Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?  
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3600 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6589 times:

If you have read most of my post in A.net you know that I am not a big 737 fan. When I heard that there was talks about a KC-737, my first thoughts was, has the USAF lost there minds. Then I found out it was going to be used as a tactical tanker, and the ideal made more since. But it have not reed anything in military aircraft magazine or Air force Times about a KC-737. So here is my question, did the USAF have talks about a KC-737 or was it a rumor.


PS I am a Boeing fan, I just not much of a 737 fan.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6554 times:

I believe the KC-737 tactical tanker idea was seroiusly considered on the command level. But it was never a big priority with the senior level as the cost will take money away from other projects. The senior level still consider the KC-135 the ideal strategic and tactical tanker aircraft. It is only about 50% bigger than a B-737-700IGW/ER, carries more than twice the fuel load, is faster and more manuverable.

But, today the idea of a KC-737 is really a good idea because it increases the number of booms in the air.


User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6507 times:

I didn't know they had a 737 tanker thoughts. From I know, the Navy was testing a 737-700 for anti-submarine use, but considering that this was say, 4 years ago, I don't believe the Navy was impressed, unless they are still considering it.

User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6502 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 2):
From I know, the Navy was testing a 737-700 for anti-submarine use, but considering that this was say, 4 years ago, I don't believe the Navy was impressed, unless they are still considering it.

Scheduled first flight in 2009, but based on the -800. P8-A

More details


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 6495 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 2):
didn't know they had a 737 tanker thoughts. From I know, the Navy was testing a 737-700 for anti-submarine use, but considering that this was say, 4 years ago, I don't believe the Navy was impressed, unless they are still considering it.

It's going ahead as the P-8A Poseidon.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6449 times:

Quoting N231YE (Reply 2):
I didn't know they had a 737 tanker thoughts. From I know, the Navy was testing a 737-700 for anti-submarine use, but considering that this was say, 4 years ago, I don't believe the Navy was impressed, unless they are still considering it.

As already pointed out, The USN will buy the B-737-800 as the P-8A, a replacement for the P-3C. But, they do buy the B-737-700C as the C-40A, and the USAF buys the B-737-BBJ (a -700) as the C-40B and the B-737-BBJ2 (a -800) as the C-40C. The RAAF Wedgetail AWACS aircraft is a B-737-700IGW, which is also ordered by Turkey and South Korea. The Wedgetail is also being offered to Italy. Boeing did, a long time ago, offer the B-737-200 with a tanker package. It carried a centerline refueling pod for probe and drogue refueling. The USAF bought the B-737-200 as the T-43A.

So a lot of B-737s are, or have been in military service around the world. A USAF KC-737 is a possibility, although I doubt it.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6447 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
As already pointed out, The USN will buy the B-737-800 as the P-8A, a replacement for the P-3C.



Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 3):
Scheduled first flight in 2009, but based on the -800

Technically, its an -800 with the wings of a -900.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6407 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
Technically, its an -800 with the wings of a -900.

Thanks, I just assumed all this time the P-8 would have the -800 wing, with different wingtips, like the Wedgetail.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6394 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Boeing did, a long time ago, offer the B-737-200 with a tanker package. It carried a centerline refueling pod for probe and drogue refueling.

Come to think of it, wouldn't a boom be kind of a tip fit on a 737 in regards to tail strikes?


User currently offlinePetertenthije From Netherlands, joined Jul 2001, 3364 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6373 times:

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 8):
Come to think of it, wouldn't a boom be kind of a tip fit on a 737 in regards to tail strikes?

Why would it be? The 737 is based on the 707 which itself is based on the KC135. They seem to be doing quite nicely as tankers. Frankly, I never understood why the 737 was NOT taken as tanker. It has faint family ties with the 707, and is of the same size. So with a 737 you would not need to get new hangars, parking areas, equipment, tugs etc. The 737 may have a somewhat shorter range then a 707, but no doubt if the contract is large enough Boeing will be able to enhance the range.



Attamottamotta!
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6353 times:

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 3):



Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

I guess I stand corrected...thanks for the correction


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6344 times:

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 9):
The 737 is based on the 707 which itself is based on the KC135. They seem to be doing quite nicely as tankers.

I would think problems regarding tailstrikes would be relatively simple to overcome, but not because the 737 is related to the 707 (in fact, modern 737s have little more than cross-section in common with the 707, which itself differs from the KC-135/717).



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6343 times:

Quoting Petertenthije (Reply 9):
Come to think of it, wouldn't a boom be kind of a tip fit on a 737 in regards to tail strikes?

Why would it be? The 737 is based on the 707 which itself is based on the KC135. They seem to be doing quite nicely as tankers. Frankly, I never understood why the 737 was NOT taken as tanker. It has faint family ties with the 707, and is of the same size. So with a 737 you would not need to get new hangars, parking areas, equipment, tugs etc. The 737 may have a somewhat shorter range then a 707, but no doubt if the contract is large enough Boeing will be able to enhance the range.



Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 11):
I would think problems regarding tailstrikes would be relatively simple to overcome, but not because the 737 is related to the 707 (in fact, modern 737s have little more than cross-section in common with the 707, which itself differs from the KC-135/717).

I don't think tail strikes would be as much of a concern on the -700 as it would on the -800 if that would be a platform of consideration due to fuselage length.


User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6336 times:

Quoting Thorny (Reply 6):
Technically, its an -800 with the wings of a -900.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Thanks, I just assumed all this time the P-8 would have the -800 wing, with different wingtips, like the Wedgetail.

I thought the P-8 was going to have wing tips like the 767 400ER , 777 200LR and 777 300ER.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6246 times:

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 8):
Come to think of it, wouldn't a boom be kind of a tip fit on a 737 in regards to tail strikes?

No, it should not be a problem, except during an over rotation.

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
I thought the P-8 was going to have wing tips like the 767 400ER , 777 200LR and 777 300ER.

Well, sort of. The P-8 will have a modified raked wingtip. But they may, or may not have some eletronic package on the tips.


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2923 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6240 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
I thought the P-8 was going to have wing tips like the 767 400ER , 777 200LR and 777 300ER

Something was brought up on here w ahile ago that there was no bleed air de-icing capability for the blended winglets, which caused the shift in the design to the raked ones.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 6218 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
It is only about 50% bigger than a B-737-700IGW/ER, carries more than twice the fuel load, is faster and more manoeuvrable.

Thats a shock! I thought all Boeing Dash 80 base planes had poor maneuverability. Is the 707 more maneuverable than a 737, if so this prove how well built the KC-135 and 707 was, and how the 737 is almost a piece of crap.

PS I said almost, it is not a piece of crap yet.


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 6213 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 16):
Is the 707 more maneuverable than a 737, if so this prove how well built the KC-135 and 707 was, and how the 737 is almost a piece of crap.

Well, if not having the ability to do something that has virtually no relationship with the mission of the aircraft, then yes... I guess the 737 is almost a piece of crap. Just like that crummy F-22 that can't take 400 people over the Atlantic.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 22 hours ago) and read 6182 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 17):
Well, if not having the ability to do something that has virtually no relationship with the mission of the aircraft, then yes... I guess the 737 is almost a piece of crap. Just like that crummy F-22 that can't take 400 people over the Atlantic.

The 737 was design as small short range airliner that was suppose to take off from small airport. To land at a small city airport you need a airliner with outstanding maneuverability. If a heavy long range aircraft like a KC-135 or 707 has better maneuverbility than a much lighter short range airliner, then there is some thing wrong with that short range airliner. For example a L1011 and DC10 are more maneuverable than a 747, am I right or wrong. So outstanding maneuverbility is part of a 737 mission.


PS: To bad we had the fuel crisis in the early 70's. If we did not have it, may be we have real jetliners today, like the 727 doing a 737 job. I do not think the 737 would have sold well if fuel prices did not go up.


User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1259 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 21 hours ago) and read 6179 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 18):
To land at a small city airport you need a airliner with outstanding maneuverability.

With a VERY few exceptions, no commercial airport large enough to warrant a 737 requires an airplane to perform manuvers that would be even CLOSE to exceeding the ability of a 737. You may need good field performance, but no one would exceed the flight envelope of a 737--your passengers would be sick long before that. The limits imposed by passengers are far stricter than anything imposed by the airframe. Thus, the 737 design is perfectly suited to its role and assertions that it is not manuverable enough to perfrom as an AIRLINER are not warranted.

If you want to speak about military applications, well, thats up to you. But this is not a factor in airline operations.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (8 years 21 hours ago) and read 6178 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 19):
With a VERY few exceptions, no commercial airport large enough to warrant a 737 requires an airplane to perform manuvers that would be even CLOSE to exceeding the ability of a 737. You may need good field performance, but no one would exceed the flight envelope of a 737--your passengers would be sick long before that. The limits imposed by passengers are far stricter than anything imposed by the airframe. Thus, the 737 design is perfectly suited to its role and assertions that it is not manuverable enough to perfrom as an AIRLINER are not warranted.

If you want to speak about military applications, well, thats up to you. But this is not a factor in airline operations.

You maybe right but you go to under stand I can not stand boring plane and to me a 737 is boring. Same for a A320, 767 and A330. But I got us off subject so let get back on the subjuct.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12138 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (7 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 6098 times:

I am sorry I caused some confusion here. Yes, the KC-135 is more manuverable than the B-737 is. But, both can normally do just fine in the refueling mission. The KC-135A, B-707-100, B-367-80 were all designed as 4G airplanes. Later the FAA determined that commerical needed an additional safety factor and limited the designs to 2.5Gs. The USAF followed suit and limited the KC-135 to a maximum of 2.5Gs and only 2.0Gs when very heavy. But, that was a regulation change, nothing more. The KC-135 can still safely be flown to 4.0Gs when it needs to be, provided it is below 275,000lbs of gross weight. Above 275,000lbs it can safely be flown to 3.0Gs. The B-737 design (all versions) can safely be flown to 2.5Gs at all gross weights.

This is what makes the early B-707s and all KC-135s more manuverable airplanes.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are There Any OV1 Mohawks In Service Anywhere? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:05:08 by Bisbee
Lets Talk About Harriers.... posted Wed May 3 2006 21:42:42 by Klm744
Was There Replacement For The F-8u posted Sat Apr 22 2006 19:27:24 by 747400sp
Usaf Pushing For KC-777 And KC-737 Mix - AW&ST posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:37:23 by Boeing Nut
Are There Any B-36's Still Flying? posted Wed Apr 10 2002 07:15:52 by Shaun3000
B-1B Vs KC-135A Which Was Louder posted Sat Aug 26 2006 21:34:09 by 747400sp
Any Space Shuttle/Rocket Launch Videos Out There? posted Sat Jul 8 2006 23:07:36 by DLSLC
Who Thought The F/A-37 Talon Was Real? posted Thu May 11 2006 19:48:15 by 747400sp
Did I Hear A KC-135A, And Was It At March ARB? posted Sun May 7 2006 21:37:06 by 747400sp
"So There I Was..." posted Tue May 2 2006 22:16:53 by UH60FtRucker

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format