Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sat May 28, 2011 10:44 am

According to the The DEW Line:

Quote:
Boeing is introducing into the 767-2C a central maintenance computer, a technology normally associated with the more advanced Boeing 777. This new version of the 767 is so advanced that Boeing is required to stand-up a systems integration laboratory -- the SIL Line 0.
Quote:
...suggesting the internal system changes from the baseline 767 are far more advanced than previously believed. A dedicated SIL is an expensive investment.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...oia-exposes-kc-46s-real-id-bu.html

Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sat May 28, 2011 1:47 pm

Since the KC-46A is really a different B-767 model than the 'standard' B-767-200ER it makes sense for Boeing to designate its own internal company designation. They have done that for the B-17, B-29, B-47, B-52, and KC-135.

Yes, the systems would be different than the 'standard' B-767 as this tanker is required to do things other B-767s (except the Japanese KC-767J and Italian KC-767A) can do.

The question I have is the new B-767-2C designation really the B-767-200LRF model of the 2008 KC-767AT, and it was continued into the 2011 KC-767NG?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sat May 28, 2011 9:38 pm

Didn't need an FOIA finding, Stephen, to find the 767-2C designation. All ya had to do was look at Boeing's O&D page when the first four frames were ordered.  

As to the 767-200LRF, Guy Norris mentioned it in March while commenting on the original KC-767 prototype, which is unlikely to go anywhere (Boeing would still lose $54 million on the airframe if they scrapped it - $275 million in total when the R&D costs are added).

It sounds like the KC-46A might indeed be the 767-200LRF - or at least based on it - so it might yet see the light of day if a customer places an order.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sun May 29, 2011 8:22 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The question I have is the new B-767-2C designation really the B-767-200LRF model of the 2008 KC-767AT, and it was continued into the 2011 KC-767NG?

Me too! I wonder if Boeing will give some clarity into this, or if it will be our job to find out  
Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
As to the 767-200LRF, Guy Norris mentioned it in March while commenting on the original KC-767 prototype, which is unlikely to go anywhere (Boeing would still lose $54 million on the airframe if they scrapped it - $275 million in total when the R&D costs are added).

Is this the article you are referring to?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest



It would be a shame if they scrap a brand new frame says the enthusiast in me, although I know it is common with prototyping and certification. I just do not like to think about it.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
It sounds like the KC-46A might indeed be the 767-200LRF - or at least based on it - so it might yet see the light of day if a customer places an order.

I hope your thesis is correct Stitch. The 767-200LRF was supposed to be offered to airlines. I wonder how much of the 767-2C will be delivered to the commercial line. When can we expect to know more about the B-767-2C technical information?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Tue Jun 07, 2011 8:19 pm

According following article from Flightglobal :

The commercial 767-2C variant has been revealed as the core of the KC46A.

"Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes.

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.

The 767-2C configuration also includes a cargo floor and door, a 787-based large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, such as hose and drogue and boom refuelling systems, Boeing said.

It remains unclear, however, if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic design of the 767-200ER platform."

See : http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ial-identity-of-kc-46a-tanker.html
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:58 am

Interesting, I doubt any civil operators would find this 'version' appealing, even if offered you would lose the extra capacity of the -300 but with a heavier airframe.



I believe it will be a superb tanker however, with excellent performance, and the ability to deliver a lot of fuel from an Aircraft that takes up very little space on the ramp and is very economical to operate.



The additional length quoted in the article must surely be due to the length of the boom ?!
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:28 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 4):
The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

Thanks for posting! This is an interesting development. I will look forward to all details emerging for this platform. Some of the technology going into the tanker should find its way over to the commercial side?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
Interesting, I doubt any civil operators would find this 'version' appealing, even if offered you would lose the extra capacity of the -300 but with a heavier airframe.

If the MTOW is higher, it does not mean that the airframe is heavier, only that it can lift more. This makes sense for a tanker. In general this would be a 767-250  
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3781
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:51 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
If the MTOW is higher, it does not mean that the airframe is heavier, only that it can lift more. This makes sense for a tanker. In general this would be a 767-250

But there is always a price to be payed for this extra capacity. Usually some reinforcements here and there which add to the empty weight of the airframe. But the overall performance should be increased with these changes. Sounds a bit like going "Frankentanker" all over again though.     
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:19 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
In general this would be a 767-250
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
"Frankentanker" all over again though



IMO the KC46A (767-2C) will basically be a 763ER(F), with a shortened fuselage to obtain sufficient clearance for the refueling boom during TO and landing.

The wing platform, center wing-box and landing gears can be taken practically unchanged from the HGW 763 seen the planned MTOW, close to the max. certified MTOW of the 767-300ER and -F variants.

Only an updated (764 -777 style) cockpit, to satisfy all future navigation needs, will differ the aircraft from the previous versions.

In fact it's a trade-off : the smallest possible space taken on the ground (minimum changes needed on military airfields) and max. possible payload (fuel off load)+ cargo volume possible, fuselage length limited by the refueling boom.

Due the ground space limitations probably the winglets will not be installed. Seen the flutter problems encountered during the certification of the hose-drogue wing refueling pods at the KC767A, this seems a low risk solution.

The present configuration exactly matches the (adapted) requirements of the US Air Force, contrary to the larger A332 derivative tanker.
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 1:21 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 5):
even if offered you would lose the extra capacity of the -300 but with a heavier airframe.

 

But with the -300 you have the extra weight of the extra fuselage length. And the extra fuselage length equates to extra skin drag, thus higher fuel burn. Like others have said, the extra volume is beneficial to the package carriers. The higher relatively higher MTOW is beneficial to everyone else.

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 6):
If the MTOW is higher, it does not mean that the airframe is heavier, only that it can lift more.

  

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
Usually some reinforcements here and there which add to the empty weight of the airframe.

Don't forget the additional weight of the "Tanker Provision". Though the provision will make it easier to do a tanker mod after the Cargo Carriers are done with the frame.

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:03 pm

Quoting 747classic (Reply 8):
Due the ground space limitations probably the winglets will not be installed.

I imagine that "rakes" were not considered for the same reason?
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 1945
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 2:47 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10):
I imagine that "rakes" were not considered for the same reason?

Raked wingtips (as on the 764) require even more ground space than the 763 wing plus winglets.(wing span increases more.)
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:23 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
Sounds a bit like going "Frankentanker" all over again though.

It sounds to be a bit less like the Frankentanker already built. I wonder what will happen to this frame:

http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/15/269e84ad-06a9-489c-afaf-48b2619fe7ce.Full.jpg

Quoting 747classic (Reply 8):
IMO the KC46A (767-2C) will basically be a 763ER(F), with a shortened fuselage to obtain sufficient clearance for the refueling boom during TO and landing.

This sounds like the most reasonable explanation for the increase in length, although not as much as the 763ER.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 9):
The higher relatively higher MTOW is beneficial to everyone else.

  
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:20 pm

The 767-200LRF would have used the 767-200's fuselage, the 767-300F's undercarriage and the 767-400ER's wings.

So you would have had a plane with:

Length: 48.5m
Wingspan: 51.9m
Height: 16m
MTOW: 187t

Assuming the 767-2C uses the 767-300F's undercarriage and keeps the 767-200's wings, you have a plane with:

Length: 50.5m
Wingspan: 47.6m
Height: 16m
MTOW: 188t

For comparison, the 767-300F has the following dimensions:

Length: 55m
Wingspan: 47.5m
Height: 16m
MTOW: 185t
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:31 am

My question is:


Is this Aircraft longer just because the boom projects behind the tail or is the fuselage length actually being increased slightly ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:49 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 14):

Is this Aircraft longer just because the boom projects behind the tail or is the fuselage length actually being increased slightly ?

It seems like we have to wait until August to get more clarity:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...on-key-kc-46a-design-features.html

The part with a composite fuselage, must be wrong though...  

[Edited 2011-06-09 11:50:22]
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
TaromA380
Posts: 275
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:35 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:25 pm

Most if not all of military programs ending late and overbudget (and sometimes eventually canceled) begun with post-bid improvment ideas.
 
PolymerPlane
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:12 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:26 am

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 16):
Most if not all of military programs ending late and overbudget (and sometimes eventually canceled) begun with post-bid improvment ideas.

How do you know this is a post-bid improvement? The contract is fixed price.

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 10):
Quoting 747classic (Reply 8):
Due the ground space limitations probably the winglets will not be installed.

I imagine that "rakes" were not considered for the same reason?

I doubt it. Ground space was not a significant part of the contract consideration, price/cost was. IMO the main reason was that winglet doesn't add much to tanker mission profile.
One day there will be 100% polymer plane
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Fri Jun 10, 2011 6:30 am

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 16):
Most if not all of military programs ending late and overbudget (and sometimes eventually canceled) begun with post-bid improvment ideas.

When Boeing delivered its 500th Super Hornet for the U.S. navy it was highlighted that it was delivered both in time and under budget.    Not all program are as bad as the F-35....
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sat Jun 11, 2011 2:16 pm

The Boeing offered KC-767 to the USAF was always going to have a higher MTOW than its B-767-300ERF sister. What we did not know is the fuselarge is going to be longer that the B-767-200ER, we always knew it was to be shorter than the B-767-300ER.

So, this is not the 2008 offered B-767-200LRF, nor is that model ever to be built. It is an improved and longer version of the B-767-200ER that Boeing is calling the B-767-2C. I am assuming the B-762C will have substantially more range then the B-762E does.

My guess on a major design change is there is no below main deck cargo capability, like the KC-135 and KC-10.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:23 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 18):
When Boeing delivered its 500th Super Hornet for the U.S. navy it was highlighted that it was delivered both in time and under budget.    Not all program are as bad as the F-35....

Ahh, yes, the 500th Super Hornet. And what about the 1st Super Hornet? Oh yeah, Boeing probably doesn't want you to know how late and over budget the program was then...

Some people look at past aircraft and think the future should be all easy, forgetting that all of their beloved machines of yesteryear had growing pains and teething problems of their own when they were brand new. :I

If the F-14 were being developed today, that POS (F-14A) would be cancelled due to a prototype crash and having piss poor excuses for engines.

It's never as easy as A.netters foolishly think it is.

  B4e-Forever New Frontiers  
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:35 pm

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 15):
The part with a composite fuselage (for the 767-200LRF), must be wrong though...

They mean "composite" as in a "mix" - in the case of the 767-200LRF that was a mix of 767-200ER fuselage mated with 767-400ER wings and 767-300F undercarriage.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:23 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 19):


The Boeing offered KC-767 to the USAF was always going to have a higher MTOW than its B-767-300ERF sister. What we did not know is the fuselarge is going to be longer that the B-767-200ER, we always knew it was to be shorter than the B-767-300ER.

So, this is not the 2008 offered B-767-200LRF, nor is that model ever to be built. It is an improved and longer version of the B-767-200ER that Boeing is calling the B-767-2C. I am assuming the B-762C will have substantially more range then the B-762E does.

My guess on a major design change is there is no below main deck cargo capability, like the KC-135 and KC-10.

It will be an interesting Aircraft.


I did not know the KC135 and KC10 have no lower deck cargo capability. Is that because the space is mostly used up by auxiliary tanks ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2555
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:18 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 22):
I did not know the KC135 and KC10 have no lower deck cargo capability. Is that because the space is mostly used up by auxiliary tanks ?

I don't know about the KC-10, but yes, that is correct for the KC-135. There is a Forward and Aft Body tank below the main deck floor on the -135, where the cargo compartment would be on an airliner. In fact, the only way to offload fuel through the boom on a -135 is through one of the two body tanks. Almost all of the fuel in the 4 main wing tanks and Center Wing tank can be drained into the body tanks to be offloaded, or the -135 can burn all of that fuel itself.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:38 am

Quoting moose135 (Reply 23):

I don't know about the KC-10, but yes, that is correct for the KC-135. There is a Forward and Aft Body tank below the main deck floor on the -135, where the cargo compartment would be on an airliner. In fact, the only way to offload fuel through the boom on a -135 is through one of the two body tanks. Almost all of the fuel in the 4 main wing tanks and Center Wing tank can be drained into the body tanks to be offloaded, or the -135 can burn all of that fuel itself.

Thanks, how much fuel do these tanks hold ?


Do these tanks take up all of the lower hold space ?


I imagine you have to be careful with CG management ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9020
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:17 am

Quoting OyKIE (Reply 12):
It sounds to be a bit less like the Frankentanker already built. I wonder what will happen to this frame:

Pity it can't be converted into a fire fighter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...job/2011/06/07/AGEd2ISH_story.html
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Mon Jun 13, 2011 1:39 pm

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 16):
Most if not all of military programs ending late and overbudget (and sometimes eventually canceled) begun with post-bid improvment ideas.

Your generalization forgets that most military programs are so small that they don't get proper air time.

The small diameter bomb and the A10 re-wings are some examples of small programs that were successfully completed under budgets and on time (more or less). But your point about the big programs are taken.   

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Mon Jun 13, 2011 2:15 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 24):
Max Q

The KC-10 also has fore and aft body tanks where the below deck cargo holds would be. I'm not sure the capacity of these tanks, but the total fuel onboard the KC-10 could be 356,000 lbs. It had the standard wing and center wing fuel tanks the DC-10-30CF had.

The body tanks actually give you more control over the CG, as you can rapidly change it to what you want. But you can also get your self into trouble with it, too, if you are not careful in monitoring it.

IIRC, the KC-135 foreward bvody tank had a max capacity of about 40,000 lbs. The aft body tank could hold about 46,000 lbs, and the upper deck tank (which could only drain into the aft bodt tank) held about 14,400 lbs. The center wing tank held about 40,000 lbs and could drain into the foreward body tank, the inboard and outboard main wing tanks held a combined total of about 56,000 lbs and the reserve wing tanks held about 5,600 lbs. The reserve tanks could only drain into the outboard mains, and all four main wing tanks could drain into the aft body tank.

Total fuel capacity, with all 10 fuel tanks full was 202,000 lbs. On an EWO loaded KC-135A, the max fuel was adjusted to use the max runway lenght and the average monthly temps. Water used for the water injection weighed about 5,600 lbs, and the max ramp weight for the KC-135A/Q was 301,600 lbs, the KC-135E/R/T had max weights much higher. The KC-135D either used the KC-135A weight if it had the J-57-59W engines, or the KC-135E weight if it had theTF-33-102 engines (recycled JT-3D engines from airliner B-707s).

I could be off a little on my numbers, it has been 20 years since my last KC-135A flight.
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:33 pm

Thanks, KC135,


Very interesting and great information.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2555
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:07 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 27):
I could be off a little on my numbers, it has been 20 years since my last KC-135A flight.

Your totals are correct, and the tank quantities sound about right. I'm away for a few days, but I can dig out the Dash-1 when I get home. We had the J57-powered D-models at KGUS, but I don't recall ever seeing one of them on Alert. Max weights were the same as the A-frames, but I think T/O data was a little different - didn't they have different brakes, 5-rotor, maybe?
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:28 pm

Quoting moose135 (Reply 29):
We had the J57-powered D-models at KGUS, but I don't recall ever seeing one of them on Alert. Max weights were the same as the A-frames, but I think T/O data was a little different - didn't they have different brakes, 5-rotor, maybe?

Yes, they did have the 5 rotor brakes at a time when the KC-135A had 4 rotor brakes and the early anti-skid system. Since the "E" or "R" modifications, all got 5 rotor brakes and newer anti-skid systems.

IIRC the KC-135D was converted from the original RC-135As, and there were only 4 or 5 of them. When they were reengined with the "E" model engines, they retained the "D" model designation because they were so different from the KC-135A/E. I believe all of them were assigned to the AKANG at EIL, which also flew the KC-135E. I think all are now sitting at DM for storage.

In the late 1980s the AKANG suffered a ground fire and expolsion on one of their KC-135s at EIL, two Boom Operators were killed. They were taxiing in to parking from a mission when the explosion happened in the aft body tank. I don't remember if that airplane was a KC-135D or a KC-135E. That was the accident the first one that identified the body fuel tank refueling pumps could still run after the switch was turned off and would overheat in an empty fuel tank aqnd could eventually cause an explosion. The same type of accident happened a few months later to a LIZ (Loring AFB, now designated ME16) KC-135A returning from a mission and killed the entire crew.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2555
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:08 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
IIRC the KC-135D was converted from the original RC-135As, and there were only 4 or 5 of them.

There were 4 D-models, we had them all at Grissom in the '80s (along with all 8 RTs). We led the league in oddball -135s back then. I was qualified on 6 different aircraft back then, the three variants of KC-135, two EC-135 models (G & L) and the T-37 (ACE program).
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:22 pm

Quoting moose135 (Reply 31):
There were 4 D-models, we had them all at Grissom in the '80s (along with all 8 RTs). We led the league in oddball -135s back then. I was qualified on 6 different aircraft back then, the three variants of KC-135, two EC-135 models (G & L) and the T-37 (ACE program).

Thanks. I was only qualified in 3 models of the KC-135. The "A", "Q", and "E" models.
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:45 am

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 20):
And what about the 1st Super Hornet? Oh yeah, Boeing probably doesn't want you to know how late and over budget the program was then...

Statement from Boeing:

Quote:
Boeing has delivered every F/A-18E/F and EA-18G to the U.S. Navy on budget and ahead of schedule.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1715

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):

They mean "composite" as in a "mix" - in the case of the 767-200LRF that was a mix of 767-200ER fuselage mated with 767-400ER wings and 767-300F undercarriage.

I thought that would have been a composition of parts, not composite. But my native language is not English and your reasoning sound likely Stitch  
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 25):
Pity it can't be converted into a fire fighter.

That would have been nice 
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 22, 2011 12:48 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 30):
IIRC the KC-135D was converted from the original RC-135As, and there were only 4 or 5 of them. When they were reengined with the "E" model engines, they retained the "D" model designation because they were so different from the KC-135A/E. I believe all of them were assigned to the AKANG at EIL, which also flew the KC-135E. I think all are now sitting at DM for storage.

IIRC the -D models finished out their careers with the Kansas ANG at Forbes Field in Topeka. They were still up there in the early 2000s last I saw.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alex Christie

The last of the famous international playboys
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 1967
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 22, 2011 1:45 pm

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 20):
And what about the 1st Super Hornet? Oh yeah, Boeing probably doesn't want you to know how late and over budget the program was then...

I personally can't think of any program that doesn't start that way. At any rate, it's all about the finish line.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:05 pm

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 34):
IIRC the -D models finished out their careers with the Kansas ANG at Forbes Field in Topeka. They were still up there in the early 2000s last I saw.

I think you are right and I was wrong about the KC-135Ds finishing their careers with the KSANG. The AKANG transitioned from the KC-135D/E in 1995 to the KC-135R. Those former AKANG KC-135D/Es flew for another 8-10 years with the KSANG before retiring.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9731
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:59 pm

Received the following from Boeing by email :

Quote:
News Release Issued: June 22, 2011 2:00 AM EDT
Boeing Names KC-46 Tanker Suppliers
Nationwide team to support US Air Force aerial refueling aircraft
ST. LOUIS, June 22, 2011 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced the supplier team that will provide key components for the U.S. Air Force's KC-46 Tanker. The Air Force selected Boeing on Feb. 24 to replace 179 Eisenhower-era KC-135 aerial refueling aircraft.
"Delivering 18 combat-ready tankers to the U.S. Air Force in 78 months is our priority as a company, and it will take a talented, committed supplier team to help get that done," said Maureen Dougherty, Boeing KC-46 vice president and program manager. "We're fortunate to have a strong defense industry team of domain experts working side-by-side to provide a new generation of aerial refueling."
The KC-46 Tanker team will include more than 800 suppliers in more than 40 states and support approximately 50,000 total U.S. jobs. Major suppliers include:
• Cobham (Davenport, Iowa): Refueling systems, including wing aerial refueling pods and centerline drogue system
DRS Laurel Technologies Inc. (Johnstown, Pa.): Aerial Refueling Operator Station (AROS)
• Eaton Aerospace: Electromechanical and cargo door actuation systems (Grand Rapids, Mich.); hydraulic and fuel distribution subcomponents (Jackson, Mich.)
GE Aviation Systems (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Clearwater, Fla.): Mission control system
• Goodrich: Interiors (Colorado); landing gear (Ontario, Canada)
• Honeywell: Auxiliary power unit (Phoenix); cabin pressure control system (Tucson, Ariz.), air data inertial navigation (Coon Rapids, Minn.); lighting (Urbana, Ohio)
• Moog Inc.: Electro-hydraulic servo valves, actuators, stabilize trim controls, leading edge slat actuator, inboard/outboard leading edge rotary actuators, autopilot actuators, elevator feel system (East Aurora, N.Y.; Wolverhampton, UK); refueling boom actuators (Torrance, Calif.)
• Northrop Grumman (Rolling Meadows, Ill.): Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM)
• Parker Aerospace (Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah): Refueling components including the receptacle door actuator, aerial refueling interface control system, and wing refueling pod hydraulic power packs; primary flight controls and fuel equipment; pneumatic, fluid conveyance, and hydraulic equipment
• Pratt & Whitney (Middletown, Conn.): Engines
• Raytheon Company (El Segundo, Calif.): Digital radar warning receiver and digital anti-jam receiver GPS
• Rockwell Collins (Cedar Rapids, Iowa): Integrated display system featuring 15.1-inch diagonal crystal displays built on proven technology from the commercial 787; tactical situational awareness system; remote vision system 3-D and 2-D technology for the boom operator; communications, navigation, surveillance, networking and flight control systems
• Spirit: Forward fuselage section; strut; nacelle components to include inlet, fan cowl and core cowl; fixed fan duct (Wichita, Kan.); fixed leading edge (Prestwick, Scotland)
• Triumph Group Inc.: Horizontal stabilizer and aft body section, including pressure bulkhead; wing center section, doors, nacelles and other components including cowl doors, seal depressor panels, acoustic panels and aft wheel well bulkhead
• Woodward Inc. (Skokie, Ill.): Several elements of the aerial refueling boom, including the sensor system, control unit, and telescopic and flight control sticks.
Based on the proven Boeing 767-200ER commercial aircraft, the KC-46 is powered by two Pratt & Whitney PW4062 engines and will be flown by three aircrew members (pilot, co-pilot, boom operator) with additional permanent seating for 12 aircrew.
The KC-46 has a maximum fuel capacity of 212,000 pounds and is equipped with a flush-mounted, air-to-air refueling receptacle that is capable of onloading fuel at 1,200 gallons per minute.
Boom operators will control the refueling systems from the crew compartment via the AROS and a series of cameras mounted on the tanker’s fuselage that provide a 185-degree field of view, as well as a camera on the boom that captures 3-D video. This advanced system allows the boom operator to refuel all fixed-wing receiver aircraft, anytime, on every mission, to include simultaneous multi-point refueling from the wing air refueling pods. The KC-46 refueling systems include a digital fly-by-wire boom capable of offloading 1,200 gallons of fuel per minute, as well as a permanent centerline drogue system and removable wing air refueling pods that can each offload 400 gallons of fuel per minute.
Featuring a maximum takeoff weight of 415,000 pounds, the tanker will carry 18 463L cargo pallets (the same number of pallets as the Air Force’s Boeing C-17 airlifter) and is capable of transporting 58 passengers normally and up to 114 passengers during contingency operations. This multi-mission tanker aircraft also will provide urgent aeromedical evacuation by transporting 58 medical patients (24 litters/34 ambulatory).
Boeing will build the KC-46 Tanker using a low-risk approach to manufacturing by a trained and experienced workforce at existing facilities in Everett, Wash., and Wichita.

Less advanced than what is claimed on this thread.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:31 am

Impressive Aircraft, interesting that, not only will there be two wing mounted refueling pods, but, in addition to the centreline boom there will also be a centreline drogue system, permanently mounted.


So, a 'four point system'



Trivia questions, will all three drogue stations be capable of being used simultaneously ?



Could you use both wing pods and the centremounted boom simultaneously ?



These questions may be hard to answer now but I wonder what sort of capability exists with tankers in similar configurations ?




Wackiest question of all, don't know if this has ever been done. Could the tanker receive fuel from another tanker at the same time it gives fuel to another ?!
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2555
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:50 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 38):

Trivia questions, will all three drogue stations be capable of being used simultaneously ?

Could you use both wing pods and the centremounted boom simultaneously ?

The KC-10 has that capacity now, and no, they do not refuel three aircraft at one time. While three fighters might have room to do so, USAF refueling procedures don't allow for it.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 38):

Wackiest question of all, don't know if this has ever been done. Could the tanker receive fuel from another tanker at the same time it gives fuel to another ?!

That would be incredibly dangerous.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:59 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 37):
Received the following from Boeing by email :
Quoting zeke (Reply 37):
Less advanced than what is claimed on this thread.

Actually, it has more advanced features than I thought it would, like the boom mounted 3D camera (a feature the A-330MRTT does not have, yet), and a 415,000 lb MTOW while still carrying 10,000 lbs more fuel than the KC-135R/T can. While I knew about this extra 10,000 lbs of fuel, I had thought the MTOW would be about 430,000 lbs to 435,000 lbs. It is good to see the receptical is flush mounted, too. That will reduce drag.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 38):
Impressive Aircraft, interesting that, not only will there be two wing mounted refueling pods, but, in addition to the centreline boom there will also be a centreline drogue system, permanently mounted.


So, a 'four point system'

No, it is still a 3 point refueler, but only 2 will be used at the same time.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 38):
Could you use both wing pods and the centremounted boom simultaneously ?

No.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 38):
Wackiest question of all, don't know if this has ever been done. Could the tanker receive fuel from another tanker at the same time it gives fuel to another ?!

Actually it has been done before, during the Vietnam War. In 1967 a USAF/SAC KC-135A refueled a USN EKA-3B tanker who was out of gas while the Navy tanker also refueled an F-8C who was out of fuel. It is not a standard practice.

The KC-135A crew won the Mackay Trophy for 1967 for this unique air refueling that saved 2 USN airplanes.

Major John J. Casteel
Captain Dean L. Hoar
Captain Richard L. Trail
Master Sergeant Nathan C. Campbell
For performing the first multiple aerial refueling between a KC-135 Stratotanker and an A-3 Skywarrior which simultaneously refueled an F-8 Crusader under emergency fuel shortages and combat conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackay_Trophy#1960s
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:15 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 37):

Less advanced than what is claimed on this thread.

The details are still being held close to the vest by both the US Air Force and Boeing, so how do we really know that?
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
Max Q
Posts: 5628
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:36 am

In any case it is a very impressive and interesting Aircraft,and should be very capable considering its compact size.


Definitely the right choice for the USAF.


My only surprise is the selection of PW over GE for the engines.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13229
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Tue Jun 28, 2011 7:21 pm

Boeing's low-ball bid may cost them $300m for the first contract?

http://warnerrobinspatriot.com/bookm...wball-offer-to-win-tanker-contract

Quote:
AFA said an Air Force spokesman confirmed on Monday that Boeing’s $4.9 billion fixed price incentive bid for the first 18 KC-46As could be $300 million less than the company’s actual cost.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
USAF336TFS
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Tue Jun 28, 2011 10:44 pm

A more advanced aircraft then first thought and $300M saved by the U.S. taxpayer? I'd say that was a good deal!
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2152
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 29, 2011 12:14 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 43):
Boeing's low-ball bid may cost them $300m for the first contract?

$300 mil is trifle compared to what happened to the Wedgetail program. Not something you want to do often, but I guess Boeing did learn a thing or two from NG    .

Besides, if they can extend the production line to support a few commercial 767 freighter orders, then the $300 mil would be worth the bucks . . . didn't we discussed this before?. . . dude . . . dejavu

bikerthai
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 22923
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:19 am

Heck, the original KC-767 demonstrator they built back for the 2002 lease deal is going to end up costing them around $150 million (they hope to get about a third of that back as parts sales), so "only" losing $300 million on the first 18 KC-46As is not bad.  
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Wed Jun 29, 2011 3:43 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 45):
didn't we discussed this before?. . . dude . . . dejavu

Yes we did.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
Stitch

        
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:05 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 35):
I personally can't think of any program that doesn't start that way. At any rate, it's all about the finish line.

Then people need to stop whining about every new engineering project having a slip in schedule or budget. Scheduling and budgeting is NOT science. It's at best an art.

Not that this will stop people from crying and demanding their "flawless" F-14s be put back into service...despite the horrendous path to IOC for the Tomcat. And that's just one example.

Quoting oykie (Reply 33):
Statement from Boeing:

Quote:
Boeing has delivered every F/A-18E/F and EA-18G to the U.S. Navy on budget and ahead of schedule.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.ph...=1715

Which schedule. The 787 will be delivered on time per the last time they moved the goal posts.  

I'm not bashing Boeing, but let's be pragmatic for a change. Pushing the envelope involves a little more risk. People here scream for cancellation at the first hiccup in a FLIGHT TEST program designed to find such hiccups. This is a sad reflection of our instant gratification society.


With that said, the bigger issue I have is that Boeing has essentially admitted to low-balling their bid. A cost overrun and not a single piece of metal has been cut. KC-X, the acquisition program, was at best a total mess that miraculously gave us a tanker.

I'm not worried about advanced so long as what they deliver improves upon what we have and actually does what we want it to do.

Unneeded bells and whistles and requirements creep doomed VH-71. No need to pull down another one in a similar manner.

  B4e-Forever New Frontiers  
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Might Be More Advanced?

Sun Jul 10, 2011 4:51 pm

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 48):
Unneeded bells and whistles and requirements creep doomed VH-71.

Correct. But I think with future DOD Budget realities, I doubt you much 'creep' in the KC-46 program, at least for the first several years. That is not to say the program will advance from the to the KC-46A to a KC-46B, or even a KC-46C program in later years, that could happen.

Right now the entire KC-46A program is for 179 new tankers, and perhaps more later. But with Obama cutting anywhere from $400B to $800B in the Defense Budget over the next 8-10 years, I doubt we will see more than about 80 KC-46As built.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests