Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery  
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11874 posts, RR: 33
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Employees in Wichita recently began production on the first Boeing KC-46 Tanker parts, destined to be integrated into the forward fuselage section of the aircraft. Pictured below is a Spirit Wichita employee working on a lower lobe side panel.

Here are some interesting numbers: there are 179 KC-46 Tankers and about 50 other 767 aircraft in backlog. With a production rate of 2 frames per month, the 767 line will be open for the next 10 years.




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
300 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4120 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

It will be good seeing these here in New Hampshire in several years' time.

User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1920 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I thought these were gonna be assembled at Tinker

User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4335 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
there are 179 KC-46 Tankers and about 50 other 767 aircraft in backlog. With a production rate of 2 frames per month, the 767 line will be open for the next 10 years.

That's assuming no more orders come in.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I think the assembly is going to be the same as with all other 767s: First at vendors (what you see here) then in Washington. I thought Tinker is where they make it into an actual tanker (Boom, specialized equip, etc.).


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Assembly of the 767-2C is in Everett, and the refueling equipment/military equipment will be installed at Boeing Field in Seattle.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Boeing agreed to close the Boeing-Wichita Modification Center and move the tanker modification work to the Puget Sound as part of their latest contract with the IAM.

Global Transport & Executive Systems is moving from Wichita to Tinker and Tinker is also handling the B-52 upgrades.

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/bo...-closing-Wichita-plant-2440784.php
http://www.newson6.com/story/2218955...52-planes-at-tinker-air-force-base


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 1):
It will be good seeing these here in New Hampshire in several years' time.

Yeap, the NHANG at PSM is thought to be one of the first units to get the KC-46A. Their current KC-135Rs will be sent to other units.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 2):
I thought these were gonna be assembled at Tinker

No, TIK has been announced as the depot for the KC-46A.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Employees in Wichita recently began production on the first Boeing KC-46 Tanker parts, destined to be integrated into the forward fuselage section of the aircraft.

Yes, Spirit is one of the sub-contractors for the KC-46A.

Quoting KarelXWB (Thread starter):
Here are some interesting numbers: there are 179 KC-46 Tankers and about 50 other 767 aircraft in backlog. With a production rate of 2 frames per month, the 767 line will be open for the next 10 years.

The current USAF plan is to buy the KC-46 at a rate of 15 per year.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 3):
That's assuming no more orders come in

There are active campaigns to sell the KC-46A internationally, which I believe will happen as KC-46As are delivered to the Air Force. If this program is executed anywhere near as efficiently as the P-8 Poseidon program, follow on orders shouldn't be a problem at all.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2137 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 8):
If this program is executed anywhere near as efficiently as the P-8 Poseidon program, follow on orders shouldn't be a problem at all.

Yes and no. The P-8 does not have a real competitor. The KC-46 does. And as been discussed previously, foreign air forces may have different requirements that may drive them to a larger A330.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 9):
Yes and no. The P-8 does not have a real competitor. The KC-46 does. And as been discussed previously, foreign air forces may have different requirements that may drive them to a larger A330

Or the "smaller" KC-46.

I personally believe that this aircraft will sell itself. The Italian KC-767 are carrying a substantial load with regard to intra-European aerial refueling duties and responsibility.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 9):
The P-8 does not have a real competitor

Lockheed Martin has proposed new build P-3s both to the U.S. Navy as well as international customers.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe the KC-46A has a decent shot at securing foreign orders now that it's going to be in significant production thanks tot he USAF buy (especially if it's chosen to replace other USAF 707-based platforms).

Of the current KC-135 operators, France have already committed to the A330MRTT, but I think Turkey and Chile could be KC-46A customers (Turkey is a customer for the Boeing 737 AEW&C) and maybe even Singapore.

Israel is a pretty safe choice as well, I would think, to replace their 707 tankers with the KC-46.


User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1076 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Or used 767s tanker converted by Israeli companies.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31062 posts, RR: 87
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 12):
Or used 767s tanker converted by Israeli companies

Ah yes, forgot about the one IAI is doing for Columbia. So yes, an IAI KC-767 makes sense.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Israel is a pretty safe choice as well, I would think, to replace their 707 tankers with the KC-46.

Israel is getting KC-135Rs from the USAF. They won't need the KC-46A, at least for a while. 20 years down the road it may be something else if those IDF KC-135s need replacing.

Those countries that buy the F-35A and/or F-15SE may consider the KC-46 tanker. The ROKAF is making their choice now about buying either of these airplanes, but they are not needed for defensive or offensive against North Korea. They will need them against any aggression by Russia, China, or Japan. Since the F-35A has a combat radius of less than 600 nm, and the F-15SE a range of 800 nm, a tanker will be needed for these projection missions.

Boeing now has two KC-46 Booms in production, as seen in this video;

http://www.boeing.com/Features/2012/11/bds_kc46a_11_19_12.html

Here are pictures of Boom #1 in assembly in the gig;

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=36&item=2141

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=36&item=2142

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=13&cat=36&item=2143


User currently offlinecargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Ah yes, forgot about the one IAI is doing for Columbia. So yes, an IAI KC-767 makes sense.

I don't think the IAI 767 has a boom option, only wing pods. IDF needs a boom for its F-15s and F-16s.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):
Israel is getting KC-135Rs from the USAF.

Any more info out there on this? How many KC-135s? When are they being delivered? I read somewhere it was R models, so which US base has to cough up a few of their R models for the IDF? How much did they cost or was it a freebie? I haven't found much about this.


User currently offlinecolumba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 7073 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 10):
Lockheed Martin has proposed new build P-3s both to the U.S. Navy as well as international customers.

Yes but the P3 even new build would be real competitor for the P8, too small and too old of a design.



It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 14):Israel is getting KC-135Rs from the USAF.
Any more info out there on this? How many KC-135s? When are they being delivered? I read somewhere it was R models, so which US base has to cough up a few of their R models for the IDF? How much did they cost or was it a freebie? I haven't found much about this.

