Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

More KC-46A woes....

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

More KC-46A woes....

Old 2nd Jun 2015, 19:11
  #241 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,446
But since the A330MRTT uses bits from unrelated airplanes and even held over bits from now dead airplanes, that seems to me to be far more Frankensteinish than the KC-46 which derives its bits from various versions of the still alive 767.
Complete and utter bolleaux, KenV, as well you know.

The A330 shares the same 222" fuselage cross-section as the A310 and the avionics have been developed as the A320 family has matured. As have various aircraft systems - such as the industry-leading FBW system.

Whereas the KC-46A which still has yet to fly uses bits and pieces from various other 767s, plus 787 flight deck avionics....to a point. It is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT....
BEagle is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2015, 19:50
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,519
Concur, Beags...

Sure, there was a B9/B11 and then a TA9/11, paper studies both, but the real A330 was developed as a new airplane with its own TC and is no more a Frankenplane than the 737, using the cab and engines from the 727.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2015, 14:44
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Complete and utter bolleaux, KenV, as well you know.

The A330 shares the same 222" fuselage cross-section as the A310 and the avionics have been developed as the A320 family has matured. As have various aircraft systems - such as the industry-leading FBW system.

Whereas the KC-46A which still has yet to fly uses bits and pieces from various other 767s, plus 787 flight deck avionics....to a point. It is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT....
Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The A330 shares FAR more than just the "same fuselage cross section" as the A300. The A330 fuselage is an A300-600 fuselage with two barrel sections added. The A330 fuselage sections are built by the same folks using the same drawings and using the same materials and are then assembled on the same production line as the A300. The A330 tail section and vertical stabilizer are the same as the A300. The horizontal stabilizer was modified to make it smaller and added a trim tank. The A330 systems (hydraulic, pneumatic, pressurization, fuel management, fuel quantity gauging, etc, etc) are upgrades of the same systems on the A300. Many parts are even interchangeable. The A330 freighter door is lifted directly from the A310 freighter. The KC-46 uses only structural components and aircraft systems common to the 767.

The A330 avionics system is directly based on the A320 avionics system and literally uses many of its components, panels, and even software. The KC-46 only uses the 787's wide screen displays and none if its avionics.

There is nothing "bad" about any of this. Indeed, I think such an approach is GREAT. But if using such an approach on a small scale on the KC-46 is freakish (as you insist), then using such an approach on a MUCH bigger scale must be more freakish. And the A330 does just that.

Bottom line: I call the re-use and re-application of technology, engineering and production systems (as has been extensively done on the A330 and lesser so on the KC-46) to be smart design, engineering, and business practice. You call it freakish. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

But wait......

(KC-46A) is emphatically more of a cut-and-shut than the continuously-developed A330MRTT.
Fascinating. Re-use and re-application of technology on an Airbus product is "continuous development", but doing that on a lesser scale on a Boeing product is freakish. Very well. Yet another point we'll have to agree to disagree on.
KenV is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2015, 14:51
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
Sure, there was a B9/B11 and then a TA9/11, paper studies both, but the real A330 was developed as a new airplane with its own TC and is no more a Frankenplane than the 737, using the cab and engines from the 727.
Agreed. Which also means the KC-46 is "no more a Frankenplane" than the A330MRTT. Which was my point.
KenV is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2015, 18:56
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
KC-46A Test Aircraft Completes First Flight

The KC-46 Tanker programís first Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) 1 achieved a key milestone Tuesday by completing its first flight with a refueling boom and wing air refueling pods installed.


Ron Johnston, Boeing Test & Evaluation chief KC-46 test pilot, said takeoff from Boeing Field in Seattle was smooth and that the aircraft handled extremely well during the flight, its fifth overall, before landing hours later at Paine Field in Everett, Wash.


"On EMD 1, our goal is to demonstrate initial airworthiness, including flight with the external refueling systems on board," Johnston said. "The team will certify the aerial refueling components as part of the regular process leading to the first flight of a tanker-configured aircraft with EMD 2 later this summer."
KenV is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2015, 19:11
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: virginia, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 762
Some good pictures of the 767-2C in flight with the pods and boom here: Boeing 767-2C tanker completes first flight with boom, wing pods - 6/4/2015 - Flight Global
sandiego89 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2015, 19:37
  #247 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,446
Good to see that it's finally flown.....

