Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 4038
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:33 pm

Boeing's NewGen 767 tanker proposel will be powered by PW4062 engines.

see : http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/196662.asp

I would have offered the newest engine generation available at this moment : the GEnx-2B engine, optimised for bleed delivery and with a reduced fan diameter for better ground clearance.
Advertised (will be demonstrated with the 747-8) is a 13-15% TSFC gain.
Over 40-50 years expected service time, this will save a lot of fuel and probably will avoid a future re-engine program.

In normal operation the GEnx will be always fully derated, so very low engine maintenance costs can be expected. The PW4062 is the top of the line of the PW4000-94 family, operating more often at maximum Turbine Entry Temperatures.
If needed the full T/O thrust of the GEnx engine can be used in emergency conditions and/or abnormal operating circumstances.

The hot/high/short runway take off performance will be enhanced and the 767 fuel delivery capability versus range will increase with a large amount.

I.s.o all the high cost electronic "nice to have" things, invest in lower operating costs.

Keep it simple, a fuel/cargo truck with optimum field performance (over-powered) and low fuelconsumption, also with relative simple, less interconnected aircraft systems, a workhorse, like the old and still strong KC135.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:38 am

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 36):
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).

There have been two B-747s (both over the Pacific, IIRC), a TW B-727 over up state NY, and of course the famous barrel roll of the B-367-80 (KC-135/B-707 prototype) flown by Tex Johnson.

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 37):
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?

Don't forget the USAF still flys B-707-320s (E-3B/C/G, E-8C), DC-10-30CF (KC-10A) B-747-200 (VC-25, E-4B), B-757-200 (C-32A/B), G-III (C-20), Lear-35 (C-21A), and the USN flys the B-707-320 (E-6B) and DC-9-50 (C-9B/C) and others that are all "out of production". Most "pure" military type airplanes the USAF and USN flys have been out of production for decades. This is not a problem.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 39):
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

LOL

Quoting GST (Reply 46):
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?

One Vietnam incident involved a SAM, the other was a Mig-17 (chased away by Mig-Cap), the Iraq incident involved a SAM.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 50):
Boeing's NewGen 767 tanker proposel will be powered by PW4062 engines.

see : http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/196662.asp

I would have offered the newest engine generation available at this moment : the GEnx-2B engine, optimised for bleed delivery and with a reduced fan diameter for better ground clearance.
Advertised (will be demonstrated with the 747-8) is a 13-15% TSFC gain.
Over 40-50 years expected service time, this will save a lot of fuel and probably will avoid a future re-engine program.

In normal operation the GEnx will be always fully derated, so very low engine maintenance costs can be expected. The PW4062 is the top of the line of the PW4000-94 family, operating more often at maximum Turbine Entry Temperatures.
If needed the full T/O thrust of the GEnx engine can be used in emergency conditions and/or abnormal operating circumstances.

The hot/high/short runway take off performance will be enhanced and the 767 fuel delivery capability versus range will increase with a large amount.

I suspect the price per engine offered to Boeing had something to do with the selection of the PW-4062. Remember, the USAF has the option to buy the tankers airframes without engines and buy the P&W engine, or another engine seperately.
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:54 am

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 44):
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.
Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 29):
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?
Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 29):
it matters not one iota about commonality
Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 37):
Sorry, but there are hundreds of 767s in service, theres plenty in the backlog too.

Hmm now then what to make of all this????

Quoting ArabAirX (Reply 44):
I'll worry about that when/if it happens.

But then it'll be too late.   

Quoting scbriml (Reply 47):
Or the crew elects to fly in direct law. But wait, that would mean..

I don't know if this is relevant but when air transat 236 lost fuel and power they managed a very very long glide to the nearest airport and had to execute a series of 360 degree turns before landing. Now it seems to me if you lose electrical systems you divert to direct law, and in direct law they did manage 360 turns, which means that structural integrity dependant they should be able to pull of other stunts as well.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Most "pure" military type airplanes the USAF and USN flys have been out of production for decades. This is not a problem

Not a sourcing problem (maybe), but a financial nuisance... and an unnecessary one at that
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:01 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 42):
No, not on the Boeing FBW. It actually generates artificial feel to the yoke.
Quoting 747classic (Reply 50):
Boeing's NewGen 767 tanker proposel will be powered by PW4062 engines.

see : http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...2.asp

Boeing must have had a debt owed to P&W, for they made a concerted decision to go with they as opposed to GE, who powered all previous KC-767's up to that point. I'm thinking it was something to do with the 787 and no P&W option, or maybe the 777-300ER or something. While I will forever hold a grudge for the TF-30 in the F-14, P&W isn't necessarily bad, but I'd prefer a more future proof engine considering how long we can expect these aircraft to solider on; GTF or GEnx would be logical.

