Talk:Boeing KC-767

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Payload compared to KC-135[edit]

I was comparing the KC-767 specs to that of the KC-10 and KC-135. It says that the KC-10 has an empty weight of 241,027 lb and a max takeoff weight of 590,000 lb, giving it a payload weight of 348,973. The KC-135 has an empty weight of 98,466 lb and a max takeoff weight of 322,500 lb, giving it a payload weight of 224,034 lb. The KC-767 has an empty weight of 188,705 lb and a max takeoff weight of 412,000 lb, giving it a payload weight of 223,295 lb. Is this correct? Why would the USAF want an aircraft that has the same payload capacity as the 50 year old one they already have? --rogerd 22:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are mainly looking for a replacement for KC-135Es with this round. "The RFP stipulates nine primary key performance parameters: air refueling capability, fuel offload and range at least as great as the KC-135..."[1] There will be a KC-Y & KC-Z contracts as well where maybe they will replace some or all KC-10s. -Fnlayson 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also 777 and A330 based tankers are closer in size to the KC-10. -Fnlayson 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so we may see a KC-777 eventually? I see that the 777-200LR has a 440,000 lb payload weight. --rogerd 22:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing some type of 777 later, depending on AF requirements. Boeing was looking at a KC-777, but it was too big for the KC-X requirements. Didn't fully answer your question. KC-135s are used for tactical (in-theater) refueling. More refuelers is more important there than capacity per plane. The KC-10s do strategic (long range) refueling and carry cargo/passengers. -Fnlayson 22:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I knew they were talking about other programs later (Y & Z), but I didn't fully understand that they most likely be larger aircraft to fulfill different missions. I figured that it would be just a "B" and "C" model of whatever was selected in the KC-X program. I see from your response, and from reading the source material, that it will likely be a different aircraft altogether. Even after the 179 KC-X order is fulfilled, there will likely be a lot of 135R's still in service. I was just reading the AFA magazine reference article [2], and it said that "Even so, the KC-767 can carry treble the fuel, passengers, or cargo of the existing KC-135 tanker". That would seem to be counter to what the KC-767 article says, wouldn't you say? --rogerd 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was speculating on the Y & Z contracts. I see no reason they can't be different type of tankers depending on need. They may want/need to start replacing KC-10s before long. The "Why the 767?" article is used as a reference for this article. Where does this article counters that quoted part? I'll look at rewording it. -Fnlayson 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) "treble the fuel, passengers, or cargo of the existing KC-135 tanker" would seem to contradict the weight figures that I quoted above (taken from the respective articles about the three aircraft). --rogerd 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should have just said the payload weights were about the same. The KC-767 Advanced for KC-X is in development and will have a higher capability.[3] -Fnlayson 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, the "treble the fuel, passengers, or cargo of the existing KC-135 tanker" line is from the AFA article, a direct quote. That is what appears to be the error here. - BillCJ 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. That's either wrong or overstating things. It's going to have to be comparable to the KC-135 to meet the RFP statement (see above). -Fnlayson 21:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article that you reference is wrong on several accounts as far as empty and gross weights of the 2 active tankers. The KC-135R has an empty weight of approx 122,500 lbs depending on configuration with a max fuel load of 200,000 lbs. The KC-10A has an empty weight of between 250,000 - 255,000 lbs, again depending on configuration. The max fuel load is 340,000 lbs (The tanks will actually hold 352,000 lbs). As a tanker planner in Air Operations Centers, these numbers are critical to us as certain aircraft that refuel at slow speeds can't make contact before a certain inflight gross weight is reached. In the case of the KC-135R, that number is 250,000 lbs. As of now, there is no slow speed restriction weight for the KC-10, but a recomended weight of 540,000 lbs is highly advised due to the bow wave effect of the heavy tanker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.27.11 (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italy will penalize The Boeing Co. for being three years late[edit]

Three years late !!! Getting penalized !!! And no mentioning in Wikipedia ??? (see http://seattlepi.com/business/374735_boeingitaly13.html) 79.210.76.49 (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engines[edit]

It look as though the engines are now P&W and not GE?[4] Hudicourt (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese and Italian KC-767s, along with the eaelier proposals for the USAF, all use(d) GE engines. Only the current proposal for the USAF uses P&W engines. Both engines are listed in the SPecs section. - BilCat (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The KC-767AT version in previous KC-X round used P&W engines (PW4062), so no change there. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

767 tanker conversions[edit]

Israel Aerospace Industries has completed a tanker conversion of a used 767-200ER for Colombia.[5], [6], [7] This ought to be similar to the KC-767 International tanker. This article seems to be better place for a mention of this than the 767 airliner article. Or should does this tanker version not warrant mention in either article? -fnlayson (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As we have some sources now it could be included in this article. But I'd list it as converted variant together with its commonalities with the KC-767 (if existing). --Denniss (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the 767 MMTT and KC-X2 can be listed as Variants as they were not produced by Boeing. The Boeing 767 page lists them under Military and Government variants, which seems to be the appropriate place for them. Including them here implies that they started life as KC-767s and were then modified Mztourist (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is on tankers and is the more relevant place for tanker specifics. The text on 767 page is supposed to be brief to give an overview. Something covered in two places like this can be problematic... -Fnlayson (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow the logic here. The page is about the Boeing KC-767, i.e. the tanker plane developed by Boeing. Variants therefore should be the variants developed from the original Boeing KC-767. The tankers produced by IAI and Bedek were based on the Boeing 767, not the KC-767 and so should not be listed as variants here. The 767 MMTT and KC-X2 should be moved out of Variants and Operators and into a separate section if they are to be retained here at all.Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair. The conversions are similar to the KC-767, but not the same. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing KC-46[edit]

Per Boeing's new release, the new deisgnation is KC-46, not "KC-47". Anyway, I suggest we make an new article. at Boeing KC-46, as we did for the the KC-45, because the KC-767 is really a different variant. - BilCat (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed, the Boeing KC-46A should be its own article focusing on the US tanker. Boeing KC-767 can focus on the history and the international versions. Ng.j (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is fine, but you're already moved out and done it. Good job! -Fnlayson (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Done! The article at Boeing KC-46, rather than at Boeing KC-46A, as "KC-46" is the basic model designation. It can be a bit confusing, but that's the wasy the designation system works, and the way WP:AIR generally designates the US DOD aircraft. The "A", "B" etc. are only needed if there are separate variant articles (F-15, F-15E, C-27, C-27J). - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/kc767/
    Triggered by \bairforce-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://web.archive.org/web/20071114184441/http://www.military-aerospace-technology.com/article.cfm?DocID=335
    Triggered by \baerospace-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Boeing KC-767. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boeing KC-767. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Boeing KC-767. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_KC-767&oldid=1200226447"