Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3616 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 7061 times:

I know the KC-135E got there engines from civilian 707's. I also herd that at take off the TF-33 on a KC-135E are very hard on the ears. Now I know 707 was very loud airliners (from hearing Air Force Two land at LAX), but I herd the TF-33 on KC-135E are near unbearable at take off. I can not see anything that hard on the ears taking off from LAX everyday. So here is my question, did USAF make changes to the JT3-D before turning them into TF-33. Another reason I ask this question is because a civilian engines wound keep it's civilian name, they are call TF-33 instead of JT3-D which led me to think they have been change to military standers. Did they take the noise reducer out of the engines.

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 7018 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
I know the KC-135E got there engines from civilian 707's. I also herd that at take off the TF-33 on a KC-135E are very hard on the ears. Now I know 707 was very loud airliners (from hearing Air Force Two land at LAX), but I herd the TF-33 on KC-135E are near unbearable at take off. I can not see anything that hard on the ears taking off from LAX everyday. So here is my question, did USAF make changes to the JT3-D before turning them into TF-33. Another reason I ask this question is because a civilian engines wound keep it's civilian name, they are call TF-33 instead of JT3-D which led me to think they have been change to military standers. Did they take the noise reducer out of the engines.

I worked on the KC-135A many years ago and it was loud, especially with the water injection kicked in. I don't believe the TF-33 is that loud. Who or what was your source that said the TF-33 was loud?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3616 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (7 years 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 6922 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 1):
I don't believe the TF-33 is that loud. Who or what was your source that said the TF-33 was loud?

Well from replys from other topic, where people said that a KC-135E will hurt your ears at take off. But after hearing an USAF E-3 Sentery take off yesterday at NAS Oceana, I may have to agree with you. What a disapointment, first I get there to late to see the last F-14 do a fly by then the lack of noise those TF-33 made on that E-3 Sentery at take off.  Sad


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6853 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter):
So here is my question, did USAF make changes to the JT3-D before turning them into TF-33. Another reason I ask this question is because a civilian engines wound keep it's civilian name, they are call TF-33 instead of JT3-D which led me to think they have been change to military standers. Did they take the noise reducer out of the engines.

No, when the USAF got those engines, and other parts from the donor B-707-300B/C/-320Bs, they did not really change the engines. These JT-3Ds had no "noise reducers", they just got the military designation of TF-33-P-100. After the engines were removed from the B-707s at DM, they were sent to the TWA engine maintenance facility in St. Louis for complete overhaul to zero time. The struts, generators, hydraulic pumps, horizontal stabilizers, and throttle quadrents were all sent to Boeing Witicha for overhaul, and most KC-135Es were modified there (but some were done at Tinker AFB, OK). The KC-135E modification also included new 5 rotor brakes and a Mark V anti-skid system. Most KC-135As had a 4 rotor brake system and a Mark IV anti-skid system. There were no landing gear componets from the B-707s used on the KC-135s as the gear and wheels are completely different.


User currently offlinePW4084 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 6825 times:

Does anyone know if TF-33s from the C-141 made it into the supply chain for the E model tanker? I'd always figured they did before reading these posts.

PW4084


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6804 times:

Quoting PW4084 (Reply 4):
Does anyone know if TF-33s from the C-141 made it into the supply chain for the E model tanker?

No, the TF-33-P-15s used on the C-141A/Bs were a different varient than the TF-33-P-100s used on the KC-135E. The C-141 engines were also different than those used on the EC/RC-135s or the E-3s, which were the P-7, P-9, and P-101 versions. The C-141 TF-33s were more like the JT-3Ds used on some of the DC-8s.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6786 times:

The TF-33's used KC-135E's were differnet from the JT3D used on Commercial 707's, the JT3D had a extra bleed air stage so to operate the turbo compressor under the kneecap. The KC-135E uses bleed air to pressurize the cabin not ram air that the turbocompressor uses. IMHO the JT3D was a better engine, the TF-33- p-102 that the E models uses is a piece of crap the P-100 on the E-3 is a much better engine , think TF-33 on steroids, more thrust extra bleed air valve to help with throttle decelaration and much bigger intake and no sucker doors on the ring cowl , that is why there are 2 bleed valves.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Changes The Usaf Make To The KC-135E TF-33
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...
Congress To USAF-Plan To Keep The 144th At Fresno posted Sat Oct 7 2006 07:34:33 by FATFlyer
When Was The Last KC-135A Rengined posted Sun Mar 12 2006 19:38:24 by 747400sp
Why The Usaf Cancel The YC-14 & YC-15 posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:19:19 by 747400sp
Airbus Plant In The U.S. For KC-135 Repacement. posted Sat Sep 24 2005 02:24:14 by 747400sp
Want To Join The Usaf posted Wed Dec 1 2004 00:33:28 by USAF757300
When Will The Usaf Order The 767 Tankers? posted Sat Oct 26 2002 21:22:04 by CX747
If KC-135E's Are Turn Into R's posted Wed Aug 2 2006 18:27:56 by 747400sp
Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet? posted Tue Jul 18 2006 21:08:36 by 747400sp
Usaf Wants To Deploy Space Based Weapons posted Thu May 19 2005 00:17:01 by KC135TopBoom
Usaf Charters To FRA posted Wed May 12 2004 04:58:20 by AATriple7

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format