banner
banner

09 May 2025, 13:43 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 02:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12130
Post Likes: +3031
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
At the time, there was a Boeing Exec said the new RFP was much better for the AF.

Tim



Just noting, that the Boeing Exec stated this after the protest was upheld; the new RFP released, but proposals not yet due. So no contract was awarded, and most pundits expected Airbus to win again.

Tim

Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 02:47 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2817
Post Likes: +2773
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
Username Protected wrote:
The evaluation criteria defined in the RFP were not followed. Result is that the AF had to at least redo the bid and evaluation process.
Yah, basically the AF told Boeing it would score the contest one way, then scored it differently. It's as if at the end of the World Series the win was awarded not to the team that won the most games but to the team that scored the most points. Here's the GAO press release: http://www.gao.gov/press/press-boeing2008jun18_3.pdf (The full, 69-page report was not made public as it contained proprietary information so this is the most authoritative source.) Point 1 is, "The Air Force, in making the award decision, did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation". Addressing Ben's original point, Points 6 & 7 note that the AF, when confronted, "conceded that it made a number of errors in evaluation that, when corrected, result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest most probable life cycle cost". So the smaller 767 was in fact cheaper than the larger 330.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 03 Jan 2015, 03:22 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/22/12
Posts: 2817
Post Likes: +2773
Company: Retired
Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
The fundamental problem was that after the original sole-source fiasco the AF desperately needed a public competition but by this time Airbus and Boeing knew each other's positions so well that upon reading any RFP they both knew who would win and the other would drop out, ruining the AF's contest. The RFP ultimately favored the smaller, cheaper 767 so to keep Airbus in the game the AF secretly tilted the evaluation criteria in their favor while lying to Boeing to keep them from dropping out. That dishonesty and unfairness is why the GAO upheld Boeing's protest.
On the bright side, it pushed Boeing to squeeze their (fixed-price) bid even harder to beat Airbus so the AF is getting the plane at a rock-bottom price. Boeing's in the hole on the project now by over a billion, although they claim that over time they'll drive production costs low enough to eke out a profit. Time will tell.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 14:55 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/24/10
Posts: 8901
Post Likes: +7318
I'm embarrassed to say I wasn't up on the KC-46...
But some recent FB notifications have brought it to my attention.
so it's still 3-4 years out?
Jesus.

Then I didn't know about the KC-25...
Wow.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 15:21 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/30/18
Posts: 2465
Post Likes: +2160
Location: NH
Aircraft: F33A, 757/767
Username Protected wrote:
I'm embarrassed to say I wasn't up on the KC-46...
But some recent FB notifications have brought it to my attention.
so it's still 3-4 years out?
Jesus.

Then I didn't know about the KC-25...
Wow.


3-4 years out from what? My local ANG base got rid of all their -135's earlier this year, and got their first -46 last month and have been doing plenty of training flights with them.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 15:27 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/24/10
Posts: 8901
Post Likes: +7318
Well then I was misinformed.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 15:28 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/30/18
Posts: 2465
Post Likes: +2160
Location: NH
Aircraft: F33A, 757/767
Username Protected wrote:
Well then I was misinformed.


I'm not sure if the -46 has been deployed yet, that might be a little ways off, but they are being flown by operational units.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 24 Sep 2019, 15:54 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/03/12
Posts: 2271
Post Likes: +697
Location: Wichita, KS
Aircraft: Mooney 201
And they recently got restricted due to failing cargo tie down fittings or similar, so they cannot carry people or cargo right now.

We have some in Wichita as well, but i still see many more 135's flying around.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 01:47 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/14
Posts: 5852
Post Likes: +2628
Location: KJYO
Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
...caution wake turbulence...


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 08:40 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/29/10
Posts: 2742
Post Likes: +2576
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS & KJWY)
Aircraft: T28B,7GCBC,E90
Related question...

Could someone shed some light on why the Navy and Air Force use two different refueling technologies?

The drogue approach seems simpler for the tanker and allows a larger number of airplanes to be tankers (F18s, C130s, etc).

What’s the benefit of the Air Force boom approach? Are the larger planes (cargo and bombers) just incapable of maneuvering enough to plug into a drogue?

Robert


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 08:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/29/17
Posts: 1864
Post Likes: +4531
Location: Freedom NH
Aircraft: Club Archer
Username Protected wrote:
Related question...

Could someone shed some light on why the Navy and Air Force use two different refueling technologies?

The drogue approach seems simpler for the tanker and allows a larger number of airplanes to be tankers (F18s, C130s, etc).

What’s the benefit of the Air Force boom approach? Are the larger planes (cargo and bombers) just incapable of maneuvering enough to plug into a drogue?

Robert


Volume and speed - If you have to fill up a SAC B-52, which was the driver behind the technology, the flying boom can move a whole lot of fuel faster.

When we tanked off a KC-135 with a drogue on you had to make sure the crew was only using one pump or it could over pressurize the system. That was mostly back when USN/USMC tanking off big win tankers was not the norm, now the whole procedure is mostly seamless. Circa 89 the USAF was aghast that we did all tanking with no comms. They were very structured and SAC-like but we've adapted well to the purple world.

_________________
“A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.”
Theodore Roosevelt


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 18:57 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/23/11
Posts: 2270
Post Likes: +2411
Company: Delta/ check o'the month club
Location: Meridian, ID (KEUL)
Aircraft: 1968 Bonanza 36
Username Protected wrote:
Volume and speed - If you have to fill up a SAC B-52, which was the driver behind the technology, the flying boom can move a whole lot of fuel faster.

When we tanked off a KC-135 with a drogue on you had to make sure the crew was only using one pump or it could over pressurize the system. That was mostly back when USN/USMC tanking off big win tankers was not the norm, now the whole procedure is mostly seamless. Circa 89 the USAF was aghast that we did all tanking with no comms. They were very structured and SAC-like but we've adapted well to the purple world.


I don't do any comm anymore - if the booms down, I go in. That's how we've always done it in combat so fight like you train right?

I will shoot the bull with them sometimes :shrug:


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 25 Sep 2019, 19:09 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 07/29/17
Posts: 1864
Post Likes: +4531
Location: Freedom NH
Aircraft: Club Archer
Username Protected wrote:
I don't do any comm anymore - if the booms down, I go in. That's how we've always done it in combat so fight like you train right?

I will shoot the bull with them sometimes :shrug:


Yep, by Desert Storm it was all no comms.

Chatting with them was reserved for Trivial Pursuit on TranLants/TransPacs. :pilot: :dancing:

_________________
“A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.”
Theodore Roosevelt


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 18:49 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/24/10
Posts: 8901
Post Likes: +7318
Some cool pictures of the Thunderbirds with the KC-10


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: First fly Boeing KC-46A Pegasus
PostPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 21:55 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/22/16
Posts: 558
Post Likes: +654
KC-46 refueling system flaws will take years to fix and cost hundreds of millions, GAO says
By: Stephen Losey   June 13


https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... -gao-says/


https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 ... -boom.html


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



B-Kool

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.tat-85x100.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.