What to do with old airliners

[rickshaw]

In the 1970s, there were numerous old air liners, both prop and jet driven which still had substantial hours left on them which were left to languish as newer "wide-body" ones entered service.

I've often wondered why the later models of Sud-Aviation Caravelles, DH Comets and similar aircraft weren't purchased by air forces and put to use.  They'd have made ideal, relatively cheap to purchase transports, aerial refuellers and ECM aircraft.  Instead we saw conversions of various much more expensive military aircraft like the C-135, the Nimrod and so on.   The Caravelle in particular looks like it would have been an ideal solution to the French air force's need to refuel the Mirage IV.  Likewise the Comet or the even the VC-10 would have been ideal for the same role in the RAF.

Any thoughts?  I've been considering for some time getting the Mach 2 Caravelle and adding some refuelling pods...

[McColm]

The Swedes used the Caravelle in the ELINT role and most of the old airliners were converted to carry cargo for the far east or parts of Africa. As you know I'm building a BAe Nimrod AEW four point refueling tanker, but the idea to use my recently purchased Frog DH Comet MK4 and Bristol Britainna in 1/96 scale makes sense. Even the Playfix 1/100 Tu-60 bomber have a pair of refuelling pods carried under the wings.
I was saving an Airfix Super Constellation for a bomber conversion but a KC-121 might be better.

[PR19_Kit]

 Likewise the Comet or the even the VC-10 would have been ideal for the same role in the RAF.

Any thoughts?  I've been considering for some time getting the Mach 2 Caravelle and adding some refuelling pods...

But that's exactly what the RAF did do!

They've been the world's only VC10 operator for many years now, and they won't go out of service until this coming September. That is if AirTanker finally get their act together and get enough Voyagers operational to do the same tasks as the VC10s.

One reason why the air forces may not have wanted to do that was the age of the engines. Modern engines are so much more reliable and fuel efficient that it might have cost too much to run the old airliners with their original engines. Re-engining may have been a option but that's expensive too, viz the idea to re-engine the RAF VC10s with two RB211s a la G-AXLR. That would have cost an arm and a leg and they reckoned it was cheaper to go with the higher fuel bills.

[jcf]

The French C-135Fs were built as tankers and are not conversions of plain C-135 transports.
The designation is because of French declared intent to use the aircraft as tanker-transports,
and, probably, a soupçon of US domestic politics as many were opposed to selling 'tankers' to
France in support of their independent nuclear force. Indeed France requested ten KC-135s in
1960, and, after much wrangling, sale of what became the C-135F was finally approved
in 1962.
The originally J75 powered aircraft, model number 717-165, were all built in 1963-64 (re-engining
with CFM-56 began in the mid-80s).
The Sud Caravelle was a production aircraft in the '60s and simply did not offer the necessary
performance to support the Mirage IV. The Caravelle 12 was an improvement, but it didn't fly
until 1971 with production starting in 1972.

The story of the French 135s is detailed in Chapter Six, "Les Ravitailleurs" of Aerofax: Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, Roberts S. Hopkins III, Midland Publishing 1997.

Having worked aerospace retrofit in the RW, what looks easy as concept quickly runs into complications
which =$£¥€+++.
So for modeling purposes, I'll do a theoretically feasible mod 'cause it looks cool and won't fret about RW justification. 

[kerick]

The C-135 is an adaptation of the Boeing 707 and the Nimrod is of the Comet.
There was a push by some in Congress back in the eighties to by used 747s to use as transports. The USAF had all kinds of reasons not to do that. Mainly because converting various parts of a random collection of aircraft to military standards would have been exspensive and a maintenance nightmare.

[jcf]

Uh, no the C-135 is not an adaptation of the 707, both aircraft were developed from the Model 367-80
which was the prototype for a military jet transport.

Technically one could consider the 707 a development of the C-135.

[kitnut617]

Well it's pretty much what you'll see 'up-north' here in Canada.  Whereas they used to use old DC-4's & DC-6's to haul freight around the northern parts, you'll now see old 737's doing the same job.  Many are converted to have the C-135 cargo door at the front of the fuselage.  I've travelled on one that went to a very big diamond mine operation, we landed and took off from a gravel airstrip.

[kerick]

There is always another option.
http://www.costaverde.com/727.htm

[jcf]

Yep, loads of old people-haulers have been converted into trash-haulers, however, that is a very
different proposition from turning one into a full-on military tanker-transport. That takes a lot more
than simply replacing a passenger interior with cargo handling gear and adding a side door, which was
a factory option on the Combi model 737, so the engineering, parts and paperwork stuff was all
done previously. It's a 707/727 size door BTW, C-135 has a smaller diameter fuselage than the
7072737 series.

It can and has been done, however, whether or not the process is/was cheap is debatable. 

Robert did the 37 you flew on have the gravel kit on the landing gear?

[kitnut617]

Robert did the 37 you flew on have the gravel kit on the landing gear?

Yes it did, I was going to take some photos of it when we got off the plane but we were ushered away from the area real quick so didn't get the opportunity.

It also had the small diameter pipes that protruded out in front and below the engine air intakes which provided a blast of bleed air to clear any FOD that might have got sucked into the engine.

Quite an experience considering when I was told I would be going up to a diamond mind, I had it my head I would go in on a bush plane. Imaging my surprise when this bloody great big 737 pulls up for us to get on.

[McColm]

Some were converted into water bombers to put out forest fires or used to train fire crews both military and civvies.

[kitnut617]

Some were converted into water bombers to put out forest fires.

What 737's --- I don't think so Tim

[McColm]

No the 737's haven't been used but some of the other old airliners have: Tristar and the 747.

[jcf]

That would be the DC-10 rather than the L-1011, two have been converted and are in service,
and a single 747-100, the current Evergreen Supertanker N749EV (the original was N740EV).

[scooter]

There is always another option.
http://www.costaverde.com/727.htm

Along with the private residence.  I wonder how much a scrapped widebody would run...