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

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

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

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.

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

"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

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.

"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.