Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-135Q  
User currently offlineSpectre From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2001, 81 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7093 times:

Am I right in thinking that the KC-135Q was a SR-71 dedicated tanker?
If so what was different about it, was it only the type of fuel it carried?
If anyone tries to tell me that it could fly at Mach3, I don't think I will believe them somehow

regards
Dave

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6307 posts, RR: 33
Reply 1, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7003 times:

The KC-135Q was dedicated to the mission of refuelling the SR-71. It cannot fly any faster than any other KC-135.

Steve



Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6998 times:

Here's the info I have on my site....

Fifty-six KC-135 tankers were converted to KC-135Qs, which feature additional navigation and communications equipment for the support of the now-retired Lockheed SR-71 fleet. These tankers carried high-flashpoint JP-7 fuel in addition to the standard JP-4/5 used by the tanker itself. They remained capable of refueling other receivers, although the JP-7 tanks had to be purged before they could carry standard fuel. Today the Q-models are often involved in supporting F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter operations, and are in the process of being re-engined to KC-135T standard.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/facts/kc135.htm


User currently offlineDahawaiian From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6993 times:

I swear I saw a KC-10 refueling an SR-71 on TV. So I guess the "Q" model KC-135 is not the only tanker capable of refuelling the blackbird. What are the differences between the reeingined "R" and "T" models if there are any differences at all?

User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6997 times:

yes, the KC-10 has refueled the blackbird before. The KC-10 can hold a different type of fuel in it's center wing tank and keep it segregated from the fuel it burns or wants to offload to other recievers. But the Q model -135 was preferred on operational missions because the -10 didn't have the special nav and comm equipment to rendevous with the sled in a no emitter (ie, radio, etc) environment

it's not that the standard -135's weren't capable of refueling it. in an emergency, the sled could refuel off of any boom equipped tanker, but if it had any fuel in it's tanks other than JP-7, the sled's speed was limited to something like 1.5 or 1.6 mach, because JP-7 was the only fuel that could survive the heat environment at mach 3, where other fuel would just vaporize.

the R and T model -135's are reengined A's and Q's. the last Q was reengined in 1995-96.



User currently offlineGalaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6987 times:

we once refueled KC-135's with a C-5, it was cool we carried 330,000lbs of gas and serviced up 3 KC-135's during an operational mission. they wanted them in the air to refuel fighter and support aircraft , so they could be on station the whole time in was decided that a c-5 would keep filling them up with gas that way they would be available to other aircraft and not have to return for refueling on the ground.


"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6307 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6981 times:

Yep. Just like to time an SR pushed a KC-135 back to Beale after all the engines failed on the -135. LOL


Damn, this website is getting worse daily.
User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6983 times:

i think Galaxy5 was talking about reverse refueling. it's where the reciever pumps fuel into the tanker instead of the other way around. it's not a normal procedure, but it does happen.

a little story with reverse AR, a few years ago a KC-135 from altus afb, oklahoma was doing touch and go's, when the tanker lifted off one of their main gear bogies stayed on the runway. obviously they declared an IFE, but they couldn't land at altus cause it would've shut down the runway there for a few weeks. they decided to try to land at white sands, new mexico. but they didn't have the fuel to make it there, so they met up with a KC-135RT (equipped with a receptacle) lowered the boom and reverse refueled from them. they got enough gas and were able to land safely at white sands


User currently offlineFightingfalcon From Switzerland, joined Feb 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Hey, MikeN, your site is great! It answers many questions in connection with heavies.

Martin



Imprezas rule!!
User currently offlineSpectre From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2001, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6962 times:

Guy's
Many thanks for some interesting and informative answers

Fightingfalcon
I echo your comments on MikeN's site...keep up the good work Mike, even if you have to go into early retirement so that you can get the time  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Dave


User currently offlineMikeN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6957 times:

Thanks guys!

Boy, doesn't everyone need more free time to get stuff done? As for retirement, I've got a looooong ways to go.... at least another 25 years.  Big grin

Mike


User currently offlineUSAir1489 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 364 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 6917 times:

Duce, so a KC-135RT has an in-flight receptacle? I've been trying to figure out what makes him stand out from the KC-135R's... supposedly an RT will be on static display at McGuire's show this year!

Steve



Zinger Aviation Delta Oscar Tango Charlie Oscar Mike
User currently offlineDuce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 2 months 20 hours ago) and read 6910 times:

cool. i did one of them in january. pretty cool looking, but i'd imagine the booms on there gotta hate life during receiver ar. at least in the -10 you got a view. if it's pacer crag, i figure they'd have to work. when that rt comes to mcguire i'll ask the boom, get the scoop from a dude in the know.

User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3677 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 21 hours ago) and read 6881 times:

Yes the KC-135Q was only for the SR-71.

User currently offlineAFHokie From United States of America, joined May 2004, 224 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 16 hours ago) and read 6820 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
Yes the KC-135Q was only for the SR-71

thanks for clarifiying for us what the twelve previous posts did not...

no extra charge for the sarcasm...


User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2350 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 14 hours ago) and read 6796 times:

Quoting USAir1489 (Reply 11):
Duce, so a KC-135RT has an in-flight receptacle? I've been trying to figure out what makes him stand out from the KC-135R's... supposedly an RT will be on static display at McGuire's show this year!

The RTs were one-time EC-135s that were returned to tanker duty, and retained the receiver equipment, actually designated KC-135A(RT). I flew them at Grissom AFB, IN back in the mid to late '80s, even was checked out as a receiver co-pilot - we had the only ones (I think a total of 6, I don't recall the exact number) in service. Grissom led the league in odd-ball KC's back then, we also had 4 KC-135D models, they had been used for some photo-recon work back in the '60s (the equipment was in place of the forward body tank, I think) and were later converted back to tankers. Due to equipment differences, they had the "D" varient designation.

Is McGuire having a show this year? Last I looked there was nothing on their website about it, and my e-mail to Public Affairs went unanswered.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2350 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 6786 times:

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 15):
Is McGuire having a show this year? Last I looked there was nothing on their website about it, and my e-mail to Public Affairs went unanswered.

So, let me reply to my own post, as I am unable to edit it at this point. Just found this on the McGuire AFB website:

McGuire does not have an open house scheduled for 2006. However, we look forward to inviting the public out to our 2007 open house. Dates and times will be posted here when they become available.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 10 hours ago) and read 6741 times:

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 15):
Is McGuire having a show this year? Last I looked there was nothing on their website about it, and my e-mail to Public Affairs went unanswered.

That got me wondering too until I noticed that the post was from 2001!


User currently offlineAirSpare From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 589 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6692 times:

In 1981 I asked this question on the flightline at BAFB. The answer was that is is exactly the same aircraft, except the Q model had some additional lights underneath it. On deployments to RAF Mildenhall, full of cargo and a fighter drag (that was so cool, F-4s off the port, off the starboard, 4 tankers in the front, 3 more behind us, F-4s all over the place...) I slept in the boomers pod with a bag rated to -5 F, a can of Coke in my box lunch froze solid.

I may be wrong on the light mod, but that's what a ramp rat told me.



Get someone else for your hero worship fetish
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6632 times:

The KC-135Q only additional lighting was the body and wingtip strobe lights (wingtip strobes removed in the 1980s), and a boom illumination light in the tail, not to be confused with the boom illumination light mounted on top of the fin.

The wingtip strobes were disconnected, and later removed after one shorted out, inflight and blew the wingtip off. That Q model recovered safely. But, the KC-135Qs were the first USAF aircraft equipped with strobe lights, having had them since the Q model modification in the early 1960s.


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7414 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 6571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RC135U (Reply 17):
That got me wondering too until I noticed that the post was from 2001!

I thought I was the only one allowed to ressurect ancient posts/stories. Wink



Made from jets!
User currently offlineDc8jet From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 326 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6527 times:

Of the 56 aircraft 21 were full Qs with additional navigation and communications equipment along with the fuel system mods. The other 35 were known as Partial Qs as they only had the fuel system mods. The Qs also have two single point refueling receptacles as opposed to one on the other 135s. The one in the left wheel well services the wing tanks and the one in the right wheel well services the body tanks which were used for the JP-7 for the SR-71. The Qs also have 850 lbs of ballast in the lower nose compartment
to account for changes in the center of gravity during refueling operations.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-135Q
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
KC-777F Specs? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 01:19:59 by N328KF
A Tribute To The KC-135 posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:41:49 by 747400sp
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
B-1B Vs KC-135A Which Was Louder posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:34:09 by 747400sp
Why To Usaf Never Order KC-11? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:03:21 by 747400sp
Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737? posted Sat Aug 26 2006 20:48:09 by 747400sp
Aviation Traditions And KC-135's posted Thu Aug 17 2006 02:53:36 by Army15P
If KC-135E's Are Turn Into R's posted Wed Aug 2 2006 18:27:56 by 747400sp
KC-135R @ NAS Norfolk Today posted Thu Jul 20 2006 17:13:53 by 747400sp
VC-X, KC-46, Other Updates posted Thu Apr 12 2012 08:14:46 by KC135TopBoom
Eads Offers Raaf 6th KC-30 posted Mon Apr 2 2012 06:11:43 by KC135TopBoom
3 KC-135's At TPA 1/31 posted Tue Jan 31 2012 19:35:09 by tpa36r
Why Letter "K" In KC-135? posted Sun Nov 20 2011 11:37:43 by haynflyer
Assessment: KC-46A Tanker Low Cost/Technical Risk posted Wed Sep 21 2011 13:46:28 by redflyer
Embraer Selects IAE V2500 For KC-390 posted Sat Aug 6 2011 14:11:08 by SpruceMoose
Just How Worn Out Are KC-135s? posted Mon Jun 13 2011 18:36:43 by woodsboy
KC-135 At EDDH/Hamburg posted Tue May 31 2011 01:08:56 by BizFlyer
KC-46 Might Be More Advanced? posted Sat May 28 2011 03:44:10 by OyKIE
First KC-30 On Its Way To Australia posted Fri May 27 2011 07:31:29 by zeke

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format