LJDRVR
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2001
- Posts
- 1,134
UHHH...lazy pilot math
Yeah Spur, I messed that up. I didn't factor in the purchase cost and should have typed 23 million a YEAR. I'm even less of a math major than you dude.
Mud Eagle, I honestly don't know. According to a previous post by a tanker pilot, the 135 has more lift/range than the 767 as proposed. He also said they are rarely flown that way. According to the civilian press, the Air Force didn't ask for this airframe at all. My point here is I think we should avoid corporate welfare for Boeing unless two conditions are satisfied:
-That AMC has a valid need for the 767, with procurement initiated through proper channels instead of at the beheast of Illinois and Washington Congressmen.
-The current tanker MWS is updated to its most complete potential/longest life. (Pacer CRAG, 7Q7, FSAS, CFM's, etc..)
Yeah Spur, I messed that up. I didn't factor in the purchase cost and should have typed 23 million a YEAR. I'm even less of a math major than you dude.
Mud Eagle, I honestly don't know. According to a previous post by a tanker pilot, the 135 has more lift/range than the 767 as proposed. He also said they are rarely flown that way. According to the civilian press, the Air Force didn't ask for this airframe at all. My point here is I think we should avoid corporate welfare for Boeing unless two conditions are satisfied:
-That AMC has a valid need for the 767, with procurement initiated through proper channels instead of at the beheast of Illinois and Washington Congressmen.
-The current tanker MWS is updated to its most complete potential/longest life. (Pacer CRAG, 7Q7, FSAS, CFM's, etc..)
Last edited: