NoVANav

Funny, you could have said something like that about XV230, (replace Greenville with BAE) however it didn't make it airworthy..

You still refuse to give any definitive information about Boeing model numbers, block numbers , type design designation for the US and UK RJs? If they are all the same then surely it should be simple to back up your assertion?

SS

Chugalug

I suspect that everyone involved at the top has decided the damn things will fly in service come what may

no-one will put this in writing and by "phasing" full time ops they think they can extend the time frame for some (possible) dreadful accident out beyond their time in service/retirement from the Civil Service/next election

what gets up my nose is that if we said "Fly them anyway" then everyone would know we're taking a risk and could probably monitor things carefully

As it is creeping acceptance means that there will be little or no formal extra monitoring allowed/paid for/listened to

Worst of both worlds IMHO :ugh::ugh:

HH:-
In other words exactly the same mind set that triggered these three decades of needless waste of both life and materiel. Your summary perfectly illustrates why Air Safety is not safe in MOD hands and has to be removed from them forthwith.

If this a/c goes into squadron service without an RTS that signifies it to be airworthy, where does that leave the MAA as presently constituted? What is the point of the MAA as presently constituted?

"The RJs have been flying since the 70s. They have all gone through numerous modifications at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive flight systems testing at Greenville. They have ALL gone through extensive backend equipment upgrades and certifications. And, the RAF RJs are just the same as the USAF RJs. They are all considered ONE FLEET".

Like the E-3Ds you mean? Seven aircraft built in the same factory at the same time. One of the frames has different wings (believe from RC 135 with no specific routing for ESM/coms cables which were just passed through the ribs as and where - no surprize that HF comms had an affect on ESM performance). One aircraft had been hit by a vehicle during construction - the bent pressure hull was "beaten out" and declared serviceable. On insistence of QA, the aircraft tail was removed and a replacement from further down the line bolted on. There is no sign of the old bent tail which could have been fitted to a later aircraft. I could go on.....especially with an area below the floor which was full of swarf on one aircraft.

Unlikely, as not only a very different airframe, but the last -135 was built in the mid 60s. Could have been from a wing intended for the E-8B, new-build J-STARs which was cancelled or for an E-6?

What Are You Talking About?
 

Wensleydale,


I have no idea what you are talking about?
The RC-135s have absolutely nothing in common with the E-3Ds. The E-3s are an entirely different aircraft. The fuselage is different the wings are different. What do you not understand about DIFFERENT?


As to the original "Block" numbers hash of questions from an earlier poster. Minor block number changes in the manufacture of aircraft make no difference in service. Any additional equipment or modifications on the line are incorporated in all the earlier aircraft. I never saw any reference to manufacturer block number differences in any of the KC-135s or RC-135s I flew in. Once accepted into service a particular MDS designated aircraft was just like any other in the same MDS, unless modified for a special mission equipment fit.


Since the RJs have all been maintained by E-Systems/Raytheon/L-3 folks at Greenville, TX, under the Big Safari Program, for over forty years, the changes between aircraft (Vs, Ws, Us, Ss) are all well understood and documented.


Please, I beg you blokes, give it up, fly the aircraft, re-enter the world of airborne SIGINT collection, and take on the Germans/Spanish/et al over the Typhoon.


Besides, you can re-open this whole argument when the first Boeing P-8As Poseidons are delivered to the RAF.

"The RC-135s have absolutely nothing in common with the E-3Ds. The E-3s are an entirely different aircraft. The fuselage is different the wings are different. What do you not understand about DIFFERENT?"

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, but they are the wrong wings which do not have the correct wiring runs etc! It is presumed that there was a set of "spare" wings in the factory and they were used up rather than building a new set. I know that this seems far fetched, but it is correct!

Er - Customer Service? Got this E3 with the wrong wings - can we have our money back or an up-to-spec replacement please.........................

Would that be why ZH105 was withdrawn from service early...?

Where to start, the E-3D is a derivative of the Boeing 707-320B, the KC135 was direct derivative of the 367-80 (some confusion comes from the fact that during the studies carried out in the early 50's Boeing that led to the 367-80 used the 707 designation for the concept models, for instance 707-1 had four engines in two pods similar to the engine mounting scheme used on the B-52, the 367-80 was based on the studies carried out under 707-6, further research made this the 707-7). The wings of a -320B are longer, wider and thicker and have different flying control configurations (Flaps/slats/spoilers etc.) to those fitted to a 135. 135 wings couldn't be fitted by mistake, it would require extensive modification.

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.

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!

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".

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.:ugh: Never assume, Check!!!

Wensleydale: good point on systems integration. :ok:
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.

ZZ664 Airborne today, allegedly.

I've just seen a photo of it taken at the point of rotation. The office cynic reckons its just a photo of a loading trial that's gone wrong.

Rivet joint
 

Definetly rotated today at 1323 from Waddington,Call sighn Vulcan 51:D

Helluva loading trial mishap! :eek:

http://www.igniter.org.uk/avpics/bmpics/8a.jpg

Aaah, but where's it going?

It might be on a top secret mission :ok: or maybe its going back to Boeing/L3 or whoever "for further testing" and we won't be seeing it again anytime soon :E:E:E.

MB

Very apt :ok:
Regards, Den.