How Boeing steered tanker bid

Peter Kemp schrieb:

(Airbus tankers)

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago)

Right, I remember a news footage on this.

Are these the Airbus currently used for passenger transport and
Medevac, the convertibles?

Odd history, IIRC they were ordered by the GDR Interflug and taken
over by Luftwaffe after the reunification.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

Gruss, Roman

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:35:20 -0500, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:49:31 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp wrote:

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built
LAVs :-)

And don't even get me started on how much US Army gear was designed
elsewhere.

A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker.

Except for the Luftwaffe tankers it is currently building (IIRC first
flight was a couple of months ago), and the Canadian conversions to
transport/tanker that are on order.


---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - drink faster

There is a difference between "building" and "built". Are the LW planes
boom or probe/basket ??

Al Minyard

"David Hartung" wrote in message .. .
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
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.

I personally have a problem with US military equipment being manufactured by
another nation.

Awe come on. What's wrong with an Antanov or Airbus tanker? The
Airbus even has all US rotatables.

Outsourcing is the way of the future. At the momment the USA is even
outsourcing most of its next generation population! Population
outsourcing or (Immigration) is a lot cheaper than having babies and
educating them and Mestizos are much better at it. The Democrats and
Republicans both agree. So get with the program.

In article , 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.

-HJC

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

--
Ron

"Ron Parsons" wrote in message 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.

-HJC

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.
--
Ron

Plus nothing like having a foreign power having that kind of power on what
we do as a country by withholding spares. and as a side note if the airbus
tanker(istr doesn't exist yet) was such a good product why did Italy go with
boeing?

Ron Parsons wrote in message ...

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?
Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
767-200. Any more than that at those stage lengths and it gets a bit
tough if there is any weather at the destination. The -400 can be a
real headache.
So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
will either likely fly then?

In article ,
(sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...

Cost less maybe, but you get what you pay for.

More capable, no way.

Using the same engines, the bus struggles to get to 31,000 fully loaded
at 350,00. The 767 goes right up to 37,000 carrying 400,000.

Used to watch the USair bus struggle to make IAD from ORY while the 767
went to ORD and DFW with no sweat.

Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?

Yes, the point was the efficiency of the wing. Which for the 767 is
designed to carry 500,000.

Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
767-200.

767-300.

Any more than that at those stage lengths and it gets a bit
tough if there is any weather at the destination. The -400 can be a
real headache.

So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
will either likely fly then?

I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?

--
Ron

Ron Parsons wrote in message ...
In article ,
Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?

Yes, the point was the efficiency of the wing. Which for the 767 is
designed to carry 500,000.

I guess they never developed into that weight becsause the 777 came
along
Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
767-200.

767-300.
The tanker will (its gonna happen because its an election year) be a
767-200.
The MC2 (which may well not get beyond the prototype) will be a -400
So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
will either likely fly then?

I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?
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?

In article ,
(sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
In article ,
Minor nit..."Carrying" 400k? Surely you must mean a max t.o. weight?

Yes, the point was the efficiency of the wing. Which for the 767 is
designed to carry 500,000.

I guess they never developed into that weight becsause the 777 came
along

The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
be used in a tanker model.

Typical payloads I see on those stage lengths is about 60-65k for a
767-200.

767-300.
The tanker will (its gonna happen because its an election year) be a
767-200.

The KC-135 was similar to the "short" "707" too. Plenty of room to carry
fuel and was able to lift as much as the large international models.

The MC2 (which may well not get beyond the prototype) will be a -400
So what happens if either a 'bus or Boeing loses DC power? How far
will either likely fly then?

I've not heard of a DC power loss problem. Which airliner has this?
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?


Lets see... 3 AC generators, 2 batteries, 2 T/R's and a HDG. The E&E
bay is accessible in flight. In the airliner, there are lavatories and a
galley above it, yet I've not heard of any trouble.

The KC-135 in the era I'm familiar with could complete it's mission on
battery power alone but it also had 3 AC generators, 1 battery, 2 T/R's
and a HDG.

Please explain your "trouble in the E&E bay" scenario and how you
envision it being handled.

--
Ron

(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.
--

-Gord.