Thanks Thanks:  97
Likes Likes:  258
Dislikes Dislikes:  3
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 225
  1. #101
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhodes View Post
    Just to put some reality into this all.
    The last rotation to Lebanon was in an A330, the one before that was in a 787 Dreamliner.
    These are large wide-body airliners that lifted 50% of a Battalion at a time with all their baggage, spread over two chalks.
    That's the size of aircraft that is needed for Battalion rotations. Even a C-17 is too small to do that and Baldonnel is to small for an A330 or 787. So forget it.
    A third C295 or a G4 replacement is the only realistic possibility and that is a very long shot.

    The problem with Lebanon is not aircraft anyway and RHIA is still operating flights, the problem is the decision by the UN SG to suspended troop rotations.

    The problem with the Congo is the usual DoD bureaucratic penny-pinching bullshit that prevented the Air Corps from repatting them with the Learjet.
    Weren’t 737’s used in the past from Baldonnel (I assume with more chalks?)?

  2. Likes Chuck liked this post
  3. #102
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    186
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Weren’t 737’s used in the past from Baldonnel (I assume with more chalks?)?
    Numerous USAF 737 (C40 Clipper) have operated out of Baldonnel. There was several refugee flights in recent times also of 737/320 class.

    While the longest runway in Baldonnel is only 6,000ft. The reality is any of the airliners operating in and out of it for the purposes of chalks etc are nowhere near max GTOW. Max effort take offs can also be performed to utilize the runway length available.

    A MD DC-8 operated out of Baldonnel in 2008 in support of the Chad mission.

    http://www.irishairpics.com/photo/10...210715179&sp=0

    A 757 also operated there in 2013.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/eigjb/9966269825

    More recently a 767 rotated personnel through Beirut.

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/eigjb/15224230143/

    There are infrastructure considerations also. The apron area for example can handle 320/737/C130s without issue. Its simply not big enough to handle wide bodies unless you shut everything down.

    As for the 737/320 capacity issue. Very simple, just do three chalks of 120 odd over 10 days as opposed to two 150/150 over 7 days. I'm sure J3/5 could be persuaded.

    Haven't seen it mentioned yet but I'm pretty sure the troops in UNDOF and UNIFIL would rather a direct flight home covered by the state for their leave block as opposed to the current practice of blowing the guts of €1k and the donkey ride that goes along with it.

    As for any real concern regarding runway length for a very long range flight. Position to Dublin and launch from there. Simple solution. I'm sure that would be the exception rather than the rule.

    Lastly, for those wondering, RHIA isnt 'open for business' as inferred by Rhodes. The airport is closed except for a small amount of operators who meet a specific criteria. The point about the UN Sec Gen is correct however.

    For anyone interested, here is the latest NOTAM for Beirut.

    OLBA A0061/20 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXTENSION OF GENERAL MOBILIZATION
    TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF CORONA VIRUS (COVID19),BEIRUT RAFIC
    HARIRI INT'L AERODROME (OLBA) CLSD TO ALL IFR AND VFR FLIGHTS
    WITH EXEMPTION GRANTED TO: MILITARY, SEARCH AND RESCUE, STATE
    AIRCRAFT, HEL EMERG MEDICAL, HOSPITAL/AMBULANCE, CARGO, AIRCRAFT
    TRANSPORTING DEPLOMATIC DELEGATIONS WORKING IN LEBANON, INT'L
    ORGANIZATIONS' PERSONNEL, UNIFIL FORCES, PERSONNEL WORKING
    FOR COMPANIES ASSOCIATED WITH DRILLING OPERATIONS IN BLOCK
    NO.4, AND OTHER LOCAL TEST FLIGHT OPERATIONS APPROVED BY
    DGCA LEBANON. NOTE: AIRCRAFT OVERFLYING BEIRUT FIR WILL NOT
    BE AFFECTED. 08 MAY 08:52 2020 UNTIL 24 MAY 21:00 2020 ESTIMATED.
    CREATED: 08 MAY 08:58 2020
    Last edited by Chuck; 17th May 2020 at 23:11.

  4. Thanks na grohmiti, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes CTU, Tempest liked this post
  5. #103
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Weren’t 737’s used in the past from Baldonnel (I assume with more chalks?)?
    Not with a Battalion rotation, a 737 is to small for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Lastly, for those wondering, RHIA isnt 'open for business' as inferred by Rhodes. The airport is closed except for a small amount of operators who meet a specific criteria. The point about the UN Sec Gen is correct however.
    I said RHIA is still operating flights, I never said 'open for business'. Its operating flights and the Lebanese Government has said UNIFIL can still enter and leave.

  6. Thanks EUFighter thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  7. #104
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    368
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com...oeing-737-800/

    Quite a detailed article on the business side of the 738 aircraft for P2F conversion.

