Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-777F Specs?  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2554 times:

Given today's announcement by Boeing for the KC-777, anyone got any specific info?


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

What did they announce? I searched their web site and found nothing about the KC-777.

User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 1):
What did they announce? I searched their web site and found nothing about the KC-777.

Seattle PI Story

Since it's barely at the concept stage at this point, I'd say very few specs if any are available as yet.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_WA_Boeing_Tankers.html

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

The story I read said it will carry 350,000lbs of fuel, but that could be pushed to 400,000lbs. That would push the MTOGW, of a KC-777, to something like 750,000lbs

User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Since Boeing is now entering the "large" aircraft tanker category. I wonder why they have not offered a 747-8 model which could carry in excess of 500,000 lbs?

User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 5):
Since Boeing is now entering the "large" aircraft tanker category. I wonder why they have not offered a 747-8 model which could carry in excess of 500,000 lbs?

There just isn't the need to carry that much fuel. You're also talking about ramp space. Most folks think the KC-777 is too big.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

Quoting Echster (Reply 6):
Quoting TropicBird (Reply 5):
Since Boeing is now entering the "large" aircraft tanker category. I wonder why they have not offered a 747-8 model which could carry in excess of 500,000 lbs?

There just isn't the need to carry that much fuel. You're also talking about ramp space. Most folks think the KC-777 is too big.

Except the B-747-800F will also be a much more versital cargo hauler than a B-777-200LRF, A-330-200F, B-767-200ERF, A-340-500F, A-350-800F, or B-787-800F, simply because it has a swing open nose cargo door, in addition to a side mounted cargo door. That means the B-747-800F tanker can also be used to fully supplement C-17, C-130 and C-5 airlift fleet more effcently than any of the other jets, including the KC-135 and KC-10.


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):

And if that Austrailian study of the KC-747 is utilized, it would not need ground service equipment to unload either. At least not initially. I don't have that file handy as I just bought a new computer and haven't switched over my files yet.


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2278 times:

Here we go, it's amazing what you can find with a little search.  Smile Check out pages 64 through 68. Entire article is excellent though, IMO.

< http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-...h=%22australian%20747%20tanker%22>


User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2269 times:

Quoting Echster (Reply 6):
There just isn't the need to carry that much fuel. You're also talking about ramp space. Most folks think the KC-777 is too big.

I respectfully disagree. In reality, a single 747-8 with belly tanks can carry almost the same fuel load as (3) KC-767s and as such, a single 747 will take up considerably less ramp space than (3) 767's. I believe this argument was put forth by Boeing and their supporters in the Pentagon to justify the KC-767 over the KC-30. Furthermore, the USAF does not have a need for a new "medium" sized tanker, they already have plenty, they are called the KC-135 and most of them as confirmed by the draft RFP, are not going to be retired anytime soon.

As far as carrying a large amount of fuel, there are many in the USAF who have sung the praises of the KC-10 and its ability to carry larger fuel/cargo loads. There are many situations where it comes in handy and I would rather be faced with excess capacity to fill...than not enough.


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 10):
n reality, a single 747-8 with belly tanks can carry almost the same fuel load as (3) KC-767s and as such, a single 747 will take up considerably less ramp space than (3) 767's.

Problem is the KC-747 would only be able to refuel one at a time, while the three KC-767 would be refueling three. This is one of the perameters that the USAF is wanting.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 11):
Problem is the KC-747 would only be able to refuel one at a time, while the three KC-767 would be refueling three. This is one of the perameters that the USAF is wanting.

That makes me wonder -- on a VLA, would the turbulence be unbearable if booms extended from the wings? Obviously you can do probe/drogue refuelling from the wings, no problem. Existing tankers can do multiple aircraft that way.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 11):
Problem is the KC-747 would only be able to refuel one at a time, while the three KC-767 would be refueling three. This is one of the perameters that the USAF is wanting.

The Italian KC-767 has wingtip refueling pods, thus allowing 3 receivers at a time. Any new USAF tanker will have the same capability. The USAF may even consider the RAAF configuration of their new A-330MRTT with the heavier/faster flow refueling pods (that required the RAAF to configure the A-330MRTT with the A-340 wing), plus the USAF refueling boom.

BTW, Boeing just began test flights of their new advanced fly by wire refueling boom on the Italian AF KC-767A on 24 Sept. 2006. There is a video of the first flight (no actual refueling) on the Boeing news release site.


User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 11):
Problem is the KC-747 would only be able to refuel one at a time, while the three KC-767 would be refueling three. This is one of the perameters that the USAF is wanting.

If that were so important, then why would Boeing offer up the KC-777 which is also a "large" tanker? Also don't forget, the USAF will still have several hundred remaining medium size KC-135's (most with a single boom) they can and will use.


User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 14):

You guys are correct there, I was referring to boom refueling.

Hell, with the wingspan of the 748 and 777, you could have up to five pods!!  Smile


User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

Wingtip booms would be a problem with any sort of turbulence. Wings flex quite a bit there, and could end up being a big issue with a boom bouncing all around the cockpit of the reciever.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 16):
Wingtip booms would be a problem with any sort of turbulence. Wings flex quite a bit there, and could end up being a big issue with a boom bouncing all around the cockpit of the reciever.

Not as much as you would think. The receiver will also be bouncing around, though not to the extend of a full wing flex. The refueling pods would actually dampen some of this flex out due to their weight.


User currently onlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Not as much as you would think. The receiver will also be bouncing around, though not to the extend of a full wing flex. The refueling pods would actually dampen some of this flex out due to their weight.

Would the booms then be attached to a pod that's attached to the wing? It'd be fun to stick a boomer in there too!

I suppose flying the boom would be done with remote console like on KDC-10?



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2112 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 18):
Would the booms then be attached to a pod that's attached to the wing? It'd be fun to stick a boomer in there too!

I wondered about this myself and started a thread about this very scenario.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/49993/


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (7 years 6 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 18):
I suppose flying the boom would be done with remote console like on KDC-10?

Boeing has introduced and Advanced Refueling Station for the KC-767. It is even a big improvement over the Dutch AF KDC-10 Remote Refueling Station.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6482 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (7 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2044 times:

Leeham has drawings and schematics of the KC-777F:

http://www.leeham.net/filelib/ScottsColumn_2_10032006.pdf



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-777F Specs?
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...
KC-135 Fire In Manas posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:52:42 by Venus6971
A Tribute To The KC-135 posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:41:49 by 747400sp
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
B-1B Vs KC-135A Which Was Louder posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:34:09 by 747400sp
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 20:48:09 by 747400sp
Aviation Traditions And KC-135's posted Thu Aug 17 2006 02:53:36 by Army15P
If KC-135E's Are Turn Into R's posted Wed Aug 2 2006 18:27:56 by 747400sp
KC-135R @ NAS Norfolk Today posted Thu Jul 20 2006 17:13:53 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format