Author Topic: Question about refueling... (Read 1331 times)

Dowding · « **on:** March 26, 2003, 06:32:19 AM »

Why do Yanks use a solid boom device for refueling aircraft, compared to the net and 'probe' version used by the RAF? The latter puts the aircraft being refueled in the driving seat, I think. That seems a better system - a boom looks like it could do a lot of damage if struck.

RAF version:

Innominate · « **Reply #1 on:** March 26, 2003, 07:07:52 AM »

Talking completly out of my ass,

The boom still has a flexible hose trailing it, so there isnt much threat of hitting it. The boom just lets the boom operator put the hose where it needs to be.

A small plane can line up on a dragging hose, but would it be practical in something like a b52?

Dowding · « **Reply #2 on:** March 26, 2003, 07:42:22 AM »

I dunno. I know they refuel C-130s using the RAF method - and I'm pretty sure the AWACS is done too.

I'm not sure, but did the Vulcan receive air-to-air refueling during the Falklands campaign?

AKWeav · « **Reply #3 on:** March 26, 2003, 07:46:14 AM »

I've read accounts of damagaged aircraft being towed out of hostile areas by boomed refueling tankers, allowing a safe landing at a friendly air base. Can't do that with a hose-n-drouge.

Mini D · « **Reply #4 on:** March 26, 2003, 07:51:06 AM »

The navy uses the same type of refueling system (basket) as do the C-130s when they refuel helocopters.

The "solid" boom on the KC-135s and KC-10s is controllable and has a shock absorber system in it. The baskets are completely free floating. Dunno what the pros and cons are, but there is a difference. Also, the baskets require that something protrude from the aircraft.

MiniD

DA98 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 26, 2003, 08:05:00 AM »

Quote

I'm not sure, but did the Vulcan receive air-to-air refueling during the Falklands campaign?

Yes, they did. During Black Buck missions, eleven Victor tankers were used to give support to a single Vulcan on a 8.000 mile trip. The missions included five refuellings on the outward journey and one on the return journey.

BTW, the US Navy uses the "probe-and-drogue" system, too. One of the differences between Navy and USAF Phantoms was the refuelling system.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #6 on:** March 26, 2003, 03:39:24 PM »

the boom acts as a stabalizer between aircraft

at high speeds it's easier to get connected (boom operator drives the boom to it's location)

the receiver only has to stay in place

the boom can 'tow' (as described above)

(ex crew cheif)

LePaul · « **Reply #7 on:** March 26, 2003, 03:51:14 PM »

Pretty good article about this in today's paper...we have KC-135's stationed here....they've been very busy refueling everything going to Europe, and on to the Mideast

Link...

http://www.bangornews.com/editorialnews/article.cfm/ID/361434/CFID=6995404&CFTOKEN=93094673

Sabre · « **Reply #8 on:** March 26, 2003, 03:51:34 PM »

And, it's easier to maneuver the boom (which has control wings on it to control elevation and asmuth) than it is to maneuver the aircraft, either aircraft. Finer control, as it were. Both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Also, I believe the boom system can deliver fuel faster, and doesn't require a protruding (or retractable) fuel boom on the receiving aircraft. The US Navy uses the hose/net system because they don't have a carrier-borne fueling aircraft big enough to mount one on. As a result, a single USAF tanker has many times the capacity of any Navy refueling aircraft. On the other hand, the Navy has (or had, at least), something called "buddy stores." These could turn non-tanker aircraft like fighters and A-6 intruders into temporary tankers; these use the hose/basket system.

Sabre
Maj, USAF (Ret)

Toad · « **Reply #9 on:** March 26, 2003, 03:55:18 PM »

AERIAL REFUELING

Enjoy. (It's in Acrobat)

Position paper that basically says a combo multipoint probe & drogue/boom system is what we need now and why.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #10 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:02:49 PM »

^

(which has control wings on it to control elevation and asmuth)
elevons

Ossie · « **Reply #11 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:04:13 PM »

Anybody have any links on Boom-Towing? I've heard one account of an F-86 in Korea "pushing" another deadstick F-86 out to sea, but haven't heard of the tow-truck method.

Dowding · « **Reply #12 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:06:15 PM »

Well your information answers a lot of questions, guys. Cheers.

Thanks for the file Toad. Interesting stuff.

funkedup · « **Reply #13 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:12:05 PM »

The towing bit sounds like the stuff of myth. Too bad they banned Eagl or we could probably answer that one.

Dowding · « **Reply #14 on:** March 26, 2003, 04:16:07 PM »

I don't know funked. I know fighters don't glide too well and tend to rely on brute force, but a tanker, especially one which is light on load might be able to produce the thrust needed to pull a fighter along behind, assuming the boom is up to it. That right Wlfgang?