I still want to see the financial numbers here, I think the cost versus fuel savings over the life of the aircraft would more than makeup for the extra cost. Maybe NG will come in with a GEnx now; not only would it be preferred, but they could expose Boeing's decision to not go that route.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16432
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:54 am

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.

You can supposedly override it, but to give you an example of the stick shaker, to override that you actually end up with less performance, and when you reach and exceed the limits the force/deflection is not in the same force deflection/rate as it was during the normal regime. You are in test pilot territory, you have no idea what to expect.

I am yet to meet someone who has done this.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38):
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.

No, on Boeing FBW to go into Direct Law you have to turn a switch off overhead. Overriding the yoke force is still part of the envelope protections in normal law.

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 45):
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.

And that is the crux of the issue, if it was important it would be in the RFP, not in the RFP it is a red herring. I can see applications where “unlimited control authority” is needed, but such aircraft are designed for that from day one.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):

Don't forget the USAF still flys B-707-320s (E-3B/C/G, E-8C), DC-10-30CF (KC-10A) B-747-200 (VC-25, E-4B), B-757-200 (C-32A/B), G-III (C-20), Lear-35 (C-21A), and the USN flys the B-707-320 (E-6B) and DC-9-50 (C-9B/C) and others that are all "out of production". Most "pure" military type airplanes the USAF and USN flys have been out of production for decades. This is not a problem.

And what the USAF has found is that 10 years after the model stops being produced is that spares are next to non-existent, the spare on the scaped aircraft are next to non-existent (they have the same problem, high time, or corrosion), and the price for any spares that are available could be 10 times higher in dollar terms of 10 years before.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 53):
Boeing must have had a debt owed to P&W, for they made a concerted decision to go with they as opposed to GE,

Maybe a C-17 link, it had P&W engines.
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1875
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:46 am

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.

On the A330 you fully pull the stick all the time and you have the guarantee that the best possible climb out is the result. To do the same in the 767 there is a much higher risk that you run into a stall. The 767 pilot all the time has to keep the thight balance of pulling enough to get the max climb rate and prevent to stall on the other hand. To not end up in a stall he has to release the climb rate for some (to him unknown) buffer. It is not done to just pull full in the beginning. Doing this the speed would bleed off that prevents an effective climb out some seconds later. Deadly if the mountain at the end of the valley stands still. In Switzerland there were many accidents when aircrafts (of all clases) failed to achieve the best possible climb gradient over some time.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
There have been two B-747s (both over the Pacific, IIRC), a TW B-727 over up state NY, and of course the famous barrel roll of the B-367-80 (KC-135/B-707 prototype) flown by Tex Johnson.

Yes, but not close to the ground and routinely displayed on flight shows in 2010.

If the barrel role would be a requirement it certainly could be enabled by the flight envelope protection. It is an issue of convention not physics (for civil airliner the convention is, that no plane requires ever that). If the military aircraft requires barrel roles the envelope protection can expand the scope to allow it. It would have the advantage that even basic pilot skills would allow the manoeuvre.
 
Shmertspionem
Posts: 430
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:27 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:02 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 54):
And that is the crux of the issue, if it was important it would be in the RFP, not in the RFP it is a red herring

An excellent point. Kudos to you. Now wait for Boeing to come out with the next irrelevant ad about how the 767 can house a crèche for pet chimpanzees should the air crew have one and how vital this is to the security interests of the US.
 
Flyglobal
Posts: 551
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 6:25 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 10:36 am

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38):
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.

This discussion sounds similar to discussions about the need to use safety belts in cars 40 years ago.
There were some cases mentioned when a safety belt may be a disadvantage in case of an accident.

Even in military use, I believe that the envelope protection may save way more planes in strange situations then the potential loss of 1 plane in a way more special operation. Until this may happen in a 50 years course, another xx may have been saved due to the availability of the flight protection.
Still there will be a USAF customized software and parameter setup in any case.

regards

Flyglobal
 
Oykie
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:00 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
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.

Thar would be nice. The LCD screens on the 767-400ER is nice and it if I have understood correctly it does not need to be upgraded for the nextgen ATC. The Air force will have a huge benefit years from now if they choose the GEnx engines. 20 years from now it is still in production. Not so for the PW4062 engine.

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.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
This also applies to the supply chain as well. Suppliers may be keen to stop making the old style of instruments and controls.

This same logic can be applied to engines as well. As the PW4062 and GE CF engines goes out of production the costs for parts goes up. And the engineering skills who can support the PW4062 will be fewer than on the GEnx. So if I were buying 179 767 that will fly for 50 years, I would stress getting new engines for my airplanes.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
I suspect the price per engine offered to Boeing had something to do with the selection of the PW-4062. Remember, the USAF has the option to buy the tankers airframes without engines and buy the P&W engine, or another engine seperately.

