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!