Bob

Believe it was an article in the rag, AF Times? I just spent 30
minutes looking using Google and can';t find a side by side comparison
of the two birds.

Best I can come up with is a statement that the 767 can down load a
LITTLE more than the 135. Then they go on to say the difference is
about 20% more.

That figure is suspect to me since I can't find a side by side set of
figures. Each bird has a max TO weight that includes both off load
fuel and mission fuel. Since the bird can use either tankage the
length of the mission determines how much they can off load. So
without side by side figures you could spec the 135 for a long mission
which would cut down on it's off load and spec the 767 for a short
mission which would give it more fuel to download. In this cat and dog
fight in Washington it would not surprise me to see those figures
*******ized a lot by the politicians who have a dog in the fight.

Need those figures to be able to compare apples with apples.

There's lots of politics in this procurement so you will hear many PR
figures that may not be supportable in operation since they will be
put out to sell project.

If anyone can find apples and apples would be interested in seeing the
figures.

Big John


On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 03:32:47 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article , Big John
wrote:


If they quit fighting in Congress they may buy a modified civilian 767
as a tanker?

If they do it's a bad decission as the 767 doesn't have the range or
load to project air power around the world. For example it will take
two 767's to refuel the same gallons as a single KC-135.

I thought the 767 has a higher useful load than the 135. Can
you point to sources?