(sameolesid) wrote in message . com...
Guy Alcala wrote in message ...
Guy Alcala wrote:

Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip

But you find the improved fuel consumption of the 767 versus the R models,
and especially the E models, to be a non-issue?

I'm not sure that the 767 has a fuel consumption advantage over a 135R across
the spectrum of tanker roles (it has a small offload advantage owing to higher
gross weight), but of course it's an issue, one to be properly analysed to see
just _how much_ of an issue it is, or is likely to become. In other words,
let's do this using our brains rather than just going on gut feeling.

Just had a look at AFPAM 10-1403, which among other things lists military and CRAF
a/c types for various roles and missions. Fuel burn for generic planning purposes
of a KC-135R is listed as 10,921 lbs./hr. A CRAF B-767 (sub-type unstated) is
listed as
10,552 lb./hr. A tanker version would have more drag (boom, receptacle and various
fairings, never mind wing pods), so fuel burn of the two types appears to be
essentially equal.

Guy

Real world fuel burn for a 767-200 planned for a transatlantic this
afternoon (15May) is 10,450 lbs per hour. Of course thats without pods
or a boom.


Two more real world burns for 767-200's on some long haul oceanic
north south routes are, 11105 lbs/hr and 11513 lbs/hr respectively.
So its apparent there is no fuel burn advantage for the 767 vs the
KC-135R.