trpmb6 wrote:

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

In this case I've got to give the Boeing sales and engineering teams props for thinking about removing such equipment to reduce sustainment costs.

Wasn't just Boeing but I'll pass along kudos to relevant folks.

As for the weight savings and improved fuel payload I can't say. i dont know the true final number, and even if I did I wouldn't share that.

Well whoever was involved. A great example of delivering to the spec by doing the less obvious things.

Just from memory the 1st RFP had the more typical DOD contract structure, basically a cost plus fixed margin type where if the unit cost goes up $ 10M the contractor receives $12M. NG loves those kinds of contracts as there is little risk. When it became the 2nd RFP it was changed to a fixed unit price for the initial batch then a modest escalator based on a price index. Much higher risk, but similar risk to commercial contracts. NG probably felt that it could be squeezed from AB below and the Gov't above, so they bailed.

Boeing is hurting on this first batch, but is probably OK with the follow on batches to 179. If it continues past 179 the contract price is renegotiated then, basically as a sole source. The gravy is support and those planes past 179.

The pace of drones is sufficient that the AF may not go past 179, instead get drone tankers.

trpmb6 wrote:

The thrust reversers were specifically removed in favor of a fixed duct at the last minute under great secrecy. It was the ace in the hole against Airbus' proposal. It was a win-win-win scenario by removing them. Gained useful payload (more fuel) and reduced maintenance costs for a system the USAF didn't want anyways. Why fly around with thrust reversers you will never use? This was a no brainer and is well known as one of the reasons Boeing won the contract (besides you know all the lobbyists).

Where did you hear this? As I understand reversers were never a requirement in the first place.

JayinKitsap wrote:

Just from memory the 1st RFP had the more typical DOD contract structure, basically a cost plus fixed margin type where if the unit cost goes up $ 10M the contractor receives $12M. NG loves those kinds of contracts as there is little risk. When it became the 2nd RFP it was changed to a fixed unit price for the initial batch then a modest escalator based on a price index. Much higher risk, but similar risk to commercial contracts. NG probably felt that it could be squeezed from AB below and the Gov't above, so they bailed.

Boeing is hurting on this first batch, but is probably OK with the follow on batches to 179. If it continues past 179 the contract price is renegotiated then, basically as a sole source. The gravy is support and those planes past 179.

The pace of drones is sufficient that the AF may not go past 179, instead get drone tankers.

I don't think the USAF is going to pay a cent more for the KC-46 than they did for the original 179. I think Boeing is gambling on the USAF paying more to help cover cost overruns from the original contract.

LMP737 wrote:

Where did you hear this? As I understand reversers were never a requirement in the first place.

As all RFP's were for off the shelf product based on a in service civilian a/c they were there somewhere....may not be mandated but expected and could stay or be removed with penalty for qualification....

INFINITI329 wrote:

I don't think the USAF is going to pay a cent more for the KC-46 than they did for the original 179. I think Boeing is gambling on the USAF paying more to help cover cost overruns from the original contract.

The USAF is going to pay more if the data shows that they need to pay more.

Boeing has already taken the hit for the cost over run, they will not roll the cost into the next contract. New KC-46 contracts will be priced with consideration for inflation, improved manufacturing efficiency and a reasonable profit. Charging extra to make up for losses in previous batches will not be allowed. Boeing will not do this as it will risk breaking government contracting laws and losing]other government contracts.

par13del wrote:

As all RFP's were for off the shelf product based on a in service civilian a/c they were there somewhere....may not be mandated but expected and could stay or be removed with penalty for qualification....

Having not read the RFP, but it would be unlikely any mention of the T/R would be found in it. Typically RFPs are based on performance and not necessarily hardware. And since the T/Rs are not included in any certification performance requirements (FAA or other wise), it would be more difficult if you were to add them just to meet the performance requirements.

Bottom line is that the TR's are not required for the KC-46 or the KC-45 to meet the RFP (or FAA) requirements. Removing them would cost only a small amount of Engineering work to design them out of existing commercial nacelles while providing significant savings in cost and weight and complexity.

bt

par13del wrote:

LMP737 wrote:

Where did you hear this? As I understand reversers were never a requirement in the first place.

As all RFP's were for off the shelf product based on a in service civilian a/c they were there somewhere....may not be mandated but expected and could stay or be removed with penalty for qualification....

Quite right. As for specifics I cannot say. It's common knowledge among those familiar with it, and familiar with how the air force operates their tanker fleets. To be honest I'm not sure why Airbus didn't think to do it themselves either. There really is no reason to have a thrust reverser on a tanker considering the airports they operate out of.

Looks like issues with the Centerline Drogue System supplied by Cobham needs additional work to complete FAA certification and the head of Air Mobility Command said that until it is fixed "the KC-46A is not acceptable". Cobham estimates it will cost $52 million to complete the work and Boeing is withholding payments to them. Boeing says the CDS and WARPS (also a Cobham product) will be certified in time to make the October delivery date. Guess we'll have to see.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/will-kc ... 414c92bdff

trpmb6 wrote:

Quite right. As for specifics I cannot say. It's common knowledge among those familiar with it, and familiar with how the air force operates their tanker fleets. To be honest I'm not sure why Airbus didn't think to do it themselves either. There really is no reason to have a thrust reverser on a tanker considering the airports they operate out of.

Common knowledge with who?

The next KC-46A at the Everett Modification Center :
L/N 1113, C/N 34105, B767-2LKC, 16-46014, USAF KC-46A, (VH014), LRIP 2, #03/12, tail 66014

Paine Field, August 11th 2018


Original uploaded by Matt Cawby at twitter, see : https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/10 ... 4820687873

Boeing KC-46 attains FAA supplemental type certificate:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ic-451666/

taru wrote:

Boeing KC-46 attains FAA supplemental type certificate:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ic-451666/

What was the original scheduled timescale for this?

Boeing has been awarded a contract for a fourth tranche of KC-46A, totaling 18 units. This brings the current order book to 52.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-09-10- ... uction-Lot

Stitch wrote:

Boeing has been awarded a contract for a fourth tranche of KC-46A, totaling 18 units. This brings the current order book to 52.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-09-10- ... uction-Lot

Just in time.
The first aircraft of LRIP #4 is already at the 767 Final Assembly Line (FAL) :

L/N 1160 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 18-46039 USAF KC-46A (VH039) LRIP4, #01/18, tail 86039


Note : Total assembled 38 + 18 to be assembled = 56 aircraft.

Are the four EMD aircraft not included in the orderbook ?

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

sovietjet wrote:

It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

But didn't the pen end up being the superior solution in the end?

sovietjet wrote:

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Other companies have made it work. The A330 MRTT uses cameras with a boom instead of a window. And it saves you having to re-engineer the entire aft end to put a massive piece of glass in.

sovietjet wrote:

And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system.

As I recall, the only one problem with the camera system was a red herring. As discussed earlier, the issue with the boom scraping was not that the new system scraped any more than the old system. It's just that the Air Force wanted something better than the old system even though the contract did not account for the improvement. Boeing solved it through some software change, which would not have been possible with the window in the belly option.

bt

sovietjet wrote:

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Have to agree


This seems like technology for
technologies sake


Camera problems could end
a mission, the simplicity of
just looking out of a window
with a direct field of view really
can’t be beat

sovietjet wrote:

You don't really save any weight or maintenance.

Then why did they use the camera on the A330 tanker? To put a person on the aft lower lobe, you'll have to cut through the main deck floor panel, add the ladder, add the crew station hardware, including radios and oxygen connection. Can't say much about weight of the work station vs. the window station. But cost of the console would be much less than the mod for the belly window.

These cameras are probably more reliable than the fuel pumps on this plane. And can someone confirm if these cameras can zoom?

bt

Max Q wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Have to agree


This seems like technology for
technologies sake


Camera problems could end
a mission, the simplicity of
just looking out of a window
with a direct field of view really
can’t be beat

Seems to work fine on the A330 MRTT

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _KC-30.jpg

The bottom line is even the best 3D cameras are still not as good as the old Mk.1 eyeball looking through a window for depth perception. The KC-767A/Js and the KC-30/A-330MRTTs have a generation of cameras that is one generation older than those on the KC-46. But these cameras just are not good enough, yet.

The Booms on all of these new generation of tankers are scraping receivers, but so is the Booms on the KC-135, KC-10, KC-707, and the KDC-10. It was the same even going back to the days of the KC-97s and KB-50s.

But those older tankers with Boom Pods have fewer incidents because the Boom Operator reacts directly to tanker, Boom, and receiver movements. Why? Being in the tail of the tanker allows the Boom Operator to feel the movements much quicker than being closer to the tankers center of gravity being between the cockpit and the wing. In other words, Boom Operators still fly by the 'seat of thier pants'.

Refueling in turbulence is always going to cause the boom to strike the receiver outside of the receptacle area, no matter which tanker it is..

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Max Q wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

To me the stupidest decision was to remove the boomer's pod. You don't really save any weight or maintenance. It's just a window for crying out loud. And they are having all sorts of problems with the camera system. Sometimes, the simple things work best. The decision to go camera was unnecessary, stupid and expensive. It reminds me of the pen in space vs pencil joke from many years go.

Have to agree


This seems like technology for
technologies sake


Camera problems could end
a mission, the simplicity of
just looking out of a window
with a direct field of view really
can’t be beat

Seems to work fine on the A330 MRTT

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... _KC-30.jpg

To add: if my memory serves me correctly the Dutch also have been using cameras for about 20 years on their KDC10s. Fleet is so small that any major hiccups would have made the news here.

kc135topboom wrote:

Refueling in turbulence is always going to cause the boom to strike the receiver outside of the receptacle area, no matter which tanker it is..

Well, seems to me then there'll comes a time when software will come into the loop that will react and anticipate faster than a human. . .

bt

Two more KC-46A deficiencies are identified by the USAF :

The first new deficiency, which the service has labeled “No Indication of Inadvertent Boom Loads,” refers to situations where boom operators unintentionally provide an input into the flight control stick that induces loads on the boom while it is in contact with a receiver aircraft. The KC-46 currently has no way to notify the operator that this is happening.

The second deficiency was found when pilots of receiver aircraft reported that the boom is too stiff during the part of the process when the receiver plane moves forward into the fuel transfer zone.

See : https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -jeopardy/

747classic wrote:

Two more KC-46A deficiencies are identified by the USAF :

The first new deficiency, which the service has labeled “No Indication of Inadvertent Boom Loads,” refers to situations where boom operators unintentionally provide an input into the flight control stick that induces loads on the boom while it is in contact with a receiver aircraft. The KC-46 currently has no way to notify the operator that this is happening.

The second deficiency was found when pilots of receiver aircraft reported that the boom is too stiff during the part of the process when the receiver plane moves forward into the fuel transfer zone.

See : https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -jeopardy/

First is likely solvable with some software. The data should be available, just need to deliver it to the operator in some form, on his screen or some alarm of some sort.

The second is not something easily solvable.

trpmb6 wrote:

747classic wrote:

Two more KC-46A deficiencies are identified by the USAF :

The first new deficiency, which the service has labeled “No Indication of Inadvertent Boom Loads,” refers to situations where boom operators unintentionally provide an input into the flight control stick that induces loads on the boom while it is in contact with a receiver aircraft. The KC-46 currently has no way to notify the operator that this is happening.

The second deficiency was found when pilots of receiver aircraft reported that the boom is too stiff during the part of the process when the receiver plane moves forward into the fuel transfer zone.

See : https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... -jeopardy/

First is likely solvable with some software. The data should be available, just need to deliver it to the operator in some form, on his screen or some alarm of some sort.

The second is not something easily solvable.

Second one should be if thye've got pressure sensors and motors on the boom. Some tweaks to the software to have it retract the boom a bit when needed.

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:

Second one should be if thye've got pressure sensors and motors on the boom. Some tweaks to the software to have it retract the boom a bit when needed.

Ahhh.. I was thinking from the aspect of the boom being too stiff and unforgiving between the two aircraft, as if you were basically being dragged around by the boom. You're right, that should just be a change to the snubbing in the hydraulics.

Deliver the damn planes, let the front line flight crews get used to working with their new planes
and all these squawks will be solved.

Sooner787 wrote:

Deliver the damn planes, let the front line flight crews get used to working with their new planes
and all these squawks will be solved.

...or the front line crew will finally identify real issues versus the delaying that is taking place, methinks there have been some issues which could have been avoided or at least not use for major delays, the scraping issue sticks....
Now we read that the US Air Force cannot absorb 18 tankers delivered in the space of a couple months, really, for a product that has been delayed a couple years which are more efficient / economical and may allow more flying hours....which pilots don't want to fly?
Unless they are using delays to cover pilot shortfall...

par13del wrote:

Sooner787 wrote:

Deliver the damn planes, let the front line flight crews get used to working with their new planes
and all these squawks will be solved.

...or the front line crew will finally identify real issues versus the delaying that is taking place, methinks there have been some issues which could have been avoided or at least not use for major delays, the scraping issue sticks....
Now we read that the US Air Force cannot absorb 18 tankers delivered in the space of a couple months, really, for a product that has been delayed a couple years which are more efficient / economical and may allow more flying hours....which pilots don't want to fly?
Unless they are using delays to cover pilot shortfall...

The aircraft will still have to go through OT&E so plenty of time to learn the jet and the quirks, as well as ensure it meets requirements.

I can understand the USAF not being able to take so many jets so quickly, they haven't had pilots sitting around waiting so the work up to ramp up.

OK it's October and Boeing is supposed to be delivering some of these tankers... so is anything happening or has the date slid again and I missed noting it.

I believe they still need the Military Type Certificate from the USAF to be granted before they can begin deliveries. They have the Amended Type Certificate for the 767-2C and last month received the Supplemental Type Certificate for the KC-46A configuration (both from the FAA).

To no one's surprise, SecAF says Boeing won't make the 27 October delivery date. Boeing still hoping for first delivery in 2018.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/boeing-s-tanker-to-miss-delivery-date-air-force-s-wilson-says

And the new delay was due directly to the lack of the MTC, which is not ready due to the STC having taken longer than the USAF expected. So sounds like once the USAF issues the MTC, deliveries can commence even if there remain deficiencies to be corrected.

Gentlemen, could you take your Airbus vs Boeing tanker discussion to one of the numerous threads that already exist for that purpose please. The topic and arguments have been done to death and I'm sure I'm not alone in not wishing to see this thread derailed with the same tired old arguments being rehashed by fanboys on each side of the fence. Thank you.

kanban wrote:

OK it's October and Boeing is supposed to be delivering some of these tankers... so is anything happening or has the date slid again and I missed noting it.

Speculation from a contract with an event organizer (port-a-potties and chairs) that the ceremony will be on or around November 16th.

https://www.kansas.com/news/business/av ... 90225.html

bt

Boeing adds $179M in cost overruns to KC-46 aircraft as delivery draws near

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... rd%20Brief

Boeing’s new aerial refueler stops at Yokota after maiden trans-Pacific flight

https://www.stripes.com/news/boeing-s-n ... rd%20Brief

The second KC-46A out of Lot 4 of 18 aircraft, the 40th built, is at the Everett Modification Center.


L/N 1162, C/N xxxxx, B767-2LKC, 18-46040, USAF KC-46A, (VH040) LRIP4, #02/18, tail 86040


Original uploaded by Matt Cawby at twitter, see : https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/10 ... 2718627840

STATUS: LOG AND REQUEST FOR PAE AND BFI 25/10/18
PAE: 76029 76034 76033 76025 76032 76027 76035 N6009F N5514J N5514K 56010 56011 76036 76026 76024 plus line numbers 1098 1100 1109 1111 1162
BFI : N462KC N464KC N842BA N5513X 76028 66022 86009 66023

REQUEST: 1x green KC outside main producing hall plus 2 virtually complete inside( 3 others under construction- fuselages). Ix green outside EMC and 2 painted inside EMC. Cheers.

bikerthai wrote:

kanban wrote:

OK it's October and Boeing is supposed to be delivering some of these tankers... so is anything happening or has the date slid again and I missed noting it.

Speculation from a contract with an event organizer (port-a-potties and chairs) that the ceremony will be on or around November 16th.

https://www.kansas.com/news/business/av ... 90225.html

bt

Today's the supposed date. Anyone heard any other info?

PeterCL wrote:

STATUS: LOG AND REQUEST FOR PAE AND BFI 25/10/18
PAE: 76029 76034 76033 76025 76032 76027 76035 N6009F N5514J N5514K 56010 56011 76036 76026 76024 plus line numbers 1098 1100 1109 1111 1162
BFI : N462KC N464KC N842BA N5513X 76028 66022 86009 66023

REQUEST: 1x green KC outside main producing hall plus 2 virtually complete inside( 3 others under construction- fuselages). Ix green outside EMC and 2 painted inside EMC. Cheers.

Spacepope wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

kanban wrote:

OK it's October and Boeing is supposed to be delivering some of these tankers... so is anything happening or has the date slid again and I missed noting it.

Speculation from a contract with an event organizer (port-a-potties and chairs) that the ceremony will be on or around November 16th.

Today's the supposed date. Anyone heard any other info?

Saw this on one of our web pages:



It's amazing how much money Boeing must have tied up in 'accounts receivable' with no way to receive those amounts, yet.

It's amazing how much money Boeing must have tied up in 'accounts receivable' with no way to receive those amounts, yet.[/quote]

And that picture is less than 25% of what they have already built. When the money starts flowing it will come quickly.

Spacepope wrote:

Today's the supposed date. Anyone heard any other info?

Well it's not plastered all over Boeing's website so I would say no.

The USAF has confirmed that the 27 October delivery goal was not achieved and is not committing to a 2018 EIS though that still appears to be the goal. The USAF does not require the CAT-1 deficiencies to be addressed prior to accepting delivery, but Boeing is operating under the assumption they will need to be mitigated to at least CAT-2 prior to the USAF issuing the Military Airworthiness Certificate required to begin deliveries, hence the lack of a firm delivery date.

On 7 November the USAF downgraded the boom axial load issue and the center drogue issue from CAT-1 to CAT-2 as software workarounds have been identified for both. Three CAT-1 issues remain: two for the Remote Vision System and one on the stiffness of the boom.

Are all of the KC-46 s built thus far positioned at BFI and PAE or are there some stored at other locations?

bigbird wrote:

Are all of the KC-46 s built thus far positioned at BFI and PAE or are there some stored at other locations?

Some were stored in San Antonio. Don't know if they are till there or have been flown back for delivery preparation.

43 built to date. Of the 18 that have flown, 4 are at SKF (incl 2 of the certification articles), 3 are at PAE and 11 are at BFI.

RobK wrote:

43 built to date. Of the 18 that have flown, 4 are at SKF (incl 2 of the certification articles), 3 are at PAE and 11 are at BFI.

