On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:31:31 +0000, Daryl Hunt wrote:


"David Lednicer" wrote in message
...
What a crock! Those tankers have been rigorously maintained for their
entire lives. Age doesn't enter into it. The B-52 is of the same
vintage
and continues to provide except service. Until this recent 767
debacle
the
Air Force said the tankers would not need to be replaced until 2020.
As Nader said, this clearly "corporate giveaway" to the ailing Boeing
at
the
expense of the American taxpayers.

Nonsense! Aluminum fatigues - the KC-135s have all had to have
horizontal tails cannibalized from 707s retrofitted to keep them in
service. Systems fail and parts are hard to find for aircraft as old as
the KC-135s. Airliners have finite lives and the KC-135s are coming to
the end of theirs.

I was involved during the KC-135A to KC-135R upgrades. The one item they
could not replace was the Air Frame. People think the Buffs are old. One
was a 1954 model. These are really , really old Aircraft and you can only
rebuild them so many times before something falls off during flight that
brings them down(already happens from time to time). And if anyone
wonders what happens when a KC-135 hits something with a fuel load, think
of 9-11 except worse. These types of AC are nothing to fool around with
nor play Partisan Politics with.

Wichita, Kansas, January 1965. Fully loaded KC-135 takes off from
McConnell AFB and immediately has problems. Pieces falling off, it seems
to be turning back to the base, but goes in about 4 miles north of the
runway. I don't know if was under control to the end, but it hit about
..5 mile west of the university, about .5 east of an oil refinery, and
about .25 mile south of a residential school for the hearing impaired.
Nobody made it out, and many killed on the ground. There's a park there
now. I still remember seeing the pillar of smoke.

Gary

--

Gary W. Oehlert (remove x's)