KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Aircellist · Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:09 pm

Can Boeing go with program accounting on military sales?

kc135topboom · Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:12 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 114):
mjoelnir

Quoting Revelation (Reply 125):
It'll be interesting to see exactly what kind of penalties USAF will claim vs Boeing and how long it will take for it all to end up in court.

Boeing will not take the USAF to court.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 129):
After how the previous competition (KC-45A) about the tanker was set, Airbus would do well to just sit on their hands and be quiet.

Yup

Quoting scbriml (Reply 130):
Sadly, that's pretty much Boeing's MO since the start of the 787 problems. Deny, deny, deny vehemently, make no comment, then admit it.

I know it is to late, but let's not turn this into a Boeing bashing.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 136):
The only "litigation" happening will be on the pages of Airliners.net, where those who are still fighting the Tanker Wars continue to push their favorite team.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 146):
Another 500m-$1bn charge coming?

http://twitter.com/LeehamNews/status/738746980386508800

Scott is usually on top of things, especially since he lives next door to Boeing, practically. If there is another $500M to $1B charge coming, it is not because of the information in his link. His link goes back to the story we read about in reply #124

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 124):
U.S. Air Force to seek compensation from Boeing for tanker delay:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bo...YP1NU

If Congress does throw Boeing a bone, it will be in the form of a renegotiated contract, just as Airbus did when they discovered they couldn't build the A-400M the way they were suppose to.

Airbus is far from as pure as the wind driven snow. Their tanker had problems with the Boom, too. In fact the Airbus Boom fell off, twice. The A-330MRTT, KC-30 was delivered year late to the launch customer, the RAAF, and even then they could not use the Boom for another 2 years. The A-38) had development problems, making it years later. Then when they were about to deliver the airplane, they found out the designed wiring harness didn't fit. The A-400M got up to a record 5 years late and it still does not have the capability all its customers wanted.

WIederling · Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:38 am

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
Boeing will not take the USAF to court.

ROFL. very obviously not if they could avoid it. But they might be dragged to court by the AF.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
Airbus is far from as pure as the wind driven snow. Their tanker had problems with the Boom, too. In fact the Airbus Boom fell off, twice. The A-330MRTT, KC-30 was delivered year late to the launch customer, the RAAF, and even then they could not use the Boom for another 2 years. The A-38) had development problems, making it years later. Then when they were about to deliver the airplane, they found out the designed wiring harness didn't fit. The A-400M got up to a record 5 years late and it still does not have the capability all its customers wanted.

Levels of greyness. ( Islamic dawn is when you can discern a white thread from a black thread

)

Though Airbus man of the first hour Felix Kracht developed a widely scoped tanking and towing system during WWII
Airbus actually was new to the aerial tankers game. ( "Sucked up" via OP Paperclip ? )

But Boeing boasts Hnow How from deeply ingrained DNA going back five ++ decades of "we know about tankers".
Where is it?

mjoelnir · Sun Jun 12, 2016 8:25 am

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
Boeing will not take the USAF to court.

They did.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 129):
After how the previous competition (KC-45A) about the tanker was set, Airbus would do well to just sit on their hands and be quiet.

Yup

Why. Paying Boeing more than contracted would be a breach of the conditions of the fast price bid. Easy case to win for Airbus.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
If Congress does throw Boeing a bone, it will be in the form of a renegotiated contract, just as Airbus did when they discovered they couldn't build the A-400M the way they were suppose to

If Congress throws Boeing a bone it will be a case for the courts, it is in no way comparable to the A400M case as in the A400M case there was no second bidder.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
Airbus is far from as pure as the wind driven snow. Their tanker had problems with the Boom, too. In fact the Airbus Boom fell off, twice. The A-330MRTT, KC-30 was delivered year late to the launch customer, the RAAF, and even then they could not use the Boom for another 2 years. The A-38) had development problems, making it years later. Then when they were about to deliver the airplane, they found out the designed wiring harness didn't fit. The A-400M got up to a record 5 years late and it still does not have the capability all its customers wanted.

Nothing of this has to do with the KC-46 and how the bid was arranged. Should we now air how the 787 development went wrong, how the C-17 was delayed and other unrelated stuff?

Stitch · Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:25 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 167):
how the C-17 was delayed and other unrelated stuff?

The C-17 was a McD program run by McD before they merged with Boeing so definitely unrelated.

mjoelnir · Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:43 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 168):
The C-17 was a McD program run by McD before they merged with Boeing so definitely unrelated.

How is after a merger, a merger does combine two companies, anything regarding this two companies unrelated to the combined company? Your contortions are spectacular.

