Does anyone know where and what plane this is? The numbers say it was 1987 on the screen, but I can't find anything about any KC-135 gear-up landing incidents anywhere, not in '87 or anytime.
@F35JSFA1 It COULD, but if you put that fuel in your "petrol tank", your engine would be VERY unhappy! Now, if you had a DIESEL car, then you'd be talking! Jet fuel is about the same as kerosene, which is about the same as diesel. I don't know about these high-tech modern diesels, but I'm pretty sure an old oil-burner would work okay with jet fuel. Just think, these planes carry up to 190,000lbs of fuel on take-off...something like 28,000 gallons!
@justforever96 Jetfuel == kerosene, I think you meant to say diesel? And you are right, diesel engines run just fine with jet fuel. I used to haul that stuff in the air force, and if needed, we could refuel trucks with that stuff too. It is not the optimal stuff though, so in the long run you could probably cause damage to engine.
@justforever96 I don't really know (plus I'm not native english speaker). Atleast they are pretty close, they all use the same principle to combust (pressure). What I was told was that the kerosene used in jets is "dry" compared to diesel fuel for cars and that may harm the engine in the long run. It seems that diesel is slightly heavier than kerosine according to "HowStuffWorks"
@aprepo Hmm...I don't know. Maybe something to do with the wax content, or the sulphur levels? I know that they recently switched to 'ultra-low-sulphur-diesel" in the US and Europe, which is bad for older engines as sulphur adds lubrication to the fuel. Perhaps jet fuel has a lower sulphur content, since the bearings are the only friction-parts. I should try and learn about it. I know that turbines are much less "picky" about fuel; they've made turbojets run on coal dust and other fuels before!
My Father punched the original flight tank over Vietnam....he seemed quite proud of the Flight Captain and Crew...would one prefer a jet fueled jet tanker slamming in to suburbia or punching the fuel and saving all? Jeff, have you ever even been near a military jet in flight, wait, nevermind, you know it all. Add me to the JackAss list. You stay on the intentionally ignorant list. V
Heres what I have to say.!! If you dont know the facts then keep your comments to your 'e self. Don't speak until you get the fact straight. Until then keep your mouth shut!!!!!!!
@mrjamiehorn you really do need to take a pill lol. He stopped complaining as soon as the issues were explained. Maybe you are so perfect that you already know everything about everything lol. Some of the rest of us make comments from ingorance or concern. His original comment didn't suggest that the pilot should choose the environment over the safety of all on board the plane. There is nothing wrong with expressing concern for something that sux.
Take a pill!?? Why dont you go hug a tree. What would you feel like if you were on that plane.Dump fuel or go down in a blaze of glory. Yeah.. ..I thought so.
I JUST SAW one of those landings today on live tv in a dairy queen. The landing was in Texas. The date is(was) 6-03-10. It touched down and everybody in DQ was like, " ahhhhhh...""good, good" then the front wheel wobbled and fell off and it did a nose slide and a small fire came up and they sprayed it out and got the people out with no injuries. Thank God...
JP-8 evaporates before it even gets close to the ground. It's also has less impact on the environment that burning the fuel because none of the by products of burning fossil fuels are produces.
@IJeffClancy1966 Lets see if you ??, Mr jeff Clancy were landing on that plane at that time.?? Would you mind if they dumped some fuel to make a safe landing. I dont think you would.!! Keep your poor environment to yourself.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And ride a bike.!!!!
Actually, less fuel = slower approach and touchdown speed ( which means lower landing distance). Fumes may ignite faster than liquid gas, but the risk is worth the try. I'm wondering what happenned to the manual nose gear extension. Maybe the mechanism was broken.
I remember this bird well. It sat on CANN status for an entire year at Castle. We thought it was going to be the permanent CANN bird. It was surprising when they told us to get it put back together that repairs to the lower fuselage were complete and it needed to be MC. Almost nothing started the first time switches were thrown. Nice to see a bird I worked so long ago. I was stationed at Castle from 1986 to 1991 as a Guidance & Control tech.
@Tcook96 Normally the KC135 landed with a minimal amount (3000 pounds maybe) in the forward tank for CG control, especially at light weights. Since that tank is just behind the nose gear, and is one you can dump from, that's probably what they did. I flew KC135s for 14 years and was an IP at the school at Castle, still rememer a lot of the procedures.
amdsasr3, I was a crew chief. This plane was one of 11 assigned to our flight. We were not attached to the flying squadron, other than being under 93rd BMW.
I do recall meeting an Australian copilot a couple of times there, Right-seater, not A/C. Was that your father?
I've never seen this particular video of this incident before. This plane was in my flight at Castle AFB when this happened. I don't remember if this landing took place at Edwards or March AFB.
Landing on concrete with out a nosewheel just scrapes a small hole under the nose, and of course destroys the nosewheel doors in this example. The flames are coming from the center paint stripes burning. Grass and dirt would dig into the joints in the skin and rip/peel the skin off and then tear apart stringers and pieces of the structure.
I once tried boarding a commercial flight with a parachute in my carry-on. It was for a military drone, not a human, so it wasn't a very big package (about 8X8X12). Security was not amused.
I know this sounds like a stupid question...but in emergency belly landings without the landing gear.... why don't they try and land these planes in the GRASS? Isn't it possible that that would be a softer landing and not start a fire due to sparks from the metal hitting the concrete...friction...heat etc? Just an thought...... But what do I know?
im no expert and I was thinking the same thing myself just recently. I sumise that all the small bumps on grasss could make it a lot harder to control.. the concrete being smooth i bet even makes the rudder controls still effective. Just my guess thats all
I've sometimes wondered (while flying over the endless tundra barely awake) if you had a nose gear extension failure, and some willing passengers, if you couldn't shift load right to the aft limit (or maybe a little more, wink wink) and complete the landing with the aircraft resting on the tail bumper. Some of the Dashes are pretty close to doing that when loaded! It'd have to be a long runway so brakes would not be needed, of course. Betcha you could depending on the aircraft.
