Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Spain
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, we are still discussing traditional flight controls in the 21st century
All this excitment that old fly by thick wire aircraft can exceed their flight envelope is just a big smokescreen. The 767 can indeed roll through 360 degrees or do a loop, shortly followed by a smoking hole in the ground as the missile may have missed, but the crew's lack of exceptional flying skill and regular envelope exceedence training showed in the end.
Let's face some facts, an airliner derivative is never going to 'dodge the bullet', and pulling to 5g will be short lived as the wing will very quickly stall and leave the crew poorly place for a recovery. Similarly, rolling through 90deg will result in a large nose down attitude, followed by structurally damaging speed and again leaving the pilots with not many places to go. Large aircraft avoidance techniques can only work in a small number of scenarios, almost all of which require the aircraft to make a sustained use of the maximum performance available from the wing design. That's why modern fly by small wire aircraft (including newer boeings) allow the pilot, with no specialist flying techniques, to immediately pull and mainatin for as long as required, the maximum performance from a wing. No 'nibbling at the buffet' or holding on the edge of the shaker', just full back stick and hold.
Of course some pilots may not think this is manly enough for the military, but it is surely the best way to confidently and repeatedly manoeuvre and aircraft as quickly as possible, and to result in a crew making it back!
All this excitment that old fly by thick wire aircraft can exceed their flight envelope is just a big smokescreen. The 767 can indeed roll through 360 degrees or do a loop, shortly followed by a smoking hole in the ground as the missile may have missed, but the crew's lack of exceptional flying skill and regular envelope exceedence training showed in the end. Let's face some facts, an airliner derivative is never going to 'dodge the bullet', and pulling to 5g will be short lived as the wing will very quickly stall and leave the crew poorly place for a recovery. Similarly, rolling through 90deg will result in a large nose down attitude, followed by structurally damaging speed and again leaving the pilots with not many places to go. Large aircraft avoidance techniques can only work in a small number of scenarios, almost all of which require the aircraft to make a sustained use of the maximum performance available from the wing design. That's why modern fly by small wire aircraft (including newer boeings) allow the pilot, with no specialist flying techniques, to immediately pull and mainatin for as long as required, the maximum performance from a wing. No 'nibbling at the buffet' or holding on the edge of the shaker', just full back stick and hold.
Of course some pilots may not think this is manly enough for the military, but it is surely the best way to confidently and repeatedly manoeuvre and aircraft as quickly as possible, and to result in a crew making it back!
Boeing's lineage with tankers is unmistakable. There is real security through product knowledge and being an American builder on American soil.
As for the 'American builder on American soil' rubbish - that, I'm afraid, is the typical redneck jingoistic claptrap which leads one to deduce that Boeing can only compete through politics, not capability.
Mind you, if Uncle Spam ever learned to operate tankers efficiently, the actual number of new tankers needed would be considerably lower than the KC-X programme would suggest.....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politics and capability aside. The 767 is an older design than the A330, and has a worse safety record. Them's the facts.
I'd still fly either, mind, I'm an equal opportunities wannabe tanker pilot.
I'd still fly either, mind, I'm an equal opportunities wannabe tanker pilot.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the big excitement with new design, or even a new airframe? There have been no breakthroughs with aerodynamics, and engine improvements have been incremental as well.
That leaves electronics, the only thing in life where you get more for your money every year. And you don't need a new airframe for new avionics.
More important for a tanker than the age of the airframe design is its size, reliability and cost of ownership.
Neither a new 767 nor a new A330 can compete with used planes that have 1/3 or more of their economic life left in low utilization as tankers.
Small companies have designed and built aerial refueling tankers, such as the KDC-10. The USAF should open a new competition to all comers, including tanker rental. GAS - Commercial Refueling Services
Right now I'm thinking the 757 would be a better replacement for the KC-135.
GB
That leaves electronics, the only thing in life where you get more for your money every year. And you don't need a new airframe for new avionics.
More important for a tanker than the age of the airframe design is its size, reliability and cost of ownership.
Neither a new 767 nor a new A330 can compete with used planes that have 1/3 or more of their economic life left in low utilization as tankers.
Small companies have designed and built aerial refueling tankers, such as the KDC-10. The USAF should open a new competition to all comers, including tanker rental. GAS - Commercial Refueling Services
Right now I'm thinking the 757 would be a better replacement for the KC-135.
GB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Speigel Online: 'Europeans Shouldn't Be Pointing Their Fingers at Washington'
Tanker request "an affront for France"
France vows retaliation against US in air tanker dispute
US-Europe trade war looms in wake of air tanker decision
Tanker request "an affront for France"
France vows retaliation against US in air tanker dispute
US-Europe trade war looms in wake of air tanker decision
Last edited by ORAC; 11th Mar 2010 at 07:45.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bring It On!
I would love trade disputes with the whole world. Then we would stop bleeding manufacturing jobs. There's very little Made in USA anymore. We import $6 of goods for every dollar of goods we export. It's unsustainable.
Without trade restrictions, we cannot support a Middle Class. Our education system has failed to show Americans how to live on $500 a year.
Without a Middle Class, there is little need for cars, planes or trains, and no tax revenue for a fat military.
GB
Without trade restrictions, we cannot support a Middle Class. Our education system has failed to show Americans how to live on $500 a year.
Without a Middle Class, there is little need for cars, planes or trains, and no tax revenue for a fat military.
GB
Right now I'm thinking the 757 would be a better replacement for the KC-135.
OK - 124 ft wingspan and 34.7 tonnes of fuel in people-tube fit. Add a boom and a couple of pods, plus sufficient internal tankage to make it somehow half useful as a tanker and it would need to be a single role aircraft.
Even the USAF aren't stupid enough to buy another limited role aircraft - or a bunch of shagged-out old junkers from the desert as their next strategic tanker aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comfort Zone?
KC-135 rear crew members would feel very much at (cramped) home in any 757 tanker - it's the same fuselage, I think ...
(Afterthought) Or did Big B widen the original -135 fuselage, which was (even) narrower than the 707/727/737/757 ?
(Afterthought) Or did Big B widen the original -135 fuselage, which was (even) narrower than the 707/727/737/757 ?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's OK to bid for work...
...as long as Boeing wins. And if not them, another US builder. UK reply (I assume we might have got to build the wings) should be to cancel the JSF. We'll use the their rules of engagement and for good measure allow them to build their new embassy in Birmingham, Leicester or Bradford.
PM
PM
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We'll use the their rules of engagement and for good measure allow them to build their new embassy in Birmingham, Leicester or Bradford."
they've chosen to build it in battersea!
they've chosen to build it in battersea!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...as long as Boeing wins.
UK reply (I assume we might have got to build the wings) should be to cancel the JSF.
edited to add: given the time and money put into JSF, would that be a wise decision?
Given the published tanker RFP where, apparently, a smaller tanker was desired and EADS/N-G's decision to withdraw from the (this one - discounting the previous Boeing win and the previous EADS win) competition, why the trade war mutterings?
Last edited by brickhistory; 11th Mar 2010 at 15:50.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I would love trade disputes with the whole world. Then we would stop bleeding manufacturing jobs. There's very little Made in USA anymore. We import $6 of goods for every dollar of goods we export. It's unsustainable.
STATEMENT ON US REFUELING TANKER PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT
...........The US defense trade balance with the EU has traditionally been significantly in the US's favor. In 2008 the US exported $5 billion and imported only $2.2 billion worth of defense material, in line with a historic ratio of double exports to imports.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The UK and others in Europe buy copious numbers of C-130, C-17, JSF, F-16, AH-64, E3-As, CH-53s. I could go on. The concept of a little fair play and reciprocity would seem in order.
Protectionism
A platform the AAC did not want and surely to act as a stop gap for the UK’s helicopter manufacturing industry whilst awaiting the outcome of FRC medium as there were too few Merlin’s on the production line.
The RAF’s fleet of front line Tornado & Typhoon jets wouldn’t be built by BAE Systems in the UK would they?
Before anyone mentions Chinook / C-17 / Hercules – What choice did we have at the time to purchase anything other than US built platforms to meet the requirement?
1995 - Malcolm Rifkind rejects the advice of RAF chiefs and approves a mixed £1.2bn order for 22 British-built EH101 helicopters and 14 US Chinook helicopters - to protect UK jobs and the long-term future of the industry.
2005 – The Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) announced that the UK Government would favour UK manufactures in order to sustain critical helicopter design, manufacture and engineering skills in the UK.
2006 - The UK Government (Lord Drayson) rewards AW with a Strategic Partnership Agreement in order to safeguard UK jobs and skills retention.
2006 - The UK Government awards AW a sole source contract for the Future Lynx. (Lord Drayson “It will benefit the front line, British Industry, with over 800 jobs being sustained as a result, and the UK tax-payer, who will get excellent value for money from this programme.")
The RAF’s fleet of front line Tornado & Typhoon jets wouldn’t be built by BAE Systems in the UK would they?
Before anyone mentions Chinook / C-17 / Hercules – What choice did we have at the time to purchase anything other than US built platforms to meet the requirement?
And which manufacturer of yours will build the 'instead of JSF?'
It could well have been very successful - particularly as it would have been a Kingston design, rather than something nailed together by 't ferret fondlerrs of clog-and-whippet land*...
*For FNMs, that's banter, tha' knaws!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how much work has Northrop-Grumman got?
wonder if they will end up having to make redundancies how will their congressman explain that when he/she is up for reelection.
Wonder when it will occur to many European Govts that JSF actually doesn't meet their specifications or is to expensive?
wonder if they will end up having to make redundancies how will their congressman explain that when he/she is up for reelection.
Wonder when it will occur to many European Govts that JSF actually doesn't meet their specifications or is to expensive?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Work, or Welfare?
Nurse:
That's exactly the problem with military procurement. It's the abusive power flexed by the Military-Industrial Complex, just as we were warned by (General of the Armies, ret.) President Eisenhower in 1954.
Airlines - that have to make a profit to survive - buy the best plane for the job, regardless of source. And they bought over 1,000 757. Governments' decisions, OTOH, are based on politics and budget available, not common sense.
from wiki:
The 707, 720, 727, 737 and 757 all have the same fuselage. The 757 has a more aerodynamic nose, more like the DC-8. There is almost no more reliable plane than the 757 with RB-211 engines.
Put the 757 beside the KC-135R and you see a pretty good similarity. Although longer, the 757 will probably fit in most of the same hangars.
GB
So how much work has Northrop-Grumman got?
wonder if they will end up having to make redundancies how will their congressman explain that when he/she is up for reelection.
wonder if they will end up having to make redundancies how will their congressman explain that when he/she is up for reelection.
Airlines - that have to make a profit to survive - buy the best plane for the job, regardless of source. And they bought over 1,000 757. Governments' decisions, OTOH, are based on politics and budget available, not common sense.
from wiki:
The KC-135 is derived from the original Boeing jet transport "proof of concept" demonstrator, the Boeing 367-80 (commonly called the "Dash-80"). As such, it has a narrower fuselage and is shorter than the Boeing 707 jetliner. Boeing gave the tanker the designation of Model 717.[1] The 367-80 was the basic design for the commercial Boeing 707 passenger aircraft as well as the KC-135A Stratotanker.
Put the 757 beside the KC-135R and you see a pretty good similarity. Although longer, the 757 will probably fit in most of the same hangars.
GB
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The Economist: The best plane loses - Protectionism and defence procurement - Politics decided the contest to supply America’s new aerial fuel tanker
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 53
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I was looking into those so-called 'subsidies':
Boeing: Flying High in the Friendly Export Subsidies Sky - The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog
Boeing: Flying High in the Friendly Export Subsidies Sky - The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog
Hardly Never Not Unwilling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strategic weapons systems and key capabilities should be exempt from any WTO procurement constraints.
I have no problem with Europe deciding to build their own fighters, airlift, and tankers to the exclusion of American suppliers when they deem it to be in their strategic or economic interest to do so. By the same token, I think it wise for critical American defense needs to be supplied by American firms wherever possible.
The hard truth is we all may not always be friends, and shouldn't rely on others for our defense capability. That's just common sense.
I have no problem with Europe deciding to build their own fighters, airlift, and tankers to the exclusion of American suppliers when they deem it to be in their strategic or economic interest to do so. By the same token, I think it wise for critical American defense needs to be supplied by American firms wherever possible.
The hard truth is we all may not always be friends, and shouldn't rely on others for our defense capability. That's just common sense.
