Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Sun May 17, 2015 6:03 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 199):
I am pretty sure the 767-200 fuselage was always considered.

Yes, the tanker was always going to be a -200 fuselage. Tail strike problems with using a -300.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Sun May 17, 2015 11:28 am

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 200):
Tail strike problems with using a -300

IAI doesn't seem to have tail strike problems with a converted 767-300 tanker.
See : http://www.janes.com/article/42637/i...-with-a-fbw-boom-refuelling-system
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 868
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Sun May 17, 2015 11:23 pm

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 200):

Yes, the tanker was always going to be a -200 fuselage. Tail strike problems with using a -300.
Quoting 747classic (Reply 201):

IAI doesn't seem to have tail strike problems with a converted 767-300 tanker.

I also thought part of the reasoning for the -200 over the -300 was it was a closer in size to the KC-135's footprint, where the -300 was significantly larger.
Pilots are idiots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri May 22, 2015 4:02 am

Quoting 747classic (Reply 201):
IAI doesn't seem to have tail strike problems with a converted 767-300 tanker.

I was only repeating what I was told while at Boeing Wichita in the early 2000s. IAI has proven me wrong. It may be possible that booms have become less bulky in the last 14 years.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11209
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Sat May 23, 2015 11:16 pm

In the early 1990s Boeing proposed a tanker based on the B-767-300ERF, including a KC-10 style Boom Pod.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon May 25, 2015 5:00 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 205):
In the early 1990s Boeing proposed a tanker based on the B-767-300ERF, including a KC-10 style Boom Pod.

Top Boom - Mea Culpa. All I can say is what I was told by tanker engineers at the start of the international 767 program. That the 757 was a better candidate due to its better tail clearance than the 767.

What limitations on rotation (and therefore field length) would have been imposed on the -300 tanker over the basic -300?

The basic -300 requires 800 ft more runway than a basic -200 at the same Max Take-off weight (approx 350K lbs) and engine combination (ref Boeing 767 airport planning document). The only significant aerodynamic difference between the -200 and -300 at take-off, is the rotation angle. Reduce the allowed rotation angle more due to boom geometry, how much more runway is required?

When Boeing itroduced the 737-900, the field length performance suffered compared to the -800 at the same take-off weight. The -900 basic requires a 1,200 ft longer take-off run over the -800 due to its shallower rotation angle caused by the longer fuselage.

When Boeing introduced the 737-900IGW / ER, one of the requirements of the IT operators was that Boeing get the field performance of the -800 back with the -900IGW. Boeing had to redesign the leading edge devices and change the flap schedule to get back the field length of the -800 at the same take-off weight, which made the -900 IGW attractive to airlines like Hapag Loyd. (Ref Boeing 737 Airport Planning Document for takeoff performance)
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon May 25, 2015 9:30 pm

Are there any improvements or changes to the PW engines for these birds? Or just the normal run of the mill 4062? How has fuel efficiency and maintenance improved on these engines over their decades-long life in service? Why was PW selected over GE CF6?


I probably missed this somewhere. Apologies in advance if it has been asked before.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27558
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon May 25, 2015 11:07 pm

Quoting OKCFlyer (Reply 207):
Are there any improvements or changes to the PW engines for these birds? Or just the normal run of the mill 4062?

From what I have read, it's the standard 4062 variant found on commercial 767s.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Tue May 26, 2015 7:42 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 208):
From what I have read, it's the standard 4062 variant found on commercial 767s.

Was the idea of GEnx's or a spinoff ever even entertained? Seems like a no brainer if the savings own up to what's advertised.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1497
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Tue May 26, 2015 7:48 pm

^ does it? A more expensive engine with new expensive certification and engineering costs to save fuel on the few very hours these things fly? The advertised efficiency has a flight hours denominator.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27558
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Tue May 26, 2015 11:22 pm

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 209):
Was the idea of GEnx's or a spinoff ever even entertained?

Not to my knowledge. It was always between the PW4000 and GE CF6-80. I imagine the USAF wanted to stick with "tried and true" for the engines (perhaps for spares / maintenance / reliability reasons).
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri May 29, 2015 3:43 am

Anyone know why PW was the selected vendor? Would performance retention factor into the decision?
 
queb
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:10 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri May 29, 2015 3:57 pm

Quoting OKCFlyer (Reply 212):
Anyone know why PW was the selected vendor? Would performance retention factor into the decision?

Because PW was the Boeing partner for this bid, Airbus and GE were together for the KC-45
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26152
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:54 am

Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27558
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jun 17, 2015 7:12 pm

Boeing has posted a video of the KC-46A performing a flight with WARPS and refueling boom attached:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHTJHzQR9RI
 
Max Q
Posts: 8908
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Thu Jun 18, 2015 5:12 am

Looks great, beautiful aircraft.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:28 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 216):
Looks great, beautiful aircraft.

it would look even better with winglets
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 770
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:17 pm

Quoting Max Q (Reply 216):

It's amazing how something as minor as LED lighting can give a modernized look to an old design!
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jun 22, 2015 4:13 pm

Has any pictures of the actual flight deck been made public yet?
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3232
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:09 pm

Quoting AviationAddict (Reply 218):
It's amazing how something as minor as LED lighting can give a modernized look to an old a classic design!

Fixed it for you...
 
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jun 22, 2015 6:25 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 219):
Has any pictures of the actual flight deck been made public yet?
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 5:22 am

Quoting PC12Fan (Reply 221):

By actual I meant real not a rendering... sorry for being unclear.
 
PC12Fan
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:50 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:21 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 222):

No worries.   
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
 
User avatar
7BOEING7
Posts: 3039
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:28 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:22 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 222):
By actual I meant real not a rendering... sorry for being unclear.

Though not an actual airplane I think that is the a real cockpit in one of the engineering simulators -- note the "black" triangles in the corner of the windows.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri Jul 17, 2015 2:30 pm

Boeing takes another $536 million charge. Cost overrun is now approaching $1.5 billion.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...nternal-kc-46-cost-overrun-414758/

Quote:
Boeing will absorb another after-tax charge related to the KC-46 programme, as overall costs approach $1.5 billion over the US Air Force’s original contract award.

The after-tax charge of $536 million will be reported in the second quarter results to be announced on 22 July. That charge comes only a year after Boeing reported a $272 million after-tax charge on the KC-46 programme.

Boeing blames the latest charge on “higher estimated engineering and manufacturing costs to complete development, certification and initial production of the tanker aircraft”.

Delivery schedule remains unchanged.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26152
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:11 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 225):
Cost overrun is now approaching $1.5 billion.

I found the following to be of interest:

Quote:

Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessed the programme and predicted that Boeing’s costs would overrun the escalation amount by $786 million.

Even as Boeing acknowledged a $272 million after-tax charge on the programme last year, however, then-Boeing chairman and chief executive Jim McNerney dismissed the GAO’s higher cost overrun estimate, saying the body was using military-based metrics and Boeing was running the development programme on a more efficient, commercial basis.

As it turned out, Boeing’s costs exceeded the GAO’s estimate by more than $200 million.

As usual, defense contractors always play down reports of potential huge overruns, to only come up with even larger overruns later. What a bunch of ass clowns.

Reuters ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...oeing-tanker-idUSL2N0ZX0KR20150717 ) reports:

Quote:

Boeing said the extra spending was needed to fix the tanker's integrated fuel system, which delivers fuel to the aircraft itself and is also used for refueling other aircraft in mid-air after problems emerged during testing.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19816
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri Jul 17, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 225):
Boeing takes another $536 million charge. Cost overrun is now approaching $1.5 billion.

How much more would it be if they didn't have all that tanker experience?   
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
FrmrKSEngr
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 6:05 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Sat Jul 18, 2015 3:42 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 227):
How much more would it be if they didn't have all that tanker experience?

They dispersed the tanker experience when they closed Wichita.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6227
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Sat Jul 18, 2015 7:29 am

Quoting FrmrKSEngr (Reply 228):
They dispersed the tanker experience when they closed Wichita.

It's working really well for them.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3720
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:57 am

Quoting Revelation (Reply 226):
As usual, defense contractors always play down reports of potential huge overruns, to only come up with even larger overruns later. What a bunch of ass clowns.