@schlusselmensch LOL! I know this is another stupid thing to mention...but I wonder if having parachutes that automatically kick out once you bail out...like in Vietnam paramilitary did would be a welcomed thing too. You just shove out and be good... even if it was only half the load...it would help with weight etc But of course you'd have people fighting to get theirs. but still....they carrry SO much stuff on board that you wonder what a little extra would mean to ensure safety.
@schlusselmensch You would kind of do that on a KC135. Move fuel (if you had it) into the aft tank to move the CG aft. There was no "tail bumper" on the KC135...the boom would take the stress...not good.
The base of the KC-135 is the Boeing 367-80, a prototype aircraft. Out if the 367, the Boeing 707 and the C135 Stratolifter were developed, and out of the C135 ant the 707, the KC135 was developed.
Not quite. The KC-135 fuselage cross section is slightly larger than the 367-80. The Boeing 707 would have been the same airframe, but when Douglas came out with the DC-8 in a 3+3 config, Boeing enlarged the cross section yet again. So for A/C type purposed, the -135 is considered a B720 - that's the type rating a tanker pilot received if they got their FAA certificate. But technically speaking? The dash eight, KC-135 and 707 are three different airplanes.
of course they are, but the base of this aircraft is formed by those other aircraft ;) I fly myself, and I know that every plane, even same type planes, flies different ;)
@lockstocknl its either or man. Multi-purpose fuel nozzle. We got them out in Offutt, and I think thats why the population around base is half retarded.
@lockstocknl I don't think it is the boom dumping. If you freeze frame at 0:38 you can see something trailing from the fuselage and crossing the boom, but i don't believe it exits the boom.
@streetstream I think it's pretty obviously a stream of fuel coming out of the boom, even if one didn't know that was how a 135 dumped fuel. I didn't know that was true, but look at :36 and tell me that isn't a fuel dump!
@justforever96 The fuel dump system was brutally simple on the KC-135 (I flew them for 14 years). You hit the dump switch, and if the boom was extended it retracted then a metal rod with what amounted to a hook on the end, extended, rotated and pulled back in to push the spring loaded valve in the nozzel open. The you turned on the air refuling pums (front and rear body tanks) and out it went. You could dump as much as 10,000 pounds in a minute!
@72Rdrunner Hey, simple is good, as long as it works. I think there are a lot of planes and features on planes that are needlessly complicated, adding expense and maintanence difficulties. So does a KC-135 routinely dump fuel before landing, or do they usually only fill it with as much as it's expected to need for a mission? That would make sense, and waste a lot less, but the military sometimes seems to enjoy wasting things
@justforever96 A lot of effort goes into having just the right amount of fuel for a mission because carrying "extra" fuel means more weight and a higher burn rate. There was no such thing as "routine" fuel dump. It was associated with some sort of emergency where you needed to reduce weight for landing, or in the case of the nose gear up video, to get the fuel out of the forward body tank, just aft of the nose gear.
@justforever96 "Back in the day" (40 years ago) there was a lot of waste, and not just military. I remember when we flew around the pattern with the gear down. One day someone asked, why? as it wastes gas. Presto...started retracting the gear. There were "standard" fuel loads that were really not very precisely analyzed. With time, computers and awareness, today's missions are planned with the minimum required as it takes fuel to haul extra fuel around.
@justforever96 The old "strato bladder" was a brutally simple airplane and I really enjoyed flying it. It was so simple that once you got airborne, you could fly your EWO mission (offload fuel to SAC bombers) with nothing but a battery for electrical power. The flight controls were all manual (rudder was later powered), fuel would gravity drain from wings to engines, gear and flaps had manual backups, and the co pilot instruments ran off their own hydraulic powered generator!
@streetstream BTW, I think the thing you see "exiting the fuselage" is actually the little bit of the other horizontal stabilizer you can see through the gap. Look and see.
And you base this on what fact?! Have you flown it? Have you researched its landing qualities? Have you cross-checked with other manufacturers? Have you checked out nose-wheel up landings in airbuses?
Your opinion says more about you then about airbus. Namily, you are ignorant and maybe even a bit stupid..
That was a bit harsh for someone who's obviously not too keen on English. However I would like to say that the Scarebus Aircrapped Corporation does make great planes!! Who cares if the tails fall off or they crash into the oceans (yup.. X2) because of bad weather...
i kno its an emergency landing and the fuel has to be dumped, but wouldnt it be cool if this tanker refilled another tanker instead of dumping all that fuel
The fuel dump system on the KC-135 is very intriguing. There's an actuator attached to a rod causes it to extend and rotate down, and then that depresses the poppet valve on the boom nozzle and causes it to drain. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
135s are certainly pieces of junk when it comes to maintaining them. I spent 8 hours today trying to put clamps on four hydraulic lines (and I'm still not done) because they put these lines in the absolute worst place imaginable. It's the same with most stuff on this aircraft. The engineers weren't thinking straight when they designed a lot of the components on there.
I was a crewchief at Castle AFB when this happend. It seems like they ended up flying it home with the gear pinned. It sat as the can bird for the longest time.
i work at mcconnel afb in wichita kansas.these planes are old as hell but i still sit out on the flight line and watch them when i can.good video,better plane.
acft tail # 57-1499, i worked on this plane after it was converted to an R-model (jet eng mech). Crew Chiefs said still had an overhead panel leak problem by eyebrow windows. I spent a few hours in left seat on this plane doin eng. runs, Great plane to work on.
as far as I know it still is flying as an R-model, don't know if active duty yet or a gaurd or reserve plane now, all those kc's have very low airframe hours (flight hours) due to cold war era sitting alert pads.
due to the cold war these KC's have very low airframe hours & new powerplants and upgraded flightdecks. From what I can remember KC's (not EC's, WC's or RC's) were built form 1957 to 1963. I saw some A-models that were year 1956's but I don't think they were converted to R-models
Okay,..here's the REAL story (I was there)This was a KC-135 CCTS out of Castle AFB in May of '87. I was supposed to fly that plane that day, but through a scheduling change, ended up on a different tail. Nose gear failed to extend-crew tried alternate procedures to no avail..told to divert to Edwards AFB for landing. Dumped fuel to minimize landing wt. Flame you see is nose gear doors burning off. Crew egressed w/out incident. Plane jacked up, doors replaced, returned to service within days.
CHeese and Crackers Guys, Jet A, JP-3, 4, 5, 8. Its ALL Kerosine. The only diference is the type of addatives and exact flash point. Higher JP#s have lower flash points to make then slightly less explosive. Any one will run in a deisel engine which is why so many small general purpose aircraft are converting to Aircraft Diesel engines. They can burn the readily avialable Jet fuels and 100 octane avgas is getting to hard to find for High compression Aviation gas engines.
I figured how much an emergency landing immediately after takeoff (from max gross weight) would cost in dumped fuel in my spare time. I have to find the paper in my fly bag but needless to say, it's pretty damn high. That was early last year so that figure would probably be doubled.
Jp5 use to be used for helicopters back in the day but they have started all using JP-8 because its cheaper to refine and make....yea jp8 it's diesel I know....where I work we have to De-fuel the aircraft before they are towed into the hanger, and we pump that jp8 straight into out diesel trucks..runs good
actually air force uses jp8 and the navy jp5, if you are operating from a joint base such Naval Air Station Fort Worth in which you have air force, navy and marines then they will use jp8
ACTUALLY, at the time of this incident, 1987, the USAF used JP-4, not JP-8. After Desert Storm, the conversion began to JP8. Some aircraft, were using JP-8, but most were JP-4. We used to refuel plenty Navy FIghters with JP4 as well. A drouge must be attached to the boom to refuel Naval aircraft
Father of 1st female Indy driver Janet Guthrie, Capt. Lane Guthrie, was fired from Eastern Airlines for refusing to dump avgas over the Everglades, he was one of the first environmentalists, proved FP&L Turkey Point was dumping raw sewage in Biscayne Bay by flushing orange ping pong balls and watching them pop up in the Bay
Re instated later with a little help from the ALPA
The fuel is jettisoned in such small droplets that it evaporates before it ever reaches the ground. Only environmentalist wackos would ever worry about it...
Are you under the impression that evaporation equals diminished potential? If you are, then you wouldn't last very long in a debate with an environmentalist.... even a wacko one.
It is a bit scary. There is a butt load of paperwork to fill out when you bring one back bruised. Other than that, we don't really give a crap (unless you are the aircraft maintenance officer). No one ever gets hurt from a stuck gear.
Oh nvm. I just said it wrong. I do not know what I'm talking about sorry. I ment to say dump and burn? I don't know which one is more better or worse but yeah sorry. I'll make sure I know the facts before I speak.
No problem... That bird loaded with JP-4 (these days JP-8) is not only a fire hazard when sparking with gear-up, but the incredible weight upon landing with all that fuel on-board would have not only destroyed the airplane (and crew) but would have damaged the runway so bad, other aviators wouldn't be able to use it until extensive repairs were made... sometimes taking months.
Omg they were dumping the fuel... I think they need to add fuel dump into tankers instead of just dump it raw into the environment or just land it with the fuel. That kind of sucks that all that fuel was wasted but I'm glad the pilots are safe.
Hey, did you NOT notice the sparks when the guy landed? Would you like to land a fully laden jet with gas on a runway and risk going KABOOM. You have to burn off and/or dump fuel before landing, even in a commercial jet when forced to land with a "gear-up" problem. The fuel, basically kerosene, is vaporized and evaporated and never hits the earth.
I think I ment to do fuel dump like what the F-111 does instead of dumping it RAW into the environment. Did that help you understand better about what I said?
All the fuel can go out that boom I work on them and "Cold War" etiquite was that if a Bomber needed the fuel to deliver its nuke payload the KC135 was expendible it's in the TO which is like the operators manual. We work on them at Boeing in San Antonio. I looked it up cuz I didn't think it was true. amazing,huh!
OK, OK! All of the fuel can go out the boom, but there are valves, right? Selectable from the cockpit?
A normal B757 has one fuel valve, it's the crossfeed valve. A B767 has the same crossfeed valve, but can also dump fuel....but only from the wing tanks, not the Center tank. So, a KC-135, basically a converted B707...I have to trust you on this.
The KC135 just looks like a 707 the fuselage is not as wide as the 707. And the structure is all different the belly is all fuel tanks four in all + one aft of the boom operators position. The cockpit on the KC is larger for that it has a entry ladder that has an emergency gillotine to pnematically slice the entry door for emergency eggress. Even in flight!! Amazing plane Boeing built in the 50s and still will fly for 15-20 years. Good looking too the "R"model with the CFMs......
@767Captain I flew KC135s, 757s, and 767s and trust me you cannot dump ALL the fuel out of a KC135. The wings held 8000 pounds of "standpipe" fuel that could not be drained aft.
@1hijax That was a "Valid Red" back in the SIOP days. You had to off load all fuel available for offload. Unless you had burned the last 8000 pounds out of the wings and kept all your fuel in the fwd, center, and aft fuselage tanks, (something that would result in a CG probably off the charts) you could not offload yourself out of gas. The "book" answer was to offload all avaiable fuel, clear the stream, and when you ran out, bail out.
@1hijax Not so, and I know, flew them for 14 years. There was 2000 pounds of fuel in each of the four wing tanks that could not be drained to the aft tank where the air refueling pumps that were used to dump fuel were located. That fuel in the wing tanks was caled 'stand pipe" fuel and could only be used in the engines.
Nice find, calvinkl. FYI, it is called the 'nosegear', or sometimes we say 'nose wheel', not front gear. Landing gear, general term for the entire undercarriage (a British term). Nose gear, left main, right main. A DC-10-30 also has a center gear. A B747 has two center gear, a left and right center..actually, they are referred to as body gear sometimes, like on the B-52....
Fire and rescue were probably further on. There's no sense in chasing a plane spewing sparks and leaving debris, so you anticipate where it will end up and wait there.
I worked this jet, '82-'85 at CAFB.
TailDraggerFlight 2 months ago
Comment removed
livevideocapture 3 months ago
I COULD DO THAT!
