If user fees go into effect I'm done

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
scott moore wrote:



Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.



Those of you who can. Some 70% of the piston flying is done with high
performance engines that can't use mogas, my Six included.

Rather like the old 80/20 syndrome - 80% of the flying is done by 20% of the
aircraft, which is the high performance stock that needs 100LL.

Whatever happened to GAMI's PRISM ignition STC? The simple (relatively)
conversion would ostensibly allow even rotgut gas in the most touchy turbo
piston engines.

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.

"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

I would say that it's because they will have to move the planes they are
talking to, since they won't be able to move the ones they're NOT talking
to.

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
.net...

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
...

However, the pilots of airliners an biz jets may get a lot more to do.


Is that because the pilots of airliners and biz jets don't look for
traffic unless it's called by ATC?

"mike regish" wrote in message
news

I would say that it's because they will have to move the planes they are
talking to, since they won't be able to move the ones they're NOT talking
to.


They don't have to move them, and they shouldn't move them. A traffic
advisory is all that's needed.

Except that there are no present conversions that deal with ethanol.

mike

"scott moore" wrote in message
. ..

Most likely we'll be lining up for autogas conversions.

Which will increase the pressure for user fees.

And on and on and on.

Scott

Only assuming no conflict...

mike

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

They don't have to move them, and they shouldn't move them. A traffic
advisory is all that's needed.

"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.