Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 199): I am still waiting for a source for a structural lengthening of the basic 767 fuselage.

Best I can tell, that source is Boeing themselves in statements to media reporting on the KC-46A.



Someone at PAE with a tape measure needs to compare the lengths of the original USAF KC-767 prototype and a KC-46A and report back.

[Edited 2014-05-28 06:55:17]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 200): Best I can tell, that source is Boeing themselves in statements to media reporting on the KC-46A.

. . . that PDF from Boeing posted in reply 194.  

bt

If you draw a box around the image of the plane in the KC-46 PDF, from the overhead view, the length matches to the trailing point of the tail as well as the winglets on the boom (the overhead view omits the part of the boom that extends beyond the winglets).

If you draw a box around the side profile, it extends to the trailing point of the tail, but the actual boom end extends beyond the box.

So using that image, the additional length is in the fuselage and does not include the length of the entire boom in the stowed position.

[Edited 2014-05-28 07:50:53]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 202): So using that image, the additional length is in the fuselage and does not include the length of the entire boom in the stowed position.

Given the inconsistencies in the drawings, the dimension arrow does not directly relate to anything on the drawings, so I would take it as a general description (o/a length of the aircraft pictured from furthest point fwd to furthest point aft).

I would contend that the image on 194 has the O/A length going to the end of the retracted boom, not the tip of the tail. There are no extension lines coming from the dimension arrow, but it is not an engineering drawing. Also, if you look closely at the top view, the portion of the boom that is beyond the flying surfaces is missing.

Again, stretching a plane is not trivial. Skins, stringers, floor beams, floor boards, wiring, hydraulics, bleed air, ECS, wall liners, Weight and balance calcs, stress calcs, decompression calcs, local reinforcements at the fuselage join locations to take the higher moments. 4 frames, 80" (I believe that is the 767 frame spacing) or 88 Inches (that is the 787 frame spacing, and some locations on the 737). 2 pallets?

But, the difference from 159' 2" to 165' 6" is 76 Inches. Not enough to add a full pallet, and not a length normally stretched by Boeing. Not a multiple of 20, nor 22, nor a combination of the two. Looking at the side view, the length of the boom that is beyond the tail is, is about the same as the height of the entry doors, about 6'.

Also, the GAO lists the KC-46 as being capable of hauling 18 pallets. Boeing's literature states the Italian KC-767 will take 19 pallets. The KC-767 is a basic -200, so apparently a stretch is not needed to carry cargo.

From Aviation Week 0n-line , May 10, 2012: "KC-46A Design Review Complete"

"Boeing is looking ahead to a 2013 critical design review of the U.S. Air Force’s KC-46A refueler after wrapping up a monthlong preliminary design review (PDR) in April.
The PDR, which took place March 21-April 27, validated that Boeing ’s design “meets system requirements [and] establishes the basis for proceeding with the detailed design,” according to an Air Force statement.

The KC-46A is based on a yet-to-be-manufactured commercial 767-2C freighter configuration that will include modifications such as a cargo door and structurally enhanced floors, tail, wings and empennage. Boeing conducted its own “PDR-like” activity of the -2C prior to the KC-46A review. But company officials have been mum on details."

Given the modifications discussed above, if the fuselage was stretched, I think Av Week would have mentioned it.

Below is an excerpt from a talk by Major General John Thompson at the AFA - Air and Space Technology Exposition “KC-46 Requirements” 17 September 2013

http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...0events/af-130917-AFA-Thompson.pdf

Quoting from page 5

"Aircraft configuration development, many of you are familiar with
this, and this is one of the things that the FAA has been very
helpful in helping us work through, but we’re essentially taking
a 767-200 extended range passenger aircraft and converting it
into a tanker, and the way that we’re doing that is taking the
type certification for that 767-200-ER and we added dash-300F
wings and we added dash-300F landing gear. We added a dash-400
auxiliary power unit. Then as the aircraft proceeds down the
line in the plant there at Everett we’re turning out a provision
freighter which we refer to as the 767-2C. That’s our baseline
aircraft that will come out of the end of the factory. It will
have the enhanced flight deck, it will have the cargo floor and
door, it will have the body fuel tanks for the air refueling
mission, lots of provisions for the tanker system, and I’ll show
you that in just a few minutes in some pictures." (Unfortunately the pictures were not in the link)

Pretty good run down of major mods, no mention of a fuselage stretch.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 203): Again, stretching a plane is not trivial.

