I just sent in a change to the c/n for 85-6974. Information I have shows this plane was returned to Boeing for disposition and that it is now scrapped. Out of curiosity I checked the c/n against the FAA registry to see if Boeing had it given a civil number, which I discovered to be N105BV. Could you link these two aircraft? Since I just put in the c/n it of course has not taken effect, which would mean they would generate another profile.

FAA data shows N105BV as Boeing 707-382B, but our data says 85-6974 is a VC-137C. So linking them together means we will lose one model. Maybe we should leave them along?

Thanks,

Ken

I thought about that problem, but I have many photos posted on their current FAA registry which doesn't show the military type. U-21s for example just show as some type of Beech 90, but on my photos I put the military designation and serial. Perhaps even a comment could be put at the bottom of the profile. Shots I have of planes when they were military I always posted with their current FAA registration if I could find it. However, many have gone civil after I posted, so that's when I try to get them linked.

As for these two profiles, the VC-137C of course is the military designation for that particular 707-328. So linking them with that type wouldn't be any different that having posted it that way originally with a notation on the photos or a comment on the profile as to its actual military type. I have actually thought about going back and making new profiles for other ex-military types to link them to the current registry (I have some CH-64s posted w/civil registry) so as to have a profile with them in active service linked to their current status. It might be more beneficial that way for someone looking for the military model. I know there are profiles both ways.

Anyway, leaving these two as they are is fine; I just wish there was a way to link them without changing their types.

Anyway, leaving these two as they are is fine; I just wish there was a way to link them without changing their types.

Unfortunately with our current data structure, this is not feasible.

Ken