Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: new york
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
Last edited by Rubicks13; 4th Mar 2010 at 18:38.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm being sarcastic here, in case you miss the point ...
So, it's a fairly modern airliner with, apparently, a boom and 2 hose pods.
Your point is what?
So, it's a fairly modern airliner with, apparently, a boom and 2 hose pods.
Your point is what?
How apt that the 'son of Frankentanker' should have a 7-late-7 cockpit - presumably ol' Bubba Boeing just wants to raise the cost / risk levels even higher than they already are today.....
Looks like they've assumed that the pods still won't work - no hoses extended in that artist's impression, I see....
Looks like they've assumed that the pods still won't work - no hoses extended in that artist's impression, I see....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have assessed this new aircraft, and it is far superior to the NG offering.
This new Boeing proposal will win all hands down. It is so much cheaper too. No contest really!
Oops, I went into congress mode there for a bit. I suppose I should go and actually read the article now!
This new Boeing proposal will win all hands down. It is so much cheaper too. No contest really!
Oops, I went into congress mode there for a bit. I suppose I should go and actually read the article now!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Key points...
KC767 New Frankentanker "Will" meet the requirements (Note no timescales mentioned so one would assume that since the Italian aircraft are still not certified and fully capable 4 years late, then this will suffer in a similar way)
Lets see..
Refuelling pods and centreline Hose - No certified operational capability.
787 based components - 787 is way late also.
Refuelling heritage - The KC-135 was built by them, but the refuelling system (Hose and drogue) was supplied by the UK's Flight Refuelling Ltd (FRL).
KC-10 Extender Hose and Drogue - FRL
MC-130H Hose and Drogue - FRL
A330 Hose and Drogue - FRL
The 767 systems are supplied by GE/Smiths.
tell me again about heritage???
Bubba - Puh-leeze don't speak to us about refuelling heritage, to coin your own phrase "You don't got none"
KC767 New Frankentanker "Will" meet the requirements (Note no timescales mentioned so one would assume that since the Italian aircraft are still not certified and fully capable 4 years late, then this will suffer in a similar way)
Lets see..
Refuelling pods and centreline Hose - No certified operational capability.
787 based components - 787 is way late also.
Refuelling heritage - The KC-135 was built by them, but the refuelling system (Hose and drogue) was supplied by the UK's Flight Refuelling Ltd (FRL).
KC-10 Extender Hose and Drogue - FRL
MC-130H Hose and Drogue - FRL
A330 Hose and Drogue - FRL
The 767 systems are supplied by GE/Smiths.
tell me again about heritage???
Bubba - Puh-leeze don't speak to us about refuelling heritage, to coin your own phrase "You don't got none"
Last edited by Flyt3est; 8th Mar 2010 at 09:42.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I note the comment about the trouble with the Italian tanker wing hoses being flutter. So their solution has been to use the -400 wing and put winglets on it.
So, new wing/fuselage combo with the undercarriage of another, the 787 cockpit and a brand new boom type.
And the first aircraft due for delivery in 2012.
Good luck.....
So, new wing/fuselage combo with the undercarriage of another, the 787 cockpit and a brand new boom type.
And the first aircraft due for delivery in 2012.
Good luck.....
It is simply untrue to say that the Italian aircraft are 4 years late.
It's actually 5 years late. Although to be fair, ol' Bubba Boeing has been using 3 of the Italian aircraft during their futile attempts to get the wing hose and centreline hose systems to work. Still, a bit of a wash and polish, vacuum out the interior and zero the odometer and they'll be as good as new, eh Bubba....
?
Flyt3est, you forgot to add that the world's only 21st Century multi-hose tankers, the A310 MRTT and CC150T Polaris, also have FRL pods. A mild level of drogue nutation was fixed in about 3 days several years ago and the aircraft is a very stable AAR platform.
But if the USAF is stupid enough to plump for ol' Bubba Boeing's virtual Frankentanker, then those clapped-out old 135s will have to stagger on for a few more years yet. 2012? YGBSM as they say.
Does Boeing actually have enough people who know what they're doing to sort out all these late programmes of theirs?
It's actually 5 years late. Although to be fair, ol' Bubba Boeing has been using 3 of the Italian aircraft during their futile attempts to get the wing hose and centreline hose systems to work. Still, a bit of a wash and polish, vacuum out the interior and zero the odometer and they'll be as good as new, eh Bubba....
?Flyt3est, you forgot to add that the world's only 21st Century multi-hose tankers, the A310 MRTT and CC150T Polaris, also have FRL pods. A mild level of drogue nutation was fixed in about 3 days several years ago and the aircraft is a very stable AAR platform.
But if the USAF is stupid enough to plump for ol' Bubba Boeing's virtual Frankentanker, then those clapped-out old 135s will have to stagger on for a few more years yet. 2012? YGBSM as they say.
Does Boeing actually have enough people who know what they're doing to sort out all these late programmes of theirs?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Monkeys ride bikes, ever seen one fix a puncture??
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard (Or was that "Started") a rumour that Boeing are going to open a 250,000 sq ft facility in Wa state to house their "Get well planning and Program recovery" department!! 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Sorry that's first flight. Stilll a hell of a schedule for something off the drawing board. Less than 18 months from contract award to first flight.
Tanker schedule:
Tanker schedule:
- 2012: KC-X first flight.
- 2013: Seven KC-X tankers in production.
- 2015: Delivery of first tanker to Air Force.
- 2017: 18 delivered and IOC.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True enough regarding FRL's outstanding innovation and technology regarding aerial refueling equipment.
As a counterweight to the snideness, I'm curious how much of that technology is on British-designed/built/operating tankers? Or are you happy enough to pull up behind some decrepit -135 or -10 using that gear?
As long as you are at it, talk to me about the angled carrier deck, the gyro-stablized mirrored landing system, and the steam catapult. Fantastic innovations. And....?
If Boeing's entry meets the requirements, I hope they win.
If the EADS product is better and cheaper, then I've no heartburn if they win.
But, I'd rather have US control, if needed, of the mother company than not.
How much bandwidth has been used regarding that very point from the Euro-side of the Atlantic when purchasing US-made gear?
As a counterweight to the snideness, I'm curious how much of that technology is on British-designed/built/operating tankers? Or are you happy enough to pull up behind some decrepit -135 or -10 using that gear?
As long as you are at it, talk to me about the angled carrier deck, the gyro-stablized mirrored landing system, and the steam catapult. Fantastic innovations. And....?
If Boeing's entry meets the requirements, I hope they win.
If the EADS product is better and cheaper, then I've no heartburn if they win.
But, I'd rather have US control, if needed, of the mother company than not.
How much bandwidth has been used regarding that very point from the Euro-side of the Atlantic when purchasing US-made gear?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well done fella !
G'night, everybody! Drive safe...
A bit of SM-62 going on in the comments on Ares after a Boeing flack chimed in...
New Pic and Update: Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
And while we're at it, let's ask the Italians how they define "combat ready". I suspect we shall learn lots of useful Italian words that not even the Pope knows.
Also, the proposed tanker is not exactly combat-ready by any definition - let's wait until you've won the contract, built it and tested it before we start talking about that.
With the modded -400 wing, the -200 body and the 787 flight deck, it's not so much Frankentanker as Johnny Cash's Cadillac...
The transmission was a '53
And the motor turned out to be a '73
And when we tried to put in the bolts all the holes were gone.
So we drilled it out so that it would fit
And with a little bit of help with an A-daptor kit
We had that engine runnin' just like a song
Now the headlight' was another sight
We had two on the left and one on the right
But when we pulled out the switch all three of 'em come on...
New Pic and Update: Boeing Unveils 767 Tanker Design
And while we're at it, let's ask the Italians how they define "combat ready". I suspect we shall learn lots of useful Italian words that not even the Pope knows.
Also, the proposed tanker is not exactly combat-ready by any definition - let's wait until you've won the contract, built it and tested it before we start talking about that.
With the modded -400 wing, the -200 body and the 787 flight deck, it's not so much Frankentanker as Johnny Cash's Cadillac...
The transmission was a '53
And the motor turned out to be a '73
And when we tried to put in the bolts all the holes were gone.
So we drilled it out so that it would fit
And with a little bit of help with an A-daptor kit
We had that engine runnin' just like a song
Now the headlight' was another sight
We had two on the left and one on the right
But when we pulled out the switch all three of 'em come on...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: US
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yawn, and so brickhisory kicks off another US v UK/Europe p!ss!ing contest, well done fella !
Pot. Kettle. Comm check.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Canadian Shield
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't they just re-manufacture the KC-135s with updated engines / avionics. 
Save a bundle on training too.
See the remaining B-52s already have the grandchildren of their original pilots at the controls (for Kentucky Air National Guard, read great-great-grandchildren).
Save a bundle on training too.See the remaining B-52s already have the grandchildren of their original pilots at the controls (for Kentucky Air National Guard, read great-great-grandchildren).
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brickhistory, seems to have changed recently, but his point about buying from your own side of the Atlantic or not is a very good one. It is just a shame he has the facts wrong on it IMHO.
From what I see (being on the East side of the Atlantic), the British forces often want the best kit for the job, rather than something just because it is made in the UK (most of you will be well versed in this, but it seems that brick has not noticed).
I also feel that the 'must be made in the USA' concept on the West of the Atlantic is also a fairly new idea (relatively speaking).
There are hundreds of examples of U.S, forces using other countries ideas or kit throughout time. This seems to have changed to only buying home grown kit at about the same time that 'worlds fastest/largest/biggest etc records came to mean 'in the USA' rather than 'in the world'
If that is as clear as mud, then a quick example is the CH54, often touted as the biggest and heaviest lifting helicopter in the world on U.S TV and in U.S. books
You only need to stand a CH54 next to a Mi26 to get the idea.
I am not trying to willy wave here, and in fact there are many American authors who have written books on the flawed U.S. procurement system, and how it had led to many useless systems being favoured (in a similar way to our often illogical procurement system over here).
From my position of limited knowledge on tankers, it seems that both Boeing and Airbus make good aircraft (the airlines like both). The 135 was a best seller when it was introduced and sold on both sides of the pond (even the French bought them). Now there is an urgent need for a tanker, and Airbus have one flying (which can be built in the US and provide jobs to Americans).
Boeing plan to have a rival, but its not even at prototype stage, and yet it seems that there are many in the USA who are already saying it should win the contest, and is better and cheaper!, even though it is not in production, has no real in service date, and no fixed cost (as in adhered to).
In a sad way, this reminds me of the Olympics of years past, where Adolf Hitler was disgusted because a non German won a race, purely because of where the runner had come from, and not the fact that he was actually the fastest. For my money, that time was America at its best, and winning by having the best runner, and clearly demonstrating the absurdity of politics, when it tries to interfere to swing an outcome of a contest.
From what I see (being on the East side of the Atlantic), the British forces often want the best kit for the job, rather than something just because it is made in the UK (most of you will be well versed in this, but it seems that brick has not noticed).
I also feel that the 'must be made in the USA' concept on the West of the Atlantic is also a fairly new idea (relatively speaking).
There are hundreds of examples of U.S, forces using other countries ideas or kit throughout time. This seems to have changed to only buying home grown kit at about the same time that 'worlds fastest/largest/biggest etc records came to mean 'in the USA' rather than 'in the world'
If that is as clear as mud, then a quick example is the CH54, often touted as the biggest and heaviest lifting helicopter in the world on U.S TV and in U.S. books
You only need to stand a CH54 next to a Mi26 to get the idea.
I am not trying to willy wave here, and in fact there are many American authors who have written books on the flawed U.S. procurement system, and how it had led to many useless systems being favoured (in a similar way to our often illogical procurement system over here).
From my position of limited knowledge on tankers, it seems that both Boeing and Airbus make good aircraft (the airlines like both). The 135 was a best seller when it was introduced and sold on both sides of the pond (even the French bought them). Now there is an urgent need for a tanker, and Airbus have one flying (which can be built in the US and provide jobs to Americans).
Boeing plan to have a rival, but its not even at prototype stage, and yet it seems that there are many in the USA who are already saying it should win the contest, and is better and cheaper!, even though it is not in production, has no real in service date, and no fixed cost (as in adhered to).
In a sad way, this reminds me of the Olympics of years past, where Adolf Hitler was disgusted because a non German won a race, purely because of where the runner had come from, and not the fact that he was actually the fastest. For my money, that time was America at its best, and winning by having the best runner, and clearly demonstrating the absurdity of politics, when it tries to interfere to swing an outcome of a contest.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
barnstormer, I'm all for the best equipment that meets the mission.
If, given a choice, that equipment can be made domestically and keeps a vital industrial base intact, I'm even more for that. That is my only point.
I stand by not being able to judge the two contenders on their technical merits as I don't have the expertise to do so.
But that comparison needs to be on what the RFP states.
Again and again and again apparently. edited add: this refers to the multiple issuances of the RFP to the current situation where each bidder has won it once. FUBAR'd is an understatement.
If, given a choice, that equipment can be made domestically and keeps a vital industrial base intact, I'm even more for that. That is my only point.
I stand by not being able to judge the two contenders on their technical merits as I don't have the expertise to do so.
But that comparison needs to be on what the RFP states.
Again and again and again apparently. edited add: this refers to the multiple issuances of the RFP to the current situation where each bidder has won it once. FUBAR'd is an understatement.
Last edited by brickhistory; 5th Mar 2010 at 17:37.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by brickhistory
True enough regarding FRL's outstanding innovation and technology regarding aerial refueling equipment.
Originally Posted by flyt3est
MC-130H Hose and Drogue - FRL
As for the rest of this - I could care less about the political and national squabbling over whose is best. The only one suffering is the customer...
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Outside the EU on a small Island
Age: 79
Posts: 529
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ US Herk ... I agree with your last part completely. Who cares who produces the best possible for the Military? Certainly not the pork-barrel politicos on both sides of the Pond.