767-300F/KC46A production from L/N 1065 (first KC46A)

L/N 1065 C/N 41273 B767-2LKC N461FT 11-46001 USAF KC-46A (VH001) EMD1
L/N 1066 C/N 41274 B767-2LKC N464KC 11-46002 USAF KC-46A (VH002) EMD4
L/N 1067 C/N 34054 B767-2LKC N463FT 11-46003 USAF KC-46A (VH003) EMD3
L/N 1068 C/N 42223 B767-3KYER P4-KEC AIR ASTANA (VT033)
L/N 1069 C/N 41275 B767-2LKC N462KC 11-46004 USAF KC-46A (VH004)EMD2
L/N 1070 C/N 42709 B767-3S2F N106FE FEDEX (VT560) “Evelyn”
L/N 1071 C/N 44377 B767-3S2F N107FE FEDEX (VT561) “Grayson”
L/N 1072 C/N 44378 B767-3S2F N108FE FEDEX (VT562) “Lucia”
L/N 1073 C/N 42710 B767-3S2F N109FE FEDEX (VT563) “Stephanie”
L/N 1074 C/N 43542 B767-3S2F N110FE FEDEX (VT564) “Margo”
L/N 1075 C/N 43543 B767-3S2F N112FE FEDEX (VT565) “Jordan”
L/N 1076 C/N 42711 B767-3S2F N113FE FEDEX (VT566) “Brandon”
L/N 1077 C/N 42712 B767-3S2F N114FE FEDEX (VT567) “Jade”
L/N 1078 C/N 42713 B767-3S2F N115FE FEDEX (VT568) “Rosabella”
L/N 1079 C/N 44379 B767-3S2F N117FE FEDEX (VT569) “Rylee”
L/N 1080 C/N 42714 B767-32SF N118FE FEDEX (VT570) “Emilee”
L/N 1081 C/N 44380 B767-32SF N120FE FEDEX (VT571) “Brianna”
L/N 1082 C/N 43545 B767-32SF N121FE FEDEX (VT572) “Kylah”
L/N 1083 C/N 42715 B767-3S2F N122FE FEDEX (VT573) “Josephine”
L/N 1084 C/N 43546 B767-32SF N124FE FEDEX (VT574) “Quinn”
L/N 1085 C/N 42716 B767-32SF N123FE FEDEX (VT575) “Schuler”
L/N 1086 C/N 42717 B767-32SF N125FE FEDEX (VT576) “Claudia”
L/N 1087 C/N 42718 B767-32SF N126FE FEDEX (VT577) “Josie”
L/N 1088 C/N 43547 B767-32SF N127FE FEDEX (VT578) “HaileyAnna”
L/N 1089 C/N 42719 B767-32SF N128FE FEDEX (VT579) “Jaxon”
L/N 1090 C/N 43548 B767-32SF N129FE FEDEX (VT580) “Carina”
L/N 1091 C/N 41852 B767-2LKC N842BA 15-46005 USAF KC46A (VH005) LRIP 1, #1/7
L/N 1092 C/N 41983 B767-2LKC N884BA 15-46006 USAF KC46A (VH006) LRIP 1, #2/7
L/N 1093 C/N 42720 B767-32SF N130FE FEDEX (VT581) “Addison”
L/N 1094 C/N 61205 B767-32SF N131FE FEDEX (VT582) “Alanis”
L/N 1095 C/N 42721 B767-32SF N132FE FEDEX (VT583) “Analia”
L/N 1096 C/N 43549 B767-32SF N133FE FEDEX (VT584) “Boden”
L/N 1097 C/N 43550 B767-32SF N134FE FEDEX (VT585) “Emma Jay”
L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC 15-46007 USAF KC46A (VH007)LRIP 1, #3/7, tail 56007
L/N 1099 C/N 42722 B767-3S2F N135FE FEDEX (VT586)
L/N 1100 C/N 41856 B767-2LKC 15-46008 USAF KC-46A (VH008) LRIP 1, #4/7, tail 56008
L/N 1101 C/N 61206 B767-3S2F N137FE FEDEX (VT587) “Peter”
L/N 1102 C/N 41858 B767-2LKC 15-46009 USAF KC-46A (VH009) LRIP 1, #5/7, tail 56009
L/N 1103 C/N 42723 B767-3S2F N138FE FEDEX (VT588) “Ryan”
L/N 1104 C/N 41859 B767-2LKC 15-46010 USAF KC-46A (VH010) LRIP 1, #6/7, tail 56010
