Boeing introduces the KC777

[Tom_Turner]

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

[moose135]

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...

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.

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...

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.

[Hussman75]

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.

Let me talk to my driver bud here and I'll PM you with some E and R model goods, Moose...

I don't believe the R-models have reverse thrust either.

Right on the money, Moose. I'm told that SAC (being the OPR for the R- model conversion program back in the early
'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:

[moose135]

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.

[Hussman75]

Very true...

[Jetinder]

Looks impressive I think my lot (RAF) still use VC10s and victors as tankers.

[Hussman75]

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.

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.