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, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Posted (1 year 6 months 2 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, 4148 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 2 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, 1946 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 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, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 12 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, 2967 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 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 6 months 1 day 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, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 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, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 1 day 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 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 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, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 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 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 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, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 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, 1211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 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, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 2 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, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 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, 164 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 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, 7083 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 18 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, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 13 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, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 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, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 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, 1211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 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 onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 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, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 6 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 3 months 1 week 4 days 6 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, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 1 week 1 day 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.
User currently offlineSPREE34 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 2254 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 5 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.

A better, and more effcient frame for the mission.

Quoting columba (Reply 16):
Yes but the P3 even new build would be real competitor for the P8, too small and too old of a design.

Eh,.....the 737 has been in production how long? C-130? Yes, both modernized, as would be a current P3/Electra.



I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The second tanker is in final assembly.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTWAL1011727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

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

A Tinker - Tanker ?

KD


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting TWAL1011727 (Reply 27):

A Tinker - Tanker ?

LOL - good one! 



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 26):
The second tanker is in final assembly.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft

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 one except for the cockpit.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Rumor from the factory floor: the first 767 tanker should roll out in 50 days.

http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/383275762851123200



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

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 2014, where it will get initial FAA approval for the B-787 avionics, body fuel tanks, cargo floor and door, etc. It will later go back into the assembly building for conversion to full KC-46 configuration. The second KC-46 will complete the B-767-2C STC with the FAA wile #1 is rebuilt. It will begin flying as a KC-46A in 2015. There will be a total of 4 airplanes in the flight test program. KC-46A #5 or #6 will be the first new tankers delivered to the USAF in 2016, followed by the remaining 8 production tankers, followed by the 4 flight test tankers by late 2017.

All 18 of these tankers will initially be assigned to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing at McConnell AFB, KS and used for training and qualifications and IOC. The 157th Air Refueling Wing, NHANG, Pease ANGB, NH will be the first full deployable combat wing.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Very clear, thank you.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinecfmitch56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

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 official Boeing civilian model designation will be... B767-2C? Or will it have a customer code stuck in there somewhere (such as B767-253C)? Does it get an ER/LR tag too, or is it like the 777F where that's implied?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

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 civilian airplanes. The remaining 14 tankers will have 2015, 2016, and 2017 tail numbers.

Yes, as far as I know, the official civilian designation will be B-767-2C, with the customer code after that. So, using your example it would be a B-767-2C53 with maybe an "F", "ERF", or "LRF" stuck on the end. An airplane ordered by UPS could have the Boeing designation of B-767-2C4A, FedEx would be B-767-2CS2.

Boeing could also drop the customer codes altogether like they do for the B-787-8/-9 models.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cfmitch56 (Reply 33):
Also wondering what the official Boeing civilian model designation will be... B767-2C?

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 customer code).

The military versions appear to be 767-2C as that is how the first four, at least, are identified on Boeing's O&D site. Once actual production frames enter the line, that might change to KC-46 or stay 767-2C.


User currently offlinecfmitch56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

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-specific customer codes.

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting cfmitch56 (Reply 36):
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-specific customer codes.

If I understand your question correctly, the customer code that Boeing Commercial Airplane assigns to these KC-46 would be similar to the ones assigned to the P-8 which is designated to The Boeing Company. This is because the frame is delivered to Boeing Defense System which does the the Mission Installation before delivering to the Air Force.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting cfmitch56 (Reply 36):
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-specific customer codes.

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 has RR RB-211 engines and an air refueling receptacle, which gives the "ER" capability.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 37):
If I understand your question correctly, the customer code that Boeing Commercial Airplane assigns to these KC-46 would be similar to the ones assigned to the P-8 which is designated to The Boeing Company. This is because the frame is delivered to Boeing Defense System which does the the Mission Installation before delivering to the Air Force.

Boeing has a different customer code for the USN and USAF. Boeing's own customer code is "20" and "T9", for the USAF it is "26" (VC-137A/B/C, some C/KC-135s, other KC-135s were "46", "48", and "66") "DM" (C-40B, the C-40Cs were all bought as used aircraft, at least two of them from Ford Motor Company, making them B-737-BBJ2CP), and "G4" (VC-25A, C-32A, the YAL-1A was a B-747-4G4F), for the USN/USMC it is "AF" (C-40A) and "FV" (P-8A).

The B-52 evolved from Boeing model B-462, B-464-29/-35/-49/-67, and B-52A as a unique military program.


User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Israel may also want receptacles installed to take on fuel from the IDF KC-707s.

USAF KC-135s can recive fuel via boom


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

A few milestones:

8/23 - 2nd frame begins assembly - http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-B...embling-2nd-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft

Quote:

Boeing [NYSE: BA] officially began assembling the second KC-46A Tanker this week as workers loaded the aircraft’s wing spar into an Automated Spar Assembly Tool.

...

The first test aircraft is expected to roll out of the factory in January 2014, while the second is scheduled to leave the factory in March. Boeing plans to fly the fully provisioned tanker for the first time in early 2015 and make the first delivery in 2016. The company expects to build and deliver the first 18 KC-46As by 2017 and a total of 179 by 2027 if all options under the contract are exercised.

“We’re exactly where we want to be right now,” said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing vice president and KC-46 Tanker program manager. “One year from now, all four test aircraft will be out of the factory, and the first two will be flying.”

9/6 - Final design frozen - http://boeing.mediaroom.com/US-Air-F...lize-KC-46A-Tanker-Aircraft-Design

Other articles point out that the key to keep the program on track is avoiding any add-ons beyond the initial specification.

I'm sure many can dream of an E-10 type aircraft in the future, but it's damn good to see this program not get burdened by any other requirements.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

An update on the program:


1st KC-46 tanker program test aircraft in final body join by The Boeing Company, on Flickr



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 41):
KarelXWB

Wow, she's starting to take shape and looking like a real airplane, thanks KarelXWB.


User currently onlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 39):
USAF KC-135s can recive fuel via boom

No, they can't.


User currently offlinedlednicer From United States of America, joined May 2005, 547 posts, RR: 7
Reply 44, posted (1 year 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Quoting checksixx (Reply 43):
Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 39):
USAF KC-135s can recive fuel via boom

No, they can't.

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 time:

Quoting garysted (Reply 23):
Hopefully not complicating matters, but just to clarify what I said in the previous posts, but a very small number of USAF KC-135R's do have the boom receptacle fitted and are usually referred to as KC-135R/ARR's. I believe - and I'm sure some of the other posters could clarifiy - that it's only about 6/7 and they're all at McConnell. These were aircraft that were converted to other configurations and fitted for AAR, and were then converted back to the KC-135R standard. Again, I'm sure others have more detailed info.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
Actually all KC-135s can receive fuel inflight. The process is called reverse refueling and is only accomplished in an emergency. The Boom Operator makes a contact with a large/heavy receiver (B-52, other C-135 type, E-3, C-5, etc.), the receiver pressurizes his refueling system and the Boom Operator holds the retract lever slightly in the retract position to open the fuel by-pass valve and fuel is pumped only into the aft body fuel tank. The 'on-load' depends on how much fuel is in the forward body fuel tank so the aft CG limit isn't exceeded. Before the refueling the Boom Operator must compute how much fuel to on-load into the aft body fuel tank before the refueling is accomplished. Once fuel begins showing in the aft body tank, the pilot can begin burning that new fuel.


User currently onlinechecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1122 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

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 commonly accepted practice. The poster I quoted is making it seem like a normal thing they can 'just do' whenever the need hits. That is NOT the case. It's my bad for saying 'no, they can't'. I should have said it differently.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Quoting checksixx (Reply 45):
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 commonly accepted practice.

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.


User currently offlineAviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 640 posts, RR: 9
Reply 47, posted (12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

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_backgrounder.pdf

and that
http://www.cargoleasing.com/docs/767...0SF%20General%20Specifications.pdf

I find it's the same length
Wasn't it supposed to be 2 m longer than 767-200 ?



More detailed in french here ...
http://avia.superforum.fr/t1216p20-kc-46#42725

Have a nice day


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 48, posted (12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aviaponcho (Reply 47):
Wasn't it supposed to be 2 m longer than 767-200 ?

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 how is it generating a discrepancy?

[Edited 2013-11-23 02:33:54]

User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 640 posts, RR: 9
Reply 49, posted (12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 32729 times:

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 lot o equipement near the rear door...
So ?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 50, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 32292 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 49):
Tailboom can increase the so called lenght maybe

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 the KC-767A/J or the B-767-200ER. The extra length is why Boeing has a separate designation for the airframe, the B-767-2C.


User currently offlineaviaponcho From France, joined Aug 2011, 640 posts, RR: 9
Reply 51, posted (11 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 32084 times:

All right

you seems to be 100% sure

Thanks

767-2C can stand for 767-200 convertible also (but...)


User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (11 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 32288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

wow, good to know that the 767 program will survive for at least 10 more years !!!!

User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2194 posts, RR: 14
Reply 53, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 31082 times:

Some propulsion parts for the first KC-46 at Spirit Aerosystems, December 10.



Original uploaded by Spirit Aerosystems, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/spiritaero/11310774926/



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 30959 times:

Quoting 747classic (Reply 53):

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 on insulation.   

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2194 posts, RR: 14
Reply 55, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30884 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 54):
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 on insulation.

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.........



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 56, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 30887 times:

Quoting aviaponcho (Reply 51):
767-2C can stand for 767-200 convertible also (but...)

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, -200ER and a converted freighter called the -200CF. The B-762s come with a MTOW of up to 395,000 lbs. The B-767-2C/KC-46A will have a MTOW of 415,000 lbs. The Boeing built KC-767A/Js for Italy and Japan have a MTOW of 395,000 lbs.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25838 posts, RR: 22
Reply 57, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 30298 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 31):
The first KC-46A will fly initially as a B-767-2C in 2014, where it will get initial FAA approval for the B-787 avionics, body fuel tanks, cargo floor and door, etc. It will later go back into the assembly building for conversion to full KC-46 configuration. The second KC-46 will complete the B-767-2C STC with the FAA wile #1 is rebuilt. It will begin flying as a KC-46A in 2015.

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 for the KC-46? Is the P-8 also FAA-certified? What about the B-52 and KC-135 and every other U.S. military aircraft?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (10 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 30127 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 57):
Why is this necessary for the KC-46? Is the P-8 also FAA-certified?

Being FAA certified just saves the USAF from performing the certification themselves (saves money) as the system that Boeing uses to certify a commercial airplane should be really efficient.

For the P-8A, I believe the plane that flies from Renton to Boeing Field is FAA certified. I'm not sure if the ones that gets delivered with all the mission system is FAA certified. Don't know if the FAA would ever certify a weapons system or aerial refueling systems.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 59, posted (10 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 29264 times:

Boeing Starts Assembly of Final KC-46A Test Aircraft:

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/Boeing-S...mbly-of-Final-KC-46A-Test-Aircraft



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 60, posted (10 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 28915 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 57):
I was under the impression that aircraft intended for military purposes didn't need FAA certification. Why is this necessary for the KC-46? Is the P-8 also FAA-certified? What about the B-52 and KC-135 and every other U.S. military aircraft?

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-141A as Lockheed wanted to sell it as the L-300.

The second US Military airplane to receive an FAA Certification was the KC-10A.

The USAF wanted the certification to be able to use airline DC-10 parts around the world and vice-versa.

The A-330MRTT and A-400M also received a civilian certification.

But, you are correct, normally military aircraft do not need a civilian certification.

The certification needed for the KC-46 is not just for the tanker parts, but the B-767-2C is a new B-767 model and may have later civilian sales.

[Edited 2014-01-18 14:20:19]

User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 28563 times:

If the USAF decides later that they want winglets on these birds will the wings ready to accept them or would modification be needed?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 62, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 28559 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 61):
If the USAF decides later that they want winglets on these birds will the wings ready to accept them or would modification be needed?

The wings are already strengthened to carry the WARPs, so they should accommodate winglets of whatever type are available then. Of course the USAF could add raked wingtips now and be done with it.


User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 28434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Brazil will buy new tankers, they can be KC-46, A330s or old converted 767s, they are still to decide

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 64, posted (10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 28265 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 63):
Brazil will buy new tankers, they can be KC-46, A330s or old converted 767s, they are still to decide.

Are these in addition to the two 767-300ER tanker conversions they ordered in March 2013 from IAI?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 65, posted (10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 28190 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
Quoting LPSHobby (Reply 63):Brazil will buy new tankers, they can be KC-46, A330s or old converted 767s, they are still to decide.
Are these in addition to the two 767-300ER tanker conversions they ordered in March 2013 from IAI?

No, I think it is the same order, but I thought it was 4 aircraft.


User currently offlineLPSHobby From Brazil, joined May 2007, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (10 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 27983 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 65):

in truth, this order is not decided yet, there are of Brazilian Air Force buying A330 for tankers and 1 for VIP transport


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 67, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 27416 times:

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 be officially released on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...anker-report-idUSL2N0L309A20140129



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 68, posted (9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 27320 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 67):
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 be officially released on Wednesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...anker-report-idUSL2N0L309A20140129

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 an update I got last week.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 69, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 27190 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 operational testing even with available KC-46 airframes.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (9 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 27169 times:

The Lexington Institute (Dr. Goure) has a piece explaining some production philosophy differences between different agencies like the DOT&E and AT&L. There is more info on the below link if your so inclined.


http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/bo...with-p-8-and-kc-46a?a=1&c=1171

Quoting from the article:

"Before the DOT&E reports cause concerns, consider the views of the Pentagon’s chief acquisition official, Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) Frank Kendall, on the P-8. According to Kendall, the P-8 is a “good product” and represents a “relatively successful program.” Why the disconnect between DOT&E and AT&L? Apparently, DOT&E didn’t bother reading the program plan for the P-8. Kendall responded to the DOT&E report in recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee saying “the capabilities that the DOT&E report talked about not being there are underway. They’re coming. We’re going to move onto wider-area surveillance capabilities I think within a few years. So the aircraft actually is, I think, a relatively successful program despite the tone of that report.”

The DOT&E organization was intended to be an advisor to the Secretary of Defense to ensure that programs were able to demonstrate operational effectiveness in realistic testing. In recent years its role has morphed from protecting the welfare of our warriors to a roadblock to their receiving important new capabilities. The disagreement between DOT&E and AT&L on the P-8 has been repeated with other programs, notably the F-35. In both cases, DOT&E apparently doesn’t take into account that virtually all major defense programs involve the phased introduction of capabilities. The same is true for software. The F-35 program always intended to operate initially with a software system that was less complete that the full up version. Frankly, without a degree of concurrency in development and production the military would have to wait until the “gold standard” version of a platform was developed and tested before it could begin production. The Government Accountability Office recently reported significant improvement in the F-35 program; DOT&E continues to carp. Apparently, DOT&E doesn’t understand how defense production programs work."



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinebuckeyetech From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 55 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 26061 times:

The KC-46 officially has a name now.

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive...ntroducing-the-KC-46A-Pegasus.aspx



B-52H, C-141C, C-5A, C-17A
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 72, posted (9 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 25991 times:

Quoting buckeyetech (Reply 71):
The KC-46 officially has a name now.

Interesting!

The article goes on to say:

Quote:

The Air Force will buy 179 KC-46A Pegasus aircraft, the last of which will be delivered in 2028, to replace the Eisenhower-era KC-135 fleet. However, USAF will continue to maintain 200-plus KC-135s, which will be 65-years-old or older when the last Pegasus is delivered. As a result, the KC-Y and KC-Z follow on efforts have to be real programs, said Welsh. “And they have to get going now,” he emphasized.

Good luck with that, Gen. Walsh. I know he's just toting the party line, but still, it's amazing to ask for more planes at the same time that you are talking about taking perfectly good KC-10s out of service.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 724 posts, RR: 2
Reply 73, posted (9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25888 times:

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 existing fleet's not exactly high.

User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2378 posts, RR: 10
Reply 74, posted (9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 25898 times:

Quoting buckeyetech (Reply 71):
The KC-46 officially has a name now.

The real name will be whatever the crew dogs end up calling it. I don't imagine many will call it Pegasus...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 72):
it's amazing to ask for more planes at the same time that you are talking about taking perfectly good KC-10s out of service.

Because the incremental cost of more KC-46s is less than supporting an entire system in the KC-10.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 75, posted (9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 25872 times:

Quoting SSTeve (Reply 73):
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 existing fleet's not exactly high.

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 carry alot more cargo than the Kc-135 can, so I see higher utilization rates.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 76, posted (9 months 2 days ago) and read 25770 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 75):
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 carry alot more cargo than the Kc-135 can, so I see higher utilization rates.

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.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 77, posted (9 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 25797 times:

Quoting moose135 (Reply 74):
Because the incremental cost of more KC-46s is less than supporting an entire system in the KC-10.

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't support the number of different systems they now have and in particular are talking about prematurely ending the life of KC-10 amongst others. Although most of us feel that it'll be KC-46 or nothing, the General seems to need to keep pushing the party line of three separate tanker replacement programs.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1722 posts, RR: 10
Reply 78, posted (9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 25771 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 77):
Right, but the esteemed General is talking about adding two new systems, KC-Y and KC-Z,

The esteemed General my have to settle for the following two programs:

KC-Y : 100 additional KC-46
KC-Z : 50 additional KC-46



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlinemilestones787 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 79, posted (9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 25693 times:

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 assume that it's at least one by now if the 4th has already started final assembly. Thanks.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 80, posted (9 months 4 hours ago) and read 25485 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 79):
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 assume that it's at least one by now if the 4th has already started final assembly.

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 the FAL in 40-32.

So it sounds like #1 and #2 are in the two FAL positions right now and #3 and #4 are being built-up.

Janes has a relatively recent article on the progress at http://www.janes.com/article/32572/b...uild-on-final-kc-46a-test-aircraft


User currently offlinemilestones787 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 25376 times:

Great, thanks for the info Stitch!

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 82, posted (8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 25296 times:

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 79):

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 are on although the cowlings are off.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 83, posted (8 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 25017 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 82):
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 are on although the cowlings are off.
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Feature...ca_tanker_milestones_02_19_14.page

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/kc46a/kc46a.html


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 84, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 24844 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 83):

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



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2378 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 24809 times:

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 them on this KC135R:

http://www.moose135photography.com/Airplanes/Air-Shows/McGuire-AFB-Open-House-2012/i-Sh66FsG/0/XL/JM_2012_05_13_McGuire_KC-135R_62-3544_001-XL.jpg

[Edited 2014-02-26 10:35:54]


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 86, posted (8 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 24775 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 83):
http://www.boeing.com/boeing/Feature...ca_tanker_milestones_02_19_14.page

Hooray! It was a 'hat and t-shirt' day for the 767 team!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 87, posted (8 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 23776 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Numbers 1 and 2 have completed FAL #1 is back getting test instrumentation, #2 moved to the mod center.. Pictures here http://paineairport.com/kpae10230.htm

User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 88, posted (8 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 23756 times:

I think you posted the wrong link, more pictures can be found here:

http://kpae.blogspot.com/2014/03/paine-field-march-17.html



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2194 posts, RR: 14
Reply 89, posted (8 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 23731 times:

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 03:43:33]


Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlinemilestones787 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (8 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 23600 times:

I don't know if this question has already been asked, but will the KC-46 be getting any winglet device to increase range?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 91, posted (8 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 23553 times:

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 90):
I don't know if this question has already been asked, but will the KC-46 be getting any winglet device to increase range?

There are no current plans for blended winglets for the KC-46A. But later versions could have them, or even raked wingtips.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 89):
Are the assigned line numbers for the first four 767-2C's 1065,66,67 and 1068 ?

Are the Boeing serial numbers already known ?

It appears that is what has happened.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 92, posted (8 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 23542 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Back during the original "lease" proposal, Boeing reserved 100 shipsets of winglets, however since then a lot has changed.

User currently offlinemilestones787 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 93, posted (8 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 23473 times:

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 savings are substantial?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 94, posted (8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 23358 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 93):
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 savings are substantial?

There may be some issues with interference with onboard sensors or wake vortex issues with receiving aircraft or trailing aircraft waiting to hook-up.

If they do add winglets, I would guess they would go with raked wingtips (ala the 767-400ER and P-8) as those seem to be better for longer missions.

[Edited 2014-03-19 08:10:51]

User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1894 posts, RR: 0
Reply 95, posted (8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 23318 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 94):
If they do add winglets, I would guess they would go with raked wingtips (ala the 767-400ER and P-8) as those seem to be better for longer missions.

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 the patrol low and slow, raked might not do much good.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 96, posted (8 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 23334 times:

Quoting milestones787 (Reply 90):
I don't know if this question has already been asked, but will the KC-46 be getting any winglet device to increase range?

Yes. The straight forward answer is:

Quote:

“Based on the USAF refueling requirements, the missions were not of sufficient duration nor conducted at altitudes that optimize the benefits derived from winglets,” Boeing told Aviation Week.

Ref: http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/...-wont-have-winglets-aviation-week/

Keep in mind Boeing was under extreme pressure to keep the price low, as IMHO they should be, and thus "optimize" means optimize with respect to price/performance not just absolute performance.

If you want to read a more dramatic rendition:

Shady Boeing: No Winglets On KC-46A (by AirRyan Apr 7 2011 in Military Aviation & Space Flight)



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 97, posted (8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 23221 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 94):If they do add winglets, I would guess they would go with raked wingtips (ala the 767-400ER and P-8) as those seem to be better for longer missions.
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 the patrol low and slow, raked might not do much good.

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 both the P-8 and the KC-46. But raked wingtips would be better, and provide a better reduction in drag than blended winglets/sharklets do.

Boeing currently has raked wingtips on all B-748s, B-764s, B-77F/L/Ws, as well as the P-8.


User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 23077 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 95):
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 the patrol low and slow, raked might not do much good.

What about if its just hauling cargo?


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 99, posted (8 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 23063 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 98):
What about if its just hauling cargo?

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 anywhere near as much as do commercial a/c so the fuel savings is not as great. The winglets add cost, weight and maintenance issues. They only pay for themselves if the plane spends lots of time at cruise altitudes. The tankers just won't fly enough hours at cruise altitudes to save enough fuel to pay off the winglets. The competition (Mk.III) made it clear that the low cost bird would win the competition, and so, no winglets!



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 100, posted (8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22925 times:

Boeing tanker program seen $1 billion over budget:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...oeing-tanker-idUSBREA2K1UA20140321



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 101, posted (8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 22935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Boeing tanker program seen $1 billion over budget:

Frankly, kudos to Boeing for keeping it so low considering the amount most military programs bust their budgets.  


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1811 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 23089 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):
Frankly, kudos to Boeing for keeping it so low considering the amount most military programs bust their budgets.

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 from scratch.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 103, posted (8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 23109 times:

The KC-46 will fly about 1000 hours per year, per airplane, slightly more than the KC-135s and KC-10s fly today.

User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4376 posts, RR: 28
Reply 104, posted (8 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 23059 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 102):
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 from scratch.

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 cockpit itself, are completely different than the commercial product and are spec'd to DOD requirements.



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 105, posted (8 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 22980 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 101):

Frankly, kudos to Boeing for keeping it so low considering the amount most military programs bust their budgets

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 Aircraft manufacturer in the business.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKC135Hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 22904 times:

I sure hope that I get a chance to work on this aircraft some day. I'm ready for a change.

User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 22900 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 100):
Boeing tanker program seen $1 billion over budget:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...oeing-tanker-idUSBREA2K1UA20140321

What is causing the cost overrun? Was is caused by their low bid?


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 108, posted (8 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 22850 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 104):

The cockpit structure is still commercial. Most of the systems that fly the airplane are still commercial. There may be some systems that are specifically military like the secure com link and ewsp system.

But being commercial is more than just the hardware. It's the complete manufacturing process from ordering materials to the final bolts. Boeing is taking advantage of the existing commercial infrastructure to reduce the cost of the tanker. If you can share the overhead with the other programs, you can save significant money. (Enven thoughn Boeing's overhead is pretty high).

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1894 posts, RR: 0
Reply 109, posted (8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 22799 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 107):
What is causing the cost overrun? Was is caused by their low bid?

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 a lot of that is work and risk retirement that was originally planned for later, and everything is pretty much on budget, so they'll recoup some of it in the future under production expenses.
The Air Force's claim of development cost overrun doesn't agree with Boeing's claims. Boeing says it's more a case of shifting productions costs to development, and is just an accounting change. It's very common to do stuff like that to move profits and losses from one budget to another depending on corporate profit and tax situations for those years.
It's like Boeing taking billions in losses for 787 development to get certain expenses out of the production budget.
(A guess on my part. Stitch probably knows a lot more about that situation)



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 110, posted (8 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 22613 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 109):
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 a lot of that is work and risk retirement that was originally planned for later, and everything is pretty much on budget, so they'll recoup some of it in the future under production expenses.
The Air Force's claim of development cost overrun doesn't agree with Boeing's claims. Boeing says it's more a case of shifting productions costs to development, and is just an accounting change. It's very common to do stuff like that to move profits and losses from one budget to another depending on corporate profit and tax situations for those years.
It's like Boeing taking billions in losses for 787 development to get certain expenses out of the production budget.
(A guess on my part. Stitch probably knows a lot more about that situation)

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 be a 1:1 replacement for the KC-135s. Either way 179 is a far cry from the current force strength of of 415 KC 135s.


User currently offlineandydtwnwa7 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 111, posted (7 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 22234 times:

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 perfection in my search though).

Will the KC-46 be equipped with a HUD? I've seen some mock-up pictures circulating with one, and others that do not show it.


User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 112, posted (7 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 22016 times:

Quoting andydtwnwa7 (Reply 111):
Will the KC-46 be equipped with a HUD? I've seen some mock-up pictures circulating with one, and others that do not show it.

I baffles me why some aircraft are only built with one


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 113, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 21358 times:

The second KC-46A tanker was moved out of the EMC.

http://paineairport.com/kpae10272.htm



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 114, posted (7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 21208 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 110):
What are Boeing's projections for the USAF past their initial 179 plane order? Im very skeptical that it would be a 1:1 replacement for the KC-135s. Either way 179 is a far cry from the current force strength of of 415 KC 135s.

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


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 115, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 21101 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 113):
The second KC-46A tanker was moved out of the EMC.

Curious, I see the forward cargo door is the standard size and not the larger like that's on the -300F series.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 116, posted (7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 20990 times:

Here's a better picture of the second tanker by Bernie Leighton:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernieleighton/13675584755/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineinfiniti329 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 782 posts, RR: 0
Reply 117, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 20672 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 114):
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

Why have two different procurement programs to replace one aircraft?

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 116):


Here's a better picture of the second tanker by Bernie Leighton:

She looks so small


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 118, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 20638 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 115):

Curious, I see the forward cargo door is the standard size and not the larger like that's on the -300F series.

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.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 117):
She looks so small

It does, I think it's just the angle of the photo although the slightly longer length over the standard -200 is not apparent in that shot.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2194 posts, RR: 14
Reply 119, posted (7 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 20672 times:

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/photos/moonm/13709477873/



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 120, posted (7 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 20343 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 117):
She looks so small
Quoting Max Q (Reply 118):
It does, I think it's just the angle of the photo although the slightly longer length over the standard -200 is not apparent in that shot.

Here's another shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13753048724/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 121, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20062 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 120):
Here's another shot:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13753048724/

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 painted looks to be a dark blue or charcoal grey.

Is the KC-46 going to have a livery like the Chilean Air Force?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...C_Chilean_Air_Force_%28FACh%29.JPG


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1101 posts, RR: 0
Reply 122, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20072 times:

"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 $1.8 million per aircraft, according to a new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.

The US Air Force program “has made good progress over the past year” as “acquisition costs have remained relatively stable” and “the program is on track to meet performance parameters,” GAO said in the report released on Thursday.

“The next 12 months will be challenging as the program must complete software development, verify that the software works as intended, finalize developmental flight test planning and begin developmental flight tests,” the report states.

The estimated price tag for the entire program has also fallen $323 million to just under $51.4 billion, according to the report.



http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...Projection-Drops-1-8M-Per-Aircraft



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 123, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20053 times:

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.

User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 124, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20059 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 121):
Is the KC-46 going to have a livery like the Chilean Air Force?

To cut costs, they are selling banner style advertising on the sides and belly..   


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 125, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 20068 times:

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 they are not part of the LAIRCM system.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 126, posted (7 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 20062 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 121):

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



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 127, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 20119 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 121):
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 painted looks to be a dark blue or charcoal grey.

Is the KC-46 going to have a livery like the Chilean Air Force?

Here's a better shot in full daylight:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13792893024/



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1894 posts, RR: 0
Reply 128, posted (7 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19975 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 125):

Seems something new is on the wingtips, unless I missed something. I know they are not part of the LAIRCM system.

Something to do with wingtip inertia sensing?



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 129, posted (7 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 19840 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 118):
Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 115):

Curious, I see the forward cargo door is the standard size and not the larger like that's on the -300F series.

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.

What do you think TopBoom, is my guess correct ?!



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 130, posted (7 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 19765 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 127):
Here's a better shot in full daylight:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/microvolt/13792893024/

Thanks

Quoting Max Q (Reply 129):
What do you think TopBoom, is my guess correct ?!

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-135 to the body tanks is a very small panel, just large enough for a man to fit through. The bladder tank segments are installed and removed through this panel, and the maintenance guys say that is a real pain in the butt.
The air refueling fuel pumps, in the body tanks are also serviced though the bottom of the KC-135, they are large, heavy, and cumbersome to fit through the panels too.

Leaving the fore and aft cargo doors reduces structural design changes and improves maintenance access. I do notice there is no bulk cargo door aft of the aft cargo door.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 131, posted (7 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 19679 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 130):
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-135 to the body tanks is a very small panel, just large enough for a man to fit through. The bladder tank segments are installed and removed through this panel, and the maintenance guys say that is a real pain in the butt.
The air refueling fuel pumps, in the body tanks are also serviced though the bottom of the KC-135, they are large, heavy, and cumbersome to fit through the panels too.

Leaving the fore and aft cargo doors reduces structural design changes and improves maintenance access. I do notice there is no bulk cargo door aft of the aft cargo door.

Thanks for the info TBoom, best wishes.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2194 posts, RR: 14
Reply 132, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 19541 times:

The third KC46 (767-2C, L/N1067) emerged from the assembly line (building 40-32) and was towed to the fueldock.

KPAE, April14 2014
http://paineairport.com/images/kpae10304.png
Original uploaded by Matt Cawby.

For more pictures, see : http://kpae.blogspot.nl/2014/04/paine-field-april-14.html



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 133, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 19497 times:

Anyone know if the auxiliary fuel tanks are installed already on the production line or do these mods come later ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 134, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 19417 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 133):
Anyone know if the auxiliary fuel tanks are installed already on the production line or do these mods come later ?

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 make sense. But then you have to figure on how the plane was certified.

It may have been easier/cheaper to certify the tanks as part of the basic frame configuration (before the "mod") than trying to do it after.

For the P-8A the tank configuration was probably already certified by the BBJ.

For the tanker, it would depend on if they already have a certified configuration. Otherwise from manufacturing stand point, it would be better to have the tanks in during the mission system installation phase.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 135, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 19387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 134):
For the tanker, it would depend on if they already have a certified configuration. Otherwise from manufacturing stand point, it would be better to have the tanks in during the mission system installation phase.

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 mean that they would not be part of the basic airframe certification and would be added during the mission system installation phase.


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2194 posts, RR: 14
Reply 136, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 19358 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 133):
Anyone know if the auxiliary fuel tanks are installed already on the production line or do these mods come later ?

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 Major General John Thompson AFA held at the Air and Space Technology Exposition, with the titel " KC-46 Requirements " at 17 September 2013 :
http://www.af.mil/Portals/1/document...0events/af-130917-AFA-Thompson.pdf
And look at page 5.

"Then as the aircraft proceeds down the line in the plant there at Everett we are turning out a provision freighter which we refer to as the 767-2C.
That's our baseline aircraft that will come out of the end of the factory. It will have the enhanced flight deck, it will have the cargo floor and door, it will have the body fuel tanks for the air refueling mission and lots of provisions for the tanker system "



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 137, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 19352 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 not ever see them installed in the FAL, but that's why the EMC is important.

User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2170 posts, RR: 4
Reply 138, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19328 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 137):
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.

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 737 AEW&C EWSP sensors (I think) out on the wind tip.

bt



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 139, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 19346 times:

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 117):
Why have two different procurement programs to replace one aircraft?

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 different maintenance profiles.

Quoting 747classic (Reply 136):
The aux tanks will be certified during the 767-2C amended type certification and conseq. must be installed at the assembly line.

I'm wondering if similar tanks were used by KC-767 for Japan and Italy.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 140, posted (7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 19306 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 139):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 136):The aux tanks will be certified during the 767-2C amended type certification and conseq. must be installed at the assembly line.
I'm wondering if similar tanks were used by KC-767 for Japan and Italy.

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 carry a max fuel load of 160,000 lbs., all in the original fuel system of the B-767-200ER with a center wing fuel tank. The KC-46A will carry about 215,000 lbs. of fuel.

The KC-767A/J have a MTOW of 395,000 lbs., the KC-46A will have a MTOW of 415,000 lbs. Yes, the difference is about 50,000 lbs. in fuel, but only 20,000 lbs. in MTOW. Remember the KC-46 will not have an airliner interior with pax seats, like the Italian and Japanese models do (although it is a quick change interior for Japan). There are other features the Italians and Japanese have that are not in the US version, or are different features.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 141, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 19173 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 140):

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 carry a max fuel load of 160,000 lbs., all in the original fuel system of the B-767-200ER with a center wing fuel tank. The KC-46A will carry about 215,000 lbs. of fuel.

The KC-767A/J have a MTOW of 395,000 lbs., the KC-46A will have a MTOW of 415,000 lbs. Yes, the difference is about 50,000 lbs. in fuel, but only 20,000 lbs. in MTOW. Remember the KC-46 will not have an airliner interior with pax seats, like the Italian and Japanese models do (although it is a quick change interior for Japan). There are other features the Italians and Japanese have that are not in the US version, or are different features.

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 -400 version still 'only' carries 160k of fuel yet its enough to go NYC-HNL non stop, up to 12 hours sometimes in the winter in a much heavier (450k) aircraft.


215 thousand pounds of fuel in that -200 airframe is a lot of bang for the buck and it will have a lot to give away, it will also take up very little space on the ramp, have a great cargo and / or passenger capacity and be able to maneuver in flight without hard limits. I would think this could be a great advantage to the Air Force.



This was a very good choice despite the delays it took to make the decision and I hope they buy a lot more. It seems like an ideal aircraft to replace the rest of the KC135's and the AWAC'S / JSTAR fleet.

[Edited 2014-04-16 01:08:11]


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 142, posted (7 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 19028 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 141):

215 thousand pounds of fuel in that -200 airframe is a lot of bang for the buck and it will have a lot to give away, it will also take up very little space on the ramp, have a great cargo and / or passenger capacity and be able to maneuver in flight without hard limits. I would think this could be a great advantage to the Air Force.

This was a very good choice despite the delays it took to make the decision and I hope they buy a lot more. It seems like an ideal aircraft to replace the rest of the KC135's and the AWAC'S / JSTAR fleet.

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 that it's only going to hold 15K more fuel than the full take off load of it's venerable predecessor! I remember MANY 195K's over the years, and a few "more" than that during Desert Storm, OEF/OIF from Mildenhall and Incirlik!

ALWAYS a pleasure reading what you guys add to these!

135Mech


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 143, posted (7 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 18916 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 142):
Funny that it's only going to hold 15K more fuel than the full take off load of it's venerable predecessor! I

I think thats true but it has only two very efficient engines burning that fuel load rather than four ancient ones !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 144, posted (7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 18920 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 143):
I think thats true but it has only two very efficient engines burning that fuel load rather than four ancient ones !

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!

135Mech


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 145, posted (7 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 18935 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 144):
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!

No question the old Pratt & Whitneys are great engines, incidentally the two engines on the KC46 will have over 120K of combined thrust !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2378 posts, RR: 10
Reply 146, posted (7 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 18869 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 143):
I think thats true but it has only two very efficient engines burning that fuel load rather than four ancient ones !

We were Gods - we made water burn!
 



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12641 posts, RR: 35
Reply 147, posted (7 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18676 times:

Another picture:


Around KPAE 4-18-14 by moonm, on Flickr



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 148, posted (7 months 6 days ago) and read 18545 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 145):
No question the old Pratt & Whitneys are great engines, incidentally the two engines on the KC46 will have over 120K of combined thrust !

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 throttle back like we did in later years!

Have a good weekend friend!

135Mech


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4732 posts, RR: 18
Reply 149, posted (7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18502 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 148):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 145):
No question the old Pratt & Whitneys are great engines, incidentally the two engines on the KC46 will have over 120K of combined thrust !

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 throttle back like we did in later years!

Have a good weekend friend!

135Mech

Likewise, best wishes !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineKc135hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 150, posted (7 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 18201 times:

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.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 151, posted (7 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 18060 times:

Quoting Kc135hydraulics (Reply 150):
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.

McConnell and Pease are the first two bases to get them.


User currently offlineKc135hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 152, posted (7 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 18033 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 151):
McConnell and Pease are the first two bases to get them.

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.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 153, posted (7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 17958 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kc135hydraulics (Reply 152):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 151):
McConnell and Pease are the first two bases to get them.

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.

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, that this is a "funding" to build it back up most likely since they went partial active duty again a few years ago with that last BRaC set of rounds.

Air Traffic Control wise though, it's not bad...not close enough to a major airport to interfere with ATC's traffic, unlike McGuire which is in the middle of EVERYTHING there on the east coast.

135Mech


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 154, posted (7 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 17935 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 139):
Also I believe we can presume it is two types of aircraft: KC-135E and KC-135R, because they have different maintenance profiles.

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 procurement program versus having another one; similar example to the C-17 order; after the first 120 were delivered, another 60 were ordered as a follow on. I'd imagine it would be a lot larger of an order, and would possibly include changes in technology as block upgrades come along. No need to start another bidding war when Boeing is going to win in the end anyways.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12837 posts, RR: 25
Reply 155, posted (7 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 17840 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 154):
E models haven't been flown for 4 years...they are replacing the R/T models.

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. Current fleet size is "414 Stratotankers, of which the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard fly 247 aircraft in support of AMC's mission".

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 154):

I have a feeling they are just going to do a follow on order on this procurement program versus having another one; similar example to the C-17 order; after the first 120 were delivered, another 60 were ordered as a follow on. I'd imagine it would be a lot larger of an order, and would possibly include changes in technology as block upgrades come along. No need to start another bidding war when Boeing is going to win in the end anyways.

I think that's how it will play out, but I have a hard time seeing an eventual purchase of 414 frames.

The large number of frames to replace makes it clear that the USAF should not be retiring the KC-10 any time soon.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2305 posts, RR: 1
Reply 156, posted (7 months 22 hours ago) and read 17723 times:

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.


Go coogs! \n//
User currently onlinelarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1505 posts, RR: 0
Reply 157, posted (7 months 21 hours ago) and read 17741 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 156):
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.

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 much weight around, fuel is a lot denser than passengers so you don't need the larger frame. Besides the -400ER s not offered anymore.
According to Wikpedia the 767-2C has an OEW of 181600lb compared to the 767-300ER's of 190000lb. MTOW is 415000lb, 3000lb higher tan the -300ER's 412000lb.

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 158, posted (7 months 18 hours ago) and read 17717 times:

Quoting larshjort (Reply 157):
It's not based on the 767-200ER, It is a 767-2C which slots in between the -200 and -300 in length.

Check this picture from the GAO (april 2014). It's the same fuselage than the 767-200ER.

http://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/17/03/84/59/kc4610.png

http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/662448.pdf


User currently onlinelarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1505 posts, RR: 0
Reply 159, posted (7 months 17 hours ago) and read 17687 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 158):

Check this picture from the GAO (april 2014). It's the same fuselage than the 767-200ER.

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_tanker_backgrounder.pdf

Here is a PDF comparing -200ER/-300ER/-400ER. Here the 767-200ER is 159' 2" which equals 48,51m.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...7family/pdf/767_sizecomparison.pdf

A FI artcle at the time of the launch:

Quote:
The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...-identity-of-kc-46a-tanker-357700/

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineChaosTheory From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2013, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 160, posted (7 months 17 hours ago) and read 17688 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 158):
Check this picture from the GAO (april 2014). It's the same fuselage than the 767-200ER.

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.boeing.com/assets/pdf/def.../pdf/kc46a_tanker_backgrounder.pdf

which when compared with the 767-200ER here:

http://i1312.photobucket.com/albums/t534/chaostheory2/767l_zps9513e688.jpg

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/com...7family/pdf/767_sizecomparison.pdf

tells us that you are wrong.


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 161, posted (7 months 16 hours ago) and read 17676 times:

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 cockpit and freighter cargo door & floor. And the KC-46 is a 767-2C with refueling system and military avionics.

User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 162, posted (7 months 16 hours ago) and read 17675 times:

and the 767-2C is an amended type certificate (ATC) not a supplemental type certificate (STC), which means only minor changes.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31223 posts, RR: 85
Reply 163, posted (7 months 13 hours ago) and read 17639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting queb (Reply 161):
the 6 extra feet come from the fuel boom.

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 nose and the tail fin, not the end of the boom (which extends beyond the tail fin).




We'll know for sure once Boeing updates the 767 Product Page and/or ACAP with the 767-2C general characteristics.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3717 posts, RR: 27
Reply 164, posted (7 months 10 hours ago) and read 17601 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 156):

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.

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 lost the contract.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 165, posted (7 months 3 hours ago) and read 17521 times:

Quoting Kc135hydraulics (Reply 152):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 151):McConnell and Pease are the first two bases to get them.
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.

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.

Quoting 135mech (Reply 153):
Ha, I agree with ya...sadly THIS was politics at it's BEST! It's a decent place

Assigning the KC-46 to Pease had nothing to do with politics.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 154):
Quoting Revelation (Reply 139):Also I believe we can presume it is two types of aircraft: KC-135E and KC-135R, because they have different maintenance profiles.
E models haven't been flown for 4 years...they are replacing the R/T models.

The original justification for the KC-X was to replace the KC-135E.

Quoting queb (Reply 161):
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 cockpit and freighter cargo door & floor. And the KC-46 is a 767-2C with refueling system and military avionics.

No, the Boom does not extend 6' beyond the tail.

Quoting queb (Reply 162):
and the 767-2C is an amended type certificate (ATC) not a supplemental type certificate (STC), which means only minor changes.

No, the USAF RFP calls for an STC

Quoting Stitch (Reply 163):
I've seen media reports that state the 50.44m length does not include the boom.

Correct. The B-767-2C has two more frames than the B-767-200ER has.


User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 166, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 17436 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 165):
No, the USAF RFP calls for an STC

The STC is for the KC-46, not the 767-2C.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 167, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 17358 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 166):
The STC is for the KC-46, not the 767-2C.

Dumb question, but aren't these basically the same aircraft?



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 168, posted (6 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 17350 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 167):
Dumb question, but aren't these basically the same aircraft?

No, the -2C is the civil variant while the KC-46 is the military tanker.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2457 posts, RR: 5
Reply 169, posted (6 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 17230 times:

Quoting queb (Reply 168):

I should have been clearer. It's basically the same platform is what I meant.



Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently onlinequeb From Canada, joined May 2010, 726 posts, RR: 3
Reply 170, posted (6 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 17229 times:

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 169):
I should have been clearer. It's basically the same platform is what I meant.

The same platform but not the same certification, see this picture of modification steps from the GAO :

http://i58.servimg.com/u/f58/17/03/84/59/kc4610.png

767-200ER --> 767-2C (ATC) --> KC-46 (STC)


User currently offline747classic From Netherlands, joined Aug 2009, 2194 posts, RR: 14
Reply 171, posted (6 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 17203 times:

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 FAA.

- Actually this amended type certification will be performed with test aircraft #1 (L/N1065) and #3 (L/N1067).
- Both aircraft are already factory prepared to accept the military systems , but no miltary hardware is installed during this amended certification.

Test aircraft #2 (L/N1066) and #4 (L/N1068) will be first used for integration of the military (sub)systems into the 767-2C airframe.

After the 767-2C variant has been certified, a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) has to be certified for the fully miltary equipped KC46 variant.
This supplementa type certification will be done with test aircraft #2 and #4.

Later, after all military hardware has also been installed in test aircraft #1 and #3 , both will join the certification effort.
At that stage four aircraft are available to speed up the (military) suplemental type certification effort, before the actual KC-46 assembly starts.



Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 172, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16974 times:

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. The 4 flight test aircraft will be delivered after that.

User currently offlineKc135hydraulics From United States of America, joined Nov 2012, 316 posts, RR: 0
Reply 173, posted (6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 16968 times: