Runr6730 Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Best-22 said: Is there any place I can read more about this? Sounds Interesting. https://www.amc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3223946/kc-46a-flies-36-hour-record-breaking-endurance-mission/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger41 Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 21 hours ago, ThreeHoler said: Some Pease dudes just flew a 36-hour super sortie. Makes McConnell’s 24-hour sortie a distant second place. So, how long until these “tanker” guys do a48-hour sortie and destroy a jet? Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
08Dawg Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 Yawn….in the Buff we call that “Tuesday”… 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prozac Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 2 hours ago, Danger41 said: Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what? I would think, unless some specific engine modifications have been made, that oil use/starvation over such a long duration is the potential issue here. There may also be some MX inspections and such that would have their intervals exceeded by an extremely long mission….maybe some of the maintenance/crew chief types on here can speak to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted November 19, 2022 Share Posted November 19, 2022 Not a tanker guy so pardon my ignorance, but why the “tanker” in quotes? And is a 48 hour mission going to destroy a jet because that’s just absurdly long duration or what?Because that thing is barely a tanker unlike the 135 or 10. I assume that fatigue would play a part since that’s a lot longer than AMC bubbas are used to operating. But maybe the bunks are super comfy or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosuper Posted November 20, 2022 Share Posted November 20, 2022 21 hours ago, Prozac said: I would think, unless some specific engine modifications have been made, that oil use/starvation over such a long duration is the potential issue here. There may also be some MX inspections and such that would have their intervals exceeded by an extremely long mission….maybe some of the maintenance/crew chief types on here can speak to that. RC-135's have extremely long missions, flying a KC-135 for long missions is hampered by the majority of the force is not receiver capable, the KC-135RT's are being retired, two are on the tarmac at Shepard as ground trainers plus the RT's center wing tanks are smaller and can't hold as much as a standard R model. The CFM's do use oil but if the proper servicing is done and maintained well, i.e., all oil leaks fixed 20 hr. missions should be no problem. 135's are on a calendar type inspection, every 5 years they go through a PDM, 72-hour preflight interval, 50-hour home station ck which includes landing gear strut reservicing, lowering the boom checking surge boots and shock absorber. After a couple B-1, B-52 or C-5 offloads the 135 is RTB. But RT's can push fuel through its receptacle through the boom into a standard R model but can't remember that capability was ever used. Maybe in my old SAC days when we practiced for the end of the world, we did practice lowering a boom and hooking up a hose to it, firing up an engine to refuel Buffs. Q now T models had to do that for the SR-71 when they IFE'd and diverted. JP-7 was hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homestar Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 On 11/18/2022 at 8:46 PM, Danger41 said: but why the “tanker” in quotes? because "the tanker" is the KC-135 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted November 21, 2022 Share Posted November 21, 2022 because "the tanker" is the KC-135 And the KC-10 is the advanced tanker (and cargo aircraft)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homestar Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 3 hours ago, ThreeHoler said: And the KC-10 is the advanced tanker (and cargo aircraft)! Maybe, but nobody calls the KC-10 "the tanker." 😎 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Maybe, but nobody calls the KC-10 "the tanker." Nope but they call it Big Sexy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawman Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 Nope but they call it Big Sexy!It is a “wide body.” I hear that’s what really matters.Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sua Sponte Posted November 22, 2022 Share Posted November 22, 2022 17 hours ago, ThreeHoler said: Nope but they call it Big Sexy! Called 1 4 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