Mark G, you are correct. A KC-135 was “dragging fighters across the pond,” when an F-4 Phantom lost engine power far out over the Atlantic Ocean. The tanker crew coupled the F-4 to the boom, bypassed all limit switches, and towed it up to a higher altitude, released it to slowly descend. They did this tow & release procedure several times, until the F-4 was finally able to reach Iceland and land safely. Everyone involved got Air Medals as I recall.
I was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1979-1986 when they were still "steam jets" because of the water injection used for heavyweight takeoffs. In Jan 1984, my crew was selected to be the first operational KC-135R crew. I retired in 1999 as a KC-10 instructor boom operator. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for your service, and your comments - the best praise I can ever get is from individuals like yourself who were there and did it for real - you can't kick ass without tanker gas!
In my 20 years, 1981 - 2001, working and crewing the KC-135. It is the best aircraft in the Air Force inventory. it the work horse. Without it refueling bombers, fighters, and cargo aircraft. None of their mission would of been completed. I miss working and going on deployment with them. Been all over the world, It was the best time of my life. I give anything to do it all over again.
As a former KC-135R, 361st Composite Air Wing 22nd ARS Mules, I can state with complete accuracy that the KC-135 is the greatest aircraft ever with no flaws.
Your summary of the KC-135 was well done and accurate. As a retired KC-135 pilot having flown it for 22 years and the various variants from A/Q/R/T, it was pretty reliable for something built in the late 50s to early 60s. Much of the credit must go to the crew chiefs and maintainers who kept the aircraft ready. It doesn’t hit you how much heavy maintenance is required. When I last visited Tinker AFB, which has the depot maintenance facility, they cited 1-3 yrs to get through depot maintenance. That’s a huge cost to keep an old aircraft flying.
You probably on one of the flights of a Gaurd crew I launched. Had a slick young guy like ol Mr. Cruse thought he was flying a fighter. Incentive flights what we called them. Any who, I'm active duty and the crew was guard not that this is an issue per say. The group shows up and he walks them around paying close attention to the young female airman. We launch them out and sit on the spot watching them take off in case of Red Ball. So they scream down the runway and take off reaching 1000ish feet or so... then BLAM pulls and huge right bank as climbing. We look at each other and our truck driver said "I bet you he over speed those flaps. All I can say is on landing the gage was at it's high limit mark. 😅 Had to show off for them ladies
Pease AFB (Portsmouth, NH) based these over decades on decades. When I was a kid, they fueled then soon to be bone-yarded B-47s out of Pease and later the FB-111As also based at Pease. The tanker wing here is so important to USAF planning that, with the greasing of skids by Senator Shaheen (NH, D), the Air Guard at Pease was the first guard unit in the US to relinquish its KC-135s for the new and too trouble-prone KC-46s. How I do miss the KC-135s flying outbound over my house several times per day. Such a distinctive sound. :(
@@PilotPhotog I grew up next to Grissom AFB at one time the largest air refueling wing the air force had when it was SAC and is still the largest ARB. refueling wing. B-58s A-10s KC-97s they have came and gone but the KC-135 still there.
@@allensanders5535 that tells you all you need to know about the longevity of the 135, you were lucky to see B-58s! I would have loved to have heard that airplane fly. Thanks for commenting!
Tex Leeger minor correction. It was Senator Kelly Ayotte (NH-R) who was instrumental in getting the KC-46’s based at Pease. She was on the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time, and a staunch and active advocate for this basing decision. I follow Pease activity , as a lifelong NH resident, and because I was stationed there for 6+ years on active duty, sitting on “Alert” for much of that time. I only left when the BRAC closed the 509th BMW and 509 MMS.
The C-135 and 707 are entirely different designs but to confuse the issue the 707 prototype was used in testing the fuel transfer boom because the C-135 prototype was slightly behind schedule. The 707 boom tests helped catch up the C-135 program.
This isn't entirely true. While the 707 is an entirely different aircraft, the C-135 is directly based on the Boeing 367-80. Boeing, unsure of how it would fare in the civilian market, originally outfitted the Dash 80 as a mockup for military use, hence the large side cargo door and lack of windows. It was to this aircraft, the same one that Boeing's test pilot Tex Johnston did a roll in at SeaFest, that Boeing attached it's refueling boom. Besides some changes to the dimensions, the Dash-80 and the C-135 are the same aircraft. Boeing, only after securing the Air Force contract for the 135, did Boeing heavily market it as the 707. This is why it is referred to and painted as the 707 prototype.
the 135 was rushed out the door as soon as possible cuz they didint want to wait the 2 years for the slightly wider 707 to finish development. the 135 prototype first flew a year before the 707 prototype. and the military bought 707s too as c-137 when they were done. and there are tanker versions of the 707 aswell and the e3/6/8 are 707 too.
