Bagram DFAC sets the fail bar

[dmeg130]

Methinks you missed the target of my comment -- which was stract knows full well that, despite not seeing them much around Kadena, the HC-130 is the ONLY OTHER airframe spcifically tasked with PR/CSAR.

Whole thread is really indicative of the shoe-ification/everyone-is-a-warrior-itis (and therefore my job importance is comparable to somebody else) of the USAF. Sad, but true. CBT soon to come of DFAC grill identidication and food safety guidelines.

[brock]

It is kind of sad that the non flying part of the air force doesn't realize what their job is. Support the war fighter, which happens to be the guys and gals who fly aircraft.

When I went through Army flight school we were taught from day one that we were there to support the ground element. The Army kind of has the opposite problem though. We try to hard to act like the ground guys. That is why we do stupid shizat like wear two piece flight suits. When I was a light fighter in Hawaii we went as far as to wear camo when we flew.

[Guest Rubber_Side_Down]

3.5 hours late on this conversation...

Wasn't directed at you...

[stract]

dmeg - sorry, I give myself a facepalm...it was a long day, and I work just down the flightline from the 71 ERQS currently.

[JarheadBoom]

I even think the Marines in HMX-1 call their 60's something else too.

VH-60N Night Hawk

[busdriver]

Jay-hawk, Sea-Hawk, Night-Hawk, Pave-hawk, Black-hawk, who gives a shit. Honestly I tell folks I fly the Air Force version of a Blackhawk because it's too much of a pain to explain the difference. Kings? Primary mission is PR? Please, you're a fucking tanker, just admit it I I keed I keed.

EDIT: Grammar

Edited September 27, 2010 by busdriver

[Guest]

Hijack alert.

Kings? Primary mission is PR? Please, you're a fucking tanker, just admit it

FWIW, no one should be allowed to use the King callsign unless they can fulfill the "King" mission requirements. Otherwise, they should call themselves Texaco.

[Skyclops]

I can't count the number of times I've seen an F-14 in USAF material, even to this day. This includies a $70 crystal engraving given to each of us in our ROTC graduating class. UFB

Edited September 27, 2010 by Royals2020

[Prosuper]

Back in WW2 acft recognition was taught to nearly everybody, it meant life or death to aircrew coming into a allied airbase on a IFE without radio's to indentify themselves to allied AAA gunners that they were friendly. The most recent incident was the Blackhawk shootdown in northern Iraq by F-15's .

The 707/135 ? is that they were both developed from the 367-80 which is now display in Uvar Hazy museum at Dulles IAP. The official USAF designation on a 707 is the C-137B for a 707-153B or C-137C for a 707-300 which E3,E6 and E8's are based on. The 707 wings on the -300 are bigger than the 135's and 137B's wing which the dimensions are indentical. The 367-80 presently has the 707-300 wing installed. There was a proposal by Boeing before the KC-135R to retrofit -135's with the -300 wing. That would have given the -135 20K more gas in the wings. Fuselage dimensions, you can slide a 135 fuselage inside a empty tube 707 fuselage. The fuel, hydraulic,electrical, and landing gear systems on a 707 are different and not compatable with a C-135.

[zrooster99]

There is a lot of precedent for giving an aircraft a big makeover including external dimensions and keeping the same designation. I think the KC-135/707/E-3 etc discussion is pretty chickenshit. I'm an airplane geek, but come-on guys, close enough.

Edited September 27, 2010 by zrooster99

[Guest AlphaSigOU]

So the KC-135 is basically a C-137-153B with retrofitted 367-300 Udvar wings and a 707 fuselage.

Got it. Thanks.

Not quite. The 367-80 designation was a little subterfuge by Boeing when they developed the prototype that begat the 707 and the KC-135 (Boeing Model 367 was the KC-97 Stratocruiser). Many of the features in the 707, 720 and KC-135 were first tested on the 367-80 (or Dash 80).

The KC-135 was built specifically to Air Force requirements as a cargo/tanker aircraft. One noticeable difference is that the 135 lacks the distinctive 'crease beam' formed by the aircraft's double-bubble fuselage on the 707. The fuselage diameter of the Dash 80 is 139" (just wide enough for five-abreast seating). The 135's diameter is 144", while the 707's (and also the 727 and 737) is 148". The 148" diameter is wide enough for six-abreast coach seating, a response by Boeing when Douglas was developing their DC-8 with six-abreast seating. It uses the same wing as the 707-120 series. The commercial 707 was distinctive enough to earn a new designation from the USAF: C-137. The A and B models were -120s, while the -C was the -320 series. (The -137C later became the basis of the E-3, E-6 and E-8 aircraft.)

Many 707s became donors for extending the service lives of KC-135 aircraft; the vertical and horizontal stablizers and the engines on the 135E being but a few of the parts saved. The wing of the 707-320/420 series was a total redesign over that of the -120.

Without getting into the airplane uber-geek minutiae of the 707's many sub-variants, there were several major versions of the 707:

707-120 - Basic model

707-138 - 'Hot rod' version of the 707-120 built specifically for Australia's QANTAS; shortest fuselage of the 707 series. (John Travolta's 707 is one of the QANTAS -138s.)

707-220 - 707 with uprated Pratt and Whitney JT4A.

720 - Slightly shorter than the 707-120 but with high lift flaps and flaps which were later incorporated into the 727.

707-320 - 'Intercontinental' - Longer fuselage, redesigned wing.

707-420 - 707-320 with Rolls Royce Conway engines (gotta keep the Brits happy!)

Thus endeth the lesson... and mind you, I was a cook in the AF way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. No, I DON'T call it the DFAC! It is, was, and always will be the chow hall to me!

[TacAirCoug]

[Toasty]

I lol'd.

[Vertigo]

Crap! I just spewed soda out my nose. Thanks for that!

[frog]

So let me get this right:

1. Some Indian contractor made a menu with a Chinese jet on it.

2. Flyers get panties in a wad. Call out non-rated for not knowing airframes.

3. Airframe discussion ensues. Turns out flyers don't know each others airframe.

4. Conclusion: Non-rated suck. BMT needs to be revamped. The sky is falling.

Nice.

[Guest]

Q-1E w/ commendables.

I'm thinking more Q-1 with commendables/comments.

I would have leaned toward Exceptionally Qualified if you would've linked the retarded Paradigm Shift thread in there with not only not knowing airframes but not knowing missions and not knowing the ARC.

[BQZip01]

So let me get this right:

1. Some Indian contractor made a menu with a Chinese jet on it.

2. Flyers get panties in a wad. Call out non-rated for not knowing airframes.

3. Airframe discussion ensues. Turns out flyers don't know each others airframe.

4. Conclusion: Non-rated suck. BMT needs to be revamped. The sky is falling.

Nice.

EQ

Promote to training assignment ASAP to mold our young aviators!

[HerkFE]

A few weeks ago I was at Balad. We shut down to get fuel and the fuel truck driver asked me what I did. I said, "I'm the Flight Engineer." He said, "But what do you do?" I gave the 15 second explanation expecting him to say "Okay, cool. You ready for the fuel?" Instead he said again "but what is your job?" Again I said "Flight Engineer" with a little more explanation. Again he asked something about what my job was. I thought maybe he meant my civilian job since he saw the "AFRC" on the tail. I explained that I worked for the FAA. His next question was "But what do you do for the military?" I said again, "C-130 FLight Engineer"

[Spinner]

A few weeks ago I was at Balad. We shut down to get fuel and the fuel truck driver asked me what I did. I said, "I'm the Flight Engineer." He said, "But what do you do?" I gave the 15 second explanation expecting him to say "Okay, cool. You ready for the fuel?" Instead he said again "but what is your job?" Again I said "Flight Engineer" with a little more explanation. Again he asked something about what my job was. I thought maybe he meant my civilian job since he saw the "AFRC" on the tail. I explained that I worked for the FAA. His next question was "But what do you do for the military?" I said again, "C-130 FLight Engineer"

He should probably stop drinking the JP-8/Jet-A...

[Guest]

His next question was "But what do you do for the military?" I said again, "C-130 FLight Engineer"

I guess I have the same question.

[/sarcasm]

[HerkFE]

I guess I have the same question.

[/sarcasm]

Hey Rainman

[Guest]

Hey Rainman

[Hacker]

A few weeks ago I was at Balad. We shut down to get fuel and the fuel truck driver asked me what I did. I said, "I'm the Flight Engineer." He said, "But what do you do?" I gave the 15 second explanation expecting him to say "Okay, cool. You ready for the fuel?" Instead he said again "but what is your job?" Again I said "Flight Engineer" with a little more

You should have told him you're responsible for making sure the pilots do their job correctly.

[HerkFE]

Back at ya

You should have told him you're responsible for making sure the pilots do their job correctly.

Yeah, I should have told him something like I actually fly the plane because the pilots just sleep and only jump in the seat to taxi in.

[Beaver]

Back at ya

Yeah, I should have told him something like I actually fly the plane because the pilots just sleep and only jump in the seat to taxi in.

That's what you do at the bar anyway, right?