Have not heard much more about this. It is thought 3 KC-135Rs will go to the IDF, but it could be as many as 5-6. I don't know who would loose any KC-135s, but I am thinking these tankers will be transferred as they come out of the TIK depot, with Israeli roundels. They may also have Israeli specific modifications for some avionics, and possibly a defense system (which the KC-135s do not have now). Israel may also want receptacles installed to take on fuel from the IDF KC-707s.

I am just guessing at all of this. As you know, Israeli weapons systems capabilities are not made public.

I do not know when the IDF aircrews will enter type training at LTS, but my guess is about 6 months before the first KC-135 is delivered.

My guess is the costs will be covered by the US, as is most of the Israeli weapon systems.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1075 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:

KC-46 on the way!

http://seattletimes.com/html/busines...gy/2021276435_boeingtankerxml.html

"Boeing workers in Everett have begun assembly of the first aerial refueling tanker under the big Air Force contract to supply 179 planes."

[Edited 2013-06-26 19:22:19]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4557 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

When is first flight planned ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 1076 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 15):

I don't think the IAI 767 has a boom option, only wing pods. IDF needs a boom for its F-15s and F-16s.

Boom option is coming for the 767 MMTT

http://defense-update.com/20120216_i...o-carry-boom-refueling-system.html


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3577 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's some news that does not require a subscription
http://skiesmag.com/news/articles/19...-first-kc-46a-tanker-aircraft.html

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=2726

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...kc-46-tanker-certification-process


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11874 posts, RR: 33
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

On July 26, 2013, Spirit AeroSystems celebrated completion of the first forward fuselage section, Section 41, destined for integration into the Boeing KC-46A tanker.




Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Thanks for sharing Karel!!


336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 11874 posts, RR: 33
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The first KC-46A tanker forward fuselage section was loaded into place on the final assembly line.

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2013/08/cheers_to_that.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
25 SPREE34 : A better, and more effcient frame for the mission. Eh,.....the 737 has been in production how long? C-130? Yes, both modernized, as would be a curren
26 Post contains links KarelXWB : The second tanker is in final assembly. http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft
27 TWAL1011727 : A Tinker - Tanker ? KD
28 Post contains images Revelation : LOL - good one!
29 kanban : Totally and completely wrong.. They only loaded the material for the second set of wing spars.. The Wichita components have not arrived for the first
30 Post contains links KarelXWB : Rumor from the factory floor: the first 767 tanker should roll out in 50 days. http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/383275762851123200
31 KC135TopBoom : Neither the first or second KC-46 have begun "final assembly". They have just begun assembly. The first KC-46A will fly initially as a B-767-2C in 201
32 KarelXWB : Very clear, thank you.
33 cfmitch56 : TopBoom, thanks for the explanation of the production sequence. Any idea what the first year of tail numbers will be? FY13? Also wondering what the of
34 KC135TopBoom : I believe the 4 SDD tankers will all have 2014 tail numbers, even though they were funded back in 2012. This is because they will initially be civilia
35 Stitch : Boeing's latest price list added a 767-2CFX so it stands to reason should a civilian order the type, it will be 767-2CF or 767-2CXXF (where XX is the
36 cfmitch56 : Anyone know if the KC-46 program has a customer code assigned to it? The C-32's are all second hand, and the P-8 and YAL-1 had their own program-speci
37 bikerthai : If I understand your question correctly, the customer code that Boeing Commercial Airplane assigns to these KC-46 would be similar to the ones assign
38 KC135TopBoom : The four C-32As (B-757-2G4ER) were all new builds for the USAF. The C-32Bs were bought as used aircraft. The C-32A has PW-2040 engines and the C-32B
39 infiniti329 : USAF KC-135s can recive fuel via boom
40 Post contains links Revelation : A few milestones: 8/23 - 2nd frame begins assembly - http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft 9/6 - Final design froz
41 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : An update on the program: 1st KC-46 tanker program test aircraft in final body join by The Boeing Company, on Flickr
42 KC135TopBoom : Wow, she's starting to take shape and looking like a real airplane, thanks KarelXWB.
43 checksixx : No, they can't.
44 Post contains links dlednicer : You might want to check out this discussion: Rivet Joints For RAF (by Devilfish Mar 22 2010 in Military Aviation & Space Flight) To save you the
45 checksixx : I'm aware of the previous discussions you mentioned...a small number compared to the fleet and the statement they can receive fuel via boom is NOT a c
46 KC135TopBoom : As I said in the Rivet Joint thread, it is an emergency procedure. It is an accepted practice, in fact how to do it is in the flight manual.
47 Post contains links Aviaponcho : Hello I was wondering if the KC46 fuse was indeed longer than 767-200 Based on that http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/def.../pdf/kc46a_tanker_backgroun
48 Stitch : The 767-2C / KC-46A is 165 ft 6 in (50.5 m) and the 767-200 is 159 ft 2 in (48.5 m). I don't see an overall length in the IAI Freighter document, so
49 Post contains links aviaponcho : Tailboom can increase the so called lenght maybe http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/bds/globaltanker/files/KC767A.pdf KC767 is 19 pallet on main deck a
50 KC135TopBoom : The length of the KC-46A is for the fuselage only. It does not include the air refueling boom in the stowed position. The KC-46A is 6.5' longer than
51 aviaponcho : All right you seems to be 100% sure Thanks 767-2C can stand for 767-200 convertible also (but...)
52 LPSHobby : wow, good to know that the 767 program will survive for at least 10 more years !!!!
53 Post contains links and images 747classic : Some propulsion parts for the first KC-46 at Spirit Aerosystems, December 10. Original uploaded by Spirit Aerosystems, see : http://www.flickr.com/pho
54 Post contains images bikerthai : Other than the gray paint, the design still hasn't changed much since I saw it last, some 20 odd years ago . . . right down to the red silicone spray
55 747classic : I know, but it's only for the record. I would have preferred another pylon with a more modern engine, but we better leave that to the politicians....
56 KC135TopBoom : No, the Boeing designation for the B-767-200 is a separate designation from the B-767-2. Boeing never build a B-767-200C. They only had the -200, -20
57 Viscount724 : I'm obviously wrong, but I was under the impression that aircraft intended for military purposes didn't need FAA certification. Why is this necessary
58 bikerthai : Being FAA certified just saves the USAF from performing the certification themselves (saves money) as the system that Boeing uses to certify a commer
59 Post contains links KarelXWB : Boeing Starts Assembly of Final KC-46A Test Aircraft: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-S...mbly-of-Final-KC-46A-Test-Aircraft
60 KC135TopBoom : The B-52 and KC-135 never received an FAA Certification, they didn't need one. The first US Military aircraft to get an FAA Certification was the C-1
61 infiniti329 : If the USAF decides later that they want winglets on these birds will the wings ready to accept them or would modification be needed?
62 KC135TopBoom : The wings are already strengthened to carry the WARPs, so they should accommodate winglets of whatever type are available then. Of course the USAF co
63 LPSHobby : Brazil will buy new tankers, they can be KC-46, A330s or old converted 767s, they are still to decide
64 Stitch : Are these in addition to the two 767-300ER tanker conversions they ordered in March 2013 from IAI?
65 KC135TopBoom : No, I think it is the same order, but I thought it was 4 aircraft.
66 LPSHobby : in truth, this order is not decided yet, there are of Brazilian Air Force buying A330 for tankers and 1 for VIP transport
67 Post contains links KarelXWB : The KC-46 tanker program is expected to see operational testing slip by at least 6 to 12 months, according to a U.S. Defense Department report due to
68 KC135TopBoom : All four SDD aircraft are now in various stages of assembly. Both Boeing and the Air Force say the KC-46A program is still on schedule, but that was
69 Stitch : The gist I get from the article is not that the KC-46 airframes will be late, but that the USAF and Boeing will not be in a position to start operatio
70 Post contains links mffoda : The Lexington Institute (Dr. Goure) has a piece explaining some production philosophy differences between different agencies like the DOT&E and AT
71 Post contains links buckeyetech : The KC-46 officially has a name now. http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...ntroducing-the-KC-46A-Pegasus.aspx
