GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13253 posts, RR: 77
Reply 1, posted (13 years 9 hours ago) and read 1289 times:
That should ensure that the USAF get those 60 extra C-17s. The 767's will replace the KC-135E's.
But if this is true, then the Pentagon will have to address the large numbers of ageing aircraft in the less sexy support roles.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4466 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (12 years 12 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1242 times:
I guess that is one bright spot that we can take out of this. Thankfully it was on the ground when this occurred. Hopefully this will allow Congress to see that more C-17s are needed. Hopefully they will station C-17s and the new 767 tankers at McGuire.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
JohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (12 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
The story I got was a fuel tank vent was left capped after maintenance. The tank was filled after maint, and the air had no where to go, and presto, you have a popped tank. This is not the first time I have heard of this happening. The reports of the 141s demise are a bit premature. A bad 141 is still better than a good C-17!