AdelT1

Hi All,
had a visit on the 23 March of the new RAAF KC-30 A330 Tanker and transport. Was dropping some troops off to Adelaide. Nice looking aircraft and interesting to see a A330 with a fuelling boom. Enjoy the shots

Attached Thumbnails

         

 

LH B747-430

The best tanker available on the market..

__________________


B747-400 - 230ft in length
A380-800 - 240ft in length
B747-8I - 250ft in length
A380-900 - 260ft in length

Who bids more... ?

A Tupolev

I do believe you have the name wrong. It is not a KC-30 A330, it is just a KC30. The KC-135 is not called a KC-135 707, it's just called the KC-135.

AdelT1

The reference to the A330 was more so people understood what the KC-30 was based on but thanks anyway

A Tupolev

Come on...we're aviation geeks here on DAC, this isn't Facebook.

QFA388

Geeks can prove how stupid they are with little assistance.

__________________
Tim

QFA388

Superb shots Brett.
They'll assist greatly with the a/144scale version I'm currently building.

__________________
Tim

AdelT1

Three more shots of the A330 (KC-30) I think. Hope these help Tim

Attached Thumbnails

     

QFA388

Oh do they what! Thanks.
The middle shot of these three shows just what a beautiful aircraft the A330 is.
I'll post some pics when the model is nearing completion.

__________________
Tim

QFA388

These pics have been invaluable Brett!
My 1/144 RAAF KC-30A kit is coming along very nicely and just need to finish scratchbuilding the drogue pods and boom then its on to the final assembly and decalling.

Shrinking the Revell A340 to an A332 was the biggest task but the airframe is all together now and undercoated checking for blemishes in the gap filling process.
This model is being entered into this years SA Plastic Model Show competition.

__________________
Tim

AdelT1

Thats great mate look forward to seeing the masterpeice.
Here are a couple more if it helps

Attached Thumbnails

   

gospodin

Now THAT must have been some undertaking! I wish you'd show us the conversion process. How did you shrink the wings?

__________________
Steve







I've discovered what's wrong with my brain. On the left side there's nothing right, and on the right side there's nothing left.

QFA388

Brett,
These are just perfect.
I'm carving the boom out of a solid square of plastic and these will help with getting the shape right in all dimensions. Trying to carve the MAWS was a pain in the proverbial but got there after many attempts.
thanks and will post some pics very soon.

__________________
Tim

QFA388

Steve,
Just the fuselage got shortened as the A340/A330 are the same wings minus the outboard engine mounts. I did drop the flight control surfaces to represent an aircraft powered down.
Pictures at eight!

__________________
Tim

lanceb

She is a beautiful bird. I have some pictures from the inside and up close from her time in Brisbane at the QF maintenance hanger

__________________
QF, LH, NZ, CX, KL COLLECTOR

My collection
My custom 1:100 Qantas F1 747-400 by Sydney Aviation Shop

QFA388

Here's some test shots of the a/c undercoated and rubbed back.
Undercarriage is primed ready for finishing today plus lots of other bits to be added.
What was two fuselage sections became 6 after removing the 15 scale feet to make the A330-200.
Engines are from the 1/144 Beluga kit.

Attached Thumbnails

       

__________________
Tim

QFA388

Here's another side on pic.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
Tim

MrMD11

....until the Boeings' roll out!

tREv d.

...then it will just be the slightly better tanker available on the market.

__________________

MrMD11

Keep smoking that Canadian reefer !

N708DN

No the KC-46A is

__________________

Phrog74

That's a great looking plane...it's a shame that the only 1:200 model of it is made by SM/RS with little detail. That would be a great model for Gemini 200 or Aviation 200

__________________
Clif

Never trust a helicopter under 40! Phrogs Phorever!

A Tupolev

I'm still confused. How can it be both a KC-30 and an A330? Is it a refueling aircraft or an airliner. It can't be both.

Phrog74

Seriously?? A KC-30 is an A330...

Just like a...
KC-135 is a 707
E-6B is a 707
C-40 is a 737
VC-25 is a 747
E-4B is a 747
C-32 is a 757
P-3 is a L-188 Electra
C-130 is a L-100
C-47 is a DC-3
C-9 is a DC-9

The point is that all of these aircraft (with the exception of maybe the C-130) were all developed for civilian use, but the airframes were adapted for military use.

The KC-30 is an Airbus A330...it's both! Good gosh...

__________________
Clif

Never trust a helicopter under 40! Phrogs Phorever!

AnonCollector

Bah to the pedantry. I find it helpful when people write the civilian airliner equivalent next to the official designation. I know the civilian models; I don't have the other designations memorized.

I can't be the only one.

__________________

Phrog74

I was being a bit sarcastic, but that was kind of the point I was getting at. Some people on here, whether aviation gurus or just the everyday aircraft lover, may not know that the KC-30 is in fact an Airbus A330.

I think people who make comments saying they are confused obviously missed the point of the thread. The guy took some really nice pictures of the MRTT (A.K.A. the KC-30/A330) and posted them on here...very nice pictures I might add.

__________________
Clif

Never trust a helicopter under 40! Phrogs Phorever!

A Tupolev

Yes, I know this, but none of the aircraft you listed are refered to by both names, because technically they are different models of the base passenger version. The air force does not call there KC-135 the KC-135/707, it is a KC-135, because it is a different build of that base aircraft.

Phrog74

He was just simply making a point in the forum...he wasn't writing a technical report saying that this is in fact how they refer to that aircraft. Don't make it more confusing for everyone else by pretending to be confused. If you know that a KC-30 is an A330 or an MRTT, then leave it at that. Again, all the guy was doing was sharing some really nice photos of an airplane.

