Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 9570 times:
Interesting article in the Jan 2 issue. Planners say the Air Force supports a high-low mix of tankers. KC-777's would support strategic, trans oceanic bridge capability and be responsible for substantial airlift missions while a KC-737 or KC-130J would take on tactical, low end missions.
The article also states that the USAF is leaning away from the 767 platform because of it's design age.
The KC-330 is mentioned, but interestingly, not by name.
Socal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9532 times:
Sup Boeing Nut, on the kc-330 there is no way the US GOV gona pick a non-us aircraft maker. I cant see the 777 as a tanker thou. I would like to the 767 do the job. This is the first time hearing about the 737 being considered. Also
I think even the 757-200/300 could suit.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9529 times:
Is there a link you could post for that article?
I'd say that a high/low mix would not be a bad idea, but I don't know that the 737 airframe is optimal for tanking. I know it's got the 707 proportions, so it's larger than the 135, but how about tanking capacity?....how about cargo?
I still say that the 767 is the optimal solution, and those who are dubious about it's design age are not really thinking all that clearly on the issue. Tell us what advancements are important to the airforce that the 767 does not offer over the 135E? Its twin engines (reduction in maintenance and better fuel economy, carries more cargo, two man flightdeck, and can execute 3 point tanking.....
The 777 would be a good tanker, but it would be much more expensive.....
Can some expert here tell us how good the 737 would be as a tanker.....would it be useful?
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 44 Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9488 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): The 777 would be a good tanker, but it would be much more expensive.....
But if it is going to be ordered in place of some 20-40 C-17s to provide additional transport capacity, there will be offseting savings elsewhere.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Dc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 63 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9474 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): Tell us what advancements are important to the airforce that the 767 does not offer over the 135E? Its twin engines (reduction in maintenance and better fuel economy, carries more cargo, two man flightdeck, and can execute 3 point tanking.....
I think perhaps we need a paradigm shift regarding the replacement of the KC-135E .. or the R-model for that matter. The next tanker isn't going to be just a tanker. I think we are already seeing hints of this.
The idea of having a 777/737 mix is very interesting. This proposes solutions to several problems:
1. The lack of strategic airlift. The C-17 is a great airplane, however, it isn't a very efficient/effective strategic airlifter. Adding another airplane capable of moving palletized cargo would free up the C-17 (and the tankers required to refuel it for oceanic missions) and allow it to do what it does best ... move cargo tactically into the battle field.
2. The lack of booms in the fight. Having been a tanker planner for a fighter wing, our problem was not having enough booms ... we had plenty of fuel. The fighter guys needed higher number of tankers so we could refuel more fighters per hour. A smaller tanker, therefore cheaper and takes up less space, would meet this requirement.
3. The KC-10 is getting older. Unlike the KC-135 which sat alert for decades, the KC-10 has been a workhorse over the past decade. Although it still produces the best Mission Capable rates of any major weapon system in AMC, a newer "big" tanker would help two-fold. First, a newer more efficient big tanker with a greater range/offload could take over the fighter deployment mission (fighter-drags). Second, the KC-10 (already in limited numbers), could be used in theatre to "extend" those newer small tankers. Therefore, we increase the number of booms and fuel at the same time.
I'm sure a lot of smarter people are going to flame me on this. Let me grab my firecoat.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 15281 posts, RR: 55 Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9452 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 3): But if it is going to be ordered in place of some 20-40 C-17s to provide additional transport capacity, there will be offseting savings elsewhere.
I hope the C-17 gets funding for the 42 additional aircraft, Congressman Paxton said that if the additional C-17s get the go ahead that McGuire would get another squadron of 13 C-17s.
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9450 times:
Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 4): I'm sure a lot of smarter people are going to flame me on this. Let me grab my firecoat.
I know the feeling! I wrote in another thread early December that I felt one of the USAF's options would look at a mixed tanker fleet of KC-777s and KC-737s. Man, I was getting hammered. Let me just say, apology accepted! LOL
The main problem with many folks who post in the military section is they have no military experience. Their thinking - and leanings - is A vs B. Quite simply, most posters in this section lack the military experience to think on a tactical level. When it gets down to it, military aircraft play a tactical role when compared to their civilian models. Folks need to stop looking at how planes function in the civil world and focus on how that plane would be used in its tactical role.
Does the article actually that the USAF specifically mentioned those types? Wouldn't the USAF give a set of specifications for their requirements then invite vendors to bid? Or are the types offered here your choice for USA requirements for large and small tankers?
