[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Airbus A380 - cockpit | p a n o r e p o r t a g e | g i l l e s v i d a l

That is very cool, but a bit disturbing-they give the flight engineer a GRiD computer? That poor guy!

By the way, the Air Force is going to announce in the near future whether Boeing or EADS (Airbus' parent) gets the contract for the next generation of airborne tankers. Stock prices for Boeing have been ramping up in anticipation of them getting the contract. That will throw a serious wrench in all this "Airbus versus Boeing" sales discussion.

[TETENAL]

What's a GRiD computer?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

What's a GRiD computer?

This is a GRiD computer. A ruggedized, 80286-based, no-hard-drive-havin' piece of amazing (if that's the first DOS computer you've had access to). The ruggedized laptop in the third seat's console position reminds me of a GRiD.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

By the way, the Air Force is going to announce in the near future whether Boeing or EADS (Airbus' parent) gets the contract for the next generation of airborne tankers. Stock prices for Boeing have been ramping up in anticipation of them getting the contract. That will throw a serious wrench in all this "Airbus versus Boeing" sales discussion.

There's talk that the Air Force may split the contract.

[OreoCookie]

The panorama is awesome, I love buttons
Back before the terror days, I would often ask the pilot to show me around the cockpit way before take-off. I loved it: all those buttons, wondering what they'd do.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

There's talk that the Air Force may split the contract.

Never happen. IMO, it will be the KC-30. It's a better plane than the KC-767, and it's not easy for me to admit that. Also, IMO, Global Politics will win out. Americans will still have the jobs here to build it. Bonding with the EU over the growing Russian threat over padding Boeing's pockets.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Never happen. IMO, it will be the KC-30. It's a better plane than the KC-767, and it's not easy for me to admit that. Also, IMO, Global Politics will win out. Americans will still have the jobs here to build it. Bonding with the EU over the growing Russian threat over padding Boeing's pockets.

About the only thing the KC767 has going for it is the ability to operate from the theater, instead of somewhere kinda sorta near the theater.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

IMO, it will be the KC-30.

First I thought crap!
Then I realized that the KC-30 is not some Boeing airplane but just another naming for the A330 tanker!
Sometimes I find it really weird to read names here that I never heard before.
Ok, I'm not working on the A330 tanker project but I'm surrounded by people in my office who are!
All of them only use the name SDD when they talk about the A330 tanker though...

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Never happen. IMO, it will be the KC-30. It's a better plane than the KC-767, and it's not easy for me to admit that. Also, IMO, Global Politics will win out. Americans will still have the jobs here to build it. Bonding with the EU over the growing Russian threat over padding Boeing's pockets.

Your criteria may not have any similarity to the Air Force's criteria. There is a huge body of knowledge and experience in Boeing when handling in-air refueling; they basically originated it in the U.S. There are significant "made in America" issues to deal with, particularly with Congress spending way too much time looking over every DoD department's shoulders on every single penny they spend. And there is the basic fact that, even with foreign fabrication of major assemblies, the final assembly of any Boeing plane means a lot of jobs-jobs that also translate into the ability to maintain and repair these aircraft here in the States. Boeing has a major advantage over EADS in this, and I think, whether that set of advantages is "logical" or not, it will have a strong influence on the decision of whom to go with.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Your criteria may not have any similarity to the Air Force's criteria. There is a huge body of knowledge and experience in Boeing when handling in-air refueling; they basically originated it in the U.S. There are significant "made in America" issues to deal with, particularly with Congress spending way too much time looking over every DoD department's shoulders on every single penny they spend. And there is the basic fact that, even with foreign fabrication of major assemblies, the final assembly of any Boeing plane means a lot of jobs-jobs that also translate into the ability to maintain and repair these aircraft here in the States. Boeing has a major advantage over EADS in this, and I think, whether that set of advantages is "logical" or not, it will have a strong influence on the decision of whom to go with.

Yes, thank you. This June will be my 31st year working for the Govt. I live it.

Well, looks to be the KC-767. Look for the announcement after the market closes tomorrow. Too bad really. My blood is Boeing but IMO, the KC-30 would have been the better choice. We have too many eggs in the Boeing basket these days, and quite honestly I don't think Scott Carson knows where the basket is. This would have been good for NG.

