747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:08 am

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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:38 pm

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
Posts: 549
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 5:44 pm

RE: Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?

Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:43 pm

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.
bleepbloop
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?

Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:45 am

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
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?

Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:37 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11002
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Re-engines TF-33 Powered Jet?

Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:04 pm

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests