If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp
wrote: On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung" wrote: "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. 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. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster by an american corporation. you think all US designed cars are built in the USof A. the Chevy camaro before they were dicontinued were alll built in Canada. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Alan Minyard wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...ld/8297433.htm The "San Jose Mercury News" is famous for its inaccurate reporting and far left wing POV. This one does not pass the "smell test". Well, McCain is the one to watch here. Anybody know when the next public hearing is going to be? -HJC |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:45:59 -0500, Peter Kemp wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:57:38 GMT, "David Hartung" wrote: "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. 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. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker. Al Minyard |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Roman J. Rohleder" wrote in message ... Alan Minyard schrieb: A small note here, Airbus has never built a tanker. So? Boeing had to start once at scratch, too. And Airbus is currently working on it for the RAF. That is the point. The USAF considered the development of a refueling boom as a high risk item for the proposed schedule. Boeing on the other hand not only invented the thing and has vast experience in them has already completed the KC-135 boom re-design for the 767 tanker. Al Minyard Gruss, Roman |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 17:48:55 -0800, Lyle 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: "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. Tell it to the Marines.........they're driving around Canadian built LAVs :-) by an american corporation. you think all US designed cars are built in the USof A. the Chevy camaro before they were dicontinued were alll built in Canada. I'm sorry, but I was referring to the previous poster who objects to things being built by other nations (like the Canadians), not who designed them or who owns the company - otherwise we'd be into most of the M-4/M-16A3/A4 production being by FNMI, along with the M249/M240 production also by FNMI, or the XM8 being designed from the G-36 by a HK team working with ATK. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Boeing Boondoggle | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 77 | September 15th 04 02:39 AM |
Boeing B-767 Tanker case "Virtual Kryptonite" | BJ | Military Aviation | 1 | December 20th 03 05:15 AM |
Boeing fires top officials over tanker lease scam. | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 2 | November 25th 03 06:15 AM |
AOPA and ATC Privatization | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 139 | November 12th 03 08:26 PM |
Boeing Set For Huge Profits From Tanker Deal | ZZBunker | Military Aviation | 2 | July 4th 03 03:18 AM |