If a KC-10 is really a DC-10 with a big gas tank, Could the Air Force just buy some old DC-10s and put the?

Question

tank from a KC-10 in them?

My guess is no, that would save money, so the Air Force won't do it?

Answer 1

I use to build both the DC-10 and the KC-10. Both were build on the same assembly jigs, same assembly line, etc. There were basically just some configuration differences between the two.

A DC-10 PROBABLY could be re configured, but for how much? Time to send in the pencil pushers.

The problem is, the USAF wants to replace 50 year old refuelers, the last DC-10 was rolled off in the 80's. That means any reconfigured plane is at least 20 years old.

When Boeing bought out McDonnell Douglas in 1997, one of the first things they did was tear out the tooling for the MD-11 (an updated DC-10), because it competed with their 747. In fact, Lufthansa talked about suing, because they weren't allowed to exercise options they had to purchase more.

Answer 2

Sure they could; but bear in mind that the last DC-10s are over 25 years old, and only about 300 were built.  MD-11 (increased weight DC-10) went out of production within the last ten years, but only around 170 were built, and they have been getting converted to freighters at a high rate.  So, there just aren't that many low time airframes around to convert to tankers.

The UK was considering using ex-BA 767s similarly.  Problem is, modified (as opposed to purpose built) airplanes have pretty severe payload and capability limitations, so the fleet would have to be bigger- so not as big a cost savings as you think, with acquisition and conversion costs + operating costs of a larger fleet.

The KC-10 has more than just the gas tanks- it is re-fuelable and has the boom and other equipment plus a freighter floor.  That is a BIG mod for a a used passenger airplane.

Answer 3

Airplanes have a service life and after a certain number of hours they are sent to the bone yard.  Until they get to that point they are used as freighters or for whatever use can be made of them.  British Airways was one of the launch customers for the L1011 Tri-Star.  When their service life as a passenger jets ended the British government bought them and converted them to air tankers for the Royal Air Force.

The KC-10 based on the DC-10 is showing their age.  Tri-jets cost more to service and to operate.  All airliners regardless of condition reach a point where keeping them flying becomes uneconomical. The FAA requires certain upgrades that may prove to expensive to implement.  What might seem like a simple idea like yours might prove in the long run to cost more than buying a new fleet of tankers rather than convert older types  which won't last as long.

.

.

Answer 4

Easy now !!! The weight of the fuel cell bladder is a problem--the planes for refueler duty have a different structure for extra support---under all that exterior skin it is quite different.. Fuel is 9 pounds per gallon--times however many gallons on board--plus the wing tanks for normal flight of the aircraft---the regualr equipment and the specialty stuff. Not your average plane configuration. The KC 97 and the newer KC 135 version from the old 707s was quite different also.

Answer 5

sorry chum, fuel weighs between 6-7 pounds depending a lot on temperature (per gallon)

Answer 6

OK here's the real deal on this new tanker issue. The KC-10 tankers are getting old and past their prime, so is the kc-135 fleet, of which most have been re-engined in recent years to keep them flying.  I guess the Air Force seems to think the Airbus 380 is the best platform for a new  tanker fleet and have already looked into modifying and outfitting one to serve in that capacity. Jet fuel (particularly jp-4) can be heavy and at 72 Deg.F can weigh in around 6.8 to 7.6 lbs per gallon.  The Airbus 380 seems to have a heavy and stable structure enough to carry the higher fuel loads in both belly and wing tanks.(Max fuel load on a KC10 is 350,000lbs or about 55,000gals) Thats another reason the airbus was picked!

Answer 7

Well were not replacing the KC-10's so why ask the question??  Our KC-10's have WAY less hours on them than thier commercial counterparts so why would we even want to do that if we could?  I think not.

FYI...the new tanker is the primary replacement for our KC-135 fleet.

Answer 8

The dc-10 is a maintenance nightmare . When it comes to a bladder not leaking good luck. If you  look at the fact do you want you forces to have a reliable aircraft to protect you. Then the aircraft is well over due for being replaced. Would you want to drive a 1974 chevy impala into battle or a 2008 into battle? See the point.

Answer 9

KC-10 Extenders were specially designed for use as refueling tankers. The KC-10 has seen better days, and safety is a concern because jet fuel is highly flammable. Also over time, maintaining KC-10's (and DC-10/MD-11's) gets expensive..which in the end costs John and Jane Doe Taxpayer more.

Answer 10

Yes, and they sure as h**l wont wait for the 787 which will be about 20% more efficient, which would save $200 million per aircraft over the life of the aircraft.

This is not the first time this happened. The F-22 program was awarded a contract over the F-23 back in 1991, and its still not operational. The F-23 was very close to operational, but the F-22 was trumped up to look like it was so much better, and its taken over 15 years to get all the stuff working that they claimed it would do.