Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Air-to-air refueling Message-ID: <1990Nov19.003026.10700@cbnews.att.com> Date: 19 Nov 90 00:30:26 GMT References: <1990Nov16.054115.23709@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 19 Approved: military@att.att.com From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Mary Shafer >because USAF's big bombers can't feasibly be refuelled with >probe/drogue. Can you substantiate this, Mary? The RAF routinely refuelled heavy bombers with probe/drogue. The p/d fuel flow rate is lower than f-b with current hardware, but one could always use a fatter hose... I believe the USAF did cite difficulties with p/d as their original reason for going with f-b, but they were mostly minor problems likely to yield to modest engineering effort. (Which is exactly what happened when the effort was invested.) There wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with p/d that I know of. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry