Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8529 times:

A new twist that warrants a new thread IMO!
Irish Company Joins Tanker Fray

Quote:
Omega Air plans to offer refueling services to the Air Force with a fleet of 60 older DC-10s, a company spokesman said. The proposal would offer undisclosed savings to the Air Force compared with the Boeing and Airbus submissions because Omega Air would retain control of the aircraft and the pilots, the spokesman said.
But Omega Air's plan does not immediately address the Air Force's needs to replace some 500 KC-135 tankers that are on average 45 years old, more than three times older than the nation's commercial fleet. The company's spokesman acknowledges that the proposal is a stopgap measure to quickly upgrade Air Force tankers while new planes are being built over the next 20 years.
"We would view this as an interim service," the spokesman said. "It's our understanding it would take quite a few years to have new planes replace their entire fleet."

Very interesting. However, I would view the offer to retain "control of the aircraft and the pilots" as a "thanks, but no thanks" proposition. Why not put the tankers under the control of the UN?  Wink


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8512 times:

IMO this is a non starter.

They are too old with two many hours.

Also many are parked/worn out out or with dodgy operators.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8506 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
They are too old with two many hours.

If one is willing to spend the money and time, it is possible to restore to almost "like new" condition. The USAF Maintenance Depots are superb at doing this. It is an expensive proposition, though, and would most likely be very expensive.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8468 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
Also many are parked/worn out out or with dodgy operators.

to be fair they bought 20 from a Japanese operator with excellent service records and practices. they say that they can secure 20 to 40 more from similar sources.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Stor...466B-A3C8-CAC4057A7329%7D&keyword=

[Edited 2006-06-13 21:26:31]


Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 8433 times:

Interesting that another company named Omega is in the tanker business...Omega Aerial Refueling Services operates a 707 used for Navy tanker ops. The idea of outside contracting tanking isn't a totally bad idea, the civilians tend to keep the equipment in very good repair as well (most of their pilots an Mx people are ex mil). It's worked so far, but not sure about such a grand scale as they're proposing here.

Outsourcing anyone?  Wink

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 8427 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 4):
Interesting that another company named Omega is in the tanker business...Omega Aerial Refueling Services operates a 707 used for Navy tanker ops. The idea of outside contracting tanking isn't a totally bad idea, the civilians tend to keep the equipment in very good repair as well (most of their pilots an Mx people are ex mil). It's worked so far, but not sure about such a grand scale as they're proposing here.

I think it is the same company, or that Omega is also bidding. I saw an article on the FlightGlobal website about this.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 8408 times:

Hmm, that's interesting. I had, at first, thought it was the same Omega, but I saw this one was owned by a company in Ireland, so I wasn't sure if it traced it's roots to the one I know based in VA.

The compant CEO of Omega Aerial Refueling is an old CO of my dad's (hence why I get rides in their 707), I'll ask him what's up....if so, their company could be doing very well soon. Last time I checked, they were about to add a 2nd 707 to the fleet.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 8391 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 3):
to be fair they bought 20 from a Japanese operator with excellent service records and practices. they say that they can secure 20 to 40 more from similar sources.

Doubtful. These 20 are DC-10-40s. Only a handful of other 40s even exist anymore. What's more they have poor commonality with KC-10s. If they had started with DC-10-30s there would have been less of an issue.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8347 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 7):
What's more they have poor commonality with KC-10s.

If I'm reading it right, the aircraft in question would be civilian-registered, owned, and flown. Therefore, the only commonality with the KC-10 that would be necessary is the boom itself (and that's questionable), the A/R lighting, and crew training.



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8347 times:

I doubt the AF will go for this deal. They want new tankers, and now. They are holding off retirements of the E-models until they get a deal going for a replacement, not a short term solution.

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 8333 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 8):
If I'm reading it right, the aircraft in question would be civilian-registered, owned, and flown. Therefore, the only commonality with the KC-10 that would be necessary is the boom itself (and that's questionable), the A/R lighting, and crew training.

I had to read the article twice myself and that is indeed what it appears to be saying! Imagine that these aircraft are registered to a company in a country that has a government that does not support the U.S. on a certain foreign policy issue and blocks the use of these aircraft as a way of registering their displeasure. It is NOT going to happen. That's why I jocularly referred to the UN in a previous post....

[Edited 2006-06-14 17:20:27]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineFtrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 8318 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 6):
..if so, their company could be doing very well soon. Last time I checked, they were about to add a 2nd 707 to the fleet.

I rode with them two weeks ago and they said they were hoping to get the new one online this summer.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 8281 times:

Awesome ftrguy...who was your crew? There's not a whole lot of pilots, so chances are I've flown with one or two of em. Did you fly out of NTU or elsewhere? Was their CEO onboard perhaps (guy by the name of Sanders)

Nice bird indeed- hope they gave you some stick time, they're usually pretty good about it, especially on the long long hops when they're bored.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8272 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 8):
the only commonality with the KC-10 that would be necessary is the boom itself (and that's questionable), the A/R lighting, and crew training.

the -40 also has different payload/range than the -30. It'd always have to be used as a seperate subfleet, rather than being able to directly substitute for a KC-10.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineFtrguy From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 8272 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12):
Awesome ftrguy...who was your crew? There's not a whole lot of pilots, so chances are I've flown with one or two of em. Did you fly out of NTU or elsewhere? Was their CEO onboard perhaps (guy by the name of Sanders)

Nice bird indeed- hope they gave you some stick time, they're usually pretty good about it, especially on the long long hops when they're bored.

DeltaGuy

DeltaGuy-

I flew with them twice over a couple days. I flew with a total of 5 different crew. The one guy who was there for both flight was brand new (it was his first trip). I don't remember the other guys names, but they all, with one exception, came from the TACAMO community.

I did get in the left seat, but I didn't actually fly. It was my squadron mates who were tanking, so I didn't want them to have to deal with me at the controls for the first time in a 707. They thanked me for that later.
The interior was a little worn and dirty, but what can you expect from a 38 year old bird who hauls around gas.

I found this picture of N707AR in her Pan Am days. Good thing I found it after my flights.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Burgess



I also took a video of the takeoff and posted it to Flightlevel350.com. Just put 707-100 (i know N707AR is not a -100) in the search criteria and it will show up.

I saw the picture in your profile where you are in the left seat of 707AR. I recognized it pretty quick.


User currently offlineJarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8206 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 13):
the -40 also has different payload/range than the -30. It'd always have to be used as a seperate subfleet, rather than being able to directly substitute for a KC-10.

OK...
The current KC-135 and the KC-10 have different payload/range numbers, too. What are you getting at?



I personally don't see this being a huge fleet of tankers for Omega, operating world-wide. Maybe a handful for work around CONUS supporting USAF training missions, but I don't see Omega (K)DC-10's doing fighter drags across either pond, or working in the sandbox region.
Just my 2 cents...



Cleared to Contact
User currently offlineBoeing Nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8195 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 1):
IMO this is a non starter.

They are too old with two many hours.

 checkmark 

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
I doubt the AF will go for this deal. They want new tankers

 checkmark 


User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2969 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8169 times:

Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 15):
The current KC-135 and the KC-10 have different payload/range numbers, too. What are you getting at?

So instead a better solution is two different KC-135 capabilities, two different DC-10 capabilities, and add in the winner of the 767/330 competition. Might as well throw in some KC-25s and KC-32s while at it.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineIrish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 979 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8132 times:

The Omega proposal is for an interim solution ("stopgap measure"). The principals of the company are Irish and, in the 1980s, were involved in sourcing many of the JT-3D-engined Boeing 707s which were retired to Davis-Monthan/AMARC to provide engines and other parts for the KC-135E programme. Clearly the company would have to be able to source the required DC-10s and as the number of -40s available is insufficient, these would have to be either a mix of -30s and 40s, or series 30s only. They sourced a lot of 707s, some from unlikely sources, so there is a good prospect of doing the same here, if the right price is on offer.

If this option offered a sufficient time advantage over ordering and getting into service new-build tankers, maybe it has a chance. However I agree with others that a key question is whether these aircraft would be available for the full spectrum of tanker ops or just the more routine training and maybe deployment operations outside potential combat zones.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8126 times:

The B707's were for parts only.

