Yazoo
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 3:26 am

Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:33 pm

After all the ads on the frontpage of A.net, I was wondering when this would become official :

Boeing to offer 767-based refueling tanker‎
Purple Pride!
 
manfredj
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 2:16 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:39 pm

So much if left unsaid. We know it will offer 787 style cockpit, but what other modifications will be done to the aircraft or is a completely "new" 767 that has a different wing a fuselage?

I'm hoping they will attach some pretty crazy engines to this thing too...maybe 100,000 thrust each?  
757: The last of the best
 
Yazoo
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 3:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:46 pm

And the pictures:

Purple Pride!
 
Flighty
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:34 pm

My guess is they will add new LED lights to the inside, creating a more "airy" NewGen cockpit and cabin. Adding maybe $75 million to the price.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7874
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:38 pm

"The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability."

Talk about a cheap shot. That's outrageous. Boeing sounds like a babbling baby.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 8:46 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Talk about a cheap shot. That's outrageous. Boeing sounds like a babbling baby.

It might be cheap, but it will no doubt have some traction, in light of AF447.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9078
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:01 pm

The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.

Like on the F22.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
SP90
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 12:39 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:22 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Like on the F22.

IIRC, that feature was implemented to protect the pilots. Still, how hard would it be for Airbus to modify the A330 FBW software to allow for unrestricted access to the full flight envelope? At the same time, when was the last time anyone flew a tanker into a situation where it was required to make evasive maneuvers for threat avoidance?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:25 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Talk about a cheap shot. That's outrageous. Boeing sounds like a babbling baby.

Folks still talk about the 737 rudder and the 747 doors, so I guess one has to live with the Airbus flight control computers until they get rid of it.

Quoting manfredj (Reply 1):
So much if left unsaid. We know it will offer 787 style cockpit, but what other modifications will be done to the aircraft or is a completely "new" 767 that has a different wing a fuselage?

Well, now we know how the cost of the 767 will rise to match the cost of the A330, real question is whether all these fancy items being put in the cockpit are necessary, cheaper because they are easier to retrofit enmasse to the 767 rather than piece meal or required by the RFP.
If not required by the RFP it is an additional cost which brings both a/c closer to the 1% margin, hope if they loose the competition it will not be as a result of all the addedd "fluff" maybe they should look to the VH-71 and F-22 programs for guidance.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 9:55 pm

Can we trade the 75% larger screens for 15% more efficient GEnx-2B engines.
Pls, stay with the already engineered "777 cockpit lay-out" of the 767-400 and keep the costs within limits.
It looks if the fueltruck is slowly transferred into a fancy Ferrari.

[Edited 2010-03-04 14:02:28]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:07 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.

Like on the F22.

Or the Boeing V-22 Osprey for that matter...
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tan

Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:08 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
Pls, stay with the already engineered "777 cockpit lay-out" of the 767-400 and keep the costs within limits.
It looks if the fueltruck is slowly transferred into a fancy Ferrari.

Or...

Boeing figures that these airframes will be flying for 50+ years, and so it's better to have them be as modern as possible, where possible. The talent base in 30-50 years might really only understand newer cockpits.

This also applies to the supply chain as well. Suppliers may be keen to stop making the old style of instruments and controls.

[Edited 2010-03-04 14:15:26]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:10 pm

It is a right-sized 787-3 in the making
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:12 pm

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
ell, now we know how the cost of the 767 will rise to match the cost of the A330

I'd be amazed if the 787 style cockpit cost more than the old 767 one. Using the current items in full production often can save alot of money over older equipment. In this case, reducing the number of parts used to make the cockpit will have a massive reduction in costs even if the larger screens cost a hair more. The reduction wiring, button count, gauges, warning lights, etc are a big deal. Design, manufacturing, assembly, MX, and repair costs all drop when you reduce the complexity of the cockpit assembly.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 7):
IIRC, that feature was implemented to protect the pilots. Still, how hard would it be for Airbus to modify the A330 FBW software to allow for unrestricted access to the full flight envelope?