I suspect it will not be problem free for the Air Force, if they choose a different engine than what is proposed? I gues it might do the same for the A330 platform. Say that they would prefer the GEnx. As I write this, I am thinking Airbus and Notrhrop Grumman would be smart to offer the A330 platform with GEnx engines. There are lots of life left in the A330 platform, and makes that platform a better option for the Air Force on lifecycle cost.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:19 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 53):
Boeing must have had a debt owed to P&W, for they made a concerted decision to go with they as opposed to GE, who powered all previous KC-767's up to that point. I'm thinking it was something to do with the 787 and no P&W option, or maybe the 777-300ER or something. While I will forever hold a grudge for the TF-30 in the F-14, P&W isn't necessarily bad, but I'd prefer a more future proof engine considering how long we can expect these aircraft to solider on; GTF or GEnx would be logical.

I still want to see the financial numbers here, I think the cost versus fuel savings over the life of the aircraft would more than makeup for the extra cost. Maybe NG will come in with a GEnx now; not only would it be preferred, but they could expose Boeing's decision to not go that route.

The major problem here for the GEnx engine, on any KC-X offered airplane is it needs some degree of design work and certification for the B-767 and A-330. That will add X millions or even billions of dollars to the price tag for either offer. I think you are right, in the long run it will reduce the overall costs for any offered airplane for both LCC and fuel costs. The question becomes can the USAF afford the "up front" costs to save money later?

Quoting Zeke (Reply 54):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):

Don't forget the USAF still flys B-707-320s (E-3B/C/G, E-8C), DC-10-30CF (KC-10A) B-747-200 (VC-25, E-4B), B-757-200 (C-32A/B), G-III (C-20), Lear-35 (C-21A), and the USN flys the B-707-320 (E-6B) and DC-9-50 (C-9B/C) and others that are all "out of production". Most "pure" military type airplanes the USAF and USN flys have been out of production for decades. This is not a problem.

And what the USAF has found is that 10 years after the model stops being produced is that spares are next to non-existent, the spare on the scaped aircraft are next to non-existent (they have the same problem, high time, or corrosion), and the price for any spares that are available could be 10 times higher in dollar terms of 10 years before.

While that is true, many types are supported by spares provided by AMARC, too. For example, the last I heard, the USAF is considering replacing the entire nose section of the Nellis AFB crashed E-3B with one from a stored B-707-320 at AMARC and will involve co-operation from Boeing engineers to do that.

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 55):
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.

On the A330 you fully pull the stick all the time and you have the guarantee that the best possible climb out is the result. To do the same in the 767 there is a much higher risk that you run into a stall. The 767 pilot all the time has to keep the thight balance of pulling enough to get the max climb rate and prevent to stall on the other hand. To not end up in a stall he has to release the climb rate for some (to him unknown) buffer. It is not done to just pull full in the beginning. Doing this the speed would bleed off that prevents an effective climb out some seconds later. Deadly if the mountain at the end of the valley stands still. In Switzerland there were many accidents when aircrafts (of all clases) failed to achieve the best possible climb gradient over some time.

Remember, that is very basic piloting skills. Nearly all pilots can accomplish a normal or emergency climb and still stay well within the limitations of what ever type airplane they are flying.

Quoting oykie (Reply 58):
The Air force will have a huge benefit years from now if they choose the GEnx engines. 20 years from now it is still in production. Not so for the PW4062 engine.

Maybe, but the KC-X will be ending prooduction in about 20 years, so, if the KC-767NG is selected with PW-4062 will too.

Quoting oykie (Reply 58):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
I suspect the price per engine offered to Boeing had something to do with the selection of the PW-4062. Remember, the USAF has the option to buy the tankers airframes without engines and buy the P&W engine, or another engine seperately.

I suspect it will not be problem free for the Air Force, if they choose a different engine than what is proposed? I gues it might do the same for the A330 platform. Say that they would prefer the GEnx. As I write this, I am thinking Airbus and Notrhrop Grumman would be smart to offer the A330 platform with GEnx engines. There are lots of life left in the A330 platform, and makes that platform a better option for the Air Force on lifecycle cost.

