i saw today this kind of aircraft while i was doing the pushback at my home-airport frankfurt, first i couldn't identify it because it was on the other side of the airport( u.s air base) and very far away. the shape of the fuselage was clearly a boeing 707 (never seen before in F R A since i work here).....but these MASSIVE engines.i thought : 707 and these kind of engines= no way....
i asked the captain via headset if he could identify the aircraft and he said that this is a military version of a 707....
does anybody know something more about this mightymighty aircraft?
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6561 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
Yeah, they have GE CF6s in them now. They're thinking about doing the same thing to the B-52. The Department of Defense has lots of CF6 units in use -- they even power Navy ships! Though there they're called LM2500s, but they're the same thing.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2534 times:
Relax, you didn't see a 707. You saw a 717. the C-135 line is 4 inches narrower than the 707 (the 717/C-135 was 12 inches wider than the dash 80, the 707 was 4 inches wider than the 717/C-135 so that it would be wider than the DC-8). The 717 also has a completely different wing than the 707, although it has been retrofitted with 707 tailplanes.
How many different types of engines have the 707/717 been fitted with? not counting the 720 testbeds, I can think of at least 5... J-57, Conway, JT3-D (TF-33), JT8D-200, and CFM-56.
Miamix707 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2493 times:
I think people are surprised because 707s didn't fly in airline service with those engines. Its still a great looking machine, but with those thick engines it looks more like one of those airbuses you see nowadays
Tungd From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 103 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2395 times:
Please correct me if I'm wrong....
The Dash-80 was the "prototype" of what eventually became the 707, and was only used for demonstration and testing. The military -135 was the first production model of the basic design, with the 707's following later as the "final," and improved, passenger type.
Since the -135 family is still the backbone of the U.S. military's tanker/AWACS/airborne command, etc., fleet, the new engines are a way to keep the old planes flying for another couple of decades.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30015 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2366 times:
Your just a bit outside.
The -80 was a narrowbody "Technology demonstrator"
The original idea was to build the 707 as a wider cabin aircraft, with 5 across seating. This is the cabin width the KC-135 has.
Douglas then was working on developing their DC-8 with 6 across seating. After loosing a number of orders to Douglas (Who's airplane was still only on paper) Boeing relented and redesigned the 707 with th 6 across seating we know today.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 67
Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2259 times:
So if the FAA does not issue type certificates for military aircraft just exactly WHAT authority would make the C-135 be a B-717?
Boeing? No, they are the ones who designated the re-worked Douglas design a B-717.
The FAA? Nope, L-188 himself ruled that one out. Besides if they did then the former Douglas product would have been called something else.
Old wive's tale? Bingo!
And BTW L-188 the FAA does issue type certificates to military aircraft when the manufacturer makes the application.
C-130 became L-100 and L-382. There are other examples of military-first types, but you get the idea.
And so, if you can get an FAA type rating in a KC-135 (and you can) what would it say on your license? Certainly not B-717. It will say B-707. I have friends who have done exactly this.
There are two Boeing fables that people have been passing along for as long as I can remember. One is that the 707 is called the 707 because the sweep angle of the wings is 45o and .707 is the sine/cosine of 45 degrees. Problem is, the sweep is more like 35o The other one is the B-717 thing. There may even be some internal papers at Boeing that refer to it that way, but there is no official designation making it so.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2245 times:
Sam, you are flat wrong. This is from the Boeing website:
"Following that pattern, the other offspring of the Dash 80, the Air Force tanker, was given the model number 717. Since it was an Air Force plane, it was also given a military designation of KC-135.
After 717 was assigned to the KC-135, the marketing department made the decision that all remaining model numbers that began and or ended in 7 would be reserved exclusively for commercial jets. (After the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger in the late 1990s, the model number 717 was reused to identify the MD-95 as part of the Boeing commercial jet family.)"
F4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2246 times:
I was on a trip recently with a former tanker pilot. As we talked aviation, he mentioned how the tanker community didn't like Boeing calling the McD airplane the 717 since that was the original model number of the C/KC-135. I don't have specifics at hand but thought it a coincidence that I had this converation a couple of weeks ago and the 717 issue pops up in this forum. I hadn't hear the 717 reference to the tanker before then.
Cottage Grove, MN
Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
Lt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 11 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
Tungd- The 135 is not an AWACS, the E-3 is from the 707-(320) ariframe, two rebuilds of 707 airliners, the rest new build E-3s. The E-6. , E-8, E-3, TC-18 and VC-137 are all 707s. The 135 airframes (KC, EC, RC) are all from the Dash-80, 717 series mentioned above.
Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Uncle Sam's AWAX, The best shine for your jet
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 25, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2163 times:
WoW.....a slightly heated debate on what Boeing 'really' calls the 717.
To add......from what I remember reading, back in the very late 1950's when Boeing came out with the 707 from the Dash-80 program, they also gave the military equivalent the design designation '717'..which quickly became the C-135 family. It was given its own designation due to the fact the aircraft was slightly different (as mentioned above). Now.......the 7*7 designation was really only meant for the commercial side of Boeing, so......back several years ago when Boeing acquired McD and the MD-95, they renamed it the 717. I remember much debate about this by the 'purists' as they claimed "Boeing already has the 717....its the C-135"
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"