Clark Griswold Posted January 5 Author Share Posted January 5 Needs to happen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff_T Posted January 9 Share Posted January 9 On 1/5/2024 at 1:06 PM, Clark Griswold said: Needs to happen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Gotta get rid of that probe though! Put a receptacle on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 3 Author Share Posted March 3 777 tanker... CaptainSim 777-200 - USAF (KC-46 livery) [Fictional] for Microsoft Flight Simulator | MSFS Shoulda happened but here we are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff_T Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 23 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: 777 tanker... CaptainSim 777-200 - USAF (KC-46 livery) [Fictional] for Microsoft Flight Simulator | MSFS Shoulda happened but here we are... Should have kept the 10 around. They were in a rush to dump a useful aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted March 4 Author Share Posted March 4 Should have kept the 10 around. They were in a rush to dump a useful aircraft. True, a complimenting acquisition with the 46 and 777 tankers using same technology for mil systems (boom, defensive, comms, cargo handling, etc…) would have been my pitch way back in the dayOf course this assumes they would have not fudged up the 46 and would have spun down the 135 also, a fleet of new tanker ironSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RegularJoe Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 On 3/4/2024 at 9:35 AM, Clark Griswold said: True, a complimenting acquisition with the 46 and 777 tankers using same technology for mil systems (boom, defensive, comms, cargo handling, etc…) would have been my pitch way back in the day Of course this assumes they would have not fudged up the 46 and would have spun down the 135 also, a fleet of new tanker iron Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The way I heard it from Boeing when I was at Boeing was they originally submitted the 777-200 cargo for the original RFP but the USAF declined it saying it wouldn't fit in existing hanger, changed the rfp to require the same footprint and let the A300/767 battle begin. The 777-200 apparently crushed every requirement of the original RFP for fuel capacity, cargo capacity and troop transport. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SurelySerious Posted March 6 Share Posted March 6 The way I heard it from Boeing when I was at Boeing was they originally submitted the 777-200 cargo for the original RFP but the USAF declined it saying it wouldn't fit in existing hanger, changed the rfp to require the same footprint and let the A300/767 battle begin. The 777-200 apparently crushed every requirement of the original RFP for fuel capacity, cargo capacity and troop transport.It doesn’t surprise me that the DOD would shoot itself in the foot with requirements. 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