Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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:
(http://www.eyeinthesky.com.au/refuel/victor_high.jpg)
(http://www.eyeinthesky.com.au/refuel/victor_close.jpg)
(http://www.eyeinthesky.com.au/refuel/closeup.jpg)
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.:cool:
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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
-
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)
-
AERIAL REFUELING (https://research.au.af.mil/papers/ay1987/cadre/au-ari-cp-87-3.pdf)
Enjoy. (It's in Acrobat)
Position paper that basically says a combo multipoint probe & drogue/boom system is what we need now and why.
-
^ :)
(which has control wings on it to control elevation and asmuth)
elevons
-
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.
-
Well your information answers a lot of questions, guys. Cheers. :)
Thanks for the file Toad. Interesting stuff.
-
The towing bit sounds like the stuff of myth. Too bad they banned Eagl or we could probably answer that one.
-
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?
-
^ 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...
-
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
-
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)
-
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
-
don't think it could 'drag' a plane that had absolutely no power
-
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.
-
>> 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.
-
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. ;)
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/aircraft/f14/f14refuel02.jpg)
(http://www.k2nesoft.com/~doug/10v14.jpg)
-
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.
(http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/km/kc10.jpg)
Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/day1_2.jpg
Tristar refueling EA-6 Prowler
(http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/km/tristar2.jpg)
Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/tri_prowl.jpg
Tristar refueling Tornado F3
(http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/km/tristar.jpg)
Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/day1_1.jpg
VC-10 tanker
(http://www.btinternet.com/~nexx/km/vc10.jpg)
Larger Pic ->http://www.raf.mod.uk/telic/images/supt_ac_06.jpg
-
Cool. :)
The question is, do we charge the Yanks UK petrol prices? :D
-
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).
-
(http://www.af.mil/photos/images/tankers_kc10_0011.jpg)
Sorry it's so large.
-
Another of the KC-10, this time using the drogue system:
(http://www.af.mil/photos/images/tankers_kc10_0007.jpg)
-
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?
(http://www.af.mil/photos/images/011025_03.jpg)
-
god I used to love laying there and taking pictures...
-
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.
-
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
-
LOL that's great:)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
it just struck me that having propellers in front prevented practical air refueling in WW2 :)
-
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.
-
You're kidding! LOL :D
Originally posted by udet
it just struck me that having propellers in front prevented practical air refueling in WW2 :)
-
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.