|
Post by ngatimozart on May 11, 2012 19:56:54 GMT 12
Pretty sure Germany are looking at selling some of their first arrivals. They have 53 firm with 7 options which we could pick up in a deal with EADS IIRC last year Germany cancelled 13 from the first tranche reducing the Luftwaffe total to 40.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 11, 2012 20:01:32 GMT 12
Also they should definitely look at getting rid of the boeings because you would have to think operating only two aircraft is pretty uneconomical
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 11, 2012 20:07:51 GMT 12
I think the B757s are one of the best aircraft we have at present. All the modifications that have gone into it have made it a very versitile machine. All it needs now is a bomb bay under the fuselage and some backward firing jets for tactical landings. True there have been some previous rumours regards getting rid of them, but with all the money spent on them making them more efficient in their different uses, i think they will be around till we get something that replaces both the tactical and strategic transports.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 11, 2012 20:18:32 GMT 12
At the end of the day we dont need the 757s. Operating only two is ridiculous. And they dont get used enough. In fact that get used so little, we spend a fortune just trying to get them going again. Passenger jet aircraft are designed to fly all day everyday, and when you stop flying them they shit out.
|
|
atgv
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 29
|
Post by atgv on May 11, 2012 23:19:13 GMT 12
Disagree. Its very rare to see both 757s at Whenuapai at the same time, and not uncommon for neither to be there.
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 12, 2012 1:04:45 GMT 12
I wonder about the 757 comment also. My experience of operating airline type aircraft in the RNZAF environment was very positive. With the Delegated Engineering Authority the machines were still very much maintained as you would expect and not at all OTT like some military types. The RNZAF F-27 fleet (all 3 of them) were unique in that the M6, the Master Maintenance Schedule had been amended by a rather astute MFC so that even less maintenance was to be performed than a normal civilian operation. All too easy. I never heard of any issues with the 727 fleet either. Many of the airline type fleets I have worked on in the past few years have been two of the type. F100 in one place and E-170 in another. Have you seen what Fugro operate out of Perth ?
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 12, 2012 9:34:17 GMT 12
They still spend way more time on the ground than they do in the air which obviously creates problems. Like i mentioned earlier, it cant be very economical operating just two of the type. The C130 is far more versatile and we could obviously do with more. Its a good day when we have two frames serviceable!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 10:58:15 GMT 12
The 757 offers a long range high speed strategic transport capability. The Herc is not 'fast'. The 757's are a great efficient asset to the NZDF and RNZAF. The 757 can many tasks and taking it out of service is unneccesary, and it would quite frankly be silly. The C-130 is great for tactical and strategic tasks, but the C-130 does not match up to it in many categories.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 12, 2012 11:49:47 GMT 12
The C130 can do everything the 757 can and more. Yes the Boeings are faster, have greater range, can carry more passengers comfortably and have a slightly larger payload but money is going to be the over riding factor on the replacement of the fixed wing transport fleet and operating a single large aircraft type is a hell of a lot cheaper than operating two types. The Boeings are not a necessity.
|
|
|
Post by adzze on May 12, 2012 12:04:05 GMT 12
But is your criticism about capability or economics? You claim the C130 can do everything the 757 can and more, then effectively contradict that, saying they deliver more passengers/payload faster, over a longer distance - isn't that an indication that they each might be suited for different roles (tactical vs. strategic)?
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 12, 2012 12:15:58 GMT 12
I have no idea of the plans for the RNZAF B757. However I have endured international flights in the B727, Andover, F-27 and the Herc. Strategic transport in any aircraft which is normally more at home in the tactical environment could not be called comfortable. Many forum members would have been stuck in the back of a C-130... literally. I still don't understand the logic of writing off a small fleet number of what is essentially a commercial jet. They are dead simple to maintain, I have also worked on small fleets in Africa and Europe. Some of the operators had a single aircraft, indeed quite a number of our customers fell into that category. With modern day communication and supply lines the technical support is quick and easy, - often what could be termed cheap.
The RNZAF and other military fleet operators do have a habit of maintaining their aircraft in a pretty inefficient manner. Generally they can operate the civil types with relatively better utilisation and dispatch reliability.
