Way low KC-135

[Baradium]

I dunno, i still think its not real.  I just have a hard time thinking a pilot, and his crew members too, as they carry 3 people, would be this stupid to fly a multimillion dollar airplane, not to mention how much avgas to potentially that close to the ground.

Though, we are talking about a pilot here...

I've never heard of a KC-135 carrying avgas.




Frank: the speed you came up with is about what I'd expect for a nice low level cruise for that aircraft.

[undatc]

I dunno, i still think its not real.  I just have a hard time thinking a pilot, and his crew members too, as they carry 3 people, would be this stupid to fly a multimillion dollar airplane, not to mention how much avgas to potentially that close to the ground.

Though, we are talking about a pilot here...

I've never heard of a KC-135 carrying avgas.




Frank: the speed you came up with is about what I'd expect for a nice low level cruise for that aircraft.

Umm correct me if im wrong, but dont the jet engines that military jets run on, use the same gas commercial jets use, oh sorry not avgas, jat a.  Same thing just a different name, its samantics.

[Baradium]

Umm correct me if im wrong, but dont the jet engines that military jets run on, use the same gas commercial jets use, oh sorry not avgas, jat a.  Same thing just a different name, its samantics.

Hahahah!

No it's not!    Avgas is 100 octane leaded gasoline!     Jet A is Jet fuel!


Commercial jets don't run on avgas!   We are *allowed* to use it in our 1900s in a pinch but we are time and power output limited for how much total time the engine can have been run on avgas.   If I was just going to argue semantics I'd tell you that military Jet fuel is called JP-4 (and is actually still different from Jet A actually).

Regardless, Avgas is further from Jet A than pump gas is to diesel fuel.  If you think they are "the same thing" then I dare you to put a tank of diesel in your gasoline powered car!

[undatc]

Umm correct me if im wrong, but dont the jet engines that military jets run on, use the same gas commercial jets use, oh sorry not avgas, jat a.  Same thing just a different name, its samantics.

Hahahah!

No it's not!    Avgas is 100 octane leaded gasoline!     Jet A is Jet fuel!


Commercial jets don't run on avgas!   We are *allowed* to use it in our 1900s in a pinch but we are time and power output limited for how much
 total time the engine can have been run on avgas.   If I was just going to argue semantics I'd tell you that military Jet fuel is called JP-4 (and is actually still different from Jet A actually).

Regardless, Avgas is further from Jet A than pump gas is to diesel fuel.  If you think they are "the same thing" then I dare you to put a tank of diesel in your gasoline powered car!

Actually, avgas can pertain to 100, 100LL, and 110.

And if you really have your panties in a bunch or the semantics of it, ill call it aviation fuel 

[Baradium]

Actually, avgas can pertain to 100, 100LL, and 110.

And if you really have your panties in a bunch or the semantics of it, ill call it aviation fuel 

it's 80/87  100LL  100/130 

If you want to get technical on semantics, you gotta have the numbers. 

Anyway, the point is is avgas is *gasoline*.   The appropriate name for Jet Fuel other than "jet fuel" or "Jet A" is "aviation kerosense."       Gasoline is much more flammable so it's actually relevent when speaking of tankers etc.  Diesel fuel (close relative) has actually been known to put out fires before.  Jet A has more flame retardant properties IIRC.

[fireflyr]

Ok I'll try to get my observations tested. Jim, where do you get 400 knots from?
The plane seems to have it's engines at low power/revs, there's almost more windnoise than jetnoise which could further explain the lack of dust (low thrust), especially if it didn't use flaps.
From watching then it seems to me that the plane only moves a few times it's own length per second, although this was hard to check with that videoplayer. According to US mil factsheet it's just over 41 meters long so let's just say it does 100 meters per second, that's only 360 kph or around 195 knots which would also explain the lack of dust and how they could be so close right? Also note the faint but visible black smoketrail from the jet engines at the very end of the video.

Btw, can I get some flight training instead of that wine?

