The 60-Year-Old Boeing Quadjets Still Serving The US Air Force
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- When it comes to the history of the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, its operational journey began in August 1956, when she made her maiden flight. This was followed by an official introduction into operational U.S. Air Force service in June 1957.
This aircraft became the US Air Force’s first jet-powered refueling tanker, replacing the KC-97 Stratofreighter.
Our Social Media:
/ simpleflyingnews
/ simple_flying
/ simpleflyingnews
Our Website
simpleflying.com/
For copyright matters please contact us at: legal@valnetinc.com
the RSAF stands for Republic of Singapore Air Force not Royal. this mistake has been consistent with other videos regarding the RSAF
Who cares
I care
Weird since at 8:26 they did pronounce it correctly
Ikr
I've flown KC-135's all over the world. From combat to training missions, the KC-135 keeps soldiering on. A wonderful aircraft
The KC135s are my absolute favorites
RSAF = Republic of Singapore Air Force.
And yes, all tankers have been replaced with A330MRTT. C-130 is still in faithful service.
Thanks for mentioning Singapore tho.
I also notice there are different engine option for KC135.
Either the same jet P&W engine from 707 or the newer CFM56 engines. (NEO anyone before airbus?😂)
The USAF had called originally for over 900 of these to be built for various functions. Douglas had expected the USAF to split the order, but surprisingly it all went to Boeing, to Donald Douglas' dismay. So after so many of these were built, that's why they have tricked down to other Air Forces of the world. The 707 came out from this, as Juan Trippe from Pan Am had spoken to Bill Allen (Boeing CEO) about having a civilian version of it for his airline. It was widened and lengthened and it became the 707.
we can say that kc 135 is 707's older brother
I didn't realize they have a different fuselage until Simple Flying mentioned it
I have to say that opening footage is wonderful. I've never seen the beautiful KC-135 look quite that beautiful before!
With teething problems and delays with the KC-46 program the old bird might still have more years squeezed out of her.
It's too bad the USAF and Senate Arms Committee didn't stick with Airbus back then...Maybe that would've made Boeing execs take a closer look at the goings on within their company and changes might've been made...Maybe.
While I get the intent of the article, the current U-2S aircraft were built during late 1970s-1990 as the TR-1. They aren’t the original U-2A airframes from the 1950s.
I worked on these planes for 8 years. They are incredibly well built and rugged.
Our local Air National Guard wing operates KC-135 tankers at Sioux Gateway Airport in Sioux City. The airport started in the early 1940's as an airbase where B-17 and B-24 bomber crews were trained. The 9,000 foot runway will need to be lengthened to 10,000 feet to better accommodate the KC-135.
I happen to saw a TurAF kc-135 while taking off in adana back in summer 2020, it was a total surprise
It is well accepted that the largest component of efficiency improvements in a new version of an aircraft is down to the engines. Some even suggest, that unless absolutely necessary, it makes little sense to upgrade the range unless a newer engine is available.
These tankers have clearly had their engines updated along with other improvements. What I would like to know is why we don't see something similar with passenger aircraft?
I'm disappointed they didn't mention the engine retrofit program - the upgrade to the CFM56 engine especially as most of the footage is of aircraft with these engines.
I was also waiting to hear a mention about the change of engine, especially as it's the most recognizable difference to the original plane. I also wonder how much of these planes is still original. Not much, I think!
Well, they sort of did. The CFM56’s that we’re retrofitted to the KC135’s were also retrofitted to DC8’s replacing the JT3 engines. As for other commercial airlines, it’s not really economically viable. Military aircraft don’t spend 1/2 their lifespan in the air so the airframes are not anywhere as flogged out. Also, in some instances, the engine manufacturers themselves will periodically upgrade existing engines as fully interchangeable post mods. The upgrades will occur on engine overhauls and can improve fuel consumption by say 1% to 3% from the previous same engine models, but you would be hard pressed to see many of these changes externally.
707-like in that they were derived from the same prototype, but it’s not a militarized 707. The KC-135 has a narrower fuselage.
After exploring a KC-135 and KC-46 on static display in Cold Lake last weekend, the USAF personnel said the refueling boom is operated manually in the rear of the aircraft, while the KC-46's boom is operated remotely on the flight deck via computer screen. This has caused glitches hindering the system's performance compared to the preferred KC-135's manual system. Therefore, they're delaying the aircraft's retirement and full replacement for the KC-46.
I refueled off of the KC-135 many times during my career.
Use to work around the kc135 at McConnell afb and Barksdale afb
The KC-135 might be going, but there's the RC-135 that'll keep the torch going for these aircraft types in the future.
This just goes to show how good Boeing's engineering and quality control used to be in the past
I was down near Marseille in January and they where still conducting some type of flight training as they kept doing circuits from there base
0:30 you forgot the CH-47 introduced in the early sixties
the CH-47 is a helicopter.
@@aydoyt the title was updated to reflect the inclusion of only quad jets
All now in a care home.
In Civil Air Patrol I got to spend a week at Pease AFB. FB111 and KC135. FB111 was nothing compared to the fury KC taking off. PS Understand that a SAC tanker crew flying the North Atlantic or Arctic was expeced to drain every drop of fuel into any friendly that needed it, and if that was nowhere near land your family got your valor medal. From whatever country was still in business once the radiation subsided....
I'm confused why the U-2 is on this list. The U-2 definitely does not have 4 engines. It only has one as far as I can tell.
It replaced the Nimrod.
Maybe if I bought one, is it possible to convert it into passenger?
If you have the money, I’m sure it is possible
Because unlike an airline, which has to pay for its own maintenance and fuel, the US military can be inefficient and expensive. Other countries decide to use much more effective aircraft to solve their problems
6:38 : wasn’t the Open Sky Treaty terminated ?
AWACS
Spent a lot of hours on a tanker.
first
Why not talk about the KC-10?
Those are going away because "tHey"RE AgiNG!!"
The're 38 years old on average..
Third
America isn't what it used to be
The KC-135 will soon be replaced by the same plane that got hijacked in 9/11 💀
Not really, the KC-46 is very different to the regular 767.
What a weird comment to make.
Frankentanker is a melding of the 767-200, 300, and 400. All new avionics and flight control systems
Same thing i was thinking 😮@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183
There were like 550 of them procured, and almost 400 still flying in the USAF.
I've seen both the KC135 and the RC135 at the Royal Tattoo International Airshow on Saturday., i like those aircraft as they look quite menacing in my opinion, plus they have quite a story to tell though its history.