which was the real version of the KC135 tanker for SR-71?

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 14:27

NASA did not use in-flight refueling. I have no idea what "excercitation" is supposed to mean. Are we dealing with Babelfish here?

To try and simplify what Elliboom said (which was a great post BTW!)

Dirty Q = Carrying JP-7 fuel
Clean Q = Carrying JP-4/JP-8 fuel

Partial Q = Does NOT have special communication equipment
Full Q = DOES have special communication equipment
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2309
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 15:56

Another important feature of the KC-135Q/T;

The segregated tanks of the KC-135Q/T could/can also be used to transport special fuels to remote operating locations. This would be done until supply lines had been established to deliver this fuel in a more conventional/economical manner with trucks, rail, or barrels.

The U-2 requires JPTS fuel. A KC-135 can transport fuel to the operating base where the "Duce" is being used, then off-load it.

So if anything out there needs "special juice" the -135T would fit the bill!

Those secure communication radios would come in handy too for any "special projects" that may require the "special fuel" :whistle:
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

stuarthwyman

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2007, 16:05
  • Location: perugia-italy

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 20:34

You are the best Guy in the world now Guysmaley, that's was wath I want to Know!
Thank you very much, some "expert" in Italy, tell that there was only 56 Qs and Only aone model kind!
I tell him that I cannot believe it, and then He say me are a fake-blogger for what i write in the posts!
What a stupid people there are in the world.
Offline

stuarthwyman

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2007, 16:05
  • Location: perugia-italy

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 20:35

I misguide the "s" of the plural for the variant of the Q, but Know you can also tell me which planes they refuel in all their career?
Thank you first!
Offline

stuarthwyman

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2007, 16:05
  • Location: perugia-italy

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 20:38

That is no babel fish but is my english, that it's not very well!!!
That Engine guy thanks for your help!

That's incredible! Theese people doesn't want believe that the q was 91 instead of 56...
They ask me the fonts, like link or some other!

I'm a liar that's the final they says!!!

It is nothing that i write thay that i spoke with a KC 135 Q pilot!!!
Offline

Guysmiley

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1496
  • Joined: 26 May 2005, 19:39

Unread post19 Oct 2007, 21:52

stuarthwyman wrote:That is no babel fish but is my english, that it's not very well!!!


Well, your English is much better than my Italian, that is for sure. :D
Offline

hogwild

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 09 Jan 2019, 23:43

Unread post10 Jan 2019, 00:44

I apologize for the massive thread dig here but it was mentioned that NASA did NOT use in flight fueling for its Blackbird missions. This is incorrect. Of course NASA practiced in flight fueling, if it didn't the hops would have been exceedingly short. The window for any testing at high altitude/speed would have been exceedingly small. I've attached a picture of NASA 831 the 2 seater "trainer" SR-71-B taking on JP-7 and being pictured from a KC-135-Q/T JP-7 capable tanker aircraft.

Takeoff fuel loads for the longest/heaviest "Blackbirds" the SR-71, were 40,000, 55,000 and the rare 65,000 pound takeoff fuel load. The 65,000 pound fuel load was used out of Kadena. No SR-71 ever took off with a full 80,000 pound fuel load, esp. when it was operational. Doing so was found to overstress the landing gear during takoff as the delta wing beast rotated. This was found early on during A-12 testing a Groom Lake therefore the situation for the longer/heavier SR-71 wouldn't be any better for the "just adequate" landing gear.

Also, again, the reason for a light fuel load takeoff, run up to 25,000 feet to hit the tanker was NOT due to the fuel seeps/leaks(whch as mentioned were worsened when the tanks were pressurized to 1.5psi via the Nitrogen purge system). the advantages were to:
a) reduce wear/tear on the lightweight landing gear
b) to slightly improve the single engine out takeoff envelope
c) to ensure that the tanks and the JP-7 inside were in a 100% nitrogen gas atmosphere Remember that these jets have a Mach 2.6 limit without the Nitrogen purge of the fuel tanks. In order to ensure that all the gas inside the tanks was indeed Nitrogen when using the rarely used 65,000 pound fuel load. The fueling crews would perform a "Yo-Yo" fill. A full 80,000 pound fuel load was loaded, then Nitrogen gas was then purged into the tanks whilst 15,000 pounds of JP-7 was offloaded thus leaving 65,000 pounds of JP-7 onboard with the deadspace in the tanks being a 100% nitrogen gas atmosphere. This satisfies both the landing gear takeoff loading criteria as well as the Mach 2.6 speed limit for operations without a Nitrogen gas purging of the fuel tanks. With a Yo-Yo fill, the jet could takeoff and immediately accelerate/climb to whatever speed/altitude this very short mission required. This no tanker mission was known as a "rocket ride".

The "normal" 40,000 pound takeoff fuel load allowed for minimal takeoff loading of the landing gear, in the safest manner while climbing to 25,000 feet to hit a tanker to get a full 80,000 pound fuel load. After the tanker, the jet is free to accelerate/climb to its missions required speeds/heights with maximum range. As it burns off fuel, the onboard nitrogen purge system replaces the fuel with nitrogen gas keeping everything related to fuel heating safer.

Awesome site guys. Happy New Year!

peace
Hog
Attachments
NASA_SR71B_on_the_tanker.jpg
Offline

huggy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 585
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 07:39

Unread post30 Jan 2019, 04:52

Hogwild,

That photo is dated 1994. I don't believe NASA got their jet(s) until 1997 or 1998, after Clinton line-item vetoed the SR program around October 1997.

Based on that, I'd say this is probably an AF crew flying in the B-model... not NASA. But I've been wrong before. What say you?
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2699
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post30 Jan 2019, 14:28

Holy smokes.. those leaks!?!?

Spurting 3 feet into the air? 16 gallons worth?? No way in hell I'd get into an aircraft that was spurting that much gas. Crazy! Those pilots/GIB's really had to have nerves of steel.

It is ironic that an aircraft as capable and cutting edge as the SR-71... sprung fuel leaks. Tell you what man, no way in hell you'd get me into one of those after seeing that!
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 739
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post01 Feb 2019, 00:51

The "normal" 40,000 pound takeoff fuel load allowed for minimal takeoff loading of the landing gear, in the safest manner while climbing to 25,000 feet to hit a tanker to get a full 80,000 pound fuel load


How far could a twin AETP engined PCA go with 80,000 pounds of fuel ! ;)
Previous

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests