BoeingBus From United States, joined May 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 11 Posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10146 times:
I thought I would share this out to you... very interesting from perspective that Boeing was premature in closing the MD-11 line. I always thought this merger was a mistake...
"Boeing has made one great, unreported blunder in this battle of refueling tankers that places it in jeopardy of losing this sale. Right after the ink dried on the deal acquiring McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing sent a wrecking crew into the MD-11 facility in Long Beach, Calif., and destroyed the tooling for all versions of this aircraft series. It is fiscally prohibitive to relaunch this platform that had performed extremely well as a freighter and would have made an outstanding tanker candidate.
The MD-11 freighter, of which only 57 were built, carries 86 tons of cargo. It compares more than favorably with the A330, plus it has three engines to the Airbus' two. The military always prefers extra engines as they are exposed to hostile fire. I have spoken to Los Angeles-based Boeing executives who admit they made a critical mistake in destroying the MD-11 freighter tooling."
TPASXM787 From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1730 posts, RR: 41 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 10022 times:
I think that this may be another example of Boeing's past mistakes. If the military chooses the 767 and it is inferior then it is a huge mistake. While I admit to not being a huge Douglas fan, the -11 does have great range and the extra engine is an added bonus, especially of one takes a hit. IF Airbus is the superior product...then Airbus it is. The thing the A330 doesn't solve is it still only has two engines.
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7600 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9883 times:
>> The MD-11 freighter, of which only 57 were built, carries 86 tons of cargo. It compares more than favorably with the A330, plus it has three engines to the Airbus' two.
Ooh... it has more, it must be better
>> If the military chooses the 767 and it is inferior then it is a huge mistake. While I admit to not being a huge Douglas fan, the -11 does have great range and the extra engine is an added bonus, especially of one takes a hit
What are you smoking? I mean really, KC-11 tanker? Are you deranged or have you just been ignoring the whole tanker competition?
Aside from being completly unsuitable for a KC-135 replacement, this whole "extra engine" thing is complete BS.
>> I have spoken to Los Angeles-based Boeing executives who admit they made a critical mistake in destroying the MD-11 freighter tooling
It also boosted the return on the 777, what a mistake.
MidnightMike From United States, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9848 times:
When the MD11 line came to an end, I do not believe that the tanker program was open for bidding. Besides, like the A330, the MD11 would have been to much of an aircraft to replace the KC135, where the 767, is just about the perfect size. If the military needed a larger airplane, they would be looking at 747's, 777's.
Tnsaf From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9801 times:
When is the last time a KC-135 or KC-10 took a hit during combat operations? I don't think that it's a real risk except for the folks flying the KC-130s supporting the special forces helicopters and the Marines.
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5239 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9403 times:
Quoting BoeingBus (Thread starter): Right after the ink dried on the deal acquiring McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing sent a wrecking crew into the MD-11 facility in Long Beach, Calif., and destroyed the tooling for all versions of this aircraft series
That is an extreme overexagerration. Once the ink dried, Boeing did stop marketing the MD-11 as a passenger transport as it competed with the 777. However Boeing did intend to keep the line open to produce cargo planes as they knew that it was a successful airplane in that category. The reason that they eventually shut it down was that it was not getting enough orders from cargo carriers to keep the line running at a sustainable rate. Now yes they might regret the decision now since cargo transportation has picked up tremendously in recent years and the 747 and A300 were the only cargo planes still being built in decent quantity. Both of the designs are old and inefficient, but that might change with the new A380 and 772F.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
CMD777300ER From United States, joined Jun 2005, 50 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9378 times:
What was Boeing thinking to destroy the MD-11 line? After the papers were signed with McDonnell Douglas, Boeing owned the line. Hence Boeing destroyed their own production line! But enough dwelling on the past. Boeing needs to look to the future for future sales. I am a Boeing fan, but I never thought the 767 would make a good tanker. However, I believe the U.S. Military would be making a wiser decision to purchase Boeing aircraft.
From an economical point-of-view:
American tax payers would buy the tankers from an American manufacturer. The production would provide American jobs and money back into American wallets.
Quote: The military always prefers extra engines as they are exposed to hostile fire.
^This may only apply to tankers on approach or takeoff in hostile environments. Besides, the military would only acquire two engines whether they bought the 767 or A330.
The KC-11 would have been the best choice to replace the KC-10. Both are workhorses that operate with the General Electric CF6 engines. The KC-11 is an updated version of the KC-10 with its new glass cockpit and newer avionics than the 767. The KC-11 also positively outperforms the A330 and 767 aircraft. I talked to a DC-10-30 mechanic in December 2003. He told me that the McDonnell Douglas aircraft has better wiring than the "cheaply" built Airbuses. The military wants something dependable and not disposable.
Its no wonder why the McDonnell Douglas aircraft have been in service for so long...and that's not only in military hours!
RoseFlyer From United States, joined Feb 2004, 5239 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9253 times:
Quoting CMD777300ER (Reply 8): The KC-11 would have been the best choice to replace the KC-10
I never read anywhere that the military is wanting to replace the KC-10. The planes that need to be replaced are the KC-135s which are based of the 707. The KC-10 is just too much plane to fully replace the KC-135. The 767 was the original replacement for the 707, so it makes sense that it will be a good tanker replacement too.
Another point is that if Airbus is willing to build a whole new factory in the United States to build the A330 tanker, then you would expect that Boeing would be able to bring back the MD-11 if the contract was worth enough. But of course the Air Force does not want the MD-11.
The only problem is that the 762 is a design that is over 20 years old, and 20 years down the line, it will be a costly outdated design with expensive repairs. I honestly think that by the time the decision is made, that the 787 will be around. The 787 is replacing the 767, so it would be the best move, but I guess I am dreaming.
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
BCAInfoSys From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9223 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 9): I honestly think that by the time the decision is made, that the 787 will be around. The 787 is replacing the 767, so it would be the best move, but I guess I am dreaming.
We have said over and over again, there will NOT be a 787 tanker. It is too optimized as a commercial aircraft to be a suitable tanker derivative. It's just not gonna happen.
And on a sad note, I've heard some internal talk that the contract is all be destined for Airbus. I would love to see the KC-767 in USAF colors, but I'm pretty sure we're going to see a KC-330.
I know that, and it is just a dream to think that the military would fly the dreamliner. But then, who ever thought that the 777 was going to become a freighter in the 90s when Boeing was pushing the 747?
[Edited 2005-06-22 19:20:32]
I design airplane parts for a living and am that guy that mechanics hate and blame for everything... the Design Engineer
BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2185 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 9028 times:
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 10): It is too optimized as a commercial aircraft to be a suitable tanker derivative. It's just not gonna happen.
How can it be too optimised? The B707, DC10, VC10 and L1011 were also optimised as commercial aircraft, yet they fly happily as tankers. What specific aspect of the 787 makes it unsuitable?
EA CO AS From United States, joined Nov 2001, 9258 posts, RR: 68 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8997 times:
I would love to see the KC-767 in USAF colors, but I'm pretty sure we're going to see a KC-330.
Logic aside - since it sounds like the 330 may be a better candidate - I can't for the life of me imagine that the U.S. government would turn away from Boeing in favor of Airbus on this - the cost in political capital will be far too great for many.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
DfwRevolution From United States, joined Mar 2004, 7600 posts, RR: 55 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8940 times:
>> How can it be too optimised? The B707, DC10, VC10 and L1011 were also optimised as commercial aircraft, yet they fly happily as tankers. What specific aspect of the 787 makes it unsuitable?
The carbon laminate fuselage supposidly makes it difficult to cut the fuselage extensions needed for a refueling system and system integration is difficult. I doubt it is impossible, but the ROI (for Boeing) would likely be less than the 767.
Not to mention, where can Boeing just fit the USAF into the heavily booked 787 production?
DarthRandall From United States, joined Mar 2005, 302 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8862 times:
Quoting Tnsaf (Reply 5): When is the last time a KC-135 or KC-10 took a hit during combat operations? I don't think that it's a real risk except for the folks flying the KC-130s supporting the special forces helicopters and the Marines.
Indeed, it is a rare occasion when a KC-135 takes fire. For that to happen, it would require a monumental failure on the part of the flights in the air and the controlers on the ground. Even in that astronomically unlikely event, a third engine would not make much of a difference since nobody uses cannons air-to-air anymore and an AA-11 will likely obliterate anything carrying that much fuel. The threat of bird strikes would be the only concievable reason I could imagine for the Air Force to prefer a three-engined plane to a two-engined plane.
Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads all the time and don't even think twice about it.
Gearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 573 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8732 times:
Quoting BCAInfoSys (Reply 10): And on a sad note, I've heard some internal talk that the contract is all be destined for Airbus. I would love to see the KC-767 in USAF colors, but I'm pretty sure we're going to see a KC-330
BOS2LAF From United States, joined Sep 2004, 254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8697 times:
However much of a better airplane the KC-330 may be...
Does anyone think with the current political climate of everyone wearing american flag pins, and american flag magnets on their cars, and the residual anti-France sentiment left over from the Iraq war, and the buy-American mentality going around...
Does anyone really think that...
The US Government will buy an Airbus for the United States Military??
The US Government will buy military aircraft from a manufacturer based in a country that was so strongly opposed to US military action?? Does anyone else see the irony in this?
The US Government will buy planes from a manufacturer at the center of the WTO subsidies spat?
Now, I'm not saying I buy into or endorse this whole "the US is center-of-the-universe" mentality, nor am I anti-American, but seriously, Americans would march down to Washington with torches and pitchforks if the government bought a "French" plane, regardless if it was built in the US.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2039 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8694 times:
That is why I am not a big fan of the KC-767 tanker - it's 20 year old tech and isn't even as good a tanker platform as the KC-11 would have been. Sounds like the same goons that reportedly tried to have the Grumman Tomcat tooling destroyed - for the sake of silencing your competition.
EADS needs to be given a fair shot on this USAF tanker deal and they need to be forced to buy the aircraft that meets the most criteria for the lowest costs - something EADS thinks they can do.
Somewhere off in the distance is a KC-11 tanking an F-14D...
ClipperNo1 From Germany, joined May 1999, 671 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8691 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7): The reason that they eventually shut it down was that it was not getting enough orders from cargo carriers to keep the line running at a sustainable rate.
LH Cargo, arguably the largest cargo carrier at that time, was pushing Boeing to keep the line open. FX was securing deals for second-hand MD-11s, which were still flying pax at that time (i.e. SR), all over the world. And the supply of second-hand frames was foreseeable low. Plus this was in the year 2000, the absolute Boom-Year for air cargo. Forecasts about the growth rate of air cargo were very good and have proven to be correct over the last years, even after such an extra-ordinary event like 9/11.
So who the f* did Boeing hire to make their forecasts?
"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined May 2004, 1553 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 123 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2185 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 1999, 671 posts,