Stitch wrote:

I'm pretty sure the KC-46A uses a standard 767-200ER wing (earlier RFPs were based on the 767-300F and perhaps even 767-400ER wing).

Boeing would have done wind tunnel and CFD testing prior to first flight and felt they had a handle on it based on both, but that is why certification agencies require the OEMs to actually fly the plane because modeling is not always 100% accurate.

Didn't Boeing have to strengthen the 767-300ER wing for the KC-46A? No civilian versions of the 767 ever needed to hang anything other than one engine off each wing. The A330 MRTT was able to use it's wing's heritage as being designed for both the A330 and A340 to its advantage. The A330 tanker attaches the WARP's to a hard point that is located where the #1 and #4 engines would attach on an A340. I don't see how a modified 767-300ER wing could be considered a standard 767-200ER or 767-300ER wing.

Stitch wrote:

I'm pretty sure the KC-46A uses a standard 767-200ER wing (earlier RFPs were based on the 767-300F and perhaps even 767-400ER wing).

http://aviationweek.com/defense/boeing- ... t-campaign (behind avweek's paywall?) said:

Based on the 767-200ER baseline fuselage design, the -2C includes a strengthened main-deck cargo floor, cargo door and freighter features, strengthened 767-300ER wings, 767-400ER horizontal stabilizers, 787-based cockpit display system, auxiliary body tanks for increased fuel capacity and provisioning for the plumbing and wiring required for the refueling mission systems.

Therefore:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Didn't Boeing have to strengthen the 767-300ER wing for the KC-46A?

The above reference suggests they did have to strengthen the 767-300ER wing for the KC-46A.

If you've followed our KC-46A threads it seems Boeing and the USAF have kept as many details to themselves as possible so we don't know if was specifically for the pods, but it seems to be a reasonable inference.

Ah, okay. I know the "Frankentanker" Boeing submitted for the RFP that the KC-45 had won was like a 767-200ER body, a 767-300F undercarriage and wings and maybe the 767-400ER horizontal stabilizers. I thought they went back to something closer to the original KC-767 for the last RFP, but it appears they had not.

Stitch wrote:

Ah, okay. I know the "Frankentanker" Boeing submitted for the RFP that the KC-45 had won was like a 767-200ER body, a 767-300F undercarriage and wings and maybe the 767-400ER horizontal stabilizers. I thought they went back to something closer to the original KC-767 for the last RFP, but it appears they had not.

As I said, it seems Boeing is doing its best to not reveal any of the details, presumably to avoid any 'frankentanker' criticism for what has now become 767-2C / KC-46A. Boeing itself even said it won't be a "frankentanker" - ref: http://www.seattletimes.com/business/bo ... mpetition/ - but it seems it probably is. And other than saying that I got the above from Aviation Week, I can't vouch for its accuracy, since Boeing itself is not telling us much if anything about it. I also found https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... en-347896/ which follows what you wrote, but is hard to trust since it switches back and forth between a named Boeing source and an unnamed other source.

For bonus points, here's how someone (presumably at N-G or allied with N-G) drew the original 'frankentanker':



Apparently it had 767-400 flaps, not 767-400 horizontal stabilizers?

However, at this point, it's clear that for the franketanker, "It's Alive!".



It's a great accomplishment, except for that part about spending around $2B more than intended to bring it to market.

I've just been hoping that Boeing will update the ACAPS with the 767-2C as that should tell us what we need to know.

Was driving past the flight line the other day and saw numerous KC-135s awaiting their next mission. They are a good looking bird but I look forward to the arrival of new blood in the KC-46.

The first 19 tankers have been added to the order book.

Changes since last update: 19 new orders (BDS USAF Tanker Program for 19 767s).

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/

Another KC-46A joined runway 11-29 for storage.

See https://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/776903349270568960

When and where do they install the boom on these new production aircraft?

KC135Hydraulics wrote:

When and where do they install the boom on these new production aircraft?

At the EMC which is at the south end of Paine Field across the street from Paul Allen's museum. The hangar used to be owned by BF Goodrich.

In our wondrous world of computers nearly all of the engineers working the design have never physically flown, serviced, repaired, or built any part of an airplane. The engineers of the 60's were much more on the factory floor so the designs had more 'reality' built in.

Another KC-46 on the move today:


KC-46A by Woodys Aeroimages, on Flickr

JayinKitsap wrote:

In our wondrous world of computers nearly all of the engineers working the design have never physically flown, serviced, repaired, or built any part of an airplane. The engineers of the 60's were much more on the factory floor so the designs had more 'reality' built in.

Now reliability and safety have increased several magnitudes going forward from those times.

IMU those heroes from the past where mostly "say so" heroes.
Compare to the myth created around the cowboy culture.

WIederling wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

In our wondrous world of computers nearly all of the engineers working the design have never physically flown, serviced, repaired, or built any part of an airplane. The engineers of the 60's were much more on the factory floor so the designs had more 'reality' built in.

Now reliability and safety have increased several magnitudes going forward from those times.

IMU those heroes from the past where mostly "say so" heroes.
Compare to the myth created around the cowboy culture.

There's truth in both statements.

At the start of my engineering career one dealt with much less volume of tasks but the need to get it right the first time was paramount. You didn't get many second chances. You had to use a lot more intuition (either your own or that of your colleagues) because there really was no way to simulate much of what we did. There was a lot more manual cross-checking of work.

Now we're all expected to work with a much larger volume of tasks and in many cases the work is much more about integrating things that others have done and there isn't as much expectation that it gets done right the first time. Drag, drop, cut, paste, join, reboot then see what happens. However the fact that you're integrating bigger blocks means you do often end up with safer and more reliable things, because each component does more and (if you're lucky) the bugs have largely been shaken out. Of course the issue becomes that people are rewarded by how many things they glue together, rather than how well they all act together as a whole. That always seems to be "someone else's problem" since no one person really knows how all these complicated widgets really work at their innermost level of detail and how they all interact with each other.

Revelation wrote:

There's truth in both statements.
....................

Yes

The process is to swap ingenuity for process.
Process has better reliability but you do not get there from a vacuum.

H.Wouk, The Caine Mutiny: The Military is a system set up by geniuses to allow reasonably bright persons to lead a bunch of imbeciles ( or wording to some similar gist. )

Drove by Pease the other day, the new KC767 hangar mod to the KC-135 hangar mod to the B-47 nose dock hangars is coming along nicely.

Anyone can identify the following aircraft ?

231 by planesguy, on Flickr

263 by planesguy, on Flickr

264 by planesguy, on Flickr

265 by planesguy, on Flickr

266 by planesguy, on Flickr

How many KC-46As are built enough to be sitting on their wheels?

I can't wait to see that new metal on a USAF base.

747classic wrote:

Update :

Thirteen (13) KC46A's are now " sitting on their wheels "

Added KC46A (after delivery of L/N 1112, the next sequential FEDEX 767-32SF):

L/N 1111 C/N ????? B767-2LKC 16-46013 USAF KC46A (VH013) LRIP2/2

Thanks 747Classic.

747classic wrote:

N463FT , pictured at the Boeing Everett Modification Centre, December 08 2016

Original uploaded at Matt Cawby's twitter, see : http://twitter.com/mattcawby/status/807002490235285505

Aircraft data : L/N 1067 C/N 34054 B767-2LKC N463FT 11-46003 USAF KC-46A (VH003) EMD3

Great photo, thanks for posting it!

Travis and McGuire AFB announced as the next tenants to operate the KC-46. I'm assuming they were chosen in order to retire the KC–10. The Air Force in the past has publicly said that they wanted to retire them to save money on the equipment unique to that airframe and supply chain. My question is would any secondhand civilian cargo airliners want them?

http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... -46As.aspx

Buckeyetech wrote:

My question is would any secondhand civilian cargo airliners want them?

I highly doubt it for civilian cargo. They may have a chance with Omega though, would be a lot of aircraft Omega could draw on and probably going cheap. http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/

Unless the USAF will hold on the the airframes themselves...

Ozair wrote:

Buckeyetech wrote:

My question is would any secondhand civilian cargo airliners want them?

