KC-46A Info

[Runr6730]

2 hours ago, Best-22 said:

Is there any place I can read more about this? Sounds Interesting.

https://www.amc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3223946/kc-46a-flies-36-hour-record-breaking-endurance-mission/

[Danger41]

21 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

Some Pease dudes just flew a 36-hour super sortie. Makes McConnell’s 24-hour sortie a distant second place. So, how long until these “tanker” guys do a48-hour sortie and destroy a jet?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what?

[08Dawg]

Yawn….in the Buff we call that “Tuesday”…

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what?

I would think, unless some specific engine modifications have been made, that oil use/starvation over such a long duration is the potential issue here. There may also be some MX inspections and such that would have their intervals exceeded by an extremely long mission….maybe some of the maintenance/crew chief types on here can speak to that. 

[ThreeHoler]

Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what?

Because that thing is barely a tanker unlike the 135 or 10. I assume that fatigue would play a part since that’s a lot longer than AMC bubbas are used to operating. But maybe the bunks are super comfy or something?

[Prosuper]

21 hours ago, Prozac said:

I would think, unless some specific engine modifications have been made, that oil use/starvation over such a long duration is the potential issue here. There may also be some MX inspections and such that would have their intervals exceeded by an extremely long mission….maybe some of the maintenance/crew chief types on here can speak to that. 

RC-135's have extremely long missions, flying a KC-135 for long missions is hampered by the majority of the force is not receiver capable, the KC-135RT's are being retired, two are on the tarmac at Shepard as ground trainers plus the RT's center wing tanks are smaller and can't hold as much as a standard R model. The CFM's do use oil but if the proper servicing is done and maintained well, i.e., all oil leaks fixed 20 hr. missions should be no problem. 135's are on a calendar type inspection, every 5 years they go through a PDM, 72-hour preflight interval, 50-hour home station ck which includes landing gear strut reservicing, lowering the boom checking surge boots and shock absorber.  After a couple B-1, B-52 or C-5 offloads the 135 is RTB. But RT's can push fuel through its receptacle through the boom into a standard R model but can't remember that capability was ever used. Maybe in my old SAC days when we practiced for the end of the world, we did practice lowering a boom and hooking up a hose to it, firing up an engine to refuel Buffs. Q now T models had to do that for the SR-71 when they IFE'd and diverted. JP-7 was hard to find.

[Homestar]

On 11/18/2022 at 8:46 PM, Danger41 said:

but why the “tanker” in quotes?

because "the tanker" is the KC-135

[ThreeHoler]

because "the tanker" is the KC-135

And the KC-10 is the advanced tanker (and cargo aircraft)!

[Homestar]

3 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

And the KC-10 is the advanced tanker (and cargo aircraft)!

 

Maybe, but nobody calls the KC-10 "the tanker." 😎

[ThreeHoler]

Maybe, but nobody calls the KC-10 "the tanker." 

Nope but they call it Big Sexy!

[Lawman]

Nope but they call it Big Sexy!

It is a “wide body.”

I hear that’s what really matters.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Sua Sponte]

17 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

Nope but they call it Big Sexy!

 

Called