72 Revelation : Interesting! The article goes on to say: Good luck with that, Gen. Walsh. I know he's just toting the party line, but still, it's amazing to ask for
73 SSTeve : Say 179 are delivered... why couldn't they fly every mission currently flown by the existing tanker fleet? I get the feeling the utilization of the ex
74 moose135 : The real name will be whatever the crew dogs end up calling it. I don't imagine many will call it Pegasus... Because the incremental cost of more KC-
75 infiniti329 : I think this is just a start off order. There are currently 415 KC-135s in the USAF's inventory. To include the guard and reserve. The KC-46 will car
76 kanban : Except the Air Force isn't like a commercial carrier so utilization will remain "as required" which may be no more than today or even less.
77 Revelation : Right, but the esteemed General is talking about adding two new systems, KC-Y and KC-Z, while other parts of his organization are grumbling they can'
78 11Bravo : The esteemed General my have to settle for the following two programs: KC-Y : 100 additional KC-46 KC-Z : 50 additional KC-46
79 milestones787 : Are there any pictures of a completed plane having rolled out of Everett? How many have been rolled out? I haven't seen anything yet, but I have to as
80 Post contains links Stitch : Evidently by "start" they mean they are doing build-up of sub-assemblies. The wings, tail and wing-body join are done in Building 40-33, adjacent to
81 milestones787 : Great, thanks for the info Stitch!
82 bikerthai : For what's it's worth, a photo in Boeing News Now shows the first frame in the FA bay with it's nose about 30 ft in front of the hangar door. Engines
83 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Feature...ca_tanker_milestones_02_19_14.page http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/kc46a/kc46a.html
84 bikerthai : From the second video, there's a couple of lines (looks like rails) under the front fuselage after the front gear. Anyone knows what the purpose? bt
85 Post contains links and images moose135 : Those are Pilot Director Lights - they help guide the receiver pilot while connected to the boom. The KC-135 and KC-10 have them as well. You can see
86 Revelation : Hooray! It was a 'hat and t-shirt' day for the 767 team!
87 Post contains links kanban : Numbers 1 and 2 have completed FAL #1 is back getting test instrumentation, #2 moved to the mod center.. Pictures here http://paineairport.com/kpae102
88 Post contains links KarelXWB : I think you posted the wrong link, more pictures can be found here: http://kpae.blogspot.com/2014/03/paine-field-march-17.html
89 747classic : Are the assigned line numbers for the first four 767-2C's 1065,66,67 and 1068 ? Are the Boeing serial numbers already known ?[Edited 2014-03-18 03:43:
90 milestones787 : I don't know if this question has already been asked, but will the KC-46 be getting any winglet device to increase range?
91 KC135TopBoom : There are no current plans for blended winglets for the KC-46A. But later versions could have them, or even raked wingtips. It appears that is what h
92 kanban : Back during the original "lease" proposal, Boeing reserved 100 shipsets of winglets, however since then a lot has changed.
93 milestones787 : Wouldn't it be in the best interest of the USAF to put winglets on these planes since they will be in service for a very long time and the cost saving
94 Stitch : There may be some issues with interference with onboard sensors or wake vortex issues with receiving aircraft or trailing aircraft waiting to hook-up
95 nomadd22 : A lot of that depends on the speed and altitude of the missions. I never have seen a typical mission profile for these. But, if they spend most of th
96 Post contains links Revelation : Yes. The straight forward answer is: Ref: http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...-wont-have-winglets-aviation-week/ Keep in mind Boeing was under ext
97 KC135TopBoom : Well, the P-8A mission is often low and slow looking for submarines. Tankers, OTOH spend most of their time high and fast. There are exceptions for b
98 infiniti329 : What about if its just hauling cargo?
99 Revelation : This falls into the "missions were not of sufficient duration" clause of #96 above. Sure, the winglets will save fuel, but these a/c do not fly anywh
100 Post contains links KarelXWB : Boeing tanker program seen $1 billion over budget: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...oeing-tanker-idUSBREA2K1UA20140321
101 Post contains images Stitch : Frankly, kudos to Boeing for keeping it so low considering the amount most military programs bust their budgets.
102 ThePointblank : Frankly, we are looking at a COTS solution being adapted to the military, coupled with components that are Mil-COTS. We aren't building something fro
103 KC135TopBoom : The KC-46 will fly about 1000 hours per year, per airplane, slightly more than the KC-135s and KC-10s fly today.
104 redflyer : Sorry, but it's not a commercial product with just a long, hard appendage attached to the bottom of the stern. Many major components, including the c
105 Max Q : I agree, and their determination to make this the superb tanker it promises to be is inspiring, But this is typical Boeing, without a doubt the best
106 KC135Hydraulics : I sure hope that I get a chance to work on this aircraft some day. I'm ready for a change.
107 infiniti329 : What is causing the cost overrun? Was is caused by their low bid?
108 bikerthai : The cockpit structure is still commercial. Most of the systems that fly the airplane are still commercial. There may be some systems that are specifi
109 nomadd22 : Their bid was a tad optimistic. But it's not all overrun. They're spending a billion more than scheduled for development, but the program chiefs say
110 infiniti329 : nomadd22, Thanks for the explanation What are Boeing's projections for the USAF past their initial 179 plane order? Im very skeptical that it would b
111 andydtwnwa7 : Apologize if this has already been covered-after doing a web search and scan over previous threads, I didn't see a definitive answer (not claiming per
112 infiniti329 : I baffles me why some aircraft are only built with one
113 Post contains links KarelXWB : The second KC-46A tanker was moved out of the EMC. http://paineairport.com/kpae10272.htm
114 KC135TopBoom : The KC-Y and KC-Z programs are planned. KC-Y will replace the KC-10s, and KC-Z the rest of the KC-135s
115 PC12Fan : Curious, I see the forward cargo door is the standard size and not the larger like that's on the -300F series.
116 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Here's a better picture of the second tanker by Bernie Leighton: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernieleighton/13675584755/
117 infiniti329 : Why have two different procurement programs to replace one aircraft? She looks so small
118 Max Q : Guessing that's because the cargo hold will mostly be filled with auxiliary fuel tanks. No need for a larger door to load pallets /containers. It doe
119 Post contains links and images 747classic : Close up of the banner of the second KC46 ( 767-2C, L/N1066), KPAE flight line, 4-7-2014 Original uploaded by Moonm, see : http://www.flickr.com/photo
