Warbird Information Exchange

Being much too young to have seen the KC-97 in service ( )
I was wondering based on the one interior photo...did they have tanks on both sides of the upper deck or just on the right as shown?
And were they removable (I sure the typical SAC unit wouldn't remove them but later in their ANG careers the units have have needed an occasional transport)?

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

They had the tanks on one side only (left). The other side had troop seats. They didn't remove the tanks unless it was to be converted to a straight cargo plane. Each ANG tanker unit had one cargo bird to haul the maintenance folks around with room for an engine or two. I think there were only three straight C-97 cargo ANG units, Minnesota, New York, and California. I think all of the rest were tanker units (someone correct me?). My Dad flew with the Minnesota unit. The active duty units had the below deck tanks and pylon tanks with none on the upper deck. When the ANG put the jet engines (B-47 outer pylon and engine) on the wings in place of the pylon tanks, they installed extra tanks on the upper deck to compensate. The jet engines used regular 115/145 Avgas as did the piston engines. The Texas ANG was the last USAF unit to fly KC-97s, I bet the Grissom KC-97 was in the Texas unit at one time.

I believe you are right she is an ex-Texas bird

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Any idea what unit the Viet Nam Huey was in?

< The active duty units had the below deck tanks and pylon tanks with none on the upper deck. When the ANG put the jet engines (B-47 outer pylon and engine) on the wings in place of the pylon tanks, they installed extra tanks on the upper deck to compensate. >

Don't know much about the ANG's L models but I spent 3 years flying both the F and G models with the 307th ARS 1954-1957. The F model had 4 very large tanks on the upper deck and none on the lower deck. The G model had the external wing tanks (dropable) and the smaller tanks along the left side of the cabin as well as in the lower fwd and aft compartments. Both aiorcraft were restricted to 36000# of cargo load due to a the center section wing bending moment limit. Having fuel in the external tanks helped alleviate this problem. A normal off-load to a B-47 was 40000#. The difference was made up by pumping 115/145 from the wing tanks into the A/R tanks for transfer. We were very careful to have the engine fuel supply isolated from the A/R fuel during this transfer operation. We were told that at METO power (which we had to use to keep formating speed) a 5 second contamination of the 4360's avgas supply would fail the engine(s). Never heard of anyone failing all four but we had a few single failures. The CHT rose so rapidly that it was impossible to reduce power before damage happened.
Worked OK fueling the B-47 but the USAF found out the hard way that the J-65 engine in the F-84F wouldn't tolerate much Av-Gas in the transfer. This was discovered after our squadron fueled the first squadron of F-84F's around Goose Bay Labrador when they were deploying to the UK for awhile. Their CO complemented us on the operation which went like clockwork (for a change) but he had 24 engine changes when they got to the UK! There was an all-SAC alert shortly thereafter.

The KC-97 was a nice roomy airplane to fly at the airline weights around 153,500# but at the 175,000# SAC flew them it was very tiring holding it steady while refueling anybody. Since the co-pilot had the best instruments to fly with, guess who got to do it?! We had a $39.95 autopilot installed but it was worthless for A/R platform flying.

_________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all, that counts.

Thanks Jack, I stand corrected.

My wife was in the Texas ANG when they still had the KC-97Ls and went on a few "Creek Party" operations to Europe. The ANG 97s picked up the Europe refueling missions (Operation Creek Party) so SAC could stand alert and do SEA missions with the 135. My wife said they always had a jug change in Goose Bay either going or coming back, along with engine changes there. The Texas unit also physically lost a jet engine off one of the pylons on the way to Goose Bay, they watched it drop in some lake up that way. My dad flew as FE on C-97s (slick wing without pylon tanks or jets) with the Minn. ANG during the 60s. With the local missions the engines would be a oil leaking nightmare. After a two week trip to SEA or Europe with a lot of cruise power the engines would seal themselves up with very few leaks. A friend of mine was a crew chief on them in the active duty up in Thule. They could scramble one on alert in under 5 minutes. I asked him how they did that without good oil temps and he replied, "We did a lot of engine changes".

Here is a nice video (inc. interior) of the 97 at the Air Mobility Command Museum at Dover AFB. I saw this plane in service with the TN ANG as a kid. She is in great shape and looks like all you would have to do is fuel her up and she'd be ready to go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B0odG0sZr0

i really wish that b-17 got under cover and i know how tought it is to cut the red tape. Hopefully soon, she'll be inside

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

The Huey served with the 5th Aviation Detachment, 135th Assault Helicopter Company, 165th Transportation Company, 388th Transportation Company and the 48th Assault Helicopter Company, before being returned home. I am trying to find any photos of what she looked like in service as we want to move it to indoor display in a few weeks. She is really stock inside and in great condition.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

Wow! She looks fantastic!

_________________
"Everyone wants to live here (New Jersey), evidenced by the fact that it has the highest population per capita in the U.S..."

Regardless of politics, you have to give the guy his due for flying a jet fighter.
It was a bit more dangerous than most military jobs.
To say otherwise is to dishonor all the ADC guys killed flying them in the 50-70s.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

I am sure it was a handful to fly. I also think I heard that he flew some in F-104's. I wonder if he still flies at all.

_________________
Chris Henry
EAA Aviation Museum Manager

in a nutshell, what's the story with the b-17? I'm sure i missed that thread a long time ago

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."

There are several threads on Miss Liberty Belle. Start here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=38769

Then go here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36160

_________________
.
.
Sure, Charles Lindbergh flew the plane... but Tom Rutledge built the engine!

Visit Django Studios online or Facebook!

ok, thank you

_________________
" I am a nobody in aviation, but somebody to my family."