Reuters ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...oeing-tanker-idUSL2N0ZX0KR20150717 ) reports:

The issue is usually between what the contractor estimates is the development costs verses what the US DoD estimates as the development costs. Usually, if the contractor has significant and recent experience in the main technical areas, the contractor and DoD estimates are usually fairly close. However, if the contractor doesn't have any recent or good experience to draw upon, then there is a higher likelihood of there being a major mismatch, and usually the DoD's internal estimates are very close.

Best example of this was the A-12 Avenger II: The USN estimate for the development costs of the A-12 Avenger II and the McDonnell-Douglas/General Dynamics estimates was at least $500 million dollars off, with the USN estimate to be higher. In comparison, the USN estimate and the estimate from the Northrop/Grumman/Ling-Temco-Vought proposal was for all intensive purposes, practically identical, perhaps reflecting the fact that the Northrop lead team had significantly more experience in every technical area and thus provided a more realistic cost estimate.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:35 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 230):
The issue is usually between what the contractor estimates is the development costs verses what the US DoD estimates as the development costs. Usually, if the contractor has significant and recent experience in the main technical areas, the contractor and DoD estimates are usually fairly close. However, if the contractor doesn't have any recent or good experience to draw upon, then there is a higher likelihood of there being a major mismatch, and usually the DoD's internal estimates are very close.

In this case the estimates and contracted development cost are on Boeing's responsibility. Boeing was said to have the experience, so a major mismatch is due to either a calculated low bid by Boeing or they are screwing up the execution of the project.
It seems that the main aim by Boeing, keeping Airbus out of the tanker business, was the overriding consideration.
It is still only the contract for the 18 frames for trial. If Boeing does run into serious trouble and there I include overrunning the time frames, how likely is it that we see a new competition for the contract or at least for the next batch?

The Airbus frame offered is meanwhile in operation in several air forces around the world and could be called a known standard offering with the problems already ironed out.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27558
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:18 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 231):
It is still only the contract for the 18 frames for trial. If Boeing does run into serious trouble and there I include overrunning the time frames, how likely is it that we see a new competition for the contract or at least for the next batch?

After three tries already, the plane would probably need to fall out of the sky during test before the USAF re-bids it. 
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 231):
The Airbus frame offered is meanwhile in operation in several air forces around the world and could be called a known standard offering with the problems already ironed out.

To be fair, so is the KC-767 (Italy and Japan).

I imagine the KC-45A was as different from the A330MRTT in service with multiple air forces as the KC-46A is to the KC-767. I expect it is the USAF configuration that is giving Boeing fits, not the basic airframe itself. As such, I would not have been surprised if we would have seen the KC-45A slip schedule, as well.

[Edited 2015-07-20 06:19:48]
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3901
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jul 20, 2015 1:40 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 227):
How much more would it be if they didn't have all that tanker experience?

Unfortunately, even if they still had the tanker experience, they did not make full use of the personnel. The Tanker program development is being headed by BCA not BDS. And while BCA can probably absorb much of the overun, it is still a big hit for the company.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 231):

The Airbus frame offered is meanwhile in operation in several air forces around the world and could be called a known standard offering with the problems already ironed out.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 232):

To be fair, so is the KC-767 (Italy and Japan).

Not sure about the Airbus frames, but the KC-767 was a cut and paste program where the original airframe had to be modified from a commercial frame to a tanker frame. This type of mod is fine for small batches, but if you are going to deliver 100 frames then you need to have the original frame completed with all the necessary structural provisions for the system attachment. That is where BCA comes in. The frame from BCA will come ready for the system attachment without need to cut into the existing metal. This in the long run would save money but for the short run costs a lot more.

Still, no excuse for bad execution on the wiring and fuel issue.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27558
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:04 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 233):
Not sure about the Airbus frames, but the KC-767 was a cut and paste program where the original airframe had to be modified from a commercial frame to a tanker frame. This type of mod is fine for small batches, but if you are going to deliver 100 frames then you need to have the original frame completed with all the necessary structural provisions for the system attachment.

As I recall, the original 100-frame lease back in 2002 was going to be similar to the KC-767 program - build a 767-200 and send it off to Wichita for outfitting.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jul 20, 2015 2:22 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 232):
I imagine the KC-45A was as different from the A330MRTT in service with multiple air forces as the KC-46A is to the KC-767. I expect it is the USAF configuration that is giving Boeing fits, not the basic airframe itself. As such, I would not have been surprised if we would have seen the KC-45A slip schedule, as well.

That is an unsupported statement. The prototype of the KC-45 was already flying, the offered refueling boom is in use as it is. The use of the A340-200/300 wings included all the necessary plumbing for the probe and drogue system.
The point with A330MRTT is how little change is needed from the original A330.

And if Boeing really does a bad job with the KC46, the competition is right there ready.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9652
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:52 pm

It is also wrong to compare the KC 46 to the KC 767. The KC 46 is a for more capable frame not in the least regarding the fuel load. Perhaps is the fuel system actually a big change to the KC 767 or the plain B767, where as the 330MRTT can use the fuel system of the 330-200 with little changes.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3901
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Mon Jul 20, 2015 6:53 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 234):
As I recall, the original 100-frame lease back in 2002 was going to be similar to the KC-767 program

That was before the P-8A program when Boeing had to re-think the way they build military derivatives. With the success of the P-8A they were able to update their proposal to go with in-line incorporation of tanker provisions. All of this is to provide savings during the production phase itself.


bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26152
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Tue Jul 21, 2015 10:11 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 231):
It seems that the main aim by Boeing, keeping Airbus out of the tanker business, was the overriding consideration.

You are free to have your own opinion, but my opinion is that Boeing is all about the money and it feels it will still be able to make up the money in the long term, otherwise they'd be scheming up a way to walk away from the program.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 236):
Perhaps is the fuel system actually a big change to the KC 767 or the plain B767

The Seattle Times supports your supposition:

Quote:

The fuel system is new on the KC-46, capable of carrying and offloading much more fuel than previous 767 tankers built for the Italian and Japanese Air Forces.

It goes on to say:

Quote:

Boeing said it’s the final major system to be qualified in the tanker development program and other non-fuel-system-related qualification testing is more than 90 percent complete.

New Boeing chief executive Dennis Muilenburg said the engineers “have a clear understanding of the work to be done” to fix the fuel system.

As someone footing the bill (in an almost immeasurably small way), I sure hope he is correct.

Ref: http://www.seattletimes.com/business...e-tanker-revising-profit-forecast/
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:23 am

More delays to come:

http://www.seattletimes.com/business...onth-delay-on-3b-tanker-contracts/

Quote:
The latest snag in Boeing’s Air Force KC-46 tanker program has pushed out the Pentagon’s go-ahead on building the first production tankers to as late as April 2016, forcing a compressed schedule that may require heavy spending.

Even so, both Boeing and the Air Force insist the jet-maker can still deliver 18 tankers ready for action just 16 months later, per the August 2017 contracted delivery deadline.

To accomplish that, a company veteran on the tanker program said Boeing has begun building the wings and body sections of the first two production jets even before the first KC-46 test flight.

So to meet the delivery schedule, Boeing is now building the first production frames ahead of certification. Let's hope little rework will be required after certification.

[Edited 2015-07-22 00:55:21]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3901
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:16 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 238):
You are free to have your own opinion, but my opinion is that Boeing is all about the money and it feels it will still be able to make up the money in the long term, otherwise they'd be scheming up a way to walk away from the program.

  

Pretty sure that without the tanker contract, Boeing would not have gotten the 50 frame Fed-Ex order as the 767 line would probably have been shut down. And the Fed-Ex order would help keep the production tanker frame cost down.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26152
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:13 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 239):
The latest snag in Boeing’s Air Force KC-46 tanker program has pushed out the Pentagon’s go-ahead on building the first production tankers to as late as April 2016, forcing a compressed schedule that may require heavy spending.

The pooch is now officially screwed.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
11Bravo
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:54 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:47 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 239):
So to meet the delivery schedule, Boeing is now building the first production frames ahead of certification. Let's hope little rework will be required after certification.

That scheme worked out so well with the 787. What could possibly go wrong?

I seems both Boeing and Airbus have become pretty dysfunctional when it comes to new aircraft programs.

787 = disaster
748 = disaster
KC46 = disaster
A380 = disaster
A400 = disaster

It doesn't inspire lots of confidence is either one unless your goal is to loose billions on all your development programs.

Good Grief.
WhaleJets Rule!
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 5:42 pm

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 242):
I seems both Boeing and Airbus have become pretty dysfunctional when it comes to new aircraft programs.

Give Airbus credit.. the A350 seems to have gotten done without a major hitch, compared to others.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27558
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:16 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 243):
Give Airbus credit.. the A350 seems to have gotten done without a major hitch, compared to others.

He did - notice it's not listed.  
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3901
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:55 pm

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 242):
I seems both Boeing and Airbus have become pretty dysfunctional when it comes to new aircraft programs.

And somehow they still seem to make money and stay in business.  

Edit: Wasn't the 747 program delays were due to the 787? Other than the slow order, was there any major issue with that program?

bt

[Edited 2015-07-22 11:56:19]
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27558
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:14 pm

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 245):
Edit: Wasn't the 747 program delays were due to the 787? Other than the slow order, was there any major issue with that program?

The 787 drawing off engineers from the 747-8 program certainly impacted development, but there were a number of issues.

The Russians (Moscow Design Center) evidently designed their parts a fair bit heavier then necessary (Soviet design philosophy?) and that the 747 has lost a fair bit of weight may be related to slimming those parts. I also recall an issue with some of the structure of the hump for the freighter that needed to be addressed. And then there was the wing flutter issue and issues with the outboard landing gear doors causing a buffet in the inboard flaps when the flaps were fully extended.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3720
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Thu Jul 23, 2015 4:25 am

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 242):
That scheme worked out so well with the 787. What could possibly go wrong?

I seems both Boeing and Airbus have become pretty dysfunctional when it comes to new aircraft programs.

787 = disaster
748 = disaster
KC46 = disaster
A380 = disaster
A400 = disaster

It doesn't inspire lots of confidence is either one unless your goal is to loose billions on all your development programs.

Practically every major highly developmental large aircraft program has encountered significant hick ups, blown budgets, and delays, be it civilian or military. It's not isolated to just one OEM or set of OEM's, but occurs everywhere. It's a product of continuously pushing the design envelope, and increasing product complexity.

The situations where you don't see any developmental issues are ones where they are reusing a lot of existing technology and aren't pushing any design envelopes.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:32 am

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 245):
Edit: Wasn't the 747 program delays were due to the 787? Other than the slow order, was there any major issue with that program?

There were some issues, some related to the wing if I recall correctly. Originally Boeing planned to use 4 test frames but had to introduce a 5th, adding more costs to the already overbudget 748 program.

All small issues together caused a major delay.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3901
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:54 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 247):
The situations where you don't see any developmental issues are ones where they are reusing a lot of existing technology and aren't pushing any design envelopes.

And if you don't push the envelope a little, then you are spending precious money designing and producing an airplane that will not be competitive. Which in itself is another disaster  

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 3803
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

RE: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery Part 2

Fri Jul 24, 2015 6:53 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 239):
So to meet the delivery schedule, Boeing is now building the first production frames ahead of certification. Let's hope little rework will be required after certification.

B767-2C, aircraft #5 and #6 are already listed in the FAA regisistry, see :
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...510K&Statetxt=WA&conVal=0&PageNo=1

According other info received the aircraft will be built at L/N1091 and 1092, so four more FEDEX B767 freighter roll-outs, before the next KC-46A will be assembled.
(Most recent FEDEX B767-32SF Final Assembly Line roll out at July 22 - L/N 1086)

L/N 1091 C/N 41852 B767-2LKC (KC46A) USAF N842BA VH005
L/N 1092 C/N 41983 B767-2LKC (KC46A) USAF N884BA VH006

Any info about the future USAF registration numbers ?
11-46005 and 11-46006 ??

[Edited 2015-07-24 00:22:44]
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], ITMercure, SamYeager2016 and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos