Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 53 Posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1616 times:
Let me start by saying I don't buy into the hype/fantasy of "chem-trails" at all. However this photo (follow the link) shows vapor trails of some sort that I've never seen before.
Can someone with some technical experience explain what this might be? Simply by guessing I would say that this could have been taken right as the gear doors were starting to open, causing vortex generation... but I'm not sure.
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 53 Reply 2, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
I don't know. If it was a KC-135, what would you think? Fuel dumping?
Airplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
On close inspection, the picture looks a bit phony. This may be part of the reason it's provided so small. (you can't zoom in very well)
The thing that immediately strikes me is that its not a commercial airliner. I beleive it's a KC-135 tanker. Is it so unusual that a fuel tanker may vent some fuel?
Superslushy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1372 times:
It is definetly a KC-135 tanker (you can tell by the Air Force marking's beside the #4 engine, on the bottom side of the wing). I also believe this photo has had some "artificial" editing done to it.
SR71 From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1350 times:
Dumping fuel could very well be a possibility, although fuel vents are usually located near the wingtips. And a KC-135 would require to dump fuel if it became mechanical while airborne to attain a safe landing weight.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
If it's a KC-135 tanker, I'd submit that it seems to be missing a minor piece of equipment--namely, the refueling boom....
Presuming this is some other re-engined Air Force ??-135 variant, I too am perplexed, as I've never seen anything vented overboard other than from the wingtips....
Since the wingtips themselves seem to have some different looking antennae than I've seen (plus a different-looking tailcone), is it possible that this is a Cobra Ball/Rivet Joint or other ELINT aircraft, and that specialized electronics made it necessary for Boeing to relocate fuel-dumping elsewhere, closer to the centerline?
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3695 posts, RR: 36 Reply 7, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1336 times:
It is not a tanker... there is no boom! It is some sort of 707 military variant for sure... but i dont know what it is. That does looke like vortexes coming off of the gear doors... it doesnt look to be a fuel trail or something of the sort. Sometimes varying patterns in airflow can cause this kind of phenomena for short periods of time. I have seen things like this on fighters and ive seen video of this happeing around varying places on teh wings on the XB-70, but never on larger military transports. I am also hereby casting my vote that this photo has been edited posibly in some sort of way.
Twotterwrench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1315 times:
It looks like a nice picture that has been slightly modified by someone's paint program. Where the "chem trail" washes over the horiz. stab, the lines become wispy and blurred, as though it has been digitally altered. I think art bell has once again been duped, or is doing the duping. Lots of fakery has emerged in conjunction with the whole "chem trail conspiracy"
XFSUgimpLB41X From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3695 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1298 times:
Can someone explain to me exactly what a chem trail is? apparently i am out of the loop.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1285 times:
I'd just like to add that I don't believe this image is fake. If you look at the point where the mysterious trail goes past the tailplane, you notice it is altered (due to upwash/downwash) - something an amateur image editor would not think of.
It is definitely not vortices: Compare the trail to the tiny wingtip vortices visible - this kind of vortices is usual, sometimes there are slightly bigger ones, but never have I heard of any on this scale.
I have no technical knowledge, but fuel dumping sounds realistic enough for me.
Chdmcmanus From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 374 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1266 times:
VC-10, XFSU and OPNLguy are correct. The USAF Purchased the KC-135 from Boeing as a new variant, based on the rough design, but not identical to the 707 series. The primary differences were; removal of the Flight Engineer position, slightly different airframe dimensions (longer & wider), installation of the "flying Boom" and Boom Operator's position, center line fuel tanks, and revised fuel distribution system. This picture is definitely not a 135 variant, the lack of boom and wingtip HF antennae installation are the giveaways. All other variants of the B707 were just that, and do not have the #135 in there designator. These acft included the VC-137 (now being retired), E-3A&B, and E-8A,B&C. These acft were purchased directly from the Boeing assebly line, or later from civil operators. This picture is probably one of two possibilities; an AF Variant of one of these (it has the newer engines so it has to have fairly recent),or a contractor testbed (when a new variant is designed, the contractor operates one or more airframes to complete initial testing). So, as VC-10 mentioned previously, and being that this is a 707 stepchild of sorts, it appears to be jettisoning fuel.
Kubla From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 99 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1262 times:
I think the aircraft pictured is a Navy E-6 Mercury communications aircraft used to provide a survivable link to the Navy's ballistic missle submarines.
Redngold From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1214 times:
Thanks for everyone's input.
I especially appreciate the people who took time to not only say they think it is a fake, but to also explain why they thought it is a fake.
XFSUgimpLB41X, chem trails are being/have been discussed in the non_aviation forum. If you want more info, search in that area. The gist of it is that some conspiracy theorists believe that the US government is spraying chemicals on us via these vapor trails, ostensibly as some sort of mind/behavioural control.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1223 times:
>>>The gist of it is that some conspiracy theorists believe that the US government is spraying chemicals on us via these vapor trails, ostensibly as some sort of mind/behavioural control.
I sat next to Elvis on a UFO out of Area 51 the other day, and he *swore* that the chemtrail story as above is absolutely true....
Kubla, thanks for the E6 link... Spoke with a pal in MX (who had 707/135 experience) and he said fuel dump on those was from the wingtip, and concurred that it was probably re-plumbed on the E6 due to all the exotic electronics...
Twotterwrench From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1184 times:
Fuel dump manifolds are typically outboard of the nacelles. Normally, you wouldn't place dump manifold nozzles near the centerline as this is typically the low point of most fuel systems. In the event a dump valve becomes stuck open, you want the fuel to only dump to a certain point, allowing you enough remaining fuel to manuver and land as required.
VC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3656 posts, RR: 42 Reply 17, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1177 times:
Twotterwrench, I assume you have never worked on a 707 so don't know the location of the jettison lines on a 707.
The problem of a jettison valve becoming stuck open is overcome by a stackpipe in the tank so that once the fuel level is below the level of the pipe no more fuel will dump. This principle is still used in the otbd main tanks of the 747-400.
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 57 Reply 19, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1101 times:
I am 95% sure this the NKC-135 aircraft that conducts icing tests for the USAF and other companies and the stuff pouring out of the wings is the icing fluid...sadly this aircraft was retired recently...
It is not a regular tanker KC-135 as no boom or boom op window is visible...
Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (11 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1076 times:
The stuff that came out of the NKC-135 was essentially water and a yellow/green colored dye so that the ice that formed on the aircraft (in-trail) could be viewed and evaluated more easily. Somewhere on the web, I'm sure there are some pix of the ATR-42/72 getting iced up as a part of the Roselawn accident investigation...
(DE-icing fluid is what's used on the ground, etc...)
Redngold/
Stumbled across this link this morning, and it looks like the questions have been answered in the various emails at this link....
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 32 Reply 21, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1037 times:
it looks like a E-6 TACAMO sub com aircraft not a KC-135
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Bryan Becker From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 333 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1032 times:
I agree with Galaxy5 I see lots of kc-135's at sky harbor at the base and that is no kc-135.they use way different engines then that there more like pencil engines.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6907 posts, 
From Canada, joined Apr 2001, 29 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3656 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
