UPS757Pilot
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 5:22 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:43 pm

sovietjet wrote:
Consider this a silly question, but why did they decide to make things overly complicated by removing the boom window and adding a camera? There has always been a boom operator so it will not remove that position. Why fix something that isn't broken, and better yet proven to work just fine for almost 70 years?? Sometimes there really isn't anything better than the MK1 eyeball. We all know camera sensors don't have nearly the same dynamic range as a human eye. It seems like a very stupid decision. A window in the back will probably cost less than a fancy camera system as well...

I believe it has more to do with weight savings, which allows more fuel to be carried and offloaded to meet contractual specifications.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7422
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:25 am

brindabella wrote:
kanban wrote:
somehow scrapping (the process of rendering un-useable) has become confused with scraping (the removal of matter by abrading) ..


Thanks kanban.

Was giving me that headache that Rev described in the 788 context where the plane is supposedly simultaneously too light and too heavy!

:crazy:

PS: BTW the RAAF here in Oz accepted and flew the KC-30s for years with the Boom inoperable after the serious testing incidents.
Strikes me a better outcome is available for the USAF right now.


cheers


It sounds very good to talk about years flying the KC-30A with an inoperable boom. The RAAF got its first A330MRTT in 2011. Boom operation had no priority than, as all RAAF frames to be refuel had a probe. The drogue and probe had initial trouble with to high flows.
2014 the KC-30A was fully operational in regards to boom and drogue. The camera controlled seems to work fine including on stealth aircraft.

Anyway, what serious test incident happened in Australia with the boom?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25667
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:54 am

mjoelnir wrote:
Anyway, what serious test incident happened in Australia with the boom?


A KC-30A shed it's boom during a refueling operation with a Portuguese F-16.
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/ ... 000771.pdf

A UAE A330MRTT also shed it's boom over Spain during testing.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2883
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed Apr 11, 2018 1:22 am

mjoelnir wrote:

It sounds very good to talk about years flying the KC-30A with an inoperable boom. The RAAF got its first A330MRTT in 2011. Boom operation had no priority than, as all RAAF frames to be refuel had a probe. The drogue and probe had initial trouble with to high flows.
2014 the KC-30A was fully operational in regards to boom and drogue. The camera controlled seems to work fine including on stealth aircraft.

Anyway, what serious test incident happened in Australia with the boom?


Stitch wrote:

A KC-30A shed it's boom during a refueling operation with a Portuguese F-16.
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/ ... 000771.pdf

A UAE A330MRTT also shed it's boom over Spain during testing.

Just to be clear, Brindabella didn't indicate Australia as where the boom incidents occurred, just that they did and Stitch has subsequently pointed out the specific incidents. If you had read a single post past where Brindabella made that comment the answer, my comment and his subsequent response to it, makes clear he was aware of the facts around initial non boom requirements.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:24 pm

Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Anyway, what serious test incident happened in Australia with the boom?


A KC-30A shed it's boom during a refueling operation with a Portuguese F-16.
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/ ... 000771.pdf

A UAE A330MRTT also shed it's boom over Spain during testing.


did it scratch the paint on the F-16... ? Oh please so 'no' :duck:
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7422
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:45 pm

kanban wrote:
Stitch wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
Anyway, what serious test incident happened in Australia with the boom?


A KC-30A shed it's boom during a refueling operation with a Portuguese F-16.
http://www.defence.gov.au/Publications/ ... 000771.pdf

A UAE A330MRTT also shed it's boom over Spain during testing.


did it scratch the paint on the F-16... ? Oh please so 'no' :duck:


Let us now see the KC-30A had two boom losses one while still in the test phase and before the first frame was delivered to Australia. The other a different boom with an additional or different retraction system for the UAE, so not the same boom as on the Australian KC30.

It seems people here do believe that a boom loss or boom accidents happens only to Airbus tankers.

http://defence-blog.com/news/u-s-air-fo ... rcise.html

The above is about a boom loss on a USA KC-10.
 
CX747
Posts: 6039
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun Apr 15, 2018 3:25 am

All other tankers shall bow at the boom of the KC-135.

Analysis shows KC-135s participating in last night's operation against Syria/Russia/Iran. Some of those birds have a tail code starting in 58...which means it was paid for with fiscal year 1958 finances. That's long before the KC-46 was a glimmer in the lead engineer's eyes or Europe thought about forming a company named Airbus. One has to wonder how many early morning sunrises those birds have seen after spending a night defending the free world's freedom.

Let's enjoy that freedom and discuss the KC-46. Not fight over which free world tanker is ready to take over the KC-135s mantle.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Ozair
Posts: 2883
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:21 am

More drama but likely not a significant issue.

New software flaw requires FAA intervention to avoid KC-46 schedule slip

A newly-discovered software flaw could trigger another schedule delay for the Boeing KC-46A Pegasus unless the US Federal Aviation Administration approves a temporary waiver from certification requirements.In a document submitted to the FAA on 26 March, Boeing requests a time-limited exemption from the FAA’s supplemental type certification criteria for the 767-2C, the commercial aircraft model on which the KC-46A is derived.

If approved, the exemption would expire after 30 June next year, but by then Boeing plans to deliver a permanent fix for the software problem. Meanwhile, Boeing has proposed using a third crew member in the cockpit to mitigate any hazard from the problem while the exemption is in effect. A “delay of FAA action on this petition” would put off the supplemental type certification of the 767-2C and “its entry into service”, Boeing says in the document. The FAA responded to Boeing’s petition 19 days later, but did not immediately approve the exemption. Instead, Paul Siegmund, manager of the FAA’s airplane and flight crew interface section, asked Boeing to provide more details.

After Boeing provides those details, the FAA will publish Boeing’s petition in the Federal Register for a 20-day comment period.Despite the need for an exemption, Boeing isn’t concerned about the impact on the schedule for the KC-46A. “We are working this in concert with the USAF and are confident the FAA will grant an exemption,” Boeing tells FlightGlobal.
Boeing informed the USAF programme office of the new problem in February, the USAF says.

Since then, “the programme office has been working with Boeing to ascertain impacts and potential options” the air force adds, noting any extra costs caused by schedule delays are Boeing’s responsibility. The software flaw affects the aircraft only when the KC-46A is on-loading fuel in-flight into the centre fuel tank.

In Boeing’s view, the problem is highly unlikely to cause a safety hazard. As fuel is onloaded into the tank, three separate functions embedded in a fuel flow controller must fail at the same time and continuously. If they do, however, an overpressure could develop in the centre fuel tank with catastrophic results, Boeing says. But that discovery alone wouldn’t force Boeing to petition the FAA for an exemption. The certification problem for the 767-2C is based on a small detail. All three software functions that could fail operate on a single processor, according to Boeing.

The FAA’s certification rules mandate that such an aircraft use an automatic and independent system for monitoring fuel onloading to prevent an overpressure condition, Boeing’s document says.
Boeing now plans to develop, certificate and deploy such an automated monitoring system within a year. Until then, Boeing will require that the USAF assign a third crew member to monitor the fuel gauges when the aircraft is onloading fuel, according to the document.

The USAF accepts Boeing’s proposed mitigation as “manageable in the short-term”, the service tells FlightGlobal, adding, “the Air Force understands the timeline Boeing has presented to incorporate the necessary changes to remove the [proposed exemption]”.


https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... id-447827/
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25667
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Thu Apr 26, 2018 7:49 pm

KC-46A completes FAA Certification Testing necessary for issuance of a Supplemental Type Certificate.

Boeing’s [NYSE: BA] KC-46 tanker program has now completed all required Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) flight tests following a successful refueling/communications flight with a C-17 Globemaster III.

The STC encompasses the military systems installed on the 767-2C aircraft to make it a tanker, and is one of two required FAA airworthiness certifications. Boeing will now submit the resulting data and reports to the FAA for review in advance of the STC award.


The KC-46A received it's Amended Type Certificate in December of 2017 for its core 767-2C configuration.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2018-04-04- ... ht-Testing
 
Ozair
Posts: 2883
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed May 09, 2018 9:49 pm

Well we have a clear indication that the KC-46 does not have a higher scrape rate than existing USAF tankers. As part of closing out the issue though Boeing is still looking to improve the RVS system and confirmed that Boeing is paying the costs of these changes.

Remember that list of KC-46 problems? Here’s how they’re getting fixed

Last September, the Air Force grew concerned that the KC-46 had a higher rate of incidents where the boom had hit outside a receiver plane’s receptacle, scraping the surface of that aircraft — a significant and potentially expensive complication for stealth jets that rely on radar-absorbent coatings to maintain low observability.

Boeing in November 2017 brought in Tom Russell, the director of remote sensing for its satellite systems business, to help guide improvements to the RVS and boom operator station.

The company and the Air Force also collected data from the KC-46 test fleet and compared it to the rate of “undetected contacts” throughout the service’s tanker fleet, which today is comprised of KC-135 and KC-10 tankers.