You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9354 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): Is there a link you could post for that article?
I'm not sure, I referred to the information from the magazine itself. I imagine the article is @ aviationnow.com but you'll probably have to register.
Quoting Scbriml (Reply 7): Does the article actually that the USAF specifically mentioned those types? Wouldn't the USAF give a set of specifications for their requirements then invite vendors to bid? Or are the types offered here your choice for USA requirements for large and small tankers?
Yes, it mentioned those specific aircraft, but it referred to the KC-330 as "a large Airbus transport".
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 9295 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 9): And what did they say about it ?
That was the only thing. I think it was a bit of US "flag waving" by the author. He mentioned other possible tankers by model name throughout the article, yet he only mentioned the KC-330 once as "that other candidate", if you will.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11025 posts, RR: 53 Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9278 times:
Quoting Socal (Reply 1): I think even the 757-200/300 could suit.
Not without a new wing. Wake turbalance coming off of that super critical has knocked airplanes to the ground.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 2): Can some expert here tell us how good the 737 would be as a tanker.....would it be useful?
It would be good for short ranged tactical missions. But, actually, the best of a tanker mix is B-747-800F tankers and KC-135Rs. Only a B-747F, with a swing open nose can replace the C-17A. A B-777F can only carry pallets.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 44 Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9267 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): It would be good for short ranged tactical missions. But, actually, the best of a tanker mix is B-747-800F tankers and KC-135Rs. Only a B-747F, with a swing open nose can replace the C-17A. A B-777F can only carry pallets.
But the 747 is considerably larger and more expensive with higher operating costs. It is C5 class.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Dc1030guy From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 63 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 9257 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): It would be good for short ranged tactical missions. But, actually, the best of a tanker mix is B-747-800F tankers and KC-135Rs. Only a B-747F, with a swing open nose can replace the C-17A. A B-777F can only carry pallets.
We don't need a C-17 replacement. They are still coming off the assembly line. We need an aircraft that can be a strategic tanker and an airlifter. Most of the cargo that is transported is palletized. The bigger stuff (tanks, trucks, etc.) is moved using sealift. That is, assuming, the army gets their sh*t together. And if not, that's what the C-5s and C-17s do.
Although the 777 freighter will move less cargo pallet wise, and slightly less in weight, it is going to be far more efficient.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9224 times:
Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 4): A smaller tanker, therefore cheaper and takes up less space, would meet this requirement.
I agree, and I see the need for more booms, having made that argument before when discussing the idea of 777 or A330 based tankers versus 767 sized and priced aircraft. I simply fear that a KC-737 would be of too limited value unless there is some theater requirement for tankers that a KC-130 cannot meet. The 737 could not carry cargo or drag fighters over long distances, and it seems that an in-theater tanker could be met with existing designs..
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11): Only a B-747F, with a swing open nose can replace the C-17A. A B-777F can only carry pallets.
Do you really think that a 744 or 748F is a good replacement for the C-17? If so should it be mixed with a KC-767 sized airplane? I still agree with the concept for more tankers since that's what the requirement is really going to be. We need more airplanes more than bigger ones.
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 33 Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9156 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Thread starter): Interesting article in the Jan 2 issue. Planners say the Air Force supports a high-low mix of tankers. KC-777's would support strategic, trans oceanic bridge capability and be responsible for substantial airlift missions while a KC-737 or KC-130J would take on tactical, low end missions.
The article also states that the USAF is leaning away from the 767 platform because of it's design age.
Poor Boeing, instead of the KC767, now the Military could be looking at a mix of KC777 & KC737's, talk about a change in propals.
A KC737 would be cool, that would be another version of the 737.
C40A
C40B
C40C
P8
and possibly a KC737
Waiting for the 737 to replace the 747 & carry the Space Shuttle around!
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 8076 posts, RR: 13 Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9130 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Thread starter): The article also states that the USAF is leaning away from the 767 platform because of it's design age.
Yet they are leaning towards the 737? I know the 737NG is a big improvement, but we are still talking about a basic design that's from the 1960s. Yes, it's got a glass cockpit, but behind the glass, there are a lot of the low tech systems from the original design.
On the other hand, it'd make for some interesting recruting dynamics. Let's see, get Uncle Sam to pay me to learn how to fly a 737, and either stay in till I can retire with pension, or bale out as soon as I have enough hours for WN to hire me.
Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 4): Having been a tanker planner for a fighter wing, our problem was not having enough booms ... we had plenty of fuel. The fighter guys needed higher number of tankers so we could refuel more fighters per hour. A smaller tanker, therefore cheaper and takes up less space, would meet this requirement.
Very interesting post!
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 12): But the 747 is considerably larger and more expensive with higher operating costs. It is C5 class.
I agree, but he was saying the 747-8 is a better choice than the 777-200LR that is being proposed, and I believe that they are similar in cost. I do grant you that finding room for the 747 might be an issue, but as you say, it'd probably end up being based in C5 class facilities.
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9114 times:
Guys, the point of this article/post is that it is for a KC-135 replacement. Not a C-17 or C-5 replacement.
I personally think that a KC-777 or even a KC-747 is beginning to gain a lot more interest than in previous months because of it's cargo capabilities. As DC1030guy stated, most cargo is of the palletized variety. One advantage that the 777/747 has over the 767 is the size of the pallets that can be carried. The 767's are limited to the eight foot pallets but the 777/747 can carry the ten footers. I do think the 777 has the advantage over the 747 because of the nose door. If the AF needs an oversized item flown, just bring in a C-17 for the job. Of course the bigger aircraft are a gimmie when talking about troop transport.
Another good point he made was not having enough booms for refueling. A good case for the 737's. It does raise a question to me though. With the newer "operatorless" booms using cameras being developed, could booms possibly be installed on each wingtip on the 777/747? I realize that there are aerodynamic and structural issues with this, but is it plausible? Just keep my signature in mind when responding.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 44 Reply 18, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9102 times:
Quoting Dc1030guy (Reply 13): Although the 777 freighter will move less cargo pallet wise, and slightly less in weight, it is going to be far more efficient.
C-17 Payload is ~170,000 lbs. 777F payload is 229,000 lbs. 777 has more floor space, being a longer aircraft, for mor pallets. The only thing I am not sure about is which one has a cargo density advantage. I believe it is the C-17.
Quoting DL021 (Reply 14): I simply fear that a KC-737 would be of too limited value unless there is some theater requirement for tankers that a KC-130 cannot meet. The 737 could not carry cargo or drag fighters over long distances, and it seems that an in-theater tanker could be met with existing designs..
The 737 has long range variants (BBJ) with belly tanks.
Quoting Revelation (Reply 16): Yet they are leaning towards the 737? I know the 737NG is a big improvement, but we are still talking about a basic design that's from the 1960s. Yes, it's got a glass cockpit, but behind the glass, there are a lot of the low tech systems from the original design.
Well, the Navy is buying lots of 737NGs (P8 MMA), so it can't be too shabby
Quoting Revelation (Reply 16): I agree, but he was saying the 747-8 is a better choice than the 777-200LR that is being proposed, and I believe that they are similar in cost. I do grant you that finding room for the 747 might be an issue, but as you say, it'd probably end up being based in C5 class facilities.
List price of the 747-8 Intercontinental is $250-265 million and the -8F $265-275 million
Price of the 777-200LR is $209 to 232 million, and I believe the freighter list price is in that range as well based on total prices for the Air France order.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 44 Reply 19, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9097 times:
Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 17): Guys, the point of this article/post is that it is for a KC-135 replacement. Not a C-17 or C-5 replacement.
The military is reviewing all fleet requirements and acquisition plans. Talk of the 777 based tanker came at the same time as talk of capping C-17 fleet size by 20-40 units. It would appear the tanker acquisition program is no longer simply a KC-135 replacement program.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9093 times:
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 19): The military is reviewing all fleet requirements and acquisition plans. Talk of the 777 based tanker came at the same time as talk of capping C-17 fleet size by 20-40 units. It would appear the tanker acquisition program is no longer simply a KC-135 replacement program.
Good point. Still, the current C-17's are not going anywhere. But you are correct, this has turned into much more than a tanker replacement program.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11372 posts, RR: 88 Reply 21, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9088 times:
OK...so here's where I'm at now...
I think that replacing the KC-135Es with a mix of KC-40s (737 variants) for in theater tanking (the 900ER series should be equal to the KC-135E and better than anything the Navy has and the KC-130, and should cost much less than a KC-767) and instead of building 40 more C-17s you order 40 KC-24s (747 variants) that can both carry the cargo and drag the fighters across large ponds.