Cost would be in writing and then flight testing the new software. Not cheap, but on the whole not but a small bit in a contract this big. Only thing I think that would prevent EADS from doing it is that Airbus has planes needing these people working hard (A350/A400M) and taking resources from either isn't possible.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9078
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 10:29 pm

FbW and flight enveloppe protection allows the pilots to fy the aircraft on the edge of the enveloppe without having to worry that they go outside the envelope & break the wings, stall the ship etc. Just like the 787, F18 and any modern aircraft. It's spin for the big unknowing public.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:53 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
FbW and flight enveloppe protection allows the pilots to fy the aircraft on the edge of the enveloppe without having to worry that they go outside the envelope & break the wings, stall the ship etc. Just like the 787, F18 and any modern aircraft. It's spin for the big unknowing public.

Boeing's statement has nothing to do with FbW, but everything to do with the flight envelope protection.

Boeing's flight envelope protection, just like on 787 and 777, allows the pilot to override the protections. The A330 does not have the override.

The fact is that A330 protection exist to prevent the plane to be pushed beyond the "normal" limit. It is very good with commercial aviaton, where you should not see flight operation pushing through the normal limit.

I don't know about the tanker operation, but I don't think it is not unimaginable to push the plane beyond the normal limit, under certain emergency combat situations.

Quoting yazoo (Thread starter):
Like on the F22.
Quoting keesje (Reply 14):
F18

I don't know what kind of envelope protection that F-22 and F-18, but modern fighter with FBW has computer aided control, to stabilize the plane. I don't think it limits the plane manouver.
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6720
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:12 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 13):
I'd be amazed if the 787 style cockpit cost more than the old 767 one. Using the current items in full production often can save alot of money over older equipment.

I agree, its why I also mentioned that enmasse the changes may be cheaper, but my main point is that the more new things put in the a/c the more development cost will rise, including testing.
This is not an RFP for a new design tanker, it essentially is for an off the shelf a/c customized to the Air Force requirements, the more customization placed by the client or voluntarilly added by the vendor the closer the cost curve will get to a new build a/c.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
Boeing figures that these airframes will be flying for 50+ years, and so it's better to have them be as modern as possible, where possible. The talent base in 30-50 years might really only understand newer cockpits.

This also applies to the supply chain as well. Suppliers may be keen to stop making the old style of instruments and controls.

Which may defeat the cost savings that the Air Force wants to make up front. The end of the 767 and A330 lines are almost known, yes the 767 will go first, but Airbus already has a replacement for the A330 as Boeing does for the 767, so maybe they should just bite the bullet and request a new purpose design and forget the initial savings and look even longer term. If a new design was the option it probably would have been chosen by now, rather than this "competition" which is now in it's second run.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:17 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
The Boeing NewGen Tanker will be controlled by the aircrew, which has unrestricted access to the full flight envelope for threat avoidance at any time, rather than allowing computer software to limit combat maneuverability.

Like on the F22.

Welcome back Keesje. I was beginning to think you were taken away by the EADS A-400M team and hidden somewhere.

BTW, Boeing does not build the F-22, or writes the software.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 7):
IIRC, that feature was implemented to protect the pilots. Still, how hard would it be for Airbus to modify the A330 FBW software to allow for unrestricted access to the full flight envelope?

You mean protect them like on AF 296? Airbus yanked the DFDR and DCVR, kept them for 10 days, before turniung them over to the accident investigators, and the recorders were open with several seconds of data mission..

You would have to ask EADS/Airbus would they consider writing the new software, but I doubt they would want to, it would add significant costs to their bid.

Quoting SP90 (Reply 7):
At the same time, when was the last time anyone flew a tanker into a situation where it was required to make evasive maneuvers for threat avoidance?
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
I don't know about the tanker operation, but I don't think it is not unimaginable to push the plane beyond the normal limit, under certain emergency combat situations.

Twice in Vietnam, and at least once in ODS. This is not counting the several KC-135s that flew in low level to drag damaged fighters out of North Vietnam.
 
Acheron
Posts: 1847
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:06 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 13):

So according to you putting a new cockpit design and layout in an old design should be cheap but reprograming the FBW limits should be expensive?.

