http://www.unitedstatestanker.com
In addition to the KC777, there is also a KC767 with winglets as well.
Printable View
http://www.unitedstatestanker.com
In addition to the KC777, there is also a KC767 with winglets as well.
Always wondered why Boeing just didn't go with the 777 for this role from the start. It would seem to me that she can hold more fuel anyway. The renditions look good too. That's one thing about the 777, she looks good in just about any color.
Holding fuel isn't an issue...Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
Its being able to fly slow enough to refuel everything... helos, props, etc...
Gather 'round kiddies, and let Uncle Moose tell you a story. Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and man thought water could burn, Boeing built a fleet of tankers for the Air Force. This was so long ago, some of them are even older than Uncle Moose. They served well, and continue to serve well, but the Air Force felt it was time to buy new tankers. So they went to Boeing, and said "We'll take some of those 767 airplanes, as our new tanker". But then a man who's even older than Uncle Moose :shock: said "No, that's not a good deal, you need to take another look at what tanker you buy."Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Bird76
So the next time, the Air Force prepared a Request (RFP) for new tankers, which clearly specified the required specifications for a new tanker. Boeing and EADS both submitted proposals. Boeing submitted a 767-based tanker, because their interpretation of the RFP (as well as statements made by AF leaders) led them to believe that it met the standards set forth in the RFP. EADS didn't have an aircraft that matched the RFP, so they proposed a A330-based tanker. This however, was larger (and more costly) than the 767 proposal. EADS then went to the AF, and said "If we don't get extra credit for surpassing the requirements, we won't even submit a bid". This despite the fact that the RFP made no provision for extra credit for surpassing the requirements. The Air Force, liking new, shiny toys, said "Hey, look at all the A330 can do, let's buy a bunch of them!" Unfortunately for EADS, Boeing was on to them, and protested the award. The protest was upheld, ruling that the Air Force didn't conduct their evaluation according to the rules of the requisition program, leaving us where we are today.
All that said, let me get around to answering Tommy's question. Yes, the 777 can carry more fuel and/or cargo than a 767 or A330. But the initial RFP had certain requirements, and the 767 best fit those. In addition to additional capacity, planners need to take into consideration things like airfield size, ramp space, force compatibility and maintenance facilities when choosing a new airframe. The 767 proposal would have given the Air Force new build tankers, with modern capability and an increased fuel capacity, while operating in a footprint not much larger than the KC-135. And remember, even the "smaller" KC-135 rarely launches with a full load or offloads it's maximum capacity - it's all about the requirements of the specific mission.
No one knows at this point what the new RFP will call for - will it look for a "mid-size" tanker that matches the 767, or will they say they want a bigger aircraft with more capacity? By offering a 777-based tanker, Boeing now has both ends covered.
Mark, I don't think refueling speed is much of an issue - we could (and I did) refuel C-130s out of the KC-135. I don't remember the A/R speed for the -130 (and my A/R manual is in the attic) but I can't image a 777 not being able to fly at an appropriate speed, even if it means some use of flaps. And I don't know if any of the proposed new tankers can refuel the helicopter fleet - as far as I know, they mostly get gas from C-130 tanker variants.
The 707 has a much lower stall speed, compared to the 777...Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
The 777 is a near-over powered beast... it wants to fly, especially with those GE90s on the wings...
Love the "United States" label they put on it. Not sure how Boeing can't win at this point. Boeing said yesterday that they would use basically off-the-shelf 767s or 777s for the new bid, unlike the "Frankentanker" they created for the first round, which was seemingly a bunch of parts jerryrigged together from various 767 and 777 types.
The EADS tanker has been having a ton of problems. First delivery to Australia has been delayed...they still have not figured out how to make the boom work, and there may not be a resolution until next year.
Ok...I think I understand but I'm very confused about one thing still.....someone's older than Uncle Moose? ;)
me like that! :D :D :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DHG750R
side note, moose did you get to explore that site? there looking for stories from tanker aircrews...
That's all well and good, but at what speed can it reasonably cruise? 200kts? 225kts? Again, I'll have to dig out the A/R manual, but I don't think those are unreasonable speed for the C-130 to refuel at.Quote:
Originally Posted by mmedford
Matt, I'll have to spend some time checking out the Boeing site - looks like it has some interesting stuff.
