| Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 49): Balls 8 was a hanger queen anyway so no big loss... |
Not really...it was a champ for us doing the CDO missions three years ago...I loved flying on that jet...now -0009, that jet is the bane of my existance!
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Not really...it was a champ for us doing the CDO missions three years ago...I loved flying on that jet...now -0009, that jet is the bane of my existance!
-
- FlyingSicilian
- Posts: 1640
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Balls 9 was the biggest hanger queen of all for sure (many of the "newer" jets were actually problem children) but 0008 got scrapped in the desert for months on multple rotations and was basically a spares bird. now of course it could have been cleared up with a recent depot level rebuild in the last few years. IIRC Balls 2 was also a bit of a DNIF bird
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
-0002 is a flying champ...
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
I remember a Red Flag I had with 0008, blew a tire when landing at KLSV from KTIK. It was still a 20/25 mod back then. In my day the best flying E-3 was 0007, my favorite was 1408 because I started and ended my Crew Chiefing career with that jet. 1408 was one of the protoypes and she was different from the rest of the fleet, 1407 was the other. Plus 1408 was a good flier when I had it.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 47): but we now have to be certified as an aircrew before we go TDY to Nellis. |
Been there.
| Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 49): 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. |
Designed to take a beating, yes. Designed to be landed without a flare, wrong.
| Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 49): And I know more about the landing procedures than you presume it seems... |
Maybe you do. But how many times have you actually landed an E-3?
| Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 53): In my day the best flying E-3 was 0007, |
0007 was my favorite E-3. It had my name on it for almost two years.
-
- FlyingSicilian
- Posts: 1640
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting bucky707 (Reply 54): Designed to be landed without a flare, wrong |
Who said anything about landing WITHOUT a flare? It wasn't your quote from me, maybe you need to go re-read it?
Balls 0002 was crap in theatre. 1407 was our champ, sounds like times have changed.
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| 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. |
Ok, you almost no flair (should be flare). And it is still wrong.
Still wondering how many times you have landed an E-3? (or a 707)
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Weren't 1408 and 1407 refurbed airliners?
-
- FlyingSicilian
- Posts: 1640
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting bucky707 (Reply 56): Ok, you almost no flair (should be flare). And it is still wrong. Still wondering how many times you have landed an E-3? (or a 707) |
I make no apologies for typos, you know what I meant. (And focusing on typos shows your lack of focus on the point being discussed) Also the grammar in your post above is wrong "you almost no flair" so lets not throw spears from the glass house...
and in fact I am not wrong. (If you think so feel free to prove it). Remember I didn't talk about what training teaches to normally do; I am talking about what Boeing designed it to do. It is not the same as a commercial 707.
As a commercial rated PIC I have 1,648 hours as of my last log check, none in the 707 (the closest I can get is many, many in a Falcon 50 trijet, no quads) However, I am not quite sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China or this topic.
I am talking about the E-3 not a commercial 707. Boeing did in fact design the E-3 to take a massive amount of abuse and to land with very little flare. I'm sorry that bothers you. To be able to break one in the fashion that happened to Balls 8 takes a foul up of epic proportions.
| Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 57): Weren't 1408 and 1407 refurbed airliners? |
IIRC, they were originally delivered as EC-137Ds. The E-8s are all rebuilds
1408 used to "oilcan" so bad some people took a video of it from the back and posted it online, though it has since been removed if you can find it somewhere it is funny viewing.
[Edited 2012-08-30 21:30:01]
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
The E-3 is designed to land at a much higher landing weight at all times compared to the B-707, which would land ay high weights only occasionally. Even though the landing gear is vastly different, the E-3 could land at weights well over 200,000 lbs, just like the KC-135. Other than that, the two designs were vastly different, and two completely different airplanes.
People forget that after Boeing won the EC-135D contract, in 1970, to new build the two EC-137Ds, the airplane was originally configuered to have 8 X TF-35 engines mounted in 4 twin engine pods, like the B-52. Each TF-34 was to deliver about 10,000 lbs of take-off rated thrust. The original livery was also a Vietnam War camoflarge scheme. It was later decided to fit only 4 X TF-33-PW-100s rated at 21,000 lbs of thrust, instead of the 8 X TF-34 engines as a cost saving measure. Boeing was later awarded a contract (1973?) for 3 pre-production airplanes to be designated the E-3A.
One EC-137D tested the Westinghouse radar, and the other tested the Hughes radar before the Westinghouse was selected.
People forget that after Boeing won the EC-135D contract, in 1970, to new build the two EC-137Ds, the airplane was originally configuered to have 8 X TF-35 engines mounted in 4 twin engine pods, like the B-52. Each TF-34 was to deliver about 10,000 lbs of take-off rated thrust. The original livery was also a Vietnam War camoflarge scheme. It was later decided to fit only 4 X TF-33-PW-100s rated at 21,000 lbs of thrust, instead of the 8 X TF-34 engines as a cost saving measure. Boeing was later awarded a contract (1973?) for 3 pre-production airplanes to be designated the E-3A.
One EC-137D tested the Westinghouse radar, and the other tested the Hughes radar before the Westinghouse was selected.
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting bucky707 (Reply 54): 0007 was my favorite E-3. It had my name on it for almost two years. |
I was 0007's Crew Chief from 94 to 97.
| Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 57): |
Those 2 were originally built as airliners but but never flew that way. EC-137D's were what they were called and had the original JT3D's with thrust reversers installed going through testing. Compared to the rest of the E-3's they are more or less 707's with a rotodome stuck on them. One of them is a little bit shorter and the other is longer than the rest of the E-3's. I believe that 1408 was shorter because it was a bear to get out the AR shroud out when I had to repair the IFR system.
| Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 58): 1408 used to "oilcan" so bad some people took a video of it from the back and posted it online, though it has since been removed if you can find it somewhere it is funny viewing. |
That was caused by 8 stringers that were located under the last set of scopes were the AST's sat, they had close tolerance bushings when worn out , you almost thought the tail was going to come off.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 60): EC-137D's were what they were called and had the original JT3D's with thrust reversers installed going through testing. Compared to the rest of the E-3's they are more or less 707's with a rotodome stuck on them. One of them is a little bit shorter and the other is longer than the rest of the E-3's. |
Since they were both B-707-320Bs, was the lenght changed because each one had a different mission radar, frisbee, struts, etc.?
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 61): |
Dont have any info on that, but 1408 and 1407 were both modified to E-3 standard with the Westinghouse radar and delievered to the 552nd after all the 75 models were. Boeing and AFMC still have 73-1674 at Seattle for testing. Its last PDM was done at Tinker.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 48): 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. |
A somewhat distant view of ZH105 as it was in June of this year:
ZH105 Sentry AEW.1 by Irish251, on Flickr
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
If there are no airframe airworthy issues with ZH-105, I don't understand why the USAF doesn't buy or lease her from the RAF. My guess is there is almost nothing left inside her. She could be refitted with the equipment from 83-0008, although the work to make her flyable again would have to be done in the UK, then fly her to the US for the installation of the mission equipment.
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 64): If there are no airframe airworthy issues with ZH-105, I don't understand why the USAF doesn't buy or lease her from the RAF |
Would the USAF operate a CFM powered E-3? Convert it back to TF-33? Convert the whole fleet over to JT8D-200s?
In any case, even the first 2 options would be a whole lot of work, and probably end up as yet another expensive boondoggle.
The last of the famous international playboys
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting Spacepope (Reply 65): Would the USAF operate a CFM powered E-3? Convert it back to TF-33? Convert the whole fleet over to JT8D-200s? |
My guess is the USAF has already recovered the TF-33 engines and struts from 0008, so that is what they could put on ZH-105 if they bought/leased that airframe.
The USAF has said it has no plans (and no money) to reengine the E-3 fleet with any other engine, incliding the JT-8D-200 series. That is why they have yet to go ahead with the reengining of the E-8Cs. For the AWACS, putting the F-108 engine on it makes the most sense, it woul;d be more in common with most of the world's E-3s, the RSAF KE-3s, and the USAF KC/RC-135.
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
I thought that the E-8C re-engine program was a go. Has it been stopped and the only one that was done was the test ship?
bigbird from georgia
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
IIRC, the funding for the E-8C reengine program is on hold.
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67): The USAF has said it has no plans (and no money) to reengine the E-3 fleet with any other engine, incliding the JT-8D-200 series. |
Not true...beginning to hear rumors to the contrary. Lots of upgrade items on the drawing board...new engines are one of them.
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 70): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 67):The USAF has said it has no plans (and no money) to reengine the E-3 fleet with any other engine, incliding the JT-8D-200 series. Not true...beginning to hear rumors to the contrary. Lots of upgrade items on the drawing board...new engines are one of them. |
Yes, the one test bed airplane still has the new engines. But, IIRC, those engines are leased from someone and the struts belong to the Q-707 program.
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Not talking JT8's...the rumors are that they're investigating us getting the CFM's. Now that would entail re-working the wing spars and landing gear...so I don't see how feasible that will be for us. But these jets still have a lot of airframe life left in them.
-
- sentrymechanic
- Posts: 4
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
73-1674 is now at AMARG, 0008 only exists as a few spare parts now. We won't be getting re-engined...ever. And there is also talk of sending as many as 7 of the oldest airframes to AMARG due to sequestration. I doubt that the E-3 is in service much longer, due to parts availability, increasing cost to operate and decreasing need for its services.
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Really? Since they've come out and said they're planning on keeping the jets operational til at least 2025? Granted the fleet will shrink, but the demand is still there...Libya was PERFECT for what that jet was designed for.
-
- sentrymechanic
- Posts: 4
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Yeah they said that about the KC-10 too and look where it's most likely headed... I'm not bashing the jet, especially since I've been working on it for 7 years but they aren't in good shape and every time they come back to PDM, we find more and more issues, have more and more problems finding parts and the parts that we do get (even the brand new ones) are DOA half the time. You can't keep an operation going like that forever and 2025 isn't that far away.
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
Japan has the E-767. An AWACS version of the now in production KC-46 would make a good E-3 replacement.
-
- AWACSooner
- Posts: 2571
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 76): |
We've been offered the E-10 and the Wedgetail...but in today's USAF, it's all about the over-budget JSF. So we truck along with the broken oldies...
-
- kc135topboom
- Posts: 11196
- Joined:
RE: E-3 Sentry Awacs Possible Write Off At Nellis
| Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 77): We've been offered the E-10 and the Wedgetail...but in today's USAF, it's all about the over-budget JSF. So we truck along with the broken oldies... |
Yeah, I know what you mean. The F-35 is a budgetary black hole sucking needed dollars from the USAF, USN, and USMC just so some Flag Officers can have a cushy post retirement job with LM.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: GalaxyFlyer, TheF15Ace and 12 guests