Ship 741Thanks Steve.
Where are you getting this stuff from. It sounds like a news article but you are posting it as if you wrote it yourself.
Ship 741It seems like a win-win-win:
1. Boeing gets to transfer the early NWA delivery slots to another customer, who is probably highly irritated with the program delays and will gratefully accept them.
2. Delta gets 777’s that it needs now.
3. Boeing keeps the 777 line hot, transferring delayed/deferred 777F slots (all they really are at this point is slots on a future delivery line, there should be plenty of time to change them over to passenger planes, perhaps it has already been done) to Delta.
4. Two or so years from now, when the economy has hopefully recovered, the original freighter customer gets back into line for their airplanes and Delta still has the later NWA 787 delivery slots that were not swapped to 777s now.
The only question is how much compensation the various parties require to make the deal acceptable to all parties. Fedex has already deferred their freighter order for 17 months,so I am not sure if they need further sweeteners at this time.
I’m sure there are B-Bashers about who will rejoice in any contraction of the 787 order book though.
Ship 741The problem is the US SECDEF wants to kill the F-22…………and just move forward with the F-35. I doubt he supports taking funds away from the KC-X and CSAR Programs. Though I could be wrong on the latter……….as I don’t believe he has commented either way?
He is a skilled bureaucrat that has left himself wiggle room either way. I’m sure he will have input, don’t get me wrong, but I believe the opinion that matters most is that of the President-elect. These are, after all, decisions with global geopolitical, national security, and industrial ramifications. Mr. Gates will probably fall in line when the time comes, provided he has been kept in the loop and not publicly embarrassed or double crossed, and of course that the final decision is not ridiculously inappropriate.
Ship 741Anyone know if there is a rule of thumb for the net gain from carrying a drop tank?
For example a 600 gallon tank carries about 4,000 lbs of fuel at 6.7 lbs/gal. If that fuel was carried internally, you might only get 90% (3,600 lbs) in useful fuel, since the engines have to run at higher power settings to offset carrying the extra weight. But a drop tank is external, thus a drag penalty. Then, you’ve got to consider the weight of the tank itself. I’m thinking that when it is all added up, you might only get 2/3 of the fuel in the DT to be useful.
I know this “useful” amount will probably vary widely, but I’m hoping there is a ballpark number for a middle of the road fighter out there somewhere.
Ship 741Well, I am sorry the current fleet of KC-135’s hardly sat around during there first 20 years of service. Because that was the heyday of Strategic Air Command. With B-52’s flying around the clock and of course Tankers were a very big part of that. Let’s also not forget a little thing call the Vietnam War. So, the 60’s and 70’s the were a big time for the Tanker Fleet. Which, doesn’t even take into acccount the many conflicts since then. Like two Iraq Wars and Afghanistan. Which, were in high demand to fuel Transports and Fighter/Strike Aircraft.
Another point Tankers also constantly practice with Fighters and other Air Force types to keep proficient…………
Really, the list goes on and on…………….and on!
I believe you are factually incorrect. The relatively low flight hours on the KC-135 fleet is very well documented. For instance, from wikipedia, (granted, not always the most reliable source):
As of 2006, the KC-135E fleet is flying an annual average of 350 hours per aircraft and the KC-135R fleet is flying an annual average of 710 hours per aircraft. The KC-135 fleet is currently flying double its planned yearly flying hour program to meet airborne refueling requirements, and has resulted in higher than forecast usage and sustainment costs.[10]
The Air Force projects that E and R models have lifetime flying hour limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit.[11]
There are many other references available detailing the relatively low flight hours on the KC-135 fleet. By comparison, airliners fly 3-5,000 hours a year.
The thread is off topic, I apologize for my part in it.
Ship 741Well, the USAF Tanker Fleet is very old (50-60’s) and has been in heavy use for many years now…………BAD IDEA!
I would respectfully contest the statement that they have been heavily used. They spent most of their first 20-30 years in service sitting alert, or just sitting. The airframes have relatively low hours on them and they have been meticulously maintained. Plus, the were re-engined in the 80’s and 90’s and had many mods/updgrades completed at that time, not the least of which was structural upgrades in the wings. They were promised to be good out to 2040 when they were re-engined.
Ship 741Actually I think they are gonna use ER’s. The great circle distance ATL-PVG and ATL-DXB are both slightly longer than LAX-SYD. If the SYD service had been from ATL it would have been LR’s. They are currently operating 8 ER’s and 2 LR’s with 5 more LR’s coming prior to summer and several destinations or more frequencies for existing destinations are rumored. There have been many posts regarding this topic on other message boards, and lots of arguments both ways, of course winds and routing issues enter into the discussion also.
I wonder how many connecting pax DL was delivering to Qantas every day in LAX? They will now keep those pax as a basis/foundation for the new service.
Brave words by airline executives notwithstanding, another competitor can’t be welcome news for existing operators.
I’m wondering what makes this routing “controversial.”
Ship 741I would think that the luxury of a hot production line would generate lots of potential options/variants/upgrades, it is a great platform. No doubt many of said options/variants/upgrades would be very highly classified.
Putting off the KC-X seems the most logical thing to do to this layman. I’ve long questioned the “pressing need” for more tankers now, especially when they have enough to modify some into RC’s for purchase by allies. IMHO, what is really needed is more airlift, not tanking, and the best options is COTS.