You still get the heavy lift you need with rapid load/unload capability (opennoses) and you'll even be able to carry some troops in them a'la C-5 method (upstairs or in the cargo bays if you keep the thing pressurized).
You end up spending the same amount on KC-24s as you would on the C-17, and get a better ranged airplane that can also tank, and carry fairly equal cargos (albeit no tanks). With the KC-40 you get lots more booms filling more gas tanks at once. Seems to be a fairly judicious use of our money and gets us the capability we need without creating new airplane types (as both airplanes can basically be supported anywhere in the world).
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8937 posts, RR: 65 Reply 22, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9082 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Not without a new wing. Wake turbalance coming off of that super critical has knocked airplanes to the ground.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 757's relatively strong wake turbulence a result of wake shed off the flap tips when in landing configuration?
Example (and yes, I know it's not a 757, but it illustrates the wake shed):
If this is indeed the case, perhaps the flap-generated turbulence wouldn't be a problem with the reduced flap settings used during refueling. Not that it matters, anyway, what with the 757 being out of production.
Boeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9078 times:
DL021,
I think you will find, like a stated before, that the 747 won't be chosen because of it's nose door. Anything that can be loaded through the nose of the 747 could just be pushed up the ramp of a C-17 or C-5 and ground service equipment would never be needed. That and, correct me if I'm wrong here, I think the 777F actually has a slightly higher density payload capability than the 747F. Also, with the 777F, in convertible configuration, could get around 400, or even more, troops on board.
I agree with switching the C-17 orders for large freighters. Large freighters will take away some of the missions that the C-17's would have done. Now the 17's can be used for their full capability instead of just carrying pallets.
I think you'll find that the -800ER would be the tanker platform though. That or the -900 will need some more "oomph" to get all that gas off the ground.
OyKIE From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9072 times:
Quoting A342 (Reply 9): Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 8):
but it referred to the KC-330 as "a large Airbus transport".
And what did they say about it ?
The article about Key mobility, airlift Studies may stay under wraps as budgets flatten and demand grows. It says Aircrafts like the KC-777 or KC330 would make sense if they decide not to build 222 C-17, but stop when 180 is delivered. Combined with upgrading 112 C-5. Pentagon would like to have more versatility of their aircrafts.
One of the most interesting things in the article is that the Pentagon is considering a new airlifter that will have the ability to operate in more dangerous parts of the battlefield and incorporate improved short-takeoff-and-landing capability trough the use of lift fans like the one designed for the F-35. That would be a very interesting aircraft.
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
26 OyKIE: Yep. The article also quotes an Air Force official saying: The lack of requirements discipline is a big, big mistake.
27 Keesje: I think the Air Force dismissing the Airbus tanker like they did in 2003 would create a big row. Airbus withdrawing halfway after making clear publicl
28 Boeing Nut: No matter what happens, there will be a big row.
29 OyKIE: The articles surrounding the tanker deal suggest that more and more analysts believe that the order will be a split between the KC-330 and a Boeing a
30 DfwRevolution: Almost all 737NG systems are state-of-the-art at the time the design was frozen. The only system directly carried over from the 737 Classic was the f
31 DL021: would it be a KC-24 or 25? I'm having a brain cramp...... Either way, the nose door could facilitate rapid loading and off loading as the necessary eq
32 Boeing Nut: Ooo, I forgot about that thread and the presentation. First time I saw it, my reaction was - oh cool! This could be an even bigger case for the 747.
33 Boeing Nut: A great idea, but I give that a snowballs chance. The whole idea is to replace aging aircraft. I seriously doubt the Pentagon is even considering acq
34 CX747: I think that splitting the tanker deal between the 737 and 777 is a great idea. What I don't like though is cutting short C-17 production. Stopping C-
35 Bennett123: Perhaps the DOD should be thinking about B747-400 not B747-8.
36 CX747: Does anyone know when the USAF is planning on having this possible aircraft enter service? Also, do we know where Boeing would produce these tankers?
37 DL021: Then buy new 748s and use them as cargo aircraft for both military and civil use (charters) to help defray costs. They will be available when needed
38 AirRyan: A KC-130J would be a far better option than a KC-40 (Military verison of the 73G.)
39 Boeing Nut: Because........................................
40 Atmx2000: Does anyone think the talk of ending the E-10 program and the talk of using the 777 as a reconnaissance platform are linked?
