The KC-135A was converted to KC-135R with those big engines, so their pilots had a flight suit patch that read: “R’s are bigger than yours”.

Not a problem until contingency ops require going into a shorter field on a hot day (which limits ops due to brake cooling times) or the runway is wet or covered with snow or ice. Yep, that’s what happens when the “bean counters” (accountants) get involved in the design process. I wonder what the pilots think?

@yungrom427

11 ай бұрын

Lol with over 60 years in service though it has been no issues, also had been active in multiple combat zones.

@rtbrtb_dutchy4183

5 ай бұрын

None of what you said is an issue. 🙄

@prylosecorsomething3194

5 ай бұрын

I work on kc135s in Maine and the runway is ALWAYS icy. It's not an issue

@woode699

4 ай бұрын

The pilots think you’re an idiot

@doriangray2020

4 ай бұрын

Wow the amount of gibberish you find in the comments section.

The fact that the genx bypass duct is big enough to need no step decals on those support bars is nuts

I worked on fhem in 1966 when they jad the J-59W on them with water injection.

My Dad flew these in SAC. He loved to fly!!✈️

Fun fact, brakes are replaced more often than aircraft with thrust reverser. A more expensive option, but they have a good budget.

Makes sense, TRs often fail and are just another item to have to inspect also

@Mytwistedvoices

4 ай бұрын

I worked on large commercial jets for decades. They are very reliable. And save money on brake wear.

@UpdogGolf

4 ай бұрын

​@@Mytwistedvoices i mean ive seen self induced failures due to config in a MX setting. Ive never heard of TRs just failing here and there in service. Maybe a bad stowage switch but thats an indication fault not a failure to operate thing.

Best time in my career was fabricating parts for these jet engines, built most of the turbine cooling piping and anti ice piping. Some fuel tubing too. GE Dayton

The KC135 Has served our Air Force for so many years. It's a workhorse

Less maintenance cost and less things that can go wrong...

@brighteffects9784

4 ай бұрын

but you also need to source a military-specific engine instead of using commercial “off-the-shelf” equivalents.

More KC-135 facts

@PatrickLipsinic

4 ай бұрын

The oldest KC-135 is older than any other B-52 operational today.

The KC-135's in the Wis ANG have engines from retired 707's & are equipped with reverse thrusters.

@PatrickLipsinic

3 ай бұрын

There no current flying 135's with those engines

My father and his crew were the first KC 135 to fly around the world non-stop refueling three times in-flight. They started at Castle Air Force Base. When Boeing came out with the 707 they gave it to the Air Force to put it through its paces. And has proven to be a workhorse since the late 50s

The United States Air Force would be lost and of little threat without this strong plane! Few relize its importance! XCrew Chief 3 Dec-2 Dec 1976-1980

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

BROTHER!

In my opinion i think a kc-777 would be pretty cool to

@Frosty1121

4 ай бұрын

And yes ik its not real but it would be a pretty cool plane

@nocalsteve

4 ай бұрын

It is proposed as a replacement for the KC-10.

They didn't put new engines on until the late 90's. They still had the old engines, while I was in. And I got out in 1990.

Probably to save weight so more load can be carried. British Airways did the same with Embraer 145 so they could carry another passenger and it had more range. An A320 blocker door weighs 35kg x 4 per reverser plus hydraulics and other parts soon adds up to quite a weight .

Not many 707 derivatives ever got upgraded to High Bypass engines, most only got the Low bypass JT3Ds, if they lived long enough to get upgraded from the turbojet J57s

@LTDunltd

4 ай бұрын

I loved the old J57s. You got your monthly allotment of carbon, co2, and unburned jet fuel in the 30 seconds you were in the back wash as they taxied out. 😂

@Deltaflot1701

4 ай бұрын

@@LTDunltd Somethign funny I though was how many KC-135's when they became museum pieces, or Gate Guards got their engines downgraded to either the low bypass engines, or all the way back to the turbojets.

@Locutus494

4 ай бұрын

The KC-135 is not a 707 derivative... 🤦‍♂️

@Deltaflot1701

4 ай бұрын

@@Locutus494 true, but it is related

@PatrickLipsinic

4 ай бұрын

@@Deltaflot1701 newer E-3 versions bought by France, Saudi Arabia, and the UK are equipped with newer CFM56-2. Just like the E-6B which are 707's. The 135 got a derated version.

I never even noticed that they didn't have TRs till you mentioned it.

Thanks to the KC 135s the 707 still lives on ❤✈️

@gary19222

4 ай бұрын

And the E-3 awacs

@PatrickLipsinic

4 ай бұрын

This is a misconception. The KC-135 is not a 707.

@thelandofnod123

4 ай бұрын

@@gary19222While the E-3 is actually a 707 derivative, the C-135 family are not.

Prime example of military grade

The old stovepipe J57s were so much cleaner looking. Underpowered, but very svelte.

Flew on one that had the upgraded engines from Europe via the Icelandic route. It got so cold water bottles under the seats froze. The ground crew had field jackets with them. So us passengers broke into the cargo pallets and pulled out our field jackets. The crew chief told us the new engines didn't produce as much waste heat as the old ones.

The KC-135E model is the only one that had the thrust reversers.

God I love this airplane

KC 135 is more related to the Dash 80 it was a bit narrower than the 707 and they also put those new engines on the the stretch DC8 when they reengineered it

if i play 45 hours straight of microsoft flight simulator does that mean i got my hours in?

@notaspy3751

11 ай бұрын

If a flight attendant asks, "Can anyone fly a plane?", and no actual pilots are present, you'd be the least likely to crash it...

@YeetiestBoi

11 ай бұрын

That’s weak, I play at least 16 hours a day when I’m not working

@trashhamster7560

11 ай бұрын

@@notaspy3751 huh good to know thanks

@Wkcrt

11 ай бұрын

I have 1,237hours in msfs2020 and I also have a pilots license, and I can confirm that it’s not even remotely the same at all, even with full motion seats and the whole “sim setup”. But like that one guy said, you would most likely, be the least likely guy to crash the plane if for some reason that 1 in a 50,000,000 chance of both pilots being incapacitated. Fun fact: only .00875% of the world population is licensed pilots. Even if you were able to recall a simple checklist in the event that did happen it could be helpful. Just make sure it’s the right checklist😂.

@kaeji_namitsua

11 ай бұрын

​@@WkcrtWhat are the emergency radio frequencies? Are there buttons to push to speak?

Also, I was watching the show, Air Disasters, and they did a piece on a KC-135 crash. They claimed that a thrust reverser opened, causing the crash. They don't know what they're talking about. 😂

Honestly... Sure TRs fail but a hydraulic system is much more reliable than the pneumatic drive. Shoulda put them on...

Very nice and thank you for sharing.

Someone filmed some of this at the Dayton Air Show 🤣

Looks like this was filmed at the Dayton air show.

All is well until you try to do a rejected take-off at max weight

It’s also because they weigh about 1000# each - and that’s gas not going into a bomber for its nuclear mission.

BOUT AS HELPFUL AS TWO CIRCUMCISIONS!

Knowing the Government they probably spent more money on the deleted version of this engine

This reduces the number of moving parts, which in turn reduces the complexity of maintenance, and increases up time

Oh and the towershaft...

135s like to smoke brakes too. First time I marshalled one it was smoking but apparently it was normal. Freaked me out

Has a wood deck too. Only plane in the fleet like that

Is this the flightline at Wright-Patt?

Spoilers have more of an effect on braking action and stopping distance than thrust reversers, especially for jet engines (as opposed to turbo-props).

Also that it's going to be significantly lighter than a passenger aircraft when landing without the fuel used to fill other aircraft.

Doesn’t that just make the plane less versatile

It's because of the fuel tanks and baffles inside the fuselage possibly breaking loose. D.a,.

Very long runway and they come back to back far lighter then any airliner. All they carry is fuel and that fuel goes on to other aircraft. Thrust reversers are simply unneeded and a potential fault as airborne deployment failures do happen and that would force a mission scrub on an aircraft lots of other aircrafts are depending on for their mission.

Like everything else it doesn’t have or they took off of it, they did it for “fuel savings”

These jet engines are not by any measure weird, odd, special or unusual.

USAF: we have a designated tanker RCAF (canada): our tanker is also a troop transport, cargo transport and our equivalent of air force 1. USAF: Budget issues? RCAF: Budget issues.

Yeah, but they change a lot of brakes

Originally the 46 did have them!

So they spend a shit ton on brakes instead.

The pilot had anti-lock brakes. The co-pilot did not. They had to upgrade that with the High Bypass upgrade as an early pilot hydraulic failure and co-pilot locking the brakes chewed the wheels all the way to the trucks (wheel assy). Someone figured out that would be really bad for the larger diameter fans.

@PatrickLipsinic

4 ай бұрын

Currently the KC-135R does have anti-skid for both.

@kenreynolds1000

4 ай бұрын

@@PatrickLipsinic I know. It was a fun fact from the history of upgrades to the system. Worked on a parallel program a few decades ago.

Cool But what if you wanted to land on short runways?

@saintchuck9857

4 ай бұрын

You use a KC-130

@DrSabot-A

4 ай бұрын

These planes will not, should not and would not want to land on short runways. This thing is a high profile strategic asset, and short runways mean youre already where you need to be and dont need a tanker.

Do these pilots enjoy scones and party liquor?

Rickenchicken

According to my research, the new engines do have thrust reversers. The old engines didn't have them though.

@PatrickLipsinic

4 ай бұрын

No, the CFM56's on the KC-135R did not. The old engines did.

@ReaperRestorations

4 ай бұрын

i'm a KC135 engine mechanic 2A651C. no, the CFM 56/F108's do not have thrust reversers. the E models did, but those are TF33's and have been out of service for a long time the current version is the R model

@PatrickLipsinic

4 ай бұрын

@ReaperRestorations technically not on the 135. It's not a KC but it's the open skies aircraft. OC-135 was recently retired.

The MRTT does have thrust reversers, but then it is a multi-role aircraft.

@PatrickLipsinic

3 ай бұрын

multi-role? What is that suppose to mean? No different from the KC-46.

@TankEnMate

3 ай бұрын

@@PatrickLipsinic The MRTT is designed as a refueller, cargo transport, medical evac, and vip transport all rolled into one. And in most cases they are converted passenger aircraft, not purpose built as tankers (unlike the KC-46).

@PatrickLipsinic

3 ай бұрын

@@TankEnMate KC-46 can do all that.

@TankEnMate

3 ай бұрын

@@PatrickLipsinic No it can't, the only thing close to the KC-46 that can do that is the KC-767 MMTT developed by the IAI. Boeing offers no such options on the KC-46.

@TankEnMate

3 ай бұрын

@@PatrickLipsinic For example, the KC-46 is limited to 58 passengers, and only using palletised seating, the MRTT can carry up to 380 passengers (with about 15t of cargo depending on fuel) . The KC-46 also limited to 29t of cargo (with no passengers and no refueling), the MRTT can carry 37t of cargo max (most likely with no refueling, it's not clear from the specs). The MRTT can be configured for VIP transport while the KC-46 has no such option (only palletised seating).

That’s odd to me.

You can just bet that the USAF paid more to not have thrust reversers. 🙄

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

No. What?

The Air Force should have been allowed to by the NATO standard Airbus Tankers.

@Joe-yz3uf

4 ай бұрын

There is no standard tanker aircraft for nato.

@sandbridgekid4121

4 ай бұрын

@Joe-yz3uf You are wrong. The NATO MRTT Tanker fleet is based at Eindoven with A330 MRTT bought and placed in this command by multiple nations. Belgium, Holland, Denmark among others. Most NATO members use this aircraft and will loan to NATO MRTT fleet as needed, in addition, to command units.

NKAWTG! Nobody.

"Fun facts"

Yeah, but wouldn't you want to have thrust reversers in case of an emergency landing on a shorter runway??? This doesn't make sense to me specially when the key word in the military is redundancy.

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

They are one more thing to break and maintain. Also the anti-lock breaks do great stopping the plane.

please include the KC-10A in the future

Thrust reverse is for nerds

Money

That seems shortsighted! The only benefit is they saved a couple bucks. But at the expense of limiting where this plane can land. Your Government at work

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

What? Do you think tankers do special commando ops?

Foresight is always an afterthought in the military

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

How does your sentence apply here?

And ... the man-hours to replace the burned up brake packs are free.

The refit was planned and implemented back in the days of the Strategic Air Command…. Where almost if not all the runways on a SAC Base was around 16,000 feet long. The only time I saw hot brakes was if the pilot RTO’d close to V1

That was a Stoopid statement to make about the runways.. What about a emergency where they would have to stop on a shorter rnwy...

@ghost307

10 ай бұрын

The Chair Force always assumed that the ideal conditions they enjoy in peacetime will never go away. That will be their downfall in WW3. For example, I would not be surprised if an enemy would target the tankers, knowing that the USAF only has bomber bases quite a long way from the fight, like in Missouri.

@user-kl8bq3gu6f

10 ай бұрын

@@ghost307nobody tell ghost307 that there are nearly 2 dozen tanker bases CONUS alone.

@ghost307

10 ай бұрын

@@user-kl8bq3gu6f Gas stations don't mean you can defeat an enemy; only that you won't run out of fuel while trying.

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

@@ghost307That was stupid. That was so dumb I am dying to know if you are navy. Are you navy?

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

Decades of tanker flights and that has never been an issue.

Rooobish playne

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

How is it a rubbish plane?

@_TJ97

4 ай бұрын

@@britishrocklovingyank3491 the refueler has to navigate a poking device to refuel the aircraft utilizing it's fuel tanker ability. Rooobish playne

@britishrocklovingyank3491

4 ай бұрын

@@_TJ97Good none answer. Keep drinking.

@_TJ97

4 ай бұрын

@@britishrocklovingyank3491 you are stooopid my friend

@ReaperRestorations

4 ай бұрын

the KC135 can also use a drogue. it has to be configured for the mission it's flying. how would you suggest they go about aerial refueling? @@_TJ97

It wasn't that fun.

Prime air❤

It's just a 737-800 with a paint job, no windows and different engines.

@thelandofnod123

4 ай бұрын

The KC-135?

@saintchuck9857

4 ай бұрын

No

@tommydotyjr.2966

4 ай бұрын

707, not 737