Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Insane KC-10 Take-off  
User currently offlinedtw9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1164 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12867 times:

I didn't think a KC-10 could do this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOSHMB_Tpe8&feature=related

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2950 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12863 times:

I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it.


The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2116 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 12679 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 1):
I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't see it.

Me either. Holy sh*t that was amazing. I've watched cargo/tanker planes do some amazing things, but that blows my mind. Wow.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12660 times:

He had to be pretty light weight to be able to do that.

User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 12613 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
He had to be pretty light weight to be able to do that.

Exactly - no cargo, little fuel, max power and climb at minimum airspeed should give you an impressive climb angle.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2288 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12570 times:

That might be the craziest stunt I've ever seen.

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 9040 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12447 times:

I cannot imagine being there, that was scary, even after the fact.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12345 times:

Oddly I will say that this makes think of what an empty 777 could do.

Simply staed an aircraft is required to be able to take off at max weight with one engine out, so with the KC-10 being "light" it has way more than fifty percent more power than needed available with three engines that it can tap to create a stunt like this.

So a 772F (for example) will have well beyond twice as much power available to it with both engines working than it needs for take off. So it should be/will be an amazing take-off to see with all the power it can apply.

Of course this could apply to most any twin engine jet.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinegunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3508 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 11876 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
So a 772F (for example) will have well beyond twice as much power available to it with both engines working than it needs for take off. So it should be/will be an amazing take-off to see with all the power it can apply.
http://kpae.blogspot.com/2010/09/paine-field-september-3.html



Next Flight: 9/17 BFI-BFI
User currently onlinetitanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 11698 times:

I'd be scared about the fuel system not being able to supply the engines with such an extreme climb.

Extremely impressive.


User currently offlineCFMitch56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 97 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 11652 times:

Hehe, that looks like more than the maximum 22º nose high the flight director will command on takeoff.

User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 11485 times:

I think if that was done today, somebody would be in trouble....

User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 11050 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
Oddly I will say that this makes think of what an empty 777 could do.

Simply staed an aircraft is required to be able to take off at max weight with one engine out, so with the KC-10 being "light" it has way more than fifty percent more power than needed available with three engines that it can tap to create a stunt like this.

So a 772F (for example) will have well beyond twice as much power available to it with both engines working than it needs for take off. So it should be/will be an amazing take-off to see with all the power it can apply.

Of course this could apply to most any twin engine jet.

Tugg

777 LR/F Empty = 320 klbs Thrust = 230 klbf, T/W = .719. Empty - Thrust = 90 klb
KC-10 Empty = 241 klbs Thrust = 155 klbf, T/W = .643, Empty - thrust = 86 klb

So if the take off is done at a set speed, and go 90 degrees right away, KC-10 will decelerate slower because of the difference in weight and thrust.

I don't know how thrust to weight ratio play into this equation



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10740 times:

I know MD-11 had steep take offs, now I know if pushed DC-10/KC-10, can take off steep also.

Thank you for posting the video.  


User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6808 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 10714 times:

The Dutch Air Force do it as well at air shows (30sec, just after the wheels come up)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEdH7b3OdC8&feature=related



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4351 posts, RR: 28
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 10428 times:

Quoting oly720man (Reply 14):
(30sec, just after the wheels come up)

Why fast-forward to the 30 sec mark? That fly-by was unbelievably beautiful watching it in its entirety. Thanks for posting!



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineCross757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9527 times:

Well as the title of the video says, it was filmed at an airshow at Seymour-Johnson AFB in NC, so certainly the aircraft had no cargo, no pax, and not one more pound of fuel on board then was absolutely necessary for the flight. My guess is the airplane probably landed about 20 or 30 minutes later.

Very cool video though...thanks for sharing the link!


User currently offlinegordomatic From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9134 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 6):
I cannot imagine being there, that was scary, even after the fact.
Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
I think if that was done today, somebody would be in trouble....

This KC10 take-off was filmed October 1991. Although uneventful, watching it reminded me of the B52 crash at Fairchild AFB June 1994. I still see the occasional news article about USAF aircraft & airmen lost to accidents while hot-dogging for air-shows. I think the most recent was the C17 crash at Elmendorf AFB June 2010 - right?

It is amazing & impressive to see - and I know these guys are supposed to know what they are doing (flying tankers & bombers like fighters) but it is tragic when things go wrong and folks die.


-Gordon



We have clearance, Clarence. Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
User currently offlineA5XX From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8660 times:

Performing a high AOA takeoff like that...looks great, but the last thing you want to happen, is an uncontained engine failure.


we are the boeing... resistance is futile...You will be assimilated
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2116 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8627 times:

Quoting A5XX (Reply 18):
is an uncontained engine failure.

Uncontained or contained, either way you're screwed. The engine failure would be the problem, regardless of containment.  



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8181 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 8596 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 7):
Oddly I will say that this makes think of what an empty 777 could do.

Not sure if this is the best idea with the 777. I wouldn't want to find out there wasn't enough rudder authority to compensate for that level of asymmetric thrust in an already mushy handling scenario.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6722 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8540 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
I think if that was done today, somebody would be in trouble....

According to one comment, they were told to "never do that again".



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBeakerLTN From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2009, 297 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 7258 times:

Wow! - I think for the first time, after watching many youtube 'hey look at this insane pilot taking off with a 5kt crosswind' clips, we really have found one that genuinly is! Mad as a hat. Fantastic!


300/319/320/321/330/732/733/734/73G/738/744/772/77W/146/EMB135/EMB145
User currently offlineLTC8K6 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7076 times:

Since it's referred to as an airshow takeoff, and there seem to be quite a few videos of such takeoffs, I'm guessing it was fairly routine at air shows.

User currently offlineWESTERN737800 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 693 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (3 years 6 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 6836 times:

Very impressive! Just by looking at it, I imagine they had no cargo/min. fuel. I would not want to be sitting up front if one of the engines quit though.


Bring back Western Airlines!
25 thegman : freaking cool, yes! Practical, no.
26 timpdx : pffft. Call me when they do a cobra maneuver in a KC-10 (actually very impressed)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Insane KC-10 Take-off
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Awesome F-14 Barrer/A-10 Low Take Off Video posted Sun Feb 25 2007 05:35:21 by CF188A
KC-10(s?) At ROC? posted Mon Aug 30 2010 12:14:46 by KingFriday013
KC-10 FAA Certified? Military Crew Chiefs? posted Wed Jul 7 2010 07:51:49 by djklein
KC 10 At ZRH posted Wed Mar 24 2010 04:50:38 by ZRH
Will KC-10 Be Upgraded To MD-10 Flightdeck? posted Tue Sep 22 2009 23:17:09 by TF39
Boeing Settles Over KC-10 Work posted Fri Aug 14 2009 10:05:16 by Revelation
KC-10 At AVP posted Mon Apr 6 2009 19:36:51 by Devil505x
KC-10 Extenders posted Sat Mar 28 2009 11:23:51 by C5LOAD
KC-45 Vs KC-10 posted Sun Mar 30 2008 00:13:31 by Tugger
KC-10 Above ABE posted Wed Mar 26 2008 12:07:38 by ANITIX87

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format