Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was 767 Ever Considered For The 89th Airlift Wing?  
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7308 times:

I was wondering if the 767 was ever considered for acquisistion by the Air Force for VIP transport duties. I was thinking that such an aircraft would support missions where the C-25 would be too big and C-40 and smaller would be too small. I realize that the C-32 was probably the most logical choice, but maybe there were times where the 767 would have a similar seating layout as "Air Force One" supporting enough seats to transport press, etc. The 762ER would also have greater mission range capabilities as well.

Just wondering.

[Edited 2004-02-18 07:28:39]

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6920 times:

I believe that only the 747 and the MD-11 were considered for use by the President. The idea being that a 3 or 4 engined airplane would be more reliable. Also, the 747-400 was not considered because of its two man crew versus the 3 man crew of the 747-200.

User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6958 times:

I remember that the MD-11 was considered at one point. I should have been more specific about the topic. I was more curious if the 767 was considered for acquisition by the 89th airlift wing. They have a nice set up I might add!  Big thumbs up

(civilian aircraft ID's)
747
757
BBJ
DC-9
G-V
G-III

That's why I'd throw in the 767 along with the 757.

Regards


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 6472 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Boeing nut (Thread starter):
I was wondering if the 767 was ever considered for acquisistion by the Air Force for VIP transport duties.

Yes it was.

I worked ground handling requirements for the VC-X program which resulted in the acquisition of the 757s. I was asked to look at ground handling requirements for two types, the 767 & 757.

I don't know why the 757 was chosen vs. the 767. I suspect it was because the 757 was not so large and therefore less likely to be perceived as ostentatious.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 9 hours ago) and read 6443 times:

Plus the 757 doesn't require k-loaders to get its stuff off  Wink Bulk loading a 76 is a PITA.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 8 hours ago) and read 6420 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 4):
Plus the 757 doesn't require k-loaders to get its stuff off Bulk loading a 76 is a PITA.

Quite true for commercial variants. But to be frank the 89th never flew enough bulk on it's blue & whites to matter. The VC-25s had a built in belt loader that was more than adequate, and we had mobile belt loaders for the rest.

(edit: sorry I really meant the paragraph below for the thread on Fords funeral arrangements -- but since it's somewhat pertinent to bulk loading 89th aircraft I'll leave it)

What will be interesting to watch (for me anyway) is the manner in which Fords remains are transported around the country. Will he get the VC-25 treatment? If so will he ride the main deck? (my guess would be yes) Then the question is how to load a casket on the main deck. With Kennedy they did it with a catering van -- which Jackie did not like (long story). Nixon got loaded on the main deck of 27000 with a k-loader -- I watched the ANG guys angle the casket thru the door -- not dignified at all. Reagan, as I recall, got the VC-25 and they used a catering van with the work platform shrouded so as to hide the odd manuevering thru the door. They flew a AF1 catering van out to California to get him off the aircraft in the same, shrouded, manner.

[Edited 2006-12-27 16:27:02]


Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 6 hours ago) and read 6398 times:

In the late 80's I 've seen models of all current makes in certain offices in the 1st MAS . L1011's, DC-10's, 767's and 757's. The main reason the 767 was not chosen is probably it would not have fit in any of the hangers at ADW , they were all built with the 707 mindset, we could get 2 707's and 2 G-3's in the same hangar, I imagine we could have modified the tail doors and get 1 767 in each hanger buy putting it on the center line. The current 707 pilots were favoring the 767 with an flt engineer position , there concern was the 757 was with just 2 front enders it would be to much workload, remember the 707 still had a nav position to take care of all the busy work and the engineer did all the data. There was also talk of buying into the E-6 line and get some 707-700's back in the 80's.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6321 times:

The original B-767-200s had a three cockpit crew. It was only after airplane #40, I believe that everyone went with the two cockpit crew. The original certification was with the FE.

But, the USAF also couldn't wait for 6 years for production positions, remember the B-767 was selling very well in those days.


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6307 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The original B-767-200s had a three cockpit crew. It was only after airplane #40, I believe that everyone went with the two cockpit crew. The original certification was with the FE.

Are you sure about that? I know that there was some demand for a three man cockpit, but I didn't think it ever materialized.

