Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎  
User currently offlineyazoo From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 487 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 23467 times:

After all the ads on the frontpage of A.net, I was wondering when this would become official :

Boeing to offer 767-based refueling tanker‎


Purple Pride!
204 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemanfredj From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 23417 times:

So much if left unsaid. We know it will offer 787 style cockpit, but what other modifications will be done to the aircraft or is a completely "new" 767 that has a different wing a fuselage?

I'm hoping they will attach some pretty crazy engines to this thing too...maybe 100,000 thrust each?  



757: The last of the best
User currently offlineyazoo From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 3 weeks ago) and read 23317 times:

And the pictures:




Purple Pride!
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22828 times:

My guess is they will add new LED lights to the inside, creating a more "airy" NewGen cockpit and cabin. Adding maybe $75 million to the price.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8543 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22827 times:

"The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability."

Talk about a cheap shot. That's outrageous. Boeing sounds like a babbling baby.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 22792 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Talk about a cheap shot. That's outrageous. Boeing sounds like a babbling baby.

It might be cheap, but it will no doubt have some traction, in light of AF447.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 22752 times:

The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.

Like on the F22.


User currently offlineSP90 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 388 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 22699 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Like on the F22.

IIRC, that feature was implemented to protect the pilots. Still, how hard would it be for Airbus to modify the A330 FBW software to allow for unrestricted access to the full flight envelope? At the same time, when was the last time anyone flew a tanker into a situation where it was required to make evasive maneuvers for threat avoidance?


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7223 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 22698 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Talk about a cheap shot. That's outrageous. Boeing sounds like a babbling baby.

Folks still talk about the 737 rudder and the 747 doors, so I guess one has to live with the Airbus flight control computers until they get rid of it.

Quoting manfredj (Reply 1):
So much if left unsaid. We know it will offer 787 style cockpit, but what other modifications will be done to the aircraft or is a completely "new" 767 that has a different wing a fuselage?

Well, now we know how the cost of the 767 will rise to match the cost of the A330, real question is whether all these fancy items being put in the cockpit are necessary, cheaper because they are easier to retrofit enmasse to the 767 rather than piece meal or required by the RFP.
If not required by the RFP it is an additional cost which brings both a/c closer to the 1% margin, hope if they loose the competition it will not be as a result of all the addedd "fluff" maybe they should look to the VH-71 and F-22 programs for guidance.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2141 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22635 times:

Can we trade the 75% larger screens for 15% more efficient GEnx-2B engines.
Pls, stay with the already engineered "777 cockpit lay-out" of the 767-400 and keep the costs within limits.
It looks if the fueltruck is slowly transferred into a fancy Ferrari.

[Edited 2010-03-04 14:02:28]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22607 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.

Like on the F22.

Or the Boeing V-22 Osprey for that matter...


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6485 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22602 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
Pls, stay with the already engineered "777 cockpit lay-out" of the 767-400 and keep the costs within limits.
It looks if the fueltruck is slowly transferred into a fancy Ferrari.

Or...

Boeing figures that these airframes will be flying for 50+ years, and so it's better to have them be as modern as possible, where possible. The talent base in 30-50 years might really only understand newer cockpits.

This also applies to the supply chain as well. Suppliers may be keen to stop making the old style of instruments and controls.

[Edited 2010-03-04 14:15:26]


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22599 times:

It is a right-sized 787-3 in the making

User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22590 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
ell, now we know how the cost of the 767 will rise to match the cost of the A330

I'd be amazed if the 787 style cockpit cost more than the old 767 one. Using the current items in full production often can save alot of money over older equipment. In this case, reducing the number of parts used to make the cockpit will have a massive reduction in costs even if the larger screens cost a hair more. The reduction wiring, button count, gauges, warning lights, etc are a big deal. Design, manufacturing, assembly, MX, and repair costs all drop when you reduce the complexity of the cockpit assembly.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 7):
IIRC, that feature was implemented to protect the pilots. Still, how hard would it be for Airbus to modify the A330 FBW software to allow for unrestricted access to the full flight envelope?

Cost would be in writing and then flight testing the new software. Not cheap, but on the whole not but a small bit in a contract this big. Only thing I think that would prevent EADS from doing it is that Airbus has planes needing these people working hard (A350/A400M) and taking resources from either isn't possible.


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 22555 times:

FbW and flight enveloppe protection allows the pilots to fy the aircraft on the edge of the enveloppe without having to worry that they go outside the envelope & break the wings, stall the ship etc. Just like the 787, F18 and any modern aircraft. It's spin for the big unknowing public.

User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 22443 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
FbW and flight enveloppe protection allows the pilots to fy the aircraft on the edge of the enveloppe without having to worry that they go outside the envelope & break the wings, stall the ship etc. Just like the 787, F18 and any modern aircraft. It's spin for the big unknowing public.

Boeing's statement has nothing to do with FbW, but everything to do with the flight envelope protection.

Boeing's flight envelope protection, just like on 787 and 777, allows the pilot to override the protections. The A330 does not have the override.

The fact is that A330 protection exist to prevent the plane to be pushed beyond the "normal" limit. It is very good with commercial aviaton, where you should not see flight operation pushing through the normal limit.

I don't know about the tanker operation, but I don't think it is not unimaginable to push the plane beyond the normal limit, under certain emergency combat situations.

Quoting yazoo (Thread starter):
Like on the F22.
Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
F18

I don't know what kind of envelope protection that F-22 and F-18, but modern fighter with FBW has computer aided control, to stabilize the plane. I don't think it limits the plane manouver.



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7223 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 22411 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 13):
I'd be amazed if the 787 style cockpit cost more than the old 767 one. Using the current items in full production often can save alot of money over older equipment.

I agree, its why I also mentioned that enmasse the changes may be cheaper, but my main point is that the more new things put in the a/c the more development cost will rise, including testing.
This is not an RFP for a new design tanker, it essentially is for an off the shelf a/c customized to the Air Force requirements, the more customization placed by the client or voluntarilly added by the vendor the closer the cost curve will get to a new build a/c.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
Boeing figures that these airframes will be flying for 50+ years, and so it's better to have them be as modern as possible, where possible. The talent base in 30-50 years might really only understand newer cockpits.

This also applies to the supply chain as well. Suppliers may be keen to stop making the old style of instruments and controls.

Which may defeat the cost savings that the Air Force wants to make up front. The end of the 767 and A330 lines are almost known, yes the 767 will go first, but Airbus already has a replacement for the A330 as Boeing does for the 767, so maybe they should just bite the bullet and request a new purpose design and forget the initial savings and look even longer term. If a new design was the option it probably would have been chosen by now, rather than this "competition" which is now in it's second run.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 22417 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.

Like on the F22.

Welcome back Keesje. I was beginning to think you were taken away by the EADS A-400M team and hidden somewhere.

BTW, Boeing does not build the F-22, or writes the software.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 7):
IIRC, that feature was implemented to protect the pilots. Still, how hard would it be for Airbus to modify the A330 FBW software to allow for unrestricted access to the full flight envelope?

You mean protect them like on AF 296? Airbus yanked the DFDR and DCVR, kept them for 10 days, before turniung them over to the accident investigators, and the recorders were open with several seconds of data mission..

You would have to ask EADS/Airbus would they consider writing the new software, but I doubt they would want to, it would add significant costs to their bid.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 7):
At the same time, when was the last time anyone flew a tanker into a situation where it was required to make evasive maneuvers for threat avoidance?
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
I don't know about the tanker operation, but I don't think it is not unimaginable to push the plane beyond the normal limit, under certain emergency combat situations.

Twice in Vietnam, and at least once in ODS. This is not counting the several KC-135s that flew in low level to drag damaged fighters out of North Vietnam.


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 22325 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 13):

So according to you putting a new cockpit design and layout in an old design should be cheap but reprograming the FBW limits should be expensive?.

Right...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
You mean protect them like on AF 296?

How many accidents due to FBW failure have happened on Airbii since then?. But since you want to go there, maybe the USAF should stick to the KC-135 and avoid the 767, you know, in case the thrust reversers decide to activate on their own midflight 
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
ou would have to ask EADS/Airbus would they consider writing the new software, but I doubt they would want to, it would add significant costs to their bid.

Again, how all the redesign the 767 has to go through somehow is more cheap than FBW reprograming?.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
I don't know what kind of envelope protection that F-22 and F-18, but modern fighter with FBW has computer aided control, to stabilize the plane. I don't think it limits the plane manouver.

IIRC, the Flanker family has a limitation on the AOA it can reach, but it can be turned off without too much hassle.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 22292 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
So according to you putting a new cockpit design and layout in an old design should be cheap but reprograming the FBW limits should be expensive?.

yes, the existing hardware sourced from the 787 or 777 put into the KC767NG will likely be cheaper than using the old desgin. Some certification and design costs, but you pay that back in cheaper cost to make the cockpit. Touch screens are incredbly cheap now compared to the cost for dozens of steam gauges for example.

Moidifying hundreds of thousands of lines of code, checking it, checking it again, then flight testing it for hundreds of hours to ensure the new programing won't leave the operators owning alot of wreckage instead of planes isn't cheap. There is no savings to come from doing it either. Your real question isn't is redoing the FBW expensive or not, its is the FBW limits approprate to the role without extensive modification. Last I suspect if there was needed changes for a military role they have been done in the KC30 program for the Aussies.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 22275 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
Again, how all the redesign the 767 has to go through somehow is more cheap than FBW reprograming?.

Actually, I think, to convert the A330 FBW with its flight envelope protection to have the flexibility of aircrafts with say Boeing's envelope protection philosophy is not as easy as modifying the code.

With Boeings, you can override the flight protection by putting a lot of force on the yoke. With Airbus, they have to think about side stick modifications to incorporate those kind of two level protections. Otherwise, the airplane won't be able to give feedback to the pilots for the distinction of going over the "safe" limit.



