How Boeing steered tanker bid

[Henry J Cobb]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> more capable and cost less.

-HJC

[David Hartung]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> > more capable and cost less.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >, Henry J Cobb >
wrote:

>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> > more capable and cost less.
>
>-HJC

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

--
Ron

[william cogswell]

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message Henry J Cobb >
> wrote:
>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> > > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> > > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> > > more capable and cost less.
> >
> >-HJC
>
> Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.
>
> More capable, no way.
>
> Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
> at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.
>
> Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
> went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.
> --
> Ron

> Plus nothing like having a foreign power having that kind of power on what
we do as a country by withholding spares. and as a side note if the airbus
tanker(istr doesn't exist yet) was such a good product why did Italy go with
boeing?

[sid]

Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
>
> Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.
>
> More capable, no way.
>
> Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
> at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.
>
> Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
> went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?
Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
767-200. Any more than that at those stage lengths and it gets a bit
tough if there is any weather at the destination. The -400 can be a
real headache.
So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
will either likely fly then?

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
(sid) wrote:

>Ron Parsons > wrote in message
>...
>>
>> Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.
>>
>> More capable, no way.
>>
>> Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
>> at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.
>>
>> Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
>> went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.
>
>Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?

Yes, the point was the efficiency of the wing. Which for the 767 is
designed to carry 500,000.

>Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
>767-200.

767-300.

Any more than that at those stage lengths and it gets a bit
>tough if there is any weather at the destination. The -400 can be a
>real headache.

>So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
>will either likely fly then?

I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?

--
Ron

[Henry J Cobb]

David Hartung wrote:
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>> > more capable and cost less.
>
> I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
> another nation.

But if you had to choose, you'd rather buy military equipment from
France instead of China, no?

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/006200403291311.htm
> Mullaly noted that the essential parts of approximately 3,400 Boeing
> aircraft in service worldwide today were assembled in China, occupying
> one-third of the whole Boeing fleet.

-HJC

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> > more capable and cost less.
>
>-HJC

The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left
wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

Al Minyard

[Roman J. Rohleder]

Alan Minyard > schrieb:

>A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

So? Boeing had to start once at scratch, too. And Airbus is currently
working on it for the RAF.

>Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:

>
>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>> > more capable and cost less.
>
>I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
>another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Lyle]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp
> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>>> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>>> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>>> > more capable and cost less.
>>
>>I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
>>another nation.
>
>Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
>LAVs :-)
>
> And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
>elsewhere.
>
>---
>Peter Kemp
>
>Life is short - drink faster
by an american corporation. you think all US designed cars are built
in the USof A. the Chevy camaro before they were dicontinued were alll
built in Canada.

[Henry J Cobb]

Alan Minyard wrote:
>>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>
> The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left
> wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

Well, McCain is the one to watch here.

Anybody know when the next public hearing is going to be?

-HJC

[Eunometic]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message >...
> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> > > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> > > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> > > more capable and cost less.
>
> I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
> another nation.

Awe come on. What's wrong with an Antanov or Airbus tanker? The
Airbus even has all US rotatables.

Outsourcing is the way of the future. At the momment the USA is even
outsourcing most of its next generation population! Population
outsourcing or (Immigration) is a lot cheaper than having babies and
educating them and Mestizos are much better at it. The Democrats and
Republicans both agree. So get with the program.

[sid]

Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> >Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?
>
> Yes, the point was the efficiency of the wing. Which for the 767 is
> designed to carry 500,000.
>
I guess they never developed into that weight becsause the 777 came
along
> >Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
> >767-200.
>
> 767-300.
The tanker will (its gonna happen because its an election year) be a
767-200.
The MC2 (which may well not get beyond the prototype) will be a -400
> >So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
> >will either likely fly then?
>
> I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?
I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
(sid) wrote:

>Ron Parsons > wrote in message
>...
>> In article >,
>> >Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?
>>
>> Yes, the point was the efficiency of the wing. Which for the 767 is
>> designed to carry 500,000.
>>
>I guess they never developed into that weight becsause the 777 came
>along

The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
be used in a tanker model.

>> >Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
>> >767-200.
>>
>> 767-300.
>The tanker will (its gonna happen because its an election year) be a
>767-200.

The KC-135 was similar to the "short" "707" too. Plenty of room to carry
fuel and was able to lift as much as the large international models.

>The MC2 (which may well not get beyond the prototype) will be a -400
>> >So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
>> >will either likely fly then?
>>
>> I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?
>I should have framed the question this way:
>How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
>that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
>power...And then you lose even that?


Lets see... 3 AC generators, 2 batteries, 2 T/R's and a HDG. The E&E
bay is accessible in flight. In the airliner, there are lavatories and a
galley above it, yet I've not heard of any trouble.

The KC-135 in the era I'm familiar with could complete it's mission on
battery power alone but it also had 3 AC generators, 1 battery, 2 T/R's
and a HDG.

Please explain your "trouble in the E&E bay" scenario and how you
envision it being handled.

