View Single Post
  #24  
Old May 15th 04, 04:03 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

sameolesid wrote:

Guy Alcala wrote in message ...

company big bucks). We need to see if it makes more sense to buy 7E7s at the
_start_ of their production cycle, rather than 767s at the end of theirs.


I forgot to put in the link about what Boeing has said about the
unsuitability of the 7E7 in the tanker role...Of course they could be
lying thru their teeth in order to keep the 76 alive...


Thanks for the link, and yeah, I'll be interested to see if miraculously the 7E7 is found to be an ideal solution for
tanking, if the 767 dies.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2004/0404watch.asp
However, a senior Boeing official said the 7E7 would be ill-suited for
tanker duty.
"The E in 7E7 stands for efficiency," he said. The efficiency comes
from the use of "very lightweight materials" to achieve long range.


As opposed to the 767, where the '6' apparently stands for inefficiency, which uses super-heavy materials to achieve
short-range;-) And of course, strengthening the 7E7 wherever it might be necessary for the tanker role is absolutely
impossible from an engineering standpoint;-) Watch this space to see if the world (or at least Boeing's part of it)
suddenly turns upside down.

The 7E7 will have too much flex in its wings and fuselage to be a good
tanker, the Boeing official said. "For a tanker, you want a really
rigid, sturdy platform, like the 767."


I can't speak for the 767, but the wings of the 757 I took a ride in flexed noticeably, if not in BUFF league. Couldn't
say for the fuselage. Not that such an eyeball observation has any validity whatsoever in engineering terms.

Guy