MolaKule
Staff member
Last edited:
KC-46A Tanker
- Thread starter MolaKule
- Start date
- Status
Very cool; thanks for posting. I'd wonder if it'll be in service as long as the KC-135 but the likelihood that I'll be around in 2067 is pretty small...
Kevin
Kevin
I swear I saw one of these parked outside the Delta hangars at MSP. Perhaps this explains why:
http://news.delta.com/delta-techops-join...ker-competition
http://news.delta.com/delta-techops-join...ker-competition
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
I swear I saw one of these parked outside the Delta hangars at MSP. Perhaps this explains why:
http://news.delta.com/delta-techops-join...ker-competition
That's from 2007...a lot has changed in 8 years...DAL wasn't in MSP back then, but NWA was...
It's a common airframe, B767...you may have seen an airplane going into heavy maintenance, or perhaps a prototype since the first flight of the production airplane was less than a week ago...
I swear I saw one of these parked outside the Delta hangars at MSP. Perhaps this explains why:
http://news.delta.com/delta-techops-join...ker-competition
That's from 2007...a lot has changed in 8 years...DAL wasn't in MSP back then, but NWA was...
It's a common airframe, B767...you may have seen an airplane going into heavy maintenance, or perhaps a prototype since the first flight of the production airplane was less than a week ago...
Thought it might replace the KC-10s too, yet they only mention the really-old KC-135's to go when this thing hits the inventory.
KC-10s have to be getting too ancient now as well.
KC-10s have to be getting too ancient now as well.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
I swear I saw one of these parked outside the Delta hangars at MSP. Perhaps this explains why:
http://news.delta.com/delta-techops-join...ker-competition
That's from 2007...a lot has changed in 8 years...DAL wasn't in MSP back then, but NWA was...
It's a common airframe, B767...you may have seen an airplane going into heavy maintenance, or perhaps a prototype since the first flight of the production airplane was less than a week ago...
Yeah I saw that was from 2007. Not sure what kind of prototype it may have been, but it was an all gray 767 that said “US AIR FORCE" on the side and had a refueling boom on the back. It was parked outside the Delta (Former NWA) hangar right along the freeway. Struck me as odd at the time, but I didn't think much more about it until now.
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
I swear I saw one of these parked outside the Delta hangars at MSP. Perhaps this explains why:
http://news.delta.com/delta-techops-join...ker-competition
That's from 2007...a lot has changed in 8 years...DAL wasn't in MSP back then, but NWA was...
It's a common airframe, B767...you may have seen an airplane going into heavy maintenance, or perhaps a prototype since the first flight of the production airplane was less than a week ago...
Yeah I saw that was from 2007. Not sure what kind of prototype it may have been, but it was an all gray 767 that said “US AIR FORCE" on the side and had a refueling boom on the back. It was parked outside the Delta (Former NWA) hangar right along the freeway. Struck me as odd at the time, but I didn't think much more about it until now.
Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Yeah I saw that was from 2007. Not sure what kind of prototype it may have been, but it was an all gray 767 that said “US AIR FORCE" on the side and had a refueling boom on the back. It was parked outside the Delta (Former NWA) hangar right along the freeway. Struck me as odd at the time, but I didn't think much more about it until now.
Perhaps a test article for the Japanese program? They began deliveries way back when. Don't know why it would have been there though.
Yeah I saw that was from 2007. Not sure what kind of prototype it may have been, but it was an all gray 767 that said “US AIR FORCE" on the side and had a refueling boom on the back. It was parked outside the Delta (Former NWA) hangar right along the freeway. Struck me as odd at the time, but I didn't think much more about it until now.
Perhaps a test article for the Japanese program? They began deliveries way back when. Don't know why it would have been there though.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Astro, refueling on the hose-drogue, did you hit wingtip vortices?
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Qouted from another Navy flier, but wondering what is involved in vortex flight there:
Originally Posted By: USNBandit
"KC-135s have been doing drogue and probe tanking for a long time. They used to use a short hose and a really hard basket. The receiver had to bend the short hose to open two knuckle joints. In the late 90’s a wing mounted long hose/reel pod was introduced. Much easier to keep the fuel flowing, but depending on the aircraft you sometimes end up flying in the wingtip vortex.---14 posted on 5/22/2014, 11:21:58 PM by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)"
Astro, refueling on the hose-drogue, did you hit wingtip vortices?
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Qouted from another Navy flier, but wondering what is involved in vortex flight there:
Originally Posted By: USNBandit
"KC-135s have been doing drogue and probe tanking for a long time. They used to use a short hose and a really hard basket. The receiver had to bend the short hose to open two knuckle joints. In the late 90’s a wing mounted long hose/reel pod was introduced. Much easier to keep the fuel flowing, but depending on the aircraft you sometimes end up flying in the wingtip vortex.---14 posted on 5/22/2014, 11:21:58 PM by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)"
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
I worked on EMP hardening and nuclear analysis for many Mil aircraft while at Boeing; the KC-46 was one of those.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I worked on EMP hardening and nuclear analysis for many Mil aircraft while at Boeing; the KC-46 was one of those.
Very cool. Have you built a copper mesh Faraday Cage for your garage yet so you'll be the only one with operational, fresh oil filled vehicles after the "Big One"?
I worked on EMP hardening and nuclear analysis for many Mil aircraft while at Boeing; the KC-46 was one of those.
Very cool. Have you built a copper mesh Faraday Cage for your garage yet so you'll be the only one with operational, fresh oil filled vehicles after the "Big One"?
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Off topic but was that what caused the loss of the XB70 when the fighter/chase ran into it? I never did read the end to that.
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Off topic but was that what caused the loss of the XB70 when the fighter/chase ran into it? I never did read the end to that.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I worked on EMP hardening and nuclear analysis for many Mil aircraft while at Boeing; the KC-46 was one of those.
Very cool. Have you built a copper mesh Faraday Cage for your garage yet so you'll be the only one with operational, fresh oil filled vehicles after the "Big One"?
''
Hmmm...
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I worked on EMP hardening and nuclear analysis for many Mil aircraft while at Boeing; the KC-46 was one of those.
Very cool. Have you built a copper mesh Faraday Cage for your garage yet so you'll be the only one with operational, fresh oil filled vehicles after the "Big One"?
''
Hmmm...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Off topic but was that what caused the loss of the XB70 when the fighter/chase ran into it? I never did read the end to that.
Great history recollection! Yes, downwash and or vortex. I remember that, tragic point in history, at least one remaining XB-70 remains to this day. F-104 chase photo plane lost control.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Off topic but was that what caused the loss of the XB70 when the fighter/chase ran into it? I never did read the end to that.
Great history recollection! Yes, downwash and or vortex. I remember that, tragic point in history, at least one remaining XB-70 remains to this day. F-104 chase photo plane lost control.
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Astro, refueling on the hose-drogue, did you hit wingtip vortices?
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Qouted from another Navy flier, but wondering what is involved in vortex flight there:
Originally Posted By: USNBandit
"KC-135s have been doing drogue and probe tanking for a long time. They used to use a short hose and a really hard basket. The receiver had to bend the short hose to open two knuckle joints. In the late 90’s a wing mounted long hose/reel pod was introduced. Much easier to keep the fuel flowing, but depending on the aircraft you sometimes end up flying in the wingtip vortex.---14 posted on 5/22/2014, 11:21:58 PM by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)"
You do hit the wingtip vortex.
The worst was the UK VC-10, which had the wing refueling pod near the tip....putting the receiver right in the middle of the vortex.
Vortex could be mildly annoying...or downright rough with severe roll. Once you're in the basket, you can move out of the way. It you've got to get in first. And it's not easy. You fly the airplane in formation with the tanker, and the probe has to be aligned vertically and horizontally as you close at 2-3 KTS with the basket.
Now, that [censored] basket moves in response to tanker movement, or turbulence, or in the bow wave off the Tomcat's nose. And it isn't always predicable. And from the pilot's seat, the probe is off to the right, like a passenger side mirror, but you have to look forward at the tanker to keep your position, so it's a pain to see the probe and basket out of the corner of your eye. A good RIO is very helpful here...
Sweetest tanker was the KC-10. Nice big basket in the smooth air beneath the jet...and lots and lots of off-load....
The KC-135 was a PITA. Tanked hundreds of time during desert storm...still hated it. The basket, or either knuckle, was a jet breaker. Mis-contact the basket and it could hit the jet with anything from mild to severe damage. You had to put a kink in the 9 foot hose connecting the basket to the boom. That meant perfect alignment, then move the basket forward about a foot. Less, you might disconnect, more, you get an unmanageable loop.
I generally took the basket down and left, to keep the loop in the hose up and to the right of the probe...away from the nose, and canopy, of my airplane.
We had to use AB to plug in the -A model because of all the drag with added weapons. Also, an engine feature called MCB, mid-compression bypass, opened with probe extension. By dumping 7th stage bleed air, the engine stall margin was improved, at the cost of 3,000# of thrust per engine.
The probe created turbulence down the right side of the airplane that could cause engine issues. Actually, it was mostly the probe door that caused it. You'll often see F-14s with the doors removed, but that's because the KC-135 was so unforgiving, that doors were often damaged, and you don't want door bits going down the engine.
Even with MCB open, TF-30 engine stalls were not uncommon...and it was always the starboard engine...always...because it was operating in AB, the throttles were constantly moving to maintain position, and it was eating turbulent flow from the probe door...
Originally Posted By: lubricatosaurus
Astro, refueling on the hose-drogue, did you hit wingtip vortices?
Asked that on Astro's F-14 thread too. Seems like it would be a problem, yet its been that way forever.
Qouted from another Navy flier, but wondering what is involved in vortex flight there:
Originally Posted By: USNBandit
"KC-135s have been doing drogue and probe tanking for a long time. They used to use a short hose and a really hard basket. The receiver had to bend the short hose to open two knuckle joints. In the late 90’s a wing mounted long hose/reel pod was introduced. Much easier to keep the fuel flowing, but depending on the aircraft you sometimes end up flying in the wingtip vortex.---14 posted on 5/22/2014, 11:21:58 PM by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)"
You do hit the wingtip vortex.
The worst was the UK VC-10, which had the wing refueling pod near the tip....putting the receiver right in the middle of the vortex.
Vortex could be mildly annoying...or downright rough with severe roll. Once you're in the basket, you can move out of the way. It you've got to get in first. And it's not easy. You fly the airplane in formation with the tanker, and the probe has to be aligned vertically and horizontally as you close at 2-3 KTS with the basket.
Now, that [censored] basket moves in response to tanker movement, or turbulence, or in the bow wave off the Tomcat's nose. And it isn't always predicable. And from the pilot's seat, the probe is off to the right, like a passenger side mirror, but you have to look forward at the tanker to keep your position, so it's a pain to see the probe and basket out of the corner of your eye. A good RIO is very helpful here...
Sweetest tanker was the KC-10. Nice big basket in the smooth air beneath the jet...and lots and lots of off-load....
The KC-135 was a PITA. Tanked hundreds of time during desert storm...still hated it. The basket, or either knuckle, was a jet breaker. Mis-contact the basket and it could hit the jet with anything from mild to severe damage. You had to put a kink in the 9 foot hose connecting the basket to the boom. That meant perfect alignment, then move the basket forward about a foot. Less, you might disconnect, more, you get an unmanageable loop.
I generally took the basket down and left, to keep the loop in the hose up and to the right of the probe...away from the nose, and canopy, of my airplane.
We had to use AB to plug in the -A model because of all the drag with added weapons. Also, an engine feature called MCB, mid-compression bypass, opened with probe extension. By dumping 7th stage bleed air, the engine stall margin was improved, at the cost of 3,000# of thrust per engine.
The probe created turbulence down the right side of the airplane that could cause engine issues. Actually, it was mostly the probe door that caused it. You'll often see F-14s with the doors removed, but that's because the KC-135 was so unforgiving, that doors were often damaged, and you don't want door bits going down the engine.
Even with MCB open, TF-30 engine stalls were not uncommon...and it was always the starboard engine...always...because it was operating in AB, the throttles were constantly moving to maintain position, and it was eating turbulent flow from the probe door...
- Status