Aesma · Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:38 am

Quoting kanban (Reply 152):
The hardware relief valve system the company plans to use is similar to equipment use on the Air Force’s KC-10 and KC-767 tankers, and an Air Force spokesman said the service is “comfortable with Boeing’s hardware approach” because of the similarity to an existing system that has worked."

Like Bravo says, something is fishy here :

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 154):
It seems strange to me that wasn't done in the first place. The KC-10 has a relief valve, the KC-767 has a relief valve, why wouldn't the KC-46 need a similar one? Particularly considering the USAF knew the older boom systems worked well without the over-pressure issues. It seems rather stupid of Boeing to screw this up, and why didn't the USAF say "Hey, you forgot the relief valve".

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 154):
No it wouldn't. At this point, EADS has no legal standing in this matter. The issue is between the US Government and Boeing.

What about a US taxpayer, would (s)he have standing ?

scbriml · Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:58 am

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
I know it is to late, but let's not turn this into a Boeing bashing.

Ah, on-topic criticism isn't OK?

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):
Airbus is far from as pure as the wind driven snow....

But off-topic deflection (your usual tactic) is?

WIederling · Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:30 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 168):

Following discussions here the picture painted by some is that today's Boeing is McD in a "Boeing suit" ( cue MiB ).
So there obviously is some continuity. Also visible in how projects fare ?

( Though the decades lingering V22 Osprey Bell-Boeing project would attribute some of that pedigree to Boeing too. )

Stitch · Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:22 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 169):
How is after a merger, a merger does combine two companies, anything regarding this two companies unrelated to the combined company?

So then we should hold Boeing responsible for the failure of the XB-70 program because decades later they bought North American? Maybe we should complement them on what great fighters they make using the North American P-51 Mustang as an example.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 169):
Your contortions are spectacular.

As are yours to take any shot you can at Boeing.

mjoelnir · Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 173):
So then we should hold Boeing responsible for the failure of the XB-70 program because decades later they bought North American? Maybe we should complement them on what great fighters they make using the North American P-51 Mustang as an example.

You hit the nail on the head. The merged company called Boeing replacing both Boeing and McDonnel Douglas.

Quoting: http://www1.american.edu/ted/hpages/aero/BAMD.HTM

"The consolidation of the aerospace industry reached a climax on December 15, 1996 when BOEING CEO Phil Condit and McDONNELL DOUGLAS CEO Harry Stonecipher announced the two aerospace giants would merge in a $13.3 billion stoc-for-stock transaction. The new company, still named Boeing, will surpass LOCKHEED MARTIN as the nation's largest defense contractor with estimated annual revenues of $48 billion and a combined backlog of $120 billion. The merger, while dramatic, was not a complete surprise. The two companies had been engaged in on-again-off-again merger discussions for several years. However, several events in the fourth quarter of 1996 prompted the two parties to restart and complete merger discussions."

"The merger was approved in the United States by the THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION on July 1, 1997."

Pretty clear to me. You either stroke out the history of both companies until the July the first, 1997 or you have to accept both histories. And you see that the main point in the merger declaration is the military side.

bikerthai · Mon Jun 13, 2016 1:37 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 163):
I don't know how they do the accounting, but clearly Boeing is putting out a lot of money it would have expected the DOD to be providing had things gone to plan. It only gets worse if the August date is missed.

This is where having the tanker development program run through BCA is beneficial. The funding of the green airframes could be absorbed by the profits they are getting from all the commercial sales. While not a drop in the bucket, it should impact BCA bottom line much less than if it was purely BDS or even if it was LM.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 169):
How is after a merger, a merger does combine two companies, anything regarding this two companies unrelated to the combined company?

Having experienced the merger at the working level, I can tell you that it took a while for the two companies to integrate.

The mixing of executives was quickly enough, but the knowledge, processes and other working level know how takes much longer. Heck, it took a contract worker to point us to some technology that North American developed that helped us with designing the wing structure for the JSF competition. If we did not have that contractor working on a side development program on the JSF program, then that bit of technology may have been left on the shelf. Of course since Being did not win the program, I suspect that technology went back on the shelf

.

Would not be surprised if all the MD experience with the KC-10 boom would have retired or moved on from the company by the time Boeing got the KC-46 contract. (Or refused to move to rainy Seattle from sunny Cali)

bt

Stitch · Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:18 pm

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 174):
You hit the nail on the head. The merged company called Boeing replacing both Boeing and McDonnel Douglas.

Fair enough. Then I suppose we can hold Airbus accountable for the entirety of European aerospace history since it is effectively a consolidation of all those companies via mergers, acquisitions and such.

