I believe the E-3 Sentry fleet utilizes a 707 airframe rather than the C-135 design, as do several other Air Force models like the E-6 Mercury.
And several retired 707's were used more than just as engine donors by the Air Force. The E-8 Joint STARS fleet uses 2nd hand 707's bought from airlines.
And John Travolta retired and donated his 707. He donated it to a museum and I believe it's being restored to airworthiness by them for a ferry flight to Australia after sitting for a few years.
Iran had at least one 707 in passenger service until recently, but I saw a headline a year or so ago about its last flight. I bet some remain in limited service though as cargo freighters, but the list can't be long between age and the decimation of late model 707's when the Air Force snapped up so many back in the 1980's.
CSSHEGEWISCHI'm surprised that you put the B-52 on this list but not the Tu-95. Both have had similar service careers but compared to the transports you mentioned, they didn't get a lot of flying hours. Longevity isn't everything.
The active USAF B-52 inventory has it beat in one area though. The newest B-52H dates to 1962, over 55 years ago.
The active fleet of Tu-95 in Russian inventory all date to the 1980's and early 1990's, with I believe 1984 being when the first production Tu-95MS was built.
So no Bear flying for the Russian military today is going to be older than 1984 at the most. Great longevity of design like the C-130, but individual airframe age in the active fleet is decades younger than the B-52 fleet.
blue streak 1 The KC-135s were actually a shorter version of the B-707 as they were built first.
The KC-135s were actually a shorter version of the B-707 as they were built first.
Aren't KC-135's narrower, too? The Dash 80 prototype could only accomodate five-abreast seating. So the design as seen with the KC-135 was widened to accomodate six-abreast.
But I believe a major launch customer for the 707 demanded an even further increase as a response to the DC-8 design specifications, forcing a lot of retooling.
My hubby has a close friend that is in the US Navy as a bubblehead as he calls him. He serves on a Fast Attack boat according to my better half. His friend one night while on the beach home from patrol was saying they were being tracked by a T-95 in the Atlantic. At least the T-95 was trying to track them. The sonar crew had a better fix on the plane than the plane had on them. He said we were cruising at 20 knots 600 feet down and we could hear that sucker thru the hull. The closest that the Bear got to them was 50 miles.
As for the 720 question United had a few of them they used them between the Continential US and Hawaii.
blue streak 1The KC-135s were actually a shorter version of the B-707 as they were built first. The airforce cancelled some KC-135s after production was on line and Boeing sold them as a passenger B-720 . Eastern airlines bought 15 B-720s unknown who else bought B-720s . The airforce bought a bunch of JTD3-D turbo fans from retired aircraft mainly B-707 upgrades the various airlines had over the years and replaced them all on their KC-135 water wagons. Later airforce installed GE CFM-? on some -135s whic are real performers. Full load 135s can take off on much shorter runways with the CFMs.
The airforce bought a bunch of JTD3-D turbo fans from retired aircraft mainly B-707 upgrades the various airlines had over the years and replaced them all on their KC-135 water wagons. Later airforce installed GE CFM-? on some -135s whic are real performers. Full load 135s can take off on much shorter runways with the CFMs.
Kansas Air National Guard has several KC-135's in their arsnel at Forbes Field in Topeka. When I race at Heartland Motorsports Park I sometimes get to watch our tax dollars at play as the KANG practices touch an goes at Forbes Field. For the touch and goes I am certain the planes are not carrying their full fuel load.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The KC-135s were actually a shorter version of the B-707 as they were built first. The airforce cancelled some KC-135s after production was on line and Boeing sold them as a passenger B-720 . Eastern airlines bought 15 B-720s unknown who else bought B-720s .
The airforce bought a bunch of JTD3-D turbo fans from retired aircraft mainly B-707 upgrades the various airlines had over the years and replaced them all on their KC-135 water wagons. Later airforce installed GE CFM-56s on some -135s whic are real performers. Full load 135s can take off on much shorter runways with the CFMs.
