The old thread seems to have shuffled off into the ether, so here’s a new one
Boeing has revealed its KC-46A tanker is heavier and slightly longer than any previous version of the 767-200 airframe on which it is based, but still refuses to provide essential details about the airframe configuration and refuelling system more than three months after winning the KC-X contract.
It is really strange they are so reluctant to talk about it even after the competition is over.
Such essential details as the KC-46A’s wing and refuelling boom will be revealed at some point within the next two years, Boeing officials said. More information will be released after the KC-46A clears a system requirements review in August, a preliminary design review next year and a critical design review in 2013.
. . .
Boeing officials offered conflicting explanations about the lack of disclosure. Jean Chamberlin, vice-president and general manager of Boeing mobility systems, said details are being held back until Boeing and the USAF fully understand the requirements in the system requirements review.
But Dennis Muilenberg, president of Boeing’s Defense, Security and Space division, said that Boeing has a “clear understanding” of the KC-46A’s design requirements. “We haven’t seen any gaps as we’ve flowed those down to the supplier level,” Muilenberg said.
. . .
The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.
The 767-2C configuration also includes a cargo floor and door, a 787-based large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, such as hose and drogue and boom refuelling systems, Boeing said.
. . .
It was also clear from previously released images that the KC-46A incorporated a 777-style cursor control unit. Contract documents obtained from the USAF also reveal the airframe incorporates a central maintenance computer.
The 767-2C also introduces a new engine option for the 767-200ER variant with the 62,000lb-thrust (275kN) Pratt & Whitney PW4062 turbofan. The model was previously supported by PW4052/4056/4060-series engines and the General Electric CF6-80C2 series.
What I really don’t get is why they would INCREASE the length? There was no cargo requirement that would justify lengthening the fuselage. And as a tanker, you would want it as light as possible. If anything, I thought they might SHORTEN the plane.
But lengthening just doesn’t seem to make any sense :confused:
Sign In
June 11, 2011 at 8:15 am