Royal New Zealand Air Force

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Can the community please tell me when the P8 line is due to close for good ?.As a lae person to me most if the cost has been spent in the first tranch of aircraft ,along with the infrastructure . Surley to add one or possibly two more as the last two aircraft to come off the line would be a huge benefit
Hopefully long enough that some future Canadian government can place an order. :rolleyes: Given the worldwide proliferation of submarines, building a few whitetails down the road might be in Boeing’s interest. Seriously doubt an Airbus clone will ever be built.
 

Gibbo

Active Member
Hopefully long enough that some future Canadian government can place an order. :rolleyes: Given the worldwide proliferation of submarines, building a few whitetails down the road might be in Boeing’s interest. Seriously doubt an Airbus clone will ever be built.
Germany confirmed an order for 5 only this June so obviously the order books are not closed just yet.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Germany confirmed an order for 5 only this June so obviously the order books are not closed just yet.
NZ and Germany orders are yet to be built and I believe India’s still awaiting a few more. Not sure if the UK and Norway orders have been completed and the USN still has more to come. This production should continue for at least 5 years. I am more concerned about post 2030, the earliest likely date we can rid ourselves of junior barring a miracle on September 20. Also the Auroras will be getting very tired by then.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
NZ and Germany orders are yet to be built and I believe India’s still awaiting a few more. Not sure if the UK and Norway orders have been completed and the USN still has more to come. This production should continue for at least 5 years. I am more concerned about post 2030, the earliest likely date we can rid ourselves of junior barring a miracle on September 20. Also the Auroras will be getting very tired by then.
It would be my assessment that Norway's orders have not yet been completed. That would be the first of five ordered.

As of February only five of the UK's nine ordered had been delivered
 

htbrst

Active Member
The B777-200 are ideal actually. They can lift more to the ice than a C-17 can; 78 tonne payload Vs 56 tonnes. With 74 pax one can nonstop fly Auckland to Washington DC. The acquisition and conversion cost is relatively cheap and the freighter variant is already certified. All four of the Air NZ ones could be acquired with three being converted to Combis for less than $300 million. The fourth one would be used for spares. They are a strategic airlifter. If the pollies want a medium twin then they fund it themselves or fly commercial.
A few pages ago there was some discussion about AirNZ disposing of 777-200’s to consolidate on flying 777-300’s and if these 772’s would be a good choice for the RNZAF.

I note as part of AirNZs recent financial reporting they announced they are now further consolidating by removing the 777-300 as well and relying on the 787 and A320 series as their only jets.

The fleet reduction and reduced knowledge base in country may colour some people’s thinking - on the other hand they are not going to have much use for their simulator etc in a few years.

this article details AirNZs plan:

 

Jellybeen

New Member
A few pages ago there was some discussion about AirNZ disposing of 777-200’s to consolidate on flying 777-300’s and if these 772’s would be a good choice for the RNZAF.

I note as part of AirNZs recent financial reporting they announced they are now further consolidating by removing the 777-300 as well and relying on the 787 and A320 series as their only jets.

The fleet reduction and reduced knowledge base in country may colour some people’s thinking - on the other hand they are not going to have much use for their simulator etc in a few years.

this article details AirNZs plan:

Is there a business case for 3 x777 -300 as an update to what we now operate. We the nz tax payer already owns half of them I understand its in the region of $30m to do a freighter conversion . Would this be a viable option?
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Is there a business case for 3 x777 -300 as an update to what we now operate. We the nz tax payer already owns half of them I understand its in the region of $30m to do a freighter conversion . Would this be a viable option?
I have been made aware through back channels that the B777 would be to heavy to operate off the runways at Phoenix Field. It apparently has to do with with the ground pressure exerted by each wheel of the undercarriage. So this kills the possibility of any possible success for a B777 business case.
 
Last edited:

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I have been made aware through back channels that the B777 would be to heavy to operate off the runways at Phoenix Field. It apparently has to do with with the ground pressure exerted by each wheel of the undercarriage. So this kills the possibility of any possible success for a B777 business case.
The B777 main gear arrangement uses a linear two 6-wheel bogies set up which is great for the bog average IATA Class 1 runway. Not so pleasant on the ice evidently.

That back channel also made the comment that the A330 is also likely to be very marginal even with lower psi tires as well in that it only uses uses a linear two 4 wheel bogies arrangement - though it is just an observation based on decades in the business. He also said that the A340 which uses the same main landing gear assembly was even harder on landing surfaces. The largest non military aircraft or commercial type cleared onto Antarctic ice with a two 4 wheel bogie arrangement has been the Boeing 767-300ER which is over 30000kg OEW lighter than the A330.

The ice runway is a very changeable surface, greatly affected by temperature changes, is maintenance intensive, and can easily rut and become out of action so strict conditions and protocols are applied surrounding its use drawing on years of evaluations and research.
 

KiwiRob

Well-Known Member
That back channel also made the comment that the A330 is also likely to be very marginal even with lower psi tires as well in that it only uses uses a linear two 4 wheel bogies arrangement - though it is just an observation based on decades in the business. He also said that the A340 which uses the same main landing gear assembly was even harder on landing surfaces. The largest non military aircraft or commercial type cleared onto Antarctic ice with a two 4 wheel bogie arrangement has been the Boeing 767-300ER which is over 30000kg OEW lighter than the A330.
The A340 has a different landing gear arrangement than the A330. It also has centre landing gear, 2 wheels on the 200/300 and 4 wheels on the 500/600.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
The A340 has a different landing gear arrangement than the A330. It also has centre landing gear, 2 wheels on the 200/300 and 4 wheels on the 500/600.
The main landing gear are the same but yes the A340 has the additional inner centre landing gear which is probably why he mentioned that it was an even worse option on ice landings - which was the point he was making.
 
Top