Why no reversers on the KC-135?

[MarineGrunt]

Any ideas? Is this a standard for USAF aircraft?

 

[jstars135]

From what I remember, the 135 is all about how much full you can carry. The reversers were extra weight. Their absence allows for more fuel.

 

[CAL to T-1A]

Remember back when the KC-135R mod was bought Strategic Air Command was only worried about the doomsday mission. Reversers would add about 1500 lb and that meant 1500 lb less fuel offload to the B-52 on its way to Russia. Therefore, no reversers.

The KC-135E has reversers. Those motors came off a bunch of used airliners (707s).

 

[SpeedBird]

Ahh...good ol SAC!

Think EWO

 

[TankerPuke]

I actually spoke to someone on the "board" when the AF switched form A's to R's and you are all correct - SAC wanted the extra weight even though it was relativly small. PEACE


PUKE

 

[LJDRVR]

Ah yes... the good old days of lit candles next to the picture of Curtis Lemay on your mantle as one nelt with hands clasped, quietly praying: "Peace is our Profession, Peace is our Profession....." (Just kidding) Good ol' SAC indeed.

Hey, any other Loringites on flightinfo?

(86-89)

 

[Tweetdrvr]

The world would be better off today if TAC had not made the hostile corporate takeover of SAC, and if Reagan had not bankrupted the Soviet Union. There was something to be said for the status quo of the world.

Rest in peace to SAC and the Soviet Union.

 

[TonyC]

"Peace is our Profession" Good ol' SAC indeed

Hey, any other Loringites on flightinfo?

(86-89)

War is just a Hobby!

Did you know Bill Zemanek?

I was driving Tweets out of Vance then, in the ACE Division, was privileged to conduct a few "Staff Assistance Visits" to Loring then. I was there a few days before the tanker blew up on final, and had eaten dinner with the AC.

As I recall - - and I wasn't in the middle of it - - the conversion from A models to R models gave such an incredible boost in thrust and weight capability that 1500 pounds wasn't a big deal. The big deal, at least as I heard it, was the maintenance costs on the reversers. The USAF didn't want the extra cost. Therefore, they paid extra to have the reversers designed "off" the CFM-56's.

"E" model tankers came around after the A's, and before the R's, and I believe many are still in service in the ANG. An excellent engine, in my opinion, a Pratt & Whitney turbofan with reversers. The RC-135's and some variants of the EC-135's had the same Pratt's - - some with reversers, and some without.

As I understand it, the AF is re-engining the RC-135's now with CFM-56's, or something like that - - but I don't know if they've got reversers or not. I know that for as long as I was flying RC's, "THEY" wanted to slap CFM-56's on, and "WE" didn't want 'em without reversers.

Whatever the motivation, I am fairly ceratain that the USAF paid EXTRA money to have the reversers removed from the CFM-56's that went on the R-model tankers. Amazing.

 

[TonyC]

Ahh...good ol SAC!

Think EWO

" SkyKing, SkyKing, Do not answer... "

 

[wms]

"Peace is our Profession, Peace is our Profession....." Good ol' SAC indeed. Hey, any other Loringites on flightinfo?

I was SAC-umcised at Offutt AFB by THE Benny Davis, 82-84.
Once you get Offutt, you can't get off it.

 

[TonyC]

I was SAC-umcised at Offutt AFB by THE Benny Davis, 82-84.
Once you get Offutt, you can't get off it.

I drove across the Bellevue bridge for the first time during the winter storm of December `83. Imagine driving down Mission St (for those of you who aren't familiar with the town, imagine Main Street, Maybery) past the 14 foot high snow banks, turning left and seeing the SAC museum (for those of you who aren't familiar with the museum, imagine vintage missiles pointing to the sky alongside obsolete bombers of yesteryear) and being told NOT to park in the reserved slots (they were all covered by snow - - WHO COULD TELL WHERE THE RESERVED SLOTS WERE?!?!?!).



Most of my first memories of Offutt were not fond, but many of the later ones are priceless. I refused to attend the "Party" to celebrate the passing of SAC. The place has gone to the birds (Navy) - - Curt Lemay must be rolling in his grave.

 

[wms]

I drove across the Bellevue bridge for the first time during the winter storm of December `83.

The anti-freeze in my truck froze on the way home to KC for christmas that year.

 

[Draginass]

They didn't want the weight and they didn't want the cost of maintaining them.

 

[rainman_02]

<~~ Likes his TRs.

 

[bogeydope]

The thrust reversers were left off the KC-135R model for two reasons--one because of the ramp weight limitation and the second because of the cost to maintain the reversers. The R-model certainly has excessive thrust capability, but the maximum ramp weight for the KC-135R is approximately 322,000 pounds while the KC-135E is limited at 301,600 lbs. If 5000 pounds of that is reverser weight, then that's 5000 pounds less of fuel that tanker is allowed to have onboard, not to mention any passenger, baggage, or cargo weight that might be helping max out that weight. It certainly was cold war era thinking to leave the reversers off so that they might have that much extra fuel weight to offload to the B-52. All KC-135s have the volume capacity to hold 202,000 pounds of fuel. With a basic operating weight varying from 114,000 to 122,000 pounds (depending on E-model or R-model), it will never be allowed to take off completely full due to their max ramp weight limitations.

The sad part? DoD dumped millions into the cost of removing the reversers from the CFM-56 prior to installation on the KC-135R. The engines come already equipped with the reversers installed!

 

[KC-10 Driver]

Curt Lemay must be rolling in his grave

I'm not sure he's rolling in his grave. SAC's mission was accomplished (now, that's not to say that the world is necessarily a better place today...but, who would've guessed where things would go after the end of the cold war).

Incidentally, we did have a kick a$$ "end of alert" party up at K. I. Sawyer. The R.E.M. song "It's the End of the World" will forever be remembered by me as "It's the End of Alert".

Flying the R-model, even without the reversers, would've been great -- it's so much more capable than the A.

In fact, I never knew how close to death I was on every heavyweight takeoff until I left the A-model. I like my current tanker just fine.

 

[Benhuntn]

Sac imsized

Ah talk of SAC, smell of JP-4 and the call for water. It all brings back tears to this old SAC warrior. I flew EC-135A/G/C's and KC-135A/R's. The R model was a sports car but it took balls to fly a steam jet.

 

[wonka]

The place has gone to the birds (Navy) - - Curt Lemay must be rolling in his grave.


__________________
<~ Tony C ~>

Sure Ton Loc - the Navy does the ABNCP & TACAMO mission with 15 E-6s (one is devoted full time to test squadron) and USAF did the ABNCP mission alone needing twice that many jets. . . Curtis (in heaven I'm sure) is high fiving all the other stars for USN saving the DoD big $s.

 

[TonyC]

Sure Ton Loc - the Navy does the ABNCP & TACAMO mission with 15 E-6s (one is devoted full time to test squadron) and USAF did the ABNCP mission alone needing twice that many jets. . . Curtis (in heaven I'm sure) is high fiving all the other stars for USN saving the DoD big $s.

Who knows the Looking Glass record - - continuous airborne coverage... how many years -- that's right, YEARS - - of continuous 24 hour coverage??

And what's the Navy's record? I'm sure it's measured in hours - - not even days.

You're comparing apples and bananas.

You obviously don't know much about Curt Lemay. He'd probably roll over in his grave just to know that the commissary no longer slaughters its own cattle on the premises.

 

[wonka]

OTAY Tony, fights on . . . if your gonna go "apples to oranges" . . . TACAMO did 24 hour coverage on two different coasts (LANT & PAC) with C-130s for many a moon . . . and with way fewer aircraft than the Air Force . . . so back in your corner . . .

how da ya like them apples . . . .

