Re: KC-767 vs Re-Mod DC-10's

[John Halliwell]

In article >, CFA3
> writes
>My guess, (taken for what it's worth), is that we could refurbish and
>convert those 10's at something of the order of 1/3 the cost of new
>767's. Not to mention the commonality issue that would be maintained
>with the original KC-10 fleet.
>
>I know that Fed-Ex, years ago had a program of their own in which they
>turned a yit load of passenger 10's to cargo, when they couldn't buy
>anymore MD-11's. McDD/Boeing does have the engineering work for that
>complete. Obviously there would be additional work to do, but I
>suspect it wouldn't be that bad. And, I have to think I'm not the
>first one to think of this. McDD/Boeing may have drawings already, for
>just such a project.

By the sound of it, the KC-767 deal is very important to Boeing because
it allows them to keep the 767 line running, without the deal they might
have to stop it. On that basis it makes no sense to them to save tax
payers money by converting different aircraft for the role.

--
John

[Guy Alcala]

Ralph Savelsberg wrote:

> CFA3 wrote:
>
> >> convert those 10's at something of the order of 1/3 the cost of
> > new 767's. Not to mention the commonality issue that would be maintained
> > with the original KC-10 fleet.
> >
> > I know that Fed-Ex, years ago had a program of their own in which they
> > turned a yit load of passenger 10's to cargo, when they couldn't
> > buy anymore MD-11's. McDD/Boeing does have the engineering work for
> > that complete. Obviously there would be additional work to do, but
> > I suspect it wouldn't be that bad. And, I have to think I'm not
> > the first one to think of this. McDD/Boeing may have drawings
> > already, for just such a project.
> >
> You're indeed not the first person to consider this.
> The Dutch Air Force has been operating two converted ex-Martinair DC-10s
> as tanker/transports for several years now, under the local designation
> KDC-10, so the design work is not an issue. It's been done. During the
> conversion a lot of structural work on the airframe that would have been
> necessary if a boom operator station like that on the KC-10 would have
> been installed, was avoided by using a 3D camera system.
> The boom operator sits in his own station, right behind the flightdeck.
>
> The KC-767 deal (like any major programme) seems to be heavily
> influenced by all kinds of politics.

While not denying the role of politics, I suspect that the need is for lots of
smaller refueling track tankers to replace KC-135s, not for big deployment
tankers the size of the KC-10. Either type can refuel the same number of
fighters in the same time frame, but the latter have more limiting runway and
taxiway strength and size requirements, take up far more space on the apron,
and are more expensive to operate. There's also the issue of new versus used,
and how much of a parts market there'll be for supporting DC-10s down the road
as they phase out from airline service. Then there's the fairly exhaustive
inspections required of any used a/c before buying, lest the USAF wind up with
a/c suffering severe corrosion, fatigue or other problems, and that takes time,
people and money. IIRR, the RAAF has had their share of problems with their
707s. And finally, if you only need a few a/c as in the case of most
countries, it's not too difficult to find a sufficient number that are commonly
equipped, often from the same carrier. But the USAF is looking to buy several
hundred tankers (eventually; 100 in the first batch), so even if enough
airframes were available they'd have to spend a lot of time and money
retrofitting them to a common standard, or else suffer a supply, maintenance
and training nightmare. Buying new, they don't have that problem. We can
afford to buy new; most countries can't.

Guy

[David Lednicer]

Fedex decided to scrap 26 of the DC-10s they had in storage, rather than
mod them to the MD-10 configuration because the conversions were not
economical in the post 9/11 environment. Any airliner that has been in
service for 20-30 years is going to have serious corrosion and
maintanence issues. The USAF is much better off starting out with new
airframes, as they will probably have to serve 50-60 years, judging from
the KC-135.

[Ron]

>Fedex decided to scrap 26 of the DC-10s they had in storage, rather than
>mod them to the MD-10 configuration because the conversions were not
>economical in the post 9/11 environment. Any airliner that has been in
>service for 20-30 years is going to have serious corrosion and
>maintanence issues. The USAF is much better off starting out with new
>airframes, as they will probably have to serve 50-60 years, judging from
>the KC-135.
>

I saw them doing some of the flight testing when I was living in Fargo. It was
a white DC-10 body, but it had the MD-10 conversion and had on the side
"MD-10". I beliieve it was the sam cockpit as the MD-11, and would have
allowed for a common type rating.

However that idea is not liked by FedEx pilots, who say they two land rather
differently and that pilots could be assigned either type at will...and it will
result in pranged airplanes


Ron
Tucson AZ
C-421 air ambulance

[Jim Baker]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>
> > CFA3 wrote:
> >
> > >> convert those 10's at something of the order of 1/3 the cost of
> > > new 767's. Not to mention the commonality issue that would be
maintained
> > > with the original KC-10 fleet.
> > >
> > > I know that Fed-Ex, years ago had a program of their own in which
they
> > > turned a yit load of passenger 10's to cargo, when they couldn't
> > > buy anymore MD-11's. McDD/Boeing does have the engineering work for
> > > that complete. Obviously there would be additional work to do, but
> > > I suspect it wouldn't be that bad. And, I have to think I'm not
> > > the first one to think of this. McDD/Boeing may have drawings
> > > already, for just such a project.
> > >
> > You're indeed not the first person to consider this.
> > The Dutch Air Force has been operating two converted ex-Martinair DC-10s
> > as tanker/transports for several years now, under the local designation
> > KDC-10, so the design work is not an issue. It's been done. During the
> > conversion a lot of structural work on the airframe that would have been
> > necessary if a boom operator station like that on the KC-10 would have
> > been installed, was avoided by using a 3D camera system.
> > The boom operator sits in his own station, right behind the flightdeck.
> >
> > The KC-767 deal (like any major programme) seems to be heavily
> > influenced by all kinds of politics.
>
> While not denying the role of politics, I suspect that the need is for
lots of
> smaller refueling track tankers to replace KC-135s, not for big deployment
> tankers the size of the KC-10. Either type can refuel the same number of
> fighters in the same time frame, but the latter have more limiting runway
and
> taxiway strength and size requirements, take up far more space on the
apron,
> and are more expensive to operate. There's also the issue of new versus
used,
> and how much of a parts market there'll be for supporting DC-10s down the
road
> as they phase out from airline service. Then there's the fairly
exhaustive
> inspections required of any used a/c before buying, lest the USAF wind up
with
> a/c suffering severe corrosion, fatigue or other problems, and that takes
time,
> people and money. IIRR, the RAAF has had their share of problems with
their
> 707s. And finally, if you only need a few a/c as in the case of most
> countries, it's not too difficult to find a sufficient number that are
commonly
> equipped, often from the same carrier. But the USAF is looking to buy
several
> hundred tankers (eventually; 100 in the first batch), so even if enough
> airframes were available they'd have to spend a lot of time and money
> retrofitting them to a common standard, or else suffer a supply,
maintenance
> and training nightmare. Buying new, they don't have that problem. We can
> afford to buy new; most countries can't.
>
> Guy
>
>

[CFA3]

Guy Alcala > wrote in message >...
> Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
>
> > CFA3 wrote:
> >
> > >> convert those 10's at something of the order of 1/3 the cost of
> > > new 767's. Not to mention the commonality issue that would be maintained
> > > with the original KC-10 fleet.
> > >
> > > I know that Fed-Ex, years ago had a program of their own in which they
> > > turned a yit load of passenger 10's to cargo, when they couldn't
> > > buy anymore MD-11's. McDD/Boeing does have the engineering work for
> > > that complete. Obviously there would be additional work to do, but
> > > I suspect it wouldn't be that bad. And, I have to think I'm not
> > > the first one to think of this. McDD/Boeing may have drawings
> > > already, for just such a project.
> > >
> > You're indeed not the first person to consider this.
> > The Dutch Air Force has been operating two converted ex-Martinair DC-10s
> > as tanker/transports for several years now, under the local designation
> > KDC-10, so the design work is not an issue. It's been done. During the
> > conversion a lot of structural work on the airframe that would have been
> > necessary if a boom operator station like that on the KC-10 would have
> > been installed, was avoided by using a 3D camera system.
> > The boom operator sits in his own station, right behind the flightdeck.
> >
> > The KC-767 deal (like any major programme) seems to be heavily
> > influenced by all kinds of politics.
>
> While not denying the role of politics, I suspect that the need is for lots of
> smaller refueling track tankers to replace KC-135s, not for big deployment
> tankers the size of the KC-10. Either type can refuel the same number of
> fighters in the same time frame, but the latter have more limiting runway and
> taxiway strength and size requirements, take up far more space on the apron,
> and are more expensive to operate. There's also the issue of new versus used,
> and how much of a parts market there'll be for supporting DC-10s down the road
> as they phase out from airline service. Then there's the fairly exhaustive
> inspections required of any used a/c before buying, lest the USAF wind up with
> a/c suffering severe corrosion, fatigue or other problems, and that takes time,
> people and money. IIRR, the RAAF has had their share of problems with their
> 707s. And finally, if you only need a few a/c as in the case of most
> countries, it's not too difficult to find a sufficient number that are commonly
> equipped, often from the same carrier. But the USAF is looking to buy several
> hundred tankers (eventually; 100 in the first batch), so even if enough
> airframes were available they'd have to spend a lot of time and money
> retrofitting them to a common standard, or else suffer a supply, maintenance
> and training nightmare. Buying new, they don't have that problem. We can
> afford to buy new; most countries can't.
>
> Guy

