A 6th test aircraft has joined the flight test program:

http://www.aviation.ca/2017050122124/ne ... st-program

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-program

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.

Anyone know which aircraft joined the test fleet?

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?

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?

Requirement, probably not. Capability, maybe. What it comes down to is a separation issue in that regard.

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

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.

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.

Yes, Boeing's original plan was to build them as green commercial airliners and send them to Wichita for conversion (as I believe was done with the KC-767 family), but (rightly, IMO) came to the conclusion that commercial 767-2C sales would probably be zero so by doing the military-related work on the FAL itself would cut down on conversion time and cost. The learning curve has been rough, but over time, it should be the better choice as doing it on the FAL will be easier than tearing the plane apart again to fit everything in.

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

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

Six airplanes total now in the test program. Not all are flying at the present moment though. As for deliveries your guess is as good as mine.

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?

Not gonna happen.

In the KC-10, simultaneous boom and WARP receivers are prohibited, due to inadequate receiver separation distance. Different airspeed requirements and emergency separation (breakaway) response times between boom AR and drogue AR are also a factor. Simultaneous centerline drogue and WARP receivers are also prohibited in the KC-10, also due to inadequate receiver separation distance.

Boeing shares a peek inside the EMC:





https://twitter.com/jonostrower

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?

I asked when I toured the program earlier this month (along with Ostrower and others). The answer is maybe for foreign sales of the KC-46.

Three planes at once was not a USAF requirement, b/c there would not be enough wingtip clearance. However, I was told that if a foreign nation wants it, Boeing can provide that capability. I believe the KC-767s delivered to Italy can fuel three planes at once.

Here is the article I wrote: http://www.heraldnet.com/business/testi ... roduction/

- Dan Catchpole, Everett Herald

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.

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?

What kind of change do you have in mind?

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?

Are you talking about the FAA or Air Force testing? Are you talking about "all" of the testing or just a particular system?

As far as the FAA is concerned most of their testing (on any airplane) is accomplished prior to the airplane being "representative of a production model". When doing certification work their concern is that the specific system/area they are testing and that any related systems/areas are in final production configuration not the whole airplane.

Can't speak to the Air Force.

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.

I think there would be a clearance issue with two V-22 refueling from the WARPS.

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.

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.

Might be doing "hot fuel" testing, so they're starting with already heated fuel.

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.

V-22 "wingspan" is ~84ft at the outboard tips of the proprotors. For the sake of easy math, we'll call the distance from the AR probe to the proprotor tips 40ft.
KC-46 wingspan is ~158ft. The WARPs are inboard of the wingtips; my brief search for a measurement was unsuccessful. Again, for easy math, we'll call the distance between WARPs 140ft.
Using these simplified (and, admittedly, borderline fictional) numbers, simultaneous V-22s on the KC-46 WARPs gives 60ft lateral separation. I no longer remember what formula USAF uses to determine "safe" receiver separation distance during WARP/MPRS refueling, but I doubt it results in a distance less than one receiver "wingspan" being considered acceptable receiver separation.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Aircrew call the KC-135 probe attachment the "iron maiden" and hate refuelling from it compared to a standard WARP arrangement as there are a couple of quirks to the refuelling process that make it difficult and more dangerous.

Short video of the KC-46A undergoing electromagnetic testing in the anechoic chamber at Edwards AFB:

https://twitter.com/BoeingDefense/statu ... 7946658818

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ng-438072/

USAF expects delayed KC-46A delivery next spring

are these new delays?

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?

Yes.

The previous delay pushed initial delivery to February 2018, so Q2 2018 is definitely another delay.

LN 1116 in storage at PAE:


16-46016 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 41860 / LN 1116 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

Current aircraft in storage at runway 11/29:

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

KC-46A's Stored on RWY11/29 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

Looks like the line up of teenager 787's they used to have parked out on that runway.

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?

Sorry for the late response...

As already noted, the KC-135 with the Boom Drogue Adaptor installed becomes a drogue-only tanker until the BDA is removed by the ground crew after landing. The KC-10 has a centerline drogue installed on every aircraft; nearly every mission I flew during my deployments to the sandbox had both boom and drogue receivers.

IIRC, about 1/3 of the KC-10 fleet is modified for WARPs; there are more WARP-capable -10s then there are sets of pods to install on them. The WARPs, unfortunately, are notoriously unreliable, and the customer who pushed the USAF into buying the mod (the US Navy) almost never uses them. The installed pods inflict a not-insignificant drag penalty in all phases of flight, and also inflict some significant takeoff restrictions WRT weather, winds, and runway length. In the 10 years I was a KC-10 boom operator, I only had one mission where the WARPs were a requirement - a movement of a Marine Harrier squadron from Cherry Point to Iwakuni, then another squadron from Iwakuni to Yuma. We had a pod fail on one of our overnight stops at Wake Island that couldn't be fixed. The other -10 on the mission had a pod fail on the very first leg of the mission. We had to get waivers from both the Air Force and the Marine Corps to continue the mission with the centerline drogues only.

Was down at the Museum of Flight this morning and caught a KC-46A going up for a flight. There were also four more birds at the Flight Test Center (along with the 787-10 and what I assume is the 737-9).

Meanwhile at the Everett Modification Center (EMC):


KC-46A's at EMC by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

The photos below show the large scale of work that's going on:

LN 1122:


16-46020 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34137 / LN 1122 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1104:


16-46010 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 41859 / LN 1104 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1117:


16-46017 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34108 / LN 1117 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr


16-46017 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34108 / LN 1117 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1119:


16-46018 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34135 / LN 1119 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1107:


16-46011 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) - C/N 34106 / LN 1107 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1091:


LN1102 & LN1091 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

LN 1102:


16-46009 USAF Boeing KC-46A Pegasus (767-2LKC) VH009 - C/N 41858 / LN 1102 by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

They're stacking up like cord wood.

A refueling boom has been installed on one of the customer aircraft.


https://twitter.com/dominicgates/status ... 8737160193

By the time this bird is certified and ready for delivery, a whole squadron should be ready to go. Maybe 2.

Slug71 wrote:

By the time this bird is certified and ready for delivery, a whole squadron should be ready to go. Maybe 2.

Probably not. They'll still have planes sitting on the runway waiting to be finished when that happens.

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,

Damn! Will the first 6 aircraft which have been used for testing go to the USAF once testing and certification is complete?

Thanks.
Not sure how many aircraft each base has, but if 12 aircraft make up a squadron, at least 3 squadrons should have a fairly quick transition.

KC-46 may face further delays:

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.

http://aviationweek.com/defense/autopil ... uble-kc-46

Considering the 767-2C is only going to be operated by a single customer (the USAF in the KC-46A configuration) during the exemption period, I would expect the FAA to grant this waiver as it should be easy enough to add this into the training regimen for the smallish pool of USAF pilots who will be flying the plane until the software roll-out is ready.

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..

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..

That's the key - if you know how to do it, there is a 100% success rate. If you do not know how to do it, then there is a 1% chance (per Boeing's studies) that you will be successful and this is Boeing's argument - the chances for an Air Force pilot not knowing the procedure accidentally triggering it is so low they should be granted the exception. And I imagine if you train them on the procedure so they don't do it, the chance should be 0%.