Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC46 Questions  
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 6091 times:

Looking at my latest edition of Aviation Week there is a great artists impression of the boom operators control station.


An impressive set up.



Questions:



Is this a remote station set up in the rear of the cockpit ?



There are switches on the panel labelled 'drogue jetisson' is this an intended part of the design, to be able to jetisson the underwing drogues ?




I can see there will be a camera set up to show the boom, will there be cameras covering the underwing drogues ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3755 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 6051 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A picture is worth a thousand words... and here it would really help.

User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2382 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
Is this a remote station set up in the rear of the cockpit ?

Yes, the boom operator will sit up front, and monitor refueling via cameras.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 6022 times:

You will certainly be able to jettison the drogues. Depending on the system, it could have either a guillotine that cuts the hose or a release mechanism that lets the hose pull completely free of the pod.

I don't know the camera field of view, but yes, I can assure you that it will cover the wingtip pods. I believe the FOV is greater than 180º. I'm sure the system is great for night and poor visibility conditions, but something tells me that there are going to be a lot of refueling accidents with this new system. I realize that such systems have been fielded before, but with the number of refuelings the USAF does per day I think that the system will show its dangers.

Give me a window!


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5973 times:

Quoting titanmiller (Reply 3):

I don't know the camera field of view, but yes, I can assure you that it will cover the wingtip pods. I believe the FOV is greater than 180º. I'm sure the system is great for night and poor visibility conditions, but something tells me that there are going to be a lot of refueling accidents with this new system. I realize that such systems have been fielded before, but with the number of refuelings the USAF does per day I think that the system will show its dangers.

Give me a window!

I can see your point, what happens when the video system fails ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 5884 times:

My question is why the KC-46 for a number, since the number basically is C-46 (like a KC-10 is a C-10, and a KC-135 is a C-135 etc) which makes it sound like it is a Curtiss built big twin engine transport that is a mid air refueler. There still are plenty of numbers available that they wouldn't have to recycle the numbers already.

Or are they going to call it the KC-46 Commando II like they call the Raytheon built trainers the T-6 Texan II?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5861 times:

C/KC-46 is the next number in the new MDS sequence. The A-330MRTT would have been called the KC-45, had it been selected, and not the KC-30 RAAF designation.

So the old WWII USAAF airplane designations are being recycled. We already saw this in the new T-6s and the F-35. During the late 1930s and early part of WWII the, then, USAAC flew both the original North American AT/T-6 (also called the and the SNJ by the USN and USMC, and the Harvard by the British Commonwealth nations) Seversky P-35.

I believe the drogue jettison system talked about here is for the centerline drogue, not the WARPs. The WARP would also have a hose/drogue jettison system, one for each WARP, but the pods themselves would not "normally" be jettisoned unless there was a critical performance emergency. That would only be used to reduce the drag of the WARPs themselves on the tanker's performance. The ITAF KC-767As have this system, as does the RAAF KC-30As.

I don't know about the 3D camera/TV systems, yet. But I understand they are as good, if not better than the systems on the A-330MRTT.

Does anyone have a link to the AW&ST artist impression?


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5854 times:

This is the only photo reference I could find, but it's already a couple years old and may not be accurate. The pic is also rather small.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Boeing_KC-767



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3755 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 7):
This is the only photo reference I could find, but it's already a couple years old and may not be accurate. The pic is also rather small.

Thanks, it's enough to help understand the question.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5763 times:

If I can figure a way to show the picture I will !


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5510 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
C/KC-46 is the next number in the new MDS sequence. The A-330MRTT would have been called the KC-45, had it been selected, and not the KC-30 RAAF designation.

So the old WWII USAAF airplane designations are being recycled. We already saw this in the new T-6s and the F-35. During the late 1930s and early part of WWII the, then, USAAC flew both the original North American AT/T-6 (also called the and the SNJ by the USN and USMC, and the Harvard by the British Commonwealth nations) Seversky P-35.

Actually the KC-42 was not assigned. This was supposed to be assigned to the KC-767 tanker conversion of the Boeing 767 leased to the Air Force. But the Air Force decided to use KC-767 instead then the KC-46 for the number.

There are a few other numbers that have not been used since prior to WWII like C-39,C-42, C-44 and lower such as C-34, C-36, which would have been the YAL-1A Airborne Laser number.


User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 7):
This is the only photo reference I could find, but it's already a couple years old and may not be accurate. The pic is also rather small.

That looks like a KC-10 sim. I remember reading an article about this a long time ago so my recall may be inaccurate, but I believe that the man in the picture is a Japanese boom operator going through boom school in the KC-10 so that he (and his classmates) can learn the art of air refueling prior to receiving specialized training in the KC-767. I'm about 95% sure that picture is not of anything having to do with a 767 tanker.

Edit: I found the article: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123030630


Also, I found a big version of that picture: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...r_refuling(061101-O-9999K-001).jpg

Interestingly, you can see the "Hose JTSN" switches for the WARP pods on the upper control panel (red guarded switches).

[Edited 2011-09-26 19:50:57]

User currently offlineandydtwnwa7 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5222 times:

From what I understand, that picture is not representative of what the KC-46 station will look like. Boeing had a full size cockpit and refueling simulator at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium and Technology Exposition last week. The entire station was touch screen for the most part. The Boeing rep said that they made everything touch screen that didn't need a gauge or hard button/trigger/stick. It was very impressive, including the 3-D video displays.

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29813 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5184 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 5):
My question is why the KC-46 for a number,

I know I keep picturing an old Commando with a boom!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dariusz Siusta




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5035 times:

Quoting andydtwnwa7 (Reply 12):
The Boeing rep said that they made everything touch screen

I'm quite skeptical about touch screen interfaces because it seems like it would be extremely difficult or impossible to interact with it by touch or when in turbulence. With a normal control layout with tactile buttons you can make changes or adjustments without even looking at what you are doing. A touch screen requires you to look at the display and accurately touch the correct spot on the screen. A normal button can be touched without pressing it whereas a touch screen may have another function close to the one you intend to activate. A little turbulence could easily cause you to miss the button. A lot of modern LCD displays use LED back-lighting along with pulse width modulation to control the brightness. If the display is set to dim, the LED array behind the screen flickers at a certain frequency to dim the display. This works fine if you are in smooth air, but if you hit turbulence this can cause the screen to become unreadable because you will see each LED pulse as a separate "frame" across your visual field.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that the KC-46s remote operator station is an enormous accident waiting to happen. There are just too many human factors that are being overlooked in this design. Mark my words.


User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5005 times:

Quoting titanmiller (Reply 14):
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think that the KC-46s remote operator station is an enormous accident waiting to happen. There are just too many human factors that are being overlooked in this design. Mark my words.

The remote operator station is nothing new, and the KC-46 is not new in this regard. The A330MRTT uses it, the KC-767s for Japan and Italy use it. There are a number of others as well.

There's a whole team of ergonomics people working on the design to ensure the issues you bring up don't become, well, issues. These are experienced people, along with current Air Force boom operators, who know what they're doing.

I can't give any details that aren't already in the public domain, but what I will say is there is a lot of misinformation out there about the ARO console design, so don't believe everything you read on here about it, because most of it doesn't represent the actual design.


User currently offlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4992 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 15):
The A330MRTT uses it, the KC-767s for Japan and Italy use it.

This is true, but I'm concerned that the USAF will fly so many more sorties that there will be ample time for any inherent flaws to rear their head. I'm all for technology and progress so I'm excited to see this work, but I certainly am less than optimistic about it.

My understanding is that the remote ARO was chosen for the original 767 lease deal so that the frames could be resold more easily if needed. With the lease deal history, why was an actual ARO with a window not considered? It seems cheaper and more reliable. I'm sure that there are additional capabilities such as night refueling where the new system is superior, but have we not accomplished night AR for decades without it?

[Edited 2011-09-28 18:25:48]

User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4985 times:

Quoting titanmiller (Reply 16):
This is true, but I'm concerned that the USAF will fly so many more sorties that there will be ample time for any inherent flaws to rear their head. I'm all for technology and progress so I'm excited to see this work, but I certainly am less than optimistic about it.

It sounds like your concerns really revolve around the video feed, rather than a window. Or am I wrong? I don't see what difference it makes if your boom operator is sitting the the front, middle, or back of the airplane, so this concern must be about the camera reliability? The cameras, as a whole and the ones being used specifically for the airplane are well tested and documented. If something happens and you lose the video feed during a contact, they'd simply break off. Audio communications would not be disrupted. There are backup video systems as well. Lots of redundancy.

I understand hesitations about new technology, it's just that this technology isn't new. I believe even the KC-747s from the 70s had remote ARO consoles.

I'll take a look and see if there's anything more detailed I can share with you about the consoles.

BoeEngr


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4750 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 7):
This is the only photo reference I could find

Not to bump myself, but for those who have access to Aviation Week & Space Technology, there is a two page ad with a large photo of the boom operators station concept in the September 19th issue.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12173 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

Quoting NASCARAirforce (Reply 10):
Actually the KC-42 was not assigned. This was supposed to be assigned to the KC-767 tanker conversion of the Boeing 767 leased to the Air Force. But the Air Force decided to use KC-767 instead then the KC-46 for the number.

There are a few other numbers that have not been used since prior to WWII like C-39,C-42, C-44 and lower such as C-34, C-36, which would have been the YAL-1A Airborne Laser number.

Correct, number in the sequence have been skipped over. I had though the KC-44 MDS would have been used for the KC-46, but it wasn't. Some MDS numbers are assigned to airliners, and some models of those airliners have different MDS numbers, like the B-707 was the C-137, E-3, E-6, E-8, and C-18, the DC-8 was the C-138 and the C-24, B-747-100 was the C-12 (I think), the B-747-200B was both the E-4 and the C-25, the B-747-400 was the C-33, but the B-747-400F/ERF was both the YAL-1 and the C-36 (which was proposed in the early 1990s as an alternitive to the C-17).

Quoting andydtwnwa7 (Reply 12):
The entire station was touch screen for the most part.

I wonder how that is going to work while wearing flight gloves, or in artic/polar regions like EIL where you have to wear heavy winter gloves for pre-flight.

Quoting titanmiller (Reply 16):
I'm sure that there are additional capabilities such as night refueling where the new system is superior, but have we not accomplished night AR for decades without it?

Yes, we did, and I had no problem doing it, even before the flood light was mounted atop the vertical tail.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4679 times:

Quoting titanmiller (Reply 16):
With the lease deal history, why was an actual ARO with a window not considered? It seems cheaper and more reliable.

If the "window" is where I expect it to be, then the window design would not be cheap. You have to consider designing a window at the tail of the aircraft (cutting through structure in the lower lobe) with ergonomic station to allow the operator to stick his/her head up to the window while trying to control a joy stick.

With a camera, you do have the zoom function.   

Ask TopBoom on the ergonomics of operating a boom at the tail station.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
I wonder how that is going to work while wearing flight gloves, or in artic/polar regions like EIL where you have to wear heavy winter gloves for pre-flight.

Just program the buttons to be bigger 

If it's anything like the operation consoles in other program, the touch screen would probably be used to select functions and settings while the actual boom control would probably be still with a joy stick.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4751 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4607 times:

What do you think TopBoom ?



Given the choice between a remote operators station with video feed or the built in station at the rear of the Aircraft what would you prefer ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4300 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
Correct, number in the sequence have been skipped over. I had though the KC-44 MDS would have been used for the KC-46, but it wasn't. Some MDS numbers are assigned to airliners, and some models of those airliners have different MDS numbers, like the B-707 was the C-137, E-3, E-6, E-8, and C-18, the DC-8 was the C-138 and the C-24, B-747-100 was the C-12 (I think), the B-747-200B was both the E-4 and the C-25, the B-747-400 was the C-33, but the B-747-400F/ERF was both the YAL-1 and the C-36 (which was proposed in the early 1990s as an alternitive to the C-17).

There are 3 (sorta) different versions of the C-12, none of them are 747s.

The original was a Detroit-Lockheed Vega pre WWII

Then of course the more familiar C-12 that is flying today as the military version of the Super King Air 200. There is also the C-12J, which is the military version of a Beech 1900C.

of course no C-13 (either era - pre WWII or modern possibly for superstition.)

As for the 747s in the military.

The C-19 is the designation for 747s of the civil aviation reserve fleet used by military.

Of course there is the VC-25 aka Air Force One

The YFC-36A was never really used other than as a prototype for the YAL-1A Airborne Laser - as you said a 747-400.

You are also right about the C-33. It was known as the "Non Developmental Airlift Aircraft" project for a commercial freighter to supplement the C-17. These were 747-400s that were never ordered. Original plan was to reduce amount of C-17s ordered and get some of these 747-400s. Lockheed also at the time proposed a C-5D

The C-24 that the Navy had was the EC-24 used for Navy ECM training - a DC-8.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4215 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):
the B-747-400 was the C-33

More on an Australian study about the C-33 for their operations.

www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf

Thinking fantasy stuff here, but it's interesting to think this could be an interesting platform based on the 747-8F. Particularly with the internal unloading capability. I know, never gonna happen but it's interesting to think about this as a "super tanker" possibility.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4125 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 23):
Thinking fantasy stuff here, but it's interesting to think this could be an interesting platform based on the 747-8F. Particularly with the internal unloading capability. I know, never gonna happen but it's interesting to think about this as a "super tanker" possibility.

Actually surprised Boeing didn't jump in the mix with the 747-8F for a KC-10 replacement.


25 KC135TopBoom : The KC-10 isn't scheduled for replacement until the KC-Y program. I prefer the idea of a Boom Pod in the aft end of the cargo compartment. It is far
26 Max Q : Good point, how long can you lie prone and operate the boom on the KC135 effectively ?
27 KC135TopBoom : I have been in the KC-135 refueling pod for up to 3 hours during training missions for C-5 initial qualifications from LTS. My neck would a little sor
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC46 Questions
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Space Shuttle Engine Power Questions posted Fri Jun 24 2011 20:58:18 by Thrust
Presidential Plane Questions posted Fri Apr 8 2011 22:30:12 by MCOflyer
Questions About the C-135 posted Sat Mar 26 2011 07:56:01 by Chamonix
Stewart Angb C-17 Questions. posted Mon Feb 21 2011 16:23:39 by CX747
US Aircraft Carrier Questions posted Thu Sep 10 2009 07:01:49 by NA
Questions On Carrier Air Wings posted Mon Aug 3 2009 04:11:47 by NoUFO
A Few Questions About Variable-incidence Wings posted Sun Jul 26 2009 19:22:33 by Garnetpalmetto
F-105 Questions posted Tue Jul 21 2009 17:58:16 by Blackbird
Some Life-Cycle Questions On USN Aircraft posted Sat Apr 25 2009 02:02:07 by Loran
Space Shuttle Piggyback Questions posted Sat Jan 10 2009 16:51:33 by AC_B777

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format