Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
UA444
Posts: 2911
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Wed Mar 04, 2020 1:34 am

747classic wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
747classic wrote:

The cheapest option is most of time not the best option, but in this case it could have been (USAF) politics ?


The PW4000 series are proven motors, probably going to be one of the most reliable pieces of equipment on that aircraft.


That's may be true, but seen all the development/ flight testing performed already at the 767-200/CF6-80C2 with warps it's not the most cost effective solution.
On top of that, most civil 767's are powered by GE engines, the second preffered engine type is P&W and the few RR powered 767 aircraft are destined to be scrapped soon.

Who cares? The USAF wanted PW. PW performed a PiP on the engines which are some of the most reliable. What worked for Japan or Italy doesn’t work the US.

Boeing sold a ton of PW 767s. Just because FX and UPS took a ton of 767Fs with GE doesn’t mean it’s better.
 
Buckeyetech
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 1:39 am

Now congress wants to help speed up the process of fixing the RVS. What could possibly go wrong? I still say it is a manufactured crisis with the “lack of tankers”. At any one time, you will see rows of tankers at bases across dozens of states, who are not currently deployed. KC-135s also have an astoundingly high mission capable rate for being over 60 years old.

https://www.airforcemag.com/congress-ma ... -46-fixes/
B-52H, C-141C, C-5A, C-17A
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 3:19 am

Someone help me out. The KC-46 cannot refuel, and cannot carry cargo. What's the best argument for continuing to accept (and pay for) them. It seems crazy to me, but I assume somewhere someone smart decided this was the best plan. Why is it the best plan?
 
Buckeyetech
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:34 am

kitplane01 wrote:
Someone help me out. The KC-46 cannot refuel, and cannot carry cargo. What's the best argument for continuing to accept (and pay for) them. It seems crazy to me, but I assume somewhere someone smart decided this was the best plan. Why is it the best plan?

I completely agree. Why not start parking them in Victorville until the RVS is fixed? That’ll raise some eyebrows.
B-52H, C-141C, C-5A, C-17A
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 12:55 pm

Stop with all the craziness.

The Air Force is only paying what for the plane can do.

The pallet issue has a fix and the vision issue only affect a certain flight condition when the sun angle hit the plane just so.

In the mean time they can fly all the other missions. And the pilots still need to train and get their flight hours in.

LOL. From what the scientists said, the vision thing is also dependent on age of the boom operator. So in an pinch, if you anticipate the glare condition to exist, send up a younger operator for that mission. :old:



bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 5:23 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Stop with all the craziness.

The Air Force is only paying what for the plane can do.

The pallet issue has a fix and the vision issue only affect a certain flight condition when the sun angle hit the plane just so.

In the mean time they can fly all the other missions. And the pilots still need to train and get their flight hours in.

LOL. From what the scientists said, the vision thing is also dependent on age of the boom operator. So in an pinch, if you anticipate the glare condition to exist, send up a younger operator for that mission. :old:



bt


I completely agree with your craziness-sentiment!

Re: the sun angles and age of the boomer, it's a bit more complicated than that... The sun angles are part of it, but there are other issues with the cameras/display which are irrespective of the sun angles. When the boom operator "composes the scene" with the receiver at precontact, the settings will be good for the receiver in that position, BUT as the receiver closes, the scene degrades - when it's most critical - so that as the receiver approaches contact the scene is less focused. Scratchy-scratchy.

The age issue means that although older booms are more prone to these errors, the younger ones are also prone to them, just to a lesser degree and take longer to manifest. Otherwise, it would be like Logan's Run as a KC-46 boom operator! The vision problems are also cumulative in the short-term, meaning boom operators suffer far more eye-strain and fatigue than was expected, necessitating that KC-46 booms don't fly solo, which is a complete non-starter as far as the AF is concerned.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 6:02 pm

just shows the Air Force isn't very smart in the system design, requirements and usage specs. when it turns out the only consistent operator is a 4ft tall 10 year old who's been playing Minecraft for 3 years maybe they'll wonder about inducting gamers for these roles.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:24 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Stop with all the craziness.

The Air Force is only paying what for the plane can do.

The pallet issue has a fix and the vision issue only affect a certain flight condition when the sun angle hit the plane just so.

In the mean time they can fly all the other missions. And the pilots still need to train and get their flight hours in.

LOL. From what the scientists said, the vision thing is also dependent on age of the boom operator. So in an pinch, if you anticipate the glare condition to exist, send up a younger operator for that mission. :old:



bt


I think you’re wrong about the facts.

The Air Force has announced they will not fly the kc-46 for any refueling missions. It’s allowed to do zero refuelings. And it cannot carry any cargo. It can carry zero cargo.

I agree they can train touch and goes, and cross country flights, but not much more.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:25 pm

Buckeyetech wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
Someone help me out. The KC-46 cannot refuel, and cannot carry cargo. What's the best argument for continuing to accept (and pay for) them. It seems crazy to me, but I assume somewhere someone smart decided this was the best plan. Why is it the best plan?

I completely agree. Why not start parking them in Victorville until the RVS is fixed? That’ll raise some eyebrows.



You misunderstood.

I’m not trying to argue against accepting them using a backhand written argument, I’m actually asking the question you see written above.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26900
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Thu Mar 05, 2020 11:01 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
And it cannot carry any cargo. It can carry zero cargo.


The cargo lock issue has been mitigated and some frames have already been updated (so they should now be able to carry cargo) with more being updated on an ongoing basis.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:40 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I think you’re wrong about the facts.

The Air Force has announced they will not fly the kc-46 for any refueling missions. It’s allowed to do zero refuelings. And it cannot carry any cargo. It can carry zero cargo.

I agree they can train touch and goes, and cross country flights, but not much more.


The truth is always more complicated than a press release.

The KC-46 is currently flying refueling missions during training sorties throughout the United States and abroad. It has been since shortly after the AF accepted the first jet. What it cannot do is refuel without serious operational limitations (crew size/quals, types of missions, airborne spare requirements, and others) that the AF absolutely cannot accept in the long-term. Everything I've just stated are facts.

The jets that have the applicable TCTO are now approved to carry cargo and/or passengers. Also a fact.

Try not to take publications that have word limits set by their editors at face value. The truth is generally less shocking, more relatable, and less black & white.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 4:51 am

kanban wrote:
just shows the Air Force isn't very smart in the system design, requirements and usage specs. when it turns out the only consistent operator is a 4ft tall 10 year old who's been playing Minecraft for 3 years maybe they'll wonder about inducting gamers for these roles.


I actually think the opposite: there's little chance Boeing would've signed a fixed-price contract had the AF nit-noided every little detail. Boeing agreed to fixed-price thinking they could do it on the cheap and they were wrong. The AF took the chance of keeping requirements fairly loose and it paid off: In the end, the USAF will eventually receive a good tanker, for far less money than they would've paid the competition. Boom stiffness issue aside, the RVS and other faults are clearly on Boeing. Let's not forget, the Airbus is also not faultless. For all the effort they put into their RVS, their boom absolutely sucks compared to the KC-46 (barring that stupid "clunking" noise from the 46). And converting the MRTT/KC-30 to the KC-45 would have had serious growing pains, too.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18748
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 8:54 am

UA444 wrote:
The USAF wanted PW.


Was that in the specs for the tanker competition?

kanban wrote:
just shows the Air Force isn't very smart in the system design, requirements and usage specs. when it turns out the only consistent operator is a 4ft tall 10 year old who's been playing Minecraft for 3 years maybe they'll wonder about inducting gamers for these roles.


But how much of this did the AF actually spec out in detail? Did they say they had to have a remote camera system for refuelling?
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.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:39 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I think you’re wrong about the facts.

The Air Force has announced they will not fly the kc-46 for any refueling missions. It’s allowed to do zero refuelings. And it cannot carry any cargo. It can carry zero cargo.

I agree they can train touch and goes, and cross country flights, but not much more.


The truth is always more complicated than a press release.

The KC-46 is currently flying refueling missions during training sorties throughout the United States and abroad. It has been since shortly after the AF accepted the first jet. What it cannot do is refuel without serious operational limitations (crew size/quals, types of missions, airborne spare requirements, and others) that the AF absolutely cannot accept in the long-term. Everything I've just stated are facts.

The jets that have the applicable TCTO are now approved to carry cargo and/or passengers. Also a fact.

Try not to take publications that have word limits set by their editors at face value. The truth is generally less shocking, more relatable, and less black & white.



Why do you think that’s true? The Air Force chief of staff told the senate the exact opposite last week. I think I should believe him.

You wrote “this is a fact”. Can you provide a source. Because the Air Force chief of staff seems like a person who should know.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-wo ... fein-says/
 
Buckeyetech
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:11 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 2:55 pm

I feel like Goldfein knows he has well over 400 KC-135s and KC-10s (PDM inducted included), and he can support any contingency without the new tankers.
B-52H, C-141C, C-5A, C-17A
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 3:44 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I think you’re wrong about the facts.

The Air Force has announced they will not fly the kc-46 for any refueling missions. It’s allowed to do zero refuelings. And it cannot carry any cargo. It can carry zero cargo.

I agree they can train touch and goes, and cross country flights, but not much more.


The truth is always more complicated than a press release.

The KC-46 is currently flying refueling missions during training sorties throughout the United States and abroad. It has been since shortly after the AF accepted the first jet. What it cannot do is refuel without serious operational limitations (crew size/quals, types of missions, airborne spare requirements, and others) that the AF absolutely cannot accept in the long-term. Everything I've just stated are facts.

The jets that have the applicable TCTO are now approved to carry cargo and/or passengers. Also a fact.

Try not to take publications that have word limits set by their editors at face value. The truth is generally less shocking, more relatable, and less black & white.



Why do you think that’s true? The Air Force chief of staff told the senate the exact opposite last week. I think I should believe him.

You wrote “this is a fact”. Can you provide a source. Because the Air Force chief of staff seems like a person who should know.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-wo ... fein-says/


If you're looking for a screenshot from G2 or a pic from the ARO station with today's USA Today in view you can look elsewhere. But a 2 second search on http://www.af.mil yielded the following: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2060117/af-week-in-photos/#.XmJr3WxAG0Q.link. The KC-46 is flying daily training sorties involving boom refueling. The CSAF says that he'll use the KC-46 operationally in a peer/near-peer conflict; how do you think he'll use crews for that mission if they haven't flown ANY training refueling flights? A few months without those sorties and they're non-current. A few months more and they're non-mission ready. A while longer and they're unqualified. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Why the disparity between the CSAF's testimony and daily events? You're defining terms in different ways than he is. When the CSAF says the KC-46 won't do any refueling unless it's a national emergency (i.e. war) what he's really saying is that he "won't use the KC-46 in an operational theater, tasked to the regional CFACC, unless in time of war". He is NOT referring to using the KC-46 on stateside training/proficiency sorties. Congress doesn't give a s**t about training sorties. They care about what's usable in the real-world if the flag goes up.

Like I said, real life is more complicated than a press release. You can add congressional testimony to that list, too.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 4015
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:22 pm

my experience with government contracting would indicate the Air Force put indicated a broad mission requirement and handed the package to the component suppliers to flesh it out in their best interest, then the package went to Congress where modifications to payoff special favors tweaked the package. Then back to the Air Force to put their best face on and sell an un-holy mess. Am I a cynic? yes but when one sees special interest groups writing legislation and filling in the blanks in government contracts, one gets that way. Too many Air Force upper echelons are more worried about post retirement board positions than its good.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26900
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 6:52 pm

UA444 wrote:
The USAF wanted PW.

scbriml wrote:
Was that in the specs for the tanker competition?


Best I can find, the airframe OEMs chose the engine OEMs: NG/EADS went with GE and Boeing went with PW.


scbriml wrote:
But how much of this did the AF actually spec out in detail? Did they say they had to have a remote camera system for refuelling?


It might have been a requirement or the USAF might not have had a "manned" option since the KC-45/A330MRTT only offered RVS and Boeing had used RVS on the KC-767A and KC-787J.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 06, 2020 10:06 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:

The truth is always more complicated than a press release.

The KC-46 is currently flying refueling missions during training sorties throughout the United States and abroad. It has been since shortly after the AF accepted the first jet. What it cannot do is refuel without serious operational limitations (crew size/quals, types of missions, airborne spare requirements, and others) that the AF absolutely cannot accept in the long-term. Everything I've just stated are facts.

The jets that have the applicable TCTO are now approved to carry cargo and/or passengers. Also a fact.

Try not to take publications that have word limits set by their editors at face value. The truth is generally less shocking, more relatable, and less black & white.



Why do you think that’s true? The Air Force chief of staff told the senate the exact opposite last week. I think I should believe him.

You wrote “this is a fact”. Can you provide a source. Because the Air Force chief of staff seems like a person who should know.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-wo ... fein-says/


If you're looking for a screenshot from G2 or a pic from the ARO station with today's USA Today in view you can look elsewhere. But a 2 second search on http://www.af.mil yielded the following: https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2060117/af-week-in-photos/#.XmJr3WxAG0Q.link. The KC-46 is flying daily training sorties involving boom refueling. The CSAF says that he'll use the KC-46 operationally in a peer/near-peer conflict; how do you think he'll use crews for that mission if they haven't flown ANY training refueling flights? A few months without those sorties and they're non-current. A few months more and they're non-mission ready. A while longer and they're unqualified. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Why the disparity between the CSAF's testimony and daily events? You're defining terms in different ways than he is. When the CSAF says the KC-46 won't do any refueling unless it's a national emergency (i.e. war) what he's really saying is that he "won't use the KC-46 in an operational theater, tasked to the regional CFACC, unless in time of war". He is NOT referring to using the KC-46 on stateside training/proficiency sorties. Congress doesn't give a s**t about training sorties. They care about what's usable in the real-world if the flag goes up.

Like I said, real life is more complicated than a press release. You can add congressional testimony to that list, too.


I totally concede that is a picture of a KC-46 flying. The caption is "A KC-46 Pegasus assigned to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing flies away after being refueled during a refueling training mission over Kansas, Jan. 6, 2020." That doesn't say they are carrying cargo, or refueling anyone else. Further searching the site show another picture with the same idea of the KC-46 receiving fuel, not giving it. "A KC-135R Stratotanker aircraft assigned to the 6th Air Mobility Wing, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., delivers fuel to a KC-46A Pegasus aircraft during a night-time refueling over Louisiana, May 16, 2019. "

The words from the article include "Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Senate legislators March 3 the service will not use the new KC-46 tanker unless absolutely necessary to fight a powerful adversary ... KC-46 is slated to be ready for operations in 2023 or 2024. But Goldfein still isn’t comfortable enough with the tanker to let it fly regular missions."
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:31 am

kitplane01 wrote:
I totally concede that is a picture of a KC-46 flying. The caption is "A KC-46 Pegasus assigned to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing flies away after being refueled during a refueling training mission over Kansas, Jan. 6, 2020." That doesn't say they are carrying cargo, or refueling anyone else. Further searching the site show another picture with the same idea of the KC-46 receiving fuel, not giving it. "A KC-135R Stratotanker aircraft assigned to the 6th Air Mobility Wing, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., delivers fuel to a KC-46A Pegasus aircraft during a night-time refueling over Louisiana, May 16, 2019. "

The words from the article include "Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Senate legislators March 3 the service will not use the new KC-46 tanker unless absolutely necessary to fight a powerful adversary ... KC-46 is slated to be ready for operations in 2023 or 2024. But Goldfein still isn’t comfortable enough with the tanker to let it fly regular missions."


I’m seeing a trend here, so please take what I say as life advice instead of me just being a d**k: You’ll do better to use some common sense and your own brain on occasion, instead of relying on google-fu, caption writers, and the CSAF’s taken-out-of-context-comments.

Case in point: the KC-46 picture I linked: if you used some common sense you would see that although the caption says “KC-46... after being refueled” the picture was taken from the back end of the KC-46 - the part that has the boom on it and is used during tanker refueling, not the front end that does receiver refueling - most likely from a heavy aircraft because if it were taken from a fighter plane the canopy bow would be visible at that angle. Either way, if the KC-46 were truly “being refueled” you would be looking at its nose, not its butt.

Subtly, but perhaps most importantly, the boom is down.

Thus far, all key indicators that the KC-46 was doing tanker refueling...

But in case you can’t cede these points because journalists are incapable of making mistakes, the caption says “The training mission allowed 911th Airlift Wing personnel from pilots to boom operators to use the opportunity to sharpen their skills”. The 911th Airlift Wing doesn’t have boom operators assigned to it because they’re an airlift wing. If they had refueling aircraft it would be called the 911th Air Refueling Wing or the 911th Air Mobility Wing If they had tankers and cargo planes. But the 911th Airlift Wing DOES have C-17s assigned to it, hmmm... interesting turn of events...

So what’s more likely? The KC-46 was somehow doing receiver AR off a C-17 with a boom operator onboard, did a lead change, and then put their boom down for some pics of the boom they never use? Or maybe the McConnell AFB-based KC-46 was tanking a 911th AW C-17 but the dude who wrote the caption wasn’t exactly Rainman and got most details in the caption wrong?

My $0.02
Last edited by LyleLanley on Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:38 am, edited 3 times in total.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:34 am

kanban wrote:
my experience with government contracting would indicate the Air Force put indicated a broad mission requirement and handed the package to the component suppliers to flesh it out in their best interest, then the package went to Congress where modifications to payoff special favors tweaked the package. Then back to the Air Force to put their best face on and sell an un-holy mess. Am I a cynic? yes but when one sees special interest groups writing legislation and filling in the blanks in government contracts, one gets that way. Too many Air Force upper echelons are more worried about post retirement board positions than its good.


I don’t disagree with anything that you’re saying. But I’ll add that even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the AF could’ve written the contract far worse.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10112
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 2:55 am

So if the US Air Force wants to use their budget to pressure Boeing to fix the KC-46, is delaying the new trainer on the menu and if so how, by bringing up new requirements, changing items already agreed, adjusting time lines, what?
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2988
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 7:23 am

Despite all above mentioned issues the USAF excepted the next two KC-46A's at March 06th 2020.

