Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-45 Vs KC-10  
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5605 posts, RR: 8
Posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 12779 times:

OK, I've been searching for it but I can't find anything comparing the KC-45 to the KC-10. Maybe I missed it because I just can't believe it hasn't been discussed.

Anyway with the Boeing public PR protest stating that the KC-45 is 27% larger than the KC-10 I am trying to figure out where they came up with that number. Is that comparing the "apron footprint", the passenger or pallet capacity? I don't believe its the fuel load, but is it? Weight? I know they are using whatever number they can to present a case that the KC-45 is wrong.

Now to add to that my father is been saying that this shows the NG/EADS option is wrong and oversized. I am trying to clearly and coherently state the KC-45 case. I think it is a good decision performance-wise if not a great one for the USA aviation industry (not arguing just giving balance). I know people here can give me the facts.

How does the KC-45 compare against the KC-10?

Thanks,

Tugg


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12795 times:

Based on info I've found online about the KC-45:

- KC-45 wingspan and fuselage length is greater than the KC-10.
- Overall height is within a foot; I forget which is taller.
- KC-10 carries more fuel, but fewer pallets, than the KC-45. I don't know the KC-45's cargo weight limits.
- KC-45 will have the lower lobes available for cargo; the KC-10 has body tanks there.
- KC-10 has a higher MGTOW than the KC-45.
- KC-45 is supposed to be able to operate from shorter runways than the KC-10.
- KC-45 will likely be more fuel-efficient at similar load factors than the KC-10.
- As a boom operator, I hope the KC-45's boom will have a similar operating envelope to the KC-10's boom (we have far greater limits than the KC-135's boom). I also hope NG/EADS goes with a direct-view (a window in the tail) aerial refueling operator's station, rather than the indirect-view (TV cameras and video screens) setup they've been showing off.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9102 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 12788 times:

I think they are just using the wing span and length to come up with apron area, a fairly useless metric as the USAF does not use it in the evaluation of the tankers.

In terms of the KC-135E, this is how the other tankers stack up in terms of capabilities in E-model equivalents. The conversion factors used to obtain these equivalences are strongly based on offload capacity but also take into account tanker compatibility with receivers as well as boom demand of the war fight scenarios.

KC-135E 1.00
KC-135R 1.19
KC-767AT 1.61
KC-30A 1.93
KC-10A 2.32

In terms of a freighter, this is how the civil A330F and DC-10F compare

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/1c703184.png



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12722 times:



Quoting Tugger (Thread starter):
Anyway with the Boeing public PR protest stating that the KC-45 is 27% larger than the KC-10 I am trying to figure out where they came up with that number.

In terms of ramp space occupied, the KC-45 will be the second largest airplane in the USAF inventory. Second only to the C-5 and larger than the VC-25 and E-4.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
I think they are just using the wing span and length to come up with apron area, a fairly useless metric as the USAF does not use it in the evaluation of the tankers.

Well, you and I have been down this road. Just because someone getting ready to retire from the USAF, looking for a well paying job (Gen. Liegh), with NG decides ramp space isn't an issue, doesn't make it so.

If ramp space didn't count, how do you plan on loading or unloading cargo airplanes? If ramp space doesn't count, how do you plan on how many airplanes airport XXXX can support?

Ramp space is a very important issue to the USAF, just as it is (in the form of gate spacing) are to airlines.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
In terms of a freighter, this is how the civil A330F and DC-10F compare

How many people do you expect to believe this?

An empty A-330F will not have a 9400nm range. An A-330-200 passenger jet (much lighter airframe than an "F" airframe) does, but not the A-330F.
An empty A-300-600F does not have a 5200nm range, nor does the lighter A-300-600R.
An empty B-767-300ERF does not have an empty 7200nm range.
The DC-8-63F is not the max ranged DC-8F, the DC-8-73F is now the standard "F" for the DC-8.

For military versions, the KC-10 will be able to carry more cargo (unrefueled) further, than the KC-45 will. (4500nm for the KC-10, with 85,000lbs and 2400nm for the KC-45 with 65,000lbs).

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
In terms of the KC-135E, this is how the other tankers stack up in terms of capabilities in E-model equivalents.

The standard USAF tanker, and how other tankers are judges is the KC-135R, not the KC-135E. That will reduce all comparisons between .18 and .22, depending on the other tanker.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 2):
KC-135E 1.00
KC-135R 1.19
KC-767AT 1.61
KC-30A 1.93
KC-10A 2.32

The new numbers are:

KC-135E 0.82
KC-135R 1.00
KC-135R (Receiver capable) 0.99
KC-135T 1.02
KC-135R WARP 0.96
KC-767AT 1.42 (without WARP)
KC-45A 1.75 (without WARP)
KC-10A 2.14
KC-10A WARP 2.10

Both KC-X contest competitors are considered while flying without WARPS. When WARPS are added, the equivalent KC-135Rs reduce by approximately 0.05 each.

Receiver capable tankers do not receive fuel inflight for this count. Once they refuel, their numbers triple or quadruple. The KC-135T have their ballest weight (1000lbs or 454.5kg) removed from the nose section when modified with F-108-100 engines.

There is nothing currently called the KC-30A. The USAF designation is the KC-45A.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9102 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12707 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Both KC-X contest competitors are considered while flying without WARPS. When WARPS are added, the equivalent KC-135Rs reduce by approximately 0.05 each.

The wing pods are not going to be removed form the KC-X, only one figure exists, that is with wing pods installed.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
There is nothing currently called the KC-30A.

EADS calls the USAF style tanker the KC-30A, the Australian version the KC-30B. The KC-45A is the NG/USAF designation.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 12690 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
The wing pods are not going to be removed form the KC-X,

I don't ever remember reading that. External pods on USAF aircraft (as with most airplanes) are normally removable.

Not that I am doubting you, but do you have a reference to this?

For the USAF, It would be more economical to remove the WARPS for long range ferry missions (carried inside the tanker), due to less drag, then reinstall them in the forward area.

My current estimate (without seeing any performance numbers), is on a 8,000nm ferry mission, removing the WARPS (the tanker just carrying 2-3 crews, and some maintenance techs, parts and tools, cargo weight would be around 5,000lbs and a total of 20 people aboard), would add approximately 500nm to the range.

Yes, more fuel could be added to increase range, but I am looking at a friendly by, limited airfield in a third world country. This would be the most difficult case.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 12658 times:



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 1):
Based on info I've found online about the KC-45:

- KC-45 wingspan and fuselage length is greater than the KC-10.
- Overall height is within a foot; I forget which is taller.
- KC-10 carries more fuel, but fewer pallets, than the KC-45. I don't know the KC-45's cargo weight limits.
- KC-45 will have the lower lobes available for cargo; the KC-10 has body tanks there.
- KC-10 has a higher MGTOW than the KC-45.
- KC-45 is supposed to be able to operate from shorter runways than the KC-10.
- KC-45 will likely be more fuel-efficient at similar load factors than the KC-10.
- As a boom operator, I hope the KC-45's boom will have a similar operating envelope to the KC-10's boom (we have far greater limits than the KC-135's boom). I also hope NG/EADS goes with a direct-view (a window in the tail) aerial refueling operator's station, rather than the indirect-view (TV cameras and video screens) setup they've been showing off.

Assuming this information is accurate, when the time comes to replace the KC-10, it appears it would be appropriate to just order more KC-45s!



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12641 times:

Has anyone seen an official MTOW for the KC-45 besides the civilian A330F MTOW? Are they the same?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 12623 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):
Assuming this information is accurate, when the time comes to replace the KC-10, it appears it would be appropriate to just order more KC-45s!

No, the KC-45 carries 245K fuel load, the KC-10 carries 365K. That is about 45% more fuel than the KC-45 has.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9102 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12603 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
In terms of ramp space occupied, the KC-45 will be the second largest airplane in the USAF inventory. Second only to the C-5 and larger than the VC-25 and E-4.

As it stands today yes, but that was not the case in the past, and we do not know if that will be the case in the future.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Well, you and I have been down this road. Just because someone getting ready to retire from the USAF, looking for a well paying job (Gen. Liegh), with NG decides ramp space isn't an issue, doesn't make it so.

He should go to goal if that happens. I was of the understanding that some mechanism was put in place prevent this since the people from Boeing went to goal (?)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):

If ramp space didn't count, how do you plan on loading or unloading cargo airplanes? If ramp space doesn't count, how do you plan on how many airplanes airport XXXX can support?

As I mentioned in previously, the USAF does not know what bases it will and will not operating from in 5, 10, or 20 years. Ramp space can always be created, taxiways can be built, so can hangers, the USAF is doing that right now all over the world as we speak, and they will continue to upgrade and close down facilities it thinks fit all over the world.

In terms of fully loaded tankers, they will not placed 50' apart, they will be either in pans or flying when they are needed, the ramp space issue is mainly to do with "storage" of them when not required for operational use. The other factor I have also previously mentioned is the KC-30 has better organic capability to self deploy and tank at the same time, where as aircraft like the KC-135 can do one or the other, and if it carries fuel on deployment, you need support aircraft to take equipment, and that factors into the ramp space.

In reality during OIF, they found the maximum number of tankers at forward bases was 11, you will get 10 KC-30s in the same ramp space. The KC-30 has a larger tanker coverage area, and more endurance, and surrounding bases also have larger tanker coverage and more endurance, which gives more booms available for a given area for longer. So the importance is how many booms can you have airborne in a given area for how long, not how many booms you can park on the ground.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):

An empty A-330F will not have a 9400nm range. An A-330-200 passenger jet (much lighter airframe than an "F" airframe) does, but not the A-330F.

Maximum range for an aircraft is with maximum fuel and no payload. The A330-200F will be lighter than the A330-200, but has the same fuel capacity, it should fly further than the passenger version. QF has flown A330-200 passenger aircraft with the cabin installed on delivery flights non stop from TLS-MEL which is over 9,000 nm.

Freighter airframes have lower OEWs than passenger aircraft, not the other way around. For example the passenger DC10-30 has a spec OEW of 268,751 lb, while the freighter is 238,036 lb , i.e. the freighter DC10-30 is 30,000 lb lighter than the passenger version, see table 2.1 in http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/dc10sec2.pdf

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
An empty A-300-600F does not have a 5200nm range, nor does the lighter A-300-600R.

Yes it does

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
An empty B-767-300ERF does not have an empty 7200nm range.

Yes it does, have a look at charts 3.2.7 - 3.2.9 in http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec3.pdf also have a look at http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/767sec2.pdf you will see that the passenger 767-300ER has a higher OEW than the 767-300F (tables 2.1.4 and 2.1.5)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
For military versions, the KC-10 will be able to carry more cargo (unrefueled) further, than the KC-45 will. (4500nm for the KC-10, with 85,000lbs and 2400nm for the KC-45 with 65,000lbs).

Based upon what ?

A standard passenger A330-200 (with RR engines) will carry a payload of 117,197 lb over 4,000 nm, the A330-200F will do over 150,000 lb over 3,000 nm.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
I don't ever remember reading that. External pods on USAF aircraft (as with most airplanes) are normally removable.

Same with the KC-X, for a ferry the pods can be removed. But for tanker equivalency rates, which I was referring to (factor 5 under the RFP) it is with wing pods. The numbers you presented above are wrong, the KC-10 is 1.95 of a KC-135R, see http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...congress/2003_hr/03-06-24essex.htm

My numbers match the numbers in that link.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
For the USAF, It would be more economical to remove the WARPS for long range ferry missions (carried inside the tanker), due to less drag, then reinstall them in the forward area.

They can do that, but it does not factor into the tanker equivalency rate, you are talking about a ferry, and I am referring to refuelling capability.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 7):
Has anyone seen an official MTOW for the KC-45 besides the civilian A330F MTOW? Are they the same?

KC-30 MTOW of 233,000 kg, i.e. same as the highest weight civil variant of the A330-200 and A330-300.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5605 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12525 times:

Good info, thanks!

I know I saw a graphic showing the outline of all the aircraft (135, 767, 330, 10, & 777). Does anyone know where I can find that?

Also wasn't the 777 ruled out because it exceeded the size spec by a considerable margin (T/O, ramp weight, etc.), so they couldn't have offered it even if they wanted too.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4737 posts, RR: 39
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12494 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

No the B777 was not ruled out. Basically no aircraft was ruled out. Although now Boeing claims otherwise in their protest. All aircraft proposed just had to fit best to the requirements (kpp and objectives) as stated in the RFP. It became clear also to Boeing that the B777 just was not the most suitable plane under the terms of the RFP. Knowing this and knowing the competition they were facing Boeing had to do something. Therefore they offered a newly proposed aircraft known as the B767-AT which is a hybrid version build out of components from the B767-200ER, B767-300 and B767-400. Which as a concept is new and unproven. Also this version is partially still on the drawing board were the older technology B767 is being composed together. Personally I think the USAF graded this offer as a higher risk then the already baseline aircraft for the KC-45, the A330-200 based MRTT.

I had a small discussion with TropicBird about this. It started with me not interpreting a post completely as it was meant by TropicBird. I hope this answers your question.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 44):
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 37):
Please, not the issue with the possible 777 again. And not the issue with "Boeing were lead to believe not to present the B777". They know damn well that was never an option (meaning being the best Boeing could offer under the terms of the RFP) after knowing the requirements.And they have no proof to back-up their claims. And they know that both parties (Boeing and NG-EADS) were equally informed by the USAF about the content of the bid.

Yes...the 777 issue again and again until it gets resolved. The 767, A330, 787, A340, 777, and 747 were all welcomed and included in the RFP according to the the USAF as documented below. This decision was based on the Rand AoA Executive Summary which included ALL the above aircraft.

"The further defined basing in the RFP is necessary to allow for the full range of aircraft types recommended in the Rand Analysis of Alternatives."

Source of the above quote is from the USAF letter linked below...see the last page paragraph (g).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2008/03/05/2004263239.pdf


The link for the Rand Analysis of Alternatives is below....see page 12 of the study titled "Cost-Effectivness of Alternatives"

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG495.pdf

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 37):
That plane, the B777, no matter how good it is (and no matter how much I like it personally), would not meet or exceed all objectives as specified in the RFP. That is what counts here. The balanced airfield runway performance for aborting take-off at MTOW on a 7,000 ft runway comes to mind here as one of the many issues where this plane would fail the objectives as stated in the bid.

The key word here is objective and not threshold. If MTOW on a 7000 ft was an "objective" then it was a "goal" and not a requirement as that would instead be a "threshold" (minimum) item and a required standard.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 37):
And is a far more expensive plane and as a tanker version certainly not available in the timeframe which the USAF has defined in the bid. Hence, it is not even designed yet as a tanker!!!

A misconception here is that the USAF required that the KC-X candidate platforms be fully tested before contract award. They were not. According to the Rand study (and USAF) even the 787 was a viable candidate.

I do not believe the 777 was the best plane for this contract, but I do know it was a viable candidate and it and all the others should have been treated as such. According to Boeing it was not and that is the issue I am questioning.

Kind regards!


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9102 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 12372 times:



Quoting Tugger (Reply 10):
I know I saw a graphic showing the outline of all the aircraft (135, 767, 330, 10, & 777). Does anyone know where I can find that?

Saw it in the Boeing protest document.

Quoting Tugger (Reply 10):
Also wasn't the 777 ruled out because it exceeded the size spec by a considerable margin (T/O, ramp weight, etc.), so they couldn't have offered it even if they wanted too.

Nope, size & ramp weight were not considerations under the RFP/SRD



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 12324 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 12):
Nope, size & ramp weight were not considerations under the RFP/SRD

Which in its way the GAO will consider this, the USAF is asking for funds for a A330 but did not request infrastrutre improvements, to another NATO air force this would not be a big deal because most likely their buy would be under 20 air frames and would be at only one Air base and only one or two forward deployed. The USAF is buying up to 179 acft plus which is most likely bigger than some of our NATO allies total Air Force fleet and that infrastructure then makes a big deal, the super tanker bases of McConnell,Fairchild are old SAC bases which have the ramp space but not the hangers. The future depot of Tinker does not have the ramp space except for 2 of these at a time and that is not on the depot side and no hangers. Amatures talk tactics , professionals talk logistics.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12566 posts, RR: 46
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 12310 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
In terms of ramp space occupied, the KC-45 will be the second largest airplane in the USAF inventory. Second only to the C-5 and larger than the VC-25 and E-4.

Does ramp space occupancy in the USAF take no account of aircraft length?  confused 

KC-45 dimensions - length 59.0m, wingspan 60.3m
VC-25 dimensions - length 70.6m, wingspan 59.6m



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 12270 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 9):
He should go to goal if that happens. I was of the understanding that some mechanism was put in place prevent this since the people from Boeing went to goal (?)

Believe it or not, when Congress put the new rules in place following the KC-767A Lease Deal, in 2005, they left holes big enough to fly an A-380 through.

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 14):
Does ramp space occupancy in the USAF take no account of aircraft length?

KC-45 dimensions - length 59.0m, wingspan 60.3m
VC-25 dimensions - length 70.6m, wingspan 59.6m

The USAF dies use length, but usually wingspan is the limiting factor since the USAF usually parks airplanes parallel to each other.


User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 12215 times:

Parking tankers wingtip to wingtip at Tinker or DG is Cold War stuff.

Nowadays, wherever possible, fully fuelled tankers are dispersed, just like bombers.

In any case, concrete is cheap, and it's always easier to build ramp space or dispersed pads than it is to extend a runway.

The extra wingspan of the KC-45 is a red herring, albeit a red herring that is being wielded with energy and aggression by the frustrated supporters of the KC-767.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 12059 times:



Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
Parking tankers wingtip to wingtip at Tinker or DG is Cold War stuff.

That may be true, but when the tankers, or any other USAF aircraft are home, that is how they park. Parking nose to tail takes up too much room, so you don't jet blast out the maintenance guys behind you when powering out of parking . Once on the main taxi route to the runway, it is not a problem.

Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 16):
The extra wingspan of the KC-45 is a red herring

I never said the prospect of an A-330 was fishy.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9102 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (6 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11994 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
Believe it or not, when Congress put the new rules in place following the KC-767A Lease Deal, in 2005, they left holes big enough to fly an A-380 through.

Would you object to anytihng that followed these "new rules", or would you object regardless ?



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11771 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 4):
The wing pods are not going to be removed form the KC-X, only one figure exists, that is with wing pods installed.

If EADS spec'd the same pods for the KC-45 that the KC-10 currently has (I haven't bothered to look-up the KC-45 pod spec), then I guarantee they will spend far more time on a storage rack than they will under the wing.

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 6):
Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 1):

Assuming this information is accurate, when the time comes to replace the KC-10, it appears it would be appropriate to just order more KC-45s!

Believe me, I KNOW my KC-10 info is accurate. What we DON'T know yet is hard numbers for the KC-45 (KC-30) to be able to compare to. I based my generalizations off the Wikipedia info for the A330, which I took with a grain of salt since Wiki is horribly inaccurate sometimes.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9102 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11763 times:



Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 19):

If EADS spec'd the same pods for the KC-45 that the KC-10 currently has (I haven't bothered to look-up the KC-45 pod spec), then I guarantee they will spend far more time on a storage rack than they will under the wing.

I think the KC-45 is having the series 900 pods, the KC-10 has the series 700 pods. It is the same new pod the USAF uses to refuel the V-22 on the KC-130, but Boeing say they KC-45 is unable to refuel the V-22, go figure.

As for the refueling operator, they could have either a forward or aft panel, it is up to the USAF to decide, the aircraft is provisioned for both.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (6 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11599 times:



Quoting Zeke (Reply 20):
As for the refueling operator, they could have either a forward or aft panel, it is up to the USAF to decide, the aircraft is provisioned for both.

Whichever airframe we end up with, here's hoping for a direct-view aerial refueling operator system (aka "the big window in the back"). NO ONE I know wants anything to do with the TV camera setups...



Cleared to Contact
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-45 Vs KC-10
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-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
Finding A Name For The KC-45 posted Thu Mar 13 2008 11:44:32 by CFMitch56
Dems & Boeing Supporters Blame McCain For KC-45 posted Sat Mar 8 2008 18:50:24 by Mike89406
Usaf Has Fund To Fight KC-45 Protest posted Fri Feb 22 2008 05:34:10 by KC135TopBoom
Will KC-45 Replace AMC Charters? posted Fri Jan 11 2008 17:01:51 by CFMitch56
KC-X Now Designated KC-45 posted Fri Dec 7 2007 14:14:31 by Observer
Is The KC-10 Tanker Faster Than The Standard DC-10 posted Mon Nov 19 2007 21:14:36 by Blackbird
KC-10 Ride posted Fri Jul 20 2007 15:44:02 by Cadet985
KC-10/-135 Crew Access Question posted Wed Jun 13 2007 07:21:17 by Cancidas
Need Some Help IDing A KC-10 posted Fri Mar 2 2007 17:44:39 by TripleDelta
KC-10 Max Range? posted Wed May 25 2011 12:58:11 by tsugambler
Insane KC-10 Take-off posted Fri Mar 4 2011 11:58:09 by dtw9
KC-10(s?) At ROC? posted Mon Aug 30 2010 12:14:46 by KingFriday013
KC-10 FAA Certified? Military Crew Chiefs? posted Wed Jul 7 2010 07:51:49 by djklein
KC 10 At ZRH posted Wed Mar 24 2010 04:50:38 by ZRH
KC-10, KC-135 Tankers With Winglets. posted Mon Jan 4 2010 01:13:59 by 747classic
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39
Boeing Settles Over KC-10 Work posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:05:16 by Revelation
KC-10 At AVP posted Mon Apr 6 2009 19:36:51 by Devil505x
KC-10 Extenders posted Sat Mar 28 2009 11:23:51 by C5LOAD

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format