Warbird Information Exchange

MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE, Calif. — A KC-10A aircraft, tail number KC-10A 84-0185, which began its service at March Air Reserve Base and later transferred to Travis, has returned to undergo a significant demilitarization process. This storied aircraft will soon be showcased as an exhibit at the nearby March Field Air Museum, marking a full circle in its journey.
(Photos by Wendy Day)

_________________
When I was young "sex was safe & flying was dangerous".

I worry about museums getting these larger aircraft: they can be a serious liability.

I'd like to see Pima get one, but I know they have a DC-10.

Yes they take up space, but airliners have made air travel accessible for all (at least for awhile).

I'm appalled by the lack of preserved of them.
I don't know if any airline configured 707s on display in the U.S.
I believe all short fuselage DC-8 have been scrapped.
Any 990s out there? 720s?

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

RNZAF P-3 NZ4203 will be delivered to the Air Force Museum of NZ shortly, were it will go into indoor storage until new facilities are built for it and the C-130 to come next year. Definitely significant additions resource-wise.

Always liked the DC-10, last of the heavy tri-jets - Am presuming they are being phased out of service, or maybe were until the action in Ukraine [I noticed they send some to Europe occasionally] And this I presume to ease the strain on the 135's.

Does fedex still use any ?

As I understand it, the KC-10 was a deployment aircraft, not "just" a tanker to boost the '135 fleet. Its mission was to carry a fighter wing's support gear while "dragging"/refueling the aircraft. Also, as an air refuelable capable transport.*
That's how it was sold to Congress and is evidenced in the type's official nickname, Extender.


Now in peacetime I'm sure they did their part and kept current by doing daily refueling sorties, but that was not their main mission.
And while initially assigned to SAC which controlled USAF refueling assets (apart from the TAC KB-50s in the early '60s), I don't know how they fit into the SIOP plans back in the days of B-52/KC-135 wings.

*In the book "KC-135, More than a Tanker", Robert Hopkins states while The C-5 was refuelable, MAC did not stress that in operational use. So when non stop flights were required when supposed allies (the UK in particular) denied landing rights to aircraft involved in the re-supply of Israel during the 1973 war, MAC had virtually no C-5 crews qualified to take gas. That was later corrected.
And as part of their stretch program (because while carrying light density cargo, they ran out of space before running out of weight) C-141s received AAR capability.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Yes, the KC-10's are rapidly being retired. About half the fleet of 59 (one was written off in a ground accident) is already at the boneyard, and the rest will be going there over the next year. One has been preserved at the Dover museum and this one at March. Unsure if one is going the the Dayton Museum, it should but they lack indoor space at the moment. I could see one going to Castle and Pima, and as gate guard at McGuire as well, and the Travis museum SHOULD keep one, but their interest in new acquisitions seems to have ebbed.

Being replaced by the KC-46's which can conduct the cargo mission and some of the refueling missions (but not all, as the problems with the vision system remain)

Fed-Ex DC-10's were retired December 2022. A few MD-11's still serve in cargo operations. Saw a UPS one at Baltimore this week.

While likely true for smaller institutions, quite a few museums are quite capable of taking on the responsibility of large aircraft. I would obviously include the USAF Museums at Dayton, Udvar Hazy and the MAC Museum at Dover who have done great jobs with their large airframes. March also has good track record with the large airframes in their collection as does Seattle. Other museums that have done OK are at Castle, Pima (where weather helps a lot), Hill and a few static parks. Some larger airframes at smaller museums and static parks have simliy been parked with minimal care and age is starting to show.

I would not worry much about March or some other places- they can handle it. I would worry more about a KC-10 parked on the lawn at a typical VFW hall....

Thanks, yeah I meant MD-11, same thing in my mind. Used to be one on the Memphis/Detroit route every day, haven't noticed it in a while but can't say I looked very hard.

I'm not throwing stones, but I was disappointed that Hill scraped an increasingly rare B-47 last year. Judging from the photos and a model of the aircraft (in as displayed/seen condition), it wasn't all that bad...at least on the outside.
Being at an ALC, you would have thought they could have received some help to save it.

It was particularly disappointing after the ex-Pease (or was it Plattsburgh?) Stratojet was scrapped at Ellsworth not all that long ago.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.

Any chance some of those KC-10s could become air tankers for wildfires, or are the airframe hours getting too high?

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

It is my understanding (happy to be corrected) that the Hill B-47 was in very poor shape on the inside after decades on the open range before recovery and was ready to fall apart. There are similar stories like the very early development F-14 at Oceana that sat as gate guard for decades, but was about to disintegrate due to internal corrosion posing a risk to visitors and being an eyesore. No one wants one to fall on a kid. They finally removed the F-14 and it was to the point that a screwdriver would go through it, even though it looked OK from the outside. A newer F-14 replaced it on the flight of honor.

I understand several other airframes are just eggshells, with perhaps the Barksdale B-24 being such an example (and still outside!). The KB-50 at McDill was also suffering terribly at the harsh humid FL climate before it was moved to Dover. I worry about the long term ramp survivors at Pensacola, please get the sole surviving the Savage inside!

The never flown XCH-62 heavy life helo at the Rucker Museum literally fell apart when being moved.

Internal corrosion is a real bear.

Based on what I know about KC-135 hours, I would guess the average KC-10 has fewer airframe hours than the average DC-10.
No idea about comparator cycle numbers of if the KCs were used harder and have more stress or structural issues.

If anyone knows more, I'd be interested.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.
Note political free signature.
I figure if you wanted my opinion on items unrelated to this forum, you'd ask for it.