On to the A350/ Y3 / 777NG / Y1 speculations...................................... .......

[glideslope]

Well. I was wrong. Congrats to NG/EADS. Things are going to get ugly now.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Well. I was wrong. Congrats to NG/EADS. Things are going to get ugly now.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

I was wondering is some govt hack was actually stupid enough to post actual real insider info on the internet before it was announced!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I was wondering is some govt hack was actually stupid enough to post actual real insider info on the internet before it was announced!

You must be referring to this "Hack." Note the last 2 sentences. Business & Technology | State delegation vows "tough questions" about tanker decision | Seattle Times Newspaper

I'm simply a person nearing retirement. I would have no desire to be careless at this stage in my life.

[mrtew]

Yeah, that's the guy!

[abe]

Why Boeing Lost The Air Tanker Deal to Northrup/EADS/Airbus

A quick look seems to make the decision an obvious one.

Different Approaches

The two bidders took different approaches to the contest, with Northrop and EADS offering a larger plane to carry more fuel, cargo or passengers, and Boeing offering an aircraft closer in size to the current model.

The KC-45A, previously named the KC-30, is 192 feet (56 meters) long and carries 250,000 pounds (113,000 kilograms) of fuel, 24 percent more than the 202,000 pounds that Boeing's 159- foot KC-767 can haul. The current tanker is 136 feet long and carries 200,000 pounds of fuel.

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide


The current tanker being replaced carries 200,000 lbs of fuel.

The proposed Boeing replacement would carry 202,000 lbs of fuel.

The Northrup/EADS/Airbus plane that has been chosen by the Pentagon carries 250,000 lbs of fuel.


I can't understand why anyone would be surprised that the Northrup plane would be chosen.

[analogika]

Because some in this thread consider it an insult to the red-blooded American I-like-my-women-barefoot-and-pregnant attitude that eschews anything European as Foreign-Agent Infiltration and a chop in the penis of America NUMBER ****ING ONE RAH RAH.

Of the US Military, no less.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Because some in this thread consider it an insult to the red-blooded American I-like-my-women-barefoot-and-pregnant attitude that eschews anything European as Foreign-Agent Infiltration and a chop in the penis of America NUMBER ****ING ONE RAH RAH.

Of the US Military, no less.

Totally uncalled for and reported.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Your criteria may not have any similarity to the Air Force's criteria. There is a huge body of knowledge and experience in Boeing when handling in-air refueling; they basically originated it in the U.S. There are significant "made in America" issues to deal with, particularly with Congress spending way too much time looking over every DoD department's shoulders on every single penny they spend. And there is the basic fact that, even with foreign fabrication of major assemblies, the final assembly of any Boeing plane means a lot of jobs-jobs that also translate into the ability to maintain and repair these aircraft here in the States. Boeing has a major advantage over EADS in this, and I think, whether that set of advantages is "logical" or not, it will have a strong influence on the decision of whom to go with.

I wasn't surprised by this announcement. Consider the state of U.S. defense contractors. We are down to just two of them, and both of them have recent records of massive cost overruns, high profile program failures and downright malfeasance. I wouldn't be surprised to see more contracts going to overseas companies in the future. It's already happening on smaller levels with things like the SAW and the M240, both of which are made my FN, the Beretta M9 and various anti-tank weaponry. If the U.S. defense industry can't turn out decent products on time and on budget, there's no reason for the DoD to continue to use them.

[ghporter]

I'm a bit disappointed that they didn't at least split the contract, given the number of Boeing jobs here in San Antonio.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Totally uncalled for and reported.

We have a saying in Germany: "The dog that barks is the one that's hit."

Report away.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by abe 

Why Boeing Lost The Air Tanker Deal to Northrup/EADS/Airbus

A quick look seems to make the decision an obvious one.



Bloomberg.com: Worldwide


The current tanker being replaced carries 200,000 lbs of fuel.

The proposed Boeing replacement would carry 202,000 lbs of fuel.

The Northrup/EADS/Airbus plane that has been chosen by the Pentagon carries 250,000 lbs of fuel.


