Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!mimsy!haven!udel!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: IFR
Message-ID: <1990Nov15.015332.4204@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Nov 90 01:53:32 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 49
Approved: military@att.att.com



From:         WHITEMAN%IPFWVM.BITNET@UICVM.uic.edu
                       INDIANA UNIVERSITY-PURDUE UNIVERSITY
                                  AT FORT WAYNE


TO     Sci.military            FROM   S. K. Whiteman   (WHITEMAN@IPFWVM)
DEPT                           DEPT Computing and Data Processing
SUB IFR (InFlight Refeuling)   DATE 14 November 1990

>Subject: Air-to-air refueling

>From: bjohnson@athena.mit.edu (Brett W Johnson)

>I have a question on air-to-air refueling.  I read recently that
>modern jets/tankers have electronics (ie radar) designed to maintain
>proper seperation of the planes and nozzle alignment.  Can AA refueling
>be accomplished w/o this?  Using only the skill of the pilots & boom
>operator?

>If so, why wasn't this technique used in WW2?  Or was it?

    I worked on KC-135's for four years, ('66-'70) and as far
as I know at least up to 1970 the following proceedure was used.
The tanker was on autopilot, to provide a stable platform; the
refueling was an effort between the boom operator and the
receiver pilot. The receiver was stick flown. This could
result in some interesting stories.
     There was an automatic system that would perform auto-
disconnect if various limits were exceeded, but it was based
on cams, micro-switches, and an induction coil in the nozzle
for communication with the receiver. All-in-all stone age.
I don't know how the KC-10 works.
     I noticed on the tube the other day a report on an AWACs
mission, and part of it was taped during IFR; the pilot was
stick flying, I didn't see the tanker. So draw your own
conclusions.
     As far as WW2 is concerned I have no idea why IFR wasen't
used, but I would speculate that it wasen't needed; the cost
of setting up a B-17 for IFR and building a tanker was too
high. Only when the requirement for long range 12-24 hour
missions was realized was it cost effective.

BTW; I know of five tanker types; KB-50, KC-97, KC-135,
KC-130, and the KC-10 in order of appearence. As I
remember the first IFR was in 1923.

Y'a can't go far without IFR. 8-)