Warbird Information Exchange

http://www.warbirdz.net/phpBB2/showthre ... #post15878

Seems their life in civil and then military colours is nearly up .. such a shame these beautiful grey ladies.

Nice appearing birds, but in the end, unless you are a military or quasi military operator, there are very very few places left on this earth that will tolerate four noisy, smoky, fuel hog JT3's anymore. (anyone who's ever experienced a stock KC-135 with J 57's turning with water on can vouch for the earwax removing sound) They should go to a museum in a nice sunny place and be an inspiration to little kids and guys our age who remember 'em when they were all new and shiny and cutting edge.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

What will be replacing them?

KC-767...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/kc-767.htm

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

Or maybe a nice French KC-30!

Like this, Mike?

http://www.ausairpower.net/aar-lift.html

The Airbus an' the Aussies is a done deal....

_________________
Bob

That's the one. The KC-30 (fronted by Northrop Grumman) and the KC-767 are going head-to-head on this one.

The last attempt by Boeing to sell the KC-767 to the Air Force lead to the order being canceled after Boeing's crooked dealings with the government were uncovered, one executive went to jail and the CEO and CFO of Boeing both lost their jobs.

Regardless of the outcome of the contract, I;'d expect the '135s to soldier on for another 20 years or so at least!

Actually, Boeing won the competition twice. The CFO and a former Pentagon acquisition official that he hired were both fired and both of them served time. The CEO "quit" after the second ethics scandal hit the company under his watch. The next CEO (a former GE CEO) was later fired for having an affair with someone in his office. Dark days for Joe avereage employee. The employees got to undergo ethics training for indiscretions by senior leadership.

http://www.cfo.com/printable/article.cfm/3011251

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1103/112403cdpm1.htm

And Boeing paid the government $615 Million dollars, out of their own pocket, in penalties over that little pat on the bottom, I don't recall ever hearing of another corporation doing that to that amount.(hows that for ethics?)
It's interesting tht now the bids are submitted for the new tanker, NORGRUMBUS is upping the anty by publicly promising free chickens and cable TV to come to the Sunny South (where they'll pay about $9.50 per hour) and 'assemble' the KC-30 tanker. "Assemble" is the key word as very, very little of this flying croissant will be BUILT here! Keep in mind that you eventually do get what you pay for-having worked on A-320's in an MRO environment, they are designed and built to "what can we get for around $96 million?" they are light, cheaply built, no where near as rugged as it's competitor the '37.
Examples of getting what you pay for? the replacement for the UH-1 HUEY, built by EADS and 'assembled' in Mississippi (as a guess, pays about $8.75 P/H and not many benefits) and now needs additional, expensive cabin air conditioning to keep the 'terrible' 92 degree cabin tempratures from frying the avionics, but much better than those nasty things from BELL.
Or the EADS replacement helo used to haul the President around,that can't hold a hover, is over weight, has shorter than requested range, and has an elecrtical system that can't carry the designed load of avionics but is SOOOO much cheaper and better than those nasty old things from Sikorsky.(by the way, the British Royal Family just ordered more Sikorsky S-76's over the EADS P.O.S.)
If the USAF buys the NORGRUMBUS t*rd we never will stop paying for the mistake over the I'll guess 25 year maximum life of the airframe-

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

What does it take to keep a civil Boeing 707 running as a warbird act i wonder?

$10,000 US a hr?

Not just fuel costs would be involved. The last commercial 707's were finished in 1981 going to Ghana Air and TAROM, so your enemies would be corrosion on a grand scale, lack of, or zero parts support from Boeing, and having a cash machine aboard that would crank out the penalties for noise pollution and air pollution from the oil burners on the wings levied on you everywhere you went.
Boeing brought their advanced avionics test bed 720 to the MRO where I worked as an inspector for a 'D' check in the middish 90's. They knew we would find something that couldn't be replaced so they could ground the old girl and get a new airframe.
We found it, the left wing front spar lower terminal fitting was dust and swiss cheese. Our purchaser called Boeing customer support just to see, after he told the buyer what we needed, he said there was a very long sucking noise on the other end of the phone followed by 'we don't even have the tooling to make one of those anymore, who's the customer?'
'you guys' another long sucking sound and a wish for happier times for us. They scraped the old girl and wound up with 757 #1 as the new avio test bed.

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

A guy with some neat (if dated) dance moves and a cleft in the chin.

It's a funny thing, wherever I go in the world, I'm always reliably informed 'their' airplanes 'we' bought aren't as good as 'our' airplanes 'we should've bought'. Truly a hall of mirrors world, or just the same old not invented here syndrome, perhaps...

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I know that back in mid 80's the USAF was buying old 707 airframes from civil avaition to get spare parts and engine cores for rebuilding for the KC-135 fleet. The airframe itself was over lifetime limits, but many parts were still good for use and matched what the USAF used. Then the carcases were scrapped like the airliners were planning to do anyway.

_________________
A-7D, the Short Little Ugly "Flyer" and A-10A Warthog, weren't called an ATTACK plane for nothing. Remember for a little relief on the ground, call your local Air Force to "Go Ugly Early"!

If the USAF chooses the Airbus aircraft for the tanker program, a production line will be set-up in Mobile, Alabama. So for my home State's wellness I say go Airbus.

Actually whether the Air Force selects the Boeing 767 version or Airbus A330 version for the new tanker to replace some and eventually hopefully all of the KC-135's, it will be designated KC-45A.

Hopefully we will know before the end of February.