Yeh...good point. And I do like the idea of new a/c anyways. But I
through it out there.

[Tarver Engineering]

"CFA3" > wrote in message
m...
> Guy Alcala > wrote in message
>...
> > Ralph Savelsberg wrote:
> >
> > > CFA3 wrote:
> > >
> > > >> convert those 10's at something of the order of 1/3 the cost of
> > > > new 767's. Not to mention the commonality issue that would be
maintained
> > > > with the original KC-10 fleet.
> > > >
> > > > I know that Fed-Ex, years ago had a program of their own in which
they
> > > > turned a yit load of passenger 10's to cargo, when they couldn't
> > > > buy anymore MD-11's. McDD/Boeing does have the engineering work for
> > > > that complete. Obviously there would be additional work to do, but
> > > > I suspect it wouldn't be that bad. And, I have to think I'm not
> > > > the first one to think of this. McDD/Boeing may have drawings
> > > > already, for just such a project.
> > > >
> > > You're indeed not the first person to consider this.
> > > The Dutch Air Force has been operating two converted ex-Martinair
DC-10s
> > > as tanker/transports for several years now, under the local
designation
> > > KDC-10, so the design work is not an issue. It's been done. During the
> > > conversion a lot of structural work on the airframe that would have
been
> > > necessary if a boom operator station like that on the KC-10 would have
> > > been installed, was avoided by using a 3D camera system.
> > > The boom operator sits in his own station, right behind the
flightdeck.
> > >
> > > The KC-767 deal (like any major programme) seems to be heavily
> > > influenced by all kinds of politics.
> >
> > While not denying the role of politics, I suspect that the need is for
lots of
> > smaller refueling track tankers to replace KC-135s, not for big
deployment
> > tankers the size of the KC-10. Either type can refuel the same number
of
> > fighters in the same time frame, but the latter have more limiting
runway and
> > taxiway strength and size requirements, take up far more space on the
apron,
> > and are more expensive to operate. There's also the issue of new versus
used,
> > and how much of a parts market there'll be for supporting DC-10s down
the road
> > as they phase out from airline service. Then there's the fairly
exhaustive
> > inspections required of any used a/c before buying, lest the USAF wind
up with
> > a/c suffering severe corrosion, fatigue or other problems, and that
takes time,
> > people and money. IIRR, the RAAF has had their share of problems with
their
> > 707s. And finally, if you only need a few a/c as in the case of most
> > countries, it's not too difficult to find a sufficient number that are
commonly
> > equipped, often from the same carrier. But the USAF is looking to buy
several
> > hundred tankers (eventually; 100 in the first batch), so even if enough
> > airframes were available they'd have to spend a lot of time and money
> > retrofitting them to a common standard, or else suffer a supply,
maintenance
> > and training nightmare. Buying new, they don't have that problem. We
can
> > afford to buy new; most countries can't.
> >
> > Guy
>
> Yeh...good point. And I do like the idea of new a/c anyways. But I
> through it out there.

That spell bot is working real good for you, dude. :)