Spectre
Topic Author
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:19 am

KC-135Q

Sat Aug 11, 2001 9:48 am

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
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Sat Aug 11, 2001 12:30 pm

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

Steve
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
Guest

RE: KC-135Q

Sat Aug 11, 2001 3:57 pm

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
 
dahawaiian
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 12:51 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Sat Aug 11, 2001 5:32 pm

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?
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: KC-135Q

Sat Aug 11, 2001 8:17 pm

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.

 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Sat Aug 11, 2001 11:55 pm

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
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Galaxy5

Sun Aug 12, 2001 12:07 am

Yep. Just like to time an SR pushed a KC-135 back to Beale after all the engines failed on the -135. LOL
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Galaxy5

Sun Aug 12, 2001 6:23 pm

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
 
fightingfalcon
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:38 am

RE: KC-135Q

Sun Aug 12, 2001 8:00 pm

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

Martin
Imprezas rule!!
 
Spectre
Topic Author
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 5:19 am

RE: KC-135Q

Tue Aug 14, 2001 4:37 am

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
 
Guest

RE: KC-135Q

Tue Aug 14, 2001 5:40 am

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
 
usair1489
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 5:22 am

RE: KC-135Q

Wed Aug 29, 2001 12:31 am

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
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: KC-135Q

Wed Aug 29, 2001 1:51 am

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.
 
747400sp
Posts: 3855
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Thu Jun 29, 2006 1:02 am

Yes the KC-135Q was only for the SR-71.
 
AFHokie
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 3:29 am

RE: KC-135Q

Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:51 am

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 avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:58 am

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 avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:40 am

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!
 
RC135U
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 9:53 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Thu Jun 29, 2006 12:03 pm

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!
 
AirSpare
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:13 am

RE: KC-135Q

Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:35 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: KC-135Q

Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:26 pm

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 avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: KC-135Q

Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:47 am

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!
 
dc8jet
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:40 pm

RE: KC-135Q

Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:03 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests