If the receiver comes in too fast, the 1950's A/P can't keep up with the trim changes. When it disengages, it can have quite a nose down out of trim condition. Hence the reason for 1 foot per second closure.

Back on topic: Where to base it will come down, as it always does, to politics. All these analyses of number of tails and convenient receivers probably isn't even a consideration.

Copy, tankers to Cannon.

Copy, tankers to Cannon.

That would be a step up from Altus.

That would be a step up from Altus.

Either way you look at it, I bet it will be a pretty sweet deal for guys who want to go commercial with the free 767 rating.

Either way you look at it, I bet it will be a pretty sweet deal for guys who want to go commercial with the free 767 rating.

Just in time for airlines to replace them with A330s or 787s...

Either way you look at it, I bet it will be a pretty sweet deal for guys who want to go commercial with the free 767 rating.

I thought I remember hearing a rumor that since the -46 will have a 787 cockpit, the crews would be eligible for both 767 & 787 type ratings. I guess that is still up to the FAA to determine, however.

The -46 WILL have the 787 cockpit. I'm not sure if that's enough to get the type though. I'm pretty sure you would need to be schooled up on all the systems and associated notes, warnings and cautions.

As for the near collision, I know people who know people. It was not the tanker's fault, that's all I'll say. The tanker's autopilot kicked off after the reciever nosed over due to the rapid separation, that is what you saw. From what I understand the pushover was so violent that several backseaters were pretty badly injured, and the jet was grounded for some time afterwards.

Aren't Airbus airline crews cross-qual'd somehow for type rating? Similar cockpit for the A320, 30, 40 and 80 I mean...obvious significant airframe and systems differences.

Aren't Airbus airline crews cross-qual'd somehow for type rating? Similar cockpit for the A320, 30, 40 and 80 I mean...obvious significant airframe and systems differences.

300/310 is one type.

320 series is another.

330/340 is another.

380 is yet another.

Yeah but I thought the similar cockpit thing was a big selling point to the customers. Ease of crossflow...

Why would they move the FTU base to anywhere but Altus? Granted I understand politics is the determining factor, but just from an outsider looking in doesn't it just make sense to replace the aircraft at the bases they are already at?

Why would they move the FTU base to anywhere but Altus? Granted I understand politics is the determining factor, but just from an outsider looking in doesn't it just make sense to replace the aircraft at the bases they are already at?

Just because something makes sense doesn't make it any more likely to happen in today's environment. I'm sure the good people of Wichita would be just as happy as the Altusians to have the Tanker schoolhouse there.

Anyone else heard of the possibility of there being a AD squadron being stood up at KFOE?

Not specifically, but I have heard that the next round of TFI's will be decided soon.

The KC-46 will not have a 787 cockpit, but it will have the 787's 15.1" large display system (LDS). You will get a type rating on the 767 then take KC-46 differences training so I don't think you'l receive a 787 type rating for that.

Anyway, my guess (and hope) for FTU and MOB1 & MOB2 are McConnell, McConnell or Fairchild, and McGuire, Rickenbacker or Pittsburgh. Being a reservist commuting to a base is a big consideration, which leaves Altus and Grand Forks out the door!

The KC-46 will not have a 787 cockpit, but it will have the 787's 15.1" large display system (LDS). You will get a type rating on the 767 then take KC-46 differences training so I don't think you'l receive a 787 type rating for that.

Anyway, my guess (and hope) for FTU and MOB1 & MOB2 are McConnell, McConnell or Fairchild, and McGuire, Rickenbacker or Pittsburgh. Being a reservist commuting to a base is a big consideration, which leaves Altus and Grand Forks out the door!

Why would -46 be placed at the base with the most -135's?

Maybe because Boeing's depot is across the runway?

The tanker's autopilot kicked off after the reciever nosed over due to the rapid separation, that is what you saw.

That rapid separation from the reciever [sic] will get ya everytime.

Maybe because Boeing's depot is across the runway?

Not for long.

https://www.kansas.com/2013/01/08/2629004/boeings-wichita-site-to-be-on.html

Petnagon analysis shows McConnell cheaper option than Fairchild.

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/17/pentagon-analysis-shows-mcconnell-cheaper-option/?print-friendly

Base comparison:

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/17/fairchild-versus-mcconnell-cost-benefit-comparison/

www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140423/NEWS/304230037/McConnell-base-gets-final-OK-refueling-tankers

McConnell final approval announcement.

Altus for FTU and McConnell for the first base?

Pass

Thread revival since this is the most relevant thread I can find on the topic.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/19/star-boeing-challenged-kc-schedule/19282927/

I'm not an acquisitions guy, or even a tanker guy, but I am having trouble understanding how this program is having issues. They are using an airplane that has been commercially available for the better part of 30 years, and already sold as a tanker (albeit with some different systems) for quite some time. On top of that, Boeing has been developing what has become the KC-46 for a while through the various contract bids. I fail to see the speedbump, but then again, it's an Air Force acquisition program. I suppose it would be right if there weren't "delays" which are usually just a move to soak more taxpayer money out of the program.

Thread revival since this is the most relevant thread I can find on the topic.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/19/star-boeing-challenged-kc-schedule/19282927/

I'm not an acquisitions guy, or even a tanker guy, but I am having trouble understanding how this program is having issues. They are using an airplane that has been commercially available for the better part of 30 years, and already sold as a tanker (albeit with some different systems) for quite some time. On top of that, Boeing has been developing what has become the KC-46 for a while through the various contract bids. I fail to see the speedbump, but then again, it's an Air Force acquisition program. I suppose it would be right if there weren't "delays" which are usually just a move to soak more taxpayer money out of the program.

if its not obvious by now that they are waiting for Lockheeds proposal for a joint service stealth tanker then i dont know what to say. ;)

It's a classic "oven" versus "microwave" debacle. Oh, and some general probably asked for portholes on the sides, you know, so the fellas can stick out their guns and shoot people. Not to mention the need for "sheep specs."

This piece of satire is timeless, sad, and funny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

Out

Thread revival since this is the most relevant thread I can find on the topic.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2014/11/19/star-boeing-challenged-kc-schedule/19282927/

I'm not an acquisitions guy, or even a tanker guy, but I am having trouble understanding how this program is having issues. They are using an airplane that has been commercially available for the better part of 30 years, and already sold as a tanker (albeit with some different systems) for quite some time. On top of that, Boeing has been developing what has become the KC-46 for a while through the various contract bids. I fail to see the speedbump, but then again, it's an Air Force acquisition program. I suppose it would be right if there weren't "delays" which are usually just a move to soak more taxpayer money out of the program.

What I have heard is that it's all down to the wiring. Boeing is having issues doing the triple redundant wiring since that wasn't really designed into the 767 but is a requirement for the KC-46. There are only so many holes in the fuselage going into the wing and when you have to run the same wire three times all a specific distance from each-other this is the result you get.

Not giving Boeing a cop-out...since this was a well established requirement but it isn't as easy as slapping a franken 767 together and ending up with the KC-46.