irtuskYou’re dreaming and you good and well know it. There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the KC-30 is going to be offered at a price close to or equal to a KC-767.
why would this time be significantly different? (especially since Boeing has to develop a new derivative this time)
irtuskThe proposed modifications will give a marginal improvement in take off and landing roll. Unfortunately, this isn’t the 767’s Achilles heel when it comes to balanced field requirement, and crucially won’t significantly improve stopping distance in the event of a rejected or aborted take off.
A shortened take off roll will help, of course, but not enough, and my understanding is that the revised 767 still won’t be able to operate from a 9,000 ft runway WITH FULL FUEL, whereas a KC-30 will.
Would you mind providing a link on this? I’ve been looking for information on this but so far haven’t found anything beyond that generic quote I mentioned earlier
irtusk1) The KC-330 has better balanced field performance than any existing 767 model.
what Spacepope is saying is that the KC-767 is not based on an existing 767 model
Boeing is developing a brand new model, the 767-200LRF specifically for this competition.
notice that one advantage of the new design is to ‘allow it to take off and land on shorter runways’
I interpret this as better balanced field performance. If you disagree, please share.
Now as to whether this will new design will still leave the 767 behind or put it ahead or merely make them equal is not clear.
irtuskI would really like to know on how many missions the specific capabilities of the C-17 are needed.
i agree this would be very interesting 😉
I think mostare between normal airport and normal aiport.
keep in mind that even if it is between normal airports, it might be oversized loads or very dense loads (tanks, pallets of armor) that the floor of a 747-like plane wouldn’t support
nevertheless I agree it would be very interesting to see what percentage of missions require its rough field or oversized cargo capability
The C-5 is no short field aircraft. It has, however, low runway load (many tires) and can be offloaded without special equipment.
I’ve heard people claim that the C-5 is actually a better short field plane than the C-17, both from a distance needed for takeoff/landing with equal loads perspective and from a runway surface perspective. (Apparently the C-17 doesn’t do so well on true rough runways or sandy surfaces while the C-5 is ok. This is one of the rationales for developing the C-17B program to address these issues so we don’t have to rely on aging C-5s to perform certain missions.)
irtuskwould you like the job of explaining to the public that you’re buying a more expensive plane…
I wouldn’t assume the KC-30 will be more expensive.
It is very possible it could come in under the KC-767
with many of its parts are made overseas
Many of the KC-767’s parts are made overseas too. Granted not as many as the KC-30, but the difference isn’t that huge.
if the US gets 200-300% offsets for EU made parts (like the deal Boeing made with Canada for the C-17s)
I thought that was 100% of the contract price?
I think it will be a very interesting competition and the outcome isn’t nearly as certain as many people assume.
irtusk1. Available airfields
4) The KC-30’s balanced field requirements are less than those of the -767, whose braking requirements are such that it needs a longer runway to operate safely. When the RAF assessed both types, it found that the A330 MRTT could operate from every tanker base that its VC10s and TriStars used, while the 767 could not.
and i think this is precisely one of the major drivers behind the new LRF derivative
notice that one advantage of the new design is to ‘allow it to take off and land on shorter runways’
i think they learned from the RAF competition and are addressing one of the key reasons they lost
2. American Jobs
From the Boeing press release “This KC-767 Advanced Tanker will support more than 44,000 American jobs and 300 suppliers”
‘Support’ is a very ambiguous term and can mean anyone who spent 5 minutes on the project.
As for the KC-30:
“More than 50 percent of the aircraft’s content – from engines to avionics and systems – will come from American companies”
And the 767 isn’t 100% American so the gap between the two isn’t as large as one might think.
3. Cargo
“The KC-767 is 159 feet long and can carry 19 military pallets, while the KC-30 is 193 feet and can carry 32 pallets.” (the C-17 carries 18 pallets and KC-777 would carry 37)
The KC-30 is the clear winner over the KC-767 here, but the article goes on to note “Air Force data showed KC-135s were used to carry cargo in less than 1.8 percent of recent missions”
4. Price
Last I read the proposed 330 would cost $40 million more than a 767.
That is the list price which is basically irrelevant.
This link suspects the base price for the 330 might actually be around $70 million versus the $160 million list price.
He also makes an interesting comment, “Long forgotten is the fact that Airbus parent EADS in 2001-2002 offered the KC-330 for a price that was less than Boeing offered the KC-767”
And don’t forget that Boeing is now creating a new version (the LRF) which they weren’t before. This will drive up the price of their bid even more.
If the KC-30 bid came in at the same price as the KC-767 or cheaper, it sure would make for interesting competition.
It could come down to if the smaller footprint of the KC-767 (more on the ramp and no need to rebuild KC-135 hangars) outweighs the greater cargo/fuel offload/range of the KC-30.
irtuskBut then why not contract the long haul flights out?
If they’re not going near the battle area, why use military personnel to fly civil jets from long, paved fields?
Then the USAF doen’t need to add another type to its inventory…with all the procurement, maintenance, parts, administrative, and training costs that involves. And since the size of the forces is capped, why not free up military pilots to do military jobs?In othert words, that’s why the USA uses so many charter flights today. Cheaper in the long run.
And yet they want to buy more C-17s.
Perhaps they shouldn’t buy any more cargo planes period and just expand the charter operation, I can’t really comment on that.
But assuming they are going to buy more cargo planes, would it make sense to get more C-17s or some 777s?
Maybe I’m wrong and they do need more C-17s for frontline operations.
But if not, assuming the 777 was even 20% cheaper to operate than the C-17 (probably conservative) it would quickly pay for any extra cost of fielding a different type.
irtuskBuilding more C-5s is not possible, it would be more C-17s (maybe C-17Bs)
I love the C-5M program but they’ve run into problems with it and basically want to retire all 70+ A models and replace them with more C-17s.
To me this is nuts, if you want to get even 40 more aircraft it would make more sense to just get the 777 instead.
irtuskThe new KC-767 (mark my words, it won’t be the KC-30), will be able to play a greater role in the cargo mission than the -135 it’s replacing, and thus you actually gain a little capability in that role with the introduction of that aircraft.
While the KC-767 will undoubtedly be more capable than the KC-135, there are 500 KC-135s and we’ll only be getting 175 (probably less) KC-767s. I know this is only the first of 3 batches but we’re still heading towards fewer booms which means more demand for the available booms which means I wouldn’t count on the KC-767s to be delivering much freight capacity.
but this is actually getting off my main point
You’ll notice that all the five airplanes I mentioned above are dual-role essentially (actually in the case of the C-130 even more so), but basically you have tankers that can act as cargo haulers, and you have three types of military designed airlifters that can function in a variety of missions aside from just hauling big things from Point A to Point B. Air drops of people and cargo, landing at forward airstrips (C-17 & C-130) anyways, and the list goes on and on.
This I think goes to the heart of the argument. These planes are dual-purpose because it is hard to justify them solely for their primary purpose. Congress will be like ‘You want us to spend $X hundred million on a plane for parajumpers that might be used 3 times in 10 years?’ It makes it much more palatable to say ‘Well when we don’t have people jumping out of it we can also use it to haul generic cargo, ensuring that it will be used 80% of the time instead of 0.1% of the time.’
These planes are all optimized for their primary mission but can also be used (less than optimally) for pallet transport.
However pallet transport is such a huge part of the modern military that there will be no need for a secondary mission to ‘keep them busy’.
And considering how huge a part of the military it is and how much money is wasted using less than optimal means to accomplish it, it seems like a prudent investment to get a dedicated pallet hauler.
I’m no economist and don’t have hard figures, but I have to believe a fleet of 777s or similar would pay for itself very, very quickly.
I guess it all comes down to how big you believe pallet transport will be both now and in the future (post Iraq).