L/N 1105 C/N 43538 B767-3S2F N139FE FEDEX (VT589) “Spencer”
L/N 1106 C/N 43541 B767-32SF N140FE FEDEX (VT590) “Tyler”
L/N 1107 C/N 34106 B767-2LKC 15-46011 USAF KC-46A (VH011) LRIP 1, #7/7, tail 56011
L/N 1108 C/N 42724 B767-32SF N141FE FEDEX (VT591) “Maddox Ace”
L/N 1109 C/N 34107 B767-2LKC 16-46012 USAF KC-46A (VH012) LRIP 2, #01/12, tail 66012
L/N 1110 C/N 42725 B767-32SF N142FE FEDEX (VT592) “Poppy”
L/N 1111 C/N 34109 B767-2LKC 16-46013 USAF KC-46A (VH013) LRIP 2, #02/12, tail 66013
L/N 1112 C/N 62497 B767-32SF N143FE FEDEX (VT593) “Ayda”
L/N 1113 C/N 34105 B767-2LKC 16-46014 USAF KC-46A (VH014) LRIP 2, #03/12, tail 66014
L/N 1114 C/N 34134 B767-2LKC 16-46015 USAF KC-46A (VH015) LRIP 2, #04/12, tail 66015
L/N 1115 C/N 42726 B767-300F N144FE FEDEX (VT594) “Hoyt”
L/N 1116 C/N 41860 B767-2LKC 16-46016 USAF KC-46A (VH016) LRIP 2, #05/12, tail 66016
L/N 1117 C/N 34108 B767-2LKC 16-46017 USAF KC-46A (VH017) LRIP 2, #06/12, tail 66017
L/N 1118 C/N 42727 B767-300F N145FE FEDEX (VT595) “Demitra”
L/N 1119 C/N 34135 B767-2LKC 16-46018 USAF KC-46A (VH018) LRIP 2, #07/12, tail 66018
L/N 1120 C/N 34138 B767-2LKC 16-46019 USAF KC-46A (VH019) LRIP 2, #08/12, N5514K, tail 66019
L/N 1121 C/N 43551 B767-300F N146FE FEDEX (VT596) “Charity”
L/N 1122 C/N 34137 B767-2LKC 16-46020 USAF KC-46A (VH020) LRIP 2, #09/12, N5514V, tail 66020
L/N 1123 C/N 63094 B767-300F N147FE FEDEX (VT597) “Charles”
L/N 1124 C/N 34139 B767-2LKC 16-46021 USAF KC-46A (VH021) LRIP 2, #10/12, tail 66021
L/N 1125 C/N 42728 B767-300F N148FE FEDEX (VT598) “Lois”
L/N 1126 C/N 34136 B767-2LKC 16-46022 USAF KC-46A (VH022) LRIP 2, #11/12, N5573S, tail 66022
L/N 1127 C/N 62498 B767-300F N149FE FEDEX (VT599) “Lailana”
L/N 1128 C/N 41861 B767-2LKC 16-46023 USAF KC-46A (VH023) LRIP 2, #12/12, tail 66023
L/N 1129 C/N 34121 B767-2LKC 17-46024 USAF KC-46A (VH024) LRIP 3, #01/15, tail 76024
L/N 1130 C/N 42729 B767-300F N150FE FEDEX (VT600) “Maliya”
L/N 1131 C/N 41863 B767-2LKC 17-46025 USAF KC-46A (VH025) LRIP 3, #02/15, tail 76025
L/N 1132 C/N 34127 B767-2LKC 17-46026 USAF KC-46A (VH026) LRIP 3, #03/15, tail 76026
L/N 1133 C/N 43630 B767-300F N151FE FEDEX (VT601) “Presly”
L/N 1134 C/N 34126 B767-2LKC 17-46027 USAF KC-46A (VH027) LRIP 3, #04/15, tail 76027
L/N 1135 C/N 34124 B767-2LKC 17-46028 USAF KC-46A (VH028) LRIP 3, #05/15, N55141, tail 76028
L/N 1136 C/N 43552 B767-300F N152FE FEDEX (VT602) “Malachi”
L/N 1137 C/N 34110 B767-2LKC 17-46029 USAF KC-46A (VH029) LRIP 3, #06/15, tail 76029
L/N 1138 C/N 63095 B767-300F N153FE FEDEX (VT603) “Teyo”
L/N 1139 C/N 34112 B767-2LKC 17-46030 USAF KC-46A (VH030) LRIP 3, #07/15, tail 76030
L/N 1140 C/N 42730 B767-300F N154FE FEDEX (VT604) “Zachary”
L/N 1141 C/N 43631 B767-300F N155FE FEDEX (VT605) “Louis”
L/N 1142 C/N 63096 B767-300F N156FE FEDEX (VT606) “Tess”
L/N 1143 C/N 34115 B767-2LKC 17-46031 USAF KC-46A (VH031) LRIP3, #08/15, N5513X, tail 76031
L/N 1144 C/N 42731 B767-300F N157FE FEDEX (VT607) “Benoit”
L/N 1145 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 17-46032 USAF KC-46A (VH032) LRIP3, #09/15, tail 76032
L/N 1146 C/N 63097 B767-300F N158FE FEDEX (VT608) “Damien”
L/N 1147 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 17-46033 USAF KC-46A (VH033) LRIP3, #10/15, tail 76033
L/N 1148 C/N 42732 B767-300F N159FE FEDEX (VT609) “Averianna”
L/N 1149 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 17-46034 USAF KC-46A (VH034) LRIP3, #11/15, tail 76034
L/N 1150 C/N 63098 B767-300F N160FE FEDEX (VT610) “Katalina”
L/N 1151 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 17-46035 USAF KC-46A (VH035) LRIP3, #12/15, tail 76035
L/N 1152 C/N 43553 B767-300F N161FE FEDEX (VT611) “Rayyaan”
L/N 1153 C/N 43632 B767-300F N162FE FEDEX (VT612) “Thor”
L/N 1154 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 17-46036 USAF KC-46A (VH036) LRIP3, #13/15, tail 76036
L/N 1155 C/N 62499 B767-300F N163FE FEDEX (VT613) “Albie”
L/N 1156 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 17-46037 USAF KC-46A (VH037) LRIP3, #14/15, tail 76037
L/N 1157 C/N 62500 B767-300F N165FE FEDEX (VT614) “Mette”
L/N 1158 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 17-46038 USAF KC-46A (VH038) LRIP3, #15/15, tail 76038
L/N 1159 C/N 43554 B767-300F N164FE FEDEX (VT615) “Aleena”
L/N 1160 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 18-46039 USAF KC-46A (VH039) Lot 4, #01/18, tail 86039
L/N 1161 C/N 43633 B767-300F N166FE FEDEX (VT616) “JobEdokat”
L/N 1162 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 18-46040 USAF KC-46A (VH040) Lot 4, #02/18, tail 86040
L/N 1163 C/N 63099 B767-300F N167FE FEDEX (VT617)
L/N 1164 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 18-46041 USAF KC-46A (VH041) Lot 4, #03/18, tail 86041
L/N 1165 C/N 63100 B767-300F N168FE FEDEX (VT618) “Massimo”
L/N 1166 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 18-46042 USAF KC-46A (VH042) Lot 4, #04/18, tail 86042
L/N 1167 C/N 63101 B767-300F N169FE FEDEX (VT619)
L/N 1168 C/N xxxxx B767-2LKC 18-46043 USAF KC-46A (VH043) Lot 4, #05/18, tail 86043

Any corrections and/or additions, especially serial numbers ?

Double post due loading error, pls remove