KC-46?, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 30-9-2012 @ 06:37 PM by boomer135

So in the recent Air Force Times, I came across an advertisement from Boeing for the KC-46. To my understanding, they haven't build the KC-46 yet, much less flight tested it. If you look at the boom, it's not a KC-767. This plane shown has a KC-10 style boom with elevator and rudders. The KC-135/KC-767 use a different boom with just ruddervators, like the kc-767 the japanese and italians use. Note where the "boom pod" would be. There's nothing but cameras there for the new system (I hate it being a boom operator but thats for another thread).

Take a look...

So, my question is, is this a KC-46 actually flying or just an artist rendering? It doesn't say it's an artist rendering on the page, but I'm at a loss on this one...

reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 07:48 PM by Zaphod58

That looks like it might be a KC-10 that has been photoshopped into a KC-46. The KC-767s for Italy don't have the vertical fins, like you said. The KC-46 boom has begun production, but it's nowhere near flying, or being installed on an airframe yet. It COULD be an Italian, or Japanese tanker, but most likely it's a photoshop job. First flight isn't scheduled until 2015.

edit on 9/30/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 07:56 PM by boomer135

reply to post by Zaphod58

I just chatted with a boom operator friend that is stationed at edwards and he said they haven't tested the kc-46 and is thinking the same thing you are. He said it most likely is a computer generated picture. But I've never see a computer generated picture that real before. If it's photoshopped, its a pretty good job.

reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 07:59 PM by boomer135

I got to make some contacts with the KC-767 simulator boeing brought to grand forks back in 2006 using the new camera system. I can't believe they would actually go along with this. The whole point of having a boom operator is the depth perception aspect of the job. Even with the 3d, I didn't like how hard it was to judge how far you were from the plane. They should have kept the boom pod in place. Just wait til something happens with the camera system and someone gets killed from it.

Edit: Not to mention no more cool picture opportunities like this:

edit on 30-9-2012 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 08:01 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by boomer135

None of the KC-767s in service have a boom that style, so it has to be photoshopped. The KC-10 is the only one that has a boom like that. And the fuselage of the DC/KC-10 is the same size (the diameter is really close if not the same) as the 767, so all they'd have to really change would be boom pod area.

edit on 9/30/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-9-2012 @ 08:04 PM by Zaphod58

reply to post by boomer135

Yeah, I really don't like the idea of the stereoscopic headset that they have been talking about having the boomer wear. I agree that when you are flying that close together, and have little margin for error, you really need to have a boom pod.

reply posted on 1-10-2012 @ 01:22 PM by Antonio1

Originally posted by boomer135
So in the recent Air Force Times, I came across an advertisement from Boeing for the KC-46. To my understanding, they haven't build the KC-46 yet, much less flight tested it. If you look at the boom, it's not a KC-767. This plane shown has a KC-10 style boom with elevator and rudders. The KC-135/KC-767 use a different boom with just ruddervators, like the kc-767 the japanese and italians use. Note where the "boom pod" would be. There's nothing but cameras there for the new system (I hate it being a boom operator but thats for another thread).

Take a look...

So, my question is, is this a KC-46 actually flying or just an artist rendering? It doesn't say it's an artist rendering on the page, but I'm at a loss on this one...

The KC-46 is the final production version of the KC-767 for the USAF. But I haven't heard about any actually being built yet, so I have to go with the Photoshop theory.

edit on 1-10-2012 by Antonio1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-10-2012 @ 08:08 PM by Aloysius the Gaul

Various images of the KC-46 show something that resembles a KC-10 control for the boom, with seperate "rudders" - Google image search for KC-46 boom

BAe have the boom control system contract, and I guess the image at the head of this article is a really clear shot of how they expect it to look

this Aviation Week article includes this comment:

The KC-46A boom design marries the outer mold line of the KC-10 boom with modern, fly-by-wire controls.

And wikipedia says it is going to use "an improved KC-10 boom"

Definitely photosphoped at this stage

edit on 3-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-10-2012 @ 09:31 PM by boomer135

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Various images of the KC-46 show something that resembles a KC-10 control for the boom, with seperate "rudders" - Google image search for KC-46 boom

BAe have the boom control system contract, and I guess the image at the head of this article is a really clear shot of how they expect it to look

this Aviation Week article includes this comment:

The KC-46A boom design marries the outer mold line of the KC-10 boom with modern, fly-by-wire controls.

And wikipedia says it is going to use "an improved KC-10 boom"

Definitely photosphoped at this stage
edit on 3-10-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

I agree with the photoshop job. The problem I heard with using the KC-10 boom is it was too big for the 767 air frame. I think thats why Boeing decided to use the KC-135 boom on the KC-767. With this new boom, however, I think that there going to revamp the KC-10 boom to fit on the 767, like you noted. Nice sites there. Good reply!

Pages: ^^TOP^^