The New KC-767

Aviation & Simulation Topics
Post Reply
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

The New KC-767

Post by Rhino » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:19 pm

Air Force has a competition with Boeing and Northrop-Grumman/Airbus to create basically a replacement to the aging KC-135 fleet. Boeing plans to fit both the 767 and 777 to be refuelers. Check out Boeing's "sales pitch" for the KC-767.

http://www.boeing.com/ids/globaltanker/ ... tBrief.pdf
Image
Phantoms Phorever!
User avatar
Tailhook
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by Tailhook » Thu Feb 15, 2007 2:03 pm

holy...thats gotta be HUGE :D

of course, Northrop Grumman and Boeing...competing again!
Image
RFDGuy
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:32 am

Post by RFDGuy » Fri Feb 16, 2007 1:14 am

Thanks for posting that link Rhino.....very interesting to see how Boeing pitched this to the Govt.
necigrad
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Sin City

Post by necigrad » Fri Feb 16, 2007 3:31 pm

I thought I heard somewhere that the AF didn't want a 2 engine tanker. Was that old thinking perhaps? Or did I just imagine it?
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Post by Rhino » Fri Feb 16, 2007 5:15 pm

necigrad wrote:I thought I heard somewhere that the AF didn't want a 2 engine tanker. Was that old thinking perhaps? Or did I just imagine it?
You have to wonder with that mentality, what else is there out there that doesnt already have mass airframe time. They do use the DC-10, but that is hoped to be phased out and "re-done" with a tanker version of the 777. With the exception of the 747, A340, and A380, i cant really think of any jets that size that arent 2 engined.
Image
Phantoms Phorever!
RFDGuy
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:32 am

Post by RFDGuy » Sat Feb 17, 2007 3:16 am

I believe the only options available are 2 engine aircraft. And with as reliable and efficient the current two engine aircraft are, no need to waste more gas on getting the gas somewhere.
Rhino
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
Location: KDVN
Contact:

Post by Rhino » Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:42 am

The other thing is that Boeing's idea with the 767 is to have it have a more short takeoff and landing capability, so it can get into the smaller airports and bases around the world.
Image
Phantoms Phorever!
necigrad
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:52 pm
Location: Sin City

Post by necigrad » Sat Feb 17, 2007 10:56 pm

There is the 747 and A340. And imagine the lift capability of the A380 or 747-800! You could probably move 2 full squadrons. It's just something that I'd heard, probably 5 years or so ago. I'm guessing the idea was that with all that fuel they didn't want to lose 50% of the thrust or something.
6558796
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:25 pm

Post by 6558796 » Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:08 pm

Cool, there you go, more kc planes
YSTB #1 Nick
YS Flight Thunderbirds
User avatar
Lawndart
Virtual Thunderbird
Posts: 9290
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:36 am
Location: Mooresville, NC

Post by Lawndart » Thu Feb 22, 2007 8:14 pm

6558796 wrote:Cool, there you go, more kc planes
OMG, DIZ R0X0RZ TEH BIG ONE111! :shock: :wink:
6558796
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:25 pm

Post by 6558796 » Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:42 am

MMM What exactly did you just say? :lol: :?:
YSTB #1 Nick
YS Flight Thunderbirds
User avatar
Tailhook
Virtual Thunderbird Alumnus
Posts: 1052
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by Tailhook » Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:58 pm

6558796 wrote:MMM What exactly did you just say? :lol: :?:
What he meant to say was "Dat big bird pwns the shizzle out of the hizzle on da phat runway mah grizzle. :lol: :lol:
Image
scooter
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:32 am
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Contact:

Post by scooter » Sat Mar 24, 2007 12:18 am

MMM What exactly did you just say?
haha, reference the Posting video in the Forum Rules sticky and you shall soon see what he was saying...

Scooter
Post Reply