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12148 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 22269 times:

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
You mean protect them like on AF 296?

How many accidents due to FBW failure have happened on Airbii since then?. But since you want to go there, maybe the USAF should stick to the KC-135 and avoid the 767, you know, in case the thrust reversers decide to activate on their own midfligh

I posted some 12 accidents a while ago (not counting AF-447), but they were deleted. BTW, the B-767 thrust reverser accident was just 1.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
ou would have to ask EADS/Airbus would they consider writing the new software, but I doubt they would want to, it would add significant costs to their bid.

Again, how all the redesign the 767 has to go through somehow is more cheap than FBW reprograming?.

The GAO said the Boeing offer in 2008 was $10M cheaper per airplane than the EADS/NG offer in 2008.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12562 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 22234 times:

The most interesting part of the article to me is:

Quote:

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, said the new 767-based tanker would be "considerably simpler" than the one it bid in the last competition, which had included parts of different 767 models and was downgraded as possibly risky by the Air Force.

So it seems the Frankentanker is dead!

Given that Boeing said the 767 NewGen tanker would meet the Air Force's 372 mandatory requirements, one's gotta wonder exactly what frame that Boeing will be pitching, and how it'll meet all the requirements.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8278 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 22141 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Twice in Vietnam, and at least once in ODS. This is not counting the several KC-135s that flew in low level to drag damaged fighters out of North Vietnam.

Glad you made it through those.

On the dragging damaged fighters out of NV, I might have been on watch in PIRAZ CIC if that happened in the 66 - 68 time frame. You shudda waved.  


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 22136 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
yes, the existing hardware sourced from the 787 or 777 put into the KC767NG will likely be cheaper than using the old desgin. Some certification and design costs, but you pay that back in cheaper cost to make the cockpit. Touch screens are incredbly cheap now compared to the cost for dozens of steam gauges for example.

In theory you're 100% correct - let's see if it works out in practice

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 20):
With Boeings, you can override the flight protection by putting a lot of force on the yoke. With Airbus, they have to think about side stick modifications to incorporate those kind of two level protections. Otherwise, the airplane won't be able to give feedback to the pilots for the distinction of going over the "safe" limit.

And yet the F-16 and Rafale use sidesticks which presumably also have an FBW switch off button, so i don't think that learning curve is too high for french engineers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The GAO said the Boeing offer in 2008 was $10M cheaper per airplane than the EADS/NG offer in 2008.

Yes but with all these new modifications, their integration and testing that Boeing is proposing will it still continue to be cheaper?

At any rate aesthetically this new Boeing proposal is stunningly beautiful - but didn't some one in this thread or another related thread bring about the notion that the winglets reduced drag but made crosswind compensation more difficult? maybe raked wing-tips a la 764 would have been better if not as beautiful

Does this proposal remain a 762 or is it now a 763?? the artist impressions seem somewhat longer than the pictured Italian and Japanese variants



Vi veri universum vivus vici
25 N328KF : Too many people in these threads are confusing FBW with computer-controlled flight envelopes. They are related, but not synonymous.
26 Zeke : You need to compare apples with apples, the A330 FBW is not the same as the KC-30 FBW, the KC-30 FBW is more like the A400M. The KC-30 FBW was modifi
27 Shmertspionem : Isn't that a good thing as far as EMP shielding goes? - since nuclear war fighting always will be part of USAF ideology? The next step would be to go
28 Zeke : I do not think it matters, all aircraft have been designed with EMP in mind, otherwise none would be able to fly near a thunderstorm. BTW civil airli
29 Post contains images ArabAirX : And this matters because? The tender is for the USAF, not commercial use - it matters not one iota about commonality - just as the A330 tanker shares
30 Shmertspionem : Because when commercial 767's cease to fly who's going to be providing spares? True story - when NASA wanted spares for certain computers on the Spac
31 N328KF : Why do you think there are no used 707s around, when DC-8s abound? Hint: It's not because the 707 sucked.
32 Gipsy : INFO for the UNKNOWING Ever heard of Direct Law? There's NO FEP in Direct Law!!!! I guess it's a matter of software reprogramming to assign a button t
33 Post contains links rheinwaldner : Correct. It is not required because there is no useable flight envelope beyond the envelope protection limits. By definition. Beyond that limit the p
34 CMB56 : I had a description given to me first hand from a pilot who was allowed to fly an A340 during a demonstration flight out of Toulouse. A fairly high al
35 KC135TopBoom : I did.... It was me who brought up the cross wind capability question on winglets vs. raked wingtips. We will not know anything about the new price o
36 rheinwaldner : Sorry, I meant (but failed to write) Boeing civil airliners (those that are candidates for tankers). Yes but any smaller type surely has even more ma
37 ArabAirX : Sorry, but there are hundreds of 767s in service, theres plenty in the backlog too. Spares is not an issue - and IF Boeing wins, it'll be even less o
38 PolymerPlane : Not true, you can't do barrel roll on A330, while there is a posibility that you can with "mechanical aircraft". Example: China Airlines 006, a dive
39 Post contains images Shmertspionem : KC that's called a rhetorical point! haven't you been reading schopenhauer And none of those hundreds will be compatible with the USAF 767's - that's
40 Shmertspionem : Wouldn't that be a function of the plane's structural engineering to withstand centrifugal/centripetal and g forces and the efficiency of its control
41 AirRyan : The force behind the yoke is called gravity and weight, and hydraulic assists are the only way one can move the control surfaces as well as they can
42 PolymerPlane : I didn't say they can't. I was responding to the claim that a "simple" recoding of FBW law can achieve this. No, not on the Boeing FBW. It actually g
43 Post contains images Shmertspionem : Given how badly the French have degraded Air France, and Air France in the past has downgraded/degraded me - I Think they're the world champions of t
44 ArabAirX : I never referred to commonality, I referred to the OEM (Boeing) being able to produce the required parts if it won the deal. Zeke is the one drawing
45 CMB56 : Artificial feel was first put on the Hughes Hercules "Spruce Goose" so that the hydraulics would have a feeling of real forces on them. At that time p
46 GST : so it seems that the situation is conceivable in the future, the question is now whether there is any evasion circumstance that would entail the airc
47 Post contains images scbriml : Or the crew elects to fly in direct law. But wait, that would mean....
48 CMB56 : There is an old simply saying in aviation "If you want to go up pull back on the stick, if you want to go down pull back harder." The 767 would let yo
49 ThePointblank : Ah, but the A330 would let you do that in direct law... it's just a switch that can disable certain systems. And besides, if you are pulling up enoug
50 Post contains links 747classic : Boeing's NewGen 767 tanker proposel will be powered by PW4062 engines. see : http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/196662.asp I would have offe
51 KC135TopBoom : There have been two B-747s (both over the Pacific, IIRC), a TW B-727 over up state NY, and of course the famous barrel roll of the B-367-80 (KC-135/B
52 Post contains images Shmertspionem : Hmm now then what to make of all this???? But then it'll be too late. I don't know if this is relevant but when air transat 236 lost fuel and power t
53 AirRyan : Boeing must have had a debt owed to P&W, for they made a concerted decision to go with they as opposed to GE, who powered all previous KC-767's u
54 Zeke : You can supposedly override it, but to give you an example of the stick shaker, to override that you actually end up with less performance, and when
55 rheinwaldner : On the A330 you fully pull the stick all the time and you have the guarantee that the best possible climb out is the result. To do the same in the 76
56 Shmertspionem : An excellent point. Kudos to you. Now wait for Boeing to come out with the next irrelevant ad about how the 767 can house a crèche for pet chimpanze
57 flyglobal : This discussion sounds similar to discussions about the need to use safety belts in cars 40 years ago. There were some cases mentioned when a safety
58 oykie : Thar would be nice. The LCD screens on the 767-400ER is nice and it if I have understood correctly it does not need to be upgraded for the nextgen AT
59 KC135TopBoom : The major problem here for the GEnx engine, on any KC-X offered airplane is it needs some degree of design work and certification for the B-767 and A
60 CMB56 : The 767-400 display system is not a good choice. I have that from the horses mouth, the OEM of the displays not from Boeing. The large area displays p
61 747classic : For the 767NG Tanker the GEnx-2B, optimized for bleed extraction, can be taken directly from the 747-8 with only minor changes. For the A330 Tanker t
62 Bennett123 : Clearly envelope protection was designed, (at great cost) for a reason. Lack of it could help in some extreme situations. However, either you must pra
63 CMB56 : Maybe it would not be as big a step forward but if a newer engine is desired for the A330 why not use the GP7200 from the A380. It offers 70-77K thrus
64 Post contains images oykie : Of course, but probably just for the airforce... The engine is probably one of the most important and complex part of the airplane. That may be The G
65 N328KF : I think the best way to summarize it is that envelope protection can save a marginal pilot and make them average, but it can also make a great pilot
66 keesje : Imagine the USAF would have introduced a 30 yr old airframe-engine combination instead of the KC135 in the late fifties..
67 Lumberton : How old will the A400M be when it IOC's?
68 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : Well, in 1977, the USAF began buying the E-3A/B/C/G (E-3A also bought by NATO and the RSAF, E-3D bought by the UK and the E-3F bought by France). All
69 Ken777 : So Boeing should be submitting the 787 instead? Should the USAF wait until the NGs are certified and take if from there?
70 KC135TopBoom : Correct. Keesje forgets the A-330 is now an over 20 year old design. He would say the A-330 has been updated over that time, which is true, but he wi
71 CMB56 : I don't think it is useful to compare an aircraft design that is 20 years old today with a design that was 20 years old in 1955. The longevity of airf
72 prebennorholm : About all this FBW, envelope protection and protection override, Let's get some down on earth facts. The KC-767 is not proposed as a FBW plane, and it
73 AirframeAs : I love the paintjob in those pictures! It is good to see something new for the military look.
74 KC135TopBoom : I am sure that somewhere along the production of the new tanker (B-767 or A-330), which should initially be produced as an "A" model, the OEM, or USA
75 N328KF : Can we close this thread, and the two related ones, and consolidate into one new one?
76 PC12Fan : Amen. Ratio please?
77 KC135TopBoom : How much would replacing the PW-4062s with GEnx-2B engines costs? I believe that was one unfortunate B-767-200 accident, and the problem that caused
78 PC12Fan : I don't understand why they don't go with the 777 style cockpit. If the 777 freighter is chosen later on for a KC-10 replacement, keeping the 777 coc
79 N328KF : Aside from the reason I gave that you quoted, I think it's far more likely that they'll operate 787s in large quantities than they would 777s. That's
80 Post contains images Flighty : I recommend it be put in the Non-Aviation folder, because these things aren't gonna be flying anytime soon. This is about people on the ground, paper
81 XT6Wagon : Why? likely the newer screens are cheaper per unit, and have that extra bit of "cutting edge" to them. If the extra screen realestate can be used to
82 Flighty : It's also difficult to imagine where they will get CRT screens in the year 2035, or service them. You need a whole factory to build them. It's an ext
83 Post contains links AutothrustBlue : The flight envelope protection is what kept the plane from stalling above the runway. It was the audacity of the pilots to fly low, slow, with a high
84 Post contains images BoeEngr : Too expensive. The displays that the 787 uses are about a quarter of the cost of the 777 displays. The information is displayed in pretty much the sa
85 Post contains links and images PC12Fan : 787 View Large View MediumPhoto © Jeremy Lindgren / New England Airports 764 View Large View MediumPhoto © Daniel Piotrowski 777 View Large View Me
86 KC135TopBoom : Then that would be one of many ways Boeing is using to keep the costs of the KC-767NG as low as possible.
87 kanban : Actually this is a problem.. having worked in the spares inventory group, it becmes vastly more expensive and the lead times for replacement grow lon
88 AutothrustBlue : Thank you. I felt this was the case; it makes sense to keep the display format from the 777. Thanks for the pics.
89 cosmofly : Make sense. The 787 screen is rectangular and has aspect ration of a typical PC monitor. The 777 ones are squares which makes it very niche.
90 KC135TopBoom : Let me see? We now have the Boeing KC-767NG, EADS wants to bid their A-330MRTT, and now UAC wants to build a KC-IL-96 for a bid proposal. I guess the
91 N328KF : You're actually on to something there. Notice how 4:3 (SDTV)-ratio displays are disappearing from store shelves, even for computer monitors? This is
92 Post contains images Revelation : Yes, cost of odd shapes is a factor, but still we are talking about multi million dollar purchases here. Also something tells me the resolution and b
93 MD-90 : Will they fit under a 767's wings without a landing gear extension?
94 KC135TopBoom : Since these are the same engines that are on the B-747-8F/I, and the landing gear on that version is no taller than any other version of the B-747, I
95 rwessel : That's actually 16:10, which is a more and more common size for "widescreen" monitors. "Real" 16:9 widescreen monitors are a bit too short, and the b
96 KC135TopBoom : I guess I'm like your Dad, then. I have a 42" HDTV, a 36" HDTV, a 27" HDTV, but I usually watch the old 20" flat screen CRT TV. I have Direct TV, but
97 Post contains images N328KF : It's a scam to want TV sets that match (more closely, at least) the aspect ratio that movies have had for decades?
98 KC135TopBoom : Yeah, but we need to get back on the topic of the Boeing KC-767NG offering.
99 Post contains links oykie : Boeing is curently doing a roadshow for this new airplane. What is interesting in the published video is that the cockpit in the video is similar to t
100 KC135TopBoom : According to Boeing, the KC-767NG will the B-787 cockpit displays. In the video, the man does say the BART is equiped with the B-777 flight displays.
101 BoeEngr : It'll have the 787 displays. It does have a 767-400ER display in the "road show" but he clearly states in the video that the Next Gen tanker will hav
102 oykie : Sorry. I do not have sound on my computer... So I was a bit quick to conclude. When I read the BART blog it said the truck was built back in 2005. Do
103 Post contains images BoeEngr : The previous offer had the older/smaller displays. It's only been for this round that Boeing has included the 787 size/format displays. So not tooooo
104 Post contains images oykie : I see It seemed like it was a functional flight deck, with some software, so it might be too expencive? Anyway nice to know that the cockpit will sti
105 BoeEngr : Not sure how expensive it is, but I tend to think we're too close to the submittal of the proposal to warrant the time and expense of doing the updat
106 Post contains links vcjc : Aside from the NewGen pictures, 787 displays, KC-10 boom, and mandatory requirements that Boeing will surely meet, they haven't said much. There's a
107 BoeEngr : Hadn't seen that. Thanks for posting it.
108 Post contains images oykie : I like the frontpage cover of that magazine, with an artist impression of the 767 vs A330 noses on the front page. The article offer some insight as
109 rheinwaldner : I really wonder why there is this big circus about cockpit screen size. IMO not one requirement from the RFP depends on the cockpit layout. To me it s
110 KC135TopBoom : Yes, I believe the truck was built in 2005, but the BART equipment did not complete the installation until early 2009, IIRC. No, I doubt Boeing will
111 Post contains images zeke : Airbus has not used 1990 technology i.e. CRTs for some time (must be 5-10 years now). All the A320/A330/A340/A380 aircraft made today come with the l
112 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I know, but is the KC-30 avionics package/screens the same technology level as those proposed from the B-787 going into the proposed KC-767NG? The on
113 zeke : No, not at all. What they are offering on the KC-767 is like buying a new LCD TV today, but all you have at home is a Betamax player. The screens are
114 CMB56 : The basic problem with the display system on the current production 767 is that it is CRT based and limited in its display capability. The display sys
115 ThePointblank : No, all you are doing is akin to replacing the monitor on a old MS DOS computer from black and white CRT to colour LCD. Doesn't change the computer b
116 zeke : The KC-30 has the displays, they have the FMS with AAR functions, they have integrated Mission Planning System, integrated Multifunctional Informatio
117 KC135TopBoom : We do not know all of the current capability of the B-787 avionics, nor which computer capability Boeing plans on offering to the USAF. Correct. As I
118 vcjc : Not sure that paint matters much, but the difference is probably because the EADS pictures are of the RAAF tankers in the paint scheme requested by t
119 CMB56 : Back up just a bit. A display system is just that, a system that can display information and graphics. The information has to come from some other sou
120 Post contains links zeke : The 787 FCOMs have been published for some time now, they are available for download from my boeing fleet. Risk is not a factor that is being evaluat
121 rheinwaldner : I fully agree. This is the hogwash. If the systems (and the architecture behind) do not change the old screens simply could be replaced by modern equ
122 BoeEngr : A couple quick notes. The 767 tanker is NOT getting the 787 flight deck. Just displays and cursor control devices, with a few other minor tweaks. The
123 kanban : in laymen's terms is it similar to upgrading one's mouse, crt to flat screen and changing out a keyboard without messing with the CPU's performance o
124 KC135TopBoom : Thanks Correct. That is why the dicussions on risk are not relevent. Actually, it is Congressman Norm Dicks, he is not a US Senator. What he said was
125 zeke : You really want us to believe that ? Their worst selling model they have they do this upgrade on ? If it was so cost advantageous, would they not see
126 BoeEngr : Actually, I don't care if you believe it or not. It's not my problem if you don't, and not my responsibility to convince you. Since I know the cost o
127 XT6Wagon : better yet, they can possibly sell hundreds of conversions to existing 767 operators to reduce MX and parts costs, while increasing the abilty of the
128 rheinwaldner : But displays not as large (original size) but with the same technology surely would be cheaper! |----------------------------------------------------
129 XT6Wagon : suprising thing is... Nope. Keeping a common size is critical for lowest price. Go look at E-book readers. See how they only come in a few sizes? Wel
130 ThePointblank : The MD-10 got the MD-11 cockpit and avionics, and it actually provided a measurable and significant cost savings because it eliminated a crew positio
131 rheinwaldner : Who said that the smaller screens are more custom than the 787 screens? If anything we can say that the LCD screens used for A330 are available and o
132 bikerthai : I would agree that screen size would not impact the over cost of a new screen. However, the cost of any LCD screen to be used on the 767 tanker (or a
133 KC135TopBoom : Okay, I agree, we should discuss Wedgetail. Now what about the 4 year late A-400, that was a fixed price contract too, EADS could not live with that
134 CMB56 : First off the MD-11 displays mentioned above are built by Honeywell and are pretty long in the tooth. Reliability is declining and repair costs are go
135 Post contains links and images zeke : And that is the real savings, likewise I have seen a similar conversion made to the 727. That is what I cannot understand, to me it appears they are
136 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : The news reports said the charter QF A-330 was near its maximum search range as she was stranded some 4200 km from Oz. That is some 8400 km round tri
137 bikerthai : And the Wedgetail were on the east coast . . . and I would suspect they are not ready for remote deployment to the west coast. I thought press report
138 kanban : consider in a bidding competition neither side is going to lay all their cards on the table at the beginning... only a few obvious ones... what the f
139 bikerthai : Well, they can depending on how they categorize the change (ITAR or non ITAR change). All that requires complicated paperwork and Department of State
140 KC135TopBoom : The bottom line is, almost no one here on a.net know anything about the designs (other than the basic designs) Boeing and EADS are developing for the
141 zeke : No, both OEMs have made statements as to what they are bidding. If they were to differ from that, the CEO/directors would be up for misleading the st
142 KC135TopBoom : Yes, they both have made statements. But neither Boeing nor EADS has really said anything about the details of their offers. Each has left to door wi
143 kanban : of course if they do certain forum members will use that to discredit the companies (particulrly the winner for 'cheating') for the rest of the keybo
144 Revelation : True. False. The new screens will be easier to read due to better pixel density and higher refresh rates, and will have higher service life and lower
145 zeke : Not true, EADS has stated that they will bid using the KC-30, and Boeing has said they will bil using the KC-767, Boeing has publically discounted bi
146 Post contains images moose135 : Oh great, five more months of pointless arguing on A.net...
147 CMB56 : Zeke has a good point: The RFC may say nothing about the cockpit configuration of the desired aircraft. I am certainly not an expert on the content of
148 Revelation : Thanks for your clarifications, especially of this point.
149 rheinwaldner : Ok, I assume there is a difference between old and new screens in life cycle cost and maintenance (e.g. spare parts cost). And those things are measu
150 Post contains images bikerthai : As if the Tanker will require that much computing power . . . as compared to an AEWC or P-8A. I wouldn't be surprised if the chip in the LCD screen a
151 KC135TopBoom : Correct, so far we know one OEM has a pair of aces and the other has three queens. The bids are less than 3 weeks from being due right now. My guess
152 bikerthai : I wonder if they will make a decision and wait until after the Nov. 2 election to announce or will they wait until after the election to make a decis
153 KC135TopBoom : No, that will not make a difference. Both OEMs have their supporters in both political parties. The most likely possibility ir the GOP wins is the KC
154 Post contains images Revelation : I think that's a good point. I didn't quite get Zeke's point which seemed to imply that putting a 787 screen into a 767 somehow made it unique and th
155 Post contains links and images zeke : I agree that LCDs are already obsolete, Boeing moved away from them to LCDs on the 767-400. The 767-400 already has the Honeywell’s D-size (8”x 8
156 bikerthai : An a few of us have not gotten our coffee yet . . . must have been a bad day for thinking. But they would still charge Boeing for any changes or re-c
157 KC135TopBoom : As usual, you are going down a side track to avoid the subject being discussed. Are you saying LCC is not considered anywhere in evaluating each offe
158 Post contains images bikerthai : To clarify: for a fixed priced contract, any overrun will be absorbed by Boeing and/or the supplier. (And then passed on the the government in follow
159 kanban : I believe there is also a provision where Boeing can present a case of added work/design/cert to meet spec for the A/F review and sometimes those get
160 zeke : Not at all, I asked you to provide the sections from the RFP which deals with life cycle costs for maintenance and upgrades. As I know there is none,
161 KC135TopBoom : I have not "attacked" you, or anyone else here. Those are projections. Hypothetical? Maybe, maybe not. The USAF has put in place a more realistic fue
162 zeke : Of course they are, they are assumed; uncertain; conjectural; supposed; theoretical, that is what hypothetical means. It is a 40 year retirement sche
163 Post contains links cargotanker : Probably could be a separate topic, or a hoax, but it looks like the Ukrainians are attempting to bid with AN-124 variants: http://www.defensenews.com
164 rheinwaldner : The AN-122/AN-124/AN-225 would be only aircraft with 2 to 6 engines option! Weird, but promising with this RFP. Could keep Boeing's or Airbus' pricing
165 vcjc : Fun to think about, but neither Antonov nor US Aerospace have the prime contracting capabilities to make it through the first gate of contractual req
166 Post contains links MCIGuy : Sign up for the newsletter and get your free "Boeing NewGen Tanker" sticker: http://www.unitedstatestanker.com/Action/Sticker
167 zeke : Not this year, EADS will have the A400M and A380 flying at Farnborough this year (A330F and C295 on static display), it had the KC-30 at Farnborough
168 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Already done that. Correct, I also believe Boeing will have Phamtom Ray, A-160, a C-17, F/A-18F, F-15E1 (Silent Eagle Demonstrator), AH-64D, and Qata
169 Post contains links zeke : That is no correct, Boeing is not bringing an AH-64, 777, C-17, or F-15, nor is it bringing a Phamtom Ray, it is bringing a model of one. http://www.
170 KC135TopBoom : I suspect your link has more accurate information than the one I posted. Thanks, Zeke.
171 DEVILFISH : According to the above link, the DoD will have the F-15E.
172 kanban : one never knows for sure... last minute flybys of "unscheduled" aircraft as I recall have happened... there has been a supported discussion (see civi
173 keesje : lets hope so, the more specials the better..
174 zeke : Airshows like Farnborough are very safety orientated, they have well thought out static and flight displays that requires advanced planning. Boeing w
175 KC135TopBoom : It would seem Boeing already has done that with the B-787, so IF they were to do a surprise visit of the B-747-8F, talking with the UK CAA should not
176 zeke : The UK CAA, FAA, and Eurocontrol issued various temporary procedures before the A380 commenced test flying. What you are also missing is that the FAA
177 KC135TopBoom : ALTRAVs are also used by major airframe OEMs, with FAA approval, for flight testing, not just military operations. Perhaps, but the B-747-8 also has
178 Post contains links zeke : Evidence that this has been used by OEMs on civil aircraft, no doubt that OEMs have used that for flight testing military aircraft. The biggest probl
179 kanban : both a/c like the A380 can go darn near anywhere they want as "expiremental". They may not be able to take passengers (salespeople) ... yes, precauti
180 zeke : No they cannot, it takes a lot of approvals from every country involved. "(b) No person may operate a provisionally certificated civil aircraft outsi
181 KC135TopBoom : While Boeing did use ALTRAVs for flight testing of the KC-767A/Js (as did EADS with their KC-310 and A-330MRTT), Boeing and Airbus also used them for
182 Post contains links zeke : You have failed to provide any evidence any evidence to support your claims. The A330-MRTT is not a new aircraft it is certified as an A330-200. It f
183 kanban : strong words indicating a belief rather than a fact... EASA has liaison people at Boeing... and they are involved in all flight test programs... also
184 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : kanban, Zeke does not know how the system works. The B-747-8F flew to El Alto International Airport in La Paz, Bolivia, using RC-503, where it comple
185 cosmofly : I thought RC503 is not yet flying. When did this happen?
186 Post contains links zeke : It is a statement of fact, the EASA TCDS clearly says that the certifing agency for all 747s is the FAA, the 747-8 is being grandfathered off the ori
187 Post contains images Revelation : I am in awe of your exactitude, Zeke!
188 KC135TopBoom : Oops, my typo, I should have typed RC501, you are right, RC-503 is not flying yet.
189 Post contains links zeke : It would appear the testing you claimed that was completed has not been done at all, see the reply to my post in Official 747-8 Flight Tracking Threa
190 kanban : My point is that this is not done in a vacuum after the fact... EASA and previously the JAA have liaison functions associated with the test program,
191 Post contains links bikerthai : I hope this work . . . This link shows a Japan's 767 tanker nose to nose with a KC-135. I heard all this talk about the size of the 767 vs KC-135 but
192 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : I could not get the link to work. Here is a different one. http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...PUB_KC-X_Options_Comparison_lg.gif
193 Post contains links zeke : It essentially is. For this aircraft to get EASA certification Boeing submits a "major change" form ( http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/...%20chang
194 kanban : sorry... for several years my assigned space was just down hall from the JAA office... And the EASA liaison office still exists... I believe that the
195 KC135TopBoom : If Boeing wins this contract, they will comply with all the certification requirements the USAF wants. It really does not matter if the EASA extends a
196 kanban : I agree.. somewhere we'd gotten off track concerning whether or not Boeing could fly the 747-8 to the airshow as an experimental and as you commented
197 Post contains links zeke : No need to be sorry at all. I have previously been a CAA industry delegate for the issue of airworthiness certificates based upon foreign type certif
198 KC135TopBoom : One reason why some military aircraft, like the KC-10 for example, have any type of civilian certification (in this case the FAA) is so it can use so
199 pnwtraveler : Why is so much time being spent on 748 certification on the military side within a Tanker thread? Since the 748 is neither military nor a tanker, I su
200 KC135TopBoom : I agree. We probibly won't hear anything on any of the three offers for a while. Maybe the USAF will say something, but I doubt that will be before 1
201 Post contains images pnwtraveler : I thought Farnborough would have loosened some lips but all is very quiet. Sometimes you get hints. I think someone reported that the Russian/America
202 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Correct, the Boeing KC-X power point briefing at Farnborough had very little, if any new information. http://static.unitedstatestanker.com...p3151423
203 Post contains links kanban : an interesting video on the 767 manufacturing imprvements on the Civil avaition forum... Boeing 767 Moves Towards New Leaner Future (by propilot83 Aug
204 KC135TopBoom : I think it is one of many steps Boeing is using to bring the cost of the KC-767NG bid down.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎
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...
Boeing/NG Team To Offer B-52H CCJ Core Comp Jammer posted Sat Oct 27 2007 10:38:26 by AirRyan
Boeing To Propose 777 Tanker Version posted Mon Jun 15 2009 08:11:11 by Lumberton
LM To Offer Guarantee Price On F35 posted Sat Feb 28 2009 17:41:28 by Mortyman
Boeing To Discuss C-17B At Farnborough posted Thu Jul 3 2008 18:04:39 by EBJ1248650
RAF A330 Tanker To Offer Chartered Flight Service posted Thu Mar 27 2008 06:40:05 by Gilesdavies
Wall Street Journal: Boeing To Protest KC-X Bid... posted Mon Mar 10 2008 15:36:37 by AirRyan
Boeing Has A Usaf KC-767 Stored? posted Sat Apr 21 2007 01:11:18 by KC135TopBoom
Boeing To End C-17 Production posted Fri Mar 2 2007 21:19:41 by Slz396
It's Official. Boeing Offers Advanced KC-767 posted Mon Feb 12 2007 19:42:52 by USAF336TFS
Boeing To Begin Ground Testing X48B posted Mon Oct 30 2006 10:11:16 by DEVILFISH

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format