Frank

Frank, 400 knots is an estimate based on observation and although it is only an estimate born of experience, not a calculation I will buy a seeing eye dog if they were going 200 knots,     And of course, in a diving high speed pass, even without being throttled back those high bypass turbofans would be very quiet, also as they added power in low level flight and then began pulling up the engines would be leaving slight black trails as they spooled up.
I'm certainly not infallible and if someone proves me wrong, so be it, but until then I'm sticking to what I see in the video.  Also, at 400 knots, an aiplane would travel about 6.6 nm per minute, or .66 nm in 10 seconds---take a look at how much ground that tanker covers in the exactly ten second video---I think I'll increase my speed estimate to 450.   Makes sense too, who the hell would make a low pass at cruise AS---no fun in that--- last pass I made was 30 to 50 feet over SBD tanker base ramp at about 230 knots in a Twin Commander and since it was a diving pass, I didn't start throttling up till I was passing right in front of the office (waving HI to everyone in the second story dispatch center
Ok, that's the deal, if I'm wrong I'll certainly admit it, till then, I'll say no more on the subject---how about one of you young computer geniuses looking up the source for the video and making me eat humble pie.   And if I'm proven right, I'll send out forks for you to consume the same food.  Don't start on the SoCo (it's whiskey) till then

[Frank N. O.]

Well as I said then it was hard to evaluate the speed since I couldn't isolate 1.0 seconds to get a better speed scale reading, but it doesn't seem to move 4x it's own length per second so let's compromise, 250-300 kts. 250kts also fits both minimum speeds I could attain with two KC-135 FS models, one US, one french like this one. It's idle power was high, and dude could it accelerate fast off the line when empty and was really unwilling to slow down unless I used spoilers even fully throttled back!

Here's a thread on airliners.net where another person claims that low-level refueling was trained, and speeds of just over 300 kts were listed http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/58027/

Btw sorry about calling whisky wine and honestly while my investigations seemed sort of ok then I knew I'm really lacking in knowledge about flying in the real world, but believe me it's not for lack of interest!

Frank

[fireflyr]

Well as I said then it was hard to evaluate the speed since I couldn't isolate 1.0 seconds to get a better speed scale reading, but it doesn't seem to move 4x it's own length per second so let's compromise, 250-300 kts. 250kts also fits both minimum speeds I could attain with two KC-135 FS models, one US, one french like this one. It's idle power was high, and dude could it accelerate fast off the line when empty and was really unwilling to slow down unless I used spoilers even fully throttled back!

Here's a thread on airliners.net where another person claims that low-level refueling was trained, and speeds of just over 300 kts were listed http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/58027/

Btw sorry about calling whisky wine and honestly while my investigations seemed sort of ok then I knew I'm really lacking in knowledge about flying in the real world, but believe me it's not for lack of interest!

Frank

Frank, not only won't I compromise, you'll note I changed my previous post to reflect a speed INCREASE---Will somebody please PROVE me wrong---GEE, I'll bet my buddy, SkyKing, could really have cleared this up for us---he was an expert at everything---but alas, he quit!

[Frank N. O.]

Well judging the whole flight distance is extremely hard due to the camera angle, that's why I looked at what I thought was just one second but I can't download the video from anywhere so I can't cut out a precisely 1.0 second long clip in a editing program so I could see it better. Slow flybys can be fun though, I remember the one at the end of the Cardinal flight, first waving at our friend in the tower, then looking into my stomach (he pulled up fast), but I just can't believe I'm even close to being right with someone like Jim giving such a different result so I withdraw before I make a bigger dork of myself, especially considering I still hope to be a pilot.

Frank

P.S. What was the response of the flyby?

[fireflyr]

OVERWHELMING APPROVAL---most of the pilots on base got wood----we were coming back from the last fire on the last day of fire season on the last day for that emplyer so I said "what the hell--it's today or never!!

[Frank N. O.]

 

I was wondering, is that only a male pilot thing to like flybys or is that general? How about it ladies, Soccermom, Happy, Leia if you're still around, have you ladies every done such a thing? Maybe scared an ex-boyfriend (or scarred depending on where he was at the time  )

It is fantastic to see a real plane closeby, especially pistonplanes with their distinct sound and getting so close you can smell the oil and see the rivets 
My mom waiting in the car while me and my brother were up in the Cardinal was less thrilled though since she said it looked like we flew right over the car, which wasn't quite true since the parkinglot we parked at was in the other side of the tower and we flew over the main paved landingstrip. I've always wondering how many (read: few) g we pulled but probably not much, probably not even two, although it did turn my head further down than I can make it on my own. Btw note: It was a gentle maneuver and the pilot was friendly and relaxed and not what I believe is called a "tiger", I seem to remember he was the club chairman or something similar.

Back on topic though, do you think there were consequences after the military saw this video, which I'm sure they have by now?

Frank

[happylanding]

I was wondering, is that only a male pilot thing to like flybys or is that general? How about it ladies, Soccermom, Happy, Leia if you're still around, have you ladies every done such a thing? Maybe scared an ex-boyfriend (or scarred depending on where he was at the time  )

I'm not used about doing flyby. In the first days in aviation, to tell the truth, I was quite scared about going near anything and when flying inside a valley I tended to be in the middle of it, without any slight approach to the granite sides! But I had a really good instructor, old school, who showed me that you can actually go near anything.  The fact I learnt and understood it's feasible, by the way, has not translated in me doing it. I sometimes pass near where I live, so that my parents can see me, but I would not consider it as being a low flight. and probably the only time I inadvertently entered into a flyby was when I completely misunderstood what a tower was saying to me to maintain as altitude, and I was not corrected when I repeated it. so, it happened that I descended to 2500 ft from 5000 and realized I could not have crossed the hills at that altitude, I would not have. The 2500 did not seem strange, when I understood it, since the same instructor had told me it was the real minimum altitude with which you can still pass. But I would not have had the courage to do so. No way. And the tower was not happy about my misunderstanding either, when I made a 180 a started climbing again.  But I still ignore why they did not tell me I was doing wrong. Other then that, I still remember a lot of flybys in the days previous to my exam, when, checking the syllabus, it was quite clear that precautionary landing had been completely forgotten! but it's still something else. And about boyfriend, no way actually.

[TheSoccerMom]

YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!   

Low is FUN!     

I used to go see a buddy who lived in the mountains, I'd let him know I was inbound to the grass strip above the station by doing an, umm, um, LOW PASS over the ranger station....  And it could (possibly) be claimed maybe I love my job so much because of the joys of doing a final run over the "bros" once they are all "down and okay".        (And, may I add, this is where I can vouch for more than ONE full MOON per month.............     )

And of course there were all the crew parties back when I worked fire, when I would have the brilliant idea of dropping balloons, etc., over the crew during a beginning of the year get-together....  I quickly learned it is a LOT OF WORK to drop such unwieldy things from an airplane WHILE you're flying...  HA HA...  ahh, what an aspiring private pilot!  They did always tell me I was "good entertainment" -- jeez, some things haven't changed?!?!?!?!?   HA!

So, in summation Frank, I think fly-bys are a PILOT thing...  don't know hardly anyone who doesn't enjoy flying low.         

Cheers to EVERYONE for 2007!!!!!!!!!!

Hugs, The Mom-ski*****

[Frank N. O.]

Okie dokie then And in the spirit of low flying, here's a blast from the past (I couldn't find a useable download link and I doubt this forum can handle a near 2mb attachment but I found it online albiet in a slightly worse quality than the one on my hdd) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3652423044692761405&sourceid=searchfeed

Frank

[tundra_flier]

Just found this thread, afraid I haven't been checking this forum much lately.  But I can easily believe it's a real aircraft.
1.  The camera is on higher ground than what's under the plane, which makes it appear lower than it is.  I'm guessing he was never below 200ft.  Camera's are notorious for distorting perspective, a fact Hollywood uses to their advantage.
2.  I've seen military planes that low many times in my life.  Lots of C-130's. A B-52, and even a C-141 that had to pull up to make a turn so as not to hit a low wing tip.  Some friends of mine have a cabin on a river adjacent to one of the airforce's ranges here and they have some really impresive stories.  Including fighters coming up the river dodging treetops then doing a cobra roll over the ridge to enter the range.

Once in Wyoming I was fishing in my little boat in a small resivoir when I heard a C-130 approching, but could not spot him.  Suddenly it popped up from behind the dam (which is only 50' high) and proceeded across the lake at under 100' and continued up the valley at that low altitude.

Also, at Gernsey State Park in Wyoming, the National Guard Hercs regularly practice radar avoicance down the canyon (at least they did 20 years ago).  It's pretty impressive to stand on the top of a canyon and watch a flight of 4 hercs in trail flying below you!

The C-141 was coming staight at my house, nap of the earth, pulled up slightly to turn and dropped down out of sight into the nearby river valley.

My point being that in sparsely populated areas the military frequently practices low level stuff.

Phil