--
Ron

[Alan Minyard]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp > wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>>> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>>> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>>> > more capable and cost less.
>>
>>I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
>>another nation.
>
>Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
>LAVs :-)
>
> And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
>elsewhere.
>
>---
>Peter Kemp
>
>Life is short - drink faster

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

Al Minyard

[sid]

Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (sid) wrote:
>
> >Ron Parsons > wrote in message
> >...
> >> In article >,
> The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
> be used in a tanker model.
>
However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
spend the money for additional weight certification.

> >> I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?
> >I should have framed the question this way:
> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> >power...And then you lose even that?
>
> Lets see... 3 AC generators, 2 batteries, 2 T/R's and a HDG. The E&E
> bay is accessible in flight. In the airliner, there are lavatories and a
> galley above it, yet I've not heard of any trouble.
>
There has been trouble. The concentration of elictrical system
components in the E&E bay represensts a potential single point of
failure if damage (as opposed to component failure) occurs there.
Where are the bus ties and shunts? On adjacent racks. Trouble in the
E&E bay, while rare, is a show stopper...Hopefully on a runway... Here
are some examples.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_503084.hcsp
Whilst in cruising flight near Paris during an ETOPS flight from
Zurich to Washington, DC, abnormal warnings appeared on the flight
deck instrumentation and circuit breakers began tripping....

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001208X05844&ntsbno=NYC96IA116&akey=1
On May 28, 1996, at 1421 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 767-31AER,
with Dutch registry PH-MCH, and operated by Martinair Holland as
flight 631, received minor damage during an unscheduled landing at
Logan Airport, Boston, Massachusetts....



> The KC-135 in the era I'm familiar with could complete it's mission on
> battery power alone but it also had 3 AC generators, 1 battery, 2 T/R's
> and a HDG.
>
Will a 767 be able to complete a mission on battery power alone?

[Peter Kemp]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:49:31 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:
>>
>>>I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
>>>another nation.
>>
>>Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
>>LAVs :-)
>>
>> And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
>>elsewhere.
>>
>A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago), and the Canadian conversions to
transport/tanker that are on order.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[William Wright]

"Roman J. Rohleder" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Minyard > schrieb:
>
> >A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.
>
> So? Boeing had to start once at scratch, too. And Airbus is currently
> working on it for the RAF.

That is the point. The USAF considered the development of a refueling boom
as a high risk item for the proposed schedule. Boeing on the other hand not
only invented the thing and has vast experience in them has already
completed the KC-135 boom re-design for the 767 tanker.

>
> >Al Minyard
>
> Gruss, Roman

[Peter Kemp]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:48:55 -0800, Lyle > wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
>>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>>>> > But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>>>> > was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>>>> > more capable and cost less.
>>>
>>>I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
>>>another nation.
>>
>>Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
>>LAVs :-)
>>

>by an american corporation. you think all US designed cars are built
>in the USof A. the Chevy camaro before they were dicontinued were alll
>built in Canada.

I'm sorry, but I was referring to the previous poster who objects to
things being built by other nations (like the Canadians), not who
designed them or who owns the company - otherwise we'd be into most of
the M-4/M-16A3/A4 production being by FNMI, along with the M249/M240
production also by FNMI, or the XM8 being designed from the G-36 by a
HK team working with ATK.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Roman J. Rohleder]

Peter Kemp > schrieb:

(Airbus tankers)

>Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
>flight was a couple of months ago)

Right, I remember a news footage on this.

Are these the Airbus currently used for passenger transport and
Medevac, the convertibles?

Odd history, IIRC they were ordered by the GDR Interflug and taken
over by Luftwaffe after the reunification.

>---
>Peter Kemp
>
>Life is short - drink faster

Gruss, Roman

[Peter Kemp]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 01:19:12 +0200, Roman J. Rohleder
> wrote:

>Peter Kemp > schrieb:
>
>(Airbus tankers)
>
>>Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
>>flight was a couple of months ago)
>
>Right, I remember a news footage on this.
>
>Are these the Airbus currently used for passenger transport and
>Medevac, the convertibles?

Yup, Multi Role Tanker Transports (MRTT) in Airbus speak.

>Odd history, IIRC they were ordered by the GDR Interflug and taken
>over by Luftwaffe after the reunification.

Really? I hadn't heard that. Odd world we live in.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

[Roman J. Rohleder]

Peter Kemp > schrieb:

>>Are these the Airbus currently used for passenger transport and
>>Medevac, the convertibles?
>
>Yup, Multi Role Tanker Transports (MRTT) in Airbus speak.

Somehow cute idea.

>>Odd history, IIRC they were ordered by the GDR Interflug and taken
>>over by Luftwaffe after the reunification.
>
>Really? I hadn't heard that. Odd world we live in.

I checked it, and... yes. Interflug, paid by the GDR. :-)

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRA310TT.htm

It refers to the firstflight as MRTT, too. The first will be
re-delivered in May.

And if you read german:

http://www.bw-flyer.de/neu/report/report/vip-airbus.html

One other odd thing - these birds are those which replaced the old LW
707, the aircraft Helmut Kohl used on the evening of 09. November 1989
and where he developed many strategies and ideas for the following
months..

>---
>Peter Kemp

Gruss, Roman

[Mary Shafer]

On 30 Mar 2004 14:25:41 -0800, (sid) wrote:

> Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
> > In article >,
> > (sid) wrote:
> >
> > >Ron Parsons > wrote in message
> > >...
> > >> In article >,
> > The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
> > be used in a tanker model.
> >
> However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
> especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
> recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
> spend the money for additional weight certification.

The USAF doesn't care about certification, so being stock or not
doesn't much matter except for maintenance issues. The USAF will do
the usual CAT I/II acceptance testing, which isn't very much like
certification.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[[email protected]]

(sid) wrote:


>I should have framed the question this way:
>How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
>that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
>power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (sid) wrote:
>
>
> >I should have framed the question this way:
> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> >power...And then you lose even that?
>
> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

[sid]

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> On 30 Mar 2004 14:25:41 -0800, (sid) wrote:
>
> > Ron Parsons > wrote in message >...
> > > In article >,
> > > (sid) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Ron Parsons > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > >> In article >,
> > > The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
> > > be used in a tanker model.
> > >
> > However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
> > especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
> > recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
> > spend the money for additional weight certification.
>
> The USAF doesn't care about certification, so being stock or not
> doesn't much matter except for maintenance issues. The USAF will do
> the usual CAT I/II acceptance testing, which isn't very much like
> certification.
>
> Mary

While the military may not care about certification per se, when civil
aircraft are bought by the military they don't go beyond the
demonstrated parameters that the manufacturers established during
certification. At least I'm not aware of any instance in which they
did.
My point is that this whole KC-767 deal is all about obtaining stock
and standard airframes without any costly mods suggested by Mr.
Parsons. Boeing has little vested interest in making 767's that could
compete with their 777 line.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 30 Mar 2004 14:25:41 -0800, (sid) wrote:
>
> > Ron Parsons > wrote in message
>...
> > > In article >,
> > > (sid) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Ron Parsons > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > >> In article >,
> > > The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
> > > be used in a tanker model.
> > >
> > However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
> > especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
> > recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
> > spend the money for additional weight certification.
>
> The USAF doesn't care about certification, so being stock or not
> doesn't much matter except for maintenance issues. The USAF will do
> the usual CAT I/II acceptance testing, which isn't very much like
> certification.

The USAF cares greatly about certification issues. Any modification that
violates the civil Type Certificate of the airplane greatly reduces the
value of the airplane. The E4Bs have correct civil certification paperwork
for any changes made for USAF. Civil certification is a probabilities
basis.

Perhaps you are unaware that the current Chief Scientist at Dryden is behind
the 8 ball over a lack of 25.1309 capability. Manufacturers will no longer
participate based on the half assed methods used by her predecessor.

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:35:20 -0500, Peter Kemp > wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:49:31 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
>>>>another nation.
>>>
>>>Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
>>>LAVs :-)
>>>
>>> And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
>>>elsewhere.
>>>
>>A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.
>
>Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
>flight was a couple of months ago), and the Canadian conversions to
>transport/tanker that are on order.
>
>
>---
>Peter Kemp
>
>Life is short - drink faster

There is a difference between "building" and "built". Are the LW planes
boom or probe/basket ??

Al Minyard

[Roman J. Rohleder]

Alan Minyard > schrieb:

>>>A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

>>Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
>>flight was a couple of months ago), and the Canadian conversions to
>>transport/tanker that are on order.

>There is a difference between "building" and "built".

Read the links I quoted yesterday, everything is written there.

10+27 "August Euler" is finished and in testing phase, it will be
delivered next month.

> Are the LW planes boom or probe/basket ??

Both, the "hose and drogue" on the wingtips, the boom option in the
center body has been cancelled on the LW birds - but is still an
option. Perhaps the Canadian version ("Polaris") will have it?

The system has been delivered by Flight Refueling Ltd. (Cobham).

>Al Minyard

Gruss, Roman

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> (sid) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I should have framed the question this way:
>> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
>> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
>> >power...And then you lose even that?
>>
>> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
>> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
>
>I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly use
>AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
>
Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services. In 26 years
of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> (sid) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I should have framed the question this way:
> >> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
> >> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> >> >power...And then you lose even that?
> >>
> >> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> >> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
> >
> >I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly
use
> >AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
> >
> Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
> some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
> a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
> flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

> In 26 years
> of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
> a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
> one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.

No gyros could get ugly fast.

I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem with
the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.

[sid]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message >...
> (sid) wrote:
>
>
> >I should have framed the question this way:
> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> >power...And then you lose even that?
>
> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
Basically trouble in the E&E bay is nearly as bad as losing both wings...
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0UBT/43_12/53140721/p1/article.jhtml

[sid]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > (sid) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I should have framed the question this way:
> > >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
> > >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> > >power...And then you lose even that?
> >
> > Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> > were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
>
> I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly use
> AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Further assurance of maintaining proper attitude can come from
dedicated power sources. In the last five minutes of the 1998 tragedy
of Swissair Flight 111, with a raging electrically stoked fire
spreading from the attic space in the cockpit, the two pilots had no
attitude reference at all—not even a turn needle or turn coordinator
to fall back on. They saw inky blackness on the outside and black
primary flight displays [PDFs] inside the cockpit. The standby ADI,
even if it had been working, was located near the bottom center of the
instrument panel. It was poorly lit and even more difficult to see
while wearing smoke masks.

The Swissair jet's standby was lost because it had been hooked to a
vulnerable hot battery bus. When it failed, the powerless gyro started
to spin down. Therein lies a vital object lesson in redundancy:
Standby instruments need their own batteries, so that a loss of
generated power doesn't take down the sole fallback attitude
reference.

[Tarver Engineering]

"sid" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > (sid) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >I should have framed the question this way:
> > > >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
> > > >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> > > >power...And then you lose even that?
> > >
> > > Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> > > were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
> >
> > I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly
use
> > AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
>
> Further assurance of maintaining proper attitude can come from
> dedicated power sources. In the last five minutes of the 1998 tragedy
> of Swissair Flight 111, with a raging electrically stoked fire
> spreading from the attic space in the cockpit, the two pilots had no
> attitude reference at all-not even a turn needle or turn coordinator
> to fall back on. They saw inky blackness on the outside and black
> primary flight displays [PDFs] inside the cockpit. The standby ADI,
> even if it had been working, was located near the bottom center of the
> instrument panel. It was poorly lit and even more difficult to see
> while wearing smoke masks.

Yep, old Marky Ostendorf modified the airplane such that there was a half
assed exension cord in the cieling carrying 55 Ampres of AC derived from the
battery bus.

> The Swissair jet's standby was lost because it had been hooked to a
> vulnerable hot battery bus. When it failed, the powerless gyro started
> to spin down. Therein lies a vital object lesson in redundancy:
> Standby instruments need their own batteries, so that a loss of
> generated power doesn't take down the sole fallback attitude
> reference.

None of that mattered when the magnetic contacter triped bac in and th arc
tracing wire bundle burned an 18 feet long hole in the fuse; including
cutting the doubler at dorr #1. Writing about a case of manslaughter by way
of gross negligence is no reflection whatsover WRT Boeing, or AI airplanes.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> (sid) wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >I should have framed the question this way:
> > >> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
> > >> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> > >> >power...And then you lose even that?
> > >>
> > >> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> > >> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
> > >
> > >I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly
> use
> > >AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
> > >
> > Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
> > some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
> > a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
> > flight instruments and other very essential services.
>
> I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.
>
No, it does not. An AC gen on each engine and the APU.
The eng gens are referred to as an IDG. (integrated drive
generator) The constant speed transmission and gen are
in one 'package.'

JK

> > In 26 years
> > of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
> > a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
> > one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.
>
> No gyros could get ugly fast.
>
> I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem
with
> the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
> A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> (sid) wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> >I should have framed the question this way:
> > > >> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
bay
> > > >> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> > > >> >power...And then you lose even that?
> > > >>
> > > >> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> > > >> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
> > > >
> > > >I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
> mostly
> > use
> > > >AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
> > > >
> > > Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
> > > some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
> > > a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
> > > flight instruments and other very essential services.
> >
> > I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.
> >
> No, it does not. An AC gen on each engine and the APU.
> The eng gens are referred to as an IDG. (integrated drive
> generator) The constant speed transmission and gen are
> in one 'package.'

No my idiot, the 767's AC generators have a variable frequency excitation
instead of the old DC style ecitation such that no constant spee
transmission is required.

Doesn't this Knoyle retard ever get anything right?

Perhaps this will help:
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
>
>> Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
>> says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
>> need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
>> pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
>> saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
>> alone. Or did I misunderstand you?
>
>Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
>to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
>

I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)

--

-Gord.

[Jim Knoyle]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> (sid) wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >I should have framed the question this way:
> > > > >> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
> bay
> > > > >> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> > > > >> >power...And then you lose even that?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> > > > >> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
> > > > >
> > > > >I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
> > mostly
> > > use
> > > > >AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on
DC.
> > > > >
> > > > Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
> > > > some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
> > > > a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
> > > > flight instruments and other very essential services.
> > >
> > > I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.
> > >
> > No, it does not. An AC gen on each engine and the APU.
> > The eng gens are referred to as an IDG. (integrated drive
> > generator) The constant speed transmission and gen are
> > in one 'package.'
>
> No my idiot, the 767's AC generators have a variable frequency excitation
> instead of the old DC style ecitation such that no constant spee
> transmission is required.
>
If so, why is the IDG so much bigger than your basic generator alone?
Same goes for a VSCF.

What the hell are you talking about "old DC style excitation?" Is that
meant to be a 'new' tarver classic? I suppose you wouldn't want to
'splain how the PMG is wired into the circuit?
If you're somehow referring to the old brush type generators that
we got rid of way back in the '70s, you're *still* way off base!!!
....and to think I've been drawing you a picture (twice) up on
your page for all of these years! :)
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_tarver_chronicles.html

Actually, I'm very disappointed in the way you blew the opportunity
to explain to the folks how the ADGs and/or HMGs are incorporated
into the ETOPS 767s.

> Doesn't this Knoyle retard ever get anything right?
>
> Perhaps this will help:
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote:
> >
> >> Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
> >> says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
> >> need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
> >> pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
> >> saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
> >> alone. Or did I misunderstand you?
> >
> >Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
> >to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.
> >
>
> I know...ain't life a bitch John :) :)
>
> --
>
> -Gord.
>
>
Like I posted before, you can continue posting that little snippet
untill the cows come home. Doesn't bother me a bit since it is
such a good example of your [dishonest] selective snipping.
You lack the character to include my response to Gord.

Jimmy

Tarverisms from the past:
That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine and the APU.
It would be unsafe to operate a transport any other way.
and
I did not say anywhere that most jets do not have AC generators. Some are
DC only, but I have no problem with bert boy, his immaginary friends, and
the two other idiots that run with him making fools of themselves once
again.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> (sid) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >I should have framed the question this way:
>> >> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E bay
>> >> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
>> >> >power...And then you lose even that?
>> >>
>> >> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
>> >> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
>> >
>> >I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes mostly
>use
>> >AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
>> >
>> Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
>> some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
>> a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
>> flight instruments and other very essential services.
>
>I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

I think you meant to say 2 AC generators, one on each engine.
The 3rd and identical AC generator is on the in-flight capable APU.

>
>> In 26 years
>> of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
>> a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
>> one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.
>
>No gyros could get ugly fast.

No gyros. All attitude information comes from the IRU's.

>
>I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem with
>the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
>A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.

My point when I stated that the 767 E&E is below the forward galley and
lavatories.

--
Ron

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> (sid) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >I should have framed the question this way:
> >> >> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
bay
> >> >> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
> >> >> >power...And then you lose even that?
> >> >>
> >> >> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
> >> >> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
> >> >
> >> >I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly use
> >> >AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
> >> >
> >> Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
> >> some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
> >> a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
> >> flight instruments and other very essential services.
> >
> >I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.
>
> I think you meant to say 2 AC generators, one on each engine.
> The 3rd and identical AC generator is on the in-flight capable APU.

Sure;

> >> In 26 years
> >> of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
> >> a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
> >> one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.
> >
> >No gyros could get ugly fast.
>
> No gyros. All attitude information comes from the IRU's.

Which are also AC feeding a battery.

> >I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem
with
> >the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
> >A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.
>
> My point when I stated that the 767 E&E is below the forward galley and
> lavatories.

Surely you mean below the flight deck.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
...

> Tarverisms from the past:
> That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine

Yep, I checked that when I was a systems engineer at BCAG Everett.

Does Knoyle ever get anything right?

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> (sid) wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >I should have framed the question this way:
>> >> >> >How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
>bay
>> >> >> >that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
>> >> >> >power...And then you lose even that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
>> >> >> were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.
>> >> >
>> >> >I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
>mostly use
>> >> >AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.
>> >> >
>> >> Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
>> >> some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
>> >> a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
>> >> flight instruments and other very essential services.
>> >
>> >I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.
>>
>> I think you meant to say 2 AC generators, one on each engine.
>> The 3rd and identical AC generator is on the in-flight capable APU.
>
>Sure;
>
>> >> In 26 years
>> >> of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
>> >> a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
>> >> one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.
>> >
>> >No gyros could get ugly fast.
>>
>> No gyros. All attitude information comes from the IRU's.
>
>Which are also AC feeding a battery.
>

The IRU's have a battery mode which supplies attitude only.

>> >I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem
>with
>> >the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
>> >A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.
>>
>> My point when I stated that the 767 E&E is below the forward galley and
>> lavatories.
>
>Surely you mean below the flight deck.

No. You pull back the rug outside the galley and the hatch to the E&E is
there.

The nose wheel is below the flight deck.

--
Ron

[Henry J Cobb]

Alan Minyard wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>>>But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>>>was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>>>more capable and cost less.
>
> The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left
> wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

How about Knight Ridder?

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> condition of anonymity.

-HJC

[Marc Reeve]

Henry J Cobb > wrote:
> Alan Minyard wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
> >>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> >>>But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> >>>was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> >>>more capable and cost less.
> >
> > The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and
> > far left wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".
>
> How about Knight Ridder?
>
> http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> > condition of anonymity.
>
Well, given that the Murky Snooze is a Knight Ridder paper (and that
Knight Ridder is now headquartered in San Jose), you can draw your own
conclusions.

(The Mercury and News, as it was then called, became part of Ridder
Newspapers in 1952.)

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Henry J Cobb]

Marc Reeve wrote:
> Well, given that the Murky Snooze is a Knight Ridder paper (and that
> Knight Ridder is now headquartered in San Jose), you can draw your own
> conclusions.
>
> (The Mercury and News, as it was then called, became part of Ridder
> Newspapers in 1952.)

Fine, how about Pentagon's Office of the Deputy Inspector General for
Auditing, are they reliable enough for you?

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/04report.htm
> Acquisition of the Boeing KC-767A Tanker Aircraft(D-2004-064)
....
> Therefore, DoD should not proceed with the program until it resolves
> the issues pertaining to the procurement strategy, acquisition
> procedures, and statutory requirements.

Boeing, Boeing, gone.

-HJC

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:37:39 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>Alan Minyard wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>>>>But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>>>>was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>>>>more capable and cost less.
>>
>> The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left
>> wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".
>
>How about Knight Ridder?
>
>http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
>Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> > condition of anonymity.
>
>-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

[William Wright]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:37:39 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard wrote:
> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
> >>>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
> >>>>But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
> >>>>was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
> >>>>more capable and cost less.
> >>
> >> The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and
far left
> >> wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".
> >
> >How about Knight Ridder?
> >
> >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> > > condition of anonymity.
> >
> >-HJC
>
> "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
> useless as a source of facts.
>
> Al Minyard

Wow! Boeing, the company that has built more tankers than the rest of the
world put together, "failed to meet important requirements that would make
the aircraft fit for war" seems rather hard to believe.

[Grantland]

"William Wright" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:37:39 -0700, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>>
>> >Alan Minyard wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>> >>>http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8297433.htm
>> >>>>But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
>> >>>>was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
>> >>>>more capable and cost less.
>> >>
>> >> The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and
>far left
>> >> wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".
>> >
>> >How about Knight Ridder?
>> >
>> >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
>> >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
>> > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
>> > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
>> > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
>> > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
>> > > condition of anonymity.
>> >
>> >-HJC
>>
>> "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
>> useless as a source of facts.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Wow! Boeing, the company that has built more tankers than the rest of the
>world put together, "failed to meet important requirements that would make
>the aircraft fit for war" seems rather hard to believe.
>
Boeing is finished. Never again will it sell a single plane to the
"overseas" world. Die Amerikong Pigfilth, die! Rock'n'roll Europa!

Grantland

[sid]

"William Wright" > wrote in message news:<PfVec.126725$w54.861228@attbi_s01>...
> > >
> > >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> > >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> > > > condition of anonymity.
> > >
> > >-HJC
> >
> > "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
> > useless as a source of facts.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> Wow! Boeing, the company that has built more tankers than the rest of the
> world put together, "failed to meet important requirements that would make
> the aircraft fit for war" seems rather hard to believe.

Bottom line is, a Boeing 767 is not "fit for war". Have they
benefited from LFT&E as other WAR planes? No.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/DOCS.HTM
Thats even though tankers are being put into positions where they
could well take shrapnel from a round:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=&article=15157&archive=true
Many of the lumbering tanker aircraft were fired at by both artillery
and surface-to-air missiles. Carpenter said that commanders were
willing to risk a tanker and its crew to get the fighters to Baghdad
and protect the fast-moving ground forces.
Pilots flew vulnerable tanker aircraft with no radar-warning
equipment, chaff or flairs to evade missiles.
"These guys were gutsy," Carpenter said.
Commanders expected to lose at least one tanker, but none of them was
hit.

If these aircraft are expected to take fire, then they should be
expected to have a chance at surviving the resultant damage. As built,
767s and other transport category aircraft are highly susceptable to
uncontrolled hydrodynamic ram induced fire, and catastrophic
electircal failure caused by what *could* be otherwise inconsequential
shrapnel hits. DHL proved that.

This has been an historic weakenss. here is a paper from twenty years
ago lamenting about the lack of regard for treating tankers as
WARplanes:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/may-jun/cahoon.htm
"There is an assumption that tankers will not be attacked."

But <sigh> until a tanker augurs in from what should have been a
survivable hit, or an MC2A does the same thing and there aren't any
more to spare to replace it in theater, this won't be seen as a
problem.

[sid]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> >
> >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> > > condition of anonymity.
> >
> >-HJC
>
> "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
> useless as a source of facts.
>
> Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
• Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

[Alan Minyard]

On 13 Apr 2004 22:26:24 -0700, (sid) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> >
>> >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
>> >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
>> > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
>> > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
>> > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
>> > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
>> > > condition of anonymity.
>> >
>> >-HJC
>>
>> "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
>> useless as a source of facts.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>This, direct from the report:
>• Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
>of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
>effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
>Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
>and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
>Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
>Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
>operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

No, from the *supposed* report.

Al Minyard

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

sid wrote:
>
> Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> > >
> > >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> > >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> > > > condition of anonymity.
> > >
> > >-HJC
> >
> > "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
> > useless as a source of facts.
> >
> > Al Minyard
>
> This, direct from the report:
> • Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
> of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
> effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
> Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
> and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
> Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
> Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
> operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4

Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
(Iran did, though...)

[sid]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> On 13 Apr 2004 22:26:24 -0700, (sid) wrote:
>
> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> >> >
> >> >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> >> >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> >> > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> >> > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> >> > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> >> > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> >> > > condition of anonymity.
> >> >
> >> >-HJC
> >>
> >> "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
> >> useless as a source of facts.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >
> >This, direct from the report:
> >? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
> >of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
> >effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
> >Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
> >and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
> >Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
> >Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
> >operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4
>
> No, from the *supposed* report.
>
> Al Minyard

Well, NO. This is from THE report. Note the osd.mil in the link Al...
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/fy04/04064sum.pdf

[sid]

Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote in message >...
> sid wrote:
> >
> > Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
> > > >
> > > >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> > > >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > > > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > > > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > > > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > > > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
> > > > > condition of anonymity.
> > > >
> > > >-HJC
> > >
> > > "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
> > > useless as a source of facts.
> > >
> > > Al Minyard
> >
> > This, direct from the report:
> > ? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
> > of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
> > effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
> > Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
> > and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
> > Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
> > Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
> > operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4
>
> Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
> (Iran did, though...)
Yeah, and one blew up from a center tank explosion. Of course
"covered" LFT&E systems have the benefit of mitigating engineering to
prevent ullage explosions.

http://jas.jcs.mil/news/pdf/2003_fall.pdf

[Alan Minyard]

On 14 Apr 2004 18:24:32 -0700, (sid) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> On 13 Apr 2004 22:26:24 -0700, (sid) wrote:
>>
>> >Alan Minyard > wrote in message >...
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
>> >> >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
>> >> > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
>> >> > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
>> >> > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
>> >> > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
>> >> > > condition of anonymity.
>> >> >
>> >> >-HJC
>> >>
>> >> "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
>> >> useless as a source of facts.
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >
>> >This, direct from the report:
>> >? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
>> >of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
>> >effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
>> >Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
>> >and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
>> >Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
>> >Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
>> >operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4
>>
>> No, from the *supposed* report.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>Well, NO. This is from THE report. Note the osd.mil in the link Al...
>http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/fy04/04064sum.pdf


Note that the audit report concluded that the USAF should continue
the lease program, and receive up to 100 aircraft. If the aircraft were
as "bad" as you seem to think, they would not have stated that the
program should continue. Also not that the USAF has quite a few
KC-135R's that have been performing admirably without being
armed and/or armored. The report identifies some purported
problems with the procurement process, but it states unequivocally
that the procurement should go forward.

Thanks for the link.

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"sid" > wrote in message
om...
> Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote in message
>...
> > sid wrote:
> > >
> > > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>...
> > > > >
> > > >
>http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> > > > >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > > > > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > > > > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > > > > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > > > > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking
on
> > > > > > condition of anonymity.
> > > > >
> > > > >-HJC
> > > >
> > > > "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot".
Utterly
> > > > useless as a source of facts.
> > > >
> > > > Al Minyard
> > >
> > > This, direct from the report:
> > > ? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
> > > of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
> > > effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
> > > Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
> > > and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
> > > Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
> > > Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
> > > operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4
> >
> > Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
> > (Iran did, though...)
> Yeah, and one blew up from a center tank explosion. Of course
> "covered" LFT&E systems have the benefit of mitigating engineering to
> prevent ullage explosions.

FAA's new N2 membrane requirement will automatically inert the fuel tanks of
Airliners. The inerter will be a requirement on all new airliners built by
US and European manufacturers for US certification. I believe AI is
agreeing, but I have not seen any news articles about the issue.

[sid]

Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>
>>http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/fy04/04064sum.pdf
>
>
> Note that the audit report concluded that the USAF should continue
> the lease program, and receive up to 100 aircraft. If the aircraft were
> as "bad" as you seem to think, they would not have stated that the
> program should continue. Also not that the USAF has quite a few
> KC-135R's that have been performing admirably without being
> armed and/or armored. The report identifies some purported
> problems with the procurement process, but it states unequivocally
> that the procurement should go forward.
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> Al Minyard

You're welcome. Note too that it should *provided* that the issues set
forth in the report are resolved. I work with these aircraft types
(767, 737 NextGens, and worked with EMB-145s for several years) every
day and will be the first to say they are fine *airliners*. Warplanes
they are not. To take on that role they will need some expensive
modifications. That blows out the whole rationale of the lease deal.
To say KC-135Rs have done just fine with no suceptability reduction
for years is a fallacious argument. The USAF admitted they put their
tanker assets in harms way last year and expected losses. In past
conflicts, these assets have always had the luxury of operating in
sanctuaries. New tactics are now putting them deep into airspace they
previously never ventured, and long range SAM and AAW systems, which
are being explicitly built to shoot such aircraft down, have been
fielded or are in development.
The USAF response to the IG report concerning item B-4 is an exercise
in obfuscation. What they are not saying is that they hoped to use the
provisions in sec 2366 and 2399 which call for exemptions in full up
survivability testing. That's the only way they could ever make the
lease scheme work.
The modifications necessary in reducing vulnerability have not been
engineered, and if applied (after spending a bunch of unforecasted
money) to the leased aircraft would make them commercially useless
(Boeing would have to get them recertificated essentially -and that
costs big money) unless there are some changes to FAR Part 25.
So, as a recap, note what the *real* report stated:
• Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable.
The USAF would do well to just ****can this whole idea and spend the
money on feilding a KC-X built to meet this century's threats.

[sid]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "sid" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote in message
> >...
> > > sid wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Alan Minyard > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/business/industries/aviation/8317604.htm
> > > > > >Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
> > > > > > > The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
> > > > > > > specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
> > > > > > > Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
> > > > > > > aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking
> on
> > > > > > > condition of anonymity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >-HJC
> > > > >
> > > > > "On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot".
> Utterly
> > > > > useless as a source of facts.
> > > > >
> > > > > Al Minyard
> > > >
> > > > This, direct from the report:
> > > > ? Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
> > > > of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
> > > > effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
> > > > Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
> > > > and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
> > > > Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
> > > > Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
> > > > operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4
> > >
> > > Sounds like the same reason we didn't buy KC-747s.
> > > (Iran did, though...)
> > Yeah, and one blew up from a center tank explosion. Of course
> > "covered" LFT&E systems have the benefit of mitigating engineering to
> > prevent ullage explosions.
>
> FAA's new N2 membrane requirement will automatically inert the fuel tanks of
> Airliners. The inerter will be a requirement on all new airliners built by
> US and European manufacturers for US certification. I believe AI is
> agreeing, but I have not seen any news articles about the issue.

The only requirement proposed that I've seen is to inert a heated CWT
(Center Wing Tank) only by using OBIGS.
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/factsheets/pdfs/inerting.pdf
http://www.faa.gov/newsroom/factsheets/2003/factsheets_030729.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0UBT/8_18/113541436/p1/article.jhtml

While the system could be used to inert the wing tanks the plumbing
would be a much bigger expense beyond whats outlined in the NPRM, the
airlines are fighting the proposal for even the CWT OBIGS.

Wing tanks (which flame quite nicely when hit by hydrodynamic ram
inducing shrapnel) will not be protected. DHL and the Concorde, both
of which were hit by small shrapnel pieces, show just how nicely:
http://www.concordesst.com/accident/accidentindex.html
http://gallery.colofinder.net/dhl-airbus/article12102003a003

This shows the shrapnel puncture that started the wing fire. Judging
by the rivet heads to the right of the hole, it appears the piece was
somewhere around 6 inches long.
http://gallery.colofinder.net/dhl-airbus/article12042003a009

[Alan Minyard]

On 15 Apr 2004 15:30:01 -0700, (sid) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote in message
>>
>>>http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/fy04/04064sum.pdf
>>
>>
>> Note that the audit report concluded that the USAF should continue
>> the lease program, and receive up to 100 aircraft. If the aircraft were
>> as "bad" as you seem to think, they would not have stated that the
>> program should continue. Also not that the USAF has quite a few
>> KC-135R's that have been performing admirably without being
>> armed and/or armored. The report identifies some purported
>> problems with the procurement process, but it states unequivocally
>> that the procurement should go forward.
>>
>> Thanks for the link.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>
>You're welcome. Note too that it should *provided* that the issues set
>forth in the report are resolved. I work with these aircraft types

I agree that we disagree on this project.

Al Minyard

[Tom Mosher]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Tarverisms from the past:
> > That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine
>
> Yep, I checked that when I was a systems engineer at BCAG Everett.
>
> Does Knoyle ever get anything right?

Wrong.

777 has an IDG (AC) and a backup generator (again AC) on each engine.
The backup generator is variable speed, variable frequency (i.e., AC).

I suggest you read ATA 24 of the 777 maintenance manual.

Mosher

[B2431]

>From: (Tom Mosher)
>Date: 4/23/2004 6:07 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
>> "Jim Knoyle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Tarverisms from the past:
>> > That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine
>>
>> Yep, I checked that when I was a systems engineer at BCAG Everett.
>>
>> Does Knoyle ever get anything right?
>
>Wrong.
>
>777 has an IDG (AC) and a backup generator (again AC) on each engine.
>The backup generator is variable speed, variable frequency (i.e., AC).
>
>I suggest you read ATA 24 of the 777 maintenance manual.
>
>Mosher

Tarver has said in the past that mainenance manuals are frequently wrong. I bet
he says something similar this time.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired