Why no reversers on the KC-135?

[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 . . . .