Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
B777-200ER As KC-X  
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4594 times:

People around the web and on this forum has fixated over whether Boeing is going to offer B767-based or B777-based tanker. However, everybody has mentioned the B777F (based on B777LR) as the champion for the B777 based tanker.

However, Boeing's head for the tanker competition said the company has not ruled out ANY type of aircraft in Boeing's arsenal to compete in the tanker procurement.

So, let's discuss about the viability of B-777-200ER tanker as KC-X, and compare it to A330MRTT (I take the baseline A330-200 to compare it as apple to apple, we don't know how tanker conversion is going to effect the basic numbers for 200ER)

Plane____________ B772ER______A332
OEW:____________304,500lb______258,031lb
MTOW:___________634,500lb______515,660lb
Max Fuel:_________302,270lb______240,711lb
FIeld length MTOW:__11,000ft______10,500ft
Field Max fuel:_______8,300ft_______9,500ft
Fuel at 7000 ft _____250,000lb______212,000lb

Advantages of B772ER:
1. it has max unrefueled range of 9,500 nm (non mandatory) (A330 just short)
2. Could have improved aerodynamic with improvements from 777LR developments (wing-tip, etc)
3. Have extra payload available for non mandatory item
4. Higher IFARA (I assume due to much more extra fuel capacity)

Disadvatages:
1. Not developed yet (Although EIS is 2015, 5 years after contract award. Very long time for derivative)
2. Possible higher MILCON cost compare to A330
3. More expensive plane, although much should be competitive to A330
4. Worse fuel economy compared to A330
5. Boeing has to eat its own words with the Right-sized Tanker campaign

I think technically Boeing is not limited to submit one proposal. It can submit the 767LRF or the 772ER based tanker.

Advantage compared to 767LRF:
1. SRD 3.4.2.2.1 Fuel from 7000ft (10pts, 767 MIGHT be able to do it)
2. SRD 3.1.1.1.1 More fuel off loaded (6pt unless 767 cannot exceed minimum by even a small margin)
Altough the SRD documents does not provide much credit except for the fuel off-load credit. (i.e. no extra credit for hauling cargo and stuff)
3. SRD 3.4.2.8 Having 9,500 nm unrefueled range (although I don't know if LRF can use it's cargo bladder fuel as flying fuel. This could push the aircraft beyond 9500nm) (1/4 pt)

These are the requirements that's based on the aircraft capability. I am wondering if the size and excess weight margin could allow the inclusions of more non mandatory item.

Cheers,
PP


One day there will be 100% polymer plane
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4409 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4427 times:

I agree that would be a awfull, modern generation tanker. The 77F/L plattform indeed might be too much of an aircraft, and its engines may be just too expensive.

I'm convinced that future military mission will require much more airlift capacity than the old style classical wars, so these 150 approx planes will have a lot of work to do in their secondary role - you cannot have too much payload.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4396 times:

If you look at Boeing's US Tanker web site, the two tankers shown are the B-767-200ER with blended winglets, and the B-777-200ER without the raked wingtips. According to Boeing, this does not mean that these two versions will be their offer, nor does it mean they won't be.

Boeing has a lot of options to offer for the B-767 and/or B-777.

KC-767AT (B-767-200LRF) (designed but has not been built)
KC-767A (B-767-200ER) (no other B-767-200 versions currently in production)
B-767-300ERF
B-767-400ER (currently none are on order or being built)
B-777-200ER
B-777-200LRF

I doubt Boeing would offer the B-767-300ER, B-777-200LR, B-777-300ER, or the B-747-8F but you never know at this point. All of these would be long shots.

NG/EADS also has a number of options to offer, too, from 4 different aircraft families.

A-310-300MRTT (a long shot which would require reopening the A-300/310 production line)
A-330MRTT (several versions)
A-330-200F
A-340-200/-8000 (not in production, but could be revived)
A-340-500 (although I think this is a long shot)
A-380-800 (another very long shot)

So, each OEM would have at least 6 different airplanes to offer, although some would need body fuel tanks to meet the minimum ferry range requirements (A-310, B-767).


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4379 times:



Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):

Plane____________ B772ER______A332
OEW:____________304,500lb______258,031lb
MTOW:___________634,500lb______515,660lb
Max Fuel:_________302,270lb______240,711lb
FIeld length MTOW:__11,000ft______10,500ft
Field Max fuel:_______8,300ft_______9,500ft
Fuel at 7000 ft _____250,000lb______212,000lb

I do not think any of those numbers would be right for a tanker

Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
1. it has max unrefueled range of 9,500 nm (non mandatory) (A330 just short)

The 332 can do 9500 nm, QF years ago flew TLS-MEL non stop, and that was not nil wind.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
1. Not developed yet (Although EIS is 2015, 5 years after contract award. Very long time for derivative)

When are the SDD aircraft due, Boeing has already said it will take 4 years to develop a 777 based tanker, took them longer if I am not wrong to develop the 767 based tanker.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
3. More expensive plane, although much should be competitive to A330

If they offer a 777 based tanker, they will not offer a 767 based tanker, no way possible for the 777 based tanker to be within 1% of a 767 based tanker.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4364 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
1. Not developed yet (Although EIS is 2015, 5 years after contract award. Very long time for derivative)

When are the SDD aircraft due, Boeing has already said it will take 4 years to develop a 777 based tanker, took them longer if I am not wrong to develop the 767 based tanker.

