USAF Asks to Shrink Tanker Fleet.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
The thread seems to be digressing - the point being the numbers rather than the future types (though the whole next generation manned platform/drone wingman system rather than platform may be spreading out to confuse the issue for the KC-Z programme numbers.)
It's still funny how this moves around in circles for so long while it could be solved with big business for everybody.
Something else I don't understand is why Boeing has not used to beef up the commercial passenger 767 using tanker modifications, like a new cockpit? It could be some robust low cost people mover below the fancy 787.
Something else I don't understand is why Boeing has not used to beef up the commercial passenger 767 using tanker modifications, like a new cockpit? It could be some robust low cost people mover below the fancy 787.
They NEED to sell 787's not spend money on 767's - they'd be cannibalising their own market.
It's still funny how this moves around in circles for so long while it could be solved with big business for everybody.
Something else I don't understand is why Boeing has not used to beef up the commercial passenger 767 using tanker modifications, like a new cockpit? It could be some robust low cost people mover below the fancy 787.
Something else I don't understand is why Boeing has not used to beef up the commercial passenger 767 using tanker modifications, like a new cockpit? It could be some robust low cost people mover below the fancy 787.
The real problem with the 767 for passenger service is the fuel burn is too high - it needs new engines (10% fuel burn minimum - probably closer to 15%). Problem is such a state of the art engine in the required 50k-60k thrust class doesn't exist. They get away with the fuel burn for the KC-46 and 767F because they don't fly 10-12 hours per day, so the fuel burn is a smaller part of the cost of operation.