How many DC10 do you need for 60 flyers.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 8112 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 4):
Omega Aerial Refueling Services operates a 707 used for Navy tanker ops

Is this not the same company? I know of the 707's used for the tanking, but I assumed that if someone was offering up DC-10's that it would probably be the same company.

Regardless, it is interesting to watch the 707's come in and out of SAT sometimes.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineIrish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 979 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8108 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 19):
The B707's were for parts only.

How many DC10 do you need for 60 flyers.

I fail to see the point you are making about the 707s. They may have been for parts, but they were all fliers when they arrived at DM and would undoubtedly have had longer service lives, had the economic climate been more favourable. Many (e.g. American, Pan Am & TWA) were "one-owner" aircraft and had given good service but were far from time-expired.

On the second point, well, you need 60 aircraft! Looking at the photo database on this site, quite a number of DC-10s have been either broken up for parts or are in storage in flyable condition. One must assume that the makers of the proposal would have had to be confident of sourcing the airframes required and having sufficient spares supplies before they put it forward. Otherwise they would just end up looking silly, which I assure you they are not.


User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 8105 times:

Quoting Irish251 (Reply 21):
quite a number of DC-10s have been either broken up for parts or are in storage in flyable condition.

Or have been gobbled up by FedEx.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7746 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8047 times:

Irish251

In answer to your first question, buying an aircraft to be parted and buying one to make it a flyer are two different propositions.

There was never any suggestion that the B707 would be used as flyers.

Concerning the DC10, finding 60 flyers could be a problem.

The list below is every DC10 still in existence, (KC10's and RNLAF KDC10's excluded)