Correct. The time to develope a tanker based on any B-777 version would be very compressed. Can Boeing do it, with all of the other engineering demands they have right now? Perhaps or perhaps not, only Boeing can say. The simpliest version would be the B-777F with the lower cargo compartment aux fuel tanks and using the B-767A (Italian) refueling equipment. How long that would take to get out as the first through fourth SDDs, I don't know.

A B-777F, without the aux tanks would carry 316,074 lbs of JP-8 (6.6 lbs per US gallon, 47,890 US gallons). MTOW is 766,000 lbs, or 110,000 heavier than the B-777-200ER.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...amily/pf/pf_freighter_product.html

A B-77E carries 45,220 US gallons of fuel (without aux tanks), that would be 298,452 lbs of JP-8. MTOW is 656,000 lbs.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.html

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
Quoting PolymerPlane (Thread starter):
3. More expensive plane, although much should be competitive to A330

If they offer a 777 based tanker, they will not offer a 767 based tanker, no way possible for the 777 based tanker to be within 1% of a 767 based tanker.

But, depending on how Boeing, and NG price there offers, both the A-330 and B-777 could be within the 1%. MilCon costs would be near the same, but, I think the A-330 would have a lower LCC.

I don't see how the A-330 tankers could be within 1% of any of the B-767 tankers, except for possible a B-767-400ER tanker offer (which I think is unlikely). My gut feeling is the B-767 tanker offer will be the B-767-300ERF. It just seems to be less of a risk, to me of all the possible KC-767 offers.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15831 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4333 times:

The way I understand it Boeing is in a bit of a corner with the tanker deal. After the last time the USAF thought that they might need something bigger than the 767-200 variant they were offering before. The 777-200 however, had issues meeting the runway requirements for the new tanker. The 767-300 is sized ideally, but the length led to issues of boom clearance.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
B-767-400ER

This would suffer from the same issue as the 767-300, but worse. Honestly I think that Boeing should either go with the 777, using the LR/F airframe and engines which should maximize uplift and field performance, or try to finagle a way to get the boom on a 767-300 without dragging it on takeoff.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4780 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4324 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):

The 332 can do 9500 nm, QF years ago flew TLS-MEL non stop, and that was not nil wind

True, but not a realistic comparison. This was a delivery flight with no passengers, furthermore it had a tailwind !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4311 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
The 767-300 is sized ideally, but the length led to issues of boom clearance.

No, the tail clearance issue is with the even longer B-767-400ER. But with either B-767, that is not a big issue, just adjust the TO performance to a double rotation.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4302 times:

If airlift is going to be a major factor, my guess would be the 767 tanker proposal is going to be put aside and the 777 tanker, whether the -200ER or the -200F, will be the bird of choice. Consider too that the 777 based tanker would have some commonality with commercial freighter models of the 777, for whatever positive impact that might bring to the overall picture.


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 4263 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):

The 332 can do 9500 nm, QF years ago flew TLS-MEL non stop, and that was not nil wind.

I took the numbers right out of Airbus's document saying that it is short of 9500 nm. TLS-MEL is 9200nm and it's east-bound. You are right it was not nil wind, but it was probably tail wind.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
I do not think any of those numbers would be right for a tanker

I never claimed it would. It's just a direct apples to apples comparison right out of the Boeing and Airbus's own documents. The weight numbers are really close for A330 MRTT, with about 17klbs higher OEW.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 8):
If airlift is going to be a major factor, my guess would be the 767 tanker proposal is going to be put aside and the 777 tanker, whether the -200ER or the -200F

as of current proposal, the airlift is not a factor at all. The tankage is only limited to A330 capability

Quoting Zeke (Reply 3):
If they offer a 777 based tanker, they will not offer a 767 based tanker, no way possible for the 777 based tanker to be within 1% of a 767 based tanker.

May be, maybe not depending on the IFARA. If 777 can't, this competition might not be a contest, it's prob all 767.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2):
B-777-200LR, B-777-300ER, or the B-747-8F

As of this RFP, I am 100% certain these won't be offered. they have NO additional benefit to the proposal.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The simpliest version would be the B-777F with the lower cargo compartment aux fuel tanks

I really doubt they are going to go to B-777F with aux fuel tanks. Too much weight penalty for marginal fuel capacity. It would be an excellent platform probably for KC-Y

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4204 times:



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 9):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 4):
The simpliest version would be the B-777F with the lower cargo compartment aux fuel tanks

I really doubt they are going to go to B-777F with aux fuel tanks. Too much weight penalty for marginal fuel capacity. It would be an excellent platform probably for KC-Y

Perhaps you are right, but with no aux tanks, the B-777F carries more than 316,000 lbs. If the USAF is looking for more fuel airborne aboard fewer tankers, that is a 29% increase in fuel over the 245,000 lbs the A-330-200 carries.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 4185 times:



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 9):

I took the numbers right out of Airbus's document saying that it is short of 9500 nm. TLS-MEL is 9200nm and it's east-bound. You are right it was not nil wind, but it was probably tail wind.

