Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!uokmax!occrsh!att!cbnews!military
From: Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: NATO refuelling methods
Message-ID: <11276@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 Nov 89 15:31:52 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: Brian Ross (bxr307@coombs.anu.oz)
I was under the impression why the USAF had stuck with the boom 
refuelling method was because it allowed the transfer of large 
quantities of fuel faster than the prob & drogue method.  Which 
is why they like to use it on B52's/C5's/Etc. All of which 
require very large amounts of fuel transferred quickly.

Because of the flexible nature of the P & D hose limiting the 
diameter of the pipe the volume of fuel transferred per minute is 
less than with a boom.  Or am I wrong?

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
                                        |
Brian Ross                              |Snail Mail:- 
"Bill Bracket the self-made man who came|
in a a packet"                          |     Brian Ross
----------------------------------------|     Sociology Dept.R.S.S.S.
E-Mail Addresses:- bxr307@coombs.anu.oz |     Australian National University
                                        |     CANBERRA,A.C.T.,2601,
                   bxr307@csc.anu.oz    |     AUSTRALIA
                                        |
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-