I can't understand why anyone would be surprised that the Northrup plane would be chosen.

While the KC-45 is the better choice there was an effort made by DOD ( see the 5th criteria for selection added late in the process ) as EADS refused to bid unless this was part of the project. This was done IMO to foster better relations with the EU. The KC-45 beat the 767 on 4 out of 5 criteria anyway.

If Northrop was not a partner, Boeing would have won. Guaranteed. There is no way this was going to EADS alone even if their plane was better.

Boeing could protest IMO on the 5th Criteria, but IMO they won't. It's better to shut down the 767 line ASAP, and retool building #40.

Tankers are one part of the DOD. Don't expect Bombers and Fighters to be "shared" any time in the next 20 years (Helos excluded.)

Besides, the future will be mostly unmanned remote airborne vehicles (many years from now.) Northrop Grumman is positioned better than any other company in the world in this area. So, look at the KC-45 as a way to finance America's next Barefoot Women.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

We have a saying in Germany: "The dog that barks is the one that's hit."

Report away.

Well, your Chancellor seems to be doing quite a bit more licking than biting these days. I hear she talks weekly to George.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

If Northrop was not a partner, Boeing would have won. Guaranteed. There is no way this was going to EADS alone even if their plane was better.

Well, since, from what I've read, assembly within the U.S. was a contract condition, you're probably right.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Well, your Chancellor seems to be doing quite a bit more licking than biting these days. I hear she talks weekly to George.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

Don't expect Bombers and Fighters to be "shared" any time in the next 20 years (Helos excluded.)

Depends. Given 1) the age of the B-52 and the B-1, the backbones of the U.S. bomber fleet, 2) the cost of the B-2 and 3) the dismal job U.S. defense contractors currently do in developing new weapons systems, I wouldn't be surprised to see the next U.S. bomber development split with a foreign partner. The average age aircraft in U.S. inventory is currently the oldest it's ever been and there are no new aircraft slated to enter service in the next five years. I think necessity may push the DoD into it.

I also don't want make this all the fault of the U.S. defense industry. The entire procurement system is broken, and it's been coming for a long, long time.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Their pretty tight.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Depends. Given 1) the age of the B-52 and the B-1, the backbones of the U.S. bomber fleet, 2) the cost of the B-2 and 3) the dismal job U.S. defense contractors currently do in developing new weapons systems, I wouldn't be surprised to see the next U.S. bomber development split with a foreign partner. The average age aircraft in U.S. inventory is currently the oldest it's ever been and there are no new aircraft slated to enter service in the next five years. I think necessity may push the DoD into it.

I also don't want make this all the fault of the U.S. defense industry. The entire procurement system is broken, and it's been coming for a long, long time.

Excellent points Don. I also see quite a bit in potential in current medium sized DOD contractors growing into the mix. Who knows. Some day Boeing, NG, and LM may be unable to beat out domestic competition. There are a great deal of very envelope pushing Defense / Security/ Offensive systems small to medium companies. Some are developing some very ground breaking advances due to their size and ability to react quickly.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by abe 

A quick look seems to make the decision an obvious one.

The current tanker being replaced carries 200,000 lbs of fuel.
The proposed Boeing replacement would carry 202,000 lbs of fuel.
The Northrup/EADS/Airbus plane that has been chosen by the Pentagon carries 250,000 lbs of fuel.

I can't understand why anyone would be surprised that the Northrup plane would be chosen.

It carries more fuel because it's bigger, but that also means it takes up more space on the tarmac. If the USAF really desired the ability to carry more fuel, they'd be bidding something KC-10 (350k lb fuel) sized.
I recall an analysis that showed on the busiest day of refueling in the Iraq war, you'd need 50% more KC330s than KC767s because they'd have to fly farther to land. Not all situations are like this, but it's a good example of when smaller is better.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I wasn't surprised by this announcement. Consider the state of U.S. defense contractors. We are down to just two of them, and both of them have recent records of massive cost overruns, high profile program failures and downright malfeasance.

By my count there are three, and one of them just won this contract.

[mdc]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The panorama is awesome, I love buttons
Back before the terror days, I would often ask the pilot to show me around the cockpit way before take-off. I loved it: all those buttons, wondering what they'd do.

I agree, the panorama was very cool. I wonder how comfortable the pilots seats are.
I remember when they would offer for you to go see the cockpit. Those days are long gone.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by analogika 

We have a saying in Germany: "The dog that barks is the one that's hit."

Report away.

It was indeed rude and uncalled for. Not everyone who thinks his country should support his own country's businesses and industries (especially when those industries are world leaders) is as parochial or idiotic as your post suggests. I wonder how many of my tax dollars will go to employing people outside my country and how few will stay home to employ people here.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by mduell 

By my count there are three, and one of them just won this contract.

You're right. I always forget about Northrop Grumman.

However, my point still stands. Twenty years ago there were 15 or so active defense contractors. Now we're down to three, and none of them are doing a very good job getting their projects finished on time and on budget.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

You're right. I always forget about Northrop Grumman.

However, my point still stands. Twenty years ago there were 15 or so active defense contractors. Now we're down to three, and none of them are doing a very good job getting their projects finished on time and on budget.

At least Boeing got a wake up call yesterday. No more warmed over 40 yr old technology simply to be patriotic.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

At least Boeing got a wake up call yesterday. No more warmed over 40 yr old technology simply to be patriotic.

Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. The system is so dysfunctional I'm not sure. Lemme expand on what I've been saying.

The problems with the procurement system are legion, and many of them don't lie with the contractors. There is enormous political infighting among, and within, the services themselves. The Air Force is probably the worst, as they're still trying to fight the Cold War, and the grip of the Fighter Mafia is very strong. The Air Force has been trying to kill the A-10--the single most useful plane in our inventory right now--since it began, and it was only the perseverance of the of the Marine Corps which kept them from killing the Osprey.

And now the Air Force's addiction to fighters has left them with the F-22, a plane so expensive they don't have the money to give their pilots adequate training any more. I'm serious here: F-22 pilots are allotted 15 hours of flight training per month, which is laughable. At the peak of the modern Air Force's air-to-air capabilities, which is roughly from 1965 to 1975, fighter pilots got between 40 and 50 hours of flight training a month. However, when your airframe costs $137.5 million a pop, and you're fighting two wars, and the cost of oil is $100/barrel, you just can't afford to have your pilots fly that much. You also have a weapons system which will never see action in either Iraq or Afghanistan, as it doesn't have either the payload or loiter time to be effective in either theater.

That rant aside, one of the biggest problems with the system lies with the military's practice of rotating senior officers to different jobs every two to three years. This means any one weapons system will have three, four or five different people in charge over its life, and each of these people will come into the program with their own list of bells and whistles to be added to the system. The F-18 is the prime example of this. It was meant to be the Navy's answer to the F-16: light, cheap and agile. After years of political football it ended up being an overweight, under-powered jack-of-all-trades with a miniscule combat radius, thanks to a fuel fraction of about .3. The irony is that the 'light and cheap' E/F models now weigh almost as much as the F-14s they're replacing.

Concomitant with that is that it's way too easy for the DoD to change specs on the system in mid-stream. It should be much, much tougher for the Pentagon to change specs. It should require the changes be justified, and a consult with the contractors to find out how much it will cost and how much time it will add to the development cycle. Although Rumsfeld was easily the worst SecDef in modern history, his canceling of the Cheyenne was a good thing. It was an other runaway weapons system. On the minus side, Rumsfeld also did away with most requirements that the contractor show any working systems before being paid, which as led to things like the SBX radar, which plain doesn't work.

The defense contractors have, unfortunately, learned how to game this system and have become experts in getting money without producing workable systems. A change which would help this would be to bring back an old idea: reimburse contractors for some of their R&D costs, even if they don't win the contract. Our weapons systems have become so complex and expensive that failing to win a contract can literally result in the company going under. If they were able to defray the costs of the development, it would both give them breathing room and free them from the need to automatically say yes to whatever crazy request the DoD makes.

Anyway, that's a not very well organized list of some of the thing which are wrong. My dad has worked for defense contractors his whole life, so I've had a ringside seat to this silliness. I've watched the system grow ever more encumbered and ineffective. It's now to the point where I think I can claim it plain doesn't work. The newest helicopter in our inventory is the AH-64, which is over 25 years old. There are no new rotary airframes designed or even requested. Ship building has become so expensive that the bulk of our non-carrier offensive capability is concentrated in a small number of Aegis cruisers and destroyers, and the first DD-X won't be delivered until 2012 IF there are no more delays. Our airlift fleet is aging rapidly, and there is nothing planned after the C-17.

And on and on. Our system has become so complex, expensive and dysfunctional that it's starving our armed forces of the tools they need to do the job.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It was indeed rude and uncalled for. Not everyone who thinks his country should support his own country's businesses and industries (especially when those industries are world leaders) is as parochial or idiotic as your post suggests. I wonder how many of my tax dollars will go to employing people outside my country and how few will stay home to employ people here.

The situation very much reminds me of Toyota (= EADS/Airbus) and Ford: Ford outsources its production more and more abroad while Toyota is opening factories. EADS will build a factory and hire 7,000 US workers while 70 % of the 787's airframe is manufactured abroad (compared to Airbus' 50 %). I'm aware that the discussion is about the two tankers, but it's clearly a trend at Boeing. They're not hiring/employing more American workers, because they're an American company, instead they've laid off 38,000 Americans workers.

It's Toyota vs. American car industry all over again: the only thing that's more American is the name.
Just so that nobody gets me wrong, globalization and fair trade is -- overall -- a good thing.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It was indeed rude and uncalled for. Not everyone who thinks his country should support his own country's businesses and industries (especially when those industries are world leaders) is as parochial or idiotic as your post suggests.

I said "some", and was referring primarily to one character, Mr. I-Ain't-Setting-Foot-In-No-Socialist-Deathtrap, with a little dig at Mr. Gift-Baskets-Are-For-Foreign-Agents.

I realize that glideslope is mostly only a dick when prodded on by voodoo, just as many of us will flare up if somebody pushes the right buttons.

[ghporter]

Still not a good idea to go pushing buttons randomly...

On to the subject (or the current sub-subject): after the KC-135 re-engining program started in the 1980s, the Air Force did a 180 about how effective the platform was. The aircraft went from a gas hog to a very fuel efficient machine. Credit goes to the engines used in the program. The joint effort between GE and SNECMA (of France) to produce highly efficient, high thrust turbofan engines got them the very lucrative contract and got the Air Force another 20+ years of use of the -135 platform, both the KC-versions and the KC-based platforms (EC-, RC-, WC-, etc.). I think the tanker program is taking the "let's get a completely new airframe" course because of the problems encountered in keeping the B-52 on line for so long. Manufacturing tooling needed to build parts like wings, fuselage frames, control surfaces and such just doesn't exist anymore, and creating that tooling is way too expensive-on the order of "build a new airframe" expensive.

On the other hand, how many flightlines are sized for -135s, and how does the larger Airbus airframe fit in that footprint? We're talking about a replacement for -135 missions, so will the new airplane actually fit on the ramps in the same numbers as the -135? Will it regenerate at at least the same rate? Will it support more booms, and more simultaneous fueling customers? Will it be able to be converted from probe to drogue in less than an hour like a -135? Will it be able to convert from one grade of jet fuel to another at least as quickly as the -135? Will it be in-air refuelable itself, as the -135 is? I'm not saying that the decision to go with NG/EADS is a "mistake," but now that it's been made I want to know how much more bang for my tax buck I'm getting.

[OreoCookie]

I think both, Boeing and the NG/EADS consortium have listened to the USAF in their pre-feasibility and feasibility studies. So I guess that there is a reason why NG/EADS (and subsequently the US military) went for a larger plane instead. I think your `age of frame design' argument is very important: the A330 is ten years younger than the 767.

Does anyone know whether Boeing considers offering a 737-based tanker? (Is that even possible or desirable?)

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think the tanker program is taking the "let's get a completely new airframe" course because of the problems encountered in keeping the B-52 on line for so long. Manufacturing tooling needed to build parts like wings, fuselage frames, control surfaces and such just doesn't exist anymore, and creating that tooling is way too expensive-on the order of "build a new airframe" expensive.

Absolutely. The KC-135s were based on the Dash 80, which first flew in 1954. I have no idea what the original airframe life estimates were, but I'm sure they were passed when I was a kid. You can only re-wing a plane so many times.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On to the subject (or the current sub-subject): after the KC-135 re-engining program started in the 1980s, the Air Force did a 180 about how effective the platform was. The aircraft went from a gas hog to a very fuel efficient machine. Credit goes to the engines used in the program. The joint effort between GE and SNECMA (of France) to produce highly efficient, high thrust turbofan engines got them the very lucrative contract and got the Air Force another 20+ years of use of the -135 platform, both the KC-versions and the KC-based platforms (EC-, RC-, WC-, etc.).

How does slapping existing commercial CFM56 engines onto the 135 airframe have anything to do with selecting the KC30 over the KC767?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Does anyone know whether Boeing considers offering a 737-based tanker? (Is that even possible or desirable?)

Is there anyone asking for one?

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's Toyota vs. American car industry all over again: the only thing that's more American is the name.

Well I think that Ford is still at least 50 times more American than Toyota.

[OreoCookie]

How so? What's the deciding factor? Number of employees involved in making a product (say, a car)? Share of parts being manufactured by American workers? An American name? Being founded in America? If 70 % of the 787 are built outside of the US while more than 50 % of Airbus' subcontractors are American companies, doesn't that make an Airbus more `American' than a Boeing? Is a Ford built in Canada really an American car?

Of course I understand what you mean (on an emotional level) when you say that Boeing is an `American company'. But in the age of outsourcing and globalization, these notions will invariably lose their meaning. Car companies have done this for years -- very successfully, I might add. A Toyota truck designed in America, built by Americans will become accepted as such.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Is a Ford built in Canada really an American car?

Well considering that Canada is IN America (and is practically part of the U.S. even) definitely yes. It's 95% more American than one made in Korea anyway. Fords have always been built in Canada. You do know that Ford is about 10 miles from Ontario right?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

But in the age of outsourcing and globalization, these notions will invariably lose their meaning. Car companies have done this for years -- very successfully, I might add. A Toyota truck designed in America, built by Americans will become accepted as such.

I really doubt that! But of course people obviously don't care if something is American anymore though considering how many people drive Japanese cars. In the 80's it was understandable because the foreign quality was getting so much higher, but now they practically equal, so people are just buying what they like regardless of where it's made.

[analogika]

It's funny that Fords are by some here considered "honorary German" cars due to the fact that they're built here.

Have been for decades.

So it's okay for Neo-Nazis to drive them.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Well I think that Ford is still at least 50 times more American than Toyota.

I think one would be wise to buy FORD stock at this time. Allan Mullally will turn FORD around, and his departure from Boeing has much to do with the 787 chaos.

Of course I drive a Honda built in Canada, and the wife drives a Toyota built in Japan.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Absolutely. The KC-135s were based on the Dash 80, which first flew in 1954. I have no idea what the original airframe life estimates were, but I'm sure they were passed when I was a kid. You can only re-wing a plane so many times.

Here you go. I even touched her. http://www.pbase.com/glideslope/imag...2123/large.jpg

[analogika]

*sigh*

I really love that spike on the front of the vertical fin. I wish current planes still had them.

They look so...technical. Just cool.

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by analogika 

*sigh*

I really love that spike on the front of the vertical fin. I wish current planes still had them.

They look so...technical. Just cool.

Agreed.

[ghporter]

Interestingly, the 707, while also based on the Dash 80, is not at all identical to the 135. The 135 is longer in the fuselage than the 707, though the wings and tail are very similar. Interesting data linky here-a more authoritative one when I find it. Engines are interchangeable between the two platforms too. Great planes, both of them. I saw a -135 on a test flight today, as a matter of fact. Sigh.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by analogika 

*sigh*

I really love that spike on the front of the vertical fin. I wish current planes still had them.

They look so...technical. Just cool.

Yeah, what was is for? And why are they gone?

[ghporter]

Ok, here's the data from the horse's mouth so to speak:
Boeing KC-135 page.

Boeing E-3 (late model 707 based aircraft) page.

The 707 page.