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