BoeingBus From United States, joined May 2004, 1565 posts, RR: 17 Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10221 times:
I thought I would share this out to you... very interesting from perspective that Boeing was premature in closing the MD-11 line. I always thought this merger was a mistake...
"Boeing has made one great, unreported blunder in this battle of refueling tankers that places it in jeopardy of losing this sale. Right after the ink dried on the deal acquiring McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing sent a wrecking crew into the MD-11 facility in Long Beach, Calif., and destroyed the tooling for all versions of this aircraft series. It is fiscally prohibitive to relaunch this platform that had performed extremely well as a freighter and would have made an outstanding tanker candidate.
The MD-11 freighter, of which only 57 were built, carries 86 tons of cargo. It compares more than favorably with the A330, plus it has three engines to the Airbus' two. The military always prefers extra engines as they are exposed to hostile fire. I have spoken to Los Angeles-based Boeing executives who admit they made a critical mistake in destroying the MD-11 freighter tooling."
TPASXM787 From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 42 Reply 1, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10097 times:
I think that this may be another example of Boeing's past mistakes. If the military chooses the 767 and it is inferior then it is a huge mistake. While I admit to not being a huge Douglas fan, the -11 does have great range and the extra engine is an added bonus, especially of one takes a hit. IF Airbus is the superior product...then Airbus it is. The thing the A330 doesn't solve is it still only has two engines.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9958 times:
>> The MD-11 freighter, of which only 57 were built, carries 86 tons of cargo. It compares more than favorably with the A330, plus it has three engines to the Airbus' two.
Ooh... it has more, it must be better
>> If the military chooses the 767 and it is inferior then it is a huge mistake. While I admit to not being a huge Douglas fan, the -11 does have great range and the extra engine is an added bonus, especially of one takes a hit
What are you smoking? I mean really, KC-11 tanker? Are you deranged or have you just been ignoring the whole tanker competition?
Aside from being completly unsuitable for a KC-135 replacement, this whole "extra engine" thing is complete BS.
>> I have spoken to Los Angeles-based Boeing executives who admit they made a critical mistake in destroying the MD-11 freighter tooling
It also boosted the return on the 777, what a mistake.
MidnightMike From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 37 Reply 4, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9923 times:
When the MD11 line came to an end, I do not believe that the tanker program was open for bidding. Besides, like the A330, the MD11 would have been to much of an aircraft to replace the KC135, where the 767, is just about the perfect size. If the military needed a larger airplane, they would be looking at 747's, 777's.
Tnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 9876 times:
When is the last time a KC-135 or KC-10 took a hit during combat operations? I don't think that it's a real risk except for the folks flying the KC-130s supporting the special forces helicopters and the Marines.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9478 times:
Quoting BoeingBus (Thread starter): Right after the ink dried on the deal acquiring McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing sent a wrecking crew into the MD-11 facility in Long Beach, Calif., and destroyed the tooling for all versions of this aircraft series
That is an extreme overexagerration. Once the ink dried, Boeing did stop marketing the MD-11 as a passenger transport as it competed with the 777. However Boeing did intend to keep the line open to produce cargo planes as they knew that it was a successful airplane in that category. The reason that they eventually shut it down was that it was not getting enough orders from cargo carriers to keep the line running at a sustainable rate. Now yes they might regret the decision now since cargo transportation has picked up tremendously in recent years and the 747 and A300 were the only cargo planes still being built in decent quantity. Both of the designs are old and inefficient, but that might change with the new A380 and 772F.
My job is to make it so your flight is not delayed. Come fly the friendly skies!
CMD777300ER From United States, joined Jun 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9453 times:
What was Boeing thinking to destroy the MD-11 line? After the papers were signed with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing owned the line. Hence Boeing destroyed their own production line! But enough dwelling on the past. Boeing needs to look to the future for future sales. I am a Boeing fan, but I never thought the 767 would make a good tanker. However, I believe the U.S. Military would be making a wiser decision to purchase Boeing aircraft.