 

[HoursHore]

Tell me you are not defending JACAMO, that NFO managed hell on earth that kowtows to missleers and other SAC puds just to try to stay semi relevant in the post 9/11 world.

 

[TonyC]

OTAY Tony, ...

how da ya like them apples . . . .

You can eat your apples.

 

[Grumpy]

I'm not sure he's rolling in his grave. SAC's mission was accomplished (now, that's not to say that the world is necessarily a better place today...but, who would've guessed where things would go after the end of the cold war).

Incidentally, we did have a kick a$$ "end of alert" party up at K. I. Sawyer. The R.E.M. song "It's the End of the World" will forever be remembered by me as "It's the End of Alert".

Flying the R-model, even without the reversers, would've been great -- it's so much more capable than the A.

In fact, I never knew how close to death I was on every heavyweight takeoff until I left the A-model. I like my current tanker just fine.

Ahh, Did you ever fly them with the asymmetric water injection? Nothing like the required water TO training at lightweight, say 60 – 70,000 lbs of fuel and loose water on one side at about 90-100 kt.

 

[TonyC]

Ahh, Did you ever fly them with the asymmetric water injection? Nothing like the required water TO training at lightweight, say 60 – 70,000 lbs of fuel and loose water on one side at about 90-100 kt.

One of Boeing's blonde moments, no doubt. How hard was it to figure THAT one out? By the time I was starting the water, it was Inboards and Outboards. HACK.

 

[KC-10 Driver]

Grumpy wrote:

Ahh, Did you ever fly them with the asymmetric water injection? Nothing like the required water TO training at lightweight, say 60 – 70,000 lbs of fuel and loose water on one side at about 90-100 kt.

and, TonyC wrote:

One of Boeing's blonde moments, no doubt. How hard was it to figure THAT one out? By the time I was starting the water, it was Inboards and Outboards.

That was a lesson learned the hard way (and a crew paid the ultimate price) at Dyess AFB.

 

[pb4ufly]

No Thrust Reversers in the KC-135R:

Weight? No
Maintenance Cost? No
Installation Cost? Yes

That was the official answer from the Altus Schoolhouse in 1996. They told me it had to do with the "linkage" (cables, cranks and such) from the throttles to the engine. It would cost too much (or more than removing the TR from the CFM56) to retrofit the aircraft. On a side note, the C-135B Stratolifter was "born" with TRs and the TF-33 engine.

Now why doesn't the T-1A have TRs?

 

[rainman_02]

The "fear" of inadvertant deployment in-flight by a student...


That's the reason I was given when I asked a year ago.

 

[pb4ufly]

Good Answer I think, but wouldn't the interlocks take care of that?

I'm just guessing myself, but (after 750 T-1 sorties) I believe the students would be more likely to mess the TRs up on the ground, getting them "hung-up" and requiring extra MX. Plus, being a trainer, there's no reason to go to short fields (<6.0).

Just my thoughts...

 

[TonyC]

Now why doesn't the T-1A have TRs?

Does the Beechjet have reversers? Excuse my ignorance, but I don't know.

The T-1 was the Air Force's (ATC's, more specifically) first "successful" attempt at buying an "Off-the-shelf" trainer. The Request For Proposal that drew competition from Lear, Cessna, and the Beechjet seemed to be, IMHO, tailored exactly for the minimum capabilities of the Beechjet. Of all the sortie profiles in that RFP, and in all of the performance capabilities required, the need for reversers was not addressed.

Recall also that the T-1 was purchased along with training aids, training facilities, and maintenance for a specified period of time. Maintenance costs on reversers would have by necessity been included in the total package cost.

I realize I haven't answered the question, but those are some thoughts on the matter. I was on the source selection team, and I know one of the test pilots - - I'll toss the question his way next time I see him.

 

[TankerPuke]

No reverse on the T1. PEACE

PUKE