Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Will Boeing Launch The 767-200LRF?  
User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Does anybody know when Boeing will launch the 767-200LRF? Is it depending on the US tanker competition? Will it have the 767-400 wings and cockpit aswell?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineERAUgrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 21 hours ago) and read 5016 times:

Yes from what ive read on the site it will indeed get 767-400 cockpit and wings.


Desmond MacRae in ILM
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 4980 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I suppose if there is civilian market demand for it, it will launch regardless of whether or not Boeing wins the USAF tanker competition.

User currently offlineRuscoe From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 4953 times:

I think Boeing will use the 767 line as a second 787 line if they don't get the tanker contract.

Ruscoe


User currently offlineOuboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4567 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I suppose if there is civilian market demand for it, it will launch regardless of whether or not Boeing wins the USAF tanker competition.

But it is so much easier to launch when the US Gov't pays the full development costs of it.  Smile


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 15 hours ago) and read 4663 times:

is there any chance of a 787f? Seems like it might be a good idea

User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 10 hours ago) and read 4451 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 3):
I think Boeing will use the 767 line as a second 787 line if they don't get the tanker contract.

From what I have seen, there is still room for considerable ramp up of the existing 787 line before a second like would be needed. Current plans are to produce 14 aircraft per month eventually, but this could rise if nessessary.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 5):
is there any chance of a 787f? Seems like it might be a good idea

Which are you refering to, a 787 freighter or a 787 tanker?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 4366 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ouboy79 (Reply 4):
But it is so much easier to launch when the US Gov't pays the full development costs of it.  Smile

It worked for the 707. Big grin

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 5):
is there any chance of a 787f? Seems like it might be a good idea

I imagine there will eventually be a 787F. The freight companies will love having a plane that will last "forever". But it is going to be a good long time before they do since the passenger line is going to have a nice, long run, I imagine.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 4322 times:

I think some facts may not help

- lots of used 767s becoming available for conversion (not worn out -200s, but usefull 300ER's)
- A322F being launched & selling well
- low rate production might be (too) expensive for Boeing if they don't get the government tanker contract.



[Edited 2007-07-02 15:21:07]

User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

Quoting Ouboy79 (Reply 4):
But it is so much easier to launch when the US Gov't pays the full development costs of it.

 Yeah sure When airlines buy aircraft from Airbus or Boeing they also pay the full development cost. I don't know of any case where a derivative aircraft sold >100 copies and failed to recoup development costs. I can't imagine a case where Airbus or Boeing had >100 sales in hand and failed to launch the derivative. If FedEx wanted to buy 100 LRF's, Boeing would build them, and they'd make money doing so. The fact that the customer is the USAF changes nothing.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
It worked for the 707.

I understand the joke, but I'm sure you know that the US Govt did NOT pay the development cost of the B707 or any other commercial airliner. Let's not feed the trolls, please. pray 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 4200 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 9):
I understand the joke, but I'm sure you know that the US Govt did NOT pay the development cost of the B707 or any other commercial airliner.

Of course not, never, the thought..

However ordering 600 (!) x kc135's for delivery in the 1960-1964 period probably didn't hurt launching the 707  Wink


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 9):
I don't know of any case where a derivative aircraft sold >100 copies and failed to recoup development costs.

Some stipulate (without evidence) that the A340-500/600 has not.

I dont doubt that by selling 100 767-200LRF, boeing would make a profit because there is not a huge amount of testing or design to be done and the independent project would only cost $500m-$1b IMO. What I doubt is that they would sell 100. However, if the KC-767A does indeed win the contract, then the development costs of the 767-200LRF would be even less and like the 747-8I it would be a good way to reduce Airbuses sale prices.

Quoting Ouboy79 (Reply 4):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
I suppose if there is civilian market demand for it, it will launch regardless of whether or not Boeing wins the USAF tanker competition.

But it is so much easier to launch when the US Gov't pays the full development costs of it.

