Why no reversers on the KC-135?

[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

 

[rainman_02]

No buckets on the T-1, but there are on the BeechJet 400.

 

[Cruise157]

The T-1 was the Air Force's (ATC's, more specifically) first "successful" attempt at buying an "Off-the-shelf" trainer.

The T-1 wasn't all that successful being off the shelf. They found a HUGE gear problem that grounded the fleet for better than a month (rainman, you'll remember that). They found that the gear was good for a cycle or two every hour, not the 10 or so cycles that we were putting it though. Something about bolt heads shearing off. Not good.

There were also some other issues, but I can't remember any specifics. The nice thing is the avionics package it has. Unfortunately, T-1's is usually the last time you'll see avionics that advanced.

 

[TonyC]

The T-1 wasn't all that successful being off the shelf.

Notice I put "successful" in quotes, as I fully realize problems occurred. What I intended to communicate was that it was the first time ATC completed the process of acquiring an off-the-shelf airplane to add to its inventory of trainers. The previous attempt(s) to acquire an airplane (of any quality) were flops. Regardless of the quality of the product, this was the first time it had been done.

The nice thing is the avionics package it has. Unfortunately, T-1's is usually the last time you'll see avionics that advanced.

Each of the candidates included a comparable system. If memory serves me, the RFP included a "5-tube EFIS." Of the 3 airplanes, 2 of the avionics suites came from one manufacturer, and the 3rd from another. I think the package in the Lear was the best. The Cessna's package was the same as the Beechjet.

As I struggle to recall details of that process, I'm reminded that my twins were born within weeks of the completion of that process - - they're 14 now. How time flies.

 

[pb4ufly]

TonyC -

Congrats on the twins dude; and thank you, in general, for putting life in perspective. It's great how we can relate a relatively insignificant time in our professional life with such a profound moment in our personal life!

Peace.

 

[rainman_02]

They found a HUGE gear problem that grounded the fleet for better than a month (rainman, you'll remember that). They found that the gear was good for a cycle or two every hour, not the 10 or so cycles that we were putting it though. Something about bolt heads shearing off. Not good.

Yep. Two major gear problems while I was flying the T-1...

1) Bolt heads shearing off. The suspected cause was side-loading due to improper landing technique in a cross-wind (crab vs wing-low). The worst I saw at CBM was 3 of 28 in the bolt package sheared off.

2) Gear actuators shearing. The actuator for raising / lowering the gear sheared on a few jets. The suspected cause was over-cycling the gear. I can recall at least one sortie where we made 18 touch and gos and a full stop...that's 38 cycles of the gear.



I, being a KC-10 guy, would say that the first really successful off-the-shelf jet is the KC-10. My jet rules!

 

[Cruise157]

I, being a KC-10 guy, would say that the first really successful off-the-shelf jet is the KC-10. My jet rules!

You're right. The Stratotanker (i.e., the #1 tanker in the world) isn't successful at all. /sarcasm

 

[JCJ]

KC-135

wasn't really an "off the shelf" civilian jet, was it?

I thought it's original Boeing designation was "717" never a civilian designation becasue there wasn't really a civil version

in other words, an upgrade from the 707 but not truly an "off the shelf" 707

 

[TonyC]

For the record, I said off-the-shelf TRAINER.

 

[rainman_02]

You're right. The Stratotanker (i.e., the #1 tanker in the world) isn't successful at all. /sarcasm

:-( I wasn't slamming your jet...or anyone elses'...that's why I prefaced the "My jet rules!" with "I, being a KC-10 guy." I hoped that someone else might say, "I, being a C-21 guy...my jet rules" or "I, being a KC-135 guy...my jet rules..."


About the "off the shelf" ... is the KC-135 a B-707 frame? I'm asking because I don't know. I know the E-6 (TACAMO) is...but are the 135 variants?

 

[pb4ufly]

"About the "off the shelf" ... is the KC-135 a B-707 frame? I'm asking because I don't know. I know the E-6 (TACAMO) is...but are the 135 variants?"

I believe:

the 707 (and 727, 737,757 for that matter) is wider than the -135 by about 6-10 inches. the original "707" (dash 6?) has the same diameter as the tanker, however Boeing later bite the bullet and made it larger/wider to compete with the DC-8 and allow 3+3 seating. the 707 is also at least 10 feet longer than the 135

707 = E-3, E-8, TACAMO

I believe the TACAMO planes were some of the last off the 707 line

hope this helps!