Why no reversers on the KC-135?

[STBY GAIN]

Now that we're talking T-1s, what caused the two-woman crew to depart the runway not long ago? Saw the writeup in one of the European air forces magazines.

 

[chawbein]

The KC-135 is the same basic airplane as the "-80". The demo plane the boeing constructed to show they could make a large jet transport. The KC-135 had lost the initial tanker competition as the AF decided to give Lockheed the tanker contract. I believe that SAC demanded tankers immediately, and the AF bought several KC-135's to meet the interim demand. I think that the rest of the story is self-explanatory (Thank you discovery wings channel).

EDIT: Wow, I just read my post again, and I am a freaking DORK. Sorry.

 

[HoursHore]

Now that we're talking T-1s, what caused the two-woman crew to depart the runway not long ago? Saw the writeup in one of the European air forces magazines.

The story I heard was pretty interesting, but I think its priveleged.

 

[LJDRVR]

There are actually quite a few differences between the 367-80 prototype and the KC-135. For starters the -80 fuselage was 132"X164" as opposed to 144"X166" on the -135. The KC-135 dimensions were the original 707 proposal, as PB4UFLY correctly states, Boeing enlarged the diameter and wing area/span to compete with the DC-8. (Production 707's were148"X170.5")

The 707 was intended to have a longer service life than the tankers. As such, the skin was the heavier 2024 alloy. (The -135 is 7178) How ironicly flawed that decision turned out to be!

Comparing the KC-135 to the production 707/720 models, there's only a 20% parts commonality.

Lastly, an interesting story about how 35' became zero reference. In the 50's CAA certification regs required transport category A/C accelerate/go performance to include reaching 50 feet at the end of the runway. L-1049's, DC-7's and the like were all certified to do so. When Boeing was conducting flight test on the 707, they discovered that at gross weight, the water-injected JT-3C's were only capable of an accelerate/go altitude of 35' for the horizontal distance of the then longest runway at Idlewild. (JFK) As Boeing's existance hinged on the Pan American order and the success of the airframe, and since the runway wasn't going to be extended, Boeing petioned the FAA for a change to the certification requirement and recieved it.

Wow! Nerd alert. I love 707's. First jet I flew on.

 

[Big Duke Six]

Hold on a sec...

I know I'm getting old, but wasn't the 707 derived from the KC-135? As I understand it, the AF needed a fast tanker to keep up with Century Series fighters as well as the B-47, B-52 and B-58. I'll go check when I get a chance, but I'm pretty sure the civilain version came AFTER the AF RFP for the tanker.

Anyone?

 

[Cruise157]

KC-135 Family Tree

The origin and development of the KC-135 we interwoven with that of the 707. Around 1940/1950 Boeing had begun work on a new commercial jet transport which was a variation to the Model 367 (C-97/KC-97 to the military, Boeing 377 to the airlines), During 1951 Boeing proposed a tanker variation of a jet powered version of the Model 367 to the Air Force. This was turned down due to a financial commitment to an operational fleet of B-47s and KC-97s and its projected acquisition of a fleet of B-52s precluded any commitment to a new tanker effort.

Dispite this, Boeing went on to produce an entirely new airplane, the Model 367-80. In 1952 Boeing approved $15 million of company funds for further development and construction of a prototype. This airplane was now designated Model 707. Boeing kept it under wraps and referred to it only as the Boeing 367-80.

As a military venture, the as-yet identified airplane would function as a jet transport and tanker. Construction of the 367-80 prototype began in 1952. As the roll-out neared, Boeing's President William M. Allen said, "Boeing's first consideration was the nation's security. Boeing's principal aim was to fill what it considered a military need. At the same time, and in the commercial interest, we believed Americal should no longer delay getting into the jet field."

On 15 May 1954 the 'Dash 80' was rolled-out and it was christened by Mrs William E Boeing with two bottles of champagne, one for each of the two names the airplane bore: Stratoliner for its commercial uses and Stratotanker for its military operations.

About this same time, the Air Force began to evaluate the Air Force requirement for a jet tanker, finally achknowleging Boeing's foresight of just such an airplane.

In July 1954, with a tanker competition well underway, the USAF purchased 70 to 100 'interim' tankers, specifically the Boeing 367-80 tanker proposal which Boeing now called the 367-138B and would later redesignate as the Model 717. This became the KC-135A, and Boeing later won the full contract.

At the same time, Boeing was developing the commercial side of the 'Dash 80' which would become the model 707. The first 707 was scheduled for completion concurrently with the 100th KC-135.

Reference:
Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker: More than just a tanker by Robert S. Hopkins III

 

[chawbein]

Thanks for the info. Cruise!

 

[Big Duke Six]

Thanks Cruise! (Or should I say, "Tanks!")

One of the most significant aircraft in our history, no doubt.

 

[rainman_02]

The story I heard was pretty interesting, but I think its priveleged.

Most of the info is privileged, yes. Here's the af.mil story http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123005985 but no AIB report on the site yet.

 

[rainman_02]

To all that answered my -135 questions...awesome. Thanks for the info! (And I really do love y'all...but not like that).