Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have just looked at the May issue of Boeing Frontiers which has two artists impressions of the KC-46A. It is a 767-200 and does NOT have winglets. Boeing say the boom is a development of the KC-10 boom. It also has two underwing pods.

We will be delivering a batch of 767-200 kits to Hannants very soon, and I am wondering if there would be any interest in a conversion pack consisting of a KC-10 boom and two underwing pods as we have the tools for all these.

Any thoughts anyone?

Neil

Edited by tnuag
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil -

Be careful you're not looking at stuff on the international 767 tanker - it doesn't have winglets. Everything I can find on the Boeing web site that relates to the KC-46A shows it with blended winglets. I'm actually quite surprised at how little play the KC-46A gets on the main Boeing web site. They have a totally dedicated URL (www.UnitedStatesTanker.com) just for the KC-46A. I don't see a single thing on there that's without winglets.

Not sure why they haven't certified the "KC-767" with winglets, since they're such a proven way to improve fuel efficiency. I won't be surprised to see Italy and Japan eventually retrofit them.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil -

Be careful you're not looking at stuff on the international 767 tanker - it doesn't have winglets. Everything I can find on the Boeing web site that relates to the KC-46A shows it with blended winglets. I'm actually quite surprised at how little play the KC-46A gets on the main Boeing web site. They have a totally dedicated URL (www.UnitedStatesTanker.com) just for the KC-46A. I don't see a single thing on there that's without winglets.

Not sure why they haven't certified the "KC-767" with winglets, since they're such a proven way to improve fuel efficiency. I won't be surprised to see Italy and Japan eventually retrofit them.

J

I thought that Jennings, but look at the latest Boeing Frontiers - two graphics, and in an interview a Boeing spokesman said that the return on winglets "did not buy them ontothe KC-46".

N

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'll go on record right now predicting that within five years of the first service delivery of a KC-46A they'll be retrofitting them!

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I'll go on record right now predicting that within five years of the first service delivery of a KC-46A they'll be retrofitting them!

J

This is an extract from a report on the Flight International website:

Sean O'Keefe, EADS NA chief executive, declined in an interview to admonish Boeing for his competitor's recent acknowledgement that marketing materials advertising a KC-767 with fuel-saving winglets throughout the competition were false.

"I'm not going to pass judgement on anybody's marketing strategy or any competitor's veracity," O'Keefe said. "I wouldn't do that."

But the absence of winglets from the production configuration of the KC-767, which has been redesignated the KC-46A by the US Air Force, offer a clue about Boeing's winning strategy, O'Keefe says.

"You can do this by extension," O'Keefe says. "The only room for margin between the capacity of what you could do today [with the KC-767] and what [boeing] is offering is to dumb-down the capabilities. As long as you don't go below the capabilities you're able to produce today, you're compliant. As every unfolding chapter is telling us, this is precisely how [boeing] unfolded their strategy."

These are the graphics from the May 2011 Boeing Frontiers magazine:

KC-46A-1.jpg

This is a KC-10 boom with endplate fins, unlike the high speed boom on the Japanese and Italian 767s.

KC-46A-2.jpg

Reaction?

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think putting the KC-135/KC-707 boom on the international KC-767 was a low-risk approach. I think Boeing felt it was worth the investment in terms of increased capability to update the KC-10 boom and integrate that into the KC-46A. So the lack of winglets is purely a cost thing then, eh? When oil hits $300 a barrel, they'll be retrofitting! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Wouldn't it be better to wait until the design is firmed up? At present it's completely theoretical and the end result may look nothing like the current artwork??

Possibly, but it just seems to be a 767-200 with a KC-10 boom and underwing pods. If we do produce it we would probably be doing it later this year and I read somewhere that th desiign freeze is in the 3rd quarter. We already have a KC-10 kit, underwing Cobham pods from the A-310 and of course the 767-200 kit, so it is mix and match for us to try it.

Neil Gaunt

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking with the Boeing guys across the ramp, the KC-46A will be the fuselage from the -200, wings/tail from the -300 (no winglets), KC-10 boom, wingpods (not sure if MPRS or WARPS) and the 787 cockpit avionics.

I'd love to see a kit of both, KC-767/46A.

-Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking with the Boeing guys across the ramp, the KC-46A will be the fuselage from the -200, wings/tail from the -300 (no winglets), KC-10 boom, wingpods (not sure if MPRS or WARPS) and the 787 cockpit avionics.

