How Boeing steered tanker bid

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.

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

"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.

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

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

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 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

"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

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