Right...

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
You mean protect them like on AF 296?

How many accidents due to FBW failure have happened on Airbii since then?. But since you want to go there, maybe the USAF should stick to the KC-135 and avoid the 767, you know, in case the thrust reversers decide to activate on their own midflight 
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
ou would have to ask EADS/Airbus would they consider writing the new software, but I doubt they would want to, it would add significant costs to their bid.

Again, how all the redesign the 767 has to go through somehow is more cheap than FBW reprograming?.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
I don't know what kind of envelope protection that F-22 and F-18, but modern fighter with FBW has computer aided control, to stabilize the plane. I don't think it limits the plane manouver.

IIRC, the Flanker family has a limitation on the AOA it can reach, but it can be turned off without too much hassle.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2644
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:25 am

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
So according to you putting a new cockpit design and layout in an old design should be cheap but reprograming the FBW limits should be expensive?.

yes, the existing hardware sourced from the 787 or 777 put into the KC767NG will likely be cheaper than using the old desgin. Some certification and design costs, but you pay that back in cheaper cost to make the cockpit. Touch screens are incredbly cheap now compared to the cost for dozens of steam gauges for example.

Moidifying hundreds of thousands of lines of code, checking it, checking it again, then flight testing it for hundreds of hours to ensure the new programing won't leave the operators owning alot of wreckage instead of planes isn't cheap. There is no savings to come from doing it either. Your real question isn't is redoing the FBW expensive or not, its is the FBW limits approprate to the role without extensive modification. Last I suspect if there was needed changes for a military role they have been done in the KC30 program for the Aussies.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:36 am

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
Again, how all the redesign the 767 has to go through somehow is more cheap than FBW reprograming?.

Actually, I think, to convert the A330 FBW with its flight envelope protection to have the flexibility of aircrafts with say Boeing's envelope protection philosophy is not as easy as modifying the code.

With Boeings, you can override the flight protection by putting a lot of force on the yoke. With Airbus, they have to think about side stick modifications to incorporate those kind of two level protections. Otherwise, the airplane won't be able to give feedback to the pilots for the distinction of going over the "safe" limit.
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 1:42 am

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
You mean protect them like on AF 296?

How many accidents due to FBW failure have happened on Airbii since then?. But since you want to go there, maybe the USAF should stick to the KC-135 and avoid the 767, you know, in case the thrust reversers decide to activate on their own midfligh

I posted some 12 accidents a while ago (not counting AF-447), but they were deleted. BTW, the B-767 thrust reverser accident was just 1.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
ou would have to ask EADS/Airbus would they consider writing the new software, but I doubt they would want to, it would add significant costs to their bid.

Again, how all the redesign the 767 has to go through somehow is more cheap than FBW reprograming?.

The GAO said the Boeing offer in 2008 was $10M cheaper per airplane than the EADS/NG offer in 2008.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14485
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:20 am

The most interesting part of the article to me is:

Quote:

Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, said the new 767-based tanker would be "considerably simpler" than the one it bid in the last competition, which had included parts of different 767 models and was downgraded as possibly risky by the Air Force.

So it seems the Frankentanker is dead!

Given that Boeing said the 767 NewGen tanker would meet the Air Force's 372 mandatory requirements, one's gotta wonder exactly what frame that Boeing will be pitching, and how it'll meet all the requirements.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9102
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:31 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Twice in Vietnam, and at least once in ODS. This is not counting the several KC-135s that flew in low level to drag damaged fighters out of North Vietnam.

Glad you made it through those.

On the dragging damaged fighters out of NV, I might have been on watch in PIRAZ CIC if that happened in the 66 - 68 time frame. You shudda waved.  
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:31 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
yes, the existing hardware sourced from the 787 or 777 put into the KC767NG will likely be cheaper than using the old desgin. Some certification and design costs, but you pay that back in cheaper cost to make the cockpit. Touch screens are incredbly cheap now compared to the cost for dozens of steam gauges for example.

In theory you're 100% correct - let's see if it works out in practice

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 20):
With Boeings, you can override the flight protection by putting a lot of force on the yoke. With Airbus, they have to think about side stick modifications to incorporate those kind of two level protections. Otherwise, the airplane won't be able to give feedback to the pilots for the distinction of going over the "safe" limit.

And yet the F-16 and Rafale use sidesticks which presumably also have an FBW switch off button, so i don't think that learning curve is too high for french engineers.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The GAO said the Boeing offer in 2008 was $10M cheaper per airplane than the EADS/NG offer in 2008.

Yes but with all these new modifications, their integration and testing that Boeing is proposing will it still continue to be cheaper?

At any rate aesthetically this new Boeing proposal is stunningly beautiful - but didn't some one in this thread or another related thread bring about the notion that the winglets reduced drag but made crosswind compensation more difficult? maybe raked wing-tips a la 764 would have been better if not as beautiful

Does this proposal remain a 762 or is it now a 763?? the artist impressions seem somewhat longer than the pictured Italian and Japanese variants
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:39 am

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 24):
And yet the F-16 and Rafale use sidesticks which presumably also have an FBW switch off button, so i don't think that learning curve is too high for french engineers.

Too many people in these threads are confusing FBW with computer-controlled flight envelopes. They are related, but not synonymous.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10103
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:48 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):

Boeing's flight envelope protection, just like on 787 and 777, allows the pilot to override the protections. The A330 does not have the override.

You need to compare apples with apples, the A330 FBW is not the same as the KC-30 FBW, the KC-30 FBW is more like the A400M. The KC-30 FBW was modified for its military role.

Also I would challenge anyone to "override" the 787 and 777 in a real emergency the stick forces required are very large, when looking at CFIT response ALAPA found the Airbus FBW gave the maximum performance even over the 777.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
yes, the existing hardware sourced from the 787 or 777 put into the KC767NG will likely be cheaper than using the old desgin. Some certification and design costs, but you pay that back in cheaper cost to make the cockpit. Touch screens are incredbly cheap now compared to the cost for dozens of steam gauges for example.

Without the AIMS cabinet from the 777 having the fancy screens in the 767 does give it more cockpit functionally, all the systems are not monitored. It will be the same overhead panel, the same CB panel, just like they did for the 737NG and 767-400, it is a window dressing exercise.

Because the actual aircraft will still be analogue in most respects behind the screens, it will not share commonality with the 777 or 787, and will not share commonality either with the civil passenger 767 fleet.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:38 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Because the actual aircraft will still be analogue in most respects behind the screens,

Isn't that a good thing as far as EMP shielding goes? - since nuclear war fighting always will be part of USAF ideology? The next step would be to go beyond FBW to FBL but that would be super expensive.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 25):
They are related, but not synonymous.

never disagreed with you - that post was answering a point that side sticks cant recreate manual resistance to simulate a turning off of either the FBW or to override the computer controlled flight envelope. That said given the size of these planes - as Zeke said - I really would like to see how anybody could realistically control these manually.
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 10103
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:07 am

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 27):
Isn't that a good thing as far as EMP shielding goes? - since nuclear war fighting always will be part of USAF ideology? The next step would be to go beyond FBW to FBL but that would be super expensive.

I do not think it matters, all aircraft have been designed with EMP in mind, otherwise none would be able to fly near a thunderstorm. BTW civil airliners are already flying with fibre optic FBW.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
ArabAirX
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:41 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Because the actual aircraft will still be analogue in most respects behind the screens, it will not share commonality with the 777 or 787, and will not share commonality either with the civil passenger 767 fleet.

And this matters because?

The tender is for the USAF, not commercial use - it matters not one iota about commonality - just as the A330 tanker shares none with the current USAF tanker fleet.  
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:00 am

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 29):
And this matters because?

The tender is for the USAF, not commercial use - it matters not one iota about commonality - just as the A330 tanker shares none with the current USAF tanker fleet.

Because when commercial 767's cease to fly who's going to be providing spares? True story - when NASA wanted spares for certain computers on the Space shuttle that were old - they launched an RFP - and found that to restart production of these would cost 100 times more than the current and infinitely superior equivalent (which could not be installed since it was incompatible with all other shuttle systems) .