Great circle distance is about 9200 nm, you do not get to fly over places like Iran, Pakistan, India, and the Bay of Bengal "great circle". That aircraft would have had to basically stick to airways until it hit Australian airspace.

The flight time was 20 hours and 4 mins, which would mean a slight headwind. With a tailwind the flight time would have been around 18-19 hrs.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 9):

May be, maybe not depending on the IFARA.

It would appear you do not understand the models then.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):

Perhaps you are right, but with no aux tanks, the B-777F carries more than 316,000 lbs. If the USAF is looking for more fuel airborne aboard fewer tankers, that is a 29% increase in fuel over the 245,000 lbs the A-330-200 carries.

It does not get any advantage for that. Any fuel above line C receives 10 points, that is where the KC-30 and KC-777 are.

"No Additional Value Above D Line"




We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 1 week ago) and read 4142 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
Great circle distance is about 9200 nm, you do not get to fly over places like Iran, Pakistan, India, and the Bay of Bengal "great circle". That aircraft would have had to basically stick to airways until it hit Australian airspace.

The flight time was 20 hours and 4 mins, which would mean a slight headwind. With a tailwind the flight time would have been around 18-19 hrs.

Here's from the lion's mouth:

Quote:
The flight is believed to have set two new records in its class – a distance without landing of 16,910 km, and the fastest speed between Toulouse and Melbourne of 865 Km/hr.

16,910 km = 9130 nm

http://www.eads.com/800/en/investor/.../2003/2003/en_20030109_qantas.html

Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):

It would appear you do not understand the models then.

Explain then.

From what I understand you can still offer a plane that is more expensive than the competitors as long as you can make it up in IFARA (as the plane price is normalized to IFARA) and other costs (MILCON, fuel, etc.). The final cost needs to be within 1% not the airplane price. Altough, from last competition the fleet effectiveness value between KC-767 and KC-30 is not very big (1.79 vs. 1.90) especially with fuel and MILCON taken into account.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
It does not get any advantage for that. Any fuel above line C receives 10 points, that is where the KC-30 and KC-777 are.

It might, through the FEV (bigger tanker less tanker in the sky)

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4114 times:



Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 12):
16,910 km = 9130 nm

Which is irrelevant, that is how world records are calculated, great circle distances, they still actually flew further track miles (due airways), and further ground NM (due winds). If you look at the 777LR world record flight you will see they also flew further than what their record states, but the record distance was based upon the great circle distance between the turn points.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 12):
Explain then.

I think the documents make it very clear ....

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 12):
Altough, from last competition the fleet effectiveness value between KC-767 and KC-30 is not very big (1.79 vs. 1.90) especially with fuel and MILCON taken into account.

MILCON costs were closer than what people were lead to believe. This time around the DoD have specified which bases MILCON costs will be assessed on, and none of those bases should give an advantage to any aircraft proposed.

As far as fuel goes as well, the KC-767 fuel costs were not as competitive as Boeing tried to make out. If the KC-777 was offered it would have no fuel adjustment, fuel adjustments are only made down for the proposals with lower fuel costs ("The offeror with the highest Fuel (PV) will receive a zero dollar adjustment to its TPP (PV).")



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16907 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4005 times:

Boeing leaning towards KC-767 for Tanker bid;

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...rchives/182227.asp?from=blog_last3



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3935 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 11):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):

Perhaps you are right, but with no aux tanks, the B-777F carries more than 316,000 lbs. If the USAF is looking for more fuel airborne aboard fewer tankers, that is a 29% increase in fuel over the 245,000 lbs the A-330-200 carries.

It does not get any advantage for that. Any fuel above line C receives 10 points, that is where the KC-30 and KC-777 are.

"No Additional Value Above D Line"

Correct, until it gets to the non-madatory computations, if it ever does.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic B777-200ER As KC-X
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39
KC-135 Stratotanker Retires To AMC Museum posted Sat Sep 12 2009 18:58:29 by USAir1489
Brazil Selects Rafale As New Fighter A/c posted Mon Sep 7 2009 09:53:33 by Chuchoteur
Boeing Settles Over KC-10 Work posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:05:16 by Revelation
KC-135 Makes Emergency Landing posted Thu Aug 6 2009 03:37:27 by Michlis
Will Boeing Be Able To Offer B787 For KC-X posted Fri Jul 17 2009 06:55:36 by Mptpa
787-9 As Reconn Or Electronic Surveil' Platform posted Sat Jun 6 2009 09:00:05 by EBJ1248650
NG States Dual KC-X Buy Can Save Usaf Money posted Thu Jun 4 2009 20:20:15 by Stitch
KC-135s Rule....... posted Wed May 6 2009 08:10:41 by KC135TopBoom
Video Footage Of J57-powered KC-135A posted Fri Apr 24 2009 09:33:26 by 747fan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format