46501 N220AU ST 1990-1990 1990-1991 35,491 Hrs/10,256 Cycles
46521 N550FE ST 1994-1997 1997-2001
46524 N910SF ST 1995-1996 2000-2004
46525 N557FE ST 1994-1996 2003-2003 2003-2006+ 82,989 Hrs/26,714 Cycles
46540 N304SP ST 2000-2000 2001-2005 2005-2005 88,676 Hrs/18,125 Cycles
46541 5X-DAS ST 2000-2000 2004-2005
46542 S2-ADN ST 1999-2000 DBR 2005? 81,935 Hrs/15,557 Cycles
46543 S2-ACS ST 1999-1999 D Check 2004 75,728 Hrs/13,379 Cycles
46551 N229NW ST 1994-1995 1995-1995
2005-2006 2006- to be RTS 125,572 Hrs/28,959 Cycles
46552 N230NW ST 1995-1995 1995-1995
ST 2005-2006+ 124,609 Hrs/28,628 Cycles
46553 N14090 ST 2000-2006+
46554 9G-PHN ST 1991-1992 2003-2005+ RTS? 85,949 Hrs/20,509 Cycles
46575 PP-SFB ST 1993-1996 2001-
46576 N19072 ST 2002-2003 RTS 2003-2005+
46577 N228PR ST 1992-1993 2001-2002
RTS 2003-2004+ 117,749 Hrs/27,393 Cycles
46578 N229PR ST 1992-1993
RTS 2002-2004+
46579 N221NW ST 2005-2006+ 125,230 Hrs
46580 N223NW
46581 N224NW
46582 N225NW
46583 N226NW
46584 N15069 ST 2001-2003 2003- TO BE SCR
46590 N401JR
46595 N540AX ST 2003-
46596 N630AX ST 1999-1999
46601 N365FE ST 1994-1997 1997-1998
46602 N366FE ST 1994-1998 1998-1999
46605 N367FE ST 1994-1997
46606 N368FE ST 1994-1997 1997-1998
46607 N369FE ST 1994-1997 1997-1998 61,802 Hrs/24,182 Cycles
46608 N370FE ST 1994-1997 1997-2002 71,577 Hrs/21,218 Cycles
46609 N371FE
46610 N372FE 71,577 Hrs/28,218 Cycles
46611 N373FE ST 1997-1998
46612 N374FE ST 1997-1998
46613 N375FE ST 1997-1999
46615 N381FE ST 1999-2000
46616 N383FE
46617 N384FE ST 1993-1999
46618 N1819U CRASHED 1989 43,401 Hrs/16,997 Cycles
46619 N385FE ST 1994-1997 1997-1998
46620 N386FE ST 1994-1997 DAMAGED 2006
46621 N387FE ST 1994-1997 1997-1998
46622 N388FE ST 1997-1997
46623 N389FE ST 1996-1999
46624 N390FE ST 1996-1997
46625 N391FE ST 1994-1997
46626 N392FE ST 1994-1997
46627 N393FE ST 1999-2002 73,641 Hrs/25,872 Cycles
46628 N394FE ST 2000-2001 2001-2001 74,802 Hrs/26,022 Cycles
46629 N395FE
46630 N396FE ST 1998-2001 63,955 Hrs/25,142 Cycles
46631 N397FE ST 1996-1997 1997-1998
46632 N1838U ST 1999-2006+
46633 N358FE ST 1999-2001 65,223 Hrs/19,939 Cycles
46634 N398FE
46635 N359FE ST 1999-2001 2001-2002 62,957 Hrs/19,220 Cycles
46636 N360FE ST 1999-2001 2001-2002 62,885 Hrs/19,181 Cycles
46640 N233NW ST 2005-2005 96,052 Hrs/23,689 Cycles
46646 3D-MRR ST 2003-2004 2004-2004
2005-
46660 N660VV ST 2005-2006+
46661 VP-BDG ST 2001-2003 51,592 Hrs/40,407 Cycles
46662 N662VV ST 2005-2006+
46686 PK-GIF ST 2004-2005+
46705 N68058
46707 N553FE ST 1993-1994 2002-2006+ 87,510 Hrs/31,786 Cycles
46708 N554FE ST 1993-1994 1994-1994 86,928 Hrs/31,412 Cycles
2002-2006+
46710 N556FE ST 2001-2005 82,206 Hrs/31,796 Cycles
46712 N140AA ST 1993-1996 2003-2004
2004-2004 2004-2006+ 96,634 Hrs/21,903 Cycles
46713 N141AA ST 1993-1996 2003-2004
2004-2004 2004-2006+ 92,635 Hrs/20,014 Cycle
46714 N142AA ST 1995-1996 1999-
46727 N104WA ST 1995-1999
RTS 1999-2005+
46752 N133JC ST 2003-2004+
46753 N144JC ST 2003-2004+
46757 N148US RTS 2001-2005+ TO BE SCR
46758 N149US RTS 2002-2005+ TO BE SCR
46759 N150US RTS 2001-2005+ TO BE SCR
46761 N152US ST 2003-2005+ TO BE SCR
46762 N153US ST 2002-2005+ TO BE SCR
46766 N157US ST 2002-2005+ TO BE SCR
46770 N161US RTS 2002-2005+ TO BE SCR
46771 N162US ST 2002-2005+ TO BE SCR
46800 N301FE
46801 N302FE
46802 N303FE
46835 N317FE
46836 N107WA ST 2000-2000 2003-
46837 N318FE
46850 N13088 ST 2002-2006+ TO BE SCR?
46851 F-GTDH ST 2001-2002 2002-2003+ TO BE SCR
46853 F-BTDE ST 2003-2005
RTS 2005-
46868 N211NW ST 2005-2006+ 125,278 Hrs/28,762 Cycles
46869 F-GTLZ ST 2000-2002 2003-2005+
46870 F-GHOI ST 1993-1994 2001-2001
2001-2002 2003-2003
2003-2004+ PROB SCR 2004?
46871 N311FE
46872 F-GLYS ST 2002-2004
RTS 2004-
46891 OB-1749 ST 1993-1994 2000-2000
46892 F-GNEM ST 2001-2003 2003-2005+

