Boeing what could of been warbird AWAC

[Liberator]

Interesting look at what could of been -

A Boeing 1960s-70s??? study on the E-3 AWACS with note twin podded 8 engines from a B52 setup -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-BOEING- ... 2a17bed025

[The Inspector]

Artwork for one of the original proposals for the E-3. At the same time Douglas' proposal had the antenna mounted on top of a reverse swept vertical fin on their DC-8 offering (think REALLY BIG MOONEY Mk. 21). Since the E-3 is based on the 707 tooling, the transport lugs for 'buddy pack' engine transportation cradles were built into the wings inboard of #2 and #3 (back when transporting a new engine to East Yomamastan was an issue of serious logistics). The USAF took a really long, hard look @ adapting those lugs to accept AIM 9 TER's (for a total of 6 A2A missiles) for self defense, which would have made them the worlds biggest fighter. While I was in QC on the AWACS @ Renton we had a couple different 'HMMM' teams come have a look @ the wings.

[JohnB]

If you're old enough...and I barely am...you'll recall those drawing when they were first issued in the early 70s.
Nothing new or secret...
Still you have got to wonder why the USAF hasn't put KC-135R engines on the E-3 fleet?

[The Inspector]

A very good question. The very last commercial 707 we built was used as a flying testbed for the CFM engines/pylons, Boeing was looking @ increasing the range/economy of the 707 to compete with the DC-8-62/63's and the pylons and wings of a 707 are a very different animal from the structure of a KC-135. In fact there isn't much beyond the flight deck windows that will directly interchange between the two airframes, it's completely different all together.......... 'it's completely different, altogether'
After the flight testing was done, the airplane was brought back into the 4-20 building and we converted it back to JT-4s and it was delivered to the customer so all the engineering exists, I'd speculate it's because the TF-30's are adequate for an airframe with a know fixed weight that never varies and essentially flies empty (no cargo, no varying pax loads)and being air capable the airframe will support extra fuel weight in flight that it couldn't lift from the ground because of landing gear load limits.

[JohnB]

But the UK, French and Saudi E-3s have the big engines. So as you say, the engineering and paperwork is out there (and paid for).
Maybe the USAF is just trying to use up the JT-4s the they bought for the 135E priogram.

[The Inspector]

The E-3 uses TF-30's which are sort of -200 JT-8's (think more MD-80) not JT-4's. I have no idea why the Air Force continues to wear a belt and suspenders. Up until the C-5 they shied away from thrust reversers in any form and just wanted bigger and bigger brakes installed even tho about every 20 seconds world wide @ the time a passenger jet was using it's T/R's to 'WHOA UP MULE!' now it's about 5 times a second world wide. The same mindset that had them choose the YC-15 proposal over the pretty much equal Boeing YC-14 because the YC-15 'looked more like what we were used to(looks like a airplane tuh me), and the YC-14 looked weird', Boeing must have been on to something looking @ the Russian AN-72 'Coaler' series which was seriously scared by the YC-14, and I'm don't be seeing some YC-15-ski. The C-17 is an awsome performer and a great asset.


Anyone who's stood out in a cold rain with the longest straight screwdriver they own chasing the 'mouse' on a JT-3 or JT-4 on a trim run understands.

[Garth]

But the UK, French and Saudi E-3s have the big engines. So as you say, the engineering and paperwork is out there (and paid for).
Maybe the USAF is just trying to use up the JT-4s the they bought for the 135E priogram.

Another possibility is that they're holding out to see the results of putting the P&W JT8D-219 into the E-8 JSTARS fleet.

[The Inspector]

Since the first MD-80 flew in Oct. of 1979, I'll bet the 'proving period' is pretty much a thing of the past for the JT8D-200 series engine. And the question was why the CFM engine (737-300 & on and Super DC-8's, A-330, A340) isn't installed wasn't it? And the already installed TF-30 is somewhere between the JT-8D-17 and the -200 series engines so that's about a push.

[CAPFlyer]

The simple answer for the F100 (aka CFM-56) not going on the E-3 fleet is a simple one and is the same reason it didn't go on much of the RC fleet. The USAF made a conscious decision not to support two versions of the engine. As such, the only version of the F100 procured was the version without thrust reversers. The E-3 and some of the heavier RC models MUST have thrust reversers for safe operations due to their higher landing weights. The only version of the TF33 (aka JT3D) acquired by the USAF was the thrust-reverser equipped version for a similar reason and was why the KC-135E was primarily used by ANG and USAFR units that were based at international airports where the thrust reversers allowed them to improve their relationship with the civilian operators by not requiring full-length landings all the time. Same reason most of the RC/EC fleet was re-engined with them.

Also, remember that the E-3's were delivered with the TF33 installed. They started life as 707-320B's and -320C's, so they always had those engines and it made sense that since Pratt still fully supported the engine that they not spend the money to hang something else on them.

[wingman1]

Interesting look at what could of been -

A Boeing 1960s-70s??? study on the E-3 AWACS with note twin podded 8 engines from a B52 setup -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-BOEING- ... 2a17bed025

has anyone done a model if it? (god , i hope so. )

[The Inspector]

HELLER did a 1/72nd scale kit of the E-3 and REVELLOGRAM is about to re-release their 1/72nd scale kit of the NB-52B and X-15, so all ya need is about $300.00 bucks to buy both kits (the 52/X-15 will cost $100.00, and the E-3 can be found on line $$$$$), a small one bay garage to build/convert in, and a fair amount of time to invest.

[famvburg]

I don't know how accurate the B-52 pods would be but the engines on this proposal for the AWACS were TF-34s rather than the B-52's J-57s or even TF-33s.

Interesting look at what could of been -

A Boeing 1960s-70s??? study on the E-3 AWACS with note twin podded 8 engines from a B52 setup -

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-BOEING- ... 2a17bed025

[The Inspector]

It would be a better starting point than sitting down with a block of BONDO and carving away everything that doesn't look like what you're after. Not everything can be sourced with a debit card card a cell phone, sometimes you have to put on your big boy pants and do some......dare I say it?..............scratch building 'OH!! THE HUMANITY!!' let me tear my shirt!

[wingman1]

....................scratch building 'OH!! THE HUMANITY!!' let me tear my shirt!

Scratch Building???

i would rarher pay someone for a completed model first!



(any takers? pm me!)

[The Inspector]

Depends, I always thought the journey was a major part of the total package. I'd rather explain to another modeller how I had to '#######' the '******' and trim both ends of '^^^^^^' and dig in the spares cabinet to find two spare &&& to make that using some filler, than admit 'damfino'. It's kind of like building your own street rod or dialing 1-800 BUY AROD. Comes from being really Aulde Skool and pride in craftsmanship.