Looked like he was coming in off the break trying to catch the 3-wire.

I'll bite. What's impressive?

They actually overshot a bit and landed off-centerline.

^^^^That he managed to crab with the wind (as opposed to into it) and still have the nose gear hit the center line?

Looks like an over-shoot to me...

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
I'll bite. What's impressive?

They actually overshot a bit and landed off-centerline.

It might have something to do with the fact that us mere mortals are not used to seeing planes that size do anything beyond a nice, straight, gentle, glide slope.

It's an AF version of the 767, why you bangin' on the Navy?

quote:

Originally posted by mark_a:


It might have something to do with the fact that us mere mortals are not used to seeing planes that size do anything beyond a nice, straight, gentle, glide slope.

That's all the mere mortals in that cockpit did; a stable, visual approach with a gentle turn to final.

And medium autobrakes.

Most likely backed up with a flight director with vertical guidance and flight path angle, and autothrottles.

Nah, poor pattern work leads to a high overshooting start through the middle all the way to inclose.

He would have been waved off at the carrier.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/...of-dollars-gao-says/

KC-46 refueling system flaws will take years to fix and cost hundreds of millions, GAO says

By: Stephen Losey   3 days ago

New designs will be required to fix some of the issues with the refueling boom and the remote vision system on the Air Force’s new KC-46 Pegasus tanker, and that could take years to fix, the Government Accountability Office said in a report released Wednesday.

The refueling boom on the Pegasus could inadvertently scratch fighter jets’ stealth coatings, or otherwise damage aircraft, according to the GAO.

The good news is that the cost of delivering all 179 KC-46 tankers is now expected to come in at $43 billion, or nearly $9 billion cheaper than originally estimated in 2011, GAO said in the report. More, the KC-46 is ultimately expected to meet all 21 of its performance goals.

But delays in the program mean that Boeing will not be able to make good on its most significant delivery requirement — delivering nine sets of wing aerial refueling pods — until mid-2020, or nearly three years later than originally expected.

In addition to previously reported foreign object debris problems, the GAO report details deficiencies with the tanker’s remote vision system and refueling boom — which could damage aircraft, especially stealth coatings.

As has been previously reported, the remote vision system’s cameras sometimes had problems with glare when the sun shone at certain angles, GAO said. This caused the display screens to be washed out or blacked out during some test flights, and the aerial refueling operators had a hard time seeing the receiving aircraft’s receptacles to guide in the boom. The system also doesn’t provide enough depth perception in some lighting conditions, GAO said.

Boeing said it has already made changes, such as adjusting the contrast on the display screen and allowing operators to more quickly switch between different viewing options.

However, GAO responded that those changes didn’t fix the underlying problem: KC-46 operators need to be able to refuel aircraft in all conditions, with sufficient visual clarity in all lighting conditions. Boeing has agreed to redesign the vision system to do so, but the redesign could take three or four years, plus several more years to install it in the planes.

That vision problem also caused the boom nozzle to bump into the receiving aircraft, without the knowledge of the refueling operators. This could damage the antenna or other structures near the refueling receptacle, GAO said.

This especially presents a problem for low-observable planes such as the F-22 fighter, because inadvertent boom nozzle contact could scratch or damage special stealth coatings, and make them visible to radar.

GAO also said the Pegasus’ telescoping boom is stiffer than expected, which means lighter aircraft — such as the A-10 and F-16 — must use more power to move the boom forward while in contact to compress it and stay in refueling position.

The need for additional force can create a problem when the receiving planes disconnect from the boom. When they disconnect, their additional power can cause them to lunge forward back into the boom, which could damage the plane and the boom itself.

For the A-10, because the receptacle is located on its nose, a collision with the boom could damage the windshield and put the pilot at a greater risk.

Boeing said that fixing that problem will require a hardware change, which could take three or four years to be designed and certified by the Federal Aviation Administration.

But because the contract didn’t specify how much force should be needed to compress the boom, and because the Air Force signed off on Boeing’s original proposed specifications, program officials said the Air Force will have to foot the bill. The total cost for designing and retrofitting roughly 106 KC-46s? More than $300 million, GAO said.

Was the old boom and vision system acceptable (on old tanker fleet) ?

If so, why the redo ?

"Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Nah, poor pattern work leads to a high overshooting start through the middle all the way to inclose.

He would have been waved off at the carrier."

I agree, that was F'd six ways from sunday. I hope he got his ass chewed for not going around. That was like link number 6 in the chain of events that leads to total loss of the aircraft.

Thankfully it was likely a Boeing pilot, so if they wrecked it, they'd owe USAF a replacement. (Companies normally lease back a military plane for these airshows - or use a plane that hasn't been delivered yet).

quote:

Originally posted by SBrooks:
Was the old boom and vision system acceptable (on old tanker fleet) ?

It certainly worked for the F-4s in
Vietnam.....night after night!!

Lot of LSO's here

2-pts at best?

He took a few miles off those tires.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
Lot of LSO's here

2-pts at best?

That was def a solid No-Grade landing.

Not quite a cut pass, but I’ve been out 1 or 2 of those that didn’t seem that bad either...

Yeah...if my boss saw me dick up and do something like that, the resultant meeting would look more like the "counseling session" Maverick got at the beginning of Top Gun. Except I already fly rubber dog shit out of Hong Kong, so they'd have to step up the threat a bit.

And if he was using flight director, VNAV, and autothrottles on that approach, he deserves to have his butt kicked just on general principle. Way too much automation for that kind of low turning approach on a beautiful day. At least in my free opinion.

Well what I heard was it was NOT an Air Force pilot. Rumor has it that a USAF Transport Pilot would not risk spilling the cocktail drinks and getting the golf clubs in disarray.

(Joke )

quote:

Originally posted by GT-40DOC:

quote:

Originally posted by SBrooks:
Was the old boom and vision system acceptable (on old tanker fleet) ?

It certainly worked for the F-4s in
Vietnam.....night after night!!

Yep, but back then the boom operator simply looked out the window and the receiver pilot just followed the direction of a few lightbulbs on the bottom of the tanker.

Something tells me that this new tankers vision system is a bit more complex than a window and a few lightbulbs.

And all this complexity is going to bite us in the ass one day I believe.

Navy system is far easier, just reel out the hose and basket, we'll do the rest.

But we know the USAF pilots like being 'plugged' instead of 'plugging'.