  8. #105
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
    Lastly, for those wondering, RHIA isnt 'open for business' as inferred by Rhodes. The airport is closed except for a small amount of operators who meet a specific criteria. The point about the UN Sec Gen is correct however.

    For anyone interested, here is the latest NOTAM for Beirut.

    OLBA A0061/20 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXTENSION OF GENERAL MOBILIZATION
    TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF CORONA VIRUS (COVID19),BEIRUT RAFIC
    HARIRI INT'L AERODROME (OLBA) CLSD TO ALL IFR AND VFR FLIGHTS
    WITH EXEMPTION GRANTED TO: MILITARY, SEARCH AND RESCUE, STATE
    AIRCRAFT, HEL EMERG MEDICAL, HOSPITAL/AMBULANCE, CARGO, AIRCRAFT
    TRANSPORTING DEPLOMATIC DELEGATIONS WORKING IN LEBANON, INT'L
    ORGANIZATIONS' PERSONNEL, UNIFIL FORCES, PERSONNEL WORKING
    FOR COMPANIES ASSOCIATED WITH DRILLING OPERATIONS IN BLOCK
    NO.4, AND OTHER LOCAL TEST FLIGHT OPERATIONS APPROVED BY
    DGCA LEBANON. NOTE: AIRCRAFT OVERFLYING BEIRUT FIR WILL NOT
    BE AFFECTED. 08 MAY 08:52 2020 UNTIL 24 MAY 21:00 2020 ESTIMATED.
    CREATED: 08 MAY 08:58 2020
    Someone should tell MEA as they seem to be operating a lot of services or does it come under the category "State Aircraft" as it is a state owned airline?
    https://www.beirutairport.gov.lb/_fl...ch=&type=dprtr

  9. #106
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com...oeing-737-800/

    Quite a detailed article on the business side of the 738 aircraft for P2F conversion.
    Interesting but not the whole story.
    Feedstock is key to any conversion program and that is driven by the market value of the aircraft. Many people wondered why it took Airbus so long to bring the A320neo family to the market when it was clear from the C-Series that the new PW engines offered such a fuel burn improvement. Well in addition to relatively low fuel prices the other main factor was protecting the value of aircraft the customer already had. When Boeing introduced the NG to replace the Classic the value of the Classic aircraft drop by halve within a period of 18 months. Naturally the airlines and lessors that had Classics were not too happy.

    People had looked at A320 conversions before. There was a big effort about 12 yrs ago but it came to nothing as the feedstock costs were too high. Fast forward a few years and just like what happened with Boeing, Airbus introduces a new generation of A320, and although better planned for, we again see a dramatic drop in the market value of A320's. Also we start to see a lot of earlier aircraft enter the second hand market. And one thing that most overlook is that the biggest customers of single aisle aircraft B737/A320 are lessors and their business case is very different from a traditional aircraft. They constantly look how to maximize their return of investment, so they look at how much they earn by leasing or by parting out the aircraft (turning it into spares). Now as aircraft get older they need more care and their performance compared to the latest generation can be 20-30% worse. So now we see 8, 10, 12, 15yr old B373 & A320 being scrapped. (It is not just the big boys like the A380)

    With regard to the 737-800 feedstock, that would be coming online if Boeing did not have had a few little issues with the 737MAX. As the numbers of MAX aircraft entered the market it would have driven down the -800 market value rapidly. But now we have Coronavirus and the forecast from IATA are not good.

    covid-19-outlook-for-air-travel-in-the-next-5-years (2).pdf

    They expect a 40% reduction is the amount of travel for aircraft like the B737 & A320 and that the market will take at least 2 years to recover. That means not only will the be less new aircraft manufactured but there will be a lot of people sitting with aircraft, costing them money for a long period of time. This will have a massive effect on the market value of potential feedstock. Some will be parted out to reduce the cost of new spares for those aircraft still flying, others will just be scrapped as they were nearing the end anyway but a lot will still remain and as it costs money to park an aircraft companies will be doing a lot to reduce those costs. Thus if you are in the market for a B373-800, A320 or A321 P2F conversion there has never been a better time than now.
    Last edited by EUFighter; 18th May 2020 at 06:33.

  10. Thanks Anzac, DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Shaqra liked this post
  11. #107
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Plenty of supply of nice used 320/737, but no QC version is currently available and there is no commercial appetite to build and certify such a kit.

  12. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  13. #108
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Plenty of supply of nice used 320/737, but no QC version is currently available and there is no commercial appetite to build and certify such a kit.
    Do not get hung up on QC, this like the use of combi aircraft has fallen out of use in the ordinary commercial field.
    We are talking an aircraft for military operations. If we take the KC46, they have a large main deck door so that the main deck can be used for cargo or mixed cargo/passenger transport. The French Air Force will have some of the A330 MRTT's with the same capability. and looking further afield IAI Bedek did a conversion of a B767 for Columbia to have cargo or passengers on the main deck.