I'd love to see a kit of both, KC-767/46A.

-Jeff

What are the diffeences between -200 and -300 wings?

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Another bit of information has surfaced - the fuselage of the KC-46A will be 6.5ft longer that the standard 767-200 fuselage. That would probably make it a new kit because of the new fuselage, rather than a conversion pack.

Neil

Edited by tnuag
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil-

Where did you find that information? My bet is that figure covers the length of the retracted & stowed boom, not a longer fuselage structure. That would require major re-engineering, and to what purpose?

Here's a drawing showing what I believe the difference comprises:

J

KC-46length.jpg

Edited by Jennings
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jennings,

It was on the Flight website on 7 June 2011. The relevent part of the text read:

Boeing confirms commercial identity of KC-46A tanker

By Stephen Trimble

Boeing has confirmed new details about the new 767-2C commercial freighter that has been revealed as the core of the KC-46A, but key aspects of the aircraft's configuration remain undisclosed more than three months after the award of the US Air Force's KC-X tanker contract.

Boeing describes the 767-2C as a "minor" variation of the 767-200ER platform, but it is clear that the company has made significant changes. The maximum take-off weight is increased by 9,070kg (20,000lb) to just over 188,000kg, making the freighter version of the -200ER model even heavier than the 767-300ER. The length of the -200ER is also increased by 2m (6.5ft) to 50.5m for the KC-46A.

The 767-2C configuration also includes a cargo floor and door, a 787-based large display system, auxiliary fuel tanks and provisions for tanker systems, such as hose and drogue and boom refuelling systems, Boeing said.

It remains unclear, however, if Boeing has made any other changes from the basic design of the 767-200ER platform.

Yes the boom would do it, but I think we will have to wait and see - obviously I hope it is not anew fuselgae mould!

Neil

Edited by tnuag
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you consider all the engineering and operational changes that even a small fuselage stretch would entail, I can't see any logical reason for doing it. The airplane has been functioning for 30 years with two (well, three) basic fuselage lengths, including functioning in other than passenger roles (freight, AWACS, and most importantly, tanker). I'm going to be really interested in following this, so please let us know what you find out. I'm so swamped with school I have no time to try to keep up with this sort of thing. But I'll be shocked if the basic fuselage structure is changed. The engineering work for the cargo door has been done for eons, and fitting the 787 avionics package will likely be the biggest hurdle the engineers face. But given the soundness of the basic design, I don't see that as being a huge road block.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

My understanding of the KC-46 was that the fuselage will be sized between the 200 and the 300, that was said when Boeing won the competition. At that time there was also some talk about using the 767-400 wing, but that has seemed to change now to using the wing from the 300. I agree that before we see this plane enter service it will have either winglets or they will have decided to use the raked winglets like were used on the 400 wing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you consider all the engineering and operational changes that even a small fuselage stretch would entail, I can't see any logical reason for doing it.

To shift the CG aft at high fuel weights?

Honestly, its the USAF, they can't do anything logically or cost effectively. I am sure they have some immaterial reason to do this and run the cost up.

All told, I would love this kit. Even if it is a whole inch short.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's possibly because the KC-46A doesn't exist yet. The first metal for the first airplane hasn't been cut, much less in service. I think the first delivery is due in like 2017 or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst its not a KC-46A, isn't the Kc-767 and the KC-46 the same A/c?

Only from the standpoint of being based on the 767-200ER. Otherwise they are *very* different birds. The KC-46A will have PW4000 engines, an advanced flying boom system (modified from that on the KC-10A), and (most importantly) a 787-based cockpit. The KC-767 is basically a 767 with a KC-135 flying boom on it.

My understanding of the KC-46 was that the fuselage will be sized between the 200 and the 300, that was said when Boeing won the competition. At that time there was also some talk about using the 767-400 wing, but that has seemed to change now to using the wing from the 300. I agree that before we see this plane enter service it will have either winglets or they will have decided to use the raked winglets like were used on the 400 wing.

Not sure where you heard that, but nothing I've heard, seen, or read has indicated that. To do that would mean essentially an entirely new airplane that Boeing has never built, tested, or flown before - not likely. AFAIK it has been decided not to fit either the raked wing tip from the -400 or the blended winglets due to mission requirements (ie: they can't afford it). I suspect it may eventually get them, but that's not a given at this point.

Edited by Jennings
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...