41 AirRyan: Well how about it already exists for one reason! Without a boom for the USAF though it'd probably never be able to work though, I think KC-767's woul
42 OyKIE: I would believe that the Turboprop KC-130 would be cheaper to operate than a jet-engine KC-40. Does anybody have any information regarding this? The K
43 2H4: I thought the USAF transitioned from props to the KC-135s to provide a platform with speed and handling capabilities similar to the jets being refuel
44 OyKIE: That maybe the point in using a KC-40 instead of a KC-130. And te KC-135 have a larger capacity.
45 2H4: Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I can't imagine a prop-driven aircraft would mesh well with the current fleet of jets. 2H4
46 MD90fan: What is wrong with the C-17? I always hear all kind of bad things about the McDD designed bird
47 Aerlinguscargo: Could be wrong on this one but wasn't the 747 the product of a DOD bid that ended with the c-5 being declared the victor. Its interesting that 40 yea
48 CX747: Yes, the 747 actually lost to the C-5! I think in the bigger picture though, Boeing was the winner.
49 Dw747400: That is not entirely true, as the CX-HLS entry Boeing produced was probably closer to the C-5 in design than the 747. Additionally, the Boeing entry
51 RTFM: Q. Both the KC135 & KC10 were bought used and converted. The A model 777 must be about 10-15 years old now. Would the USAF consider buying some of the
52 Echster: Affordability is never the question when our Congressmen and women spend like drunken sailors. If you didn't know, the C-17 has parts from 42 of 50 s
53 RTFM: I realise that yours may be a rhetorical question, but I don't know. I guess it depends on the timetable for replacement of the existing tanker fleet
54 LMP737: Both the KC-135 and KC-10 were built specifically for the USAF. They were not bought used and then converted to tankers. As for buying used 777 there
55 CX747: What RTFM might be thinking about is the massive civilian 707 fleet the U.S.A.F. purchased in the late 70s early 80s. The Air Force purchased these ai
56 Sidishus: Making pretty Faux Warbirds by taking used airliners out of the desert and painting them gray is a totally naive idea. The next generation tankers wi
57 CX747: I would much rather see a totally new design instead of a KC-777 and 737 but this does not seem to be the case. Lets build something new like the extr
58 Sidishus: Thirty years ago, when the KC-10 was bought, threats that are proliferating today that directly threaten tankers and other HVAA's didn't exist . Alot
59 CX747: Alright, we are pretty much on the same page. I can't remember exactly what parts of the civilian 707s were used besides the engines and flaps. If you
60 Sidishus: This account was from OIF concerning Navy ops... http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG404.pdf In view of the continuing enemy IADS threat,
61 KC135TopBoom: Actually, KC-135As routinely "went North" during the Vietnam war, to help out striken aircraft. So, tankers being pushed during ODS was not new. SAC
62 Sidishus: Yes they did as an in extremis effort to drag back combat damaged aircraft, but those events were much more extraordinary than "routine". https://afa
63 LongbowPilot: Tell me how the C-17's carry cargo? Sure the 17 and 5 are good at hauling cargo, but adding a new aircraft to the inventory that will help them with
64 Keesje: I have the feeling Boeing is rushing for alternatives now that it looks like this time there will be a kind of objective comparison between the Boeing
65 Lumberton: One should not get one's hopes up. See the article today about building the KC-767 in Long Beach after the C-17 production ends? http://seattlepi.nws
66 Cancidas: i've got one question. are the 767 and 777 compatable with the halvorsen loader? i know that it fits the KC-135, but that's the height of a 737. will
67 Dougloid: I wouldn't get my hopes up too high on that. Boeing has also said they've no intention of building KC767s anywhere but in Everett, and it doesn't sta
68 Atmx2000: Maybe they are thinking down the line that they will use the freed space for a 2nd 787 line. Why would Boeing care whether they did final assembly in
69 KC135TopBoom: No, it cannot, but the KC-10 loaders can lift that high. If Boeing were to get a contract to build new tankers for the USAF, and potentially other AF
70 Atmx2000: I meant historically speaking. California must be aware by now of the net efflux of long time businesses and residents, and will have to react.
71 KC135TopBoom: I agree. You and I know that California has to do something to change things for them out there on the left coast. But, do they know it, yet?
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 10523 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4627 posts, 
I think it was a bit of US "flag waving" by the author. He mentioned other possible tankers by model name throughout the article, yet he only mentioned the KC-330 once as "that other candidate", if you will.
From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2494 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
