“Try any of the following. and it has been delivered and has a operating boom that has passed alot more gas than the OTHER ONE.”
LIAR.
There is no KC-767AT
The planes that were delivered (2 years LATE) were basic KC-767’s. They were NOT the Advanced Tanker that Boeing offered the Air Force.
The first and second KC-45’s have already flown.
The A330MRTT (which hte KC-45 is based) has already transferred fuel inflight through both the boom and drouge system.
There is no KC-767AT
The planes that were delivered (2 years LATE) were basic KC-767’s. They were NOT the Advanced Tanker that Boeing offered the Air Force.
Delivered late Due to Japan wanting FAA certification.
And how far behind is the A330MRTT.
The first and second KC-45’s have already flown.
Flown to Germany to get fitted for CARGO conversion that the KC-767 already has.
The A330MRTT (which hte KC-45 is based) has already transferred fuel inflight through both the boom and drouge system.
Just like the KC-767 for Japan and Italy They have Flown and are delivered. which the KC-767AT is derived from.
Since the Airbus airplane is further along they got the rules changed to favor their existing airplane and didn't optimize it to meet the RFP.
Holding tight time constraints favors the more developed product. But that product by definition is less tailored to your requirements.
So the Boeing plane incorporated more features that the Air force asked for (survivability, cargo floor etc.)
The differecne in time frame can easily be made up in a faster ramp up. 12 airplanes a year instead of 9.
Did you happen to notice the first flight of the 777F. That is a similar scope to the airframe portion of the 767 tanker modifications. New cargo door, no windows (does the A330 have windows, why?) stronger cargo floor, gross weight change. All done on schedule.