Why no reversers on the KC-135?

[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!

 

[STBY GAIN]

Now that we're talking T-1s, what caused the two-woman crew to depart the runway not long ago? Saw the writeup in one of the European air forces magazines.

 

[chawbein]

The KC-135 is the same basic airplane as the "-80". The demo plane the boeing constructed to show they could make a large jet transport. The KC-135 had lost the initial tanker competition as the AF decided to give Lockheed the tanker contract. I believe that SAC demanded tankers immediately, and the AF bought several KC-135's to meet the interim demand. I think that the rest of the story is self-explanatory (Thank you discovery wings channel).

EDIT: Wow, I just read my post again, and I am a freaking DORK. Sorry.

 

[HoursHore]

Now that we're talking T-1s, what caused the two-woman crew to depart the runway not long ago? Saw the writeup in one of the European air forces magazines.

The story I heard was pretty interesting, but I think its priveleged.

 

[LJDRVR]

There are actually quite a few differences between the 367-80 prototype and the KC-135. For starters the -80 fuselage was 132"X164" as opposed to 144"X166" on the -135. The KC-135 dimensions were the original 707 proposal, as PB4UFLY correctly states, Boeing enlarged the diameter and wing area/span to compete with the DC-8. (Production 707's were148"X170.5")

The 707 was intended to have a longer service life than the tankers. As such, the skin was the heavier 2024 alloy. (The -135 is 7178) How ironicly flawed that decision turned out to be!

Comparing the KC-135 to the production 707/720 models, there's only a 20% parts commonality.

Lastly, an interesting story about how 35' became zero reference. In the 50's CAA certification regs required transport category A/C accelerate/go performance to include reaching 50 feet at the end of the runway. L-1049's, DC-7's and the like were all certified to do so. When Boeing was conducting flight test on the 707, they discovered that at gross weight, the water-injected JT-3C's were only capable of an accelerate/go altitude of 35' for the horizontal distance of the then longest runway at Idlewild. (JFK) As Boeing's existance hinged on the Pan American order and the success of the airframe, and since the runway wasn't going to be extended, Boeing petioned the FAA for a change to the certification requirement and recieved it.

Wow! Nerd alert. I love 707's. First jet I flew on.

 

[Big Duke Six]

Hold on a sec...

I know I'm getting old, but wasn't the 707 derived from the KC-135? As I understand it, the AF needed a fast tanker to keep up with Century Series fighters as well as the B-47, B-52 and B-58. I'll go check when I get a chance, but I'm pretty sure the civilain version came AFTER the AF RFP for the tanker.

Anyone?