JANET in the UK!!

I recentley went to RAF Bosecombe in the UK and seen a Boeing 737 JANET airliner! i didnt have my camera on me but i did get the tail number.

It was: N5177C

Could anyone verify this?

I was stunned, what is a Janet plane doing in a base in the Uk?

Umm would it be wierd for a janet plane to be on a UK air base?

Just looked at www.dreamlandresort.com.
It is definatly a JANET!!!

Unable to put a direct link, but go to 'More Info&Photos, then under the headline 'Janet airlines' there is a link called 'The Janet Fleet'. The fourth picture is of the aircraft in question....

Hyacinth: - Thanks for the link, i really didnt expect to see the actual plane that i seen on the site!

Do you have any idea why they would be in the UK?

Boscombe Down has a long history of "black projects" being tested there (see links below)

Could it be that they are testing a joint project or are the US using the base for their own test's

I believe that they had an accident with a US black Project being tested there sometime in the 90's. Back then there were reports of Janets, and other US craft flying in & out

www.dreamlandresort.com... link is form dreamland resort.com

p.s mod's if i am not allowed to use this link i apologise in advance

You don't think they transport aliens and UFO parts from our Area 51 to yours and vice-versa via UPS do you? lol

NN

For sure the "N" number comes back as a Boeing 737 owned by the Air Force.

_____________________________________________

Check for printing
N-number : N5177C
Aircraft Serial Number : 20693
Aircraft Manufacturer : BOEING
Model : 737-200
Aircraft Year : 1974
Owner Name : DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
Owner Address : PO BOX 1504
LAYTON, UT, 84041-6504
Type of Owner : Government
Registration Date : 17-Sep-1992
Airworthiness Certificate Type : Not Specified

Here's a nice shot of it ...........

Mccarran Int'l - (LAS / KLAS)
Oct 2005

Clickity Click

NN

www.lazygranch.com...

From JFK to London it's 3520nm. Seems the maximum distance a 737-200 can travel is 2300nm. I'm starting to doubt this story....I mean the jet would need to travel another 1200 miles beyond it's maximum....

I don't like threads without a source (ie: pics) either. But, I also do not see any reason the gov can not have these aircraft retro-fitted for in-flight refueling.

And btw .......... beat ya to posting a pic ....... HAH !!!!!

lol

NN


[edit on 3-7-2006 by NoNik]

Here is Janet N5177c parked in Las Vegas in April 2006. I see no port for in-flight refueling. This story is BS.



www.dreamlandresort.com...




[edit on 3-7-2006 by kinglizard]

Retro-fit doesn't imply conventional engineering.

But on your stance ..........

@ What is going on,

I am curious where you were, in relation to the air-strip, and where at the location the Janet was sitting?

NN

Conventional or not there is no port for re-fueling and the jet can't jump the pond. End of story.....

Sure you can dream up all sorts of scenarios...they disassembled the aircraft and lifted it over, they landed on an aircraft carrier and sailed to the UK but that's far from a reasonable conclusion.

The fact remains...the 737-200 is incapable of making that flight...period.

Oh come on man, that is to say you know every inch of a Janet aircrafts surface. You simply can not say that there "is no port" definitively.

NN

The only in air re-fueling that the air force is capable of doing is through a winged boom that connects to a port located just above the cockpit. The photo I posted above clearly shows that there is NO port above the cockpit on Janet N5177C.

Boom Example below:

Inflight refueling ports are on top and slightly behind the cockpit. All IFR ports are marked with lines in front of the IFR door to give the tanker boom operator a reference point so he doesn't drive the boom through the plane. It's a pretty significant plumbing modification to put an IFR port on any plane.

Edit to add: Look on the top of the C-5, right behind the cockpit in the pic above. Those are the IFR markings.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by Zaphod58]

Fly through canada and stopover in iceland. It's not impossible at all to take that jet to the UK.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by CyberSEAL]

Flying a 737-200 from New York to London without aerial refueling is a do-able deal.

WW2 pilots ferried many aircraft - single engine fighters as well as bombers - from the US to Europe.

Considering the 737-200's range of 2300 NM it could be done in stages very much like they did during WW2.


New York to Halifax, Nova Scotia = 571 NM.

Halifax to Thule, Greenland = 1922 NM - which is cutting it a little fine as far as range goes.

Thule to Reykjavic, Iceland = 1154 NM

Reykjavic to London, England = 1023 NM


Or alternatively

New York to Thule, Greenland = 2161 NM

Thule to London, England = 2139 NM

This routing would be cutting things a little to close for my taste, but with good weather and GPS navigation it could be done.

And . . . if things got a little iffy, you could put in at a number of places along the way.

Iceland for one and Ireland for another.



[edit on 3-7-2006 by Desert Dawg]

If they're not carrying anything they could also remove the seats and install internal fuel tanks and make it in one hop. That's how they got Hawaiian Airlines' Boeing 717s to Hawaii. They just can't refuel them in flight.