Quote:
Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB
Well, I also have information from insiders that tell me Boeing initially presented the 777 to the Air Force for this project, but that the Air Force shot it down (no pun intended) and instead specifically requested the 767 in part due to the 767's superior fuel savings. The 767 uses 24% less fuel than the Airbus plane selected. Kindof ironic for a fuel tanker. If the Air Force requested the 767, I don't see how they can really criticize Boeing's "choice" to use that plane over another.
|
Heh... I read Boeing's analysis too
I also read the tech specs of the A330s and KC-767s actually deployed operationally and something interesting popped up - Boeing calculated the fuel consumption rates for the A330 based on it's 20 year-old commercial aircraft engines, not the Rolls Royce high performance engines that the tanker uses; additionally it seems they calculated the fuel rates based on the commercial airframe not on the military airframe... seems like they are cooking the numbers to try and look better.
Anyways Janes has the KC-767 as slightly better in fuel consumption savings (6-8% at cruising speed), but the Rolls engines on the A330 have significantly higher tolerances as well as lower failure and replacement rates. In the end the USAF looks like it actually went with the better choice economically and operationally.