Now that we've settled that, back to the topic at hand. Smile

[Edited 2016-06-13 09:12:45]

mjoelnir · Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:37 pm

Stitch wrote:
Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 174):You hit the nail on the head. The merged company called Boeing replacing both Boeing and McDonnel Douglas.
Fair enough. Then I suppose we can hold Airbus accountable for the entirety of European aerospace history since it is effectively a consolidation of all those companies via mergers, acquisitions and such.

Now that we've settled that, back to the topic at hand. [Edited 2016-06-13 09:12:45]

Yes everything that is consolidated in Airbus. But there is quite a bit non Airbus consolidated companies left, like Saab, BAE, AugustaWestland and more.

kc135topboom · Wed Jun 15, 2016 11:40 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):Boeing will not take the USAF to court.
They did.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):Quoting Stitch (Reply 129):
After how the previous competition (KC-45A) about the tanker was set, Airbus would do well to just sit on their hands and be quiet.

Yup
Why. Paying Boeing more than contracted would be a breach of the conditions of the fast price bid. Easy case to win for Airbus.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):If Congress does throw Boeing a bone, it will be in the form of a renegotiated contract, just as Airbus did when they discovered they couldn't build the A-400M the way they were suppose to
If Congress throws Boeing a bone it will be a case for the courts, it is in no way comparable to the A400M case as in the A400M case there was no second bidder.

Quoting kc135topboom (Reply 165):Airbus is far from as pure as the wind driven snow. Their tanker had problems with the Boom, too. In fact the Airbus Boom fell off, twice. The A-330MRTT, KC-30 was delivered year late to the launch customer, the RAAF, and even then they could not use the Boom for another 2 years. The A-38) had development problems, making it years later. Then when they were about to deliver the airplane, they found out the designed wiring harness didn't fit. The A-400M got up to a record 5 years late and it still does not have the capability all its customers wanted.
Nothing of this has to do with the KC-46 and how the bid was arranged. Should we now air how the 787 development went wrong, how the C-17 was delayed and other unrelated stuff?

There was no "second bidder" on the A-400M because it was awarded as a no bid contract. No RFP was sent to any OEM other than Airbus.
Yup, the B-787 was a disaster for Boeing, but they have recovered nicely. The C-17 delays all go back to McD when they had the program. After the merger, Boeing got the C-17 on track and under budget.

kanban · Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:06 am

we need to stop rehashing the contract award history.. it's over and done.

Beating up Boeing for new issues found during testing is fair game, however the is no pure as the driven snow military contract out there that doesn't/didn't have problems... only my late wife would feel that all the issues from the B&W to current including those of companies that were merged into Boeing and those that were spun off are totally applicable to today's discussion.

So let's try to be more precise and stick to only the current situation and the subject airplane. for the diehards, you'll never get a repeal of the or a contract for a KC-45.. so quit bringing it up.

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:17 am

Latest article: Boeing KC-46 Tests Moving ‘Slower Than Planned’.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... er-planned

Developmental testing on Boeing’s KC-46 tanker is moving more slowly than expected after the program announced it would miss a major contractual deadline, according to the U.S. Air Force.

In order to accelerate the flight test program, Boeing recently decided to add a fifth engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) aircraft to the fleet, according to Air Force spokesman Daryl Mayer.

Adding another test frame will further drive up the costs of the program.

Stitch · Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:53 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Adding another test frame will further drive up the costs of the program.

Worth it to get them to LIRP that much sooner.

WIederling · Sat Jul 09, 2016 4:40 pm

Throwing resources at a late program make it .... later :-)

(original from "Mythical Man Month: .. throwing manpower at a late ... )

7BOEING7 · Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:02 pm

Looks like the refueling issue has been taken care of:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /87023048/

KarelXWB · Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:08 am

Unknown Line Number spotted outside:

Production KC-46A by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

USAF336TFS · Thu Jul 14, 2016 11:48 am

scbriml wrote:
Good job they have that 65 years of tanker experience!

Factually correct statement. Boeing did in fact invent, develop and fly the Boom-type system, in use by Allied and NATO forces today.

KarelXWB · Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:24 am

The above KC-46A was moved to runway 11/29 (temporary storage?).

See https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/753689560035360768

mjoelnir · Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:00 am

7BOEING7 wrote:
Looks like the refueling issue has been taken care of:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /87023048/

I still have not seen an official statement regarding the boom problems being resolved. Nobody reporting from Farnborough does mention such a statement.

KarelXWB · Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:08 am

As confirmed by the U.S. Air Force, refuel trails on the F-16 and C-17 were successful.

The U.S. Air Force announced that the KC-46 flying with a modified boom has managed to refuel a C-17 in mid-air and the previously observe axial loading issues were not present this time.

The testing was carried out on Jul. 12 and the service also refuel a F-16 on Jul. 8. The press release said higher than expected axial loads were detected during earlier tests with the F-16, the hardware modifications on the boom has managed to alleviate the loads.

http://alert5.com/2016/07/14/kc-46-has- ... -the-c-17/

bikerthai · Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:22 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
7BOEING7 wrote:
Looks like the refueling issue has been taken care of:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /87023048/

I still have not seen an official statement regarding the boom problems being resolved. Nobody reporting from Farnborough does mention such a statement.

The official statement may not come until they completed the test report and submitted to the Air Force. The test may have been a "success" but I suspect they will have to go through all the data (strain gauge and flow?) to confirm the results.

bt

bikerthai · Fri Jul 15, 2016 1:24 pm

I give them 2 weeks to generate the power point and a month to write the report

KC135Hydraulics · Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:14 pm

What I find astonishing is that the KC-135 incorporates a fuel pressure regulator AND a bypass valve for the boom, and has for decades. Why would this knowledge and experience not be carried over to the KC-46? Surely the KC-10, which this boom is derived from, has a similar system. How could it not?

kanban · Fri Jul 15, 2016 4:53 pm

I think enough Boeing has put enough asses are on the line without us needing to pile on... let's just say it happened for reasons that appeared correct at the time and were proved erroneous..

bikerthai · Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:52 pm

KC135Hydraulics wrote:
What I find astonishing is that the KC-135 incorporates a fuel pressure regulator AND a bypass valve for the boom, and has for decades. Why would this knowledge and experience not be carried over to the KC-46? Surely the KC-10, which this boom is derived from, has a similar system. How could it not?

Cost and weight . . . You know what works. But you want to try another approach to save some weight or money. It's a matter of execution and planing. If there was plenty of money to go around, you would have two design, one new and one old in case the new one does not work. Management are paid to take these risks. Sometimes it pays and sometimes it bites you in the "you know where"

bt

Revelation · Fri Jul 15, 2016 10:34 pm

It seems that now there's a lot of 'executing' going on....

Just sayin'....

747classic · Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:00 am

The KC-46 Pegasus program completed all flight tests required for the Milestone C production decision July 15 by offloading 1,500 pounds of fuel to an A-10 Thunderbolt II.
The required six refuelling demonstations are now completed for the following aircraft :
- C-17
- F-16
- F-18
- AV-8B
- KC-46A
- A-10

Boeing is now in a position to request approval from Frank Kendall, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, to award production Lots 1 and 2, totaling 19 KC-46A aircraft.

All 6 LRIP1 aircraft have already been assembled, one joined the test program and 5 are stored at several places at Paine Field :

L/N 1091 C/N 41852 B767-2LKC N842BA 16-46005 USAF KC-46A (VH005) LRIP1
L/N 1092 C/N 41983 B767-2LKC N884BA 16-46006 USAF KC-46A (VH006) LRIP1
L/N 1098 C/N 41855 B767-2LKC USAF KC-46A (VH007) LRIP1
L/N 1100 C/N 41856 B767-2LKC USAF KC-46A (VH008) LRIP1
L/N 1102 C/N 41858 B767-2LKC USAF KC-46A (VH009) LRIP1
L/N 1104 C/N 41859 B767-2LKC USAF KC-46A (VH010) LRIP1

Credit : USAF

See : http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/t ... tests.aspx

Revelation · Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:31 pm

Very interesting that Boeing might actually start to get paid for the tankers they have been building for a while now.

USAF336TFS · Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:12 pm

Great picture! Thanks for sharing 747! Now the LIRP contracts need to proceed to get these birds busy.

Revelation · Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:36 pm

USAF336TFS wrote:
Great picture! Thanks for sharing 747! Now the LIRP contracts need to proceed to get these birds busy.

Thanks. It's cool to see the leading edge slats out so the 767 can slow down to fuel the A-10. Also cool to see the drogue pods installed on the wing.

747classic · Tue Jul 19, 2016 5:17 pm

The sixth and last LRIP1 aircaft (L/N 1104) is presently at the Final Assembly Line

See preceeding aircraft : L/N 1103 C/N 42723 B767-3S2F N138FE FEDEX (VT588), Paine Field, July 07 2016

Original uploaded by Pilot Andy Photography, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/129803756@ ... F4N-JMfoU5

The first LRIP2 aircraft will emerge from the FAL in September/November 2016 :

L/N 1107 C/N 34106 B767-2LKC USAF KC-46A (VH011) LRIP2

KC135Hydraulics · Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:16 pm

Interesting that they substituted a FedEx painted rudder on this plane.

Polot · Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:33 pm

That is because that is LN1103, a FedEx plane, not the sixth and last LRIP1 aircaft (L/N 1104).

Moose135 · Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:36 am

Revelation wrote:
It's cool to see the leading edge slats out so the 767 can slow down to fuel the A-10.

On the KC-135A, we would set 20 degrees of flaps (first detent) so we could safely fly slow enough (220kts IAS) to refuel the A-10.

scbriml · Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:36 pm

KC135Hydraulics wrote:
Interesting that they substituted a FedEx painted rudder on this plane.

And a FedEx registration. And left the boom off.

KC135Hydraulics · Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:45 pm

Moose135 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
It's cool to see the leading edge slats out so the 767 can slow down to fuel the A-10.

On the KC-135A, we would set 20 degrees of flaps (first detent) so we could safely fly slow enough (220kts IAS) to refuel the A-10.

I'm pretty certain on the KC-135R nothing has changed in that department either. I don't have the numbers handy, but I doubt that 220 KIAS is a minimum maneuver speed for 30° of bank at any reasonable flying weight to be offloading fuel. With the KC-46 showing only slats extended, it really shows how much wing design/sweep makes a difference after many years of aircraft design! The KC-135 undoubtedly suffers at lower airspeeds from having a 35° swept wing.

Stitch · Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:03 am

Boeing will be reporting a $393 million charge for the KC-46A program to "reflect higher costs associated with previously announced program schedule and technical challenges, including implementation of the hardware solution to resolve the refueling boom axial load issue identified during flight testing, delays in the certification process and concurrency between late-stage development testing and initial production. "

http://investors.boeing.com/investors/i ... fault.aspx

We have a separate thread regarding the charges and the programs they impact, so let's keep such discussion there and leave this one for KC-46A production, testing and delivery: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1338543

747classic · Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:05 am

747classic wrote:
All 6 LRIP1 aircraft have already been assembled, one joined the test program and 5 are stored at several places at Paine Field :

16-46007 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) (VH007) - C/N 41855 / LN 1098, LRIP1, Paine Field, July 22 2016.

Credit : Chris Edwards, see : http://www.flickr.com/photos/woodysaero ... 484280065/

747classic · Wed Jul 27, 2016 6:29 am

Boeing is streamlining 767 production :

- The changes will cut the time a 767 spends in final assembly.
- Boeing plans to increase the 767 combined (KC-46 + 767-300F's) production rate from two a month now to 2.5 planes a month next year.
- The KC-46 is assembled alongside 767 freighters. However, the tanker requires “a lot more” time in final assembly, mainly due substantially more wiring and other systems related to its military role
- A KC-46 fuselage is too cramped to fit all the work crews at once, so mechanics end up waiting.
- Boeing engineers are redesigning the wiring to reduce the amount of time workers spend inside the plane

See : http://ht.ly/vQ4e302DoXp

rcair1 · Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:29 pm

WIederling wrote:
Throwing resources at a late program make it .... later

(original from "Mythical Man Month: .. throwing manpower at a late ... )

Throwing hardware at it may not be the same as mythical man month. And believe me - I've been in the middle of a few mythical man months.
If tests are taking longer due to lack of availability of an airframe, then adding an airframe will help. The article did not make that clear.

KarelXWB · Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:36 pm

Well, the tests are taking longer due to ongoing issues (re-wiring, boom problems). Adding an additional test frame doesn't mean deliveries will be accelerated, it probably means they are trying to get back to the original test schedule.

Stitch · Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:41 pm

What tests are left?

Boeing has completed all of the necessary tests to complete Milestone C and the USAF can now award Boeing the funds for production Lots 1 and 2, totaling 19 frames.

KarelXWB · Wed Jul 27, 2016 7:50 pm

Why else would they add an additional test frame to the program so late? How is a test frame going to accelerate customer deliveries?

Still some work needs to be done. According to the article below, the first production tankers won’t have operational WARP's.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/07/21/boein ... w-charges/

WIederling · Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:45 am

KarelXWB wrote:
Still some work needs to be done. According to the article below, the first production tankers won’t have operational WARP's.

Is there some intrinsic difficulty in mounting WARPs to Boeing 767 frames?
The previous 767 tanker projects had prolonged issues in the same area ( wingflutter?
at the time afair attributed to using low speed WARPs as used on C130 and not the
high speed version.)

par13del · Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:15 am

...or having additional test frames simply means that when all test are completed and delivery starts you have one less frame to build, now if test frames were not being delivered we have a different story.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net