Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-46 Vs Japanese/Italian 762 Tankers And SIN.  
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9441 times:

Now that the KC-46 is under development with first flight planned for 2015, it led me to wonder what are the major differences between the KC-46 and the earlier 762-based tankers developed by Boeing for Italy & Japan?

I know the KC-46 baseline 762 (dubbed 767-2C) will have a different cargo door, strengthened floors and some 787 digital displays. Are there any other changes, or differences? On that note, will Boeing still market the earlier 762 Ital/Japanese tanker? Moreover, what are the additional differences with the 762 tanker developed by Israel (and recently delivered to Colombia)?

There was a recent article about the KC-46 development in AWST and these Q's came to mind after I read it.

This article also mentioned that Singapore is looking for 6 tankers, with Airbus Military interested in offering the 332-based MRTT and IAI potentially offering a 762-based tanker. Boeing is pondering offering the KC-46.


Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2242 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9233 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Thread starter):
Moreover, what are the additional differences with the 762 tanker developed by Israel (and recently delivered to Colombia)?

For starters, the Colombian tanker doesn't have a boom, only WARPs.

http://www.moose135photography.com/Airplanes/UN-Week-Visitors/UN-Week-2011/i-NWq3nWS/0/XL/JM20110922FAC1202002-XL.jpg



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently onlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9171 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Thread starter):
will Boeing still market the earlier 762 Ital/Japanese tanker?

Most likely not. The cost of doing the modification similar to the Itallian or Japanese tanker will be too cost prohibited. Having the KC-46 integrated in the Commercial 767 line reduced the cost of the airframe quite a bit. Any international version of the 767 tanker will base off the KC-46 line.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4067 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 9120 times:

The KC46 is longer, it has a fuselage stretch from the original 762. It has different, higher power engines with a higher maximum gross weight.


Not sure but it may carry more fuel than the 762 tanker conversions as well.


It has a new advanced FBW Boom with a very high delivery rate.


I have probably missed some features, it is a very sophisticated, highly customised and extremely capable Aircraft.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 9049 times:

Thanks for all your responses guys!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
The KC46 is longer, it has a fuselage stretch from the original 762.

Ah. Interesting...I did not know that. The following article indicated a 2M stretch over the 762.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-identity-of-kc-46a-tanker-357700/



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8798 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Not sure but it may carry more fuel than the 762 tanker conversions as well.

Correct, the KC-46 carries some 40,000 lbs to 45,000 lbs more fuel than the KC-767A/J. It can off load fuel at a faster rate than the KC-767, too.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4067 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 8639 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

Correct, the KC-46 carries some 40,000 lbs to 45,000 lbs more fuel than the KC-767A/J. It can off load fuel at a faster rate than the KC-767, too.

I was hoping you would contribute TBoom, thanks for that



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8506 times:

If the KC-46 can carry 40K+ more fuel than the -200 based tanker I presume the additional is carried in tanks installed in the lower cargo compartments. As I recall the -200 and -300 have the same wing with the same internal tank capacity and the KC-46 is not getting a new wing. I also recall that having additional tanks "downstairs" was not a desireable feature to the AF and that the A330 could carry the full desired load without such tanks.

So just where is the KC-46 going to carry all the fuel it is supposed to?

Engine power is essentially "dial-a-power" the digital engine controlers allow the maximum power of the basic PW or GE engine to be changed across a defined range. Reduced thrust takeoffs are standard for most commercial operators since that takes less out of the engine and extends the life / reduces overhaul costs. TO is the maximum wear time for jet engines. Running a cruise power does not contribute nearly as much to engine wear as the short TO and climb period. So maximum engine power is not written in stone and only used when needed. How fast the military burns through their engines I have no idea. With the tax payer picking up the repair bills they may not care.

Boeing is offering the 787 cockpit display option to commercial operators as a possible upgrade to the 767 avionics. This is in competition with several other display manufacturers who also market cockpit upgrades. IS&S for one has displays in AA and FedEx Boeing cockpits as well as a number of other carriers. I have heard that at approximately line number 7 or 8 of the FedEx 767F order they will get aircraft with the new cockpit, time will tell.

The KC-46 will have four 787 displays in the cockpit the after market version uses three, the landing gear handle cannot be relocated and that will not allow the fourth display to be installed. Three is still a very good upgrade.


User currently onlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8485 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 7):
How fast the military burns through their engines I have no idea. With the tax payer picking up the repair bills they may not care.

But they do care . . . not as much from a cost stand point but from a operational readiness stand point. If you burn through fewer engines, you will have more engines for spares, fewer airplanes down for engine swaps thus your operational readiness stats will be up. I would believe that even in the Military high operational stats are highly prized and are a must for commanders looking for promotions.   

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4067 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8394 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 7):


If the KC-46 can carry 40K+ more fuel than the -200 based tanker I presume the additional is carried in tanks installed in the lower cargo compartments. As I recall the -200 and -300 have the same wing with the same internal tank capacity and the KC-46 is not getting a new wing. I also recall that having additional tanks "downstairs" was not a desireable feature to the AF and that the A330 could carry the full desired load without such tanks.

So just where is the KC-46 going to carry all the fuel it is supposed to?

Even with most or all of the lower hold devoted to auxiliary tanks the KC46 will still have a significant pax / cargo capability on the main deck so I don't think losing that space is significant. I believe it's the same on the KC135 but TBoom can verify that.

Perhaps part of the reason for the fuselage stretch is to allow more 'room' on both decks for fuel, cargo and pax ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineyyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16228 posts, RR: 57
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8237 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Perhaps part of the reason for the fuselage stretch is to allow more 'room' on both decks for fuel, cargo and pax ?

I thought part of the reason for the stretch was to "grow" the aircraft to allay concerns in Round 1 (which EADS "won") that the smaller size of the 762ER platform meant that more aircraft were needed than the competing 332 platform which reduced operational efficiency (I seem to recall this was an EADS argument or selling feature). Of course, counter to this argument then is why didn't Boeing offer the 763 as the base of the KC-46, vs. a stretched 762?



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4067 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8207 times:

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10):

I thought part of the reason for the stretch was to "grow" the aircraft to allay concerns in Round 1 (which EADS "won") that the smaller size of the 762ER platform meant that more aircraft were needed than the competing 332 platform

Exactly my point !

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 10):
Of course, counter to this argument then is why didn't Boeing offer the 763 as the base of the KC-46, vs. a stretched 762?

The considerable longer fuselage of the -300 caused problems with inadequate clearance for the boom on rotation.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 8084 times:

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 7):
So just where is the KC-46 going to carry all the fuel it is supposed to?

In body fuel tanks in the fore and aft lower cargo compartments.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 7):
As I recall the -200 and -300 have the same wing with the same internal tank capacity and the KC-46 is not getting a new wing.

Actually the wings of the two are slightly different, as are the ER versions, and the wing of the freighter is different some more. The KC-46A will have the B-767-300ERF wing. The centerwing fuel tank of the ER and ERF also holds more fuel than the non-ER versions.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Even with most or all of the lower hold devoted to auxiliary tanks the KC46 will still have a significant pax / cargo capability on the main deck so I don't think losing that space is significant. I believe it's the same on the KC135 but TBoom can verify that.

Correct, but the lower body foreward and aft body fuel tanks on the KC-135 hold more fuel than the KC-46 will hold. But the wings and center wing fuel tank of the KC-46 will hold more fuel than those same tanks on the KC-135. Total fuel of both the KC-135 and the KC-46 are claose to the same, about 202,000 lbs for the KC-135 and about 212,000 lbs for the KC-46.


User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3120 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 8059 times:

Why does Colombia need a tanker? Is that their contribution to an alliance?


Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
User currently offline9VSIO From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 693 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 8036 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting yyz717 (Thread starter):
Singapore is looking for 6 tankers, with Airbus Military interested in offering the 332-based MRTT

Airbus brought a brand spanking new MRTT to the Singapore airshow back in Feb, presumably with a very strong sales pitch too!



Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8012 times:

Are there any pictures would be interesting to see a 2m stretch of the 767-200 ?


It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7962 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 15):
Are there any pictures would be interesting to see a 2m stretch of the 767-200 ?

There will probibly be some pictures once the first B-767-2C/KC-46A is built.


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2242 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7941 times:

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 13):
Why does Colombia need a tanker?

They operate a gaggle of IAI Kfirs which are air refuelable. In fact, the tanker accompanied six Kfirs to Nellis this summer, where the Colombian AF participated in Red Flag for the first time. They also have a KC-137 (707-based) tanker, which they have operated for many years, refueling both the Kfirs and the now-retired Mirage 5s.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 7858 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16):
There will probibly be some pictures once the first B-767-2C/KC-46A is built.

Thank you for this very useful comment, but I would have guessed that they are already some computer generated pictures of the KC 46A floating around. I have seen pictures but on these the aircraft looks very much like a normal 767-200



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlinecmb56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 230 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7831 times:

The 767-300 is about 20 feet longer than the -200. In the commercial freighters this allows four more main deck container positions. A two meter streatch would have no effect on commercial capacity but it may allow the boomers control position or other crew position to be added without loosing any of the basic capacity the -200 has to begin with. Unless you have a -200 and KC-46 sitting side by side you may not be able to see that much difference.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7808 times:

Quoting columba (Reply 18):
I would have guessed that they are already some computer generated pictures of the KC 46A floating around. I have seen pictures but on these the aircraft looks very much like a normal 767-200

There are several drawings and computer generated pictures, but none that I know of comparing the size to a B=767-200ER. Boeing says the KC-46 will be 165' 6" long, whereas the KC-767A/J is 156' 1" long. Boeing also list the KC-46 as having a slightly longer wingspan of 157' 8" compared to the KC-767 wingspan of 156' 1", which is the same wingspan of the B-767-200/-200ER/-300/-300ER/-300ERF. This tells me they are doing something to the wingtips of the KC-46A, or they increased the span slightly to prevent the WARP flutter problems they had with the Italian KC-767A.

Quoting cmb56 (Reply 19):
The 767-300 is about 20 feet longer than the -200. In the commercial freighters this allows four more main deck container positions. A two meter streatch would have no effect on commercial capacity but it may allow the boomers control position or other crew position to be added without loosing any of the basic capacity the -200 has to begin with. Unless you have a -200 and KC-46 sitting side by side you may not be able to see that much difference.

The Boom Operator's console will be a remote station in or near the cockpit like the A-330MRTTs, and KC-767s, but it will be a more advanced refueling station than those other tankers. It will not be at the aft end of the cargo compartment like it is aboard the KC-135 and KC-10.


User currently onlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7486 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):

The Boom Operator's console will be a remote station in or near the cockpit like the A-330MRTTs,

I thought I saw a design having it aft of the cockpit partition. Either at the forward lav or forward galley.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-46 Vs Japanese/Italian 762 Tankers And SIN.
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...
VC-X, KC-46, Other Updates posted Thu Apr 12 2012 08:14:46 by KC135TopBoom
KC-46 Might Be More Advanced? posted Sat May 28 2011 03:44:10 by OyKIE
Italian KC-767A Refuels An Italian KC-767A posted Sat Dec 20 2008 16:51:18 by KC135TopBoom
KC-45 Vs KC-10 posted Sun Mar 30 2008 00:13:31 by Tugger
KC-135 VS KC-10 posted Wed Jun 28 2006 17:55:57 by 747400sp
KC-767 Vs KC-30? Try KC-787 Vs. KC-50 posted Wed Dec 14 2005 02:38:41 by AirRyan
Iran Vs. The Super Tankers posted Tue Jan 3 2012 16:08:48 by cmb56
KC-10, KC-135 Tankers With Winglets. posted Mon Jan 4 2010 01:13:59 by 747classic
Propellers C-46 And C-47 posted Tue Sep 22 2009 06:34:54 by Raysaron
KC-767 And Utah Economy posted Mon Oct 22 2007 09:28:48 by EBJ1248650

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format