If user fees go into effect I'm done

Sam Spade wrote:
Newps wrote:


User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.



I would agree that is the case for a few years.



It goes in 10 year increments.

Newps wrote:


Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:


User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.



I would agree that is the case for a few years.




It goes in 10 year increments.

I didn't know that. How can they lock any appropriation method for 10
years?

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

Sam Spade wrote:
Newps wrote:



Sam Spade wrote:

Newps wrote:


User fees are dead. They don't stand a chance.



I would agree that is the case for a few years.





It goes in 10 year increments.


I didn't know that. How can they lock any appropriation method for 10
years?

The last time we had this fight was 10 years ago, the current system has
to be decided no later than Sept 30 because there is a sunset provision
in what we are doing now. They will, in the end, reauthorize the
current system pretty much as is. Taxes on airline tickets and per
passenger fees may get adjusted slightly.

"Newps" wrote in message . ..

Ray Andraka wrote:
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.

All but a very few engines could run on mogas. Those that can't now
would need an electronic ignition. The few that never will are the high
HP turbo models, such as in the Navajo Chieftain.

I won't argue percentages, but I keep hoping technology will rescue us
before I need to replace my matched pair of TSIO520NBRs again.
I doubt that turbodiesels are in my future, but it's hard to know for sure.

"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