MGAI KC-10

Post by **btaylo24** » 10 Jan 2008, 16:32

Come on mike....I am dying to do an KC10 USAF/RDAF package!!

I'll buy u a beer???

Barry

vc-10 · Post by **vc-10** » 10 Jan 2008, 16:35

Boeing want the USAF to replace the entire tanker fleet with the 767-200, and possibly the 777-200. But the 777 is overkill for the KC-10 (the Airbus/Northrop A330-200 based aircraft is much better in my opinion) but the 767-200 is OK for replacing the KC-135s. A bit big perhaps, but longish range narrowbodied airliners aren't popular anymore.

Post by **btaylo24** » 10 Jan 2008, 16:38

Felix

Do you know when the USAF decide if its Boeing or Airbus?

Barry

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 10 Jan 2008, 16:38

btaylo24 wrote:Come on mike....I'll buy u a beer???

Yea but by the time it gets here, it will be too skunky to drink.

Besides I'm a proud American that only drinks Irish stout beers!

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 10 Jan 2008, 17:54

MIKE JG wrote:KC-10 is getting old, almost as old as the KC-135. You can only keep 'em flying for so long. Look no further than the F-15 fleet.

I might finish it, I might let someone else finish it, I might never finish it. You know how it goes.

Both are roughly same age(KC-10 born in 1981, F-15 born around 1974) but you know they aren't the same age in terms of fatigue stress.

However, the KC-135 isn't close in age at all... the last -135 to roll of the production line was in 1964 and they are all RC variants. You have KC-10 models made as late as 1987. While the KC-135 should be retired, the KC-10 can still be used productively.

Obviously, I think most, if not all, would love to see you finish the project but we don't always get what we want.

vc-10 · Post by **vc-10** » 12 Jan 2008, 13:33

The USAF tentatively ordered KC-767s, but that order was squashed by some fair trade thing. Apparently many people in the AF wanted the KC-330, being much more capable. The 767 is old technology (very few orders for the 767 recently, mainly top ups. But the A330 has just had one of it's best years for orders) and the A330 is much more advanced. Who knows where it will go, but the KC-330 will be different from the existing A330MRTTs (or whatever) that are flying, as it's based on the new A330-200F airframe, which is strengthened and had its nose landing gear leg changed.

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 12 Jan 2008, 14:15

The USAF was scheduled to lease around 100 Boeing KC-767 back in 2003 but it squashed by whistle blowers because of unethical deal making.

Regardless of whether they decided to purchase the Boeing or Airbus model, it has been decided the new plane will be designated the KC-45.

I assume the 767 will win the competition again if for no other reason than how long the Boeing KC-135 has lasted. Boeing just makes quality aircraft that have lasted the USAF years upon years.

Cowboymarine1593 · Post by **Cowboymarine1593** » 13 Jan 2008, 12:39

fyi on the kc-30/kc-767 compotition, i am stationed at the number one choice for the test base, the 767 so far is number on on my list for the af to be accepting, for size, fuel economy, and not much other training due to the making of a new boeing product for us, so we dont need to send all the 135 mechanics back to training for the air bus

vc-10 · Post by **vc-10** » 13 Jan 2008, 17:27

I can't see how there can be any commonality between the 767 and the ancient KC-135s. The 767, despite being quite old, is a 100% fresh design compared to the KC-135s. The most maintainance heavy parts of an aircraft are the engines , the landing gear, the various moving surfaces and the hydraulics, as they all move. Other things (safety stuff like the RAT and the computers etc) get checked, but they don't normally need replacement. The only thing that I can think of that would be the same is the flying boom, but wouldn't the same boom be put onto the A330? Also, the A330 might burn more fuel per flight, but it'll carry much more. Airlines (who have to worry about their bottom line much more than the USAF) have replaced their 767-300s with A330s (eg KLM) because of better fuel burn per tonne/mile and a larger payload.

As to training for the crews, take a look at these 3 pics:
A330: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1311914/L/
767: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1269997/L/
KC-135: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0659180/L/

Not much commonality between any of them...

SMOC · Post by **SMOC** » 13 Jan 2008, 19:08

Those photos are all of the flight deck... avionics and such would repair those and would need to be trained. Crew chiefs and such would have limited retrain as it's a Boeing to Boeing.

Graham King · Post by **Graham King** » 14 Jan 2008, 02:27

My experience with aircraft, I am an aircraft engineer at Heathrow, is the different design philosophies of the manufacturers. My experience is mostly with Boeing. I was able to understand and help diagnose problems on the then new B747-400 even though I had no training on it because of my experience on the earlier models B747's and the then heavily computerised B757. I was also good with the B767 as it was designed in parallel with the B757 and from a systems point of view very similar. I have been able to help a few airlines get their B767's flying again.

I used to work on the Lockheed L1011 TriStar and we had a thing called Lockheed Logic to explain the difference in naming and organisations of systems compared to Boeings.

By the way I am crap on Airbuses having hardly ever worked with them. From the crew Chiefs point of view you want the Airbus's. The 20 year newer design gives a load of advantages in maintenance diagnostics and airframe maintenance. Way back when I first started we had to check the oil level on air conditioning packs every 7 days, a 20 minute job as there was no sight glass, on the Hawker Siddley Trident. The B757 which replaced it we never have to, it was designed with maintenance free air bearings.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 14 Jan 2008, 04:31

This thread has now drifted waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off its original content.

If we want to debate the tanker issue, someone please start a new thead in the Real World Military forum.

Thanks.

eli · Post by **eli** » 15 Feb 2009, 12:40

Mike:

I am looking at populating KWRI with some KC-10s and came across this post. Been a year since your KC-10 project was discussed. Any progress (if it is still alive)?

By the way, I'm no designer but the aircraft.cfg file from Charles Dayhuff CDAI KC-10 has this -

[General]
atc_type=BOEING
atc_model=B744

Also noticed the wingspan of 211 feet.

Either someone pasted the B744 flight dynamics on the CDAI model before uploading it to Avsim or I am missing something about AI design.

Post by **Firebird** » 15 Feb 2009, 13:31

Eli,
The KC-10 project has not been scrapped but is currently best described as being in a coma on life support.

On the subject of other peoples AI models, I think that this is really a matter best left for them. You are of course free to alter them as you feel fit.

One thing I would say is that all FDEs in FS9/FSX differ from their real world counterparts due to the nature of game engines, this is doubly so in the case of AI aircraft as you also have the anomalies of the AI game engine to contend with as well as the aerodynamics game engine.
Its not a case of putting in figures from the internet, trust me on this.

Post by **campbeme** » 15 Feb 2009, 15:03

Hey Eli,

All can be found on Avsim.

Flight Plans
http://library.avsim.net/download.php?DLID=49174

CDAI KC-10 Textures
http://library.avsim.net/download.php?DLID=97386

Hope this helps you

Mark

Ford Friendly · Post by **Ford Friendly** » 15 Feb 2009, 17:09

It's only with nearly accurate wingspans that anyone can come anywhere near approaching real world parking accuracy and aircraft loads for afcads.

FWIW, I've used an 82.5 feet wingspan radius for that model in FSX since at least Feb 2008 and have had no problem with it.

For FS9, I'd suggest "try it and see". Use 2 slashes to comment out the original line out, make your change right below that and try it in the sim. If it works, you win. If it doesn't, delete your line, uncomment the original and you're no worse off than before.

But that's just my opinion. Obviously other people may feel differently.

MIKE JG · Post by **MIKE JG** » 15 Feb 2009, 18:00

Firebird wrote:Eli,
The KC-10 project has not been scrapped but is currently best described as being in a coma on life support.

LOL, yea that pretty much sums it up. We had a glut of AI designers for a while so I decided to focus my design efforts on scenery since there is so much badly needed military scenery to be done these days. Guys like Nick or Kevin could churn out a new AI model in about a week if they wanted so I always figured I'd let them beat me to it.

Things have now changed and now we lack AI modelers as well. That's life for you.

I may get back to it one day. Don't hold your breath though, you'd suffocate long before you ever saw a new KC-10 AI model.

Post by **Firebird** » 15 Feb 2009, 20:23

Ford Friendly wrote:It's only with nearly accurate wingspans that anyone can come anywhere near approaching real world parking accuracy and aircraft loads for afcads.

FWIW, I've used an 82.5 feet wingspan radius for that model in FSX since at least Feb 2008 and have had no problem with it.

For FS9, I'd suggest "try it and see". Use 2 slashes to comment out the original line out, make your change right below that and try it in the sim. If it works, you win. If it doesn't, delete your line, uncomment the original and you're no worse off than before.

But that's just my opinion. Obviously other people may feel differently.

I understand what you are saying and won't quibble with your sentiments, but the radius is not set buy anything in the aircraft.cfg but by the mdl itself, and will include such things as additional props such as refueling hoses/booms and ground vehicles.
You can also override this using afcad, for example, and so this is what I meant by saying that you can override it. Altering the wingspan won't alter the afcad radius but it will alter the characteristics of the AI in the air and definitely will on approach and take off.
Altering the aircraft radius to fit real world data is fine and causes no problems. Altering the fde can make it better or worse so be prepared for a lot of trial and error.

Post by **gsnde** » 21 Feb 2009, 08:43

AI parking radius in FS9 and FSX are two different things. What Ford says is absolutely correct for FSX. You have the wingspan value in feet in the aircraft.cfg. To calculate the fitting parking spot size you need to:

* convert this into meters
* dived it by two
* round it up on the next full number

The resulting number is the parking spot size in meters. From my point of view using the correct size not only allows for better differentiation (what aircraft parks where), but is also a matter of correctness.

To achieve this on a global scale is a longterm project, because it needs a change of thought. For civil aircraft Reggie Field has started a reference used by many developers by now. This was what triggered me to start The Owl's Nest in the first place. My Military Aircraft Reference has the FSX parking spot size values listed for all +750 aircraft.

Post by **Firebird** » 21 Feb 2009, 11:31

Thanks, Martin.
I did not know that FSX did that, so maybe I should rephrase what I said earlier in as much as, in FS9, the wingspan in the aircraft.cfg is ignored.

For you FSX users out there, it may be worth noting then that a lot of FS9 AI FDE's do not use the correct wingspan in aircraft.cfg as its one of those parms that can, and is used, to manipulate the flying characteristics of the AI aircraft.
So if you alter it be aware.