Did you know that registration to Fighter Control is completely free and brings you lots of added features? Find out more....

Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

A forum for discussing all things related to MILITARY AVIATION including Military Aviation news. No off-topic discussions here please.
luxto
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:56 am

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by luxto » Sat Dec 23, 2023 6:28 pm

roughcutter wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2023 5:36 pm
I can recall a time when the KC-135's were powered by J57's, so underpowered that they earned an (unofficial) crew nickname 'GLOB' (Ground lovin' ol' b*st*rd)! One particular memory that stands out to me, was during Air Fete 86 at Mildenhall. Just prior to the air display commencing, a fully laden Q took off for a mission. And he literally used the entire length of runway 29 to get airborne, I remember the racket and dense grey smoke emitted from those struggling engines. You could see the low level smoke trail for miles, they must have gone as far as Ely before gradually starting to climb out! :O They don't make 'em like that anymore :thumb:
We also called them "steam jets" and "coal burners". Those heavy weight take offs would leave a lasting impression and were pretty scary to witness from both inside the aircraft and out. I was very lucky and went on several flights including `Coronets` but as the end of the runway got closer and closer I did wonder if going on those trips was such a good idea as there was little chance of surviving running off the end. The water injection, which produced that deafening noise and smoke started just before brake release and lasted for about 2 minutes and would then be exhausted - running out not far from Ely when on R29. In the league of spectacular take offs, I think I'd put the J57 powered '135's 2nd only to the B-47 - they certainly got peoples attention.

User avatar
roughcutter
Posts: 2357
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:47 pm
Location: Widnes, Cheshire

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by roughcutter » Sun Dec 24, 2023 1:21 pm

luxto wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2023 6:28 pm
roughcutter wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2023 5:36 pm
I can recall a time when the KC-135's were powered by J57's, so underpowered that they earned an (unofficial) crew nickname 'GLOB' (Ground lovin' ol' b*st*rd)! One particular memory that stands out to me, was during Air Fete 86 at Mildenhall. Just prior to the air display commencing, a fully laden Q took off for a mission. And he literally used the entire length of runway 29 to get airborne, I remember the racket and dense grey smoke emitted from those struggling engines. You could see the low level smoke trail for miles, they must have gone as far as Ely before gradually starting to climb out! :O They don't make 'em like that anymore :thumb:
We also called them "steam jets" and "coal burners". Those heavy weight take offs would leave a lasting impression and were pretty scary to witness from both inside the aircraft and out. I was very lucky and went on several flights including `Coronets` but as the end of the runway got closer and closer I did wonder if going on those trips was such a good idea as there was little chance of surviving running off the end. The water injection, which produced that deafening noise and smoke started just before brake release and lasted for about 2 minutes and would then be exhausted - running out not far from Ely when on R29. In the league of spectacular take offs, I think I'd put the J57 powered '135's 2nd only to the B-47 - they certainly got peoples attention.
I guess that's probably why the B-47's needed RATO, to supplement the power shortfall. I saw the Jimmy Stewart film where a B-47/RATO take off was demonstrated, impressive but necessary, especially over here where (supposably?) the runways were a bit shorter than in the US.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.

Vulture 01
Posts: 503
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by Vulture 01 » Sun Dec 24, 2023 3:34 pm

Roughcutter,
If you read the history of the airfields the USAF operated their Reflex missions from, you'll note that they all had major work before deployments.
This usually entailed extending the runways considerably.

luxto
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:56 am

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by luxto » Sun Dec 24, 2023 3:37 pm

Regarding the B-47 yes. RATO was installed to boost thrust. SAC wanted 12,000ft runways in the UK but the UK government would only agree to a maximum length of 10,000ft so they were on the short side by US standards. The internal RATO as seen in that superb Jimmy Stewart film, Strategic Air Command, was used in the UK but from 1955 SAC gradually replaced it with a jettisonable system with up to twice the thrust. When B-47's went on nuclear alert (which began in January 1958 in the UK) they were all fitted with external RATO and this was used in various alert exercises in the US. However, over here in the UK it's use was banned by SAC top brass as being too dangerous to use in peacetime - hence it was only to be used in a war situation. Water injection was therefore, the only augmentation used by B-47's when they departed back to their home bases after alert duty in the UK. There were times when I thought they weren't going to make it but they always did -
just!

User avatar
roughcutter
Posts: 2357
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:47 pm
Location: Widnes, Cheshire

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by roughcutter » Sun Dec 24, 2023 6:55 pm

Vulture 01 wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2023 3:34 pm
Roughcutter,
If you read the history of the airfields the USAF operated their Reflex missions from, you'll note that they all had major work before deployments.
This usually entailed extending the runways considerably.


Of course, they were all extended, even RAF Burtonwood had its runway extended. But echoing Luxto's comment, that unlike SAC's requirement of 12,000ft the maximum length was set at 10,000 ft. Infact I think the only 12,000ft runway in this country is London Heathrow (I stand to be corrected?).
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.

luxto
Posts: 773
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2020 11:56 am

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by luxto » Mon Dec 25, 2023 12:23 pm

Some early recollections of Air Refuellable KC-135A's. I first learned that Strategic Air Command possessed KC-135A's capable of being air refuelled during a pre flight briefing at Mildenhall on the 20th of December 1978. The mission was `Coronet Sandpiper` - the return of 1st TFW F-15's from Soesterberg to Langley. Two cells of KC-135A's, with 4 tankers in each, would depart 30 mins apart to return 8 F-15's to the US. The last tanker in each cell was capable of being air refuelled and they would take the F-15'S all the way across the Atlantic. In addition to refuelling 4 F-15's the tanker I was on would also A/R one of those tankers, 58-0018, described by the briefer as an "ART's bird" The other was 58-0126 - both operated by the 305th AREFW at Grissom. When these had arrived at Mildenhall 2 days earlier they raised eyebrows as these were rare tankers never assigned for duty with the European Tanker Task Force. Operation `Eagle Claw`- the failed attempt to rescue US hostages in Teheran was the 1st indication that these ART's tankers had a possible Special Forces connection, when 5 of them, all from the 305th AREFW, staged through Mildenhall on the 19th of April 1980 en route to the Middle East. Next was Operation El Dorado Canyon, when 58-0124 and 58-0126 showed up at Fairford on the 15th of April1986 after the raid. They were joined on the 22nd of April by 58-0018 and all departed for Grissom on the 25th without flying a single air refuelling mission out of Fairford. The belief is that these also had a Special Forces role. Think 7 of these former ART's a/c are still in service as KC-135R (ARR's) with the 92nd ARW.

User avatar
C24
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:52 am
Location: In the 51st State of the Union

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by C24 » Mon Dec 25, 2023 4:00 pm

🇺🇦 🌻 🇺🇦

Shades of the Vulcan trip to the Falklands.
C24.
493d/48th - Grim Reapers Supporter.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/charlie-two-four/ FuzzyFastjetFotos, incorporating "HazyHelos"
There's no "go-round" in a glider.

Andyph
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:02 am

Re: Mildenhall KC-135s to go low level regularly!

Post by Andyph » Wed Dec 27, 2023 8:03 pm

luxto wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2023 6:28 pm
roughcutter wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2023 5:36 pm
I can recall a time when the KC-135's were powered by J57's, so underpowered that they earned an (unofficial) crew nickname 'GLOB' (Ground lovin' ol' b*st*rd)! One particular memory that stands out to me, was during Air Fete 86 at Mildenhall. Just prior to the air display commencing, a fully laden Q took off for a mission. And he literally used the entire length of runway 29 to get airborne, I remember the racket and dense grey smoke emitted from those struggling engines. You could see the low level smoke trail for miles, they must have gone as far as Ely before gradually starting to climb out! :O They don't make 'em like that anymore :thumb:
We also called them "steam jets" and "coal burners". Those heavy weight take offs would leave a lasting impression and were pretty scary to witness from both inside the aircraft and out. I was very lucky and went on several flights including `Coronets` but as the end of the runway got closer and closer I did wonder if going on those trips was such a good idea as there was little chance of surviving running off the end. The water injection, which produced that deafening noise and smoke started just before brake release and lasted for about 2 minutes and would then be exhausted - running out not far from Ely when on R29. In the league of spectacular take offs, I think I'd put the J57 powered '135's 2nd only to the B-47 - they certainly got peoples attention.
Riding on those must have been so amazing Graham . My two boyhood ambition were to fly as a door gunner in a Huey and be a boomer in a 135. My dad used to pull my leg that I should fancy something where I look forwards instead.
Managed a few Huey rides in the Door seat and tanked with the RAF but the 135 has got away from me - amazing they are still going.

Didn't a EC-135H Silk Purse jet usually open Mildenhall show with a water injection take-off?
And the same for the Early Fairford IAT's opening the flying with a based tanker - I remember the SAC attack display (KC-135A, FB-111, B-52 and B-1) and the 135 take off hurt the most!

I also listened to a zoom talk by Robert Hopkins III (Ex 135 driver and now historian) about 135 crashes and what had been learned - pretty eye watering - sounded Almost safer driving F-104s for a living!

Post Reply

Return to “The Fighter Control Mess”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Johnny, rapier, RobW and 50 guests