If user fees go into effect I'm done

You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
considering the hours and hard use they have endured.

Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
sheet design.

"Viperdoc" wrote in message . net...
: You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
: the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
: considering the hours and hard use they have endured.
:
: Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
: airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
: be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
: sheet design.
:
:

The 777 is being considered now...

Blueskies wrote:
"Viperdoc" wrote in message . net...
: You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
: the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
: considering the hours and hard use they have endured.
:
: Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
: airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
: be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
: sheet design.
:
:

The 777 is being considered now...


Which is a much, much better airframe and systems platform than the 767.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:33:33 GMT, "Viperdoc"
wrote in
:

You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
the current ones are based on 707's. They are getting long in the tooth,
considering the hours and hard use they have endured.

Even refurbishment in a depot can not always resurrect an old and tired
airframe. Simply put, the Air Force needs newer tanker assets, and it would
be simpler to modify an existing airframe rather than go through a clean
sheet design.


While that may be true, it overlooks the point, that Boeing has a
history of criminal behavior in dealing with government contracts, and
now it is proposing to install its automation system to control all
air traffic in the NAS via satellite. Those facts set off my
boondoggle detector.

While the concept is enormously attractive in its ability to nearly
completely automate air traffic control, there will be several new
vulnerabilities introduced unless they are addressed and resolved
BEFORE implementations of NextGen commences.

Viperdoc wrote:
You have to remember that tankers are an essential and valuable asset, and
the current ones are based on 707's.

I thought they had a bunch of KC-10's?

The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
10's a few years ago.

Still, flying in a 135 is a nice quiet ride. However, the airframes are
aging, and it is becoming more and more expensive to maintain them, to the
point where it may no longer be cost effective.

Viperdoc wrote:
The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
10's a few years ago.

Thanks.

I didn't know the KC-10's were that old, have recently seen one flying
t&g's @ McGuire. My father worked on 135's in the 60's, and we saw one
out of Pease at a recent airshow @ BAF.

FWIW, I know somebody who flies DC-10's for Gemini Air Cargo, so at
least _one_ is still flying.

In article ,
Viperdoc wrote:
The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service? I think Fedex dumped all of their
10's a few years ago.

FedEx is working on converting their DC-10s to MD-10s, and currently
lists 86 DC-10/MD-10s in their fleet, as well as 58 MD-11s. An
MD-10 is a DC-10 retrofitted with an MD-11 two man cockpit, as well
as some other changes.

http://fedex.com/us/about/today/comp...ess/facts.html

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
. net...

The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service?

I don't believe the KC-10 was ever in commercial service.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Viperdoc" wrote in message
. net...

The KC-10's are almost as old as the KC-135's. How many 707's and KC-10's
are still active in commercial service?

I don't believe the KC-10 was ever in commercial service.

I believe you're correct, as they were the military variant of
the DC-10. Speaking of, aren't the KC-10s still in active service as
refuel tankers?

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF1quSyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsvJAKCtt1x1330ow4B/wCDp7OOgenr4QgCgsheF
wXF/a3QrNjsB8JA531hOvks=
=m9Yf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----