Date: 20 Jan 98 01:29:16 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Stephen H. Westin) Organization: Program of Computer Graphics -- Cornell University References: 1 2 Followups: 1
View raw article or MIME structure
Marc Schaeffer <email@example.com> writes: > Karl Swartz wrote: > > I'm pretty sure the KC-135 series were > > all 717-1xx models, with several values for xx, so there's still no > > ambiguity unless Boeing launches the proposed MD-95-10 as the 717-100.) > > KC-135 = Boeing 717-100A (first 29 aircrafts) > KC-135 = Boeing 717-146 and -148 (next 68+ aircrafts) > C-135A = Boeing 717-157 (15 aircrafts) > C-135B = Boeing 717-158 (30 aircrafts) > KC-135B = Boeing 717-166 (17 aircrafts) > C-135F = Boeing 717-164 (12 aircrafts) > RC-135A = Boeing 739-700 ( 4 aircrafts) > RC-135B = Boeing 739-445B(10 aircrafts) So that leaves out the KC-135Q, modified to handle JP-7 for the SR-71, and the KC-135R, the re-engined version with CFM56 (er, F108-CF-100) engines. Not to mention the KC-135E, using TF-33-PW-102 engines and flown by the Air Force Reserve and National Guard. Did these just keep their original designations after modification? An Air Force web site, <http://www.af.mil/news/factsheets/KC_135_Stratotanker.html>, mentions a "fleet of 732" planes, and lists a total of 645 as still in service, just as tankers. Does that make your "68+" into 686? -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.