Question about refueling...

[Wlfgng]

^ yeah they can help

it's truth..
they can't 'tow' per se.. the trailing aircraft has to have some power and control
but they can help

and I'm talking like f16 fighters here... not b52's or anything that large...

[Mini D]

Seems to me that it would be undesireable to have a connection that could carry that type of load.  If whatever released/engaged the locks on that went out, the refuelee is pretty much screwed.

I remember in a Steven Coonts book him talking about an F4 being "pushed" by extending its tailhook and another coming in below and behind and lodging the hook in front of his canopy.  I've always wondered if that was true simply because it seemed too extreme to have really happened.

MiniD

[Wlfgng]

Seems to me that it would be undesireable to have a connection that could carry that type of load. If whatever released/engaged the locks on that went out, the refuelee is pretty much screwed.

the boom has auto-disconnect designed into it..
if something goes wrong, on either end, first thing it does is disconnect and each plane knows what to do in that case.

I think the point Toad made is clear.. they need flexibility in refeuling... having both would be better and allow multiple aircraft to be refuelled at once

-=-=--

I remember in a Steven Coonts book him talking about an F4 being "pushed" by extending its tailhook and another coming in below and behind and lodging the hook in front of his canopy. I've always wondered if that was true simply because it seemed too extreme to have really happened.

never heard about this one but in dire straits.. I'd certainly be willing to try it!

Toad.. you ever heard of any of the above ?
(in truth I've never seen it.. only heard of it through the grapvine on the flightline)

[Mini D]

Ummm.. I was speaking in reference to being able to drag a plane... which I would assume to be deadstick.  That's alot of force.

I said nothing in regards to what setup would be better or more practical.

MiniD

[Wlfgng]

don't think it could 'drag' a plane that had absolutely no power

[Puke]

I remember in a Steven Coonts book him talking about an F4 being "pushed" by extending its tailhook and another coming in below and behind and lodging the hook in front of his canopy. I've always wondered if that was true simply because it seemed too extreme to have really happened.

Naww, it really happened.  Search the Internet for "Pardo's Push."  

The Probe And Drogue system the USN and USMC uses is a bit more difficult than the boom system as used by the USAF.  The aircraft must extend its probe and drive up to the basket which is connected to a flexible hose.  The probe does create some turbulence and can make the basket dance around quite a bit if you are not good at it.  
USAF tankers can re-outfit to a probe and drogue system, but they can't switch back to the boom system in mid-flight and they are stuck with it until changed on the ground.  At least some of their aircraft could many years back.

[Thunder9]

>> USAF tankers can re-outfit to a probe and drogue system, but they can't switch back to the boom system in mid-flight and they are stuck with it until >> changed on the ground.



This is true of the KC-135 series a/c.  The boom is able to have a hose/drogue system attached to the end, allowing for refueling of a/c using a probe (USN/RAF, for example) to refuel.  This was developed during the Vietnam War.

The KC-10, however, has a hose/drogue as well as the boom.  The Extender can't use both systems at the same time, but they certainly can pass gas to a/c employing both refueling methods during the same hop.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Dowding
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:

 

Must be an Air Force thang.

[Replicant]

I would say that the basket is perhaps easier to connect up to, mostly because the refueling nozzle on aircraft are right beside or infront of the pilot so it's easier to line up, plus you don't need a guy in the tanker controlling the boom, lights etc.  Additionally some tankers are equipped with two or three baskets so they can refuel a maximum of two at any one time.

Dowding, one of the pics you posted was of the Victor tanker, which is sadly no longer in use.  That had 3 basket type nozzles (same as VC-10) though  I think it can only use the centre or both the two wing mounted ones at any one time.

The RAF currently use the VC-10 & the Tristar for A2A refueling.

Some good pics from the Gulf:-

KC-10 refueling Tornado F3, FA-18 Hornets in wait.

Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/day1_2.jpg

Tristar refueling EA-6 Prowler

Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/tri_prowl.jpg

Tristar refueling Tornado F3

Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/day1_1.jpg

VC-10 tanker

Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/supt_ac_06.jpg

[Dowding]

Cool.

The question is, do we charge the Yanks UK petrol prices?

[Replicant]

I hope they don't

A Royal Navy chap that I work with was once on a VC-10 in the last Gulf War as a Navy Observer.  He said that the VC-10 was so fast that they'd often have to throttle back for some aircraft to link up!

BTW Dowding, most of the RAF fixed wing aircraft are equipped with probes, apart from the Hawk & other trainer aircraft.  The Tristar doesn't seem to have a probe either, but the VC-10 above does (and E-3D Sentry's AWACs too).

[mjolnir]

Sorry it's so large.

[mjolnir]

Another of the KC-10, this time using the drogue system:

[mjolnir]

Sorry, it's just rare when someone hits on a topic I know something about...

Can you imagine trying to manuever with a C5 to stay on the basket?

[Wlfgng]

god I used to love laying there and taking pictures...