Ex52tech From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 559 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7167 times:
Probably used for similar functions as their 707s.
I would be willing to go out on a limb here and guess that they are not concerned with the maintenance that Boeing has requested through service bulletins and so on. The ARMAR program that the civilian operators were looking to have to do on their 741 fleets, and subsequently scraped most of them due to the cost.
The 741 are more than likely very new to them, and much more state of the art to them than their 707 fleet.
"Saddest thing I ever witnessed....an airplane being scrapped"
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12336 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6232 times:
Quoting Spacepope (Reply 4): The 747 in the photo is definitely a tanker, even though the boom is not fitted. The black lines on the underside of the rear fuselage are a dead giveaway.
No, 5-8107 was never one of the KC-747s for the IIAF. There were 5 of the ex-TWA B-747-100s converted into tankers, 5-8101 through 5-8105. The black stripes have nothing to do with tanker operations. Tankers with Booms will have one 1' wide yellow belly stripe running longitudinally on the keel beam to represent the refueling centerline. Those transverse black stripes are external body station indentifiers.
The remaining 7 B-747s were used for transport and cargo operations, they are 5-8106 through 5-8112. Tail number 5-8109 was the one tragic loss in a thunderstorm in the late 1970s, over Spain, IIRC. I believe 6 of the IIAF B-747s are in storage or unfit for flying (2 transport/cargo versions and 4 KC-747s). Only one IIAF KC-747 is flying today, 5-8103. She is scene from time to time.