[Pukin Dog]

My flight school roommate's dad was a 747 captain for United Airlines. He had the SFO to HNL route. My friend told me that if a missed approach was executed in a sloppy, slow, 747 below 1000' AGL, there was no way the wheels were not going to touch the ground before climb configuration could be achieved with any result.

That is a bit over-dramatic. Full flaps, without a lot of gas, 1000 feet is plenty of room to spool up. However, I think this is a very bad idea. Water is HEAVY, with its own momentum too. Stress at the wing roots will be amazing during pulls to level during release. I would bet even money you see a stress failure and a nice explosion soon enough.

[Long Cut]

Think they might be reinforcing the wings as part of the conversion, Dog? Seems to me that'd be mandatory, but with the beurocrat types you never know.

We had an ORION once back when I was in VP-8 that flew all kinds of missions...bounces, tac trainers, ASW, you name it. Maintinence then discovered that the wing spars were cracked, in multiple places. Some of us got a little nervous after that.

Recently, the allowable hours on the P-3 airframe has been cut dramatically, due to the limits of service life being reached. We've already sent some to the boneyard.

I just hope we get a replacement before a crew has to die to accelerate the process. I love the old girl, but it's time for her to retire.

As for the 747-as-a-tanker, I'd have to have a LOT of questions answered before I thought it was anything other than a political boondoggle. The 747 is a great passenger airliner, no doubt, but in this role, I can't see it.

[blackdog]

I'm talkin 747's in the 60's. His dad also flew the DC-3's to HNL after WWII which flew under the Golden Gate Bridge due to being so over gross with fuel on takeoff.