Talk:KC-135 Stratotanker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the KC-135 Stratotanker article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Based on ?

Isn't the KC-135 built from one of the passenger jets? Like a 737 or 727? -- Zoe

  • Nothing directly. It is a larger version of the Boeing 367-80 (Dash 80). The 707 is a larger version of the KC-135 as well. I believe all this is in the Development section now. -Fnlayson 17:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] ERRORS IN ARTICLE

The article states that the KC-135 R/T Models are only stationed at McConnell AFB, Kansas. However, references to this fact need to be presented, as I also can find references to KC-135 R/T Models used by the 92nd ARW, Fairchild AFB, Washington, which is also the largest KC-135 base in the nation.

Should this section be omitted?

I'm not the author of the above comments, but I added a "citation needed" tag for the statement in question. Itsfullofstars 00:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"KC-135R/T" is the designation given to receiver KC-135s, the reference to Fairchild jets of KC-135R/T is simply saying that they have both KC-135R and KC-135T aircraft. The R/Ts are only at McConnell.Titanmiller 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future of KC-135

Donald Rumsfield is full of shit. Cutting the replacement program for the KC-135 means a bunch of 60 year old dinosours be dying off one by one as they reach the limits of their maintainability. This will create a severe shortage of support aircraft in a 7-10 year time frame and eventually doom america's air force to short range missions once the airborne tankers are grounded. IT WILL HAPPEN.Gohiking 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Yea, they obviously were working on plans for the KC-X program last fall. -Fnlayson 22:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The sole external link didn't work when tested on 20 Dec 2006, so I added some more. I suggest eventual removal of the link to http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/boeing/nkc-135a.htm if the site continues to be non-responsive, but in the mean time I added a notation to say the link is non-working. Itsfullofstars 23:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that aeroweb is no longer viable, but back copies are available at www.archive.org (The Internet Wayback Machine), so I changed the aeroweb link to use that instead. Itsfullofstars 01:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Update — Aeroweb is back online, at a new location: www.aero-web.org - Itsfullofstars 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian KC-135

I've read the Seattle newspaper article that states that Italy uses 4 KC-135. However, I have printed sources that state that Italy uses military 707s for aerial refueling. (Frawley, Gerard: The International Directiory of Military Aircraft, pages 40-41. Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, 2002. ISBN 1-875671-55-2.) I'm inclined to believe an aviation publication over a city newspaper, even one in Seattle. I'll keep checking around. - BillCJ 06:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I found this reference that also lists the aircraft as "707T/T". If they're not KC-135s, some more info really ought to be dug up on these and added in the appropriate place. I know Omega was interested in developing a tanker version of the 707, but AFAIK they only produced one prototype. Four airframes intended for the program remain in storage at Mojave. Until more info become clear, I'll modify the article's statement. Akradecki 03:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The cited news article is quite old, from July 2001. The article states that by 2006 the Italian Air Force was to have 767 tankers instead... "The first of the four tankers is expected to be delivered to Italy in 2004, with the remaining three delivered in 2005 and 2006." I had deleted the first mention yesterday that Italy was using KC-135s because it was a completely unsourced assertion at the time, and it was added by a first-timer anonymous IP of 82.50.71.54. It looked more like a case of subtle vandalism to me than a legit edit, so that's why I deleted Italy from the operators. I probably should have simply added a {{fact}} tag instead. - Itsfullofstars 22:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Currently Boeing is filling the order for 4 Italian KC-767s.[1] -Fnlayson 02:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's an english translated version of the Italian AF 707 T/T data sheet. Says they got the 4 planes from Portugual. -Fnlayson 18:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Mystery solved! Italy originally had 4 707-300s, 3 of which were converted to tanker configuration by Aeritalia in 1988-89. The other remained a straight freighter; it, and one of the tankers are now in storage, leaving two operational. Photos of these can be seen here. The airframes are:
MM62148, c/n 20514, built as 707-3F5C, for the Portugese AF (then operated by TAP, Nigeria A/W, Air Malta, TAP), converted by Aeritalia 1989, currently reported as in storage.
MM62149 c/n 20298, built as 707-382B for TAP, converted to -3F5C by aeritalia 1988, currently operational.
MM62150 c/n 19740, built as 707-382B for TAP, freighter only, not tanker, sold to Boeing then to Omega, currently in storage.
MM62151 c/n 20515, built as 707-3F5C, for the Portugese AF (then operated by TAP, Nigeria A/W, Air Malta, TAP), converted by Aeritalia 1989, currently operational.
I have also found that the Israeli AF also operated converted 707s, calling them "KC-707s", at least in one ref. I suppose that some of this should probably be summarized over in the 707 article sometime. I have amended the note in the KC-135 article to reflect this, feel free to reword if you think it can be said better. Akradecki 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good work. Since these are not actual KC-135s (387 based), I think we should carry this to the 707. -Fnlayson 22:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Service life

I stopped by to look into that citation that was needed on the "service until 2040" bit, which has already been fixed by fnlayson. But I'm now wondering if the comment is really valuable at all. That 2040 date was an estimated service retirement for the aircraft based on service lives of 36k and 39k hours for E and R models respectively. However, that's an airframe structural estimate only, and many individual aircraft would not reach these limits even by 2040 (no E models would); the estimate is for planning purposes, not a reflection of the expected service life of the aircraft. Additionally, while the average annual flight time for a 135 is about 450 hours, that's skewed down by low-annual-time aircraft assigned to some NG units. Many individual aircraft are adding hours much more quickly, and some R models will reach their 39k hour lifespan by 2030 or sooner (a unit I am familiar with is averaging ~600 hours/year on each jet, not 400). Corrosion is reducing the lifetime of the airframe structure as well, though as yet I haven't seen any official estimate of the cost of corrosion to fleet. The comment in the linked article notes that the older the planes get the more problems we discover. It also notes that "Various estimates of the lifespan of the KC-135 project the retire date out as late as 2040," which implies uncertainty and lack of agreement. I think 2040 is reported primarily for its shock value and not because the AF takes it seriously; apart from that one article on AF link (and where'd the writer get his "various estimates"?) I can't find an official source that wants to claim 2040 as an expected retirement date. All of the foregoing boils down to, do we need to have this in here at all? Isn't the article just fine with the opening sentence being "The Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker is an aerial refueling tanker aircraft, first entered service in 1957."? Thehappysmith 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Fair points. I moved the 2040 part and reference to the Recent developments section. -Fnlayson 17:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acronyms

What do the letters K and C in KC-135 mean? (K = Kerosin? = Jet fuel?; C = Cargo ?)--RosarioVanTulpe 17:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USAF's oldest

Whether the B-52 or KC-135 is the oldest aircraft in service depends on several factors. The basic B-52 design is older, having first flown in 1952, while the 367-80 first flew in 1954, and the KC-135 itself flew in 1956. The KC-135As first entered service 1957, and many of these were later upgraded to KC-135E standard, and some of these are still in service (primarily ANG and AFR). The only B-52 model remaining in service is the B-52H, which first flew in 1960, and entered service in 1961. Thus, it is possible that some of the KC-135Es, and other conversions of KC-135As, are actually older than the B-52Hs in service. The best thing to do in this case is to find a recent official USAF source on which aircraft they consider the oldest, and to quote that. - BillCJ 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Before you go too far, don't forget the mighty Tweet! I have personally seen jets from '58. I would have to get a pict to prove it though (yes, they are still flying the Tweet). — BQZip01 — talk 06:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, how could I forget the Tweets? And here I just split off the A-37 Dragonfly from the T-37 Tweet page, and I forgot the poor little things! Good reason tho that we need an official source/statement of some kind. If none of the 135s in service are older that 1958 (a possibility), there could be a few Tweets older than they are! - BillCJ 06:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be accurate to say the the B-52 is the oldest aircraft type in service, however. Or we could just delete the sentence and not deal with it. --rogerd 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

THat would probably be the best course of action for now. - BillCJ 18:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Or make it "one of the oldest..". -Fnlayson 20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with "one of the oldest..". --rogerd 02:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to do with the discussion ! just a bye the way - the two oldest KC-135s flying are ship 0015 (55-3132) first flown 12 Jul 1957 (although now a special mission aircraft), and the oldest still as a tanker is Ship 0024 (55-3141) in-service as a KC-135E first flown (as an A model) 30 Sep 1957. Only the B-52Hs are still in service and they are from the 1960s. MilborneOne 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Saying the KC-135s are 'over 40 years old' is good enough to make the point. -Fnlayson 06:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant walk

The image at the bottom of the page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KC-135_Stratotanker_Elephant_Walk.jpg - has the caption of "elephant walk" - but there is no corresponding wikipedia page, nor is it mentioned elsewhere on the article. Would anyone care to explain what it is, and alter the article appropriately? ta 82.3.241.56 (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)