Ship 741Yes, probably 4 or 5 pax worth of weight on a 747. Maybe more, it was 3 or 4 on a DC10.
Corrosion, I think there is a fine lacquer on to prevent ally-scab.The real penalty is the butt-ugliness. Unless all the skin panels come from the same batch from the metal mill, you get a different shade, as can quite clearly be seen on their a/c. Working the metal also produces different shades, a flat panel with a single curve (Fuselage) will not have the same shade as a double curve panel off the empennage/nose.
AA used to insist that the inlet L/edges are made from the same batch, especially when there are two lumps hanging off the same wing.
I seem to remember that the first few A300’s that AA got were very splotchy due to the procedures that Airbus was using at the time, therefore they had to be painted. Apparently, no other customer had specified (demanded) bare finish up to that point in time.
The only reason I remember it is that Av. Wk. had a blurb about it and said that the color that AA specified was “Boeing Gray.” Can’t vouch for complete veracity of the original story, but I do remember seeing it in print at the time and thought it was entertaining. 🙂
Airbus apparently came up with a solution, as the AA A300’s are now bare. I also seem to remember that Eastern had painted A300’s, but apparently they didn’t make a big deal out of it with Airbus or in the press (the got them long before AA and allegedly got the first 6 free, maybe they didn’t have any leverage?). I also remember seeing 727-100’s that were painted at Eastern, and asked why and was told by a cohort that they had been polished so many times, the FAA was worried about removing any more material and told them they couldn’t polish them anymore, thus the paint.
Ship 741🙂 the debate is about if f-22 is obsolite, because of the electronics of from 80:s-90:s….
Thanks for helping to keep the thread on track….:) It’s pretty obvious when someone denigrates a thread or a poster, and then continues posting on that thread with aims of derailing it that they are willfully and purposefully being destructive.
Obviously, the platform is not obsolete from a kinematic or performance point of view. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the much maligned SH might not have some better electronics in it than the F-22, at least in some aspects.
Ship 741Even though the first one hasn’t been delivered to the dealer’s showroom yet? C’mon folks. This is new, cutting edge technology! Did anyone (anywhere, especially here) honestly think there wouldn’t be troubles with it? The thing hasn’t even flown and you’re ready to call it a failure? And, oh by the way, it’s already the most successful new airliner EVER, in HISTORY!?!
C’mon already. Let’s have a little reality party, shall we?
Sheesh..
JH
I’m have serious doubts about management. There was NO WAY they could make the original schedule. I’m thinking they knew they couldn’t make it but desperately wanted to steal some of Airbus’s A380 thunder so they pushed out early for the pictures. Then, the further delays showed their ineptitude WRT overall program management. No matter what you believe, it’s pretty embarassing. They now hope that 10 years in the future this will all be forgotten.
Ship 741I’m rather surprised to see so many posts on the ability to receive fuel, what type of AAR equipment, etc, etc. I would think that with the very efficient CFM56’s endurance would be at best only a secondary concern, and perhaps even tertiary. Launched fairly close to the area of operations, say within an hour’s flight time, I’m guessing that the airplane would be able to power down to a min fuel power setting once on station and stay in the air a very long time, perhaps with the endurance of the crew being more limiting than the airplane. Just wagging numbers from readily available data on the web, it would a appear a 135R can stay in the air about 20 hours.
The REAL important stuff, IMHO, is the electronics, and I would think the majority of that will be very highly classified and thus not in the domain of realistic conversation amongst enthusiasts such as us.
Fedaykin had a lot of other good points in the original post.
Edit: changed wording in first paragraph slightly and received additional information. An aquaintenance of mine just confirmed that an R model can stay in the air about 22 hours if you ran the tanks dry. Thus, I would argue that 18-19 hour missions are easily do-able, without receiving AAR.
Ship 741Not really the same thing as an emergency landing, but I have always been fascinated by the JAL DC-8 that landed short of the runway in SFO bay in 1968. Only minor injuries and so little damage to the airplane that it was repaired and flew for many more years.
You can easily find a lot of information about the incident using google or some other search engine. There are a few pictures here:
http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-unsinkable-dc8.htm
Some additional info here:
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/Shiga-SFBay.htm
I’ve never been able to accurately verify whether the Captain later committed suicide or not, there seems to be conflicting info.
Ship 741787 is too different from 767 to make a fair comparison.
Fuselage width: 767 – 503 cm, 330 – 564 cm; 787 – 577 cm
Wingspan: 767 – 47,6 m, 330 – 60 m; 787-8 – 60 m
MTOW: 767 – 185 t, 330 – 230 t; 787-8 – 220 t.
Let´s see what the 787 fuel burn and range turn out to be if it ever flies.
Guess that depends on your definition of fair. I think a lot of carriers will replace 767s with 787s and will compare the results accordingly. In fact, I think the launch customer ANA is replacing 767s with 787s.
Ship 741That being said, I doubt there will be many, if any cancellations for the aircraft because it is – if it meets promised design goals – better than anything currently flying in its class.
I think that even if it falls short on the promised goals, it will still offer significant efficiency improvements versus current technology (A330/767/etc). IIRC, the original goal was to better the 767 by 30%. Lets say they only get 20-25%, thats still a lot of fuel.
Sign In