L/N 1114 C/N 34134 B767-2LKC 16-46015 USAF KC-46A (VH015) LRIP 2, #04/12, tail 66015 was delivered KBFI - KPSM with callsign PACK91, see : https://www.radarbox24.com/data/registration/16-46015

L/N 1184 C/N 34052 B767-2LKC 18-46050 USAF KC-46A (VH050) Lot 4, #10/18, N5511Z, tail 86050 was delivered KBFI- KPSM with callsign PACK92, see :
https://www.radarbox24.com/data/registration/18-46050
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2988
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:38 pm

US State Department approves possible Foreign Military Sale of Pegasus tanker aircraft to Israel.

I found following article at Scramble facebook : https://www.facebook.com/Scramblemagazi ... 2538184589

Because I could find anything about this in this thread :

In addition to the Letter of Request (LoR), which the Israeli government issued to the US government on 16 May 2019, the US State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) of eight KC-46A Pegasus tanker aircraft.

The Department delivered the required certification to the US Congress on 3 March 2020.

If the sale is allowed to move forward, Israel will start contract negotiations with aircraft manufacturer Boeing
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 5:53 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I totally concede that is a picture of a KC-46 flying. The caption is "A KC-46 Pegasus assigned to the 22nd Air Refueling Wing flies away after being refueled during a refueling training mission over Kansas, Jan. 6, 2020." That doesn't say they are carrying cargo, or refueling anyone else. Further searching the site show another picture with the same idea of the KC-46 receiving fuel, not giving it. "A KC-135R Stratotanker aircraft assigned to the 6th Air Mobility Wing, MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., delivers fuel to a KC-46A Pegasus aircraft during a night-time refueling over Louisiana, May 16, 2019. "

The words from the article include "Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Senate legislators March 3 the service will not use the new KC-46 tanker unless absolutely necessary to fight a powerful adversary ... KC-46 is slated to be ready for operations in 2023 or 2024. But Goldfein still isn’t comfortable enough with the tanker to let it fly regular missions."


I’m seeing a trend here, so please take what I say as life advice instead of me just being a d**k: You’ll do better to use some common sense and your own brain on occasion, instead of relying on google-fu, caption writers, and the CSAF’s taken-out-of-context-comments.

Case in point: the KC-46 picture I linked: if you used some common sense you would see that although the caption says “KC-46... after being refueled” the picture was taken from the back end of the KC-46 - the part that has the boom on it and is used during tanker refueling, not the front end that does receiver refueling - most likely from a heavy aircraft because if it were taken from a fighter plane the canopy bow would be visible at that angle. Either way, if the KC-46 were truly “being refueled” you would be looking at its nose, not its butt.

Subtly, but perhaps most importantly, the boom is down.

Thus far, all key indicators that the KC-46 was doing tanker refueling...

But in case you can’t cede these points because journalists are incapable of making mistakes, the caption says “The training mission allowed 911th Airlift Wing personnel from pilots to boom operators to use the opportunity to sharpen their skills”. The 911th Airlift Wing doesn’t have boom operators assigned to it because they’re an airlift wing. If they had refueling aircraft it would be called the 911th Air Refueling Wing or the 911th Air Mobility Wing If they had tankers and cargo planes. But the 911th Airlift Wing DOES have C-17s assigned to it, hmmm... interesting turn of events...

So what’s more likely? The KC-46 was somehow doing receiver AR off a C-17 with a boom operator onboard, did a lead change, and then put their boom down for some pics of the boom they never use? Or maybe the McConnell AFB-based KC-46 was tanking a 911th AW C-17 but the dude who wrote the caption wasn’t exactly Rainman and got most details in the caption wrong?

My $0.02


We must have different life experiences.

Where I'm from expecting the government (or any complex system run by humans) to follow common sense is a loser move. In particular, I would very much not be surprised if they lowered the boom to take some pictures of a troubled program that needed good press.

And if this is your nice helpful tone ...

You might be right. The world is better if you're right. But what you wrote is in direct contradiction to the Chief of the Air Force. The things you've written are evidence and argument (and that matters), but not proof. Nor do I have proof.

-Peace
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26900
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 8:25 pm

par13del wrote:
So if the US Air Force wants to use their budget to pressure Boeing to fix the KC-46, is delaying the new trainer on the menu and if so how, by bringing up new requirements, changing items already agreed, adjusting time lines, what?


Boeing is already losing their shirts on every frame they have delivered to date and that is exacerbated by the USAF holding back part of the delivery payments as penalties for the frames missing guarantees. So they already are "under pressure" from the USAF to get the frames to spec. So the USAF does not need to "pressure" Boeing in other areas to get the KC-46A back on track.

And doing so might make things worse because it could...pressure...Boeing to cut (even more) corners to force a solution - any solution - through which could then come back to haunt the USAF. And the USAF has already learned what happens when they try and "pressure" Boeing - holding deliveries of KC-46As just meant they piled up on the airfield and incur FUD and other issues as Boeing rushed to try and get solutions done to get the USAF to start taking them.
 
dcs921
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:40 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 07, 2020 10:47 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
I think you’re wrong about the facts.

The Air Force has announced they will not fly the kc-46 for any refueling missions. It’s allowed to do zero refuelings. And it cannot carry any cargo. It can carry zero cargo.

I agree they can train touch and goes, and cross country flights, but not much more.


The truth is always more complicated than a press release.

The KC-46 is currently flying refueling missions during training sorties throughout the United States and abroad. It has been since shortly after the AF accepted the first jet. What it cannot do is refuel without serious operational limitations (crew size/quals, types of missions, airborne spare requirements, and others) that the AF absolutely cannot accept in the long-term. Everything I've just stated are facts.

The jets that have the applicable TCTO are now approved to carry cargo and/or passengers. Also a fact.

Try not to take publications that have word limits set by their editors at face value. The truth is generally less shocking, more relatable, and less black & white.



Why do you think that’s true? The Air Force chief of staff told the senate the exact opposite last week. I think I should believe him.

You wrote “this is a fact”. Can you provide a source. Because the Air Force chief of staff seems like a person who should know.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/usaf-wo ... fein-says/


Here is a video that shows 2 KC-46s practicing aerial refueling. This video was uploaded 2 days after Gen. Goldfein met with Senate legislators.

https://youtu.be/ttrsQbIRUJ0

kitplane01 wrote:
The words from the article include "Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Senate legislators March 3 the service will not use the new KC-46 tanker unless absolutely necessary to fight a powerful adversary ... KC-46 is slated to be ready for operations in 2023 or 2024. But Goldfein still isn’t comfortable enough with the tanker to let it fly regular missions."


You left off the last sentence of the paragraph that goes onto say "Instead, the Air Force will only send it into battle with highly trained crews if absolutely necessary."

If the Air Force is not flying training missions with the KC-46, where are they going to get the highly trained crews from? Besides not flying training missions with the aircraft will only extend the time it takes to get the aircraft flying regular missions once the issues with RVS have been resolved and implemented.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sun Mar 08, 2020 3:52 am

kitplane01 wrote:
We must have different life experiences.

Where I'm from expecting the government (or any complex system run by humans) to follow common sense is a loser move. In particular, I would very much not be surprised if they lowered the boom to take some pictures of a troubled program that needed good press.

And if this is your nice helpful tone ...

You might be right. The world is better if you're right. But what you wrote is in direct contradiction to the Chief of the Air Force. The things you've written are evidence and argument (and that matters), but not proof. Nor do I have proof.

-Peace


So let me get this straight: you think the government is bereft of common sense and believe they would go to ridiculous lengths to make it appear their new tanker is doing boom AR, in spite of the CSAF saying it isn't, because they need the "good press" that only Joshua J. Seybert from af.mil can provide... Even though the KC-46 isn't doing boom AR, because the CSAF says it isn't??? That's some next-level conspiracy talk right there! But riddle me this: if the AF is so devious to stage a photo of a tanker with a broken boom for a public relations coup, so dumb as to mangle the caption of their Machiavellian product, and so bumbling so as to contradict what their own CSAF says to the Senate, why would you take anything their leader says as gospel needing proof to be refuted?

Different life experiences, indeed.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sun Mar 08, 2020 4:09 am

dcs921 wrote:
Here is a video that shows 2 KC-46s practicing aerial refueling. This video was uploaded 2 days after Gen. Goldfein met with Senate legislators.

https://youtu.be/ttrsQbIRUJ0


Cool video, thanks for posting! You can even see the receiver is a WARP jet. I had to chuckle at the commentary, though.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:48 am

dcs921 wrote:
https://youtu.be/ttrsQbIRUJ0

kitplane01 wrote:
The words from the article include "Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein told Senate legislators March 3 the service will not use the new KC-46 tanker unless absolutely necessary to fight a powerful adversary ... KC-46 is slated to be ready for operations in 2023 or 2024. But Goldfein still isn’t comfortable enough with the tanker to let it fly regular missions."



Thanks for the video. That was helpful.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sun Mar 08, 2020 6:54 am

LyleLanley wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
We must have different life experiences.

Where I'm from expecting the government (or any complex system run by humans) to follow common sense is a loser move. In particular, I would very much not be surprised if they lowered the boom to take some pictures of a troubled program that needed good press.

And if this is your nice helpful tone ...

You might be right. The world is better if you're right. But what you wrote is in direct contradiction to the Chief of the Air Force. The things you've written are evidence and argument (and that matters), but not proof. Nor do I have proof.

-Peace


So let me get this straight: you think the government is bereft of common sense and believe they would go to ridiculous lengths to make it appear their new tanker is doing boom AR, in spite of the CSAF saying it isn't, because they need the "good press" that only Joshua J. Seybert from af.mil can provide... Even though the KC-46 isn't doing boom AR, because the CSAF says it isn't??? That's some next-level conspiracy talk right there! But riddle me this: if the AF is so devious to stage a photo of a tanker with a broken boom for a public relations coup, so dumb as to mangle the caption of their Machiavellian product, and so bumbling so as to contradict what their own CSAF says to the Senate, why would you take anything their leader says as gospel needing proof to be refuted?

Different life experiences, indeed.


What I wrote was "In particular, I would very much not be surprised if they lowered the boom to take some pictures of a troubled program that needed good press." I don't think one needs to be Machiavelli to think of this strategy, nor would I call it devious.

If you need to reply with some snarky insults, go ahead. But really, I don't want to play. I had a question and someone else answered it. Nicely.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2988
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Mon Mar 09, 2020 12:59 pm

Luckely the USAF has some KC-97L back up tankers, temporally stored at Davis-Monthan AFB, and certified for refueling of the A-10 fleet :biggrin:

Image
Copyright USAF
Two Fairchild Republic A-10As refuel with a Boeing KC-97L Stratotanker (S/N 53-355) of the Texas Air National Guard.
Picture taken between 1972 and 1978, because the A-10 first flew on 10 May 1972 and the KC-97 was retired in 1978 so the picture must have been taken somewhere in that window.
See : https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.c ... gory/a-10/
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2678
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:16 pm

Given that KC-767s already exist and are doing good work, I still don't completely understand how Boeing managed to screw it up so badly by trying to fix something that wasn't broken. They could have just taken the KC-767 and mass produced it.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26900
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:43 pm

sovietjet wrote:
Given that KC-767s already exist and are doing good work, I still don't completely understand how Boeing managed to screw it up so badly by trying to fix something that wasn't broken. They could have just taken the KC-767 and mass produced it.


Well that was kind of the plan back in 2002 when this whole saga started. :bomb:

As KC-X evolved over the years, the USAF added more and more requirements and wishes and the OEMs had to evolve their RFPs to meet them.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11169
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:49 pm

747classic wrote:
Luckely the USAF has some KC-97L back up tankers, temporally stored at Davis-Monthan AFB, and certified for refueling of the A-10 fleet :biggrin:

Image
Copyright USAF
Two Fairchild Republic A-10As refuel with a Boeing KC-97L Stratotanker (S/N 53-355) of the Texas Air National Guard.
Picture taken between 1972 and 1978, because the A-10 first flew on 10 May 1972 and the KC-97 was retired in 1978 so the picture must have been taken somewhere in that window.
See : https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.c ... gory/a-10/


Ahhh, there are no KC-97s of any model left at DMAFB. They are all gone, most have moved into the beer can industry or something similar. The early smelted/retired KC-97E/F/Gs may have made it into the then being built KC-135As and other new build airplanes.

Surviving KC-97s are gate guards or in museums.

