USA TOUR Event | SAT FEB 11TH 16:15 UTC - SUN FEB 12TH 19:25 UTC

[LesterBoffo]

Can I question that a 'ferry flight', especially one across a vast stretch of the Pacific Ocean is not going to be flown at mach 0.80.

My best calculations with a full load of fuel and the best 'fast' cruise speed at 33,000' I can muster will be about Mach .68 and I'll get a little under 4500 nm range.

Am I right about this, or are the newest jet transports capable of high near Mach speeds with heavy loads of fuel/cargo and more than 15 hour flight times?

The Il-76MD BTW is using the latest P-30K fan-jets which are comparable to engines used in 2000 era Western jets.

[Martien van der P.]

There is a problem with AAR with other planes though. The C-5 is currently not AAR capable, I am not sure about the C-141 and I am pretty sure, the Russian long range transports are all not AAR capable in FG.

C-141? Is there on in FG??
Regards, Mav

I can confirm that there is a Lockheed C-141B Starlifter for FG:

It's made by Jon Bourgeois, but in the folder is nothing to find about a license. But I think it's GPL because Jon Bourgeois also made the FDM for the GPL C-17 Globemaster III. And the model is now in all the colors from the rainbow.

And for a Russian AAR capable plane we could also modify the Ilushin Il-76 in to a Ilushin Il-78M:

There also exists a AWACS variant from it the Ilushin A-50:

[LesterBoffo]

Yeah I don't particularly want to mess with the 3D files on the IL-76MD, as per my post in Aircraft development sub-forum.

[jwocky]

Antonov proposed a western export version of the An-124 after the aging C-5s showed problems basically already through the whole time of the Iraq war and later. Not without reason, the US Transport command rented the An-124s a lot of times. So they suggested basically the An-124 in a modernized version as replacement or at least complement and in that proposal, they also chimed in for a tanker version.
Nothing came really out of it, specifically not of the tanker. I took that up only because for the long USA Tour leg, it was basically what we need. So, admittedly, I stretched the rules to provide a tanker that can keep everybody alive during the long stretch. Now, with all the tanker routes and since the interest in flying tankers is bigger than it ever was, I wonder whether it is even needed or whether I can just fly a freighter and have fun. Or doing something else, like tanker routes in my beloved 707TT.

Bottom line: Can someone tell me whether I even need to build that tanker version for the USA Tour leg?

[LesterBoffo]

IDK sort of up to you, I mean fly what you like. On this trip we're going to be bucking a serious head wind with the Westerlies, I'll diverge from the planned route and land at Wheeler, PHHI, if I need and refuel, not a biggy. To me I want to keep the flight realism with fuel use.

[KL-666]

Hey Lester, i just notice your picture. Why is that water yellow? It is not pis, is it?

Kind regards, Vincent

[Octal450]

^

[LesterBoffo]

Hey Lester, i just notice your picture. Why is that water yellow? It is not pis, is it?

Kind regards, Vincent

A funny image I found online. Any further discussion should probably be in off-topic.

[KB7]

Sorry I got so delayed... I was doing some flight testing for Jwocky but got delayed by other things in life. I intend to be a tanker pilot for this flight if needed. However, real life may interfere with me being able to do the flight - it may not either. I hope to know soon.

What I had found (all the test data comes from starting course KDSM-PGSN direct, 270 knots IAS, goal altitude 32,000, calculated data is after climbout and leveling in most cases i.e. real constant climb to altitude and then calculate total remaining distance based on the fuel left after climbout.):

IL-76. Cockpit marginal at best and where's the damn compass? On 80% fuel tank made 1836 nmi to crash, 4251 nmi remains. Appears to require 2.36 full refuels at 100% load (3.31 at 80% load.) Did not confirm that with consumption calculation testing - which I'd hold with the way I do it to be as-if-not-more accurate than fly-to-crash testing. There are nice aspects to the -76 as well. I'd love to recenter a view to view out the nose windows.... But range as is doesn't seem to cut it.

The KC-10 version I have was a weird case. The version I have still flies on empty tanks at 170 Kts. (Found that out when next morning plane was well over 1,000 miles beyond PGSN.) As best as I can figure using consumption data and aborting early, it seems to have a 6,200 nmi range to fuel exhaustion, which puts it into just-marginal-safety-range in my book. (And I don't know that I was using most recent version, but rather the one that I like flying civilian courtesy of Skyboat I think.)

The 707/KC-135 Lake of Constance: Loading to near max fuel I had an initial problem climbing up over FL 240. Eventually I did persuade it up to FL320 at M.74. As best as I could make it max range seemed to be 5,371 nmi, 773 nmi short of PGSN. This was an extrapolated range - a bit past the Alaska coast I turned around and landed at KSEA. Another calculation (I think it was 2 hours in when I was still cruising at FL 240 seemed to give me 4,098 nmi range.) Seems short.

At the time I was looking I couldn't find the C-141, though I told Jwocky I'd test that one out.... IIRC FG Wiki says the plane is MIA / no link to a hangar with it. Can I get a link to it?

I'm happy to fly either a tanker if such will be necessary.... (And I don't mind flying the support routes, either...) But if it seems likely we have enough tankers flying then I'm more than happy to fly fighter escort to a tanker and try to suck fuel as necessary. Really not sure what fighter I'd fly yet, though I'd give strong initial consideration to the F-4 Phantom that Jwocky modified to accept "proper" refueling if it can make the flight envelope. (He modded it so I could do a leg.... then I couldn't do that leg.)

I think I'm off to see how I can maneuver that through the Grand Canyon. (Well, I'll finish browsing new forum topics first... )

[J Maverick 16]

The 707/KC-135 Lake of Constance: Loading to near max fuel I had an initial problem climbing up over FL 240. Eventually I did persuade it up to FL320 at M.74. As best as I could make it max range seemed to be 5,371 nmi, 773 nmi short of PGSN. This was an extrapolated range - a bit past the Alaska coast I turned around and landed at KSEA. Another calculation (I think it was 2 hours in when I was still cruising at FL 240 seemed to give me 4,098 nmi range.) Seems short.

That's why the KC-137R was built, to replace it... .
Cheers, Mav