From an economical point-of-view:
American tax payers would buy the tankers from an American manufacturer. The production would provide American jobs and money back into American wallets.
Quote: The military always prefers extra engines as they are exposed to hostile fire.
^This may only apply to tankers on approach or takeoff in hostile environments. Besides, the military would only acquire two engines whether they bought the 767 or A330.
The KC-11 would have been the best choice to replace the KC-10. Both are workhorses that operate with the General Electric CF6 engines. The KC-11 is an updated version of the KC-10 with its new glass cockpit and newer avionics than the 767. The KC-11 also positively outperforms the A330 and 767 aircraft. I talked to a DC-10-30 mechanic in December 2003. He told me that the McDonnell Douglas aircraft has better wiring than the "cheaply" built Airbuses. The military wants something dependable and not disposable.
Its no wonder why the McDonnell Douglas aircraft have been in service for so long...and that's not only in military hours!
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 27 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9328 times:
Quoting CMD777300ER (Reply 8): The KC-11 would have been the best choice to replace the KC-10
I never read anywhere that the military is wanting to replace the KC-10. The planes that need to be replaced are the KC-135s which are based of the 707. The KC-10 is just too much plane to fully replace the KC-135. The 767 was the original replacement for the 707, so it makes sense that it will be a good tanker replacement too.
Another point is that if Airbus is willing to build a whole new factory in the United States to build the A330 tanker, then you would expect that Boeing would be able to bring back the MD-11 if the contract was worth enough. But of course the Air Force does not want the MD-11.
The only problem is that the 762 is a design that is over 20 years old, and 20 years down the line, it will be a costly outdated design with expensive repairs. I honestly think that by the time the decision is made, that the 787 will be around. The 787 is replacing the 767, so it would be the best move, but I guess I am dreaming.
My job is to make it so your flight is not delayed. Come fly the friendly skies!
BCAInfoSys From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9298 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): I honestly think that by the time the decision is made, that the 787 will be around. The 787 is replacing the 767, so it would be the best move, but I guess I am dreaming.
We have said over and over again, there will NOT be a 787 tanker. It is too optimized as a commercial aircraft to be a suitable tanker derivative. It's just not gonna happen.
And on a sad note, I've heard some internal talk that the contract is all be destined for Airbus. I would love to see the KC-767 in USAF colors, but I'm pretty sure we're going to see a KC-330.
I know that, and it is just a dream to think that the military would fly the dreamliner. But then, who ever thought that the 777 was going to become a freighter in the 90s when Boeing was pushing the 747?
[Edited 2005-06-22 19:20:32]
My job is to make it so your flight is not delayed. Come fly the friendly skies!
BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2496 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9103 times:
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 10): It is too optimized as a commercial aircraft to be a suitable tanker derivative. It's just not gonna happen.
How can it be too optimised? The B707, DC10, VC10 and L1011 were also optimised as commercial aircraft, yet they fly happily as tankers. What specific aspect of the 787 makes it unsuitable?
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9903 posts, RR: 73 Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9072 times:
I would love to see the KC-767 in USAF colors, but I'm pretty sure we're going to see a KC-330.
Logic aside - since it sounds like the 330 may be a better candidate - I can't for the life of me imagine that the U.S. government would turn away from Boeing in favor of Airbus on this - the cost in political capital will be far too great for many.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9015 times:
>> How can it be too optimised? The B707, DC10, VC10 and L1011 were also optimised as commercial aircraft, yet they fly happily as tankers. What specific aspect of the 787 makes it unsuitable?
The carbon laminate fuselage supposidly makes it difficult to cut the fuselage extensions needed for a refueling system and system integration is difficult. I doubt it is impossible, but the ROI (for Boeing) would likely be less than the 767.
Not to mention, where can Boeing just fit the USAF into the heavily booked 787 production?
DarthRandall From United States, joined Mar 2005, 302 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8937 times:
Quoting Tnsaf (Reply 5): When is the last time a KC-135 or KC-10 took a hit during combat operations? I don't think that it's a real risk except for the folks flying the KC-130s supporting the special forces helicopters and the Marines.
Indeed, it is a rare occasion when a KC-135 takes fire. For that to happen, it would require a monumental failure on the part of the flights in the air and the controlers on the ground. Even in that astronomically unlikely event, a third engine would not make much of a difference since nobody uses cannons air-to-air anymore and an AA-11 will likely obliterate anything carrying that much fuel. The threat of bird strikes would be the only concievable reason I could imagine for the Air Force to prefer a three-engined plane to a two-engined plane.
Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads all the time and don't even think twice about it.
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8807 times:
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 10): And on a sad note, I've heard some internal talk that the contract is all be destined for Airbus. I would love to see the KC-767 in USAF colors, but I'm pretty sure we're going to see a KC-330
BOS2LAF From United States, joined Sep 2004, 263 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8772 times:
However much of a better airplane the KC-330 may be...
Does anyone think with the current political climate of everyone wearing american flag pins, and american flag magnets on their cars, and the residual anti-France sentiment left over from the Iraq war, and the buy-American mentality going around...
Does anyone really think that...
The US Government will buy an Airbus for the United States Military??
The US Government will buy military aircraft from a manufacturer based in a country that was so strongly opposed to US military action?? Does anyone else see the irony in this?
The US Government will buy planes from a manufacturer at the center of the WTO subsidies spat?
Now, I'm not saying I buy into or endorse this whole "the US is center-of-the-universe" mentality, nor am I anti-American, but seriously, Americans would march down to Washington with torches and pitchforks if the government bought a "French" plane, regardless if it was built in the US.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2288 posts, RR: 11 Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8769 times:
That is why I am not a big fan of the KC-767 tanker - it's 20 year old tech and isn't even as good a tanker platform as the KC-11 would have been. Sounds like the same goons that reportedly tried to have the Grumman Tomcat tooling destroyed - for the sake of silencing your competition.
EADS needs to be given a fair shot on this USAF tanker deal and they need to be forced to buy the aircraft that meets the most criteria for the lowest costs - something EADS thinks they can do.
Somewhere off in the distance is a KC-11 tanking an F-14D...
ClipperNo1 From Germany, joined May 1999, 671 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8766 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7): The reason that they eventually shut it down was that it was not getting enough orders from cargo carriers to keep the line running at a sustainable rate.
LH Cargo, arguably the largest cargo carrier at that time, was pushing Boeing to keep the line open. FX was securing deals for second-hand MD-11s, which were still flying pax at that time (i.e. SR), all over the world. And the supply of second-hand frames was foreseeable low. Plus this was in the year 2000, the absolute Boom-Year for air cargo. Forecasts about the growth rate of air cargo were very good and have proven to be correct over the last years, even after such an extra-ordinary event like 9/11.
So who the f* did Boeing hire to make their forecasts?
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977
GQfluffy From United States, joined Apr 2005, 3140 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8719 times:
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 10): And on a sad note, I've heard some internal talk that the contract is all be destined for Airbus. I would love to see the KC-767 in USAF colors, but I'm pretty sure we're going to see a KC-330.
Wha????? Back of the ganja for a sec and read what others have been posting about the A330 tanker... ITS TOO FREAKIN BIG TO REPLACE THE KC-135!!! It may be a newer/better a/c then the 767, but it's way too big. I'd be really surprised to see a KC330.
Areopagus From United States, joined Sep 2001, 1285 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 8679 times:
The KC-10's center engine could well draw a heat-seeking missile into wrecking the tail control surfaces. The triply-redundant hydraulic lines in the wings are routed together in the leading edge, near the #1 and #3 engines. How survivable is that?
