KC-135's

[Bringupthebird]

Are any/all KC-135's based on the Boeing 720 fuselage, or are all of them the same size as a 707?

 

[WNC Flyer]

90% sure they are all 707.

 

[navigatro]

Actually, KC-135's are smaller than the 707, and do not have a flight engineer. They are closer in size to the 720. The -135 is shorter and has a smaller diameter fuselage than the 707. It also did not come from the factory with leading edge devices (they were added later on)

They are all similar enough that Military -135 pilots can get a 707 and 720 type rating.

Nav

PS WNC - Congrats on getting out of the pool!

 

[WNC Flyer]

10% sure they are all 707.:laugh:

 

[navigatro]

10% sure they are all 707.:laugh:

You are 100% correct!

 

[L'il J.Seinfeld]

different wings
different fuselage
-135s never had an FE

But somehow you get a 707/720 type for flying -135s. The -135 must have been pretty revolutionary back in the 50's for flying without an FE.

 

[tomgoodman]

Only 2 pilots, but....

MAC's C-135 verson also lacked a Flight Engineer panel, but they still wanted a third crewmember (fourth, counting the Navigator). Instead of a Boom Operator, they carried an enlisted "Flight Mechanic", who did the walkarounds and other external tasks, then sat in the folding jumpseat and performed most of the F/E duties. I flew the -135 in Systems Command, and we had a hodgepodge of SAC/MAC procedures, modified airplanes, and crew positions.

 

[NWA-AirGuard]

The KC-135 has a 14' diameter fuselage and the 707 has a 16' diameter fuselage. They both started at a 14' diameter. Boeing decided to increase the 707 to 16' and the Air Force keep the KC-135 at 14'. Also the KC-135 has about 15' less of wingspan.

 

[LearLove]

MAC's C-135 verson also lacked a Flight Engineer panel, but they still wanted a third crewmember (fourth, counting the Navigator). Instead of a Boom Operator, they carried an enlisted "Flight Mechanic", who did the walkarounds and other external tasks, then sat in the folding jumpseat and performed most of the F/E duties. I flew the -135 in Systems Command, and we had a hodgepodge of SAC/MAC procedures, modified airplanes, and crew positions.

tom - did you fly the EC135 at Ellsworth??

 

[tomgoodman]

The late, great Systems Command

tom - did you fly the EC135 at Ellsworth??

Lear,

No, at Patrick (Cocoa Beach, FL) and Wright-Patterson (Dayton, OH). Most of the other Systems Command -135s were based at Kirtland (Albuquerque, NM) and Griffiss (Rome, NY), until they herded them all together at Wright-Patterson around 1976. Ellsworth was probably a SAC operation.

 

[DLF8108]

The KC-135 is NOT a 707

The systems are COMPETELY DIFFERENT. Even though the FAA gives you a 707/720 type, you'd need an entire training course to fly the 707 if you were a -135 pilot.

E-3 AWACS, JSTARS, and USN E-6 (At Tinker AFB), RSAF KE-3 Tanker are all actual 707 airframes.

DLF8108

 

[Benhuntn]

Actually the KC-135 and the 707-200 fly the same the -300 would take maybe an extra hr to get use to the the main gear being farther aft. The systems were not that different just located at the engineers panel.

 

[LearLove]

Lear,

No, at Patrick (Cocoa Beach, FL) and Wright-Patterson (Dayton, OH). Most of the other Systems Command -135s were based at Kirtland (Albuquerque, NM) and Griffiss (Rome, NY), until they herded them all together at Wright-Patterson around 1976. Ellsworth was probably a SAC operation.

thanks - I was thinking of this EC135


http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/c135jh_3.htm

#4 on the page.

another
http://www.siloworld.com/ICBM/ALCS/ALCS.htm


My father flew them there in the mid 70's. Guess its not the same EC135 as the one you flew.

Where did you fly the A37? My father flew the A37 also.

 

[LJDRVR]

The 707 and KC-135 would have had the same cross section had Douglass not come out with a 3 X 3 configuration for the DC-8. Even though the Boeing was well ahead of the DC-8 on the timeline, Douglas's order book was rapidly filling up - including an unexpected 50/50 split with Pan American.

Boeing spent the money and enlarged the top lobe of the fuselage.

Interestingly enough, the lower lobe of the fuselage and the original upper section (The one you see on the prototype at the Dulles Smithsonian) was right off of the KC-97, with a more blended fillet.

That's why the prototype 707 was known as the 367-80. Nothing more than a stretched stratocruiser with different cockpit, tail, wings and engines. (Gross oversimplification, but true.)

Hey Ben - did you fly the 137's while you were in the 89th?

 

[bagasticks]

the orginal boeing designation for the KC-135 was a Boeing 717, obviously no relation to the current 717.

 

[tomgoodman]

Old airplanes

thanks - I was thinking of this EC135


http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/c135jh_3.htm

#4 on the page.

another
http://www.siloworld.com/ICBM/ALCS/ALCS.htm


My father flew them there in the mid 70's. Guess its not the same EC135 as the one you flew.

Where did you fly the A37? My father flew the A37 also.

Lear,

Some of ours were like #3 in your link. The "hognose" contained a 6-foot steerable dish antenna for telemetry from spacecraft and missiles. We also had some with big windows for photographing re-entry vehicles, and various others with all kinds of radomes, antennas, etc.

I flew the A-37 at Edwards, and one of them (red & white paint job) is in the museum there! Could it have been that long ago?