Well, i could lose the front wheels, at least :P
xxzakthecoolxx 6 months ago
At the beginning looks like an invisible wheel was holding the nose,
ermollejuo 7 months ago
Based at Castle, landed Edwards.
dickietunes 8 months ago
Does anyone know where and what plane this is? The numbers say it was 1987 on the screen, but I can't find anything about any KC-135 gear-up landing incidents anywhere, not in '87 or anytime.
justforever96 8 months ago
Good job
robfrmny21 9 months ago
The pilot who will fly the last enicial flight of the kc-135. Their' grandparents have not been born yet. O_o
gangstahero1770 10 months ago
THE FUEL dump can fill my car petrol tank for 10 years!
F35JSFA1 1 year ago
@F35JSFA1 It COULD, but if you put that fuel in your "petrol tank", your engine would be VERY unhappy! Now, if you had a DIESEL car, then you'd be talking! Jet fuel is about the same as kerosene, which is about the same as diesel. I don't know about these high-tech modern diesels, but I'm pretty sure an old oil-burner would work okay with jet fuel. Just think, these planes carry up to 190,000lbs of fuel on take-off...something like 28,000 gallons!
justforever96 8 months ago
@justforever96 Jetfuel == kerosene, I think you meant to say diesel? And you are right, diesel engines run just fine with jet fuel. I used to haul that stuff in the air force, and if needed, we could refuel trucks with that stuff too. It is not the optimal stuff though, so in the long run you could probably cause damage to engine.
aprepo 8 months ago
@aprepo Aren't all three the same? Kerosene, jet fuel and diesel? I thought that's why they dye kerosene, so you can't use it road-going trucks?
justforever96 8 months ago
@justforever96 I don't really know (plus I'm not native english speaker). Atleast they are pretty close, they all use the same principle to combust (pressure). What I was told was that the kerosene used in jets is "dry" compared to diesel fuel for cars and that may harm the engine in the long run. It seems that diesel is slightly heavier than kerosine according to "HowStuffWorks"
aprepo 8 months ago
@aprepo Hmm...I don't know. Maybe something to do with the wax content, or the sulphur levels? I know that they recently switched to 'ultra-low-sulphur-diesel" in the US and Europe, which is bad for older engines as sulphur adds lubrication to the fuel. Perhaps jet fuel has a lower sulphur content, since the bearings are the only friction-parts. I should try and learn about it. I know that turbines are much less "picky" about fuel; they've made turbojets run on coal dust and other fuels before!
justforever96 8 months ago
Any idea which base this was at? The tail flash/markings look like it was based at Castle AFB.
yuriilev 1 year ago
where the hell was the emergency services !!???
sandsifter149 1 year ago
My Father punched the original flight tank over Vietnam....he seemed quite proud of the Flight Captain and Crew...would one prefer a jet fueled jet tanker slamming in to suburbia or punching the fuel and saving all? Jeff, have you ever even been near a military jet in flight, wait, nevermind, you know it all. Add me to the JackAss list. You stay on the intentionally ignorant list. V
MrVanorsdol 1 year ago
nblebaron and @jeffClancey you are both still Jack ass.s
mrjamiehorn 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Heres what I have to say.!! If you dont know the facts then keep your comments to your 'e self. Don't speak until you get the fact straight. Until then keep your mouth shut!!!!!!!
mrjamiehorn 1 year ago
looked like a soft landing to me
8literbeater 1 year ago
@jeffClancyI 1966 I still think youre a jack ass!!!
mrjamiehorn 1 year ago
@mrjamiehorn you really do need to take a pill lol. He stopped complaining as soon as the issues were explained. Maybe you are so perfect that you already know everything about everything lol. Some of the rest of us make comments from ingorance or concern. His original comment didn't suggest that the pilot should choose the environment over the safety of all on board the plane. There is nothing wrong with expressing concern for something that sux.
nblebaron 1 year ago
Take a pill!?? Why dont you go hug a tree. What would you feel like if you were on that plane.Dump fuel or go down in a blaze of glory. Yeah.. ..I thought so.
mrjamiehorn 1 year ago
i feel bad for A/R....
rambothegreat18 1 year ago
actually wasnt a hard landing.. the landing was smooth.. but due to the nose gear fault the nose gear created a bumpy ride
dementorspirit 1 year ago
0:50 that my friends...is what an airplane looks like when it takes a tinkle...
thefsxandREALpilot 1 year ago
these wasn't got a hard landing also this is my mean
FreestyleBoy001 1 year ago
@FreestyleBoy001 Are you retarded?
b1cc2 1 year ago
pilot did a nice job, need to have your nuts screwd on tight to grind a flying gas station across the ground....
TowManSKS 1 year ago
I JUST SAW one of those landings today on live tv in a dairy queen. The landing was in Texas. The date is(was) 6-03-10. It touched down and everybody in DQ was like, " ahhhhhh...""good, good" then the front wheel wobbled and fell off and it did a nose slide and a small fire came up and they sprayed it out and got the people out with no injuries. Thank God...
alexk175 1 year ago
good job!!! ace pilot
loscantos 1 year ago
WOW from :30 seconds are they dumping fuel? Assume for safety reasons but the poor environment!
JeffClancy1966 1 year ago
@JeffClancy1966
JP-8 evaporates before it even gets close to the ground. It's also has less impact on the environment that burning the fuel because none of the by products of burning fossil fuels are produces.
shakkajohn1 1 year ago 3
@JeffClancy1966 they have to dump fuel for landing
rambothegreat18 1 year ago
@rambothegreat18 Yeah...I know.
