Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
KC-135 Tanker Wing  
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 30287 times:

I've been told that it can cruise safely at Mach 0.95 safely, because it features a slightly different wing than the 707-120, and vortex generators along the tail to improve airflow under it.

Was this a modification made during the KC-135 testing period? Because if I recall correctly, the KC-135 and 707 were originally supposed to be basically the same airframe with a large number of parts in common...

I know that to compete with the DC-8, the 707-120 was widened an additional 4.5 inches over the KC-135 before it flew, did that play a role in it being so much slower?

Andrea K

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 30235 times:

Yes, the KC-135 has a wing that easily allows it to cruise at .95 Mach. Optimum cruise speed is .88 Mach, and endurance cruise is down around .69 Mach. The wing on the KC-135 is more of a copy of the B-367-80 wing, and slightly different than the wing design on the B-707-100/B-720 series. The wing on the early B-707 was designed for an optimum cruise at .85 Mach, slightly slower than the KC-135.

No, the wing of the KC-135 was not modified, except for the leading and trailing edge flap systems. The B-367-80 wing was selected, as the B-707 wing was not fully developed. Remember, the KC-135 was ordered, and flew before the B-707 did. The early B-707s and the KC-135 each have partial leading edge flaps (the first large jet aircraft to have them), just inboard of the outboard engine struts, but only the KC-135 has fillet flaps (later installed on the B-707-300/-400 series, which also have full leading edge flaps/slats).

The vortex generators (on the KC-135) under the horizontal stabs are to allow better airflow to the elevators. The vortex generators on top of the wing of the B-707-100 series improves airflow to the inboard and outboard airilons.

There are a large number of common parts for both the B-707 and KC-135. But, there are also a large number of different parts that are not interchangeable, too.

The fuselarge crossection of the B-367-80 was 130". This was increased to 144" for the KC-135, and finally to 148.5" for the B-707. No, the wider fuselarges had no effect on the maximum speed of any of the 3 types, but the KC-135 was the fastest of the 3, and the B-367-80 was the slowest (until it was reengined with JT-3D engines, then it matched the speed of the B-707).

Two interesting bits of trivea about the B-367-80. The orginal engines on it were always refered to as J-57s, the military designation. They were never called JT-3Cs. The second thing is it is the only airplane built by Boeing with two side cargo doors, both on the left (port) side. It had a full size cargo door both foreward and aft of the wing.


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 30218 times:

The 367-80 was slower? But I thought it had the same wing as the KC-135?

Kamarov, Andrea V


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 30211 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 2):
The 367-80 was slower? But I thought it had the same wing as the KC-135?

It did, but the B-367-80 was also heavier, and the fuselarge was not as "clean" as the B-707 and KC-135. The tail plane surfaces were also much thicker than they needed to be. The B-367-80 had a much higher drag factor. Until it was reengined with the JT-3Ds, it also didn't have the thrust. The original engines on the B-367-80 were the J-57-P12s from the B-52C/D, later they were changed to the J-57-P29W used on the early KC-135 and the B-52F/G (later KC-135s got J-57-43WBs). The P-12 engines only produced about 10,500lbs of (dry) thrust, while the P29W engines produced 12,400lbs.

Remember, the B-367-80 was nothing more than a prototype of a completely different design, and it taught Boeing Engineers a lot about commerical versions of jet airplanes. In 1954, this project cost Boeing some $16M, which was close to the net worth of the company at the time. The Engineers did have an experience base to work from, as many worked on the B-47 and B-52 projects.

The first 29 KC-135s ordered by Gen. LeMay, then USAFCOS, paid for the whole project. 29 airplane was the break even point.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3594 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 30206 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
The 367-80 was slower? But I thought it had the same wing as the KC-135?

It did, but the B-367-80 was also heavier, and the fuselarge was not as "clean" as the B-707 and KC-135. The tail plane surfaces were also much thicker than they needed to be. The B-367-80 had a much higher drag factor. Until it was reengined with the JT-3Ds, it also didn't have the thrust. The original engines on the B-367-80 were the J-57-P12s from the B-52C/D, later they were changed to the J-57-P29W used on the early KC-135 and the B-52F/G (later KC-135s got J-57-43WBs). The P-12 engines only produced about 10,500lbs of (dry) thrust, while the P29W engines produced 12,400lbs.

You'd also need to define which wing configuration you're referring to on the -80. It had several and ended up with a variation of the 707-320 wing.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 30198 times:

So it can get up to Mach .95 eh? Ever been above Mach 1 in a dive?  Wink

User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 30168 times:

The 367-80 was NOT heavier than the KC-135, the KC-135 weighed in at 290,000 lbs, the 367-80 weighed in at 160,000 lbs. The 367-80 may not have had as clean a fuselage, and had a tailplane that was too thick however.

The final wing configuration on the KC-135 appears to have eliminated the inboard aileron, and features a re-designed flap

Andrea K


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 30109 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
The final wing configuration on the KC-135 appears to have eliminated the inboard aileron, and features a re-designed flap

The present day KC-135 has a inboard and outbd ailerons( btw the otbd aileron is interchangable with an 707), are you sure that you have a the wing of a B-52A thru F and B-52G/H mixed up the G/H buffs did away with ailerons and uses spoiler to turn the beast. The 135 OB ailerons are only usable when flaps are set to 50 degrees down due lockouts connected to the flap system.
If you look at the the 367-80 in the Smithsonian it has a 707-300 series wing installed which probably gives it super lift characteristics.

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 5):
So it can get up to Mach .95 eh? Ever been above Mach 1 in a dive?

Never saw it but have heard of 135's that broke mach 1 which cuases damage to the wingtips making them curl up.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 30079 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 6):
The 367-80 was NOT heavier than the KC-135, the KC-135 weighed in at 290,000 lbs, the 367-80 weighed in at 160,000 lbs. The 367-80 may not have had as clean a fuselage, and had a tailplane that was too thick however.

I think you are talking to different things here. The basic weight of the original KC-135A was 95,000lbs. When I began flying it, that had grown to about 103,000lbs. The original basic weight of the B-367-80 was 105,500lbs, and it eventually grew to the 160,000lbs you mentioned. The original MTOW of the KC-135A was 297,000lbs (growing to 315,000lbs for the KC-135E and 323,000lbs for the KC-135R), but on the original B-367-80 design, I believe it was 255,000lbs and grew to 325,000lbs.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 7):
Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 5):
So it can get up to Mach .95 eh? Ever been above Mach 1 in a dive?

Never saw it but have heard of 135's that broke mach 1 which cuases damage to the wingtips making them curl up.

Yes, that was a KC-135A during the Vietnam War. He was told that NVAF Migs were heading for his position. So, they rolled the tanker and made a high speed dash for the ground clutter on the deck. Both wingtips were damaged by their leading edges curling up. But, IIRC, the crew did not notice it as the airplane still appeared to fly just as normal, the damage was found after landing, but the crew had already written the airplane up as exceeding 1.03 Mach (written up for exceeding the manufactures limitation). The wing tips were changed, as were all four engines. There was also a second KC-135A that exceeded 1.01 Mach, but that aircraft had no damage found, that was caused by an autopilot malfunction and slow reaction of the crew to recover the aircraft before hitting the ground. This second aircraft was one of the aircraft that was equipped with a FDR and a SDR (stress data recorder), which provided a lot of information on the health of the fleet.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 30078 times:

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
You'd also need to define which wing configuration you're referring to on the -80. It had several and ended up with a variation of the 707-320 wing

Yes, she did end up with a shortened version of the B-707-320 wing. The wing that I was referring to to that she shared with her KC-135 sister was a version of her original wing. My aploigies for any confusion.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1445 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 30053 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
There was also a second KC-135A that exceeded 1.01 Mach, but that aircraft had no damage found, that was caused by an autopilot malfunction and slow reaction of the crew to recover the aircraft before hitting the ground.


I remember that RC-135U's had a nasty habit of dropping 3000 feet suddenly when it was in its orbit with autopilot set with power settings at max fuel endurance



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 30050 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 10):
I remember that RC-135U's had a nasty habit of dropping 3000 feet suddenly when it was in its orbit with autopilot set with power settings at max fuel endurance

Yes, the original autopilot (it was the same in all C-135 versions, except the VC-135, wonder why that is?) became very problematic into the early 1980s.


User currently offlineEx52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 29996 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Yes, that was a KC-135A during the Vietnam War. He was told that NVAF Migs were heading for his position. So, they rolled the tanker and made a high speed dash for the ground clutter on the deck.

Ok...now I have put on my flack vest for this.

The aircraft you are talking about is supposed to be 60-0333, when I worked on it it was named Triple Trouble, we always called it triple cripple though.

All of the hydraulic shop troops that I knew, had told me that you could not rig the refueling boom using the rig pin holes, because the empennage was bent due to a crew rolling the aircraft inverted and diving away from some pursuing MiG over Southeast Asia in the 1960s, and the folk lore around that incident also mentioned the aircraft possibly going through Mach 1.

Now this is what I heard, it may not be the aircraft in question, but that was always the story surrounding -0333.



"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2406 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 29942 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
There was also a second KC-135A that exceeded 1.01 Mach, but that aircraft had no damage found, that was caused by an autopilot malfunction and slow reaction of the crew to recover the aircraft before hitting the ground.

If this is the same incident I'm thinking of, I knew one of the guys from that crew at Grissom - he occasionally wore a "Mach 1 over Michigan" patch that the crew had made up after the flight.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 29918 times:

Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 12):
All of the hydraulic shop troops that I knew, had told me that you could not rig the refueling boom using the rig pin holes, because the empennage was bent due to a crew rolling the aircraft inverted and diving away from some pursuing MiG over Southeast Asia in the 1960s, and the folk lore around that incident also mentioned the aircraft possibly going through Mach 1.

Yes, I beleiev that is the same aircraft.

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 13):
If this is the same incident I'm thinking of, I knew one of the guys from that crew at Grissom - he occasionally wore a "Mach 1 over Michigan" patch that the crew had made up after the flight.

That is the second incident.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 29902 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 9):
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
You'd also need to define which wing configuration you're referring to on the -80. It had several and ended up with a variation of the 707-320 wing

Yes, she did end up with a shortened version of the B-707-320 wing. The wing that I was referring to to that she shared with her KC-135 sister was a version of her original wing. My aploigies for any confusion.

Here is a picture of the B-367-80 on her madien flight on 15 July 1954. Notice she is equiped with a wing that has no leading edge flaps/slats, she does not have fillet flaps, and is flying on J-57 engines. Also notice the 3 shiney new KC-97Gs on the ramp.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/new...04/photorelease/q3/pr_040715g.html


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 29686 times:

Did the KC-135 have worse low-speed performance or the same as the 707-120? (BTW both have leading edge flaps and fillet-flaps, I checked)

Did the 707 have it's wing re-optimized because even with the 367-80 wing, doing Mach 0.88 would produce a higher fuel consumption than the new wing at Mach 0.85?

Andrea K


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 29665 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 16):
Did the KC-135 have worse low-speed performance or the same as the 707-120? (BTW both have leading edge flaps and fillet-flaps, I checked)

The KC-135A/Q had poor low speed performance, but that wasn't because of the wing. It was because of the low power available from the steam jets (J-57s). Once you got her going, though she was very fast.

The low speed performance improved a lot with the "E" or "R" reengineing programs.


User currently offlineAeroweanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 29634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A couple of points that have been missed here:

1) KC-135s now have horizontal tails removed from scrapped 707s. The horizontal tails the KC-135s were built with were smaller.

2) The KC-135Rs and Ts have a modified leading edge, fitted at the same time that the CFM56s were added.

3) When you talk of "the 707 wing" you have to be careful. There are several. The 707-120, 720 and 707-320 wings are all different.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 29611 times:

Quoting Aeroweanie (Reply 18):
KC-135s now have horizontal tails removed from scrapped 707s. The horizontal tails the KC-135s were built with were smaller.

That is almost right. The KC-135E modification (that the donor B-707s gave parts to), only got the horizontial tail leading edges, which were bigger. The rest of the tail remained original, including the lower surface vortex generators (which some B-707s did not have there). You are correct, the KC-135R/T got new manufactured horizontial tail leading edges.

The leading edges gave the tails about 15% more surface area than the original tail surface.

Quoting Aeroweanie (Reply 18):
When you talk of "the 707 wing" you have to be careful. There are several. The 707-120, 720 and 707-320 wings are all different

That is also correct, the B-707-120 wing and the KC-135 wing are basicly the same, but there were minor diffences on the KC-135s (such as a thicker wing root).


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 29526 times:

The KC-135 had a thicker wing-root, or the 707-120 did?

Andrea K


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 29492 times:

Quoting Blackbird (Reply 20):
The KC-135 had a thicker wing-root, or the 707-120 did?

It was the KC-135 with the thicker wings, to allow the inboard main wing fuel tanks to carry more fuel. The B-707-120, being medium range airplane didn't need to carry the additional fuel. Sorry for any confusion.


User currently offlinearluna From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 89 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 24645 times:

The photo link Topboom posted is broken because parts of it were replaced with periods.

If you're interested in seeing the photo just go to the page that comes up with the link and type 367-80 in the search box.

Arluna


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 24556 times:

Here is the Boeing picture of the B-367-80's FF, and a good shot of the wing from below.

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/...04/photorelease/q3/pr_040715g.html

Here is a later Boeing picture of the B-367-80 with the new (clipped B-707-320) wing, and replaced the JT-3C (J-57) engines with newer JT-3D (TF-33) engines. You can also see the long row of vortex generators on the right wing running from engine #3 to #4. Many of these were later removed.

http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/dash80.html

Here is a shot of a KC-135A, showing a portion of the left wing, and still sporting the "short tail" about to begin refueling a B-52E.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/kc135-strat/kc13503.html


User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 24520 times:

The "Mach 1 Over Michigan" flight involved 305th AREFW KC-135 57-1476 and took place on 2 Nov 82.

The autopilot flipped the airplane to 210 degrees of bank and 70 degrees nose low, dropping from FL330 to 7,600 feet in just under 30 seconds with an average descent rate of approximately 50,000 fpm. The airplane experienced minor stress damage and lost the "boat tails" on the aft edge of the wing root. The airplane remained in service until retired to AMARC on 13 Aug 92. The incident investigation determined that the fault was a freak autopilot malfunction induced when the pilot flying the airplane abruptly snapped the autopilot control knob to the full turn detent. Annoyingly, Boeing faulted the pilot who recovered the airplane for exceeding the g-limits by smoothly reaching 3.5gs [I guess the Boeing engineers would have preferred the pilot not exceed the g limit and instead allowed the airplane to crash...].

Another supersonic flight involved 4950th TW C-135B 61-2662 (later an RC-135S COBRA BALL). Sometime during 1977 the airplane entered a 455 KIAS dive over the Atlantic Ocean dropping from FL310 to 16,000 feet.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
The KC-135A/Q had poor low speed performance, but that wasn't because of the wing. It was because of the low power available from the steam jets (J-57s). Once you got her going, though she was very fast.

The low speed performance improved a lot with the "E" or "R" reengineing programs.

The engine performance issues were linked more closely with weight than speed, per se. In the J57-equipped airframes at heavy weights there was a flight regime where the airplane under engine-out conditions, could neither climb nor accelerate. Even with four engines operating at full thrust in some hot/high environments with an EWO fuel load the airplane needed the runway overrun to get airborne and would likely not clear contract-specified obstacles.

In light weight situations, however, the J57-equipped airframes performed well at low speeds. An uncommon, and unapproved, pattern training exercise was to pull three engines to just above idle and fly a radar pattern, approach, and landing with just an outboard engine. This demonstrated the asymmetric thrust and yaw habits of the airplane. Engine spool-up time was the limiting factor in any situation: properly anticipated, the J57s provided the necessary thrust to fly safely. However, anytime the pilot "got behind" the power curve in any phase of flight and at any weight the airplane became unresponsive, contributing to a number of fatal accidents. To be clear: this was the result of early jet engine technology, not the KC-135 design.


25 rc135x : I don't recall this being a specific problem with the U-model. Because of drag induced by the chin fairing, the airplane could pitch down unexpectedl
26 Post contains images moose135 : I always thought that airplane flew a little funny...
27 Max Q : Very impressive performance, what are the actual VMO / MMO limits on the KC135 ?
28 titanmiller : The R model is .90 Mach above 29,500' PA and has a max KIAS of 373 at 26,500' PA.
29 windy95 : Well after reading through this thread I realised that all of the answers that I wanted to touch on had been covered already. Bat as far as fatal acc
30 KC135TopBoom : KC-135A/Q is .95 Mach. Correct, but it really didn't take hours to get to that speed. We departed Thailand for Guam 10 minutes in a KC-135A behind a
31 Max Q : My scientific response is Awesome ! Very impressive.
32 135mech : The KC-135 weighs a LOT less than 290,000 lbs... with the upgraded engines and all of the current mods most of them weigh on average around 122,000 l
33 135mech : One major reason for this was because of the larger airplanes "wake" pushing the smaller KC-135 up and around, I've been on these and a C-5 and 747 w
34 rc135x : This is certainly true when the tanker is a stable platform and the receiver (a C-5 or E-4, for example) is approaching or withdrawing from the tanke
35 KC135TopBoom : Refueling tanker autopilot off was a currency item for the tanker pilots. But, IIRC it was like a six month requirement to stay current. The KC-135 st
36 Max Q : Very interesting, as usual. I did not know the KC135 had an APU. Where is it installed, can it be used in flight ?
37 KC135TopBoom : The APU is installed on the cargo deck, aft, left side. The KC-135R/T actually have two APUs. No, it cannot be used in flight, it is ground ops only.
38 moose135 : When I was flying A-models, we weren't even allowed to use the APU on the ground. I think there had been a couple of fires, and they wired the control
39 windy95 : During the days of SAC I think the crews had more time doing heavy of loads and probably handled them better. We had many a MITO with the BUFF's wher
40 windy95 : The E was the same as the A. The E-model maximum takeoff weight was not increased. The A-model could actually takeoff with more fuel thatn the E-mode
41 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : No sir, none of that is correct. All KC-135s, after airplane #29 (the last of the 1955 models) could carry the same full load, 202,000 lbs, as they a
42 Post contains links windy95 : Yes it is correct. Both the A and the E had the same MTOW. Due ot the heavier engines the E model carried less fuel. Yes the tanks could still hold 2
43 Post contains images rc135x : Correct. A lot of this discussion is "Monopoly Money." Both the basic KC-135A and KC-135E were operationally limited to a max gross t/o weight (MGTW)
44 moose135 : That must have been a sight to behold! I don't know if I would have wanted to be in the back for that ride, but it must have been fun up on the fligh
45 windy95 : Which over time the lower accident rate between the A to the E validated using the improved performance for the margin of safety. Having spent 6 year
46 rc135x : I believe in either 1991 or 1992 at the RAF Mildenhall air show a colleague of mine flew the EC-135H demo flight. They were very light and he stood o
47 titanmiller : I flew aboard a KC-135R out of Elmendorf AFB with a similar profile to this. Our vertical speed indicator was pegged at 6,000fpm the whole way up to
48 windy95 : One of the worst departures for us in the A model was the Hickam departure with 180 to 190 loads with water when we dragged receivers on the way to G
49 135mech : HA! I was in that boom pod for that take off! It was AWESOME!!! May of 1991 Air Fete airshow, [61-0291 EC-135H] 5 days before it was retired back to t
50 Venus6971 : I was at Mildenhall 84 to 86 and crewed 61-0282, everytime we started a phase we expected to have major corrosion finds. Was 291 ever used again oper
51 135mech : Yes, it utilized the PACER-LINK system up until she was retired in 1991 and did the missions well. However, 285 left in 1988 for Depot and never retu
52 Post contains images 135mech : Here we are! I'm the skinny young (at the time) one in front of the crew entry door.
53 KC135TopBoom : The KC-135, and all its varients are simply one of the most amazing military aircraft in history.
54 Venus6971 : I recognize the guy wearing the hat, he was a boomer, flew with him a few times during my time there. Alot of alert start shack time at Lajes.
55 135mech : His name was Mick "Dreadful"...can't remember his last name, but he was a great guy from what short time I had working with him!
56 rc135x : What a great shot! My colleague is the pilot kneeling on the right side of the image: nickname of "Mad Jack." We set a record flying the COBRA BALL fo
57 Post contains images Aaron747 : After a long day of corporate toil, coming home and cracking open a cold one while reading through these flyboy stories is a treat like almost no othe
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic KC-135 Tanker Wing
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-135 CFM56 Engine Conversions posted Thu Dec 7 2006 00:23:40 by Dc8jet
KC-135 Low Level Pass posted Tue Nov 28 2006 13:55:45 by Wannabe
KC-135 Fire In Manas posted Wed Sep 27 2006 17:52:42 by Venus6971
A Tribute To The KC-135 posted Thu Sep 21 2006 17:41:49 by 747400sp
Aviation Traditions And KC-135's posted Thu Aug 17 2006 02:53:36 by Army15P
KC-135 VS KC-10 posted Wed Jun 28 2006 17:55:57 by 747400sp
KC-135 Wingtip Refueling Pods posted Fri Apr 14 2006 06:44:29 by Dc8jet
All Female KC-135 Crew posted Sun Mar 12 2006 16:58:23 by Hmmmm...
C-17 Hits A KC-135 Inflight posted Wed Dec 28 2005 23:46:39 by Ha763
New Hampshire ANG KC-135 Question posted Mon Oct 10 2005 04:44:01 by ChrisNH
KC-135 Required Runway Length posted Wed Jun 26 2013 06:42:48 by tsra
Pease 1st ANG Base To Get KC-46A Tanker posted Wed May 22 2013 07:46:09 by Revelation
KC-135 Crash In Kyrgyzstan posted Fri May 3 2013 03:08:02 by zeke
KC-135 Will Be Sold To Israel posted Fri Apr 19 2013 13:44:27 by An225
Utah Air Guard KC-135 Refueling Mississippi C-17 posted Tue Jan 15 2013 12:41:05 by flynlr
Boeing KC-46A Tanker Passes Initial Design Review posted Wed May 9 2012 07:59:58 by Stitch
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

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format