…I don’t remember the 135s having water on board. Our engines were PW19W models. When and what model did the change come about?

The KC-135A most assuredly had water injection. In hot/high conditions (meaning more than 50′ MSL or 65˚ F!) you needed it to get airborne with a full fuel load. Having stood under the end of the runway watching takeoffs, as well as having experienced a water-injected takeoff from the cockpit, I can fully attest to the GREATLY increased noise, smoke, and general mayhem of a KC-135 taking off under steam power.

As a former KC crew chief friend of mine’s email sig says:

KC-135 – built when man thought he could burn water

🙂

JH

…if it ever flies.

Surely you’re not serious? Yeah, I can see Boeing saying “Nah, it’s just too much trouble. Here’s all your money back. We’re going to shelve it for now.”

Riiiiiiiiight.

JH

You’re kidding, right?

If the composite carbuncle ever gets off the ground that is….;)

Only the most successful new airliner ever. Period. In all of history. Ever. Nah, I can see Boeing chucking it into the Duwamish River. It’ll never fly.

(and oh, btw, it’s going to beat the ever loving pants off of anything Scarebus ever thought about doing).

🙂

J

Sorry, my sarcastic streak was in overdrive.
I agree with you though, if you’re fitting pods then it would make more sense to fit out the fighters with probes. The trouble I think is that all the fast jet jockey’s will have to be retrained in prodding and not just keeping station.

Not really. The fuel transfer rate of a boom is much higher than that of a hose. The USAF has always preferred the boom when available, simply because it saves time. And time is money.

J

Deficient Boeing engineering?

No. As said what you are saying is slanted at best. The cargo door on UA811went off and people died because of faulty Boeing engineering. The final inquiry showed that the accident was due to both faulty locking and electrical system. Certainly not because the door had not been properly locked by ground staff.

And the point is that other 747 went down because of deficient Boeing engineering. That applies to ElAl 1862 and TWA800. So to congratulate at this stage Boeing for building resilient aircraft when the causes are not yet known seems at best premature, if not foolish.

Excuse me? The 747 has one of the best (if not *the* best) safety records of any aircraft in history. You make it sound as if Boeing slapped it together over a drink on the veranda one evening. Boeing’s engineering is second to none, as I think their history and their sales and safety records will more than amply demonstrate. Do things go wrong on Boeing airplanes? Of course they do. They’re designed and made by humans. But things go wrong on Airbus, McDD, Tupolev, Ilyushin, ATR, and every other kind of airplane. Are they deficient and faulty too? The perfect machine has yet to be made, nor will it ever be.

To slap a “deficient” or “faulty” label on Boeing’s engineering (talk about painting with a broad brush) is what’s foolish.

JH

Not originally…

Wasn’t the 777 designed with raked wing tips

Originally it was shown with 737 style blended winglets. The raked wingtips came later when they found out that they would be lighter, less draggy, and provide just as much fuel saving.

J

I don’t know what all the excitment is about..it’s just a tarted up 767

Uh, yeah. Sort of like a Concorde is just a tarted up DC-3 🙂

J