How Boeing steered tanker bid

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

Tarverisms from the past:
That is false, even the 777 has a DC generator for each engine

Yep, I checked that when I was a systems engineer at BCAG Everett.

Does Knoyle ever get anything right?

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
(sid) wrote:


I should have framed the question this way:
How far would either aircraft fly if there is trouble in the E&E
bay
that compromises the electrical system and you are down to DC
power...And then you lose even that?

Isn't that like saying "what would happen if the bloody wings
were to fall off"?...pretty silly statement imo.

I can't understand the obsession with DC power either. Airplanes
mostly use
AC power for controls. I have yet to see a synchro that runs on DC.

Almost all a/c generate A.C. power then transform and rectify
some of it to DC with TRU's so the only emergency supply of DC is
a very short lived set of batteries mostly used for emergency
flight instruments and other very essential services.

I believe the 767 has 2 DC generators on the engines.

I think you meant to say 2 AC generators, one on each engine.
The 3rd and identical AC generator is on the in-flight capable APU.

Sure;

In 26 years
of flying (13,000 hours) I've never lost all A.C. power on any
a/c (nor heard of any of my friends doing it either) so it's not
one of those 'ho hum' occurrences.

No gyros could get ugly fast.

No gyros. All attitude information comes from the IRU's.

Which are also AC feeding a battery.


The IRU's have a battery mode which supplies attitude only.

I have to wonder at the posters assertion that there is a fault problem
with
the 767 E&E bay. It is well known in industry that it rains in the
A-330/340 E&E bay and I doubt USAF would see that as a selling point.

My point when I stated that the 767 E&E is below the forward galley and
lavatories.

Surely you mean below the flight deck.

No. You pull back the rug outside the galley and the hatch to the E&E is
there.

The nose wheel is below the flight deck.

--
Ron

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left
wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

How about Knight Ridder?

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

Henry J Cobb wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and
far left wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

How about Knight Ridder?

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

Well, given that the Murky Snooze is a Knight Ridder paper (and that
Knight Ridder is now headquartered in San Jose), you can draw your own
conclusions.

(The Mercury and News, as it was then called, became part of Ridder
Newspapers in 1952.)

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

Marc Reeve wrote:
Well, given that the Murky Snooze is a Knight Ridder paper (and that
Knight Ridder is now headquartered in San Jose), you can draw your own
conclusions.

(The Mercury and News, as it was then called, became part of Ridder
Newspapers in 1952.)

Fine, how about Pentagon's Office of the Deputy Inspector General for
Auditing, are they reliable enough for you?

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/04report.htm
Acquisition of the Boeing KC-767A Tanker Aircraft(D-2004-064)
....
Therefore, DoD should not proceed with the program until it resolves
the issues pertaining to the procurement strategy, acquisition
procedures, and statutory requirements.

Boeing, Boeing, gone.

-HJC

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:37:39 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left
wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

How about Knight Ridder?

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:37:39 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and
far left
wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

How about Knight Ridder?

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

Wow! Boeing, the company that has built more tankers than the rest of the
world put together, "failed to meet important requirements that would make
the aircraft fit for war" seems rather hard to believe.

"William Wright" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 09:37:39 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 13:19:35 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm
But the e-mail and other documents show just how intent the Air Force
was on steering the deal to Boeing, even though Airbus' tankers were
more capable and cost less.

The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and
far left
wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test".

How about Knight Ridder?

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

Wow! Boeing, the company that has built more tankers than the rest of the
world put together, "failed to meet important requirements that would make
the aircraft fit for war" seems rather hard to believe.

Boeing is finished. Never again will it sell a single plane to the
"overseas" world. Die Amerikong Pigfilth, die! Rock'n'roll Europa!

Grantland

"William Wright" wrote in message news:PfVec.126725$w54.861228@attbi_s01...

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

Wow! Boeing, the company that has built more tankers than the rest of the
world put together, "failed to meet important requirements that would make
the aircraft fit for war" seems rather hard to believe.

Bottom line is, a Boeing 767 is not "fit for war". Have they
benefited from LFT&E as other WAR planes? No.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/lfte/DOCS.HTM
Thats even though tankers are being put into positions where they
could well take shrapnel from a round:
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?...7&archive=true
Many of the lumbering tanker aircraft were fired at by both artillery
and surface-to-air missiles. Carpenter said that commanders were
willing to risk a tanker and its crew to get the fighters to Baghdad
and protect the fast-moving ground forces.
Pilots flew vulnerable tanker aircraft with no radar-warning
equipment, chaff or flairs to evade missiles.
"These guys were gutsy," Carpenter said.
Commanders expected to lose at least one tanker, but none of them was
hit.

If these aircraft are expected to take fire, then they should be
expected to have a chance at surviving the resultant damage. As built,
767s and other transport category aircraft are highly susceptable to
uncontrolled hydrodynamic ram induced fire, and catastrophic
electircal failure caused by what *could* be otherwise inconsequential
shrapnel hits. DHL proved that.

This has been an historic weakenss. here is a paper from twenty years
ago lamenting about the lack of regard for treating tankers as
WARplanes:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...jun/cahoon.htm
"There is an assumption that tankers will not be attacked."

But sigh until a tanker augurs in from what should have been a
survivable hit, or an MC2A does the same thing and there aren't any
more to spare to replace it in theater, this won't be seen as a
problem.

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..

http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/busi...on/8317604.htm
Pentagon's audit agrees: Air Force fudged specs
The audit report finds that the Air Force tailored its bidding
specifications document to the Boeing 767, and the Air Force and
Boeing failed to meet important requirements that would make the
aircraft fit for war, the officials told Knight Ridder, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

-HJC

"On condition of anonymity" is news speak for "delusional idiot". Utterly
useless as a source of facts.

Al Minyard

This, direct from the report:
• Statutory Provisions for Testing. Comply with Sections 2366 and 2399
of title 10, United States Code for determining the operational
effectiveness, suitability, and survivability of the Boeing 767A
Tanker aircraft before proceeding beyond low-rate initial production
and committing to the subsequent production of all 100 Boeing KC-767A
Tanker aircraft. By not complying with the statutory provisions, the
Boeing KC-767A Tanker aircraft delivered to the warfighter may not be
operationally effective, suitable, and survivable (Issue B-4