filmman wrote:...With regard to the Rivet Joints did not the USA reduce their fleet by 3, as we boughht 3 "new" ones; I was surprised we did not use new airframes. ......
Nighthawke wrote:Or even half a century
filmman wrote:Precisely, I know the c 17 has a design life of 100 years but what is it for the KC 135 and derivatives.
The Air Force projected that E and R models have lifetime flying hours limits of 36,000 and 39,000 hours, respectively. According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits before 2040, but at that time some of the aircraft would be about 80 years old. The Air Force estimates that their current fleet of KC-135s have between 12,000 to 14,000 flying hours on them-only 33 percent of the lifetime flying hour limit and no KC-135E's will meet the limit until 2040. Flying hours for the KC-135s averaged about 300 hours per year between 1995 and September 2001. Since then, utilization is averaging about 435 hours per year.
Only six KC-135s would need to be retired by 2040 because they would exceed their airframe life. According to 1996 letter from the defense secretary's office, the planes still had 35 years left in them.
filmman wrote: ...I understand that our old Nimrod RC equivalents had less electronic kits than airframes and aerials because they were so expensive. They were swapped into the active airframes... Fimman
plmc135 wrote:I think you will find that the simple answer to your query about Nimrod R.1's is yes. If memory serves me correctly when XW666 splashed down on an air test from Kinloss they had to take all the equipment out and refit it into what became the replacement XV249...
Users browsing this forum: alanp and 6 guests