Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
IAI B-767MMTT Tanker Begins Flight Testing  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8842 times:

IAI has converted a B-767-200ER to the (KC) B-767MMTT for the Columbian Air Force. It has now begun flight testing, including refueling from the WARPs. This B-767MMTT does not have a Boom.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ests-colombias-new-767-tanker.html

This is a multi-mission aircraft, with the tanker, cargo, pax, and possibly VIP missions, much like the Canadian Forces A-310MRTT.

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8693 times:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ests-colombias-new-767-tanker.html

" IAI has previously offered a 767-based tanker to the Polish air force in collaboration with local firm Bumar."

So is the Polish AF tanker back on, or about to be reordered?


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8524 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8494 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ests-colombias-new-767-tanker.html

" IAI has previously offered a 767-based tanker to the Polish air force in collaboration with local firm Bumar."

So is the Polish AF tanker back on, or about to be reordered?

I am amazed to find out that the 767 can fly, refuel aircraft, and carry cargo. I thought only the EADS tanker could do that. Amazing!  



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 8489 times:

It would have been interresting if they had offered to overhaul, mildly upgrade and convert a 767-300ER fleet of 100 into this configuration. Together with e.g. Pemco and Delta TechOps. For say 40% of the OEMs ask.

I guess they could have earned millions for just getting lost  


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8416 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
It would have been interresting if they had offered to overhaul, mildly upgrade and convert a 767-300ER fleet of 100

Well, maybe somewhere in the Negev, there's something similar occurring on a slightly smaller scale?  



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8197 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 3):
It would have been interresting if they had offered to overhaul, mildly upgrade and convert a 767-300ER fleet of 100 into this configuration. Together with e.g. Pemco and Delta TechOps. For say 40% of the OEMs ask.

Well, isn't that essentially what Airbus offered (in a shorter fuselarge) with the A-310MRTT/KC-310? Airbus sold how many of them?


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 8122 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Well, isn't that essentially what Airbus offered (in a shorter fuselarge) with the A-310MRTT/KC-310? Airbus sold how many of them?

6 Sofar. It is totally outsold by new KC767s (8).


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8062 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
6 Sofar. It is totally outsold by new KC767s (8).

And all of them were conversions of used aircraft vs brand new KC767's.


User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8060 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 2):
I am amazed to find out that the 767 can fly, refuel aircraft, and carry cargo. I thought only the EADS tanker could do that. Amazing!

I find it more amazing that another country than the US is so clever and buys second hand B767s instead of expensive new-built ones.

Why could the USAF not buy second hand B767s after they will be retired due to the B787 deliveries?

It would be a "buy US only" as well as UA, DL, AA alone have sufficient B767s to offer...


 


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3321 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8032 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 8):

Why could the USAF not buy second hand B767s after they will be retired due to the B787 deliveries?

There is not 190 B767 avalible on the market in one configuration in condition to be economical for coversion. More importantly the USAF wants an offload that requires the highest MTOW possible with the shortest length fuselage, which means new builds would be cheaper than conversions even if there was sufficent planes avalible on the used market.


User currently offlineDakota From Netherlands, joined Feb 2000, 147 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 7980 times:

Wat is the civilian history of the (KC) B-767MMTT for Colombia? Anyone knows?

User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 7956 times:

If the mission is fuel with modest cargo then the 767-200 is a good buy if you can get some with good life left in them. Most -200s out there have a lot of hours and cycles on them. On the other hand given that even the USAF only puts about a 1000 hours a year on the 135s a high time airframe can last a long time.

The 767-300 ER is still years away from being dumped on the used market by pax operators.

If you want good cheap lift in this class of aircraft most if not all of AA's fleet of A300s is sitting in Roswell NM. They could be converted to freighter tankers pretty easy. Both conversions are available on the market in one form or another. I am not aware of any other group of aircraft from one fleet in one place that is this "available".


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 7944 times:

Quoting Dakota (Reply 10):
Wat is the civilian history of the (KC) B-767MMTT for Colombia? Anyone knows?

The FAC currently has only 1 KC-707. They are looking at 2 KC-767MMTTs, and have options for up to 5 more. If they exercise all the options, it would have sold more than the KC-310MRTT.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7906 times:

Quoting Dakota (Reply 10):
Wat is the civilian history of the (KC) B-767MMTT for Colombia? Anyone knows?

The current bird is ex-Air China.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
The FAC currently has only 1 KC-707. They are looking at 2 KC-767MMTTs, and have options for up to 5 more. If they exercise all the options, it would have sold more than the KC-310MRTT.

Most KC-310MRTT's are conversions of government owned jets, and beyond Canada and Germany, the Thai's and the Pakistani's own 1 each, the Spanish and the Belgians have 2 each, and the French have 3. Germany and Canada own the largest government owned fleets of A310's, and for the smaller government operators, there's less incentive to modify their jets for the tanker role, not to mention the scarcity of A310's on the second hand market.


User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8524 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

[quote=328JET,reply=8]It would be a "buy US only"

Now that policy is something I can agree with 1000% I think I may have stated that before.  



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3212 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 7):
And all of them were conversions of used aircraft vs brand new KC767's


I beg to differ... all were conversions yes, but of new a/c straight off the production line that then went to mod centers for conversion and equipping... hence not "used".

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_milestones.html (authority added)

[Edited 2010-09-11 21:21:31]

User currently offline328JET From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7885 times:

I think converted B763s would be available worldwide in high numbers in the next years.

A very cheap option to get "new" tankers for the US.

The different engine is not a real argument against these used B767s as we are talking about high numbers, which could be operated from seperate bases.

After overhaul these "new" tankers would have much time left in their airframes as the yearly hour rate of tankers is very low.


Another option could be to buy both B762 and B763 to cover different missions.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7845 times:

Quoting 328JET (Reply 16):
I think converted B763s would be available worldwide in high numbers in the next years.

A very cheap option to get "new" tankers for the US.

That is true, since the B-767-300, B-767-300ER, and B-767-300ERF sold the most airframes of all B-767s.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7755 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 15):
I beg to differ... all were conversions yes, but of new a/c straight off the production line that then went to mod centers for conversion and equipping... hence not "used".

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_milestones.html (authority added)

I think the comparison is that the KC310's all had extensive hours on them prior to conversion from civilian and government operations (the current KC310's are conversions of aircraft that were purchased from defunct airlines Wardair/Canadian Pacific and Interflug who flew them for many years). A 767 just off the assembly line heading towards a conversion centre won't have the hours a A310 had when it went for conversion.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7691 times:

Any idea how many hours and cycles are on these former Air China B-767-200ERs? I would guess that IAI could add years to decades of avaiable service to them after conversion to the B-767MMTT.

User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 7526 times:

For long haul aircraft in passenger service it is pretty easy to put 3000 hours a year on them. So some simple math for at 25 year old airframe give you on the high side of 70K hours and maybe 20K cycles. The life limit of the airframe in hours is over 100K so if you operate it as a military tanker and only put 500-1000 hours a year on it the life span is still very long. For countries that have a need for a tanker fleet in small numbers this would seem to be almost a no brainer. You can get a full squadron of used tankers for the cost of one flight of new ones. So what if you have to replace them in 25 years.
If you are using aircraft that don't need the boom better yet the conversion is much simpler. So there are direct routes to either a 767-200 or A310 tanker conversion. For an A300 tanker conversion it could mean starting from scratch, the A300 and A310 have different wings so the pod mounts would be critical. For a 767-300 conversion it should not be so bad. I believe all the 767 have the same basic wing.

For the US looking at a large fleet replacement the seed stock for a standardized remanufactured tanker just isn't there to support the replacement program time line. Better to buy new and while I have no particular favorite the 767-200 is a hard case to beat as more than good enough. Just an observation: at 1000 hours per year and scrapping at 60% of life limit the 767 tanker will still operate for at least 60 years. I think the KC135 fleet is only about at the 60% of life limit now.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 7378 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Any idea how many hours and cycles are on these former Air China B-767-200ERs? I would guess that IAI could add years to decades of avaiable service to them after conversion to the B-767MMTT.
Quoting CMB56 (Reply 20):
For long haul aircraft in passenger service it is pretty easy to put 3000 hours a year on them. So some simple math for at 25 year old airframe give you on the high side of 70K hours and maybe 20K cycles. The life limit of the airframe in hours is over 100K so if you operate it as a military tanker and only put 500-1000 hours a year on it the life span is still very long. For countries that have a need for a tanker fleet in small numbers this would seem to be almost a no brainer. You can get a full squadron of used tankers for the cost of one flight of new ones. So what if you have to replace them in 25 years.

Thanks. I don't know about getting a full squadron (12-15 tankers) for the price of one new build tanker, though.


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 7344 times:

I believe I said for one flight of new ones. If a squadron = 16 then this would be 4 to 1. If you can pick up a used -200 for 30M and put 20M into it for the conversion that comes to at least 3 to 1. 4 to 1 is probably a stretch.

Better yet why not simply buy some of the retired 135s we have sitting around. My understanding is they have thousands of hours left on them. Buy six and use two for parts.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7331 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 22):
Better yet why not simply buy some of the retired 135s we have sitting around. My understanding is they have thousands of hours left on them. Buy six and use two for parts.

The Chile Air Force already did that. They bought 3 KC-135Es, one is used as a spares hulk.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7088 times:

It seems the B-767MMTT has begun refueling tests already. The receiver is a C-10 Kfir.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...e93212-6028-4206-8ea9-7ae780ee4ca5


25 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Up close..... View Large View MediumPhoto © Yochai Mossi - AirTeamImages
26 KC135TopBoom : Wow, she looks great with those big and long WARPs. I wonder if Boeing would consider using the IAI refueling pods on their KC-767NG?
27 par13del : Why, a general a.net wisdom is that the A330 made the 767 obsolete yet they still are in service and not in boneyards, so maybe, just maybe, we shoul
28 KC135TopBoom : That would depend on the costs (including conversion) of the B-777 or A-330 airframes compared to the B-767 airframes.
29 328JET : Most civil pax A330s and B777s will end as converted freighters, but not for the military. The A330-200 came out too early for a replacement of the B7
30 CMB56 : Given the shear numbers of 767s / A330s / 777s that are in service I find it very difficult to envision "most" of them ending up as freighter conversi
31 KC135TopBoom : I would thing converting the A-340s into tankers would be a better and cheaper option for some AFs. They could get the capability of a converted A-330
32 Shmertspionem : cant an A-340 be converted into an A-330? since they have the same fuselage and wings - I thot they could remove the outboard engines, put more power
33 KC135TopBoom : Good question. It may be possible from an engineering point of view, but not economicly possible.
34 Larshjort : I think that it would require quite some extra engineering as the A330 MRTT uses the plumbing in the wing normally used for engine 1 and 4 on the A34
35 KC135TopBoom : Probibly not as much as you would think. True a new hardpoint would be needed on the outer wing for the WARP. But the plumbing issues would not be th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic IAI B-767MMTT Tanker Begins Flight Testing
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...
RAF A330 Tanker To Offer Chartered Flight Service posted Thu Mar 27 2008 06:40:05 by Gilesdavies
Aerial Tanker Search Begins posted Wed Apr 26 2006 17:20:48 by BoeingBus
Reddit: I Refuel Airplanes In Flight, AMA posted Fri Sep 3 2010 15:04:55 by TGIF
Seafire 15 Returns To Flight posted Mon Aug 23 2010 13:20:35 by canoecarrier
Spacex Flight Test Thread posted Fri Aug 20 2010 15:43:21 by ZANL188
Longest Non Stop AF1 Flight posted Thu Aug 12 2010 20:25:08 by Max Q
CAF B-29 "FiFi" Returns To Flight posted Fri Aug 6 2010 12:56:25 by egronenthal
Virgin Galactic Flight Test Thread posted Sat Jul 17 2010 05:58:12 by ZANL188
F-15SE Makes First Flight posted Sat Jul 10 2010 07:36:51 by KC135TopBoom
Canadian Lysander First Flight Photos posted Wed Jun 30 2010 17:50:17 by egronenthal
Seafire 15 Returns To Flight posted Mon Aug 23 2010 13:20:35 by canoecarrier

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format