Small tanker conversion proposals

[Kiltonge]

Dassault Falcon 50, 1985

From Warplane recapping 1985 Paris airshow brochure:

In 1985 Dassault offered two tanker versions. One has a nine-seat cabin and transfers up to 7040 kg of fuel from the normal tanks. The other has a four-seat cabin and extra-rear-fuselage tanks increasing transfer fuel to 9110 kg.

Also a brief mention in Flight, 1986

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986 - 0555.html

No images yet...

IAI / Gulfstream G550, 2007

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and Gulfstream are considering offering a multirole version of the G550 business jet equipped with an underbelly gondola-type fuel tank.
...
According to IAI the G550 will be capable of carrying 25,000kg (55,000lb) of fuel.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/iai-and-gulfstream-planning-g550-tanker-216019/
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=1437.0

BAE 146 / RJ, 2013

Up to 7t of fuel could be transferred from the type's standard load, with this to rise to around 18t if auxiliary tanks were added, the company says.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dsei-bae-146-offered-as-tactical-air-to-air-refueller-390417/

 

[Kiltonge]

737 tanker proposal, 1982

... the 737 proposal is designed to interest countries
such as Germany and Italy, who now plan to equip Panavia Tornadoes as
buddy-buddy tankers for long-range anti-ship missions in the Baltic and
Mediterranean, respectively.

Also some interesting notes about BA 757s being candidates as contingency tankers for the RAF:

At 1980 prices, the cost of modifying 39 757s is estimated at
$19 million; add 39 pods for $11 million, plus spares, but excluding
two RAF 757s

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1982/1982%20-%200988.html

 

[TomS]

Any idea what the "give" would be from a 737 tanker? The article gives numbers for the 707 conversions but not for either the 737 or 757.

 

[Kiltonge]

Found an earlier 1981 Flight article on the 737 tanker proposal:

Either the Flight Refuelling pod or the larger Beech 1080 pod
would be centreline mounted.

Four 1,020 US gal pallet-mounted "hard" tanks would be carried
on the main deck, giving a total fuel capacity of 9,240 US gal.

Alternatively, one 2,000 US gal and two 600 US gal bag tanks could
be fitted for a total capacity of 8,360 US gal.

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1981/1981%20-%202092.html

The concept for both the 737 and 757 was that airline examples could be modified with the basic fittings for wartime upgrade to full tanking configuration so they only had main-deck tankage, no additional cargo-hold capacity.

For comparison the contemporaneous 707 Tanker-Transport offload chart is attached.

 

[GTX]

Very interesting - I have often wondered about a 737 derived mini tanker.

 

[joncarrfarrelly]

Very interesting - I have often wondered about a 737 derived mini tanker.

... or not so 'mini' depending on model.

 

[GTX]

True…very true.

 

[hesham]

Great find Kiltonge.

 

[jeffb]

KC-390 With A Boom Could Be The Agile Tanker The Air Force Needs

A modified version of the Brazilian KC-390 could bring fuel forward to austere airstrips and thirsty fighters on edge of enemy airspace.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Archibald]

Bizjet / airliner / military cargo / 's tanker proposals are a bit like maritime patrol conversions "Let's throw proposals against a wall and see what sticks". Not surprised Dassault tried that with their bizjets. You never know: French air force and navy already used Falcons for VIPs and marpat (Guardian !)

 

[riggerrob]

Bizjet / airliner / military cargo / 's tanker proposals are a bit like maritime patrol conversions "Let's throw proposals against a wall and see what sticks". Not surprised Dassault tried that with their bizjets. You never know: French air force and navy already used Falcons for VIPs and marpat (Guardian !)

The French even experimented with dropping search and rescue technicians from Falcon business jets. They exited the usual personnel door, forward on the port side of the fuselage. After the first test jump kicked the wing's leading edge, they cancelled further test drops.
Routinely dropping personnel or cargo (e.g. life rafts) routinely would require adding a new door under the tail.

 

[TomS]

Routinely dropping personnel or cargo (e.g. life rafts) routinely would require adding a new door under the tail.

The USCG's HU-25 Guardians (Falcon 20s) had a floor hatch to deploy life rafts. Not a very good solution, but it sort of worked.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1AqFUrmrlE

 

[riggerrob]

Routinely dropping personnel or cargo (e.g. life rafts) routinely would require adding a new door under the tail.

The USCG's HU-25 Guardians (Falcon 20s) had a floor hatch to deploy life rafts. Not a very good solution, but it sort of worked.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1AqFUrmrlE

Quite the cludge with a roof-mounted chain hoist, hole in a pressurized floor, etc.
It would make more sense to drop SCADS from the un-pressurized aft baggage compartment or the "boat" faring around the wing roots.

 

[TomS]

Quite the cludge with a roof-mounted chain hoist, hole in a pressurized floor, etc.
It would make more sense to drop SCADS from the un-pressurized aft baggage compartment or the "boat" faring around the wing roots.

It's really odd, because there were three actual hardpoints on the aircraft (two under wing and one on the centerline that was probably taken over by the sensor fairing). Seems like a podded life-raft would make a lot more sense all around. But the USCG had literally no money, and the hatch was spec'd in the original contract.

 

[cafe]

Same thing from a French navy Falcon 50M:

View: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10nv6e

 

[cafe]

About that Falcon 50 tanker project...
From Fana de l'Aviation #605, june 2020, the pics are actually from Air & Cosmos #1019.