Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3839 times:

I keep seeing post about re-engining the B-52H and E-3A Sentries.The USAF has more than enough new TF-33 to last almost 20 years. So why not let these aircraft keep there power plant? I for one like those loud TF-33. CFM-56 looks good on 707's, but they quiet and boring, and JT-8 just do have that TF-33/JT3D sound. So just leave the B-52H and E-3A Sentries power plant as they are, any way do not think the USAF want to change them.

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3782 times:

I don't think the USAF has any plans, or money to reengine the B-52H or E-3B/C. They might be able to reengine the KC-135E with F-108s, but even that doesn't look good, from a budget position (and they think they can afford a new tanker, anyway).

User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3780 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
I don't think the USAF has any plans, or money to reengine the B-52H or E-3B/C. They might be able to reengine the KC-135E with F-108s, but even that doesn't look good, from a budget position (and they think they can afford a new tanker, anyway).

Those KC-135s are not that long for this world, as soon as they can figure out what to replace them with. Why re-engine them if they are going? Makes no sense to me.



"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

If they do re-engine KC-135E with F-108, they need to put thrust reverser on them. I fell KC-135E pilot has it pretty easy compared to KC-135R pilot. At landing a KC-135E just has to pull down a switch and the plane slows down it self. After touch down a KC-135R pilot has to put his body into stopping the plane, by put his foot on the brakes to slow it down. If a fully loaded KC-135 has abort take off, an E pilot can throw the aircraft engines into reverse, while a R pilot has to break his back trying to stop the plane . Why make a E pilot go through what a R pilot has go through, the USAF should ether keep TF-33 (or JT3D since they came from TWA 707's) on the E or order the same type of F-108 that the USN E-6B Mercury's has to replace the E current engines, the type with thrust reversers.

User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3635 times:

Quoting AislepathLight (Reply 2):
Those KC-135s are not that long for this world, as soon as they can figure out what to replace them with. Why re-engine them if they are going?

Not all KC-135s are going, since the Air Force has replaced the analog "steam" guages with newer computerized flight decks on some of them.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12061 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

I'm not sure many will stay in storage at DM for to long. AMARC only shows 13 KC-135Es in storage, all went in in 2004.

http://www.amarcexperience.com/AMARC...SortOrder=1&Code=C135&Model=KC135E

There are an additional 55 KC-135As still in storage at DM.

http://www.amarcexperience.com/AMARC...alue=&Model=KC135A&Type=3&Action=2


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?
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...
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33 posted Fri Sep 15 2006 02:03:34 by 747400sp
Why RAF Never Design Or Build A Jet posted Mon May 8 2006 02:25:14 by 747400sp
Did You Know The F-14 Was Nearly Powered By TF-41? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 01:46:28 by 747400sp
The X-33: Why Did It Fail? posted Tue Aug 16 2005 05:26:48 by Citation X
Jet Powered KC-97s And C-123s posted Mon Mar 29 2004 02:04:48 by TradewindL1011
"Stars Of Sukhoi" Video (Su-27, 30, 33, 47) posted Tue Nov 21 2006 04:47:29 by BEG2IAH
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
Fastest British Military Jet posted Thu Nov 2 2006 17:36:49 by N215AZ
Old Jet RAF Aeroplanes Question posted Wed Oct 11 2006 00:17:54 by Gary2880
Griffith Observatory Grand Re-Opening posted Thu Sep 28 2006 01:01:40 by AerospaceFan

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format