@@calvingreene90 eh its close eanough. like calling a 737 max not a 737 because they're different. the c135 and 707 are part of the same lineage in that way. like there is nothing a c135 can do that the 707 derived stuff cant. its not like boeing burned all the papers on the 135 before starting up the 707.
PilotPhotog, you’ve made another GREAT presentation: well researched and very informative. I spent 11 years on active duty (Plattsburgh NY and Pease NH) with KC-135A and KC-135Q models. The A’s had J-57 motors with demineralized water injection. The KC-135Q’s had separate tanks/plumbing for both JP-4, and the JP-7 needed for the SR-71’s. The Q’s also had a “high-speed boom” and could refuel with the tanker at almost full throttle, while the SR-71 was barely above its stall speed. We used to fly one KC-135Q, with multiple crews on board, out to Beale AFB CA for a week at a time, to train/qual the crews on the SR-71 (and maybe ski Lake Tahoe too)
Thank you Jim and comments like yours are why I make these videos. I am glad you enjoyed the presentation and Thanh you for your service! I didn’t know about the Q’s high speed boom to refuel the Blackbird. I’m currently working on an SR-72 video and the blackbird will of course be featured as well.
That's because Tinker is the home of the Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, which conducts the deep maintenance on this aircraft, along with the C-5, C-17, B-1, B-52, and E-3.
@@marcuspinnock1383 I live right next to McConnell, in Wichita and actually lived on base when my father was active duty before he retired and have been in countless tankers. I used to always be bummed that McConnell didn’t have fighter jets, only tankers. But as I’ve got older I have a gained a huge appreciation for the capabilities and logistics that the tanker has. Without it most fighters and bombers would be useless.
I have seen KC-135s refueling B-1b and B-52 bombers many times when I lived in Wyoming. The sound of a tanker and 2 bombers coming over is hard to miss! Got some decent pics of them hooked up!
Navy guy here. The first time I tanked off a KC-135 was in the F-8, which like all Navy aircraft uses a probe. When the KC-135 is configured for a drogue, it uses a section of hose that is very stiff which results in a system that's a real OIA to refuel off of! The videos of hoses at time 8:15 are from other tankers, correct? Or have they modified KC-135 wings?
I fly these, and have refueled many f-18s and NATO aircraft with the probe and drogue set up. The clip you mention looks just like what we used not more than 6 weeks ago while deployed over Europe. In our world, they’re called MPRS pods (“mippers”) multipoint refueling system. We can also install a basket dongle on the boom to do probe refueling off the boom. It’s called a “boom drogue adapter”. The advantage to the pods are we can do 2 aircraft at once, and still have the booms available for receptacle receivers.
I served 10 years on the 135 at FAIRCHILD AFB from '85 to '95. I was first on the A model (known as water burners), then the T (capable to offload a different fuel), and last the R. Loved working on those old girls. Though having to clean the starters after a "cart start" was grueling.
Thank you for this! I grew up around these machines when my Dad worked on them all over the world back in the days of the SAC~ The engine upgrades were a very cool thing to have seen in Wichita.
In 1981, while in high school junior ROTC, I rode along on a KC-135 refueling mission. Each cadet was able to lay next to the boom operator as he fueled F-4 Phantoms and F-106 Delta Darts. If I recall correctly, it was from the 126th Air Refueling Wing of the Illinois Air National Guard, based out of O'Hare Airport.
I fix the boom, pods, and all hydro/Pneumatic systems of this aircraft. Fun fact this thing has so many fail safes it can run like a old carbureted car with no electronics if needed or hydraulics or pneumatic systems etc... Everything has a manual option even the boom. Good old cables and levers.
With 4,000 hrs of C/KC/EC/NKC-135 A/E/Q and EC-18 B/D(707-323) time, it’s easy for me to be critical of, and cringe during, presentations like this but this time I really can’t. Your facts and chronology were pretty darned accurate. The small errors were not worth mentioning. Kudos from a former tanker TOAD.
Thank you, and for me this is the best praise I can receive - from someone who actually served. If I can be so bold to ask, please do let me know what errors I made, I always want to improve and let’s just say this is not my last video on the 135.
I’d have to go back and watch it again but off the top of my head, I remember the skeletal drawing had you pointing to an engine and identifying it as the CFM56, I believe. Those depicted were actually the J57 water hogs used on the A and Q models. Really minor deal as you were making an overall assessment. When listing specs like gross weights, etc, it can get quite burdensome as there are max ramp weights, max inflight flaps up weights, etc and they can be different between all the models. I wouldn’t change a thing, however. You did a great job.
