KC-135 reported lost over Iraq

[fdcg27]

I do find it odd that Boeing didn’t work it to use the 707 as the basis so that they only had to construct one fuselage diameter vs two. Perhaps the military order came in before the airlines asked for changes for airliner use. I could see that the extra weight of the 707 might have detracted from fuel capacity, but could have been a shortened 707.

The tanker was based upon the -80 that flew prior to the commercial 707.
Boeing's original thinking was to use that aircraft as the basis of their civil jetliner, but Douglas threw a wrench in those plans with its proposed DC-8.
Douglas had yet to have a flying example and had not even begun cutting metal, so they could easily offer a wider fuselage that would accommodate six abreast seating and the airlines liked the idea, so Boeing had no choice but to match it, resulting in a 707 that differed greatly from the 717 that was the tanker.

 

[y_p_w]

I do find it odd that Boeing didn’t work it to use the 707 as the basis so that they only had to construct one fuselage diameter vs two. Perhaps the military order came in before the airlines asked for changes for airliner use. I could see that the extra weight of the 707 might have detracted from fuel capacity, but could have been a shortened 707.

I’m reading that the 367-80 had been tested as a prototype while the 707 hadn’t. It was less time to wait until it was ready for production. I don’t know if you’ve been in a tanker, but the amount of fuel stored is relatively small in relation to the fuselage width. It’s mostly under the cargo floor. A thinner fuselage is an advantage if the primary mission is as a tanker.

 

[xspeedy]

I’m reading that the 367-80 had been tested as a prototype while the 707 hadn’t. It was less time to wait until it was ready for production. I don’t know if you’ve been in a tanker, but the amount of fuel stored is relatively small in relation to the fuselage width. It’s mostly under the cargo floor. A thinner fuselage is an advantage if the primary mission is as a tanker.

I wasn’t thinking volume limitations, but rather reduced payload in the heavier 707 vs the -80 giving the -80 the advantage. As you say, you don’t need the fuselage volume for fuel tanks, so a smaller and therefore lighter fuselage would theoretically mean greater payload, all other things being equal (wings, thrust…).

 

[rstsco]

Juan Brown just posted his first video related to this:

 

[2005jettatdi]

Well, one of a 135 and the second of a 130.
From what I've heard thus far, the other aircraft that landed safely was also a 135.

Years ago, I saw a C130 refueling two helicopters while I was driving south on I-5 near Chehalis, WA. It was impressive enough I had to stop to watch.

 

[andrew_j]

These planes (I believe 12) stationed near me practice so much. This accident could have happened in anywhere unless fatigue is a factor.

 

[BusyLittleShop]

It wasn't my Strato Bladder (tail # 353) that was hit this time...