Full inside tour of the U.S. Air Force KC-10A Extender. 

Great story. What was the initial call sign for the KC-10's on that legend period of integration such a pure magic aircraft for the USAF? Love this aircraft wondering: why is so beautiful and helpful bird's going to retire?

What does Kc stand for ?

@@Biggie1231 K - tanKer. C - cargo. It means, that tanker aircraft produced on the platform of basic cargo aircraft. DC-10 here is the original Mc Donnel - Douglas bird for that.

l am concord

l concord

Been there done that!! 79-1946..... the bad boy. One of the last white top KC-10 to get painted. We had a good crew (flight & ground ) out of March AFB.

No, on a tanker aircraft the boom operators are responsible for cargo handling. They are trained in that as well as the safety of passengers, so yes, it encompasses the task that a load master would do, but that is part of their training on a tanker aircraft.

Wow, I never knew the boom operator was the loadmaster as well. I have heard the ground school is rather lengthy. That makes more sense now. I flew as a Flight Engineer and Co-Pilot on DC-10s. I love those 10s. I'm flying MD-11s now. I love those too.

And with the KC 10s going away that’s going to be one less aircraft flight engineers are going to be able to have available. Flight engineer is becoming a smaller career field. I was one on a C-5 so the ones assigned to KC 10 are either going to be retrained or assigned somewhere else to another aircraft. i’m not surprised though, because any modern aircraft is not going to use a flight engineer I have nothing against the KC 46 It is a pretty cool aircraft. The Air Force did need something newer.

the 46 is okay.... but still not on the same level as far as amount of fuel in one load. Curious how many chicks a 46 can drag across the pond? see if it can make the stop on wake island.

@@cdubois13 So why the KC135 over the KC-10? KC-10 seems bigger, more capable, holds more, and one less engine so reduced maintenance costs. Not to mention both utilize a flight engineer. Not to say i don't love both aircraft, i love them both. Just makes sense since the KC-135 is smaller and a older platform.

@@AlphaGametauri actually, the KC 135 does not and never used a flight engineer. If you’ve looked at a cockpit it does have the seat formally used for a navigator which they got rid of in the mid 90s. There’s a jumpseat but that’s for an evaluator pilot. The Air Force have been looking to replace them for sometime as it was once projected they would last till 2040. Some of them probably will as they fly with reserve and guard units. There were some huge expenses with the KC 10s I used to hear about back when I was in maintenance. I don’t know all the details but it does seem premature to retire all the KC 10s.

@@cdubois13you’re right about the expenses, I worked on them 2020-2021, parts were incredibly expensive, and that’s if you could source them. It’s an incredibly capable aircraft no doubt, but parts are damn near impossible to find. The 135 isn’t as capable but having been updated so many times and how many the Air Force has the parts are still available for them