KC-767 ????

In article , Cub Driver
writes
It's a great PR coup for Boeing!

Some people consider it a subsidy because it allows Boeing to keep the
767 line running, and that without the deal they might have to close it.

--
John

On Thu, 3 Jul 2003 02:25:03 +0100, John Halliwell
wrote:

In article , Tarver Engineering
writes
Even better still Gord, the MD-11's type certificate says it is a DC-10.

Was that because they would otherwise have had problems certifying it
against the current regulations?

Certifying a new model of an already-certified airplane is easier than
certifying a new airplane. The MD-11 certainly qualifies, after all.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN

Cub Driver writes:


The designation KC-767A was officially allocated to the Boeing 767 tankers
which are to be leased by the U.S. Air Force. The out-of-sequence design
number was allocated against the recommendation of the USAF Nomenclature
Office. The correct designation would have been KC-42A (see article about
Non-Standard DOD Aircraft Designations for some background information).

It's a great PR coup for Boeing!


Now you are getting the range. There are LOTS of questions as to how
this sweetheart deal suddenly appeared. The answer is likely the
familiar one:
Follow the money....

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"Gord Beaman" ) writes:

For instance, why
change the complete 'name' of a DC-10, which most people know and
can recognise, to MD-11?. Makes no good sense to me. Why not
MD-10, if McDonnell Douglas wanted their 'name' on them?, then us
older guys with fewer memory cells would have some chance.

The DC-10 has such a bad reputation that the new owners wanted to
sever the connection. (Hello., ValueJet....errr ATA)

Of course, it looks like the MD-11 was a dog of a different color,
but still barked; did it ever meet the performance guarantees? I
think not, which is how they ended up in freighter/tanker service,
including the one pronged in Hong Kong in ?99.
--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

Cub Driver ) writes:
It's a great PR coup for Boeing!

Some people consider it a subsidy because it allows Boeing to keep the
767 line running, and that without the deal they might have to close it.

How does designating the a/c KC-767 serve to subsidize Boeing?

*Leasing* the a/c may be a subsidy (though not as immediate a one as
buying them), but calling them 767 is merely a PR coup.

I would not expect the USAF to buy or lease an Airbus Tanker. Supporting a
USA manufacturer is what the US Government should do.

David Lesher wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) writes:

For instance, why
change the complete 'name' of a DC-10, which most people know and
can recognise, to MD-11?. Makes no good sense to me. Why not
MD-10, if McDonnell Douglas wanted their 'name' on them?, then us
older guys with fewer memory cells would have some chance.

The DC-10 has such a bad reputation that the new owners wanted to
sever the connection. (Hello., ValueJet....errr ATA)

Of course, it looks like the MD-11 was a dog of a different color,
but still barked; did it ever meet the performance guarantees? I
think not, which is how they ended up in freighter/tanker service,
including the one pronged in Hong Kong in ?99.

The DC-10 had a bad name?...they had a door problem 'way back,
one had a bad fire...what else?...I didn't know that ValuJet(sic)
used DC-10's. Seems to me if the military used them for tankers
that there couldn't have been that much wrong with them...care to
clue me in?...
--

-Gord.

A couple of DC-10's were lost due to problems with the thrust bearing - one
major crash at Chicago - I don't have a reference handy for the others.
Lots of people refused to fly on DC-10's after the Chicago crash - prompting
the bumper sticker "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".

Jack



"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
David Lesher wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) writes:

For instance, why
change the complete 'name' of a DC-10, which most people know and
can recognise, to MD-11?. Makes no good sense to me. Why not
MD-10, if McDonnell Douglas wanted their 'name' on them?, then us
older guys with fewer memory cells would have some chance.

The DC-10 has such a bad reputation that the new owners wanted to
sever the connection. (Hello., ValueJet....errr ATA)

Of course, it looks like the MD-11 was a dog of a different color,
but still barked; did it ever meet the performance guarantees? I
think not, which is how they ended up in freighter/tanker service,
including the one pronged in Hong Kong in ?99.

The DC-10 had a bad name?...they had a door problem 'way back,
one had a bad fire...what else?...I didn't know that ValuJet(sic)
used DC-10's. Seems to me if the military used them for tankers
that there couldn't have been that much wrong with them...care to
clue me in?...
--

-Gord.

"Jack G" wrote:

A couple of DC-10's were lost due to problems with the thrust bearing - one
major crash at Chicago - I don't have a reference handy for the others.
Lots of people refused to fly on DC-10's after the Chicago crash - prompting
the bumper sticker "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".

Jack



The thrust bearing?...what thrust bearing?...I sure never heard
of that one and I've heard of pretty well all of them. "The one
at Chicago" is likely the one (in 79) which lost the nr one
engine?...no fault of the a/c, that was improper engine/pylon
removal/installation which cracked the mounting flanges.

Surely you aren't referring to that?...if you are then what other
10 crashed from that problem?...Huh?.

It really bothers me when people lash out with vague halfbaked
reasons for trashing an aircraft. "Oh!...it's very unsafe",
"Why?", "Dunno, it just is". Freaking brilliant.
--

-Gord.

"Jack G" wrote in message
...

A couple of DC-10's were lost due to problems with the thrust bearing -
one
major crash at Chicago - I don't have a reference handy for the others.
Lots of people refused to fly on DC-10's after the Chicago crash -
prompting
the bumper sticker "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".


Thrust bearing? The only major DC-10 crash I can recall at Chicago was in
1979 and was due to faulty maintenance procedures.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in message . ..
"Jack G" wrote:

A couple of DC-10's were lost due to problems with the thrust bearing - one
major crash at Chicago - I don't have a reference handy for the others.
Lots of people refused to fly on DC-10's after the Chicago crash - prompting
the bumper sticker "If it's not Boeing, I'm not going".

Jack



The thrust bearing?...what thrust bearing?...I sure never heard
of that one and I've heard of pretty well all of them. "The one
at Chicago" is likely the one (in 79) which lost the nr one
engine?...no fault of the a/c, that was improper engine/pylon
removal/installation which cracked the mounting flanges.

Surely you aren't referring to that?...if you are then what other
10 crashed from that problem?...Huh?.

It really bothers me when people lash out with vague halfbaked
reasons for trashing an aircraft. "Oh!...it's very unsafe",
"Why?", "Dunno, it just is". Freaking brilliant.

Where the hell did he come up with a bad thrust bearing? It was a bad
maintenance practice. AA at Tulsa M&E decided to shorten the
engine/pylon removal process by pulling the engine and pylon at the
same time. Unfortunately, it put stress in the wrong place and cracked
the structure. Eventually, the engine separated with catastrophic
results.

Tom Mosher