Boeing 737 Tanker...

[GTX]

While we're on the subject, how about some VC-40s for staff transports?

Something like this?




Regards,

Greg

[elmayerle]

*Chuckle* Yep, that works for me.  The civilian equivalents, the privately-owned BBJs and BBJ2s are quite something; I was involved for a while, down in Waco, in outfitting some of them.  

[GTX]

Well, I knew I had seen some info on the KC-17 proposal - here you go.  though the RAAF isn't mentioned, I do remember it being being mentioned as a possible user:

MDC reveals KC-17 cargo/tanker details

Guy Norris/LOS ANGELES

McDONNELL DOUGLAS (MDC) has unveiled details of proposed KC-17 cargo/tanker versions of its C-17 transport, which could form the bulk of as many as 50 aircraft predicted as potential foreign military sales.

Details of the aircraft configuration were given to senior British Army officers for the first time at the Farnborough air show. The Army was briefed because it is the user of the aircraft rather than the operator, which is the Royal Air Force.

The baseline KC-17 is being offered to Saudia Arabia, Japan and the UK, as well as other European nations, as an alternative to the Future Large Aircraft. MDC believes that the KC-17 would fulfil the RAF's long-term requirement for a Lockheed TriStar/ BAC VC10 replacement.

The tanker would be fitted with a palletised version of the remote aerial-refuelling operator's (RARO) system developed for the Royal Netherlands Air Force KDC-10 tankers. The system is at the forward end of the cargo bay and has television cameras to give a three-dimensional view of boom refuelling and wing-tip to wing-tip views for hose and drogue refuelling. Two optional KC-10 wing-mounted drogues would be located on hard points already built into the standard airframe.

Additional fuel for tanking would be provided from either an unused centre wing tank containing up to 38,000litres, or a roll-on optional modular fuel tank containing 25,500litres. The roll-on tank would be forward in the bay, to straddle the unloaded centre-of-gravity position.

The centreline boom would be mounted on a new cargo door interchangeable with the standard door. The lower cargo ramp door would be retained, allowing access and removal of the RARO and the optional fuel tank.

Maximum take-off weight for the aircraft would remain at 266,000kg, even for the KC-17 variant with a centre wing tank and modular fuel tank.

Regards,

Greg

[B777LR]

I love the Kiwi 7373 -

Oh nono

That is not 737-300. That is 737-800! The winglets prove it unless its an Virgin Express aircraft. Clearly visible is that the engines are 2 107.6kN (24,200lb) CFM56-7B24s, or two 121.4kN (27,300lb) CFM56-7B27s as used on high gross weight versions. 737-300 uses two 89.0kN (20,000lb) CFM International CFM563B1 turbofans, or two 97.9kN (22,000lb) CFM563B2s. :zzz:  :zzz:  :zzz:



Did i metion im going flying in an Lufthansa 737-300 soon :f16:  

[Archibald]

And don't forget  Dassault 737 - the Mercure- (a failure in the same way as Concorde, at the same time, but much less glamourous ans quickly forgotten. air Inter used 10 aircrafts until 1995).
Some scenario I imagined...

when the Mercure proved a disastrous failure - in 1977- Dassault promoted a tanker variant of its airliner. The second prototype was modified in the same way as the  modified 707s tankers , with Cessna refueling pods underwing. Dassault tried to interet the Armee de l'air for tactical duties, but the service prefered modified Transalls already in the inventory. The prototype was mothballed for years... it was reactivated later for secret missions. For years, it refuelled Mirage F1EQ on their way to Bagdad. The halt in Cyprus and its diplomatic concerns were suppressed this way.
These missions were so successfull that 2 others Mercure were also modified. They were even loan to Saddam in 1986 to refueled Mirage F-1EQ6 in their naval attacks... but in the end, Illyushin tankers proved much better and were bought instead.   B)

[Mike Wren]

I recall somewhere being a suggestion of using a dedicated tanker only aircraft, like a Gulfstream GV or something smaller to split off the tanker role from the transport role.

I've just read in the latest Air Forces Monthly (Feb) that IAI have proposed a boom-equipped Gulfstream G550 tanker for the Israeli AF

thnaks for all the info, profiles & suggestions guys, very much appreciated    

a KC-40D it is...

[B777LR]

Archie, how about if Mercure was fitted with same engines as 737, do you think it would be succesful?

Edit: What would a Bombardier Challenger look like with hose? Poor mans tanker?

[Shasper]

Greg, wheh was that art. on the KC-17 pub.?


Shas B)

[Archibald]

Don't know what engines the 737 has...(sorry for my ignorance).
But the Mercure -100 had JT-8D, and the planned -200 was to have CFM-56s. But all of this went to naught because of the A320...

The Mercure was doomed by its short range (it had been conceived for the west European airlines). Modifying it with CFM-56s proved too costly for Dassault and the French governement...

There's no kit of the plane in 1/72 scale (quite logical alas, the Mercure is a 30 years old failure, last flight was in april 1995!).
A pity, because I would have grafted Heller C-135FR boom (or refueling pods) on it...  

[elmayerle]

Archie, how about if Mercure was fitted with same engines as 737, do you think it would be succesful?

The Mercure shared JT8D engines with the first generation 737's.  I assume you're talking about the CFM-56 engines of the second and third generation 737s?  As Archibald mentions, they were proposed for the Mercure 200, but that never went beyond paper.  It would appear that the 737 better fit the range requirements of the majority of the market.

You know, I sometimes wonder if RR management ever kicked themselves for creating, by their unwillingness to respond to potential customers reasonable concerns, the situation that led to the creation of the JT8D from the JT8B (J52).

[Jennings]

Archie, how about if Mercure was fitted with same engines as 737, do you think it would be succesful?

Edit: What would a Bombardier Challenger look like with hose? Poor mans tanker?

The Mercure did have the same engines as the 737  Both had JT8Ds..

J

[Jennings]

That is not 737-300. That is 737-800! The winglets prove it unless its an Virgin Express aircraft. Clearly visible is that the engines are 2 107.6kN (24,200lb) CFM56-7B24s, or two 121.4kN (27,300lb) CFM56-7B27s as used on high gross weight versions. 737-300 uses two 89.0kN (20,000lb) CFM International CFM563B1 turbofans, or two 97.9kN (22,000lb) CFM563B2s. :zzz:  :zzz:  :zzz:

Yes, that is indeed a 737-800.  It's really a totally different airplane from the first and second generation of the 737.  Most people don't realize just how utterly different the NG airplanes are.  Other than basic shape and fuselage cross section, they're virtually completely new airplanes from stem to stern.

J

[Archibald]

The Mercure had been tailored for European airways only... range was too short.

The 737-200 carried less passengers slower, but its range was superior... and that was the most important thing! Lesson was learn for the A320.

In fact the Mercure 200 of 1977 conflicted with early studies of the A320 (go ahead was given in march 1984 and first flight happened in 1987). There's doubts on the fact that the GIE Airbus pressioned Dassault  to scrapp its project...

Hmm a Caravelle with CFM-56s    

[B777LR]

Hmm a Caravelle with CFM-56s  

and winglets  New redesigned wings  and sterling colours  

[Shasper]

We're wandering here...

Shas B)