3 ms·
It's also worth noting that there were two 717s, the first was indeed part of the 720 & 707 family. (it was the 'commercial' designation of the C-135 when sold
by NikkiA 7y ago
It's also worth noting that there were two 717s, the first was indeed part of the 720 & 707 family. (it was the 'commercial' designation of the C-135 when sold to france for use as a tanker)
- kgermino 7y agoGood point. Completely forgot about that one.
- CydeWeys 7y agoIt always strikes me as strange that the USAF is still regularly running such old planes as the C-135 (the most recent of which was produced over five decades ago). I guess they don't care about fuel efficiency like the airlines do? Maybe that's the real reason? I get that the mid-air refueling planes have a lot of specialized hardware on them, but most of them are just used for moving people and equipment around. Why not buy an off-the-shelf modern cargo airplane? You'll increase safety and fuel efficiency dramatically. A 767F is better than a C-135 in a multitude of ways, including better fuel efficiency, higher cargo capacity, shorter runways, etc.
- NikkiA 7y ago> Why not buy an off-the-shelf modern cargo airplane? Because the procurement procedure would take 10-20 years, have to go through congress several times, and get pork barreled everywhere, and the 'modern freighter' would still likely be old as dirt once it's all done. Look at the fuss over the KC-X/KC-30/KC-45/KC-46 for an example of how it would pan out. (The KC-X procurement started in 2002, settled on the KC-30 from airbus, modified to include pork barrelled 'Northrop Grumman' changes to be the KC-45, boeing objected to a non-US company winning the contract, and thus the KC-46 (a modified KC-767) was the only option left)