More KC-46A woes....
Thread Starter
Army and Air National Guardsmen from the Oklahoma National Guard disembark a 157th Air Refueling Wing KC-46A Pegasus from Pease Air National Guard Base, N.H., after returning from the District of Columbia to Oklahoma City, Okla., on Jan. 23, 2021.
Travelling in the Voyager is vastly more civilised!
Thread Starter
Well, it'd be a 1340 mile walk, so I guess a couple of hours in a windowless Pegasaurus would indeed be preferable, particularly at this time of year!
Although they could pick up old Route 66 from St Louis to Oklahoma City, I guess. Which would be nice.
Although they could pick up old Route 66 from St Louis to Oklahoma City, I guess. Which would be nice.
"Having enjoyed the luxury of 'Rendition Class' travel in the Pegasaurus....."
Hhey getting out of Oklahoma at someone else's expense is GOOD no matter what way you travel....................
Hhey getting out of Oklahoma at someone else's expense is GOOD no matter what way you travel....................
News from Boeing's 'mediaroom'
airsound
EVERETT, Wash., Feb. 9, 2021 – The first Boeing [NYSE: BA] KC-46 tanker destined for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) took to the skies on its maiden flight yesterday. This successful flight highlights an important milestone as the aircraft now transitions into the certification phase of development.
“This is an exciting milestone for the JASDF and Boeing,” said Jamie Burgess, KC-46 program manager. “Japan is getting closer to receiving the most advanced air refueling tanker in the world.”
Japan is the KC-46 program’s first international customer and is scheduled to receive its first jet this year.
“This is an exciting milestone for the JASDF and Boeing,” said Jamie Burgess, KC-46 program manager. “Japan is getting closer to receiving the most advanced air refueling tanker in the world.”
Japan is the KC-46 program’s first international customer and is scheduled to receive its first jet this year.
JASDF Kc-46 flies
Oh no! Not another problem for the much troubled Pagasus? It's powered by P&W 4062 engines, part of the same 4000 series as the Denver UAL 777 (P&W4077) and the Belgium Longtail Aviation 747 (P&W4056), both of which recently rained parts on the ground below.
Boeing recommended grounding the P&W 777s, but there's been no mention, as far as I can see, of grounding the P&W 747 or the KC-46.
airsound
Boeing recommended grounding the P&W 777s, but there's been no mention, as far as I can see, of grounding the P&W 747 or the KC-46.
airsound
Israel has ordered two.
The P & W 4060 series engine is different to the engine fitted to United B777, as it does not have the hollow wide chord blades that are fitted to the larger engine installed on B777. Still a very old design though.
Oh no! Not another problem for the much troubled Pagasus? It's powered by P&W 4062 engines, part of the same 4000 series as the Denver UAL 777 (P&W4077) and the Belgium Longtail Aviation 747 (P&W4056), both of which recently rained parts on the ground below.
Boeing recommended grounding the P&W 777s, but there's been no mention, as far as I can see, of grounding the P&W 747 or the KC-46.
airsound
Boeing recommended grounding the P&W 777s, but there's been no mention, as far as I can see, of grounding the P&W 747 or the KC-46.
airsound
While there is considerable commonality between the high pressure portions of the various PW4000 models, the low pressure sections are completely different between the 94", 100" (A330), and 112" (777) variants. There is simply no connection between the fan blade failures on the PW4000/112", and the PW4062/94" engine installed on the KC-46, aside from their being designed and built by the same company.
Defense News has more news, and is quoting Gen. Ryan Samuelson, who leads the Air Force’s KC-46 cross-functional team, and Air Mobility Command chief Gen. Jacqueline Van Ovost
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/air-...erations-soon/
airsound
The Air Force currently has 44 KC-46s of the 179 it plans to buy over the program of record. By the end of 2021, that number will be up to 60 tankers, Samuelson said.
However, there are a number of missions that the KC-46 will not be permitted to perform until its critical deficiencies are resolved and the Air Force deems it fully operational, Van Ovost said. Namely, it will not be allowed to perform wartime missions in the Middle East for U.S. Central Command, nor will it be tasked for missions in U.S. European Command or U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
It will also be restricted from refueling stealth planes such as the F-35, F-22 and B-2, which all feature a low-observable coating that protects them from radar detection, Samuelson said. Air Force officials believe the KC-46 is at higher risk of damaging stealth coatings with its refueling boom because of longstanding issues with the Remote Vision System, a collection of cameras and infrared sensors used by operators to steer the tanker’s boom into a fuel receptacle.
However, there are a number of missions that the KC-46 will not be permitted to perform until its critical deficiencies are resolved and the Air Force deems it fully operational, Van Ovost said. Namely, it will not be allowed to perform wartime missions in the Middle East for U.S. Central Command, nor will it be tasked for missions in U.S. European Command or U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
It will also be restricted from refueling stealth planes such as the F-35, F-22 and B-2, which all feature a low-observable coating that protects them from radar detection, Samuelson said. Air Force officials believe the KC-46 is at higher risk of damaging stealth coatings with its refueling boom because of longstanding issues with the Remote Vision System, a collection of cameras and infrared sensors used by operators to steer the tanker’s boom into a fuel receptacle.
airsound
Missed that update. Good to see they are finally passing gas (but not to stealthy airframes and A-10's). Anyone know if they are actually being used much for air to air refueling?
Thread Starter
Why on earth did the USAF specify such a primitive system as the ATGL to be delivered in the 21st Century? Surely their passengers deserve better in this day and age?
Joking apart, toilet spillages cause considerable corrosion which is highly dangerous in pressurised aircraft.
All Airbus tanker transport aircraft have normal airline standard facilities.....as well as proper seats and cabin windows. Why on earth doesn't the KC-46A?
The Air Transportable Galley-Lavatory (ATGL) is a piece of palletized support equipment that is currently used in military airframes with pallet restraint systems. It has been used for over 35 years by the Air Force and provides inflight lavatory, oven, refrigeration, and coffee capabilities. The unit was designed to hold up to 39 gallons of potable water and 60 gallons of waste (including 11 gallons of precharge). It is designed to accommodate galley and lavatory facilities for 160 people and up to 15 hours of flight.
All Airbus tanker transport aircraft have normal airline standard facilities.....as well as proper seats and cabin windows. Why on earth doesn't the KC-46A?
Why on earth did the USAF specify such a primitive system as the ATGL to be delivered in the 21st Century? Surely their passengers deserve better in this day and age?
Joking apart, toilet spillages cause considerable corrosion which is highly dangerous in pressurised aircraft.
All Airbus tanker transport aircraft have normal airline standard facilities.....as well as proper seats and cabin windows. Why on earth doesn't the KC-46A?
Joking apart, toilet spillages cause considerable corrosion which is highly dangerous in pressurised aircraft.
All Airbus tanker transport aircraft have normal airline standard facilities.....as well as proper seats and cabin windows. Why on earth doesn't the KC-46A?
I guess the primary difference is that the KC-46 has limited to no underfloor cargo availability given the IFR tanks are there so they have built a hybrid CF aircraft that uses upstairs for everything hence all on pallets vs. A330 MRTT [KC-30] having full under floor cargo area for cargo and full permanent pax seating upstairs...
In other words, had Airbus proposed the standard MRTT, it would have been dismissed out of hand for failing to meet the basic, mandatory requirements.
