EMD-1 completes flutter tests

Boeing announced that KC-46 EMD-1, which was used to certify the 767-2C airframe has completed flutter testing. This allows the aircraft to fly with boom and drogues in the stowed position. Meanwhile, the first true KC-46 airframe still doesn't have a firm date for the first flight, but it appears that they will not be flying it until after September now, because of the damage to the fuel system.

The Boeing KC-46 test program has completed a series of flutter tests of the 767-2C tanker type, certifying it to operate with wing aerial refuelling pods and its tanker tail boom stowed.

Boeing released a video this week that shows the EMD-1 aircraft, used to certify the 767-2C airframe, passing through basic manoeuvres.

www.flightglobal.com...

S&F... not sure how to feel about this. I'm an old timer. Stuck with my 171st ARW here ( still using a 707 platform ). Yes our birds are old. But they never failed. This is a much needed upgrade. Seems this is taking forever. Thanks for following this since forever ago.

a reply to: Bigburgh

I fully expect the unveiling and first flight of the bomber to take place before EMD-2 at this point. But Boeing insists they're going to deliver on time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Genius! I was going to comment on the long lasting B-52. With the ever lasting upgrades. But my searches ended quickly. You must know something. I thought LM was to make an announcement.... but I'm left high and dry.
Lol.. so a re-fueler ... wait build a bomber.. then decide how to re-fuel?

Not that hard once you know the fuel itself I guess. Deliver a boom and your gold.

It's this waiting process that's killing me. The fur is up because I know something is about to change the mix. The talk here has been converting to a KC-46. But nothing has taken a bite. Honestly anything can deliver fuel.... but a very much needed in fractured wing is needed...

The airport fire department has been getting new teaching material for this very aircraft. With a power point presentation, I know something is changing. It takes pushes and shoves for that to happen. Or some by saying.... like it or not! Deal with it!

Hence, welcome aboard KC-46


Edit: I'm not knocking how the government works. But this has been a beacon of light here locally for the last 4 years. But pressing a new training curriculum recently suggest otherwise.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So yes let's give them another huge contract that they won't be able to deliver on also and oh yea partner them with another who has a history of over runs and late to deliver also. Seems like a winning recipe to me!!

a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

So who would you suggest get it? Not one of them has delivered anything on time in the recent past, down to the smallest contract. So who do you suggest get it then?

a reply to: Zaphod58


NG of course...haven't missed a single f-35 center fuselage delivery and in fact had them stacked up at the end of the line for a while because Lockheed was so far behind and didn't have capacity to inload them. All global hawk deliveries have been on time and also every single B-2 delivery for PDM since I can remember including the ressurection on the one that caught fire in Guam...and also many more that can't be talked about....also firebird.

Not trying to cause a tiff either....just stating facts. Unbiased facts, Boeing/Lockheed have more political support, plain and simple.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

So who would you suggest get it? Not one of them has delivered anything on time in the recent past, down to the smallest contract. So who do you suggest get it then?

Probably China or Russia.. The Russians don't seem to have a problem making rocket engines and delivering while the Chinese probably already have the plans anyway.. (sarcasm)

a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

And why do you think the Sentinel exists? It wasn't supposed to, but at least one platform that NG was developing was two years late. Why do you think they're about to lose the bomber? They overreached, and failed.

NG didn't even ENTER the tanker competition, because they have no experience building platforms like that, nor do they have the capability to build an aircraft like that. If we had given it to them, it would be even farther behind, and more over budget than it already is.

Northrop isn't the answer to everything you know. I get that you think they are, but they can't do everything you think they can.

That's not even remotely true. One I can't comment on. But tanker, NG won the tanker with EADS over Boeing in 2008 often stated by Air Force officials as beating Boeimg on every single front. Boeing protested (again all political) and they redbid the contract this time tailoring the requirements to fit more of the Boeing airframe. NG did not rebid the second go around because they knew it was a lose lose. Why waste the money again? It's politics man. I'm not biased to one over the other. I feel Lockheed is the fighter powerhouse, Boeing is the tanker and NG should stay the bomber.

“I’m disappointed but not surprised,” Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama, said. “Only Chicago politics could tip the scales in favor of Boeing’s inferior plane. EADS clearly offers the more capable aircraft. If this decision stands, our warfighters will not get the superior equipment they deserve.”

www.dailytech.com...
investor.northropgrumman.com...

a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

And do you know how those work? Northrop would have been the lead in that, but EADS would have been building the aircraft in their new Mobile facility that they just started up. They would have split the profits. There has to be a North American lead to any foreign contract award, so in name it would have been Northrop Grumman, and they would have done some of the work on it, but the primary build would have been Airbus, who would then ship the fuselage pieces to Mobile, where they would have done final assembly and testing. Why do you think Northrop didn't enter solo? That's one of the main reasons that Airbus even built that facility there, was to assemble the tanker for the Air Force.

I am WELL aware of the tanker fiasco and all the protests. I followed it closer than most.

Look into the history of the Sentinel. There was a classified platform, which was the RQ-180 as far as anyone has figured out, that was supposed to be doing that job. It wasn't going to be ready anywhere remotely close to the timeframe promised, and they needed something to do the mission. So they slapped together the RQ-170, based on a previous design, using off the shelf components, and sold it to the Air Force and CIA as a filler platform until the -180 was ready. They used the same design on their bomber that caused all the problems with the -180, and surprise, it failed them again and will probably lead to them losing the bomber.

It's great that you think we should pigeonhole the Big Three and keep them doing the same things, but that won't work in the long run. Competition is key to development and advancement.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree NG might have not the full expertise building a new plant in Alabama, I'm saying they won the contract fair and square and they literally changed the requirements. They had the more capable aircraft. I didn't even want them to win, I want more jobs for Americans. The other, I can't talk about but it is simply not true. I've followed these boards for years and just only recently joined the convos and I know everyone takes what you say as written in stone and like I said I have a lot of respect and agreement but I promise you it is simply not true. Again I enjoy the spirited debate that's what these boards are all about but this one we may need to agree to disagree.

a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

Northrop had nothing to do with the plant in Alabama. That's entirely an Airbus plant, built partially to assemble the tanker to play the political game for Congress, to try to appease them by saying "Well look, we're going to build the tankers in the US". Too many people bitched, and too many congresscritters decided that they were "stealing" jobs from American taxpayers, without even paying attention to the reality of it.

As for the Sentinel, a couple of people that were right on other things told me that's what happened with it. Until I have evidence that they either lied, or were wrong, I'm going to have to go with them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's what I don't understand. It's not like a thousand foreigners were going to come from oversees to build it in Alabama. It still would have been American workers, right? My whole point with the entire tanker debacle was that it was a political mess. The NG EADS offering was already flying. It's just bs, all I'm for is the best team to win with the best offering but I understand that's only like 25% of the defense acquisition game.

a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

No, the KC330 was already flying, the KC-45 would have been a slightly different aircraft. Just like the KC-767 is flying, but isn't related to the KC-46. The KC330/KC-45 had its own problems to overcome that would have made development a challenge as well.

a reply to: WeOwnTheNight

Have you ever done any sort of government contracting before?

Done be so quick to blame the contractor.

a reply to: grey580
Why not - it was Boeing led the protest.