Aviation & Simulation Topics
-
Rhino
- Posts: 746
- Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 1:40 am
- Location: KDVN
-
Contact:
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
Phantoms Phorever!
-
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
of course, Northrop Grumman and Boeing...competing again!
-
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.
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.
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
-
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!
-
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?
YSTB #1 Nick
YS Flight Thunderbirds
-
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
-
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