avatar_nev

Well, This Should Please Jennings

Started by nev, December 04, 2007, 09:44:14 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

nev

Between almost-true and completely-crazy, there is a rainbow of nice shades - Tophe


Sales of Airfix kits plummeted in the 1980s, and GCSEs had to be made easier as a result - James May

jcf

Not really, I doubt that the already sold aircraft will be redesignated.

KC-767 started as a Boeing company designation BTW.

Jon  

Jennings

Thank small miracles!    Now let's just hope they pick the Airbus and not the nearly 30 year old, soon to be out of production and harder to support Boeing (much as I like Boeing).  What they really ought to do is spend the extra bucks to engineer a 777 tanker from the start.


J
"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over." - Gerald R. Ford, 9 Aug 1974

Shasper

Reason why the AF opted not to do a KC-777 (Boeing did offer this) has somethin to do with the footprint placed on the runway, i think. Could someone collaborate my story? (all my stuff is 5hrs south of where im at :()


Shas B)  
Take Care, Stay Cool & Remember to "Check-6"
- Bud S.

jcf

QuoteReason why the AF opted not to do a KC-777 (Boeing did offer this) has somethin to do with the footprint placed on the runway, i think. Could someone collaborate my story? (all my stuff is 5hrs south of where im at :()


Shas B)
Which, if true, would then argue against selection of an A330 based airframe as the A330 and 777 are very similar in size.

Jon

jcf

QuoteThank small miracles!    Now let's just hope they pick the Airbus and not the nearly 30 year old, soon to be out of production and harder to support Boeing (much as I like Boeing).  What they really ought to do is spend the extra bucks to engineer a 777 tanker from the start.


J
Your argument against the 767 would only have legs if: 1)the tanker was based on the original 767, its not, its based on the still in development 767-200 LRF with systems and flight deck from the 767-400ER (which was not 'just' a stretch of the basic design, it was a massive redesign, a 777 'lite' if you will); 2) with 954 aircraft delivered versus 495 for the A330 logistical support for the 767 is greater than for the Airbus. Another 36 767 freighters were ordered this year.

Jon... who had the joy(NOT) of being seconded to the 767-400 program in 1998.

Jschmus

"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."-Alan Moore

Jennings

Well, I must admit, after JCF's updated information, I'm now against Airbus and for Boeing in this one.  As long as EVERYBODY at Boeing who had anything to do with the underhanded dealings on the former lease deal has been well and duly sacked (as well as those in the five-sided booby hatch on the Potomac), I'm in favor of an up to date 767-200 tanker.  To wit, based at McGuire AFB, NJ with the 305th Air Mobility Wing.  This is KC-45A 09-0767 as she might appear sometime in 2012 or so...

:)

J


"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over." - Gerald R. Ford, 9 Aug 1974

B777LR

Now THATS cool! :wub:

QuoteReason why the AF opted not to do a KC-777 (Boeing did offer this) has somethin to do with the footprint placed on the runway

To solve this, boeing offered that it could fold its wings :rolleyes:  

Shasper

Trip-7, if my understanding is correct, it's not about the size of the aircraft but about the weight that the a/c is exerting on the runway/tarmac/whateverelse.
Take for example the early model B-36 with the dual wheel main landing gear, there were only a handful of bases that had a runway that could take the weight of a fully loaded B-36 with this configuration. Hence Convair went back & redesigned the main gear to use 3 pairs of  tandem wheels instead of the original one pair. (think thats how that came about)

Granted, I'm not fully in the know on the proposed KC-777, but I think both the size & the "footprint" it places on the runway were issues that worked against it (IIRC Boeing even offered a mix of Triple 7s and '67s, but this was turned down as well).


Shas B)
Take Care, Stay Cool & Remember to "Check-6"
- Bud S.

Jennings

Quote... I think both the size & the "footprint" it places on the runway were issues that worked against it (IIRC Boeing even offered a mix of Triple 7s and '67s, but this was turned down as well).
As Jon pointed out however, the A330 is in the same size/weight class as the 777, so that argument goes out the window.  

I think it's just that Italy and Japan had already paid for the engineering required to do a 767 tanker, so it turned out far cheaper than starting from scratch on a 777.

J
"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over." - Gerald R. Ford, 9 Aug 1974

jcf

#11
Quote
  Trip-7, if my understanding is correct, it's not about the size of the aircraft but about the weight that the a/c is exerting on the runway/tarmac/whateverelse.

Take for example the early model B-36 with the dual wheel main landing gear, there were only a handful of bases that had a runway that could take the weight of a fully loaded B-36 with this configuration. Hence Convair went back & redesigned the main gear to use 3 pairs of  tandem wheels instead of the original one pair. (think thats how that came about)

The prototype XB-36 had single-wheel main landing gear.



And in this case footprint does refer to overall dimensions and weight.

Boeing airport planning document website:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/...an_manuals.html

Jon

Shasper

Thx Jon for the Clarification.


Shas B)
Take Care, Stay Cool & Remember to "Check-6"
- Bud S.

PolluxDeltaSeven

For my part, I think it could be a good idea to buy both the KC-767 and the KC-130!

After all, those airplanes are not in the same class, each of them having good and bad points. Moreover, it could be a good following of the KC-135/KC-10 families...

If only one of the plane had to be chosen, I think the 330 ((or a 777, sadly rejected) is a better chose, as it offers better cargo and better range than the 767 (but it could be use on less airfields and cost more for "low-end" missions)
For a country like France or Britain (that could only offer few aircrafts), having a big tanker is probably the best thing to do.
For the USAF, with hundreds of tankers to order, having two different plane is not impossible and probably a good solution.


Just my 2 cents
"laissez mes armées être les rochers et les arbres et les oiseaux dans le ciel"
-Charlemagne-

Coming Soon in Alternate History:
-Battlefleet Galactica
-Republic of Libertalia: a modern Pirate Story

Jennings

Even if they were assembled in Mississippi, the A330 suffers from the "not made here" syndrome that so affects the US military.  I was dumbfounded with the selection of a 'ferin' helicopter to be the new Marine One!  

J
"My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over." - Gerald R. Ford, 9 Aug 1974