Get Your Dedicated Rack Today with RackShack (300GB for $99)

StrategyPage.com: KC-767 advantages


Posted by Mirage ® , 04/25/2002, 09:42:31   Archive

COMBAT SUPPORT: KC-767



April 25, 2002; The Air Force is negotiating a deal with Boeing to lease 100 new Tanker-Transport aircraft based on the 767-airframe. Compared to the KC-135R, the new 767-tanker-transport will be vastly superior. The KC-135R can carry 6 cargo pallets, while the 767-TT can carry 19. The KC-135R can provide 108,000 pounds of fuel to other aircraft in aerial refueling; the 767-TT can provide 117,000. The KC-135R can carry 57 passengers if used in that role; the 767-TT can carry 200. Only a few KC-135Rs have refueling receptacles allowing them to get fuel from other tankers and both Air Force boom and Navy drogue systems; all of the 767-TTs will. The KC-135R needs an 11,500 foot runway for a maximum-weight takeoff, while the 767-TT can take off with maximum load in only 9,900 feet.--Stephen V Cole


 


Related link: http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTCBTSP.HTM

Author Profile | | | Recommend | Alert   Current page
Followups

This will be a great replacement for the KC-135


Re: StrategyPage.com: KC-767 advantages -- Mirage
Posted by Iron Duke ® , 04/25/2002, 13:39:24 Top of Thread Archive

I think the 767 frame will also be the one to eventually replace the 707 based AWACS models. The Japanese have several in service already. I understand the lease deal for the TT's (Tanker Transports) will be for new build aircraft, not used ones, and will be arranged via Boeing's own leasing firm. This leasing concept for government aircraft was tried out with the 757-200's that I think came via ILFC or a seperate leasing company. These replaced the old "Air Force 2" VC-137's, which were 707-320B's. Seems to have worked out well. I believe TWA did the training for the 757s, as they did with Air Force 1 (VC-25A/Boeing 747-200's) when they were introduced over 10 years ago.

Iron Duke


Author Profile | | | Recommend | Alert Original Message Top of Thread Current page