All planes are certified for landing without thrust reversers, its not considered part of the breaking system. on the 747 flight test program it was required not to use thrust reversers when fully loaded to pass certification, also thrust reversers can kick up runway debrie into the engines.

The A330 MRTT is a much better aircraft for this mission.

The KC-46 is a POS. The refuel by video system is very unreliable and doesn’t work in certain kinds of lighting (they should have put a boom operator in the back like the 135). The airplane does not have thrust reversers, which means in certain weather conditions there are major airports it cannot use. They can’t even fill the toilets all the way with blue juice for fear of spilling it during takeoff/landing. Frankly a Boeing and the Air Force should be embarrassed.

@b1r260

7 күн бұрын

Couldn't agree more. Having all my hours on the -135 as a Boom, in my humble opinion, it was terribly managed and executed acquisition. It was over budget and decades late. The ARO system and it's cameras are a poor proof of concept. And AGAIN, why in gods name did the AF choose to bypass thrust reversers? I guess burning up Carbon brakes is their M.O. for tight airfields. And lastly, don't get me started about creature comforts, because there are none. I don't think crews even remotely had any input on comfort. The Airbus was plug and play. Even the KC-10 that's being retired, had more long mission comforts. Why does the AF feel compelled to bail out Boeing, when Boeing can't even save themselves? I feel for the aircrew community that has to put up with this "New" airplane.