My only problem with all of this is the Moose's manual is in his attic. WTF!? Get it down!
the photo gallery has some pretty cool drawings of the KC-777 operating... the ones of the 767 and 777 are my fav. i love the winglets on the 767, though why didn't they use the wing off the 767-400? isn't that one more efficient than a winglett-ed one?Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
i think it's a pretty good idea to use a centerline boom and two drogues on the wing. saves time on the ground isntalling the basket onto the boom and have redundancy in the air. i don't see airbus ever getting a contract now, just hope that boeing doesn't screw the pooch this time.
and moose, i too am shocked you keep your manuals in the attic. tsk tsk tsk...
The 767-200 and -300 have a 156ft wingspan, the -400 has a 180ft wingspan. Going with winglets rather than the larger raked wingtips probably gives them somewhat similar performance, while reducing the footprint on the ramp.Quote:
Originally Posted by cancidas
OK, so I went and found my A/R manual...and remember, these are 20 years old, and I don't know if anything has changed with the R-model. The A/R speed for the C-130 is 200KIAS, the slowest of any of the receivers listed. Most "heavies" refuel at 255 - 295KIAS, with most fighters in the 305-335KIAS range. The A-10 being a notable exception, refueling at 220KIAS.
What determines those speeds?
Phil- (Moose- correct me if I'm wrong here) IIRC the published A/R event speeds
and altitudes are computed based on the performance limitations or requirements
of the recieving aircraft. Adjustments on the fly aren't unheard of, especially where
the safety or preservation of the reciever aircraft is concerned.
I've read several stories about fighter drags over to the sandbox for Desert Shield
where the tankers had to slow down to ~180 kt with a notch or two of flaps out,
in order to effectively drag and refuel A-10's across the pond. One quoted trip time
from Myrtle Beach to Rota, Spain was on the order of 11 hours. Makes for a long
night!
If you'd like, Moose, I can ping one of the IL Guard R model drivers I work with and
see what the differences are, at least between E and R models...
Wouldn't it be nice to see a 777 tanker with the folding wings similar to what Boeing had offered to the airlines? Not an option here apparently...
Tom
You're right, Brian, A/R speeds are based on the performance limits of the tanker and receiver, but we would make adjustments when needed (say a heavy-weight receiver). It would be interesting to see what the differences are with the R-model - as I said, I flew the old water wagons 20+ years ago. I know to a certain extent A/R is A/R, but I'm sure they've made a few changes over the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussman75
The problem with a wing-fold is that it adds weight and complexity when it may only be needed at a limited number of locations. You end up reducing the effective fuel load (and therefore offload capability) for something that may have limited use. On the A-frames, we didn't have reverse thrust - it would have meant a couple thousand pounds less fuel we could give to a B-52 over some cold, desolate part of the world. The E-models had it, but that was in part because they used old 707 engines where it was already engineered in. I don't believe the R-models have reverse thrust either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Turner
Let me talk to my driver bud here and I'll PM you with some E and R model goods, Moose...Quote:
Originally Posted by moose135
Right on the money, Moose. I'm told that SAC (being the OPR for the R- model conversion program back in the earlyQuote:
Originally Posted by moose135
'80s) deleted the reverser option early on because most of the command's bases had runways that would be sufficient length for an aborted takeoff, even at it's non- wartime 322,500lb MTOW. The R conversion also included (IIRC) 5-rotor brake stacks which were significantly more powerful than those on the A.
Interesting tidbit about the no reverser config, was that it actually cost MORE to have CFM and Boeing design the reversers OUT of the cowl instead of leaving them in place with the sleeves permanently pinned and no actuating equipment fitted. Standard AF solution to a problem that didn't exist! :mrgreen:
Yeah, but like I said, you don't need to be hauling that extra weight around if you don't need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hussman75
Very true...
Looks impressive I think my lot (RAF) still use VC10s and victors as tankers.
Close! The RAF does still operate several VC-10's, but the Victor bowed out in 1993 or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetinder
The L-1011 is still very active with the RAF as both a transport and refueler though, and most have
been fitted with a Missile Launch Warning System, as well as several (3 for sure, but could be 4) LAIRCM
turrets. I've seen quite a few pictures of RAF TriStars operating into and out of both Bagram and Kandahar,
all equipped with launch protection gear.