User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

KC-777F Specs?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:19 am

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:33 am

What did they announce? I searched their web site and found nothing about the KC-777.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:22 am

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
 
BladeLWS
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:41 pm

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:23 am

 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:40 pm

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
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:15 am

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?
 
echster
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:45 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:25 pm

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.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:06 pm

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.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:14 pm

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>
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:21 pm

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.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:32 pm

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.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:48 pm

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:21 pm

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.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:39 pm

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.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:05 pm

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
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:06 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Sun Oct 01, 2006 11:21 pm

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.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:25 am

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
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 3:43 am

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/
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:21 am

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 avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5807
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: KC-777F Specs?

Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:14 pm

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.' -Theodore Roosevelt

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests