KC 46 tanker landing at Paris Airshow

[F-16GUY]

Originally Posted by yoko1

Can't speak for now, but back in the day the military operated with much looser parameters as to what was acceptable for traffic pattern ops. There was generally a perspective that one day we might be required to operate from some "unusual" airfields or with non-standard approach requirements (think bad guys with shoulder launched SAM's out on the approach or departure corridor), so we would intentionally practice close in turns arriving and departing. Not saying that's what is happening here, but military heavies will do things that commercial airlines would never even contemplate.

I was trying to spread the same words in the military forum.

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by aterpster

This is a modified design of the 767. This design did not include T/Rs by specification of the USAF. So, they didn't have to be removed.

It sort of depends on how you define 'remove'. The USAF didn't want thrust reversers on the new tanker. The T/R is basic on the 767, so we had the choice to either build as is - with the T/R deactivated - or get rid of the T/R and design a new fan cowl for the PW4000. Boeing decided to do the later - it saved some weight, but I doubt it saved much (if any) money as there were significant non-recurring costs involved.
A while back another potential customer came in and wanted to buy some KC-46s, with reversers - no problem, just return to the original design, right? Not so fast - turns out as soon as the decision was made to get rid of the wiring and hydraulics for the T/Rs, much of the space that was opened up in the strut was filled with the extra wiring and such required for the KC-46 (bigger generators, additional wire shielding for HIRF/EMI, and stuff I can't talk about). So putting the T/Rs back on was cost prohibitive.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Hotel Tango

Makes an approach on 25 and breaks off for 21. Only they overshot the CL of 21 and had to readjust a little.

It positioned from Ramstein, so it was always going to approach from the east, but it doesn't look like it was established for 25 (which has implications for CDG traffic) at any stage.

Maybe the video doesn't tell the whole story, but the approach didn't look particularly sporty compared to some I've seen from aircraft that size at LBG during show week.

[Hotel Tango]

It positioned from Ramstein, so it was always going to approach from the east, but it doesn't look like it was established for 25 (which has implications for CDG traffic) at any stage.

I don't understand your comment about CDG. All landings on 25 at LBG (which tends to be the predominant runway in use) pass just to the south of CDG. It would make perfect sense that they made a standard approach to 25 up to a point and then broke off for 21. They may have first edged right before staring the left turn. Of course you may have seen otherwise on some tracking app, but you haven't said so.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Hotel Tango

I don't understand your comment about CDG. All landings on 25 at LBG (which tends to be the predominant runway in use) pass just to the south of CDG.

The LBG 25 extended centreline passes directly over CDG T2 at about 5nm from the piano keys.

From the French AIP:

If a pilot of an ACFT plans to use the RWY 25 for safety reasons, he should have to report it to CHARLES DE GAULLE approach at the first contact. Flow control measures (potential holding) should apply to him in order to ensure the compatibility with PARIS-CHARLES DE GAULLE traffic.

Originally Posted by Hotel Tango

It would make perfect sense that they made a standard approach to 25 up to a point and then broke off for 21. They may have first edged right before staring the left turn. Of course you may have seen otherwise on some tracking app, but you haven't said so.

Yes, I was referring to data from ADSBExchange. I didn't just make it up.

[Smythe]

tdracer.....remember the SW 737's, with only avionics for the left seat? I think they only upgraded when Boeing said they were going to start charging them more for that! (well, and they wanted RNAV/RNP)

[Meester proach]

Being a bit of a dull git with nothing else to do, I measured where he touched down on google earth , 3100 feet from the threshold , so it was a tad long.

lack of circling alignment below 300 and the above, would have caused me to GA, lest I get a call from the air safety guys

[Hotel Tango]

Yes, I was referring to data from ADSBExchange. I didn't just make it up.

Might have helped to point that out. Btw last time I was at CDG I watched quite a number of approaches to 25 into LBG, so not that uncommon.

[Hotel Tango]

OK, apologies, I've sorted it out now I was confusing 25 with 27. What I had been watching from CDG were approaches to 27 which do pass south of CDG. So did they make an initial approach to 27 and break first right and then left for 21? Or were they just doing a left hand circuit on 21?

[tdracer]

Originally Posted by Smythe

tdracer.....remember the SW 737's, with only avionics for the left seat? I think they only upgraded when Boeing said they were going to start charging them more for that! (well, and they wanted RNAV/RNP)

Never spent much time working the 737. But I do recall on the 747-400, Autostart was an extra cost option, which was reasonable for Pratt and Rolls, since it required costly additions to the engine. plus wiring changes to the aircraft. But the CF6-80C2 FADEC had autostart basic, all you needed to do was hook it up (plus it was a much better autostart system than the other guys, especially Pratt). For a while every GE powered 747-400 had autostart - in fact we didn't even have drawings for a non-autostart 747-400/CF6-80C2. Then someone came in, ordered a couple GE powered 747-400s, but declined the autostart option. Cost a small fortune to develop and certify the configuration, just so that we could charge less for the aircraft.
I always figured we should have simply had the sales team tell them we were having a limited time special and would throw in autostart for free...

[Lord Farringdon]

Looks like he only used half the runway to land...................that would be the half to right of the centre line!

[fox niner]

I have seen enough B52’s and C17’s do low turns on horrible vids. This one is certainly not in that category, but you are getting there.
Habit creep.
Or did they also remove the toga switches to save weight?

[groundbum]

Originally Posted by fox niner

I have seen enough B52’s and C17’s do low turns on horrible vids. This one is certainly not in that category, but you are getting there.
Habit creep.
Or did they also remove the toga switches to save weight?

maybe the TOGA switches were recycled 787 fire switches and got .... stuck...

G

[Maninthebar]

Consider the mentality:
You have been elected to fly into The Paris Airshow - eyes of the world on you and all that
You have stuffed up the approach BUT there is a stack of runway ahead, the plane feels good and conditions are OK
Do you
- plant it and hope that only the geeks on PPRUNE will notice OR
- Go Around and ensure that the entire audience, local and worldwide, get to see a clip of it on their local news channels
?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Hotel Tango

OK, apologies, I've sorted it out now I was confusing 25 with 27. What I had been watching from CDG were approaches to 27 which do pass south of CDG.

No problem, I suspected we were at cross-purposes.

So did they make an initial approach to 27 and break first right and then left for 21? Or were they just doing a left hand circuit on 21?

ADSBE suggests the latter - the last 30 nm or so of the track were more-or-less due west from roughly Montreuil-aux-Lions. The track stops just short of the field, but is consistent with a simple (albeit not quite textbook) left turn onto short final for 21, where the video picks up.

Sadly, it appears that the KC-46 is only on static display at the Show, so we won't get any further chances to admire his approach technique.

[parabellum]

Americans are much more familiar with side-step procedures than we British and a military flight positioning from Germany could well have incorporated a training element, so it is anybody's guess what their plan was. All looked pretty smooth and controlled to me. No drama.

[Fly Aiprt]

Originally Posted by Maninthebar

Consider the mentality:
You have been elected to fly into The Paris Airshow - eyes of the world on you and all that
You have stuffed up the approach BUT there is a stack of runway ahead, the plane feels good and conditions are OK
Do you
- plant it and hope that only the geeks on PPRUNE will notice OR
- Go Around and ensure that the entire audience, local and worldwide, get to see a clip of it on their local news channels
?

Of course do the latter, offering a macho low pass followed by an impressive precision full stop landing right on the touchdown marks and centerline. And then taxi while waving to the subjugated crowd.
That would have looked like something.

Instead, did you hear the last comment from the guy taking the video ?
An appalled "Oh la la" isn't quite the "Wow !" a top pilot should expect...

[DaveReidUK]

Could have been worse.

The unofficial US military.com website gleefully informs us that "The Air Force's new KC-46 Pegasus tanker landed on the flight line at France's Paris-Le Bourget Airport Saturday ahead of its public debut at the air show here."

Ouch.

[stilton]

Don’t see what all the fuss is about



It is an air show

[Sailvi767]

Originally Posted by Max Angle

If they had bought the Airbus option they could have had reverse thrust AND a higher offload.

They could have had reverse thrust. The Airforce did not want to because of complexity. The Airbus because of brake temp issues probably would have required it. Ramp space was a bigger issue with the A330 because it would not fit in the footprint of a 135.