Tanker down in Kyrgyzstan?
05-04-2013, 09:37 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Left & Right
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by navigatro
Good thing the AF removed parachutes from the KC-135 to save money.
Whoever made O-6 with that brilliant idea can rot in hell.
Whoever made O-6 with that brilliant idea can rot in hell.
05-04-2013, 10:06 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: missionary
Posts: 320
I believe the C-5 formerly carried parachutes for the crew. Then someone decided that if a government airplane is carrying ANY passengers besides the crew, then ALL must experience the same fate as the airframe. He didn't want guys bailing out of a bad jet, leaving the passengers behind.
05-04-2013, 11:22 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by hindsight2020
Are you suggesting an electrical fuel pump kaboom, a 'la old KC-135/B-52s/TWA 800? If it is indeed that which brought it down, it's kinda criminal on the USAF's part to be having crew losses with that many decades of hindsight behind that particular failure mode....
Every ex-135 driver including myself probably thought the same thing (Body tank) when we heard about this accident.
05-04-2013, 11:34 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by cactipilot
Yes, absolutely tragic. What's the capacity of the body tank in the -135, blastoff?
The rest of the gas is in 4 main and 2 reserve tanks in the wings, and the "Upper Deck" tank in the tail for total capacity of 209K.
05-04-2013, 11:37 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: Various
Posts: 428
(edited...too slow)
I blame Darleen Druyun, the broken Air Force aquisitions process, and Congress (for funding never-ending OIF/OEF missions)...
The tanker has been supremely reliable for the past two decades, which is why this catastrophic loss is so shocking, especially for those of us who have flown 1963 models (and older).
I blame Darleen Druyun, the broken Air Force aquisitions process, and Congress (for funding never-ending OIF/OEF missions)...
The tanker has been supremely reliable for the past two decades, which is why this catastrophic loss is so shocking, especially for those of us who have flown 1963 models (and older).
05-04-2013, 11:57 AM
#27
Whale whisperer
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: 744 Capt
Posts: 170
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
It appears to me there are scorch marks inside the wing box on the wing that separated....
God's rest, gentlemen.
God's rest, gentlemen.
05-04-2013, 11:59 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: A320 CA
Posts: 1,530
Originally Posted by rmr1992
The A/R pumps were changed out a few years ago to a ceramic version which would theoretically not overheat if inadvertently run dry... Unlikely any pumps were run dry in this scenario since they just departed and should have been loaded to the gills for all the thirsty receivers they were headed towards. IMO likely it was a center wing override pump that did it or a fuel qty sys malfunction where electricity and fuel came together with the expected result.
05-04-2013, 01:39 PM
#30
Whale whisperer
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Position: 744 Capt
Posts: 170
I don't think so... I fly a different version of the -135 now and it has been a few years since I last flew the KC... But I doubt they have that. I know my platform does not, at least, if we do, it is no where in my tech data.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
