@Monarch683 New nearly a decade old now, based of an airframe from the 80s, with some changes that are extremely questionable coming from an aircraft MX perspective
@@M80BallHe's kinda right .Originally they were trying to replace the 135s with the new 46, but shifted to replacing the 10 later because of how much replacing all the 135s would be.
The 135 does not even come close to the capability of the KC-10. The 10 carries more gas, more cargo, can refuel inflight and does boom and drogue on the same mission. It was never meant to replace the 135 it was meant to augment it. When it came time to get rid of a tanker for the new KC46, the McDonnell Douglas product (Now owned by Boeing) of which there was only 59 of (along with a dwindling parts supply) was an easy target as opposed to 400 something 135's over multiple states. I was a tanker planner and flew on the 10 and on many occasions we literally had to send -10's to 135 bases to do certain missions since the 135's didn't have the legs and we'd have to launch 2-3 of them to do the job of 1 KC-10.
Wonderful story! We just received a bird from Travis for our collection!
Love me some Tri-holers. Will miss the KC-10. Taking a trip to the Air Force Museum to see her.
Love this episode, Matt! So cool to see actual operations and not just static historical artifact (though those are cool too). Thx!
4,000 hrs in the KC-10 😊 best plane ever, what up Mandi!
Fantastic video! I'm always amazed by professionalism of the US armed forces. Well done. Ivan
Matthew! What a cool episode... I was just thinking I hadn't seen a "on the loose" episode in awhile. The wait was worth it!
Just like the early days. Seems so long ago. All these folks joined the AF AFTER I retired.
Matt, small correction. 16:07 We can transfer approximately 8,000 GPM of fuel per minute
Thanks!
Excellent program thanks
Go Mandi!!! You are awesome!
"It probably doesn't have as many maintenance problems" if only they knew lol. The 46 is super temperamental.
As expected of a new platform. Granted, Boeing did drop the ball with its development, and they could've done better.
@Monarch683 New nearly a decade old now, based of an airframe from the 80s, with some changes that are extremely questionable coming from an aircraft MX perspective
Very cool! So much great info/footage.
Amazing!
As a civilian aircraft mechanic, a 6-hour quick turn is insanely long lol
Is the KC10 based on the DC10-30 or 40?
30
uhhh a KC-10?
Based on the Douglas DC-10 airliner.
The first of two aircraft that couldn’t replace the KC-135.
Only reason the 135s arnt being retired is because of the amount thats out there. Its a crap plane but its easier to replace 59 vs 400-500 135s
@@81bird61you don’t know what you’re talking about.
@@M80BallHe's kinda right .Originally they were trying to replace the 135s with the new 46, but shifted to replacing the 10 later because of how much replacing all the 135s would be.
The 135 does not even come close to the capability of the KC-10. The 10 carries more gas, more cargo, can refuel inflight and does boom and drogue on the same mission. It was never meant to replace the 135 it was meant to augment it. When it came time to get rid of a tanker for the new KC46, the McDonnell Douglas product (Now owned by Boeing) of which there was only 59 of (along with a dwindling parts supply) was an easy target as opposed to 400 something 135's over multiple states.
I was a tanker planner and flew on the 10 and on many occasions we literally had to send -10's to 135 bases to do certain missions since the 135's didn't have the legs and we'd have to launch 2-3 of them to do the job of 1 KC-10.
@@M80Ball yes i actually do
Some familiar faces. Big Sexy will be missed. 🫡🇺🇸