707 down at Mugu

[CAPFlyer]

Looks like it had the old engines on it?

It had TF-33's on it, but they're pretty reliable and have plenty of thrust.

I wouldn't read too much into the tire marks right now. If they attempted to abort the takeoff, they could have locked up the tires (even with anti-skid, it's still possible) causing the streaks.

[The Inspector]

If you turn the red handle marked 'EMERGENCY BRAKING' anti skid is bypassed and all the brakes are on full right now!! because compressed nitrogen is sent into the brakes downstream of the deboost valves-ain't no modulating or turning the system off, the mechanics just get a bigger truck to haul more new tires to the scene 'cause the ones on the plane are ground down to the wheels.

[Lynn Allen]

Blown tire just @ V1 is a hand full even in a Challenger...

[Craig59]

...Vance Vasquez told KVTA News that the full sized converted 4 engine 707 jet...

"Full sized"? What, as against the scale model 707s which are so often seen at Mugu?

Cheers,
Matt

Or perhaps the reporter is paraphrasing a reference made to a KC-135 which is indeed a little smaller in stature and is often mistakenly refered to as a B-707. Though the type rating is the same (I know, I have one) the KC-135 is, in fact, the original B-717. Never can tell about those "newsies."

[b29flteng]

Check the smoke on the video. It looks like a strong 90 degree crosswind, which may have exceeded the limits of the aircraft.

[CAPFlyer]

BTW, winds were most definitely a factor. Here's the METAR from an hour and a half later -

KNTD 190141Z 28019G29KT 8SM FEW002 SCT050 15/09 A2976 RMK AO2 PK WND 28035/0058 FU FEW002 PNO $

I bolded the important part. The accident occurred at 0025Z. I believe demonstrated maximum crosswind for the 707 is 35 knots, and they were using runway 21 (210.6* magnetic) for takeoff making for a 70 degree crosswind from the right and thus effectively a 100% crosswind component.

If they aborted due to the loss of an engine on the left side (#1 or #2), then it would most certainly make it an almost impossible feat to keep the plane on the runway. Engine failure at V1 is always dicey and even more-so on a tanker (caused more than a few KC-135 crashes over the years in fact). Add in that massive crosswind, and the outcome could have easily been worse, so mega kudos for the crew keeping it on the ground and upright during the whole thing letting them get out okay even though the plane isn't.

[CAPFlyer]

From Forbes.com -

(http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/05/ ... 76582.html)

A commercial aerial refueling tanker that burned on a Southern California Navy base experienced an engine fire during a takeoff attempt, the National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday.

The NTSB released no other details of how the accident occurred but said it had dispatched a team of investigators to the Naval air station at Point Mugu, where the four-engine jet was destroyed Wednesday.

Don't think there's much more to say beyond that.