User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 11:20:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Should've went with the airbus.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 12:42:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should've went with the airbus. FPNI. At least the Airbus' are flying and operational in some countries |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 2:50:28 PM EDT
[#3]
There are Boeing tanker 767s flying (modified by Boeing) in Italy and Japan at this moment. That's what's kinda hard to understand. Of course these don't have the 787 cockpit which I'm sure is vital to the mission.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 5:14:05 PM EDT
[#4]
Isn't it basically new design except for the fact it looks like a 767? I doubt the Air Force wants a commercial airliner with bolted on equipment. Gotta have the best for them you know
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 5:14:23 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are Boeing tanker 767s flying (modified by Boeing) in Italy and Japan at this moment. That's what's kinda hard to understand. Of course these don't have the 787 cockpit which I'm sure is vital to the mission. From what I've heard, the KC-46 is very different from the KC-767s, sort of a Frankenplane. I was surprised it doesn't have thrust reversers. Imagine grossing over 400,000 pounds on a hot day, and just before vGO you have to abort. That'll be hard on the brakes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 6:21:02 PM EDT
[#6]
As someone who hasn't studied the KC-46 in the least, what advantages does it offer over our old legacy KC-135s and KC-10s (besides the obvious low hour new airframes).
And what does it offer over our allies' KC-767 to justify the additional cost? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 7:18:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who hasn't studied the KC-46 in the least, what advantages does it offer over our old legacy KC-135s and KC-10s (besides the obvious low hour new airframes). And what does it offer over our allies' KC-767 to justify the additional cost? I believe this is the point(s). The ancient airframes issue can't be avoided. We're polishing the turd here, not materially advancing capability. What marginal increase in capabilities the KC46 offers over the KC767, I've never seen although it may have been published somewhere, given that the KC767 has hooked up to B52s, in addition to to most of the othet aircraft requiring either boom or drogue systems, I suspect that the capibilities of the KC46 are only marginal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 8:08:11 PM EDT
[#8]
No TRs?
Are you fucking kidding? Is there a good source for that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 8:18:46 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No TRs? Are you fucking kidding? Is there a good source for that? If you search on google "KC46 thrust reversers" there are numerous credible sources where the issue is discussedl. Apparentlly true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 8:23:21 PM EDT
[#10]
I searched those exact terms and the only relevant result was a seattle times article.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 9:51:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I searched those exact terms and the only relevant result was a seattle times article. I am... indirectly involved. We were told by the SPO that there are no TRs. I thought, "That can't be right", and did my own digging. Apparently it was an effort to save weight, and possibly money. I know -  . My explanation is I was not consulted (and I doubt the polled Tanker pilots on it!).
And one article I read mentioned the Airbus folks laughing at the idea of a modern, large aircraft not being equipped with TRs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 10:05:57 PM EDT
[#12]
There is precedent - the AF paid money to have beta removed from the t6.
With tankers always operating from major air bases it's easy for a desk jockey to rationalize it - "there's plenty of runway, in case of trouble just use up the brakes and replace them. Current bases are adequate for wheel brake only aborts so the TR is not required. ". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 10:13:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
KC46 program status This is a little hard to understand. Did all the engineering talent go to the 787 program? How do you not get wire harnesses right the first time? The APU wont start thr main engines--after building 1200 commercial variants? Almost makes you think they fucked it up on purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 10:29:57 PM EDT
[#14]
KC-135R doesn't have anything but brakes... Seems to be working fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/16/2014 10:37:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Still a piece of shit though
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 5:10:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who hasn't studied the KC-46 in the least, what advantages does it offer over our old legacy KC-135s and KC-10s (besides the obvious low hour new airframes). And what does it offer over our allies' KC-767 to justify the additional cost? We have a local group of KC-135R's near the house. My stepfather worked on them for more than 30 years. As he's told me, the airframes are getting OLD FAST. Thankfully the NH ANG will be one of the first with the KC-46. Here's hoping Boeing gets it right.
ETA: everyone on ARFcom loves pics, here's one I took last summer while my son and I were parked at the end of the runway at Pease watching tankers keep up their flight hours. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 12:39:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have a local group of KC-135R's near the house. My stepfather worked on them for more than 30 years. As he's told me, the airframes are getting OLD FAST. Thankfully the NH ANG will be one of the first with the KC-46. Here's hoping Boeing gets it right.
ETA: everyone on ARFcom loves pics, here's one I took last summer while my son and I were parked at the end of the runway at Pease watching tankers keep up their flight hours. http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/DSC_04961.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As someone who hasn't studied the KC-46 in the least, what advantages does it offer over our old legacy KC-135s and KC-10s (besides the obvious low hour new airframes). And what does it offer over our allies' KC-767 to justify the additional cost? We have a local group of KC-135R's near the house. My stepfather worked on them for more than 30 years. As he's told me, the airframes are getting OLD FAST. Thankfully the NH ANG will be one of the first with the KC-46. Here's hoping Boeing gets it right.
ETA: everyone on ARFcom loves pics, here's one I took last summer while my son and I were parked at the end of the runway at Pease watching tankers keep up their flight hours. http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/DSC_04961.JPG Cool picture! I know the 135s are getting ancient and need to be replaced. I just don't understand what new capabilities the KC-46 brings to the fight over the KC-135s or KC-10s, besides being brand new. If Boeing has already designed the KC-767 for sale to our allies, what outstanding capabilities does the 46 possess to justify the massive price tag compared to the already developed KC-767? At least with the super expensive F-22 and F-35 programs there is a list of new capabilities over the legacy platforms a mile long. From just standing back and looking at this KC-46 program it's almost about the same as paying Boeing billions to design a completely new airframe for the Air Force One replacement when all we needed was to modify an existing airframe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 4:29:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
KC-135R doesn't have anything but brakes... Seems to be working fine. Except they burned through brakes like crazy till they installed the new $$$$$$ carbon fiber ones. A brake would last up to 2 yrs on a E model with TR's , on a R model a non carbon fiber brake would be lucky to make it 4 months. To not put TR's on the new KC-46 is idiotic but we are dealing with the USAF after all.......
The whole wiring harness BS is another The plane is never going to be shot at and if it is , separating the wiring isn't going to make a difference....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 5:19:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool picture! I know the 135s are getting ancient and need to be replaced. I just don't understand what new capabilities the KC-46 brings to the fight over the KC-135s or KC-10s, besides being brand new. If Boeing has already designed the KC-767 for sale to our allies, what outstanding capabilities does the 46 possess to justify the massive price tag compared to the already developed KC-767? At least with the super expensive F-22 and F-35 programs there is a list of new capabilities over the legacy platforms a mile long. From just standing back and looking at this KC-46 program it's almost about the same as paying Boeing billions to design a completely new airframe for the Air Force One replacement when all we needed was to modify an existing airframe. While I see the point of questioning why they didn't go with the K-767, I'm scratching my head over your questioning the value of a new airframe to replace the KC-135's and -10's. Neither of those airframes are in production anymore - it doesn't matter if a new tanker exceeds the old specs - new 135 and 10 airframes are simply not available. I have yet to meet a modern car as fun as my old Karmann Ghia convertible, but if it crashes, there IS no replacing it with something "the same, just newer." |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 9:32:08 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I see the point of questioning why they didn't go with the K-767, I'm scratching my head over your questioning the value of a new airframe to replace the KC-135's and -10's. Neither of those airframes are in production anymore - it doesn't matter if a new tanker exceeds the old specs - new 135 and 10 airframes are simply not available. I have yet to meet a modern car as fun as my old Karmann Ghia convertible, but if it crashes, there IS no replacing it with something "the same, just newer." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cool picture! I know the 135s are getting ancient and need to be replaced. I just don't understand what new capabilities the KC-46 brings to the fight over the KC-135s or KC-10s, besides being brand new. If Boeing has already designed the KC-767 for sale to our allies, what outstanding capabilities does the 46 possess to justify the massive price tag compared to the already developed KC-767? At least with the super expensive F-22 and F-35 programs there is a list of new capabilities over the legacy platforms a mile long. From just standing back and looking at this KC-46 program it's almost about the same as paying Boeing billions to design a completely new airframe for the Air Force One replacement when all we needed was to modify an existing airframe. While I see the point of questioning why they didn't go with the K-767, I'm scratching my head over your questioning the value of a new airframe to replace the KC-135's and -10's. Neither of those airframes are in production anymore - it doesn't matter if a new tanker exceeds the old specs - new 135 and 10 airframes are simply not available. I have yet to meet a modern car as fun as my old Karmann Ghia convertible, but if it crashes, there IS no replacing it with something "the same, just newer." I'm not questioning why a new airframe over the 135 or the 10. I know they are old and the production line and tooling, etc are long gone and there are new technologies now that make those old airframes obsolete. The KC-767 is more than likely "the same, albeit newer" and more efficient. And while we are comparing capabilities, what does the KC-46 do that the 135 and the 10 can't do? And comparing apples to apples, what does it do that the KC-767 can't do? It just seems like instead of purchasing the KC-767 the US has spent billions redesigning the wheel. At least if you ask what the F-22 can do over the F-15, the list is extremely long and it's capabilities are outstanding. It's about like the Airforce putting out an RFP for a C-130 replacement, and then spending billions of dollars buying a new airframe and program that does the exact same thing as the C-130. (I know my analogy isn't perfect as the C-130 production line is still open). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 10:07:50 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are Boeing tanker 767s flying (modified by Boeing) in Italy and Japan at this moment. That's what's kinda hard to understand. Of course these don't have the 787 cockpit which I'm sure is vital to the mission. The mission is to get tank dudes good civilian jobs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2014 10:08:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was surprised it doesn't have thrust reversers. Imagine grossing over 400,000 pounds on a hot day, and just before vGO you have to abort. That'll be hard on the brakes. WTF? That is like old E-10 without deicing equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2014 2:54:42 AM EDT
[#23]
Air Force acquisitions...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 1:21:20 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FPNI. At least the Airbus' are flying and operational in some countries Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Should've went with the airbus. FPNI. At least the Airbus' are flying and operational in some countries Yeah, we should've spent our money on a foreign company
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 3:24:58 PM EDT
[#25]
I can't really comment in specifics because of some proposal work going on, but there is a whole lot of
in this program.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 5:07:56 PM EDT
[#26]
As long as millions get funneled to all the right congress districts, who cares if the Air Force ends up with a soup sandwich of an airplane? This is a jobs program, not a weapons system program.
Should have gone with Airbus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2014 5:15:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As long as millions get funneled to all the right congress districts, who cares if the Air Force ends up with a soup sandwich of an airplane? This is a jobs program, not a weapons system program. Should have gone with Airbus. The AF would have done the exact same thing with the Airbus 330 MRTT / KC-47 and it would cost even more in costs overruns . |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:04:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, we should've spent our money on a foreign company Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Should've went with the airbus. FPNI. At least the Airbus' are flying and operational in some countries Yeah, we should've spent our money on a foreign company Yeah because they would've been built outside the US
It's about getting the best equipment not needing everything US made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:35:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Lunch with a Boeing test engineer on the KC46 program stated that the aircraft is a 767-200 fuselage with a -300 wing and a 787 variant cockpit. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 12:51:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lunch with a Boeing test engineer on the KC46 program stated that the aircraft is a 767-200 fuselage with a -300 wing and a 787 variant cockpit. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. WTF? That is jobs program for Boeing to do infinite integration work
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 2:19:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lunch with a Boeing test engineer on the KC46 program stated that the aircraft is a 767-200 fuselage with a -300 wing and a 787 variant cockpit. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Frankenplane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 7:43:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Boeing has pushed the 787 as the common future flight deck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 9:41:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are Boeing tanker 767s flying (modified by Boeing) in Italy and Japan at this moment. That's what's kinda hard to understand. Of course these don't have the 787 cockpit which I'm sure is vital to the mission. What's so hard to understand about free government cheese? And on time projects with no delays does not a $750k/yr post retirement gig for a general or two make.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2014 9:53:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's so hard to understand about free government cheese? And on time projects with no delays does not a $750k/yr post retirement gig for a general or two make. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There are Boeing tanker 767s flying (modified by Boeing) in Italy and Japan at this moment. That's what's kinda hard to understand. Of course these don't have the 787 cockpit which I'm sure is vital to the mission. What's so hard to understand about free government cheese? And on time projects with no delays does not a $750k/yr post retirement gig for a general or two make. The contract over-run ($1.5 billion) comes out of Boeing's hide. Boeing announced shortly after contract award that they had purposely underbid the contract well before the money had been spent. And what general retires on $750k/yr? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2014 12:21:10 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lunch with a Boeing test engineer on the KC46 program stated that the aircraft is a 767-200 fuselage with a -300 wing and a 787 variant cockpit. It sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Much like other recent projects such as the C-130 AMP, it sounds all well and good to take an old airframe and integrate totally new technology from the civiilain sector into it (like the 787 flight deck into a 767, or 737 FMS into a C-130). However once you get actually dig into it you realize that it's not easy at all fit a round peg in a square hole. The engineering challenges are significant. This will all get figured out, after delays and cost overruns of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 7:59:18 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boeing has pushed the 787 as the common future flight deck. What's a flight deck? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/25/2014 8:44:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's a flight deck? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Boeing has pushed the 787 as the common future flight deck. What's a flight deck? Before things went PC it was known as a cockpit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2014 11:43:59 AM EDT
[#38]
The AF couldn't acquire a pen much less an aircraft withough billions in overruns. Its not their money........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 6:47:52 PM EDT
[#39]
The first problem is using CATIA. After that it is all down hill.
The foreign sales airplanes can't meet US requirements of performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 7:06:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first problem is using CATIA. After that it is all down hill. The foreign sales airplanes can't meet US requirements of performance. I'm not surprised that if the KC-46 is ever fielded and meets the AF requirements as reflected in the RFQ, it will exceed some capabilities of the KC767. The point is that they both are 767s with the KC46 being the polished turd version. It can only be marginally better. Are the marginal advantages in certain metrics of the KC-46 (whatever they are) worth the extra time and treasure? I'm not in a position to know, but given the history of airplane procurements over the past twenty years, a little (or maybe a lot) of skepticism is warranted. Not that it will do any good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 7:06:21 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
KC-135R doesn't have anything but brakes... Seems to be working fine. As someone who has personally helped change all eight main gear tires on the taxiway after an aborted takeoff, "working fine" is bullshit. The AF was idiotic to build the R model with no TRs, we dumped over 90 million pounds of gas in a single deployment, most of it just to get down to landing weight. Good management, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 8:14:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The first problem is using CATIA. After that it is all down hill. The foreign sales airplanes can't meet US requirements of performance. OH MY GOD Do you know who was telling me that back - are you ready for this - in the late 1980's??? One of Boeing Aerospace's (remember that company?) premier CAD/CAM designers. His name was J__ M_____. God! you sound just exactly like him! Seriously, I'm having +24 year flashbacks here. I haven't thought of him in years! I wonder how his is doing. I recall reading his retirement notice years ago on the Boeing whatever-its-called-now-mag; sad day.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 9:14:09 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2014 9:58:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who has personally helped change all eight main gear tires on the taxiway after an aborted takeoff, "working fine" is bullshit. The AF was idiotic to build the R model with no TRs, we dumped over 90 million pounds of gas in a single deployment, most of it just to get down to landing weight. Good management, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
KC-135R doesn't have anything but brakes... Seems to be working fine. As someone who has personally helped change all eight main gear tires on the taxiway after an aborted takeoff, "working fine" is bullshit. The AF was idiotic to build the R model with no TRs, we dumped over 90 million pounds of gas in a single deployment, most of it just to get down to landing weight. Good management, right? Good point.  Navy E-6 has reverse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 12:06:27 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OH MY GOD Do you know who was telling me that back - are you ready for this - in the late 1980's??? One of Boeing Aerospace's (remember that company?) premier CAD/CAM designers. His name was J__ M_____. God! you sound just exactly like him! Seriously, I'm having +24 year flashbacks here. I haven't thought of him in years! I wonder how his is doing. I recall reading his retirement notice years ago on the Boeing whatever-its-called-now-mag; sad day.....
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The first problem is using CATIA. After that it is all down hill. The foreign sales airplanes can't meet US requirements of performance. OH MY GOD Do you know who was telling me that back - are you ready for this - in the late 1980's??? One of Boeing Aerospace's (remember that company?) premier CAD/CAM designers. His name was J__ M_____. God! you sound just exactly like him! Seriously, I'm having +24 year flashbacks here. I haven't thought of him in years! I wonder how his is doing. I recall reading his retirement notice years ago on the Boeing whatever-its-called-now-mag; sad day.....
Until 1996 I worked for the premier fighter airplane company on the planet, McDonnell Aircraft, then McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and then McDonnell Douglas Aerospace at the time of the buyout. I used CATIA sufficiently long on the 747-8 program to develop a strong hate for the software, even more hate for its low end viewer, and considerable hate for the PDM. The low end viewer would have worked better with even a hint of configuration control to keep layouts and obsolete configurations out of the files, but it isn't good for much more than green colored cartoons. CATIA itself pisses me off with that stupid assembly tree on the screen overlaying the parts. I exported everything I needed for analysis to UG. The PDM is an amazingly piss poor design that requires about a week to take a drawing through the entire release process with manual procedures that are automated in the system used with Unigraphics (NX nowadays). |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2014 1:06:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Until 1996 I worked for the premier fighter airplane company on the planet, McDonnell Aircraft, then McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and then McDonnell Douglas Aerospace at the time of the buyout. I used CATIA sufficiently long on the 747-8 program to develop a strong hate for the software, even more hate for its low end viewer, and considerable hate for the PDM. The low end viewer would have worked better with even a hint of configuration control to keep layouts and obsolete configurations out of the files, but it isn't good for much more than green colored cartoons. CATIA itself pisses me off with that stupid assembly tree on the screen overlaying the parts. I exported everything I needed for analysis to UG. The PDM is an amazingly piss poor design that requires about a week to take a drawing through the entire release process with manual procedures that are automated in the system used with Unigraphics (NX nowadays). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The first problem is using CATIA. After that it is all down hill. The foreign sales airplanes can't meet US requirements of performance. OH MY GOD Do you know who was telling me that back - are you ready for this - in the late 1980's??? One of Boeing Aerospace's (remember that company?) premier CAD/CAM designers. His name was J__ M_____. God! you sound just exactly like him! Seriously, I'm having +24 year flashbacks here. I haven't thought of him in years! I wonder how his is doing. I recall reading his retirement notice years ago on the Boeing whatever-its-called-now-mag; sad day.....
Until 1996 I worked for the premier fighter airplane company on the planet, McDonnell Aircraft, then McDonnell Douglas Corporation, and then McDonnell Douglas Aerospace at the time of the buyout. I used CATIA sufficiently long on the 747-8 program to develop a strong hate for the software, even more hate for its low end viewer, and considerable hate for the PDM. The low end viewer would have worked better with even a hint of configuration control to keep layouts and obsolete configurations out of the files, but it isn't good for much more than green colored cartoons. CATIA itself pisses me off with that stupid assembly tree on the screen overlaying the parts. I exported everything I needed for analysis to UG. The PDM is an amazingly piss poor design that requires about a week to take a drawing through the entire release process with manual procedures that are automated in the system used with Unigraphics (NX nowadays). Amazing, I'm reading that in Jim's voice. He was so frustrated with the powers that be on this software being chosen and shoved down the designers throats. Of course, after all these years, I don't recall any of the technical details but I sure remember his frustration with it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/29/2014 11:48:35 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's a flight deck? Its kinda like a cockpit or a box office... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2014 5:51:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Its kinda like a cockpit or a box office... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's a flight deck? Its kinda like a cockpit or a box office... If you climb in from the top, it's a cockpit. If you can walk around in it it's a flight deck... Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2014 8:50:59 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you climb in from the top, it's a cockpit. If you can walk around in it it's a flight deck... Mike Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's a flight deck? Its kinda like a cockpit or a box office... If you climb in from the top, it's a cockpit. If you can walk around in it it's a flight deck... Mike Aircraft carriers have flight decks, airplanes have cockpits. Fuck the PC police. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/1/2015 7:09:29 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As someone who has personally helped change all eight main gear tires on the taxiway after an aborted takeoff, "working fine" is bullshit. The AF was idiotic to build the R model with no TRs, we dumped over 90 million pounds of gas in a single deployment, most of it just to get down to landing weight. Good management, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
KC-135R doesn't have anything but brakes... Seems to be working fine. As someone who has personally helped change all eight main gear tires on the taxiway after an aborted takeoff, "working fine" is bullshit. The AF was idiotic to build the R model with no TRs, we dumped over 90 million pounds of gas in a single deployment, most of it just to get down to landing weight. Good management, right? As I understand it was so that we didn't have to spare left and right engines. I would think that putting CFM-56-3s on instead of -2s would have been a better choice since they have TRs, a higher ground clearance, and a lively civilian market to keep the supply chain running better. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