The point zeke is making is about commonality with commercial and easily maintainable aircraft with abundant spares supply as opposed to some hyper-specialised freak. he did not mention commonality with any of the other AF fleet. Its a concept called economies of scale.
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:24 am

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 29):
The tender is for the USAF, not commercial use - it matters not one iota about commonality - just as the A330 tanker shares none with the current USAF tanker fleet.

Why do you think there are no used 707s around, when DC-8s abound?

Hint: It's not because the 707 sucked.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Gipsy
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 5:17 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:47 pm

INFO for the UNKNOWING

Ever heard of Direct Law? There's NO FEP in Direct Law!!!! I guess it's a matter of software reprogramming to assign a button to DL and make it available not only in case of multiple computer failures....ah it's so annoying with these uneducated FBW guesses.....please read up on it.....
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:59 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
Boeing's statement has nothing to do with FbW, but everything to do with the flight envelope protection.

Correct.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
Boeing's flight envelope protection, just like on 787 and 777, allows the pilot to override the protections. The A330 does not have the override.

It is not required because there is no useable flight envelope beyond the envelope protection limits. By definition. Beyond that limit the plane stalls anyway.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
The fact is that A330 protection exist to prevent the plane to be pushed beyond the "normal" limit. It is very good with commercial aviaton, where you should not see flight operation pushing through the normal limit.

Depends how the limits are set.

The unparalleled flight displays routinely performed by Airbus aircraft clearly show that the envelope protection allows to safely enter remote areas of the flight envelope that nobody else dares to explore...

The Airbus FBW system is the masterpiece of art how to move very close along a deadly border and yet never cross it.

I say the envelope protection makes hardly sence for civil applications but the military usage cries for it. Before Boeing opens the mouth about combat maneuverability I want to see just one Boeing aircraft (regardless which one) displaying the stunning flight performance that can be displayed by any Airbus FBW aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex7CHzTTCaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ7C71Wak68

Regarding maneuverability maybe even the A380 beats the 767. At least no 767 was ever documented to fly so wild.

The Airbus FBW envelope protection offers these features which can easily counter Boeings claim about the 767 maneuverability:
- Fastest possible resolving of low energy states
- Fastest possible climb out from low and/or slow speed situation
- Allow the most narrow turns that will not lead to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReSm7r45_ds
- Prevent stall when flying slow (V-22)
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 2:34 pm

I had a description given to me first hand from a pilot who was allowed to fly an A340 during a demonstration flight out of Toulouse. A fairly high altitude the Airbus pilot with him directed him to pull the side stick all the way back and to the side. Full pitch up and full roll command. According to this individual the aircraft dutifully went right to the pitch and roll limit for that airspeed and altitude and proceded to do 360s until he let go of the stick.

The protection is there to keep you from breaking the aircraft. How often would a tanker need to do a barrel roll or some other unusual attitude or manuver.

If some special allowance for tanker manuvers needs to be developed I am sure that can be done. To me this is a non-issue, it's just spin.

I am very encouraged that Boeing is proposing new cockpit displays as part of this RFP. The standard CRT cockpit is getting very long in the tooth. The winglets should help with fuel economy and performance. So all in all I like it very much.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:26 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 23):
On the dragging damaged fighters out of NV, I might have been on watch in PIRAZ CIC if that happened in the 66 - 68 time frame. You shudda waved.

I did....

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 24):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 21):
The GAO said the Boeing offer in 2008 was $10M cheaper per airplane than the EADS/NG offer in 2008.

Yes but with all these new modifications, their integration and testing that Boeing is proposing will it still continue to be cheaper?

At any rate aesthetically this new Boeing proposal is stunningly beautiful - but didn't some one in this thread or another related thread bring about the notion that the winglets reduced drag but made crosswind compensation more difficult? maybe raked wing-tips a la 764 would have been better if not as beautiful

It was me who brought up the cross wind capability question on winglets vs. raked wingtips. We will not know anything about the new price of either offer until mid August 2010, at least. Even then we may not know, only the USAF and bidders will know. We probiblt won't hear anything on prices until Congress approves the first production block airplane funding, not the funding of the 4 SDDs.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 24):
Does this proposal remain a 762 or is it now a 763?? the artist impressions seem somewhat longer than the pictured Italian and Japanese variants

I believe it is a B-762 airframe.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 19):
yes, the existing hardware sourced from the 787 or 777 put into the KC767NG will likely be cheaper than using the old desgin. Some certification and design costs, but you pay that back in cheaper cost to make the cockpit. Touch screens are incredbly cheap now compared to the cost for dozens of steam gauges for example.

