It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help identifying a new refueler

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I thought it was a KC-46. Wrong.
Back story, last month a rather large aircraft traversed the night sky. I knew it was not a KC-135. For one week it made 5 or so passes a night. The 171st air refueling wing has been using an old burned out fleet of 707/kc-135's.

Now I've been following zaphod and sammish, sorry cause I don't have the name right. But Ankra too. So at best I ran to the FedEx fleet. One engine per wing, and one engine on the tail. Not new. But it may do the job needed for now. At best I think it's a DC or MD. I've never seen one in flight.

Fast forward... So 2 days ago I went shopping. As usaul I pull onto my street greeted by a passing KC-135. Man I love that sound. And I've had the pleasure of a C-5 and Antonov pass over leaving a contrail so big... Arnold S. said! Drive a Hummer through it! And there she was... I was carrying 5 bags of food. My neighbors told it best.. "Thought you had a stroke" NO! I dropped 5 or so pounds of cheese! On my walk way... Only a very large aircraft will make me drop cheese. You all need to understand, planes hit my tree line. That's 800 feet Obove my home. So yes I might have pooped a little.

So next. I hear her in the day! Made 3 passes.by the 4th pass I was armed with my camara. Murphy's law! Pilots went on a lunch brake! That bird was beautiful. One tail boom. Not on the wings as I was lead to expect.

This aircraft is not in the 171st page. I don't know where it originated. Flight24 will not provide info.

I'm doing this thread on an outdated IPod . So yep. Took me over 2 hours to ask a jaded question.





posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh
KC-10?



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Yep, it's a KC-10. Not new, just small in numbers. Only 60 built, and one burned.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Thank you Both very much. Small in numbers. Loud in presence . I hope it holds the fleet. I don't know where this one came from.

60? Wow. Then I consider myself blessed even seeing just one. So it must be testing and not part of the 171st. Thanks both



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Yes! This is exactly what I saw. I can't thank you both enough!



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

We put the strobe lights they use on one of our -135s when they were still in the design phase. Pilot told the receiver he was turning them on, and they could be seen 100 miles out.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

Could be just passing through on it's way to or from area of operations in the the ME.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

Yeah, they've been using them for Airlift more than tankers at times. They can move stuff too bulky for a -135, as well as more in one lift.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

I considered that.. Since its not permanent here. Just counting my blessing I saw one.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Sammamishman

Yeah, they've been using them for Airlift more than tankers at times. They can move stuff too bulky for a -135, as well as more in one lift.


Considering this was a massive FedEx plane, that make logical sense. But I've been dealing with kc-135s and A-7s since the 1970's. I've no clue how this will help. But I welcome it.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

The boom operator is spoiled on the KC-10. Instead of a godawful hard, uncomfortable bench to lay on, they get seats and sit up.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join