Replies

And your source for this. And DC-10s are in production? How many have you seen flying lately? Are they good platforms for boom refueling - your sources please. Are you an expert on Air Refueling? I am. Your questions please.

Perhaps you should pull your head out of your rear. I was responding to a previous post. Have you ever heard of the KC-10? It is a tanker built on the DC-10 airframe. The Air Force bough 60 of them in the early 1980s. Perhaps you should visit Boeing's website or the Air Force's website. "Fixit" pointed out that there were lots of DC-10s grounded (as a result of September 11). He was suggesting the Air Force could convert them to tankers with similar characteristics to the previous KC-10s much cheaper than buying brand new 767s. Boeing still supports the DC-10 and MD-11 even though they are out of production. In fact they even Repace the old 3-man cockpits of DC-10s and replace them with a 2-man digital cockpit used in the MD-11 and redesignate it as the MD-10. Fedex and other freight airlines fly quite a few of these former passenger airliners that have been upgraded.

My point is that the Air Force could spend a lot less bying used DC-10s and converting them to KC-10s than bying brand new 767s. At the rate the Air Force flys its tankers, they would still be around for quite a while. You should consider that the KC-135 which was built in the 50s and 60s is expected to be around till 2040; thats over 80 years. According to one study I read (use a search engine to find it) only a few KC-135s will have reached the maximum numbers of hours on on their airframes.

There is even a precedent for making refuelers out of civilian DC-10's, producing a variant called the KDC-10.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kdc-10.htm

An engineer is someone who can, for a dollar, do what any fool could do for two.

I bow to your superior knowledge. You must have information I do not have. You are like a boomer, have copius knowlege on drogue refueling, ageing airframes, models on turbulance on center engine platforms as it relates to heavy movers, avionics upgrades, life cycle costs of the KC-10, SF-88 criteria as it applies to existing aircraft (flight 800 brought this about), requirements on new aircraft to automate the refueling evolution, perhaps you could give me your thoughts on distributed systems and open architecture as dictated to me. Maybe you could jump right in on the endless meetings I have on FAA certification and chapter 28 requirements on cockpit design as it applies to the -200 cockpit as opposed to the -400 cockpit, and don't forget the implications of the EICAS box that eliminated the flight engineer as it applies to aerial refueling. We will skip the part when the tanker has to take on fuel through the UARSSA. Hell refueling that big boy on the ground and then making it look like taking on fuel in the air and faking out the airplane is a cake walk right. Buy some new slippers and enrole in some ballet classes.

regards

forgive the typos i did this in hurry