E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis

FlyingSicilian · Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:09 pm

Late Friday night a 965th AACS Tinker AFB E-3 at Nellis for Red Flag had a nose gear collapse during landing. Fire started and crew of 32 evac'd safely. Plane could be a write off. Only the second USAF E-3 loss after the Yukla bird in Alaska (and only 3rd ever after the NATO "overrun" loss)

I'm working on finding the tail number. Pictures are all over Facebook.

FlyingSicilian · Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:20 pm

forgot a picture:

http://www.vaq34.com/junk/nellisawacs001.jpg

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=920290

EMBQA · Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:20 pm

With that much fire damage I'd guess it was a broken hydraulic line in the nose wheel well is what prevented the nose gear from locking/delpoying... The fluid is what burned. I've seen nose gear landings before and you won't see that kind of damage

AWACSooner · Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:22 pm

Looks like 0556, but I can't tell from the pic (God I hope it's 0009, that jet is the bane of my existence). My roommate from OTS was on that jet (I'm in another squadron), I'll see what all he can tell me without compromising the investigation.
Obviously, there's gonna be a LOT of inquiries going on here...I would ask that the hearsay and speculation be kept to a minimum...as my job MIGHT possibly depend on the outcome of this mishap investigation.

Cross757 · Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:15 pm

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 3):
as my job MIGHT possibly depend on the outcome of this mishap investigation.

How is that, exactly? Seems like it was a mechanical malfunction. There might possibly be some pilot error involved if a checklist was not followed properly (i.e. they knew of a possible malfunction prior to landing). Let's not over-sensationalize this, please.

The most important thing is that all of the crew seem to be safe...worrying about losing any jobs at this stage is pointless and may I respectfully say somewhat irresponsible.

Venus6971 · Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:17 pm

I'm hearing from Crew Chief buds it was 83-0008, It will take alot to write it off, I can imagine they are thinking about taking a old 707 nose piece at the 360 production break and mate it with the E-3 then rewire and replumb.

Venus6971 · Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:55 am

Quoting Cross757 (Reply 4):
How is that, exactly? Seems like it was a mechanical malfunction. There might possibly be some pilot error involved if a checklist was not followed properly (i.e. they knew of a possible malfunction prior to landing). Let's not over-sensationalize this, please.

According to the grapevine it was the pilot flaring late or not at all and landing on the nose gear first blowing the nose tires and sending the main gear through the wing. Being a mx troop I would call that a hard landing. But never believe the first reports they are usally wrong.

Cross757 · Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:08 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 6):
Being a mx troop I would call that a hard landing.

I agree...that would be a case of PILOT error. IF that is indeed what happened, then I would say that the PILOT flying that approach and landing might possibly have their job at stake and/or their job might depend on the outcome of the investigation. However, I don't understand why someone, who was not part of the crew, who wasn't even there, who based on their profile is NOT a pilot, would suggest that THEIR job "might possibly depend on the outcome of the investigation". I would like to understand how that might be the case.

kc135topboom · Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:55 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 6):
According to the grapevine it was the pilot flaring late or not at all and landing on the nose gear first blowing the nose tires and sending the main gear through the wing. Being a mx troop I would call that a hard landing. But never believe the first reports they are usally wrong.

Correct, please don't put much faith in these early assumptions, as they are often wrong. A late landing flair could also be for wind related reasons, or caused by an unexpected wind gust as the pilot attempted to flair.

Did the MLG break into the wing? If so, that would be a write-off in most cases. But, looking at the pictures, it does not seem like that happened, at least not in a major damage way as the AWACS is sitting on in a "normal" atitidude for no NLG. I guess the E-3s have enough nose ballest to keep the tail up if the NLG fails, as that frisby weighs a lot.

In the KC-135Q, we had about 850 lbs of nose ballest as we could off-load all foreward and aft body fuel tanks (if carrying JP-7) to the SR-71s. In the KC-135A, we kept 3000 lbs to 5000 lbs of fuel in the forward body tank for weight and balance as the KC-135 was natuerally tail heavy.

Venus6971 · Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:40 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 8):
Did the MLG break into the wing? If so, that would be a write-off in most cases. But, looking at the pictures, it does not seem like that happened, at least not in a major damage way as the AWACS is sitting on in a "normal" atitidude for no NLG. I guess the E-3s have enough nose ballest to keep the tail up if the NLG fails, as that frisby weighs a lot.

The E-3 with no fuel onboard is tail heavy and requires a 5000 lb ballast weight tethered to its nose jack pad to tow it. If just parked and not being towed the acft will sit on its nose gear fine. Before the 30/35 mod you always had to have the ballast on the nose or at least 6000 lbs of fuel in center wing to keep forward CG. If this was just another -135 yes I would agree with you that would be a write off but there has been just as bad damage in recent history of landing incidents to 2 C-17s at Bagram and a B-1 at Diego. These acft have been repaired or still in the process. Having had practical knowledge of performing E-3 mx at Nellis which is strictly a fighter base you are looking at a logistical nightmare to get everything there to repair this acft for 1 time flight back to Tinker or a Boeing facility for a complete repair. Everytime we had a acft with gear problems at LSV we always had to safety wire the landing gear pins in for a geardown flight back to Tinker. If the Keal beams and the wing spars are undamaged I say repair it.

FlyingSicilian · Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:32 pm

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 3):
Looks like 0556, but I can't tell from the pic (God I hope it's 0009, that jet is the bane of my existence). My roommate from OTS was on that jet (I'm in another squadron), I'll see what all he can tell me without compromising the investigation.
Obviously, there's gonna be a LOT of inquiries going on here...I would ask that the hearsay and speculation be kept to a minimum...as my job MIGHT possibly depend on the outcome of this mishap investigation.

As we discussed once in COMM AV I was a Senior Director on the E-3 for several years, and for the life of me cannot fathom how the outcome of this investigation could affect your carrer (not being flipant, I am truly curious) or any other crew members except the 5 in the cockpit for landing (seat 5 would have been occupied during this landing), and even then just the PIC at the time most of all.

As for Balls 8, it was a POS-almost as bad as Balls 9. It was funny how the two "newest" E-3s were some of the worst whereas the oldest mods were great.

That must have been some hard landing since the E-3 was designed to land with almost no flair to begin with.

kc135topboom · Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:08 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 9):
Everytime we had a acft with gear problems at LSV we always had to safety wire the landing gear pins in for a geardown flight back to Tinker. If the Keal beams and the wing spars are undamaged I say repair it.

Normally correct. You are also right about the B-1B and two C-17As, but all of them were all gear up landings, and usually produce less damage than one with no NLG, or one where the NLG collapses during the landing. Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam. Yes, I know the drop is a lot higher on a B-767 than a B-707.

My concern is the fire, even though it was extinguished quicly, all that sheet metal and the stringers, and possibly that portion of the keel beam will need to be replaced just from the heat stress, let alone the damage from falling and sliding on the runway.

Do we know how far the AWACS slid on the runway before coming to a stop? The accident investigators will measure that based on the scars on the runway.

Venus6971 · Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:30 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Normally correct. You are also right about the B-1B and two C-17As, but all of them were all gear up landings, and usually produce less damage than one with no NLG, or one where the NLG collapses during the landing. Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam. Yes, I know the drop is a lot higher on a B-767 than a B-707.

My concern is the fire, even though it was extinguished quicly, all that sheet metal and the stringers, and possibly that portion of the keel beam will need to be replaced just from the heat stress, let alone the damage from falling and sliding on the runway.

Do we know how far the AWACS slid on the runway before coming to a stop? The accident investigators will measure that based on the scars on the runway.

I believe one of them C-17's totally went off the runway and had main and nose gears ripped off. If the fire has damaged structure it is possible to graft a whole new nose section fwd from the 360 production break from a doner acft at KDMA. But would like to see up close pictures to better understand extent of damage. I imagine the first thing that will be done after it is moved it will be jacked and cribbed and a total -6 hard landing checklist will be performed going hand in hand with NDI after the investigators are through with it. After that inspection then a determination will be done to procede with repairs. I believe there is a magic number of cost if it excedes that number it will be scraped even if repair is possible.
I will be hooked to my grapevine tonight to see if anything else has surfaced.

rfields5421 · Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:46 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work,

I thought this occured at Alliance - AFW

kc135topboom · Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:06 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 12):
I believe there is a magic number of cost if it excedes that number it will be scraped even if repair is possible.

Yes, there is a "not to exceed dollar amount, or write it off". But with the high value of the E-3C (or has 83-0008 been brought up to the E-3G standard?), and the fact there are only 32 of them, after the loss of 77-0354 in Alaska.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 13):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work,

I thought this occured at Alliance - AFW

Maybe I got the maintenance facility wrong?

474218 · Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:34 am

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 9):
If the Keal beams and the wing spars are undamaged I say repair it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam.

How would the keel beam be damaged/bent by collapses of the nose gear?

kc135topboom · Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:04 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 15):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam.

How would the keel beam be damaged/bent by collapses of the nose gear?

I am not sure how it happened, I just read that it did.

Venus6971 · Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:24 pm

I guess it is still on the runway with a NOTAM out until Sept 4 for disabled acft at the 6000' mark on runway 21L.

kc135topboom · Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:30 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 17):
I guess it is still on the runway with a NOTAM out until Sept 4 for disabled acft at the 6000' mark on runway 21L.

Yeah, they won't move it until the accident investigators finish their examination of the damage. Nellis has two runways, so it is not a big problem.

boeing767mech · Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:43 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
Recently an AA B-767-300ER in maintenance at the AA maintenance hub in TUL had the NLG collapse during maintenance work, no jet taxiing,or anything, but she broke her keel beam.

It was AFW not TUL, and no broken keel airplane is being repaired and will be back in the air by end of Oct.

David

474218 · Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:15 am

Does anyone know what a "keel beam" is and where it is located?

BladeLWS · Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:41 am

Quoting 474218 (Reply 20):
Does anyone know what a "keel beam" is and where it is located?

Keel beam runs the length of the aircraft and provides its structural support, just like the keel of a ship, it runs the bottom of the aircraft.

474218 · Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:13 am

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 21):
Keel beam runs the length of the aircraft and provides its structural support, just like the keel of a ship, it runs the bottom of the aircraft.

That's what I though, most people have no Idea what a keel beam is.

It is stringers that run the length of the aircraft, providing longitudinal structure support.

I suggest reviewing the following from the Tech/Ops forums:
Keel Beams? (by TSS Aug 8 2009 in Tech Ops)

Since the keel beam/beams extend only slightly forward and aft of the wing, it is unlikely they would be bent by a collapsed nose gear.

boeingfixer · Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:22 am

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 21):
Keel beam runs the length of the aircraft and provides its structural support, just like the keel of a ship, it runs the bottom of the aircraft.

Actually the Keel Beam spans the gap in the fuselage left by the center wing box and landing gear bay. It transfers the loads between the forward and aft fuselage due to the large area cut out for the wing and wheel wells.

The Keel Beam only runs the length of the unsupported gap left by the wing center section and wheel well. Once it is tied into the forward and aft fuselage structure its job is complete.

I would find it very hard to believe that a nose gear collapse could compromise the Keel Beam unless parts of the nose gear impacted the area of the Keel Beam.

Cheers,

John

kc135topboom · Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:35 pm

Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 23):
I would find it very hard to believe that a nose gear collapse could compromise the Keel Beam unless parts of the nose gear impacted the area of the Keel Beam.

Is there any update on if 83-0008 is going to be repaired, or scrapped? Obviously the USAF has classified this as a "Class A" accident (damage over $1M and/or a fatality).

fridgmus · Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:06 pm

Could one of you tell me why "The Frisbee" could not located in a more forward position on the aircraft? Wouldn't that help with the CG?

Thanks,

F

kc135topboom · Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:16 pm

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 25):
Could one of you tell me why "The Frisbee" could not located in a more forward position on the aircraft? Wouldn't that help with the CG?

When the two test bed aircraft (original USAF MDS was EC-137D) were being designed and wind tunnel tested, it was found that if you placed the aerodynamic radar disk (the Frisbee) further forward, or aft, it greatly effected the flight characteristics to the point of being close to unstable. Placing it where it is could always be balanced with ballast weights in the nose, removing any weight and balance issue. In the KC-135Q the 850 lbs of ballast is under the radar in the nose radome. I don't know the exact placement of ballast in the E-3s, but someone here might be able to tell you.

Venus6971 · Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:36 am

[quote=KC135TopBoom,reply=26]but someone here might be able to tell you.[/quote

We don't have any ballast on a E-3, the forward lobe is crammed full of power distribution and communication gear plus in the cabin the Computer,mission consoles and Communication suite is plenty of foward ballast also consider that the 2 inboard engines are also considered foward ballast. Put a mission load of fuel usally 135K with 90k in the wings the inboard tanks are fwd CG and 45k in the center wing also fwd CG. The only time this jet is considered tail heavy is when it is at zero fuel load and must have a 5000 pound ballast weight teathered on its nose jack pad.

It has not been determined yet to salvage or repair the acft, it is still on the runway and Nellis is not the place to be with a crippled heavy. They are totally fighter centered, I do not know of a piece of concrete that is legal to jack anything bigger than a F-111 at Nellis and zero hanger space for a E-3. The mx troops at Tinker have a bunch of side bets going around if this thing will ever fly again.

kc135topboom · Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:13 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 27):
I do not know of a piece of concrete that is legal to jack anything bigger than a F-111 at Nellis and zero hanger space for a E-3.