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on May 12, 2012 12:32:43 GMT 12
At the end of the day we dont need the 757s. Operating only two is ridiculous. And they dont get used enough. In fact that get used so little, we spend a fortune just trying to get them going again. Passenger jet aircraft are designed to fly all day everyday, and when you stop flying them they shit out. Without putting too fine a point on it, you're foundering on a rock of incoherence! All of your stated opinions are simply incorrect! Why is operating two aircraft ridiculous, bearing in mind the RNZAF isn't doing it for reward? It is also not a purely passenger configured aircraft. Who says they are underutilized? Which passing cloud did you pick that particular gem off? Fact:Without the two B757 the RNZAF would have a serious gap in capability.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 12, 2012 13:21:35 GMT 12
Im looking at this from an economical point of view and the whole fixed wing transport fleet replacement. The air force is looking at lowering costs and yes while still maintaining its capabilities. They will likely go for a combination of two aircraft types. One will likely be a smaller tactical transporter and the other a medium/large transporter. They cant afford to operate two large types in current times. So thats why I believe they should replace the hercs and get rid of the Boeings. I too have heard rumours this may happen, perhaps sooner than we think, because the air force is and will struggle with the costs to operate the new NH90s.
|
|
atgv
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 29
|
Post by atgv on May 12, 2012 14:08:44 GMT 12
As I understand it one of the main problems with the 757s is the frequent short flights within New Zealand, i.e from Whenuapai to Ohakea. Does 'wonders' for the engines, going from cool to hot to cool in a short time frame etc.
Having said that Air NZ and the like do that sort of thing every day, although the domestic fleet would fly a lot more each day than the 757s.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 12, 2012 14:48:09 GMT 12
As I understand it one of the main problems with the 757s is the frequent short flights within New Zealand, i.e from Whenuapai to Ohakea. Does 'wonders' for the engines, going from cool to hot to cool in a short time frame etc. Having said that Air NZ and the like do that sort of thing every day, although the domestic fleet would fly a lot more each day than the 757s. Your right on the money
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2012 14:58:03 GMT 12
Get back to the thread topic... Which is the Herc's replacement, not getting rid of the 757's (which is not happening).
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 12, 2012 15:34:10 GMT 12
Yes but im sure they will look closely at the 757s when making the decision on the C130 replacement
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 12, 2012 15:56:37 GMT 12
Guys, I hardly think so.
The average cycle time for a domestic turbo-prop or turbine engine in NZ has always been 40 to 50 minutes.
I have no ideas what these rumours are founded on but we as a country have been operating turbine aircraft on these routes for decades. Look at Europe and the carriers there and see what their cycle times are, and yes I have worked there also, indeed as a Tech Services Engineer for an airline.
To suggest a turbine engine does not like short sectors, ie. ''''for the engines, going from cool to hot to cool in a short time frame etc. '''' Isn't that what engine maintenance is all about. That is why we count cycles and obviously the components are calendar and cycle lifed accordingly.
Are you sure you are not confusing short cycle times with some form of engine damage ?
Indeed with the 757 it may well be that the longer international legs actually bring the average cycle time up over the one hour point.
Have you guys never operated jets within England ? And yes I am well aware of the Aussie operators also, even flights into Darwin can be short sectors for some of the carriers, ie Darwin - Gove- Cairns. Those aircraft are still just over the hour on average cycles.
I would like to know more about your theories on low utilisation and it's affect on jet engines also.
|
|
|
Post by skywarrior on May 12, 2012 16:15:02 GMT 12
Im not talking about short leg trips. Im well aware alot of routes around the world are short trips. Im talking about sometimes flying as little as 5 hours in a week and having an aircraft sit around and have its engines exposed to the high humidity air of auckland. Sure, they are gashly dehumidified but it doesn't stop the corrosion. GTEs are built to operate often, and when you stop operating them for extended periods of time you get problems.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on May 12, 2012 17:44:52 GMT 12
5 hours a week sounds a bit on the light side. This relates to other parts of the aircraft as well as I remember on 5 Sqn if a P3 sat for a few days, there was always things found on a pre flight that needed fixed, especially lights or something tricial like that. Yes i agree, keep it going and it won't break, but as others have said as well, they won't be getting rid of these very capable platforms untill they decide what transport requirements will be needed in 5-6 years time. Although I have flown twice around the world on a C130, the options of it against a B757 would see most people choose the later due to it's speed and range, but I would still prefer the herk for the 1 reason of having more stop overs at remote places, plus each trip I took we had the big comfy seat pallet so lots of leg room etc etc with some enthusiastic loady filling us up on cooked breakfasts etc.
|
|