No, but the way the Boeing plane are assembled, stretching the airplane really only require designing the plugs (43 and 46). Loads on the 41 and 47 section remains the same.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 205): we added dash-300F wings and we added dash-300F landing gear.

This tells me that they already have the strengthening of the 44 section by incorporating the -300 wing and landing gear.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 205): it will have the cargo floor and door,

And they are already strengthening the floor by using the cargo floor.


Still trying to find definitive proof of the section stretch.

bt

While not definitive proof, here is the best I have so far:

http://leehamnews.com/tag/767-2c/

FDX is lined up to become the first commercial customers of the 767-2C, the new platform on which the KC-46A tanker is based. The 767-2C is about six feet longer (165 ft 6 in) than the 767-200ER (159 ft 2 in) on which the 2C is based but shorter than the -300ER.

The -2C does not have the boom, so the length measurement is to the tail. This assumes that the Leeham reporter gets his facts straight. This Scott Hamilton seams like a reputable guy 

bt

[Edited 2014-05-29 07:09:21]

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 207): This Scott Hamilton seams like a reputable guy

Also Steven Trimble of FI:

Quote: Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes. 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 remains unclear, however, if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic design of the 767-200ER platform. These details will remain undisclosed until Boeing completes a system requirements review and an integrated baseline review with the air force, said Jean Chamberlin, vice-president and general manager of Boeing's military division.

Chamberlin is the only named source and it's open to interpretation but the article seems to imply that all of the info is coming from him.

If you look at the links at the right of the article it seems Boeing has been elusive about the detailed specs of this platform. Boeing was criticized in the previous competition about the origins of the various elements of the offering and it seems because of this it is only revealing what it feels it has to reveal.

Ref: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-identity-of-kc-46a-tanker-357700/

The only way it would make sense for the plane to be ~ 6 ft longer is if the fuselage center section at the wing (section 44) is from a -300F, and the basic -300F section 44 is 6 feet longer than a -200 section 44.
(with the floors, systems, etc already addressed), not a decision to stretch the plane.

Given the "FrankenTanker" approach to the plane I could see that happening.

I will not give up until I see a good "official" drawing, or see a quote from someone official/reputable (Boeing / USAF / Janes) saying "the 767-2C is 6 ft longer because . . . . "

If the 767-2C is offered as a commercial freigher, iw will eventually show up in teh airport planning document, then there will be irrefutable proof either way.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 207): FDX is lined up to become the first commercial customers of the 767-2C, the new platform on which the KC-46A tanker is based. The 767-2C is about six feet longer (165 ft 6 in) than the 767-200ER (159 ft 2 in) on which the 2C is based but shorter than the -300ER.

This is becoming even more confusing !


Are we now supposed to believe that FDX is going to take deliveries of -300F's and the separate 2C version ?
Why would they do this ? makes no sense.


My guess is that FDX is taking advantage of some of the technology advances of the -2C, in the cockpit displays for example. Can anyone clarify this ?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 210): Why would they do this ? makes no sense.

If FDX has a mission for the a 767-200F sized aircraft, why fly a -300F? With the improvements introduced by the -2C, the economics of the smaller airplane will be attractive for routes with where less volume is needed. It is the same rationale for flying a fleet of 777s, 767s & 757s.

I have to figure that FDX has the data that has the load factor accurately projected by day of the year.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 211): If FDX has a mission for the a 767-200F sized aircraft, why fly a -300F?

The production line can build both.. it's not one or the other.. Yes the 300F may get some of the enhancements form the 2C.. but so what?

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 211): If FDX has a mission for the a 767-200F sized aircraft, why fly a -300F? With the improvements introduced by the -2C, the economics of the smaller airplane will be attractive for routes with where less volume is needed. It is the same rationale for flying a fleet of 777s, 767s & 757s. I have to figure that FDX has the data that has the load factor accurately projected by day of the year.