“What we determined is, the KC-46 is well within the family,” Gibbons said. “We have had contacts outside the receptacle; so do legacy tankers. Our rate is within the norm for what we’re seeing out in the fleet today.”

For that reason, Boeing has decided to concentrate on the RVS problem, believing that if it can improve that system, the rate of undetected contacts would naturally decrease — allowing the Air Force to close out the RVS and undetected contact deficiencies simultaneously.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/05 ... ing-fixed/

Detail on how Boeing are changing the RVS system,

Russell said Boeing has made three major enhancements to the RVS:

Make it more intuitive for the operator to adjust the camera settings.
Provide “real-time” tools that tell the operator how they can augment image quality in certain weather or lighting conditions.
Retune the camera system to improve imaging when the light is at certain angles.


Some additional info at the link including centreline drogue fixes.
 
NBGSkyGod
Posts: 856
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 7:30 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Thu May 10, 2018 2:56 am

Ozair wrote:
Well we have a clear indication that the KC-46 does not have a higher scrape rate than existing USAF tankers. As part of closing out the issue though Boeing is still looking to improve the RVS system and confirmed that Boeing is paying the costs of these changes.

Remember that list of KC-46 problems? Here’s how they’re getting fixed

Last September, the Air Force grew concerned that the KC-46 had a higher rate of incidents where the boom had hit outside a receiver plane’s receptacle, scraping the surface of that aircraft — a significant and potentially expensive complication for stealth jets that rely on radar-absorbent coatings to maintain low observability.

Boeing in November 2017 brought in Tom Russell, the director of remote sensing for its satellite systems business, to help guide improvements to the RVS and boom operator station.

The company and the Air Force also collected data from the KC-46 test fleet and compared it to the rate of “undetected contacts” throughout the service’s tanker fleet, which today is comprised of KC-135 and KC-10 tankers.

“What we determined is, the KC-46 is well within the family,” Gibbons said. “We have had contacts outside the receptacle; so do legacy tankers. Our rate is within the norm for what we’re seeing out in the fleet today.”

For that reason, Boeing has decided to concentrate on the RVS problem, believing that if it can improve that system, the rate of undetected contacts would naturally decrease — allowing the Air Force to close out the RVS and undetected contact deficiencies simultaneously.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/05 ... ing-fixed/

Detail on how Boeing are changing the RVS system,

Russell said Boeing has made three major enhancements to the RVS:

Make it more intuitive for the operator to adjust the camera settings.
Provide “real-time” tools that tell the operator how they can augment image quality in certain weather or lighting conditions.
Retune the camera system to improve imaging when the light is at certain angles.


Some additional info at the link including centreline drogue fixes.


So it's what most of us suspected, it's a non-issue where things can be improved but are not abnormal.
Pilots are idiots, who at any given moment will attempt to kill themselves or others.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3865
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Thu May 10, 2018 3:40 am

Don't you love it when some desk sitter air force wonk creates an issue without establishing what the existing fleet experience is. Then has to eat crow or become the turkey that made the aircraft undeliverable.
 
giblets
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:34 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Thu May 10, 2018 2:19 pm


“What we determined is, the KC-46 is well within the family,” Gibbons said. “We have had contacts outside the receptacle; so do legacy tankers. Our rate is within the norm for what we’re seeing out in the fleet today.”



I'm guessing they are forgetting that the guys currently doing to work on the KC46 will be the more experienced crew members, once it gets to the frontline where the experience base will be ....how do we say this politely ... wider, this is likely to go up.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25667
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Thu May 10, 2018 2:43 pm

giblets wrote:
I'm guessing they are forgetting that the guys currently doing to work on the KC46 will be the more experienced crew members, once it gets to the frontline where the experience base will be ....how do we say this politely ... wider, this is likely to go up.


They didn't start out as experts, though. They likely went through the same training as the future crews will. And I would hope they looked at the whole testing regimen and not just the last contact in terms of generating those statistics, which would mean that even when they were "green" they were not constantly hitting the receivers.
 
User avatar
SamYeager2016
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:22 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Thu May 10, 2018 4:54 pm

kanban wrote:
Don't you love it when some desk sitter air force wonk creates an issue without establishing what the existing fleet experience is. Then has to eat crow or become the turkey that made the aircraft undeliverable.


That's one way of looking at it. Another is to point out that Boeing has made improvements which will improve the experience for boom operators and hopefully lower the amount of scrapes to an even lower level which will probably become the new baseline. Now maybe Boeing had doubts themselves or did the work as a belt and braces project to ensure this "issue" didn't drag on.
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Fri May 11, 2018 3:32 am

SamYeager2016 wrote:
kanban wrote:
Don't you love it when some desk sitter air force wonk creates an issue without establishing what the existing fleet experience is. Then has to eat crow or become the turkey that made the aircraft undeliverable.


That's one way of looking at it. Another is to point out that Boeing has made improvements which will improve the experience for boom operators and hopefully lower the amount of scrapes to an even lower level which will probably become the new baseline. Now maybe Boeing had doubts themselves or did the work as a belt and braces project to ensure this "issue" didn't drag on.


So when will the USAF start taking deliveries of their new tankers?

They're taking up alot of ramp space at Paine Field
 
Ozair
Posts: 2883
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Fri May 11, 2018 4:03 am

Sooner787 wrote:

So when will the USAF start taking deliveries of their new tankers?

They're taking up alot of ramp space at Paine Field

Sometime this summer according to the article from defencenews I linked above.
 
brindabella
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Fri May 11, 2018 11:46 am

kanban wrote:
Don't you love it when some desk sitter air force wonk creates an issue without establishing what the existing fleet experience is. Then has to eat crow or become the turkey that made the aircraft undeliverable.


I get the impression that BA are deliberately being very polite in public and refraining from pointing-out the ill-effects of the officious over-controlling which has taken place without the benefit of actual operational facts.

Behind closed doors, however ...

:oops: - there could well be some red official faces ...

:D
cheers
Billy
 
brindabella
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Fri May 11, 2018 12:11 pm

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/ho ... aster-pace

In an approximately half-joking tone, I recently suggested that the 767 ramp-up was looking very cramped indeed.
Basically it all looks far too cautious as demand is growing fast (Who woulda thunk??? Well, oddly - I did.)
Maybe an answer appears:
1) some growing equity in Spirit.
2) open 767 production in Wichita.

Crazy? Crazy but smart? What say you?
cheers
Billy
 
LMP737
Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Fri May 11, 2018 4:27 pm

brindabella wrote:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/house-lawmakers-want-air-force-accept-kc-46-deliveries-faster-pace

In an approximately half-joking tone, I recently suggested that the 767 ramp-up was looking very cramped indeed.
Basically it all looks far too cautious as demand is growing fast (Who woulda thunk??? Well, oddly - I did.)
Maybe an answer appears:
1) some growing equity in Spirit.
2) open 767 production in Wichita.

Crazy? Crazy but smart? What say you?
cheers


Open 767 production in Wichita? That falls under the crazy heading. Boeing would have to start from scratch if they were to do that as they have pulled out of Wichita.

The original plan was to fly the 767-2C to Kansas and have it finished there. Alas Jim McNerney had it in for the IAM there and had the BDS talent pool in Wichita spread to the four winds.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
brindabella
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sat May 12, 2018 9:54 am

LMP737 wrote:
brindabella wrote:
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/house-lawmakers-want-air-force-accept-kc-46-deliveries-faster-pace

In an approximately half-joking tone, I recently suggested that the 767 ramp-up was looking very cramped indeed.
Basically it all looks far too cautious as demand is growing fast (Who woulda thunk??? Well, oddly - I did.)
Maybe an answer appears:
1) some growing equity in Spirit.
2) open 767 production in Wichita.

Crazy? Crazy but smart? What say you?
cheers


Open 767 production in Wichita? That falls under the crazy heading. Boeing would have to start from scratch if they were to do that as they have pulled out of Wichita.

The original plan was to fly the 767-2C to Kansas and have it finished there. Alas Jim McNerney had it in for the IAM there and had the BDS talent pool in Wichita spread to the four winds.


Good enough!
(I noted that Spirit already report problems with getting & keeping sufficient machinists etc., leading to their difficulties keeping 737 fuse production up to the demand from Renton).

My (rambling) train of logic paired-together a few disparate factors:

1) AFAIK the 767 fuse is produced in Spirit and then has to be transported to Everett, where the co-located 748F & 767 lines seem to be running-out of space; and
2) It surprises me that BA has such a huge supplier of critical parts with no cross-shareholding (EG no second-source exists like say the (3or4) Engine OEMs); also
3) Certain commentators regard an amalgamation of all 787 production at Charleston as a certainty, in part to erase the "Dreamlifter" task; so finally
4) Why not also transfer a quantum of 767F/KC-46(?) production to Wichita for the same reasons, thus also freeing-up space in Everett?

thanks for the input,

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sat May 12, 2018 11:58 am

brindabella wrote:
1) AFAIK the 767 fuse is produced in Spirit and then has to be transported to Everett

I think it's just the 767 nose section (and 777 too!) that comes from Spirit, and even that travels in "broken down" form, since it's too big to travel by rail.

