HEH the flying Gas station

[olevetonahill]

I knew it had been around a long time But Not 51 years .
See, things almost as old as me are still usefull:D
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95484569

[BudSooner]

I read that and didn't realize it either, amazing still considering the number of upgrades it receives that some things never change.

Sextant, hehehehehehe.

I never knew the F111 was as old as it was when they retired it, they were almost 30yrs old at the time, I think they took service just before what....'67??
There was a day when we were at Wal Mart :norm: and my boy and I were watching one of 'em making lazy circles in the sky waiting to land....pretty cool aircraft at the time.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Yah...I always enjoy it during A/R when we swap tail numbers...most of our birds are late 70's to early 80's tail numbers...most of the 135's that tank us are from the late 50's-early 60's.

At least my wife knows that there are things out there that fly that ARE older than her.

[olevetonahill]

Yah...I always enjoy it during A/R when we swap tail numbers...most of our birds are late 70's to early 80's tail numbers...most of the 135's that tank us are from the late 50's-early 60's.

At least my wife knows that there are things out there that fly that ARE older than her.

How olds her Broom :P

[Veritas]

This weekend I talked to an old college buddy that works for Boeing. He told me that the military plans to use the B-52 until 2060 (he's seen the USAF long term plans). I told him that was insane, that the airframes would turn to dust by then...he told me that because the B-52 was built at the beginning of the jet age, it had been over-built structurally and could handle that number of estimated takeoffs/landings.

The 707 (KC-135) airframe, however, is another story...most of the current fleet is WAY past the original maximum number of takeoffs/landings, so after every flight they have to crawl all over those things with a magnifying glass to make sure the wings don't fall off...they're in pretty sad shape.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Veritas,
It's nowhere near that bad...

But the USAF ****ed up royally by not getting this tanker deal done with Boeing THE RIGHT WAY three years ago!

[olevetonahill]

Veritas,
It's nowhere near that bad...

But the USAF ****ed up royally by not getting this tanker deal done with Boeing THE RIGHT WAY three years ago!

The article said the A/F plans on another 30 years out of em . :confused:

[SoonerStormchaser]

Yep...that was the plan as of the mid-90's.

Trust me, they take good care of em here at the depot.

[Veritas]

Veritas,
It's nowhere near that bad...

But the USAF ****ed up royally by not getting this tanker deal done with Boeing THE RIGHT WAY three years ago!
Ahh...well, pretty much just quoting what I was told. :)

[misplaced_sooner]

The 707 (KC-135) airframe, however, is another story...most of the current fleet is WAY past the original maximum number of takeoffs/landings, so after every flight they have to crawl all over those things with a magnifying glass to make sure the wings don't fall off...they're in pretty sad shape.

This isn't entirely true. I'm a mechanic on the 135. They are still in pretty fair shape considering how many flying hours they have on them. I was also a B-52 mechanic for 6 years. The 135 sees far more hours than the b-52.

I expect the 135 to handle maybe 10 or so more years, but when I worked the buffs, they said to expect 2040! The AF has sunk far more money into the 135 than they have into the b-52.

[BudSooner]

At either rate that is crazy, is part of the reason the larger aircraft have a longer life due to the less stress the airframe gets than smaller craft such as the f14/15/16 etc?
I'm not an aircraft mechanic, my uncle works at Spirit here in town...and half of what he tells me goes over my head, everything is an acronym. :P