Could this be a job for the Boeing AOG repair team? I know the TIK MX troops and Depot guys are experts on the B-707 airframe now, maybe some of the best B-707 people in the world, but, the Boeing team has a great reputation of getting things done at a bear base situation. The thin ramp at Nellis is not a real problem as they can shore it up with steel and wooden mats to place the jacks on. Hanger space might, or might not be a problem. A tempoary shed can be built over the aircraft.

In 1983, A B-52G wing was blown off the airplane at Mather AFB, CA, Boeing did the repair work, using a wing from the Griffiss AFB, NY antenna placement non-flyable B-52G test bed(which always sat up side down). A C-5 flew the wing from NY to CA, then the Boeing team completely refurbished it and later attached it to the bomber. IIRC, it took over 6 months to repair it enough to fly it to depot for perminate repairs.

Venus6971 · Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:48 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Could this be a job for the Boeing AOG repair team? I know the TIK MX troops and Depot guys are experts on the B-707 airframe now, maybe some of the best B-707 people in the world, but, the Boeing team has a great reputation of getting things done at a bear base situation. The thin ramp at Nellis is not a real problem as they can shore it up with steel and wooden mats to place the jacks on. Hanger space might, or might not be a problem. A tempoary shed can be built over the aircraft.

Boeing AOG team would be the right answer, I know the 552 mx guys they sent but they have zero experiance with this type of job. I have no doubt they will figure it out. The E-3 is too valuable just to write off if it was like a C-130 or T-38. I just wondering when they start digging into it how many worms they will find into that bucket. Plus getting Boeing involved is way above my pay grade, those guys don't work cheap.

kc135topboom · Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:21 pm

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 29):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 28):
Could this be a job for the Boeing AOG repair team? I know the TIK MX troops and Depot guys are experts on the B-707 airframe now, maybe some of the best B-707 people in the world, but, the Boeing team has a great reputation of getting things done at a bear base situation. The thin ramp at Nellis is not a real problem as they can shore it up with steel and wooden mats to place the jacks on. Hanger space might, or might not be a problem. A tempoary shed can be built over the aircraft.

Boeing AOG team would be the right answer, I know the 552 mx guys they sent but they have zero experiance with this type of job. I have no doubt they will figure it out. The E-3 is too valuable just to write off if it was like a C-130 or T-38. I just wondering when they start digging into it how many worms they will find into that bucket. Plus getting Boeing involved is way above my pay grade, those guys don't work cheap.

Well, the first step that anyone is going to have to do is recover the airplane and move it somewhere on the ramp where tempoary work can begin. The USAF has excellent knowledge and capability of recovering and moving the wreckage.

I am sure preliminary work on assessing the scope of work is completed by now, next would be the recovery and moving of the airplane. Then a more detailed assessment will be done before any decision is made, or a phone call made to Boeing.

I'll bet a lot of people at Boeing and the OKC-Depot at TIK are looking at line drawings and modification drawings done on 83-0008 to get an idea of what they are in for. My guess is there have probibly been over 100 meetings of OPS, LGS, Bean Counters (the guys with the money)and MX people already. That does not even count the accident investigation board and their work.

taxpilot · Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:17 pm

It has been over two months since the last post. Anyone have an update?

kc135topboom · Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:02 am

Quoting TaxPilot (Reply 31):
It has been over two months since the last post. Anyone have an update?

Good reminder, I had almost forgotten about this accident. I have not heard anything. The AWACS folks are a pretty quite group normally. Hopefully someone will post something soon.

Venus6971 · Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:53 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 32):
Good reminder, I had almost forgotten about this accident. I have not heard anything. The AWACS folks are a pretty quite group normally. Hopefully someone will post something soon.

Still going through the investigation, so far it is determined it was not a mx issue, patience grasshopper.

L-188 · Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:30 am

Did they get it off the runway at least, or can I look forward to seeing there the next time the "Google Earth" satillite makes a pass?

Moose135 · Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:06 pm

The Air Force has released the report on the crash, citing pilot error as the cause...

From the Air Force Times:

Quote:
Pilot mistakes led to the $100 million crash landing of an E-3 AWACS on Aug. 29, an investigation conducted by 12th Air Force found.

The report, released Tuesday to Air Force Times, concluded that the E-3’s pilot and co-pilot allowed the jet’s nose wheel to hit the runway at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., so hard that it broke the nose landing gear. The jet skidded down the runway for 4,500 feet before coming to a stop.

Investigators believe that about 100 feet above the runway, in calm weather, the pilots lost track of the plane’s altitude. The co-pilot, who was handling the landing, put the aircraft into a steeper than normal approach. With the jet 50 feet high, the pilot called for the co-pilot to bring up the nose, but it was too late to prevent the hard landing.

kc135topboom · Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:19 pm

Quoting moose135 (Reply 35):
The Air Force has released the report on the crash, citing pilot error as the cause...

From the Air Force Times:

Since the AFT story sites a $100M damage price to the airplane, that might mean the USAF is repairing the jet. Can anyone confirm that?

Venus6971 · Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:08 pm

Can go only on rumors that Boeing is doing the work and they are going to graft a 707-300 forward fuslage on it from AMARC doner acft.

Venus6971 · Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:07 pm

Reading Mooses link I was shocked at the lack of hours these guys had, both of them should have been copilots. I got spoiled by my time in the 89th with high time pilots who were the best at what they do. When I retired in 03 I was in the 552 ACW and we had alot of experiance mx and op sides but I guess that is not the case anymore.

kc135topboom · Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:26 pm

Quoting venus6971 (Reply 37):
Can go only on rumors that Boeing is doing the work and they are going to graft a 707-300 forward fuslage on it from AMARC doner acft.

That could happen as there are still several B-707s still there. A KC-135A/E forward fuslage will not work as it is a different shape, and about 4" narrower.

sentrymechanic · Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:36 pm

The airframe is being written off... salvage ops are underway at this time.

kc135topboom · Mon Aug 27, 2012 5:13 pm

That's too bad, I was hoping she would be repaired. I think this makes 4 W/Os for the worldwide E-3 fleet, two USAF E-3B/C, a NATO E-3A, and a RAF E-3D.

zanl188 · Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:37 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
RAF E-3D.

Was the RAF frame actually scrapped or is it some sort of super can bird?

bucky707 · Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:36 am

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 10):
That must have been some hard landing since the E-3 was designed to land with almost no flair to begin with.

I'm curious how being a SD qualifies you to comment on how to land a E-3?

ssteve · Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:03 am

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 43):
I'm curious how being a SD qualifies you to comment on how to land a E-3?

Am I to interpret this as disagreement with his comment? Might as well just disagree in that case. I'm not sure how an E-3 could land with "flair" anyways. Maybe some colorful streamers on the radome.

AWACSooner · Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:05 pm

Ok guys...here's the long and short:
-0008 is now sitting at the northeast end of the ramp at KLSV...no engines, no tail, no rear stabilizers (at least as of last month when I was out there for Red Flag)...all pieces of aircraft forward of front weapons scope bank are unuseable as spare parts. I know there have been a few interior maintenace components pulled from it from time to time...but not too many parts so far.

For us flight deck peeps, we have to undergo lots of extra training due to it...not fun! All because of one moron...

[Edited 2012-08-29 09:09:01]

bucky707 · Thu Aug 30, 2012 1:20 am

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 43):
I'm curious how being a SD qualifies you to comment on how to land a E-3?

Yes, I disagree with him.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 45):
For us flight deck peeps, we have to undergo lots of extra training due to it...not fun!

What kind of training? Going out and practicing.......landings!?!

AWACSooner · Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:28 am

Quoting bucky707 (Reply 46):
What kind of training? Going out and practicing.......landings!?!

Oh believe me...that's not the half of it...can't go into detail, but we now have to be certified as an aircrew before we go TDY to Nellis.

kc135topboom · Thu Aug 30, 2012 2:21 pm

Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 42):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):RAF E-3D.
Was the RAF frame actually scrapped or is it some sort of super can bird?

I believe its status is currently listed as 'stored', but she has been stripped, including her rotodome. IIRC, the tail number is ZH-105, "Sneezy" and last I read she was at GXW. The 7 RAF E-3D/AEW-1, when originally were named after Snow White's 7 Dwarfs. As I understand it, Sneezy will never fly again. She was cut from the fleet due to budget cuts, and with the lastest round of MOD cuts, I just don't think the RAF can afford to every put her back together again.

But she should have been considered to be bought by the USAF and used to replace 83-0008.

FlyingSicilian · Thu Aug 30, 2012 3:17 pm

Balls 8 was a hanger queen anyway so no big loss...

as for Bucky, what exactly do you disagree with?
The landing specs for the E-3 are not a secret. It was designed to take one hell of a beating and has over the years.
And I know more about the landing procedures than you presume it seems...

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net