Lockheed jet tanker

I asked on the warships1 board whether the USAF had looked at a tanker version of the DC-8 in case there were problems with the KC135 and got a reply back saying that Lockheed had proposed a jet tanker that was apparently the favourite at one time.

The USAF bought the KC-135 purely as a temporary measure, since Lockheed had won the mid-1950s competition for a jet-powered tanker, with a proposal that actually had performance very similar to the much later KC-10… including fuel load & multiple refueling stations.

Eventually, Lockheed fell so far behind schedule, and so far over budget, that the USAF had already bought almost half its tanker requirement in KC-135s.

At that time, Lockheed’s contract was cancelled, more KC-135s bought, and a new competition started… which resulted in the KC-10.

I tried to find the article I had seen that gave a very minimal description of it last night, but couldn’t.

As I remember, the article said that Lockheed’s offering was “in the weight class of the later KC-10”, and that “design and engineering studies for the tanker were later applied to the L1011”, but then Boeing used knowledge from the B-47 to help design the 367-80/KC-135/B-707, and there are significant differences between those aircraft.

I have no idea of the engine # and layout, but the engines available at the time would have required a 4-engine layout, with more thrust than the -80’s JT3s (civilian J57, 10,000 lb.s.t. [later 12,000-14,000 with water injection, then 17,000 lb.s.t. TF33 {turbofan J57} after 1960])… perhaps a civilian J75 (15,000-17,000 lb.s.t.), then the 21,000 lb.s.t. TF33 developments.

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/4/2004_4_10.shtml

“On March 26, 1952, Boeing’s president, Bill Allen sent a memo to his division heads, asking if they thought they could fly a prototype jet transport in just two years. Jim Barton in Boeing’s cost-accounting group said it would cost $13 to $15 million. On April 22 Boeing’s board of directors unanimously approved $15 million for Project X, or the Model 367-80, better known as the Dash-80. This project posed an enormous risk, for the military had not described the specific performance details that it wanted, and the $15 million investment represented more than twice Boeing’s profits from 1951. Although the plane had civilian uses as well, if the Dash-80 failed as a tanker, Boeing could fail too.

At SAC’s Requirements Conference in November 1953, General LeMay called for 200 jet tankers. The Air Force announced a design competition for a jet tanker on May 5, 1954, and invited Boeing, Convair, Douglas, Fairchild, Lock—heed, and Martin to participate. At that point Boeing’s leaders could only forge ahead with the Dash-80, which had its first successful flight test on July 15, and pray that it would win the competition.

On August 3, 1954, with the jet-tanker design competition still in progress, the Air Force decided to buy interim tankers. The Air Force Secretary, Harold E. Talbott, announced an order to buy 29 tankers from Boeing. Less than two weeks later the Air Force said it would buy 88 more Boeing tankers. It looked as if Boeing was set to win the competition, but it didn’t.

In February 1955 the Air Force announced that Lockheed had won the competition and at least one of its tankers would be funded for construction. In the very same announcement, however, Talbott said the Air Force would buy an additional 169 tankers from Boeing. Eventually it canceled Lockheed’s paper proposal.

Boeing called its Dash-80 tanker version the KC-135. It improved several capabilities over previous tankers. It carried 31,200 gallons for refueling, whereas the KC-97 (previously called the C-97) carried only 8,513. And it could refuel planes at 35,000 feet, nearly twice the altitude ceiling of the KC-97. It also used Boeing’s flying boom.

Does anyone have any information on the Lockheed proposal?