If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Posted on 09/26/2006 2:06:42 PM PDT by Proud_USA_Republican
At an Air Force Association conference today in Washington, D.C., Boeing will make public for the first time a proposed U.S. Air Force refueling tanker based on its very large 777 commercial passenger jet — a potential alternative to a midsize 767 tanker.
According to a draft request for proposal (RFP) the Air Force issued Monday, the government requires a tanker that can double as a troop carrier and supply plane.
The proposed 777 tanker would have a much larger capacity for fuel, troops or cargo than either the currently offered 767 tanker or a rival offer based on the Airbus A330.
Boeing said a 777 tanker would have a maximum fuel capacity of "more than 350,000 pounds," though a company source indicated it could stretch to more than 400,000 pounds of fuel. The Airbus tanker has a maximum fuel capacity of 250,000 pounds.
Boeing tanker spokesman Bill Barksdale said unveiling the 777 option is intended to convince observers the company is serious about providing an alternative to the original 767 tanker if the Air Force wants a bigger airplane.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
The 777 is a great plane.
Speaking as a frequent flyer, the 777 is my favorite bird. Just a magnificent machine. The only better experience in the sky is "upstairs" in a 747.
I'm just thankful that they didn't choose "666."
"Senator McCain, please don't throw me in that briar patch!"
Heads up
My guess is that the Pentagon will want a mix of tankers. A 777 based tanker would be a great supplement to the KC-10 fleet while the KC-767 would be a great one for one replacement for the KC-135R.
But it takes more ramp space than the A330 or 767 tanker. One reason the air force wants 767 tankers is they can fit in the existing hangers built for the KC-135 with just a little modification of the hanger doors. The A330 has a bigger wing span which would require new hangers.
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
Well, this is the federal government we're talking about here. I'm surprised they didn't just buy all three types and decide what to do with them later on.
Wasn't the 777 originally designed with an option for folding wingtips for tight airline terminals? It was expensive and added maintenance so no airline ordered it and the option presumably "went away" at some point, but if the engineering is already done and size is more important than cost it might be viable for a military version.
The 777 would make a great tanker/Frieght carrier which would be what the U.S. Air Force badly needs.
The tail would not fit in the hangers either. Nice idea though.
It also added to the weight. I don't know if the previous engineering studies would be enough, because the 777-300ER, 200LR, and 200F have a modified wing compared to the original 777-200 wing. The Tanker would be based on the 777-200F which is a freighter version of the 777-200LR.
But one 777 still only has one boom. For tactical missions it is usful to have more booms available so more planes can be refueled at a time. I think a mix of 777 and 767 tankers would be better than all 777 or all 767. The 777 would be very good for ferrying fighters the way the KC-10 is used. It could also be used to supplement the freighter capacity of the air force. It would be much more efficient to send palletized freight from the US to bases near a combat zone and transfer the freight to C-17's than to fly C-17's to and from the US.
Well, whether the Air Force purchase's the 777 or the 767, or a combination of both, is ok with me. However, if the AF should purchase a single Airbus airplane, those responsible should be shot first, then tried and found guilty of treason...
Why not use a Boeing 747 LCF
John McCain is pushing for the KC-330.
Because the cargo compartment is unpressurized and the planes are too expensive. The 747-100 has been tested as a a refueling aircraft. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to get a STC for the 747-400 or 747-8F. It would be a good tanker for ferrying fighters, but it would have drawbacks as a tactical refueler. The ratio to offloadable fuel to booms would be high. When not being used as a tanker, it would be great for carrying oversized equipment and cargo containers and pallets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.