Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On 30 Mar 2004 14:25:41 -0800, (sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message ...
In article ,
(sid) wrote:

Ron Parsons wrote in message
...
In article ,
The point was that the wing structure and lift capability are there to
be used in a tanker model.

However, these aircraft are to be as stock as possible. Thats
especially true of those being leased. It would be damned expensive to
recertify just a few obsolescent aircraft, so I doubt the AF will
spend the money for additional weight certification.

The USAF doesn't care about certification, so being stock or not
doesn't much matter except for maintenance issues. The USAF will do
the usual CAT I/II acceptance testing, which isn't very much like
certification.

Mary

While the military may not care about certification per se, when civil
aircraft are bought by the military they don't go beyond the
demonstrated parameters that the manufacturers established during
certification. At least I'm not aware of any instance in which they
did.
My point is that this whole KC-767 deal is all about obtaining stock
and standard airframes without any costly mods suggested by Mr.
Parsons. Boeing has little vested interest in making 767's that could
compete with their 777 line.