Jump to content

Talk:Boeing KC-46 Pegasus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flight envelop text

[edit]

I have removed this as not NPOV. The sales pitches are over and the choice has been made. Apart from that it is inaccurate.

Unlike the Airbus A330 tanker, the KC-767 has manual flight controls for an unrestricted flight envelope.[1]

Not to mention downright dangerous, saying it is a better aircraft because the pilots can exceed the limitations!!!!!!!!!!Petebutt (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.finchannel.com/Main_News/Business/59816_Boeing_to_Offer_NewGen_Tanker_to_US_Air_Force_/
All you had to do was remove the A330 comparison part. The rest is accurate, but that may not be the best wording. The point is supposed to be that the flight controls are not restricted in emergency situations. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try this at home

[edit]

The KC-X section had this self-contradictory, meaningless statement in it: "The KC-767 has manual flight controls with an unrestricted flight envelope."

There is no such thing as an "unrestricted flight envelope". The flight envelope by definition is the limits on altitude and speed capability. No jet-powered tanker can fly above the Karman line, or faster than the speed of sound (at least not very long before breaking apart.) And that's not what the cited source says; maneuverability is unrestricted in the entire flight envelope. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KC-46 specs

[edit]

This article currently lists specs for the KC-767 Advanced Tanker (bid last round). There are little or no specs available for the KC-46 "NewGen" Tanker now. When Boeing, the Air Force, or aviation media puts out spec data, the info can be updated. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will this fix that for you?

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/06/09/357743/boeing-stays-mum-on-key-kc-46a-design-features.html

Hcobb (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I saw that today. It helps, but is far from complete specs. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KC-10 comparison

[edit]

Could we include specs for the aircraft this will work alongside please? The KC-135 was a great aircraft and it has contributed greatly to the ability of long range power projection it is also not the only tanker currently in use with US forces. The DC-10 based KC-10 is much more capable and currently in use. It will continue to be a consideration for use with or instead of the KC-46A for more than a decade as projected by airframe life cycle studies. I think a comparison of capacities with the new kid on the block would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons can be original research/synthesis and probably would not be fitting. The KC-46 is replacing older KC-135s, not KC-10s. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery date

[edit]

"The contract calls for Boeing to complete, and deliver 18 initial operational KC-46 tankers by 2017" Is this a hard date or the wishful thinking but non real date?67.166.155.113 (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make specs consistent across different aircraft

[edit]

For the KC-46, the fuel capacity is given in lbs and kg, while for the KC-135 it is given in gals and cubic meters. These need to be made consistent. Either volume or weight or both, but not one for one plane the other for another. peter (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The KC-46 is under development now. I have seen no source that lists the fuel volume for it. We could calculate the volume from the fuel mass, but that'd be an estimate and synthesis. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

767-46A contract

[edit]

According to these sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]) Boeing is working on an engineering-manufacturing-development contract for the first 18 aircraft with a fixed price cap of $4.9B. They also say the program of record is for 179 tankers to be delivered by 2028. I don't see anything about the last 161 actually being under a contract yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find more sources for the contract situation and the latter aircraft. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,229389,00.html Pentagon and Boeing officials will not release the target per-unit price of the aircraft in early lots, though the numbers have been negotiated. Until the roughly five-year development program is complete and the Air Force exercises an option for production, the figure is proprietary, Assad says. However, based on the aforementioned figures, it averages to about $154.9 million for the 175 production aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120918/DEFREG02/309180010/Sequestration-Threatens-Tanker-Deal-USAF-Official Since the KC-46 contract award in February 2011, the Air Force has touted its ability to sign a fixed-price development contract for the initial batch of tankers, which are part of a 179-aircraft buy.

Status is that it's going down in flames? Hcobb (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Boeing KC-46 Pegasus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Boeing KC-46 Pegasus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About origin of the leasing option

[edit]

I added text in introduction to the Background paragraph in answer to a (when?) tag from last April. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus&diff=857475054&oldid=854638230. Analysis regarding the maintenance problems and a view considering the leasing solution can be found in: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2000s/ADA423583.pdf, see Appendix IV for some figures. This document is posterior to initial talks between the government and Boeing, according to https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-airforce-tanker/chronology-us-air-force-tanker-award-will-cap-long-saga-idUSN2527239720080225 the first public statement considering a leasing solution was on Oct 9 2001. There was speculation on whether 9/11 played a role in altering agendas but the subsequent scandals which were revealed were about different subjects. The Air Force study mandated Feb 2001 is labeled to 2005 and that's in terms of prospective, not in terms of a deadline, studies for example by RAND were being returned already before September. --Askedonty (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why this plane won contract ?

[edit]

It offers just very small improvment in fuel capacity over kc-135, and have way smaller fuel capacity than kc-10, and is losing in flight range to booth planes. Thats not realy improvment over planes which is intended to replace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:9CB8:2202:511E:53FA (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not in a competition against the KC-10 or KC-135 the decision to replace them had already been made. MilborneOne (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article should have more info on the aircraft

[edit]

In my opinion, the content of this article seems too heavily skewed towards the history and politics of the KC-X program at the expense of giving much information on the aircraft itself and its capabilities, technical systems, missions, etc.

A casual reader who is reading about the program for the first time will learn a lot about the often convoluted processes of the various GAO reports, EMD milestones, and cost overruns, but almost nothing about the actual KC-46 and what it will do. I think there should a be a "Design" section in the article body that includes an overview of the engines, the fly-by-wire boom, control systems, cargo carrying capabilities, and other physical characteristics of the KC-46, particularly those that would distinguish it from the KC-135 it is replacing.

Since I'm a fairly inexperienced Wikipedia editor, I wanted to see if any other users had any thoughts on this before I attempted any major changes on my own. DaymanCometh777 (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Search for articles with KC-46 design details and report back here your findings. I don't think you'll find much. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue with adding design information, also assuming it can be found. - BilCat (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're right about there being a dearth of in-depth articles on the KC-46's technical aspects...However, I still think a "Design" section could be put together even if there isn't super detailed technical information available. A general overview of the remote boom, reconfigurable interior (cargo, personnel, medevac), countermeasures and EMP resistance, and the fueling capabilities could be enough to give readers a clearer picture of the aircraft's design. Some of these features are mentioned in the "Selection and Early Development" section...perhaps the relevant info could be moved to the notional "Design" section, along with some new content? Here are a few sources I found that may be useful for that end:

https://www.boeing.com/defense/kc-46a-pegasus-tanker/#/capabilities http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/fy2017/pdf/af/2017kc46a.pdf https://www.aviationtoday.com/2018/07/27/boeing-kc-46a-moves-closer-certification-first-delivery/ (This one in particular has some good info on the avionics and the remote boom controls) https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104537/kc-46a-pegasus/ http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/May%202018/KC-46-Upgrade-Roadmap-Coming-May-Chart-End-of-Boomers.aspx

DaymanCometh777 (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things that are still not know about the aircraft and probably won't be until after it is operational. For instance, I was an article where it was mentioned that the plane has a crew entrance in the nose gear along with a ladder that comes down along with a button that starts the APU when from the outside, for use in alert duty, but have seen no other mention of this feature. --rogerd (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it would be unlikely as you would need to heavily modify the Boeing 767 and as it has got civilian certification its unlikely such a big modification would have happened. MilborneOne (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the article I previously saw, from KREM (TV), a Spokane, WA TV station in May, 2017. Relevant excerpt:

When on the ground, a scrambling crew can push a green button mounted on the back of the nose gear that starts the plane's APU or auxiliary power unit. A ladder comes down, and the crew can climb directly up into the plane and the flight deck. Boeing says that airplane can be in the air in 10 minutes after that button is pushed.

 Journalists are supposed to use reliable sources, but they sometimes don't. This appears to meet the wikipedia standards as a reliable source, but I would have thought that we would have seen it somewhere else, and I haven't. --rogerd (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this article, that includes several photos of the NHANG KC-46, including the second photo that shows an officer pulling down a ladder from behind the nose gear. The text of the article says: "There’s also a compartment on the belly of the plane, which can be opened so crew can pull down a ladder, climb up, and quickly be inside the plane. "If you need to get inside faster you can climb up this ladder, step on a platform, climb up another ladder and end up in the floor of the plane,” Zubricki said." --rogerd (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain picture of boom operator station

[edit]

A public domain picture is at the following article, somebody who knowns how to download and tag it with proper permissions can add it to the article. MRTT has a picture of its refueling station. Bachcell (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.931arw.afrc.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001304088/

IMAGE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN READ MORE This photograph is considered public domain and has been cleared for release. If you would like to republish please give the photographer appropriate credit.

I added the file myself Bachcell (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:KC-46 refuels F-35 20190122.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 18, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-06-18. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Aviafanboi (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boeing_KC-46_Pegasus&oldid=1200226873"