Naval Air Refueling Needs Deferred in Air Force Tanker Plan

They have already changed their mind and said that, well, maybe with the new
alloys, it's possible after all (Air Force magazine.) I would think that
with the possibility of supplying hundreds of KC-7E7s, they could make it
work. After all, the KC-135 and 707 are two very different airplanes, both
built at the same time, each benefiting from the other.
Curt


"sameolesid" wrote in message
om...
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....

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.
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."