JeffClancy1966 1 year ago
@IJeffClancy1966 Lets see if you ??, Mr jeff Clancy were landing on that plane at that time.?? Would you mind if they dumped some fuel to make a safe landing. I dont think you would.!! Keep your poor environment to yourself.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And ride a bike.!!!!
mrjamiehorn 1 year ago
@mrjamiehorn Take a pill
JeffClancy1966 1 year ago
great job! very nice landing!
coxairman 1 year ago
Actually, less fuel = slower approach and touchdown speed ( which means lower landing distance). Fumes may ignite faster than liquid gas, but the risk is worth the try. I'm wondering what happenned to the manual nose gear extension. Maybe the mechanism was broken.
rickurt1 1 year ago 3
I remember this bird well. It sat on CANN status for an entire year at Castle. We thought it was going to be the permanent CANN bird. It was surprising when they told us to get it put back together that repairs to the lower fuselage were complete and it needed to be MC. Almost nothing started the first time switches were thrown. Nice to see a bird I worked so long ago. I was stationed at Castle from 1986 to 1991 as a Guidance & Control tech.
pdavisnwa 1 year ago
good thing he got rid of that fuel. that stuff can ignite in a rough landing.
Finalflash50 1 year ago
why did he jettison the fuel?
Tcook96 1 year ago
standard procedure. less fuel = less things to cause an explosion.
rustysurfing07 1 year ago
Comment removed
chololatesloppysauce 1 year ago
@rustysurfing07 oh okay
Tcook96 1 year ago
@Tcook96 Normally the KC135 landed with a minimal amount (3000 pounds maybe) in the forward tank for CG control, especially at light weights. Since that tank is just behind the nose gear, and is one you can dump from, that's probably what they did. I flew KC135s for 14 years and was an IP at the school at Castle, still rememer a lot of the procedures.
72Rdrunner 5 days ago
amdsasr3, I was a crew chief. This plane was one of 11 assigned to our flight. We were not attached to the flying squadron, other than being under 93rd BMW.
I do recall meeting an Australian copilot a couple of times there, Right-seater, not A/C. Was that your father?
jazzspoons 1 year ago
hey jazz when did you fly at castle... my dad used to fly kc135s there back in 1986.... he was autralian tho
amdsasr3 2 years ago
I've never seen this particular video of this incident before. This plane was in my flight at Castle AFB when this happened. I don't remember if this landing took place at Edwards or March AFB.
jazzspoons 2 years ago
so...uh, gcsjulian i didnt know they had camera phones in 1987...look at the date stamp on the camera that video taped the landing...dumbass
imahungryman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
that fighter pilot allowed to film with his cell phone while flying that jet?
gcsjulian 2 years ago
This very jet flies at my base today. You would never have known it was this one. Of course, we have different engines and a new paint job.
jochenheiden 2 years ago
Landing on concrete with out a nosewheel just scrapes a small hole under the nose, and of course destroys the nosewheel doors in this example. The flames are coming from the center paint stripes burning. Grass and dirt would dig into the joints in the skin and rip/peel the skin off and then tear apart stringers and pieces of the structure.
MrExspert 2 years ago
I once tried boarding a commercial flight with a parachute in my carry-on. It was for a military drone, not a human, so it wasn't a very big package (about 8X8X12). Security was not amused.
schlusselmensch 2 years ago 33
Grass landing...think of the plane as a big pointy plow. It would bury itself and explode.
squadman33 2 years ago
I know this sounds like a stupid question...but in emergency belly landings without the landing gear.... why don't they try and land these planes in the GRASS? Isn't it possible that that would be a softer landing and not start a fire due to sparks from the metal hitting the concrete...friction...heat etc? Just an thought...... But what do I know?
FLATTSFANATIC 2 years ago
im no expert and I was thinking the same thing myself just recently. I sumise that all the small bumps on grasss could make it a lot harder to control.. the concrete being smooth i bet even makes the rudder controls still effective. Just my guess thats all
thekorksta 2 years ago
Harder to control, harder to brake, and the major risk of the gear biting in and either tearing off a wing or flipping the fuselage. Not a good idea.
CRsBeem 2 years ago
In grass if your wing catches in the grass, you'll be cart-wheeling faster than you can say whatthefuck?
fighter052594 2 years ago 2
I've sometimes wondered (while flying over the endless tundra barely awake) if you had a nose gear extension failure, and some willing passengers, if you couldn't shift load right to the aft limit (or maybe a little more, wink wink) and complete the landing with the aircraft resting on the tail bumper. Some of the Dashes are pretty close to doing that when loaded! It'd have to be a long runway so brakes would not be needed, of course. Betcha you could depending on the aircraft.
schlusselmensch 2 years ago
@schlusselmensch LOL! I know this is another stupid thing to mention...but I wonder if having parachutes that automatically kick out once you bail out...like in Vietnam paramilitary did would be a welcomed thing too. You just shove out and be good... even if it was only half the load...it would help with weight etc But of course you'd have people fighting to get theirs. but still....they carrry SO much stuff on board that you wonder what a little extra would mean to ensure safety.
FLATTSFANATIC 2 years ago
@schlusselmensch You would kind of do that on a KC135. Move fuel (if you had it) into the aft tank to move the CG aft. There was no "tail bumper" on the KC135...the boom would take the stress...not good.
72Rdrunner 5 days ago
1. There aren't very many grass strips and most of them are only a few thousand feet long.
2. You need a hard surface to support the weight of the aircraft.
3. It seems like it would cause a lot of damage, but its going to ruin the plane either way, so its best to just go for what you have.
danetrain0101 2 years ago
that was BEAST.. give props to the amazing pilots
WaTuKnOwBoUtDeM24s 2 years ago
was this landing done at Edwards AFB?
SoccerBoy77 2 years ago
Balls. This pilot has them.
SvenOkonomi 2 years ago
The base of the KC-135 is the Boeing 367-80, a prototype aircraft. Out if the 367, the Boeing 707 and the C135 Stratolifter were developed, and out of the C135 ant the 707, the KC135 was developed.
hph304 2 years ago
Not quite. The KC-135 fuselage cross section is slightly larger than the 367-80. The Boeing 707 would have been the same airframe, but when Douglas came out with the DC-8 in a 3+3 config, Boeing enlarged the cross section yet again. So for A/C type purposed, the -135 is considered a B720 - that's the type rating a tanker pilot received if they got their FAA certificate. But technically speaking? The dash eight, KC-135 and 707 are three different airplanes.
LJDRVR 2 years ago
of course they are, but the base of this aircraft is formed by those other aircraft ;) I fly myself, and I know that every plane, even same type planes, flies different ;)
hph304 2 years ago
wow that must be fun with thousands of pounds of fuel on board
lucky they got rid of most of it
dthsriders 2 years ago
that was sick he did a wheelie for half the time xD
wakeupneo311 2 years ago
Um, this isnt an Airbus, it's a USAF KC-135 tanker back in 87. Pretty decent job of landing it wiht no nose gear.
Enforcer57 2 years ago
AKA... Boeing 707.
skyyguyy 2 years ago
The original 717. 707 is a different airframe man-check it out.
k2aileron 2 years ago
Ow and BTW; NICE LANDING :)
Also cool to see that the refeuling boom can also be used for dumping.
lockstocknl 2 years ago 10
That was fuel dumping? Holy sh*t!!
sxtraildanny 2 years ago
@lockstocknl where the hell else would they dump it from? lol
rambothegreat18 1 year ago
@lockstocknl its either or man. Multi-purpose fuel nozzle. We got them out in Offutt, and I think thats why the population around base is half retarded.
sakabatto 1 year ago
@lockstocknl I don't think it is the boom dumping. If you freeze frame at 0:38 you can see something trailing from the fuselage and crossing the boom, but i don't believe it exits the boom.
streetstream 1 year ago
@streetstream
Wrong... that is the only place you can fuel dump on a KC135
rescueavi8or 11 months ago
@streetstream I think it's pretty obviously a stream of fuel coming out of the boom, even if one didn't know that was how a 135 dumped fuel. I didn't know that was true, but look at :36 and tell me that isn't a fuel dump!
justforever96 8 months ago
@justforever96 The fuel dump system was brutally simple on the KC-135 (I flew them for 14 years). You hit the dump switch, and if the boom was extended it retracted then a metal rod with what amounted to a hook on the end, extended, rotated and pulled back in to push the spring loaded valve in the nozzel open. The you turned on the air refuling pums (front and rear body tanks) and out it went. You could dump as much as 10,000 pounds in a minute!
72Rdrunner 5 days ago
@72Rdrunner Unless it was a real time sensitive emergency you normally lowered the boom, don't know why they didn't do it on this flight.
72Rdrunner 5 days ago
@72Rdrunner Hey, simple is good, as long as it works. I think there are a lot of planes and features on planes that are needlessly complicated, adding expense and maintanence difficulties. So does a KC-135 routinely dump fuel before landing, or do they usually only fill it with as much as it's expected to need for a mission? That would make sense, and waste a lot less, but the military sometimes seems to enjoy wasting things
justforever96 4 days ago
@justforever96 A lot of effort goes into having just the right amount of fuel for a mission because carrying "extra" fuel means more weight and a higher burn rate. There was no such thing as "routine" fuel dump. It was associated with some sort of emergency where you needed to reduce weight for landing, or in the case of the nose gear up video, to get the fuel out of the forward body tank, just aft of the nose gear.
72Rdrunner 4 days ago
@justforever96 "Back in the day" (40 years ago) there was a lot of waste, and not just military. I remember when we flew around the pattern with the gear down. One day someone asked, why? as it wastes gas. Presto...started retracting the gear. There were "standard" fuel loads that were really not very precisely analyzed. With time, computers and awareness, today's missions are planned with the minimum required as it takes fuel to haul extra fuel around.
72Rdrunner 4 days ago
@justforever96 The old "strato bladder" was a brutally simple airplane and I really enjoyed flying it. It was so simple that once you got airborne, you could fly your EWO mission (offload fuel to SAC bombers) with nothing but a battery for electrical power. The flight controls were all manual (rudder was later powered), fuel would gravity drain from wings to engines, gear and flaps had manual backups, and the co pilot instruments ran off their own hydraulic powered generator!
72Rdrunner 4 days ago
@streetstream BTW, I think the thing you see "exiting the fuselage" is actually the little bit of the other horizontal stabilizer you can see through the gap. Look and see.
justforever96 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Airbus can not landing very well ,although ,it's the most huge plane in the world
qiuyanzhao 2 years ago
And you base this on what fact?! Have you flown it? Have you researched its landing qualities? Have you cross-checked with other manufacturers? Have you checked out nose-wheel up landings in airbuses?
Your opinion says more about you then about airbus. Namily, you are ignorant and maybe even a bit stupid..
lockstocknl 2 years ago 3
That was a bit harsh for someone who's obviously not too keen on English. However I would like to say that the Scarebus Aircrapped Corporation does make great planes!! Who cares if the tails fall off or they crash into the oceans (yup.. X2) because of bad weather...
texNoz 2 years ago
qiuyanzhao, what authority do you have to say that?
unusmultorumm 2 years ago
What do you think its for?????
NWCYCLE 2 years ago
amazing video,
breh760li 2 years ago
The landing itself was very smooth!
EternityOpens776 2 years ago
That fuel they dumped could have run a city for a year I bet.
canaanav 2 years ago
this pilot got skillz
MarcAndreOlivier 2 years ago
what you mean " hard landing", it waz perfect considering landing gear failures he suffered.
xosrov2 2 years ago
i kno its an emergency landing and the fuel has to be dumped, but wouldnt it be cool if this tanker refilled another tanker instead of dumping all that fuel
Wabitfan 2 years ago
I crewed this jet in '95!!!
135Mech 2 years ago 2
nice landing
33GeoStef33 2 years ago
textbook landing
VEE1r0tate 2 years ago
Chase plane was a T-38, video taken from the back seat.
artagus21 2 years ago 2
fuel dump...
bodoi4 2 years ago
The fuel dump system on the KC-135 is very intriguing. There's an actuator attached to a rod causes it to extend and rotate down, and then that depresses the poppet valve on the boom nozzle and causes it to drain. It doesn't get any simpler than that.
jochenheiden 2 years ago 5
Standby Crash, Standby Crash...
Dmundell1 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This plane is a peice of junk. The pilot was smoking weed when he flew this.
coonish28 2 years ago
135s are certainly pieces of junk when it comes to maintaining them. I spent 8 hours today trying to put clamps on four hydraulic lines (and I'm still not done) because they put these lines in the absolute worst place imaginable. It's the same with most stuff on this aircraft. The engineers weren't thinking straight when they designed a lot of the components on there.
jochenheiden 2 years ago 2
In fairness, they've learnt a lot in the 50 years since they designed the KC-135 :)
theducksdotorg 2 years ago
hey brother.. paycheck cashes the same, right? heh heh.. kidding...
Ricardodelamuerte 2 years ago
FUCKING WHAW,, GET MY BOTTLE
indyboom 2 years ago
This airplane now belongs to the Air National Guard in Salt LAke City, Utah
bcooley66 2 years ago
I was a crewchief at Castle AFB when this happend. It seems like they ended up flying it home with the gear pinned. It sat as the can bird for the longest time.
castlecrewchief 2 years ago
i work at mcconnel afb in wichita kansas.these planes are old as hell but i still sit out on the flight line and watch them when i can.good video,better plane.
rickthefourth 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hahahaha thats well funny i wish it blew up though
tidyboy13 3 years ago
Your response was just STUPID!!!!
AV8R4HM 3 years ago
why the fuck would you want that you ignorant fuck
Phreedz 3 years ago
Tool. What kind of heartless prick are you?
sarnieken 3 years ago
nice landing.... good pilot!
No1cocacolalover 3 years ago
Hey, thanks for the info.
kamcolorado 3 years ago 2
Is it letting out fuel to have a safer landing?
kamcolorado 3 years ago
acft tail # 57-1499, i worked on this plane after it was converted to an R-model (jet eng mech). Crew Chiefs said still had an overhead panel leak problem by eyebrow windows. I spent a few hours in left seat on this plane doin eng. runs, Great plane to work on.
rivaski1 3 years ago
do you know what happened to this plane?
wyomingrailfan 3 years ago 2
as far as I know it still is flying as an R-model, don't know if active duty yet or a gaurd or reserve plane now, all those kc's have very low airframe hours (flight hours) due to cold war era sitting alert pads.
rivaski1 3 years ago
If someone can get me a tail #, I can find out when I get to work.
normanmj 2 years ago
I posted tail # awhile ago, tail # 57-1499
rivaski1 2 years ago
We have a lot of 57 R-models at March.
jochenheiden 2 years ago
due to the cold war these KC's have very low airframe hours & new powerplants and upgraded flightdecks. From what I can remember KC's (not EC's, WC's or RC's) were built form 1957 to 1963. I saw some A-models that were year 1956's but I don't think they were converted to R-models
rivaski1 2 years ago
I remember this,I was crewing on an ec 135 at Ellsworth when this happend.
bbwbb2 3 years ago
Okay,..here's the REAL story (I was there)This was a KC-135 CCTS out of Castle AFB in May of '87. I was supposed to fly that plane that day, but through a scheduling change, ended up on a different tail. Nose gear failed to extend-crew tried alternate procedures to no avail..told to divert to Edwards AFB for landing. Dumped fuel to minimize landing wt. Flame you see is nose gear doors burning off. Crew egressed w/out incident. Plane jacked up, doors replaced, returned to service within days.
SamFox95 3 years ago
@SamFox95
thanks ... they did a good job
w67 1 year ago
CHeese and Crackers Guys, Jet A, JP-3, 4, 5, 8. Its ALL Kerosine. The only diference is the type of addatives and exact flash point. Higher JP#s have lower flash points to make then slightly less explosive. Any one will run in a deisel engine which is why so many small general purpose aircraft are converting to Aircraft Diesel engines. They can burn the readily avialable Jet fuels and 100 octane avgas is getting to hard to find for High compression Aviation gas engines.
DrDirt55 3 years ago
GREAT LANDING !!!
FreakySwe 3 years ago
When I was active duty and assigned to 135's, They burned JP-4 not 8.
jd060300 3 years ago
I wonder how much, in todays gas prices, he let go? It would probably break my heart.
grooveclubhouse 3 years ago
The crew comes first...Always.
tomcatpilot1 3 years ago
100% right. SAR will move mountains and drain oceans for on pilot. But still Id love to just get a few tank fulls for my car lol. JP8 octane!
grooveclubhouse 3 years ago
Kerosene in your car?
I figured how much an emergency landing immediately after takeoff (from max gross weight) would cost in dumped fuel in my spare time. I have to find the paper in my fly bag but needless to say, it's pretty damn high. That was early last year so that figure would probably be doubled.
brightmotor 3 years ago
yeah I was kidding about the car. It probably burn up every seal and gasket and send a piston throuh the hood!
hit me back with those figures. It be interesting to know, zoomie.
grooveclubhouse 3 years ago
jp8 is actually diesel so it wouldn't do much good for your gas car....
rushforce33 3 years ago
Nah, really? I thought that jp 5 was jet fuel for the air force and jp8 was what the navy uses.
grooveclubhouse 3 years ago
Jp5 use to be used for helicopters back in the day but they have started all using JP-8 because its cheaper to refine and make....yea jp8 it's diesel I know....where I work we have to De-fuel the aircraft before they are towed into the hanger, and we pump that jp8 straight into out diesel trucks..runs good
rushforce33 3 years ago
actually air force uses jp8 and the navy jp5, if you are operating from a joint base such Naval Air Station Fort Worth in which you have air force, navy and marines then they will use jp8
panamaduke03 3 years ago
ACTUALLY, at the time of this incident, 1987, the USAF used JP-4, not JP-8. After Desert Storm, the conversion began to JP8. Some aircraft, were using JP-8, but most were JP-4. We used to refuel plenty Navy FIghters with JP4 as well. A drouge must be attached to the boom to refuel Naval aircraft
kcdude 3 years ago
Father of 1st female Indy driver Janet Guthrie, Capt. Lane Guthrie, was fired from Eastern Airlines for refusing to dump avgas over the Everglades, he was one of the first environmentalists, proved FP&L Turkey Point was dumping raw sewage in Biscayne Bay by flushing orange ping pong balls and watching them pop up in the Bay
Re instated later with a little help from the ALPA
HisMajestyOKeefe 3 years ago
The fuel is jettisoned in such small droplets that it evaporates before it ever reaches the ground. Only environmentalist wackos would ever worry about it...
rootbeer4969 3 years ago
Are you under the impression that evaporation equals diminished potential? If you are, then you wouldn't last very long in a debate with an environmentalist.... even a wacko one.
dhiatensor 3 years ago
WOW... scary situation for a pilot.
janelso33 3 years ago 2
It is a bit scary. There is a butt load of paperwork to fill out when you bring one back bruised. Other than that, we don't really give a crap (unless you are the aircraft maintenance officer). No one ever gets hurt from a stuck gear.
RobertGary1 3 years ago
nice video..
aga080 3 years ago
Jet fuel is good for your bones. We should have the 135s jettison it more often - especially at low alt over urban areas. ;)
darnitalltohell 3 years ago 2
Yeah, it's just loaded with vitamins!
fixedgearforlife 3 years ago
Oh nvm. I just said it wrong. I do not know what I'm talking about sorry. I ment to say dump and burn? I don't know which one is more better or worse but yeah sorry. I'll make sure I know the facts before I speak.
undertake782 3 years ago
No problem... That bird loaded with JP-4 (these days JP-8) is not only a fire hazard when sparking with gear-up, but the incredible weight upon landing with all that fuel on-board would have not only destroyed the airplane (and crew) but would have damaged the runway so bad, other aviators wouldn't be able to use it until extensive repairs were made... sometimes taking months.
tuutuutango 3 years ago
Thanks for making it clear for me.
undertake782 3 years ago
Thanks for making it clear for me.
undertake782 3 years ago
JP8 has a very high flash point.
d0ubl3v1s10n 3 years ago
Omg they were dumping the fuel... I think they need to add fuel dump into tankers instead of just dump it raw into the environment or just land it with the fuel. That kind of sucks that all that fuel was wasted but I'm glad the pilots are safe.
undertake782 3 years ago
Hey, did you NOT notice the sparks when the guy landed? Would you like to land a fully laden jet with gas on a runway and risk going KABOOM. You have to burn off and/or dump fuel before landing, even in a commercial jet when forced to land with a "gear-up" problem. The fuel, basically kerosene, is vaporized and evaporated and never hits the earth.
tuutuutango 3 years ago 2
I think I ment to do fuel dump like what the F-111 does instead of dumping it RAW into the environment. Did that help you understand better about what I said?
undertake782 3 years ago
Adding...I never flew the B707 (I'm not THAT old, LOL!) I do know the KC-135s were re-engined, retrofitted with fans....GE or Pratts?
767Captain 3 years ago
Both...R and T models have CFM-56s and the D and E models have Pratt TF-33s
sentrymechanic 3 years ago
Every bit of fuel on this aircraft can go through that boom...... even its own fuel if that what it takes to get the job done.
1hijax 3 years ago
Yup!...that's why it's a KC135, it is a tanker...but not ALL of the fuel goes out the tail, still has to keep some for itself!!
767Captain 3 years ago
All the fuel can go out that boom I work on them and "Cold War" etiquite was that if a Bomber needed the fuel to deliver its nuke payload the KC135 was expendible it's in the TO which is like the operators manual. We work on them at Boeing in San Antonio. I looked it up cuz I didn't think it was true. amazing,huh!
1hijax 3 years ago
OK, OK! All of the fuel can go out the boom, but there are valves, right? Selectable from the cockpit?
A normal B757 has one fuel valve, it's the crossfeed valve. A B767 has the same crossfeed valve, but can also dump fuel....but only from the wing tanks, not the Center tank. So, a KC-135, basically a converted B707...I have to trust you on this.
767Captain 3 years ago
The KC135 just looks like a 707 the fuselage is not as wide as the 707. And the structure is all different the belly is all fuel tanks four in all + one aft of the boom operators position. The cockpit on the KC is larger for that it has a entry ladder that has an emergency gillotine to pnematically slice the entry door for emergency eggress. Even in flight!! Amazing plane Boeing built in the 50s and still will fly for 15-20 years. Good looking too the "R"model with the CFMs......
1hijax 3 years ago
@767Captain I flew KC135s, 757s, and 767s and trust me you cannot dump ALL the fuel out of a KC135. The wings held 8000 pounds of "standpipe" fuel that could not be drained aft.
72Rdrunner 5 days ago
@1hijax That was a "Valid Red" back in the SIOP days. You had to off load all fuel available for offload. Unless you had burned the last 8000 pounds out of the wings and kept all your fuel in the fwd, center, and aft fuselage tanks, (something that would result in a CG probably off the charts) you could not offload yourself out of gas. The "book" answer was to offload all avaiable fuel, clear the stream, and when you ran out, bail out.
72Rdrunner 5 days ago
@1hijax Not so, and I know, flew them for 14 years. There was 2000 pounds of fuel in each of the four wing tanks that could not be drained to the aft tank where the air refueling pumps that were used to dump fuel were located. That fuel in the wing tanks was caled 'stand pipe" fuel and could only be used in the engines.
72Rdrunner 5 days ago
Watch out for the fuel lines,Watch out for the fuel lines!
brent07 3 years ago
damn that was amazing skill.
siberiantiger0 3 years ago
yep，the head was keeping away from the ground for over 12 seconds
ymygc 3 years ago
Nice find, calvinkl. FYI, it is called the 'nosegear', or sometimes we say 'nose wheel', not front gear. Landing gear, general term for the entire undercarriage (a British term). Nose gear, left main, right main. A DC-10-30 also has a center gear. A B747 has two center gear, a left and right center..actually, they are referred to as body gear sometimes, like on the B-52....
767Captain 3 years ago
Center gear part of a gross weight mod. more weight.........
1hijax 3 years ago
where was fire and rescue? shouldn't they have chased them down the runway?
piolet41 3 years ago
Fire and rescue were probably further on. There's no sense in chasing a plane spewing sparks and leaving debris, so you anticipate where it will end up and wait there.
SenorSpode 3 years ago 2
Great job on landing the plane! I think it couldn't be done better than this..
NLBanditNL 3 years ago