747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 2723 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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11742 posts, RR: 51 Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2666 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).
AislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2664 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."
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2624 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.
N231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2519 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.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11742 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2449 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.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
