HowardM Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 According to the program manager: "We start with the 767-200ER already type certified, commercial passenger aircraft. We add to it some DASH-300F series wings, DASH-400ER auxiliary power unit. Some doors, some tanks, some cargo features, and we turn it essentially into a 767-2C freighter which has the structural capability to do the tanking mission. We add to that all in the Everett facility there in Washington, body tanks, freighter cargo door and floor, an enhanced flight deck. When it comes out of the factory there at Everett it will essentially fly over downtown Seattle and land at Boeing Field to the south of downtown Seattle where at our finishing center at Boeing Field we’ll turn it into a KC-46 by adding the refueling systems and the military avionics. Some of the things that will go on there at Boeing Field is adding the booms, the wing air refueling pods, center line drogue system, LAIRCM, and our pallet system." The first airframe is due to fly mid-2014, but only down to Boeing Field to have the boom and military fit added for a real first flight in 2015. LRIP first delivery in 2016, which is when you might get to see operational photos. See My link for the full presentation from the program manager. Howard Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bzn20 Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure but if by saving money means the KC-46 does not have winglets or -400ER wing span you end up with a higher fleetwide fuel bill over the KC-46 service life and shorter range is the way to save money. Thats if winglets are on the agenda.Is it possible that these existing 767 winglets create wake turbulence affecting receiver aircraft? Edited March 13, 2013 by bzn20 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
strikeeagle801 Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 All I know is that it'll be testing in Moses Lake, and I'll be there when it does! Aaron Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 I'm not sure but if by saving money means the KC-46 does not have winglets or -400ER wing span you end up with a higher fleetwide fuel bill over the KC-46 service life and shorter range is the way to save money. I'm fairly sure somebody at the Pentagon and/or Boeing has a calculator on their desk. Maybe even a desktop computer with a spreadsheet program :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bzn20 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Got it in one.It will have winglets unless there are compatabillity problems with following aircraft trying to get hitched up. The whole idea of a tanker (In tanking missions)is to refuel and nothing else.So it makes sense that it uses the least amount of fuel so it can use the max amount of fuel to complete its refueling role.These aircraft are Capital assets.The war plan depends on them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 There is more to it than that. Whitcomb winglets were tested on the KC-135 in 1978, and found to ***significantly*** reduce fuel burn, yet not a single other KC-135 ever got them. There is a hugely complicated set of calculations, down to the last penny, of cost vs. benefit on things like this. Everyone assumed (as you have) at first that the KC-46A would have winglets or raked wing tips, but they disappeared from the artist renderings fairly quickly because the AF figured that the benefit didn't outweigh the cost. Choose to believe that or not, but that's the way the facts are right now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bzn20 Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 (edited) Is it cost or incompatabillity?Seems odd there are 767's flying around with winglets but the ones that have closely following aircraft dont or wont.The standard winglets wont cost that much in the scheme of things.The -400ER wingtips will obviously be more expensive. The truth is tanker fleets need to be as flexible as possible to operate with combat aircraft on short notice multi target ops (Gulf war 1 and 2)Start taking away max flying time and max dispensible fuel you start losing that.Its down,as always,to the bean counters in the DoD (MoD over here)If the DoD want flexibillity or save money on the purchase, its up to them. I havent assumed they'll have them,it makes sense thats all (sense doesnt allways prevail)The one thing 43 years in the industry teaches you is dont assume anything. The Airbus Voyager that the RAF have just got had/have a compatabillity problem,for some reason it couldnt refuel Tornado's.I'm not sure if its been sorted out. Edited March 16, 2013 by bzn20 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted March 16, 2013 Share Posted March 16, 2013 Considering that winglets *reduce* wingtip vortices, I suspect it's not incompatibility. I suggest you take your argument up with the Air Force Procurement Agency and Boeing if you need more proof. Meantime, they're building KC-46s without winglets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bzn20 Posted March 17, 2013 Share Posted March 17, 2013 I dont remember picking an argument with you, Just a point of view to why things may or may not be happening,like all of us in this thread.In the meantime,please read my posts and see where I said you were wrong. Stick anything into airflow it affects the air behind.I'm not sure you know enough to continue a conversation and then accuse people (quite often BTW)of not knowing anything,You havent heard of,havent read and therefor its wrong.You may have read and heard things,some of us have got our hands on the hardware. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Captoveur Posted March 26, 2013 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) So quickly many of you forget, the USAF is broke. The new airplanes already have to go on the credit card. The -135 is up for replacement soon. An expensive design and test program for the -135s to get winglets will likely not pay off for an airplane with not much expected service life left, presumably only flies short hops to tank something*, and does not need improved short field performance. This is not a mod you simply bolt on during depot maintenance. Existing 707/135 winglet data has to be taken with a grain of salt unless it has been tested with drogue pods (I have heard of a flutter problem in this configuration). There are also at least 2 engine configurations that may required separate test programs depending on what the engineers at Boeing feel is prudent. I am pretty sure there is much in the way of public data out there touting the advantages of the raked wingtips the USAF selected for the KC-46. *Obviously tanker drags are another matter Edited March 26, 2013 by Captoveur Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Eric2020 Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 Any news on the kc-46? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 4, 2014 Share Posted October 4, 2014 The -135 is up for replacement soon. If by "soon" you mean in the next 25-35 years :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
modelman11 Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 I'd be all over a KC-46 conversion set!!!!!!!!!!!!! First flight next month and delivery in the next few years, a KC-46 set now would be timely. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deino Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) Is there a reason, why it became so silent around this so much or even most important program ??? :o/> I know so far no aircraft has finished but it's strange that not a single image was officially posted ... all You find are a few images of the three aircraft so far at several blogs and image-hosts. :-[ http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/385427/usa-air-force-boeing-kc-46a-pegasus/ https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7274/13675584755_8ddc38bfa9_z.jpg http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraftsearch=Boeing%20KC-46%20Pegasus%20%28767-2C%29&distinct_entry=true http://www.miltechmag.com/2014/06/international-opportunities-for-kc-46a.html http://blog.daum.net/_blog/BlogTypeView.do?blogid=0FLNZ&articleno=11816163&categoryId=598650®dt=20140502201328 http://paineairport.com/kpae10693.htm Any info when that will change ??? Deino Edited October 12, 2014 by Deino Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rich in name only Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Seems premature on all of this. News reports (aviation press) in the last two months indicate design work is still in progress. Also, note how the 135, designed as a tanker had reinforcing built in compared to other -80 descendants and even that needed reinforcement---note the external bracing. The KC-10 aft fuselage for the boom is not too different in appearance but still not a DC-10 back end. What 1/72 767 kit is there to convert anyway? Seems best to wait till at least the first off is in production. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PMG Offramp Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 What 1/72 767 kit is there to convert anyway? Seems best to wait till at least the first off is in production. There is the Aircraft in Miniature 72 precut vacform, a nice but very simplified kit. Click2Detail released beautiful resin engines but they're CF6-80C2 & I believe the KC-46 to be PW4000 powered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 There isn't any new info because the first jet hasn't flown yet. The program is already behind schedule by several months. Look for a possible flight in the next 30 days, if the current timeline holds. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Deino Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) There isn't any new info because the first jet hasn't flown yet. The program is already behind schedule by several months. Look for a possible flight in the next 30 days, if the current timeline holds. Jeff Thanks ... but overall - esp. in mind of its importance (even if being not as enigmatic as a new stealth type) - I'm to ´say at least "surprised". The F-35 was or is also delayed, overcost and had other issues, but anyway the USAF/USN and most was all LM was not tired to advertise its product. But I will wait and see and hope ... (but I still regret that the Airbus KC-30/-45 was not chosen !) Edited October 14, 2014 by Deino Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Also, note how the 135, designed as a tanker had reinforcing built in compared to other -80 descendants and even that needed reinforcement---note the external bracing. If you're referring to the external aft fuselage reinforcing bands, that had nothing whatsoever to do with the airplane being a tanker. It was due to sonic vibrations from the water injected J57 turbojets causing skin cracking. Not an issue with the CFM engines, but there's no real need to remove them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dutch Posted September 26, 2023 Share Posted September 26, 2023 I plan on building a KC-46A using the AIM-Transport Wings 1/72 767-200 kit as a base. I already have DrawDecal markings for the NH ANG, just need the IFR boom, drogues and other lumps & bumps. Does anyone know of an AM or 3D print source? K/r, Dutch Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 22 hours ago, Dutch said: I plan on building a KC-46A using the AIM-Transport Wings 1/72 767-200 kit as a base. I already have DrawDecal markings for the NH ANG, just need the IFR boom, drogues and other lumps & bumps. Does anyone know of an AM or 3D print source? K/r, Dutch The company who makes the WARPs, Cobham Mission System, is out of business. So the limited pods that were acquired are sitting at McConnell. Either in storage for future contingency or lack of support. Therefore a NH bird wouldn't have them. You can source the boom from a 1/144 KC-10 as it's very similar to the KC-46's. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dutch Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 Storm, Thanks for the info on the pods. Didn't know that. I'll drop the pods then. However, this is a 1/72 kit, so the Revell KC-10 IFR boom is not much help. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andyf117 Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 (edited) On 9/26/2023 at 7:18 PM, Dutch said: I plan on building a KC-46A using the AIM-Transport Wings 1/72 767-200 kit as a base. I already have DrawDecal markings for the NH ANG, just need the IFR boom, drogues and other lumps & bumps. Does anyone know of an AM or 3D print source? As I recall, Dutch, before offering the entire KC-10A kit, AIM/Transport Wings originally issued the KC-specific parts separately as a 'conversion set' for their DC-10 - with the boom parts being common, it might be worth contacting them to see if they'll supply those items to you for your project, and perhaps make the suggestion that they could offer them to others as a stand-alone KC-46A conversion, like they did previously? Edited September 27, 2023 by andyf117 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dutch Posted September 27, 2023 Share Posted September 27, 2023 18 minutes ago, andyf117 said: As I recall, Dutch, before offering the entire KC-10A kit, AIM/Transport Wings originally issued the KC-specific parts separately as a 'conversion set' for their DC-10 - with the boom parts being common, it might be worth contacting them to see if they'll supply those items to you for your project, and perhaps make the suggestion that they could offer them to others as a stand-alone KC-46A conversion, like they did previously? Andy, After trading emails back and forth with Neil Gaunt over the past three-four years without result, I will wait and see what the 3D print market produces. K/r, Dutch Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dutch Posted November 7, 2023 Share Posted November 7, 2023 Titan Models has a KC-46A on tap in the next year or two. Woohoo! I will wait for it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.