I was a 135 chief for 6 years I've never heard the expression toads. Also on your diagram, those are not 108 engines. Those are the old A model engines, water burners. There is also a Q model in service, which was used to refuel SR-71's. It had separate tanks for the different fuel the blackbird used.
Thanks for your work with them! I fly these, and participate in the nuclear deterrence qualification aspect. Tanker TOAD is definitely an expression - take off and die, for the very reason explained.
@@oldfreddyfrenchfry1 NKAWTG, and it's actualy both, the T model came later. We always called it a Q when I was in. I think the T model was with the updated engines. I had to look up the Toad moniker, again, I never hear that but it was a thing. Maybe it was an O thing. I don't know if you like flying these but they were a B to work on.
Joebroke76, the A-models you speak of with water/alcohol injection; weren't these the ones that you could see and hear - the billowing dark engine-smoke, plus the "crackin' and poppin' " sound(s) made on takeoff & climb-out?
You are correct.........from my perspective, there was nothing like a KC-135A heavy-weight take-off (with water injection).....as viewed from the Navigator's seat.......Yippee...Kai....Yaaaa!!
I've been studying military aviation my entire life and very rarely does something come up I haven't seen somewhere before. However, despite over 30 years following aviation, this video is the first time I've ever heard reference to the tankers passing on their entire fuel load, disconnecting and ditching soon after. Did the crew have parachutes to bail out one of the rear doors? Or were they expected to ride it in? Since the last refueling probably would have taken place over northern Canada, they didn't have much hope of survival if they hit the water.
I fly these. While there was initially plans to bail out, it was later determined the chances of not hitting the tail section was to small to count on. There was a wind brake on the forward side of the crew entry chute that would extend down to block the airflow in the first ~5 feet of your fall out of the aircraft, but they’ve been disabled, as even those weren’t determined to realistically do much, and we don’t fly with parachutes anymore. Given the idea of mutually assured destruction, and assuming available recovery bases would be destroyed, using all of your gas in the doomsday plans to get bombers to their target was prioritized over keeping extra to attempt recovery.
@PilotPhotog USAF Survival Instructor class of 8501. Watched them daily with the B-52’s as well. Our school was parked close by! Our Tankers are vital. VITAL!
I never though the airborner refuelers were that old... Being born in the '90s I just thought airborn refeuling was a modern thing and was always meant to extend the USAF range not to be used just to nuke Russia. Thanks for the history lesstion!
I don't think that fighter design has made it's first flight, yet, so how would this channel feature a video on a fighter that, right now is still an unflown aircraft.
@@johnosbourn4312 bro! When he (pilot photog) talked about the su-75, the su-75 hadn't taken its first flight yet! What is even the connection of a fighter jet flying with discussing about a different fighter jet?!
Hey what’s up bro. I’m doing a project on the KC-135 for my aviation history class. Would you mind dropping a few off your sources so I can do some research.
Excellent video, I read that a KC-135 could 'tow' crippled aircraft. No idea if this is true, but cool if it is. Either way I bet the tanker crews never paid for their drinks! Cheers.
It is true, to an extent. The boomer could bypass the automatic system, preventing it from initiating a disconnect when the receiver got too far back. Or, the receiver could latch on manually. Either way, the tanker could 'tow' the receiver as long as the receiver's receptacle toggles could maintain a hold.
This is a true story from Vietnam where a 135 stayed in boom contact with a damaged F4 until they were back in friendly air space where the F4 pilot bailed.
With the introduction of the B-47 the USofA Air Force ended all the planned one way missions. They needed to get their planes and air crews back to continue the fight. They did expect to loss between 40 and 60 percent of the planes and crews to being shot down but that is not planned one way missions.
@@calvingreene90 likely chance of you making it back though would be give or take be small. Especially had a said war occured. But obviously that never occured and thankfully it didn't other wise world give or take would have became fallout without the nuclear everything
@@sinisterisrandom8537 The fallout of a nuclear war would not be nearly as deadly as you have been lead to believe. The only way to make nuclear winter work is to use all shallow sub surface detonations; airbursts are used because they do more damage and nuclear bombs are fragile. Radiation is not as deadly as you have been lead to believe either.
The "doomsday" EWO (emergency war order) missions in the 1970s called for flying a loose formation with the B-52s about halfway to their target, offloading most of the onboard JP4, then dropping down unannounced into an airfield somewhere in Europe or northern Africa. BTW, up until GPS became reliable, the tankers had a fourth crew member...a navigator.
