Boeing [NYSE: BA] now has six aircraft in its KC-46 tanker test program, expanding its ability to complete ground and flight-test activities as it progresses
toward first deliveries to the U.S. Air Force.
The newest KC-46 aerial refueling aircraft, the second low-rate initial production plane, completed its first flight April 29. Its test activities will help ensure the KC-46 can safely operate through electromagnetic fields produced by radars, radio towers and other systems.
KarelXWB wrote:A 6th test aircraft has joined the flight test program:
http://www.aviation.ca/2017050122124/ne ... st-programBoeing [NYSE: BA] now has six aircraft in its KC-46 tanker test program, expanding its ability to complete ground and flight-test activities as it progresses
toward first deliveries to the U.S. Air Force.
The newest KC-46 aerial refueling aircraft, the second low-rate initial production plane, completed its first flight April 29. Its test activities will help ensure the KC-46 can safely operate through electromagnetic fields produced by radars, radio towers and other systems.
petera380 wrote:Anyone know which aircraft joined the test fleet?
747classic wrote:The first Fully Functional Production KC-46A, (second LRIP aircraft) made her first flight at April 29 2017. See : http://painefield.blogspot.nl/2017/04/n ... s-air.html
par13del wrote:If those are WARPS they look way out at the extreme ends of the wings, is there a capability or requirement to refuel 3 a/c at once - 2 Navy 1 Air Force?
bikerthai wrote:
The note about Boeing and the supplier not realizing how much documentation needed for the WARP could probably be blamed on lost of experience internal to Boeing (or the right mix of experience people did not get on to the tanker Commercial operation - this mix is important as you need both commercial (FAA) and military (WARP) experience working closely to cover all aspect of the cert), lack of experience from the WARP designer and manufacturer with respect to the FAA cert process. (They probably never had to go through this type of cert before as all their previous cert was through a military modification process that only requires a military cert).
That is my hypothesis.
bt
LMP737 wrote:Boeing in it's infinite wisdom closed their Wichita operation which had lots of tanker experience. That knowledge base was instead spread to teh four winds.
kc135topboom wrote:So is there 6 KC-46/B-767-2C aircraft now flying with the test flight program?
Does anyone know what the USAF tail number will be for the first KC-46A delivered to the Air Force will be, and when that will happen?
Sorry, I have not been keeping up lately. There is life outside of airliners.net
par13del wrote:If those are WARPS they look way out at the extreme ends of the wings, is there a capability or requirement to refuel 3 a/c at once - 2 Navy 1 Air Force?
KarelXWB wrote:Boeing shares a peek inside the EMC
par13del wrote:If those are WARPS they look way out at the extreme ends of the wings, is there a capability or requirement to refuel 3 a/c at once - 2 Navy 1 Air Force?
deputydoright wrote:What would one say if suddenly, all of the previous testing were invalidated due to the test aircraft not being representative of the production model? Would this be newsworthy?
deputydoright wrote:What would one say if suddenly, all of the previous testing were invalidated due to the test aircraft not being representative of the production model? Would this be newsworthy?
deputydoright wrote:Refueling 2 V-22 Osprey concurrently is a real game changer. I don't think there is large need to refuel 3 aircraft at the same time given the hazards involved.
AeroTyke wrote:The tankers seem to be suffering from fuel temperature issues. I monitor the ground comms at BFI and tanker #1 has had issues for the past 3 days having to hold on the ramp and taxiways for up to 30 mins sometimes for the temp to drop to allow a take off. Today it escalated to the point where Fire Rescue was called to douse the wings with water in an attempt to bring the temperature down. Seemed to work, but by the time he'd taxied to the threshold for take off the temp had risen again. Sat there for 20 mins hoping it would drop but no luck so they've had to cancel the flight and return to the stall.
Anyone know why this is a problem on the tankers and seemingly not on other types? It's hardly blisteringly hot at Seattle today.
LMP737 wrote:deputydoright wrote:Refueling 2 V-22 Osprey concurrently is a real game changer.
I think there would be a clearance issue with two V-22 refueling from the WARPS.
jarheadk5 wrote:LMP737 wrote:deputydoright wrote:Refueling 2 V-22 Osprey concurrently is a real game changer.
I think there would be a clearance issue with two V-22 refueling from the WARPS.
Clearance for the V-22 to HAR from the KC-10 happened after I had left the jet, so I'm not 100% certain... but every picture or video I've seen of KC-10 - V-22 operations has been from the centerline drogue.
CFMitch56 wrote:
Correct... the V-22 is only approved to refuel from the centerline drogue on the KC-10. Not sure if it's a spacing/clearance issue or just the CLD is more stable than the WARPs.
par13del wrote:CFMitch56 wrote:
Correct... the V-22 is only approved to refuel from the centerline drogue on the KC-10. Not sure if it's a spacing/clearance issue or just the CLD is more stable than the WARPs.
I read somewhere that the big issue with doing probe / drogue on the KC10 was that once the a/c was fitted that was the only thing it could do as the boom was rendered inop, so in effect a speciality mission just for the Navy or Marines...based on military spending criteria, would it have been better to get the KC10 fitted with WARPS or was that not possible?
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Pretty sure that's the KC-135. Which requires a boom to drogue adapter to be fitted on the ground. The KC-10 has the boom, and a reel forward of the boom hinge. So it can do both in the same flight.
EDIT:
Yep.
mjoelnir wrote:https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-expects-delayed-kc-46a-delivery-next-spring-438072/
USAF expects delayed KC-46A delivery next spring
are these new delays?
16-46014 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34105 / LN 1113
16-46015 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34134 / LN 1114
16-46008 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) VH008 - C/N 41856 / LN 1100
16-46007 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LK) (VH007) - C/N 41855 / LN 1098
16-46012 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34107 / LN 1109
16-46013 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34109 / LN 1111
16-46016 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 41860 / LN 1116
par13del wrote:I read somewhere that the big issue with doing probe / drogue on the KC10 was that once the a/c was fitted that was the only thing it could do as the boom was rendered inop, so in effect a speciality mission just for the Navy or Marines...based on military spending criteria, would it have been better to get the KC10 fitted with WARPS or was that not possible?
Slug71 wrote:By the time this bird is certified and ready for delivery, a whole squadron should be ready to go. Maybe 2.
Slug71 wrote:How many frames have been built now?
747classic wrote:Slug71 wrote:How many frames have been built now?
04x Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) aircraft, all 4 have been used for testing
07x Batch 1 LRIP (Low Rate Initial Production) aircraft,first two have been used for testing
12x Batch 2 LRIP aircraft
01x Batch 3 LRIP aircraft
Total Assembled : 24,
Slug71 wrote:
Damn! Will the first 6 aircraft which have been used for testing go to the USAF once testing and certification is complete?
A trick that mutes a blaring horn when the autopilots on all Boeing models—except the 787—are manually disconnected could potentially cause an entry-into-service delay for the company’s KC-46 Pegasus tanker, a derivative of the 767-2C freighter.
7BOEING7 wrote:I don't think this will cause any delays, should be able to fix that rather quickly. Don't know were Boeing came up with their 99%, I did it for years along with most of the people I flew with IIRC..