How Boeing steered tanker bid

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

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.

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.

There has been trouble. The concentration of elictrical system
components in the E&E bay represensts a potential single point of
failure if damage (as opposed to component failure) occurs there.
Where are the bus ties and shunts? On adjacent racks. Trouble in the
E&E bay, while rare, is a show stopper...Hopefully on a runway... Here
are some examples.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_503084.hcsp
Whilst in cruising flight near Paris during an ETOPS flight from
Zurich to Washington, DC, abnormal warnings appeared on the flight
deck instrumentation and circuit breakers began tripping....

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...IA116& akey=1
On May 28, 1996, at 1421 eastern daylight time, a Boeing 767-31AER,
with Dutch registry PH-MCH, and operated by Martinair Holland as
flight 631, received minor damage during an unscheduled landing at
Logan Airport, Boston, Massachusetts....



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.

Will a 767 be able to complete a mission on battery power alone?

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

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

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.

"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.

The USAF cares greatly about certification issues. Any modification that
violates the civil Type Certificate of the airplane greatly reduces the
value of the airplane. The E4Bs have correct civil certification paperwork
for any changes made for USAF. Civil certification is a probabilities
basis.

Perhaps you are unaware that the current Chief Scientist at Dryden is behind
the 8 ball over a lack of 25.1309 capability. Manufacturers will no longer
participate based on the half assed methods used by her predecessor.

(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.

"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.