Excellent video here indeed! Does anyone out there know the title of the funny Air Force song with the lyrics: "You can tell a bomber pilot by his rank amass, you can tell a fighter pilot by the way he makes his pass, and a tanker pilot by the way he passes gas..." ? I believe it was written by a man named Tom Lehrer.
So ironically, the Boeing 717 came first AND last. The KC-135 was known internally at Boeing as “the model 717.” But many decades later, after Boeing acquired McDonnell-Douglas, they renamed the last variant of the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 line as the Boeing B-717. I was lucky enough to be on the flight test team for Midwest Airlines, as we accepted each B-717 off the manufacturing line in Longbeach CA
Alot of wrong info in this comment section.. Good video but the newest models to hit the Air Force inventory were 1964 models, not sure where you've heard 1965. Disclaimer I worked KC-135's for six years from 2006 to 2012, deploying multiple times to the middle east to support OIF and OEF.
The older model tankers had 4 or 5 person crew: pilot, co-pilot, navigator, and Boom Operator (aka Boom). The Crew Chief would also fly if the tanker was deploying somewhere, instead of returning to its home base. The newer versions replaced the Navigator with GPS and other reliable avionics.
When we sat on “Alert,” each tanker had 6 crew contingent: Pilot; Co-Pilot; Nav; Boom; Crew Chief; and Assistant Crew Chief. All lived in the Mole-Hole with us, wearing their Nomex flight suits always.
The personalities in a tanker squadron are, for the most part, much more laid back and chill compared to other aircraft- especially fighters. That’s why many of us actually choose to go tankers. I’ve loved every bit of it. The customer service aspect is fulfilling, and considering how much time you spend with your coworkers mission planning, on the road together, living together on deployments, a good personality match has drastic affects on your quality of work and life - especially in stressful circumstances. I find tanker pilots to be extremely humble, and a joy to work with.
Mark G, you are correct. A KC-135 was “dragging fighters across the pond,” when an F-4 Phantom lost engine power far out over the Atlantic Ocean. The tanker crew coupled the F-4 to the boom, bypassed all limit switches, and towed it up to a higher altitude, released it to slowly descend. They did this tow & release procedure several times, until the F-4 was finally able to reach Iceland and land safely. Everyone involved got Air Medals as I recall.
I was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1979-1986 when they were still "steam jets" because of the water injection used for heavyweight takeoffs. In Jan 1984, my crew was selected to be the first operational KC-135R crew. I retired in 1999 as a KC-10 instructor boom operator. Thank you for the video.
Thank you for your service, and your comments - the best praise I can ever get is from individuals like yourself who were there and did it for real - you can't kick ass without tanker gas!
In my 20 years, 1981 - 2001, working and crewing the KC-135. It is the best aircraft in the Air Force inventory. it the work horse. Without it refueling bombers, fighters, and cargo aircraft. None of their mission would of been completed. I miss working and going on deployment with them. Been all over the world, It was the best time of my life. I give anything to do it all over again.
As a former KC-135R, 361st Composite Air Wing 22nd ARS Mules, I can state with complete accuracy that the KC-135 is the greatest aircraft ever with no flaws.
Looking forward to the post Juan. The -135s are and have been the work horses of USAF for my entire life.
Thank you Scott, and indeed they are the unsung heroes of US AirPower.
Your summary of the KC-135 was well done and accurate. As a retired KC-135 pilot having flown it for 22 years and the various variants from A/Q/R/T, it was pretty reliable for something built in the late 50s to early 60s. Much of the credit must go to the crew chiefs and maintainers who kept the aircraft ready. It doesn’t hit you how much heavy maintenance is required. When I last visited Tinker AFB, which has the depot maintenance facility, they cited 1-3 yrs to get through depot maintenance. That’s a huge cost to keep an old aircraft flying.
My nephew is a crew chief on a KC Stratotanker currently and just got deployed. I couldn't be more proud of him.
While I was in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm, I was allowed to go on local tanker flight on a KC 135. It was an amazing experience!
Thanks for sharing that must have been awesome
You probably on one of the flights of a Gaurd crew I launched. Had a slick young guy like ol Mr. Cruse thought he was flying a fighter. Incentive flights what we called them. Any who, I'm active duty and the crew was guard not that this is an issue per say. The group shows up and he walks them around paying close attention to the young female airman.
We launch them out and sit on the spot watching them take off in case of Red Ball. So they scream down the runway and take off reaching 1000ish feet or so... then BLAM pulls and huge right bank as climbing. We look at each other and our truck driver said "I bet you he over speed those flaps.
All I can say is on landing the gage was at it's high limit mark. 😅 Had to show off for them ladies
Pease AFB (Portsmouth, NH) based these over decades on decades. When I was a kid, they fueled then soon to be bone-yarded B-47s out of Pease and later the FB-111As also based at Pease. The tanker wing here is so important to USAF planning that, with the greasing of skids by Senator Shaheen (NH, D), the Air Guard at Pease was the first guard unit in the US to relinquish its KC-135s for the new and too trouble-prone KC-46s. How I do miss the KC-135s flying outbound over my house several times per day. Such a distinctive sound. :(
Nothing quite like it and it’s proving quite the challenge to replace. Thanks for commenting!
@@PilotPhotog I grew up next to Grissom AFB at one time the largest air refueling wing the air force had when it was SAC and is still the largest ARB. refueling wing. B-58s A-10s KC-97s they have came and gone but the KC-135 still there.
@@allensanders5535 that tells you all you need to know about the longevity of the 135, you were lucky to see B-58s! I would have loved to have heard that airplane fly. Thanks for commenting!
Tex Leeger minor correction. It was Senator Kelly Ayotte (NH-R) who was instrumental in getting the KC-46’s based at Pease. She was on the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time, and a staunch and active advocate for this basing decision. I follow Pease activity , as a lifelong NH resident, and because I was stationed there for 6+ years on active duty, sitting on “Alert” for much of that time. I only left when the BRAC closed the 509th BMW and 509 MMS.
Holy crap two of my favorite aviation channels
@pilotphotog and @layout108 are my favourite channels!
Enjoyed it... for clarity, it's Nobody Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas! NKAWTG.....NOBODY
The C-135 and 707 are entirely different designs but to confuse the issue the 707 prototype was used in testing the fuel transfer boom because the C-135 prototype was slightly behind schedule. The 707 boom tests helped catch up the C-135 program.
This isn't entirely true. While the 707 is an entirely different aircraft, the C-135 is directly based on the Boeing 367-80. Boeing, unsure of how it would fare in the civilian market, originally outfitted the Dash 80 as a mockup for military use, hence the large side cargo door and lack of windows. It was to this aircraft, the same one that Boeing's test pilot Tex Johnston did a roll in at SeaFest, that Boeing attached it's refueling boom. Besides some changes to the dimensions, the Dash-80 and the C-135 are the same aircraft. Boeing, only after securing the Air Force contract for the 135, did Boeing heavily market it as the 707. This is why it is referred to and painted as the 707 prototype.
@@juliuslacano1037
Aside from a different fuselodge and wings it is the same plane.
the 135 was rushed out the door as soon as possible cuz they didint want to wait the 2 years for the slightly wider 707 to finish development. the 135 prototype first flew a year before the 707 prototype. and the military bought 707s too as c-137 when they were done. and there are tanker versions of the 707 aswell and the e3/6/8 are 707 too.
@@nick4506
Thus proving that the C-135 is not a 707.
@@calvingreene90 eh its close eanough. like calling a 737 max not a 737 because they're different. the c135 and 707 are part of the same lineage in that way. like there is nothing a c135 can do that the 707 derived stuff cant. its not like boeing burned all the papers on the 135 before starting up the 707.
PilotPhotog, you’ve made another GREAT presentation: well researched and very informative. I spent 11 years on active duty (Plattsburgh NY and Pease NH) with KC-135A and KC-135Q models. The A’s had J-57 motors with demineralized water injection. The KC-135Q’s had separate tanks/plumbing for both JP-4, and the JP-7 needed for the SR-71’s. The Q’s also had a “high-speed boom” and could refuel with the tanker at almost full throttle, while the SR-71 was barely above its stall speed. We used to fly one KC-135Q, with multiple crews on board, out to Beale AFB CA for a week at a time, to train/qual the crews on the SR-71 (and maybe ski Lake Tahoe too)
Thank you Jim and comments like yours are why I make these videos. I am glad you enjoyed the presentation and Thanh you for your service! I didn’t know about the Q’s high speed boom to refuel the Blackbird. I’m currently working on an SR-72 video and the blackbird will of course be featured as well.
I used to live at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma, i would see a KC-135 fly above me every hour or so, truly awesome planes
That's because Tinker is the home of the Oklahoma Air Logistics Center, which conducts the deep maintenance on this aircraft, along with the C-5, C-17, B-1, B-52, and E-3.
@@johnosbourn4312 and the E-6B, you forgot that one bud
@@marcuspinnock1383 I live right next to McConnell, in Wichita and actually lived on base when my father was active duty before he retired and have been in countless tankers. I used to always be bummed that McConnell didn’t have fighter jets, only tankers. But as I’ve got older I have a gained a huge appreciation for the capabilities and logistics that the tanker has. Without it most fighters and bombers would be useless.
I work maintenance on these jets and can confirm they do love being on the ground.
Thank you crew!!
I have seen KC-135s refueling B-1b and B-52 bombers many times when I lived in Wyoming. The sound of a tanker and 2 bombers coming over is hard to miss! Got some decent pics of them hooked up!
Sweet! You must have a pretty powerful zoom lens, I'd love to get shots like that
Navy guy here. The first time I tanked off a KC-135 was in the F-8, which like all Navy aircraft uses a probe. When the KC-135 is configured for a drogue, it uses a section of hose that is very stiff which results in a system that's a real OIA to refuel off of! The videos of hoses at time 8:15 are from other tankers, correct? Or have they modified KC-135 wings?
I fly these, and have refueled many f-18s and NATO aircraft with the probe and drogue set up. The clip you mention looks just like what we used not more than 6 weeks ago while deployed over Europe. In our world, they’re called MPRS pods (“mippers”) multipoint refueling system. We can also install a basket dongle on the boom to do probe refueling off the boom. It’s called a “boom drogue adapter”. The advantage to the pods are we can do 2 aircraft at once, and still have the booms available for receptacle receivers.
I served 10 years on the 135 at FAIRCHILD AFB from '85 to '95.
I was first on the A model (known as water burners), then the T (capable to offload a different fuel), and last the R.
Loved working on those old girls. Though having to clean the starters after a "cart start" was grueling.
Thanks for commenting and thank you for your service!
Amazing history of this great design, great work Juan, Happy Holydays amigo!
Thank you Juan, always appreciate your comments - Happy Holidays!
I am waiting for its with pleasure 🙏 and respectful 🙏 for you & your (pilot photog )channel
Can't kick a*s without tanker gas!
NKAWTG!!!!!
Nobody Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas.
The E-3 Sentry also is 707 platform
Indeed, a very important one as well. Thanks for commenting
Yes, along with the EC-18 ARIA Test Bed, the E-8C JSTARS, the Brazilian KC-137, and the previous aircraft known as Air Force One: the VC-137B, and C.
Bravo Zulu! Juan. Great work. I like he collaboration play. 🤙🤓
Thank you Scott! Glad you enjoyed the video
Thank you for this!
I grew up around these machines when my Dad worked on them all over the world back in the days of the SAC~
The engine upgrades were a very cool thing to have seen in Wichita.
In 1981, while in high school junior ROTC, I rode along on a KC-135 refueling mission. Each cadet was able to lay next to the boom operator as he fueled F-4 Phantoms and F-106 Delta Darts. If I recall correctly, it was from the 126th Air Refueling Wing of the Illinois Air National Guard, based out of O'Hare Airport.
What an awesome experience and thank you for your service!
I fix the boom, pods, and all hydro/Pneumatic systems of this aircraft. Fun fact this thing has so many fail safes it can run like a old carbureted car with no electronics if needed or hydraulics or pneumatic systems etc... Everything has a manual option even the boom. Good old cables and levers.
With 4,000 hrs of C/KC/EC/NKC-135 A/E/Q and EC-18 B/D(707-323) time, it’s easy for me to be critical of, and cringe during, presentations like this but this time I really can’t. Your facts and chronology were pretty darned accurate. The small errors were not worth mentioning. Kudos from a former tanker TOAD.
Thank you, and for me this is the best praise I can receive - from someone who actually served. If I can be so bold to ask, please do let me know what errors I made, I always want to improve and let’s just say this is not my last video on the 135.
I’d have to go back and watch it again but off the top of my head, I remember the skeletal drawing had you pointing to an engine and identifying it as the CFM56, I believe. Those depicted were actually the J57 water hogs used on the A and Q models. Really minor deal as you were making an overall assessment. When listing specs like gross weights, etc, it can get quite burdensome as there are max ramp weights, max inflight flaps up weights, etc and they can be different between all the models. I wouldn’t change a thing, however. You did a great job.
I was a 135 chief for 6 years I've never heard the expression toads. Also on your diagram, those are not 108 engines. Those are the old A model engines, water burners. There is also a Q model in service, which was used to refuel SR-71's. It had separate tanks for the different fuel the blackbird used.
Thanks for your work with them! I fly these, and participate in the nuclear deterrence qualification aspect. Tanker TOAD is definitely an expression - take off and die, for the very reason explained.
@@oldfreddyfrenchfry1 NKAWTG, and it's actualy both, the T model came later. We always called it a Q when I was in. I think the T model was with the updated engines. I had to look up the Toad moniker, again, I never hear that but it was a thing. Maybe it was an O thing. I don't know if you like flying these but they were a B to work on.
Joebroke76, the A-models you speak of with water/alcohol injection; weren't these the ones that you could see and hear - the billowing dark engine-smoke, plus the "crackin' and poppin' " sound(s) made on takeoff & climb-out?
correct@@martinbachmann6283
what about the e3 centry AWACS aircraft which was also based on the Boeing 707?!
Indeed - one variant at a time, thanks for commenting!
@@PilotPhotog thank you!!!
This one's been flying all over Buffalo NY lately I finally tracked it down !
Lets goooo!
Do the E-3 Sentry AWACS as well
E-3 and E-8 are built upon 707 airframes.
83-07 spent 10 years on 135A,D,EC AND RT AND R MODELS 10 years in SAC. Best plane ever
Jet mech forever
LIterally a few hours before you dropped this I watched Found and Explained's video on the secretive Aurora Spy Plane, wtf?
You are correct.........from my perspective, there was nothing like a KC-135A heavy-weight take-off (with water injection).....as viewed from the Navigator's seat.......Yippee...Kai....Yaaaa!!
I've been studying military aviation my entire life and very rarely does something come up I haven't seen somewhere before. However, despite over 30 years following aviation, this video is the first time I've ever heard reference to the tankers passing on their entire fuel load, disconnecting and ditching soon after. Did the crew have parachutes to bail out one of the rear doors? Or were they expected to ride it in? Since the last refueling probably would have taken place over northern Canada, they didn't have much hope of survival if they hit the water.
I fly these. While there was initially plans to bail out, it was later determined the chances of not hitting the tail section was to small to count on. There was a wind brake on the forward side of the crew entry chute that would extend down to block the airflow in the first ~5 feet of your fall out of the aircraft, but they’ve been disabled, as even those weren’t determined to realistically do much, and we don’t fly with parachutes anymore. Given the idea of mutually assured destruction, and assuming available recovery bases would be destroyed, using all of your gas in the doomsday plans to get bombers to their target was prioritized over keeping extra to attempt recovery.
Anyone else came here from Found & Explained?
Me
Yes
I'm subbed to both channels... gotta get my military aviation fix.
Me.
How about that sweet livery on the Viper at 8:32, right?
Hello on behalf of FoundAndExplain
Thank you!
Me watching a video of my own job, figuring stuff out along the way
Excellent!
Glad you liked it!
@PilotPhotog USAF Survival Instructor class of 8501. Watched them daily with the B-52’s as well. Our school was parked close by! Our Tankers are vital. VITAL!
@@marksolarz3756 agreed and thank you for your service!
I never though the airborner refuelers were that old... Being born in the '90s I just thought airborn refeuling was a modern thing and was always meant to extend the USAF range not to be used just to nuke Russia. Thanks for the history lesstion!
Glad you enjoyed it and you may like the next video I am working on - its about the XB-70 Valkyrie
Desert's storm was a very curiously war with not oponents.
N.K.A.W.T.G = No one Kicks Ass Without Tanker Gas. You misquoted the motto. I’m surprised no one else called you out on it.
It's actually Nobody Kicks Ass, etc... i was a KC-135 Boom Operator from 1979-1986 and a KC-10 Boom Operator from 1986-1999.
"K is for tanKer" makes perfect sense
Can You Please Feature The KF-21 Boramae From South Korea?
I don't think that fighter design has made it's first flight, yet, so how would this channel feature a video on a fighter that, right now is still an unflown aircraft.
@@johnosbourn4312 bro! When he (pilot photog) talked about the su-75, the su-75 hadn't taken its first flight yet! What is even the connection of a fighter jet flying with discussing about a different fighter jet?!
Only place in the world you can still get a 707 type rating. I think that’s pretty cool.
Hey what’s up bro. I’m doing a project on the KC-135 for my aviation history class. Would you mind dropping a few off your sources so I can do some research.
Excellent video, I read that a KC-135 could 'tow' crippled aircraft. No idea if this is true, but cool if it is. Either way I bet the tanker crews never paid for their drinks! Cheers.
It is true, to an extent. The boomer could bypass the automatic system, preventing it from initiating a disconnect when the receiver got too far back. Or, the receiver could latch on manually. Either way, the tanker could 'tow' the receiver as long as the receiver's receptacle toggles could maintain a hold.
@@stevel1458 Thanks for the information, that is just so cool. Thank you again, cheers and Happy New Year!
I've heard stories of KC 135's towing damaged aircraft part of the way home
This is a true story from Vietnam where a 135 stayed in boom contact with a damaged F4 until they were back in friendly air space where the F4 pilot bailed.
KC 135 fleet needs to undergo a stealth fleet for F22, F35, B2 and B21. I'm sure the Chinese Russians and Iranians can track the tankers.
With the introduction of the B-47 the USofA Air Force ended all the planned one way missions. They needed to get their planes and air crews back to continue the fight. They did expect to loss between 40 and 60 percent of the planes and crews to being shot down but that is not planned one way missions.
Always good to know you are not going on a suicide mission.
@@DocWolph
Even the one way missions were not really suicide missions it was fly out walk home and they were equipped to make it.
@@calvingreene90 likely chance of you making it back though would be give or take be small. Especially had a said war occured. But obviously that never occured and thankfully it didn't other wise world give or take would have became fallout without the nuclear everything
@@sinisterisrandom8537
The fallout of a nuclear war would not be nearly as deadly as you have been lead to believe.
The only way to make nuclear winter work is to use all shallow sub surface detonations; airbursts are used because they do more damage and nuclear bombs are fragile.
Radiation is not as deadly as you have been lead to believe either.
The "doomsday" EWO (emergency war order) missions in the 1970s called for flying a loose formation with the B-52s about halfway to their target, offloading most of the onboard JP4, then dropping down unannounced into an airfield somewhere in Europe or northern Africa.
BTW, up until GPS became reliable, the tankers had a fourth crew member...a navigator.
Excellent video here indeed! Does anyone out there know the title of the funny Air Force song with the lyrics: "You can tell a bomber pilot by his rank amass, you can tell a fighter pilot by the way he makes his pass, and a tanker pilot by the way he passes gas..." ? I believe it was written by a man named Tom Lehrer.
Singapore have the KC135 no longer in use. Is replaced by A330 MRTT aircraft
Indeed - that is why I listed current and former operators, thanks for commenting!
Always would get into arguments with family members about which came first..the 717 or the 707. I always knew it was the 717.
So ironically, the Boeing 717 came first AND last. The KC-135 was known internally at Boeing as “the model 717.” But many decades later, after Boeing acquired McDonnell-Douglas, they renamed the last variant of the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90 line as the Boeing B-717. I was lucky enough to be on the flight test team for Midwest Airlines, as we accepted each B-717 off the manufacturing line in Longbeach CA
Alot of wrong info in this comment section..
Good video but the newest models to hit the Air Force inventory were 1964 models, not sure where you've heard 1965.
Disclaimer I worked KC-135's for six years from 2006 to 2012, deploying multiple times to the middle east to support OIF and OEF.
Like mating Dragonflies 👍
8:21 that’s a kc 10 boom
Oops - good catch and thanks for commenting!
I must have severed in an alternate universe from 93- 2010. I never once heard Toad or Stratobladder or glab?
The Republic of Singapore Air Force replaced their Stratobladers with KC-30 Voyagers.
FYI there are the A model engines and the R model engines R model which are much more powerful and fuel efficient
Not quite. Officially designated Stratotanker. Usually nicknamed the Silver Sow.
It has obviously been re-engined at some time...
Indeed, especially if you look at the earlier models - jet engine technology has come a long way since the 1960s
Been there. Done that.
The flying target for a missile in a real combat.
I’m really surprised it doesn’t require a three-person flight crew (pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer). Perhaps an error?
The older model tankers had 4 or 5 person crew: pilot, co-pilot, navigator, and Boom Operator (aka Boom). The Crew Chief would also fly if the tanker was deploying somewhere, instead of returning to its home base. The newer versions replaced the Navigator with GPS and other reliable avionics.
When we sat on “Alert,” each tanker had 6 crew contingent: Pilot; Co-Pilot; Nav; Boom; Crew Chief; and Assistant Crew Chief. All lived in the Mole-Hole with us, wearing their Nomex flight suits always.
Video is correct - us as the pilots run all the checklists and manage all aircraft systems. It’s a very long preflight.
pretty sure a c5 galaxy taking off is more impressive than whats essentially a 747
👌🏾👍🏽👍🏽
My aunt flew one of these during the iraqi war
NKAWTG...N!
NKAWTG
NKAWTG!!! Nobody....
Half of these specs are completely inaccurate
What is a boo ? With the kc 135? Smoking crack?
OK, Boomers ;)
Meh.
Imagine joining the Air Force to fly fighter Jets but you end up getting assigned to flying this thing 🤦♂️
The personalities in a tanker squadron are, for the most part, much more laid back and chill compared to other aircraft- especially fighters. That’s why many of us actually choose to go tankers. I’ve loved every bit of it. The customer service aspect is fulfilling, and considering how much time you spend with your coworkers mission planning, on the road together, living together on deployments, a good personality match has drastic affects on your quality of work and life - especially in stressful circumstances. I find tanker pilots to be extremely humble, and a joy to work with.
10>135