Without the AIMS cabinet from the 777 having the fancy screens in the 767 does give it more cockpit functionally, all the systems are not monitored. It will be the same overhead panel, the same CB panel, just like they did for the 737NG and 767-400, it is a window dressing exercise.

Because the actual aircraft will still be analogue in most respects behind the screens, it will not share commonality with the 777 or 787, and will not share commonality either with the civil passenger 767 fleet.

There will still be some amount of commonality between the KC-767NG avaionics and the B-787, as will about the same when comparing the KC-30 proposal to the current A-330. What the percentage of commonality between the military avionics and the commerical avionics will be none of us know that yet. But we all know there will be differences.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 27):
Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Because the actual aircraft will still be analogue in most respects behind the screens,

Isn't that a good thing as far as EMP shielding goes? - since nuclear war fighting always will be part of USAF ideology? The next step would be to go beyond FBW to FBL but that would be super expensive.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 28):
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 27):
Isn't that a good thing as far as EMP shielding goes? - since nuclear war fighting always will be part of USAF ideology? The next step would be to go beyond FBW to FBL but that would be super expensive.

I do not think it matters, all aircraft have been designed with EMP in mind, otherwise none would be able to fly near a thunderstorm.

There is a huge difference between the EMP emissions from a thunderstorm and a nuclear blast. Either the KC-767NG or the KC-30A will require additional shielding for additional EMP emission protection. You are talking about Kilo-Jules vs. Mega-Jules in difference.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 30):
The point zeke is making is about commonality with commercial and easily maintainable aircraft with abundant spares supply as opposed to some hyper-specialised freak. he did not mention commonality with any of the other AF fleet. Its a concept called economies of scale.

For this RFP, neither airplane offer will have any avionics commonality with current USAF aircraft. Boeing does propose using the C-17 seat pallets for the pax configueration, as well as an updated version of the KC-10 Boom, but that is all I have scene so far. So, unless another type airplane is bought, the commonality will be minimal

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
I say the envelope protection makes hardly sence for civil applications but the military usage cries for it. Before Boeing opens the mouth about combat maneuverability I want to see just one Boeing aircraft (regardless which one) displaying the stunning flight performance that can be displayed by any Airbus FBW aircraft.

F-16? F/A-18E/F? C-17? KC-135?, B-52?

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
Regarding maneuverability maybe even the A380 beats the 767. At least no 767 was ever documented to fly so wild.

Did I miss something? the last I heard EADS was not offering the A-380 in the KC-X compitition.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
The Airbus FBW envelope protection offers these features which can easily counter Boeings claim about the 767 maneuverability:
- Fastest possible resolving of low energy states
- Fastest possible climb out from low and/or slow speed situation
- Allow the most narrow turns that will not lead to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReSm7r45_ds
- Prevent stall when flying slow (V-22)

- Military pilots have lots of training on energy management when compared to commerical pilots without military flying experience.
- Most of that is dependent on engine spool-up timing, you can move the flight controls all you want, but if the engines have not spooled up enough that does almost nothing to help you.
- Sharp narrow turn radious is more dependent on the airspeed than the airplane. The slower the speed, the sharper the turn.
- All airplanes will stall at a given airspeed for that design.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
I say the envelope protection makes hardly sence for civil applications but the military usage cries for it. Before Boeing opens the mouth about combat maneuverability I want to see just one Boeing aircraft (regardless which one) displaying the stunning flight performance that can be displayed by any Airbus FBW aircraft.

F-16? F/A-18E/F? C-17? KC-135?, B-52?

Sorry, I meant (but failed to write) Boeing civil airliners (those that are candidates for tankers).

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
Regarding maneuverability maybe even the A380 beats the 767. At least no 767 was ever documented to fly so wild.

Did I miss something? the last I heard EADS was not offering the A-380 in the KC-X compitition.

Yes but any smaller type surely has even more maneuverability...
 
ArabAirX
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:37 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 30):
Because when commercial 767's cease to fly who's going to be providing spares?

Sorry, but there are hundreds of 767s in service, theres plenty in the backlog too. Spares is not an issue - and IF Boeing wins, it'll be even less of an issue since it, as the OEM will be making the 767, so why would it suffer from spare shortages?
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:52 pm

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
It is not required because there is no useable flight envelope beyond the envelope protection limits. By definition. Beyond that limit the plane stalls anyway.

Not true, you can't do barrel roll on A330, while there is a posibility that you can with "mechanical aircraft". Example: China Airlines 006, a dive recovery, is not possible with airbus's flight envelope protection. Of course, it would not happen in the first place with the Airbus planes, but this is civilian case. But the point is that there are cases that the envelope protection does not allow the plane to go over the "normal" flight enveope, but the plane itself can still go "beyond" the normal envelope.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
Depends how the limits are set.

That's the problem. If you set the limit to far, you won't have the normal flight envelope protection, but if you set it at normal, it's the same argument as before.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 34):
The protection is there to keep you from breaking the aircraft. How often would a tanker need to do a barrel roll or some other unusual attitude or manuver.

not often, but sometimes it could be a lifesaver

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
when looking at CFIT response ALAPA found the Airbus FBW gave the maximum performance even over the 777.

It was not maximum, but consistent performace, which means it hits 17.5 degrees consistently. It is nice for CFIT recovery, but not for say avoiding SAMs or other things.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 26):
Also I would challenge anyone to "override" the 787 and 777 in a real emergency the stick forces required are very large

I'm not a pilot, but I bet you can override the Yoke forces. I can't imagine Boeing design a protection that the pilot can override, but they really can't if they decide to do so.

Quoting Gipsy (Reply 32):
INFO for the UNKNOWING

Ever heard of Direct Law? There's NO FEP in Direct Law!!!! I guess it's a matter of software reprogramming to assign a button to DL and make it available not only in case of multiple computer failures....ah it's so annoying with these uneducated FBW guesses.....please read up on it.....

So when you are under fire in combat, are you gonna look for a button? That is the problem, there needs to be a way to go to Direct Law. On Boeing FBW, there is. It is called pull the yoke harder.
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 4:53 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):
Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 33):
Regarding maneuverability maybe even the A380 beats the 767. At least no 767 was ever documented to fly so wild.

Did I miss something? the last I heard EADS was not offering the A-380 in the KC-X compitition.

KC that's called a rhetorical point! haven't you been reading schopenhauer          

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 37):
Sorry, but there are hundreds of 767s in service, there's plenty in the backlog too.

And none of those hundreds will be compatible with the USAF 767's - that's the point Zeke was making. Very strange given that you were the one who asked why it mattered in the first place.

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 37):
as the OEM will be making the 767, so why would it suffer from spare shortages?

And what if the Chinese were to one day bomb the OEM's factory?
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:24 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38):
Not true, you can't do barrel roll on A330, while there is a posibility that you can with "mechanical aircraft".

Wouldn't that be a function of the plane's structural engineering to withstand centrifugal/centripetal and g forces and the efficiency of its control surfaces?

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38):
On Boeing FBW, there is. It is called pull the yoke harder

And why would we suppose that such a tactile didactic mechanism can't be mastered by Airbus engineers?
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 5:42 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38):
I'm not a pilot, but I bet you can override the Yoke forces. I can't imagine Boeing design a protection that the pilot can override, but they really can't if they decide to do so.

The force behind the yoke is called gravity and weight, and hydraulic assists are the only way one can move the control surfaces as well as they can to begin with. So this isn't fabricated force into the yoke, and as such it cannot be turned off.

When the US Navy first began letting women flying combat jets, an F-14 at low speeds can require 60 to 80 pounds of force to to manipulate its control surfaces, and some women (and weaker men) had trouble with it, but those aircraft are a thing of the past now.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:01 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 40):
And why would we suppose that such a tactile didactic mechanism can't be mastered by Airbus engineers?

I didn't say they can't. I was responding to the claim that a "simple" recoding of FBW law can achieve this.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 41):

The force behind the yoke is called gravity and weight, and hydraulic assists are the only way one can move the control surfaces as well as they can to begin with. So this isn't fabricated force into the yoke, and as such it cannot be turned off.

No, not on the Boeing FBW. It actually generates artificial feel to the yoke.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 40):
Wouldn't that be a function of the plane's structural engineering to withstand centrifugal/centripetal and g forces and the efficiency of its control surfaces?

Not on A330. With A330 there is a hard limit of the bank angle that you can't exceed no matter what you try to do, unless I think the plane is degraded to direct law.
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:16 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 42):
unless I think the plane is degraded to direct law.

Given how badly the French have degraded Air France, and Air France in the past has downgraded/degraded me - I Think they're the world champions of the degraders art!!!   
Vi veri universum vivus vici
 
ArabAirX
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 9:54 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 6:53 pm

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 39):
Very strange given that you were the one who asked why it mattered in the first place.

I never referred to commonality, I referred to the OEM (Boeing) being able to produce the required parts if it won the deal. Zeke is the one drawing paralells to the commercial 767 fleet, not me. My point about the 767s in service is that Boeing supports those - theres no reason to suggest they wouldnt support a 767 tanker either.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 39):
And what if the Chinese were to one day bomb the OEM's factory?

I'll worry about that when/if it happens.
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:37 pm

Artificial feel was first put on the Hughes Hercules "Spruce Goose" so that the hydraulics would have a feeling of real forces on them. At that time pilots were used to mechanical linkage and the pure hydralics would allow them to tear the aircraft apart.

Since the question of control limits vs. no control limits seems to be a matter of opinion is there any substantiation out there to support the opinion that a military aircraft must have unlimited control authority.

Like in the entire history of KC135 operations is there a record of any missions flown that the aircraft had to take evasive action due to either ground fire or threat from enemy fighters?

If in 50 years there are zero missions or a handful on record that this happened then to me it doesn't matter one way or the other what is on the aircraft.
 
GST
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:27 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:18 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 45):
Like in the entire history of KC135 operations is there a record of any missions flown that the aircraft had to take evasive action due to either ground fire or threat from enemy fighters?

If in 50 years there are zero missions or a handful on record that this happened then to me it doesn't matter one way or the other what is on the aircraft.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Twice in Vietnam, and at least once in ODS. This is not counting the several KC-135s that flew in low level to drag damaged fighters out of North Vietnam.

so it seems that the situation is conceivable in the future, the question is now whether there is any evasion circumstance that would entail the aircraft needing to exceed its design envelope. Perhaps KC135TopBoom could enlighten us if this was the case any times in the past (in real life or exercises) as he seems to be the definitive expert on this subject?

Speaking of someone with no relevant experience or expertise, I cannot see a time when a tanker would need to roll or loop to evade, perhaps the only one I could imagine is wanting to exceed VNE to dive away from a threat/radar lock?
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13696
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:56 pm

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 42):
Not on A330. With A330 there is a hard limit of the bank angle that you can't exceed no matter what you try to do, unless I think the plane is degraded to direct law.

Or the crew elects to fly in direct law. But wait, that would mean....   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
cmb56
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:27 pm

There is an old simply saying in aviation "If you want to go up pull back on the stick, if you want to go down pull back harder." The 767 would let you do that the 330 would not.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2539
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:00 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 48):
There is an old simply saying in aviation "If you want to go up pull back on the stick, if you want to go down pull back harder." The 767 would let you do that the 330 would not.

Ah, but the A330 would let you do that in direct law... it's just a switch that can disable certain systems. And besides, if you are pulling up enough to cause your aircraft to stall or exceed certain airframe limitations, you most likely won't be flying home anyways.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BatonOps, eal46859, marktci, QuarkFly, ramair and 15 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos