Now see Crew Chief, if you were old school, you would know it as the Gucci Bird. I was part of the Gucci Boys at March from 1986-1994. I retired in 1999.
I was part of KC10 test team at Barksdale, then when March opened up for KC10s went there. 1 of 4 Abionics guys to set up KC10 avionics. Flew all over the world in the 10. Still had that new airplane smell to it. Maintenance man's dream to work on Hated to ser tgem put out to pasture
i sat back there many times on TDY. just sat there, open the viewing door and just look. it's a very neat perspective. i got some great shots of refueling the F-117.
Yes and according to the movie "Interceptor" from 1992 you can slide down the inside of the boom onto the top of a C-5 Galaxy during refuel, and if you use an acetylene torch you can cut a hole in the c-5 to gain access to a service tunnel that will lead to the cargo bay. Useful information if you ever plan on stealing an F117 that is in the cargo bay. During the 13 years that I have worked on both aircraft I haven't been able to find that service tunnel.
I refueled most of these (from the ground) during the run up to the Gulf War while stationed at Zaragoza AB in Spain! Watching them thunder down the runway from the ramp and launch into the sky was a breathtaking sight. It never got old. We even got an “incentive flight” a few months after things had settled down in the Gulf. We flew up over Germany and refueled 111’s out of Lakenheath. The slow rolling turns while waiting for the rendezvous left me feeling a little queasy after awhile. I managed to get some awesome photos looking over the shoulder of the boom operator as he did his job. And the salute from the 111 pilot afterwards made my day.
I'm a current KC-10/KC-46 Flight Test Boom Operator. Its incredible to see the work I've done on the -46 is the same work that brought the KC-10 online. Love the -10
Hey Boom, keep the tradition going. ... KC-135 boom from 1979-1986 and KC-10 boom from 1986-1999 (retired)... from one to another...."Boom Stowed, Leaving Position."
To modernize the KC-10, the USAF has awarded a contract to Boeing in 2010 to upgrade the fleet of 59 aircraft with new Communication, navigation and surveillance and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) system. This was to allow the aircraft to fly in civil airspace as new ICAO and FAA standards took effect in 2015. Rockwell Collins was also awarded a contract in 2011 for avionics and systems integration for the cockpit modernization program. The Air Force considered retiring its fleet of KC-10 tankers in response to sequestration budget cuts as part of the service's FY 2015 budget. A "vertical chop" to divest all KC-10s was suggested because there are fewer KC-10s than KC-135s, having three different tanker models in service (after the introduction of the KC-46) would be costly, and a "horizontal cut" across the refueling fleets would achieve small efficiencies. Some believed retiring the KC-10 would not benefit the Air Force, given that it is equipped with both boom and hose-and-drogue refueling systems and the fleet's relatively young age. At first, officials claimed that the initial focus on retiring the KC-10 in September 2013 was a "trial balloon" to call attention to Air Force operating cost issues; as of early 2013, the KC-10 had a per hour flying cost of $21,170 and a mission capable rate of 87 percent. As of the FY 2015 budget plan did not include cuts to the KC-10. The Boeing KC-46 Pegasus is a military aerial refueling and strategic military transport aircraft developed by Boeing from its 767 jet airliner. In February 2011, the tanker was selected by the United States Air Force (USAF) as the winner in the KC-X tanker competition to replace older Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers. The first aircraft was delivered to the Air Force in January 2019. The Air Force intends to procure 179 Pegasus aircraft by 2027.
yeah. except they arent replacing the 135 with the 46 anymore... theyre replacing the 10 with the 46 which makes zero sense. They were both built for a very different mission.
My Air Force JROTC unit had an after hours field trip on a night refueling mission aboard a KC-135. We connected to two C-130s on separate flights and a KC-10. That is, *we* "refueled" the KC-10. Put refueled in quotes because it was like watching a car fueling up an 18-wheeler; obviously our KC-135 couldn't possibly fill the KC-10 to capacity. The guy operating the boom said it wasn't that unusual for a big plane to be topped off. Which explained why we still had enough fuel to give anything meaningful to the second C-130. After seeing the KC-10 it looked a lot smaller.
I was stationed at March AFB 22nd FMS AGE Shop When We Got The First 4 KC10's, 2 Came From Barksdale AFB And 2 Brand New From McDonnell Douglas In Long Beach. What Beautiful Tankers They Were! It's Hard To Believe They Are Now Being Retired. In My Air Force Career The KC10 Has Flown Me On Many TDY's All Over The World. Many Fond Memories, I Will Miss That Aircraft Alot!
Cool video…I went thru initial quail on the -10 in Jan ‘94 at March, was assigned to the 6th ARS, went to Travis in May ‘95 and retired from the 70th ARS (USAFR) in May 2011… I finished with 6200 hrs in the -10 as a pilot and enjoyed the jet very much… so fly 737’s now and the -10 is much easier to fly…great airplane….I miss it
Max,, i was a Boom at March from 1986-1994 (in the 6th), went to the Funky Cold Kadena as a TALCE boom, but would always come back to March to maintain my boom contact currency. I'm sure we flew together at some point. .... i miss it too.... from me to you, "Pilot, Boom Stowed, Leaving Position.".... safe flying always.
This film features three fighter jets built by McDonnell Douglas over the years - the F-4 Phantom II, the A-4/A4D Skyhawk and the F-15 Eagle. The Northrop Grumman A-10 Thunderbolt II (also known as the "Warthog"), the Vought A-7 Corsair II, the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark and the Lockheed Martin S-3 Viking and F-16 Fighting Falcon were also featured, as well as the SR-71 Blackbird supersonic reconnaissance aircraft.
After the initial cadre of boom operators trained, i was in the 2nd class of boom operators to be trained and assigned to March AFB, CA in 1986. I retired in 1999. I have never seen this video. McDonnell-Douglas sent out a promotional video called "KC-10, Promises Delivered." ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tVKW79f6cxg.html. The boom operators in that video were my instructors after training. Thank you for the memories. "Boom Stowed, Leaving Position."
"in 1975, under the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft Program, four aircraft were evaluated-the Lockheed C-5, the Boeing 747, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and the Lockheed L-1011. " L-1011? Man those would have been some beautiful and at the time, technically advanced tankers! I feel like the top engine's exit might have perhaps presented an issue and why it never was looked at further.
Boeing had a 747SF flying with a boom. After the Chicago DC-10 crash, McDonnell-Douglas was going under big time, and they under bid Boeing for the contract and that's why they chose the DC-10.
Thanks 🤗 Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.
a KC10 pilot once told me that the KC10 was an excellent aircraft and fun to fly. The only negative thing he had to say was that the bathrooms were positioned above the avionics bays which leaked into them over the years and required costly repairs. Can any KC10 mechanics confirm this? Why would they construct them that way? Seems illogical to me.
I believe that Douglas just used the regular forward lav positions for DC-10s on the KC-10. You really have to devote significant attention to proactive maintenance on lav systems if you don't want to have leaks. Typical for the government they probably low balled the maintenance cost estimates to get the program approved. When they tried to make it work it didn't so they started deferring maintenance.
That did happen occasionally happens to many other aircraft also but not all the time still a very reliable air force asset I worked them as a crew chief for 14 years got the crapper juice on me many times performing maintenance
In 1979, the faa grounded the DC-10 after the crash of America Airlines flight 191. About the same time the KC-10 was being developed. McDonnell-Douglas probably took into account the lessons learned from flight 191, and previous DC-10 crashes, then incorporated them into the KC-10.
Flight 191 crash was due to engine separation from the aircraft due to improper maintenance during an engine change. They removed the engine and strut with an unapproved procedure of using a fork lift. Nothing was done to the KC10 due to that crash. As for the United 232 Sioux City crash, the KC10 had a hydraulic system that would have allowed some flight control even if all three systems were inop due to loss of hydraulic fluid. Flew KC-10 for 14 years and 4,000 hours.
@@waterboy4597 191 was engine separation due to improper engine removal/install during maintenance. Also AA crew procedures were a factor. KC10 crews did not contain those procedures. I came to Barksdale in 1981 to set up the AFRES unit, and retired in 1994 so never flew out of McGuire. Glad to see my old Squadron, the 78th "Capt Shreve Squadron" is alive and well up there though.
Max range at max. cargo load is 7,033km/4,370miles or it can deliver 90,270kg/200,000lbs(just under 30,000gallons/115,000 liters) of transfer fuel to a receiver 3540km/2,200mile from its home base and return.(1989 Global Airpower) Many a pilot has hailed the praises of the KC-10, some saying "it's like plugging into a nice fluffy pillow-nothing I'd rather refuel from."
KC 10'S HAVE BEEN FLYING ALL OVER REFUELING . OVER CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON STATE NOW AT 11:00 PM. TRAINING? ONE IS ON THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA ALSO 26,000 FEET..
The Multi-point Refueling Systems (MPRS) modification adds refueling pods to the KC-135's wings. The pods allow refueling of U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and most NATO tactical jet aircraft while keeping the tail-mounted refueling boom. The pods themselves are Flight Refueling Limited (FRL) MK.32B model pods, and refuel via the probe and drogue method common to USN/USMC tactical jets, rather than the primary "flying boom" method used by USAF fixed-wing aircraft. This allows the tanker to refuel two receivers at the same time, which increases throughput compared to the boom drogue adapter.
There was only one KC135 with this modification back in 1959, it started out with 3 pods but General Lemay wanted his boom, so it was modified at Boing that same year. 590858.
Sort of. The hose drogue? Is adapted to fit on the end of the refueling boom when its on the ground. I did thus a couple of times when assigned to Pease AFB NH.
I want to know what nitwit decided that a bunch of poor quality video camera images fed to a remotely seated boom operator were a good substitute for a properly designed boom operator station. What you can get away with if you are only using hose systems you can't do with a boom operation.
The Air Force considered retiring its fleet of KC-10 tankers in response to sequestration budget cuts as part of the service's FY 2015 budget. A "vertical chop" to divest all KC-10s was suggested because there are fewer KC-10s than KC-135s, having three different tanker models in service (after the introduction of the KC-46) would be costly, and a "horizontal cut" across the refueling fleets would achieve small efficiencies. Some believed retiring the KC-10 would not benefit the Air Force, given that it is equipped with both boom and hose-and-drogue refueling systems and the fleet's relatively young age. At first, officials claimed that the initial focus on retiring the KC-10 in September 2013 was a "trial balloon" to call attention to Air Force operating cost issues; as of early 2013, the KC-10 had a per hour flying cost of $21,170 and a mission capable rate of 87 percent. As of the FY 2015 budget plan did not include cuts to the KC-10.
@@ditzydoo4378 KC-10 was a "dual role" mission aircraft, with a massive increase of capabilities than the 135. I know, flew both of them, 4000 hours and 13 years in each one.
The reason. for tanker to tanker transfer is to keep as much fuel available in the air as possible. If one has to land because of damage, crew issues, ect, it can move it's load to another plane to continue the mission. Also, it may not be carrying the right type for it's engines.
the flight engineer has the capability to transfer fuel from one tank to another to balance the weight. it can carry approximately 360,000 pounds of fuel, by the way. that would be the max with no or very limited cargo
It can. KC-10s have a history of using up almost all the fuel they carry to save recievers. The incredible flexibility of the fuel transfer system for all the fuel it carries has enabled this.
@@christopherconard2831 The only "other" fuel type carried was JP7 for the SR71, and the KC10 could use that just like the JP4 they normally used. Normally only two tanks on the KC10 were used for JP7, due to the cost and time to "flush" the tanks that had JP4 in them. There were a couple of times we loaded "wall to wall" JP7 for SR-71 missions.
