Posted on 04/22/2008 7:58:17 AM PDT by scooter2
Pardon the vanity, but I have a question that I can not seem to determine the answer to. Did the Air Force, in choosing the Airbus A330 as the new refuelling tanker platform, violate the "Buy American Act" originally signed into law in 1933?
Probably not- the successful bidder is a joint venture with a US firm and a lot of the work will be done in the USA.
The KC-135 Stratotanker has four engines. Why go to a platform with only two engines?
Cheaper to operate.
Those two engines put out lots more power than the 50ish year old designes on the KC135. And the are far easier to maintain.
No. That’s why it is the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-45A, not the EADS KC-45A.
The A330 has two engines. The A340 uses the very same fuselage and wings, but has four engines. The A330 outsells the A340 10 to 1 because it’s cheaper to operate. The A330 has more than adequage one engine out performance.
Why go with four engines with it’s added expense, complexity, and operating costs?
I haven’t researched the contract in depth so I’m not sure. My guess would be that, generally speaking, more engines means less efficiency (which is why airlines prefer twins).
This AF team did a huge amount of homework this time and any legal argument or challenge....is going to find a mountain of effort to prove their points. The Boeing folks will find some military professionals are better than any they ever messed with before. My guess is that legally...this deal can’t be tossed. Only congress can stop or screw the deal up.
As they should
The Boeing 767 based proposl only has two engines, so what’s your point? Two big engines are less expensive and cheaper to operate.
Because if they had asked for 4 engines, The only contender could have been the Airbus A340.
Boeing and its tame politicians would have started whining sooner.
Actually, Boeing is charging that the AF team did a huge amount of homework in order to keep the Northrop/Airbus team in the running, and then got so proud of their homework that they forgot to play by the rules. I can see that happening. One need not charge the selection team with malice aforethought -- a loss of focus on the objective selection criteria would explain it.
All we've seen is the press releases, of course. but the GAO saw enough to at least say "wait a minute...."
You can even glide about 65 nautical miles without any engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
In that incident the number of engines was irrelevant.
The KC-135A a was re-engined with CFM-56 turbofan engines in the 1980's to create the KC-135R...but I get your point.
“I’ll see your gliding A330 and raise you a gliding 767:”
Pants down!
According to http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2003/jul/22-27.pdf
the 767 wasn’t able to reach Winnipeg airport from 28,500 ft at a distance of 65 nm.
Glide ratio reported 12:1.
According to http://www.moptc.pt/tempfiles/20060608181643moptc.pdf
the 330 was able to fly 78 nm from FL345.
Glide ratio 13.7:1
Another “more”:
“GEN. LICHTE: Well, I — from a warfighter’s perspective, and I know the team looked at a whole number of things, but from my perspective, I can sum it up in one word: more.”
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123088862
While Pearson is modest about the piloting skills he used to bring Flight 143 to a safe landing, his experience as a gliding and aerobatic instructor was essential when it became apparent that the aircraft was travelling too fast to land on the runway at Gimli airbase near Winnipeg.They had excess energy, and who knows if they could have made a glide ratio of 13.7:1, and if it were an Airbus the landing might well have been a little more messy.Pearson needed to lose altitude fast. The only way was to sideslip the giant aircraft on the final approach so it would touch down close enough to the beginning of the runway that it wouldn’t run out of tarmac. This manoeuvre was unprecedented. Fortunately, it worked, and Flight 143 touched down safely.
But Pearson is relieved that he wasn’t flying an Airbus. “You can’t sideslip an Airbus aircraft, the computers won’t let you,” he says. “Boeing aircraft are capable because they’re a hydraulic-controlled aircraft and you can cross control.”
There is no way the USAF team passed on Boeing without being very careful to cross their T’s and dot their i’s.
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.