USAF KC-135 missing over Kyrgyzstan

[James Bond]

3 crew on board

USAF 22th Air Refueling Wing, tail n. 63-8877

[ErwinS]

Sad news.
serial was 63-8877

Pictures here: http://thebaseleg.blogspot.com.au/20...yrgyzstan.html

Blue skies...
[photoid=6240565]

[James Bond]

serial was 63-8877

I stand corrected.



Someone near the crash site snapped this photo soon after



Did it brake up prior to impact? Looks like it to me

http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/g/o/gogiman/135e9c3899712386b7d6d6b68a6ac72a.jpg

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/6857/bf2b5575150e3218bf8acfa.jpg

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Kyrgyzstan%20US%20Plane%20C_Leff%20(2).jpg

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/6719/32658e28e0ab385cbd259ff.jpg

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4707/5103ca281a9639fabc1d453.jpg

Footage from the Crash site

http://youtu.be/dnYe5eo6iZo

[phoneman]

Do military planes have FDR'S

[B757300]

Did it brake up prior to impact? Looks like it to me

While I try to avoid trusting "eye witnesses" in plane crashes because we all know how reliable they are, most news stories I've seen have quoted eye witnesses who said they did see the aircraft break up/explode in flight.

So if correct, then either total structural failure, fire which detonated a fuel tank, or a bomb.

[tsv]

So if correct, then either total structural failure, fire which detonated a fuel tank, or a bomb.

Or a missile.

[TeeVee]

not much left to sift through. this may seems stupid, but where did all the metal go? even if it melted it wouldn't turn to ash.

[TeeVee]

and not sure who this moron is, but he should be shot for gross stupidity...

[Highkeas]

Do military planes have FDR'S

I worked on FDR components for military aircraft in the 70s. I do not know about todays military aircraft.

[Highkeas]

not much left to sift through. this may seems stupid, but where did all the metal go? even if it melted it wouldn't turn to ash.

Given enough heat (fuel fire) aluminum will burn leaving aluminum oxide ("ash"). Powdered aluminum is used as an additive in some solid rocket propellants.

[AVION1]

Looks like a structural failure of some kind. Those airplanes were Boeing 707, converted to KC-135, I bet they are 40 or 50 years old !

[Highkeas]

Looks like a structural failure of some kind. Those airplanes were Boeing 707, converted to KC-135, I bet they are 40 or 50 years old !

While KC-135 and 707 are both based on the 367-80 I recall that the early KC-135 had a smaller diameter fuselage and shorter length than the first 707 aircraft. I do not know if later model KC-135 were converted 707s (I donated my comprehensive Boeing history book to an air museam some years ago).

[ErwinS]

While KC-135 and 707 are both based on the 367-80 I recall that the early KC-135 had a smaller diameter fuselage and shorter length than the first 707 aircraft. I do not know if later model KC-135 were converted 707s (I donated my comprehensive Boeing history book to an air museam some years ago).

KC-135 is no 707. If I recall they share only 25% similair components. Converted 707's are KC-137's.

Looks like a structural failure of some kind. Those airplanes were Boeing 707, converted to KC-135, I bet they are 40 or 50 years old !

Age doesn't say anything, those 135's barely have more than 30.000 hrs and are well maintained. Morst comercial a/c have way more hours.

[HalcyonDays]

The C-137s were not conversions but were built as such, though based on the 707 airframe. The same applies to the E-3. Civil 707 conversions have been given the following military designations depending on role : E-6, E-8 and C-18.

As noted above, the C-135 series was basically a different airframe.

[Leo 747]

The C-137s were not conversions but were built as such, though based on the 707 airframe.

Well, not all. Brazilian Air Force's KC-137 were originally civilian 707s from Varig until they were sold and converted.