XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Dec 27, 2014 2:03:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 27, 2014 11:47:14 GMT 1
Each KC-46 will leave the FAL as a 767-2C and will be modified into a tanker at Boeing Field. I understand the designation to be 767-2LK (not 767-2C) See FAA RegistryFAA now changed type to 767-2C |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Dec 28, 2014 14:22:58 GMT 1
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Dec 28, 2014 15:55:20 GMT 1
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Dec 28, 2014 18:59:44 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 29, 2014 10:37:59 GMT 1
I understand the designation to be 767-2LK (not 767-2C) See FAA RegistryFAA now changed type to 767-2CAnd now the Puget Sound Blog reports it as 767-2LKC. The latter seems most likely to me, remember the first 767 tanker was a 767-2EZC.  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Dec 29, 2014 11:20:34 GMT 1
LK is the Boeing customer code. This code will be different per customer.
|
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 29, 2014 17:50:27 GMT 1
LK is the Boeing customer code. This code will be different per customer. Sure. The general ID would be 767-200, complemented by a C to make it 767-200C, because it is considered a convertible version. So, 767-2LKC makes it a 767-200C for customer "LK", which happens to be the USAF for the KC-46A, which is a USAF designation (nothing to do with Boeing...) Am I still making sense  |
|
|
|
Post by peter on Dec 31, 2014 21:33:17 GMT 1
Just found the KC-46A is NOT a 767-200, it's NOT a 767-300 and it's NOT a 767-400. It's a 767-200 fuselage with 767-300 wings and 767-400 stabilizers.... So it might be a 767-2C after all. Let's hope for some more info next year  [EDIT] P.S. It has 787 cockpit diplays  |
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Jan 2, 2015 9:57:54 GMT 1
The KC-46A is a modified 767-2C. Hence the 767-2C will be certified first, and the KC-46A afterwards.
|
|