BTW, KC-97L 53-0355 began life as a KC-97G.

The only tankers still intact at DM are the KC-135A/E/R, and not very many intact KC-135As are left. Most of the remaining KC-135As still at DMAFB are in various stages of disassembly or cut up to provide parts to the KC-135R/T fleet. Most of those in flyable storage are the KC-135Es and several KC-135Rs. But, not to worry, they will soon be joined by some KC-10As.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1429
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:29 am

kc135topboom wrote:
747classic wrote:
Luckely the USAF has some KC-97L back up tankers, temporally stored at Davis-Monthan AFB, and certified for refueling of the A-10 fleet :biggrin:

Image
Copyright USAF
Two Fairchild Republic A-10As refuel with a Boeing KC-97L Stratotanker (S/N 53-355) of the Texas Air National Guard.
Picture taken between 1972 and 1978, because the A-10 first flew on 10 May 1972 and the KC-97 was retired in 1978 so the picture must have been taken somewhere in that window.
See : https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.c ... gory/a-10/


Ahhh, there are no KC-97s of any model left at DMAFB. They are all gone, most have moved into the beer can industry or something similar. The early smelted/retired KC-97E/F/Gs may have made it into the then being built KC-135As and other new build airplanes.

Surviving KC-97s are gate guards or in museums.

BTW, KC-97L 53-0355 began life as a KC-97G.

The only tankers still intact at DM are the KC-135A/E/R, and not very many intact KC-135As are left. Most of the remaining KC-135As still at DMAFB are in various stages of disassembly or cut up to provide parts to the KC-135R/T fleet. Most of those in flyable storage are the KC-135Es and several KC-135Rs. But, not to worry, they will soon be joined by some KC-10As.


747Classic ... best post of the week on airliners.net
kc135topboom ... I respect truth and fact, but now I'm less happy.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:37 am

sovietjet wrote:
Given that KC-767s already exist and are doing good work, I still don't completely understand how Boeing managed to screw it up so badly by trying to fix something that wasn't broken. They could have just taken the KC-767 and mass produced it.


Corporate arrogance. And the KC-767 would’ve basically been a newer 135 without the bells and whistles that newer tankers should have, to say nothing of the equipment to operate closer to the fight. I had a conversation with the Boeing test boom for that program ~ 2002/3 and his words summed it up. When I asked why the 767 had the same tiny refueling envelope as the 135 he said “a bigger envelope just makes worse receiver pilots”. Sure dude... the 10 disproved that mindset decades ago.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11169
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:25 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
sovietjet wrote:
Given that KC-767s already exist and are doing good work, I still don't completely understand how Boeing managed to screw it up so badly by trying to fix something that wasn't broken. They could have just taken the KC-767 and mass produced it.


Corporate arrogance. And the KC-767 would’ve basically been a newer 135 without the bells and whistles that newer tankers should have, to say nothing of the equipment to operate closer to the fight. I had a conversation with the Boeing test boom for that program ~ 2002/3 and his words summed it up. When I asked why the 767 had the same tiny refueling envelope as the 135 he said “a bigger envelope just makes worse receiver pilots”. Sure dude... the 10 disproved that mindset decades ago.


The KC-10 has a bigger air refueling envelope because the KC-10 Boom is longer than the Boom on the KC-135, thus the receiver is actually further away from the tanker during boom air refueling by about 5'-6'.

But the Boeing Flight Test Boom Operator is right, a bigger envelope behind the KC-135 would produce worse receiver pilots. The KC-135 refueling envelope is about 20' wide (10' each side of center line), 15' in elevation, and 14' in extension for large heavy receivers like the B-52, EC/RC/KC-135, C-141, and C-5. How much air space do you want the receiver to have to move around in?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11169
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Wed Mar 11, 2020 11:36 pm

sovietjet wrote:
Given that KC-767s already exist and are doing good work, I still don't completely understand how Boeing managed to screw it up so badly by trying to fix something that wasn't broken. They could have just taken the KC-767 and mass produced it.


Its not that simple. The KC-46A is a very different animal than the KC-767A/J is. The KC-46 carries more gas and pumps it faster. It also has a much higher MTOW. The USAF specifications required a higher transfer rate of 1,200 GPM, and it also required a stronger floor for cargo hauling and a cargo door. The KC-767A/Js cannot carry as much cargo weight as the KC-46 can and they pump at 1,000 GPM, just like the KC-135 does. The KC-767A/Js are modified B-767-200ERs, just as the JSDAF E-767Js are. The KC-46A has the stronger wings of the B-767-300ERF, thus is actually a different airframe.

The KC-767A/Js carry more passengers then the KC-46A does, but does not have the aero-medical capability of the KC-46.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 13, 2020 12:55 am

kc135topboom wrote:
The KC-10 has a bigger air refueling envelope because the KC-10 Boom is longer than the Boom on the KC-135, thus the receiver is actually further away from the tanker during boom air refueling by about 5'-6'.

But the Boeing Flight Test Boom Operator is right, a bigger envelope behind the KC-135 would produce worse receiver pilots. The KC-135 refueling envelope is about 20' wide (10' each side of center line), 15' in elevation, and 14' in extension for large heavy receivers like the B-52, EC/RC/KC-135, C-141, and C-5. How much air space do you want the receiver to have to move around in?


No, he’s not. I work in customer service. When my customer needs gas, I’ll do everything I can to give them their gas in the quickest and safest manner possible. If that means giving my receiver pilot a far larger refueling envelope, I’m happy to do it. Just like the Iron Maiden doesn’t make a better basket chaser, keeping the 135’s tiny refueling envelope wouldn’t make a pilot better, it would simply be the refusal of a newer, better way just because its not the way you grew up with “back in SAC”. Why not get rid of advanced autopilots and go back to steam-jets while you’re at it, if “a better pilot” is your only vague and unmeasurable metric of success? A larger envelope greatly reduces fatigue and results in far fewer accidents, especially in lousy weather. They get their gas quicker, too, as fewer inadvertent disconnects occur, meaning they can get back to their day job instead of wasting their time with admin, pinballing from one limit disconnect to another.

In any case, the KC-10 has a far bigger envelope because the boom pivots in roll instead of deflecting in azimuth like a rudder, giving receivers up to 25 degrees movement left and right instead of 10 on the 135. Larger size is an “also because”.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11169
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:46 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
kc135topboom wrote:
The KC-10 has a bigger air refueling envelope because the KC-10 Boom is longer than the Boom on the KC-135, thus the receiver is actually further away from the tanker during boom air refueling by about 5'-6'.

But the Boeing Flight Test Boom Operator is right, a bigger envelope behind the KC-135 would produce worse receiver pilots. The KC-135 refueling envelope is about 20' wide (10' each side of center line), 15' in elevation, and 14' in extension for large heavy receivers like the B-52, EC/RC/KC-135, C-141, and C-5. How much air space do you want the receiver to have to move around in?


No, he’s not. I work in customer service. When my customer needs gas, I’ll do everything I can to give them their gas in the quickest and safest manner possible. If that means giving my receiver pilot a far larger refueling envelope, I’m happy to do it. Just like the Iron Maiden doesn’t make a better basket chaser, keeping the 135’s tiny refueling envelope wouldn’t make a pilot better, it would simply be the refusal of a newer, better way just because its not the way you grew up with “back in SAC”. Why not get rid of advanced autopilots and go back to steam-jets while you’re at it, if “a better pilot” is your only vague and unmeasurable metric of success? A larger envelope greatly reduces fatigue and results in far fewer accidents, especially in lousy weather. They get their gas quicker, too, as fewer inadvertent disconnects occur, meaning they can get back to their day job instead of wasting their time with admin, pinballing from one limit disconnect to another.

In any case, the KC-10 has a far bigger envelope because the boom pivots in roll instead of deflecting in azimuth like a rudder, giving receivers up to 25 degrees movement left and right instead of 10 on the 135. Larger size is an “also because”.


All of my tanker time was in the KC-135A/E/Q. In the thousands of contacts I made (most in training) in thousands refuelings (training and operational) I had never had a 'limit disconnect'. Some receivers came close, but with a little coaching (from me or an IP in the receiver) they were able to hang on, even during 'autopilot off refuelings'.

Maybe the receiver pilots were just better in the days "back in SAC"? Maybe we were better tanker pilots and boom operators, or just more 'lucky'? Maybe we had better systems knowledge? Physics will tell you the further a receiver gets off the tanker centerline, a more dangerous the refueling can become, especially if it is coupled with a PIO.

Yes, the size of the air refueling envelope is all about physics. We, as SAC Boom Operators were not experts in physics, but had a very good 'working knowledge' of it. We also did not rely on computers to do our job within the KC-135. We used a load adjuster (aka 'slip-stick), and we were good at it. Math was in our heads and we used a pencil and paper (aka the form 'F"). Any system malfunction in flight, it was the Boom Operator who got out the old -1 and looked it up. We had to know where in the -1 to look up the problem, and the solution.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11169
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 13, 2020 1:48 pm

Here is an interesting article:

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... a25ea0ece7

Notice there are no KC-10s by 2029?
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:33 pm

kc135topboom wrote:
All of my tanker time was in the KC-135A/E/Q. In the thousands of contacts I made (most in training) in thousands refuelings (training and operational) I had never had a 'limit disconnect'. Some receivers came close, but with a little coaching (from me or an IP in the receiver) they were able to hang on, even during 'autopilot off refuelings'.

Maybe the receiver pilots were just better in the days "back in SAC"? Maybe we were better tanker pilots and boom operators, or just more 'lucky'? Maybe we had better systems knowledge? Physics will tell you the further a receiver gets off the tanker centerline, a more dangerous the refueling can become, especially if it is coupled with a PIO.

Yes, the size of the air refueling envelope is all about physics. We, as SAC Boom Operators were not experts in physics, but had a very good 'working knowledge' of it. We also did not rely on computers to do our job within the KC-135. We used a load adjuster (aka 'slip-stick), and we were good at it. Math was in our heads and we used a pencil and paper (aka the form 'F"). Any system malfunction in flight, it was the Boom Operator who got out the old -1 and looked it up. We had to know where in the -1 to look up the problem, and the solution.


Really, no limit disconnects in 20 years? No one fell off the aft limit of ‘your’ boom? Not even at Castle? I find that exceedingly difficult to believe.

In any case, between your better pilots and boomers, higher systems knowledge, paper Form-F, honey bucket, and being all around better people, you guys must have had an incredibly low mishap rate. I hate to see how many mishaps and mid-air collisions we’ve had in the last 20 years of wartime, especially in the death trap KC-10 with its large, dangerous envelope.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Fri Mar 13, 2020 3:35 pm

kc135topboom wrote:
Here is an interesting article:

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... a25ea0ece7

Notice there are no KC-10s by 2029?


I did notice that, but only after the part saying the L-1011 will be in service.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11169
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:06 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
kc135topboom wrote:
All of my tanker time was in the KC-135A/E/Q. In the thousands of contacts I made (most in training) in thousands refuelings (training and operational) I had never had a 'limit disconnect'. Some receivers came close, but with a little coaching (from me or an IP in the receiver) they were able to hang on, even during 'autopilot off refuelings'.

Maybe the receiver pilots were just better in the days "back in SAC"? Maybe we were better tanker pilots and boom operators, or just more 'lucky'? Maybe we had better systems knowledge? Physics will tell you the further a receiver gets off the tanker centerline, a more dangerous the refueling can become, especially if it is coupled with a PIO.

Yes, the size of the air refueling envelope is all about physics. We, as SAC Boom Operators were not experts in physics, but had a very good 'working knowledge' of it. We also did not rely on computers to do our job within the KC-135. We used a load adjuster (aka 'slip-stick), and we were good at it. Math was in our heads and we used a pencil and paper (aka the form 'F"). Any system malfunction in flight, it was the Boom Operator who got out the old -1 and looked it up. We had to know where in the -1 to look up the problem, and the solution.


Really, no limit disconnects in 20 years? No one fell off the aft limit of ‘your’ boom? Not even at Castle? I find that exceedingly difficult to believe.

In any case, between your better pilots and boomers, higher systems knowledge, paper Form-F, honey bucket, and being all around better people, you guys must have had an incredibly low mishap rate. I hate to see how many mishaps and mid-air collisions we’ve had in the last 20 years of wartime, especially in the death trap KC-10 with its large, dangerous envelope.