Right now, costs is the major consideration. There would be just as much life remaining in a new build KC-767NG as in a new build KC-30.
 
cmb56
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:27 pm

The 767-400 display system is not a good choice. I have that from the horses mouth, the OEM of the displays not from Boeing. The large area displays proposed give you the maximum performance and maximum commonality with the latest aircraft the 787. These also have maximum retrofit potential into existing 757/767 aircraft. This is not as great a leap as you may think. If the retrofit is designed properly the job could be done in 3-5 days. The display upgrades going into 757/767 aircraft today, built by IS&S, can be done in that time frame. These 787 displays would be far better than even these current IS&S upgrades which only replace 4 of the 6 CRTs in the cockpit
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 4038
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:00 pm

Quoting oykie (Reply 58):
I suspect it will not be problem free for the Air Force, if they choose a different engine than what is proposed? I gues it might do the same for the A330 platform. Say that they would prefer the GEnx. As I write this, I am thinking Airbus and Notrhrop Grumman would be smart to offer the A330 platform with GEnx engines. There are lots of life left in the A330 platform, and makes that platform a better option for the Air Force on lifecycle cost

For the 767NG Tanker the GEnx-2B, optimized for bleed extraction, can be taken directly from the 747-8 with only minor changes.
For the A330 Tanker the GEnX-2B delivers not enough thrust, so the preferred engine would be the GEnx-1B from the 787. However this engines is a bleedless engine and has to be adapted (and certified) for bleed delivery, actually a new GEnx variant has to be developed for the A330 tanker.

Conclusion : Re-engine with GEnx engines of the A330 will be more expensive than the re-engine of the 767, but both can be upgraded with the GEnx, to lower the operating costs.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:24 pm

Clearly envelope protection was designed, (at great cost) for a reason.

Lack of it could help in some extreme situations.

However, either you must practice extreme situations which IMO will mean more training losses, or you train as normal and then just pull the yoke back in an emergeny, and keep your fingers crossed.

As a non pilot, neither of these ideas seems too smart.
 
cmb56
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:31 pm

Maybe it would not be as big a step forward but if a newer engine is desired for the A330 why not use the GP7200 from the A380. It offers 70-77K thrust and is an American product. I am not sure that huge fan would fit under the A330 wing though.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:46 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 59):
Maybe, but the KC-X will be ending prooduction in about 20 years, so, if the KC-767NG is selected with PW-4062 will too.

Of course, but probably just for the airforce... The engine is probably one of the most important and complex part of the airplane.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 61):
Conclusion : Re-engine with GEnx engines of the A330 will be more expensive than the re-engine of the 767, but both can be upgraded with the GEnx, to lower the operating costs.

That may be  
Quoting CMB56 (Reply 63):
Maybe it would not be as big a step forward but if a newer engine is desired for the A330 why not use the GP7200 from the A380. It offers 70-77K thrust and is an American product. I am not sure that huge fan would fit under the A330 wing though.

The GP7200 was supposed to be the thrust for the 767-400ERX, so I guess that would be solvable for the A330.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 8:01 pm

Quoting flyglobal (Reply 57):
Even in military use, I believe that the envelope protection may save way more planes in strange situations then the potential loss of 1 plane in a way more special operation.

I think the best way to summarize it is that envelope protection can save a marginal pilot and make them average, but it can also make a great pilot average.

This is a saying that I have heard in relation to computerized assist in relation to Formula 1 vehicles, and I have adapted it here.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14785
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:23 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Don't forget the USAF still flys B-707-320s (E-3B/C/G, E-8C), DC-10-30CF (KC-10A) B-747-200 (VC-25, E-4B), B-757-200 (C-32A/B), G-III (C-20), Lear-35 (C-21A), and the USN flys the B-707-320 (E-6B) and DC-9-50 (C-9B/C) and others that are all "out of production". Most "pure" military type airplanes the USAF and USN flys have been out of production for decades. This is not a problem.

Imagine the USAF would have introduced a 30 yr old airframe-engine combination instead of the KC135 in the late fifties..
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 06, 2010 9:33 pm

Quoting keesje (Reply 66):
Imagine the USAF would have introduced a 30 yr old airframe-engine combination instead of the KC135 in the late fifties..

How old will the A400M be when it IOC's?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sun Mar 07, 2010 12:12 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 61):
For the 767NG Tanker the GEnx-2B, optimized for bleed extraction, can be taken directly from the 747-8 with only minor changes.
For the A330 Tanker the GEnX-2B delivers not enough thrust, so the preferred engine would be the GEnx-1B from the 787. However this engines is a bleedless engine and has to be adapted (and certified) for bleed delivery, actually a new GEnx variant has to be developed for the A330 tanker.
Quoting keesje (Reply 66):
Imagine the USAF would have introduced a 30 yr old airframe-engine combination instead of the KC135 in the late fifties..

Well, in 1977, the USAF began buying the E-3A/B/C/G (E-3A also bought by NATO and the RSAF, E-3D bought by the UK and the E-3F bought by France). All were based on a then 20 year old airframe (B-707, which was 30 years old by the time the French, British, and Saudias bought it). Has there been a problem with supporting the airframe after the last B-707 was built in 1990?

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 67):
How old will the A400M be when it IOC's?

        
 
Ken777
Posts: 10197
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:18 am

Quoting keesje (Reply 66):
Imagine the USAF would have introduced a 30 yr old airframe-engine combination instead of the KC135 in the late fifties..

So Boeing should be submitting the 787 instead? Should the USAF wait until the NGs are certified and take if from there?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sun Mar 07, 2010 2:47 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 69):
Quoting keesje (Reply 66):
Imagine the USAF would have introduced a 30 yr old airframe-engine combination instead of the KC135 in the late fifties..

So Boeing should be submitting the 787 instead? Should the USAF wait until the NGs are certified and take if from there?

Correct. Keesje forgets the A-330 is now an over 20 year old design. He would say the A-330 has been updated over that time, which is true, but he will not acknowledge the B-767 has also been updated since it was launched, too. Nor will Keesje admit the B-767 actually has newer models and design improvements over the A-330 models. The A-330-200 was launched in the mid 1990s, about the same time the B-767-300ERF was launched, and the B-767-400ER was launched about 10 years ago. Yes the A-330-200F was launched a few years ago, but it has no aerodynamic improvements over the A-330-200. The "double chin" on the "F" was added because the longer nose gear was required to make the cargo deck level, which the pax design does not have. The B-767 pax and cargo versions already had a level main deck.
 
cmb56
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:30 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sun Mar 07, 2010 11:38 pm

I don't think it is useful to compare an aircraft design that is 20 years old today with a design that was 20 years old in 1955. The longevity of airframes today far exceeds that from the 40s. I think the KC-135 proves that pretty well. Between the airframes I don't think the design age makes that much difference looking at the 767 and A330. The technolgy going into the avionics, the engines, and the economics of the wing make the difference. Boeing may not be offering a new NG engine but I am sure the latest version of the GE or PW will be available along with improvements during the life. Boeing has also put forward new technology in the cockpit / avionics and looks like winglets are proposed which make the wing more economical.

All in all I think Boeing is making a very good offering here. Compromise is necessary but they are pushing forward as much new as they can without risking the frankentanker tag again.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7173
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:30 am

About all this FBW, envelope protection and protection override, Let's get some down on earth facts.

The KC-767 is not proposed as a FBW plane, and it will therefore not have modern style envelope protection.

It will have an electronically, remotely controlled (FBW) boom, avoiding the boom operator in the tail.

You may put any parameters into the envelope protection logic.

On a FBW plane with envelope protection you may "pull" to the limit of the defined parameters.

On a plane with no envelope protection you may "pull" as close to the physical limit as you dare.

If you protection limit in your software is for instance 45 degrees bank, then you may bank 45 degrees and make no barrel roll - or straight roll. If it is defined as 360 degrees, as on the F-16 fighter, then you may roll all day long. On the F-16 sidestick you may also pull pitch until stall or 9g whatever comes first (9g being where the pilot is supposed to faint).

If your pitch protection limit is equal to stall limit, then you may pull until the stall without stalling. If you override the protection, then you stall - good if a stall is what you want.

With no protection you may pull as close to the stall as you dare - or stall if that is what you want.

If the protection limit for a dive is 10 degrees, then you won't scare much pax. If you put 90 degrees into the software, then the situation has changed.

Etc. etc.

At the end of the day: The 767 is a pretty old plane being - except for the A310 - the world's very last large airliner being designed without FBW and envelope protection. if (I would say "when") it is ordered as the new USAF tanker aircraft, then it is almost certain to be the very last active duty aircraft without FBW and envelope protection which will be brought into the USAF inventory (if we exclude future basic trainers and maybe the B747-8i as AF1).

Apart from the old tankers - KC-135 and KC-10, and various trainers and small transports, and B707, B737, B747 and B757 based planes, and your grand daddy's C-130 in various upgrades - what is left of non FBW planes in USAF? There is the A-10, F-15, P-3 and B-52, and then I don't know about the B-1.

Otherwise all new planes having been developed for the USAF during the last 30+ years have been FBW planes with envelope protection.

But does FBW and envelope protection really make a difference on a tanker aircraft? I don't think so.

Anyway, whenever FBW is used, it must fit its purpose. Fitting the A330 envelope protection unchanged on an F-22 would of course be redicolous. Fitting it unchanged to a KC-30 would probably also be stupid. In military the customer defines what he wants. In civil aviation it is different. The frame producer defines what he finds best, gets it certified, and sells it as "one size fits all".
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9910
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:03 am

Quoting yazoo (Reply 2):

I love the paintjob in those pictures! It is good to see something new for the military look.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:29 pm

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 71):
I don't think it is useful to compare an aircraft design that is 20 years old today with a design that was 20 years old in 1955. The longevity of airframes today far exceeds that from the 40s. I think the KC-135 proves that pretty well. Between the airframes I don't think the design age makes that much difference looking at the 767 and A330. The technolgy going into the avionics, the engines, and the economics of the wing make the difference. Boeing may not be offering a new NG engine but I am sure the latest version of the GE or PW will be available along with improvements during the life. Boeing has also put forward new technology in the cockpit / avionics and looks like winglets are proposed which make the wing more economical.

All in all I think Boeing is making a very good offering here. Compromise is necessary but they are pushing forward as much new as they can without risking the frankentanker tag again.

I am sure that somewhere along the production of the new tanker (B-767 or A-330), which should initially be produced as an "A" model, the OEM, or USAF itself may convert to a "B" or even "C" model as technology improves.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Tue Mar 09, 2010 3:36 am

Can we close this thread, and the two related ones, and consolidate into one new one?
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:17 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
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.

Amen.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
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 

Ratio please?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:59 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 76):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
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.

Amen.

How much would replacing the PW-4062s with GEnx-2B engines costs?

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 76):
Quoting Acheron (Reply 18):
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

Ratio please?

I believe that was one unfortunate B-767-200 accident, and the problem that caused it was fixed back in the late 1980s or early 1990s. The DC-8 had several thrust reverser deployments in flight accidents.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:42 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 11):
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.

I don't understand why they don't go with the 777 style cockpit. If the 777 freighter is chosen later on for a KC-10 replacement, keeping the 777 cockpit in the KC-767 would have some commonality.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:06 am

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 78):
I don't understand why they don't go with the 777 style cockpit. If the 777 freighter is chosen later on for a KC-10 replacement, keeping the 777 cockpit in the KC-767 would have some commonality.
Aside from the reason I gave that you quoted, I think it's far more likely that they'll operate 787s in large quantities than they would 777s. That's not to say that there will never be USAF 777s, but they would likely be for the same sort of roles that 747s are used for currently.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:51 am

Quoting N328KF (Reply 75):
Can we close this thread, and the two related ones, and consolidate into one new one?

I recommend it be put in the Non-Aviation folder, because these things aren't gonna be flying anytime soon. This is about people on the ground, paper airplanes, politics, flag-waving, bed wetting, and so on.  
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:32 am

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 78):
I don't understand why they don't go with the 777 style cockpit. If the 777 freighter is chosen later on for a KC-10 replacement, keeping the 777 cockpit in the KC-767 would have some commonality.

Why? likely the newer screens are cheaper per unit, and have that extra bit of "cutting edge" to them. If the extra screen realestate can be used to move more buttons/switches/warning lights from real physical items to virtual items on the screem then they win big.

Commonality is moot, It would require differences training regardless of 767-400, 777, 748, or 787 style they used since the airframe isn't going to match any of the others. Which also tends to lead to differences in exact layout. Last the integration of military equipment will add differences to the civilian version.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tan

Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:47 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
If the extra screen realestate can be used to move more buttons/switches/warning lights from real physical items to virtual items on the screem then they win big.

It's also difficult to imagine where they will get CRT screens in the year 2035, or service them. You need a whole factory to build them. It's an extinct technology. Supported, but not a wise choice for new build.

But, when Boeing was designing this tanker, they probably put a record on the phonograph, since they were sad about Elvis dying just recent. Then they walked across the shag carpeting to the telegraph machine. Maybe they got a telegram from President Carter. Then they did some more 767 drawings, designing the systems proposed for the new tanker. Then they made plans to see the new Burt Reynolds film, Smokey and the Bandit.

[Edited 2010-03-18 23:51:57]
 
AutothrustBlue
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:37 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:37 pm

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

The flight envelope protection is what kept the plane from stalling above the runway. It was the audacity of the pilots to fly low, slow, with a high AOA, and with idle thrust that caused them to end up in the trees.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38):
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.

The Airbii FBW have an Abnormal Alternate Law that takes hold whenever the aircraft enters an upset that is not caused by the pilots. It is an intermediate step between Alternate Law and Direct Law, with most of the protections removed. This allows the pilots to recover the aircraft.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 38):
Not true, you can't do barrel roll on A330

With some flight control computers off it is possible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2KygSyVE58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVITJbVNvY4
Granted, turning off enough ELACs/PRIMs/SECs is not the most practical method, but it is sufficient for commercial airliners. Airbus may very well have adapted their commercial airliners FBW code for military applications in a way that eliminates the need for turning off the flight control computers.Though, I can't confirm if this is true or not.

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 42):
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.

Almost...the bank angle protection is gone when the plane enters abnormal alternate (ALT2) or any lower law.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
Commonality is moot, It would require differences training regardless of 767-400, 777, 748, or 787 style they used since the airframe isn't going to match any of the others.

But how different is the 787 flight deck from the 777 or 764? Surely the difference cant be huge; from the look of the mock-ups, the information seems to be presented in the same manner as the 777, with differences in the FMS,and possibly the addition of an EFB, or a better EICAS.
 
BoeEngr
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:31 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:16 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 78):
I don't understand why they don't go with the 777 style cockpit.

Too expensive. The displays that the 787 uses are about a quarter of the cost of the 777 displays. The information is displayed in pretty much the same format.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 78):
If the 777 freighter is chosen later on for a KC-10 replacement, keeping the 777 cockpit in the KC-767 would have some commonality.

Very true. However, I believe we'll see some 777 Flight Deck improvements coming our way, and those will include the 787 displays. So by the time that comes around, a 777 tanker offering would have the screens in common with the KC767.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 81):
likely the newer screens are cheaper per unit, and have that extra bit of "cutting edge" to them.

  

Quoting AutothrustBlue (Reply 83):
But how different is the 787 flight deck from the 777 or 764?

I'm not sure of the crew training time to go from 764 to 777 or vice versa. Flight crew training time to go from 777 to 787 is under 5 days. 787 Flight Deck was based largely off the 777.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2141
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:28 pm

Quoting AutothrustBlue (Reply 83):
But how different is the 787 flight deck from the 777 or 764?

787
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jeremy Lindgren / New England Airports



764
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Daniel Piotrowski



777
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alejandro Ruiz

 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:47 pm

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 84):
Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 78):
I don't understand why they don't go with the 777 style cockpit.

Too expensive. The displays that the 787 uses are about a quarter of the cost of the 777 displays. The information is displayed in pretty much the same format.

Then that would be one of many ways Boeing is using to keep the costs of the KC-767NG as low as possible.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4058
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:53 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 51):
Don't forget the USAF still flys B-707-320s (E-3B/C/G, E-8C), DC-10-30CF (KC-10A) B-747-200 (VC-25, E-4B), B-757-200 (C-32A/B), G-III (C-20), Lear-35 (C-21A), and the USN flys the B-707-320 (E-6B) and DC-9-50 (C-9B/C) and others that are all "out of production". Most "pure" military type airplanes the USAF and USN flys have been out of production for decades. This is not a problem.

Actually this is a problem.. having worked in the spares inventory group, it becmes vastly more expensive and the lead times for replacement grow longer when vendors retool for the latest design, go out of business, or are absorbed by other companies. The Saudi 707 tankers were delayed because someone wanted a KC-97 refueling viewing port with a canvas shroud located under the re fueling receptacle. It took almost a year to find someone willing to make a few. The little old lady who sewed the canvas shrouds is long deceased, finding a spare will not be easy or cheap.

Newer manufaturing techniques also make replacement easier .. look at the problems the 747-8 had trying to integrate hardware designed on paper drawing with the latest CAD designed parts. If you want a/c built by rejectio tag, go with the old 767, and many spare parts will have to be modified to fit making them useless for the larger fleet. go with an a/c that was prebuilt by CAD/CAM you'll have fewer deviations.

The upgrade to latest hardware now is the cheapest in the long run. (notice how many military a/c programs go through mod programs to stay current with technology. Would you really want the winner of this exercise to be sending all the Block A a/c into mod after 3 years when with the incorporation you could wait 10?
 
AutothrustBlue
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:37 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:11 pm

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 84):
The information is displayed in pretty much the same format.
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 84):
Flight crew training time to go from 777 to 787 is under 5 days. 787 Flight Deck was based largely off the 777

Thank you. I felt this was the case; it makes sense to keep the display format from the 777.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 85):

Thanks for the pics.
 
cosmofly
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:36 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:50 pm

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 84):
The displays that the 787 uses are about a quarter of the cost of the 777 displays.

Make sense. The 787 screen is rectangular and has aspect ration of a typical PC monitor. The 777 ones are squares which makes it very niche.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:01 am

Let me see? We now have the Boeing KC-767NG, EADS wants to bid their A-330MRTT, and now UAC wants to build a KC-IL-96 for a bid proposal. I guess the USAF is getting the compitition it wants.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:54 am

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 89):
Make sense. The 787 screen is rectangular and has aspect ration of a typical PC monitor. The 777 ones are squares which makes it very niche.

You're actually on to something there. Notice how 4:3 (SDTV)-ratio displays are disappearing from store shelves, even for computer monitors? This is because the LCD glass manufacturers (Corning has over 50% of the market) like to have fewer variations in the aspect ratios of glass they cut, and it can affect price. 1:1 (used on the 767-400 and 777) is definitely an oddball ratio, as is 5:4. 4:3 is becoming more rare, but that appears to be the ratio used for the 787. On one hand, I'm surprised that they aren't choosing 16:9 for the 787, but on the other hand, perhaps they consider it a moving target.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26982
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:51 pm

Quoting N328KF (Reply 91):
You're actually on to something there. Notice how 4:3 (SDTV)-ratio displays are disappearing from store shelves, even for computer monitors? This is because the LCD glass manufacturers (Corning has over 50% of the market) like to have fewer variations in the aspect ratios of glass they cut, and it can affect price. 1:1 (used on the 767-400 and 777) is definitely an oddball ratio, as is 5:4. 4:3 is becoming more rare, but that appears to be the ratio used for the 787. On one hand, I'm surprised that they aren't choosing 16:9 for the 787, but on the other hand, perhaps they consider it a moving target.

Yes, cost of odd shapes is a factor, but still we are talking about multi million dollar purchases here.

Also something tells me the resolution and brightness is different than commercial grade screens.

To me in my work, having the extra horizontal space is good but I won't trade off on vertical resolution.

I'm used to having at least 1000 lines vertical resolution, the more the better.

My home laptop is 1400 x 1050 pixels in a 4:3 aspect ratio.

My work laptop is 1440 x 900 pixels 16:9 aspect ratio and I hate loosing the vertical resolution so I mostly use it to drive a 1600 x 1200 4:3 monitor.

My next home laptop (currently on order!) will be a 1920 x 1200 17" monster with 16:9 aspect ratio.

I'll be able to VNC to any of my other platforms and display their screens in their native resolutions.

It'll also be able to show two pages of stuff side by side, or show 1080i movies in 16:9 format!  

Luckily for me I have a big lap!  

Otoh I won't be able to use it on an airline tray table, so I'll be keeping this one as my new "ultralight"/"netbook" laptop.
 
MD-90
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 12:45 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:33 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
Can we trade the 75% larger screens for 15% more efficient GEnx-2B engines.

Will they fit under a 767's wings without a landing gear extension?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:08 pm

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 93):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 9):
Can we trade the 75% larger screens for 15% more efficient GEnx-2B engines.

Will they fit under a 767's wings without a landing gear extension?

Since these are the same engines that are on the B-747-8F/I, and the landing gear on that version is no taller than any other version of the B-747, I believe the GEnx-2B engines will easily fit. There are other B-747 engine and struts (GE, P&W, RR) that are near common with the B-767.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:03 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 92):
My next home laptop (currently on order!) will be a 1920 x 1200 17" monster with 16:9 aspect ratio.

That's actually 16:10, which is a more and more common size for "widescreen" monitors. "Real" 16:9 widescreen monitors are a bit too short, and the bit of extra vertical size helps a lot. You can even find a few TVs in that format, and they're great if you still get a lot of 4:3 television (of course some people* will then get doubly angry when the image gets letterboxed when displayed *both* formats).


*Or they can be like my dad. Nice new 42" set. Hates the letterboxing, hates the horizontal distortion of the picture when in "stretch" mode, and won't order HD service from his satellite provider. And is sure this is all a big scam to screw him.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Mar 25, 2010 9:45 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 95):
*Or they can be like my dad. Nice new 42" set. Hates the letterboxing, hates the horizontal distortion of the picture when in "stretch" mode, and won't order HD service from his satellite provider. And is sure this is all a big scam to screw him.

I guess I'm like your Dad, then. I have a 42" HDTV, a 36" HDTV, a 27" HDTV, but I usually watch the old 20" flat screen CRT TV. I have Direct TV, but did not buy the HD boxes. When my kids and grandkids watch the big TVs, they complain about it, I tell them it is just a scam for more money.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6028
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:34 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 96):
When my kids and grandkids watch the big TVs, they complain about it, I tell them it is just a scam for more money.

It's a scam to want TV sets that match (more closely, at least) the aspect ratio that movies have had for decades?  
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:19 pm

Yeah, but we need to get back on the topic of the Boeing KC-767NG offering.
 
Oykie
Posts: 2052
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: Boeing To Offer NewGen 767-based Refueling Tanker‎

Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:01 pm

Boeing is curently doing a roadshow for this new airplane. What is interesting in the published video is that the cockpit in
the video is similar to the 767-400ER. Is this an error in the roadshow, or have they altered the design? I guess that from a cost standpoint and commonality between the NewGen 767 it would make sense to offer this cockpit. Anyone knows if Boeing is not offering big screen LCD's anymore?

Here is a link to the video: http://unitedstatestanker.com/video#tanker

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Schroinx, ThePointblank and 18 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