46900 N68041 ST 2002-2004
46901 N68042 ST 2001-2006+
46902 N68043 ST 2001-2006+
46903 N68044 ST 2001-2003
46907 N68059
46911 N14074 ST 1993-1995 2001-2006+
46912 N234NW
46913 N913VV ST 2004-2006+
46915 N235NW
46917 N303WL ST 1994-1995 103,399 Hrs
46918 PK-GIA ST 2005-
46919 PK-GIB ST 2005-
46920 N140WE ST 2001-2004 2006- 51,546 Hrs/41,979 Cycles
46921 5X-BON 86,870 Hrs/16,238 Cycles
46922 N14075 ST 2000-2000
46923 N469V ST 2004-2006+
46926 N37078 ST 2001-2006+
46927 N14079 ST 2001-2003 RCMP GIA 2003-
46930 N559FE ST 1999-2005 83,768 Hrs/24,790 Cycles
46931 N614GC
46932 N609GC ST 1999-1999 2001-2002
2004-
46933 9G-ANC ST 2003-2005+
46934 N236NW To Omni for RTS
46936 N831LA ST 1999-2000 2001-2002
46937 N833LA ST 1999-2000 2001-2002
46938 N560FE 80,551 Hrs/23,704 Cycles
46939 N357FE ST 2000-2000 2000-2003
46940 N76073 ST 2000-2001
RTS 2001-
46942 N450AX ST 1994-1996 2002-2003
2003-2004 FIRE FIGHTER
46943 N561FE ST 1999- 72,562 Hrs/26,652 Cycles
46944 YV1052C ST 2005-
46945 N967PG ST 2002-
46947 N562FE ST 2000-2001 2003-2004 77,440 Hrs/24,223 Cycles
46948 N563FE ST 2000-2001 2003-2005 73,642 Hrs/23,737 Cycles
46949 PP-VQY ST 1999-2000
46950 N164AA ST 2000-2000 2000-2006+ 75,290 Hrs/15,417 Cycles
46951 PK-GID ST 2004-2005+
46953 N8094P ST 2002-2002 2002-2005
2005-2006
RTS 2006-
46954 F-GTLY ST 2003-2005+ DERELICT
46957 5N-ANN ST 2000-2000 2003-
46959 9G-ANB ST 2003-2005+
46961 N232NW ST 2005-2005 2006- 103,415 Hrs/20,631 Cycles
46963 F-BTDD ST 2002-2005
RTS 2005-
C Check 2002
46964 PK-GIC ST 2005-
46965 N600GC
46966 VP-BDH ST 2000-2001 46,066 Hrs/38,502Cycles
46967 N967VV ST 2006-
46969 N227NW ST 2004-2006+
46970 N10060
46971 YV-135C
DBR 1993 Derelict 1993-2004+
46973 N40061 ST 1990-1992 1994-1994
46974 N974V
46975 N1856U ST 2001-2005 2006- PERU 84,004 Hrs/19,699 Cycles
46976 5X-JOS ST 1994-1997
46977 N572RY ST 1997-1999 2004-2004
RTS 2004-
46978 N607GC ST 2003-2004+
46981 N37077 ST 1992-1993 2001-2006+ 80,587 Hrs/16,345 Cycles
46982 N8094Z ST 1997-1997 1997-2000
2000-2005 2005-
46983 ZS-GAW ST 2001-2002 2003-2004
2004-2005 2005-
46984 N564FE ST 2003-2004 79,316 Hrs/24,850 Cycles
46986 N1857U ST 2000-2001 2001-2006+ 81,721 Hrs/20,255 Cycles
46988 YU-AMB ST 2005- TO BE RTS
46989 N566FE ST 1999-2002 63,539 Hrs/20,999 Cycles
46992 N304FE
46993 S2-ACO D check 2000
46994 N567FE ST 2000-2005 65,450 Hrs/21,448 Cycles
46995 S2-ACP
46996 N565FE ST 2002-2002 2003-2004 73,948 Hrs/22,708 Cycles
46997 N997GA ST 2001-2003 2004-2005
RTS 2005- TO BE SCR POOR
46998 N526MD ST 1998-2000 2000-2001
2002-2004 68,414 Hrs/16,034 Cycles
46999 N524MD ST 2002-2002 2002-2004 66,326 Hrs/15,594 Cycles
47801 N68047 ST 1999-2005 84,545 Hrs/30,735 Cycles
47803 N68049
47804 N68050
47805 N68051
47806 N68052
47807 N301FE
47808 N68054