Actually the air refueling mishap rate was very low in the 1970s to the 1990s for both the KC-10 and the KC-135, but there were some crushed ice shields. I don't know what the rate was after that. I do know the mishap rate was much, much higher in the 1950s and 1960s with both the KC-97 and the KC-135, including several collisions with B-52s and B-47s where both the receiver and the tanker were lost.

Want to see movement in the air refueling envelope, look at the opening credits of the movie "Dr. Stranglove" and watch a B-52E refueling from a KC-135A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpikKUy13UE

Starts about 0:40 into these opening credits.

I never said the KC-10 refueling envelope was dangerous.

My combat refuelings were during the Vietnam War and Desert Storm (aka Gulf War #1). I also flew intercept missions from Pease AFB to off the coast of New England (Soviet Tu-95 'Bears' flew inside the ADIZ) refueling the VTANG F-16s, MAANG F-15s and AWACS E-3s, Alpha Longs with RC-135s out of Alaska, and operated out of Thule AB, Greenland. Much of the Cold War flying and alert duty never made the headlines. However the majority of the missions I flew were training missions, including those at Castle.

I am not arguing with you, many points you have made I agree with. But you and I flew at different times doing different missions that gave each of us different experiences.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11169
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sat Mar 14, 2020 10:13 pm

LyleLanley wrote:
kc135topboom wrote:
Here is an interesting article:

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... a25ea0ece7

Notice there are no KC-10s by 2029?


I did notice that, but only after the part saying the L-1011 will be in service.


Yeah, that seems strange seeing there are no L-1011 tankers flying anymore. The RAF stopped using them when the switched to the A-330MRTT Voyager tankers back around 2013-2014.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:56 pm

kc135topboom wrote:
I am not arguing with you, many points you have made I agree with. But you and I flew at different times doing different missions that gave each of us different experiences.


Fair point. Mine have been from OSW, ONE, OEF, OIF 1 and 2, OUP, HoA, OIR, and a smattering of other missions in different theaters, so very different experiences. I'm used to receivers speaking on their other radio and writing down pop-up taskings with their left hand in contact, because they're supporting a TIC and doing yo-yo ops and their wingman needs to hit the tanker soon. I'm used to having a 1st Lt or a junior Captain as aircraft commander who don't have an hour or two of receiver AR by themselves on every local - usually they'll have at least 3 or 4 guys on there needing plugs, too, with 45 minutes to play between them, so experience levels are much lower. But when I've got a guy on the boom and he's having a rough day in the weather, or he's 12 hours into a 26 hour (waived) duty day, flying rubber dog s**t into Afghanistan or dropping dudes out the back over the Red Sea, after flying direct from the East Coast, it's really nice to still have the pumps going when he momentarily goes to 15 degrees left because the less time they have to spend getting their gas the more time and energy they'll have to do their mission. Just my thoughts.

You wrote the further a receiver gets off centerline the more dangerous AR becomes, inferring the 10's large envelope in roll was more dangerous. I can absolutely agree to that with the 135 since your boom pivots like a rudder, so going to one side or another destabilizes the jet. But that's not the case with the KC-10 because my boom rolls when it turns - I can go to 25 degrees autopilot-off and no one up front will notice. With extreme out-of-cycle lateral movement like the B-52's 'tail number check' on Dr. Strangelove it's absolutely more dangerous, but that clip is more a function of a dude getting into a roll PIO and not recovering properly rather than the inherent dangerousness of just being off-center. For instance, in the 10 if a receiver pilot does a limit demo to 22 degrees right he has to keep the yoke turned quite a bit (like 45 degrees) to stay right as the airflow from our wings push him back to center. To correct back, he needs to hold that right turn and momentarily lessen that right angle a few times to get back to center properly. It's a different jet with a different ways to do things. https://ibb.co/c22Nvfr

I hope we can agree that Castle should be reopened and Altus can burn to the ground. Can we not?
Last edited by LyleLanley on Sun Mar 15, 2020 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Sun Mar 15, 2020 6:59 pm

kc135topboom wrote:
Yeah, that seems strange seeing there are no L-1011 tankers flying anymore. The RAF stopped using them when the switched to the A-330MRTT Voyager tankers back around 2013-2014.


It's a shame, too, as the L-1011 is such a beautiful jet. And that all-flying tail... If only I had the chance. The Voyager is gorgeous in her own way, but she's just different.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3249
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Mon Mar 16, 2020 1:46 am

Interesting conversation gents even though I could only understand half of what you are saying.

My question:

Is the reason why the 10 have a larger boom envelope is because the receiving plane can drift more before the wing wash push the plane back to center? Or am I not reading it right?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
LyleLanley
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2019 9:33 pm

Re: Boeing KC-46 Production and Delivery Thread - 2020

Mon Mar 16, 2020 6:12 am

bikerthai wrote:
Interesting conversation gents even though I could only understand half of what you are saying.

My question:

Is the reason why the 10 have a larger boom envelope is because the receiving plane can drift more before the wing wash push the plane back to center? Or am I not reading it right?

bt


Ha! That's awesome!

You're close, but not quite. So the 135 has a smaller envelope for a couple of reasons, but the main reason is that its boom moves in azimuth and produces yaw - like the rudder - which means the further off-center the boom moves the more it'll move the KC-135 and destabilize it as a platform, which obviously isn't a good characteristic to have. As such, the 135's boom envelope is limited to 10 degrees left and right for all receivers; it's limited because of the boom itself.

On the 10, the boom moves about in roll - rather than moving like a rudder it pivots along its axis like a wing with ailerons. Because of this, the boom's lateral movement doesn't affect the tanker at all, meaning the boom is limited to the physical dimensions of the receiver's receptacle rather than aerodynamic limitations. So for instance, the KC-10's envelope is 25 degrees left and right and the C-17s is 19 degrees left and right.

The downwash of the KC-10's wings have the happy effect of tending to push the receiver back towards centerline, irrespective of its actual envelope limit. At the end of the day, a receiver has a lot of wiggle room in case of error/weather/whatever, but the downwash wants to move the receiver to centerline where it belongs.
"I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook, and, by gum, it put them on the map!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 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