Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!ukma!rex!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Overenthusiastic KC-135 flight controls?
Message-ID: <1991Feb28.053251.11248@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 28 Feb 91 05:32:51 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: jtchew@csa2.lbl.gov (JOSEPH T CHEW)
The following message was posted in today's COMP.RISKS, a newsgroup that
treats risks caused by computers and related technology.  I'm just
relaying it; questions about its content should go to its author at
the address given in the last line.  He didn't state whether it was a
re-engined variant with modern turbofans like the KC-135R or an original,
straight-turbojet plane such as the KC-135A; both are operational in the
Gulf war.

--Joe
"Just another personal opinion from the People's Republic of Berkeley"

>According to Flight International [27 Feb-5 March 1991. Page 8]:

>A Boeing KC-135 apparently had two engines break off, shortly after
>take-off, during Desert Storm operations in the Gulf. Apparently, autopilot
>malfunction overstressed the airframe, causing one engine to break away and
>hit a second, which was also torn from the wing. The 'plane is repairable,
>which says a lot for the pilot's skill!

>According to the caption on the accompanying picture (of an undamaged,
>4-engine USAF KC-135) "KC-135s have overstressed in the past because of
>autopilot disconnects".

>Apparently, the 'plane performed a dutch roll, which can lead to overstrain
>of the airframe because of the divergent coupling of roll and yaw.

>Martyn Thomas, Praxis plc, 20 Manvers Street, Bath BA1 1PX UK.
>Tel:    +44-225-444700.   Email:   mct@praxis.co.uk