No, it makes no sense to buy an aircraft fractionally smaller, the difference in operating cost versus lack of standardization
makes the whole idea very doubtful.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 209): is from a -300F, and the basic -300F section 44 is 6 feet longer than a -200 section 44.

It is not standard Boeing practice to vary the length of section 44. The interface between the wing box and the fuselage is too complicated. In practice, when going from one length to another, Boeing just varies the length of "plug" sections in 43 and 46.

This was done on the 777, 737 and 767 and the 787 also. Each of these sections have production breaks for wiring and systems so that the "plugs" can easily interface with the 44 section whether it's a -200 or -300.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 209): I will not give up until I see a good "official" drawing,

You will not get official drawings. Just more official power point pictures.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 210): Are we now supposed to believe that FDX is going to take deliveries of -300F's and the separate 2C version ? Why would they do this ? makes no sense.

This makes sense from a price stand point. As the US Air Force will be getting 100 of the -2C, you can get a volume discount by adding 30 more frames for FDX as oppose to building 30 separate -300 frames. Given the way Boeing re-configure the production line, I'm note sure if the -300 would fit in their factory plan.   

bt

While not official and not 767, this page shows how Boeing varies the plugs to get different fuselage lengths.

http://www.b737.org.uk/737ng.htm#737-700

Any strengthening of section 44 comes as part of the increase MTO weight of the wing design.

bt

Quoting Max Q (Reply 210): Are we now supposed to believe that FDX is going to take deliveries of -300F's and the separate 2C version? Why would they do this? makes no sense.

In terms of volume, the 767-300F is a fairly larger airframe than the A300-600RF and significantly larger than the A310-200F / A310-300F that FX operates. It's actually closer to the MD-10F than it is the Airbus family.

The 767-200F is still far larger than the A310-200F and A310-300F, but by about 25/45% instead of the 60/75% of the 767-300F.

So I could see FX interested in the 767-2C as an A310 replacement, with the 767-300F being an A300-600F / MD-10F replacement.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 210): This is becoming even more confusing ! Are we now supposed to believe that FDX is going to take deliveries of -300F's and the separate 2C version ? Why would they do this ? makes no sense.

Yes, it is all very confusing.

Boeing seems to be walking a PR tightrope on this program. It seems it doesn't want to be too forthcoming because it doesn't want to be charged with making another frankentanker nor getting unfair subsidies from its commercial side, YET on the other hand it wants to project the image that the commercial side is at least reducing risk of the military program and perhaps some of the changes might be interesting commercially.

As for what FX might actually be interested in, the changes we know of on the program seem to be summarized via:

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 205): we’re essentially taking a 767-200 extended range passenger aircraft and converting it into a tanker, and the way that we’re doing that is taking the type certification for that 767-200-ER and we added dash-300F wings and we added dash-300F landing gear. We added a dash-400 auxiliary power unit.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 208): 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.

So, is FX interested in what is in essence a shorter -300F?

In general FX tends to run out of cabin volume before they run out of MTOW so one would think the answer is no, but I don't know if this general rule holds on the 767. Also indeed it does raise the question of if the shorter -300F is worth the hassle of having a mixed fleet of 767s.

Keep in mind despite the quote that FX is 'lined up' for an order, no such order has happened AFAIK.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 217): In general FX tends to run out of cabin volume before they run out of MTOW so one would think the answer is no, but I don't know if this general rule holds on the 767. Also indeed it does raise the question of if the shorter -300F is worth the hassle of having a mixed fleet of 767s.

If you load an A310's volume into a 767-300F, you'll have half to three-quarters of the plane empty. On a 767-2C, it's about one-quarter to one-half empty. Still high, but it does allow for growth whereas the 767-300F would require consolidation (three to four A310 loads onto two to three 763Fs).

Also, I believe FX is going with the more advanced flight deck on their 757-200 and 767-300F fleet that will be similar to the one being installed on the 767-2C, so crew training and interlining issues should not be a major issue. And with the 767-2C having the same wing and landing gear as the 767-300F, that allows a common spares pool (in addition to whatever else the two frames share in common as 767 family members).

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 214): It is not standard Boeing practice to vary the length of section 44. The interface between the wing box and the fuselage is too complicated. In practice, when going from one length to another, Boeing just varies the length of "plug" sections in 43 and 46.

I am well aware of how Boeing fuselage plugs work. I was on the original fuselage design and build team for sections 43 44 & 46 (essentially from just aft of the forward entry door to just forward of the aft entry doors) on first 1,000 737NGs (-700, -800, -600 & -701). I personally designed skin panels, stringers and upper fuselage assemblies, as well as trouble shooting assembly issues in the center fuselage (wing box, side skin panels floor beams) and major section joins.

It is this experience, plus my time at Boeing Military (Wichita) supporting KC-767 (I & J) then other platforms, that makes it hard for me to believe that they would stretch a plane for 6 feet. The numbers don't seem right (not multiples of 20 or 22), and the cost benefit does not seem right. Not saying it can't be done, just doesn't seem right.

If I was still at the Lazy B, I would call-up the 767 Centerline drawing (that shows all of the frame stations) and look at the basic frame count and satisfy my curiosity. Unfortunately I am a Former Kansas Engineer, and don't have access to that resource anymore.

If the 767-2C gets sold commercially, then the airport planning document will have to be updated to reflect the 6 foot longer length. That document is available on-line through Boeing's public website.

Quoting kanban (Reply 212): The production line can build both.. it's not one or the other.. Yes the 300F may get some of the enhancements form the 2C.. but so what?

I don't think anyone was talking about stopping -300F production for -2Cs exclusively.

On 737, some airlines ordered -700s and -800s, some ordered -800s and -900s. I think Continental ordered all three (actually they may have also ordered -600s). Still have some commonality issues, but right sized aircraft for the mission.

Admittedly with the new flight deck (and possibly engines) there will be more commonality issues, but less of an issue than an entirely different platform.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 219): If the 767-2C gets sold commercially, then the airport planning document will have to be updated to reflect the 6 foot longer length. That document is available on-line through Boeing's public website.

Of course if the -2C is lumped in with the -200, with no length change, I will tell you all - "Told Ya So!"  

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 220): I don't think anyone was talking about stopping -300F production for -2Cs exclusively. On 737, some airlines ordered -700s and -800s, some ordered -800s and -900s. I think Continental ordered all three (actually they may have also ordered -600s). Still have some commonality issues, but right sized aircraft for the mission. Admittedly with the new flight deck (and possibly engines) there will be more commonality issues, but less of an issue than an entirely different platform.

Continental did not order the -600.



And its 'the' 737 !

IMHO the KC-46A (B767-2C) has been increased in length by 2 meters from the basic 767-200 series to satisfy two basic requirements :

- Sufficient rotation margin with the refuelling boom installed.
- Increase the maindeck cargo load with 2 additional military 463L pallets to a maximum of 18, to optimise the cargo capacity.

The re-located B767 assembly line is capable of producing 767-2C, 767-300ERF and 300ER aircraft.
The 767-400 (not offered anymore by Boeing) will probably not fit into the new assembly line.
See : http://aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-joins-first-kc-46a-airframe

The 767-2C will only be certified with the PW4000 engine.
The present backlog of FDX 767-300ERF aircraft are all powered by General Elecric CF6-80C2 engines.
If FDX would decide to switch the present 767-300F backlog to the 767-2C variant or order additional 767-2C's, Boeing will have to certify the combination 767-2C / CF6-80C2 or FDX would have to accept the PW engine.

[Edited 2014-05-31 04:56:16]

Quoting Stitch (Reply 218): If you load an A310's volume into a 767-300F, you'll have half to three-quarters of the plane empty. On a 767-2C, it's about one-quarter to one-half empty. Still high, but it does allow for growth whereas the 767-300F would require consolidation (three to four A310 loads onto two to three 763Fs).

Right, but as is the rage on our discussions on the commercial forum, we'd have to ask if the cost of buying and flying around the empty space is large enough to overwhelm the benefits of fleet commonality and the income you might be able to get using that space during peak season. The 2C might be a 'better' size, but scheduling it as a subfleet is going to be a pain.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 218): Also, I believe FX is going with the more advanced flight deck on their 757-200 and 767-300F fleet that will be similar to the one being installed on the 767-2C, so crew training and interlining issues should not be a major issue.

Yes, in fact at the handoff of the first 763F FX pointed out that they will be using the same simulators for 757 and 767.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 219): that makes it hard for me to believe that they would stretch a plane for 6 feet

Maybe it'd be difficult to justify it for an average customer/order, but when the US DOD is saying they want to buy 180 frames against an eventual requirement for 500 or so frames, and you have next to nothing else to keep that product line viable, different rules apply.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 223): - Sufficient rotation margin with the refuelling boom installed.

Adding length generally reduces rotation margin. When we created the 737-900, the field performance was significantly reduced due to not being able to rotate as much, which inturn affected range from shorter fields (needed to carry less fuel to be able to take off in the same length as a -800). When we did the -900IGW/ER, the European Carter & LCC operators requested we get back teh take off performance of the -800. This drove changes to the leading edge devices and flap schedule. That in turn made the wing group in Seattle whine, because up t that point, after the initial 737NG design, they had had it pretty easy. With the -900IGW, they had to go to work again. THey got no sympathy from us who had been doing all the minor model and customer intro changes in the fuselage.

Similarly, the lenght/rotation problem caused issues on the E-10, which was based on the 767-400. The design team wanted as much floor space as possible for mission consoles, so they took the biggest 767 they could find, but then ended up with a plane that had similar or worse takeoff requirements as a 747-200. Limited the deploy ability.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 223): - Increase the maindeck cargo load with 2 additional military 463L pallets to a maximum of 18, to optimise the cargo capacity.

That makes some sense, except the Italian KC-767 can take up to 19 pallets. Seems there would be an easier way to accommodate 18 than adding 6 feet of fuselage.

I have not seen the gov't spec, I have not seen an authoritative statement on a fuselage stretch. I would expect Av Week would have mentioned it, Boeing would have put it on their web site or I would have seen a quote for a from a government source in all of the official write-ups of the 767-2C configuration. They mention strengthened floors, tanker plumbing, cargo doors, flight deck, but not fuselage stretch or even increase in cargo floor area. 18 pallets is not a floor area increase if the Italians can fly with 19 on the KC-767.

I do not disagree that the delivered KC-46 is 6 feet longer than a 767-200. I just believe it is the boom sticking out the back. But at this point I am also tired of trying to find the answer one way or the other.

But I will make one other point. Does everyone agree that the boom does protrude past the tail when retracted? That should be an easy "Yes".

So why do you advertise the length of an airplane? So perspective buyers will know if it will fit in the existing hangars, and to understand ramp clearance issues.

Since the part of the boom that does not retract, has to be avoided when doing ground handling or closing the hangar door, don't you think that would be an important part of the O/A length as advertised.

Think about it.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 225): So why do you advertise the length of an airplane? So perspective buyers will know if it will fit in the existing hangars, and to understand ramp clearance issues. Since the part of the boom that does not retract, has to be avoided when doing ground handling or closing the hangar door, don't you think that would be an important part of the O/A length as advertised.

Yes, but commercial 767-2C operators will not have a boom. So if it is the boom, only references to the KC-46A should mention the extra two meters of length, not references to the 767-2C.

As Boeing is planning to certify the 767-2C for commercial use, it should show up in the ACAP and Boeing's 767 site whether or not any commercial entity orders it. That certification is due in late 2015 or early 2016, so we only have around 18 months to wait. 

Quoting Stitch (Reply 226): As Boeing is planning to certify the 767-2C for commercial use, it should show up in the ACAP and Boeing's 767 site

That is essentially what I said in post 219.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 226): so we only have around 18 months to wait.

True - So I will go to sleep until then.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 226): Yes, but commercial 767-2C operators will not have a boom. So if it is the boom, only references to the KC-46A should mention the extra two meters of length, not references to the 767-2C.

I think that part is sloppy journalism, equating the 767-2C dimensions to the released KC-46 outline sketches.

Has anyone seen some one of authority saying the 767-2C is 265 ft? Even then I would suspect that some who have been speaking have been sloppy with terminology.

I am a length denier -
My core beliefs -
There is no global warming
Man did not evolve from lower life forms and the world is only 5000 years old
and the 767-2C is the same length as the 767-200  

I guess I should be a Republican. - Tweet - Flag n the play. Unnecessary disparaging of a political party - 5 yards.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 228): Has anyone seen some one of authority saying the 767-2C is 265 ft?

If you take the two-plan view of the KC-46A published in the PDF from Boeing and draw a box extending from the leftmost point to the rightmost point of the length arrow (which measures 165'6"), it extends from the tip of the nose to the trailing tip of the vertical stabilizer with the boom extending beyond the righthand vertical edge of said box.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 225): Sufficient rotation margin with the refuelling boom installed. Adding length generally reduces rotation margin

The 2 meters fuselage extension is the maximum fuselage length possible with the 767-300 landing gear installed plus the extending refuelling boom.

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 225): Increase the maindeck cargo load with 2 additional military 463L pallets to a maximum of 18, to optimise the cargo capacity. That makes some sense, except the Italian KC-767 can take up to 19 pallets

The Italian tanker doesn't have the 15 crew rest station, behind the cockpit, as specified for the KC46A.

The 2 meter fuselage extension is a trade off between the number of maindeck pallets and the available rotation margin.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 230): The 2 meter fuselage extension is a trade off between the number of main deck pallets and the available rotation margin.

That argument makes some sense. It is not so much that the -200 is stretched, but that the -300 is shrunk to accommodate the boom.

One of the systems engineers that was part of the original KC-767 concept development had told me that from a boom integration perspective, the 757 was a better tanker candidate, due to rotation issues.

So 747Classic, are you applying logic and deductive reasoning, or do you have hard information? Someone from Boeing or the Air force?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 229): f you take the two-plan view of the KC-46A published in the PDF from Boeing

That is a sales literature view of a KC-46, not a sales document for 767-2C. If that picture was of a 767-2C without a boom, and a Boeing logo in the corner, that would would satisfy me.

From my comments in reply 203

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 203): Given the inconsistencies in the drawings, the dimension arrow does not directly relate to anything on the drawings, so I would take it as a general description (o/a length of the aircraft pictured from furthest point fwd to furthest point aft).

Quoting 747classic (Reply 230): The 2 meters fuselage extension is the maximum fuselage length possible with the 767-300 landing gear installed plus the extending refuelling boom.

That's the point, you can stretch the fuselage only so much before geometry issues on rotation start to be a real problem with
the boom.


The 762 has very good rotation margin for clearing the tail, the 763 is not so great, it really needed a taller gear and Boeing had to install a main landing gear 18 inches taller for the -400, even that was not really enough so they compensated by running the take off and landing speeds up.


Love that -400 though, very nice flying aircraft !

Because the fuselage length of the 767-2C is optimised for tanker/cargo operation, I cannot see further commercial orders for the 767-2C by parcel carriers , like FDX (or UPS).
Almost always parcel carriers are volume limited and not weight limited. So, why would you buy another subtype with increased operating weights (more payload) , but a smaller cargo volume, than the already operational fleet of 767-300ERF aircraft ?

Perhaps a few commercial 767-2C orders for a general cargo company may pop up in the coming years, only for a discounted purchase price.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 234): Almost always parcel carriers are volume limited and not weight limited. So, why would you buy another subtype with increased operating weights (more payload) , but a smaller cargo volume, than the already operational fleet of 767-300ERF aircraft?

Well FX continue to operate the A312/A313 in addition to the A306, even though the A310 family is significantly volume-limited in comparison to the A306. So they evidently continue to find use out of s smaller widebody plane than their A300-600F fleet.

As I have noted up-thread, a 767-300F offers 75% more volume than an A310-200F. Now the 767-300F would allow FX to reduce the number of daily departures. They can carry the load of their 15 A310-200Fs and 15 A310-300Fs on 18 767-300Fs - a 40% reduction. That would be a massive operational savings and significantly improve efficiency.

But if FX is using those A310s because they need frequency over volume (or the volume on those missions is just far too small to economically be carried on an A300-600F), the 20% smaller volume of the 767-2C compared to the 767-300F might be something FX is interested in.



I do agree 5X is unlikely to be interested, as the smallest widebody they operate is the A300-600F. I expect them to place another large 767-300F order (upwards of 50 frames) to complete the A300-600F replacement and then a large 777F order to replace the MD-11F. They might even become a 747-8F operator, as well.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 234): Quoting 747classic (Reply 234): Almost always parcel carriers are volume limited and not weight limited. So, why would you buy another subtype with increased operating weights (more payload) , but a smaller cargo volume, than the already operational fleet of 767-300ERF aircraft?

I have to figure that FX has a good handle on their load factors, and not all stations get multiple daily departures. In Wichita, FX flew one flight a day initially 757s then A310s, while UPS flew 1 A300 a day. If you need to incrementally increase capacity, moving from a 757/A310 to a 767-2C may make sense over adding a second departure.

I am not advocating, but if FX (or UPS) has a reason to take advantage of a 767-200 sized aircraft, with a modern glass cockpit I do not see it as being outrageous.

Well folks, can't say much.
But let's just say that FrmrKSEngr may have a point on the length.  

bt

Quoting Max Q (Reply 222): And its 'the' 737 !

When you work the platforms, you sometimes drop the "the". Such as "I am working 737" or "I moved from '37 to '67"

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 238): When you work the platforms, you sometimes drop the "the". Such as "I am working 737" or "I moved from '37 to '67"

It's a real shame to see the English language butchered in this way, it really doesn't make sense.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 239): It's a real shame to see the English language butchered in this way, it really doesn't make sense.

If this makes you sad, don't look at how kids today talk and type.

One of the KC-46A test aircraft was towed to a new parking position at June 06.


Original uploaded by Moonm, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/14359496541/

More detailed pictures can be found here :
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/14362812035/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/14176343417/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/14359497681/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/14176160559/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/14339715406/

Quoting Max Q (Reply 239): It's a real shame to see the English language butchered in this way, it really doesn't make sense.

It's a worse shame having to put up with a bunch of grammar nazis.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 241): One of the KC-46A test aircraft was towed to a new parking position at June 06.

Looks like a longer fuselage than a -200 to me !

It's hard for me to see any extra length in front of the wing vs. this KC-767 photo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...File:BOEING_KC767_McConnellAFB.JPG

The 767-2c seems to have one less door behind the wing, though, so I guess it's not targeted at high-density passenger configurations.   

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 244): 41 times: It's hard for me to see any extra length in front of the wing vs. this KC-767 photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...B.JPG

That is not a 767 -2C !



The previous, tanker modified versions of the 762 are all built around the standard 762 fuselage length (and are far less capable tankers)

Is the original USAF KC-767 from 2002 still sitting out at PAE (I imagine it must as it never had engines installed)?

Maybe they could tow the 767-2C next to it so we can see once and for all how long they are.   

Quoting Max Q (Reply 245): It's hard for me to see any extra length in front of the wing vs. this KC-767 photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...B.JPG That is not a 767 -2C ! The previous, tanker modified versions of the 762 are all built around the standard 762 fuselage length (and are far less capable tankers)

Yes, exactly. If the 2C at Everett has a stretch in front of the wing vs the KC-767, I don't see it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 246): Maybe they could tow the 767-2C next to it so we can see once and for all how long they are

I'm hoping someone with more patience than me just tries some trigonometry on the photos. Aren't there all sorts of "analysts" that get paid to do this sort of thing? Hop on it, boys!

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 248): Aren't there all sorts of "analysts" that get paid to do this sort of thing? Hop on it, boys!

Get a good side shot, and count the vertical rivet lines. 1 row of rivets per frame.