__________________
Clif

Never trust a helicopter under 40! Phrogs Phorever!

Phrog74

And commercial or military, the airframe is still what it is...it might have a different military designator, but it's still that airframe.

__________________
Clif

Never trust a helicopter under 40! Phrogs Phorever!

AnonCollector

I think everybody (or almost everybody, at least) on here knows that. The OP was simply being helpful by putting A330 next to the actual name. And it is helpful, because I sure don't know what a KC-30 is, offhand.

You're wasting time with this.

__________________

Phrog74

Sorry for dragging this out. I was simply trying to make a point. The post is absolutely spot on in that it refers to the aircraft by it's commercial model and military designator (regardless of whether the two are distinguished or not), and he includes some absolutely great photos. We should definitely enjoy the photos.

__________________
Clif

Never trust a helicopter under 40! Phrogs Phorever!

AdelT1

Thanks for the post your are right the original intent to refer to the A330 Civilian base version was just to help as the KC-30 reference is more obscure.

dylan

Alright, for all you aviation snobs, if you're gonna say "It's not an A-330, it's a KC-30...blah, blah, blah" At least know what the hell you're talking about!

The civil designation for the C-135/KC-135 and all it's derivatives was the 717, not the 707.

It was a vastly different (structurally) airplane than the 707, and, thus, was given the original 717 designation.

Jesus.

__________________

A Tupolev

Wait, the 717 is really part of the DC-9 family, how's it related to the 707?

Thomas32125

No, you're mixing things up! The Boeing C-135 Stratolifter is a transport aircraft derived from the prototype Boeing 367-80 jet airliner (also the basis for the 707) in the early 1950s. It has a narrower fuselage and is shorter than the 707. Boeing gave the aircraft the internal designation of the 717. Since the first transport aircraft was built in August 1956, the C-135 has been the official designation of it. The passenger version was never offered, because Boeing focused on the 727 instead. After the aquisition of McDonnell Douglas and the MD-95 program - the MD-95 was re-named the Boeing 717, because this designation had not been officially given to an aircraft type before and was supposed to erase the identity of MDD by using Boeing's 7x7 designation.

__________________


Looking for:

Jet-X RJ-100 Swiss European Airlines HB-IXT #JX323 1:400
JC Wings DHC-8-102 airAlliance C-FHRC #JC4ACA035 1:400


Please contact me if you can help me.. Many Thanks

bigprop

Do you realise that the vertical stabiliser on the A330-200 is 104cm taller than the A330-300? Therefore you have to add .72cm to the top of your model's tail fin to make it accurate. As far as I know, the rudders are exactly the same on both variants. Have a look at some pictures of both models to see the differences.

I live not too far from Amberley Airbase & the KC-30's fly over my place fairly regularly. They use the call sign "Dragon".

__________________
SARCASM...because beating the crap out of people is illegal!

VH-OGT

nice pics. Does anyone know how the interior of this aircraft is configured? I imagine there would be a boom controller's station somewhere, but is the rest like a regular A330 with airline seats/overheads or military style side/backwards collapsible seating for troop carrying?

gospodin

It's configured to carry cargo and/or troops with removable and folding seats. The C-5 is the only military cargo aircraft with a permanent pax section.

__________________
Steve







I've discovered what's wrong with my brain. On the left side there's nothing right, and on the right side there's nothing left.

gabe4321

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA. You crazy crackers got me all confused!!

Big Al

The official designations for the A330 MRTT programme are as follows...

It's perfectly valid to refer to it as an A330 as each MRTT is a converted civilian model from the factory line and not a 'built for military' variant.

__________________
Let's be having, the British Airways/British, Negus & Negus BAC 1-11-500 in 1:400 please !

Big Al

Here's a couple of shots I took today of the RAF Voyager KC2, ZZ330 (awaiting wing pods) on a test flight into Glasgow-Prestwick..

__________________
Let's be having, the British Airways/British, Negus & Negus BAC 1-11-500 in 1:400 please !

PBRStreetgang

But hugely better at employing lawyers.

Almost surprised the KC46A made to to the production line. I wonder if BOEING will ever make any money from......the legal costs would have been enormous.

Oh and the development costs overruns too.

Somebody is gonna have to explain to me why the KC46A is better I guess.

gospodin

The US Military-Industrial Complex has always hated buying anything from foreign sources. When it does, it tries to buy the rights of manufacture so the machines can be built by American companies. EADS partnered with Northrop in hopes of persuading the AF and Congress that their product could be built in the US...but Boeing has such a lock on the aircraft industry that they poisoned the whole deal. The 767 is not superior to the A330, just smaller, so it's more adaptable to smaller runways and facilities.

__________________
Steve







I've discovered what's wrong with my brain. On the left side there's nothing right, and on the right side there's nothing left.

MrMD11

And somehow the EADS design won't have this issue?

QFA388

Probably not because it's already in service giving operators time to bed in the type and refine to meet their respective operational requirements.

MrMD11

Come back and talk to me in five years.

PBRStreetgang

It probably will. And EADS suffers the same political subsidising and interference that BOEING receives.

What,...is one right/wrong, appropriate/inappropriate/ a colossal waste of taxpayers money/or not, free trade/or not.

Both are knee deep in muck, just at this stage BOEING leads with court costs and development issues.

It is what it is.

champpitbull2

You know the USAF requires airplanes with the ability to refuel with a boom and that the KC-330/KC-45 has lost two of them in testing? This is no small incident.