747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:48 am

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.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:22 am

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.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:08 am

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.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:27 am

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
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:24 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:40 am

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.
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:55 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:16 pm

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.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:42 pm

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?
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
petertenthije
Posts: 3256
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:03 am

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!
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:54 am

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 3):



Quoting Thorny (Reply 4):



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

I guess I stand corrected...thanks for the correction
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:48 am

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
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:56 am

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.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:50 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:36 pm

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.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3136
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:37 pm

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
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:21 am

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.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:17 am

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
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:03 am

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.
 
dw747400
Posts: 1091
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 8:24 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:39 am

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
 
747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3833
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Fri Sep 01, 2006 3:57 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Was There Any Real Talk About A KC-737?

Wed Sep 06, 2006 12:25 am

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests