RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Exactly my point - one of the E-3Ds has the wrong wings on!! It may be that they are 135 type wings and from an E-8 or similar
The E-8's are all converted 707 airliners, no new builds, so no E-8 wings on an E-3D. One prototype E-8 was an ex E-6, however this was sold to Saudi Arabia as an RE-3B. The E-6's and the E-3F's were on the production line at a similar time to E-3D, perhaps this is where your rumour stems from, however, these again are -320B platforms not 135 platforms.
Last edited by Sideshow Bob; 21st May 2014 at 15:57.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
I have been told elsewhere that the original E-3 wings were damaged in the jig while being built and wings of an E-6 (not RC-135) were substituted. Sorry if my memory has played tricks - however, the reason for going down this route remains. All of the same type of aircraft can be different!
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wensleydale. Sorry you are wrong.
The E-3s and E-6s are both derived from the Boeing 707-320 model, hence they come from the same airframe model. They are NOT different. It would make NO difference if an E-3D had an E-6A wing substituted during assembly since they are both powered by the F108 (CFM 56), hence the same design and attachment points.
Not sure where you "heard" this story, but, if true, is just an interesting bit of trivia. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety, airworthiness or operations of the E-3Ds.
BTW, the original Dash 80 (132in diameter) was modified a bit to develop the KC-135 (144in) and modified with a wider fuselage (148in for six-abreast seating), larger horizontal tail surfaces and modified wings, as explained before.
I suggest you read the excellent book on the 707/135 by Dominique Breffort: 707, Boeing KC-135 and Their Derivatives, by Historie & Collections. Might provide some actual facts to go along with 'rumors'.
Not sure where you "heard" this story, but, if true, is just an interesting bit of trivia. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety, airworthiness or operations of the E-3Ds.
BTW, the original Dash 80 (132in diameter) was modified a bit to develop the KC-135 (144in) and modified with a wider fuselage (148in for six-abreast seating), larger horizontal tail surfaces and modified wings, as explained before.
I suggest you read the excellent book on the 707/135 by Dominique Breffort: 707, Boeing KC-135 and Their Derivatives, by Historie & Collections. Might provide some actual facts to go along with 'rumors'.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
"Not sure where you "heard" this story, but, if true, is just an interesting bit of trivia. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with safety, airworthiness or operations of the E-3Ds".
But it did! Not being a spotter, I do not know which "707 type" wings fit which....however in the Sentry case, the internal structure of a replacement wing from a different (if similar type) of aircraft was different to that in the design drawing and this caused EMI problems in the mission kit!!!! (lack of suitable shielded cable runs). This is exactly what my point is - even small changes can have knock-on effects. While not affecting the safety of the individual aircraft, a loss of performance in the mission system of the Sentry could have affected the safety of our "customers". It is this point which also has implications for RoS of an ISTAR aircraft. If the mission system gets things wrong then people off the aircraft can be affected or even killed (eg if the system mis-ids an object due to technical issues or misses a threat warning). Therefore, in this case, a Sentry was not the same Sentry as the rest of the fleet until it was modified to cure the problem.
Never assume, Check!!!
But it did! Not being a spotter, I do not know which "707 type" wings fit which....however in the Sentry case, the internal structure of a replacement wing from a different (if similar type) of aircraft was different to that in the design drawing and this caused EMI problems in the mission kit!!!! (lack of suitable shielded cable runs). This is exactly what my point is - even small changes can have knock-on effects. While not affecting the safety of the individual aircraft, a loss of performance in the mission system of the Sentry could have affected the safety of our "customers". It is this point which also has implications for RoS of an ISTAR aircraft. If the mission system gets things wrong then people off the aircraft can be affected or even killed (eg if the system mis-ids an object due to technical issues or misses a threat warning). Therefore, in this case, a Sentry was not the same Sentry as the rest of the fleet until it was modified to cure the problem.
Never assume, Check!!!
Wensleydale: good point on systems integration. 
That doesn't answer the mail on the point under consideration of airworthiness. An aircraft may be perfectly safe to fly (airworthy) and the kit won't work quite right (mission degradation) ... or the add-on kit has some problems ... no few aircraft systems have run into that sort of problem. While not meaning to bore you with helicopter stories, I know a fellow who had some uncommanded flare/chaffe launches during dynamic interface testing some years ago ... it was a surprise fireworks display! The aircraft was airworthy, but the add-on kit needed a bit more work to be properly integrated into the overall air platform. I flew some airworthy Seahawks whose mission was degraded for a while due to some systemic problems in the blade de-ice system. Again, airworthy, but full mission potential not realized due to a particular (and systemic) problem with that sub system.
That doesn't answer the mail on the point under consideration of airworthiness. An aircraft may be perfectly safe to fly (airworthy) and the kit won't work quite right (mission degradation) ... or the add-on kit has some problems ... no few aircraft systems have run into that sort of problem. While not meaning to bore you with helicopter stories, I know a fellow who had some uncommanded flare/chaffe launches during dynamic interface testing some years ago ... it was a surprise fireworks display! The aircraft was airworthy, but the add-on kit needed a bit more work to be properly integrated into the overall air platform. I flew some airworthy Seahawks whose mission was degraded for a while due to some systemic problems in the blade de-ice system. Again, airworthy, but full mission potential not realized due to a particular (and systemic) problem with that sub system.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaah, but where's it going?
It might be on a top secret mission or maybe its going back to Boeing/L3 or whoever "for further testing" and we won't be seeing it again anytime soon 
.
MB
It might be on a top secret mission
or maybe its going back to Boeing/L3 or whoever "for further testing" and we won't be seeing it again anytime soon .MB
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did anyone notice the rather marked nose down shove it was given as it passed through around 500'? I watched it take off (no option, waiting for the runway lights to change) and I had a genuine 'Oh ****' moment. Don't know what they were doing but it didn't look good from where I was sat.
