guineapigfury Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Copy, tankers to Cannon. That would be a step up from Altus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billy pilgrim Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jango220 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PasserOGas Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayton Bigsby Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Yeah but I thought the similar cockpit thing was a big selling point to the customers. Ease of crossflow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHerk Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Anyone else heard of the possibility of there being a AD squadron being stood up at KFOE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Not specifically, but I have heard that the next round of TFI's will be decided soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
precontact Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homestar Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Maybe because Boeing's depot is across the runway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBock Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 Maybe because Boeing's depot is across the runway? Not for long. http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/08/2629004/boeings-wichita-site-to-be-on.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyerpapa Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Petnagon analysis shows McConnell cheaper option than Fairchild. http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/17/pentagon-analysis-shows-mcconnell-cheaper-option/?print-friendly Base comparison: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/17/fairchild-versus-mcconnell-cost-benefit-comparison/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140423/NEWS/304230037/McConnell-base-gets-final-OK-refueling-tankers McConnell final approval announcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Altus for FTU and McConnell for the first base? Pass 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Thread revival since this is the most relevant thread I can find on the topic. http://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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvlax40 Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Thread revival since this is the most relevant thread I can find on the topic. http://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. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disgruntledemployee Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA Out 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted November 20, 2014 Share Posted November 20, 2014 Thread revival since this is the most relevant thread I can find on the topic. http://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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now