    What is involved is that first a cargo door and CLS are needed and these are available on the market at present. If you want a Multi-role Transport, then (a) there will need to be kept some of the PAX doors as active (this is what limits the KC46 to around 50 PAX), (b) there needs to be kept the services for PAX, so toilet and galley (usually the aft), (c) there needs to be palletized seats.

  14. #109
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    368
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Plenty of supply of nice used 320/737, but no QC version is currently available and there is no commercial appetite to build and certify such a kit.
    PEMCO are going through the STC process for the 73NG right now.

  15. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  16. #110
    C/S
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    368
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post

    (this is what limits the KC46 to around 50 PAX)
    Though without 463L pallets on the main deck the KC-46A can seat 114 pax using RoRo palletised seating.

  17. Thanks DeV, EUFighter thanked for this post
  18. #111
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    Though without 463L pallets on the main deck the KC-46A can seat 114 pax using RoRo palletised seating.
    Yes and this is the what the USAF wanted and are paying handsomely for it.

    In the P2F conversion you take out all the PAX equipment , not just seats, but ballet, WC and most importantly the Oxygen system and Pax service units, you can't just slide in seats on rails without the other equipment.

    If there were such a conversion for the 321/737 that would be interesting, but therre currently isn't. Its questionable whether there is any commercial appetite for a QC narrow body.

    The wide body's have so much more real estate and can keep galleys, WC's etc and still have a full load floor on the main deck. Have a look at the crew seats and galleys on aircraft like the 777F and MD-11F.

    The MRTT and KC-46 were designed and certified with this capability. There might be a real danger here of the AC having a Unique aircraft type and all the associated costs and difficulties that go with that.

    If a commercial operator picks up the tab and is using the same system, then the aircraft becomes a very viable option on cost grounds given the low prices of feed stock.

  19. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  20. #112
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    We need something that can operate from Baldonnel (even if it needs to be repositioned for loading).

    What’s the biggest Airbus that could operated unloaded/loaded?
    Last edited by DeV; 18th May 2020 at 10:08.

  21. #113
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    What’s the biggest Airbus that could operated unloaded/loaded?
    I think it would be a 320 at 77T MTOW, Balanced field is listed at 6070ft. Thats standard day nil wind.

    IIRC 29/11 is 6001ft, Airbus stated when the 319ACJ was on the cards that it would not be limited out of Bal, that was at 77T.

    a 321 would have a significant payload penalty out of Bal.

  22. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes Shaqra liked this post
  23. #114
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm sure the Main at baldonnel is long enough to take any unladen aircraft that uses Cork airport, given their runways are almost the same length. Cork once took a B747 for demonstration purposes. 1800m is plenty. It's your local residents that would pose the problem, with the sudden surge in noisy circuits on 29/11 by large jet aircraft.
    A380 won't fit, it needs 3000m
    A319 would struggle to take off but could land no problem.
    A318 would scrape it.
    A330 could just about land but zero room for error. It couldn't take off though.
    A350 is also out.

    Is there a case to be made for extending the runway? No residential area of note on the west of the airfield, apart from that located at the end of the runway on Aylmer road. Space for another 1000m of runway anyway.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  24. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  25. #115
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I'm sure the Main at baldonnel is long enough to take any unladen aircraft that uses Cork airport, given their runways are almost the same length. Cork once took a B747 for demonstration purposes. 1800m is plenty. It's your local residents that would pose the problem, with the sudden surge in noisy circuits on 29/11 by large jet aircraft.
    A380 won't fit, it needs 3000m
    A319 would struggle to take off but could land no problem.
    A318 would scrape it.
    A330 could just about land but zero room for error. It couldn't take off though.
    A350 is also out.

    Is there a case to be made for extending the runway? No residential area of note on the west of the airfield, apart from that located at the end of the runway on Aylmer road. Space for another 1000m of runway anyway.
    Weston is possibly more of an issue

  26. #116
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    An A321neo could get out 29/11 @ 195,000lb which is about 25,000lb below MTOW.
    An A321ceo could get out of 29/11 @ 185,000lb, so 35,000lb less than MTOW.
    Higher optional MTOW weight are available and the situation is similar on the A320 as to the A321.

    For a B767-300 it could get out of 29/11 @ 350,000lb which is some 60,000lb below MTOW. Still enough to do the trip to Beirut.

    All figures are a guide only and based upon best weather conditions, and what must be remembered that runway 23/05 is only 4800ft.

  27. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  28. #117
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    22,873
    Post Thanks / Like
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249...o_tab_contents

    Commercial Intratheater Airlift: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Use in U.S. Central Command

  29. #118
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    I'm sure the Main at baldonnel is long enough to take any unladen aircraft that uses Cork airport, given their runways are almost the same length. Cork once took a B747 for demonstration purposes. 1800m is plenty. It's your local residents that would pose the problem, with the sudden surge in noisy circuits on 29/11 by large jet aircraft.
    A380 won't fit, it needs 3000m
    A319 would struggle to take off but could land no problem.
    A318 would scrape it.
    A330 could just about land but zero room for error. It couldn't take off though.
    A350 is also out.

    Is there a case to be made for extending the runway? No residential area of note on the west of the airfield, apart from that located at the end of the runway on Aylmer road. Space for another 1000m of runway anyway.
    Don't be so sure about the A380, I know at least one recently retire French test pilot would be more than willing to show that 6,000ft is plenty of room. Getting it out also if the aircraft hadn't broken the runway due to its weight, would also be possible. It is all a question of what weight you fly, at MTOW no way but a light A380 can put in a awesome performance.

    I mentioned the runway breaking like happen a little airport in France where BA sent some A380's. So the PCN has to match the ACM, runway strong enough, taxiway wide enough, turnoff radius big enough, lights and signs in position they will not be damaged and no building (or anything else) in an area where the wake vortex will cause damage.

  30. #119
    C/S
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    392
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    Don't be so sure about the A380, I know at least one recently retire French test pilot would be more than willing to show that 6,000ft is plenty of room. Getting it out also if the aircraft hadn't broken the runway due to its weight, would also be possible. It is all a question of what weight you fly, at MTOW no way but a light A380 can put in a awesome performance.
    I mentioned the runway breaking like happen a little airport in France where BA sent some A380's. So the PCN has to match the ACM, runway strong enough, taxiway wide enough, turnoff radius big enough, lights and signs in position they will not be damaged and no building (or anything else) in an area where the wake vortex will cause damage.
    A380 PCN is less then a 777-300er. Taxi routes and wingtip clearance are more limiting, as are ground service equipment etc.

    At light weighs the 380 is a spectacular performer, remember that mostly when you see large transport category aircraft departing they are using reduce thrust.
    On a four engined airliner that is permitted up to 40% of rated thrust. In the majority of cases 380's are using max flex!!

    380 would have no problem landing and stopping in Bal, getting it turned around and out would be a different story.

    I think you might be surprised at a 330 out of 1800m, but still very limited. 330 has better runway performance then the 767.

    321 is too limited out of Bal, EICK is 7000ft so is far less limited.
    Last edited by Charlie252; 18th May 2020 at 11:54.

  31. #120
    Lieutenant EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,373
    Post Thanks / Like
    EINN is even better at 10,495ft and there are all the MRO around to do the support.

  32. #121
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    so we know what the costs of having airlift are - expensive, and work your way up from there - so what are the costs of not having airlift?

    what does the constant tendering for commercial airlift cost in time and resources - and whats the actual cost of the contracts on top of that?

    whats the resources/readiness/availability cost of having units tied up in places you don't want them, and not where you do want them, because you're reliant on commercial carriers/other nations?

    whats the diplomatic/political/strategic cost to 'Ireland Inc' of every European country knowing that as soon as stuff goes downhill somewhere, they're going to get a begging letter from the Irish government asking for help? whats the diplomatic cost of this happening time and time again, with apparently no lessons being learned, and with apparently no shame being on display about asking for help yet again?

    whats the morale/retention/recruiting cost within the DF of blokes being stuck in some dump after their tour has ended because no airlift is available?

    doubtless these are more subjective figures than $/Flying Hour, but they are there....

  33. Likes Anzac, Flamingo liked this post
  34. #122
    Commander in Chief
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,096
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    EINN is even better at 10,495ft and there are all the MRO around to do the support.
    EINN was a designated Alternate for Concorde and the Space Shuttle apparently.
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  35. Likes DeV liked this post
  36. #123
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmiti View Post
    EINN was a designated Alternate for Concorde and the Space Shuttle apparently.
    And is ok for joint civil/military operations until an civil aircraft has the type of emergency landing that puts the runway out of action for a period of time.
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed!
    I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

  37. #124
    Lt Colonel
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,027
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CTU View Post
    And is ok for joint civil/military operations until an civil aircraft has the type of emergency landing that puts the runway out of action for a period of time.
    Have you not got a bulldozer?

  38. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  39. #125
    C/S CTU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,205
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ropebag View Post
    Have you not got a bulldozer?
    AAIU might have something to say about that
    Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed!
    I mean, annihilation's bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •