John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The A321 is pretty close to the 757 in range performance. The LR and XLR versions exceed the 757. Probably not many LR units available and the XLR isn’t in production yet.
Royal New Zealand Air Force
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
B737s are combi certified, alot already have the cargo door and floor fitted and considering our small fleet of P8s and smaller fleet of 757 replacements for commonality sake (type rated pilots, common supply chain, combined mantainence etc) it should at least warrant a look in. Sure there will be performance compromises in terms of airfield selection (ie Antarctica), range, MTOW etc but then considering up until a few months ago alot were writing this type of AC in general off completely when they believed we would get C17s instead then supposedly anything is better than nothing and just means the new hercs would step in/up more, remembering as well alot (ALOT) of what we do is not combat in nature and we routinely/regularly fly into perfectly usable/operational airports (C130 incuded), infact not even "military" in nature (repatriation flights, veteran flights, humanitarian flights, basic transport etc) as in a leased civilian contractor/aircraft has been mooted/used other than merely a means of transport from point A to point B.
German Air Force to convert two Airbus A321neoLR for troop transport
Delivery to the Luftwaffe is scheduled for 2022.ukdefencejournal.org.uk
In terms of performance (i.e. passengers/range), I understand the A321 is a fairly close equivalent to the B757, to the extent that Airbus has made sales to replace retiring 757s. This is the first time I have seen reference to a troop/medivac conversion, but it isn't an area I follow closely.
Something along these lines would probably be an adequate substitute for the 757 in the VIP, passenger and medivac roles, but I very much doubt anyone has (or will) certify a 'combi' version that lets you switch between passenger and cargo loads. That would leave a significant capability gap for NZDF, unless they think the new C-130 fleet will be enough to cover all freight-hauling tasks.
In any case, all the signals are that the 757s will soldier on for at least another five years, so the dreams of snapping up a post-COVID bargain in the form of a new/lightly-used civilian transport are probably no more than fodder for an entertaining but pointless argument.
Understand that a B737 would be somewhat of a step down from even the current 757 (hence the initial selection of the orphan type in our region in the first place in a time when 737s were literally flying around left, right and centre), but some of the later 737 marques are getting closer at least to comparable so even if we say aqquired 3 and took more load(s) off the new Js (SATS runs, island hops, OZ exs etc) then surely the VFM sliding scale shifts especially considering any initial purchase price of such a common platform vs say a purpose built model. Yes options are great and civi airliners have their limitations but both options literally come at cost, just need to weigh up the pros and cons of conversion or combination.
Another major decision coming up for the beans and will be interesting to see which way lean in the end to complement the new Js.
RetirementIsGood
New Member
Pretty sure the BBJ versions cann optionally have cargo compartment auxilliary tanks fitted. They should be fittable to a 'regular' B737-800, which would improve range performance significantly. However, whether or not this would allow unrefuelled Christchurch to McMurdo, hang around circling for 30/45 minutes, then give up and back to Christchurch, I'm not so sure. This has got to be a mandatory mission requirement, in my view
Nope, plus I would have concerns about the B737 on the ice runway with it's low hanging engines. Be highly susceptible to FOD and although commercial B737 operators operate them in and out of snow and ice environments, that's on tarmac runways and taxiways, not ice runways and taxiways.
This has been thrashed to death on here in previous years Reg and the B737 has been discounted because it doesn't meet the basic requirements. Don't forget that the NZDF is a combat force first and any non combat capabilities are secondary. Yes I know that the pollies see it differently, but with capabilities the combat / military side must come first. I don't take you for being like Oddball and firing 76 mm paint filled rounds from your Sherman tank instead of AP rounds at Tiger tanks.
We have $600 million budgeted for the B757 replacement and that's why Mr C and myself have been suggesting taking advantage of the Air NZ B777-200 lay ups and cheap prices at the moment if the govt is quick enough to take advantage of the circumstances. We knew 3 years ago that C-17s were well and truly off the menu, so now either the KHI C2 and or the B777-200 is the next best thing.Just an opinionated option there Ngati, nothing more, much like they all are until they actually happen and in saying that none of our boeings past and present were overly combat or military bar a few add ons that "made them so", rather re tasked commercial airliners. If I was to go back through all these threads and take everything read as gospel I would be very surprised to say the least, like I said up until recently the boeings were apparently on the chopping block as even a type in RNZAF service, could still be for all we know really and that is the thing, we are all just guessing.Nope, plus I would have concerns about the B737 on the ice runway with it's low hanging engines. Be highly susceptible to FOD and although commercial B737 operators operate them in and out of snow and ice environments, that's on tarmac runways and taxiways, not ice runways and taxiways.
This has been thrashed to death on here in previous years Reg and the B737 has been discounted because it doesn't meet the basic requirements. Don't forget that the NZDF is a combat force first and any non combat capabilities are secondary. Yes I know that the pollies see it differently, but with capabilities the combat / military side must come first. I don't take you for being like Oddball and firing 76 mm paint filled rounds from your Sherman tank instead of AP rounds at Tiger tanks.
Just like once upon a time it was a done deal that we were getting a brand spanking built for purpose littoral with all the bells and whistles that was also budgeted for......plans change, our job is just to act surprised when they do.
Those 772ER's were the workhorses of the longhaul fleet, they are old, well used, and were on there way out of the fleet even before Covid-19 hastened there departure.This has been thrashed to death on here in previous years Reg and the B737 has been discounted because it doesn't meet the basic requirements. Don't forget that the NZDF is a combat force first and any non combat capabilities are secondary. Yes I know that the pollies see it differently, but with capabilities the combat / military side must come first. I don't take you for being like Oddball and firing 76 mm paint filled rounds from your Sherman tank instead of AP rounds at Tiger tanks.
As RegR pointed out the navy ended up with an old, flogged out ROV vessel instead of the fit for purpose littoral support vessel they wanted. So why go down the same route with old flogged out 772ER's? I'm pretty sure the airforce wouldn't want them.
The four fully Air NZ owned B772ER's that are now in storage are ZK-OKB 14.7 Years, ZK-OKC 14.5 Years, ZK-OKF 14.1 Years, and ZK-OKH 13.5 Years. They have amongst the lowest TOAL cycles of B772's commercial flying - due to their long haul fights. TOAL is the key attrition determinant not simply engine hours or distance flown. They were on their way out in 2022 not because they were any where near stuffed (far from it). They have been completely overhauled and refitted fairly recently. Air NZ have a fleet replacement policy that is commercially driven and not airframe condition driven. The people I have spoken to who flew them including the left seat role and managed the maintenance on them believe they would have at least 20 years service in a commercial cargo role, more in a typical military airlift role. They are in far better condition that the then 12 year old, high TOAL orphan B752's we bought (and shouldn't have), against the advice of Air NZ at the time who are far more experienced and knowledgable in the operation of heavies than the RNZAF will ever be.
The Manawanui is also not flogged out. That is an exaggeration. It was 15 years old but only was in the condition of a vessel with half that time on it, and has undergone a refit and refurbishment. The RNZN is very happy with it as it does pretty much all that they wanted from a DSV/HSV.
RetirementIsGood
New Member
Another advantage of buying the Manawanui as a 'second hand' commercial vessel, was that the standard of crew accommodation, particularly for the more junior crew members, is very much better than would have been afforded to a 'military' new build. No 8-berth or even 6-berth cabins
She will be a very attractive posting for those lucky enough to get her.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
It’s the same with your Car, if it spends it’s entire life in heavy City traffic then it will wear out much quicker then the same Car that spends its life in a small country town and doing a far bit of long distance travelling, its the acceleration and braking that wears a car out far more than cruising at 100kph.
There were gavel kits available a long time ago, mainly for use in Alaska & Canada on B737-200's. I don't think it's available for newer models. Cheers. How Some Boeing 737s Are Equipped To Land On Gravel - Simple FlyingNope, plus I would have concerns about the B737 on the ice runway with it's low hanging engines. Be highly susceptible to FOD and although commercial B737 operators operate them in and out of snow and ice environments, that's on tarmac runways and taxiways, not ice runways and taxiways.
This has been thrashed to death on here in previous years Reg and the B737 has been discounted because it doesn't meet the basic requirements. Don't forget that the NZDF is a combat force first and any non combat capabilities are secondary. Yes I know that the pollies see it differently, but with capabilities the combat / military side must come first. I don't take you for being like Oddball and firing 76 mm paint filled rounds from your Sherman tank instead of AP rounds at Tiger tanks.
RetirementIsGood
New Member
The B737-200 runs skinny little 1960s low-bypass turbofans, so the ground clearance under the nacelles is 0.58m / 23". This means it has no significant problem with ground clearance and also less problem with FOD compared to later variants.
The NGs on the other hand, have more modern much higher bypass turbofans with much larger diameter. Even though Boeing fiddled with the engine pylon geometry and 'ovaled' the engine nacelles so they're wider than they are tall, the ground clearance under the nacelles is only 0.46m / 18".
The 12cm / 5" difference in ground clearance does matter, it's why there are as you point out quite a few -200s with gravel kits in service but no similarly equipped -700s, -800s, or -900s
Thanks for the info, do you know what the clearance is for the A319, noting Skytraders operates them to Wilkins airport in Antarctica. Cheers. Cold climate – Skytraders
RetirementIsGood
New Member
It depends on which engines are fitted: if CFM56, then 0.57m / 22"; if IAE V2500, then 0.76m / 30"
Skytraders' aircraft is an A319-115LR, I think that indicates an IAE version, but I'm not sure
So what are the TOAL cycles of the 4 owned 772's?
What would the RNZAF do with them? There is no conversion kit available to turn a 772 into a freighter, the entire floor has to be strengthened or removed and replaced, this is the reason why Air NZ aren't converting them. Elderly 772's are being scrapped, there isn't a second hand market for them.
My brother in law was crew on Edda Fonn, in his opinion she was old and flogged, she had a hard life in the North Sea. The RNZN were also happy with Charles Upham until they weren't, I'm sure they would have been happier with a new purpose built ship.
"The RNZN were also happy with Charles Upham until they weren't,"
Would you care to back that up with some evidence. From where I sit the RNZN didn't want it full stop because they knew that it wasn't fit for purpose.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
That statement means something totally different than your original statement...
The RNZN were never happy with HMNZS Charles Upham...KiwiRob said:
It's not what you said. Suggest you do some checking. I was in the service when that hunk of rubbish was acquired and I think that @Nighthawk.NZ was too.
The actual TOAL figures were not mentioned nor did I ask specifically those numbers when I approached and discussed with members of the B777 community I know to gain topical background.
Obviously strategic airlift.
The first B777 is currently under going P2F freighter conversion with Israel Aerospace Industries. This aircraft is ex Emirates and is a year younger than the Air NZ aircraft. The conversion has an estimated cost of USD$35m and yes it is an extensive job. Why, this hasn't happened before now is because of three main reasons. Firstly, the B777 has been so valuable, especially the 772-ER, 777-LR and the 773's in the long haul passenger market for airlines, that their used prices held up so well with many original purchasers opting to keep them in service longer. Secondly, because of that demand value of the aircraft has been high it is only now that it has become commercially justifiable commit to the higher cost to undertake the conversion. With the used value of the B777 dramatically dropping over the short term, it is now viable for the major conversion firms like GECAS/IAI to convert and on sell P2F variants into the second life air freighter market. Thirdly, the feedstock for other widebody P2F conversions such as the A300, A310, B767, and MD-11 are becoming more scare as they get older. That is why the B777 like the A330 have now begun their careers as feedstock for P2F conversions. Of the wider B777 variants, it is really only the original 772 standard that lacks the broader conversion appeal of the ER, LR and 73.
Of course even a non converted B777-200ER can carry both the full pax capacity of the B757 as well as all it can airlift with tonnes more to boot twice as far.
The RNZN and MoD reviewed 150 vessels globally. I have already taken the opportunity to have an albeit quick look through her a few months ago, sized her up and chatted to crew. She certainly did not look old and flogged now after its refit and upgrade. If old Muzz Kennett thinks she is a good solid ship and a major leap up on the old Manawanui he skippered, that is good enough for me.