A LOT of testing now lies ahead.....
BEagle is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2015, 09:46
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 49
Posts: 715
How far beyond the aircraft structure does that boom extend?

Interesting to see if there are any associated pitch/boomstrike issues at takeoff and landing.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2015, 11:29
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
How far beyond the aircraft structure does that boom extend?
Depends on your definition of "structure". The tail cone for example is generally not considered structure.

Interesting to see if there are any associated pitch/boomstrike issues at takeoff and landing.
The max ground pitch angle is determined by the boom attach point, not the end of the boom. Israel's KC-767 design (based on the longer -300) solves the boom strike problem by "burying" the boom in a channel in the aft fuselage structure.
KenV is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2015, 05:57
  #250 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,011
When Korea buys Airbus rather than Boeing, it's very, very telling. I'd expect strenuous US government arm twisting to get the choice reversed, as on previous occasions, but the initial decision is very revealing.

South Korea Selects Airbus for $1.33B Tanker Contract
ORAC is online now  
Old 1st Jul 2015, 16:50
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 69
Posts: 478
When Korea buys Airbus rather than Boeing, it's very, very telling.

Really, of what? The products or the buyer?

As said by others, there's lot's of testing yet to do with the Pegasus and since it really is testing, some unknowns to face. But let's see 50 years from now which of these tankers has served their military purposes well. Boeing has an excellent record in that regard.

And best of luck to the Korean Air Force
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 1st Jul 2015, 16:56
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 77
Posts: 645
So is Boeing now going to challenge the Koreans' decision on the grounds that it was an unfair competition?
Clockwork Mouse is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 08:42
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Far far away
Age: 49
Posts: 715
Boeing has an excellent record in that regard.
I'm not sure the Italians or Japanese would necessarily agree with you there.
D-IFF_ident is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 12:28
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
When Korea buys Airbus rather than Boeing, it's very, very telling.
Really? Of what? Perhaps that one aircraft is ready to deliver now and the other is in testing and won't be ready to deliver for years

And the fact that the Israeli product was also decided against tells us what, exactly?

I'd expect strenuous US government arm twisting to get the choice reversed, as on previous occasions.....
Please do tell us about "previous" US government "arm twisting" to reverse a Korean decision to buy an Airbus product.
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 14:07
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 69
Posts: 478
"I'm not sure the Italians or Japanese would necessarily agree with you there."

Not that I care very much what their opinion is, but what is the experience you are referring to?

I don't know of any air force that has had the air refueling experience that the USAF has. If the KC-135 had proven deficient, it would have been discarded quickly - certainly during the cold war - and in more recent times despite their aging airframes and relatively austere avionics, have once again proven their worth.

Now, I have no disrespect at all for any country, like the UK, Australia and even Korea that has made a different choice. In fact I have no disrespect for the MRTT/KC30 , either. I wish the best to them, our dear allies and friends.
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 14:31
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 65
Posts: 1,954
So is Boeing now going to challenge the Koreans' decision on the grounds that it was an unfair competition?
For the record, Boeing never called the KC-46/KC-30 contest "unfair". They DID contend that the USAF tanker selection authorities did not adhere to the written terms of the RFP both Boeing and Northrup/Grumman replied to. And the GAO agreed. When USAF was legally enjoined to adhere to the terms of the RFP, N/G pulled out and Airbus stuck it out alone.
KenV is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 14:57
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Far North of Watford
Age: 77
Posts: 541
Some ruffled feathers showing from over the pond!
Genstabler is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 15:01
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington.
Age: 69
Posts: 478
Some ruffled feathers showing from over the pond!

No worries. We celebrate Independence Day soon.
And we're young, only 239 years.

Cheers!
GlobalNav is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 15:18
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,359
Originally Posted by GlobalNav View Post
No worries. We celebrate Independence Day soon.
And we're young, only 239 years.

Cheers!
Today, 2 July, 1776, is the day the joint resolution (the Lee Resolution) of the Second Continental Congress ...

Resolved,
That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and
independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British
Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
The more formal 'up yours, King George' came two days later, with the
Declaration of Independence being approved. IIRC, it wasn't signed by all until early August.

They didn't have the internet in those days, nor fax machines, etc.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2015, 15:30
  #260 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,011
Please do tell us about "previous" US government "arm twisting" to reverse a Korean decision to buy an Airbus product.
Boeing beats out Dassault for Korean jet fighter contract
ORAC is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.