StoleIt Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3afd132b93-a775-4e88-bcd8-8a8067cafc0a And will be relying on us for gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jango220 Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 From another site: They have been assigned these RAF serial numbers: ZZ664 (KC-135R 64-14833 c/n 18773) ZZ665 (KC-135R 64-14838 c/n 18778) ZZ666 (KC-135R 64-14840 c/n 18780) The aircraft have been converted from a trio of 1964-vintage Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers which had been sitting in the boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB. That's news to me, I flew -14838 a couple times this past summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jughead Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 Public (though perhaps not "publicized") knowledge for over two years now. We've been training the Brit crews at the RJ schoolhouse since about two years ago, we have exchange officers in both countries' units, and we've been flying blended crews to gain the Brits some experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right Seat Driver Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 From another site: That's news to me, I flew -14838 a couple times this past summer. "2!" I was surprised to read those tail numbers. There are a bunch of low-time E-models that just got to the Boneyard, probably lower time fliers than -14838. Wonder how much it would cost to modify that for what the Brit's need. Not to mention all of the low-time EC-135s the AF retired around the same time as the F-111 that had anywhere between 13-20,000 hours on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sky_king Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Don't worry about time. Most of the E-8s were purchased for refurbishment with about 60,000 hours on them. They're still running strong........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afthunderchief16 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 One of the big reasons that those tails were chosen is because they are in the same production run as half of the current RJs that are flying. L3 figured that it would be easier to retrofit them having "more similar" airframes rather than tails spread across multiple production years. (null) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right Seat Driver Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 One of the big reasons that those tails were chosen is because they are in the same production run as half of the current RJs that are flying. L3 figured that it would be easier to retrofit them having "more similar" airframes rather than tails spread across multiple production years. (null) Hmmm, very logical. I mean, an aux pump from a 58 model is entirely different than a 64 model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jughead Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Hmmm, very logical. I mean, an aux pump from a 58 model is entirely different than a 64 model. Yes, because the hydraulics see the bulk of the mods to turn a KC into an RC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right Seat Driver Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Yes, because the hydraulics see the bulk of the mods to turn a KC into an RC.... My post was entirely sarcastic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 My post was entirely sarcastic. Its not the components it is the structure and block #'s of the 64 models. The old W models were 62 models which 5 former C-135B's were converted into RC's tail numbers 62-4125 to 62-4130. Those tails never had the plumbing or boom ever installed on them. Numerous 62 models in the AMARC now in a KC-135A configuration. Since those 3 air-frames were already a R, CFM powered it was probably more a cost saving measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSSRShot Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 (edited) I thought that was it, Jughead...put the Aux pumps on the right side and drive it on the other side of the Airway...boom...instant UKRJ. I do miss my Brit raven though...a lot more polite. Edited December 31, 2012 by TSSRShot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Link I came across about RC's. Enjoy! http://aftiggerintel.hubpages.com/hub/RC-135-History-The-Hidden-Hero-of-the-Skies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoo Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 It's a shame they retired their old SIGINT platform...it was beautiful. It just looks British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter14 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 What is it with the Brits and wing root mounted engines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morenoj135 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 It's a shame they retired their old SIGINT platform...it was beautiful. It just looks British. It actually wasnt a bad looking airplane until they started modifying the thing and turned it into one of the most homely airplanes on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
338skybolt Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Link I came across about RC's. Enjoy! http://aftiggerintel...ro-of-the-Skies Nice article. I definitely miss being an EW maintainer on her. A mostly enjoyable way to spend 6 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 leaked picture of a RAF RC-135 http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:fd132b93-a775-4e88-bcd8-8a8067cafc0a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snoopyeast Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 Needs more leaking hydro streaks on the rudder. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now