really willing to give up the production slots for a 777 tanker? The backlog is huge, and I doubt they wanted to bump customers paying full price. The 767 line is going to close soon, so, if the AF could keep it on life support...plus, like we're seeing with the C-17, Congress is loathe to be responsible for putting people on the street. Boeing's decision to use the 767 was based on what was best for them.

The NGC entry is almost identical air vehicle wise to the A-330 MRTT, which is already up and flying. Heck, they've already built one and will fly it soon. The proposed 767 (200F fuselage with -400 wings and PW engines) has yet to fly, let alone in a tanker configuration. Being substantially different from the Italy/Japan KC-767's (with lots of troubles there, one main issue bing wing flutter induced by the refueling pods...with a different wing), The 767 was the riskier platform too.

A-330/340 wings are built by Vought in TN, right now. Word in the industry (from my side job) is that EADS promised to move A-330 production to Mobile if they won, allowing them to free up assembly room for the A-350XWB in Toulouse.

Just tossing some more points to ponder.

BTW, as someone going through VT-27 in Corpus when JPATS was going on, all the IP's that were doing the eval flights thought the T-6 was the best, by far.

HTH
Spongebob

GasPasser

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

III Corps

Maybe you are confusing the terms or using the wrong term. Or maybe I am misunderstanding.

Vno is not that big a deal. Vne is.

Defined on the net (and maybe your mileage differs): VNO
The VNO of an aircraft is known as the maximum structural cruising speed (the maximum speed to be used in turbulent conditions) or can refer to the velocity of normal operation. VNO is specified as the upper limit of the green arc on many airspeed indicators. This speed is specific to the aircraft model.

VNE
The VNE, or never exceed speed, is the V speed which refers to the velocity that should never be exceeded because of the risk of structural failure, due for example to wing or tail deformation, or aeroelastic flutter. On many airspeed indicators the VNE is marked with a red line. This speed is specific to each aircraft model, and represents the edge of its performance envelope in terms of speed.

When we were flying the 727-200 we had a max speed that varied with weight and ZFW. If you were under those weights, you could rip along at above 400 indicated. If not, you were limited to about 350kts.

So, you were well within the envelop. Now, take for example a time I got a demo in the Falcon 900. I think Mmo is around 0.88m and the test pilot showed us something like 0.94m. You could see the mach waves on the wings.

But the point is Vno, as defined, is max cruising speed or a velocity for normal ops. And too, I remember we used to do high-TACAN approaches penetrating at around 350 on the barber pole or near redline. VERY interesting but again, within the envelop.

Question. Can you do a combat descent in a non-combat zone?

Rocco

Sponge,
What else did you get to fly besides the T-6?

planeview

I'm just saying that instead of going out and doing 4 hours of touch and go's putting multiple cycles on the airplane why don't you fly a real mission with the airplane and leave the touch and go's to the sim. Is that too far fetched? Just imagine what the AF could accomplish if 90% of the flying hours were used for real missions, not burning holes in the sky training. I didn't think that was belligerent support of less real world training... Just better use of flying hours and technology that we have today to minimize risk and wear and tear on our airplanes.