Talk:Airbus A330 MRTT/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox

I think this page needs an aircaft infobox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A380 Fan (talk • contribs) 21:56, June 3, 2006 UTC (UTC)

Graphic

Uh, can we find a manufacturer's artist's depiction instead of a Microsoft Flight Simulator screen capture? And if not, maybe cite it as coming from Flight Simulator? -Rolypolyman 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No concensus to move after nine days. - BillCJ (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing that Northrop Grumman KC-45 be merged into Airbus A330 MRTT. The KC-45 is a modification of the A330-MRTT, and it appears that the aircraft project has a practice of merging derivatives into the parent article, refer Tupolev Tu-214, Kamov Ka-52. Furthermore, there is nothing in the KC-45 article which isn't in the Airbus A330MRTT article already (or is easily added in), or which is in KC-X (which could be easily merged into this article also - albeit by trimming it and making it more encyclopaedic in tone). This is already the norm (which some exceptions which also need to be looked at) for articles, e.g. Learjet 35, Gulfstream G100, Fokker F27, etc. --Россавиа ^Диалог 14:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - They are different planes inasmuch as the 747 and E-4 are different planes. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The NG/EADS tanker will be different from the A330 MRTT. The reasons for the separate article is stated on the KC-45 article talk page. Also, there should not be any merging until the KC-X protest has been addressed by the Gov. Accountability Office (GAO). The award could be overturned and Boeing's plane could end up as the KC-45. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not the same aircraft the KC-45 is or will not be the same as the A300MRTT/KC-30 they will be assemblied in different countries. The RAF, Saudis and RAAF are not buying KC-45s and their equipment fit will be different from the USAF (RAF aircraft will not have booms for example). MilborneOne (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Qualified Oppose - As the creator of the Northrop Grumman KC-45, my reasons for doing so are clearly stated on the Talk:Northrop Grumman KC-45 page, so I won't repet them here. Concur that they will be very different aircraft. For "precedent", see B-57 Canberra, BAE Harrier II, Boeing CC-137 (and many other C-135/C-137 vriants), CC-150 Polaris, CH-148 Cyclone, CH-149 Cormorant, Mil Mi-17, T-45 Goshawk, Tupolev Tu-126, Tupolev Tu-142, and VH-71 Kestrel, among others (some of which I also created, including the 2 the Tupolev pages). However (my qualification), if the KC-45 award to NG/EADS is revoked by the USAF/DOD, the status of the program will be in flux. At that point, I'd recommend keeping the page separate until a new decision is made. At that point, if the KC-X is awarded to Boeing, then there will be a new KC-45 (or perhaps a new KC-number), and the NG KC-45 page should be merged back into Airbus A330 MRTT. On a final note, there is no "norm" within WP:AIR on separate articles for aircraft variants - they are handled on a case-by-case basis, as no single aircraft type/family is the same as any other. - BillCJ (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment To address some of the comments above. The KC-45 is as a different from the A330 as the E-4 is different from the 747, however, the KC-45 is not as different from the A330 MRTT, they are both aircraft which fulfill the same role. It is interesting that BillCJ makes mention of the Tu-126 and Tu-142 above as having their own articles, and so they should. The Tu-95 is a strategic bomber, the Tu-114 a passenger airliner, the Tu-126 an AEW platform, the Tu-142 a maritime recon aircraft; they all need their own articles due to these inherent differences, even though they all share the same bloodlines. On the other hand, the KC-45 is an aerial refuelling tanker and transport, and the A330 MRTT is also an aerial refuelling tanker and transport; KC-45 simply being an American designation for the KC-30, which is simply an A330 MRTT which will be manufactured in the US instead of Europe. Of course, the American KC-45 will differ from the A330 MRTT which will be operated by the RAF, just as the RAF A330 MRTT will differ from the RAAF A330 MRTT; because of these differences will it be acceptable for the RAAF A330 MRTT to have its own article under its A-number? As the KC-45 article stands right now, the only difference between the 2 aircraft is that it will be built in Mobile, Alabama as opposed to being built in Europe; this is not reason enough to create a new article; it is not uncommon for products to be manufactured in different countries, and even have different names, but not need separate articles. It is not acceptable under WP policy to create another article due to differences in spelling (English and American English), otherwise we will see articles for colour and color. It also is not acceptable under WP policy to create different articles because there may be disagreement over what to call an article, again, otherwise we would have different articles for Burma and Myanmar. --Россавиа ^Диалог 04:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support many of the points made by Russavia make sense. There have been many several American-designed aircraft that have variants build under license for foreign countries (like the F-104). These variants usually don't have separate articles. Also, every one knows that it will only be assembled in the US, most of the aircraft will be built by Airbus. --rogerd (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The F-104 Starfighter has five daughter articles, two of them on license-built variants: the Canadair CF-104, and the Aeritalia F-104S. In addition, as case could probably be made for splitting of the F-104G also. In addition, please realse that Russ himself has split off the Tu-214 from the Tupolev Tu-204 page within the last 24 hours. According to the article, the Tu-214 is simply a variant of the Tu-204 (almsot identical to the -200), though built in a different place, but it's differences are are actually less than the differences between the A330 MRTT and the KC-45. For the record, I reverted the split becasue the merger had been done by consensus last year, though not many editors were involved in making the decision. I have no problem with a split being proposed properly, and I'm not even sure at this point what I would support. I just find it odd that Russ supports a split in the case of the Tu-204/214, but not here. Also, NG claims that 60% (IIRC) of the KC-45 will be US content. I'm assuming alot of that is avionics and other systems, not the airframe itself, but the airframe is only part of the total aircraft. - BillCJ (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose because then a precedent would be set where you could merge any aircraft with another whose body it shares but otherwise has no relation to it. Kevin Rutherford 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If we keep in mind that pages are to be judged on their own merits, in a case-by-case basis, we can avoid relying too heavily on precedent. - BillCJ (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment One of my motivations for creating a separate article for the KC-45, rather than trying to keep in with the Airbus A330 MRTT, is that the 330MRTT article uses British/Commonwealth spelling/grammar, while the KC-45 page uses US conventions. While this is a relatively minor point, it certainly can lead to problems in the future. Also, the USAF has ordered 179 KC-45s - that is far than all the other A330 MRTT orders combined.I doubt those oreders will ever amount to even 20% of the current KC-45 order, and the USAF may order more in the future. What this means is that the information on the KC-45 will begin to outstrip the other variants shortly, and will eventually overwhelm the other content. This is partly because US government info, especially images, is Public Domain, and thus easily availabe and useable. Alos, once the content is largely about the KC-45, there will be those who want to re-name the article after the largest user's variant, the KC-45. It is with all these factors in mind, plus those Jeff and mentioned earlier, that I created the KC-45 page, and I still stand buy that decision. In case someone thinks that I did this because I'm biased toward US aircraft, let me reiterate that I have done many splits of variant articles, and the majority of them were splitting non-US variants off of US articles. I have done at least 10 CF variant articles, and participated in several others, both CF and non-US/CF. I am saying this because I have dealt head-on with many of the problems regarding differnt variants and users being covered on one aircraft page, and many of those can be solved with variant articles, provided they are done for the right reasons, and the split is done properly. If the KC-45 page is merged here, I can almost guarantee that at some point in the future, it will have to be split again, primarily to avoid the problems I have mentioned. Finally, I dsupport, at some point in the future, megering the KC-X page into the KC-45 page, but it would my highly innappropriate to merge the KC-X info here, as it also relates to the KC-767. However, we've kept it separate at this point, and since we don't know what the final outcome of Boeing's contesting the KC-X award will be, I think it best to keep them separate at this point. - BillCJ (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article want to find a better source: How Safe Is the Airbus as Tanker?

I trying posting this article How Safe Is the Airbus? but other editor he didn't liked source and delete! I want to found better article. Can you helped me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to explain how that political site with a self-described bias is competent to assess airworthiness?

...it’s disconcerting to consider that future tanker pilots will be at the mercy of computers second-guessing their actions and that if the computer receives incorrect data, the airplane could be torn apart in midair.

Quotations like the above represent poor journalism (or perhaps a political agenda masquerading as journalism), and in a serious article, we shouldn't be lending credence to that mischaracterization of risk by linking to it. TheFeds 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

er correct me if am wrong, but arent most military aircraft these days "fly by wire" and therefore under the control of a computer "intrepreting" the wishes of the pilot. 86.33.176.31 (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I look this issue of Popular Mechanics December 2009 which they have article Anatomy of a Plane Crash: What happen to AF447?. This making me wonder, did military wanting flight envelope protection which didn't allow military pilot best control? Also, problem is cannot do aircraft meneuver against enemy aircraft due to flight envelope! --B767-500 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum if you have any questions then please use Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. MilborneOne (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Voyager naming question

I see in the article that the MRTT variants in RAF service will be Voyager KC2 and Voyager KC3. Which to my understanding translates as "Tanker/Cargo Mark 2" and "Tanker/Cargo Mark 3". What happened to the Voyager Mark I? Is it the development aircraft retained for RAF service? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Dont have a reliable source but I think it means two-point and three-point tanker so they used KC2 and KC3 to make life easier. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated - no doubt it will become known in time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Any idea if the RAF will have transport versions (CX) like with the TriStars C1/C2? Just wondering. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

