Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43

Thread: Reports of USAF KC-135 crashing near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan

  1. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    211

    Default

    That is a done deal... There are no parachutes on the 135, contrary to popular belief. The other pictures show what looks like the wheel well and main gear, the boom and a CFM-56 engine.

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
    Posts
    422

    Default

    Жаткан жеринер жайлуу, топурагынар торко болсун.
    May the crew rest in peace, my condolences to the family members and friends.
    What a terrible way to die - engulfed by 200 000 pounds of liquid fire

  3. #18
    Senior Member PATTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    3,696

    Default

    Poor buggers! Condolences to the families. No such thing as routine in the military.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Spacepope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    In the badlands
    Posts
    1,192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kc135cc View Post
    [SIZE=3]If that tail number is correct I think it's from[FONT=Arial] MacDill AFB outside of Tampa[/FONT][/SIZE]
    It sure looks like it has a McConnell fin flash.

  5. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    211

    Default

    It is, the registration I looked at listed as MacDill, it is now assigned to McConnell. When wings transfer jets it can take a while to rebadge the tail flash.

  6. #21
    Senior Member McFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kc135cc View Post
    [SIZE=3]If that tail number is correct I think it's from[FONT=Arial] MacDill AFB outside of Tampa[/FONT][/SIZE]
    Tail says McConnell (Kansas).

  7. #22
    Senior Member McFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kc135cc View Post
    There are no parachutes on the 135, contrary to popular belief.
    I thought no way until I looked it up. There were always parachutes when I did egress training on 135...but then again, I retired in late 2007. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...s-from-KC-135s If that aircraft was at MacDill before McConnell, I probably did egress training on it.

  8. #23
    Senior Member Breakfast in Vegas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Reflecting on life at Narcism Pond.
    Posts
    15,310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McFire View Post
    I thought no way until I looked it up. There were always parachutes when I did egress training on 135...but then again, I retired in late 2007. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...s-from-KC-135s If that aircraft was at MacDill before McConnell, I probably did egress training on it.
    You never hear about survivors in cargo, transport or tanker crashes... or at least rarely. AFAIK B-52s and B-1s still have ejection seats? Not sure though.

  9. #24
    Senior Member McFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Breakfast in Vegas View Post
    You never hear about survivors in cargo, transport or tanker crashes... or at least rarely. AFAIK B-52s and B-1s still have ejection seats? Not sure though.
    If the aircraft is controllable, cargoes, tankers, transports usually "ride it in," as the crew is too busy flying and there is not time to go strap on a parachute and bail out. Fighters and bombers can just eject.

  10. #25
    Senior Member m4rs75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2,004

    Default

    5/3/2013 - TRANSIT CENTER AT MANAS, Kyrgyzstan (AFNS) -- An Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker crashed May 3 in northern Kyrgyzstan. Emergency response crews are on scene. The status of the crew is unknown.

    The crew and aircraft are assigned to the Transit Center at Manas near Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

    The cause of the crash is under investigation.
    http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123346971

  11. #26
    Member toolroom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    31
    Posts
    283

    Default

    Hell even if there were still chutes on board I don't know if I would want to take my chances going out the crew entry door.

  12. #27
    Senior Member hogdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cuijk a/d Maas
    Posts
    4,488

    Default


    The wreckage of the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker plane is seen at the site of the crash near the Kyrgyz village of Chaldovar, May 3, 2013. A U.S. military refuelling plane on its way to Afghanistan exploded in mid air and crashed in Kyrgyzstan on Friday when its cargo of fuel ignited, the Central Asian country's Emergencies Ministry said. The aircraft took off from the U.S. military transit centre at Kyrgyzstan's international Manas airport, which U.S. forces maintain for operations in Afghanistan, with around 70 tonnes of fuel on board, a local ministry official said.





  13. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Age
    34
    Posts
    108

    Default

    according to witnesses plane was flying low and burning, then it exploded in midair and disintgrated into three parts.

    .
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval

  14. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McFire View Post
    I thought no way until I looked it up. There were always parachutes when I did egress training on 135...but then again, I retired in late 2007. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...s-from-KC-135s If that aircraft was at MacDill before McConnell, I probably did egress training on it.
    The chutes were removed for fuel savings and the egress system disabled on most tails. Chances are you're going to ride a plane like this to the ground over a successful egress during an emergency.

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,727

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kc135cc View Post
    The chutes were removed for fuel savings and the egress system disabled on most tails.
    No way? Cost savings seem minimal from saving the fuel for some chutes? Not saying I know better but it just seems minimal.

    Hope they made it out although we would likely know already if they did.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •