U.S. AIR FORCE KC-10A EXTENDER REFUELING TANKER AIRCRAFT PROMO FILM MCDONNELL DOUGLAS DC-10 66544

Want to support this channel and help us preserve old films? Visit / periscopefilm
Visit our website www.PeriscopeFilm.com
This U.S. Air Force film from the late 1970s or early 1980s highlights the KC-10A tanker development program. The McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender is an aerial refueling tanker aircraft operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). A military version of the three-engined DC-10 airliner, the KC-10 was developed from the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft Program. It incorporates military-specific equipment for its primary roles of transport and aerial refueling. It was developed to supplement the KC-135 Stratotanker following experiences in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. The KC-10 was the second McDonnell Douglas transport aircraft to be selected by the Air Force following the C-9. A total of 60 KC-10s were produced for the USAF. The Royal Netherlands Air Force operates two similar tankers designated KDC-10 that were converted from DC-10s.
in 1975, under the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft Program, four aircraft were evaluated-the Lockheed C-5, the Boeing 747, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and the Lockheed L-1011. The only serious contenders were Boeing and McDonnell Douglas. On 19 December 1977, McDonnell Douglas's DC-10 was chosen. The primary reason of this choice was the KC-10's ability to operate from shorter runways. Initially, a batch of 12 aircraft was ordered, but this was later increased to 60.
The KC-10 Extender first flew on 12 July 1980, but it was not until October the same year that the first aerial refuel sortie was performed. The design for the KC-10 involved modifications from the DC-10-30CF design. Unnecessary airline features were replaced by an improved cargo-handling system and military avionics. Meanwhile, the KC-10 retains 88% commonality with its commercial counterparts, giving it greater access to the worldwide commercial support system. Other changes from the DC-10-30CF include the removal of most windows and lower cargo doors. Early aircraft featured a distinctive light gray, white and blue paint scheme, but a gray-green camouflage scheme was used on later tankers. The paint scheme was switched to a medium gray color by the late 1990s.
A jet aircraft refuels from a gray three-engine tanker via a long boom located under the tanker's aft fuselage.
The KC-10's mixed refueling system of hose-and-drogue and flying-boom allow it to refuel the aircraft of the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and allied forces.[6]
The most notable changes were the addition of the McDonnell Douglas Advanced Aerial Refueling Boom (AARB) and additional fuel tanks located in the baggage compartments below the main deck. The extra tanks increase the KC-10's fuel capacity to 356,000 lb (161,478 kg), nearly doubling the KC-135's capacity.[6] The KC-10 has both a centerline refueling boom-unique in that it sports a control surface system at its aft end that differs from the V-tail design used on previous tankers-and a drogue-and-hose system on the starboard side of the rear fuselage. The KC-10 boom operator is located in the rear of the aircraft with a wide window for monitoring refueling. The operator controls refueling operations through a digital fly-by wire system.
The KC-10 plays a key role in the mobilization of US military assets, taking part in overseas operations far from home. These aircraft performed airlift and aerial refueling during the 1986 bombing of Libya (Operation Eldorado Canyon), the 1990-91 Gulf War with Iraq (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), War in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom), and Iraq War (Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn). The KC-10 is expected to serve until 2043.
We encourage viewers to add comments and, especially, to provide additional information about our videos by adding a comment! See something interesting? Tell people what it is and what they can see by writing something for example: "01:00:12:00 -- President Roosevelt is seen meeting with Winston Churchill at the Quebec Conference."
This film is part of the Periscope Film LLC archive, one of the largest historic military, transportation, and aviation stock footage collections in the USA. Entirely film backed, this material is available for licensing in 24p HD, 2k and 4k. For more information visit www.PeriscopeFilm.com

[@jernejfunkl8300]

I really like videos of this kind.

[@Pgcmoore]

outstanding!!! the dc/kc-10 is still one of the finest aircraft designs in the history of flight imho

[@icu_corey_rn_903]

That center mounted 3rd engine is sexy

[@dknowles60]

yes a lot better then the kc46

[@skunkjobb]

Very nice and informative. I didn't know the boom operators were sitting upright in the KC-10, that seems more comfortable than lying in the KC-135.

[@g2145cal]

i sat back there many times on TDY. just sat there, open the viewing door and just look. it's a very neat perspective. i got some great shots of refueling the F-117.

[@steveturner3999]

It has the largest window of any pressurized aircraft flying allowing a view for 3 abreast seating at the boomer's station.

[@dknowles60]

and did the job better then the KC46

[@tim5cad203]

Yes and according to the movie "Interceptor" from 1992 you can slide down the inside of the boom onto the top of a C-5 Galaxy during refuel, and if you use an acetylene torch you can cut a hole in the c-5 to gain access to a service tunnel that will lead to the cargo bay. Useful information if you ever plan on stealing an F117 that is in the cargo bay. During the 13 years that I have worked on both aircraft I haven't been able to find that service tunnel.

[@Occasion77]

Please add more of these types of videos they are super cool!

[@g2145cal]

i was a jet mech back at March on these...loved everything about them. i sure do miss those days. loved the video. this is the first time seeing it.

[@MrGoodnplenty1957]

Hey Crew Chief... i was back in March too. 1986-1994... Boom Operator.

[@barrymoody1228]

I was part of KC10 test team at Barksdale, then when March opened up for KC10s went there. 1 of 4 Abionics guys to set up KC10 avionics. Flew all over the world in the 10. Still had that new airplane smell to it. Maintenance man's dream to work on Hated to ser tgem put out to pasture

[@kevincameron8437]

It’s good to see the history of Big Sexy! It’s the first plane I crewed at Shady J and now I’m working on the KC-46 to arrive at Shady J.

[@MrGoodnplenty1957]

Now see Crew Chief, if you were old school, you would know it as the Gucci Bird. I was part of the Gucci Boys at March from 1986-1994. I retired in 1999.

[@kevincameron8437]

@@MrGoodnplenty1957 I was called a Gucci crew chief when we converted to the -135s mid 90s….and I didn’t mind it one bit.

[@ditzydoo4378]

To modernize the KC-10, the USAF has awarded a contract to Boeing in 2010 to upgrade the fleet of 59 aircraft with new Communication, navigation and surveillance and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) system. This was to allow the aircraft to fly in civil airspace as new ICAO and FAA standards took effect in 2015. Rockwell Collins was also awarded a contract in 2011 for avionics and systems integration for the cockpit modernization program. The Air Force considered retiring its fleet of KC-10 tankers in response to sequestration budget cuts as part of the service's FY 2015 budget. A "vertical chop" to divest all KC-10s was suggested because there are fewer KC-10s than KC-135s, having three different tanker models in service (after the introduction of the KC-46) would be costly, and a "horizontal cut" across the refueling fleets would achieve small efficiencies. Some believed retiring the KC-10 would not benefit the Air Force, given that it is equipped with both boom and hose-and-drogue refueling systems and the fleet's relatively young age. At first, officials claimed that the initial focus on retiring the KC-10 in September 2013 was a "trial balloon" to call attention to Air Force operating cost issues; as of early 2013, the KC-10 had a per hour flying cost of $21,170 and a mission capable rate of 87 percent. As of the FY 2015 budget plan did not include cuts to the KC-10. The Boeing KC-46 Pegasus is a military aerial refueling and strategic military transport aircraft developed by Boeing from its 767 jet airliner. In February 2011, the tanker was selected by the United States Air Force (USAF) as the winner in the KC-X tanker competition to replace older Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers. The first aircraft was delivered to the Air Force in January 2019. The Air Force intends to procure 179 Pegasus aircraft by 2027.

[@aaronchandler2380]

DitzyDoo the kc10 hauls a lot more than the kc46 or the kc135. That’s hard to let go of.

[@dknowles60]

and can be built very cheap that is the kc 10

[@SubuwuCollie]

yeah. except they arent replacing the 135 with the 46 anymore... theyre replacing the 10 with the 46 which makes zero sense. They were both built for a very different mission.

[@robertjonas6216]

I refueled most of these (from the ground) during the run up to the Gulf War while stationed at Zaragoza AB in Spain! Watching them thunder down the runway from the ramp and launch into the sky was a breathtaking sight. It never got old. We even got an “incentive flight” a few months after things had settled down in the Gulf. We flew up over Germany and refueled 111’s out of Lakenheath. The slow rolling turns while waiting for the rendezvous left me feeling a little queasy after awhile. I managed to get some awesome photos looking over the shoulder of the boom operator as he did his job. And the salute from the 111 pilot afterwards made my day.

[@RobotoSan]

My Air Force JROTC unit had an after hours field trip on a night refueling mission aboard a KC-135. We connected to two C-130s on separate flights and a KC-10. That is, *we* "refueled" the KC-10. Put refueled in quotes because it was like watching a car fueling up an 18-wheeler; obviously our KC-135 couldn't possibly fill the KC-10 to capacity. The guy operating the boom said it wasn't that unusual for a big plane to be topped off. Which explained why we still had enough fuel to give anything meaningful to the second C-130. After seeing the KC-10 it looked a lot smaller.

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

The music in this video is groovy. Really makes me want to sign up and work on one of these tankers.

[@gmartin474]

I was stationed at March AFB 22nd FMS AGE Shop When We Got The First 4 KC10's, 2 Came From Barksdale AFB And 2 Brand New From McDonnell Douglas In Long Beach. What Beautiful Tankers They Were! It's Hard To Believe They Are Now Being Retired. In My Air Force Career The KC10 Has Flown Me On Many TDY's All Over The World. Many Fond Memories, I Will Miss That Aircraft Alot!

[@hunterhalo2]

I'm a current KC-10/KC-46 Flight Test Boom Operator. Its incredible to see the work I've done on the -46 is the same work that brought the KC-10 online. Love the -10

[@markmnorcal]

There is three flying over California right now at 26,000 feet at 11:00pm at night.

[@markmnorcal]

Also one is flying on the California coastline.

[@markmnorcal]

I'm watching them fly and refuel planes at 26,000 feet on Flight Radar.

[@MrGoodnplenty1957]

Hey Boom, keep the tradition going. ... KC-135 boom from 1979-1986 and KC-10 boom from 1986-1999 (retired)... from one to another...."Boom Stowed, Leaving Position."

[@nomorelibs9228]

The KC-10 got me around from A to B a few times in the past. Wear ear plugs....

[@bitsnpieces11]

I flew from the USA to Germany in a C141 in 1966, no sound proofing and nearly deaf for several hours after.

[@MrGoodnplenty1957]

I was a boom operator in the KC-10 for 14 years and i NEVER wore ear plugs on the aircraft. We used telex ear plug headsets on the flight deck and could use the ear plug headset or fully ear covered headsets during the refueling. A lot of times i used the ear plug headset when i was in the back for refueling.

[@rogervenden9755]

K

[@johneddy908]

This film features three fighter jets built by McDonnell Douglas over the years - the F-4 Phantom II, the A-4/A4D Skyhawk and the F-15 Eagle. The Northrop Grumman A-10 Thunderbolt II (also known as the "Warthog"), the Vought A-7 Corsair II, the General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark and the Lockheed Martin S-3 Viking and F-16 Fighting Falcon were also featured, as well as the SR-71 Blackbird supersonic reconnaissance aircraft.

[@mattfgln]

The A-7 was built by LTV , A-10 was a Fairchild product… and the F-16 was general dynamics before Lockheed

[@Madmax-zc2gk]

Cool video…I went thru initial quail on the -10 in Jan ‘94 at March, was assigned to the 6th ARS, went to Travis in May ‘95 and retired from the 70th ARS (USAFR) in May 2011… I finished with 6200 hrs in the -10 as a pilot and enjoyed the jet very much… so fly 737’s now and the -10 is much easier to fly…great airplane….I miss it

[@MrGoodnplenty1957]

Max,, i was a Boom at March from 1986-1994 (in the 6th), went to the Funky Cold Kadena as a TALCE boom, but would always come back to March to maintain my boom contact currency. I'm sure we flew together at some point. .... i miss it too.... from me to you, "Pilot, Boom Stowed, Leaving Position.".... safe flying always.

[@charlesseymour1482]

Great documentary on a key component of our defense systems.

[@jeadie2273]

Loved them in the white and blue

[@dkoz8321]

No General officer's careers were harmed during making of this documentary.

[@AndrewTubbiolo]

I wonder how the activation video for the KC-46 is going to be presented?

[@1949crewchief]

"This is the KC46. Its a flop. A full refurbishment of the KC10 and KC135 fleet is currently underway. The end."

[@aircraftengr5763]

One of the best aircrafts ever made😃😃😃😮😮😮

[@bindig1]

I didn't know the KC10 was in development in the 1970s. I thought it was way later than that

[@ericksuarezb.5994]

love it !!!

[@MrGoodnplenty1957]

After the initial cadre of boom operators trained, i was in the 2nd class of boom operators to be trained and assigned to March AFB, CA in 1986. I retired in 1999. I have never seen this video. McDonnell-Douglas sent out a promotional video called "KC-10, Promises Delivered." kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoeuiGpvm5uWrsk. The boom operators in that video were my instructors after training. Thank you for the memories. "Boom Stowed, Leaving Position."

[@allgood6760]

Awesome 👍

[@PeriscopeFilm]

Thanks 🤗 Love our channel? Help us save and post more orphaned films! Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/PeriscopeFilm Even a really tiny contribution can make a difference.

[@AvStevieStevenJamesDrums]

I dig the background music

[@killercan10]

"in 1975, under the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft Program, four aircraft were evaluated-the Lockheed C-5, the Boeing 747, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, and the Lockheed L-1011. " L-1011? Man those would have been some beautiful and at the time, technically advanced tankers! I feel like the top engine's exit might have perhaps presented an issue and why it never was looked at further.

[@MrOstereier]

it might be a little late to say but the brits had tristar tankers

[@BritanniaPacific]

@@MrOstereier and they gave them the boot some years ago. Maybe the raf’s ordering the kc-46 too.

[@tiadaid]

@@BritanniaPacific The RAF is using the Airbus A330 Voyager.

[@MrGoodnplenty1957]

Boeing had a 747SF flying with a boom. After the Chicago DC-10 crash, McDonnell-Douglas was going under big time, and they under bid Boeing for the contract and that's why they chose the DC-10.

[@MrErictyrones]

Instead of the KC-46 the USAF should have modified the MD-11 IMO. I do miss the F-111s too

[@blackopscw7913]

MD-11 was a troubled bird, it had a much higher landing speed then the DC-10 and was very hard to fly

[@yetizero5563]

супер спасибо

[@yournamehere7182]

KC/DC ✈✈

[@Pwj579]

If USAF had considered the L-1011 tanker, there would probably have had better overall tanker capability. The Brit’s operated them for decades

[@O530CarrisPT_C2]

I would have rather picked the Boeing's offer, the KC-747, instead of either the KC-10 or the KC-1011.

[@BritanniaPacific]

In 1979, the faa grounded the DC-10 after the crash of America Airlines flight 191. About the same time the KC-10 was being developed. McDonnell-Douglas probably took into account the lessons learned from flight 191, and previous DC-10 crashes, then incorporated them into the KC-10.

[@waterboy4597]

Yes they did the fixes for those issues were incorporated already when they were made

[@joebagadonuts5573]

Flight 191 crash was due to engine separation from the aircraft due to improper maintenance during an engine change. They removed the engine and strut with an unapproved procedure of using a fork lift. Nothing was done to the KC10 due to that crash. As for the United 232 Sioux City crash, the KC10 had a hydraulic system that would have allowed some flight control even if all three systems were inop due to loss of hydraulic fluid. Flew KC-10 for 14 years and 4,000 hours.

[@joebagadonuts5573]

@@waterboy4597 Not so...see my reply.

[@waterboy4597]

I was originally thinking 191 was the cargo door issues that was changed on the kc-10s I was a crew chief 14 years at mcguire I probably flew with you

[@joebagadonuts5573]

@@waterboy4597 191 was engine separation due to improper engine removal/install during maintenance. Also AA crew procedures were a factor. KC10 crews did not contain those procedures. I came to Barksdale in 1981 to set up the AFRES unit, and retired in 1994 so never flew out of McGuire. Glad to see my old Squadron, the 78th "Capt Shreve Squadron" is alive and well up there though.

[@peterschmidt8287]

I never flew a KC10 but it does look more complicated than a KB29, KC50 J, or a KC135.

[@brianmachado5264]

a KC10 pilot once told me that the KC10 was an excellent aircraft and fun to fly. The only negative thing he had to say was that the bathrooms were positioned above the avionics bays which leaked into them over the years and required costly repairs. Can any KC10 mechanics confirm this? Why would they construct them that way? Seems illogical to me.

[@davidhoffman1278]

I believe that Douglas just used the regular forward lav positions for DC-10s on the KC-10. You really have to devote significant attention to proactive maintenance on lav systems if you don't want to have leaks. Typical for the government they probably low balled the maintenance cost estimates to get the program approved. When they tried to make it work it didn't so they started deferring maintenance.

[@waterboy4597]

That did happen occasionally happens to many other aircraft also but not all the time still a very reliable air force asset I worked them as a crew chief for 14 years got the crapper juice on me many times performing maintenance

[@ryanbritt9806]

Can confirm

[@rosendogarcia0469]

Yes

[@hoghogwild]

Max range at max. cargo load is 7,033km/4,370miles or it can deliver 90,270kg/200,000lbs(just under 30,000gallons/115,000 liters) of transfer fuel to a receiver 3540km/2,200mile from its home base and return.(1989 Global Airpower) Many a pilot has hailed the praises of the KC-10, some saying "it's like plugging into a nice fluffy pillow-nothing I'd rather refuel from."

[@johneddy908]

Did McDonnell Douglas develop a similar aircraft based on the MD-11?

[@majorborngusfluunduch8694]

Nope.

[@yetizero5563]

HD? FHD?

[@markmnorcal]

KC 10'S HAVE BEEN FLYING ALL OVER REFUELING . OVER CALIFORNIA AND WASHINGTON STATE NOW AT 11:00 PM. TRAINING? ONE IS ON THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA ALSO 26,000 FEET..

[@terenceoneil7670]

today there is one flying circles over ROMANIA; would it be refueling fighter jets, or doing surveillance?

[@ryanbritt9806]

Refuel

[@BryanHobbsMcCalister]

Any info on why the MD-11 was not offered as an airborne refueler?

[@joebagadonuts5573]

Wouldn't have resulted in much increase in capability that the -10.

[@BryanHobbsMcCalister]

@@joebagadonuts5573 Yeah, I know. But that has never stop D.O.D. from spending money. Look at the KC-46.

[@diggermitch1]

does the kc 135 tankes have a hose and droge system

[@ditzydoo4378]

The Multi-point Refueling Systems (MPRS) modification adds refueling pods to the KC-135's wings. The pods allow refueling of U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and most NATO tactical jet aircraft while keeping the tail-mounted refueling boom. The pods themselves are Flight Refueling Limited (FRL) MK.32B model pods, and refuel via the probe and drogue method common to USN/USMC tactical jets, rather than the primary "flying boom" method used by USAF fixed-wing aircraft. This allows the tanker to refuel two receivers at the same time, which increases throughput compared to the boom drogue adapter.

[@g2145cal]

@@ditzydoo4378 and the -10's can be outfitted with the drogue wing pods also. you may already knew that. it seems you know your shit.

[@peterschmidt8287]

There was only one KC135 with this modification back in 1959, it started out with 3 pods but General Lemay wanted his boom, so it was modified at Boing that same year. 590858.

[@stevenevans5106]

Sort of. The hose drogue? Is adapted to fit on the end of the refueling boom when its on the ground. I did thus a couple of times when assigned to Pease AFB NH.

[@joylemerande5242]

And there’s my brother Dan

[@g2145cal]

the KC-46 is jealous

[@davidhoffman1278]

I want to know what nitwit decided that a bunch of poor quality video camera images fed to a remotely seated boom operator were a good substitute for a properly designed boom operator station. What you can get away with if you are only using hose systems you can't do with a boom operation.

[@ericwillis7127]

14:05 John Maus

[@Private_Owner]

aka dc-10.

[@diggermitch1]

why did they retire the kc-10 it seems a better fit for the air force than the kc -135 and I forgot what is replacing the 135

[@ditzydoo4378]

The Air Force considered retiring its fleet of KC-10 tankers in response to sequestration budget cuts as part of the service's FY 2015 budget. A "vertical chop" to divest all KC-10s was suggested because there are fewer KC-10s than KC-135s, having three different tanker models in service (after the introduction of the KC-46) would be costly, and a "horizontal cut" across the refueling fleets would achieve small efficiencies. Some believed retiring the KC-10 would not benefit the Air Force, given that it is equipped with both boom and hose-and-drogue refueling systems and the fleet's relatively young age. At first, officials claimed that the initial focus on retiring the KC-10 in September 2013 was a "trial balloon" to call attention to Air Force operating cost issues; as of early 2013, the KC-10 had a per hour flying cost of $21,170 and a mission capable rate of 87 percent. As of the FY 2015 budget plan did not include cuts to the KC-10.

[@AviationDirection]

It's not retired (yet).

[@joebagadonuts5573]

@@ditzydoo4378 KC-10 was a "dual role" mission aircraft, with a massive increase of capabilities than the 135. I know, flew both of them, 4000 hours and 13 years in each one.

[@ditzydoo4378]

@@joebagadonuts5573 sweet ^_^

[@satanofficial3902]

Why don't they just use gravitic impellers like aliens do? Much, much less the fuss and bother.

[@satanofficial3902]

There hasn't been a single UFO sighting of one spaceship getting fuel from another.

[@satanofficial3902]

Keep watching the truth. The skies are out there.

[@albear972]

Why couldn't the KC10 just take some of the fuel from the thousands of pounds that it's already carrying?

[@AviationDirection]

What do you mean? KC-10 can access fuel from any tank and use it either for itself or the receiver.

[@christopherconard2831]

The reason. for tanker to tanker transfer is to keep as much fuel available in the air as possible. If one has to land because of damage, crew issues, ect, it can move it's load to another plane to continue the mission. Also, it may not be carrying the right type for it's engines.

[@g2145cal]

the flight engineer has the capability to transfer fuel from one tank to another to balance the weight. it can carry approximately 360,000 pounds of fuel, by the way. that would be the max with no or very limited cargo

[@davidhoffman1278]

It can. KC-10s have a history of using up almost all the fuel they carry to save recievers. The incredible flexibility of the fuel transfer system for all the fuel it carries has enabled this.

[@joebagadonuts5573]

@@christopherconard2831 The only "other" fuel type carried was JP7 for the SR71, and the KC10 could use that just like the JP4 they normally used. Normally only two tanks on the KC10 were used for JP7, due to the cost and time to "flush" the tanks that had JP4 in them. There were a couple of times we loaded "wall to wall" JP7 for SR-71 missions.