Posted: 5/5/2012 6:44:17 PM EDT
I took this pic today.
|
|
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ |
|
Quoted:
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ I don't think Boeing thought they'd still be in service in the seventies... |
|
It says two things to me: They're built to last, which is great, and we're not being aggressive enough about replacing old systems with more modern ones, good as the old ones may be. Which is not so great. Maybe a little planned obsolescence on Boeing's part might have resulted in earlier replacement. It's possible that the 135 and 52 were TOO well engineered, thus making replacing them in a timely fashion a VERY low priority. If Boeing had designed them for half the airframe fatigue or pressure cycle life, we'd be flying something newer by now. CJ |
|
Quoted:
She may be weary.......women do get weary....wearing the same shabby dress.....but when she's weary.... Try a little tenderness..... (let's see if y'all remember where that's from) Three Dog Night. I nominate the BUFF as the best single investment the DOD ever made! The Ol' Crew Chief |
|
Quoted:
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ Reserve crew flying the BUFF. 
|
|
Quoted:
It says two things to me: They're built to last, which is great, and we're not being aggressive enough about replacing old systems with more modern ones, good as the old ones may be. Which is not so great. Maybe a little planned obsolescence on Boeing's part might have resulted in earlier replacement. It's possible that the 135 and 52 were TOO well engineered, thus making replacing them in a timely fashion a VERY low priority. If Boeing had designed them for half the airframe fatigue or pressure cycle life, we'd be flying something newer by now. CJ Not just this, but the lack of replacing old systems with new systems creates a knowledge void. We've lost two generations of engineers that solved the problems to get the aircraft working the first time around –– many of them learned things that took thousands of aircraft in production and in combat to understand and needed to be transfered. The lack of continued development of technology and the knowledge transfer void will create a new generation of engineers who don't understand why the first generation did things one way, and will make the same mistakes. |
|
Quoted: I'm surprised you can transfer it faster than they burn it. Not too long ago I read a summary of the cost to operate various current military aircraft, and the B-52's total operating cost per hour is among the very lowest of anything in the inventory of the USAF, USN, USA, or USMC. Coming in at around 15,000 dollars per flight hour, and cheaper to operate even than a single engined F-16. Eight engines costing less to run than one engine. Who'd have figured on that? CJ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ Reserve crew flying the BUFF. Reserve crews in all A/C involved. 931st from McConnell and 307th from Barksdale. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ Reserve crew flying the BUFF. Reserve crews in all A/C involved. 931st from McConnell and 307th from Barksdale. Well someone OPSEC'd the markings on the boom.
Kanzaa, right? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interdasting. What does the pylon between engine pods 3 and 4, carry? Extra things that go boom. I never knew they carried weapons there. They don't. We put lightning pods there. Electronic warfare? Nope, its a targeting pod. (Whoops, its actually spelled LITENING pod) EW stuff is inside the jet. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ Reserve crew flying the BUFF. Reserve crews in all A/C involved. 931st from McConnell and 307th from Barksdale. Well someone OPSEC'd the markings on the boom.
Kanzaa, right? Ha! No opsec, just a smudge on the screen in just the right place. Yes, Kanza. The Buffs were Tuff. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ Reserve crew flying the BUFF. Reserve crews in all A/C involved. 931st from McConnell and 307th from Barksdale. Well someone OPSEC'd the markings on the boom.
Kanzaa, right? Ha! No opsec, just a smudge on the screen in just the right place. Yes, Kanza. The Buffs were Tuff. Were you a guest flyer or are you part of their unit? Kanza 59 was pretty talkative tonight. I got their picture.
|
|
There's a story about the military pilot calling for a priority landing, because his single-engine jet fighter was running "a bit peaked". Air Traffic Control told the fighter jock that he was number two, behind a B-52 that had one engine shut down.
"Ah", the fighter pilot remarked, "The dreaded Seven-Engine approach". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pics taken from a 135? A 50+ year old tanker refueling a 60 year old bomber. And both are still on active duty and doing just fine, thank you. I wonder if the designers of either type ever would have suspected that half a century later, they'd still be in front line service? CJ Reserve crew flying the BUFF. Reserve crews in all A/C involved. 931st from McConnell and 307th from Barksdale. Well someone OPSEC'd the markings on the boom.
Kanzaa, right? Ha! No opsec, just a smudge on the screen in just the right place. Yes, Kanza. The Buffs were Tuff. Were you a guest flyer or are you part of their unit? Kanza 59 was pretty talkative tonight. I got their picture.Employer appreciation flight. One of my employees is a pilot in the 391st. |
|
Quoted: I thought the B-52 could carry ALCMs on the pylons? They could. But a treaty we made with the Russians was supposed to stop that. So, according to what I've read, that capability was removed by slathering epoxy over the appropriate fittings, making it impossible to actually mount an ALCM on the pylon...or mount the appropriate pylon to the aircraft. One or the other, I don't recall which exactly. But...I've heard that the epoxy can just be chipped off, connectors cleaned, and ALCMs mounted if it's really deemed necessary. True? I'm not in a position to verify it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the B-52 could carry ALCMs on the pylons? They could. But a treaty we made with the Russians was supposed to stop that. So, according to what I've read, that capability was removed by slathering epoxy over the appropriate fittings, making it impossible to actually mount an ALCM on the pylon...or mount the appropriate pylon to the aircraft. One or the other, I don't recall which exactly. But...I've heard that the epoxy can just be chipped off, connectors cleaned, and ALCMs mounted if it's really deemed necessary. True? I'm not in a position to verify it. We still load ALCM on pylons and rotary launchers. The pylon in question are the pylons between the 1&2 pods or 3&4 pods. They only use those for LITENING pods or the other pods they use for training (can't remember what they're called), but its basically looks like an antennae. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the B-52 could carry ALCMs on the pylons? They could. But a treaty we made with the Russians was supposed to stop that. So, according to what I've read, that capability was removed by slathering epoxy over the appropriate fittings, making it impossible to actually mount an ALCM on the pylon...or mount the appropriate pylon to the aircraft. One or the other, I don't recall which exactly. But...I've heard that the epoxy can just be chipped off, connectors cleaned, and ALCMs mounted if it's really deemed necessary. True? I'm not in a position to verify it. We still load ALCM on pylons and rotary launchers. The pylon in question are the pylons between the 1&2 pods or 3&4 pods. They only use those for LITENING pods or the other pods they use for training (can't remember what they're called), but its basically looks like an antennae. That's how you delivered those live nukes to Barksdale accidentally, right? 
|
|
Quoted:
Thank you for sharing these pictures. You have an excellent camera. On 400% you can damn near make out the unit insignia on the pilots uniforms. Hell you guys that are still in might actually be able to tell, the pictures are so good. It wasn't really any kind of fancy camera. It's a Canon Power Shot (who says I can't take a full power shot???) SX210IS http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX210IS-Stabilized-3-0-Inch/dp/B0035FZJM6 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the B-52 could carry ALCMs on the pylons? They could. But a treaty we made with the Russians was supposed to stop that. So, according to what I've read, that capability was removed by slathering epoxy over the appropriate fittings, making it impossible to actually mount an ALCM on the pylon...or mount the appropriate pylon to the aircraft. One or the other, I don't recall which exactly. But...I've heard that the epoxy can just be chipped off, connectors cleaned, and ALCMs mounted if it's really deemed necessary. True? I'm not in a position to verify it. You might be thinking of the B-1. By treaty, it can't use external pylons* and the bulkhead in the forward weapons bay must remain fixed (it was designed to move aft to allow ALCM carriage). *USAF had to get an exemption to this so they could fit targeting pods. |
|
BUFFs burn about 8.5k pph at TRT per engine and around 4k at mil. I need a minimum of 85k lbs to start 3 or less engines. 115k lbs if i need to run more than 3.
An F-15 with -220s burns about 45k pph per engine. These are all during ground runs, so flight may be slightly different. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm surprised you can transfer it faster than they burn it. Receivers measure fuel consumption in thousands of pounds per hour. Tankers measure fuel transfer in thousands of pounds per minute. Right around 1000 GPM or 6700 PPM transfer to a BUFF. |