Видео

I used to do that back in the 80s when i was a kid, i grew up in the takeoff path in Tijuana, when my dad and I hear those aeromexico DC10s we went outside to see them since they passed real low sometimes, good memories, cheers from Tijuana Mexico...

@@rafaelmc76 Aeromexico DC 10-15s had more powerful engines too.

Formation lights that have a greenish glow at night.

@@christopherhague2329 - Thank you very much. I've been wondering about them for a while.

Nope, Extender

That’s not a fact dumbass, the uk and eu has loads of refuelling planes.

These help top up yank fighters and bombers that are based in UK and Europe, nice of the brits to let them be there…

@@camhunter7648 Correct. There are not that many USAF fighters in Europe anymore, 3 squadrons in UK, two in both Italy and Germany, that's all. Less than 6% of Pentagon budget is spent in Europe according to US DoD.

Yes they are 👍

One is doing circles above my city in Romania ಠ_ಠ

@@brekekee yes these are worrying times, these aircraft are really interesting but I always hope they are never needed for their intended purpose

yes they are slowly being retired though, at least 10 in the boneyard already

@@brekekee One Did Circles Over My Neighborhood In New York Lol

My SAC wing got brand spanking new KC-10s in the early '80s. I still remember that new jet smell.

@@TS-ev1bl You must have heard JT3D powered KC-135s back in the day too.

just KC-10.

they are performing a 180 degree turn at the end of the runway, that is the boom operator giving callouts to the crew as to where the main landing gear is in relation to the edge of the runway, the nosegear is like 20 feet behind the cockpit door.

@@slappymcgillicuddy7532 ah thank you! I figured it was some sort of visual exterior verification - I kinda figured it was to double check to ensure the boom was (still) secured in place.

@@yyc_flyer8729 yeah its literally to make sure the pilots are not running over any runway edge lights:)

In the mid '80s we hauled F4s from the DC ANG unit who were on alert in Reykjavik. Fulll load of fuel, rotated on the last brick, hit a flock of birds, thankfully none went in an engine, but after we landed found a hole in a leading edge flap!

In 1985, i was a KC-135 boom operator, and my crew was the first KC-135 crew mated with the 57th FIS F-15's at Keflavik. Shortly after that rotation, in 1986, i crossed-trained into the KC-10's. They were blue and white back then. To me, the KC-10's will always be known as "The Gucci Bird." California Freestyle - March AFB CA. "Boom Stowed, Leaving Position."

It is. With an extra set of landing gear under the fuselage to handle the added weigh of the fuel loads

Yes, it was based on the DC10-30 CF series. CF= Convertible Freighter. The center gear was on the -30 bit not on the -10 models.

Gets the Thunberg seal of approval. ;^)

The old KC135A model, with water injection, made more noise and smoke than any high bypass engined aircraft.

KC-10s are neither loud nor smoky, especially grading on a jet engine history curve. They sound like any big fan airliner since the '80s, which is basically what they are.

I never flew the 737max but seriously doubt the KC10 "MCAS" wasn't anything like the 737max. 14 years, 4000 hours in the KC10 and to be honest don't remember anything called the "MCAS". that had anything to do with the pitch trim. For my own edification, how much time do you have in the KC10?

@@joebagadonuts5573 Well yea it did. Im guessing you didn’t know about it because it wasn’t as potent as the 737. KC10 had mcas was because of CG shift as a result of the fuel if I remember correctly. Also, no I do not hold a rating in the KC/DC10 nor have I ever flow it.

@@blumac9801 If it had that system it would be covered in the Flight Manual, and I would have probably been aware of it seeing I flew them for 14 years. The CG "shift" was actually "controlled" by the FE insofar as he was the one with the fuel panel. With the 135 (which I also flew for 14 years) the fuel panel, which also was used to control the CG was operated by the pilots. The CG was controlled by "fuel sequence" in the 135. In the 135 and 10 fuel for offload could come from any of the tanks. In the 135 there were only two tanks that had A/R pumps, the KC10 also had A/R pumps, but could also offload using the transfer pumps. Also the KC10 being receiver capable had to deal with CG when fuel was being "onloaded". On both the 123 and 10 CG was also an issue when cargo was loaded, more so in the 10 because it could carry a lot more than the 135.

@@joebagadonuts5573 Didn’t really dawn on me at the moment but I am speaking of the KC-46 not the KC-10. I mistyped KC-10 instead of KC-46. The KC-10 doesn’t have an MCAS as does the KC-46. Makes sense that it wouldn’t be in the FCOM.

@@blumac9801 Got it...just noticed I put "123" when I meant '"135".......big difference......I flew the C7 (little brother to the C123) in SEA.....far cry from the 135 as our speed on final was-a blistering 51 knots....and our runway was 800 feet of dirt! Hee Hah! Mercifully I retired before the KC-46 came into the inventory. Worse the KC-10 I picked up from the factory has been taken to the boneyard! Sad!.......it was one helluva airplane!

Ask him what a piece of garbage they are to work on

@@CapitolPilot lol they were always working on them

@@CapitolPilot I suspect they're less work than the B-52D's they replaced in my old SAC wing. I moved over to the 135s when the BUFFS left, and while they were less work than the old D model B-52s, the A model 135s were no prize pigs, either.