Talk:Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker/Archive 2

"80 years old"?
It says that if the fleet stays operational until 2040, some of the aircraft would be 80 years old. " According to the Air Force, only a few KC-135s would reach these limits by 2040, when some aircraft would be about 80 years old" This seems dubious to me; how many of the operational aircraft are actually those airframes originally built in the 1960's? I can see the design being that old, but the actual aircraft? I'd have assumed that most of those still flying were those that came off the production line later on. That's how it usually works with aircraft. There are number of F-4 Phantoms still flying, but they are mostly later models, not F-4A variants which have been upgraded and are still in service. As far as I know, most of the B-52 fleet came out of the factory with turbofan engines, and aren't just B-52's which had their turbojets swapped for turbofans at some point. I don't know one way or another, but I'd be surprised if this "80 years old" claim was literally true. Maybe it is. AnnaGoFast (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * According to the article infobox, KC-135 production ended in 1965, and I believe that is correct. Since over 800 were built, yeah, a lot of them will literally be that old, and those they keep that long will probably be the newer airframes. Most if not all of them have been reengined with either TF33s (JT3Ds) or CFM56s, and many had their vertical tails replaced with larger units from retired 707s. All that should be in the article somewhere already. - BilCat (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Civil 717
(Cross-posted to Talk:Boeing C-135 Stratolifter) I've come across a source that cites an FAA aircraft as an (or the only?) example of a civil 717. There is a photo of the nose and open cargo door of a KC-135/717 with an FAA logo, at LAX in 1960. The caption reads,

"The FAA displayed a very rare type, in the form of a civil Boeing 717-148. The 717 was the equivalent of the military KC-135, and its large forward cargo door is seen open here. The aircraft had only been delivered to the FAA a month earlier, originally bearing a USAF serial number."

So I guess it was built as a military plane, just not originally delivered as such. A second caption says,

"N98 was a civil USAF Boeing 717-148, KC-135 (registered 59-1481), delivered to the FAA on May 20, 1960."

Source: Archer, Robert D. Airliners at LAX – Los Angeles International Airport 1956–1976. Miami: World Transport Press. Page 58. (ISBN 0962673064)

There is some more information on that N98 registration number here but the details (e.g. dates) do not correspond with the book I've quoted. I wonder if the plane might've been built as a C-135 (figuring the FAA, and later NASA, might've had more use for that than a KC-135) but as the photo only shows the forward section, I can't tell whether it has the tail boom or not. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Although N98 (msn 17969) was designated as a KC-135A it didnt have a boom installation, after is was leased to the FAA it went to become a vomit comet with NASA into the 1990s. MilborneOne (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Bad data in Specifications - Empty Weight
Requesting comments or authoritative sources for the data in the Specifications section, especially the Empty Weight. I expected an empty weight more in the 122,500 to 123,000 lb range. This is the first time I've ever seen 98,466 lb listed as the empty weight for a KC-135R, and I haven't found an independent source to verify that number. Co61ict (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Crash of 58-0026 at Minot AFB
In looking at the list of KC-135 accidents, I wanted to follow up on the crash of 58-0026 at Minot AFB in 1968 which killed Maj Gen Eisenhart. This Wikipedia article and the one for Minot AFB state that Eisenhart was the pilot of the mishap aircraft, but I can find no primary documents that say this. I've chased down the references within Wikipedia and done some Google searching but came up empty. Can someone point me to such a document? If one exists, it should probably be added as a reference. N9XTN (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Not primary but a good review of KC-135 accident, this document www.theboomsignal.net/pdf/Voices from an Old Warrior.pdf says he was a passenger which is more likely for a senior officer, the aircraft captain was Lt Col James A. Mercer. MilborneOne (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That ref appears to be blacklisted by wikipedia but this has the same info http://www.gendisasters.com/north-dakota/5222/minot%2C-nd-air-force-tanker-crashes-takeoff%2C-jan-1968 and has a long quote from the "Lawton Constitution Oklahoma 1968-01-18" including SAC headquarters at Omaha said the pilot was Lt. Col. JACK A. MERCER, 44, Atwater, Calif. MilborneOne (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So I'm thinking remove the reference to the general as the pilot flying until a definitive reference is found? Sometimes general officers will fly for currency, but probably not in such poor weather.  The "fact" that the general was piloting seems to have propagated far and wide from this and the Minot Wikipedia article.  I don't know if the USAF aircraft accident investigation board report (or 1968 equivalent) is public or not - that might clear it up.  Google can't seem to locate it. N9XTN (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Air National Guard Squadron
Hi, I was linking the Air National Guard squadrons who used the KC-135 but got reverted. All info are coming from the Squadrons pages on the Wikipedia. Is it not allow to use other Wikipedia page as reverence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kawinglo (talk • contribs) 17:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

No information on when KC-135R was introduced
There's a lack of chronological information in this article with respect to the KC-135R. It needs attention by someone knowledgable. -Rolypolyman (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

usage of the boom as a tow bar
The german article tells about a possible use of the flying-boom as kind of tow rod (... ebenso wie die Verwendung des Tankauslegers als „Abschleppstange“). Could that be true? --84.190.202.14 (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert, but seems like nonsense. Worth noting that that article is severely lacking in references, including on this point.  Mark83 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. Meanwhile I found a WP-colleague who is often active in the field of aviation, asked him about the entry and he has now removed it. ✅

"it is one of six military fixed-wing aircraft with over 50 years of continuous service[1] with its original operator"
The text says "it is one of six military fixed-wing aircraft with over 50 years of continuous service[1] with its original operator", the footnote says "The six military fixed-wing aircraft with over 50 years of continuous service are Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bomber (1955); Boeing KC-135 "Stratotanker" mid-air refueller (1957); Lockheed C-130 Hercules cargo & troop transporter (1956); Lockheed P-3 Orion naval & submarine surveillance (1962); Lockheed U-2 "Dragon Lady" reconnaissance (1957); and Northrop T-38 Talon jet trainer (1961). There is also one helicopter: Boeing CH-47 Chinook (1962)."

This list is probably quite incomplete - it should list at least the Tupolev Tu-95 bomber and a bunch of other aircraft that were introduced in the Red Army before 1972 and are still in service, the Saab 105 trainer in Swedish service since 1967, the Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma helicopter in French service since 1968, the Canadair CT-114 Tutor trainer in service with the Canadian air force since the 1960s, various Chinese aircraft introduced in the People's Liberation Army Air Force in the 1960s and so on. - Toothswung (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That was added about 10 years ago. The aircraft listed have now been in service for over 60 years, so I've updated it. That will exclude most if not all of the types the OP has mentioned. BilCat (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the articles for the respective aircraft. - Toothswung (talk) 09:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I've now added those that have 60+ years of service, with links to their respective articles; also I've reordered the list by year of introduction and changed the "50" in the footnote (that User:BilCat probably missed) with a 60. Sources for Russian aircraft are in the respective articles and in List of active Russian military aircraft. As time goes by, we will see more such aircraft; in addition to the list, e.g. there's the Pilatus PC-6 Porter in Swiss service since 1966 - or periodically correct the year backwards to maintain a cut-off point around 1960-1965. - Toothswung (talk) 09:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Video of interior
The national museum of the air force has an excellent video of the interior of a KC-135, including a good look at the boom operator station Bachcell (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx_Ck2XECrs