Steering clear of the vital paint job discussion, might I be so bold as to offer that this particular purchase is perhaps the most important RAF procurement since C17?

Milo has a real talent for creating that impression on others for some reason.

How do you zero life ac components?

P T,

Using the "zero life" magic wand, or "zero life" pixie dust obviously.....







I don't know, what do they teach youngsters today! :ugh:

In a similar fashion to this type of thing that has been going on since the Wright Brothers...

Zero-Time Rebuilt Engines - Lycoming

I think it's on the preferences palette in photoshop. As used at the start of this thread.... :8

Leon Jabachjabicz,

If it walks like a duck and qwacks like a duck it must be a turtle.

How many times can you zero-life ac components? Surely there is a limit.

PT

I note for the CFM engine this is an upgrade available at rebuild.

Better fuel economy

Longer time on the wing

More thrust

Twenty years on the wing.

If these statements are true will the RAF go for it on delivery.

Regards

Col

All three are ex-KC-135Rs, the CFM-56 is the current engine for the KC-135R, and the RC-135W for that matter, so why would it be an upgrade option? Can't see them being delivered with old TF-33s somehow...

-RP

I don't believe there is. Most of the aircraft flying over your head right now have:

1. Zero-timed components
2. Re-manufactured compnents
3. Re-conditioned components
4. Second-hand components (inspected and issued a Form 1)

I think, with all the modern non-destructive inspection techniques applied to newly manufactured or re-worked components, it would hard to fault the process. In fact, this kind of inspection has revealed issues way before failure that would have been missed before - thus you could argue that the practise makes flying safer.

Finally, if you took the old KC-135Rs and dismantled them into their metallic components, then melted/smelted them, rolled/milled/cast them and then re-assembled them back into a KC-135R then you could run the risk of introducing manufacturing defects not present before!

I think it is time to trust the re-use of properly re-manufactured and/or inspected components and to stop be-littling it. If we have some significant losses because the system starts to fail, then stop it, but at the moment I can't think of any major losses attributed to this practise.

LJ

safe life vs fail safe
 

Good post jab. Cleary some on here have not studied the subject. I think it was Boeing that introduced safe life designs to reduce weight. These jets are not going to see the cycles of public transport aircraft of the same design. If it ain't broke don't fix it. goodness knows how much deteriation and catastrophic failures have been brought about to components by needless disasembly and reassembly. Clearly there are certain critical components designed down to the bone where it is sensible to dispose of them after a number of cycles in a particular environment with a good margin.

I do hope the lessons from the ageing aicraft programmes have been learned and the risks (hazards) properly identified and catagorised. not so with Nimrod as CH-C discovered.

MSG3 LOGIC

Most modern aircraft are maintained in accordance with the above mentioned maintenance programme. In simple terms most items are maintained on condition. However items that are identified as Structurally or Functionaly Significant maintained to a hard time based on hours, cycles or time.

Most of the structure is maintained using the zonal maintenance concept.

The maintenance programme is written by the operator based on information from the manufacture. This takes in account of how the operator uses the airframe. Inspection and maintenance times can be varied depending on defects etc.

Although the B707 airframe was built before the MSG LOGIC came into being it can be applied to older airframes. The original MSG LOGIC 1 came in with the B747. By using MSG LOGIC heavy maintenance checks on a B747 required a fraction of the man hours compared with the B707 using maintenance based on hard time principles.

I am sure the AIR FORCE have applied MSG LOGIC to the Senrty Fleet and will apply it to the Rivet Joint aircraft. Although both are derived from the B707 the advantage of the MSG system is it's flexibility.

Selecting airframes with enough hours / cycles to cover the planned flying and life of the project would rate higher than trying to "zero life" the airframe.

Applying MSG LOGIC and an ageing aircraft maintance programme will mean the age of the airframe is not a major issue.

In plural will they be Rivet Joints or Rivets Joint?

SGC

SGC wrote:

Airseekers!

(Hat, coat, etc)

S41

turboprop
 

Any logic applied to RAF aircraft will be carried out by a third party. The RAF no longer has the capability to apply MSG3 (RCM in RAF speak) to any aircraft. RCM at RAF Wyton was wound up in October 2011. I believe that this was a big mistake by the MoD bean counters, sanctioned by the RAF, to save a few pounds.

Shortly after the Sentry entered service the RAF handed over responsibility for the Sentry RCM to the Sentry PT who, I believe, passed it on to Grummon.



Aaron.

Turboprop,

Quote:

'The maintenance programme is written by the operator based on information from the manufacture. This takes in account of how the operator uses the airframe. Inspection and maintenance times can be varied depending on defects etc,

I think the problem will be that we will not be able to get the info from the manufacturer. In addition the DA for the ac is BS which must complicate the assurance trail.

AARON and P TONY

Sounds like it is going to be fun or a ball ache which every way you look at it for whoever has to sort out the maintance requirements, but it's a Boeing so no probs.

Correct Info on RAF RC-135 Rivet Joint (Airseeker)
 

There is quite a lot of mis/uninformed information and comments in the previous posts. Thought I would clear the air.
KC-135s converted for the RAF all come from the last batch of KC-135s built for the USAF. All FY 1964 procurements. This is the same year that the RC-135V and U models came from and are the last of the -135s built. Some of the FY 1962 RC-135Ws now have over 50,000 flying hours and are not subject to the same limitations as the KC-135 fleet.

RC-135s are modified and upgraded by L3 corp at their facility at Majors Field, Greenville, TX and are incorporated into the normal USAF RC-135 upgrade and maintenance schedule (not really a "Boeing" aircraft as L3 has responsibiity for both airframe and equipment). Any idea that these are "old" aircraft without any documentation, or that they will be treated any differently than USAF RCs is pure bunk. The RAF will be incorporating them into the routine L3 upgrade cycle in the future. Essentially, except for some minor comm and equipment changes, they will be the same as the USAF Rivet Joints. Back end mission equipment will be to the same standards.

Sharing of, and joint operations of, airborne SIGINT assests between the RAF and USAF has been a longstanding operation, dating back many years. I've even flown on a Nimrod R.1 mission as a USAF Captain during the Cold War.

Paint is called a "White-top" and is vital to cool the aircraft on the ground. I understand L3 looked at an "RAF colour scheme" and ran into trouble with the cooling issue, hence the standard USAF scheme. I would have liked to see something different, but L3 has a great paint facility and system to provide a very hard, long-lasting finish to the aircraft (electric sputter application, I believe). Even the nose radome is a hard glossy finish, which lets the bugs slide off much easier when you are doing pattern work.

Given all the problems with the Nimrod, and the need for more interior room for expanded mission equipment, the Rivet Joint was the only cost effective approach for RAF needs. It will be great to see the 51 Sqn Red Goose on the tail!

One wonders why, given that we are getting some Gucci new tankers, we didn't just buy some A330 airframes and add the relevant systems? A330 has high altitude, long endurance/range, plenty of available conditioning and electrical generation, space, ability to carry plenty of GSE/people when deploying, space, commonality with Voyager etc. Too late now of course, but just a thought.