CSS', I'll have to concede the point on Comrade Tupolev's Tu-95, that one completely slipped my mind, I should have included that one.
Backshop, I won't argue C-130 versus DC-3, this whole excercise is supposed to be in fun, BUT, let's see which type stays around and flying the longest!
By the way, Huey pilots, my brother being one of them, have a saying...
"When the last Blackhawk goes to the boneyard, it'll be in a sling under a Huey!"
Tree68, I know John Travolta owns a Boeing 707 which he flies on a regular basis. The Air Force's KC-135 aerial tanker is basically a 707. If there's any 707's still left in commercial service I'm not aware of them. There could be.
C130--no contest. C47/DC3 in second.
It helped that Ford built an automotive style production line to build them. In WW2 in the Sou. Pac., they did use the B-17, they stuck a boat/raft under them and called them a 'JUKEBOX', for S.A.R. The PBY's, called 'PLAYMATES' would typically pair up with one and orbit over a rescue submarine at a spot in the ocean for the B-24 crews. Dad said that they could feather a prop and walk away from a B-17, unless the B-24 was loaded, then they were too busy jettisioning bombs to stay in the air. There were MANY trips were B-24's came home on 3 engines after jettisoning bombs, even one where one got back to base on 2 after getting one restarted.
I'd support the UH-1. They served in a variety of roles and were ubiquitous with Army Aviation. I'd imagine they are still flying somewhere.
How about the Boeing 707 - are there any still flying?
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I have no issue with the DC-3 or the L-100 (C-130). Both were successful in a wide variety of conditions.
I'm surprised that you put the B-52 on this list but not the Tu-95. Both have had similar service careers but compared to the transports you mentioned, they didn't get a lot of flying hours. Longevity isn't everything.
Not sure about the UH-1. Almost any helicopter is too specialized to be truly multi-role and the AH-1 is virtually a different design.
CSSHEGEWISCH One of the reasons that Liberator production numbers are relatively high is that the Navy ordered a lot of PB4Y's for anti-submarine patrol when they realized that a long-range land-based plane was better for the job than flying boats.
One of the reasons that Liberator production numbers are relatively high is that the Navy ordered a lot of PB4Y's for anti-submarine patrol when they realized that a long-range land-based plane was better for the job than flying boats.
You know, the Navy tried to get their hands on some B-29's for long-range anti-submarine patrolling as well but the Air Force said "No way!" and the War Department backed them up. Wise decision, the Air Force needed them all for the aerial assault on Japan and couldn't afford to be generous, not in this case anyway.
I'd say one way of determining just what the Air Force thought of a particular aircraft type can be demonstrated by just how fast they disappeared from the inventory after the war. The B-24's (except for the C-87 variant), the B26's, A-20's, and fighter types such as the P-38, P-39, and P-40 were gone almost overnight. P-47's went into Air National Guard squadrons but were eventually replaced by P-51's. The B-17's (although certainly not all of them) hung on a bit longer for various uses. The B-25's lasted until the late '50s. The B-29's became the first-line heavy bomber so of course they stayed in inventory.
Say, let's move this in a slightly different direction. Using the criterion of excellence of design, ability to handle all the missions given it (and then some), and longevity, what do you think (everyone now!) are the greatest aircraft of all time? One thing, the aircraft have STILL to be in service, somewhere. Not "come and gone" or preserved as historic pieces.
My choices?
1) The Douglas DC-3/ C-47
2) The Boeing B-52
3) The Lockheed C-130
4) The Bell UH-1 "Huey" helicopter
5) The Piper J-4 "Cub"
Thoughts anyone?
Depends on the mission...
For close in ASW, the PBY had the advantage of longer loiter times. For long range ASW, the PB4Y had longer range, a higher speed (less time getting to/from the patrol area) and a larger bombload.
As for B-17 vs PB4Y: One of the planned roles for the B-17 was maritime patrol, there was a demo flight of that capability conducted in 1937 where 3 B-17's flew to a passenger liner 700 miles out. Presumably the USN went for the PB4Y over the B-17 because of the higher speed, longer range and potentially lower cost to manufacture. Another possible reason is that the PB4Y used Twin Wasps, as did the PBY.
