KC-46A Candidate Bases Announced

[Prozac]

I think Boeing would like to sell more 767 freighters. Conveniently, FAA cert gives them a nice new variant to pitch to fedex and ups.

[Warrior]

While we're on the topic of Boeing modification to .mil avionics, how's that working out for the C-130H AMP program? Roughly 2 Billion spent and we have 5 modded tails sitting on the ramp at little rock with no one to fly them…yay for defense contractors

[JarheadBoom]

IIRC, a proper rotation on a 767-300ER put the tail of the jet only 24 inches off the ground.

Subtract ~12in for the boom in the stowed position; doesn't leave much "wiggle room" at rotation for hamfisted O-2s/O-6+s...

KC-46 boom under construction

[Majestik Møøse]

Put a wheel on the boom! It would've been cheaper than changing the fuselage.

[stract]

or a tail stinger...

[Herk Driver]

-300F wing and gear allows for higher gross weight; -300F cargo door and floor is self-explanatory. -200ER fuselage is shorter than the -300 and -400 to accommodate the boom (longer fuselage would have caused issues at rotation - possible boom/tail strikes). -400 flight deck has the most up-to-date avionics of the 767 line.

I thought I read in the last GAO report that the cockpit was based on the 787. Was that wrong or did it change?

[Karl Hungus]

Last I heard it was supposed to be a 787-based cockpit.

It was also supposed to have winglets and thrust reversers at one point too, so we know how that goes.

[StoleIt]

Last I heard it was supposed to be a 787-based cockpit.

It was also supposed to have winglets and thrust reversers at one point too, so we know how that goes.

I think the winglets was a marketing ploy to confuse Airbus. Pretty sure Boeing figured out really quick that the MPRS/WARP pods and the winglets didn't get along on the 767 wing.

That's the first I've heard about the 46 not having TR's though...now I half expect the AF to demand the accessory gearbox to be even lower on the pod just to ensure minimal ground clearance.

[HeyEng]

1. It's not a standard configuration, standard dash number 767 airframe that Boeing's been rolling off the line for decades. -200ER fuselage, -300F wing, gear, cargo door and floor, -400ER digital flight deck and flaps, different engines (hence the "Frankentanker" nickname). Hasn't been done before.

2. The whole triple redundancy thing REALLY complicates the avionics/electrical installation.

3. .mil-specific systems that need to be integrated into the standard flight deck and tested.

I worked the S-92 completion center for some of my time at Sikorsky. While I was there, we built a block of four SAR-configured S-92s that took several months just to run all the wiring for the mission systems. I remember multiple engineering meetings held in the cabin of the first one, with engineers looking at drawings, actual aircraft parts, wiring bundles, etc. and not comprehending that the open spaces that CATIA told them were available to shove another wiring bundle into, did not exist on the actual aircraft.

Another example - at my current employer, we're wrapping up installation of a FLIR Star SAFIRE 380-HDc (replacing a previously-installed FLIR 7500) that is integrated with a previously-installed Aerocomputers mapping system and a Spectrolab SX-5 searchlight, in a Bell 407 helicopter. To date, our avi team has used almost 1600ft of wire, in addition to the prebuilt harnesses from FLIR.

I can't speak to KC-46 capes - out of my lane and above my paygrade.

I worked briefly on the C-5M project management at WP. The C-5 AMP can do RNP down to .3 NM however all the C-5 really does is enroute RNP. One of the issues with doing those nice RNP arrivals and departures is those waypoints in space are AIRINC waypoints and the Military of course uses DAFIF waypoints which is managed by the NGA. At the time I was working it they had no way to do a machine-to-machine conversion between AIRINC and DAFIF except to do it manually. It's a shame too since this is one way to save a lot on fuel costs vs. monitoring how much the APU burns while on the ground.

[Majestik Møøse]

Lots of discussion about tanker winglets here: https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/116204/

[addict]

ARINC. Awesome tidbit about the NGA's intransigence.

Edited November 24, 2014 by addict

[Prosuper]

Can clearly see the AR doors but no winglets

[Breckey]

Looks like it might have a mount for the strakes similar to those on the 777.

[SurelySerious]

There do not appear to be winglets or raked wingtips: https://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/defense-space/military/kc46a/pdf/kc46a_tanker_backgrounder.pdf

[JarheadBoom]

Put a wheel on the boom! It would've been cheaper than changing the fuselage.

or a tail stinger...

I'm not disagreeing, just repeating what's out there as rationale for the short-bus fuselage. I don't work for Boeing or the AF side of the KC-46 program, so everything I'm saying here about the jet is repetition of stuff I've seen/heard elsewhere, or my own conclusions based on 20+ years in the aircraft maintenance and aircrew business.

I thought I read in the last GAO report that the cockpit was based on the 787. Was that wrong or did it change?

I thought so too. Maybe the 767-400 cockpit IS based on the 787 cockpit, I dunno.

EDIT:

It would appear that the 767-400 cockpit is sorta based on the 777. Here's a page from Boeing; the "More" link gives explanations and screenshots of various display modes of the PFDs/MFDs. Interesting info. Now, whether the KC-46 is running 767-400 avionics, driving 787 big-screen displays, is another question entirely. The 787 is fly-by-wire with electrically-driven flight controls; the 767 is fly-by-cable with hydraulically-driven flight controls.

I knew the 757 and 767 shared a type rating with the Feds. I found out while reading up on this that the 777 and 787 also share a type rating; hadn't known that before.

The more I read about this thing, the clearer the reasons for delays becomes. Until this thread, I haven't read too much about the -46, since I'll likely be retired by the time it reaches IOC, much less a Reserve squadron.

Edited November 24, 2014 by JarheadBoom

[Prosuper]

The 1st KC-46A just completed it high speed taxi tests yesterday.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/exclusive-meet-the-usafs-long-awaited-kc-46a-pegasus-t-1675663600

[GBock]

767-2C just departed on it's first flight.

Edited December 28, 2014 by GBock

[Prosuper]

At least in Seattle they are paying attention, would have loved to get some of that premium time pay to get this done during the holidays.

https://www.heraldnet.com/article/20141228/BIZ/141229205

[Clark Griswold]

Glad to see the tanker finally flying, still skeptical of the 3D boom system, seems a bit Rube Goldberg but whatevs, it's a done deal.

[Homestar]

Pegasus flying into the rainbow...

Man, it must be a really cool feeling taking a machine into the air for it's very first flight.

[FUSEPLUG]

Man, it must be a really cool feeling taking a machine into the air for it's very first flight.

It's a 767. It's been flying since 1981.

[Prosuper]

Pegasus flying into the rainbow...

Man, it must be a really cool feeling taking a machine into the air for it's very first flight.

Talk to flight test guys who take jets up for the first time after a PDM, that would be more of a risk than a new jet.

[Champ Kind]

Man, it must be a really cool feeling taking a machine into the air for it's very first flight.

It's a 767. It's been flying since 1981.

According to the internets, ITAF's KC-767 had its first flight May of 2005. JASDF KC-767Js reached IOC May of 2009. Plus, like Fuseplug said, the 767 airframe has been flying since the early 1980s.

Not a tanker guy, but is a "first flight" for the KC-46 in Dec of 2014 really that big of an engineering feat?

Edited December 29, 2014 by Champ Kind

[Lord Ratner]

According to the internets, ITAF's KC-767 had its first flight May of 2005. JASDF KC-767Js reached IOC May of 2009. Plus, like Fuseplug said, the 767 airframe has been flying since the early 1980s.

Not a tanker guy, but is a "first flight" for the KC-46 in Dec of 2014 really that big of an engineering feat?

From what I understand, there are some pretty big differences between the KC-767 and KC-46. The 46 is more of a Frankenstein. Not enough to call yourself Chuck Yeager, but probably still a new plane. Ish.

Also, the Italian guys I talked to hated the digital boom pod when compared to the old style, back of the plane boom pod. But, they also knew their opinion was irrelevant.

[B52gator]

All hail The Mighty Peg!