JTO-
What an informative post. Thank-you!
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
The basic C-135 has spanned almost all of the jet age so standards have evolved and so has the RJ. The USAF will have learned a great deal about the aircraft over the last 50+ years and they will have enhanced the design many times, over many upgrade programmes. Some of these upgrades will have been to address immediate safety concerns whilst others will have been taken on an opportunity basis. This means the aircraft will in some regards be at the cutting edge of capability and safety, whilst others will be in the 'ain't broke so don't fix it' category.
It always struck me that KC-135s are more Trigger's Broom than any other current aircraft I can think of - started life as a J-57 powered derivate of a the Dash-80 prototype, got a new 707 tail (see NoVANav's helpful post upthread), got two sets of new engines, reskinned wings, new(ish) cockpit and has been modified for umpteen different missions. I wondered how much of the original is actually left - and how do you go about auditing it from a standing start?
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
I think the presumption we must all avoid is that 'different' is 'unsafe' when we look at the way USAF has developed and maintained the fleet on a timescale that precedes my birth. The USAF is not stupid and if it needs to resolve an issue it is not short of professional drive or resources. Looking at our own recent history we must be careful that we measure up to our own standards. Equally, the USAF is capable of making almost unbelievable leaps of faith - see their recent accident reports for examples.
Excellent points, well made.
Originally Posted by Just This Once...
Above all, this is a partnership and partners need to be honest friends to effectively work together.
Amen to that.
S41