I highly doubt it for civilian cargo. They may have a chance with Omega though, would be a lot of aircraft Omega could draw on and probably going cheap. http://www.omegaairrefueling.com/

Unless the USAF will hold on the the airframes themselves...

Or maybe transfer them to the Air Guard?

I would expect the KC-10A fleet to be send to the Boneyard at Davis-Monthan.

747classic wrote:

"KC-46 schedule unlikely to go as planned " according the annual report of the Pentagon’s top weapons tester Michael Gilmore.

He's been tearing into the F-35 program, as well - viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1352617

Then again, the Pentagon's senior members note Mr. Gilmore “has never found anything he’s tested to be effective" because if it was, then his office is superfluous.

arluna wrote:

Or maybe transfer them to the Air Guard?

Highly unlikely. Reserve components equipment must mirror those found on the active duty side. USAF stated that leaning out the supply chain is one of the reasons for the KC-10 retirement. Sending it over the air guard keeps those same issues.

Once the KC-46 enters the fleet in significant numbers, the KC-10 becomes redundant.

kc135topboom wrote:

Once the KC-46 enters the fleet in significant numbers, the KC-10 becomes redundant.

There are over 500 KC-135's to replace. At 2 per month that's over 20 years of production. There are 59 KC-10's. That's another 2.5 years of production. Are the KC46's going to have the capacity to replace the KC-10 fleet? The KC-10's are often used to refuel fighters when they are redeployed, because they can carry fuel freight and support personnel all on the same plane.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

kc135topboom wrote:

Once the KC-46 enters the fleet in significant numbers, the KC-10 becomes redundant.

There are over 500 KC-135's to replace. At 2 per month that's over 20 years of production. There are 59 KC-10's. That's another 2.5 years of production. Are the KC46's going to have the capacity to replace the KC-10 fleet? The KC-10's are often used to refuel fighters when they are redeployed, because they can carry fuel freight and support personnel all on the same plane.

They'll just use two KC-46s instead of one KC-10 (or three instead of two).

If the KC-135R's are estimated to have a life extendable to 2040, is it possible the USAF might sell some to other air forces as KC-46's come online in the USAF?

When is the KC-46 supposed to enter into service with the USAF? And what are the financial consequences of being late?

flyingclrs727 wrote:

There are over 500 KC-135's to replace. At 2 per month that's over 20 years of production.

They will not be replacing them one for one. And once full rate production is approved, they can increase the rate.

Besides, I don't think they will keep the line open for 20 years. Once Boeing decides to make a 787F (or a BWB freighter), they will work to close the 767 line.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Besides, I don't think they will keep the line open for 20 years. Once Boeing decides to make a 787F (or a BWB freighter), they will work to close the 767 line.

As long as Boeing has profitable orders to fulfill for the 767 they would be in no rush to cancel the line, even if the only remaining orders are for the USAF. If Boeing decides to make the 787F and believes it overlaps with the 763F too much they would just kill off the 763F (like they have done with the 764 and 762). Remember that Boeing produced military 707 variants through 1991 despite the last civilian 707 being delivered in the late 70s.

That said I don't really see tanker production lasting 20 years.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

kc135topboom wrote:

Once the KC-46 enters the fleet in significant numbers, the KC-10 becomes redundant.

There are over 500 KC-135's to replace. At 2 per month that's over 20 years of production. There are 59 KC-10's. That's another 2.5 years of production. Are the KC46's going to have the capacity to replace the KC-10 fleet? The KC-10's are often used to refuel fighters when they are redeployed, because they can carry fuel freight and support personnel all on the same plane.

I doubt the USAF would order 500 KC-46 tankers, the RFP was for 179 aircraft to be delivered by 2028.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

kc135topboom wrote:

Once the KC-46 enters the fleet in significant numbers, the KC-10 becomes redundant.

There are over 500 KC-135's to replace. At 2 per month that's over 20 years of production. There are 59 KC-10's. That's another 2.5 years of production. Are the KC46's going to have the capacity to replace the KC-10 fleet? The KC-10's are often used to refuel fighters when they are redeployed, because they can carry fuel freight and support personnel all on the same plane.

That's the key question to ask. If the USAF can simply eliminate the 59 frames, why hasn't it done it a long time ago? And why not keep eliminating KC-135Rs if 179 KC-46s are going to be enough? The answer is of course they need the capacity. They're still kicking around the KC-Y program after all. They just need a sacrificial lamb to pay for the outrageously expensive F-35s they are trying to fit into the budget. And the KC-10 is an easy target, because it gets rid of an entire family of aircraft.

KarelXWB wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

kc135topboom wrote:

Once the KC-46 enters the fleet in significant numbers, the KC-10 becomes redundant.

There are over 500 KC-135's to replace. At 2 per month that's over 20 years of production. There are 59 KC-10's. That's another 2.5 years of production. Are the KC46's going to have the capacity to replace the KC-10 fleet? The KC-10's are often used to refuel fighters when they are redeployed, because they can carry fuel freight and support personnel all on the same plane.

I doubt the USAF would order 500 KC-46 tankers, the RFP was for 179 aircraft to be delivered by 2028.

The RFP was for an initial 179 planes to replace the National Guard KC-135E aircraft that had TF33 engines. Those were the highest priority planes to replace first, because of corrosion issues with their engine mounts.

hilram wrote:

When is the KC-46 supposed to enter into service with the USAF?

Original plan was Spring 2017, but more likely it will be late 2017. All of the initial tranche of 18 are due for delivery by January 2018 from the latest reports I have seen.

hilram wrote:

And what are the financial consequences of being late?

Well there are no penalties, but Boeing is responsible for all the overruns (to the tune of some $1.5 billion to date).

KarelXWB wrote:

I doubt the USAF would order 500 KC-46 tankers, the RFP was for 179 aircraft to be delivered by 2028.

Agreed, but I do expect them to order more than 179 through the life of the program. I also expect the platform to serve as the replacement for the E-3 AWACS birds.

Aviaponcho wrote:

Tailboom can increase the so called lenght maybe

http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/bds/gl ... KC767A.pdf

KC767 is 19 pallet on main deck a lot o equipement near the rear door...
So ?

the -300F has 24 pallet positions.
the -200 is 6.5m shorter or ~3 pallets

i.e. a 767-200F ( if it existed 9 would have 21 88x108 pallet positions on main deck?

WIederling wrote:

i.e. a 767-200F ( if it existed 9 would have 21 88x108 pallet positions on main deck?

Main deck capacity is 11 96x125" ULDs or 20 88x108x96" ULDs based on 767-200 converted freighters.

New charge Q4??
Boeing said it took an aftertax tanker-related charge of $201 million in the fourth quarter due to initial production problems.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... SKBN1591FV

edit
its actually more than that 312 million. http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-01-25- ... 7-Guidance
Commercial Airplanes fourth-quarter revenue increased to $16.2 billion on higher planned delivery volume and mix (Table 4). Fourth-quarter operating margin was 9.1 percent, reflecting delivery mix, lower R&D and improved performance, partially offset by a $243 million pre-tax charge on the KC-46 Tanker program primarily related to additional effort to incorporate previously identified changes into initial production aircraft.

AND

Defense, Space & Security's fourth-quarter revenue was $6.9 billion (Table 5). Fourth-quarter operating margin was 11.8 percent, reflecting a $69 million pre-tax charge on the KC-46 Tanker program at BMA, partially offset by solid execution.

trex8 wrote:

its actually more than that 312 million.

I think that pushes them over the $2billion mark on cost over-runs for the tanker.

scbriml wrote:

trex8 wrote:

its actually more than that 312 million.

I think that pushes them over the $2billion mark on cost over-runs for the tanker.

Developement and first 4 test frames was estimated to cost less than $5b.
What was the projected bill for devel + 4 proto + ?17? first batch frames?

WIederling wrote:

scbriml wrote:

trex8 wrote:

its actually more than that 312 million.

I think that pushes them over the $2billion mark on cost over-runs for the tanker.

Developement and first 4 test frames was estimated to cost less than $5b.
What was the projected bill for devel + 4 proto + ?17? first batch frames?

The first LRIP contract, issued in August 2016 for two batches (7 and 12 aircraft, plus spares) was set at $2.8Billion.

http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/08/1 ... -contract/