Teamski Posted February 25, 2011 Share #1 Posted February 25, 2011 I am thrilled Boeing won the KC-X contract. It's not just because it is an American company, but also that the Airbus 330 is just too friggin' huge! I was really worried that the USAF was going to pick it. It's wingspan is only 23 feet shorter than a C-5 and that is a real pain when you are deployed with the small ramps we see overseas. The 767 is only marginally bigger, so you can fit a lot more of them on the ramps...... I wrote my congressmen about it last year.... Yay!!! http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/24/news/econo...ndex.htm?hpt=T2 -Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamski Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share #2 Posted February 25, 2011 Here is what I am talking about. The Airbus is in orange..... -Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack's Son Posted February 25, 2011 Share #3 Posted February 25, 2011 Ski, With my limited knowledge of aircraft, I yield to your opinions. What I can comment on is my wholehearted agreement that the Air Force picked an American Company. :bravo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Signor Posted February 25, 2011 Share #4 Posted February 25, 2011 I second the motion that the USAF chose "AMERICAN" Hoooooo AHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Johnny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OD MAN Posted February 25, 2011 Share #5 Posted February 25, 2011 USA USA USA! :w00t: Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Meatcan Posted February 25, 2011 Share #6 Posted February 25, 2011 Teamski, that was a really neat and informative graphic! thanks for posting that :thumbsup: Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101world Posted February 25, 2011 Share #7 Posted February 25, 2011 Teamski, that was a really neat and informative graphic! thanks for posting that :thumbsup: Terry I can only agree that yes I'm glad Boeing won,,perhaps I'm a little biased though because I work on the 787 program! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teufelhunde.ret Posted February 25, 2011 Share #8 Posted February 25, 2011 Let's hope this ridiculous battle w/ EADS & Northrop Grumman which started in 2007 is finally over. Congrat's to Boeing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1ashooter Posted February 25, 2011 Share #9 Posted February 25, 2011 I'm biased. Its going to be really cool to see the new Boeing tanker refuel the almost 50 year old Boeing B52. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamski Posted February 25, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted February 25, 2011 Teamski, that was a really neat and informative graphic! thanks for posting that :thumbsup: Terry Well, as a Maintenance Production Supervisor for 8 years on C-130's, C-5's and C-17s, I know that bigger is not necessarily better. I loved having C-17's on the ramp that could back-up and tuck into spots that a C-5s never could. It was a life saver while being deployed when you are flying a ton of sorties per day. What people don't understand is that for tankers, it is not about how much fuel you can carry, but how many sorties can be flown. Limiting airframes due to lack of parking spaces kill operations. Again, compare the C-17 with the C-5. The C-5 is great for outsized carge, but not every base needs 36 palet positions of cargo. Besides, there are only so many places the larger planes can land at. This is why the KC-10 was given a limited production run. I always hated getting one of those in as they took up way too much space. If it broke, you are in a world of hurt when you can't get the next plane into its spot..... :ermm: -Ski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cco23i Posted February 26, 2011 Share #11 Posted February 26, 2011 You said it Ski! After working 135's for 14 years many of us agreed we didn't want a "scarebus" being our next tanker. Too many "high tech" things to go wrong. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solcarlus Posted February 26, 2011 Share #12 Posted February 26, 2011 Bonjour Oui, but unlike Boeing, Airbus flies solcarlus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gecko NZ Posted February 26, 2011 Share #13 Posted February 26, 2011 im all in favor of people in the front lines getting what they want rather than what people behind desks thousands of miles away think is best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1ashooter Posted February 26, 2011 Share #14 Posted February 26, 2011 Once again I'm biased. Mr Boeing and his people gave SAC the tools to do our job. I only fly airlines who fly Boeing aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve B. Posted February 26, 2011 Share #15 Posted February 26, 2011 I too am glad that Boeing got the contract, but the entire process has a certain unpleasant odor to it what with all the contract awards, cancellations, changes, people going to jail, etc. As long as the aircraft does the job, that's all that matters in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cco23i Posted February 27, 2011 Share #16 Posted February 27, 2011 Bonjour Oui, but unlike Boeing, Airbus flies solcarlus. Well not really and after working on both I like Boeing a LOT better! Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now