KC767

Congrats to the Seahawk fans and the U.S., for picking the Boeing product !!!!!!!!!!


I do not understand why the A.F., did not want a larger tanker, based on the 777 ? I realize the 767, can operate from smaller runways.




I 'guess' they did the math, and determined the smaller platform offered a better long term deal.

 

The Boeing airplane was put through a stringent weight reduction program to lower the mission fuel burn which would allow more fuel on board. The airplane will fit all existing airfield support equipment and is compatible with all existing runways throughout the world, that will enhance mission flexibility. The war fighters said that they didn't need an airplane that was larger and could carry everything but the kitchen sink, they want more booms in the air to deliver fuel faster wherever it is needed. The Boeing airplane came in at a lower unit cost and lower life long fuel burn than EADS A330 which is a fuel hog. The 767 line is up and running with EXPERIENCED PEOPLE and the startup will be short and simple and in house in the USA. This airplane is a tanker by definition, not a cargo/tanker or a tanker/cargo. A tanker that can also carry a few people just like the KC-97 and KC-135.

 

You won't see the wing tip devices on the production tanker, too heavy for the minimum increase in performance.

 

Are they doing away with the KC-135 altogether?

 

Actually the 757 would have made a really great tanker since it has a narrower fuselage and is a lot more efficient airframe. Since the 757 line was closed it was a moot point, but had it been available it would have made a great tanker.

 

I would 'guess' the B-52H fleet, is in much better mechanical shape, when compared to the KC-135.

The KC-135 went to Vietnam and was also used by tactical units during the Cold War. Of course, the B-52H, also used the KC-135A/E/R, while it served with SAC - and today's units.




The B-52H, sat alert during both the Vietnam War and Cold War. The B-52H airframes have low hours, when compared to the KC-135E and KC-135R.




I hope we are all still alive, by the time the Air Force retires the last 707/KC-135/RC/E-3/Joint stars airframe. I am not sure I would take that bet .

 

The B-52 has had extensive rework to beef up the wing skins and other fixes to extend its life. The KC-135 has not benefited from that and has soldiered on for almost 60 years as it was designed. I recall some air force guys telling me that it was the " Cadillac of the air force". I was in charge of the wiring and plumbing installation drawings in the wing, struts, engines, and keel beam and those installations are the same as they were when they were installed back then on the original. The B-52 had to be modified to accommodate the change in its mission from very high altitude smooth air to lower altitude gust loads. I still can't believe that I worked on both those airplanes when I was a kid of 24 and they are still in service and I'm not.

 

Bob,
Forgive my lack of aviation knowledge, but are you referring to the tank-like pieces hanging under the wing, or the up-swept wing tips?

My understanding is that the up-swept wing tip increases the efficiency and overall lift of the wing.
Is the tank-like device hanging from the wings offering a small amount of increased fuel capacity?

 

Spasso answered your question...beat me to it. These days just about anybody can do that.

 

Well there are around 450 KC-135s now. The total order is for 179 of the new tanker with 18 of them delivered in 2017. That leaves a pretty big gap.

 

Yes the 767 carries more if you want to put stuff on the upper deck. Problem is, when you are doing the tanker mission, you have so much fuel weight that the upper deck HAS to be empty. Since a very high percentage of the missions for the aircraft are fuel delivery, you pay a penalty on almost every flight for the fatter fuselage. I went on a NG tanker mission once as an observer and when we got into the 135, it was just a big hole in the sky with nothing in it, all of the fuel was under the cargo floor. And remember, the KC-135 didn't have the same fuselage width as the 707 for the same reason. Lower drag meant more efficient fuel delivery.

The right thing to do would have been to do a mix of 757 and 767 aircraft so that you have the surge cargo capacity that you need and a tanker that delivered a higher percentage of it's fuel to the fighters. That option went away when the 757 line closed a few years ago, but back in 2001 I was working on tanker replacement and there were some folks advocating this approach.

You could have had a high commonality with all of the systems, so the logistics woudn't have been as big a nightmare as you would think, and it would have saved a lot of gas.

The last thing I saw was that the cost of fuel for a fighter in theater was about $145/gallon. About 96% of that was the cost of getting it there so a more efficient tanker would have saved a bundle.

 

We'll see about that. The Seattle 767 line is just bare aircraft, they get configured elsewhere, not in Seattle.

Boeing doesn't have a good track record with 767 tanker delivery currently. They are 5 years late in delivering a 767 tanker to Italy, and 3 years late in delivering to Japan (and a boom only tanker). These late deliveries don't factor when these orders were even placed, in which case add another 3 and 4 years respectively.

Short and simple? Not even close. And there is history to prove it unfortunately.

 

I was not talking about an ad hoc fragmented thin team of over worked people who were faced with numerous and often conflicting mid-stream changes. I used to work with the engineering team that put this configuration together and it is a well planned and thought out proposal by the best guys in the business. As far as the assembly line goes, aside from the discreet tanker items, it is ALREADY RUNNING and producing the 767 airframe. An assembly line has already been dedicated to tanker production, tooling is already in existence, and most important, a team of very good and EXPERIENCED mechanics is in place. The design team and manufacturing program is a cohesive and closely coordinated plan that will be executed in the Everett plant ,U.S.A., and the Wichita facility, U.S.A. This will not be a repeat of the 787. Just watch.
There was a comment in the newspaper this morning by one of the Alabama types who said that they weren't just a cow pasture down there because "we can build boats and cars." Therein lies a vivd illustration of the failures in the 787 plan and the dismissal of the importance of well trained and experienced AIRPLANE PEOPLE. We ain't building cars and boats.

 

The 787 is a management debacle in and of itself, a different thread.

Airbus's proposal to be up and running as quick as they claimed was laughable at best too.

However, Boeing's track record in the military business regarding delivering the goods as sold and within the time frames promised is basically piss poor. The ABL, the 767 Tankers to Japan/Italy, the Border fence, the Australian Wedgetail 737, all of these programs are very far behind schedule.

It's not surprising that things can run behind schedule, it happens - but these programs I'm pointing out are all vastly behind schedule, over budget, and have generally failed to deliver what they were supposed to in the time frame required.

And before anyone goes and points to the various components coming from other outsourced partners, in the end, Boeing is the one leading and running these programs. As pointed out in a thread in the Silver Subscribed section, where a GM car was an example - as a buyer, you don't care which supplier dropped the ball, or who's part that failed on the car. In the end, it's a GM product, they put it all together, they managed the process.

I'm not trying to piss all over Boeing, but as a fan of the company AND a stockholder, their track record leaves a lot to be desired. Especially in the military group which the 767 falls under.

If the 767 tankers were so trivial to build, Boeing could have built one for the competition and put it into a temp service arrangement with the USAF - it would have been a win-win since the plane is technically flying, and the contract worth so much. They didn't, and there's a reason for that. Tankers aren't trivial apparently.

 

Good point.... It's funny, all the users raved about the operating economics of the 757 and they wanted that kind of fuel burn per seat mile, and then they griped about the 757 because it doesn't carry enough pax.... as Homer Simpson would say... DOH!!!!