Did you know that registration to Fighter Control is completely free and brings you lots of added features? Find out more....

req 61-0296 C135

A forum for discussing all things related to MILITARY AVIATION including Military Aviation news. No off-topic discussions here please.
Post Reply
dee-jay
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:43 pm

req 61-0296 C135

Post by dee-jay » Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:17 am

Good Morning

I have been checking Mildenhall Show Reports in Scramble for the 1977 show they have 61-0296 KC135Q as some on the field , in my records i have 61-0296 as w/o 26/09/76 in Missouri .
Can any body tell me which is correct please

regards
dee-jay

Undertaker
Posts: 807
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:20 am
Location: Aylesbury, England

Re: req 61-0296 C135

Post by Undertaker » Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:44 am

EC-135H 61-0286 was at the show, I've not got '296 as being there

Tangopapa
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: req 61-0296 C135

Post by Tangopapa » Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:47 am

Agree with Undertaker. Have checked my own log and SEAR - no mention of 10296, only based EC-135H of 10ACCS as the closest option 10286 .

dee-jay
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:43 pm

Re: req 61-0296 C135

Post by dee-jay » Tue Sep 15, 2020 9:30 am

In my own log nothing on 61-0296 thought Scramble was wrong

Thanks for the reply
regards

Dee-jay

rh226
Posts: 13370
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:43 pm
Location: Melksham, Wiltshire

Re: req 61-0296 C135

Post by rh226 » Tue Sep 15, 2020 1:49 pm

One obvious thing that stands out is that KC-135Q serials were limited to within only the FY58, FY59 and FY60 serial blocks, so if it was a "Q" that was being reported, the serial has to be wrong.

Sadly, my logs for 1977 (and before) have gone, but I do know that of the "Q" serials that I had seen by that date, not one looked anything like 61-0296 (which had been written off by then anyway).
Cheers, Bob

Post Reply

Return to “The Fighter Control Mess”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: colt41, drkpd, RubyRoo and 45 guests