Firelock76 CSSHEGEWISCH Sorry, but a B-17 is much better looking. Now now, just because I called the Lancaster a magnificent airplane, which it is, it DOESN'T mean I dislike the B-17, far from it! I LOVE the B-17! I just believe in giving credit where credit is due. The B-24? Eh, I guess it's ok. At any rate, the Air Force never loved the B-24 the way they loved the B-17, and if aviation historian Col. Walter Boyne is to be believed the Air Force never loved the B-29 the way they loved the B-17 either. I forget where I read this, but supposedly if the bugs couldn't have been worked out of the B-29, and there were plenty of them, the Air Force was seriously considering having Lancasters built here in the US under license for use in the Pacific, they were very impressed with the Lanc's range and load carrying abilities. Of course, it didn't happen, but it's something to speculate on. Anyway, I don't have any familial connections with any of the aforementioned aircraft. I DID have two uncles who were aircrewmen on C-47's, which is probably the greatest aircraft of all time! Go get 'em, Gooney Bird! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eupCt2XSRPw
CSSHEGEWISCH Sorry, but a B-17 is much better looking.
Sorry, but a B-17 is much better looking.
Now now, just because I called the Lancaster a magnificent airplane, which it is, it DOESN'T mean I dislike the B-17, far from it! I LOVE the B-17! I just believe in giving credit where credit is due.
The B-24? Eh, I guess it's ok. At any rate, the Air Force never loved the B-24 the way they loved the B-17, and if aviation historian Col. Walter Boyne is to be believed the Air Force never loved the B-29 the way they loved the B-17 either.
I forget where I read this, but supposedly if the bugs couldn't have been worked out of the B-29, and there were plenty of them, the Air Force was seriously considering having Lancasters built here in the US under license for use in the Pacific, they were very impressed with the Lanc's range and load carrying abilities.
Of course, it didn't happen, but it's something to speculate on.
Anyway, I don't have any familial connections with any of the aforementioned aircraft. I DID have two uncles who were aircrewmen on C-47's, which is probably the greatest aircraft of all time!
Go get 'em, Gooney Bird!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eupCt2XSRPw
One reason the crews loved the B-17 more than the B-24 was that the B-17 could get home with damage that would have knocked a B-24 out of the sky. The B-17 controlled everything possible electrically while the B-24 controlled more things hydraulically. The electric wiring survived flak damage better than the hydraulic lines, which meant the B-17 was more likely to be controllable when damaged. Or, so I have read.
Ernest K. Gann, who wrote several aviation-themed novels, flew several types of cargo aircraft during WWII and wrote a book about his experiences. He flew C-47's, C-87's(?), which were the cargo version of the B-24, and I think C-54's, which were the cargo version of the DC-4. He said, in these words or something close to them, "The C-87 couldn't carry enough ice to chill a highball". My guess is that that inability was related to the wing, not that I know anything about aerodynamics.
My last little nugget is this: many of the B-24's and its variants built for WWII were built by Ford Motor Co. in a plant in Willow Run, MI, which it also built under contract to the Government. Edsel Ford, Henry's son, was put in charge of that effort, and the stress led to the ulcers which killed him. After WWII, the Willow Run plant was leased to Kaiser for building cars. After Kaiser left, General Motors leased or bought the plant and used it for many years.
Firelock76 The B-24? Eh, I guess it's ok. At any rate, the Air Force never loved the B-24 the way they loved the B-17, and if aviation historian Col. Walter Boyne is to be believed the Air Force never loved the B-29 the way they loved the B-17 either.
Interesting thing is that the B-24 had a larger bomb load, longer range and was a bit faster than the B-17. It was also produced in larger numbers that the B-17, in part because it was easier to make due to the fuselage containing many flat surfaces. Note that the B-25 and P-51 were also designed with flat sides on the fuselage for ease of manufacture.
The downside was that the B-24 got the improved performance from the Davis wing (airfoil) which did not react as well to battle damage as the coarser airfoil used on the B-17. The B-17 earned its reputation where the air defense was heaviest, i.e. over central Europe, but was second fiddle in the Pacific where range was king.
A lot of the bugs with the B-29 were with the engine, with original magnesium Cyclones being infamous for catching fire. The bugs in the rest of the plane were largely worked out in the B-50, though the Wasp Major had plenty of issues of its own.
While the Lanc's had impressive range and load carrying abilities, the range was not in the same league as the B-29. The B-29 was pressurized, which made it a much more comfortable plane to be in for long flights at 30,000'. I'm pretty sure the B-29 was faster than the Lanc, which in combination with service ceiling was important for the final missions of the war. In the late 1940's, the B-29 was the top of the line bomber for the USAF, RAF and the Soviet air force (in the form of the Tu-4).
Almost as good as a B-24!!
The Dam Busters!
Go get 'em Wing Commander Gibson!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1DCxpMz8aU
And what a magnificent airplane!
CSSHEGEWISCH Well done. We now have B-17 and B-24 units covered. Now if we can find someone willing to post the patch for RAF 617 Squadron.
Well done. We now have B-17 and B-24 units covered. Now if we can find someone willing to post the patch for RAF 617 Squadron.
Let's try this:
From an unofficial RAF history page.
Pretty much. Disney designed it for them in 1943 using Donald Duck and a cartoon bomb. It looks like a small bowling with a lit fuse sticking out. I have no clue how to insert a photo, sorry.
edit: just changed the avatar to the 531st patch, I think.
At the old U.S. Embassy in London at Grosvenor Square is a guard shack. On it is a pictogram sign saying what is not allowed in the building, like no smoking or photography or pets or bombs. The bomb is one of those round, anarchist types with a fuse sticking out. I laughed like hell when I saw that and the guards gave me a dirty look. So, if you go to the embassy, please leave all bombs in the parking lot.
BOB WITHORN It's one of the better patches. My dad was 531st sq. and wore a Donald Duck holding an old fashion fuse bomb.
It's one of the better patches. My dad was 531st sq. and wore a Donald Duck holding an old fashion fuse bomb.
C.S. Forester wrote the use of bombs in the Baltic in his book, Commodore Hornblower.
Johnny
BOB WITHORNCSSHEGEWISCH, I like the 367th F/S patch. Am I correct that it was reactivated a couple years ago with F16's?
I've done the entire Harz narrow gauge system a few years ago. Do you like steam-powered trains?
Peter,
On that is cool, small world.
My father was with the 380th in 1945. He flew a couple missions on Balikpapan in June of 1945, the 26th and the 30th. He was scheduled to fly on the 22nd, but a takeoff crash by another B24 took out his #4 prop. July 1st was the last mission. The 380th had a very critical T.O.T. of 0820-0830. This was to fit all the bomb groups in before the Australian army began landing shortly after bombing stopped. The 380th flew 15 days in a row on Balikpapan, June 17th through July 1st. 1945.
Bob
edit: to keep it rail, he had several missions bombing the Saigon rail yards and the rail bridges in Indo China.
BOB WITHORN Cannonball, They held the distance record/flight record for longest missions in WW2 until the B-29s showed up. Balikpapan was nearly 16 hours from Austrailia and 13 hours from Mindoro, PI. All over water.
Cannonball,
They held the distance record/flight record for longest missions in WW2 until the B-29s showed up. Balikpapan was nearly 16 hours from Austrailia and 13 hours from Mindoro, PI. All over water.
My late father was in the Australian Army at Balikpapan. He took photographs of the rather stunned local population after the Japanese had been driven out. He also photographed an amphibious landing from the troopship (he was an anti-aircraft gunner, so presumably landed later). He got some photos of a Japanese surrender ceremony on an Allied ship, which looked much like the one in Tokyo Bay, just with less senior officers....
Peter
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.