General Dynamics KC-97T Proposal

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

Came across this proposal dated March 23, 1972 in the late Dick Atkins collection. Appears to be an unsolicited proposal - interesting use of bits and pieces to make for a more effective aircraft, at least on paper.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[isayyo2]

Interesting, another chance at a turbine -97. I wonder how airframes could have been refurbished?

 

[GTX]

So was this an alternate to the KC-97J?

 

[aim9xray]

No, KC-97J was almost two decades earlier. By the time it flew, the KC-97J was primarily a testbed (service test) for the the T34 engine (as was the YC-121F).

The KC-97T conversion was an interesting idea on the part of GD (who were looking for work as F-111 production was winding down) but other forces were in work. With the SAC airframe drawdown of the late '60s (B-47, B-58 and early B-52 retirements) plans were already being drawn to move some SAC KC-135As to both ANG and AFRES by the mid-1970s.

Another issue is what amount of life that the airframes had remaining.

T56 engines were integrated with Boeing 367/377 airframe as part of the Mini Guppy Turbo and Super Guppy Turbo conversions.

 

[isayyo2]

I think the YC-96J was a 50s proposal that lost out to Boeing's model 367 for SAC funding, alongside YC-132 and various turboprop Constellations.

Edit: ^ What aim9 said!

 

[Archibald]

I can't help thinking... that thing has C-130 DNA all over the place: engines, wings, APU...

So why not buy KC-130s then ?

 

[TomS]

I can't help thinking... that thing has C-130 DNA all over the place: engines, wings, APU...

So why not buy KC-130s then ?

This has a flying boom, which was never fitted on the KC-130. Possibly it could have been but it never was.

Also, I think this ends up with a lot more "give" than a KC-130.

 

[SSgtC]

I can't help thinking... that thing has C-130 DNA all over the place: engines, wings, APU...

So why not buy KC-130s then ?

Because Congress thinks it's always a great idea (read: cheaper) to upgrade older aircraft to "close" to what a new design can do instead of actually buying the new aircraft.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Interesting, another chance at a turbine -97. I wonder how airframes could have been refurbished?

Read the document - 77 airframes in the ANG.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Mark Nankivil]

I can't help thinking... that thing has C-130 DNA all over the place: engines, wings, APU...

So why not buy KC-130s then ?

Because Congress thinks it's always a great idea (read: cheaper) to upgrade older aircraft to "close" to what a new design can do instead of actually buying the new aircraft.

And it was in the funding shortfall of the early '70s that came about because of Vietnam. If you can't get new airframes, then make something better with the pieces you have...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[aim9xray]

From the ANG point of view, why fight for the money to do the KC-97T conversions, only to start receiving ex-SAC KC-135s by the time that the conversions are completed?

 

[riggerrob]

Was this turbo-prop conversion intended for foreign military sales?

How late did the Spanish Air Force keep their KC-97s in service?
We know that the Israeli Air Force flew their KC-97s until 1971 ... maybe later?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Was this turbo-prop conversion intended for foreign military sales?

How late did the Spanish Air Force keep their KC-97s in service?
We know that the Israeli Air Force flew their KC-97s until 1971 ... maybe later?

Probably too few airframes to make it viable to the U.S. contractor.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[aim9xray]

- Spain's EdA had three operational KC-97L as TK.1, plus two C-97G used for spares.
- Israel had a total of ten Model 377 (ex-airliner) of which three were converted to swingtail. Four KC-97G were acquired sometime in 1968.

So, very little base to amortize the non-recurring engineering costs across.