That would also apply to Airbus, however I dont think there is much difference between the KC-330 and the A330MRTT in terms of development that has not already been completed.

does anybody think its time that Boeing deletes the references to the 'massive' size and wingspan of the KC-330 compared to the KC-767A (while at the same time hinting that they will do a 777 tanker for the USAF if required) when it is now widely accepted that the wingspan / parking issue was largely negated when Boeing decided to incorporate the 767-400 wings. I just wish Boeing could put forward a better technical argument to back up the notion of not choosing the Northrop option.


User currently offlineNorCal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2459 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 4131 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
However ordering 600 (!) x kc135's for delivery in the 1960-1964 period probably didn't hurt launching the 707

Thats funny, considering the 707 first flew in 1954......

The 707 and all the tooling was built and paid for using Boeing company funds. They had no contract in hand for 600 KC-135s when they decided to go ahead. This was a "bet the company" type of move.

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 9):
I understand the joke, but I'm sure you know that the US Govt did NOT pay the development cost of the B707 or any other commercial airliner. Let's not feed the trolls, please

 checkmark 


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 9):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
It worked for the 707.

I understand the joke, but I'm sure you know that the US Govt did NOT pay the development cost of the B707 or any other commercial airliner

Perhaps stitch is referring specifically to the 707-400.


User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 4092 times:

Quoting Ruscoe (Reply 3):
I think Boeing will use the 767 line as a second 787 line if they don't get the tanker contract.

I doubt it they have considerable play in their current line and as people have said dozens, if not hundreds of times, the bottleneck is not final assembly but in the supply of sub-assemblies from suppliers.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
- low rate production might be (too) expensive for Boeing if they don't get the government tanker contract.

Not something to be too worried about, the 767 is pretty much a dead lock to win the tanker contest.

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
does anybody think its time that Boeing deletes the references to the 'massive' size and wingspan of the KC-330 compared to the KC-767A (while at the same time hinting that they will do a 777 tanker for the USAF if required) when it is now widely accepted that the wingspan / parking issue was largely negated when Boeing decided to incorporate the 767-400 wings. I just wish Boeing could put forward a better technical argument to back up the notion of not choosing the Northrop option.

Well 197 feet is still bigger than 170 feet and it should be able to use facilities that can fit a KC-10. It also should be able to make use of the numerous places that could house B-52's as well. The really big issues are if the plane can operate from facilities at foreward US bases. Since the B-52 uses Guam, Diego Garcia and numerous bases in Europe then supporting a 764 sized tanker should not be difficult.


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 7 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 14):
Well 197 feet is still bigger than 170 feet and it should be able to use facilities that can fit a KC-10.

But its not replacing the KC10. The aircraft its replaceing has a wingspan of 130ft.


User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 559 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
when it is now widely accepted that the wingspan / parking issue was largely negated when Boeing decided to incorporate the 767-400 wings.

Can you quote any other source besides Scott Hamilton?


- n1786b


User currently offlineTeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 4064 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Of course not, never, the thought..

Read history, Keesje. The Dash 80 was built entirely with Boeing's own money. That aircraft was the prototype for both the model 707 and model 717 (C-135). There is no doubt that having the KC-135 contract provided cash flow to advance the B707, but that doesn't mean that the USAF subsidized the civilian airliner any more than Southwest Airlines having purchased hundreds of B737's subsidized development of the Dreamliner.

I HATE attempts at revisionist history. The facts are what they are, and the passage of time does not change them.  banghead 



Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6834 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 4041 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
It worked for the 707.

As mentioned above, this was not the case.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):

However ordering 600 (!) x kc135's for delivery in the 1960-1964 period probably didn't hurt launching the 707

To set the record straight, the original 707 precursor was the 367-80 demonstrator which was designed and built totally with Boeing funds. Boeing desired to sell it both to the military as a tanker and to the airlines as an airliner, and entered into a competition for the jet tanker. They LOST to Lockheed, but since Boeing could deliver much sooner than Lockheed Curtis LeMay jumped up and down  hissyfit  and said he wanted jet tankers NOW and didn't care who built them. Boeing therefore got a contract for 25 (I think; but it was no more than 30) and was told in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER sell another. That order did not come close to covering the 707 development costs, especially when it became necessary to completely redesign the 707 to match the DC-8 (wider fuselage, larger wing, more powerful engines) when Boeing started losing orders to it. The 600 plane KC-135 order did not come about until long after Boeing had bet the company on the 707, and it was already established in the commercial market by then.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineBigJKU From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 875 posts, RR: 11
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 4017 times:

Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
But its not replacing the KC10. The aircraft its replaceing has a wingspan of 130ft.

True, but the Airforce has lots of excess basing around for these aircraft in the short term. Neither the short winged 767 or the A330 were going to fit into the same profile as the KC-135. What is important is if the plane will fit into existing USAF ramp and maintence facilities. Many of those facilities were built to handle B-52 bombers when they were around in the hundreds.

It is pretty obvious they could handle a 764 sized airplane. I am not saying they could not handle an A330 aircraft but no USAF airplane that was in large scale use has a wingspan that big since the B-36. The C-5 has a wingspan over 200 feet but there are only a bit over 100 of them around.

KC-135Topboom would probably have the best answer as to how the A330 would fit into the USAF base and MX structure but with just a bit of research I can know that the 764 will fit into the numerous facilities that based heavy bombers back in the good old days. There may be a few facilities that could house an A330 but I would guess they are not nearly as numerous as those that would fit a 767.


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 3990 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 18):
To set the record straight, the original 707 precursor was the 367-80 demonstrator which was designed and built totally with Boeing funds.



Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 17):
I HATE attempts at revisionist history. The facts are what they are, and the passage of time does not change them.


The new jetliner will probably not be seen first as a civilian transport, but as a military plane, part of General Curtis Le-May's Strategic Air Command. Though the Air Force has not yet placed a firm order, the 707 has been approved by the Air Policy Council and seems certain to be in the buying program as a flying tanker to refuel swept-wing jet bombers, thus give the Strategic Air Command more mobility and range. SAC's B-47 bombers now get refueled in the air on their 10,000-mile missions from prop-driven KC-97 tankers. To do so, the B-47s have to drop from 40,000 ft. to 20,000 ft. With the new 707s, SAC bombers can take on fuel at combat altitudes and at combat speeds.


The Big Question. With a model already built, Boeing has won itself a long head start on the rest of the industry in the jet transport race. The credit goes to Boeing's brilliant corps of engineers and to Bill Allen, the dry, deceptively plain lawyer who became Boeing's president (and custodian of the cactus) in 1945. Allen is the man who gave the final go-ahead for Boeing to spend $20 million on the 707, gambling that he could sell it to the Air Force and the airlines. With Air Force orders in the offing, Bill Allen has apparently won half his parlay. If he wins the second half, he will crack the transport field wide open. The big question is: Will U.S. airlines buy the 707?

The airlines are not anxious to switch to jets, since they have just invested some $250 million for new fleets of prop-driven planes. But with Boeing's 707, the pressure is on: the first big U.S. airline to buy the 707 will force the others to follow.


Source: Time July 1954, the week before the first flew, they weren't rewriting history at that time  Wink

No need to glamour it up.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,857520,00.html


The prototype was conceived for both military and civilian use: the United States Air Force was the first customer for the airframe, using it in the KC-135 Stratotanker midair refueling platform. It was far from certain that the passenger 707 would be profitable. At the time, Boeing was making nearly all of its money from military contracts: its last passenger transport, the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser, had netted the company a $15 million loss before it was purchased by the Air Force as the KC-97 Stratotanker


Sorry to scatter your Boeing reference world..


User currently offlineN1786b From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 559 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 3963 times:

Quoting Keesje (Reply 10):
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 9):
I understand the joke, but I'm sure you know that the US Govt did NOT pay the development cost of the B707 or any other commercial airliner.

Of course not, never, the thought..



Quoting Keesje (Reply 20):
Allen is the man who gave the final go-ahead for Boeing to spend $20 million on the 707, gambling that he could sell it to the Air Force and the airlines.

Thank you for confirming that the US Government never paid a dime to fund the development of the 707.

Sorry to scatter your Airbus reference world.

- n1786b


User currently offlineEI321 From Iraq, joined Jul 2009, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

Quoting BigJKU (Reply 19):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 15):
But its not replacing the KC10. The aircraft its replaceing has a wingspan of 130ft.

True, but the Airforce has lots of excess basing around for these aircraft in the short term. Neither the short winged 767 or the A330 were going to fit into the same profile as the KC-135. What is important is if the plane will fit into existing USAF ramp and maintence facilities. Many of those facilities were built to handle B-52 bombers when they were around in the hundreds.

According to this source, the hangar doors are 240ft wide.

http://www.newsdata.com/enernet/conweb/conweb80.html

One other thing that nobody is mentioning when considering ramp space, is exactly how many aircraft are being replaced. I'd be surprised if the KC-135's are being replaced one for one, considering the enlarged tank capacity and increased capabilities of both the KC-330 and KC-767.

Quoting N1786b (Reply 16):
Quoting EI321 (Reply 11):
when it is now widely accepted that the wingspan / parking issue was largely negated when Boeing decided to incorporate the 767-400 wings.

Can you quote any other source besides Scott Hamilton?

I'm referring to an article that was published in the Seattle Times which claimed that the new tanker would use both the cockpit and wing of the -400. If you consider Scot Hamilton relevant, thats also worth noting. Although I suspect he is referring to the same article. As to why boeing would refuse to deny that the proposal has the larger wings after already submitting the tender, only they can tell you.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30619 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 3940 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We should rename this place to "EnglishMajorsWhoAlsoLikeAirplanes.net" considering how much time we argue semantics and grammar at each other. Big grin

It's clear that Boeing developed the 367-80 with the intent to sell it to the USAF, which was having a heck of a time performing air-to-air refueling with their KC-97 Stratotankers and was beginning to develop supersonic strategic bombers that would make aerial refueling with a prop plane even more problematic.

With Comet I already in the skies, Boeing saw there was a market for a jet-powered commercial airliner that could carry more people farther then Comet could.

I have no doubt that the USAF order helped provide revenue that Boeing used to make the 367-80 into the 707 and her derivatives to compete against the DC-8, the Convair 880(?) and even the Comet IV. So yes, taken literally, the USAF helped fund the 707. But the USAF did not kick-start the program that became the 707. Boeing did that on their own.

So everyone to neutral corners, please.  Smile


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8412 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 3931 times:

You guys are being ridiculous.

Clearly, the 707 was a military plane first.

And so will be the 767-200 "LRF" which might stand for "laugh".

Unlike the 707, the 762 LRF really does not have bright prospects. Boeing will NOT launch the 762LRF unless the USAF orders the KC-767. That is crystal clear, make of it what you will.

[Edited 2007-07-02 17:54:37]

25 EI321 : I'm not sure about the 707, but I think its obvoius that there will not be a -200LRF launch without the tanker contract. Its just not worth doing on
26 SEPilot : This is true only as I stated in the earlier post; the article you posted was premature in its statements (thanks for posting it by the way; it conta
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
When Will Boeing Discontinue The 733's? posted Tue Feb 22 2000 22:14:25 by ATA757
Boeing's BWB Program. When Will They Launch It? posted Fri Mar 30 2001 15:19:40 by United Airline
When Will US Get The Boot From Star Alliance? posted Thu Apr 26 2007 00:49:19 by Coal
Will Boeing Leave The 777 Alone? posted Sat Jan 13 2007 11:13:13 by Relaxitsfedex7
Will Boeing Let The 777 Die? posted Fri Oct 27 2006 04:13:11 by KSUpilot
When Will QF Return Its 767's To BA? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:22:40 by 8herveg
Emirates Will NOT Launch The B748 Passenger Model posted Mon Jul 17 2006 19:49:35 by PlaneHunter
When Will KLM Send The A330 To ATL? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 22:58:08 by Flyingchoirboy
When Will Boeing Start Building AC 1st 777-300ER? posted Mon Dec 26 2005 07:14:57 by AirCanada014
When Will Primaris Launch JFK - LAX/SFO posted Mon Dec 19 2005 22:30:48 by Amirs