They travel in the brown boxes you see in this picture:

Image
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
LMP737
Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sat May 12, 2018 4:11 pm

brindabella wrote:
Good enough!
(I noted that Spirit already report problems with getting & keeping sufficient machinists etc., leading to their difficulties keeping 737 fuse production up to the demand from Renton).

My (rambling) train of logic paired-together a few disparate factors:

1) AFAIK the 767 fuse is produced in Spirit and then has to be transported to Everett, where the co-located 748F & 767 lines seem to be running-out of space; and
2) It surprises me that BA has such a huge supplier of critical parts with no cross-shareholding (EG no second-source exists like say the (3or4) Engine OEMs); also
3) Certain commentators regard an amalgamation of all 787 production at Charleston as a certainty, in part to erase the "Dreamlifter" task; so finally
4) Why not also transfer a quantum of 767F/KC-46(?) production to Wichita for the same reasons, thus also freeing-up space in?

thanks for the input,

cheers


The nose section for the 767 is built in Kansas. However the fuselage sections and cargo door are made in Japan, the wings in Everett and the vertical in Italy. The ideal situation for the 767-2C/KC-46 would for it to have it's own production line like the P-8 has. There would space be freed up space if and when 747 production ends. In the mean time Boeing has to make due.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25667
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sat May 12, 2018 4:56 pm

brindabella wrote:
1) AFAIK the 767 fuse is produced in Spirit and then has to be transported to Everett, where the co-located 748F & 767 lines seem to be running-out of space;


As noted, the nose and tail sections are made in the US with the center fuselage (main cabin) are made in Japan. The wings and horizontal stabilizers are also made in the US with the vertical stabilizer made in Italy.

As for the FAL, Building 40-33 handles the wing letdowns as well as joining them together (there are spaces for between three and six sets). There is also room for two vertical stabilizers and two sets of horizontal stabilizers. The FAL itself is located in Building 40-32 with two stations (Final Body Join and Functional Test). To either side are multiple fuselage assembly jigs allowing two for each section along with one for a complete forward and aft section.


brindabella wrote:
2) It surprises me that BA has such a huge supplier of critical parts with no cross-shareholding (EG no second-source exists like say the (3or4) Engine OEMs)


To be fair, Airbus does not have multiple suppliers for each fuselage or wing section for their airplanes, either. I'm guessing the suppliers they have are capable enough of meeting the demand.


brindabella wrote:
3) Certain commentators regard an amalgamation of all 787 production at Charleston as a certainty, in part to erase the "Dreamlifter" task;


The Dreamlifters would still be required to fly the wings and Section 43 from Japan, as well as Section 41 from Wichita and the tailplane from Washington and Italy.


brindabella wrote:
4) Why not also transfer a quantum of 767F/KC-46(?) production to Wichita for the same reasons, thus also freeing-up space in Everett?


Wichita would need to have a complete FAL built there and I am not sure how the logistics of the parts deliveries from Japan and Italy would need to change to accommodate production there as opposed to Everett.
 
brindabella
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 13, 2018 12:52 pm

Many thanks to all - however my underlying point still stands, I think.

Which is that overall growth in 767 demand has looked increasingly likely for some time.
Even the scenario of rate4 by 2021, decreasing to rate2 by 2025 looks very, very sedate.

Plenty of time yet, I suppose! ;)

cheers
Billy
 
brindabella
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 13, 2018 1:02 pm

Stitch wrote:

As noted, the nose and tail sections are made in the US with the center fuselage (main cabin) are made in Japan. The wings and horizontal stabilizers are also made in the US with the vertical stabilizer made in Italy.

As for the FAL, Building 40-33 handles the wing letdowns as well as joining them together (there are spaces for between three and six sets). There is also room for two vertical stabilizers and two sets of horizontal stabilizers. The FAL itself is located in Building 40-32 with two stations (Final Body Join and Functional Test). To either side are multiple fuselage assembly jigs allowing two for each section along with one for a complete forward and aft section.



I also recall you saying once b4 that an extra production resource could be created by doing some of the final assembly externally to the main hangar - in the EMC IIRC? Clever!

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Mon May 14, 2018 12:05 pm

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... over-kc-46 (free registration required) tells us that KC-46 program manager Brig. Gen. Donna Shipton is not exactly in lock step with Boeing.

