RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who, and what, determines the finish - what happened to the overall matte grey/hemp paint jobs? Ser5ious question too, why is the nose sometimes black; doesn't that absorb solar radiation/heat?
I was right, it is a joke.
Good spot StopStart. I thought it looked a bit like a dodgy photoshop job.
The pitot tube on the fin is angled up, and the mainwheels are two wheel units and are displaced, the port ones are forward of the starboard ones. Should make for some interesting landings!!
Good spot StopStart. I thought it looked a bit like a dodgy photoshop job.
The pitot tube on the fin is angled up, and the mainwheels are two wheel units and are displaced, the port ones are forward of the starboard ones. Should make for some interesting landings!!
Well spotted, StopStart.
The image credit from the RAF Waddington Facebook page is 'USAF via RAF Waddington'. Photographed at L-3's facilities in Greenville, Texas.
The reflection on the starboard side clearly shows a v-shaped logo. The winged USAF symbol?
Link to Offutt RC-135 showing intake cover.
USAF Boeing RC-135W Rivet Joint 62-4138 KDMA by James O'Rear acm1208 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
The image credit from the RAF Waddington Facebook page is 'USAF via RAF Waddington'. Photographed at L-3's facilities in Greenville, Texas.
The reflection on the starboard side clearly shows a v-shaped logo. The winged USAF symbol?
Link to Offutt RC-135 showing intake cover.
USAF Boeing RC-135W Rivet Joint 62-4138 KDMA by James O'Rear acm1208 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Champagne anyone...?
I just wonder if they didn't have any suitable blanks so photoshopped some gopping RAF rounded ones on.... The reflected "Royal" looks real enough.
Other images at following links. Linked due to images exceeding 850 wide.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...46194634_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...28105123_o.jpg
From
https://www.facebook.com/RAFWaddington
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.n...46194634_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...28105123_o.jpg
From
https://www.facebook.com/RAFWaddington
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oh look... It's been raining - what a surprise in the UK...
(dons armour, ducks for cover)
(dons armour, ducks for cover)
also it just appears to have been raining in the 50m around the nice clean aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corrections to All the "Speculation"
First: "White top" scheme is necessary to keep the interior of the aircraft cool while on the ground. Remember the interior is packed with electronics.
Second: The photo is taken at Majors Field, Greenville, TX-the location of the L-3 Comm RC-135 depot. This has been the RC-135 facility since the first conversions by E-Systems over 40 years ago.
Third: It does rain in Texas but it appears they wet down the ramp to produce a more dramatic photo. L-3 continues the Greenville legend of outstanding photography of all their products. Every delivery of an RC after a maintenance/upgrade is photographed from the edge of the runway just after liftoff on the delivery flight. We even briefed the photographers where the rotate point would be, based on conditions, so they could position for the best shot. Besides, a "wet" ramp is more like the environment in the UK.
The aircraft has the Lincoln shield under the cockpit and the Red Goose on the tail. National markings are missing but will probably be added upon delivery to the RAF. Most foreign-bought aircraft are delivered in US registry, probably for legal reasons.
Fourth: With new conversions from KC-135Rs these aircraft can really be considered new airframes as L-3 has worked everything from airframe inspection, corrosion mitigation, all mission equipment installation, and external airframe mods. All flight testing is done by the USAF detachment and company personnel. Truly an L-3 maintained aircraft, with Boeing doing only the engine mods and basic 135 fleet-wide issues.
Second: The photo is taken at Majors Field, Greenville, TX-the location of the L-3 Comm RC-135 depot. This has been the RC-135 facility since the first conversions by E-Systems over 40 years ago.
Third: It does rain in Texas but it appears they wet down the ramp to produce a more dramatic photo. L-3 continues the Greenville legend of outstanding photography of all their products. Every delivery of an RC after a maintenance/upgrade is photographed from the edge of the runway just after liftoff on the delivery flight. We even briefed the photographers where the rotate point would be, based on conditions, so they could position for the best shot. Besides, a "wet" ramp is more like the environment in the UK.
The aircraft has the Lincoln shield under the cockpit and the Red Goose on the tail. National markings are missing but will probably be added upon delivery to the RAF. Most foreign-bought aircraft are delivered in US registry, probably for legal reasons.
Fourth: With new conversions from KC-135Rs these aircraft can really be considered new airframes as L-3 has worked everything from airframe inspection, corrosion mitigation, all mission equipment installation, and external airframe mods. All flight testing is done by the USAF detachment and company personnel. Truly an L-3 maintained aircraft, with Boeing doing only the engine mods and basic 135 fleet-wide issues.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Correlation At All
I fail to see the correlation between an accident, reason undefied, for a KC-135 at a foreign base, taking off into a known bad weather and a brand new RC-135W being purchased by the MoD.
That would be similar to relating the original Comet 1 accidents to the Nimrod catastrophe in the Afghan AOR a few years ago. Same basic airframe but absolutely nothing in common about the particular causes.
You must understand, the RC airframes, especially these new conversions, are essentially new aircraft. Not zero-timed, but absolutely everything is inspected, updated and ready to go. After all, the RCs have been flying, in various models, since the late '60s. All of the accidents to any model have been from pilot error, not the airframe.
At what point do you folks give up on the "age of the airframe" argument? Has nothing to do with the RCs, given the ongoing upgrade cycle. It is unlike anything that is done in the commercial aviation community.
That would be similar to relating the original Comet 1 accidents to the Nimrod catastrophe in the Afghan AOR a few years ago. Same basic airframe but absolutely nothing in common about the particular causes.
You must understand, the RC airframes, especially these new conversions, are essentially new aircraft. Not zero-timed, but absolutely everything is inspected, updated and ready to go. After all, the RCs have been flying, in various models, since the late '60s. All of the accidents to any model have been from pilot error, not the airframe.
At what point do you folks give up on the "age of the airframe" argument? Has nothing to do with the RCs, given the ongoing upgrade cycle. It is unlike anything that is done in the commercial aviation community.
Last edited by NoVANav; 17th May 2013 at 12:30.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I wonder if the RAF will spend money erasing the perfectly legible "ROYAL AIR FORCE" and apply the stylised version that other RAF aircraft have, c/w slanty "Y"?
Or perhaps the terms of the supply contract forbid such nonsense?
Or perhaps the terms of the supply contract forbid such nonsense?
NoVAnav
I don't want to go over old ground, but would reflect on MoD's assertion that the Chinook HC Mk1 and HC Mk2 were unrelated (stated by Adam Ingram, Minister for the Armed Forces, under advisement by MoD), and that this utterly clueless statement led directly to the papers being revealed that MoD knew, 21 years ago, that neither was airworthy.
What you've said about the differences between the KC-135 and RC-135W is exactly what was said when comparing Nimrod MR2 and MRA4, yet the latter was cancelled and scrapped precisely because the audit trail tracking the evolution of the Comet > MR1 > MR2 > MRA4 was not seamless, so ultimately no-one was prepared to sign for airworthiness.
This time, I sincerely hope MoD has not ignored these basics and the MAA is satisfied. My main worry would be where did MoD find such a person, given the discipline has been ignored, as a matter of policy, since 1991.
I don't want to go over old ground, but would reflect on MoD's assertion that the Chinook HC Mk1 and HC Mk2 were unrelated (stated by Adam Ingram, Minister for the Armed Forces, under advisement by MoD), and that this utterly clueless statement led directly to the papers being revealed that MoD knew, 21 years ago, that neither was airworthy.
What you've said about the differences between the KC-135 and RC-135W is exactly what was said when comparing Nimrod MR2 and MRA4, yet the latter was cancelled and scrapped precisely because the audit trail tracking the evolution of the Comet > MR1 > MR2 > MRA4 was not seamless, so ultimately no-one was prepared to sign for airworthiness.
This time, I sincerely hope MoD has not ignored these basics and the MAA is satisfied. My main worry would be where did MoD find such a person, given the discipline has been ignored, as a matter of policy, since 1991.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I know absolutely nothing about airworthiness regulations, but if the item in question is ubiquitous with millions of hours of service, then surely that can be leveraged?
My thought train goes like this: A bicycle is a simple, inexpensive device that can be inspected, fitted with operable brakes, reliable bearings and chain, and can be declared safe. The consequences of a failed bicycle are generally minor injury, but with the potential of more serious injury or even death, rarely.
A car is more complex than a bicycle, but can be engineered safely, and the lessons of thousands of designs have been learned over the years to make a safer motor car. If a part fails in service, it is replaced, even if that requires a recall of hundreds of thousands of vehicles. The consequences of a safety failure in a car are likely severe injury or death.
Are not aircraft safety regimes much the same? The consequences of failure are almost certainly death, so it is that much tougher. But with millions of hours of operation of the 707 and derivatives, surely the delta from a bog-standard airframe is the prime area of concern rather than the whole thing?
I appreciate this is a vastly more complicated affair than I simplistically illustrate above, but for the MRA4, with a genesis period of over 10 years and billions of pounds spent on a tiny fleet, it seems that it could have been signed off, but for the want of a bit of reasoned thought and risk analysis. Even the safest aircraft may have an accident due to incorrect fuels/oils being used, or dare I say, crew error. It's always a risk going aviating.
My thought train goes like this: A bicycle is a simple, inexpensive device that can be inspected, fitted with operable brakes, reliable bearings and chain, and can be declared safe. The consequences of a failed bicycle are generally minor injury, but with the potential of more serious injury or even death, rarely.
A car is more complex than a bicycle, but can be engineered safely, and the lessons of thousands of designs have been learned over the years to make a safer motor car. If a part fails in service, it is replaced, even if that requires a recall of hundreds of thousands of vehicles. The consequences of a safety failure in a car are likely severe injury or death.
Are not aircraft safety regimes much the same? The consequences of failure are almost certainly death, so it is that much tougher. But with millions of hours of operation of the 707 and derivatives, surely the delta from a bog-standard airframe is the prime area of concern rather than the whole thing?
I appreciate this is a vastly more complicated affair than I simplistically illustrate above, but for the MRA4, with a genesis period of over 10 years and billions of pounds spent on a tiny fleet, it seems that it could have been signed off, but for the want of a bit of reasoned thought and risk analysis. Even the safest aircraft may have an accident due to incorrect fuels/oils being used, or dare I say, crew error. It's always a risk going aviating.
Last edited by Roadster280; 17th May 2013 at 16:01.