Posted on 03/23/2010 9:25:34 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
Boeing’s biggest supporters roared out of the gate Tuesday after the World Trade Organization issued a final ruling that Airbus enjoyed unfair subsidies from European governments.
“Enough is enough. For too long, workers in Washington state have had to fight an uphill battle. Instead of competing just with Airbus, they’ve been forced to compete with the deep pockets of European governments that supply Airbus with illegal launch aid,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington said in a statement. Then she aimed straight at the tanker competition. “It’s clear that the A330, the very plane Airbus would offer our military, has received illegal subsidies that have hurt American workers. Now’s not the time to delay this competition further. Especially not for a company that is undercutting our workers. It’s time to stop bending over backwards to meet the demands of an illegally subsidized foreign company and to move forward with providing America’s military with an American-made tanker.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dodbuzz.com ...
See page 17 of this powerpoint document.
can’t imagine why this shouldn’t be mandatory except for the fact a KC-30 got no problems and a KC-767 got problems with this feature.
Maybe the short 767-200 fuselage got some problems due to the space between the tip of the left side engine or wing root, the cargo door, the crew compartment and the permanent seating for 15 crew members. So each time a KC-767NG loads or unloads cargo some semi-permanent features have to be removed first.
What a load or horse crap.. you really stretching it. A K loader let alone a easylift fits right in the area between the door and wing eng area. if anything the A330 with its nose down attitude is more of a problem.
According to the drawing on the button “Up to 97 patients” it seems the cargo door is located quite at the wing root right in front of the second column of pallets.
I can see on these three images just some standard galleys behind a standard cockpit. Within the cockpit section I can't see the place for the Aerial Refueling Operator (ARO) station nor the required seat for the ARO instructor or ARO observer (SRD 3.1.1.15f).
I can't see the permanent seating for 15 crew members nor the crew rest compartment. As you can see on picture “Up to 190 passengers” about 12 seats require length of one 463L pallet. (I doubt these seating is already available C-17SeatPallets.pdf)
With crew rest compartment, ARO station and permanent seating you'll reach out with “permanent” configuration well into the second column of the pallets. Right there is the main deck cargo door.
You can compare Boeing's drawings with the space used for crew compartment and ARO station with Australian KC-30:
http://blog.sandglasspatrol.com/index.php/noticias/40-militar/479-arabia-saudi-adquiere-otros-tres-a330-mrtt-tankers (1700 x 1200 pix)
Many Americans are liars. They demand everyone else buy their American product while screaming, “Buy American!”, yet, they buy everything foreign.
That particular powerpoint shows the KC-767A for either Italy or Japan (I’m not sure which.) The area forward of the pallets shown is where all the mandatory bits will go. There is a forward door in that area, ahead of the cargo door.
There is also area aft, with it’s own aft door, so perhaps some of the permanent seating for 15 crew will be there, although with a full cargo load, they’d be cutoff from the forward part of the aircraft. (unless they were really skinny...)
Here is a good post by Zeke: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3018977/
Also a good read is: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boe202.shtml
Is there a real direct control on 767? Can you tell me how a B767 is controlled without any computer or electricity? Even CVR and FDR go offline without electricity.
“Some pilots were of the opinion that computer protection of the A320 is very good whereas other pilots support the Boeing philosophy that they must have the final say in controlling the airplane”
You may ask this Chesley Sullenberger what the A320 did when the engines lost thrust.
“Thus, this concept which is basically the result of wanting to put a man on the moon, have today become an accepted part of modern aviation design.”
On the A380 several controls can be operated as backup via direct driven electrical actuators in case of loss of hydraulic oil.
“The European airplane maker designed its new fly-by-wire jets with built-in protections or hard limits.”
There are no hard limits except those disrupting the aircraft (about 2.5 g). For military purpose you may set the force limit to 3.0, 3.5 g or even 4.0 g. It's also no problem to fly an Airbus at direct law. So it's no problem to fly e.g. a barrel roll but most passengers won’t like such stunts.
Do you know how the fly-by-wire system works on a C-17? Hint, it’s not a Boeing design.
Here is a good post by Zeke: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3018977/
Also a good read is: http://www.seattlepi.com/business/boe202.shtml
Is there a real direct control on 767? Can you tell me how a B767 is controlled without any computer or electricity? Even CVR and FDR go offline without electricity.
THATS FOR THE 777 not 767 Dumas ever heard of emergency battery power or a RAT.
You may ask this Chesley Sullenberger what the A320 did when the engines lost thrust.
ITS CALLED A RAT RAM AIR TURBINE FOR EMEGENCY POWER most airplanes have one. plus emergency battery power
Do you know how the fly-by-wire system works on a C-17? Hint, it’s not a Boeing design.
Yes its a system derived from the NASA f-8 program made by BAE.
Is there a real direct control on 767? Can you tell me how a B767 is controlled without any computer or electricity? Even CVR and FDR go offline without electricity.
Same as any other non FBW airplanes,.
As you can see from the A330 MRTT picture the ARO station takes quite a lot of space. The station reachs up to the forward doors. All three KC-767 pictures miss this station and the required seating in front of the station. Therefore the crew rest compartment have to be behind the forward doors then looking from tip of the nose.
“There is also area aft, with it’s own aft door, so perhaps some of the permanent seating for 15 crew will be there, although with a full cargo load, they’d be cutoff from the forward part of the aircraft. (unless they were really skinny...)”
On the Australian A330 MRTT the compartment is located on the middle row to keep both aisles free. With 8 economy class seats on both sides with a pitch of 30’’ a KC-767 lose at least the first row of pallets.
Now there is another problem. If the main deck cargo door is located right at the wing root, as it is slightly visible in your pictures, the main deck loader is located right in front of the engine. The loader can't maneuver much without touching the engine. To allow the loader a little space to maneuver I'll would recommend at least 10 ft distance to the engine. Then the main deck cargo door is located right within reach of the crew rest compartment. Due to crew changes during flight the crew rest compartment and the crew seating can't be located aft.
Position 3.2.3.3.2 of the SRD is NON-MANDATORY. I can see no other reason why this shouldn't be mandatory except the favored aircraft got problems. As you can see within the SRD everthing a KC-767 can is mandatory everthing else is a option.
I did heard of it. Did you know how an input via yoke is send to the control surface on a B767? Via cable, via direct hydraulic actuator, ... how?
Yes its a system derived from the NASA f-8 program made by BAE.
The Airbus system is also derived from a NASA development. Did you read the links I posted?
I did heard of it. Did you know how an input via yoke is send to the control surface on a B767? Via cable, via direct hydraulic actuator, ... how
From the Yoke to two parallel sets of flight control components linked together at the forward and aft override mechanisms/linkages and slave cable interconnects. In other words cables pulley’s bellcranks, to a quadrant, then to control rods which are connected to the PCA which is a actuator connected to a flight control surface.
I found some disturbing article how elevator controls are supposed to work on a 767.
Read the section about “Pilot Action Scenario”.
The 767 worked as supposed to do.
PILOT ERROR and failure to take command. not the planes fault.
No. RELIGION ERROR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.