Will the efficiency savings of using 777s vs C-17s and C-5s be more than the cost of maintaining yet another type of aircraft?
Also, the dedicated cargo aircraft can onload/offload cargo without the need for cargo handling lifts/vehicles. The 777 freighter would need that equipment at every destination it delivers to.
Yes, i would anticipate it would only be used at major hubs where this wouldn’t be a problem. When it comes time to move the stuff out to the battlefield then put it on some C-130s or C-17s or whatever, that’s what they’re designed for.
irtuskC-17s and C-5s aren’t the only pallet-haulers. C-130s are used to transport materiel in-theater, and KC-10s and KC-135s are often used to transport pallets as well.
yes, in theater, C-130s are great. You just don’t see them hauling stuff from the US to Iraq (where i picture something like a 777)
KC-10s and KC-135s are often required to fulfill tanking duties and don’t have much spare time for hauling pallets
777 is not rated for short field or improvised runways.
Neither is the KC-135 or KC-10
Do they even make a version that could load and unload large cargo like armored vehicles; quickly?
nope, strictly pallets
Apple and oranges. They each have a niche
exactly!
The C-17 and C-5 have a niche of carrying oversized loads and going into dangerous situations. However they are being used for EVERYTHING, even very simple nonrisky missions where a different plane would be more suitable.
Having a 777-like transporter to cover the bulk pallet niche (which is quite a large niche) would free the C-17 and C-5 to focus on the tasks where they excel.
Quite frankly the C-17 isn’t very efficient at transporting pallets from the US to Iraq.
irtuskA340-300 fuel burn increases by 15% with one engine inop. A340-600 fuel burn increases by 9%.
thanks for the info
one other question, planes have de-icing systems that work in flight
these don’t work on the ground because they rely on hot air from the engines
BUT the 787 is going to have an all-electric de-icing system
the APU probably isn’t powerful enough to run this, but perhaps they could ‘plug-in’ the aircraft at the gate? Any chance of this happening?
irtuskWelcome to the forums!
thank!
i can’t say anything about the weight and complexity but i can address a couple of points:
The motors would need to be coupled to the wheels somehow, possibly by some kind of ‘gearbox’
i was thinking direct drive with no gears like some electric cars
I’m assuming your plan was that the aircraft would actually fire up its engines when near or on the runway? If the aircraft is on a taxiway or on the runway when they start the engines and a fault occurrs, there may be a delay to other aircraft using the airport.
i hadn’t heard of what adamdowley mentioned, but i got the idea from an airline or airport that was recently wanting a tug to pull the aircraft out to the runway and then have them light their engines there. Some environmental or fuel efficience measure. Anyways i assumed (maybe a bad idea 😉 that they had considered such problems and thought them not important enough.
Pilots are very accurate at predicting weights without scales as they know how much everything weighs and hence will put as many people on as possible that calculations permit.
my impression was that they had no idea how much the passengers and maybe their luggage weighed, so the calculations are based on very conservative estimates (safety first and all)
I imagine drag would be a huge issue with this idea.
well i looked to the israeli strike on iraq. to get the max range out of their F-15s they shut down 1 engine for most of the flight.
also i have seen several other comments that basically say if you can get a plane with x engines to fly on x-1 engines it is always more fuel efficient
but there are a few problems
1. it might be more fuel efficient, but it would also be slower
2. the remaining engines would be run harder, probably shortening life span and stuff
which is probably why you don’t see 747s running around on 3 engines even when they could
An awning wouldn’t stop icing of the aircraft as ice would still form by condensation in the air (think of frost on cars)
interesting, did not realize that
I’d imagine the biggest problem would be that on a 4 engined aircraft where only two are actually used on takeoff
sorry for not being clear, i meant for all 4 to be used for takeoff and then 1 to be shut down for cruise
so if the ‘climbing’ engine was 10% more efficient during takeoff, overall efficiency would be improved by 10/4 = 2.5% during takeoff
Sign In