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5627 posts, RR: 27 Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 8576 times:
ClipperNo1
I don't think anyone doubts that the MD-11 would have continued to get orders and was in demand as a cargo aircraft. However, at what volume would it be produced? Sure LH cargo is big, but are they really going to order 50-100 planes? FedEx, UPS and others considered the plane as well. Many would have purchased it, but at what rate would MD-11s be coming off the line, and at what margin? Is FedEx likely to pay much when they just purchased SR's, AA's and DL's MD-11 fleets in addition to maintaining a significant number of DC-10s and upgrading them to MD-10s? It is borderline whether it was worth it to keep that line down in Long Beach going with one or two frames per month. I think the people at Boeing decided that it was not going to make a big enough profit to invest in all of those costs. The Boeing management team in the late 90s got extremely conservative and relied on selling mostly 777s and 737s which were in high demand. Unfortunately we lost the MD-11, which had a strong market.
My job is to make it so your flight is not delayed. Come fly the friendly skies!
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 10367 posts, RR: 67 Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 8516 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7): That is an extreme overexagerration. Once the ink dried, Boeing did stop marketing the MD-11 as a passenger transport as it competed with the 777. However Boeing did intend to keep the line open to produce cargo planes as they knew that it was a successful airplane in that category. The reason that they eventually shut it down was that it was not getting enough orders from cargo carriers to keep the line running at a sustainable rate. Now yes they might regret the decision now since cargo transportation has picked up tremendously in recent years and the 747 and A300 were the only cargo planes still being built in decent quantity. Both of the designs are old and inefficient, but that might change with the new A380 and 772F
According to an instructor, who used to work for Douglas, Boeing refused to honour existing contracts with Lufthansa Cargo when they took over the MD-11 line. They tried to convince LH Cargo to buy 747-400 Freighters instead. Lufthansa insisted and at least got the MD-11Fs built they had a contract for. Afterwards Boeing scrapped the production line, even though Lufthansa wanted to buy more MD-11. The reason was that Boeing saw the MD-11 as a competitor to it´s 747 line.
DfwRevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8462 times:
>> That is why I am not a big fan of the KC-767 tanker - it's 20 year old tech and isn't even as good a tanker platform as the KC-11 would have been.
On the basis of what
>> Unfortunately we lost the MD-11, which had a strong market.
Bull, commercial carrires were jumping of the MD-11 long before the merger and well after the PIP updates. LH and their demand for a few additional cargo variants couldn't keep it open forever.
Read my lips: it was a dead duck. Even if Boeing had kept the line open, all it would have done is limp along like the 757 and 717 lines with endless speculation as to when Boeing would finally have the nerve to ax the program. Thankfully, Boeing got it over with sooner than later.
In the end, killing the line helped resale values by inflating demand for MD-11 conversions far above what they otherwise would have remained. The only unfortunate subject is the misplaced nostalgia to these aircraft.
>> The KC-10's center engine could well draw a heat-seeking missile into wrecking the tail control surfaces.
Smartest thing I've heard all day. The survivability of any commercial platform (much less the DC10/MD11 and it's stellar safety record) is virtually zero if it suffers a direct strike from an advanced air-to-air or surface-to-air missile.
Aircellist From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 665 posts, RR: 3 Reply 25, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 8432 times:
Why not 737-800 or -900X as refuellers? Or, for that matter, A32X? Wouldn't they be more like "tactical" refuelleurs, as opposed to the "stategic" KC-10?
"The limits of my language means the limits of my world." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
26 ExFATboy: When was the last time we had combat operations against an opponent with an operational air force? Let's not make the "fighting the last war" mistake
27 Eilennaei: Any prior intelligence of a missile is hardly an issue after it has hit. Get a dozen and their primitive missiles around the airport, and you'll have
28 DAYflyer: The DC-10 was a flop as a tanker and the MD-11 would have fared no better. The MD-11 never came anywhere near the promised performance specs and it di
29 WhiteHatter: Drivel. SR111 for a start. Please take your flamebait elsewhere. I'm sure the USAF has taken the opinions of planespotters into account. Simple fact:
31 DfwRevolution: >> Why not 737-800 or -900X as refuellers? Or, for that matter, A32X? Wouldn't they be more like "tactical" refuelleurs, as opposed to the "stategic"
32 WAH64D: Sorry, but the only thing that is utter BS about having an extra engine is your statement. In the military, we have even more reason to have inbuilt
33 MD11Engineer: Whitehatter, This is bullshit and you know it. You know perfectly well that the fire on SR11 was caused by a sloppily installed aftermarket IFE syste
34 Brons2: You can search the NTSB database for other incidents caused by the MD-11's Kapton wiring, however. In one incident, the wiring in the avionics bay wa
35 DfwRevolution: >> A modern turbofan engine is capable of taking a man portable SAM strike without destroying or rendering the aircraft unflyable. Totally irrelevant
36 Zone1: I thought one of the reasons DL canceled most of their MD-90s was because of poor wiring. A lot of the times the US Government will opt for tried and
37 WAH64D: It is my pleasure to have my office in the rear seat of the most advanced combat helicopter in the world, hence my forum name. It is of a higher leve
38 UPS Pilot: Why didn't the Airforce order more KC-10's if it was such a good platform? Yeah, I know it wasn't needed at the time but you would think that airframe
39 KC135R: Couple of points here from someone who, for obvious reasons, follows the tanker deal quite closely: #1 - The KC-135 is still quite a capable airplane.
40 AirRyan: And that's why A330 still get orders from commerical passenger airlines and the 767 does not. What airport do you spot from again? But that wasn't th
41 Galapagapop: The A330 although a little big, is superior to the 767. But there still are some sour grapes over the presidential helicopter deal not going to Sikors
42 KC135R: Perhaps as an airliner, but again that does not automatically make it a better tanker. It could be though, I have not seen an objective comparison of
43 DarthRandall: Two years ago I would have agreed with you, but today I don't think that will be as much of a factor. It's difficult for anyone save the truely dense
44 Dc10guy: American corporate greed is one on the biggest problems in the world today. The MD-11 could of had a great running ... Douglas built the greatest airc
45 Viscount630: Actually, wasn't the 707 based on the KC-135........? Yeah, I know.......... But why shouldn't I get a chance to be a nit-picker like the rest of you
46 PlanesNTrains: Perhaps... If the MD-11/MD-90 were such great products, they would have had the customer base to withstand Airbus and Boeing. Unfortunately, that was
48 N1120A: As a tanker, the KC-330 is not at all superior to the KC-767. As the KC-10 proved, it is entirely possible to have too large a tanker. There is a rea
49 PanAmDC10: The reason that the KC330 is a possibility is because two of the Senators who have the most say over who gets the contract are from Alabama. It was no
50 KC135R: Actually, both are based on the 367-80. Neither are just like the -80. The KC-135 has a slightly wider fuselage. The 707 is wider yet and longer as w
51 Keesje: More then 600 kc135 were ordered, build between 1958 en 1964 & launched Boeing into the yet age. As a tanker it is. It carries more fuel further. Apa
52 DarthRandall: In some ways the A330 is better, and in other ways it is not. The 767 has the advantage of being able to take off and land on shorter runways which,
53 Keesje: C17 are extremely expensive, have less range/more stops, carry less people, less comfortable. The Airforce is now hiring civil capasity, using their
54 Paul777: Probably too short on range, but what about a 757 tanker, supplemented/complemented with 76s, or A330's?
55 Beeweel15: Remember even before Boeing took over Douglas there were calls to make modifications to the MD11 that would have greatly inproved its performance. Wh
56 Beeweel15: I made a mistake i should have said : As a taner it would have made and excellent canidate
57 Beeweel15: Today is not my day. Lets get it right : As a tanker it would have made and excellent canidate
58 DarthRandall: We're talking about soldiers, not paying customers. More stops and less comfort aren't an issue, and of course, a C-17 can be refueled which often ne
59 GDB: USAF do have different requirements to the existing A330 tanker customers, the RAF and RAAF. Both operate small tanker fleets, for their much smaller
60 Atmx2000: Really? The using the tanker for the transport role isn't going to make a dent in transport requirements if it also has to fill an in theater refueli
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2004, 1565 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2496 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 1999, 671 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
