Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing Finally Sells Another 764ER!  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4468 times:

....of course, it's to the Military, but still Big grin

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAlpha From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 4174 times:



http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2003/q3/nr_030818t.html

Steph


User currently offlineCodeshare From Poland, joined Sep 2002, 1854 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

a little order to keep the production line running.

The 767 still looks cool.

codeshare



How much A is there is Airliners Net ? 0 or nothing ?
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1122 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3568 times:

In all probability the 767 will be the platform the Airforce uses for all it's 707 platform variants - IE AWACS, Joint STARS, tankers (100 leased already and hundreds more needed) Boeing could be looking at 500 767's over the next 10 years.


Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineCV990 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3397 times:


Hi!

Well a sale is always a sale!!! About the 767 tanker version I really don't think USAF will need the 500 in the next few years. I believe that USAF will not replace the C-135 family in a one-to-one basis. We can't forget that the C-135 came when the air forces looked to numbers to be the most powerfull ones, things changed, look for example for the B-2 builted, not a lot but at the same time very efficient. So I think more than the 100 767's will not be built, probably a dozen more, or in the best two dozens.
Regards


User currently offlineTransSwede From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 993 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

So the air force also wants an underpowered and under-ranged aircraft? Good for them!  Smile

User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3381 times:

I wonder why the 764er wasn't more successful?

You'd think more than DL and CO would be interested. Or was it Airbus that helped kill it.  Sad

I like the raked wingtips, this is probably the most interesting 767 variant. I'd like to see it in more airlines.


User currently offlineJaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3332 times:

Aloha717200,
There is a very simple reason why the 764 has not been more sucesful. It cannot carry 2 LD3 cargo containers side by side. Also I am not sure if a 764ER has ever been launched, but I know that the lack on range on the 764 has hurt it as well.


User currently offlineAloha717200 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4429 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3312 times:

I thought the raked wingtips were supposed to increase the range beyond that of the 763. Hmmm, I guess I'm a little rusty on my 767 knowledge.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3219 times:

"I really don't think USAF will need the 500 in the next few years. I believe that USAF will not replace the C-135 family in a one-to-one basis." "So I think more than the 100 767's will not be built, probably a dozen more, or in the best two dozens."

That's correct (sort of), the current USAF inventory for KC-135 tankers stands at about 550. However some of these are used as spares etc, also the KC-767 will offer more payload capability than the current KC-135s.

The outgoing head of the Defense Departments procurement recently stated in an interview that the Air Force will not require 550 KC767s, although "several hundred" more KC-767s will be ordered after the initial 100 KC-767 order.

I read somewhere (I'll try to find it if anyone's interested) a breakdown of the KC-135 replacement plan, I think the target for KC-767 procurement is about 400-440 aircraft. Fewer than the current 550 KC-135 fleet but with greater payloads and with younger air frames more refueling capacity will be able to be deployed with shorter notice than what is currently available with the older KC-135 fleet.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2866 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3081 times:

This is old news. Glad to see that the order for the first one has been finalized, there are at least 9 and up to 29 more to come.

TransSwede: Since when does range matter when you have air-to-air refuelling capability?

T.J.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlinePl4nekr4zy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

I'm glad to see this plane getting some more orders, even if it's not for commercial service. I hope they take all 29 options as spacepope has mentioned.


"Don't forget to bring a towel!"
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Also I am not sure if a 764ER has ever been launched, but I know that the lack on range on the 764 has hurt it as well

Actually, all existing 764s are -ERs.... a longer-ranged model, the 764ERX [764LR], was cancelled in 2001 along with the 747X. They would have shared the same engine.

As stated before; the biggest "flaw" in the 767 family, relative to the A332, is that they cannot carry two LD3s side by side. Limited range is another factor.... and also why the 764ER has never won a realistic battle against the A332.


User currently offlineIndianguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

And despite this, some of our American members whine like JT9D's in full throttle over Airbus receiving subsidies!

Boeing is also being subsidised by these military contracts. Lets not forget! The 767 "lease" deal for example is blatant example of how taxpayers money is used to fund some companies. Pathetic indeed!

-Roy


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4445 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

Hello, this is not a subsidy. A subsidy is when Airbus is given money by its controlling governments to design aircraft. Money lent at below market rates or just given to the conglomerate. Your lack of understanding exactly what is going on here is pathetic. Boeing has an aircraft that the U.S.A.F. wants, it is now purchasing said aircraft. The U.S.A.F. didn't pay for the development of the 767. Unfortunately, every current Airbus design has EU taxpayer written all over it.


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 2745 times:

The German Air Force flies A310s, France's Air Force just bought some new A340s.

It's not the fault that the US is the only Country in the World who's actually spending what they are supposed to on Defense, most other Countries just look for the US to protect them.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAlpha From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Hmm, STT757, A340 were not bought by FAF, it's just a project, since many years...

Steph


User currently offlineLga1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 67 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

I think it is a mistake that the USAF is leasing the 100 767 tankers instead of buying them. I also think that it should be the 763 instead of the 762, more capacity and better range never hurts.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16345 posts, RR: 86
Reply 18, posted (10 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

I'm reasonably confident the 767-200ER has a decent range advantage over the 767-300ER - at least 500nm.

N


User currently onlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29705 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2401 times:

Fuel isn't exactly the lighest and bulkiest cargo around. So you can get away with a smaller cabin

Why pay for aircraft structure that you will never use?

That is why the -200 length cabin is better suited for a tanker.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing Finally Sells Another 764ER!
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...
Another Scandel At Boeing posted Mon Mar 7 2005 19:10:24 by PPGMD
Boeing Gets Another Contract! posted Wed Jun 16 2004 20:07:28 by Garnetpalmetto
Boeing To Begin Ground Testing X48B posted Mon Oct 30 2006 10:11:16 by DEVILFISH
Boeing Rolls Out ABL posted Sat Oct 28 2006 18:23:46 by MCIGuy
New Boeing CH-47F Helicopter Takes Flight posted Thu Oct 26 2006 09:53:54 by Columba
Another P-3 Orion Pic posted Sat Oct 14 2006 22:50:41 by Sleekjet
Boeing Begins Flight Tests Of Laser Gunship posted Sat Oct 14 2006 03:04:08 by AerospaceFan
Boeing Looks To Acquisitions To Boost UK Profile posted Tue Oct 3 2006 00:40:22 by Osiris30
The Boeing 777 Tanker posted Thu Sep 28 2006 00:35:18 by NWDC10
Boeing Mulls 767 Vs 777 Tanker Offering posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:13:21 by DAYflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format