If user fees go into effect I'm done

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-----

In article ,
A Guy Called Tyketto wrote:

I believe you're correct, as they were the military variant of
the DC-10.

correct.

Speaking of, aren't the KC-10s still in active service as
refuel tankers?

yes.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article ,
B A R R Y wrote:

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?

Yes, but not a lot. There are over 500 KC-135's (which, btw, are NOT based on
the 707 - they share bloodlines, but the 135 preceded the 707).

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel wrote:



Yes, but not a lot. There are over 500 KC-135's (which, btw, are NOT based on
the 707 - they share bloodlines, but the 135 preceded the 707).


You're right as to the timing. But, the 707 was a direct direvative of
the 135 development program. And, as I recall, the development program
was for the C-135. The tanker came later.

"Sam Spade" wrote in message
...

You're right as to the timing. But, the 707 was a direct direvative of
the 135 development program. And, as I recall, the development program
was for the C-135. The tanker came later.


The KC-135A preceded the C-135A by four years.