Regards


User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6285 times:

in terms of loading the remains of anyone onto a main deck, well i just can't see the hapenning. getting a casket into the belly of a 737 is hard enough, why would anyone try to get it trough a main deck door? this is why the cargo door idea on the navy's C-40s was a good buy. i know that they're using it for transporting litters, which incidentally you also can't get through a main deck door. too bad that they AF doens't have main deck cargo doors on anything but a KC aircraft...


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6266 times:

85-6973 a C-137C which is now a E-8C had a operational cargo door from its Ward Air days, it would have came in handy for casket detail but we never had to use it that way while I was there.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineCancidas From Poland, joined Jul 2003, 4112 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6259 times:

what's the difference between a C-137 and a -135?


"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

A C-137 is the military designation for a 707, a C-137C is based on a 707-300 and a C-137B is based on a 707-153B. A C-135 is smaller than a 707 in width and lenghth, the landing gear ,hydraulic systems,fuel system, and wing are built differently with little commonaltiy with a 707. The C-135 has more in common with the famous 367-80 than the production 707 has. If 135's were put into commercial service their seating would have been no better than a DC-3 with 2 and 2 economy seating. You could slide a 135 fuselage into a 707 fuselage


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6212 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
The original B-767-200s had a three cockpit crew.

I was under the impression only one or two customers took that option, and it was not dependent on line number (though after a certain number Boeing stopped offereing it).

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 3):
I don't know why the 757 was chosen vs. the 767.

757 was built with hot and high operations in mind, so it is a powerhouse. The 767 probably wouldn't of been too much more versatile than a lightly loaded VC-25A in terms of airports (to be fair, the VC-25A is remarkably versatile with light loads). 757 can get in and out of a much wider variety of airports and meet obstacle clearance and other requirements. That probably factored into the desicion.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 6206 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 13):
The original B-767-200s had a three cockpit crew.

I was under the impression only one or two customers took that option, and it was not dependent on line number (though after a certain number Boeing stopped offereing it).

This was the only thing that I could find related to this.

http://www.kls2.com/cgi-bin/arcfetch...ners.1992.185@royko.chicago.com%3E


User currently offlineRomeokc10fe From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 6088 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 8):
Are you sure about that? I know that there was some demand for a three man cockpit, but I didn't think it ever materialized



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 13):
I was under the impression only one or two customers took that option, and it was not dependent on line number (though after a certain number Boeing stopped offereing it).

Yes there were indeed some early 767s that had an FE, it was one of the Aussie carriers (or it may have been a Kiwi carrier) I can't remember which one. The reason they ordered them was because the FEs union made them, I've got an old issue of one of the airline magazines that had a good article with pics of the FE panel. I've been an FE on the B727-200, C-141B/C and the KC-10A, and I can tell you there wasn't much of an FE panel to look at, they were all later converted to a two man setup.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5986 times:

Here is the picture of the fabled FE seat on the 767
Big version: Width: 594 Height: 491 File size: 56kb
A early Boeing option on the 767, an Flight Engineer position



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5953 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 16):

Wow, I can see why this options was dismissed so quickly. The overhead panel is bigger than the FE station.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Was 767 Ever Considered For The 89th Airlift Wing?
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...
89th Airlift Wing Fleet Question posted Thu Jul 8 2004 17:54:59 by FlagshipAZ
Was There Replacement For The F-8u posted Sat Apr 22 2006 19:27:24 by 747400sp
Looking For The Red Flag Accident Video posted Fri Oct 20 2006 21:35:14 by RichardPrice
Replacement For The Superhornet posted Fri Sep 29 2006 17:50:02 by 747400sp
Winglets For The E-6 Mercury posted Sat Sep 16 2006 20:57:56 by 747400sp
Why Not A B-736 For The Army's Sigint? posted Tue Aug 29 2006 01:57:52 by DEVILFISH
Why No Military Name For The JT8-D? posted Wed Aug 2 2006 01:37:35 by 747400sp
Aurora - New Fuel For The Fire posted Wed Jun 14 2006 23:58:28 by RichardPrice
Super SeaSprites For The RAN, Is It The End? posted Mon May 15 2006 09:59:38 by Ozair
F/A-18Es For The Usaf? posted Fri Mar 24 2006 05:43:51 by CX747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format