All the Voyagers are capable of use as transports as all the fuel is underfloor keeping the main deck free for passengers, all will have 285 passenger seats I believe, some I believe will also be capable of an aero-medical evacuation role with stretcher points. All the aircraft will have have the wing points and five fitted for "refuelling large aircraft which is the centreline point. Originally the RAF would only operate a core of nine or ten aircraft and the others could be leased out by AirTanker to other users, and called back if the RAF decide they need them but I am not sure of the current situation but the partial converted reserve may be considered as C1s or something similar. All guess work. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. Educated guesses there. :) The KC-45 was to have a passenger floor on the main deck instead of a stronger/heavier freighter type floor. I would expect these converted passenger aircraft to be similar. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Boom falls off

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120911/DEFREG02/309110001/Refueling-Boom-Falls-off-Airbus-A330-Tanker-During-Test-Flight?odyssey=mod_sectionstories

Place under the UAE section, or more generally? Hcobb (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Or not at all, things like this happen in testing, which is why stuff is tested. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the aircraft has now established a pattern of dropping the boom, but should we wait for it to fall on somebody and kill them? (Fortunately they're only testing this aircraft over cleared water for now.) Hcobb (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Grounding of Voyagers, 9/2/14

I recorded the grounding of these aircraft as a consequence of an incident on 9 February and the subsequent lifting of the restriction. It seems to me that such an incident in operational service is notable even though the aircraft was not at fault, and it has been reported widely, but the entry has being reverted as "not particularly notable to the aircraft". Really? Is this the consensus? Folks at 137 (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's not worth mentioning given that the inquiry found that the incident had nothing to do with the aircraft (except for the possible failure to include a personal camera compartment for the pilot!). National fleets of aircraft are often grounded for short periods while accidents which turn out to be the fault of pilot error are investigated, and this doesn't seem terribly significant. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)wa

Ok. I'm clearly a stranger with this project. The incident received wide publicity (incl a sensationalist report from the Daily Mail) but the resolution didn't and I assumed that the problem was unresolved (camera problem subsequently found in a specialist article). My son uses these flights, so I checked wiki for info, probably not the only one, and - nothing. Fleet groundings may or may not be attributable to aircraft faults, but surely notability derives in part from public awareness. Just a thought. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

French tanker deal

Moved from User talk:Fnlayson

On Thursday, one day after the Delta order was announced, the French minister of defense announced a $3 billion deal to buy 12 Airbus A330 multirole tanker and transport aircraft for its military.

http://www.ibtimes.com/airbus-sells-12-a330-mrtt-tankers-france-after-14-billion-deal-delta-1727799 81.174.210.243 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The Airbus press release says it was an agreement to order and that the contract is ready for "official award". This reads like they have an agreement but have to finalize the contract. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed split of Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet section

This section refers to aircraft purchased under an initiative of the European Defence Agency that ended up procuring multiple A330 MRTT via multiple countries. The initiative is of sufficient importance in its' own right to warrant the creation of a page. It will also make it easier to separate out the procurement by the individual countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. I am happy to do the split if there is some support. Gusfriend (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There does not seem to anywhere near enough activity lately with this article including the MMTT Fleet content to justify splitting off content. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There does not seem to be enough justification for doing so. It would take up unnecessary resources, especially for such a not-notable topic. It could however be made into its' own section where you can list off countries. Toast (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Aircraft are not ordered by individual participating countries, they are registered and managed in the Dutch Military Aircraft register and as such 'Royal Netherlands Air Force' aircraft (registration number & roundels). Participating countries confirm a certain capacity (no. of hours) as there are 1.100 hours available per aircraft per year. Suggest to adjust to The Netherlands and refer as they are sourced & registered for the A330 MMU. 2A02:1810:3E21:A500:345E:1AE7:10C:7639 (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ZZ336

The cited BBC source indeed says 158 seats; but this source (also BBC) says 58 seats.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36719529

This source clarifies: there are 100 standard seats at the rear, and 58 VIP seats at the front.

https://boardinggroup.one/travel/news/inside-the-uk-government-vip-jet/

MrDemeanour (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

USAF

the US Air force sentence in the intro should be moved to operators and not as a leading statement. Jord656 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Why? It was a major win for EADS at the time, and its selection and cancellation are still controversial. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As it makes the page seem America centric and biased Jord656 (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A production run of at least 180 aircraft would have been at least triple the orders the company has for all other customers combined. That's just factual. Wanting to hide such a major loss in orders would be biased. BilCat (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

it is biased, how is it important for introducing the article? Makes Wikipedia seem like a US centric platform Jord656 (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This was an important aspect of the aircraft's history, and the article includes a sizeable amount of text on it, so it's appropriate to note in the lead. A single sentence is hardly excessive. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. BilCat (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Royal Australian Air Force has completes the first fuel transfer with the air refuelling boom from a RAAF KC-30A Multi Role Tanker Transport to a U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning II.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)