120 Post contains links KarelXWB : Here's another shot: http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13753048724/
121 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Thanks KarelXWB. Is it just the light conditions, or is the KC-46 going to debut a new combat livery for the USAF? The rudder, which is already paint
122 Post contains links mffoda : "Defense News" website has new GAO report update on the KC-46A. "WASHINGTON — The projected price tag for the new Boeing KC-46 tanker has fallen $1.
123 KC135TopBoom : That's great news for the USAF/Boeing KC-46 program. It is beginning to look as good as the USN/Boeing P-8A program.
124 Post contains images kanban : To cut costs, they are selling banner style advertising on the sides and belly..
125 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : http://cmsimg.defensenews.com/apps/p...Projection-Drops-1-8M-Per-Aircraft Seems something new is on the wingtips, unless I missed something. I know th
126 Post contains images bikerthai : Seems to me it looks like a dark gray similar to the C-17 livery. I say dark gray, 'cause the 707 gray is almost white bt
127 Post contains links KarelXWB : Here's a better shot in full daylight: http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13792893024/
128 nomadd22 : Something to do with wingtip inertia sensing?
129 Max Q : What do you think TopBoom, is my guess correct ?!
130 KC135TopBoom : Thanks That would be my guess also. The body tanks are bladder tanks that need servicing every now and then. The access panes on the bottom of the KC
131 Max Q : Thanks for the info TBoom, best wishes.
132 Post contains links and images 747classic : The third KC46 (767-2C, L/N1067) emerged from the assembly line (building 40-32) and was towed to the fueldock. KPAE, April14 2014 Original uploaded b
133 Max Q : Anyone know if the auxiliary fuel tanks are installed already on the production line or do these mods come later ?
134 bikerthai : For P-8A they had the tanks in first. Then they have to take 'em out for the mission installation phase. From a manufacturing stand point, it doesn't
135 Stitch : I would guess cargo hold fuel tanks would not be standard equipment, or perhaps even on option, on the civilian 767-2C cargo airframe, so that could
136 Post contains links 747classic : The aux tanks will be certified during the 767-2C amended type certification and conseq. must be installed at the assembly line. See the speech of Ma
137 kanban : I suspect the absence of wing tips on roll out is related to the plane exiting the rear of the FAL and being towed down a narrow alley.. we may or may
138 bikerthai : Or . . . the wing tip contains mission system gear that gets installed at the Military Flight Center. The only comparable thing I can think is the 73
139 Revelation : Because there are so many KC-135s being replaced. Also I believe we can presume it is two types of aircraft: KC-135E and KC-135R, because they have d
140 KC135TopBoom : The KC-767A and J models do not have body fuel tanks. They carry a lot less fuel than the KC-46 will carry, and both have a lower MTOW. The KC-767A/J
141 Max Q : That's a lot of fuel in a very compact and agile Aircraft, in my opinion I don't think you could have found a better airframe for the job. Even the -
142 135mech : Hey guys! I love that they are doing this modified 762, it's proven over and over again how awesome and capable the airframe is and has been! Funny t
143 Max Q : I think thats true but it has only two very efficient engines burning that fuel load rather than four ancient ones !
144 135mech : VERY TRUE! LOL AND they have a combined 40K + thrust! I do miss my old girls tho...they were awesome and insanely reliable for such old birds! 135Mec
145 Max Q : No question the old Pratt & Whitneys are great engines, incidentally the two engines on the KC46 will have over 120K of combined thrust !
146 Post contains images moose135 : We were Gods - we made water burn!
147 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Another picture: Around KPAE 4-18-14 by moonm, on Flickr
148 135mech : Oh yes, they are almost 130K... was just posting that the significance of the added thrust, and hopeful fuel savings of the more power and ability to
149 Max Q : Likewise, best wishes !
150 Kc135hydraulics : Still keeping my fingers crossed I will get to work on this aircraft some day. Until then, I'll keep trudging along on my beloved 135s... sigh.
151 KC135TopBoom : McConnell and Pease are the first two bases to get them.
152 Kc135hydraulics : Yes I'm well aware. I think it's a crying shame that Pease is getting them. I am scratching my head on that one.
153 135mech : Ha, I agree with ya...sadly THIS was politics at it's BEST! It's a decent place, but was so drawn down after sending it Guard only for so many years,
154 Galaxy5007 : E models haven't been flown for 4 years...they are replacing the R/T models. I have a feeling they are just going to do a follow on order on this pro
155 Post contains links Revelation : Thanks, I didn't know that. http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...le/104524/kc-135-stratotanker.aspx spells things out a bit. Retirement was in 2009
156 TWA772LR : Why didn't Boeing propose the 767-300ER as the KC-46? Or even the 400ER? Those are more capable aircraft than the 767-200ER.
157 larshjort : It's not based on the 767-200ER, It is a 767-2C which slots in between the -200 and -300 in length. I suspect a -300ER and a -400ER is hauling too mu
158 Post contains links and images queb : Check this picture from the GAO (april 2014). It's the same fuselage than the 767-200ER. http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662448.pdf
159 Post contains links larshjort : See post 48-50 above. Here is a PDF form Boeing.com where lenght is 165' 6" which equals 50,44m. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/def.../pdf/kc46a_ta
160 Post contains links and images ChaosTheory : That slide doesn't give us the specific lengths. If one delves a little deeper and does a little research he would find the following: http://www.boe
161 queb : the 6 extra feet come from the fuel boom. Like the GAO said (and the data come from Boeing), the 767-2C is a 767-200ER with tanker provisions, new coc
162 queb : and the 767-2C is an amended type certificate (ATC) not a supplemental type certificate (STC), which means only minor changes.
163 Stitch : I've seen media reports that state the 50.44m length does not include the boom. The image in Reply 160 also has the "length line" falling between the
164 kanban : Simply, Boeing designed and sized the plane to conform with the mission specifics in the RFP. to do other wise would have been a waste and possibly l
165 KC135TopBoom : Pease is getting them because McConnell is getting them. One active duty squadron from McConnell, the 69th AREFS, I believe is located at Pease ANGB.
166 queb : The STC is for the KC-46, not the 767-2C.
167 PC12Fan : Dumb question, but aren't these basically the same aircraft?
168 queb : No, the -2C is the civil variant while the KC-46 is the military tanker.
169 PC12Fan : I should have been clearer. It's basically the same platform is what I meant.
170 Post contains links and images queb : The same platform but not the same certification, see this picture of modification steps from the GAO : 767-200ER --> 767-2C (ATC) --> KC-46 (S
171 747classic : The 767-2C variant (increased length (6 ft), higher operating weights , changed cockpit) will be certified first as a variant of the 767-200 by the FA
172 KC135TopBoom : LIRP is scheduled to begin in mid to late 2015 for 6 KC-46s, then in 2016 full production of 12 aircraft will begin and all delivered by late 2017. Th
173 Kc135hydraulics : I heard that the KC-46 will feature an updated KC-10 boom. Are there any details about any such updates to the KC-10 boom?
174 bikerthai : The different certification, as noted above, relates to the military aspect of the flight envelop. With the tail boom and the drogue pods, the flight
175 KC135TopBoom : Correct, it will a second generation of the KC-10 Boom. All I know is, like the current KC-10 Boom it will have a 1200 gpm and is FBW.
176 milestones787 : Any idea when the 4th KC-46 will roll off the assembly line?
177 Max Q : That's quite something, by my calculations that's 8040 pounds per minute ! How many receivers can accept this rate of transfer ? Correct me if i'm wr
178 ThePointblank : Only large aircraft, like the C-17, B-1, B-52, etc can handle the higher rates of transfer. Fighter aircraft can accept fuel at 1,000 to 3,000 lbs pe
179 infiniti329 : Any video out there showing how fast a boom transfers fuel? (where you see the fuel or substitute)
180 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : One of the tankers is now parked on the flightline. Around KPAE 5-12-14 by moonm, on Flickr
181 Post contains links 747classic : I search this whole thread but the following "Boeing Frontier " article about the KC46A, containing interesting pictures, has never been mentioned in
182 Post contains links KarelXWB : To date seven PW4000 engines for the KC-46A have been delivered to Boeing. http://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/468735818623111168
183 infiniti329 : when the kc-46 is carrying cargo will a loadmaster be necessary?
184 NBGSkyGod : I believe that is an Air Force requirement (could be wrong).
185 Post contains links 747classic : According Matt Cawby's Paine Airport twitter blog the next (fourth) KC-46A has been rolled out from the assembly line. This must be L/N1068. See : htt
186 zanl188 : Boom operator will probably handle loadmaster duties as on the KC-10.
187 NBGSkyGod : I thought the FE did that on the -10 and -135.
188 KC135TopBoom : Boom Operators are fully qualified Loadmasters. Cargo flights may take two Boom Operators, but there is no need for a Loadmaster. The KC-135 does not
189 Revelation : That's surprising to me, given that commercial 707s had one. Learn something new every day!
190 KC135TopBoom : All of the SAC, ANG, AMC, and AFRES KC/C-135 models had a Navigator. The MATS/MAC C-135A/Bs had an FE, as well as a Nav, but as those airplanes went t
191 FrmrKSEngr : Top Boom, where are you getting this information? On Boeing airliners 2 extra frames would add 40 or 44 inches (spacing is pretty standard). Also add
192 Post contains links rlwynn : http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-identity-of-kc-46a-tanker-357700/ "Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platfor
193 queb : It only says that the plane is longer, not how. I challenge you to find something in Boeing, DoD or GAO documentation who said the fuselage is length
194 Post contains links and images bikerthai : Well, from what I can tell, the fuselage is lengthened. http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...7family/pdf/767_sizecomparison.pdf This say the 767-200
195 Post contains links and images Stitch : Boeing's information page on the 767-200ER gives the length as 48.5 meters - http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...7family/pdf/767_sizecomparison.pdf
196 chrisnh : It will be great going to nearby Pease here in New Hampshire to see one of these on a training or familiarizing flight.
197 Stitch : Looks like my original post was clipped. Boeing's KC-767 page shows the length as being 48.51 meters - .01 meters longer than the 767-200ER. As such,
198 KC135TopBoom : I should have said 2 frames forward and two frames aft of the wing. No sir, the Boom has a variable length, so it is not included in the fuselage len
199 Post contains links FrmrKSEngr : I am still waiting for a source for a structural lengthening of the basic 767 fuselage. And I am digging to prove the opposite. I like a challenge eit
200 Stitch : Best I can tell, that source is Boeing themselves in statements to media reporting on the KC-46A. Someone at PAE with a tape measure needs to compare
201 Post contains images bikerthai : . . . that PDF from Boeing posted in reply 194. bt
202 Stitch : If you draw a box around the image of the plane in the KC-46 PDF, from the overhead view, the length matches to the trailing point of the tail as well
203 Post contains links FrmrKSEngr : Given the inconsistencies in the drawings, the dimension arrow does not directly relate to anything on the drawings, so I would take it as a general
204 FrmrKSEngr : From Aviation Week 0n-line , May 10, 2012: "KC-46A Design Review Complete" "Boeing is looking ahead to a 2013 critical design review of the U.S. Air F
205 Post contains links FrmrKSEngr : Below is an excerpt from a talk by Major General John Thompson at the AFA - Air and Space Technology Exposition “KC-46 Requirements” 17 September
206 bikerthai : No, but the way the Boeing plane are assembled, stretching the airplane really only require designing the plugs (43 and 46). Loads on the 41 and 47 s
207 Post contains links and images bikerthai : While not definitive proof, here is the best I have so far: http://leehamnews.com/tag/767-2c/ FDX is lined up to become the first commercial customers
208 Post contains links Revelation : Also Steven Trimble of FI: Chamberlin is the only named source and it's open to interpretation but the article seems to imply that all of the info is
209 FrmrKSEngr : The only way it would make sense for the plane to be ~ 6 ft longer is if the fuselage center section at the wing (section 44) is from a -300F, and the
210 Max Q : This is becoming even more confusing ! Are we now supposed to believe that FDX is going to take deliveries of -300F's and the separate 2C version ? W
211 FrmrKSEngr : If FDX has a mission for the a 767-200F sized aircraft, why fly a -300F? With the improvements introduced by the -2C, the economics of the smaller ai
212 kanban : The production line can build both.. it's not one or the other.. Yes the 300F may get some of the enhancements form the 2C.. but so what?
213 Max Q : No, it makes no sense to buy an aircraft fractionally smaller, the difference in operating cost versus lack of standardization makes the whole idea v
214 Post contains images bikerthai : It is not standard Boeing practice to vary the length of section 44. The interface between the wing box and the fuselage is too complicated. In pract
215 Post contains links bikerthai : While not official and not 767, this page shows how Boeing varies the plugs to get different fuselage lengths. http://www.b737.org.uk/737ng.htm#737-70
216 Stitch : In terms of volume, the 767-300F is a fairly larger airframe than the A300-600RF and significantly larger than the A310-200F / A310-300F that FX oper
217 Revelation : Yes, it is all very confusing. Boeing seems to be walking a PR tightrope on this program. It seems it doesn't want to be too forthcoming because it d
218 Stitch : If you load an A310's volume into a 767-300F, you'll have half to three-quarters of the plane empty. On a 767-2C, it's about one-quarter to one-half
219 FrmrKSEngr : I am well aware of how Boeing fuselage plugs work. I was on the original fuselage design and build team for sections 43 44 & 46 (essentially from
220 FrmrKSEngr : I don't think anyone was talking about stopping -300F production for -2Cs exclusively. On 737, some airlines ordered -700s and -800s, some ordered -8
221 Post contains images FrmrKSEngr : Of course if the -2C is lumped in with the -200, with no length change, I will tell you all - "Told Ya So!"
222 Max Q : Continental did not order the -600. And its 'the' 737 !
223 Post contains links 747classic : IMHO the KC-46A (B767-2C) has been increased in length by 2 meters from the basic 767-200 series to satisfy two basic requirements : - Sufficient rota
224 Revelation : Right, but as is the rage on our discussions on the commercial forum, we'd have to ask if the cost of buying and flying around the empty space is lar
225 FrmrKSEngr : Adding length generally reduces rotation margin. When we created the 737-900, the field performance was significantly reduced due to not being able t
226 Post contains images Stitch : Yes, but commercial 767-2C operators will not have a boom. So if it is the boom, only references to the KC-46A should mention the extra two meters of
227 FrmrKSEngr : That is essentially what I said in post 219. True - So I will go to sleep until then.
228 Post contains images FrmrKSEngr : I think that part is sloppy journalism, equating the 767-2C dimensions to the released KC-46 outline sketches. Has anyone seen some one of authority
229 Post contains links Stitch : If you take the two-plan view of the KC-46A published in the PDF from Boeing and draw a box extending from the leftmost point to the rightmost point
230 747classic : The 2 meters fuselage extension is the maximum fuselage length possible with the 767-300 landing gear installed plus the extending refuelling boom. T
231 FrmrKSEngr : That argument makes some sense. It is not so much that the -200 is stretched, but that the -300 is shrunk to accommodate the boom. One of the systems
232 FrmrKSEngr : That is a sales literature view of a KC-46, not a sales document for 767-2C. If that picture was of a 767-2C without a boom, and a Boeing logo in the
233 Max Q : That's the point, you can stretch the fuselage only so much before geometry issues on rotation start to be a real problem with the boom. The 762 has
234 747classic : Because the fuselage length of the 767-2C is optimised for tanker/cargo operation, I cannot see further commercial orders for the 767-2C by parcel car
235 Stitch : Well FX continue to operate the A312/A313 in addition to the A306, even though the A310 family is significantly volume-limited in comparison to the A
236 FrmrKSEngr : I have to figure that FX has a good handle on their load factors, and not all stations get multiple daily departures. In Wichita, FX flew one flight
237 Post contains images bikerthai : Well folks, can't say much. But let's just say that FrmrKSEngr may have a point on the length. bt
238 FrmrKSEngr : When you work the platforms, you sometimes drop the "the". Such as "I am working 737" or "I moved from '37 to '67"
239 Max Q : It's a real shame to see the English language butchered in this way, it really doesn't make sense.
240 NBGSkyGod : If this makes you sad, don't look at how kids today talk and type.
241 Post contains links and images 747classic : One of the KC-46A test aircraft was towed to a new parking position at June 06. Original uploaded by Moonm, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/moonm/1
242 nomadd22 : It's a worse shame having to put up with a bunch of grammar nazis.
243 Max Q : Looks like a longer fuselage than a -200 to me !
244 Post contains links and images SSTeve : It's hard for me to see any extra length in front of the wing vs. this KC-767 photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_...File:BOEING_KC767_McConnel
245 Max Q : That is not a 767 -2C ! The previous, tanker modified versions of the 762 are all built around the standard 762 fuselage length (and are far less cap
246 Post contains images Stitch : Is the original USAF KC-767 from 2002 still sitting out at PAE (I imagine it must as it never had engines installed)? Maybe they could tow the 767-2C
247 SSTeve : Yes, exactly. If the 2C at Everett has a stretch in front of the wing vs the KC-767, I don't see it.
248 SSTeve : I'm hoping someone with more patience than me just tries some trigonometry on the photos. Aren't there all sorts of "analysts" that get paid to do th
249 FrmrKSEngr : Get a good side shot, and count the vertical rivet lines. 1 row of rivets per frame.
250 Post contains images Revelation : Plenty of detail in: Now, who's got some time on their hands?
251 bikerthai : And to help with the counting . . . You should only have to count the frames in the 43 and 46 section. The 41, 44 and 47 section should be the same a
252 UA444 : I would also like to know the status of this bird. What a complete waste.
253 Post contains images FrmrKSEngr : In addition to "moonm" comments attached to the picture "Sec 43 & 46 are the same length as the 767-200 see comment." and "Sec 43 has 16 Floor Be
254 Revelation : Say again?
255 milestones787 : Has the 4th and final test aircraft been rolled out? If so, I assume the 767 line will go back to producing -300Fs for FedEx for a while.
256 FrmrKSEngr : Oops 767-2C section 43 looks like a 767-200.
257 Revelation : It looks like you are barking up the right tree!
258 Post contains links and images dlednicer : It was scrapped in August 2012:
259 Post contains links KarelXWB : Matt Cawby has spotted a refueling boom: http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/476581657932095489
260 KC135TopBoom : Yes the boom does extend beyond the end of the fuselage, but it is not counted in the overall length of the KC-46. The extra 6' of fuselage is to acc
261 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : A refueling boom is being installed on the first KC-46A. This aircraft will certificate the 767-2C configuration before being converted to a full KC-4
262 Post contains images Stitch : So can someone on the 767 line run a tape measure and see how long it is from tip of the nose to tip of the boom, please, so we can once and for all
263 KC135TopBoom : The KC-767A/J is 159' 2" long, the same length as the B-767-200ER. As you can see it is measured without the Boom length added in. The KC-46A is 165'
264 FrmrKSEngr : Because on the KC-135 and KC-10, the boom IS NOT the furthest aft piece of structure. On the KC-10 the center engine extends beyond the boom. On the
265 bikerthai : Everyone, I wish BOEINGENGR was here to confirm this (I think he was on the tanker program). In so far as I am able to confirm anything, I have seen t
266 nomadd22 : I've been pretty close to some KC-10s and it looks like the boom extends past the center engine to me.
267 Post contains links and images queb : View Large View MediumPhoto © A. Muñiz Zaragüeta
268 infiniti329 : It does look like it but not by much, at first glance it looks fairly even with the tail cone
269 Post contains images FrmrKSEngr : Optical illusion. According to Official documentation the KC-10 (USAF KC-10 flight Manual) and DC-10-30 (Boeing DC-10 airport planning document) are
270 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : One of four the tankers at the fuel dock: Around KPAE 7-2-14 by moonm, on Flickr And another one nearby the delivery center: Around KPAE 7-2-14 by moo
271 Post contains links KarelXWB : FAA releases special conditions necessary to certificate the 767-2C with unique fuel system: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-04
272 Post contains images PC12Fan : Interesting. They mention that the -2C is a derivative of the -200 but no physical characteristics are given. (no mention of the additional length) T
273 FrmrKSEngr : I was going to keep quiet but I had to look back a few posts. What discrepancy? No one has produced any data that Boeing EVER said the 767-2C is long
274 Post contains links and images pdxswa : A nice overview of the future of the USAF Tanker Force. View Large View MediumPhoto © Bill Shemley
275 dlednicer : Bill has supplied me the original of his image, which is clear enough to allow me to count frames. Section 41 ends four full frame bays and one short
276 pdxswa : David glad to hear this was useful to you and everyone in determining the true length of the KC-46 Pegasus.
277 dlednicer : I just realized that the picture shown in reply 261 clearly shows the frames on the aft end of Section 48. We can safely assume that the region of Sec
278 bikerthai : So we have corroborating data, both from the center-line diagram and frame counts from actual production pictures, to say that the fuselage lengths a
279 Stitch : Maybe the 2m stretch was planned and later dropped. *shrug* Anyway, until we see the ACAP for final confirmation, I'm ready to accept the length is t
280 FrmrKSEngr : Thank You dlednicer for providing evidence and analysis that appears to be accepted. No, the ~2m difference is the boom extending beyond the vertical
281 Post contains links trex8 : http://seattletimes.com/html/busines.../2024139521_boeingearningsxml.html Boeing increased its full-year profit forecast after reporting an 1 percent
282 ChrisNH : Pease (NH) was 'officially' named as a base for some of these planes today...a decision I thought was made official well over a year ago. Anyway, $42m
283 kanban : gad 4 years to spend $42M.. willing to bet there will be overruns..
284 NBGSkyGod : I saw that on WMUR's site last night, hopefully we will see it land there a few times for "testing" before it becomes operational.
285 UA444 : When is the first flight?
286 KarelXWB : Should be October.
287 milestones787 : Any idea if they are going to be in full paint scheme for the first flight?
288 kanban : definitely.. it's a big PR moment with lots of brass.
289 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : One of the tankers photographed around the fuel dock area: Around KPAE 8-18-14 by moonm, on Flickr
290 Post contains links KarelXWB : A senior U.S. Air Force general said he was unconcerned with development problems on a new aerial refueling tanker being built by Boeing and even floa
291 Revelation : Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall... Riiiiiiiight, no worries.... Wiring problems? Geez, sounds like A380 all over again. How hard is it t
292 bikerthai : Got this information second and third hand. One of the problem with the wiring was because the Tanker program is being run by Boeing Commercial. Inst
293 Post contains images Stitch : The USAF isn't paying for the delays, so... It's been almost two decades since the JASDF's E-767s were built so I I assume these engineers previously
294 Post contains images bikerthai : Yes, and the various recent AWACs upgrades. Sounds like reasonable logic. Still there should have been enough foresight to have brought up sufficient
295 MEA-707 : L/N 1068 went to Air Astana, L/N 1070 is for Federal Express, so I presum the fourth KC-46A is L/N 1069 instead. Can anyone confirm? Is a fifth alrea
296 Post contains images KarelXWB : You can read the whole article via Google. Navigate to google.com, enter "Boeing Tanker Problems Don't Concern U.S. Air Force" and click on the WSJ s
297 bikerthai : LOL. You are not far off. Recently some group in wiring design went from CATIA V4 to CATIA V5. But I don't know if that was the case with the tanker.
298 Post contains links and images KarelXWB : Here's a sight you don't see everyday: KC-46 Pegasus Aug 22 2014 by alevik123, on Flickr
299 Revelation : but we will be seeing it a lot in the future as the 179 frames are built, with the first being stationed about an hour's drive away from me at PSM ..
300 Post contains links Wingtip1005 : Hi, I've created a second thread for this as this one is now at 300. Cheers KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2 (by Wingtip1005 Aug 29 2014
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery
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...
Pease 1st ANG Base To Get KC-46A Tanker posted Wed May 22 2013 07:46:09 by Revelation
KC-46 Vs Japanese/Italian 762 Tankers And SIN. posted Sun Oct 7 2012 17:29:45 by yyz717
Boeing KC-46A Tanker Passes Initial Design Review posted Wed May 9 2012 07:59:58 by Stitch
VC-X, KC-46, Other Updates posted Thu Apr 12 2012 08:14:46 by KC135TopBoom
Assessment: KC-46A Tanker Low Cost/Technical Risk posted Wed Sep 21 2011 13:46:28 by redflyer
KC-46 Might Be More Advanced? posted Sat May 28 2011 03:44:10 by OyKIE
Willow Grove JRB Closure Begins In January posted Fri Oct 3 2008 08:02:21 by STT757
KC-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
Is The KC-10 Tanker Faster Than The Standard DC-10 posted Mon Nov 19 2007 21:14:36 by Blackbird
Can A Tanker Be Refuled In Mid-air? posted Tue May 8 2007 23:56:05 by Pizzaandplanes
Israel Considers KC-46 Acquisition posted Thu Nov 28 2013 14:45:41 by LAXintl
KC-10 Chopping Block...KC-46 Right Choice? posted Sat Oct 12 2013 12:56:10 by infiniti329
VC-X, KC-46, Other Updates posted Thu Apr 12 2012 08:14:46 by KC135TopBoom
KC-46 Might Be More Advanced? posted Sat May 28 2011 03:44:10 by OyKIE
KC-135 Turns 51 And No One Noticed? posted Thu Sep 13 2007 18:53:44 by KC135TopBoom
KC-135R Book Value And Resale Potential posted Wed Oct 19 2005 15:03:22 by WhiteHatter
KC-330 Cargo Door - And Other Thoughts posted Sun Oct 24 2004 05:53:41 by Kc330
Usaf Considering Cutting KC-10, A-10's And F-15C posted Mon Sep 16 2013 04:36:53 by ThePointblank

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format