Author Topic: Question about refueling... (Read 1328 times)

Toad · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2003, 08:15:50 AM »

I can't remember any actual incidents of fighters being "pulled" by a tanker when the fighter had no thrust.

There are toggles on the boom and toggles in the receiver receptacle that latch the two together but those are designed to disconnect under excessive force so a fighter wouldn't, for example, pull the boom off a tanker. There have been some examples of the nozzle being pulled off though, indicating a weak attachment between the nozzle and the boom.

I do remember an incident of a Thud being continuously refueled to short final though. His tanks were so shot up that fuel leaked out almost as fast as it could be pumped in. The only way they kept it running was continuous refueling.

Seems there was one other story about a dead-engine fighter that got "dragged" to friendly territory by a tanker in a "toboggan" maneuver, which is basically being on the boom in a slight descent. Might be possible as that would not put as much force on the toggles. Seems like I read one like that somewhere.

LePaul · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2003, 08:39:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wlfgng
god I used to love laying there and taking pictures...

Same here...lost track of how many flights i went on when I was in the Guard. The night refuelings were fascinating.

You just have no idea how high up you are until an F-16 backs off the probe, rolls inverted then dives down....and you feel your stomach go woooooow....

We had a group of CAP cadets up with us one time. In the rear boom, as we refuled an A-10, the kid was waving wildly at the pilot, trying to get him to wave back. The boom operator, said very cooly, "Its one way glass, he can't see you". So the cadet flips the bird. Very smoothly, the A-10 pilot returns the gesture. "Hmm, perhaps I was wrong" is all the boom operator muttered LOL

Wlfgng · « **Reply #32 on:** March 27, 2003, 08:43:42 AM »

LOL that's great:)

Puke · « **Reply #33 on:** March 27, 2003, 04:03:42 PM »

Quote

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. -Replicant

It's not. "Fencing with the basket" is quite common and is due to the turbulence from the probe pushing the basket around on a flexible hose that you are trying to hook into. The boom method really doesn't have this problem and literally just flies into the connect. The actual refueling part is more difficult, but it is nice to be able to hook up a couple aircraft at a time. And then try it at night.

Oh yeah, here's a link to a Pardo's Push article, where one F-4 pushed another.
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/3227/push.htm
and
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f4/pardopush.htm

Replicant · « **Reply #34 on:** March 27, 2003, 04:12:30 PM »

OK so the basket isn't as easy.

I was just getting my info off a USAF F-16 pilot whose on an exchange with the RAF flying the Harrier, which uses the basket. He found the basket a lot more easier, although the turbulence can be rather fierce at times.

Guess it's each to their own.

Mini D · « **Reply #35 on:** March 27, 2003, 04:14:48 PM »

Thanks for the link puke. I would have always considered that one to be fiction.

BTW... anyone ever fly a jet sim where you tried to refuel using the basket system? Damn... 2d monitors don't make that easy at all.

MiniD

udet · « **Reply #36 on:** March 27, 2003, 05:45:38 PM »

it just struck me that having propellers in front prevented practical air refueling in WW2

Major_Hans · « **Reply #37 on:** March 27, 2003, 06:27:19 PM »

Flanker 2.5 has the drogue and probe system. They have an Anatov cargo plane to refuel the navalised Su-33 in that game.

Also, the old flight sim EuroFighter 2000 had basket and probe mid air refueling in it.

However, in all cases as soon as you link up, the plane you fly goes to autopilot. I guess there isn't any form of gameplay mid-air refueling that has you maintain your position.

Arlo · « **Reply #38 on:** March 27, 2003, 06:39:52 PM »

You're kidding! LOL

Quote

Originally posted by udet
it just struck me that having propellers in front prevented practical air refueling in WW2

Puke · « **Reply #39 on:** March 28, 2003, 01:07:49 PM »

Replicant, I actually think that the probe/drogue system sounds more fun. And maybe coming from a USN town (San Diego...ex-Fightertown USA), I'm going to be biased. But think of this... with a probe/drogue system, you have to position your aircraft to poke your probe into the drogue which is only inches in diameter. This means you have to be positioned exactly right in the sky, a very small spot in relation to the basket to make connect. Plus you have to chase it a little and if you don't enter it just right, the turbulence from your probe will actually push the drogue/basket away from the probe. The drogue can even get wrapped around the probe and cause serious damage.

The boomer method allows more leeway and your aircraft doesn't need to be within just inches in a specific area of the sky in relation to the boom because the boom flies to you. Though you have to fly steady, you do have room to bounce around and the boomer will make the corrections.

Not sure that this made sense....I have to run to work and did it fast.