47809 N68055 DBR 1996 Derelict 1996-2004+ 38,271 Hrs/17,818 Cycles
47810 N304FE
47811 N323FE ST 2006-
47812 N1853U ST 2001-2005+ 70,115 Hrs/14,747 Cycles
47813 N326FE ST 2006-
47814 F-GLMX ST 1982-1984 1999-2005+
47815 F-GKMY ST 1982-1984 2003-2005+ DERELICT
47816 N279AX ST 2001-2002 2003-2004
47817 S2-ACQ D check 2002
47818 5X-ROY ST 1996-1998
47819 N478CT ST 2001-2002 2004-2004 2004-2005 80,410 Hrs/17,861 Cycles
47820 N319FE
47822 N822V ST 2003-2004 2004-2006+
47823 VP-BDE
47824 N824VV ST 2005-2006+
47825 N825VV ST 2005-2006+
47826 N826VV ST 2005-2006+
47827 N568FE ST 2002-2005 TO CARGO 67,288 Hrs/21,409 Cycles
47828 N569FE ST 2002-2003 67,593 Hrs/21,311 Cycles
47829 N570FE ST 1999-2003 63,046 Hrs/20,045 Cycles
47830 N571FE ST 1999-2000 2002-2004 69,293 Hrs/21,472 Cycles
47831 5X-JCR ST 2001-2001
47832 3D-MRS ST 2003-2004 2004-2004
2004-2005+
47834 N80946 ST 2001-2002 2002-2005
2005-2005 PERU
47838 N352WL RTS 2005-
47840 N612GC
47841 PP-VMT RTS 2005-
47842 PP-VMU
47843 N331FV ST 2001-2005
47844 N237NW ST 2004-2004
47845 N242NW ST 2006-
47850 N68060 ST 2002-
47851 N12061 ST 2002-
47852 N852V ST 2004-2006+
47853 N853V ST 2005-2005 2006-
47856 N856V ST 2003-2006+
47857 N857V ST 2003-2006+
47862 N12064 ST 2001-2002
RTS 2002-2005+ TO BE SCR
47864 N14063 ST 2001-2002
RTS 2002-2005+ TO BE SCR
47866 N13067 ST 2001-2005+
47888 N47888
47889 N306FV ST 1992-1993 2000-2000
2000-2001 2001-2005 72,763 Hrs/18,707 Cycles
47906 5X-JOE 123,208 Hrs/29,857 Cycles
47907 Z-ARL ST 2002-2004
47908 N322FE ST 2003-2003 2004-
47922 N603GC ST 1993-1995 2001-2006+
47923 N602GC ST 1994-1995 2004- 87,749 Hrs/18,861 Cycles
47926 N59083 ST 1993-1994 2001-2002
47927 N49082 ST 1994-1994 2001-2003
47928 N304WL
47929 N606GC ST 2002-2002 2002-2003
47957 N17085 ST 2001-2002
47965 N377FE ST 1997-1998
47980 N8095V ST 2001-2002 2002-2005
2005-2006
RTS 2006-
47981 N12080 ST 2001-2004
RTS 2004-
48252 N720AX ST 1999-2000
48258 J2-KCG ST 1994-1996 1996-1997
2002-2004 39,586 Hrs/21,842 Cycles
48260 N361FE 61,790 Hrs/19,629 Cycles
48261 N362FE ST 2000-2000
48262 N399FE ST 2000-2000 62,545 Hrs/19,642 Cycles
48263 N363FE ST 2000-2001 58,064 Hrs/19,485 Cycles
48264 N68057
48265 N810AX ST 2003-2003
48267 N238NW TO OMNI
48275 V2-SKY ST 1994-1996 2001-2002
2003-2006+ 42,194 Hrs/16,191 Cycles
48277 N189AX ST 1999-2001
48282 N241NW ST 2005-2006+ 84,688 Hrs/18,790 Cycles
48286 9G-ANA ST 2003-2005+
48287 N306FE
48290 N239NW TO OMNI
48291 N307FE
48292 N87070 ST 2001-2002 2002-2004+ TO BE SCR
48294 SX-CVP ST 1995-1995 2001-2001 2003-2005+ 37,500 Hrs/20,000 Cycles
48297 N308FE
48301 N858V ST 2004-2006+
48314 N316FE
48515 N243NW TO OMNI
48516 N244NW TO OMNI
48317 S2-ACR
48318 N270AX ST 1993-1995 2001-2002
2004-2004
48319 N240NW ST 1998-1998 TO OMNI

Many of these aircraft are either beyond reclaim/owned by FEDEX who appararently have no plans to sell/have 100K+ on the clock.

I would be interested to know which 60 you would select, (just for fun).


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8028 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 23):
The list below is every DC10 still in existence, (KC10's and RNLAF KDC10's excluded)

Out of that list, many of the DC-10s are DC-10-10s, -30s, a few -15s and about 22-40s (by my count). Several others are now MD-10s.

I doubt the USAF would seriously consider this proposal, because of the limited number of DC-10-30/-40 available. Now if Omni Air were to propose a fleet of 40-45 B-747-200/F/CF converted to tankers, it MIGHT have a better chance of being accepted by the USAF and Congress. There are more used B-747-200s available now. Some are worn out, but many still have years of life left in them, though they may need major overhauls.


25 Bennett123 : As you say, I did cast the net wide. IMO most of these aircraft have issues or one sort or another.
26 KC135TopBoom : I would say that all of them do.
27 Saintsman : Omega will very shortly have its first twin podded DC-10-40 modified and hopefully will show it at RIAT Fairford and Farnborough next month. The peopl
28 Lumberton : Well, for starters....
29 Bennett123 : Saintsman Which 60 aircraft do you suggest. IMO this would only be a runner if all/most of the FEDEX fleet is included.
30 JarheadK5 : Well, considering that Omega is currently tanking USN aircraft around CONUS during OIF, and Omega is the company proposing to tank USAF aircraft arou
31 Lumberton : IMO, there is a very large difference between the Omega role now and the greatly expanded role it would play if USAF were to outsource a significant
32 AirRyan : Tell me again why Boeing couldn't make new KC-11's? I'm sure just like was the case with DICKcheney they completely destroyed all of the tooling as so
33 Saintsman : BAESystems is a British registered company who provide an awful lot of arms to the US through companies they own in the US. So why can't Omega do the
34 Lumberton : There are legal work-arounds, like registering the company in the U.S., etc. But any proposal is likely to be demagogued to death and will never brin
35 Saintsman : No there is no link, I was just using BAES as an example. However the same logic applies. You can't say that Omega won't be threatened by their own c
36 Lumberton : Agreed. However if the DC-10 is a contender, then USAF needs to consider re-enginining the KC-135Es with JT8Ds and remanufacturing the airframe! (We
37 Galaxy5007 : I highly doubt that the AF will buy a KC-787, since the first 787 hasn't been built yet, hasn't flown yet, hasn't completed any sort of flight testin
38 AirRyan : Ironically enough, but isn't that exactly what the USAF didn't do back when they placed the order for KC-135's? They were using "trustworthy" KB-29's
39 Galaxy5007 : That was the past. This is now. They need tankers now. Not 2012. They want new ones flowing in by 2008. They had time before, they are out of time thi
40 JarheadK5 : Agreed. However, 60 Omega aircraft, even at a 1-for-1 exchange with USAF KC-135's, is only about 10% of the -135 fleet (I don't know exact -135 fleet
41 AirRyan : How does the saying go? "Lack of foresight on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part." For such a pivotal part of the USAF (B-2's, C-5'
42 Bennett123 : I have since been told that N189AX was scrapped after it's crash in 2004.
43 MigFan : Hell No! What is the reasoning behind it? To save a few bucks? The USAF should purchase a new tanker, if they expect to get the longevity out of them
44 DL021 : unfortunately it does.....Congress has been as lax as the AF here.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Omega Air Offers To Modify DC10s For Usaf Tanker
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
Omega Air Tanker What A Good Ideal posted Thu Aug 31 2006 20:30:48 by 747400sp
Best Tanker Option For Usaf? posted Sun Nov 20 2005 15:08:24 by KC135TopBoom
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan
Usaf To Accelerate Programs For New Bomber posted Fri Mar 5 2004 00:24:20 by AvObserver
Swedish Air Force To Get 2 C-17 Globemaster posted Wed Oct 4 2006 23:33:12 by Solnabo
Next Usaf Tanker posted Sun Jul 30 2006 09:07:28 by AislepathLight
NZ Govt To Purchase NH90's For RNZAF posted Tue Jul 11 2006 14:18:07 by Zkpilot
New Stealth Aircraft Under Contract For Usaf posted Sat Jun 24 2006 23:05:17 by RichardPrice
12 To 18 Rafales For Morocco posted Tue Jun 6 2006 23:23:44 by ElGreco

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format