Talk:Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker article.|
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated C-class)|
I was going back through some of my old photos from 25 years ago and found I have a picture of 55-3136, which is listed on various websites as a JKC-135A. Any idea what that is? Nothing I've seen answers it sufficiently except that it was some kind of test aircraft. -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have 55-3136 first flown 13 Aug 1957 and used in experiments to determine the effects of Aurora Borealis on radio communuications between 1957 and 58 for which it had an addition spinal antenna. It was later used in the nuclear weapon test program until it was returned to SAC in May 66. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Let me google that for you...
- However, to answer your question:
- King Hawes writes:
- Tail number 59-1491 started out as a KC-135A and was delivered to Wright-Patterson AFB on Oct. 1, 1960 for conversion to a JKC-135A named "Nancy Rae".
- After modifications, Nancy Rae deployed to Shemya on New Years Eve 1961 to record Soviet ICBM launches into the Kamchatka peninsula.
- On March 1, 1963 Nancy Rae was transferred from AFSC to SAC and was converted by General Dynamics to an RC-135S (First of its kind) and renamed "Wanda Belle". The name "Wanda Belle" was changed to "Rivet Ball" in early 1967. Rivet Ball crash landed (January 13, 1969) on Shemya after returning from an operational mission.
- Rivet Ball (Tail #59-1491) never flew again. Her remains ended up in the "Million Dollar Dump".
- It would not surprise me to find out that the airframe you listed was one of those converted to an RC-135 variant. — BQZip01 — talk 21:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting... the reason I asked is I have a picture of 55-3136, when it was a transient bird at Clark Air Base sometime around late 1981 and was parked on the MAC ramp. Apparently it was doing regular old tanker duty and was on a deployment, at least from what I can tell. -Rolypolyman (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Similarity to 707
The 707 and KC-135 share an awful lot, remarkably similar by a reasonable standard, since they share the -80 as a "parent." Consider that they have virtually identical wingspans, heights, and lengths, were originally equipped with the same engines, and share muscle-powered servo tab flight controls (an uncommon configuration in aircraft of this size). They have virtually identical profiles (save the 135's boom), so similar that a layman can immediately pick them out as twins. The size difference is very small, really noticeable only in fuselage diameter (since the 707 carried people and baggage, who need more space than fuel.) The differences are a matter of tweaks here and there, and the family resemblance is overwhelming. What differences would you point to? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- The size difference is so tiny as to be insignificant. They're closer in size to each other than to the prototype 367-80. We're talking about an increase of about 4 inches from -135 to 707. Both are more than a foot bigger than the -80. Using the word "larger" really puts the wrong image in your head. They were contemporaries, and virtual twins. Calling out the differences should be left to the body of the article; the intro gives it undue prominence. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Payload/Maximum Fuel Load
According to the General Characteristics, the Payload is 83,000 lb (37,600 kg); at the same time, the article says that the "Maximum Fuel Load" is 31,275 US gal (118 kL). How can this be? 118.000 l Jet fuel should weigh more than 37.600kg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, for the KC-46A, the fuel capacity is given in lbs and kg, while for the KC-135 it is given in gals and cubic meters. These need to be made consistent. Either volume or weight or both, but not one for one plane the other for another. peter (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:sofixit? Nothing is stopping you from making these alterations. Do you need assistance as to how to do so? Buffs (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse me if this is the wrong place. The picture of the view from the boom operators view seems to be from a KC-10 tanker where the boom operator sits upright. On KC-135's the boom operator lays on his stomach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it is the camera angle that makes it appear as those the boom operator here is seated. I looked at some similar images on af.mil/photos and found a similar image that make it clear the operator is in a prone position. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's the camera angle. Note the chin rest, and the distinctive KC-135 boom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sale to Israel?
- I am not sure who we are, as Israel has some really old 707s converted to tankers a few fairly recently refurbished and re-engined KC-135s would be a good deal. But like all these things we will just wait and see what if any agreement is made. MilborneOne (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
1987 Crash at Fairchild
According to the Fairchild Air Force Base page, there was a crash there in 1987:
"On 13 March 1987, a KC-135A crashed into a field adjacent to the 92nd Bomb Wing headquarters and the taxiway during a practice flight for an In-Flight Refueling Demonstration planned for later in that month. Seven were killed in the crash, six aboard the aircraft and one on the ground."
PDF rendering Error
When I try to download this page as a PDF it keeps saying "WARNING: Article could not be rendered - ouputting plain text. Potential causes of the problem are: (a) a bug in the pdf-writer software (b) problematic Mediawiki markup (c) table is too wide" How can this problem be fixed? American Writer (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Numbers don't add up
"is 96% quieter than the KC-135A (sideline noise levels at takeoff were reduced from 126 to 99 decibels)". 96% reduction of noise from 126 decibels is 5.4dB. I doubt there is even a machine to measure this tiny level of noise. 126 to 99dB reduction is just over 20%. Could someone check and correct? Or explain why I'm wrong? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)