I'm curious, when Boeing sent their tanker conversion work to Aeronavali in Italy, outsourcing it from Wichita, were you screaming about those jobs? Also, you wouldn't happen to be acquainted with Druyun and Sears, would you?
I'm curious, when Boeing sent their tanker conversion work to Aeronavali in Italy, outsourcing it from Wichita, were you screaming about those jobs? Also, you wouldn't happen to be acquainted with Druyun and Sears, would you?
I thought it was Sears and Roebuck?
Who?
Also this bid was for the KC-X, to replace the oldest, lowest capacity KC-135(E?), a KC-Y for the higher capacity KC-135R and then a KC-Z (for the larger tankers).
If size was such an asset why didn't the AF buy more than 59 KC-10s or try to get tankers based on the MD-11 before that line was shut down?
I agree also that many of the short runways are also not rated for large airplanes. So the KC-45 may not be able to land in the first place.
The AF actually ignored the capacity of their airfields (rated them all at their highest strength not their lowest).
There was plenty wrong here to raise a bunch of red flags.
The KC-10 cannot refuel certain aircraft due to the center engine. its great for fighters and bombers but not T tails and awacs.
I responded to Paul almost the same way on another thread. He has posted this article or referenced it more than once.For his and everyone’s enlighjtenment, the max takeoff weight for the KC-10 is 590,000 lbs. If the AF cannot handle that weight, why haven’t they scrapped the KC-10. Mr. Ross also refers to an editorial in the Air Force Association’s magazine as claiming they don’t like the EADS tanker either. When you read the editorial, you do not find anything like it. As I said on another thread, if anyone thinks the AF deliberately biased their selection process, they are crazy. After the lease debacle, no one in the AF would dare try to do it again.
the KC10 / Dc-10 has the same 156 ft wingspan, but it does have a much higher MTW, and is far less efficient than the 767 in fuel burn. the KC10 pruchase was a political one, since the airline were not buying Dc10s anymore.
Northrop can build airplanes. This is all about sour grapes and the size of Boeing's lobbiest and blogger force. You would think that would actually get the 787 in production before whining so much about losing a contract. It is really really old and tiresome, and my opinion of Boeing is going in the tubes.