It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

KC-46 slips again

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
First flight of the KC-46 Pegasus tanker has been slipped. First flight has been changed from June of next year to no earlier than mid November.

The program office thinks that RAA will still be on schedule for August of 2017.

The problem is in wiring redundancy that the civilian world doesn't require. The secondary and tertiary system wiring bundles being too close, or not shielded properly.

The first flight test article is being assembled now, with at least three other aircraft parked and waiting for wiring bundle replacements.

KC-46 flight slips




posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Very interesting, mid air refueling has always fascinated me and this looks like a neat project.
Zap I've been wondering what your aviation background is since you seem to be our expert on the topic. Care to share?



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Banquo

Grew up on one Air Force flightline or another. Went from looking over shoulders to eventually helping do the work.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Darn! That means more waiting for me to go see it fly the first time. My camera shutter finger is getting twitchy.......



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Never worked on them, (was a flight medic for a few years tho lol), but I also grew up always close to a flight line. As a young kid Loring AFB and Torrejon AFB and than Bergstrom AFB through HS.. I loved the KC-135's B-52's and F-4's.. just something about those old deafeningly loud smoky engines that would literally shake your chest apart.. miss 'em. Miss flying in the old 737-200's as well.. sitting right on top or just behind the wing of those loud turbojet engines.. I still love to fly, but its just not the same anymore lol

I guess it was only a matter of time before the KC-10's would be phased out as well; pretty soon everything in the air will look like a boeing/airbus 2-engine plane where there used to be so much variety, kinda sad.



posted on Sep, 12 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: toepick

New engines are so efficient that you don't need four of them anymore. Unless it's a super jumbo like the A380, which has such a massive take off weight and is so big that it needs four engines, two engines are now more than enough. The 777 engine has produced over 100,000 lbs of thrust per engine, and they're looking to improve on that.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Banquo
a reply to: Zaphod58

Very interesting, mid air refueling has always fascinated me and this looks like a neat project.
Zap I've been wondering what your aviation background is since you seem to be our expert on the topic. Care to share?


I was a boom operator for six years and I'll say to this day it still fascinates the hell out of me. I'm tempted to take a job offer I recently received for development of a tanker that the air force hasn't even ordered or wanted. Idk why they are opening up a shop at Edwards for this new jet but I got some theories about it now. Tempting to take the job, but don't know if I want to take a pay cut and move to California. Lol



posted on Dec, 16 2014 @ 10:38 PM
link   
First flight for EMD-1, the 767-2C that will do much of the certification, is set for December 27th.

EMD-2, which will be an actual KC-46, is scheduled for April.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I believe the record stands at something close to 128,000lbs during testing for a -115B series. The 777X variants will actually be a de-rate compared to today's versions, although thy have decreased the size of the de-rate recently. The tradeoff is that it will help gain them a 10% fuel burn improvement over the current versions.

LEE.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I hate mid-air refueling, it's not as bad on the 135 watching them come up, but being in the cockpit approaching the refueler sucks... Hate it... Despise it.

It was ok with the older pilots, but these young ring knockers act like it's a Fricking video game instead of a controlled crash.



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Looks like EMD-1 is flying next weekend.....



The first flight test window for the 767-2C – which includes wiring, plumbing, doors and floors – is set for Dec. 27 with a backup one day later, USAF Brig. Gen. Duke Richardson

aviationweek.com...



posted on Dec, 17 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Zaph. mentioned that about three posts up.


With any luck I'll go out there and get some shot of it for y'all.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Looks like they've gone to the backup date of tomorrow, scheduled for 0900.



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

According to THIS twitter feed, they are doing ground and taxis tests today. The weather is supposed to be unfavorable for a first flight the rest of today and should be better tomorrow.

Anyone else going up there?



posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I remember being told when I first got to Fairchild in 2007 that we would have the new tanker sometime between 2010-13. Then things got all messed up and here we are now still waiting but aleast now we have a tanker in the works.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
OK, fairly successful expedition to see the 767-2c first flight. Lots of people out there to see it off. Was able to get some not too bad shots from across the airfield.
The video of the take off is from my son's camera, hence the low resolution. Murphy bit my in the arse, my camera died just as she was rolling down the runway at take-off.

Added bonus is the Dreamlifter, a few 787 parts fresh off the dream lifter, a rainbow that formed right after the 767-2c disappeared into the clouds and the two chase planes that flow next to the 767 on take-off.






















edit on 28-12-2014 by Sammamishman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Great work. Great to see it in person.

Interesting they chose not to go with winglets. Its tough to see, but could you tell if the wings were raked either? You'd think efficiency would be a big deal on this thing.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The blended winglets and wingtip pods didn't mix well aerodynamically.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: justwanttofly
a reply to: aholic

The blended winglets and wingtip pods didn't mix well aerodynamically.



Have you heard why out of curiosity?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

Something about the combined weight of the pods and winglets that far out on the wing. I don't know if it's something specific to the 767 wing or a general problem. The KC-767 for the Italians was delayed because of wing flutter issues caused by the pods, so I think Boeing realized it wasn't going to work.


edit on 28-12-2014 by justwanttofly because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join