Boeing recently began flight tests on a software “enhancement” to the RVS that it expects will reduce the number of such incidents, Gibbons says. The software upgrade sharpens the image displayed to the operator and eliminates the glare, he notes.

But the Air Force takes issue with the word “enhancement.” The change is a “fix,” says Shipton. “Something that’s an enhancement means that it’s gotten better above the requirement. We didn’t believe that the original system was going to meet the requirement, so for us this is a software fix because it fixes what we saw as a deficiency in the system in order for them to get to an acceptable level of performance.”

And:

“We did not believe that there was sufficient visual acuity in order for the ARO to safely aerial refuel on the old baseline,” Shipton says.

Boeing, by contrast, asserts that the original system met the Air Force’s requirement. “We are very happy with our camera system; it is a state of the art camera system,” Gibbons says. “Contact outside the receptacle, which has also been termed ‘boom scraping’ in some cases, actually is, unfortunately, a phenomenon that occurs in the fleet today and in test. As long as you have a person in the loop, you will end up in some conditions where you will end up contacting outside the receptacle.”

Regardless of enhancement or fix, Boeing is paying to upgrade the RVS, which speaks volumes.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Mon May 14, 2018 1:51 pm

brindabella wrote:
Which is that overall growth in 767 demand has looked increasingly likely for some time.


Not really, the increase demand for the 767 is only temporary, there may be an increase demand for cargo version but that too will end when the USAF stop ordering tankers. Boeing will most likely proceed with the 757 replacement which will most likely have a stretch version to cover some of the 767 needs with the 787-8 covering the upper end.

The real intriguing question will be how Boeing will address the 757/767 size freighter replacement. Will they do a 787 freighter version or will the new 797 replacement will have freighter version built in?

Why a 787 or a 797 freighter? The production of these can be incorporated in the passenger line instead of maintaining a dedicated 767 line.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Mon May 14, 2018 10:20 pm

bikerthai wrote:

The real intriguing question will be how Boeing will address the 757/767 size freighter replacement. t


Keep building 767F I guess.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
brindabella
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:38 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 15, 2018 11:02 am

bikerthai wrote:
brindabella wrote:
Which is that overall growth in 767 demand has looked increasingly likely for some time.


Not really, the increase demand for the 767 is only temporary, there may be an increase demand for cargo version but that too will end when the USAF stop ordering tankers. Boeing will most likely proceed with the 757 replacement which will most likely have a stretch version to cover some of the 767 needs with the 787-8 covering the upper end.

The real intriguing question will be how Boeing will address the 757/767 size freighter replacement. Will they do a 787 freighter version or will the new 797 replacement will have freighter version built in?

Why a 787 or a 797 freighter? The production of these can be incorporated in the passenger line instead of maintaining a dedicated 767 line.

bt


Thanks for that.

Correct me if I haven't got you ideas straight, but do you see the 797 as a direct 757 replacement?

cheers
Billy
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 15, 2018 1:40 pm

That is what everyone is looking forward to. Airlines like American and United are keen on this new airplane and is hoping Boeing will make a decision next year if not end of this year.

Boeing does not have anything to compete with the largest of the A320 NEO and the 767 is just too large and getting old. The current scheme is to have a twin aisle aircraft to fill the 757 market (Trans continental and Trans Atlantic). The target will be Major US and Chinese carriers. The fuselage will be squat oval and most likely composite. I don't see Boeing keeping the 767 line open after the Tanker is Complete. So it would be interesting to see what would be their next smaller freighter to supplement the 777F.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2047
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 15, 2018 2:35 pm

bikerthai wrote:
brindabella wrote:
Which is that overall growth in 767 demand has looked increasingly likely for some time.


Not really, the increase demand for the 767 is only temporary, there may be an increase demand for cargo version but that too will end when the USAF stop ordering tankers. Boeing will most likely proceed with the 757 replacement which will most likely have a stretch version to cover some of the 767 needs with the 787-8 covering the upper end.

The real intriguing question will be how Boeing will address the 757/767 size freighter replacement. Will they do a 787 freighter version or will the new 797 replacement will have freighter version built in?

Why a 787 or a 797 freighter? The production of these can be incorporated in the passenger line instead of maintaining a dedicated 767 line.

bt


Boeing says the 767 is more suitable, because its aluminum skin makes it pretty easy to cut holes in the skin in order to install various pieces of equipment. It's much more difficult to cut holes in CFRP and maintain structural integrity. You can't just cut out a place to install a cargo door.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 15, 2018 8:17 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Boeing says the 767 is more suitable, because its aluminum skin makes it pretty easy to cut holes


I am not referring to Freighter conversion where you take a commercial airline and make it a freighter.
Any 787 or 797 Freighter would be built from scratch with the opening for the cargo door designed in. No cutting. You would just require upfront Engineering to design the section 43 plug to accept a cargo door.

This assumes that by the time they are ready for a 767F or a 757F replacement, they do not already have the Blended Wing Freighter ready to go.

Personally, I think a 787F or a 757F is closer to fruition than a BW freighter. Though the BW would offer awesome performance.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 15, 2018 8:20 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
Boeing says the 767 is more suitable, because its aluminum skin makes it pretty easy to cut holes


I am not referring to Freighter conversion where you take a commercial airline and make it a freighter.
Any 787 or 797 Freighter would be built from scratch with the opening for the cargo door designed in. No cutting. You would just require upfront Engineering to design the section 43 plug to accept a cargo door.

This assumes that by the time they are ready for a 767F or a 757F replacement, they do not already have the Blended Wing Freighter ready to go.

Personally, I think a 787F or a 757F is closer to fruition than a BW freighter. Though the BW would offer awesome performance.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2047
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed May 16, 2018 3:20 am

bikerthai wrote:
flyingclrs727 wrote:
Boeing says the 767 is more suitable, because its aluminum skin makes it pretty easy to cut holes


I am not referring to Freighter conversion where you take a commercial airline and make it a freighter.
Any 787 or 797 Freighter would be built from scratch with the opening for the cargo door designed in. No cutting. You would just require upfront Engineering to design the section 43 plug to accept a cargo door.

This assumes that by the time they are ready for a 767F or a 757F replacement, they do not already have the Blended Wing Freighter ready to go.

Personally, I think a 787F or a 757F is closer to fruition than a BW freighter. Though the BW would offer awesome performance.

bt


It's not just the cargo door. Military versions often have lots of special equipment installed through openings in the fuselage.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed May 16, 2018 1:18 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
It's not just the cargo door. Military versions often have lots of special equipment installed through openings in the fuselage.


Small openings like antennas and self protection can be done with composites (not as easy as aluminum but no more difficult than repairing a 787 from ramp rash.

Larger modifications can be incorporate into the in-line design. These design just require up front Engineering and Planning which would be needed anyway for any mod. The main draw-back is that the up front Engineering have to be done earlier in order to feed the Commercial line as opposed later to feed the modification line.

Saying it's more difficult to mod composite frames is no longer a valid argument. There will be plenty of composite modification required with any upgrade to F-35, B-3's etc.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 7422
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed May 16, 2018 1:29 pm

Stitch wrote:
To be fair, Airbus does not have multiple suppliers for each fuselage or wing section for their airplanes, either. I'm guessing the suppliers they have are capable enough of meeting the demand.



Yes because the source for fuselage, wings, tailplane and tailfin is Airbus itself, when you compare it to the A330.
 
smithbs
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 20, 2018 4:35 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
They're taking up alot of ramp space at Paine Field


Aviation Day at Paine Field was yesterday (where else can you see a Spitfire, P-47 and B-25 in flight? :D ). I counted sixteen tanker tails (no guarantee on accuracy). Various states of completion:
- Fully painted with boom.
- Fully painted without boom.
- Green fuselage.
- Green fuselage and no engines.
 
smithbs
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 20, 2018 4:38 pm

Revelation wrote:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing-us-air-force-odds-over-kc-46 (free registration required) tells us that KC-46 program manager Brig. Gen. Donna Shipton is not exactly in lock step with Boeing.

Boeing recently began flight tests on a software “enhancement” to the RVS that it expects will reduce the number of such incidents, Gibbons says. The software upgrade sharpens the image displayed to the operator and eliminates the glare, he notes.

But the Air Force takes issue with the word “enhancement.” The change is a “fix,” says Shipton. “Something that’s an enhancement means that it’s gotten better above the requirement. We didn’t believe that the original system was going to meet the requirement, so for us this is a software fix because it fixes what we saw as a deficiency in the system in order for them to get to an acceptable level of performance.”

And:

“We did not believe that there was sufficient visual acuity in order for the ARO to safely aerial refuel on the old baseline,” Shipton says.

Boeing, by contrast, asserts that the original system met the Air Force’s requirement. “We are very happy with our camera system; it is a state of the art camera system,” Gibbons says. “Contact outside the receptacle, which has also been termed ‘boom scraping’ in some cases, actually is, unfortunately, a phenomenon that occurs in the fleet today and in test. As long as you have a person in the loop, you will end up in some conditions where you will end up contacting outside the receptacle.”

Regardless of enhancement or fix, Boeing is paying to upgrade the RVS, which speaks volumes.


I would adjust the comment by Shipton. "As long as you have a person in the loop, you will end up in some conditions where you will end up contacting outside the receptacle." I would say that as long as you have contact by two aircraft, there is the potential for a boom scrape. As an engineer experienced in automation, I can tell you that automation is not perfect and has its foibles. If someone made a guarantee that boom scrape would never happen with an automated system, I'd plunk down $$ for my counter-bet.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 25667
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 20, 2018 4:55 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
They're taking up alot of ramp space at Paine Field

smithbs wrote:
Aviation Day at Paine Field was yesterday (where else can you see a Spitfire, P-47 and B-25 in flight? :D ). I counted sixteen tanker tails (no guarantee on accuracy).


Plus there are the four test frames at Boeing Field.
 
User avatar
RobK
Posts: 3464
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 1:43 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 20, 2018 5:38 pm

Stitch wrote:
Sooner787 wrote:
They're taking up alot of ramp space at Paine Field

smithbs wrote:
Aviation Day at Paine Field was yesterday (where else can you see a Spitfire, P-47 and B-25 in flight? :D ). I counted sixteen tanker tails (no guarantee on accuracy).


Plus there are the four test frames at Boeing Field.


Actually 9 tankers at BFI.

The 6 based test frames (was 4 originally but 2 more were added under civvie regos) and completed tankers 66018, 66019 and 66020 are down at BFI now.
 
User avatar
747classic
Posts: 2404
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:13 am

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 20, 2018 5:55 pm

Total KC-46A tankers built : 34
4 x EMD aircraft, will become tail 16001 until/incl. 16004
7 x LRIP 1 aircraft, tail 56005 until/incl. 56011
12xLRIP 2 aircraft tail 66012 until/incl. 66023
11xLRIP 3 aircraft tail 76024 until/incl. 76034

The next (76035) will roll out at any moment. Total aircraft in the LRIP3 batch is 15.


With 9 aircaft presently at BFI, conseq : 34-9 = 25 KC46A's must be around at PAE in various stages of completion..
Operating a twin over the ocean, you're always one engine failure from a total emergency.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Sun May 20, 2018 11:29 pm

747classic wrote:


With 9 aircaft presently at BFI, conseq : 34-9 = 25 KC46A's must be around at PAE in various stages of completion..


Key word being "various". ;)
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Max Q
Posts: 6744
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 22, 2018 6:03 am

The KC135 has a hatch on the lower left forward fuselage that allows the crew to board independently of any external stairs

Is there any provision for this in the KC46, perhaps through the E&E compartment?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 18828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 22, 2018 12:01 pm

Max Q wrote:
The KC135 has a hatch on the lower left forward fuselage that allows the crew to board independently of any external stairs

Is there any provision for this in the KC46, perhaps through the E&E compartment?

In http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/01/news/co ... index.html good old Jon Ostrower wrote:

The crew ascends through a hatch underneath the jet's nose and is flying in 10 minutes. No stairs needed.

So the answer is yes, but I couldn't find a more detailed reference.

He can be reached via Twitter @jonostrower if you want to ask him for more info.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has it's beaches, it's homeland and thoughts of it's own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has it's seasons, it's evenings and songs of it's own
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 22, 2018 1:23 pm

If you can get a hold of a KC-46 cutaway poster, you'll see a ladder right behind the nose wheel well. That ladder seems to head to the front of the forward cargo bay where I suppose there is then access to the main deck.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5603
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Tue May 22, 2018 8:54 pm

bikerthai wrote:
If you can get a hold of a KC-46 cutaway poster, you'll see a ladder right behind the nose wheel well. That ladder seems to head to the front of the forward cargo bay where I suppose there is then access to the main deck.

bt


It goes into the forward avionics compartment. Which unlike a normal 767 gives you access to the forward cargo pit.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed May 23, 2018 1:40 am

Where might a cutaway poster of the KC-46 be available?

Thanks
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 2500
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed May 23, 2018 1:20 pm

arluna,
You can buy one on line. I just looked at their sample picture.
The EE bay would be logical as I believe there an existing hatch from the main cabin to access the EE bay for emergency purpose.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
arluna
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 12:28 pm

Re: KC-46 Production, Testing And Delivery

Wed May 23, 2018 8:48 pm

Thanks, as a retired KC-135 crew chief that spent many hours on alert I'm very interested in the new KC46A. Where did you find the sample?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: texl1649 and 10 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