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...

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!



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

mjoelnir wrote:

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

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.

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.

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'

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]”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

brindabella wrote:

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

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

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;

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)

brindabella wrote:

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

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?

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.

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.”

“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.”

brindabella wrote:

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

bikerthai wrote:

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

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

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

flyingclrs727 wrote:

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

flyingclrs727 wrote:

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

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

flyingclrs727 wrote:

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

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.

Sooner787 wrote:

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

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.

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? ). I counted sixteen tanker tails (no guarantee on accuracy).

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? ). I counted sixteen tanker tails (no guarantee on accuracy).

Plus there are the four test frames at Boeing Field.

747classic wrote:

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

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?

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

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