Date: 24 Jan 98 02:53:35 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Stephen H. Westin) Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University References: 1 2 3 4 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) writes: > I'm only vaguely familiar with the KC-135E -- was it a modification, > like the KC-135R? If so, the same would apply. >From the Air Force Fact Sheet, <http://www.af.mil:80/news/factsheets/KC_135_Stratotanker.html>, The KC-135A's are being modified with new CFM-56 engines produced by CFM-International. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135R, can offload 50 percent more fuel, is 25 percent cheaper to operate and is 96 percent quieter than the KC-135A. Under another modification program, all Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard tankers were re-engined with TF-33-PW-102 engines. The re-engined tanker, designated the KC-135E, is 14 percent more fuel efficient than the KC-135A and can carry 20 percent more fuel. So I guess the answer is "yes". I suspect that the "TF-33-PW-102" is military terminology for some fairly familiar airliner engine; perhaps the turbofan engine from a later 707. The Web site for the 126th Air Refueling Wing at <http://www.ecnet.net/users/mukjf4/126arw/kc135.htm> shows what I think is an 'E model; the engines look like '60s-vintage turbofans to my inexpert eye. Do you suppose the parts are cheaper than upgrading to CFM56's? One report has the 'Es being gradually converted to 'Rs (see <http://www.novia.net/~drbob>, who seems to have info on S, U, V, W, and X variants!). Boy, there seem to have been a lot of variants on this airplane! I guess there are lots of them around, they've been around a long time, and a modified one would tend not to attract attention, either from Congress or from other governments. -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.